DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
843 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
5
Relationships
10
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
843 KB
Summary
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ken Starr |
Attended a March 12, 2008 meeting as part of the Epstein defense team and made written submissions to the Criminal Di...
|
|
| Lefkowitz |
Attended a March 12, 2008 meeting as part of the Epstein defense team and made written submissions to the Criminal Di...
|
|
| Martin Weinberg |
Attended the March 12, 2008 meeting as part of the Epstein defense team.
|
|
| Oosterbaan | former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS |
Represented the Department at the March 12, 2008 meeting and provided recollections of it to OPR.
|
| Mandelker | current CEOS Deputy Chief |
Represented the Department at the March 12, 2008 meeting.
|
| Epstein |
Subject of the defense team's efforts, sentencing, and civil suits mentioned in the document.
|
|
| Sloman | Assistant United States Attorney (implied) |
Mentioned in relation to a purported 'relationship' with a victims' law firm, correspondence with Lefkowitz, and brie...
|
| Villafaña |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding her understanding of communications between the USAO and state authorities, and her...
|
|
| Acosta |
Mentioned in a footnote as a recipient of a report from Villafaña.
|
|
| Krischer |
Mentioned in a footnote as having complained to Villafaña about the USAO's lack of communication.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ | government agency |
Department of Justice, mentioned as the body for appellate review.
|
| CEOS | government agency |
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the DOJ. Oosterbaan and Mandelker were officials there.
|
| The Department | government agency |
Synonym for the Department of Justice, represented by Oosterbaan and Mandelker at the meeting.
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, which received information from Oosterbaan and a CEOS Deputy Chief about the m...
|
| Criminal Division | government agency |
A division of the DOJ to which Starr and Lefkowitz made written submissions.
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office. The defense team submitted a list of complaints about its actions. Sloman worked for...
|
| State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding communications that the defense team allegedly sought to restrict.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2008-03-12
A meeting between Epstein's defense team and DOJ officials to discuss the case. It was described as a 'listening session' where the defense presented its arguments.
The Department (DOJ)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in footnote 165 as the location of an attorney with whom Sloman was in private practice.
|
Relationships (5)
Starr was a member of Epstein's defense team and attended a meeting on his behalf.
Lefkowitz was a member of Epstein's defense team and attended a meeting on his behalf.
Weinberg was a member of Epstein's defense team and attended a meeting on his behalf.
Met on March 12, 2008, where Starr's defense team presented arguments that Oosterbaan, a DOJ official, described as 'outrageous things'.
Key Quotes (10)
"listening session"Source
— current CEOS Deputy Chief
(Describing the nature of the March 12, 2008 meeting with Starr.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #1
"some back and forth"Source
— Oosterbaan
(Recalling the dynamic of the March 12, 2008 meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #2
"some outrageous things"Source
— Oosterbaan
(Recalling what the defense team was saying during the meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #3
"weak pitch"Source
— CEOS Deputy Chief
(Describing the contribution of the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief who had joined the defense team.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #4
"have caused us serious concern"Source
— Starr and Lefkowitz
(In a written submission to the Criminal Division regarding the USAO's actions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #5
"Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with state authorities"Source
— Starr and Lefkowitz
(One of the specific complaints made against the USAO.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #6
"had no connection to the conduct at issue"Source
— Starr and Lefkowitz
(Describing items for which the USAO issued legal process and document requests.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #7
"relationship"Source
— Starr and Lefkowitz
(Describing the purported existence of a connection between Sloman and a law firm representing victims.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #8
"Your recent correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney’s Office . . . raises concern."Source
— Sloman
(In a November 2007 communication to Lefkowitz, as cited in footnote 164.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #9
"it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication."Source
— Villafaña
(Her explanation to Krischer as to why the USAO had not been communicating with him, as cited in footnote 164.)
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
Quote #10
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,179 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page134 of 258
SA-132
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 132 of 348
SA-132
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 132 of 348
appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ. Ken [Starr]
and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to
our seeking appellate review within DOJ.
and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to
our seeking appellate review within DOJ.
Starr, Lefkowitz, and Martin Weinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting, as well as
the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team,
Oosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The
current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a “listening session” with Starr doing
most of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled “some back and forth” because the
defense team was saying “some outrageous things.” Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were
disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for
child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the
CEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a “weak pitch” that was not
effective.
the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team,
Oosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The
current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a “listening session” with Starr doing
most of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled “some back and forth” because the
defense team was saying “some outrageous things.” Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were
disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for
child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the
CEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a “weak pitch” that was not
effective.
After the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal
Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that “have caused us serious
concern,” including the following:
Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that “have caused us serious
concern,” including the following:
“Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any
communication with state authorities”;164
communication with state authorities”;164
the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that
“had no connection to the conduct at issue”;
“had no connection to the conduct at issue”;
the nomination “of an individual closely associated with one of the
Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case” to serve as
the victims’ attorney representative;
Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case” to serve as
the victims’ attorney representative;
the “insistence” on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to
make sworn statements at Epstein’s sentencing; and
make sworn statements at Epstein’s sentencing; and
the purported existence of a “relationship” between Sloman and a
law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits
against Epstein.165
law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits
against Epstein.165
---
164 This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafaña’s understanding that the defense objected to USAO
communications with the state authorities. In November 2007, Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, “Your recent
correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney’s Office . . . raises
concern.” In a March 2008 email reporting to CEOS about the state case, Villafaña noted that she did not know
whether a state “misdemeanor deal [was] back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact
with the State Attorney’s Office, so I haven’t spoken with the [Assistant State Attorney] in over 6 months.” Villafaña
later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that the USAO had not been communicating
with him, she explained to Krischer that “it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication.”
164 This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafaña’s understanding that the defense objected to USAO
communications with the state authorities. In November 2007, Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, “Your recent
correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney’s Office . . . raises
concern.” In a March 2008 email reporting to CEOS about the state case, Villafaña noted that she did not know
whether a state “misdemeanor deal [was] back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact
with the State Attorney’s Office, so I haven’t spoken with the [Assistant State Attorney] in over 6 months.” Villafaña
later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that the USAO had not been communicating
with him, she explained to Krischer that “it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication.”
165 In approximately 2001, Sloman briefly left the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a
Miami attorney, whose practice specialized in plaintiffs’ sexual abuse claims. During 2007-2008, the attorney
Miami attorney, whose practice specialized in plaintiffs’ sexual abuse claims. During 2007-2008, the attorney
106
DOJ-OGR-00021306
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document