MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ATTORNEY AT LAW 20 PARK ►LAZA, SUITE 1000 BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02116 (617) 227-3700 FAX (617) 338-9538 NIGHT EMERGENCY (617) 901-3472 March 2, 2016 Via First Class Mail Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 EMAIL ADDRESSES: owlmcbeatt.net Re: Rebutting the Summary Judgment Motion (hereinafter "Motion") filed by the Petitioners in the CVRA case, 08-cv-80736-KAM, Dkt. 361. Dear Mr. Although Mr. Epstein is a limited intervenor rather than a party to the CVRA case between the Government and the Jane Does, please find several rebuttal arguments to the baseless accusations that Mr. Epstein improperly "conspired" with the Government to violate CVRA rights or that there was an improper relationship between the USAO and Mr. Epstein as the Jane Does have alleged. 1. Any failure to consult any potential crime victim before either the execution of the NPA on September 24, 2007, or the finalization of the NPA with the State Plea on June 30, 2008, was not the result of either a "conspiracy" with Epstein (see Motion at 7), nor any bad faith by the Government (see Motion at 4 where Petitioners allege that the Government was "following the guidance of Epstein's counsel in making decisions with respect to the timing and substance of any communication to the victims" and that the Office was "doing Epstein's bidding [when it] assiduously concealed the NPAs existence from the victims"). The USAO's decisions instead were consistent instead with the nationwide DOJ policy, regarding whether the CVRA rights were triggered in the absence of a federal criminal charge, a policy that was reinforced by a Memorandum Opinion for the Acting Deputy Attorney General from the Office of Legal Counsel on December 17, 2010, pg 1, which determined that "The rights provided by the Crime Victims' Rights Act are guaranteed from the time that criminal proceedings are initiated (by complaint, information,