From: "I To: Paul Cassell <[email protected]>, Jackie Perczek <[email protected]> Cc: 11( >, "Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:14:16 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, The government is not a party to this appeal. We take no position on either motion. Thank you. From: Paul race ill [mailto:cassellpelaw.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:11 PM To: Jackie Perczek Cc: Brad Edwards ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Dexter — What is the Government's view on all this? Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for lane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 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, 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. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you. From: Jackie Perczek [mailto:JPerczekeroybladccom] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:56 AM To: Paul Cassell Cc: imarienter(illif ilefermorimMerimemOrmitar* Brad Edwards (bradepathtojustice.com) Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Paul, the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the jurisdictional question you raise, and at the heart of the merits. They cannot be separated.