USA v. E-GOLD, LTD. et alRESPONSED.D.C.June 19, 2007UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : Criminal No. 07-109 (RMC) v. : : E-GOLD, LTD., : GOLD & SILVER RESERVE, INC., : DOUGLAS L. JACKSON, : BARRY K. DOWNEY, and : REID A. JACKSON, : : Defendants. : : GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO UNSEAL THE LETTER SENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN FACCIOLA The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and the United States Department of Justice, hereby files its response to Defendants’ Motion to Unseal the Letter Sent to Magistrate Judge John Facciola by the United States Department of Justice in Support of the Application for the Seizure Warrant in Case No. 05-664-M-01 (“Defendant’s Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is entirely baseless and should be denied. Defendants ask this Court to order the unsealing of a letter written to Magistrate Judge Facciola in December 2005, at his request, that was never read by the Judge nor was it the basis for any ruling or action by the Court. Further, the letter is attorney work product material in that it contains the mental impressions and conclusions of the prosecutors concerning an ongoing investigation, and is, therefore, privileged. Defendants have not stated a single basis upon which Case 1:07-cr-00109-RMC Document 41 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 4 2 this letter would be relevant to the proceedings in this case, and state that they “cannot know for sure whether the letter is in fact relevant to the instant proceedings because they have never read it.” This is a pure fishing expedition. Although defendants further state that “the parties are presently litigating the manner in which the government applied for seizure warrants in this case,” that is not correct. We are not currently litigating the manner in which the Government applied for seizure warrants. Rather, we are currently litigating whether there is a basis for the release of some seized funds for attorney’s fees. There have been no allegations of bad faith or error in the process that the Government has followed in obtaining seizure warrants, nor is there a basis for any. Four accounts – two bank accounts through the initial civil forfeiture action, and two e- gold accounts in through the recent seizure warrants – have been seized in this matter. Probable cause was established independently for the seizure of each account. Probable cause to seize the bank accounts was established in the civil forfeiture complaint with attached affidavit, while probable cause to seize the e-gold accounts was established in the affidavits supporting the seizure warrant applications. The letter Magistrate Judge Facciola requested the Government to write had no bearing on any of the Court’s findings regarding probable cause for the seizures. Case 1:07-cr-00109-RMC Document 41 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 4 3 Accordingly, this letter is irrelevant to the issues at hand and there is no basis to unseal the Government’s privileged work product material. Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY A. TAYLOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: /s/ LAUREL LOOMIS RIMON Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division 555 Fourth Street, N.W., Rm. 5830 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-7788 Laurel.Loomis.Rimon@usdoj.gov KIMBERLY KIEFER PERETTI Senior Counsel MICHELLE KANE Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division 1301 New York Ave., NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 353-4249 kimberly.peretti@usdoj.gov Dated: June 19, 2007 Case 1:07-cr-00109-RMC Document 41 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 19 day of June, 2007, a copy of the foregoing Government’sth Response To Defendants’ Motion to Unseal The Letter Sent to Magistrate Judge John Facciola by the United States Department of Justice in Support of the Application for the Seizure Warrant in Case No. 05-664-M-01 was served via ECF on counsel for the defendants, Mitchell Fuerst, Esq. Andrew Ittleman, Esq. Fuerst Humphrey Ittleman 1001 Brickell Bay Drive Suite Two Thousand Two Miami, FL 33131 mfuerst@fuerstlaw.com aittleman@fuerstlaw.com Aron Raskas, Esq. Kramon & Graham, P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202-3201 araskas@kg-law.com David B. Smith English & Smith 526 King Street, Suite 213 Alexandria, VA 22314 dsmith@englishandsmith.com ____________________________________ Laurel Loomis Rimon Assistant United States Attorney Case 1:07-cr-00109-RMC Document 41 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 4
