EFTA00206173

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