Epstein Secrets

, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 423 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-524-2820 954-524-2822 Fax Brad ®oathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-Counsel for Plai

54-524-2822 Fax Brad ®oathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

g the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (99' Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4DCA 2008) The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because while it does leave the use of the documents to the Court ove

Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2012 Page 9 of 20 prosecutors, rather than judges, hold the real sentencing power. As plaintiffs' counsel Paul Cassell told the New York Times last month, "Judges have lost discretion, and that discretion has accumulated in the hands of prosecutors, who now have the

eal sentencing power. As plaintiffs' counsel Paul Cassell told the New York Times last month, "Judges have

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on

9 of 9 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRABOHNSON Epstein's Reply to Edwards' Resp to Epstein's MPO and Objs of Certain Docs Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L. Ackerman. Jr. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein pal WA80743\08-50893\

o Epstein's MPO and Objs of Certain Docs Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L. Ack

the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9`h Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 411' DCA 2008). Moreover, Edwards' arguments in his response to this motion are disingenuous. Epstein respectfully directs t