Epstein Secrets

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 daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not i

G, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for the victims This da

s that have discussed directly which of the two rules applies have concluded that Rule 21 is the appropriate vehicle for adding a party. See, e.g., South Dakota ex reL S. Dakota R.R. Auth.l Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 919, 924 (D.S.D. 2003) ("Pleadings and Motions are dealt with under P

ING, P.L. DWARDS. FIST0S & LEHRMAN, and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hoc Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

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 University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 • This daytime business address is

s that have discussed directly which of the two rules applies have concluded that Rule 21 is the appropriate vehicle for adding a party. See, e.g.. South Dakota ex rel. S. Dakota R.R. Awh.l. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 919, 924 (D.S.D. 2003) ("Pleadings and Motions are dealt with under

hat the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209

. Ann. §2410; Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.435; Pennsylvania: Pa. R. Evid. 410; Rhode Island: R.I. R. Evid. 410; South Carolina: S.C. R. Evid. 410; South Dakota: S.D.C.L. §19-12-12; Tennessee: Tenn. R. Evid. 410; Texas: Texas R. Evid. 410; Utah: Utah R. Evid. 410; Vermont: Vt. R. Evid. 410; Virginia: Va. S.C

inal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act 2005 Reporter 2005 B.Y.ULL. Rev. 835 * Length: 36451 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law for the S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah and United States District Court Judge for the District of Utah. T

hird Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255 [hereinafter Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights]; Cassell, supra note 15, at 1381- 82. '7 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report 114 (1982). 18 Td. 19 Td. at 63. 20 Td. at 72-73. 21 Td.

trict attorney if the victim agrees or disagrees with the plea discussions and agreement and the victim's reasons for agreement or disagreement. !7° South Dakota law contains a similar requirement that prosecutors disclose "any comments" by the victim about the plea. !7! 172 Texas law requires the court to a