EFTA00206173

---Ori inal Mess e—
From: 
Sent: Monde March 28, 2011 8:18 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
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. 
ellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
 
Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) [main° 
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 
EFTA00206433

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: 
. (USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
I will be here tomorrow. The argument you suggest has a number of problems. First, there is a presumption in favor of 
judicial review of administrative action. McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 498 (1986). Second, since 
Congress establishes the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, we would have to demonstrate that it 
intended section 3771(f) to be the exclusive remedy for a putative victim claiming a violation of the CVRA. There is nothing 
explicit in the text of section 3771 that supports that proposition. Moreover, arguing that an aggrieved person can only file 
an administrative complaint with the federal agency that allegedly deprived him or her of his rights under the CVRA is an 
argument that is likely to be viewed with much judicial skepticism. 
Section 3771(d)(3) expressly provides that the rights in section 3771(a) can be asserted in the criminal case, or in the 
district where the crime occurred if no prosecution is underway. We would have to argue that, where there is no 
prosecution underway, the only remedy is to file an administrative complaint with the DOJ. That conflicts with the language 
of section 3771(d)(3), which permits a putative victim to file a motion in the district where the crime occurred. I recognize 
the DOJ has a view on what that provision means, but that argument is not based upon the existence of an exclusive 
administrative remedy. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
EFTA00206434

Sent: Monda March 28.2011 9:36 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Hi 
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 
All, 
This is going to becalh 
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: Sunday. March 27, 2011 1:44 PM 
EFTA00206435

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 
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: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 8:18 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
EFTA00206436

Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
All, 
This is going to be a rough 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. 
----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. 
EFTA00206437

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 3:15 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
Good points. 
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
----Ori inal Message 
From: 
(USAFLS) (mailto 
Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 2:50 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
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. 
EFTA00206438

-----Ori inal Mess 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, Appellate 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 Mess 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. 
EFTA00206439

••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••MN••••••••• 
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 attomey'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 
Criminal Division. Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
EFTA00206440

 
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 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 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. I Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 
F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting TAMA I Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979)). 
EFTA00206441

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 
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. 
MN 
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. 
EFTA00206442

 
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, 20119:23 AM 
To: 
); 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
. (USAFLS) 
I believe we can deliver to you a near-finished product by Saturday, April 2. I will be working on our response the next two 
days, but have to go to the NAC on Wednesday and Thursday. 
 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
) 
Sent: Monda March 28, 2011 8:18 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206443

All, 
This is going to be a rough 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. 
----Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (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. 
EFTA00206444

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: 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:09 PM 
To: 
(CRT) 
Subject: 
RE: 
Ohhhh — Tell 
Hill!!! I adore her too! I only worked one case with her and she is super-smart
and 
rt 
and dedicated. 
I have known for around 15 years. 
Tell 
that I am still working on an Epstein motion now. She will know what I mean. 
EJ is still in temporary housing. But we will both stay in touch. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
EFTA00206445

From: 
(CRT) 
Sent: Wednesda March 30, 2011 2:06 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: 
I know of 
but have never met her. I believe she is in appellate. I was talking about 
Braden! Am happy to speak with any of your friends about DC. We love it and it's a cool town....but 
not great for single women as my single girlfriends have told me 
:-) 
I am so sorry to hear about your torn cartilage. How did you manage to do that? Is the surgery laser 
or invasive? That really stinks. 
Well, EJ better be taking good care of you! You are the best thing that's ever happened to him besides 
my friendship (joke). Seriously, I hope he is not too stressed and taking good care of you. Is he 
enjoying Colombia? How are his living quarters? 
Stay in touch! 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesda , March 30, 2011 2:01 PM 
To: 
(CRT) 
Subject: RE: 
Well, I hope it was 
, whom I adore. She is one of the finest people I know. A good 
heart and honest through and through. 
I hope that you are doing well, 
I have another friend who is talking about going to DC and if 
she does, I will definitely put her in touch with you. 
These budget cuts and everything are working havoc with for us and I just found out that I have torn 
cartilage in my hip and have to have surgery. So, yes, I am doing the split time, but luckily EJ has had 
to be here in Miami for the past week and has been home so I haven't had to sit in an uncomfortable 
airplane seat for 31/2 hours each way. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00206446

Fax 
From: 
(CRT) 
Sent: Wednesda March 30, 2011 1:57 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Hi 
Just wanted to say hi and see how you were doing? EJ told me that you guys are sort of doing the split 
time in US/Colombia. How is that working out? I was talking with one of my favorite people in the 
office and she mentioned your name. We got to talking and came to the conclusion that we both 
thought you were terrific. Any idea who it was I was talking to here in my office? 
MI, Trial Attorney 
Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section 
- direct 
- fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
Sent: 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 1:09 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News 
Attachments: 
jeffrey-epstein-attorney.pdf 
A response by Roy Black to Alex's letter. I note that this is an extrajudicial statement by Roy Black where he 
says, without any qualifying statement that it was their opinion or belief, that "We did point out misconduct and 
over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. . . . There will always be people who abuse the 
great power of the government . . ." 
<<jeffrey-epstein-attorney.pdf>> 
EFTA00206447

From: 
Sent: 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:34 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News 
"Finally Mr. Acosta mentions we looked for personal peccadilloes of prosecutors," Black said. "I am not 
sure what he refers to but this never happened. We did point out misconduct and over-reaching by 
certain people involved in the investigation. Not only is there nothing wrong with this but it is a 
necessary 
part of the process. There will always be people who abuse the great power of the government and we 
cannot stand by silently when it occurs." 
Hmmm. I sure wish I had the correspondence claiming that I should be recused because of my 
daughter's case. 
Esq. 
The Ferraro Law Firm 
4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd. 
Suite 700 
Miami, FL 33146 
Website: w-ww.ferrarolaw.com 
Toll-Free 800-275-3332 
Tel: (305) 375-0111 
Fax: (305) 379-6222 
jhs@ferrarolaw.com 
EFTA00206448

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmittal, including any attachment, is 
privileged and confidential and is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed. If you 
are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution or the taking 
of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this transmittal in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this transmittal from any 
computer or other data bank. 
From: 
(USAFLS) [mailto: 
Sent: Wednesci.Aarch 30, 2011 2:26 PM 
To: 
Subject: FW: Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News 
Hi 
- The slander is against you and (mainly) me. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesda March 30, 2011 1:09 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News 
A response by Roy Black to Alex's letter. I note that this is an extrajudicial statement by Roy Black 
where he says, without any qualifying statement that it was their opinion or belief, that "We did point 
out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. . . . There will 
always be people who abuse the great power of the government . . ." 
«jeffrey-epstein-attorney.pdf» 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:26 PM 
FW: Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News 
EFTA00206449

Attachments: 
jeffrey-epstein-attorney.pdf 
I I i 
The slander is against you and (mainly) me. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesda 
March 30, 2011 1:09 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
A response by Roy Black to Alex's letter. I note that this is an extrajudicial statement by Roy Black where he 
says, without any qualifying statement that it was their opinion or belief, that "We did point out misconduct and 
over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. . . . There will always be people who abuse the 
great power of the government . . ." 
<leffrey-epstein-attomey.pdf>> 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
Attachments: 
(USAFLS) 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:01 PM 
(USAFLS); 
Emailing: Mootness section.wpd 
Mootness section.wpd 
«Mootness section.wpd» Hi a 
and 
Here is a section addressing the failure to prosecute/"mootness" issue. 
1 
-- One issue for you. I think that we need to provide evidence on two things: (1) for this section, we need to put in 
the dates that Epstein was released from jail and from community control and (2) for the section on "hey, we didn't violate 
the CVRA, we went above and beyond" I want to put in my letter to PBSO asking them to tell me when he was released so 
I could do victim notifications. We should be able to get all of that information from PBSO. We can get it either by a 
subpoena or a public records request. Which would you prefer to do? And who do you want to issue the 
ria
st/subpoena? Please let me know and I can draft it and get it out tomorrow. I don't think it should come from me, but 
or someone else here can do it for purposes of speed. FBI thinks that a subpoena would be better than a public 
records request in this instance. 
Thanks. 
From: 
EFTA00206450

Sent: 
Monday, March 28, 2011 10:14 AM 
To: 
(USAFIS); 
Cc: 
(USAFIS) 
Subject: 
RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
(USAFLS) 
Maybe the way to split the difference is to say that Ws his burden to show that there's a cause of action, and he hasn't done 
so, and that there are a number of good reasons, both textual and policy-wise, not to interpret the CVRA to create a 
freestanding cause of action, and that such a conclusion would not leave dissatisfied victims without any recourse because 
of the grievance process - or something along those lines. 
Textually, by the way, I'd say that the no prosecution Is underway" language does not open the courts to CVRA claims 
whenever no charges are brought but only applies post-complaint, pre-indictment, as the OLC memo says. 
United States Department of Justice 
Criminal Division, Appellate Section 
tel: 
fax: 
--Ori inal Message—
From: 
(USAFLS) (mailto
Sent: Monde , March 28, 2011 10:10AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
I will be here tomorrow. The argument you suggest has a number of problems. First, there is a presumption in favor of 
judicial review of administrative action. McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 498 (1986). Second, since 
Congress establishes the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, we would have to demonstrate that it 
intended section 3771(t) to be the exclusive remedy for a putative victim claiming a violation of the CVRA. There is nothing 
explicit in the text of section 3771 that supports that proposition. Moreover, arguing that an aggrieved person can only file 
an administrative complaint with the federal agency that allegedly deprived him or her of his rights under the CVRA is an 
argument that is likely to be viewed with much judicial skepticism. 
Section 3771(d)(3) expressly provides that the rights in section 3771(a) can be asserted in the criminal case, or in the 
district where the crime occurred if no prosecution is underway. We would have to argue that, where there is no 
prosecution underway, the only remedy is to file an administrative complaint with the DOJ. That conflicts with the language 
of section 3771(d)(3), which permits a putative victim to file a motion in the district where the crime occurred. I recognize 
the DOJ has a view on what that provision means, but that argument is not based upon the existence of an exclusive 
administrative remedy. 
 
On inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
Sent: Monde March 28, 2011 9:36 AM 
To: 
); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd 
EFTA00206451

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 
All, 
This is going to be a rau 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 
EFTA00206452