EFTA00206173

litigate, and give legal advice. The December 10, 2010 letter asks this office "to investigate through 
appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution." 
OPR is the 
appropriate and independent body within the DOJ to investigate and determine whether misconduct 
has occurred. 
Second, during the meeting on December 10, we advised you of the ethical standards applicable 
regarding a potential prosecution of Epstein by our office, and that a recusal would likely ensue. 
Given your request for an investigation of this Office's conduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case, and the 
referral of that request to OPR, we are seeking guidance from DOJ on whether this office can continue 
to defend the Crime Victim Rights Act case. 
Third, we discussed the sequence in the litigation. 
You asked us that, in the event the court decides 
that the CVRA applied, in the absence of a formal charge, that the government concede (1) the U.S. 
Attorney's Office failed to comply with the CVRA; and (2) the district court should set aside the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
In light of what has occurred, we cannot give you an answer on those two 
points. 
You had told us earlier that you would be filing a dispositive motion by December 17, 2010. 
I expect 
to find out whether our office needs to recuse itself within the next week. 
I will be on leave from 
December 17-28, but will be back at the office on December 29. 
I am asking if you would defer filing 
any motion until after I return on December 29. 
Thank you. 
I can be reached by e-mail and cell phone, 
during my annual leave. 
From: 
(USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Ann 
Please note that per 
EOUSA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the 
search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact 
them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? 
From: 
(USAEO) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:21 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Definitely it goes through 
staff. Anytime OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to 
staff 
first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. 
It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact •. 
I'll let you know as soon 
as I know. 
Thanks for all of your help! 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206233

Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:18 PM 
To: 
USAEO) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
I don't believe 
group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. 
Yes, Sloman and Acosta were USAs during the 2005-present period. 
Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by 
group or do 
we put the emails on a PST for them to review. 
From: 
(USAEO) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:10 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
If 
and 
departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our 
tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not 
available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. 
and 
were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR 
question I need to double check with 
I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to 
their account data to someone on 
staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. 
Do you know whether anyone from 
staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? 
Thanks, 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 2:33 PM 
To: 
USAEO); Ratliffe, 
USAEO 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: Ref: 2010-FLS-0004 
Need help again 0. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex 
,M
, 
or 
all no 
longer with us. 
and 
served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about 
finding out if archived email for 
and 
exist in our system. 
How about getting 
and 
emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. 
EFTA00206234

We do have copies of their N drives. M, 
departure was previous to USAMail. 
Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, February 24, 2O11 1:O3 PM 
To: 
(FBI) 
Cc: 
(FBI) 
Subject: 
RE: Customs POC 
Hi Luz — I have reached out to 
Can you talk with 
about how we got the 
flight plans/flight manifests for Epstein's planes in that case? I think that was done through the FAA. 
Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(FBI) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:19 PM 
To: 
 
 
 . (USAFLS) 
Subject: Customs POC 
The Point of Contact we have in our Miami office is: 
EFTA00206235

Investigative Operations Analyst 
FBI 
Palm Beach County RA 
 
 (USAFLS) 
February 22, 2011 4:54 PM 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Sledgehammer Meeting Reminder 
Hi everyone — Just a quick reminder that we have our Master Meeting tomorrow at 2:00. 
The meeting will be in the 4th Floor Conference Room at the U.S. Attorney's Office, 
See you all there! 
Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00206236

Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:02 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Epstein OPR matter 
> 
Have you been able to retrieve the documents requested by OPR? Thanks. 
From: 
 
(OPR) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:39 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein OPR matter 
we spoke on January 4, 2011 — you were going to get me information related to the Epstein 
victims' allegations of misconduct. 
What is the status? 
Thanks, 
From: 
(USAFLS) <[email protected]> 
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:27 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Sorry, I was talking about USA is 7, everybody else 3 and they left before the new USAP was in place. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:52 PM 
EFTA00206237

To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
Apparently 
already worked with 
to get a copy of that disc to do the review. 
to get all of his emails and electronic documents. I just need 
Can you send the relevant request to ISS for 
and 
emails? This happened less than 7 years ago. 
Thank you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:35 PM 
To: I 
 
.(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Ut. Hold # 2010-F1S-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Current employees identify and preserve (those are the forms you completed a couple of months ago). 
Departed users still in the retain period (3 years) will be done by ISS. AUSA's preservation is 7 years if I'm not 
mistaken. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesda February 23 2011 1:26 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
Hi 
- Does that apply to 
And am I correct that 
and 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? 
emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? 
EFTA00206238

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, Februa  23, 2011 1:25 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS);  
 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein   OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, 
mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM 
To: I  
 
 
 . (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in 
Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, 
presumably so they could determine whether to open a full investigation. 
Since OPR was seeking preliminary 
information, they asked me to obtain certain e-mails regarding certain topics. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesda February 23J____2011 1:16 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
Hi 
has had all contact with OPR, so I do not know. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM 
To:  
 . (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Ann 
Please note that per 
EOUSA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the 
search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact 
them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? 
EFTA00206239

From: 
(USAEO) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:21 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
Definitely it goes through 
staff. Anytime OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to 
staff 
first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. 
It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact M. I'll let you know as soon 
as I know. 
Thanks for all of your help! 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:18 PM 
To: 
USAEO) 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
I don't believe 
group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. 
Yes, 
and 
were USAs during the 2005-present period. 
Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by 
group or do 
we put the emails on a PST for them to review. 
From: 
(USAEO) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 4:10 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
If 
and 
departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our 
tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not 
available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. 
and 
were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR 
question I need to double check with 
I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to 
their account data to someone on 
staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. 
Do you know whether anyone from 
staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? 
Thanks, 
EFTA00206240

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 2:33 PM 
To: 
USAEO); Ratliffe, 
Cc: 
.(USAFLS); 
Subject: Ref: 2010-FLS-0004 
Need help again O. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 
(USAFLS) 
I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex Acosta, MSloman, 
Or 
all no 
longer with us. Acosta and Sloman served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about 
finding out if archived email for 
and 
exist in our system. 
How about getting Acosta and Sloman emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. 
We do have copies of their N drives. M, 
departure was previous to USAMail. 
Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 6:46 PM 
To: 
(USAEO) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Kris, 
On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief 
AUSA 
and I spoke with Paul 
Cassell and Brad Edwards regarding the status of the Crime Victims Rights Act case. I told them Cassell's letter 
request for an investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had 
requested various documents from our office. 
I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised 
that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. (We had sought guidance 
on whether our office should be recused due to the allegation of improprieties in entering into the Non-
Prosecution Agreement). I suggested that the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with 
the court so it could resolve this case. 
I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. Cassell told us 
they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. I told him that was not likely to happen. 
Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow them to "go after" 
Epstein to get the agreement set aside. 
I asked him how he expected that would be done, since the only 
parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the Government. 
Cassell said they would file 
their summary judgment motion, and the government would take no position on their motion. Presumably, 
Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. I told them this would have to be approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. 
I have serious misgivings about not defending the Executive Branch's prerogative to engage in a Non-
Prosecution Agreement, free from supervision or oversight by the judiciary. If we stand by the sidelines, 
EFTA00206241

Cassell will be arguing the Government was obligated to consult with the victims, and because we failed to do 
so, the agreement is a nullity. Whatever we may think of the Agreement, it was the prerogative of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office to enter into it with Epstein, and we should be willing to defend what we did. The DOJ's 
position is that the rights in the CVRA do not attach until there is a federal court proceeding. 
Since Epstein 
was never charged, we were not obligated to consult with the victims before entering into the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. 
We wanted to seek your views on Cassell's suggestion before we responded to him. I can be reached at 
. Thanks. 
From: 
(USAFLS) c
> 
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:38 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
Cc: 
(FBI) 
Subject: 
Jeffrey Epstein — OPR Request 
Attachments: 
20110223121742706.pdf 
(USAFLS) 
Hi 
and 
— These are the relevant items that I found in my stored emails. A hard copy also is coming 
to you via interoffice. In addition to my emails regarding the plea negotiations, I included a couple of things 
about 
My understanding of what DC is looking for is: 
(1) 
Correspondence showing an internal disagreement with the plea strategy 
(2) 
Correspondence showing that FBI knew about the plea strategy (and any agreement or disagreement 
therewith) 
(3) 
Any correspondence regarding notification to victims. 
I have not been given an access to Alex 
or 
stored emails, and my understanding is that 
EOUSA no longer has 
or 
stored emails. 
With respect to current DOJ employees in looldiaar my emails, it is possibl that 
relevant emails, too. I don't think that 
will have any. 
CEOS in DC may have relevant emails. 
and 
may have 
at 
-- In instructing EOUSA on what to search for, the most relevant time period was probably from Ma 1, 
2007 throw h October 15, 2007. I would recommend searchin for email exchanges with 
( 
and 
(the 
, and 
at FBI, respectively), 
(from CEOS), and defense attorneys Lilly Ann
Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, 
Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. 
If you want to obtain those records and have me or someone else review them, please let me know. Can we talk 
late this afternoon about what we are going to communicate to opposing counsel? 
«20110223121742706.pdf» 
Thank you. 
EFTA00206242

Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS)
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:23 PM 
To: 
(FBI) 
Subject: 
Epstein stuff 
Importance: 
High 
Hi
— Have you had any luck looking around? And can you remind me of the names of the 
and the 
during the relevant period? 
I think 
was the only supervisor in WPB who would have sent an email, but remind me if there was anyone 
else who may have sent something. 
Thanks. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
Paul Cassell < 
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:40 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); Brad Edwards 
Subject: 
RE: Avoiding an Unnecessary Fight - where do things stand? 
Hi 
and 
EFTA00206243

Brad and I continue to want to hear back from the U.S. Attorney soon about our request — made in 
person to the U.S. Attorney 11 weeks ago, echoing a request conveyed through you back in 
September (nearly five months ago) — that the Office simply stand on the sidelines and not oppose our 
efforts to have Epstein's non-prosecution agreement set aside. As you know, we have been diligently 
trying to avoid an unnecessary fight with your Office. We have only asked that you not affirmatively 
oppose our efforts to seek justice for the victims in the case. In other words, we are not asking you to 
lift a finger — we are merely asking you not to get in our way. 
We understood we were going to hear back from shortly after our December meeting with the U.S. 
Attorney ... then things stretched into January ... then February ... then last week ... then this week. 
We are willing to wait a reasonable amount of time to try and work something out with you. But where 
do things stand? We are having a bit of difficulty understanding why a simple request that you not 
actively take steps to undermine efforts of sexual abuse victims to obtain justice is taking so long to 
approve. 
Hoping that you can give us some further information soon. Paul Cassell, Co-Counsel for Jane Doe 
#1 and Jane Doe #2 
Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&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: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:33 PM 
EFTA00206244

To: Paul Cassell; 
(USAFLS); Brad Edwards 
Subject: RE: Avoiding an Unnecessary Fight 
Dear Paul and Brad: 
I am out of the District until Thursday and I have not heard from 
this week (he is out of the 
District as well, I believe). I know that last week he received some guidance from our Office, with a 
request that he gather additional information from DC. I don't know whether he was able to get that 
additional information. 
I know that you have been very patient, and I hate to ask you to wait a little longer. I am back in West 
Palm Beach on Thursday, but I am trying to finalize a plea to mandatory life in a double-homicide case 
that I am trying to schedule for Friday. If you can wait until Tuesday (because Monday is a holiday), 
you will have my undivided attention, and I can follow-up with DC or Miami or whomever else needs to 
be consulted to get a final answer. 
If I hear anything from 
in the meantime, I will let you know. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
From: Paul Cassell [mailto: 
Sent: Tuesda , February 15, 2011 10:26 AM 
To: 
USAFLS ; Brad Edwards
Cc: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Avoiding an Unnecessary Fight 
Dear 
Brad and I look forward to hearing from you today (as you indicated that you would) about our 
proposal that the U.S. Attorney's Office will simple stand on the sidelines and not oppose our efforts to 
set aside the plea. I would hope that you would reiterate to the U.S. Attorney and the 
once again, how much we would like to avoid fighting with your Office so that we can focus our 
energies on Epstein the sex offender. We don't understand why the U.S. Attorney's Office feels that it 
needs to join this fight with the victims -- we hope that you will work to find a way to make this happen 
and avoid and entirely unnecessary clash between prosecutors and crime victims. 
EFTA00206245

We are happy to discuss with you ways to minimize any clash and any logistics that would be 
involved -- if we have agreement in principle on the concept. We are also available for a conference 
call today after 5:00 Florida time, if you would like further discussions. 
Sincerely, Paul Cassell, co-counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 
Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&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: Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:03 AM 
To: Paul Cassell; Brad Edwards 
Cc:  
 
 
 . (USAFLS) 
Subject: Request for Investigation Of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution 
Brad and Paul, 
We enjoyed meeting in person with you and 
last Friday. 
I wanted to update you on the matters 
we discussed that day. 
EFTA00206246

First, Paul's request for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution has been referred to the 
Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility. 
OPR is the component within the DOJ 
which investigates allegations of misconduct relating to the authority of DOJ attorneys to investigate, 
litigate, and give legal advice. The December 10, 2010 letter asks this office "to investigate through 
appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution." 
OPR is the 
appropriate and independent body within the DOJ to investigate and determine whether misconduct 
has occurred. 
Second, during the meeting on December 10, we advised you of the ethical standards applicable 
regarding a potential prosecution of Epstein by our office, and that a recusal would likely ensue. 
Given your request for an investigation of this Office's conduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case, and the 
referral of that request to OPR, we are seeking guidance from DOJ on whether this office can continue 
to defend the Crime Victim Rights Act case. 
Third, we discussed the sequence in the litigation. 
You asked us that, in the event the court decides 
that the CVRA applied, in the absence of a formal charge, that the government concede (1) the U.S. 
Attorney's Office failed to comply with the CVRA; and (2) the district court should set aside the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
In light of what has occurred, we cannot give you an answer on those two 
points. 
You had told us earlier that you would be filing a dispositive motion by December 17, 2010. 
I expect 
to find out whether our office needs to recuse itself within the next week. 
I will be on leave from 
December 17-28, but will be back at the office on December 29. 
I am asking if you would defer filing 
any motion until after I return on December 29. 
Thank you. 
I can be reached by e-mail and cell phone, 
during my annual leave. 
From: 
(FBI) < 
Sent: 
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:30 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein stuff 
The disk that the emails r on has to be opened on the computer that saved it to the cd. (I guess bureau security stuff) 
An 
a s that means a trip to Miami computer room. I may be going down next week, I'll let u know! I= at the time was 
and 
was 
II ask 
if he still has any emails from that time. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
To: 
Sent: Wed Feb 23 12:23:13 2011 
Subject: Epstein stuff 
EFTA00206247

AF
M 
- Have you had any luck looking around? And can you remind me of the names of the 
and the 
during the relevant period? 
I think 
was the only supervisor in WPB who would have sent an email, but remind me if there was anyone 
else who may have sent something. 
Thanks. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS) ‹
> 
Monday, February 28, 2011 11:54 AM 
(USAEO); 
(OLP) (JMD); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 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 
From: 
Sent: Monda 
To: 
Cc: 
(USAEO) 
, February 28, 2011 9:08 AM 
miss
. SMO); 
. (USAFLS); 
USAFLS 
(USAFLS) 
(USAE0) 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS); 
EFTA00206248

(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); 
: 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. 
. (USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Saturda February 26, 2011 04:08 PM 
To: 
SMO); 
USAEO 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.) 
EFTA00206249

Mr. 
I'm looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the 
CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. 
What Cassell wants the 
government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ's position is that no rights 
attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is 
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: 
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. 
EFTA00206250

In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was 
enticing underage girls into prostitution. 
Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide 
him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. 
The case was referred to the FBI and 
U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. 
Epstein hired a number of highly-
paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. 
Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. 
In 
September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in 
which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. 
Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would 
not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. 
In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and 
was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 
months in home detention. 
In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, 
and • 
filed 
an action under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. 3771. 
They claimed that the government was obligated, under 
18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. 
An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth 
Marra. 
Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found 
there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual 
disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. 
Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. 
Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a 
University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 
2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the 
United States. 
The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell 
using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for 
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 
EFTA00206251

judgment on December 17, 2010. Due to concerns that the U.S. Attorney's Office might have to be 
recused, due to the allegations of misconduct, Cassell agreed to defer filing their motion. 
We have 
since been advised by EOUSA General Counsel's Office that there is no need for our office to recuse 
itself, since we are only litigating the legal issue of whether rights under the CVRA attached. 
After the new year began, Cassell inquired about the status of the OPR complaint and the recusal 
issue. 
On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Deputy Chief 
AUSA 
and I spoke 
with Cassell and Edwards regarding the status of the case. I told them Cassell's letter request for an 
investigation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been referred to OPR, and OPR had requested 
various documents from our office. 
I also told them the EOUSA General Counsel's office advised 
that our office could go ahead and represent the United States in the CVRA lawsuit. I suggested that 
the parties were ready to move forward with filing documents with the court so it could resolve this 
case. 
I asked whether it might be useful to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve the case. 
Cassell 
told us they wanted the Non-Prosecution Agreement to be set aside. 
I told him that was not likely to 
happen. Cassell then suggested that the United States Government should step aside and allow 
them to "go after" Epstein to get the agreement set aside. 
I asked him how he expected that would 
be done, since the only parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement were Epstein and the 
Government. 
Cassell said they would file their summary judgment motion, and the government 
would take no position on their motion. Presumably, Epstein would either intervene, or be brought in 
as a necessary party, and defend the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
I told them this would have to be 
approved by the U.S. Attorney and Main Justice. 
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: 
(USAEO) 
Sent: 
Monday, February 28, 2011 8:43 AM 
To: 
. (OLP) (JMD); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAEO) 
Subject: 
RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.FIa.) 
I agree, as well. I am available anytime between noon and 3:00 today. 
EFTA00206252