Mandelker
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional subordinate supervisor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Professional consultation |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Meeting at the Department level. | Department of Justice | 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-00021469.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the decision-making process behind the failure to notify victims of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 state plea hearing. It highlights a December 19, 2007 letter where US Attorney Acosta deferred notification responsibility to the State Attorney, citing jurisdiction issues. The text reveals internal conflicts and justifications, including fear that victim notification might cause the plea deal (NPA) to fall apart or lead to victim impeachment.
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-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.
Professional Misconduct Complaint
Complaining that Sloman and Villafaña committed misconduct by threatening to send victim notification letters.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity