From: 'a> To:' Subject: Fwd: Doe v. US Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 01:12:30 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.jpg; image004.png Ori inal messa e From: " Date:01/ 05:00 To: ' Subject: Fwd: Doe v. US I need an EC or something right away. Assistant US Attorney 500 S Australian Ave Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Begin forwarded message: From: Brad Edwards nailto:n Date: January 20, 2015 at 7:29:27 PM EST To: Cc: "Paul Cassell ( cmailto: >)" mailto:a> Subject: Doe v. US I just read your Response to our Motion to Join Doe 3 and 4. I need some immediate clarification on one argument you make. You cite to an interview conducted by Jack Scarola for the proposition that Doe 3 was contacted by the FBI in 2007 and refused to cooperate. However, you recently produced all 302's and did not produce anything from 2007. In fact, the first evidence of any contact made by the FBI was 2011, other than the victim letters sent to her subsequent to Epstein's plea. Our understanding is that it was Epstein's investigator posing as an "FBI agent" on the telephone in "2007" (although Jane Doe No. 3 makes clear that she is uncertain about the date). Jane Doe 3 did not believe it was a real agent, and that consequently she did not provide any information. If you have information suggesting that the FBI or any law enforcement agency actually reached out to Jane Doe NO. 3 in 2007, and that she actually declined cooperation, then we would appreciate receiving that information immediately — there should be a confirming 302 of her statement. If, on the other hand, you are relying exclusively on the interview with Scarola and in fact Doe 3 was not actually contacted in 2007, then we are requesting that you correct that portion of your motion since it would be entirely misleading as•is. The misleading nature of the Government's representation becomes particularly apparent given the fact that we know that the Government has anot