Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 5:34 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Fw: Letter from Brad Edwards Attachments: edwards-Itr2.pdf Original Message From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Fri Aug 01 20:18:55 2008 Subject: Letter from Brad Edwards Marie, This is the latest letter from Brad Edwards. They are willing to agree that there are no charges against Epstein in federal court, and he entered pleas of guilty in state court and is incarcerated in Palm Beach County. However, they ask us to also agree to two facts regarding the deferral of prosecution agreement and the reason why the victims were not consulted. As to the reasons why the victims were not consulted, the confidentiality provision would not seem to be the reason for not consulting, since there was no "agreement" until Epstein and our office reached agreement in September 2007. The confidentiality provision was not binding until there was an actual agreement. My understanding is that the victims were not consulted (with the exception of the FBI agents meeting with C.W. in September 2007), because we did not believe the Crime Victims Rights Act applied. They also still want a free transcript and any FBI 302's prepared for the meeting with C.W. I intend to call Edwards on Monday and tell him we cannot produce the agreement due to the confidentiality provision (and not due to a lack of courtesy on our part). I will then ask if he still wants to meet. I will be back from Columbia on Thursday, so I can meet with them on Thursday or Friday. Are you available on those dates Marie? Thanks. Dexter «edwards-ltr2.pdf» 333 EFTA00193613

Since the agreement is not public, and there is a confidentiality provision in it, I don't believe we can produce it to the victims. We can still meet with Edwards and his clients, but it will be without the agreement being produced. This may not satisfy them. Edwards just filed a fifteen-page reply/response to our two-page notice to the court. Edwards' response looks more like a summary judgment motion, rather than a simple agreement or disagreement with the government's view that no further hearing is necessary. Please let me know your views on whether the agreement can be disclosed to Edwards and his clients, and whether it would be permissible/advisable to meet with Edwards and his clients. Thanks. Dexter «19_plts_resp_gov_notice.pdf» 332 EFTA00193614