Attachments: jeffrey-epstein-attorney.pdf I I i The slander is against you and (mainly) me. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda March 30, 2011 1:09 PM To: . (USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Article in today's Palm Beach Daily News (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) A response by Roy Black to Alex's letter. I note that this is an extrajudicial statement by Roy Black where he says, without any qualifying statement that it was their opinion or belief, that "We did point out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. . . . There will always be people who abuse the great power of the government . . ." <leffrey-epstein-attomey.pdf>> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: (USAFLS) Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:01 PM (USAFLS); Emailing: Mootness section.wpd Mootness section.wpd «Mootness section.wpd» Hi a and Here is a section addressing the failure to prosecute/"mootness" issue. 1 -- One issue for you. I think that we need to provide evidence on two things: (1) for this section, we need to put in the dates that Epstein was released from jail and from community control and (2) for the section on "hey, we didn't violate the CVRA, we went above and beyond" I want to put in my letter to PBSO asking them to tell me when he was released so I could do victim notifications. We should be able to get all of that information from PBSO. We can get it either by a subpoena or a public records request. Which would you prefer to do? And who do you want to issue the ria st/subpoena? Please let me know and I can draft it and get it out tomorrow. I don't think it should come from me, but or someone else here can do it for purposes of speed. FBI thinks that a subpoena would be better than a public records request in this instance. Thanks. From: EFTA00206450

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:14 AM To: (USAFIS); Cc: (USAFIS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd (USAFLS) Maybe the way to split the difference is to say that Ws his burden to show that there's a cause of action, and he hasn't done so, and that there are a number of good reasons, both textual and policy-wise, not to interpret the CVRA to create a freestanding cause of action, and that such a conclusion would not leave dissatisfied victims without any recourse because of the grievance process - or something along those lines. Textually, by the way, I'd say that the no prosecution Is underway" language does not open the courts to CVRA claims whenever no charges are brought but only applies post-complaint, pre-indictment, as the OLC memo says. United States Department of Justice Criminal Division, Appellate Section tel: fax: --Ori inal Message— From: (USAFLS) (mailto Sent: Monde , March 28, 2011 10:10AM To: . (USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd I will be here tomorrow. The argument you suggest has a number of problems. First, there is a presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action. McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 498 (1986). Second, since Congress establishes the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, we would have to demonstrate that it intended section 3771(t) to be the exclusive remedy for a putative victim claiming a violation of the CVRA. There is nothing explicit in the text of section 3771 that supports that proposition. Moreover, arguing that an aggrieved person can only file an administrative complaint with the federal agency that allegedly deprived him or her of his rights under the CVRA is an argument that is likely to be viewed with much judicial skepticism. Section 3771(d)(3) expressly provides that the rights in section 3771(a) can be asserted in the criminal case, or in the district where the crime occurred if no prosecution is underway. We would have to argue that, where there is no prosecution underway, the only remedy is to file an administrative complaint with the DOJ. That conflicts with the language of section 3771(d)(3), which permits a putative victim to file a motion in the district where the crime occurred. I recognize the DOJ has a view on what that provision means, but that argument is not based upon the existence of an exclusive administrative remedy. On inal Messa e From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Monde March 28, 2011 9:36 AM To: ); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd EFTA00206451

Hi MI and -- Just read all of your emails from yesterday. -- I think that, having read more cases, and then re-read the Department's guidance, that our position should be that the petitioners are not entitled to file a civil cause of action, even for a declaratory judgment. The statute provides them with a remedy, which is a referral of DOJ attorneys for disciplinary sanctions, and specifies that "the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by the complainant." (18 USC 3771(f)(2)(D)) "Where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it." U.S. v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting TAMA v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979)). Why don't we get together tomorrow face-to-face and talk it through? I can come down to Miami. -- maybe we can steal you for 30 minutes just to bounce some ideas off of you? Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax Ori inal Messa e From: ) Sent: Monda . March 28, 2011 8:18 AM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd All, This is going to be a rau h 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 EFTA00206452