EFTA00185225¶
EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A.¶
Attorneys At Law¶
JAMES L. EISENBERG¶
Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer¶
National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate¶
KAI LI ALOE FOUTS¶
One Clearlake Centre, Suite 704, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
February 1, 2007¶
Asst. U.S. Attorney¶
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for¶
Dear¶
I received your letter dated January 24, 2007 with regard to . I must admit I forced myself to wait several days to respond in order to “cool off” and not say anything I would regret later. Now that time has passed, allow me to respond appropriately.¶
-
If you want to force Ms. a single mother, to come to the grand jury room to personally invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she will be there. That does remain her position. My only request is that you provide a babysitter service for her child. I will be there, but I am not paid to babysit and Ms. should not have to pay someone. It is this type of attitude, that your office refuses to accept the fact that it is Ms. decision not to cooperate with the government that upsets her. Your office fails to recognize that merely coming to court is a problem for a single mother like Ms. and, under these circumstances, appears to be a waste of time at best and, in her mind, personal harassment.
-
Rest assured that there is no conflict of interest in my representation of Ms. . In this case I have always been asked and always will exercise independent judgment to follow my client’s independent will. The remainder of your questions as to this matter are really none of the Government’s business.
-
I will share with you that one of the reasons for our firm position that Ms. will invoke her Fifth Amendment right and choose not to voluntarily cooperate with the Government is our concern that the Government is not exercising independent judgment in this case.
The history of this case has been in the newspapers. The case is being prosecuted in State court. Despite the state court prosecution, the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief went on what can only be¶
EFTA00185226¶
Asst. U.S. Attorney¶
February 1, 2007¶
Page Two¶
described as a public rampage in the newspaper when the case was not prosecuted to his liking that reminded me of a small child having a public temper tantrum. In my thirty years of experience, I have never seen a law enforcement officer like this publicly make what appeared to be a political case in the newspaper for a prosecution and publicly criticize anyone who got in his way, including the elected State Attorney. This resulted in a federal investigation on a topic no one remembers the Federal Government ever being interested in prosecuting before. Although I am certain that you personally have not had your decision-making process compromised, the appearance that your office is being influenced by the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief’s agenda is very real. Under these circumstances I don’t see how any lawyer could advise any client to voluntarily cooperate. Of special concern is that the Town of Palm Beach Police have promoted prosecuting at least one of the girls who allegedly gave massages.¶
One final thought. My client and my fear that Ms. could be prosecuted is enhanced by the demand for the personal appearance made in your letter. Your initial Kastiger letter fell far short of granting the functional equivalent of DOJ immunity. Several months ago I was given the distinct impression through our conversations that you were going to obtain DOJ immunity for Ms. Now the government is changing course for no apparent reason. This leads to speculation that the only reason for the turnabout is that prosecution in either state or federal court is being considered by someone.¶
None of the above is directed at you personally. I want to repeat that you have always treated us with respect. Maybe your office should advise the Town Police Chief to act in a similar fashion.¶
Sincerely,¶
JAMES L. EISENBERG¶
JLE|gw¶