To: (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd I am working on our response to their material "facts," which really aren't facts at all. I should have these done by today. I will then move on to the legal argument. I was considering responding to each motion separately, to make it easier for the court. P.S. Our deadline is April 7, 2011. Ori inal Messa e From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Sunda . March 27. 2011 1:31 PM To: (USAFLS); Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Hi and MI Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted (whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help with that. Talk to you all on Monday. Thanks. The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. From Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 8:18 AM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) EFTA00206436

Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd All, This is going to be a rough week for me work-wise so here's a suggestion. If, as email says, the due date is 4/7, perhaps you can work up whatever you want me to look at this week and then I can make some comments as of next Monday, 4/4. If you don't think that will work or if you need comments earlier, I can try to work on it next weekend. I am just inundated right now and have an Eleventh Circuit argument on Friday, so I am going to be out of pocket much of this week. Let me know your thoughts. United States Department of Justice Criminal Division, Appellate Section tel: fax: ----Ori inal Message From: (USAFLS) (mailto Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:44 PM To: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd I am working on our response to their material "facts," which really aren't facts at all. I should have these done by today. I will then move on to the legal argument. I was considering responding to each motion separately, to make it easier for the court. P.S. Our deadline is April 7, 2011. ----Ori inal Messa e-- From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 1:31 PM To: (USAFLS); Subject: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Hi and MI Obviously, this is just a rough draft of an introduction. I have been side-tracked by research. I found a case where a prisoner tried to use the CVRA in a habeas/Rule 35 type claim. I think that is a good example of how the CVRA, as Cassell sees it, could be abused. Since every assault on a federal prisoner is a federal crime, federal defendants could demand meetings with AUSAs claiming that they were assaulted (whether or not the assaults actually occurred) and, even if the USAO decided to defer to administrative authorities, i.e., the Bureau of Prisons, according to Cassell, we would be forced to go meet with them. EFTA00206437

I also have found good language in several cases that suggest that the Petitioners' failure to prosecute the case will end up being a second reason to dismiss the petition. Cassell will, no doubt, try to pin the blame on us, but they had no contact with us for over a year while they were pursuing their civil claims against Epstein. In the meantime, Epstein finished serving his entire criminal sentence. And now they want to try to attack the "plea" agreement. There is good language about the need for finality in criminal proceedings that should help with that. Talk to you all on Monday. Thanks. The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. From: Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 3:15 PM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Good points. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• United States Department of Justice Criminal Division, Appellate Section tel: fax: ----Ori inal Message From: (USAFLS) (mailto Sent: Sunda , March 27, 2011 2:50 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Another point is that the non-prosecution agreement would not be subject to any judicial approval, absent a claim by one of the parties to the agreement that a breach had occurred. Unlike Dean, the government never contemplated any charge being filed in the district court, nor did it seek a dispensation from the court to limit the number of victims it would contact. In Dean, there was ultimately a charge and a plea agreement for the court to review. In our case, there was neither. EFTA00206438