EFTA00206413

<table border="1"><tr><td>From:</td><td>Michele Dargan [mailto:]</td></tr><tr><td>Sent:</td><td>Monday, March 21, 2011 4:52 PM</td></tr><tr><td>To:</td><td>(USAFLS)</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Jeffrey Epstein</td></tr></table>

## Hi

There’s been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his state charges.

Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the Justice Dept.

I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story.

Thanks, Michele

Michele Dargan

Staff Writer



Cox Conserves.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Contents of this e-mail may be confidential and proprietary. Use discretion when forwarding.



EFTA00206414

Too late... Went out. I don't think it's worth resending, do you? I will correct for future use.



It just occurred to me that perhaps we should not refer to the Jane Does as plaintiffs since there is no independent civil action, just a motion in a miscellaneous proceeding.





Should there be a final sentence such as the following?

Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide additional comment on the merits of the motion.

Just a thought.