Epstein Secrets

n that we believe is material to the victims' CVRA case — a limited amount of information that could be swiftly located by your Office." Letter from Bradley J. Edwards & Paul G. Cassell to Wifiedo A. Ferrer, Mar. I, 2011. The victims have, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unreda

tes District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehr

nited States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV- United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 54 EF

urate information came to be made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, through his attorneys, was culpable. Sincirely, BE/sg Brad Edwards SECTS KADRDWARDSLAW COM EFTA00230161 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT

t 2 EFTA00230165 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 9 plea proceedings. 111, citing United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at •17 (B.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2005). The district court concluded, "[t]he CVRA, therefore, does not authorize an unbridled gallop to an

tervenor Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant represented by Bradley James Edwards Farmer Jaffe Wcissing Edwards Fistos &Lehrman PL 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Email:

toj2 Response in Opposition to Motion to Unseal Non—Prosecution Agreement filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: fll. Exhibit October 9, 2008 letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee, #.2 Exhibit October 15, 2008 Letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 10/16/2

otion to Unseal Document. Signed by Judge- on 2/12/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/12/2009) 04/09/2009 E NOTICE by Jane Doe of Change of Finn Affiliation (Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 04/09/2009) 09/08/2010 a Administrative Order Closing Case. Signed by Judge on 9/8/2010. (tb) (Entered: 09/09/2010) 09/13/

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at *17 n. 11 (Senate Debate supports view that contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their inp

tes District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehr

ts that the victims have offered. DATED: March 21, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, l Bradley J. Edwards adley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Flori

n that we believe is material to the victims' CVRA case — a limited amount of information that could be swiftly located by your Office." Letter from Bradley J. Edwards & Paul G. Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, Mar. I, 2011. The victims have, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unreda

t 2 EFTA00177148 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 9 plea proceedings. Id., citing United States,. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at •17 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2005). The district court concluded, "[t]he CVRA, therefore, dots not authorize an unbridled gallop to an

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

RGES ARE FILED Winter, 2014 Reporter 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59 * Length: 23898 words Author: PAUL G. CASSELL*, NATHANAEL J. MITCHELL** and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS*** * Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. ** Associate, Snow, Christensen &

CASSELL*, NATHANAEL J. MITCHELL** and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS*** * Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Cr

l). 40 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, two of the authors of this Article (Cassell and Edwards) are co-counsel for the victims in this case. The statement of the facts in this Article draws heavily on the victims' allegations as they have detai

e Department of Justice, for example, has used websites to provide notice in terrorism cases to large numbers of victims. See, e.g., United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005); Criminal Division's Victim Notification Program, U.S. Dep't of Justice, hittp:/

tion Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell, and Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigati

e Department of Justice, for example, has used websites to provide notice in terrorism cases to large numbers of victims. See, e.g., United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005); Criminal Division’s Victim Notification Program, U.S. DEP’T OF Justice, http:/