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

cy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. McNulty had been an employee of Arctic Glacier, and was told of the conspiracy. Id. at 346-47. When he refined to participate in the conspiracy, he was fir

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

y to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. McNulty had been an employee of Arctic Glacier, and was told of the conspiracy. Id. at 346-47. When he refused to participate in the conspiracy, he was fire

pellate court looked to the charging document, and the crime charged, to decide whether the individual had been directly and proximately harmed. In McNulty , the Sixth Circuit ultimately agreed with the district court's conclusion that McNulty was not a victim. 597 F.3d at 351-52. The appellate court fo

litigation involving two other victims (Dkt 290.1, Dkt 311 at 12), and she was making herself publicly available by giving interviews to the and to Edwards and Scarola in 2011. She was an adult in 2008 (25) and 2011 (28). She has a responsibility to join the lawsuit prior to the completion of JE sentenc

ane Doe No. 4 as petitioners. A proposed first amended petition is attached to this pleading. DATED: February 6. 2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE. WEISSING, P.L. DWARDS. FIST0S & LEHRMAN, and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hoc Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

what I am saying. I hope that these people will come forward and tell the truth. I hope that they will call my attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida L Brad Edwards — so that all &the information can be presented to the court about what has happened to me and others. 9 EFTA00188671 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc

ights that are related to the prosecution of the accused and sentencing of the guilty. These rights are not civil, but criminal in nature. See In re McNulty, 597 F.3d 344. 352 n.8 (6th Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA was not enacted to short circuit civil litigation to those with valid civil remedies available.")

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

cy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. McNulty had been an employee of Arctic Glacier, and was told of the conspiracy. Id. at 346-47. When he refused to participate in the conspiracy, he was fir

Page 9 of 20 sexual offenses against children, and the Court should therefore look to the specific statute of limitations covering such crimes. See Edwards. Shalala, 64 F.3d 601, 605 (I I th Cir. 1995) ("[I]t appears contrary to the Supreme Court's directives . . . to apply a statute [of limitations] of

A00210686 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 19 of 20 DATED: February 6.2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for the victims This d

ights that are related to the prosecution of the accused and sentencing of the guilty. These rights are not civil, but criminal in nature. See In re McNulty, 597 F.3d 344, 352 n.8 (6th Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA was not enacted to short circuit civil litigation to those with valid civil remedies available.")

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

cy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. McNulty had been an employee of Arctic Glacier, and was told of the conspiracy. Id. at 346-47. When he refused to participate in the conspiracy, he was fir

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,

cy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. McNulty had been an employee of Arctic Glacier, and was told of the conspiracy. Id. at 346-47. When he refused to participate in the conspiracy, he was fir

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

cy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. McNulty had been an employee of Arctic Glacier, and was told of the conspiracy. Id. at 346-47. When he refused to participate in the conspiracy, he was fir

eutsche Asset Mgmt, Inc. v. Callaghan, No. 01 Civ 4426 CBM, 2004 WL 758303 16 Dillon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5 (1st Dep't 1999) 8,18 Edwards v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 03 CV 2947 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 2053717, (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2006) 18 Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d

Frechtman v. Gutterman, 979 N.Y.S.2d 58 (1st Dep't 2014) 14 Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 720 (2015) 13 Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. McNulty, 669 F.Supp.2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 8 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 325 (1974) 17 Hawkins v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 11704 (RWS