EFTA00230494

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 20 of 
31 
2841.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201 
Example 2 to paragraph (eX1): A former Government employee calls an agency official to complain about the auditing methods 
being used by die agency in connection with an audit of a Government contractor for which the former employee servos as 
a consultant. The former employee has made a communication with the intent to influence because his call was made for the 
purpose of seeking Government action in connection with an issue involving an appreciable element of dispute. 
(2) intent to influence not present. Certain communications to and appearances before employees of the United States are 
not made with the intent to influence, within the meaning of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, including, but not limited to, 
communications and appearances made solely for the purpose of: 
(i) Making a routine request not involving a potential controversy, such as a request for publicly available documents or 
an inquiry as to the status of a matter; 
(in) Making factual statements or asking factual questions in a context that involves neither an appreciable element of 
dispute nor an effort to seek discretionary Government action, such as conveying factual information regarding matters 
that are not potentially controversial during the regular course of performing a contact; 
(iii) Signing and filing the tax return of another person as paperer; 
(iv) Signing an assurance that one will be responsible as principal investigator for the direction and conduct of research 
under a Federal grant (see example 4 to paragraph (d) of this section); 
4) Filing a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-K or similar disclosure forms required by the SEC; 
(vi) Making a communication, at the initiation of the Government, concerning work performed or to be performed under a 
Government contract or grant, daring a routine Government site visit to premises owned or occupied by a person other than 
the United States where the work is performed or would beperfortned, in the ordinary course of eve/nation, administration, 
or performance of an actual or proposed contract or grant; or 
(vii) Purely social contacts (see example 4 to paragraph (0 of this section). 
Example 1 to paragraph (eX2): A former Govermnent employee calls an agency to ask for the date of a scheduled public hearing 
on her client's license application. This is a routine request not involving a potential controversy and is not made with the intent 
to influence. 
Example2 to paragraph (eX2): In the previous example, the agency's bearing calendar is quite full, as the agency has a significant . 
backlog of license applications. The former employee cats a former colleague at the agency to ask if the hearing date for her 
client could be moved up on the schedule, so that her client can move forward with its business plans more quickly. This is a 
communication made with the intent to influence. 
Example 3 to paragraph (e)(2): A former employee of the Department of Defense (DOD) now works fora firm that has a DOD 
contract to produce an operator's manual for a radar device used by DOD. in the course of developing a chapter about certain 
technical features of the device, the former employee asks a DOD official certain factual questions about the device and its 
properties. The discussion does not concern any matter that is known to involve a potential controversy between the agency 
and the contractor. The former employee bas not made a communication with the intent to influence. 
Example 4 to paragraph (eX2): A former medical officer of die Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sendi a letter to the 
agency in which he sets out certain data from safety and efficacy tests on a new drag for which his employer, ABC Drug Co., 
is seeking FDA approval. Even if the letter is confined to arguably "factual" matters, such as synopses of data from clinical 
trials, the communication is made for the purpose of obtaining a discretionary Government action, i.e., approval of a new drug. 
Therefore, this is a communication made with the intent to influence. 
Example 5 to paragraph (eX2): A former Government employee now works fora management consulting firm, which has a 
Government contract to produce a study on the efficiency of certain agency operations. Among other things, the contact calls 
WeitlawNte C 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
3 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000810 
EFTA00230634

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 21 of 
31 
§ 2841.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. § 2841.201 
for the contractor to develop a range of alternative options for potential restructuring of certain internal Government procedures. 
The former employee would hie to meet with agency representatives to present a tentative list of options developed by the 
connector. She may not do so. There is a potential for controversy between the Government and the contractor concerning the 
extent and adequacy of any options presented, and, moreover, the contactor may have its own interest in emphasizing certain 
options as opposed to others because some options may be more difficult and expensive for the contractor to develop fully 
than others. 
Example 6 to paragraph (e)(2): A former employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prepares his client's tax return, signs 
it as preparer, and mails it to the IRS. He has not made a communication with the intent to influence. In the event that any 
controversy should arise concerning the return, the former employee may not represent the client in the proceeding, although 
he may answer direct factual questions about the records he used to compile figures for the return, provided that he does not 
argue any theories or positions to justify the use of one figure rather than another. 
Example 7 to paragraph (e)(2): An agency official visits thepremises of aprospective contractor to evaluate the testing procedure 
being proposed by the contractor for a research contract on which it has bid. A former employee of the agency, now employed 
by the contractor, is the person most familiar with the technical aspects of the proposed testing procedure. The agency official 
asks the former employee about certain technical features of the equipment used in connection with the testing procedure. The 
former employee may provide factual information that is respells-we to the questions posed by the agency official, as such 
information is requested by the Government under circumstances for its convenience in reviewing the bid. However, the fanner 
employee may tot argue for the appropriateness of the proposed testing procedure or otherwise advocate any position on behalf 
of the contractor. 
(3) Change in circumstances. If; at any time during the course of a communication or appearance otherwise permissible 
under paragraph (eX2) of this section, it becomes apparent that circumstances have changed which would indicate that 
any further communication or appearance would be made with the intent to influence, the former employee must refrain 
from such further communication or appearance. 
Example t to paragraph (eX3): A former Government employee accompanies another employee of a contractor to a routine 
meeting with agency officials to deliver technical data called for under a Government cor.trael. During the course of the meeting, 
an unexpected dispute arises concerning certain tarns of the contract The former employee may not participate in any discussion 
of this issue. Moreover, if the circumstances clearly indicate that even her continued presence during this discussion would be 
zn appearar.ce made with the intent to influence, she should excuse herself from the meeting. 
(4) Mere physical presence intended to influence. Under some circumstances, a former employee's mere physical presence, 
without any communication by the employee concerning any material issue or otherwise, may constitute an appearance 
with the intent to influence an employee of the United States. Relevant considerations include such factors as whether 
(i) The former employee has been given actual or apparent authority to make any decisions, commitments, or substantive 
arguments in the course of the appearance; 
(h) The Government employee before whom the appearance is made has substantive responsibility for the matter and does 
not simply perform ministerial functions, such u the acceptance of paperwork; 
(iii) The Conner employee's presence is relatively prominent; 
(iv) The former employee is paid for making the appearance; 
(I) It is anticipated that others present at the meeting will make reference to the views or past or present work of the 
Conner employee; 
(vi) Circumstances do not indicate that the former employee is present merely for informational purposes, for example, 
merely to listen and record information for later use; 
WestlawNexr et) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to orIginal U.S. Government Works. 
4 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000811 0 
EFTA00230635

• 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 22 of 
31 
g2m1.2oi Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. 42641201 
(vii)The forma employee has ententda formal appearance in connection witha legal proceeding at which he is present; and 
(viii) The appearance is before former subordinates or others in the unit chain of command as the former employee. 
Example Ito paragraph (eX4): A former Regional Administrator of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
becomes a consultant fora oompany being investigated for possible enforcement action by the regional OSHA office. She is 
hired by the company to coordinate and guide its response to the OSHA investigation. She accompanies company officers to 
an informal meeting with OSIIIA, which is held for the purpose of airing the company's explanation of certain findings in an 
adverse inspection report. The former employee is introduced at the meeting as the company's compliance and governmental 
affairs adviser, but she does not make any statements during the meeting concerning the investigation. She is paid a fee for 
attending this meeting. She has made an appearance with the intent to influence. 
Example 2 to paragraph (eX4): A former employee of an agency now works for a manufacturer that seeks agency approval for a 
new product The agency convenes a public advisory committee meeting for the purpose of receiving expert advice concerning 
the product. Representatives of the manutlicturer will make an extended presentation of the data supporting the application for 
approval, and a special table has been reserved for them in the meeting room for this purpose. The former employee does not 
participate in the manufacturer's presentation to the advisory committee and does not even sit in the section designated for the 
manufacturer. Rather, he sits in the back of the room in a largo area reserved for the public and the media. The manufacturer's 
speakers make r.o reference to the involvement or views of the former employee with respect to the matter. Even though the 
former employee may be recognized in the audience by certain agency employees, he has not made an appearance with the 
intent to influence because his presence is relatively inconspicuous and there is little to identifj, hint with the manufacturer or 
the advocacy of its representatives at the meeting. 
(I) To or before an employee of the United States--
(1) Employee of the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, an "employee of the United States" means the President, 
the Vice President, and any current Federal employee (including an individual appointed as an employee or detailed to the 
Federal Government under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (5 U.S.C. 3371-3376)) who is detailed to or employed 
by any: 
(i) Agency (including a Government corporation); 
(ii) Independent agency in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch; 
(iii) Federal court or 
(iv) Court-martial. 
(2) To or before. Except as provided in paragraph (fX3) of this section; a communication "to" or appearance "before" an 
employee of the United States is one: 
() Directed to and received by an entity specified in paragraphs ()(1)(i) through (fXIXiv) of this section even though 
not addressed to a particular employee, e.g., as when a former employee mails correspondence to an agency but not to 
any named employee; or 
(ii) Directed to and received by an employee in his capacity as an employee of an entity specified in paragraphs (fXI) 
(i) through (f)(l)(iv) of this section, e.g., as when a former employee directs remarks to an employee representing the 
United States as a party or intervenor in a Federal or non-Federal judicial proceeding. A Conner employee does not direct 
his communication or appearance to a bystander who mereiy happens to overhear the communication or witness the 
appearance. 
(3) Public commentary. 
WestlevyNact 0 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
5 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000812 
EFTA00230636

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 23 of 
31 
2641.201 Permanent restriction on eny fanner employee's..., IS C.F.R. S 2641.201 
(0 A former employee who addresses a public gathering or a conference, seminar, or similar forum as a speaker or panel 
participant will not be considered to be making a prohibited communication or appearance if the forum: 
(A) Is not sponsored or co-sponsored by an entity specified in paragraphs (fXIXi) through (f)(1Xiv) of this section; 
(B) Is attended by a large number of people; and 
(C) A significant proportion of those attending are tot employees of the United States. 
(ii) in the circumstances described in paragraph ()(3)(i) of this section, a former employee may engage in exchanges with 
any other speaker or with any member of the audience. 
(iii) A former employee also may permit the broadcast or publication of a (*momentary provided that it is broadcast or 
appears in a newspaper, periodical, or similar widely available publication. 
Example 1 to paragraph (0: A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) employee participated in the FTC's decision to ir.itiate an 
enforcement proceeding against a particular company. After terminating Government service, the former employee is hired 
by the company to lobby key Members of Congress concerning the necessity of the proceeding. He may contact Members of 
Congress or their staff since a communication to or appearance before such persons is not made to or before an "employee of 
the United States" as that term is defined in paragraph (NI) of this section. 
Example 2 to paragraph (f): In the previous example, the former FTC employee arranges to meet with a Congressional staff 
member to discuss the necessity of the proceeding. A current FTC employee is invited by the staff member to attend and is 
authorized by the FTC to do so in order to present the agency; views. The former employee may not argue his new employer's 
position at thatmeeting since his arguments would unavoidably be directed to the FTC employee in his capacity as an employee 
of the FTC. 
Example 3 to paragraph (f): The Department of State granted a waiver pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2.08(bX1) to permit one of its 
employees to serve in his official capacity on the Board of Directors of a private association. The employee participates in a 
Board meeting to discuss whatposition the association should take concerning the award of a recent contract by the Department 
of Energy (DOE). When a former DOE employee addresses the Board to argue that the association should object to the award 
of the contract, she is directing her eonunanication to a Department of State employee in his capacity as an employee of the 
Department of State. 
Example 4 to paragraph (f): A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) employee participated in a proceeding to review 
the renewal of a license for a television station. After terminating Government service, he is hired by the company that holds 
the license. At a cocktail party, the former employee meets his former supervisor who is still employed by the FCC and begins 
to discuss the specifics of the license renewal case with him. The former employee is directing his communication to an FCC 
employee in his capacity as an employee of the FCC. Moreover, as the conversation concerns the license renewal matter, it is 
not a purely social contact and satisfies the element of the intent to influence the Government within the meaning of paragraph 
(e) of this section. 
Example 5 to paragraph (1): A Federal Trade Commission economist participated in her agency's review of a proposed merger 
between two companies. After terminating Government service, she goes to work for a trade association that is interested in 
the proposed merger. She would like to speak about the proposed merger at a conference sponsored by the trade association. 
The conference is attended by 100 individuals, 50 of whom are employees of entities specified in paragraphs (f)(1)() through 
(f)(1)(w) of this section. The former employee may speak at the conference and may engage in a discussion of the merits of the 
proposed merger in response to a question posed by a Department of Justice employee in attendance. 
Example 6 to paragraph (0: The former employee in the previous example may, on behalf of her employer, write and permit 
publication of an op-ed piece in a metropolitan newspaper in support of a particular resolution of the merger proposal. 
WestlawNett A 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000813 
EFTA00230637

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 24 of 
31 
§ 2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201 
Example 7 to paragraph (f): ABC Company has a contract with the. Department of Energy which requires that contractor 
personnel work closely with agency employees in adjoining offices and work stations in the same building. After leaving the 
Departmeat, a former employee goes to work for another corporation that has an interest in performing certain work related to 
the same contract, and he arranges a meeting with certain ABC employees at the building where he previously worked on the 
project. At the meeting, he asks the ABC employees to mention the interest of his new employer to the project supervisor, who 
is an agency employee. Moreover, he tells the ABC employees that they can say that he was the source of this information. The 
ABC employees in own convey this information to the project supervisor. The former employee has made a communication to 
an employee of the Department of Energy. His communication is directed to an agency employee because he intended that the 
information be conveyed m an agency employee with the intuit that it be attributed to himself; and the circumstances indicate 
such a close working relationship between contractor personnel and agency employees that it was likely that the information 
conveyed to contractor personnel would be received by the agency. 
(g) On behalf of any other person—
(I) On behalf of 
(i) A former employee makes a communication or appearance on behalf of another person if the former employee is acting 
as the other person's agent or attorney or it 
(A) The former employee is acting with the consent of the other person, whether express or implied; and 
(B) The former employee is acting subject to some degree of control or direction by the other person in relation to 
the communication or appearance. 
(i) A former employee does not act on behalf of another merely because his communication or appearance is consistent 
with the interests of the other person, is in support of the other person, or may cause the other person to derive a benefit 
as a consequence of the former employee's activity. 
(2) Any other persor- The term "person" is defined in § 2641.104. For purposes of this paragraph, the term excludes the 
former employee himself or any sole proprietorship owned by the former employee. 
Example 1 to paragraph (g): An employee of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) participated in the decision to grant a 
private company the right to explore for minerals on certain Federal lands. After retiring from Federal service to pursue her 
hobbies, the former employee becomes concerned that BLM is misinterpreting a partictdar provision of the lease. The former 
employee may contact a current BLM employee on herown behalf in order to argue that her interpretation is correct 
Example 2 to paragraph (g): The former BLM employee from the previous example later joins an environmental organization 
as an uncompensated volunteer. The leadership of the organization authorizes the former employee to engage in any activity 
that she believes will advance the interests of the organization. She makes a communication on behalf of the organization 
when, pursuant to this authority, she writes to BLM on the otganization's letterhead in order to present an additional 
argument concerning the interpretation of the lease provision. Although the organization did not direct her to send the specific 
communication to BL'vf, the circumstances establish that she made the communication with the consent of the organization and 
subject to a degree ofconeol or direction by the organization. 
Example 3 to paragraph (g): An employee of the Administration for Children and Families wrote the statement of work for a 
cooperative agreement to be issued to study alternative workplace arrangements. After terminating Government service, the 
former employee joins a nonprofit group formed to promote family togetherness. He is asked by his former agency to attend a 
meeting in order to offer his recommendations concerning the ranking of the grant applications he had reviewed while still a 
Government employee. The management of the nonprofit group agrees to permit him to take leave to attend the meeting in order 
to present his personal views concerning the ranking of the applications. Although the former employee is a salaried employee 
of the non-profit group and his recommendations may be consistent with the group's interests, the circumstances establish that 
he did not make the communication subject to the control of the group. 
WestlawNekt O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.B. Government Works. 
7 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000814 
EFTA00230638

LreaCC.iii0 -------------- 
-------
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 25 of 
31 
§ 2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201 
Example 4 to paragraph (g): An Assistant Secretary of Defense participated in a meeting at which a defense contractor pressed 
Department of Defense (DOD) officials to continue thnding the contractor's sole source contract to detelop the prototype of a 
specie/4W robot After terminating Government service, the former Assistant Secretary approaches the contractor and suggests 
that she can convince her former DOD colleagues to pursue development of the prototype robot The contractor agrees that the 
former Assistant Secretary's proposed efforts could be useful and asks her to set up a meeting with key DOD officials for the 
following week. Although the former Assistant Sderetary is not an employee of the contractor, the circumstances establish that 
she is acting subject to some degree of control or direction by the contractor. 
(h) Particular matter involving a specific party or parties--
(1) Basic concept. The prohibition applies only to communications or appearances made in connection with a "particular 
matter involving a specific party or parties." Although the statute defines "particular matter" broadly to include 
"any investigation, application, request for a ruling or determination, mien:taking, contract, controversy, claim, charge, 
accusation, arrest, orjudicial or other remedies," 18 U.S.C. 207(1X3), only those particular matters that involve a specific 
party or parties fall within the prohibition of section 207(aX1). Such a matter typically involves a specific proceeding 
affecting the legal rights of the parties or an isolatable transaction or related set of transactions between identified parties, 
suoh as a specific contract, grant, license, product approval application, enforcement action, administrative adjudication, 
or court case. 
Example Ito paragraph (h)( I): An employee of the Department of Housing and Urban Development approved a specific city's 
application for Federal assistance for a renewal project After leaving Government service, she may not represent the city 
in relation to that application asit is a particular matter involving specific parties in which she participated personally and 
substantially as a Government employee. 
Example 2 to paragraph (hX I): An attorney in the Department of Justice drafted provisions of a civil complaint that is filed in 
Federal court alleging violations of certain environmental laws by ABC Company. The attorney may not subsequently represent 
ABC before the Government in connection with the lawsuit, which is a particular matter involving specific parties. 
(2) Matters of general applicability not covered. Legislation or rulemaking of general applicability and the formulation 
of- general policies, standards or objectives, or other matters of general applicability are not particular matters involving 
specific parties. International agreements, such as treaties and trade agreements, must be evaluated in light of all relevant 
circumstances to determine whether they should bo considered particular matters involving specific parties; relevant 
considerations include such factors as whether the agreement focuses on a specific property or territory, a specific claim, 
or addresses a large number of diverse issues or economic interests. 
Example I to paragraph (hX2): A former employee of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) participated 
personally and substantially in the development of a regulation establishing certain new occupational health and safety standards 
for mine workers. Because the regulation applies to the entire mining industry, it is a particular matter of general applicability, 
not a matter involving specific parties, and the former employee would not be prohibited from making post-employment 
representations to the Government in connection with this regulation. 
Example 2 to paragraph (h)(2): The former employee in the previous example also assisted MSHA in its defense of a lawsuit 
brought by a trade association challenging the same regulation. This lawsuit is a particular matter involving specific parties, 
and the fonner MSHA employee would be prohibited from representing the trade association or anyone else in connection 
with the case. 
Example 3 to paragraph (h)(2): An employee of the National Science Foundation formulated policies for a great program for 
organizations nationwide to produce science education programs targeting elementary school age children. She is not prohibited 
front later representing a specific organization in connection with its application for assistance under the program. 
Nriestlavvnett 0 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
8 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000815 
EFTA00230639

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 26 of 
31 
2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. ¢ 2841.201 
Example 4 to paragraph (6)(2): An employee in the legislative affairs office of the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) drafted official comments submitted to Congress with respect to a pending immigration reform bill. After leaving 
the Government, he contacts DHS on behalf of a private organization seeking to influence the Administration to insist on 
certain amendments to the bill. This is not prohibited. Generally, legislation is not a particular matter involving specific parties. 
However, if the same employee had participated as a DHS employee in formulating the agency's position on proposed private 
relief legislation granting citizenship to a specific individual, this matter would involve specific parties, and the employee would 
be prohibited from later making representational contacts in connection with this matter. 
Example 5 to paragraph (h)(2): An employee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drafted a proposed rule requiring 
all manufacturers of a particular type of medical device to obtain pre-market approval for their products. It was known at the 
time that only three or four manufacturers currently were marketing or developing such products. However, there was nothing 
to preclude other manufactures from entering the market in the future. Moreover, the regulation on its face was not limited in 
application to those companies already known to be involved with this type of product at the time of promulgation. Because 
the proposed rule would apply to an open-ended class of manufacturers, not just specifically identified companies, it would not 
be a particular matter involving specific parties. After leaving Government, the former FDA employee would not be prohibited 
from representing a manufacturer in connection with the final rule or the application of the rule in any specific case. 
Example 6 to paragraph (h)(2): A former agency attorney participated in drafting a standard form contract and certain standard 
terms and clauses for use in all future =grams. The adoption of a standard form and language for all contracts is a matter of 
general applicability, not a particular matter involving specific parties. Therefore, the attorney would not be prohibited from 
representing another person in a dispute involving the application of one of the standard terms or clauses in a specific contract 
in which he did not participate as a Goverment employee. 
Example 7 to paragraph (h)(2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' 
position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel 
of real property and certain operations there. After terminating Government employment, this individual seeks to represent the 
foreign government before the Department with respect to certain issues arising in the final stage of the treaty negotiations. 
This bilateral treaty is a particular matter involving specific parties, and the former employee had participated personally and 
substantially in this matter. Note also that certain employees may be subject to additional restrictions with respect to trade and 
treaty negotiations or representation of a foreign entity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(b) and (f). 
Example S to paragraph (h)(2): The employee in the previous *example participated for the Department in negotiations with 
respect to a multilateral trade agreement concerning tariffs and other trade practices in regard to various industries in 50 
countries. The proposed agreement would provide various stages of implementation, with benchmarks for certain legislative 
enactments by signatory countries. These negotiations do not concern a particular matter involving specific parties. Even though 
the former employee would not he prohibited under section 207(a)(!) from representing another person in connection with this 
matter, she must comply with any applicable restrictions in 18 U.S.C. 207(b) and (0. 
(3) Specific parties at all relevant times. The particular matter must involve specific parties both at the time the individual 
participated as a Government employee and at the time the former employee makes the communication or appearance, 
although the parties need not be identical at both times. 
Example 1 to paragraph (hX3): An employee of the Department of Defense (DOD) performed certain feasibility studies and 
other basic conceptual work fcr a possible innovation to a missile system. At the time she was involved in the matter, DOD 
had not identified any prospective contractors who might perform the work on the project After she left Government, DOD 
issued a request for proposals to construct the new system, and she now seeks to represent one of the bidders in connection 
with this procurement She may do so. Even though the procurement is a particular matter involving specific parties at the 
time of her proposed representation, no parties to the matter had been identified at the time she participated in the project as 
a Government employee. 
WestlawNege O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
9 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000816 
EFTA00230640

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 27 of 
31 
§ 2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's.... 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201 
Example 2 to paragraph (h)(3): A former employee in an agency inspector general's office conducted the rust investigation of 
its kind concerning a particular fraudulent accounting practice by a grantee. This investigation resulted inn significant monetary 
recovery for the Government, as well as a settlement agreement in which the grantee agreed to use only certain specified 
accounting methods in the future. As a result of this case, the agency decided to issue a proposed rule expressly prohibiting 
the fraudulent accounting practice and requiring all grantees to use the same accounting methods that had been developed 
in connection with the settlement agreement. The forme employee may represent a group of grantees submitting comments 
critical of the proposed regulation. Although the proposed regulation in some impacts evolved from the earlier fraud case, 
which did involve specific parties, the subsequent rulemaking proceeding does not involve specific parties. 
(4) Preliminary or informal stages in a matter. When a particular matter involving specific parties begins depends on 
the facts. A particular matter may involve specific parties prior to any formal action or filings by the agency or other 
parties. Much of the work with respect to a particular matter is accomplished before the matter reaches its final stage, 
and preliminary or informal action is covered by the prohibition, provided that specific parties to the matter actually have 
been identified. With matters such as grams, contracts, and other agreements, ordinarily specific parties are first identified 
when initial proposals or indications of interest, such as responses to requests for proposals (REP) or earlier expressions 
of interest, are received by the Government; in unusual circumstances, however, such as a sole source procurement or 
when there are sufficient indict that the Government has explicitly identified a specific party in an otherwise ordinary 
prospective grant, contract, or agreement, specific parties may be identified even prior to the receipt of a proposal or 
expression of interest. 
Example I to paragraph (h)(4): A Government employee participated in internal agency deliberations concerning the merits of 
taking enforcement action against a company for certain trade practices. He left the Government before any charges were filed 
against the company. He has participated in a particular matter involving specific parties and may not represent another person 
in connection with the ensuing administrative or judicial proceedings against the company. 
Example 2 to paragraph (hX4): A former special Government employee (SGE) of the Agency for Health Caro Policy and 
Research served, before leaving the agency, on a "peer review" committee that made a recommendation to the agency 
concerning the technical merits of a specific grant proposal submitted by a university. The committee's recommendations are 
nonbinding and constitute only the first of several levels of review within the agency. Nevertheless, the SGE participated in a 
particular matter involving specific parties and may not represent the university in subsequent efforts to obtain the same grant 
Example 3 to paragraph (hX4): Prior to filing a product approval application with a regulatory agency, a company sought 
guidance from the agency. The company provided specific information concerning the product, including its composition and 
intended uses, safety and efficacy data, and the results and designs of prior studies on the product After a series of meetings, 
the agency advised the company concerning the design of additional studies that it should perform in order to address those 
issues that the agency still believed were unresolved. Even though no formal application had been filed, this was a particular 
matter involving specific parries. The agency guidance was sufficiently specific, and it was clearly intended to address the 
substance of a prospective application and to guide the prospective applicant in preparing an application that would meet 
approval requirements. An agency employee who was substantially involved in developing this guidance could not leave the 
Government and represent the company when it submits its formal product approval application. 
Example 4 to paragraph (h)(4): A Government scientist participated in preliminary, internal deliberations about her 
agency's need for additional laboratory facilities. After she terminated Government service, the General Services 
Administration issued a request for proposals (RAP) seeking private architectural services to design the new laboratory 
space for the agency. The former employee may represent an architectural firm in connection with its response to the 
APP. During the preliminary stage in which the former employee participated, no specific architectural firms had been 
identified for the proposed work. 
Example 5 to paragraph (h)(4): In the previous example, the proposed laboratory was to be an extension of a recently 
completed laboratory designed by XYZ Architectural Associates, and the Government had determined to pursue a sole 
Itir ttawttlext* O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
10 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000817 
EFTA00230641

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 28 of 
31 
§ 2541.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201 
source contract with that mine firm for the new work. Even before the firm was contacted or expressed any interest 
concerning the sole source contract, the former employee participated in meetings in which specifications for a potential 
sole source contract with the fiat were discussed. The fanner employee may not represent XYZ before the Government 
in connection with this manor. 
(S) Same particular matter—
() ()aural. The prohibition applies only to communications or appearances in connection with the same particular matter 
involving specific parties in which the former employee participated as a Government employee. The same particular 
matter may continue in another form or in part In determining whether two particular matters involving specific pasties 
are the same, all relevant factors should be considered, including the extent to which the matters involve the same basic 
facts, the same or related parties, related issues, the same confidential information, and the amount of time elapsed. 
(ii) Considerations in the case of contracts, grants, and other agreements. With respect to matters such as contracts, grants 
or other agreements: 
(A) A new matter typically does not arise simply because there are amendments, modifications, or extensions of a 
contract (or other agreement), unless there are fundamental changes in objectives or the nature of the matter; 
(B) Generally, successive or otherwise separate connects (or other agreements) will be viewed as different matters 
• from each other, absent some indication that one cor.tract (or other agreement) contemplated the other or that both 
are in support of the same specific proccednr& 
(C) A contract is almost always a single particular matter involving specific parties. However, under compelling 
circumstances, distinct aspects or phases of certain large umbrella-type contracts, involving separate task orders or 
delivery orders, may be considered separate individual particular matters involving specific parties, if an agency 
deteimines that articulated lines of division exist in making this determination, an agency should consider the relevant 
factors as described above. No single factor should be determinative, and any divisions must be based on the contract's 
characteristics, which may include, among other things, performance at different geographical locations, separate 
and distinct subject matters, the separate negotiation or competition of individual task or delivery orders, and the 
involvement of different program offices or even different agencies. 
Example Ito paragraph (hX5): An employee drafted one provision of an agency contract to procure new software. After she left 
Government, a dispute arose under the same contract concerning a provision that she did not draft. She may not represent the 
contractor in this dispute. The contract as a whole is the particular matter involving specific parties and may not be fractionalized 
into separate clauses for purposes of avoiding the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(aX1). 
Example 2 to paragraph (hXS): In the previous example, anew software contract was awarded to the same contractor through a 
full and open competition, following the employee's departure from the agency. Although no major changes were made in the 
contract terms, the new contract is a different particular matter involving specific parties. 
Example 3 to paragraph (hX5): A former special Government employee (SGE) recommended that his agency approve a new 
food additive made by Good Foods, Inc., on the grounds that it was proven safe for human consumption. The Healthy Food 
Alliance (HFA) sued the agency in Federal court to challenge the decision to approve the product. After leaving Government 
service, the former SOB may not serve as an expert witness on behalf of FIFA in this litigation because it is a continuation of 
the same product approval matter in which he participated personally and substantially. 
Example 4 to paragraph (h)(5): An employee of the Department of the Army negotiated and supervised a contract with 
Munitions, Inc. for four million mortar shells meeting certain specifications. After the employee left Government, the Army 
sought a contract modification to add another one million shells. All specifications and contractual terms except price, quantity 
and delivery dates were identical to those in the original contract The former Army employee may not represent Munitions 
in connection with this modification, because it is part of the same particular matter involving specific parties as the original 
COMMA 
ViestlawNetr O 2011 Thomson Routers. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
11 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000818 
EFTA00230642

• 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03k011 Page 29 of 
31 
§ 2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former 
5 C.F.R. ti 2641.201 
Example 5 to the paragraph (hX5): In the previous example, certain changes in technology occurred since the date of the 
original contract, and the proposed contact modifications would require the additional shells to incorporate new design 
features. Moreover, because of changes in the Army's internal system for storing and distributing shells to various locations, 
the modifications would require Munitions to deliver its product to several de-centralized destinaticn points, thus requiring 
Munitions to develop novel delivery and handling systems and incur new transportation costs. The Army considers these 
modifications to be fundamental changes in the approach and objectives of the contract and may determine that these changes 
constitute a new particular matter. 
Example 6 to paragraph (1X5): A Government employee reviewed and approved certain wiretap applications. The prosecution 
of a person overheard during the wiretap, although not originally targeted, must be regarded aspartof the same particular matter 
as the original wiretap application. The reason is that the validity of the wiretap may be put in issue and many of the facts giving 
rise to the wiretap application would be involved. 
Example 7 to paragraph (hX5): The Navy awards an indefinite delivery contract for environmental remediation services in the 
northeastern U.S. A Navy engineer is assigned as the Navy's technical representative on a task order for remediation of an oil 
spill at a Navy activity in Maine. The Navy engineer is personally and substantially involved in the task order (e.g., he negotiates 
the scope of work, the labor hours required, and monitors the contractor's performance). Following successful completion of the 
remediation of the oil spill in Maine, the Navy engineer leaves Government service and goes to work for the Navy's remediation 
contractor. in year two of the contract, the Navy issues a task order for the remediation of lead-based paint at a Navy housing 
complex in Connecticut. The contractor assigns the fanner Navy ergineer to be its project manager for this task order, which 
will require him to negotiate with the Navy about the scope of work and the labor hours under the task order. Although the task 
order is placed under the same indefinite delivery contract (the terms of which remain unchanged), the Navy would be justified 
in determining that the lead-based paint task order is a separate particular matter as it involves a different type of remediation, at 
a different location, and at a different time. Note, however, that the engineer in this example had not participated personally and 
substantially in the overall contract. My former employee who had—for example, by participating personally and substantially 
in the initial award or subsequent oversight of the umbrella contract—will be deemed to have also participated personally and 
substantially in any individual particular matters resulting from the agency's determination that such contract is divisible. 
Example 8 to paragraph (hX5): An agency contracts with Company A to install a satellite system connecting the headquarters 
office to each of its twenty field offices. Although the field offices are located at various locations throughout the country, each 
installation is essentially identical, with the tams of each negotiated in the main contract. Therefore, this contract should not 
be divided into separate particular matters involving specific parties. 
(I) Participated personally and substantially--
(I) Participate. To 'participate" means to take an action as an employee through decision, approval, disapproval, 
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or other such action, or to purposeftlly forbear in order to affect 
the outcome of a matter. An employee can participate in particular matters that are pending other than ip his own agency. 
An employee does not participate in a matter merely because he had knowledge of its existence or because it was pending 
under his official responsibility. An employee does not participate in a matter within the meaning of this section unless 
be dots so in his official capacity. 
(2) Personally. To participate "personally" means to participate: 
(i) Directly, either individually or in combination with other persons; or 
(ii) Through direct and active supervision of the participation of any person he supervises, including a subordinate. 
(3) Substantially. To participate "substantially" means that the employee's involvement is of significance to the matter. 
Participation may be substantial even though it is not determinative of the outcome of a particular matter. However, it 
requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on an administrative or 
V'tstlavrNexf 
2011 Thomson Reuters. No clan to original U.S. Government Works. 
12 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000819 
EFTA00230643

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 0510312011 Page 30 of 
31 
§ 2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201 
peripheral issue. A finding of substantiality should be based not only on the effort devoted to a matter, but also on the 
importance of the effort while a series of peripheral involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or 
participating in a critical step may be substantial. Provided that an employee participates in the substantive merits of a 
matter, his participation may be substantial even though his role in the matter, or the aspect of the matter in which ho 
is participating, may be minor in relation to the matter as a whole. Participation in peripheral aspects of a matter or in 
aspects not directly involving the substantive merits of a matter (such as reviewing budgetary procedures or scheduling 
meetings) is nor substantial. 
Example 1 to paragraph (i): A General Services Administration (GSA) attorney drafted a standard form contract and certain 
standard terms and clauses for use in future contracts. A contracting officer uses one of the standard clauses in a subsequent 
contract without consulting the GSA attorney. The attorney did not participate personally in the subsequent contract. 
Example 2 to paragraph (i): An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attorney is neither in charge of nor dots she have official 
responsibility for litigation involving a particular delinquent taxpayer. At the request of a co-waiter who is assigned 
responsibility for the litigation, the lawyer provides advice concerning strategy during the discovery stage of the litigation. The 
IRS attorney participated personally in the litigation. 
Example 3 to paragraph (i): The IRS attorney in the previous example had no further involvement in the litigation. She 
participated substantially in the litigation notwithstanding that the post-discovery stages of the Litigation lasted for ten years 
after the day she offered her advice. 
Example 4 to paragraph (0: The General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) contacts the OGE attorney who 
is assigned to evaluate all requests for "certificates of divestiture" to check on the status of the attorney's work with respect to 
all pending requests. The General Counsel makes no comment concerning the merits or relative importance of any particular 
request. The General Counsel did not participate substantially in any particular request when she checked on the status of all 
pending requests. 
Example 5 to paragraph (i): The OGE attorney in the previous example completes his evaluation of a particular certificate of 
divestiture request and forwards his recommendation to the General Counsel. The General Counsel forwards the package to the 
Director of OGE with a note indicating her concurrence with the attorneys recommendation. The General Counsel participated 
substantially in the request. 
Example 6 to paragraph (i): An International Trade Commission (ITC) computer programmer developed software designed to 
analyze data related to unfair trade practice complaints. At the request of an ITC employee who is considering the merits of a 
particular complaint, the programmer enters all the data supplied to her, rum the computer program, and forwards the results 
to the employee who will make a recommendation to an ITC Commissioner concerning the disposition of the complaint. The 
programmer did not participate substantially in the complaint. 
Example 7 to paragraph (i): The director of an agency office must concur in any decision to grant an application for technical 
assistance to certain nonprofit entities. When a particular application for assistance comes into her office and is presented to 
her for decision, she intentionally takes no action on it because she believes the application will raise difficult policy questions 
for her agency at this time. As a consequence of her inaction, the resolution of the application is deferred indefinitely. She has 
participated personally and substantially in the matter. 
(j) United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest--
(1) United States. For purposes of this paragraph, the "United States" mains: 
(i) The executive branch (including a Government corporation); 
(ii) The legislative branch; or 
(iii) The judicial branch. 
viestlawNag O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No clan to Original U.S. Government Works. 
. 
13 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000820 
EFTA00230644

a 
...! 
..
 • • 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 31 of 
31 
§ 2641.201 Permanent restriction on any former employee's..., 5 C.F.Ft. § 2441.201 
(2) Party or direct and substantial interest The United States may be a party to or have a direct and substantial interest in 
a particular matter even though it is pending in a non-Federal forum, such as a State court. The United States is neither a 
party to nor does it have a direct and substantial interest in a particular meter merely because a Federal statute is at issue 
or a Federal court is serving as the form for resolution of the matter. When it is not clear whether the United States is 
a party to or has a direct and substantial interest in a particular matter, this determination shall be made in accordance 
with the following procedure: 
() Coordination by designated agency ethics official. The designated agency ethics official (DAEO) for the former 
employees agency shall have the primary responsibility for coordinating this determination. When it appears likely that 
a component of the United States Government other than the former employee's former agency may be a party to or have 
a direct and substantial interest in the particubr matter, the DAEO shall coordinate with agency ethics officials serving 
in those components. 
(ii) Agency determination A component of the United States Government shall determine if it is a party to or has a direct 
and substantial interest in a matter in accordance with its own interne/ procedures. it shall consider all relevant factors, 
including whether: 
(A) The component has a financial interest in the matter; 
(B) The matter is likely to have an effect on the policies, programs, or operations of the component; 
(C) The component is involved in any proceeding associated with the matter, e.g., as by having provided witnesses 
or documentary evidence; and 
(1)) The component has more than an academic interest in the outcome of the mater. 
Example 1 to paragraph 0): An attorney participated in preparing dm Governments lutanist action against Z Company. After 
laving the Government, she may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on 
the same facts involved in the Government action. Nor may she represent X Company in that mater. The interest of the United 
States in preventing both inconsistent results and the appearance of impropriety in the same factual matter involving the same 
party, Z Company, is direct and substantial. However, if the Government's antitrust investigation or case is closed, the United 
States no longer has a direct and substantial interest in the case. 
SOURCE: 73 FR 36186, June 25, 2008, unless otherwise noted. 
AUTHORITY: 5 US.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. 207; B.O. 12674, 54 FR. 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 
Comp., p. 215, ss modified by 8.O. 12731, 55 PR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306. 
Cunent through April 21, 2011; 76 PR 22602 
End of Detriment 
42011 Thoososi Radom. No claim to original OS. Gorannot Works. 
Westtavhiext• O 2011 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 
14 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000821 
EFTA00230645

.??;. 
----
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, 
Petitioners, 
vs. 
UNITED STATES, 
Respondent. 
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE #2'S 
MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS 
ACT AND REOUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES 
Respondent, United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its 
Response to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime 
Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies, and states: 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
The issue before this Court is whether the petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, had 
any rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), in the absence of a criminal charge being filed in the 
Southern District of Florida, charging someone with the commission of a federal crime in which 
petitioners were victims. Resolution of this issue is a matter of statutory interpretation of the 
language of the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). 
Whether the government had a legal duty 
under § 3771(a) is not resolved with reference to the position taken by employees of the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing 
Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DO.1 employees relevant to the issue of 
whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prior to entering into a Non-
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000822 
EFTA00230646

1 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 3 of 54 
treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and privacy. 
5. 
The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no 
consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible 
disposition of the charges, no notice of any public court proceedings, no 
information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice of rights under 
the CVRA, as required under law. 
6. 
The Petitioner is in jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the 
government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant 
without her participation and knowledge. 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully 
requests this Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to 
comply with the provisions of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other 
agreement with the Defendant and any attendant proceedings. 
(DE1 at 1-2.) 
On the same day, the government was ordered by the Court to respond. (DE3). Two days 
later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, 
establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non-
prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office 
had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. (DE 6-8, 12-14.) 
On July 10, 2008, the Court set the matter for a hearing on July 11, 2008. (DE 5.) At the 
hearing, Jane Doe #2 was added as a Petitioner. (DE15 at 14.) The Court inquired of Petitioners 
what remedy they sought, and Petitioners made clear that they wanted to invalidate the Non-
Prosecution Agreement with Epstein. (Id. at 12.). The Court recognized that Epstein had entered 
his State court guilty plea in reliance on the NPA (id. at 20), and the Petitioners concurred (id. at 
20-21). Nonetheless, the Petitioners asked the Court "to vacate the ageement." (Id. at 21.) 
The Court asked the Petitioners whether there was "any need to rush to a decision in this 
3 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000823 
EFTA00230647

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 4 of 54 
matter?" (Id. at 24.) The Petitioners said that there was not — "Your Honor is correct in stating 
that it is not an emergency and it doesn't need to happen today.. . . It doesn't seem like there will 
be any prejudice to any party." (Id. at 26.)' 
Two weeks later, on July 29, 2008, the government filed a notice informing the Court of 
its position that there was no need for an evidentiary hearing and that the matter was ready for 
ruling. (DE17.) 
A few days later, Petitioners filed a response to the government's notice, arguing that the 
documents submitted by the government in its attachments to the Declarations it had filed 
showed that violations of the CVRA had occurred and demanding the production of the NPA and 
the report of an interview with Jane Doe #1.4 (DE19.) In that "Response," the Petitioners asked 
the Court to enter "judgment in their favor that their rights under the CVRA have been violated." 
(Id. at II.) 
On August 14, 2008, the Court held a status conference. (DE25.) The parties discussed 
two matters. First, there was a discussion of the status of the litigation. Second, there was a 
discussion of the Petitioners' request to have access to the NPA. With regard to the second topic, 
the Court decided to order the government to make the NPA available to any and all identified 
victims, so long as they agreed to abide by the terms of a Protective Order, and ordered the 
parties to work out the terms of such a Protective Order. (DE27 at 22-24.) 
As to the first topic, the Court inquired of the Petitioners whether there was a sufficient 
'The Court also heard argument on whether the government's filings needed to remain 
under seal. (Id. at 27-32.) 
'With regard to the report of the meeting with Jane Doe #I, the government informed the 
Court that no report was ever prepared. (DE22.) 
4 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000824 
EFTA00230648

• • • 
1 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 5 of 54 
`e""*.r.4•7'n- -----
factual record for the Court to make its determination. Petitioners responded: "I believe that you 
do have a sufficient record, in that I don't think that — I think that we're in agreement that 
additional evidence does not need to be taken in the case for Your Honor to make a ruling." 
(DE27 at 4 (emphasis added).) Petitioners also stated that, "because of the legal consequences of 
invalidating the current agreement, it is likely not in my clients' best interest to ask for the relief 
that we initially asked for. So in order to effectively evaluate the situation and ask for the 
appropriate relief, we would just be asking Your Honor at this point in time to allow us to see the 
full entire plea agreement ..." (Id.) 
the Court enquired, "All right. And then if I grant that relief, you will evaluate the 
agreement and then decide whether to either dismiss your case or go forward and ask for some 
additional relief?" (Id.) 
Petitioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) 
One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed 
Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than 
a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their action, but, rather, asked 
for additional relief — that is, they filed a motion to unseal the NPA. (DE28.) On October 8, 
2008, the government responded (DE29), stating that the NPA was never filed with the Court 
and there was no reason to unseal the document. Petitioners filed a Reply on October 16, 2008, 
(DE30,) asserting, in part, that the failure to unseal the NM allowed the government to file 
factually inaccurate Declarations. In the Reply, Petitioners again did not ask for any additional 
relief, now that they had the NM in their possession, other than their renewed request to unseal 
the NPA. (See DE30.) 
5 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000825 
EFTA00230649

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 7 of 54 
Rights Act." (DE.48, 49, 50, 51.) This response follows. 
ARGUMENT 
Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this case for several reasons. First, as stated in 
the government's response to Petitioners' Emergency Petition, CVRA rights do not attach in the 
absence of federal criminal charges filed by a federal prosecutor. And crime victims cannot file a 
stand-alone suit to enforce those rights. This conclusion is required by the CVRA itself and 
separation of powers principles. Second, despite owing no legal duty, the U.S. Attorney's Office 
used its best efforts to treat both Petitioners fairly as set forth in the original response to the 
Emergency Petition, and as further explained herein. Third, Petitioners' failure to prosecute this 
case in a timely fashion has extinguished their desired remedy under Due Process principles. 
PETITIONERS HAD NO RIGHTS UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) BECAUSE 
CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE NEVER FILED AGAINST EPSTEIN 
IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
The CVRA appears in Title 18, "Crimes and Criminal Procedure," and the procedures for 
enforcing the CVRA were implemented in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See 18 
U.S.C. § 3771; Fed. R. Crim. P. 60.6 The CVRA clearly states that it creates no civil "cause of 
action for damages" for victims and that it does not "impair the prosecutorial discretion of the 
Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX6). "Crime victims 
have not been recognized as parties, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow 
them to intervene as parties to a prosecution." In re Amy Unknown, 
F.3d 
, 2011 WL 
988882 at •2 (5th Cr. Mar. 22, 2011). See also United States. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 
'Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 was adopted on April 23, 2008 and made effective on December 1, 
2008. While this was after most of the relevant events in this case, it reenforces the CVRA's 
clear directive that it was not meant to create a civil cause of action. 
7 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000826 
EFTA00230650

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 
Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 8 of 54 
53 (1st Cir. 2010) ("Notwithstanding the rights reflected in the restitution statutes, crime victims 
are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding. . .. Thus the baseline rule is that crime 
victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant's criminal sentence.") 
While the CVRA provides specific procedures for what should occur if a victim is not 
accorded rights in "any court proceeding involving any offense against a crime victim," in a 
federal criminal case, such as a change of plea or sentencing, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(bX1), (d)(3), 
no mandates are provided in instances where no federal criminal charges are ever filed. 
Of the eight victims' rights set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), the petition alleges a 
violation of § 3771(aX5), the right to consult with the attorney for the Government; § 3771(a)(2), 
the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding § 3771(a)(6), 
the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; and notice of their rights under the 
CVRA. 
It is undisputed that no federal criminal charges have been filed against Jeffrey Epstein, in 
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, pertaining to the sexual abuse of minors.?
The United States submits that, since there was no "case" pending in the Southern District of 
Florida against Epstein, or any "court proceeding" involving an offense against Jane Doe #1 and 
Jane Doe# 2, they cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA. 
Title 18, United States Code, § 3771(aX5), provides that a "crime victim" has "[t]he 
reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." (emphasis supplied). 
In its interpretation of a federal statute, the court assumes that "Congress used words in a statute 
"A district court may take judicial notice of public records within its files relating to the 
particular case before it or other related cases? Cash Inn of Dade, that Metropolitan Dade 
County, 932 F.2d 1239, 1243 (11` Cir. 1991)(citations omitted). 
8 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000827 
EFTA00230651

1 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on F LSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 9 of 54 
as they are commonly and ordinarily understood," and reads the statute to give full effect to each 
of its provisions. United States' DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999), citing 
United States,. McLymont, 45 F3d 400, 401(11° Cir. 1995). Section 3771(aX5) grants a 
crime victim the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government "in the case." 
The phrase "in the case" must be considered since there is a canon of statutory construction that 
"discourages courts from adopting a reading of a statute that renders any part of the statute mere 
surplusage." Bailey'. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 146 (1995)(noting that each word in a 
statute is intended to have "particular, nonsuperfluous meaning"). 
Congress intended the phrase "in the case" to mean a case filed in a federal court. Federal 
criminal cases are filed in the United States district courts through the filing of a criminal 
complaint, Fed.R.Crim.P. 3, or indictment, Fed.R.Crim.P. 7. In each instance, an attorney 
representing the United States Government is required to sign the complaint or indictment. 
Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(eX1) provides that "[the] indictment or information must be a plain, concise, 
and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be 
signed by an attorney for the government." Interestingly, section 3771(aX5) provides that a 
crime victim has "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the 
case." The exact phrase "attorney for the government" is used in both Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(eX1) 
and 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX5), with the addition of the term, "in the case," in latter provision. 
Thus, each criminal case filed in the district court has an "attorney for the Government" 
representing the sovereign United States. 
Petitioners attempt to distort the meaning of "case" by arguing that a case existed in June 
2007, when the FBI began investigating the allegations against Epstein. DE 48 at 25-26. In their 
9 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000828 
EFTA00230652

1 r
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 10 of 54 
view, a case commences when a law enforcement agency begins its investigation of a potential 
crime. This interpretation is completely contrary to the text of section 3771(aX5), since there is 
no "attorney for the government" when a crime is first reported to a law enforcement agency. In 
most instances, the law enforcement agency begins its preliminary investigation without 
consulting the U.S. Attorney's Office. Only when it appears the investigation may generate a 
potential for an indictment does the investigative agency refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney's 
Office. An "attorney for the government" appears only when a complaint or indictment is filed 
in the district court. 
Further, as used in legal documents, the word "case" is a term of art that has long been 
understood to mean "a suit instituted according to the regular course of judicial procedure." 
Muskrat' United States, 219 U.S. 346, 356 (1911) (Article HI "case" or controversy); see also 
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) 215 ("case" is a "general term for an action, cause, suit or 
controversy at law or in equity"). "Whenever the claim of a party under the Constitution, laws or 
treaties of the United States takes such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it, 
then it has become a case." Muskrat, 219 U.S. at 356. A "case," in other words, is an adversarial 
dispute where one party purposefully invokes the judicial power seeking an adjudication of their 
rights and obligations. ILL; see also Black's at 215 (defining "case" as "a question contested 
before a court of justice"). This general understanding is equally applicable to criminal 
proceedings. In Chavez  Martine:, 538 U.S. 760 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a 
criminal "case" — as distinct from an investigation — "at the very least requires the initiation of 
legal proceedings." Id. at 766 (holding that police questioning during the course of a criminal 
investigation "does not constitute a 'case' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Self-
10 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
000829 
EFTA00230653