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

orcement action commenced by motion); In re Antrobus (10th Circuit 2008) (same); In re Dean (5th Cir. 2008) (same). Indeed, in an important case in the District of Montana involving enforcement of victims' rights in the W.R. Grace case, I proceeded in this fashion at the direction of the Justice Department (i.e., the

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

orcement action commenced by motion); In re Antrobus (10th Circuit 2008) (same); In re Dean (5th Cir. 2008) (same). Indeed, in an important case in the District of Montana involving enforcement of victims' rights in the W.R. Grace case, I proceeded in this fashion at the direction of the Justice Department (i.e., the

also, Ander- son United States, 8 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 1, 19, cert. denied, 1967, 386 U.S. 976, 87 S.Ct. 1171, 18 L.Ed.2d 136; ago, this court. Edwards United States. 8 Cir., 1966, 361 F.2d 32, 734. The District Court in this case found that these elements were lacking: *e art in complete ac- cor

llant. Marcia Hurd, Assistant United States Attorney, Billings, MT, for the plaintiff- appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-00129-JDS. Before: PAMELA ANN RYMER and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges, and JOHN