Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:17 PM To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Response in Jane Doe Here is a second draft, with small rewrites I reduced the discussion of negotiations. The agreement has a confidentiality clause. I note this, because if we disclose too much, then we will be sued by the other side for breach of that clause. In other words, we need to disclose and discuss without going too far — unless ordered to do so by the court. victim_resp.wpd From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:29 PM To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) Subject: Draft Response in Jane Doe Alex and Jeff, Here is a draft response to the emergency petition filed by Jane Doe in the Epstein case. Our first argument is that Doe had no rights under 18 U.S.C. 3177(a)(5) since that provision does not apply where there are no "court proceedings' in federal court, and none were contemplated, as long as Epstein complied with the non-prosecution agreement. The second argument is that the government used its best efforts to comply, since the A/G guidelines permitted us to not notify victims of the proposed plea negotiations if the proposed plea involved confidential information or conditions, or there is another need for confidentiality. Article IV, Section B(2)(C)(3). The government exercised Its discretion and determined that keeping the terms confidential was necessary in order to obtain the best agreement. In particular, the government wanted Epstein to make a significant concession on one of the elements in 18 U.S.C. 2255. I am speaking with Kim Herd at EOUSA regarding the government's position. In particular, the first argument will have to be cleared by DOJ before I can assert it. Please feel free to make any comments. Thanks. Dexter « File: victim_resp.wpd » 640 EFTA00194376