Epstein Secrets

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

n by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc." United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (5' Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by the

his new firm. The new information is as follows: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Telephone Facsimile

30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Edwards, Bradley on 4/9/2009 4:06 PM EDT and filed on 4/9/2009 Case Name: Doe v. Epstein Case Number: 9:08-cv-80893 https://ecf.fled.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/

Doe. Such risk and speculation about possible criminal charges does not establish a real need for a stay. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (refusing to grant a stay a civil proceeding before any indictment was returned because Fifth Amendment conce

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. on au er a e, on a Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the Universit of Utah Salt Lake Cit Utah 84112 Attorn

al transcripts, `the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like."' Id. at 500, citin SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. I SDFL lOP 8.01.00 provides: "Grand jury matters, and all matters reasonably related to the original grand jury mat

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

on by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (51h Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by t

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

n by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (511' Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by

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,

on by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (5th Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that tilt decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by the