DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
893 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
893 KB
Summary
This legal document details the aftermath of the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, focusing on the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) failure to notify victims. OPR's Oosterbaan disagreed with the USAO's decision on policy grounds, while USAO's Sloman believed notification was planned for a later date. Ultimately, despite initial plans by case agents to inform victims, Acosta decided to delay notification about the NPA and its monetary provisions until after Epstein's state guilty plea in June 2008, following objections from Epstein's defense counsel and internal concerns.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Oosterbaan |
Disagreed with the USAO's decision not to consult victims based on policy considerations, told OPR his perspective, a...
|
|
| Andy Lourie |
Mentioned in a quote as one of the people who was 'trying to do the right thing'.
|
|
| Jeff Sloman |
Mentioned in a quote as one of the people who was 'trying to do the right thing'. Also told OPR he perceived that vic...
|
|
| Epstein | Defendant/Subject of NPA |
Mentioned in relation to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), his state court guilty plea, and the NPA's nondisclosur...
|
| Villafaña |
Mentioned as having planned with case agents to inform victims about the resolution of the federal investigation afte...
|
|
| Acosta |
Mentioned as having made the final decision to defer to the State Attorney's discretion and not provide information a...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, which received statements from Oosterbaan and Sloman regarding the USAO's hand...
|
| CEOS | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote by Oosterbaan, likely referring to a component of the Department of Justice.
|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, which made the decisions regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein and victim noti...
|
| State Attorney | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of Acosta deferring to their discretion on whether to notify victims about the state plea.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Where Epstein was expected to enter a guilty plea.
|
Relationships (3)
Oosterbaan disagreed with the USAO's policy decisions regarding victim notification but did not believe their motivations were unethical. He later expressed regret for not being 'more aggressive' with them.
The USAO consulted and negotiated with Epstein's defense counsel regarding victim notifications, and the defense attorneys 'strongly objected' to the government's plan.
Key Quotes (5)
"from a policy perspective,” CEOS would not “take a position that you wouldn’t consult with [the victims]."Source
— Oosterbaan
(Explaining his policy-based disagreement with the USAO to OPR.)
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
Quote #1
"The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], . . . were trying to do the right thing. . . . [T]hey weren’t acting unethically. I just disagree with the outcome . . . but the point is they weren’t trying . . . to do anything improper . . . it was more of this question of . . . you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on this and maybe it doesn’t sway you. You still do what you’re going to do but . . . it’s hard to say it was a complete, completely clean exercise of . . . prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn’t really know what [the victims] would say."Source
— Oosterbaan
(Stating that he did not fault the USAO's motivations, only their process and outcome regarding victim consultation.)
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
Quote #2
"I don’t think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims. . . . I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims."Source
— Sloman
(A statement made to OPR about his understanding of the victim notification plan.)
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
Quote #3
"maybe I should have been more aggressive with how . . . I dealt with [the USAO]."Source
— Oosterbaan
(A retrospective statement from footnote 295 about his interactions with the USAO.)
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
Quote #4
"The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure."Source
— NPA nondisclosure provision
(The text of the nondisclosure provision from the Non-Prosecution Agreement, quoted in footnote 296.)
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,297 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page234 of 258
SA-232
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 232 of 348
SA-232
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 232 of 348
disagreement” regarding the CVRA’s requirements.295 Oosterbaan’s disagreement was based on policy considerations, and he told OPR that “from a policy perspective,” CEOS would not “take a position that you wouldn’t consult with [the victims].” Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity “to weigh in directly,” but he did not fault the USAO’s motivations for failing to provide that opportunity:
The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], . . . were trying to do the right thing. . . . [T]hey weren’t acting unethically. I just disagree with the outcome . . . but the point is they weren’t trying . . . to do anything improper . . . it was more of this question of . . . you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on this and maybe it doesn’t sway you. You still do what you’re going to do but . . . it’s hard to say it was a complete, completely clean exercise of . . . prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn’t really know what [the victims] would say.
Sloman told OPR, “I don’t think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims. . . . I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims.”
VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 – JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS
The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafaña and the case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation. However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NPA’s nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein’s defense counsel regarding victim notifications.296 As a result, although the expectation in the USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA, the monetary damages provision, and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys, who strongly objected to the government’s notification plan. In addition, Villafaña and the case agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NPA monetary damages provision would damage the victims’ credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In the end, Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney’s discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea, and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June 2008.
295 Oosterbaan stated that, in retrospect, “maybe I should have been more aggressive with how . . . I dealt with [the USAO].”
296 The NPA nondisclosure provision stated: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.”
206
DOJ-OGR-00021406
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document