From: Paul Cassell <[email protected]> To: "Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)" <[email protected]>, Brad Edwards <[email protected]> Cc: "Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS)" <[email protected]>, "Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Are we being taken advantage of? Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:48:22 +0000 Importance: Normal Hey Dexter, Maybe you can clarify a few points for me. 1. Your reply memorandum is filed entirely under seal. There are sentences (indeed multiple page after page) that do not raise confidentiality issues. One what possible basis is the Government sealing these sentences. As one example — on page 2 of your sealed reply, you state: 'As a threshold matter, Petitioners have argued that this Court cannot dismiss these proceedings at this time for lack of standing because the standing issues raised by the government arte intertwined with the ultimate merits of their CVRA claims. DE 127 at 7-87 On what basis is the Government denying the public access to read that sentence in your brief. That clearly does not fall within Judge Middlebrook's order, particularly since DE 127 is not under seal. Isn't Justice Department policy to allow the public read sentences such as this one? More generally, isn't the public entitled to know the Mr. Ferrer has filed a brief saying that even where the Government and a sex offender deliberately conspired to deny victims their promised CVRA rights, the federal courts are powerless to do anything about it? 2. You state that your reply brief does not raise new arguments. Yet (as one of a number of possible examples) at page 9 of the your reply brief, you have a multi-page argument that "The actions that Petitioner have taken since learning of the non-Prosecution Agreement legally preclude them for seeking rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement." Please direct us to precisely where in your opening memorandum you advanced that specific argument. 3. As