DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page123 of 258
SA-121
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 121 of 348

not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about
Epstein’s wish to have the Department review the case.152

On November 28, 2007, Starr requested, by letter, a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr
argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under
18 U.S.C. § 2255 as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case. On the same day, Lefkowitz
emailed Sloman, complaining about the USAO’s plan to notify victims about the § 2255 provision
and alerting Sloman that Epstein’s counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney
General “to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component”
of the NPA. After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter, Sloman forwarded it to
Villafaña, asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the § 2255 provision
evolved. Villafaña responded that she was “going through all of the ways in which they have tried
to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict.”

In Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, asking for his
thoughts on defense counsel’s arguments. At the same time, at Lourie’s request, Villafaña sent
the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was
“not thrilled” about the NPA; described Epstein’s conduct as unusually “egregious,” particularly
because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was “pretty advantageous for the defendant
and not all that helpful to the victims.” He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General
would not and should not consider or address the NPA “other than to say that she agrees with it.”
During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr’s letter or discussing it with
Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her “agree[ing] with it” referred to a federal
prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she
“played no role in” the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it
was signed.

As set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report, Villafaña planned to notify the
victims about the NPA and its § 2255 provision, as well as about the state plea hearing, and she
provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments. On November 29, 2007,
Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims. Lefkowitz
asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant
Attorney General Fisher, which he anticipated would take place the following week. Internal
emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr,
but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no
evidence that it did.

Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter, directing him to raise his concerns about
victim notification with Villafaña or Sloman. Acosta also addressed Epstein’s evident efforts to
stop the NPA from being enforced:

___________________
152 In a short email to Fisher, the next day, Lourie reported simply: “He was very nice. Kept me on the phone
for [a] half hour talking about [P]epperdine,” referring to the law school where Starr served as Dean.

95

DOJ-OGR-00021295