From: "Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)" To: Paul Cassell <1 Subject: RE: proposed schedule to resolve the case Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:47:08 +0000 Importance: Normal 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. 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. Dexter From: Paul Cassell [mailto Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:39 PM To: Lee, De