DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif

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.
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.
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:
"Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any
communication with state authorities"; 164
the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that
"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;
the "insistence" on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to
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
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
106
DOJ-OGR-00023144