What is document EFTA00014133?

This is an August 15, 2008 email exchange between U.S. Attorney's Office prosecutors and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein's victims, discussing the terms of a protective order that would govern how Epstein's non-prosecution agreement could be shared with crime victims.

Who is mentioned in this document?

The key figures include Paul Cassell (then a federal judge and University of Utah law professor representing victims), Bradley Edwards (victims' attorney), and prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida who were negotiating the protective order terms.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals that even as late as August 2008, Epstein's victims and their attorneys were still negotiating access to the non-prosecution agreement that had been secretly signed. It shows the government sought strict controls over dissemination while victims' attorneys pushed for faster access, citing concerns that Epstein was trying to ignore the agreement.

Why was a protective order needed for the non-prosecution agreement?

The U.S. Attorney's Office wanted to control how widely Epstein's non-prosecution agreement would be distributed, requiring that it only be shared with authorized recipients who agreed to keep it confidential. This protective order was a condition for allowing victims' attorneys to finally see the agreement that had been negotiated without their knowledge.

What was the urgency mentioned in this email?

Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell indicated they needed to see the non-prosecution agreement quickly because the government had represented that Epstein was trying to ignore the agreement. This created time pressure in finalizing the protective order so victims could access the document.

What is document EFTA00014133?

This is an August 15, 2008 email exchange between U.S. Attorney's Office prosecutors and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein's victims, discussing the terms of a protective order that would govern how Epstein's non-prosecution agreement could be shared with crime victims.

Who is mentioned in this document?

The key figures include Paul Cassell (then a federal judge and University of Utah law professor representing victims), Bradley Edwards (victims' attorney), and prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida who were negotiating the protective order terms.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals that even as late as August 2008, Epstein's victims and their attorneys were still negotiating access to the non-prosecution agreement that had been secretly signed. It shows the government sought strict controls over dissemination while victims' attorneys pushed for faster access, citing concerns that Epstein was trying to ignore the agreement.

Why was a protective order needed for the non-prosecution agreement?

The U.S. Attorney's Office wanted to control how widely Epstein's non-prosecution agreement would be distributed, requiring that it only be shared with authorized recipients who agreed to keep it confidential. This protective order was a condition for allowing victims' attorneys to finally see the agreement that had been negotiated without their knowledge.

What was the urgency mentioned in this email?

Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell indicated they needed to see the non-prosecution agreement quickly because the government had represented that Epstein was trying to ignore the agreement. This created time pressure in finalizing the protective order so victims could access the document.

EFTA00014133 - EFTA00014134

This is an email exchange from August 15, 2008, between attorneys negotiating a protective order governing the disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement to crime victims.

The document captures email correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims, including Paul Cassell (a federal judge and law professor) and Bradley Edwards. The parties are negotiating the terms of a protective order that would allow victims to see Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement while limiting its further dissemination. The exchange reveals the government's concern about controlling access to the agreement and the victims' attorneys pushing for quicker disclosure, with Edwards noting that Epstein was allegedly trying to ignore the agreement.

Key Highlights

•Negotiations over protective order for Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in August 2008
•Paul Cassell serving as counsel for victims while also serving as a federal judge
•Government seeking to limit dissemination of the non-prosecution agreement to authorized recipients only
•Reference to Epstein allegedly trying to ignore the agreement, creating urgency for victims' access
•Discussion of requiring written acknowledgment before disclosure to other victims

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein

Bradley J. Edwards

Victims' attorney's firsthand account

Document Information

Bates Range

EFTA00014133 - EFTA00014134

Pages

Document Content

Page 1 - EFTA00014133

From: (USAFLS)" To: Paul Cassell >, Brad Edwards < Cc: ' (USAFLS)" < Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:24:20 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: Protective_Order_v2.doc Judge Cassell and Brad, I have incorporated the change suggested by Judge Cassell to paragraph (c). I also added language in paragraph (e), referring to other victims, which also provides for petitioners' counsel to promptly provide a copy of the acknowledgment to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The government has no doubts that counsel for petitioners will ensure the authorized recipients are aware of the protective order and agree to abide by it, prior to disclosure. We do not require the acknowledgment in writing prior to the non-prosecution agreement being disclosed to an authorized recipient. We believe the petitioners' proposed protective order goes well beyond what is at issue, the government's disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement, conditioned on limited dissemination of the document upon receipt by petitioners. Consequently, we believe the attached proposed order, incorporating your revisions, is appropriate for the task at hand. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [malito Sent: Friday, August 15 2008 12:21 PM To: Brad Edwards' (USAFLS) Cc: .(USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak Hello and First, I don't know if we've been formally introduced. Nice to meet you ... electronically at least. Second, on the language -- As Brad mentioned, we need to see this document quite quickly in view of the Government's representations yesterday that Epstein is trying to ignore the agreement. As a result -- and in view of the difficulty of making immediate contact with our clients -- I propose one change. Instead of this: Prior to producing the documents to Petitioners' counsel, a copy of this Order must be provided to counsel and their clients, who must review and acknowledge their receipt of and agreement to abide by the terms of this Order, and who must provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. How about this: Before counsel for Petitioner's show the agreement to their clients or discuss the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to Petitioners, who must review and acknowledge their EFTA00014133

Page 2 - EFTA00014134

receipt of and agreement to abide by the terms of this Order. Counsel for Petitioner's must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. I assume that the USAO is not concerned about us as attorneys somehow ignoring the Court's protective order, so this change would focus in on the non-law trained clients. Paul G. Cassell Ronald M. Boyce Presidential Professor of Law S. J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah Salt Lake CI , UT 84112 EFTA00014134