Kenneth W., Starr Joe D, Whitley Kirkland & Ellis LLP Alston & Bird LLP 777 South Figueroa Street The Atlantic Building Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800 050 F Street, NW Phone: 213-680-8440

le"; "caption", "text":"Rod Rosenstein leaves the white House Monday, still deputy attorney general â€" f

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

he government's theory of the case." United States v. Harris, No. 00 Cr. 105 (RPP), 2000 WL 1273720, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2000) (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). 2. Rule 16 Rule 16 provides, in pertinent part: Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to in

ed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) passim 26 In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) 15 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) 19 N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 26 Nat'l Res. Del Council v. United States Ening. Prot. Agency, 954

fic requests (the "Requests"). The letter also makes a general request for materials pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), followed by 10 "specific Brady requests." As an initial matter, we take seriously our disclosure obligations, including those

ed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) passim 26 In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) 15 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) 19 N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 26 Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 95

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Menyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ("We have long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness."); / Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 1565, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (under the Due Process Clause and 11 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Menyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Menyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Menyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Menyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Menyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the government conduct an affirmative search for, locate, i

vement The inclusion of Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion, " . . .unueccssary entanglement of the government in such eases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence

gerated claims once they are inlbnned of Mr. Epstein's waiver under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Whitley states. " . . .the Department [of Justice] should consider developing processes and procedures to ensure that the investigative process is insulate

vement The inclusion of Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion. . .tninectmary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence suc

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

rom to Lefkowitz re: deadline to comply with the agreement resolving Epstein's federal and state liabilities 193. 5/19/2008 Letter from Starr and Whitley to Filip43 re: asking him to review the federal involvement in Epstein's matter S Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Department of J