EFTA00206173

I am working on our response to their material "facts," which really 
aren't facts at all. I should have these done by today. I will then 
move on to the legal argument. I was considering responding to each 
motion separately, to make it easier for the court. 
P.S. Our deadline is April 7, 2011. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi 
and MI 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS)
). 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 10:10 AM 
To: 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Yes. I love it! 
EFTA00206453

Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
----Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
) 
Sent: Monda , March 28, 2011 9:44 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hey - Aguirre-Gonzalez that was my case!! 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) [mailto: 
Sent: Monda March 28.2011 9:36 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi MI and 
-- Just read all of your emails from yesterday. 
-- I think that, having read more cases, and then re-read the Department's guidance, that our position should be that 
the petitioners are not entitled to file a civil cause of action, even for a declaratory judgment. The statute provides them 
with a remedy, which is a referral of DOJ attorneys for disciplinary sanctions, and specifies that "the Attorney General, or 
the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of 
the final decision of the Attorney General by the complainant." (18 USC 3771(f)(2)(D)) "Where a statute expressly 
provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it." U.S. v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 
F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting TAMA v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979)). 
Why don't we get together tomorrow face-to-face and talk it through? I can come down to Miami. 
-- maybe we can steal you for 30 minutes just to bounce some ideas off of you? 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
) 
Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 8:18 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206454

All, 
This is going to be a rou h week for me work-wise so here's a 
suggestion. If, as 
email says, the due date is 4/7, perhaps 
you can work up whatever you want me to look at this week and then I can 
make some comments as of next Monday, 4/4. If you don't think that will 
work or if you need comments earlier, I can try to work on it next 
weekend. I am just inundated right now and have an Eleventh Circuit 
argument on Friday, so I am going to be out of pocket much of this week. 
Let me know your thoughts. 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) (mailto 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:44 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS);
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
I am working on our response to their material "facts," which really 
aren't facts at all. I should have these done by today. I will then 
move on to the legal argument. I was considering responding to each 
motion separately, to make it easier for the court. 
P.S. Our deadline is April 7, 2011. 
F 
 
Original Message
rom: 
. (USAFLS)
Sent: Sunda March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS);
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi 
and 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
EFTA00206455

I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
Jackie Perczek <JPerczek@royblack.com> 
Sent: 
Friday, April 01, 2011 4:58 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
Cc: 
Roy BLACK 
Subject: 
Doe v. USAO 
Attachments: 
WordPerfect 6.1.WPD 
Good afternoon 
and Ann 
(USAFLS) 
Consistent with the conversation Roy and I had with 
this week, attached is a working draft of 
the motion to intervene and the objections we intend to lodge to the recent filings of Doe 1 and Doe 2 
concerning discovery and disclosure of plea negotiation letters and emails. Please let us know your 
position. 
Have a good weekend, 
Jackie 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 10:45 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Conversation with Roy Black - Redacted Materials 
Colleagues, 
I just spoke with Roy Black regarding the U.S. Attorney's Correspondence materials the victims seek to have 
unredacted. I told him we advised Cassell we had no independent objection to the public filing of the 
EFTA00206456

correspondence. 
Black told me they intended to file a notice today advising the court that Epstein intended to object, and would 
be filing a detailed legal memo by next Monday. 
Black said they would send us a courtesy copy by the end of 
this week. Black will assert three grounds: (1) some of the correspondence contains material covered by 
Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e); (2) the correspondence included plea negotiations; and (3) victims' counsel could not be 
trusted to keep material from the press. Black advised he believed the five-page letter had been leaked to the 
Daily Beast by the victims' lawyers. 
Black said he understood the DOJ had policies about public disclosure, but he wanted to know if the 
government would join in their motion. 
From: 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:03 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
> 
. (USAFLS) 
The "no prosecution is underway" language has a specific meaning addressed in the OLC opinion I sent earlier. It does not 
mean that it creates a forum for victims to bring a non-monetary cause of action when (as here) that cause of action is 
divorced from a criminal case. (What relief is being sought in this case, by the way? If it's a declaratory judgment that we 
bring charges, then he's barred by prosecutorial discretion - we're the govt, not him) 
The CVRA does not create any independent causes of action - the money damages clause was belts and suspenders, to 
make clear that sovereign immunity wasn't being waived. If a victim believes their rights were violated, they can, in theory, 
bring a cause of action under some other federal law, cf. 42 USC 1983, but the CVRA itself doesn't create a recoverable 
cause of action. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) (mailto 
To: 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:58 PM 
. 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
and 
18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(6) provides there is no cause of action for damages. 
From a civil attorney's viewpoint, damages means money damages. 
Therefore, a victim cannot sue the United States Government, or an 
EFTA00206457

official of the U.S. Government, for money damages, based on a claim 
that their rights under the CVRA were violated. 
Not having a cause of action for damages does not mean you cannot assert 
that your CVRA rights were violated, and you are entitled to 
non-monetary relief. Also, 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) provides that, in 
cases where a criminal case has not been filed ("if no prosecution is 
underway"), the victim can file a motion for relief in the district 
court in the district in which the crime occurred. This plainly 
suggests that Congress intended a putative victim to have a forum where 
he could address his claim that his/her CVRA rights have been violated 
by the Government. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:49 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
PS - Real quick, but the CVRA says it doesn't create a cause of action 
"for damages." My instinct is that we should emphasize the 
prosecutorial discretion angle over the "no cause of action" language of 
the CVRA, but I will do a little more digging. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
USAFLS 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd>> Hi 
and 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
EFTA00206458

I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:58 PM 
To: 
); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
and 
. (USAFLS) 
18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(6) provides there is no cause of action for damages. From a civil attorneys viewpoint, damages means 
money damages. Therefore, a victim cannot sue the United States Government, or an official of the U.S. Government, for 
money damages, based on a claim that their rights under the CVRA were violated. 
Not having a cause of action for damages does not mean you cannot assert that your CVRA rights were violated, and you 
are entitled to non-monetary relief. Also, 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) provides that, in cases where a criminal case has not been 
filed ("if no prosecution is underway"), the victim can file a motion for relief in the district court in the district in which the 
crime occurred. This plainly suggests that Congress intended a putative victim to have a forum where he could address 
his claim that his/her CVRA rights have been violated by the Government. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:49 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
PS - Real quick, but the CVRA says it doesn't create a cause of action 
"for damages." My instinct is that we should emphasize the 
prosecutorial discretion angle over the "no cause of action" language of 
the CVRA, but I will do a little more digging. 
EFTA00206459

United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
----Original Messa e--
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd>> Hi 
and 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:54 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206460

Did you find Hill v. New York Post, 2010 WL 2999795 (EDNY 2010) ("The CVRA does not afford a basis for this Court to 
exercise federal question jurisdiction over Hill's suit.") 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) [mailto: 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd» Hi 
and 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been side-tracked by research. I found a case where a 
prisoner tried to use the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example of how the CVRA, as Cassell 
sees it, could be abused. Since every assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants could demand 
meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted (whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the 
USAO decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced 
to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up 
being a second reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the blame on us, but they had no contact 
with us for over a year while they were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, Epstein finished 
serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:44 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206461

Gotcha; thanks. 
•••••••••••••••••••Me.••••••al•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. 
ellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
-----Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) (mailto 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:44 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS);
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
I am working on our response to their material "facts," which really 
aren't facts at all. I should have these done by today. I will then 
move on to the legal argument. I was considering responding to each 
motion separately, to make it easier for the court. 
P.S. Our deadline is April 7, 2011. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi 
and MI 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
EFTA00206462

Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:44 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
I am working on our response to their material "facts," which really aren't facts at all. I should have these done by today. I 
will then move on to the legal argument. I was considering responding to each motion separately, to make it easier for the 
court. 
P.S. Our deadline is April 7, 2011. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Sunda . March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi 
and MI 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been side-tracked by research. I found a case where a 
prisoner tried to use the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example of how the CVRA, as Cassell 
sees it, could be abused. Since every assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants could demand 
meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted (whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the 
USAO decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced 
to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up 
being a second reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the blame on us, but they had no contact 
with us for over a year while they were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, Epstein finished 
serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206463

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:42 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
What's our deadline here again? Thanks 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) [mailto: 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd>> Hi 
and 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been side-tracked by research. I found a case where a 
prisoner tried to use the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example of how the CVRA, as Cassell 
sees it, could be abused. Since every assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants could demand 
meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted (whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the 
USAO decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced 
to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up 
being a second reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the blame on us, but they had no contact 
with us for over a year while they were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, Epstein finished 
serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file 
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
EFTA00206464

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:28 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Statement re Epstein 
I'm at this AUSA reception thing. Can I call you later if it's not too late? 
 
 Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 07:56 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Statement re Epstein 
(USAFLS) 
Why do you make it so hard for the good guys to follow the rules? Just release the letter. It isn't a privileged 
communication. It was sent to opposing counsel. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
Ori_girS Message 
From: =, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein 
Sorry. Here it is 
---- Original Message —
From: csamoff [mailto: 
Sent: ThuS, March 24, 2011 06:56 PM 
To: MI, I= 
(USAFLS); Janet Aitken 
Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein 
Thank you 
Best, 
Conchita 
Message-----
From: == 
To: Janet Aitken 
Cc: 
Subject: Statement re Epstein 
Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 
After reviewing the U.S. Attorneyaes handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy 
attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. 
Thanks for checking with us. 
Special Counsel to the US Attorney 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
EFTA00206465

From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:50 PM 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
.(USAFLS) 
Another point is that the non-prosecution agreement would not be subject to any judicial approval, absent a claim by one of 
the parties to the agreement that a breach had occurred. Unlike Dean, the government never contemplated any charge 
being filed in the district court, nor did it seek a dispensation from the court to limit the number of victims it would contact. 
In Dean, there was ultimately a charge and a plea agreement for the court to review. In our case, there was neither. 
----Ori inal Messa e—
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 2:44 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
I must really be clueless here, but why would we have to consult with them if no charges have been brought. That's the 
OLC opinion. That doesn't mean we couldn't consult with them as a courtesy, but we have no legal compulsion to do so 
under the CVRA because no charges were ever brought. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. 
ellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
----Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) [main° 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 2:06 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
The remedy they seek is a vacatur of the non-prosecution agreement. 
Presumably, we would then have to consult with them pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. 3771(a)(5). Cassell did agree that the district court had no 
authority to compel the government to prosecute Epstein. 
----Ori inal Messa e--
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 2:03 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
The "no prosecution is underway" language has a specific meaning 
addressed in the OLC opinion I sent earlier. It does not mean that it 
creates a forum for victims to bring a non-monetary cause of action when 
(as here) that cause of action is divorced from a criminal case. (What 
relief is being sought in this case, by the way? If it's a declaratory 
judgment that we bring charges, then he's barred by prosecutorial 
discretion - we're the govt, not him) 
EFTA00206466

The CVRA does not create any independent causes of action - the money 
damages clause was belts and suspenders, to make clear that sovereign 
immunity wasn't being waived. If a victim believes their rights were 
violated, they can, in theory, bring a cause of action under some other 
federal law, cf. 42 USC 1983, but the CVRA itself doesn't create a 
recoverable cause of action. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
--Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) [mailto 
Sent: Sunda , March 27 2011 1:58 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
and M, 
18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(6) provides there is no cause of action for damages. 
From a civil attorney's viewpoint, damages means money damages. 
Therefore, a victim cannot sue the United States Government, or an 
official of the U.S. Government, for money damages, based on a claim 
that their rights under the CVRA were violated. 
Not having a cause of action for damages does not mean you cannot assert 
that your CVRA rights were violated, and you are entitled to 
non-monetary relief. Also, 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) provides that, in 
cases where a criminal case has not been filed ("if no prosecution is 
underway"), the victim can file a motion for relief in the district 
court in the district in which the crime occurred. This plainly 
suggests that Congress intended a putative victim to have a forum where 
he could address his claim that his/her CVRA rights have been violated 
by the Government. 
 
Ori inal Messa e---
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:49 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
PS - Real quick, but the CVRA says it doesn't create a cause of action 
"for damages." My instinct is that we should emphasize the 
prosecutorial discretion angle over the "no cause of action" language of 
the CVRA, but I will do a little more digging. 
EFTA00206467

United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS): 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
USAFLS 
«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd>> Hi 
and 
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:44 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
> 
. (USAFLS) 
EFTA00206468

I must really be clueless here, but why would we have to consult with them if no charges have been brought. That's the 
OLC opinion. That doesn't mean we couldn't consult with them as a courtesy, but we have no legal compulsion to do so 
under the CVRA because no charges were ever brought. 
••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••• 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
-----Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) [mailto 
Sent: Sunda , March 27 2011 2:06 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
The remedy they seek is a vacatur of the non-prosecution agreement. 
Presumably, we would then have to consult with them pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. 3771(a)(5). Cassell did agree that the district court had no 
authority to compel the government to prosecute Epstein. 
 
Ori inal Messa e--
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda March 27, 2011 2:03 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
The "no prosecution is underway" language has a specific meaning 
addressed in the OLC opinion I sent earlier. It does not mean that it 
creates a forum for victims to bring a non-monetary cause of action when 
(as here) that cause of action is divorced from a criminal case. (What 
relief is being sought in this case, by the way? If it's a declaratory 
judgment that we bring charges, then he's barred by prosecutorial 
discretion - we're the govt, not him) 
The CVRA does not create any independent causes of action - the money 
damages clause was belts and suspenders, to make clear that sovereign 
immunity wasn't being waived. If a victim believes their rights were 
violated, they can, in theory, bring a cause of action under some other 
federal law, cf. 42 USC 1983, but the CVRA itself doesn't create a 
recoverable cause of action. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
EFTA00206469

fax: 
---Ori inal Message---
From: 
(USAFLS) [mailto 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:58 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
and M, 
18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(6) provides there is no cause of action for damages. 
From a civil attorney's viewpoint, damages means money damages. 
Therefore, a victim cannot sue the United States Government, or an 
official of the U.S. Government, for money damages, based on a claim 
that their rights under the CVRA were violated. 
Not having a cause of action for damages does not mean you cannot assert 
that your CVRA rights were violated, and you are entitled to 
non-monetary relief. Also, 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) provides that, in 
cases where a criminal case has not been filed ("if no prosecution is 
underway.), the victim can file a motion for relief in the district 
court in the district in which the crime occurred. This plainly 
suggests that Congress intended a putative victim to have a forum where 
he could address his claim that his/her CVRA rights have been violated 
by the Government. 
 
Ori inal Messa e--
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:49 PM 
To: 
.(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
PS - Real quick, but the CVRA says it doesn't create a cause of action 
"for damages." My instinct is that we should emphasize the 
prosecutorial discretion angle over the "no cause of action" language of 
the CVRA, but I will do a little more digging. 
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••~M• 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
----Ori inal Messa e—
From: 
(USAFLS 
[mailto: 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:31 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206470

«CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd>> Hi 
and
--
Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been 
side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use 
the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example 
of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every 
assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants 
could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted 
(whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO 
decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of 
Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. 
I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the 
Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second 
reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the 
blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they 
were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, 
Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they 
want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language 
about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help 
with that. 
Talk to you all on Monday. 
Thanks. 
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link 
attachments: 
CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your 
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:06 PM 
To: 
); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
. (USAFLS) 
The remedy they seek is a vacatur of the non-prosecution agreement. Presumably, we would then have to consult with 
them pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5). 
Cassell did agree that the district court had no authority to compel the 
government to prosecute Epstein. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 2:03 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
The "no prosecution is underway" language has a specific meaning addressed in the OLC opinion I sent earlier. It does not 
mean that it creates a forum for victims to bring a non-monetary cause of action when (as here) that cause of action is 
divorced from a criminal case. (What relief is being sought in this case, by the way? If it's a declaratory judgment that we 
bring charges, then he's barred by prosecutorial discretion - we're the govt, not him) 
EFTA00206471

The CVRA does not create any independent causes of action - the money damages clause was belts and suspenders, to 
make clear that sovereign immunity wasn't being waived. If a victim believes their rights were violated, they can, in theory, 
bring a cause of action under some other federal law, cf. 42 USC 1983, but the CVRA itself doesn't create a recoverable 
cause of action. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
---Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) [mailto 
To: 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:58 PM 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
and 
18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(6) provides there is no cause of action for damages. 
From a civil attorney's viewpoint, damages means money damages. 
Therefore, a victim cannot sue the United States Government, or an 
official of the U.S. Government, for money damages, based on a claim 
that their rights under the CVRA were violated. 
Not having a cause of action for damages does not mean you cannot assert 
that your CVRA rights were violated, and you are entitled to 
non-monetary relief. Also, 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) provides that, in 
cases where a criminal case has not been filed ("if no prosecution is 
underway"), the victim can file a motion for relief in the district 
court in the district in which the crime occurred. This plainly 
suggests that Congress intended a putative victim to have a forum where 
he could address his claim that his/her CVRA rights have been violated 
by the Government. 
 
Ori inal Messa e---
From: 
) 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:49 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
PS - Real quick, but the CVRA says it doesn't create a cause of action 
"for damages." My instinct is that we should emphasize the 
prosecutorial discretion angle over the "no cause of action" language of 
the CVRA, but I will do a little more digging. 
United States Department of Justice 
EFTA00206472