Andrew Oosterbaan
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Patrick Murck
|
Debate opponents |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigal Mandelker
|
Professional reporting |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Opposing counsel negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigal Mandelker
|
Hierarchical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria Villafaña
|
Professional collaborative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein Defense Counsel
|
Opposing counsel meeting |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-08-08 | N/A | "The meeting on Epstein" involving Acosta, Oosterbaan, and others. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-05-10 | Communication | Lourie sent Villafaña's prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan for review. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Meeting between CEOS Chief and Defense Counsel | Unknown | View |
| 0013-06-01 | N/A | Conference on Bitcoin and regulation sponsored by Thompson Reuters and ICMEC. | Carlucci Auditorium, United... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021303.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal Department review between February and June 2008 regarding the Epstein case. It highlights that while Epstein's defense sought a broad review of misconduct and NPA terms, the DOJ only reviewed federal jurisdiction issues. The document also records a 'stand down' order where Oosterbaan instructed a CEOS attorney to cease involvement, and details the formal notification sent by the USAO to the Civil Rights Division classifying the case as 'child prostitution' rather than a matter of 'national interest.'
DOJ-OGR-00021227.jpg
This document details internal discussions within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami during May-June 2007 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes how prosecutor Villafaña submitted a memorandum seeking to file charges by May 15, but her managers, including Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, paused the process to conduct a more thorough review, including seeking analysis from the DOJ's CEOS section. The document highlights the tension between the desire to move quickly on the indictment, as pushed by the FBI, and the managers' more cautious approach, which ultimately delayed the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021202.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, outlines the organizational structure of federal law enforcement in the Southern District of Florida during a specific period. It identifies key leadership at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and details the jurisdiction, staffing, and office locations of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the region. The text also notes that the FBI's West Palm Beach office handled the 'Epstein investigation'.
DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00002972.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the USAO-SDFL with Jeffrey Epstein did not bind other districts. It cites the November 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, noting that while USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria Villafaña consulted with DOJ Child Exploitation Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, this does not support the defendant's claim of a wider immunity promise.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029964.jpg
This document is a page from an article or report (marked House Oversight) detailing the political landscape surrounding Bitcoin regulation. It focuses on a June 13 conference at the U.S. Institute of Peace, sponsored by Thompson Reuters and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC). The text highlights a heated exchange between Patrick Murck (Bitcoin Foundation) and Andrew Oosterbaan (DOJ) regarding the comparison of Bitcoin to child pornography.
CEOS's role
Discussion about helping the process move forward and whether CEOS should partner with USAO
Recap of conversation with Lefkowitz
Oosterbaan explained his conversation with Lefkowitz regarding CEOS taking a fresh look at the case rather than partnering with USAO.
CEOS's role
Oosterbaan offered to take a fresh and objective look at the case and arguments to help move the process forward, suggesting CEOS should not partner with USAO if they take that objective role.
Recap of conversation with Lefkowitz
Explanation of the conversation with Lefkowitz regarding CEOS taking an objective look at the case.
Review of Prosecution Memorandum
Oosterbaan responded to Lourie, calling the memo 'exhaustive' and 'well done', summarizing CEOS's analysis, and offering to assign a CEOS attorney to the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity