Oosterbaan
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Fisher
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mandelker
|
Professional subordinate supervisor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mandelker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigal Mandelker
|
Professional supervisor subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional consultative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Supervisor advisor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Superior advisor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
CEOS Trial Attorney
|
Supervisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
CEOS Trial Attorney
|
Subordinate instructed by |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Internal DOJ/USAO reviews of the case evidence. | DOJ Offices | View |
| 2008-05-15 | Letter | Oosterbaan sent a letter to Lefkowitz detailing CEOS's conclusion that a federal prosecution of E... | N/A | View |
| 2008-03-12 | Meeting | A meeting between Epstein's defense team and DOJ officials to discuss the case. It was described ... | The Department (DOJ) | View |
| 2008-03-12 | N/A | Meeting attended by Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg (Epstein defense team), and Oosterbaan, Mandelker,... | Unspecified | View |
| 2008-03-06 | Communication | Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express concern a... | N/A | View |
| 2008-02-29 | Meeting request | Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan for March 12, 2008. | N/A | View |
| 2008-02-25 | Communication | Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan that the CEOS role should be 'review only'. Oosterbaan informed Sloman.... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Meeting at the Department level. | Department of Justice | View |
| 2007-11-01 | N/A | Internal DOJ consultation regarding the NPA. Oosterbaan critiques the deal. | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | A meeting where the defense team presented their federalism arguments. Acosta intended it to be f... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | A meeting was held for Epstein's defense team to argue against federal prosecution. Starr focused... | USAO’s West Palm Beach office | View |
| 2007-09-07 | N/A | Meeting: Defense presents counteroffer | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-07 | N/A | Defense presents counteroffer | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-06 | N/A | Villafaña sent an email to Sloman regarding victim consultation, who then informed Acosta. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-06 | Communication | Villafaña sent an email to Sloman raising the victim consultation issue, who then informed Acosta. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-06 | Communication | Villafaña informed Sloman, who in turn informed Acosta, of Oosterbaan’s opinion that victim consu... | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-08 | Communication | Villafaña informed Acosta about her conversation with Oosterbaan and plans for a meeting with the... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-18 | Communication/endorsement | CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, endorsing Villafaña’s legal analysis a... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif
This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.
DOJ-OGR-00023141.tif
This document details the Department's review of the Epstein case from February to June 2008, initiated by Epstein's defense attorneys. It highlights internal discussions and notifications within the US justice system, including a February 28, 2008, notification from USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior to the Civil Rights Division regarding an ongoing child exploitation investigation involving Epstein. The notification, prepared by Villafaña and edited by Sloman, assessed the case as not being of "national interest" and anticipated charges under specific U.S. Code sections.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023242.tif
This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.
DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021461.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding victim notification prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007. It highlights conflicts where prosecutor Villafaña raised concerns about the legal requirement to consult victims, but was overruled by supervisors Sloman, Menchel, and Acosta, who cited confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) did not apply to pre-charge resolutions. The document also notes Menchel's concern that notifying victims might cause them to exaggerate stories to seek financial damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021425.jpg
This legal document details the events of January 31, 2008, when CEOS Trial Attorney Villafaña and the FBI interviewed victims of Epstein, including one named Wild. The document highlights the emotional distress of the victims, Wild's stated willingness to testify, and conflicting accounts from prosecutors about whether the victims truly wanted to proceed with the case. It also reveals communication failures, as victims received contradictory information from the FBI about whether the case was resolved or still under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ report (likely OGR) detailing the period between January and June 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes the legal tug-of-war between Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta) regarding victim notification under the CVRA, with the defense arguing federal notification was inappropriate. It also details internal DOJ reviews of the case evidence by senior officials (Senior, Oosterbaan, Mandelker, Fisher) which delayed the plea deal, while prosecutor Villafaña and the FBI continued to investigate potential federal charges in anticipation of an NPA breach.
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, focusing on the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) failure to notify victims. OPR's Oosterbaan disagreed with the USAO's decision on policy grounds, while USAO's Sloman believed notification was planned for a later date. Ultimately, despite initial plans by case agents to inform victims, Acosta decided to delay notification about the NPA and its monetary provisions until after Epstein's state guilty plea in June 2008, following objections from Epstein's defense counsel and internal concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021405.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an investigative report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing interviews about the failure to notify victims before a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed. It presents conflicting accounts from key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta regarding the USAO's policy on victim consultation under the CVRA for pre-charge resolutions. The text highlights internal disagreement and confusion over the legal obligations to victims, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan disagreeing with the USAO's stance but not finding it to be an abuse of discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
This legal document details a factual dispute investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the Epstein case. Prosecutor Villafaña claimed her supervisors—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—instructed her not to consult with victims about plea negotiations, an instruction they all deny recalling. The document outlines the conflicting testimonies and notes that while OPR could not definitively resolve the disagreement, it found no documentary evidence to support Villafaña's claim of a specific meeting or instruction on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021302.jpg
This legal document details how prosecutor Acosta, responding to the defense's desire for a 'fresh face', engaged the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) to review the evidence in the Epstein case. CEOS attorney Villafaña traveled to Florida, interviewed victims, and reported back to Acosta and Sloman on the victims' severe trauma and their desire for significant jail time for Epstein rather than restitution. The document also notes the CEOS Trial Attorney's assessment to OPR that the victim witnesses presented numerous challenges for a potential prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing events in late November 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes attempts by Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Lefkowitz) to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to complain about the NPA's civil damages provision and victim notification plans. The text highlights internal DOJ dissent, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan calling the deal 'egregious' and 'advantageous for the defendant,' while Prosecutor Villafaña expressed a desire to indict Epstein due to defense tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00021268.jpg
This legal document details plea negotiations in September 2007 between prosecutor Villafaña and Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz. It outlines the development of a 'hybrid' plea agreement involving federal and state charges, a proposed 18-month sentence, and a victim's fund. The document also reveals significant internal dissent among Villafaña's colleagues, particularly Lourie and Acosta, who criticized a proposed assault charge as weak and suggested finding an alternative.
DOJ-OGR-00021263.jpg
This document details the intensification of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case during September 2007. It describes the prosecution, led by Acosta and Villafaña, engaging with Epstein's defense counsel, Gerald Lefcourt, over the terms of a plea deal. The focus of the negotiations shifted to the length of imprisonment, with the USAO moving from a two-year minimum to considering an 18-month sentence, while the defense pushed for a sentence involving home confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00021262.jpg
This legal document details events in the Jeffrey Epstein case from 2007, focusing on the circulation of a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) by USAO attorney Villafaña. It describes a key meeting on September 7, 2007, where Epstein's defense attorneys, including Starr, met with prosecutors, including Acosta, to argue against federal charges. Starr specifically appealed to Acosta by highlighting their shared experience as Senate-confirmed officials.
Reaction to Epstein NPA
Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was 'not thrilled' about the NPA, describing it as advantageous to the defendant and not helpful to victims.
Cease involvement
Instructed attorney to cease involvement in the case.
Reaction to Epstein NPA
Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was 'not thrilled' about the NPA, describing it as advantageous to the defendant and not helpful to victims.
Former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief advising Epstein team
An email exchange occurred after news that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief was advising the Epstein team, with Oosterbaan offering to provide a written position on child prostitution cases.
Meeting with defense counsel
Oosterbaan reported to his supervisor, Sigal Mandelker, that a meeting with defense counsel was 'not-eventful' and that the defense argued 'federalism'.
Communication with Acosta regarding CEOS review
Oosterbaan reported to OPR that he told Acosta he intended to limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta told him to confirm the defense was okay with that to avoid future complaints.
CEOS evaluation of potential federal prosecution of Epstein
Notified the defense team that CEOS had concluded its evaluation and found that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper or inappropriate, and that Acosta could use his discretion to authorize it.
Revised NPA / Indictment
Sent revised NPA and indictment; stated she was 'still shooting for 9/25' to bring charges.
Villafaña’s legal analysis and proposed charges
Oosterbaan emailed stating he had read Villafaña’s prosecution memorandum and endorsed her legal analysis and charging decisions as sound, while finding defense arguments unpersuasive.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity