Epstein Secrets

From: Paul Cassell •ci To: "IN (USAFLS)" ' Cc: , • (USAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:56 +0000 Importance:

AFLS)" ' Cc: , • (USAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Vi

D.E. U 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[t]he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of

From: Paul Cassell •cl To: " . (USAFLS)" (USAFLS)" Cc: "IllaliaLS)" ctl >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Discovery From the Government Date: The, 25 Jun 2013 00:13:39 +0000 Impor

AFLS)" (USAFLS)" Cc: "IllaliaLS)" ctl >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Vi

TA00205274 I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[t]he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of

In any event, thanks for the clarification. We will be in touch. From: Paul Cassell [mill Ialm.MIN Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 08:46 PM To: Cc: Brad Edwards <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days [tried to send this earli

t: Monday, June 24, 2013 08:46 PM To: Cc: Brad Edwards <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Judge Marr

D.E. # 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[tjhe government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of

st get a copy of DE123 from the court? From: MI, s (WARS) Sent: Monday, June 24 2013 7:25 PM To: Paul Cassell M I. (USAFLS) Cc: =., (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: One additional discovery request in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. U.S., No. 08-80736 Paul, You have addressed your additional disco

Cassell M I. (USAFLS) Cc: =., (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: One additional discovery request in

D.E. # 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "(t)he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of

appellate to resolve? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:59 AM To: USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? Des It has been nearly two weeks since we sent this request to you, and we haven't heard anything ba

USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? D

D.E. U 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[t]he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry o

motion with the Government. We would like to know your position on the motion. Please let us know when it would be convenient to confer. Sincerely, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? It has been nearly two weeks since

rad Edwards pat tojustice.com> Subject: RE: Government's po

D.E. # 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[t]he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of

190. Did either of you receive it? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Monde June 24, 2013 8:47 PM To: USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days [tried to send this earlier, but it may not have g

PM To: USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Vi

D.E. # 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[t]he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of