DOJ-OGR-00023141.tif

these victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney
considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a "crap shoot." In addition, she told OPR that
there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these
difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims,
however, "things just stopped" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the
case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team.
IX.
FEBRUARY – JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW
Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would
encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the
various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The
Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA
or any specific provisions. 162 Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense
appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and
relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO
or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through
June 2008.
162
On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written
notification of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others "that
may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591." USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the
Civil Rights Division, in writing, "[a]t the outset of a criminal investigation... that may implicate federal criminal
civil rights statutes,... and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses
before a grand jury." The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors.
The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the
statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the
case was of "national interest," and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter.
Villafaña became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification
that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised:
The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of
Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the
titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other "child
prostitution" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of "national interest"
as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual.
In the notification, Senior stated that CEOS "has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter," he
anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and "[i]f we determine that the case should
be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you." OPR did not locate a response from the
Civil Rights Division to the notification.
103
DOJ-OGR-00023141