EFTA00193531¶
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)¶
| From: | Lee, Dexter(USAFLS) |
| Sent: | Monday，July 21，2008 5:03 PM |
| To: | Acosta，Alex(USAFLS)；Sloman，Jeff(USAFLS) |
| Cc: | Villafana，Ann Marie C.(USAFLS)；Jacobus，Wendy(USAFLS) |
| Subject: | Letter from Victims' Attorney Brad Edwards |
Alex and Jeff,¶
When we concluded the emergency hearing on July 11, the court wanted to know from the parties whether any further hearings were required, such as a hearing to take evidence. The parties told the court that they would confer to determine if any disputed fact issues existed, or whether the parties could file a stipulation regarding agreed facts. Marie and I provided a draft stipulation to Brad Edwards last Wednesday.¶
Edwards responded by letter dated July 17, 2008, which is attached. He has enlisted the aid of Jay Howell, who is a victim rights advocate, and Professor Paul Cassell, former U.S. District Judge, who is now a law professor with a strong interest in victims’ rights. Edwards makes a number of requests in the letter, including a free transcript, copies of the agreement with Epstein, including the October and December addenda; copies of any FBI 302 prepared after the CW meeting; and the substance of the conversation Marie had with Meg Garvin, Esq., who she asked to assist one of victims who was being harassed by Epstein’s attorneys.¶
Rather than engage in a point by point response to Edwards’ letter, I think we should tell him the government does not believe an evidentiary hearing is necessary. We don’t dispute that none of the victims were notified of the impending agreement with Epstein. With regard to C.W., FBI Special Agents Kuyrkendall and Richardson met with her in September 2007 to advise her of the agreement reached in state court. C.W. claims she understood them to mean the federal proceeding was still a possibility. I think we have little to gain by trying to reach an agreement on this minor issue. Edwards will never concede that C.W. misunderstood the agents.¶
If Edwards wants and evidentiary hearing, then he can advise the court and one will be scheduled. I assume he will put his two clients on the witness stand to testify about how no one told them that a federal prosecution would no longer occur given the agreement to allow the State of Florida to proceed. We don’t dispute that T.M. was not told anything, since she was hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. With regard to C.W., she can testify that she understood the agents to mean a federal prosecution could still be initiated. This minor point means little insofar as whether the court can do anything to set aside the agreement.¶
Dexter¶
edwards-ltr.pdf¶
414¶