EFTA00206199¶
I agree completely. Let’s try and talk Monday, with on the phone if possible.¶
From: (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 04:08 PM¶
To: . (SMO); (USAEO)¶
Cc: . (USAFLS);¶
Subject: RE: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.)¶
Mr.¶
I’m looking for the appropriate officials in the Department with programmatic responsibility for the CVRA, so that we may obtain guidance on our litigating position. What Cassell wants the government to do is abdicate its role in defending its actions. If the DOJ’s position is that no rights attach until a charging instrument is filed, then we should vigorously defend that position. Our office is most reluctant to do what Cassell asks, since negotiating the non-prosecution agreement was clearly within the prerogatives granted to the Executive Branch. Whether the bargain struck with Epstein was wise or not should not be the issue.¶
I will be in the office all day Monday. Thanks for your assistance.¶
From: . (SMO)¶
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:40 PM¶
To: (USAFLS); (USAEO)¶
Cc:¶
(USAFLS); (USAFLS)¶
Subject: Re: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.)¶
: Thanks. Perhaps we should try and find a time to talk on Monday. This scenario raises a variety of policy issues that extend well beyond the question of “when do the rights attach.” Frankly, I don’t think the court should even reach that question given the posture of the case as you describe it.¶
From: (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 02:23 PM¶
To: . (SMO); (USAEO)¶
Subject: Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States - CVRA Lawsuit (S.D.Fla.)¶