Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Frida Jul 11, 2008 3:04 PM
RE: Jane Doe Hearing
Hi
- I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
From:
To:
A
AFLS);
Cc:
Sub ect: Jane Doe Hearing
Colleagues,
The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who
harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued
that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set
the agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filing of any
charges.
In my portion of the argument, I advised the court of the status of Epstein's state case: (1) he entered pleas
of guilty to two state charges on June 30, 2008; (2) he was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration and 1 year
of community control; and (3) he was serving his sentence of incarceration. The court queried me on the
Dean case and the government's position on when the rights in section 3371(a) applied. I distinguished Dean
and argued that rights under 3771(a) does not accrue until a charge is filing in district court.
I noted that the
A/G's guidelines are applied with common sense, such that a victim claiming they were being threatened by a
perpetrator would not be turned away since an indictment had not been returned. I also argued that 18
U.S.C. 3771 did not grant authority to the court to set aside the agreement in the instant case, since it was not
a plea agreement filed with court, which it had the discretion to accept or reject. The court had questions
regarding the completion of the agreement in September 2007, but the plea was not entered until June 30,
2008. I advised the court that Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the agreement within the DOJ.
As to the motion to seal the government's response, the court asked if that was necessary any more, since a
public hearing had been held and much of what was filed had been discussed.
I argued that the government
had two bases for sealing: (1) protection of the privacy of the minor victims; and (2) confidentiality of
negotiations with Epstein's attorneys and the confidentiality clause in the Agreement.
Edwards waived any
protection for his clients, two of whom were present in court (C.W. and T.M.)
As to the confidentiality, the
court found that the discussions regarding the potential impeachment of the victims because of the
08-80736-CV-MARRA
P-015063
222
EFTA00189037
availability of relief under 18 U.S.C. 2255 had already been discussed at the hearing. I argued that the exact
clause in the agreement pertaining to section 2255 had been cited in the notification letters to C.W. and S.R.,
which were filed, and the government had agreed to notify Epstein before making any disclosure.
The court
stated that the disclosure was being done pursuant to its order, not by the government's action.
I told the
court the government wanted to register its objection.
The court ordered the government's response,
declaration, and the attachments, unsealed. Also,
Edwards filed a reply, which is also a public record document.
The court noted that, since Epstein had entered his plea and was sentenced, this was no longer an
emergency. Both parties agreed. The court wanted to know if any evidentiary hearing need to be
held. Since there is a dispute over what the FBI agents told ■. in September 2007, I asked the court to
permit the parties to speak to determine if there are any factual disputes which require a hearing. The court
agreed.
There was a reporter from the Sun Sentinel present in the audience.
08-80736-C V-MARRA
P-015064
223
EFTA00189038
(USAFLS)
From:
.
(USAFLS) <
Sent:
Mor
S.It4t1L12008 10:20 AM
To:
M =I
(USAFLS)
Subject:
RE: Jane Doe Hearing
I left early on Friday since I had to take care of some matters before my Air Force reserve duty at Homestead
AFB this weekend. If you want me to participate in a conference with Mr. Goldberger, I will be happy to do
so.
From:
■
(USAFLS)
Sen
r
ly 11, 2008 3:04 PM
To:
M
,
(USAFLS)
Hi
— I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
(USAFLS)
ut 11 2
•
To
• Acosta Al
SAFLS);
Cc:
Sub ect: Jane Doe Hearing
Colleagues,
The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who
harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued
that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set
the agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filing of any
charges.
In my portion of the argument, I advised the court of the status of Epstein's state case: (1) he entered pleas
of guilty to two state charges on June 30, 2008; (2) he was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration and 1 year
of community control; and (3) he was serving his sentence of incarceration. The court queried me on the
Dean case and the government's position on when the rights in section 3371(a) applied. I distinguished Dean
and argued that rights under 3771(a) does not accrue until a charge is filing in district court.
I noted T-aolty865
08-80736-CV-MARRA
224
EFTA00189039
A/G's guidelines are applied with common sense, such that a victim claiming they were being threatened by a
perpetrator would not be turned away since an indictment had not been returned. I also argued that 18
U.S.C. 3771 did not grant authority to the court to set aside the agreement in the instant case, since it was not
a plea agreement filed with court, which it had the discretion to accept or reject. The court had questions
regarding the completion of the agreement in September 2007, but the plea was not entered until June 30,
2008. I advised the court that Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the agreement within the Dal.
As to the motion to seal the government's response, the court asked if that was necessary any more, since a
public hearing had been held and much of what was filed had been discussed. I argued that the government
had two bases for sealing: (1) protection of the privacy of the minor victims; and (2) confidentiality of
negotiations with Epstein's attorneys and the confidentiality clause in the Agreement.
Edwards waived any
protection for his clients, two of whom were present in court (C.W. and T.M.)
As to the confidentiality, the
court found that the discussions regarding the potential impeachment of the victims because of the
availability of relief under 18 U.S.C. 2255 had already been discussed at the hearing. I argued that the exact
clause in the agreement pertaining to section 2255 had been cited in the notification letters to C.W. and S.R.,
which were filed, and the government had agreed to notify Epstein before making any disclosure.
The court
stated that the disclosure was being done pursuant to its order, not by the government's action. I told the
court the government wanted to register its objection.
The court ordered the government's response,
declaration, and the attachments, unsealed. Also,
Edwards filed a reply, which is also a public record document.
The court noted that, since Epstein had entered his plea and was sentenced, this was no longer an
emergency. Both parties agreed. The court wanted to know if any evidentiary hearing need to be
held. Since there is a dispute over what the FBI agents told C.W. in September 2007, I asked the court to
permit the parties to speak to determine if there are any factual disputes which require a hearing. The court
agreed.
There was a reporter from the Sun Sentinel present in the audience.
08-80736-CV-MARRA
P-015066
225
EFTA00189040
(USAFLS)
From:
(USAFLS)
Sent:
Monda July 14, 2008 12:17 PM
To:
(USAFLS)
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Subject:
RE: Jane Doe Hearing
Ii i
— I haven't heard any more from Jack and I haven't received an faxes, so perhaps the storm has
passed. If you would like to call him, his phone number is
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(USAFLS)
To:
(USAFLS)
I left early on Friday since I had to take care of some matters before my Air Force reserve duty at Homestead
AFB this weekend. If you want me to participate in a conference with Mr. Goldberger, I will be happy to do
so.
From:
(USAFLS)
ly 11, 2008 3:04 PM
(USAFLS)
Hi
— I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required.
a
Assistant U.S. Attorney
08-80736-C V-MARRA
P-015067
226
EFTA00189041
From:
(USAFLS)
Jul 11 2008 2:33 PM
To:
Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); unoppatunap
Cc:
(USAFLS)
Sub ect: Jane Doe Hearing
Colleagues,
The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who
harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued
that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set
the agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filing of any
charges.
In my portion of the argument, I advised the court of the status of Epstein's state case: (1) he entered pleas
of guilty to two state charges on June 30, 2008; (2) he was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration and 1 year
of community control; and (3) he was serving his sentence of incarceration. The court queried me on the
Dean case and the government's position on when the rights in section 3371(a) applied. I distinguished Dean
and argued that rights under 3771(a) does not accrue until a charge is filing in district court.
I noted that the
A/G's guidelines are applied with common sense, such that a victim claiming they were being threatened by a
perpetrator would not be turned away since an indictment had not been returned. I also argued that 18
U.S.C. 3771 did not grant authority to the court to set aside the agreement in the instant case, since it was not
a plea agreement filed with court, which it had the discretion to accept or reject. The court had questions
regarding the completion of the agreement in September 2007, but the plea was not entered until June 30,
2008. I advised the court that Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the agreement within the DOJ.
As to the motion to seal the government's response, the court asked if that was necessary any more, since a
public hearing had been held and much of what was filed had been discussed. I argued that the government
had two bases for sealing: (1) protection of the privacy of the minor victims; and (2) confidentiality of
negotiations with Epstein's attorneys and the confidentiality clause in the Agreement.
Edwards waived any
protection for his clients, two of whom were present in court (C.W. and T.M.)
As to the confidentiality, the
court found that the discussions regarding the potential impeachment of the victims because of the
availability of relief under 18 U.S.C. 2255 had already been discussed at the hearing. I argued that the exact
clause in the agreement pertaining to section 2255 had been cited in the notification letters to C.W. and S.R.,
which were filed, and the government had agreed to notify Epstein before making any disclosure.
The court
stated that the disclosure was being done pursuant to its order, not by the government's action.
I told the
court the government wanted to register its objection.
The court ordered the government's response,
declaration, and the attachments, unsealed. Also,
Edwards filed a reply, which is also a public record document.
The court noted that, since Epstein had entered his plea and was sentenced, this was no longer an
emergency. Both parties agreed. The court wanted to know if any evidentiary hearing need to be
held. Since there is a dispute over what the FBI agents told C.W. in September 2007, I asked the court to
permit the parties to speak to determine if there are any factual disputes which require a hearing. The court
agreed.
There was a reporter from the Sun Sentinel present in the audience.
08-80736-CV-MARRA
P-015068
227
EFTA00189042
08-80736-CV-MARRA
P-015069
228
EFTA00189043