DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
1 MB
Extraction Summary
10
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
6
Relationships
10
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1 MB
Summary
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Starr | Defense Counsel |
Mentioned as part of Epstein's defense team, wrote a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008.
|
| Sloman |
Accused by the defense team of improperly disclosing information and encouraging civil litigation against Epstein.
|
|
| Villafaña |
Accused by the defense team of “encouraging civil litigation” against Epstein.
|
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of potential federal prosecution and civil litigation.
|
| Fisher | Assistant Attorney General |
Received a letter from Starr, spoke with him, and reviewed a decision letter drafted by Oosterbaan's office.
|
| Lefkowitz | Defense Counsel |
Part of Epstein's defense team, met with Fisher, received a letter from Oosterbaan, and requested a meeting with Acosta.
|
| Whitley | Defense Counsel |
Part of Epstein's defense team who was to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher.
|
| Oosterbaan | Deputy Chief |
Drafted and sent a decision letter to Lefkowitz regarding the federal prosecution of Epstein.
|
| Mandelker | Deputy Assistant Attorney General |
Reviewed and provided input on Oosterbaan's decision letter.
|
| Acosta |
U.S. Attorney whose discretion to prosecute Epstein was discussed. Lefkowitz requested a meeting with him.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
Accused by the defense of improperly disclosing information about the case to the media.
|
| Criminal Division’s Appellate Section | government agency |
Reviewed and provided input on Oosterbaan's decision letter regarding legal issues.
|
| Office of Enforcement Operations | government agency |
Reviewed and provided input on Oosterbaan's decision letter regarding the Petite policy.
|
| OPR | government agency |
Oosterbaan told OPR that CEOS's review was limited.
|
| CEOS | government agency |
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, which conducted an independent evaluation and concluded a federal prosecuti...
|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as the office that could proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2008-05-15
Oosterbaan sent a letter to Lefkowitz detailing CEOS's conclusion that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper.
Relationships (6)
Both are part of Epstein's defense team and collaborated on communications with the Department of Justice.
Both are part of Epstein's defense team and were included in a meeting request to Assistant Attorney General Fisher.
Oosterbaan, a DOJ official, sent a letter to Lefkowitz, Epstein's defense counsel, outlining the DOJ's position on a potential prosecution.
Lefkowitz, defense counsel, requested a meeting with Acosta, a prosecutor, to argue against the federal prosecution of his client, Epstein.
Mandelker, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, reviewed and provided input on a letter drafted by Oosterbaan's office.
Fisher, an Assistant Attorney General, reviewed and provided input on a letter drafted by Oosterbaan's office.
Key Quotes (10)
"encouraging civil litigation"Source
— Starr (on behalf of the defense)
(An accusation made against Sloman and Villafaña in a letter.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #1
"would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests."Source
— Oosterbaan's letter
(Describing the scope of CEOS's evaluation of whether to prosecute Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #2
"narrow question"Source
— Oosterbaan's letter
(Describing the focus of CEOS's review: whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #3
"federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate"Source
— Oosterbaan's letter (summarizing CEOS's conclusion)
(The conclusion reached by CEOS after its limited review of the matter.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #4
"could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."Source
— Oosterbaan's letter (summarizing CEOS's conclusion)
(CEOS's conclusion regarding Acosta's authority to proceed with the prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #5
"not shunt me off to one of your staff."Source
— Lefkowitz
(A specific request made to Acosta when asking for a meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #6
"novel application"Source
— Lefkowitz (citing CEOS's letter)
(A point made by Lefkowitz to justify a meeting with Acosta, referring to the application of federal statutes in the Epstein case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #7
"hardly an endorsement"Source
— Lefkowitz
(Lefkowitz's characterization of CEOS's conclusion that prosecution would not be an 'abuse of discretion'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #8
"critical new evidence,"Source
— Lefkowitz
(A point raised by Lefkowitz to justify a meeting with Acosta, referring to recent depositions of victims.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #9
"Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute."Source
— Oosterbaan's letter
(A statement from Oosterbaan's letter, quoted in a footnote, regarding Acosta's authority.)
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
Quote #10
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,058 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page135 of 258
SA-133
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 133 of 348
SA-133
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 133 of 348
In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafaña of “encouraging civil litigation” against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley.
Meanwhile, Oosterbaan’s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS’s review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein.
Oosterbaan’s letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations “would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests.” The letter specified that CEOS’s review addressed the “narrow question” of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts, analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that “federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate” and that Acosta “could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case.”
On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta “not shunt me off to one of your staff.” Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting: (1) CEOS’s letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a “novel application” of relevant federal statutes;166 (2) CEOS’s conclusion that federal prosecution would not be “an abuse of discretion” was “hardly an endorsement” of the case;167 (3) CEOS did not address Epstein’s prosecutorial misconduct allegations; and (4) “critical new evidence,” in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed “that represented Epstein victims. The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman’s past association with the attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims’ potential civil lawsuits against Epstein.
166 Oosterbaan’s letter stated, “Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute.” This statement referred to a defense argument based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to “adult prostitution where no force, fraud or coercion was used.” Oosterbaan stated that “the Department’s efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children”—even if wholly local—and “the exploitation of adults through force, fraud, or coercion.” He then observed that the fact “that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive.”
167 Oosterbaan began his letter, however, by making it clear that CEOS had considered “the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.”
107
DOJ-OGR-00021307
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document