Dear Alex, AS you are aware we find ourselves trying in all good faith to carry through the implementation of your deferred pros agreement. AS we can find not one example where the government as entered into a deferred pros, agreement , but still required an actual conviction in the state. we have reiterated twice now in the past two weeks, as you have demanded in writing , our commitment to abide by all the terms in your agreement. so that this letter this should not be seen as a breach. I write in regard to the 3771 notification provision that you discussed. the following is the defintion of crime victim.under 3771.. .INSERT . This clearly is outside of this case. the guidelines for notification call into question "the wisdom and practcality of giving notice to possible witness in the case and the efect that realying any information may have on the defendants right to a fair trial" In addition under 18 U.s>C. 3509(k) . the If at any time
that a cause of action for for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arise s ous of the same occurence and in which the child is a victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal jusitce action, and any mention of the civil action during the criminal justice proceeding is prohibited. A criminal action is pending until it;s final adjudication in the trial court. . We are sypathetic to your deisre that girls you believe are victims are compensated, in a timely fashion. we share that desire. As you have previously stated , asking Mr Epstein to plead to a charge that he doesn't think fits, causes you great concern ,, the USAM , addresses this veruy issue by its statement that "you should make an offer of proof of the facts known to the government to support the conclusion that the defendant has in fact committed the offense charged. We
respectfully request that you follow the "should " guideline, in the 2422 B, and 2423 , charge as well as the 796.03 state charge. AS the state charge carries with it a restitution statute, we are finding it difficult to tease out your goals. you state you want the girls in the same position as if Mr Epstien would have been convicted at trial. WE agree they would have been cchallenged aas to their damages and liability as well as =credibility, Can we do that now.? As you are aware the 2255 amount of minimum damge was 50 k at the time of the alleged incidents. we believe an expost facto motion will confirm this. We think that as you have asked us to waive civil liability to a list of unnamed people , that the govt by defintion attests to the fact of their pernal injury, we would like the names, the allegations , and the dates. we respectfully request the indictment, or the facts explain how the two girls in question Saige and TAtum are on that list.
With regard restitution, the state probation office is fully capable of making al the determination as the federal government would be if this were in District court, WE remind you that the burden of demonstrating that the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense is on the Gov't (18 USC 3664(e)) AS a follow up and to be discussed further we request that Marie Vilafana be taken off this cse.. Her misrepresentation have been brought to your attention and we will respond in more detail shortly. As only one example, when we raised the issue of her subpoena to the attorneys investigator , for all his toll records and third party contacts had on Epsstein behalf, her response as she has repeatedone,, addressed a different Manual gudeline that refers to attorney offices, We have been doing this for over a year, when we bring this behavior to the attentio of ssuperviosr we are told,, sorry she s doing this without ny knowledge. PLease
refer to 410 guidelines for issuing grand jury or trial subpoena sto Attorneys, and its various requirements.. then compare it with her written respone to Mr Lefkowitz. Also , please consider that the Guidlines echo many of the arguments that we have made over the past few months namey
1. The Strength of the Jurisdiction's Interest. The attorney for the government should consider the relative Federal and state characteristics of the criminal conduct involved. Some offenses, even though in violation of Federal law, are of particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local jurisdiction in which they occur, either because of the nature of the offense, the identity of the offender or victim, the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state or local investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason, when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less substantial than the interest of state or local authorities, consideration should be given to referring the case to those authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal prosecution.
.


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping