EFTA00230437.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Room 3266 Washington, D.C. 20530 CONFIDENTIAL The Honorable Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear Mr. Ferrer. Assistant United States Attorney forwars to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) a letter dated December 10, 2010 you received from Professor Paul 06 Oa- „7t ~nsjw Quinney College of Law," the University of Utah. In his letter, tab sell alleged misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. OPR. has completed its inquiry into whe roper influences" resulted in the USAO's decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein. f ig Most, if not all, o =negations are currently being litigated on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane•Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain front investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of Professor Cassell's correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that his allegations fall into this category. No 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013919 EFTA00230437  • • • court has made a fmding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. We have, therefore, determined that these allegations do not warrant further inquiry and we consider this matter to be closed. Wt. ha-ea- n .44 6: Co€1-2-c-tiR f (n l- dna' ..-S;ncerely, --tr-5 94- rtme. Counsel -2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013920 EFTA00230438 ::ODMA/PCDOCS/OPR/309807/1 201100372 Howard -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013921 EFTA00230439  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avaue N.W. Room 3266 Washington. D.C. 20530 CONFIDENTIAL The Honorable Wifiedo A. Ferrer United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4ih Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear Mr. Ferrer. Assistant United States Attorney forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) a letter dated December 10, 2010 that you received from Professor Paul Cassel), of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. In his letter, Professor Cassell alleged misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in the criminal investigation ofleffrey Epstein. OPR has completed its inquiry into whether "improper influences" resulted in the USAO's decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein. Most, if not all, of Professor Cassell's allegations are currently being litigated on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Jolmson (S.D. Fla.). OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of Professor Cassell's correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that his allegations fall into this category. No 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013922 EFTA00230440 court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. We have, therefore, determined that these allegations do not warrant further inquiry and we consider this matter to be closed. We have notified Professor Cassell of our decision. Sincerely, Counsel -2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013923 EFTA00230441 ::ODMA/PCDOCS/OPR/309807/1 201100372 Howard -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013924 EFTA00230442  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Room 3266 Washington. D.C. 20330 Professor Paul G. Cassell Quinney College of Law The University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 Dear Professor Cassell: Your letter dated December 10, 2010 to United States Attorney Willy& A. Ferrer was forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR has completed an inquiry into your allegation of professional misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) in the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, you ;do question whether "improper influences" resulted in the USAO's decision to enter a non-prosecution it agreement with Mr. Epstein. Most, if not all, of the allegations set forth in your letter are currently being litigated on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. Untied States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marrallohnson (S.D. Fla.). OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of your correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that your allegations fall into this category. No 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013925 EFTA00230443 court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. We regret that we can be of no further assistance to you. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Counsel -2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013926 EFTA00230444 nODMA/PCDOCS/OPR/309806/1 Howard 201100372 -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013927 EFTA00230445  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pemuyhunia Avenue N.W, Room 3266 Washington, D.C. 20530 Professor Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law The University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 Dear Professor Cassell: Your letter dated December 10, 2010 to United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer was forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR has completed an inquiry into your allegation of professional misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) in the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, you question whether "improper influences" resulted in the USAO's decision to enter a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein. Most, if not all, of the allegations set forth in your letter are currently being litigated on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of your correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that your allegations fall into this category. No 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013928 EFTA00230446 court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. We regret that we can be of no further assistance to you. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely. 44- 1 Counsel - 2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013929 EFTA00230447 ::ODMA/PCDOCS/OPR/309806/1 Howard 201100372 -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013930 EFTA00230448  N.. ,,,,, 4 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Room 3266 Washington, D.C. 20530 Professor Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law Th.t..- University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 Dear Professor Cassell: e Yo our ur letteAto United States Attorney Wifredolerrer witss forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR has completed an i uiry into your allegation of professional misconduct by the United States Attorney's r for the Southern District ofFlorida (USAO) in thc criminal investigation ofJeffrey Eps in.(Speci malty, you st ill... L.:LSI— 4/O'S us /1 hat "improper influences" ostise-USACI resulted in thee decision to e a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein fosegoing-feelerai-proseemien-of-sex-effermes.set &you tv., trAw in 0 s •-‘• 4- 4-4-C2- itc arimity (at-ste-statemartsyntrrrraarm-support of y allegatios arikad by yogi], O tt*litigatrat on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Dok e, 7:11-'` II v. UnitedStates, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Mana/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). Titeseelti athatLg J a onaire; era agreement; t vie ms were e IOS ahisabeaPcagagathisessesiatcaatlitstein after regrine film" the. r Te ea OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (Dal) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal a ce. It is, wever, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues ti 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013931 EFTA00230449  be'''7 are' or allegations that werefintressegl or dim could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of your 4-420 correspondence, and the pleadings filed in Doe case, we have determined that your allegations fall into this category. No court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. ith respect to your statements that Mr. Epstein may have had advance knowl 6 of an impendin search wa t Burin the investigation, ave been very in civil litigation b against Mr. E tein, we hay ts do not warrant further inqu we consider this ma •e closed.: 4 kit We regret that we can be of no further assistance'to you. Thank y for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, z Nfr? Counsel - 2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013932 EFTA00230450 ::ODMA/PCDOCS/OPFt/309806/1 Howard 201100372 -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013933 EFTA00230451  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Room 3266 Washington. D.0 20530 CONFIDENTIAI(TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY The Honorable Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney United States Atto ey's Office for the Souther istrict of Florida 99 N.E. 4i6 Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear Mr. Ferrer: On December 16, 2010, Assistant United States Attorney forwarded to the Office ofProfessional Responsibility (OPR) a letter you received from Professor Paul Cassell, S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah. In his letter, Mr. Cassell alleged misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein for federal sex offenses. OPR has completed its inquiry into Mr. Cassell's allegation that "improper influences" on the USAO resulted in the decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein foregoing federal charges. Many of the statements made by Professor Cassell in support of his allegation have been raised in litigation on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe#2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). Those statements include that: Jeffrey Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire; that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not informed of the non-prosecution agreement; that victims were deceived about the non-prosecution agreement; and that a former Assistant United States Attorney had a conflict of interest when he represented an associate of Mr. Epstein after retiring from the USAO. OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DO.1) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013934 EFTA00230452  •••••//#••.I.A. investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were addressed or that could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of Professor Cassell's correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that his allegation falls into this category. No court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. With respect to Professor Cassell's statements that Mr. Epstein may have had advance knowledge of an impending search warrant during the investigation, and that he has been denied discovery in civil litigation by victims against Mr. Epstein, we have determined that these statements do not warrant further inquiry and we consider this matter to be closed. Sincerely, Counsel -2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013935 EFTA00230453 ::ODMA/PCDOCS/OPR/309807/1 201100372 Howard -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013936 EFTA00230454  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W. Room 3266 Washington. D.C. 20530 Professor Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 Dear Professor Cassell: On December 16, 2010, your letter to United States Attorney Wifitdo Ferrer was forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR has completed an inquiry into your allegation of professional misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District ofFlorida (USAO) in the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, you alleged that "improper influences" on the USAO resulted in the decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein foregoing federal prosecution of sex offenses. Many of the statements you made in support of your allegation have been raised by you in litigation on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe#2 v. UnitedStates, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). Those statements include that: Jeffrey Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire; that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not informed of the non-prosecution agreement; that victims were deceived about the non- prosecution agreement; and that a former Assistant United States Attorney had a conflict of interest 0-644"e" r t r`3 Antrrt-chm,%AS AO when he represented an associate of Mr. Epsteil OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attomea authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013937 EFTA00230455 addressed or that could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of your correspondence, and the pleadings filed in Doe case, we have determined that your allegations fall into this category. No court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. With respect to your statements that Mr. Epstein may have had advanceji knowledge of an impending search warrant during the investigation, and that you have been denied discovery -te- o-5 whieitpu•-feelsentitled in civil litigation by victims far-damages from Mr. Epstein, we have determined that these statements do not warrant further inquiry and we consider this matter to be closed. We regret that we can be of no further assistance to you. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Counsel -2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013938 EFTA00230456 Document Number C:\Documents and SettingArplagenhoeaocal Settings\Temporary Internet FilesContent.Outlook16MC6F8YM\OPR-#309806-v1-epsteincIsltrcassell.WPD Howard 201100372 -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013939 EFTA00230457  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Room 3266 Washington. D.0 20530 CONFIDENTIAL: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY The Honorable Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear Mr. Ferrer: On December 16, 2010, Assistant United States Attorney forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) a letter you received from Professor Paul Cassell, S.J. Quitmey College of Law of the Uni sity of Utah. s letter, Mr. Cassell alleged misconduct by your 8 -Zeta °flit in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein for federal sex offenses. OPR has completed its inquiry into Mr. Cassell's allegation that "improper influences" on the USAO resulted in the decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein foregoing federal charges. Many of the statements made by Professor Cassell in support of his allegation have been raised in litigation on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe#2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). Those statements include that: Jeffrey Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire; that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not informed of the non-prosecution agreement; that victims were deceived about the non-prosecution agreement; and that a former Assistant United States Attorney had a conflict 0.4344.-d- i n Esnnv. nv. %SA° of interest when he represented an associate of Mr. Epstein. OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013940 EFTA00230458 personnel that relate to the exercise of an attontek,tauthority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were addressed or that could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of Professor Cassell's correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that his allegation falls into this category. No court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. With respect to Professor Cassell's statements that Mr. Epstein may have had advance/ knowledge of an impending search warrant during the investigation, and that he has been denied discovery te-whielthefeels-entitled in civil litigation by victims for-rmagesbem Mr. Epstein, we have determined that these statements do not warrant further inquiry and we consider this matter to be closed. Sincerely, Counsel -2- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013941 EFTA00230459 Document Number CADocuments and Settingsktplagenboenocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook16MC6F8'YM\OPR-#309807-v1-epsteinclosingltrusa.WPD 201100372 Howard -3- 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013942 EFTA00230460 Griffin, Lisa (OPR) From: (OPR) Sent: 2011 11:19 AM To: (OPR) Subject: RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Also, was the civil litigation where he didn't get full discovery in state court? From: (OPR) Sent Thu Ma 05, 2011 11:08 AM To: (OPR) Subject: RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Thanks for your guidance and help. From: (OPR) Sent Thursda May 05, 2011 11:01 AM To: (OPR) Subject: RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Cool. Let me read more closely for typos but this is great From: (OPR) Sent Thursda Ma 05, 2011 10:41 AM To: (OPR) Subject: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Let me know what you think. 08-80736-6-MARRA P-013943 EFTA00230461 Griffin. Lisa (OPR) From: (OPR) Sent: y05, 2011 11:17 AM To: (OPR) Subject: RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Was the search warrant a federal or state warrant? From: (OPR) Sent: Thu M 05, 2011 11:08 AM To: (OPR) Subject RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review inks for your guidance and .ielp. From: (OPR) Sent Thursda May 05, 2011 11:01 AM To: (OPR) Subject: RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Cool. Let me read more closely for typos but this is great From: (OPR) Sent Thu M 05, 2011 10:41 AM To: (OPR) Subject Re-write of Epstein letters for your review Let me know what you think. 08-80736-&-MARRA P-013944 EFTA00230462 Griffin, Lisa (OPR) From: (OPR) Sent: May 04, 2011 5:01 PM To: (OPR) Subject: : rat tters In Epstein matter Let me think on it. He mentioned Reinhard in his first letter, right? As one of the "proofs" of improper influence? From: (OPR) Sent Wednesd May 04, 20114:57 PM To: (OPR) Subject draft letters in Epstein matter Ruth — How do these look? Lisa 08-80736-C1V-MARRA P-013945 EFTA00230463  (OPR) From: Sent: illiarg p(0R °4P2 i R0)11 4:08 PM To: Subject: FYI on the Florida matter We talked t — he understand that OPR does not get involved in litigation and will handle Cassell's requests. He told us that AU and the case agent say that Reinhard was present for a meeting in which the culpability of In= was discussed. =i is the person he later represented after retiring. However, even if true, he Is a former who may have had a conflict after he left us and OPR would not look into such a thing. (And I doubt PIN would prosecute him for a standards or conflict violation..) This does not seem to change our position on closing the matter. Lisa is drafting a closing letter. (81W,M seemed fine when I told him we were going to close.) 1 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013946 EFTA00230464 EFTA00230465  (OPR) From: (OPR) Sent: To: Subject: (OPR 201 , ); 1 (OPR) FVV OPT inquiry - request or in ormation Attachments: motion-intervene.pdf; sanctions-motion-attached.pdf Robin and Lisa, here is the latest on the Florida matter. I have a late lunch today but could meet at 3 or after. From: Paul Cassell trnallbo Sent: Tuesda Ma 03, 2011.11:22_0_ To: (OPR); (USARS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: OPR inquiry - request for information Dear and Ruth, As you will have seen, Bruce Reinhard has filed a motion to intervene In our Crime Victims' Rights Act case. (Since Ruth has not been served, I attach a copy of the pleading to this e-mail). As you will see, Reinhard claims that we have no factual basis for making an assertion that (for example) Reinhard Improperly represented In violation of Justice Department regulations. In view of this motion, we are writing to inquire into the current status of the Justice Department's inquiry into Reinhard's conduct. We also believe that the Justice Department has access to information that will support the allegations in our summary judgment motion. We further believe that the Justice Department has access to information that will help us la_ respond to Reinhard's claim that he was not privy to any non-public information about the Epstein case. We are ne#0604/ therefore respectfully requesting that the Justice Department provide this information to us by Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 14 so that we can use this information in responding to Reinhard's motion to intervene. Alternatively, if releasing the Information at this time will be harmful to the Justice Department's on-going Inquiry Into Reinhard's conduct, we request that the Justice Department inform Judge Marra that the Reinhard situation is currently the subject of a Justice> Department inquiry and that further release of information would be harmful at this time. We request an opportunity to discuss this matter with you at your earliest convenience. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell Co-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 C , UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp7PersonID=57&nametCassell,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. 1 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013948 EFTA00230466 From: (OPR) (mallto:Ruth.Plagenhoefausdoj.gov] Sent: ray, 0113:02 PM To: Paul Cassell Subject: RE: OPR complaint thanks, Paul. I will pass this on to the Assistant conducting the review. From: Paul Cassell (mailto Sent: Frida Aril 1 , 2011 4:57 PM To: (OPR; Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: PF: CDR complaint HI Ruth, Thanks for getting back to me. I was confused about one point — my letter to U.S. Attorney Ferrer requesting further investigation of the Epstein matter didn't appear to me to raise any issues that even arguably could have been raised in litigation. So I was a bit confused by the reference to that complication in your e-mail — I wasn't sure what you were suggesting might have been the subject of earlier litigation. Perhaps you were referring to Crime Victims Rights Act issues. As you know, we have raised claims in on-going litigation that the government attorneys violated the Crime Victims Rights Act -- the government attorneys have now responded by arguing that these issues are not properly subject to litigation and the issue is under review by Judge Marra. But we were asking OPR for a general review of the issue of whether improper influences were brought to bear or improper actions taken that led to Epstein receiving a generous "non-prosecution' offer from the U.S. Attorney's Office — a separate subject. Thanks for keeping us posted. Paul Cassell Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law QuInney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake Ci , UT 84112.0730 Voice: Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: htto://www.law.utah.edu/orofiles/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: IIMMIE (OPR) [maitto Sent: Frl ay, April 15, 2011 2:24 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: OPR complaint 2 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013949 EFTA00230467 Paul, your complaint is under review. Please note that it is unusual for OPR to initiate an investigation of matters that have been or could be raised in litigation. If we determine based on the record in the pending matter that this is the case, we most likely will decline to go forward. Of course, if a court makes a finding criticizing the government or finding misconduct, the complaint can be renewed, We will let you know the results of our review. Ruth From: Paul Cassell (malt° Sent: r rida di 15, 2011 :10 PM To: (OPR) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: OPR complaint Hi Ruth, I'm just writing to see what the status Is regarding the OPR inquiry that has been Initiated Into the Epstein matter. Brad Edwards and I would Ilke to update our clients. Also, I am wondering if we can be helpful in providing any information to you in the inquiry. We know a lot about the Epstein matters, and would be happy to pass that along to you. Thanks in advance for any further information you can provide. Paul Cassell, Co-Counsel for Jane Doe Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefaultasp?PersonINS7&namer-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: (OPR) [maNto Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:50 AM To: Paul Cassell Subject RE: OPR complaint Thanks, Paul. OPR takes no position regarding any party's representations in litigation. Ruth From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@ Sent: Thursda March 17, 2011 12:11 PM To: (OPR) 3 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013950 EFTA00230468 Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: OPR complaint HI Ruth, Thanks for the information. Tomorrow (3/18) we will be filing a pleading In which we mention AUSA Bruce Reinhart's apparently improper representation of Epstein-related witnesses. I assume that doing so publicly will not compromise your inquiry. We look forward to hearing from you as a soon as possible about the results of your inquiry. Thanks for your help. Paul Cassell Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law SJ. Quinney College of law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: ht-to://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?Personlem57&namertassell,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: (OPR) [mak° Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:44 AM To: Paul raccAll Subject: OPR complaint Mr. Cassell, I received your voice mail and thought that I should respond by email to be sure you get a timely answer — with the time difference it can be hard to get in touch. I understand from AUSA IN that he confirmed to you that he sent your complaint and request for an Investigation to OPR. We will therefore consider you a complainant In the matter. Your complaint is being handled within the normal process here at OPR. It has been opened as an inquiry and assigned for review. It is not an investigation. We will contact you if we need further Information and/or to Inform you of the results of our review. Acting Associate Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility U.S. De artment of Justice 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013951 EFTA00230469  (OPR) From: (OPR) Sent: March 16, 2011 11:05 AM To: (OPR) Subject: FW: Referral of Cassell Request for Investigation From: a (USAFLS) Sent Wednesda March 16, 2011 10:52 AM To: (OPR) Subject Referral of Cassell Request for Investigation Ruth, Attached please find an e-mail from Paul Cassell, regarding his anticipated filing of a motion for summary judgment in this Crime Victims Rights Act case. In December, he sent the U.S. Attorney's Office a letter requesting an investigation into alleged improprieties in the negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. That request was forwarded to OPR on December 16, 2010. Cassell has been pressing me for the name of the person conducting any investigation. I declined to provide him your name, until I cleared it with you first. Does OPR have a policy about providing complainants the names of the investigating attorneys? If not, shall I just refer Cassell to the OPR general phone number? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell fmailto Sent: a Tuesda r March 15, 2011 7:21 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: Ann C. (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Government's Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer Dew =, Brad and I have received/Mr. Ferrers,letter of today. We are deeply disappointed. We will file our court pleadings on Friday. Mr. Ferrer's letter still leaves unanswered a number of questions, which I am writing to raise with you -- again. 1. You still have not provided, as you promised you would, the name of the person coordinating the OPR investigation. As a result we have not been able to obtain any information about the status of the investigation. Just to be clear, we intend to include in our filing infonnatio has begun an investigation and to include the information that we currently have about rice Reinha — we assume that making that information public will not compromise OPR's work. 2. We will be making initial disclosures to you under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shortly. We have not heard back front you on whether you will be making parallel disclosures. Accordingly, we understand your position to be that you are not obligated to provide to us any documents under Rule 26. 3. We understand your position to be that, despite the "best efforts" clause in the CVRA and your obligation to treat victims with fairness, you can withhold evidence from the victims that will help them prove CVRA violations. For example, we understand you to take the position that you can withhold the other half of the C1.S. Attorney's correspondence, correspondence between the Department and Ken 08-80736-CZ-MARRA P-013952 EFTA00230470  Starr and Lillian Sanchez on behalf of Epstein, and information about Bruce Reinhart's role in the Epstein case. In short. we understand you to be asserting a blanket position that you can withhold information that will help prove the victims' CVRA case. If this is incorrect, please advise us promptly. If we have misunderstood you and you are willing to provide us relevant information, we will promptly provide you with a list of such information. If we have understood you correctly, we will be filing a motion with the Court shortly to block the Justice Department from suppressing such highly relevant information. 4. You still have not given us your position on the victims' motion to file an unsealed. unredacted pleading reciting the U.S. Attorney's correspondence. What is your position on that motion: We have been asking for your position on this motion for some time now. if we have not heard back from you by c.o.b. Wednesday, March 16, 2011, we will include in our pleadings the following statement; "The Justice Department attorneys handling this case have been contacted several times for the