Gotcha; thanks. •••••••••••••••••••Me.••••••al•••••••••••••••••••••••••• United States Department of Justice Criminal Division. ellate 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. 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. EFTA00206462