Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 - Inquiry to EOUSA I sent this to at EOUSA General Counsel on February 15, after had spoken with at the Conference at the NAC. I have not heard back. I did not send anything to CEOS. Please reach out to CEOS. I doubt they would recommend we just stand aside. Thanks. From: Sent: Tuesda To: Cc: Subject: Kris, (USAFLS) February 15, 2011 6:46 PM USAEO) (USAFLS); (USAFLS); -. (USAFLS) 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, 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. • EFTA00206177