Subject: RE: CVRA case - meeting in July Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:05:55 +0000 Importance: Normal I agree with everything you have written. As far as an update, I would probably just say that the investigation is continuing but we cannot share further. A. Villafaña Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: ■, ■ (USAFLS) **Sent:** Friday, October 22, 2010 1:02 PM **To:** [ ] , [ ] . (USAFLS) Subject: FW: CVRA case - meeting in July Here is the latest from the plaintiffs. I don’t believe we can provide any update on what is going on in the “new” Epstein case, unless the CVRA provides a right to be given status reports to a crime victim. Insofar as the rest of the e-mail, I’m going to respond to Judge Cassell by advising him that: (1) the government will agree to facts presented by plaintiffs if we agree that they are correct; (2) if plaintiffs can base a summary judgment motion based on that set of agreed facts, then the government will respond to plaintiffs’ motion. However, we will not agree to an evidentiary hearing for disputed facts. I will tell him the government intends to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and failure to state a claim, insofar as the right to consultation claim.
From:Paul Cassell [mailto:]
Sent:Friday, October 22, 2010 12:50 PM
To:(USAFLS)
Cc:Brad Edwards
Subject:RE: CVRA case - meeting in July
Still waiting to hear from you on what the current status is regarding the next criminal prosecution of Epstein. Whatsup? Also, regarding our pleading we are preparing to file, Brad reminds me of the great importance both you and we place on not “tipping off” Epstein to anything. Accordingly, we are thinking of taking out the paragraph in our pleading regarding the meeting we had with the FBI agents in July 2010. The main reason for that paragraph was to show that we have been proceeding diligently in moving this case along, including having a meeting with the FBI and waiting to hear back from them. Perhaps you would agree that that we have been proceeding diligently, in which case it would be not be necessary for us to include such a paragraph. EFTA00206689 Another option would be for us to file that paragraph under seal with the court, although that creates the possibility of some sort of unsealing (and or motion to unseal) that could be complicated. I'm around all day if you want to chat. I hope to be able to send you a proposed statement of facts for you and to review later today. Paul ## Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. **From:** ■, ■ (USAFLS) [mailto:]
Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:02 PM
To:Paul Cassell
Cc:Brad Edwards
Subject:RE: CVRA case
Judge Cassell, Please feel free to call me We don’t have any problem with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred. However, the government does not agree that it violated the CVRA, or that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. I will be at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina, from October 17-21. I will have access to my emails but it may be difficult for me to respond quickly to what you send to me. Also, in determining whether your statement of facts is correct, I will need to consult with my colleague who handled the Epstein matter.
From:Paul Cassell [mailto:
Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:47 PM
To:(USAFLS)
Cc:Brad Edwards
Subject:CVRA case
Hi ■ (if I may), I believe we have communicated electronically before. As you probably know, I am co-counsel with Brad Edwards on the CVRA case concerning the Epstein (non) prosecution. You will have seen Judge Marra’s order today asking for us to explain the current situation on the CVRA case by October 23. By October 23, we plan to file a motion asking the court to declare that there were violations of the CVRA. We will be doing that on the basis of a set of fact in the case, of course.