EFTA00210758.pdf

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Oro Tam Class Attie., Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. Personal Injury Wrongful Death Commercial Liogation WVVW.PATHTOJUSTICECOM January 29, 2015 Wilfredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jane Does I and 2 v. United States Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, we have corresponded with you in the past on the Crime Victims' Rights Act case captioned above. And you met with Jane Doe No. 1 several years ago, promising (as we understood it) to do what could be done to help protect crime victims' rights in this case. It is in that spirit that we are writing to request your assistance on three motions that we are planning to make shortly in this case. We hope that you will be able to agree to all three requests. We will be filing these motions on Friday, February 6, 2015. Accordingly, the favor of a reply by Wednesday, February 4, 2015, is requested. I. Motion to Amend the Victims' Petition to Conform to Evidence. The first motion will be a motion to amend the victims' petition in this case to conform to the evidence that has developed. As you may recall, Jane Doe No. 1 filed her petition for enforcement of her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, on July 7, 2008. See Exhibit 1. At that time, Jane Doe No. 1 and the other victs were unaware of the existence of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). After that day, the victims gradually became aware of the existence of the NPA, as reflected in Jane Doe's reply in support of her petition. See Exhibit 2. And in proceedings held over the next few months, Judge Marra ordered that the NPA be made available to the victims. Unable to reach a stipulation with your office, in 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.524.2820 office 954.524.2822 fax EFTA00210758  Wilfredo A. Ferrer January 29. 2015 Page 2 March 2011, Jane Doe No. I (and Jane Doe No. 2) filed a detailed motion for summary judgment, making a series of detailed allegations about the NPA and Government efforts to conceal it from the victims. See Exhibit 3. In light of the course of litigation, it is now appropriate for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 to amend their petition to reflect the existence of the NPA and the current theories being pursued (by both sides) in this case. As you know, Federal Rule of Civil 15 allows for an amended pleading to be filed, either on consent of the opposing party or with permission of the Court. The rule also provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." In compliance with Rule IS, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are seeking your consent to file the attached, two-page amended petition that conforms to the evidence and theories that have developed since their initial filing. See Exhibit 4. As you know, the case is still in a discovery phase. Your Office has not yet completed production of documents in the case. None of the allegations in the proposed amended complaint go beyond the victims' existing pleadings. See, e.g., Exhibit 3. We don't see any good faith basis for you to withhold consent to the victims' first request to amend their petition to conform to the evidence. We hope that you will consent. 2. Motion to Add Two New Parties. A separate question is presented by Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2's request to add two new parties into the case. We had previously asked your consent for a motion by Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 to join the case. You declined to provide consent, and that matter is now in litigation. Compare DE 280 (victims' motion to join) with DE 290 (government's opposition). We are now asking your consent for a Rule 15 amendment of the existing petition that would add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 into the case. In particular, we are asking for your consent to add nine words in the (proposed) First Amended Petition — i.e., the underlined words in the following sentence: "Petitioners Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe. No. 3, and Jane Doe No. 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the petitioners"), now adults, were as minor girls the victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein ...." As you know, in 2008 your Office did not object to adding Jane Doe No. 2 into this litigation, recognizing that she was a victim of Epstein's crimes and had interests at stake in the case. We continue to be perplexed that you are not extending the same consideration to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4. We are aware that your Office recently filed a pleading raising a technical objection to Jane Doe No. 3 entering the case. The pleading argued that Jane Doe No. 3 had failed to comply with a six-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401 for tort claims against the Government. DE 290 at 5. Curiously, however, that same pleading acknowledged that the Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.524.2820 office 954.524.2822 fax EFTA00210759  Wilfredo A. Ferrer January 29, 2015 Page 3 CVRA enforcement action is an "ancillary criminal proceeding[]," DE 290 at 2, presumably not covered by a statute of limitations applicable to a "civil action commences against the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Even more surprising to us was your Office's failure to discuss the second sentence in § 2401(a), which provides that the six-year rule is not applicable to "any person . . . beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues . . ." Your Office sent FBI agents to Australia to interview Jane Doe No. 3 in 2011, and clearly was aware that she was "beyond the seas" — and thus, under the plain language of the statute, not obligated to file within six years. We don't see any good faith basis for your Office maintaining that the six-year provision applies in light of its knowledge that she hiding from Epstein in Australia. But to avoid further unnecessary litigation about such subjects, we hope that you will agree to a Rule 15 amendment to simply add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 into the case. A Rule 15 amendment obviates statute of limitations concerns, because it "relates back to the date of the original pleading" by "assert[ing] a claim . . . that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1XB). Jane Doe No. 1's initial petition plainly mentioned other victims. The initial petition alleged that, "[u]pon information and believe, [Jeffrey Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including [Jane Doe No. 1]." DE 1 at 1-2. Jane Doe No. l's petition went on to allege that the Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims: "On information and belief, rough the same crimes were committed [by Epstein] against several other youngfemales. These victims, too, are in danger oflosing their right to confer under the CVRA." DE 1 at 7 n.2 (emphasis added). After a Government response admitting that he had reached a secret plea deal, Jane Doe No. I filed a reply in support of her petition, which again very directly mentioned other victims. The reply stated: "This deferred prosecution agreement was reached without conferral with [Jane Doe No. 1] — or, indeed, with the many other young victims of [Epstein's] crimes." DE 9 at 1 (emphasis added). The reply went on to explain that the agreement "remarkably allowed the defendant — a billionaire with extraordinary political connections — to escape all federal prosecutions for dozens of serious federal sex offenses against minors." Id. at 1-2. The reply continued to explain relief sought, specifically that "[t]he Court should therefore declare the proposed non-prosecution agreement an illegal one, since it was reached in violation of the CVRA, and order the Government to confer with Petitioner and the other victims in this matter before reaching any disposition in this case." Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The petition asked the Court to "hold that [Jane Doe No. 1] and the other victims in this case had the right to confer with the Government before it reached its non-prosecution agreement." Id. at 8 (emphasis added); see also id (the Government kept Jane Doe No. 1 "and the many other victims of [Epstein's] federal sex offenses . . . in the dark about the fact that the Government was planning to reach a deal . . . ."); id at 10 (the Government did not use "its `best efforts' to protect the rights of [Jane Doe No. 1] (and the other victims) in this case when it failed to confer with her Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos ft Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.524.2820 office 954.524.2822 fax EFTA00210760  Wilfredo A. Ferrer January 29, 2015 Page 4 about the non-prosecution agreement."). Jane Doe No. 1 asked for the "obvious remedy" — i.e., that the court "declare the non-prosecution agreement illegal and direct that the Government proceed to negotiate a new agreement . . . in a process that respects [Jane Doe No. 1's] (and the other victims) rights." Id. at 12 (emphasis added). After filing the complaint, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 followed up with a summary judgment motion, on March 21, 2011, which raised very specific allegations about Jane Doe No. 3, i.e., that "Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him and others. Epstein forced this underage girl to be sexually exploited by his adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional and personal acquaintances." DE 48 at 4 (citing Complaint, Jane Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80656-ICAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009) (complaint filed on behalf of Jane Doe No. 3, identified as "Jane Doe No. 102")). In light of all these facts, we believe that a Rule 15 amendment adding Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 is clearly proper and would "relate back" to the original filing, thereby eliminating time-consuming litigation about statute of limitations issues. Courts have commonly allowed Rule 15 amendment that relate back in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Andujar v. Rogowski, 113 F.R.D. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (allowing addition of new plaintiffs even after a statute of limitations had expired). We write to you about this request, hoping that you will consider it not as an adversary of Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, but rather as their ally. As you know, the CVRA obligates all prosecutors to use their "best efforts to see that crime victims are . . . accorded the rights [in the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1). We have come up with a Rule 15 amendment as a way to accord Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 their rights. We are, of course, open to your best efforts to find other ways that might achieve the same goal. We realize, of course, that you may have some factual dispute about whether or not your Office fully protected their rights during the course of the Epstein investigation and ultimate non- prosecution. But the point of this letter is not to ask to you to agree that any rights have been violated — that issue can await litigation on the merits. Our request is a much narrower one: We merely want your assistance to help Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 get their "day in court." We hope that you will agree to that narrow request through the narrow, nine-word Rule 15 amendment we propose. 3. Motion to Intervene. As a fallback position to the pending motion to join and the proposed Rule 15 motion, we are also writing to ask for your non-opposition to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4's motion to intervene in the case. As you know, Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention on two grounds: Mandatory intervention is allowed where a putative intervenor "claims an inter relating to the . . . transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Ft Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.524.2820 office 954.524.2822 fax EFTA00210761  Wilfredo A. Ferrer January 29, 2015 Page 5 protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Permissive intervention is allowed where an intervenor "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 obviously have common issues associated with the current litigation. In particular, they are seeking invalidation of the NPA to the extent that it bars prosecution of crimes committed against them. They clearly meet the requirements for intervention. We are making this request for non-opposition to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4's motion to intervene recognizing that just a few days ago your Office did not oppose a motion to intervene in the case by Alan Dershowitz. See DE 294 ("The Government does not oppose the Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. Dershowitz."). If your Office is not going to oppose a motion by a suspected co-conspirator of Epstein's to intervene in the case, we trust that you will extend the same courtesy to young woman who is alleging that he repeatedly sexually abused her. We ask for this courtesy particularly in light of our strong belief that your Office possesses evidence that will help corroborate her allegations — evidence about which your Office has studiously remained silent. Thank you in advance for your assistance on each of these three requests. If you are unwilling to agree to any of these requests, the victims would request a telephone conference call with you personally so that they could bring their concerns to your attention. Very truly yours, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Bradley J. Edwards Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah• BJE: mwk Enclosures This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.524.2820 office 954.524.2822 fax EFTA00210762  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 EllackiLlt of DJ Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 ELE D.C. JULY 7, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA S.D. or FLA. • MIAMI 08-80736-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. Etners ewe y VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.0 . SECTION 3771 COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (`•CVRA"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: 1. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, as well as wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, Florida. I Upon information and belief, the Defendant is the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States of America in the Southern District of Florida. The Defendant has recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution. 3. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal Id w EFTA00210763  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 2 of 10 crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including the Petitioner. Such negotiations may likely result in a disposition of the charges in the next several days. 4. Under the CVRA, before any charges are filed against the Defendant, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to notice of her rights under the CVRA, to confer with the prosecutors, and to be treated with fairness. As soon as charges are filed, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to timely notice of court proceedings, the right not to be excluded from such proceedings, the right to be heard at such public proceedings regarding conditions of release, any plea, and any sentence, the right to confer with the attorney for the government, the right to restitution, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and privacy. 5. The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges, no notice of any public court proceedings, no information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice of rights under the CVRA, as required under law. 6. The Petitioner is in jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant without her participation and knowledge. WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to comply with the provisions of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other agreement with the Defendant and any attendant proceedings. 2 2 Oa EFTA00210764  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 3 of 10 MEMORANDUM I. THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT MAKES CRIME VICTIMS INDEPENDENT PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. In October 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Crime Victims' Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2251 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771). Because this appears to be the first case involving the Act to come before this Court, a bit of background may be in order. A. The CVRA Gives Crime Victims Rights to Participate in the Criminal Justice Process. Congress passed the CVRA "to give crime victims enforceable rights to participate in federal criminal proceedings." Opinion at 14. Congress was concerned that in the federal system crime victims were "treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150 CoNG. REC. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant ... ." Id. The CVRA gives victims of federal crimes a series of rights, including the right to notice of court proceedings, to be heard at plea and sentencing hearings, and to reasonably "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Victims also have a "right of access to the terms of a plea agreement ... ." In re Interested Party I, 530 F.Supp. 2d 136, 2008 WL 134233 at •7 (D.D.C. 2008). The CVRA also assures victims broadly that they will "be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). 3 30110 EFTA00210765  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 4 of 10 Of course, these rights would be of little use to most crime victims unless they were told about them. To ensure that victims are notified of their rights, the CVRA directs employees of the Justice Department "and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime" to use their "best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of... the rights described [in the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).1 B. The CVRA Gives Victims Rights During the Investigation of a Crime. The CVRA gives victims rights during the investigation of a crime. The Fifth Circuit recently reached this conclusion, holding: The district court acknowledged that Itihere are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." BP Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893, at *36. Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 1$ U.S.C. 3771(a)(5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5i)1 Cir. 2008). The position that CVRA rights apply before charges have been filed is consistent with the Justice Department regulations under the CVRA, which explain that government officials "must advise a victim [about their rights under the CVRA] ... at the earliest opportunity at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation." A.G. GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS I Further supporting this requirement is another statute, 42 U.S.C. § I0607(0(3). which directs government officials to provide victims with "the earliest possible notice of," among other things, "the filing of charges against a suspected offender." 4 4o110 EFTA00210766  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 5 of 10 NWP ASSISTANCE 23 (May 2005). And the plain language of the CVRA undergirds this conclusion, as it applies not simply to prosecutors but to government agencies "engaged in the detection (and] investigation ... of crime ... ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Indeed, if there were any doubt, the plain language of the CVRA extends victims' right to situations "in which no prosecution is underway." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3). II. PETITIONER IS A "VICTIM PROTECTED BY THE CVRA. Under the CVRA the crime victim is defined as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ... ." 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(e). In particular, Defendant called Petitioner when she was a minor over a telephone (a means of interstate communication) requesting that she perform a massage in exchange for payment. As Defendant well knew, that request was fraudulent, as he not only intended to receive a massage, but also intended to have her perform sexual acts in exchange for a cash payment to Petitioner. Only when Petitioner arrived at a Defendant's mansion as directed by Defendant, did Defendant reveal his true purpose of obtaining sexual favors in exchange for payment. This conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which forbids using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly "induce" or "entice" a minor "to engage in prostitution." In addition, this conduct was both a use of "fraud" to obtain a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 1591, and use of wire communications to perpetrate a "scheme and artifice to defraud," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. It appears obvious that Petitioner was "directly and proximately" harmed by these crimes, thereby making her a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that the CVRA "was designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States v. 5 5 el 10 EFTA00210767  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 6 of 10 Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Utah 2005) (quoti ng 150 Cong. Rec. S4261 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein)). Congress intended the CVRA to dramatically rework the federal criminal justice system. In the course of construing the CVRA generously, the Ninth Circuit observed: "The criminal justice system has long functioned on the assumption that crime victims should behave like good Victorian childr en -- seen but not heard. The Crime Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victim s independent participants in the criminal justice process." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Courtfor C.D. Cal, 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legisla tion, courts should interpret it "liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent." Elliott Industries Ltd. Partnership v. BP America Production Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting remedial legislation should be "interpreted liberally to facilit ate and accomplish its purposes and intent"). The CVRA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at •3 (D. Flaw. 2008) (citing United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319,335 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted libera lly, but its definition of "crime victim" requires a generous construction. After reciting the direct-and-proximate-harm language at issue here, one of the Act's two co-sponsors -- Senat or Kyl -- explained that "Mills is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected ." 150 Cong. Rec. S10912 (Oct. 9, 2004) (emphasis added). The description of the victim definition as "intentionally broad" was in the course of floor colloquy with the other primary sponsor of the CVRA and therefore deserves significant weight. See Kenna, 435 F.3d at 1015-16 (discussing significance of CVRA sponsors= floor statem ents). 6 6010 EFTA00210768  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 7 of 10 'ter Noir The definition of "crime victims" must thus be construed broadly in favor of Petitioner. She obviously qualifies as a "victim" under the CVRA. III. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF HER RIGHTS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS. Because Petitioner is a "victim" under the CVRA, she has certain protected rights under the Act. Most important, the Act promises that she will have an opportunity to "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." To date, Petitioner has not been given that right. This raises that very real possibility that the Government may negotiate and conclude a plea agreement with the Defendant without giving Petitioner her protected rights.2 Petitioner is entitled to have this conference with prosecutors before any final plea agreement is reached. The Fifth Circuit reached exactly this conclusion in a very recent case. In In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5ih Cir. 2008), the Government negotiated a plea agreement with the well-heeled corporate defendant without conferring with the victims. When the Government's failure was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Government had indeed violated the CVRA. The Fifth Circuit observed: "In passing the [CVRA], Congress made the policy decision-which we arc bound to enforce-that the victims have a right to inform the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." Id. at 394. This Court is obligated to protect the rights of Petitioner. The CVRA directs that "[i]n any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 2 On information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed against several other young females. These victims, too, are in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA. 7 7 al 10 EFTA00210769  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 8 of 10 crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA ]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(bX1). The CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in [the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(O1). Therefore, this Court has its own independent obligation to intercede and ensure that the Government respects the rights of Petitioner under the CVRA. CONCLUSION The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victim s' Rights Act. DATED this 7th day of July, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar #542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: 954-414-8033 Facsimile: 954-924-1530 8 o 010 EFTA00210770  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 9 of 10 vI Net CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing h provided by United States mail and via facsimile to: United States Attorney's Office, 500 South Austra lian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, this 7th day of July, 2008. Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 542075 9 sato EFTA00210771 08-80LIPsgaWSR_PAAM!`,.1§9r1ntered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 &feta oat tr... 2 ELECTRONIC D.C. ...IS 44 CIVIL COVER SHEET • he 1544 civ I cover sheet and the infonnamon contained herein neither replace nor suppkniont the filing and seivice ofpkadings or whet papers a by local mks of:oat. Tins form. approwed by the Judicial Conference of 'he United Stales In Septanba 1974. is required for the use of the Clerk JULY 7, 2008 tX Civil cockei nett SEE INSTRUC TIOVS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.' NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-Ned I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS STEVEN M. LARIMOIM / ,7-ed 5-6711-s- oi l CLERK U.S• DIST. C7- ,e: 32tne Poe 14 S.D. OF FLA. - MIAMI (b) Cams) of Residence ofFire Listed Plaintiff MU CPT IN U S PLAINTIFF ('ASCII Aim dc' , County of Residence of Fins Listed Defendant S PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY/ (C) Anomcfs 'Fun lament...60k aid r 9,401.099 /Oahe° NOTE: IN LA HD C ONDEM MA MON CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE TR NET &if Oak t.8 6„,.../ 644,A dis # nIsstOe-f-e5 LAND INVOLVED. 0021 hile,M-on Ctere# kik .fort ?en. .727 1 ;;;;; 161/ wood Fe S3 020 Ace e ft Check Cann)' Mx re Action Most 7 MIAMI. DADE 3 MONROE 3 Snow Amu "(PALM BEACH 7 MARTIN 3 ST. LUCIE 3 INDIAN RIVER 3 OKEECHOBEE NIG HE ANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION opine.' -X" in On Born Dan III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIESm en - X- se Om Barn lea Massif (For Dismay Cane Gab) ad One lin for Inkodaen 1: S. Lon cresern 3 3 :Mon Qinsine IMF DEF PTV OEF Pinson IC I. (acnelelefal vin a Parts' Cilimoof We SUN 7 I 1 I lolonmase4 or Principal Pane 7 44 74 ofB amens Ie Iin9 sit i 3 4 rt, U.S Lo.osnero Onsersts Cann orAgollm Sono 3 2 7 2 I ******WM wd Pnropel nut 1 5 7 5 •• Coe Jan ef 0 in nen as In Antler Slate I Minim ( meant, of 0411.n in non HO Cncv So-73 v ,let A eA 0inso, CS,.. in Subject Me 3 / 3 ) /onto Ninon 1 6 1 6 Fenn' COMM FAN KRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES L CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY " Ile Insein• PERSONAL I ' PERSONAL INJURY 3 610 AgelCuIton 740 Anna 211 usc Isit ri 400 sea • *****ononsene 120 Manisa E 3 310A mina 1 Holtman Many- 3 620 00n Food & Dreg 1 423 Winn's& 1 410 Anneal • Ito Maki Neu 7115 A maim Predict Med. !Joins:In 3 QS DIM le as knot 2$ USC 157 3 AM Ose Ins an BanIstg III Negotieldt histeunnes : Lanny 3 365 Persona loamy • ofPenn" 21 USC UI 3 450 Centre ISO Rae me, of oserpaymen. 3 320 Anemic l 'MI A • hoded Lenny 3 630 Lying Lew. PROPERTY RICH T9 3 MO Deepenonn & Et fontanel,' ann/Vninl Slender 3 365 Ashen..Person' 3 640 R.R. & Tort 3 120 Cannabis 3 470 Ran letter Influeaced end III Meters Ate 1 330 natal t amlasers• lame, Pianist' 3 650 A Moe Rep. 71130 Pawn Conlin Orialtvalioni ' 152 Rat moo uf ',amino Cuban Imbillis 7 660 licoupaaknal 3 $40 Tin:knurl 1 410 Cansomer Clan SItidall I 04s. 1 340 Mont PERSONAL PROPERTY Sanyntlialth 3 4$0 Cable Sal TV IE•s Venom, 3 345 Mann Produci 3 TM Othe Treed 3 690 Ono 3 PIO Selena et Sconce II/Rev nem mOsemnisim Imbibe, 3 371 TtvIk en triaging LABOR MICIAL (FCURITY - i ISO SeclIIINS Commoners of Vane M'. IffeCilli 1 350 Minor Vehicle 3 3g6 OlIn Pcnonl 3 Moine Lao. Susdanle 7 MI HIAtia•Sol C`OsaL$ 3 MO SeininMees' Sem 3 355 Mane Vehicle Peeper's Denim An 3 POI OWL Lon 1•23I 3 III5 C ninnies Challenge 3 MOOdor( moan Peolute Weans 3 351 tawny nuns.. 3 720 Cahoongm. Relation 3 $43 DIWC DIWW 1403(51) 12 L SC 3410 6r 1, 3 Comex Prato I hinny 3 360 Wher Fennel Posh.° Laws). 3 110 LebonMonttRepening 3 OM SSID Tale XVI 3 1190 Odin Staftlefy Aare.. 3 In feambese Inn/ & Deaeaelf At' 3 065 ll SI 14051.1) 3 Mil A potalnual Ass E REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 3 140 Radeny Cabot Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 3 1192 ENnook SuAtIoanoe Act inlad(t enlonnamn 3 441 Vows 3 510 Motions to Vane 3 PIO Onher Cabot Linehan 3 VIO Tames (US. Plan& 1 593 Ens narnmemal Mantes 220 fonelonme 3 442 Emolosoem Sennett 3 111 Dept. Eccles. Sot inn Of Delondanl 71194 [nip) A Necinne AO ' 230 Rent Lent A CiesMen 3 443 Hams's. N ttttt Cornet An / $11 IRS Third Pang 3 095 ninon of lenenaliell Am 240 Torino Lard Acconeedaisms 3 530 Leireral 24 U SC TOM 245 Tee on ins• tonnism 3 414 Welfare 3 533 0 Ii I: I