EFTA01081638.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05)33 2011 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AUTHORITIES Respondent, United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2's Motion to Supplement Authorities, and states: Petitioners seek to supplement authorities in their Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. The motion should be denied since petitioners fail to explain how a letter from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) constitutes "authority" in support of their contention that the U.S. Attorney's Office has a legal obligation to provide them with evidence in their CVRA lawsuit. The May 6, 2011 letter from OPR references Professor Cassell's claim that "improper influences" may have resulted in the U.S. Attorney's Office's decision to enter into a non- prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. Petitioners' Exhibit A at 1. The letter advises that OPR's policy is to "refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of EFTA01081638 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2011 Page 2 of 4 misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances." OPR declined to conduct an investigation, based on a finding that issues or allegations were, are being, or could be, addressed in the course of the pending litigation, and the absence of extraordinary circumstances or a finding of misconduct by the court. From this three paragraph letter, petitioners conclude that: (1) the government has in its possession information that will be helpful to the victims' case; and (2) the Government is not currently investigating these issues. The OPR's decision to decline to conduct an investigation into Professor Cassell's allegations neither supports nor undercuts petitioners' argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office is obligated to disclose information which may be relevant to their CVRA case. In short, the letter is irrelevant. Petitioners argue that title letter makes clear that it is only before this Court that such issues can be adjudicated." D.E. 82 at 2. They are suggesting that, because OPR will not investigate their claims of "improper influences," this Court must do so. It is well-settled that "[t]he federal courts are not empowered to seek out and strike down any governmental act that they deem to be repugnant to the Constitution. Rather, federal courts sit `solely, to decide on the rights of individuals."' Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007), citing Marburg v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). This case does not even involve the Constitution, but a claim of a statutory right under the CVRA. The sole issue is whether the Government owed any legal duties to petitioners under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1) - (8), in the absence of a formal charge filed against Jeffrey Epstein. This litigation is not a platform for petitioners to obtain judicial review of the manner in which the Executive Branch exercised its 2 EFTA01081639 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2011 Page 3 of 4 discretion in entering into a non-prosecution agreement. The May 6, 2011 OPR letter is not authority of any kind, to support petitioners' contention that the U.S. Attorney's Office is legally obligated to provide them with evidence which may support their claims. Accordingly, petitioners' motion should be denied. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. Attorney for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 30, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney 3 EFTA01081640 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05i30.2011 Page 4 of 4 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe # I and Jane Doe # 2 4 EFTA01081641