Epstein Secrets

the Rights of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Dear Dexter: First, as mentioned before, please feel free to call me "Siii rather than "Judge Cassell." Brad Edwards and I hope to build a close and friendly working relationship with you as we proceed with our efforts to protect victims' rights. Also, if you could

Doe #1's and Jane Doe #2's efforts that past year-and-a- half to obtain information from Epstein relevant to their CVRA case. And during that time, Bradley J. Edwards and I have had many formal (and informal) contacts with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Until yesterday, no one in the Office has ever suggested that we

lly request the same conferral rights that you gave Mr. Epstein with the First Assistant, the U.S. Attorney, and (if necessary) CEOS. Finally, Mr. Edwards and I stand ready to work with you to narrow the range of issues under consideration in this case. The newly-revealed e-mails appear to make it clea

l) to set up a scheduling conference with your Office to bring the case to an expeditious conclusion. That notice was served on your Office via the PACER electronic filing system. Yet, in spite of that offer to set up a scheduling conference made more than a month ago, your Office said nothing to the

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER, S.D. Ma. Civil Docket for Jane Doe v. Jeffro Epstein, Case # 9:08-cv-80893-KAM ("Dockerp, ppeP4 EFTA00207294 expressions of confidence in the s

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER, S.D. Ma. Civil Docket for Jane Doe v. Jeffro Epstein, Case # 9:08-cv-80893-KAM ("Dockerp, ppeP4 EFTA00612027 expressions of confidence in the s

tecting the Rights of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Dear First, as mentioned before, please feel free to call me "Paul" rather than "Judge Cassell." Brad Edwards and I hope to build a close and friendly working relationship with you as we proceed with our efforts to protect victims' rights. Also, if ou copy

Doe #1's and Jane Doe #2's efforts that past year-and-a- half to obtain information from Epstein relevant to their CVRA case. And during that time, Bradley J. Edwards and I have had many formal (and informal) contacts with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Until yesterday, no one in the Office has ever suggested that we

lly request the same conferral rights that you gave Mr. Epstein with the First Assistant, the U.S. Attorney, and (if necessary) CEOS. Finally, Mr. Edwards and I stand ready to work with you to narrow the range of issues under consideration in this case. The newly-revealed e-mails appear to make it clea

l) to set up a scheduling conference with your Office to bring the case to an expeditious conclusion. That notice was served on your Office via the PACER electronic filing system. Yet, in spite of that offer to set up a scheduling conference made more than a month ago, your Office said nothing to the

Andrew" or "The Duke of York" and the Justice department in relation to the sentencing and case of Epstein. These communications were requested by Brad Edwards in the case referred to above, in a bundle of documents loosely referred to as 'production number 8' which outlines the business connections of Epst

ein. These communications were requested by Brad Edwards in the case referred to above, in a bundle of doc

the sake of 1. Following are links to press releases that are or may be responsive to your 2. Other publicly-available information is available on PACER under docket no. 19 Cr. 0490 (S.D.N.Y.) 3. We draw your attention to the FBI's FOIA vault, https://vaultibi.gov/. Records that the FBI previously

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

mmon scheme or plan admissible)," F.R.E. 415. and passages from the depositions of Epstein, No. 2, No. 4, No. 5 and 8 This brief may be found on PACER. S.D. Fla. Civil Docket for ME v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case # 9:08-cv- 80893-KAM ("Docket"), DE 140. - 6 - EFTA00728019 herself; at 35-36 (Epstein's

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

ssible)." F.R.E. 415. and passages from the depositions of Epstein, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. 5 and 8 This brief may be found on PACER. S.D. Fla. Civil Docket for Jane. Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Case # 9:08-cv- 80893-KAM ("Docket"), DE 140. - 6 - EFTA00207342 herself; at 35-36 (Eps