EFTA00206692.pdf

From: (USAFLS)" To: SAFLS)" Cc: <I Subject: :Letter an ra tatement of Facts Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:40:01 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: letter october23.docx; =-sof.docx This is a letter from Paul Cassell and the draft statement of facts. Since this appears to be getting ugly, I think we need to alert the Executive Division. I am on travel to Kansas City on Monday to give a presentation on Tuesday. I will be back on Wednesday. I can be reached at Thanks. From: Paul Car-oll [mailto Sent: Saturda October 23, 2010 3:25 PM To: USAFLS Cc: Subject: Letter and Draft Statement of Facts Dear Attached please find (1) a letter to you and (2) a draft statement of facts. Thanks! Paul Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake UT 84112-0730 (phone) (fax) CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidenital. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responible 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: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:47 PM To: Paul Cassell Subject: RE: proposed schedule to resolve the case Judge Cassell, The government will review your statement of facts and we will agree to a factual assertion if we believe it is correct. Insofar as your proposal to resolve the case, if there are disputed facts, the government does not agree to an evidentiary hearing on the facts disputed by the government. This case was filed on July 7, 2008, as an emergency. The government filed its response two days' later, on July 9, and an emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008. Since that time, plaintiffs have not proceeded apace to pursue their claims. No complaint has been filed, which is the normal mechanism for commencing a civil action. Consequently, the government has not filed an answer. EFTA00206692 I believe the major point of contention between the parties is whether the U.S. Attorney's Office was obligated under 18 3371(a)(5) to consult with plaintiffs before entering into the non-prosecution agreement. Since there was no pending "case" in the district court, we believe the U.S. Attorney's had no obligation to consult with plaintiffs. The government will be filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the claim under 18 =. 3771(a)(5). We will also be seeking dismissal on the grounds of failure to prosecute. If plaintiffs believe the agreed upon facts constitute a basis for seeking summary judgment, and files a motion seeking summary judgment, the government will respond to the plaintiffs' motion. However, we will not agree to an evidentiary hearing on the disputed facts. As to the status of any pending investigation of Epstein, the DOJ's policy is not to comment on whether an investigation exists, or the progress of an investigation. I can be reached at if you wish to discuss this further. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto Sent: Thi cyl la October 21, 2010 5:39 PM To: M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: proposed schedule to resolve the case Hi The Court wants a status report from us regarding resolving the case. We are planning to file a motion for summary judgment/finding of violations of victims rights on Wednesday, October 27. This will include a statement of proposed facts and legal arguments. The motion also requests an evidentiary hearing in the event the U.S. Attorney's Office contests are proposed facts. We would then ask for a hearing on the appropriate remedy, if the court find a violation of rights. We would propose the following schedule, and wonder if you would concur: November 10 — U.S. Attorney's Office Response to the Motion. November 17 — Victims' Reply to Response. Evidentiary Hearing (if facts contested) — early December January 1, 2011— Court issues ruling on whether victims' rights were violated. If it enters a finding that the victims' rights were violated, we would propose that we file a brief on the appropriate remedy on January 14, you file a response on January 28, and we file a reply on February 4 — with the Court to hold a hearing and/or enter a ruling on remedy issue by the end of February. Let me know if this schedule seems agreeable to you. Paul Cassell Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 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 Voice: Fax: EFTA00206693 Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&namerCassell 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. EFTA00206694