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: Normal Attachments: ORDER

SAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims Motion to Compel Dis

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 Importance: Normal Attachments

"IllaliaLS)" ctl >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Di

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

From: To: Cc: " II III lit < Subject: Re: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:54:26 -4)000 Importance: Normal Paul, We have n

From: To: Cc: " II III lit < Subject: Re: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Di

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

M, (USAFLS)" < wrote: Paul Cassell is eager to know what the government's position is on the intervenors' appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Judge Marra's interlocutory order. If he is so sure the appellate court lacks jurisdiction, I wonder why it is so important to him that we endorse his argument.

e intervenors' appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Judge Marra's interlocutory order. If he is so sure the appel

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

eard anything back from you. Are you going to confer with us about this? And what is the government's position going to be? You will note that Judge Marra said yesterday that there is a "substantial question" about whether the denial of a motion for a protective order is immediately appealable under M

rnment's position going to be? You will note that Judge Marra said yesterday that there is a "substantial ques

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

From: l'SAFLS)" To: WErIM Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:58:54 +0000 Importance: Normal No. I only get wh

From: l'SAFLS)" To: WErIM Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Di

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