RE: What is the status of our request for the 302s
Brad and Paul,
We would like to schedule a meeting with the Executive Division, as you requested, for January 2015, at a time convenient for both of you. Also, do Ml and VR wish to attend?
Please let me know of a suitable time for all parties who wish to attend. Thanks.
EFTA00210975
We have a few available dates to choose from. January 21-22 and 28-29. Hopefully one of those will work for you guys.
On the motion to add VR and MJ, I don't believe you indicated your position. As we said, we hoped you would agree, or at least not oppose, but either way we would like to know your position so that we can so inform the Court.
Thanks again. Please let me know which meeting date works best so that those coming from out of town can make arrangements.
EFTA00210974
Sincerely,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L.
Brad Edwards
Board Certified Trial Attorney
The image is entirely black and contains no discernible chart or information. Therefore, no data can be extracted.
foing@OBLOG You
MILLION
ADVOCAT FORUM CML TRIAL
Brad and Paul,
We will let you know which dates are good for us. We actually wanted to discuss adding the new parties to the case at the meeting. Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation.
Best Wishes for a wonderful holiday to you and your families.
The longer we wait to pick a date the more difficult it gets for Paul and VR to make travel arrangements. We would like to make sure to meet sometime in January. Please get back to me.
Sincerely,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L.
Brad Edwards
Board Certified Trial Attorney
The image displays social media icons (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, YouTube, Location, Blog) and two logos:
- Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum: Features scales of justice.
- The Florida Bar Board Certified Civil Trial: A circular logo with a flame emblem.
The text "Board Certified Trial Attorney" is also present.
Hi
As Brad mentioned, it's a bit tricky for me to get out there and back. The best days for me are Wednesday Jan. 20 or Jan. 27 (any time, morning preferred). The second best days for me are Jan. 21 or Jan. 28, in the morning, so that I can fly home for class Friday morning.
Brad can chime in with any conflicts that he has. I have weird teaching schedule this semester, teaching Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning and Friday morning. I'm hoping to avoid having to cancel a class, but could do that if absolutely necessary.
Thanks! Paul
Paul G. Cassell
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you.
Paul and Brad,
If you are teaching on Monday afternoons, Tuesday mornings, and Friday mornings, it seems you best days for a meeting in Miami would be Wednesdays and Thursday. January 20 and 27 are Tuesdays. I assumed you meant January 21 and 28, and have sent those dates to the Executive Division as proposed meeting dates.
I am also working on your request for the FBI 302's.
Hi
Yes, you got it right on the dates. Good days for me to meet are Wed Jan 21, Thurs Jan 22, Wed Jan 28, and Thurs Jan 29. In view of the current interest in the case, meeting sooner would be better than later. I know the 21st and 28th work for Brad.
What is the status of our request for the FBI 302's? If the Government is still going to hold them back, so be it. But this really seems like a fight that we don't need to have. Is there some way to get us an answer? Please run this up to the appropriate people. It really shouldn't be a problem to treat Jane Doe #3 the same way you all treated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, can it? In any event, please just let us know as soon as you can. We would really appreciate your help on this.
Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards, co-counsel for Jane Does Nos. 1 through 4
Paul G. Cassell
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Si. . Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
EFTA00210972
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments. is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you.
Hi
Sorry to keep pushing this -- but time is of the essence. When will he hear from your office on whether you will release to us Jane Doe #3's FBI 302's (particularly from the interview)? We are contemplating additional pleadings on this issue, but don't want to have to spend time on the issue if you are going to agree. Please let us know promptly what the situation is on this.
We would also request that our meeting with the USAO that you are working to schedule take place BEFORE the USAO files any response to the our pending motion to add JD#3 to the case, as well as to Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene. We would like for your Office to hear directly JD#3's position on these pending motions before making any filings. We trust this won't be a problem, and believe that we have right to such a meeting in any event under the CVRA's "right to confer".
Thanks in advance for your help on both of these points.
Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #3
Paul G. Cassell
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you.
Sorry to keep pushing, but please just let us know what the answer is.
We are considering alleging that the US Attorney's Office is withholding her 302s from her. That's why we contacted you on Sunday — hoping to avoid that.
Thanks again. As I'm sure you can deduce, this is a very time sensitive matter. We can't understand the problem here, since you extended the same accommodation to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2.
Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #3
Paul G. Cassell
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message • along with any/all attachments • is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you.
Paul,
One of the first things I did when I came to the office on Monday, January 5, 2015, was to contact the FBI FOIA Unit, to determine if a FOIA request had been filed on behalf of VR, and if so, the status of that request. Shortly after 11:00 am, the FBI FOIA Unit responded that a request had been filed, and they did have some responsive documents. They asked if the request should be expedited. I asked them to please expedite the request, and told them of your urgent request for the FBI 302's. The FBI told me that they would be applying various FOIA exemptions to redact certain portions of the documents.
I have not received anything from the FBI FOIA unit. I will follow up with them.
The documents you seek are generated by the FBI, for which they have the authority to disclose. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not withholding documents which it has no authority to release under the FOIA. The difference between Jane Doe #1and #2, and Jane Doe #3, is that the first two persons are parties to the action, while Jane Doe #3 is not. That is why we produced the FBI 302's for Jane Doe #1, and #2, but not for Jane Doe #3.