From: "

From: " . (USAFLS)" To: " . (USAFLS)" Subject: Recovered emails #4 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:19:18 +0000 Importance: Normal From: (USAFLS) < Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:55 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Proposed email to Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards This is fine. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda February 24, 2011 4:44 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: Proposed email to Paul rasseii and Brad Edwards Hi - I would like to send the following response to Paul Cassell's email from yesterday. Please let me know if it is acceptable. Dear Paul and Brad: As I promised, since returning to work on Tuesday, I have been working diligently on trying to provide you with the answers that you have requested in connection with the Jane Doe v. United States lawsuit. Both the referral of your allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility and the request for our Office to "step aside" in the Jane Doe litigation are not insignificant matters. As you doubtless are aware, the position that you are asking us to adopt, simply by "stepping aside," will have repercussions for every U.S. Attorney's Office throughout the country, and, therefore, requires a from the Department in Washington, D.C. We also are trying to balance our obligations to Ms. with our obligations to the other identified victims in the Epstein matter. and I are doing our due diligence, both within and outside our Office. My recommendation is that we schedule a conference call for the afternoon of Thursday, March 10'h. If, by that time, we still have no definitive answer, then we can tell you that and discuss how best to proceed. If we receive an answer prior to the 10'h, of course, I will let you know right away. What time are you all available on the 10d1 Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00206173 Fax From: (USAFLS) ‹ > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:44 PM To: (CRM); (CRM) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein Matter Great. and I will give you a call. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (CRM) Sent: Thursda Februa 24, 2011 4:27 PM To: . (USAFLS - Cc: (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein Matter I can be available at 11:30 tomorrow. From: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:13 PM To: Cc: (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Matter (USAFLS) (USAFLS) [mailto: (CRM) (USAFLS) EFTA00206174 Good afternoon, and Sony to trouble you about this case from what seems like long ago, but here in the Southern District, one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims has sued our Office for alleged violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victim's lawyers in the case have asked us to take a position in the case that we believe would have national implications, especially in child exploitation cases. Are you available any time soon to discuss this? At this point we are not looking for a definitive policy statement, but we would like to bounce ideas off of you. OPR also has asked for a preliminary examination of materials, and I think that we need to discuss that matter, too. I am available from 11:30 to 1:30 and after 3:00 tomorrow, or any time on Monday to discuss. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: .(USAFLS)<IM ME> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:58 PM To: Paul Cassell; Brad Edwards Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Proposed email to Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Dear Paul and Brad: As I promised, since returning to work on Tuesday, I have been working diligently on trying to provide you with the answers that you have requested in connection with the Jane Doe I. United States lawsuit. Both the referral of your allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility and the request for our Office to "step aside" in the Jane Doe litigation are not insignificant matters. As you doubtless are aware, the position that you are asking us to adopt, simply by "stepping aside," will have repercussions for every U.S. Attorney's Office throughout the country, and, therefore, requires a from the Department in Washington, D.C. We also are trying to balance our obligations to Ms. with our obligations to the other identified victims in the Epstein matter. and I are doing our due diligence, both within and outside our Office. My recommendation is that we schedule a conference call for the afternoon of Thursday, March 10'h. If, by that time, we still have no definitive answer, then we can tell you that and discuss how best to proceed. If we receive an answer prior to the 10'h, of course, I will let you know right away. What time are you all available on the 10t°? I will set up an AT&T conference call, as I have done in the past. Thank you. EFTA00206175 Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFIS) Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:13 PM To: (CRM); (CRM) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFL5) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Matter Good afternoon, and-. Sony to trouble you about this case from what seems like long ago, but here in the Southern District, one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims has sued our Office for alleged violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victim's lawyers in the case have asked us to take a position in the case that we believe would have national implications, especially in child exploitation cases. Are you available any time soon to discuss this? At this point we are not looking for a definitive policy statement, but we would like to bounce ideas off of you. OPR also has asked for a preliminary examination of materials, and I think that we need to discuss that matter, too. I am available from 11:30 to 1:30 and after 3:00 tomorrow, or any time on Monday to discuss. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS)c Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:59 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) EFTA00206176 Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 - Inquiry to EOUSA I sent this to at EOUSA General Counsel on February 15, after had spoken with at the Conference at the NAC. I have not heard back. I did not send anything to CEOS. Please reach out to CEOS. I doubt they would recommend we just stand aside. Thanks. From: Sent: Tuesda To: Cc: Subject: Kris, (USAFLS) February 15, 2011 6:46 PM USAEO) (USAFLS); (USAFLS); -. (USAFLS) On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards regarding the status of the Crime Victims Rights Act case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. (We had sought guidance on whether our office should be recused due to the allegation of improprieties in entering into the Non- Prosecution Agreement). I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. I can be reached at . Thanks. • EFTA00206177 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: (CRM) < Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:27 PM . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); RE: Jeffrey Epstein Matter I can be available at 11:30 tomorrow. From: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:13 PM To: Cc: (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Matter (USAFLS) [mailto: (CRM) (USAFLS) (USAFLS) Good afternoon, and Sorry to trouble you about this case from what seems like long ago, but here in the Southern District, one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims has sued our Office for alleged violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victim's lawyers in the case have asked us to take a position in the case that we believe would have national implications, especially in child exploitation cases. Are you available any time soon to discuss this? At this point we are not looking for a definitive policy statement, but we would like to bounce ideas off of you. OPR also has asked for a preliminary examination of materials, and I think that we need to discuss that matter, too. I am available from 11:30 to 1:30 and after 3:00 tomorrow, or any time on Monday to discuss. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS)< > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:44 PM To: (USAFLS) EFTA00206178 Cc: Subject: (USAFLS) Proposed email to Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Hi — I would like to send the following response to Paul Cassell's email from yesterday. Please let me know if it is acceptable. Dear Paul and Brad: As I promised, since returning to work on Tuesday, I have been working diligently on trying to provide you with the answers that you have requested in connection with the Jane Doe I United States lawsuit. Both the referral of your allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility and the request for our Office to "step aside" in the Jane Doe litigation are not insignificant matters. As you doubtless are aware, the position that you are asking us to adopt, simply by "stepping aside," will have repercussions for every U.S. Attorney's Office throughout the country, and, therefore, requires a from the Department in Washington, D.C. We also are trying to balance our obligations to Ms. with our obligations to the other identified victims in the Epstein matter. and I are doing our due diligence, both within and outside our Office. My recommendation is that we schedule a conference call for the afternoon of Thursday, March 10`h. If, by that time, we still have no definitive answer, then we can tell you that and discuss how best to proceed. If we receive an answer prior to the 10th, of course, I will let you know right away. What time are you all available on the 10t°? Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: (USAFI-S)< > Monday, February 28, 2011 12:28 PM (USAEO); (OLP) (JMD) (USAFLS); RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Those times are good for me also. From: (USAEO) Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:25 PM (USAFLS); (USAEO); (USAFLS) Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) EFTA00206179 . (USAFLS); (USAEO); . (SMO); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I apologize, but we didn't schedule since we hadn't heard regarding everyone's availability. Does 1:00 or 1:30 work? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda Februa 28, 2011 11:54 AM To: USAEO); (USAFLS); SMO); MilaUSAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Are we speaking at noon? What is the call-in number? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax (USAEO) February 28, 2011 9:08 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) . (USAFLS); If you mean can I get a conference call line, yes, I can. EFTA00206180 (SMO) February 28, 2011 9:07 AM USAEO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) : Can you set up a call? I have a 10:00 meeting (30 minutes), and an as yet unscheduled obligation to assist in briefing the AG for his testimony on the Hill tomorrow. Sometime between noon and 1 is likely to be best for me. (USAEO) February 28, 2011 8:43 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I agree, as well. I am available anytime between noon and 3:00 today. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 4:19 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO I agree completely. Let's try and talk Monday, with on the phone if possible. From: Sent: Saturda To: Cc: Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) (USAFLS) February 26, 2011 04:08 PM SMO); . (USAFLS); USAEO . (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Mr. I'm looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. What Cassell wants the government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ's position is that no rights attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is EFTA00206181 most reluctant to do what Cassell asks, since negotiating the non-prosecution agreement was clearly within the prerogatives granted to the Executive Branch. Whether the bargain struck with Epstein was wise or not should not be the issue. I will be in the office all day Monday. Thanks for your assistance. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 3:40 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO Thanks. Perhaps we should try and find a time to talk on Monday. This scenario raises a variety of policy issues that extend well beyond the question of "when do the rights attach." Frankly, I don't think the court should even reach that question given the posture of the case as you describe it. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 02:23 PM To: SMO); USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 1 United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Ms. and Mr. Our office is currently litigating a Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit filed by Jane Does 1 and 2, who were victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, Florida. Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). We are seeking your advice and guidance on a proposal from the victims' attorneys, that the government take no position on whether the CVRA granted rights to the victims, when the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly- paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. EFTA00206182 Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, and • filed an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. M, , and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and M, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged ti off to E stein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, , left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non- Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. has requested various documents from our office, presumably to determine whether an investigation should be opened. Cassell and Edwards had planned to file a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. We have since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal issue. EFTA00206183 On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged in federal court, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. We are currently scheduled to have a conference call with Cassell and Edwards on Tuesday, March 1. I can be reached at . Thanks. • From: (USAFLS) ‹ > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 3:52 PM To: (CRM); (USAFLS); Cc: (CRM) Subject: RE: Epstein matter Thank you, (USAFLS) ntoi As per our conversation this afternoon, I will leave you to call and I have a call in at the Appellate Section. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00206184 Fax From: (CRM) Sent: Frida Februa 25, 2011 3:35 PM To: . (USAFLS) Cc: (CRM) Subject: Epstein matter I spoke to a contact in the Deputy Atta i General's Office, who directed me to in the indicated to me that the Department's view is that right to Department's Office of Legal Policy. confer does not attach until a char in instrument has been filed. For additional questions, I suggest you speak to him and to and at EOUSA. They can be reached at Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section U.S. Department of Justice From: (SMO) c • Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:27 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAEO); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) (USAEO); EFTA00206185 Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Me too. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 12:25 PM To: (USAEO); (USAEO); - (USAFLSL_ Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Either of those times works for me. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax . (SMO); From: (USAEO) Sent: Monda Februa 28, 2011 12:25 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAEO); . (SMO); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I apologize, but we didn't schedule since we hadn't heard regarding everyone's availability. Does 1:00 or 1:30 work? From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Monda Februar 28, 2011 11:54 AM To: USAEO); (USAFLS); SMO); USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Are we speaking at noon? What is the call-in number? EFTA00206186 Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax (USAEO) February 28, 2011 9:08 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) If you mean can I get a conference call line, yes, I can. (SMO) February 28, 2011 9:07 AM USAEO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) . (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); : Can you set up a call? I have a 10:00 meeting (30 minutes), and an as yet unscheduled obligation to assist in briefing the AG for his testimony on the Hill tomorrow. Sometime between noon and 1 is likely to be best for me. From: Sent: Monda To: Cc: (USAEO) sm , February 28, 2011 8:43 AM SMO); . (USAFLS); USAFLS (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); EFTA00206187 (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I agree, as well. I am available anytime between noon and 3:00 today. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 4:19 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO I agree completely. Let's try and talk Monday, with on the phone if possible. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 04:08 PM To: SMO); USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Mr. . (USAFLS) . (USAFLS) I'm looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. What Cassell wants the government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ's position is that no rights attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is most reluctant to do what Cassell asks, since negotiating the non-prosecution agreement was clearly within the prerogatives granted to the Executive Branch. Whether the bargain struck with Epstein was wise or not should not be the issue. I will be in the office all day Monday. Thanks for your assistance. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 3:40 PM To: USAFLS ; Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO EFTA00206188 Thanks. Perhaps we should try and find a time to talk on Monday. This scenario raises a variety of policy issues that extend well beyond the question of "when do the rights attach." Frankly, I don't think the court should even reach that question given the posture of the case as you describe it. From: Sent: Saturda To: Cc: Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) (USAFLS) February 26, 2011 02:23 PM SMO); . (USAFLS); USAEO (USAFLS) Ms. and Mr. Our office is currently litigating a Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit filed by Jane Does 1 and 2, who were victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, Florida. Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). We are seeking your advice and guidance on a proposal from the victims' attorneys, that the government take no position on whether the CVRA granted rights to the victims, when the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly- paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, and • filed an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for EFTA00206189 damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. M, , and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and M, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged ti off to E stein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, , left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non- Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. has requested various documents from our office, presumably to determine whether an investigation should be opened. Cassell and Edwards had planned to file a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. We have since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal issue. On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. EFTA00206190 I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged in federal court, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. We are currently scheduled to have a conference call with Cassell and Edwards on Tuesday, March 1. I can be reached at . Thanks. • Subject: Conf Call re Epstein Start: End: Mon 2/28/2011 1:30 PM Mon 2/28/2011 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: (USAFLS) From: (USAEO) Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:12 PM To: (USAEO); . (OLP) (JMD); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) The call in number for 1:30 is , pass code From: (USAEO) Sent: Monda February 28, 2011 12:29 PM To: . (SMO); . (USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) Let's say 1:30. We will get a call in #. Thanks. . (USAFLS); (USAEO); From: (SMO) Sent: Monda , Februa 28, 2011 12:27 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAEO); (USAEO); EFTA00206191 USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Me too. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 12:25 PM To: (USAEO); (USAEO); - (USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Either of those times works for me. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: Sent: Monda To: (USAEO) February 28, 2011 12:25 PM . (USAFLS); (USAEO); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) . (SMO); . (SMO); I apologize, but we didn't schedule since we hadn't heard regarding everyone's availability. Does 1:00 or 1:30 work? From: Sen Monda To: Cc: . (USAFLS) , Februar 28, 2011 11:54 AM t:si a USAEO); (USAFLS); SMO); USAFLS) I. (USAFLS); (USAEO) EFTA00206192 Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Are we speaking at noon? What is the call-in number? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax (USAEO) February 28, 2011 9:08 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) If you mean can I get a conference call line, yes, I can. (SMO) February 28, 2011 9:07 AM USAEO); (USAFLS) . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) . (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); : Can you set up a call? I have a 10:00 meeting (30 minutes), and an as yet unscheduled obligation to assist in briefing the AG for his testimony on the Hill tomorrow. Sometime between noon and 1 is likely to be best for me. EFTA00206193 (USAEO) February 28, 2011 8:43 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS);U (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I agree, as well. I am available anytime between noon and 3:00 today. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 4:19 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO I agree completely. Let's try and talk Monday, with on the phone if possible. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 04:08 PM To: SMO); USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Mr. . (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) . (USAFLS) I'm looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. What Cassell wants the government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ's position is that no rights attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is most reluctant to do what Cassell asks, since negotiating the non-prosecution agreement was clearly within the prerogatives granted to the Executive Branch. Whether the bargain struck with Epstein was wise or not should not be the issue. I will be in the office all day Monday. Thanks for your assistance. EFTA00206194 From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 3:40 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO Thanks. Perhaps we should try and find a time to talk on Monday. This scenario raises a variety of policy issues that extend well beyond the question of "when do the rights attach." Frankly, I don't think the court should even reach that question given the posture of the case as you describe it. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 02:23 PM To: SMO); USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does 1 and 21 United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Ms. and Mr. Our office is currently litigating a Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit filed by Jane Does 1 and 2, who were victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, Florida. Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). We are seeking your advice and guidance on a proposal from the victims' attorneys, that the government take no position on whether the CVRA granted rights to the victims, when the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly- paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, and • filed an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. EFTA00206195 Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. M, , and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and M, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged ti off to E stein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, , left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non- Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. has requested various documents from our office, presumably to determine whether an investigation should be opened. Cassell and Edwards had planned to file a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. We have since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal issue. On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government EFTA00206196 would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged in federal court, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. We are currently scheduled to have a conference call with Cassell and Edwards on Tuesday, March 1. I can be reached at . Thanks. • From: (USAEO) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:29 PM To: . (OLP) (JMD); (USAFLS); (USAEO); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Let's say 1:30. We will get a call in #. Thanks. From: (SMO) Sent: Monda Februar 28, 2011 12:27 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAEO); Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Me too. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 12:25 PM To: (USAEO); (USAEO); - (USAFLSL_ Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) (USAEO); . (SMO); Either of those times works for me. Thank you. EFTA00206197 Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAEO) Sent: Monda Februa 28, 2011 12:25 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAEO); . (SMO); Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I apologize, but we didn't schedule since we hadn't heard regarding everyone's availability. Does 1:00 or 1:30 work? From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Monda Februar 28, 2011 11:54 AM To: USAEO); (USAFLS); SMO); USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Are we speaking at noon? What is the call-in number? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00206198 Fax (USAEO) February 28, 2011 9:08 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) If you mean can I get a conference call line, yes, I can. (SMO) February 28, 2011 9:07 AM USAEO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) . (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); : Can you set up a call? I have a 10:00 meeting (30 minutes), and an as yet unscheduled obligation to assist in briefing the AG for his testimony on the Hill tomorrow. Sometime between noon and 1 is likely to be best for me. (USAEO) February 28, 2011 8:43 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I agree, as well. I am available anytime between noon and 3:00 today. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 4:19 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO . (USAFLS); EFTA00206199 I agree completely. Let's try and talk Monday, with on the phone if possible. From: Sent: Saturda To: Cc: Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) (USAFLS) February 26, 2011 04:08 PM SMO); . (USAFLS); USAEO (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Mr. I'm looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. What Cassell wants the government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ's position is that no rights attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is most reluctant to do what Cassell asks, since negotiating the non-prosecution agreement was clearly within the prerogatives granted to the Executive Branch. Whether the bargain struck with Epstein was wise or not should not be the issue. I will be in the office all day Monday. Thanks for your assistance. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 3:40 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO Thanks. Perhaps we should try and find a time to talk on Monday. This scenario raises a variety of policy issues that extend well beyond the question of "when do the rights attach." Frankly, I don't think the court should even reach that question given the posture of the case as you describe it. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 02:23 PM To: SMO); USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) EFTA00206200 Ms. and Mr. Our office is currently litigating a Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit filed by Jane Does 1 and 2, who were victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, Florida. Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). We are seeking your advice and guidance on a proposal from the victims' attorneys, that the government take no position on whether the CVRA granted rights to the victims, when the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly- paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, and • filed an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. M, , and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and M, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged tip off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former EFTA00206201 AUSA, left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non- Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. has requested various documents from our office, presumably to determine whether an investigation should be opened. Cassell and Edwards had planned to file a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. We have since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal issue. On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged in federal court, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. We are currently scheduled to have a conference call with Cassell and Edwards on Tuesday, March 1. I can be reached at . Thanks. • From: Sent: (USAF'S) *c .> Monday, February 28, 2011 1:25 PM EFTA00206202 To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) Absolutely. I agree with you. Thanks. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda , Februa 28, 2011 1:24 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) I really don't think we can do what Cassell asks, to stand by and do nothing. Can I represent that as our office's position? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 1:21 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jane Does 1 and 2 United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I'm going to call in but really only to listen. Thanks. From: (USAEO) Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 1:12 PM To: (USAEO); . (SMO); (USAFLSL__ Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 1 United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) The call in number for 1:30 is , pass code . (USAFLS); From: (USAEO) Sent: Monda February 28, 2011 12:29 PM To: . (SMO); . (USAFLS); (USAEO); EFTA00206203 USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Let's say 1:30. We will get a call in #. Thanks. From: Sent: Monda Februar To: (SMO) 28, 2011 12:27 PM . (USAFLS); (USAEO); Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Me too. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 12:25 PM To: (USAEO); (USAEO); - (USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 21 United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Either of those times works for me. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: Sent: Monda To: (USAEO) February 28, 2011 12:25 PM . (USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS); Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States - (USAEO); . (USAFLS) CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) (USAEO); . (SMO); . (SMO); EFTA00206204 I apologize, but we didn't schedule since we hadn't heard regarding everyone's availability. Does 1:00 or 1:30 work? From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Monda Februar 28, 2011 11:54 AM To: USAEO); (USAFLS); SMO); USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2I. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Are we speaking at noon? What is the call-in number? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax (USAEO) February 28, 2011 9:08 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) If you mean can I get a conference call line, yes, I can. . (USAFLS); From: (SMO) Sent: Monda , Februa 28, 2011 9:07 AM To: USAEO); (USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); EFTA00206205 (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) : Can you set up a call? I have a 10:00 meeting (30 minutes), and an as yet unscheduled obligation to assist in briefing the AG for his testimony on the Hill tomorrow. Sometime between noon and 1 is likely to be best for me. (USAEO) February 28, 2011 8:43 AM SMO); USAFLS . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAEO) Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) I agree, as well. I am available anytime between noon and 3:00 today. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 4:19 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO I agree completely. Let's try and talk Monday, with on the phone if possible. From: Sent: Saturda To: Cc: Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) (USAFLS) February 26, 2011 04:08 PM SMO); . (USAFLS); USAEO . (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Mr. I'm looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. What Cassell wants the government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ's position is that no rights attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is most reluctant to do what Cassell asks, since negotiating the non-prosecution agreement was clearly within the prerogatives granted to the Executive Branch. Whether the bargain struck with Epstein was wise or not should not be the issue. EFTA00206206 I will be in the office all day Monday. Thanks for your assistance. From: (SMO) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 3:40 PM To: (USAFLS); Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) USAEO Thanks. Perhaps we should try and find a time to talk on Monday. This scenario raises a variety of policy issues that extend well beyond the question of "when do the rights attach." Frankly, I don't think the court should even reach that question given the posture of the case as you describe it. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 02:23 PM To: SMO); USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Ms. and Mr. Our office is currently litigating a Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit filed by Jane Does 1 and 2, who were victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, Florida. Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). We are seeking your advice and guidance on a proposal from the victims' attorneys, that the government take no position on whether the CVRA granted rights to the victims, when the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly- paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. EFTA00206207 In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, and • filed an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. M, , and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and M, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged ti off to E stein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, , left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non- Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. has requested various documents from our office, presumably to determine whether an investigation should be opened. Cassell and Edwards had planned to file a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. We have since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal issue. On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that EFTA00206208 the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged in federal court, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. We are currently scheduled to have a conference call with Cassell and Edwards on Tuesday, March 1. I can be reached at . Thanks. • From: (USAFLS) < Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 2:24 PM To: . (OLP) (JMD); (USAEO) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) Ms. and Mr. =, Our office is currently litigating a Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit filed by Jane Does 1 and 2, who were victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, Florida. Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). We are seeking your advice and guidance on a proposal from the victims' attorneys, that the government take no position on whether the CVRA granted rights to the victims, when the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly-paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any EFTA00206209 civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims,. and filed an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a) (5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and S one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alleged tip off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non-Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. has requested various documents from our office, presumably to determine whether an investigation should be opened. Cassell and Edwards had planned to file a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. We have since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal issue. EFTA00206210 On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief AUSA and I spoke with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested various documents from our office. I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this case. I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non- Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. Since Epstein was never charged in federal court, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. We are currently scheduled to have a conference call with Cassell and Edwards on Tuesday, March 1. I can be reached at . Thanks. From: .(USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:52 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein — OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Apparently already worked with to get a copy of that disc to do the review. (USAFLS) to get all of his emails and electronic documents. 'just need Can you send the relevant request to ISS for and emails? This happened less than 7 years ago. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00206211 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:35 PM To: .(USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Current employees identify and preserve (those are the forms you completed a couple of months ago). Departed users still in the retain period (3 years) will be done by 155. AUSA's preservation is 7 years if I'm not mistaken. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda February 23 2011 1:26 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Hi Does that apply to And am I coffee t that and Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, Februa 23, 2011 1:25 PM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM To: .(USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) EFTA00206212 I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open a full investigation. Since OPR was seeking preliminary information, they asked me to obtain certain e-mails regarding certain topics. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda February 23 2011 1:16 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 I li has had all contact with OPR, so I do not know. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM To: I . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Ann Please note that per EOUSA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:21 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Definitely it goes through staff. Anytime OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to staff first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact M. I'll let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for all of your help! From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:18 PM EFTA00206213 To: MAIO) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't believe group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. Yes, Sloman and Acosta were USAs during the 2005-present period. Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by group or do we put the emails on a PST for them to review. From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:10 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) If and departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. Acosta and Sloman were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR question I need to double check with I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to their account data to someone on staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. Do you know whether anyone from staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? Thanks, From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 2:33 PM To: USAEO); Ratliffe, USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: Ref: 2010-FLS-0004 Need help again O. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex Acosta, MSloman, Or all no longer with us. Acosta and Sloman served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about finding out if archived email for and exist in our system. How about getting Acosta and Sloman emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. EFTA00206214 We do have copies of their N drives. M, departure was previous to USAMail. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. From: (USAFLS) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:35 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Current employees identify and preserve (those are the forms you completed a couple of months ago). Departed users still in the retain period (3 years) will be done by ISS. AUSA's preservation is 7 years if I'm not mistaken. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda February 23 2011 1:26 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Hi - Does that apply to And am I correct that and Assistant U.S- Attorney Fax email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, Februa 23, 2011 1:25 PM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM To: I . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) EFTA00206215 I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open a full investigation. Since OPR was seeking preliminary information, they asked me to obtain certain e-mails regarding certain topics. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda February 23 2011 1:16 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 I li has had all contact with OPR, so I do not know. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM To: I . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Ann Please note that per EOUSA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:21 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Definitely it goes through staff. Anytime OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to staff first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact M. I'll let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for all of your help! From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:18 PM EFTA00206216 To: MIlaiO) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't believe group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. Yes, Sloman and Acosta were USAs during the 2005-present period. Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by group or do we put the emails on a PST for them to review. From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:10 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) If and departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. Acosta and Sloman were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR question I need to double check with I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to their account data to someone on staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. Do you know whether anyone from staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? Thanks, From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 2:33 PM To: USAEO); RaIliffe, USAEO Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: Ref: 2010-FLS-0004 Need help again O. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex Acosta, MSloman, Or all no longer with us. Acosta and Sloman served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about finding out if archived email for and exist in our system. How about getting and emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. EFTA00206217 We do have copies of their N drives. M, departure was previous to USAMail. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:26 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold ti 2010-FLS-0004 Hi Does that apply to And am I correct that and Assistant U.S. Attorney (USAFLS) email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, Februa 23, 2011 1:25 PM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open a full investigation. Since OPR was seeking preliminary information, they asked me to obtain certain e-mails regarding certain topics. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:16 PM EFTA00206218 To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 fli has had all contact with OPR, so I do not know. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Ann Please note that per EOUSA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:21 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Definitely it goes through staff. Anytime OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to staff first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact •. I'll let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for all of your help! From (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:18 PM To: USAEO) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't believe group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. Yes, Sloman and Acosta were USAs during the 2005-present period. Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by group or do we put the emails on a PST for them to review. EFTA00206219 From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:10 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) If and departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. Acosta and Sloman were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR question I need to double check with I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to their account data to someone on staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. Do you know whether anyone from staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? Thanks, From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 2:33 PM To: USAEO); Ratliffe, Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: Ref: 2010-FLS-0004 Need help again O. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex Acosta, MSloman, or all no longer with us. Acosta and Sloman served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about finding out if archived email for and exist in our system. How about getting Acosta and Sloman emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. We do have copies of their N drives. M, departure was previous to USAMail. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. From: (USAFLS) <JVarela© usa.doj.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:25 PM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold U 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) EFTA00206220 Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open a full investigation. Since OPR was seeking preliminary information, they asked me to obtain certain e-mails regarding certain topics. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda February 23 2011 1:16 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 I I i has had all contact with OPR, so I do not know. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) Ann Please note that per EOUSA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:21 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) EFTA00206221 Definitely it goes through staff. Anytime OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to staff first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact M. I'll let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for all of your help! From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:18 PM To: USAEO) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) I don't believe group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. Yes, Sloman and Acosta were USAs during the 2005-present period. Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by group or do we put the emails on a PST for them to review. From: (USAEO) Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:10 PM To: USAFLS) Cc: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) If and departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. Acosta and Sloman were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR question I need to double check with I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to their account data to someone on staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. Do you know whether anyone from staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? Thanks, From: Sent: Tuesda To: Cc: Subject: Ref: (USAFLS) January 18, 2011 2:33 PM USAEO); Ratliffe, USAEO .(USAFLS); 2010-FLS-0004 (USAFLS) EFTA00206222 Need help again O. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex Acosta, MSloman, or all no longer with us. Acosta and Sloman served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about finding out if archived email for and exist in our system. How about getting Acosta and Sloman emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. We do have copies of their N drives. M, departure was previous to USAMail. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:38 PM To: Weeks, (USAMD) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Litigati