Epstein Secrets

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

stitutional principle of separation of powers. Attorneys and Law Firms *1198 Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

her. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to conceal the existence of the NPA from all the victims for months to come. In mid- June *1233 of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and

for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and, later, Jane Doe 2. AUSA Villafana and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed against Epstein in the future. Edwards was led to believe that federal charges could stil

ates in their control over criminal prosecutions. Id. (quoting United States v. Cox. 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)); accord. e.g.. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821. 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ("gyre decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has long been r

istrict of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CTY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, Edwards Pottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

ted. During that meeting, however, the federal prosecutors and FBI agents still did not disclose the Agreement to Wild. Then, in mid-June of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Wild and several of Epstein's other victims, discussed with AUSA Villafafia the possibility of federal charges being filed agains

18 months' imprisonment in the county jail. Having still not been informed of the resolution of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office communicating the victims' wishes that federal charges be filed against Epstein. II. PROCEDURAL HISTOR

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

ons, until they come before the court to which they are returnable, are within the exclusive direction of the district attorney ....'); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1656, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) r[T]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has lon

d that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30,2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Otis case is cur

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney ha

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

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

y's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler'. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg

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

Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtoj

's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg

SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC Hollywood, Florida 33020 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the Salt Lake C

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associa

ey's Office in light of the pre-existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal cha

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

Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of L

's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg

any of Epstein's attorneys. 18. Prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, neither Mr. Edwards, nor Judge Cassell, nor anyone on their behalf contacted me to determine if the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 53 of that Motion were true. I de

counsel for the United States. Assistant United States Attorney Dexter Lee reported that the United States does not oppose the Motion to Intervene. Bradley Edwards, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs reported that they oppose the Motion to Intervene. Respectfully submitted, is/ Bruce E. Reinhart BRUCE E. REINHART,

's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg

h any of Epstein's attorneys. 18. Prior to the filing of Plaintiffs Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, neither Mr. Edwards, nor Judge Cassell, nor anyone on their behalf contacted me to determine if the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 53 of that Motion were true. I de

counsel for the United States. Assistant United States Attorney Dexter Lee reported that the United States does not oppose the Motion to Intervene. Bradley Edwards, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs reported that they oppose the Motion to Intervene. Respectfully submitted, hi Bruce E. Reinhart BRUCE E. REINHART,P

y's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler!. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg