EFTA00206173

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.Fla.) 
Let's say 1:30. We will get a call in #. Thanks. 
From: 
(SMO) 
Sent: Monda Februa 
28, 2011 12:27 PM 
To: 
. (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 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
Either of those times works for me. Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
(USAEO); 
(USAEO); 
. (SMO); 
Fax 
EFTA00206313

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); MilaUSAFLS) 
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.) 
. (USAFLS); 
EFTA00206314

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); 
: 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. 
EFTA00206315

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.) 
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. 
EFTA00206316

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 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. 
EFTA00206317

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: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Monday, February 28, 2011 1:54 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) 
Should we call the number again? Or should I just do a conf call? 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00206318

Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda , Februa 
28, 2011 1:35 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
Sure - who is 
by the way? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda , Februa 
28, 2011 1:29 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
Maybe after we finish with DOJ, the four of us (you two and 
and I) can stay on and discuss a bit 
further? After my discussion with the person at Appellate and some case law research, I have some 
ideas. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda , February 28, 2011 1:25 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
Absolutely. I agree with you. Thanks. 
EFTA00206319

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 v. 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); 
(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.Fla.) 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAEO); 
EFTA00206320

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); -
(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 
(USAEO); 
. (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? 
EFTA00206321

From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: 
(USAFLS) 
February 28, 2011 11:54 AM 
USAEO); 
SMO); 
USAFLS) 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAEO) 
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);U 
(USAEO) 
Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
. (USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
EFTA00206322

: 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: 
(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. 
EFTA00206323

From: 
Sent: Saturda 
To: 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
(SMO) 
February 26, 2011 3:40 PM 
USAFLS ; 
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: 
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 
EFTA00206324

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 
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 
EFTA00206325

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: 
Paul Cassell < 
Sent: 
Monday, February 28, 2011 3:14 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); Brad Edwards 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jane Does v. United States - latest draft of statement of acts 
Attachments: 
motion-finding-violation-22411.doc 
Hi 
FYI: Here is the latest draft of our "summary judgment" motion and statement of facts. Hoping that we 
can begin narrowing down any differences on this as well. Paul 
Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
Voice: 
Fax: 
EFTA00206326

Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul 
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This 
message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the 
person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or 
copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the 
sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. 
From: 
 
 
 
(USAFLS) [mailto: 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:42 PM 
To: Brad Edwards; Paul Cassell 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Jane Does I United States 
Dear Brad and Paul: 
(USAFLS) 
Please let us know what time you are available to meet tomorrow or Wednesday to discuss the 
matter. I will set up a conference call. 
Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Sent: 
Monday, February 28, 2011 4:40 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
Hob nobbing with royalty. Lucky us! 
EFTA00206327

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda February 28, 2011 3:56 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
H i 
— [just got a call from a reporter for the Daily Mail, one of the Britain's main newspapers, about 
Epstein. There is a lot of hubbub over there about Epstein right now because he was recently photographed with 
Prince Andrew. 
I gave him your name and number and told him to call you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) °c
=' 
Monday, February 28, 2011 6:24 PM 
(USAFLS) 
(USAFLS) 
Re: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
Freudian slip--message not massage. LOL 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda Februa 
28, 2011 05:21 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
He just did and left massage. Can we speak to him, and what would we say? I suggest we pass, unless he just 
basic info about the charges. What do you think? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda February 28, 2011 3:56 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
EFTA00206328

Hi 
— I just got a call from a reporter for the Daily Mail, one of the Britain's main newspapers, about 
Epstein. There is a lot of hubbub over there about Epstein right now because he was recently photographed with 
Prince 
I gave him your name and number and told him to call you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Monday, February 28, 2011 5:21 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
He just did and left massage. Can we speak to him, and what would we say? I suggest we pass, unless he just 
basic info about the charges. What do you think? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda February 28, 2011 3:56 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
Hi 
— I just got a call from a reporter for the Daily Mail, one of the Britain's main newspapers, about 
Epstein. There is a lot of hubbub over there about Epstein right now because he was recently photographed with 
Prince Andrew. 
I gave him your name and number and told him to call you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00206329

Fax 
Subject: 
Epstein/Conf. Call 
Location: 
Ofc. 
Start: 
Thu 3/10/2011 3:00 PM 
End: 
Thu 3/10/2011 3:30 PM 
Show Time As: 
Tentative 
Recurrence: 
(none) 
Organizer: 
-.
(USAFLS) 
Required Attendees: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Can you please set up a meeting/conference call re: Epstein for Thursday morning with me, 
and 
7 Thanks. 
Subject: 
Epstein/Conf. Call 
Location: 
Ofc. 
Start: 
Thu 3/10/2011 10:00 AM 
End: 
Thu 3/10/2011 10:30 AM 
Show Time As: 
Tentative 
Recurrence: 
(none) 
Meeting Status: 
Not yet responded 
Organizer: 
(USAFLS) 
Required Attendees: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
When: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:00 AM-10:30 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 
Where: 
Ofc. 
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. 
EFTA00206330

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Can you please set up a meeting/conference call re: Epstein for Thursday morning with me, 
and 
Thanks. 
Subject: 
Epstein/Conf. Call 
Location: 
Ofc. 
Start: 
End: 
Thu 3/10/2011 3:00 PM 
Thu 3/10/2011 3:30 PM 
Recurrence: 
(none) 
Meeting Status: 
Meeting organizer 
Organizer: 
-.
(USAFLS) 
Required Attendees: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Can you please set up a meeting/conference call re: Epstein for Thursday morning with me, 
and 
Thanks. 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); =, 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
Just spoke to the producer. I told her it was against our policy to confirm or deny the existence of an 
investigation. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 07, 2011 6:02 PM 
To: 
USAFLS 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
EFTA00206331

Thanks. Please make sure 
is looped in on these e-mails as he is handling a civil matter 
with Epstein. Thanks. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 07, 2011 5:55 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
Today Show just called. No joke. They are doing a story how the case was reopened. I won't confirm 
anything. 
• 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 07, 2011 5:38 PM 
To: 
.(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
How many more incorrect statements can be printed99??? It is like one feeds off another that feeds 
off another. That woman at the Daily Beast is just making things up at this point. 
What is SMO, by the way? 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
EFTA00206332