From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:51 PM To: . (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS): (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi M, I think you mentioned last week that you were preparing a memo addressing some of the legal and strategic issues relating to a potential new investigation into Epstein and/or other targets. Once you've done that, we should probably set aside some time to chat about the case generally. Also, reached out to and me last week and raised some issues that we can discuss as well. Thanks. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: (USAFLS)< > Friday, March 04, 2011 3:47 PM . (USAFLS) (USAFLS) FW: Jeffrey Epstein Here is his inquiry =— he wants me to confirm whether FBI is interested in this info. I will not. Original rslessage From: [mailto: Sent: FridAy,IMarch 04, 2011 3:16 PM To: =.= (USAFLS Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Dear I work for the Mail on Sunday newspaper in London, En land. The Mail on Sunday last week published an interview with about her time working for Jeffrey Epstein. We plan to publish more revelations this week. I have been led to believe that the FBI is interested in pursuing the allegations published in the Mail on Sunday - and that Epstein may have committed offences not covered by the non prosecution agreement. Can you give me any guidance as to whether my information is correct? You may contact me by email or on Regards, Nick Pryer Assistant Features Editor Mail on Sunday EFTA00206286

This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilitl ies. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: From: (USAFI-S) > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20114:51 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Janes Does 1 and 2 v. United States - March 1, 2011 Conference Call with Cassell and MI, At 11:30 a.m. today, M, =, and I spoke with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards on a conference call regarding the posture of the case. told them we had spoken with officials at the DOJ, and the government was not going to stand by the sidelines and allow the victims to litigate the impropriety of negotiating the non-prosecution agreement without consulting the victims. We told Cassell we were going to defend the government's actions. At this point, Cassell said they only wanted us to stand by the sidelines if the court determined that rights attached in the absence of a charging document. This was not my recollection of what was discussed on February 10. In any event, I told him the government believed the court was without authority to set aside the non-prosecution agreement, even if it found a violation of the CVRA. Cassell said our position was that the right to consult was a right without a remedy. I said yes, in our situation involving a non-prosecution agreement. He argued that in In Re Dean the Fifth Circuit found that the plea agreement could be set aside. I told Cassell that a plea agreement comes before the court for approval, but a non-prosecution agreement is not subject to judicial pre-approval. EFTA00206287

We then began talking about information the victims wanted from the government. Cassell tried to analogize the victims as criminal defendants, entitled to information helpful to their cases, just like a defendant is entitled to exculpatory and impeachment information. I disagreed. The right of a criminal defendant to obtain exculpatory and impeachment information is based on the due process clause, which does not apply to our civil litigation. Cassell then suggested we should try to cooperate, and provide helpful information in our possession. When we told him we were not obligated to do that, Edwards asked if it would be alright to address their inquiries directly to the United States Attorney. I told him they were free to do so, as the United States Attorney was a public official. I expect you will be receiving a letter soon seeking access and disclosure of information pertaining to C.W. and T.M. Edwards said he would be sending us a draft statement of facts and their legal memorandum in the next few days. Cassell again mentioned the letters written by and others, expressing the view that the CVRA applied to the victims. I told them that such factual admissions did not create a legal duty, where one does not otherwise exist. If we had written a hundred letters stating no duty existed without a charging document, I don't think the victims would be voluntarily dismissing their case. While Cassell denied they were seeking to make our office look bad, he also said he believed it relevant that the court know about what was going on between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's attorneys, as well as the correspondence between the FBI and this Office, telling the victims of their rights under the CVRA. In previous phone conferences, he has suggested this office engaged in duplicity by telling victims they had rights under the CVRA, but negotiating the non-prosecution agreement without consulting with them. From: Sent: To: Subject: Nasty, huh? Original Message From: csamoff [mailto: Sent: TuestS March 01, 2011 4:02 PM To: 'MI= (USAFLS) Subject: Re: hypothetical question (USAFLS) < > Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:08 PM (USAFLS); FW: hypothetical question (USAFLS) Yes this is a great inconvenience. Odd too that a practising lawyer cannot comment on a hypothetical case. Forgive me, I thought moot court was exactly this- to learn the law through simulated court proceedings. In the meantime, do you know a prosecutor in Fla who would speak to me who has nothing to do with Epstein case- since this is obviously your concern- who would answer this hypothetical question? Thank you, Conchita Original Message----- From: To: Cc: (USAFLS) EFTA00206288