Epstein Secrets

") in September of 2007, he opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he "would try the case myself" • Indeed, Mr. acknowledges that Mr. Oosterbaan had previously opined on this matter, stating: This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)] had been previously raised and thoroug

rom-, P. 5, 1 3. The Truth: • CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de novo. o CEOS' review was not "independent:" • Drew Oosterbaan, who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with d

g that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment." See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Of course, this position is contrary to Section 9-2031D of the U.S. Attorney's Manual (indicating that the "result" of a state prosecution is `pre

25658 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP ■ The defense immediately raised concerns regarding the non-independence of the review when told that it would be Mr. Oosterbaan tasked with providing the review, but was told that when Mr. Oosterbaan rendered his prior opinion, "he was not really up to speed on the facts" o

about the case that needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the defense for September 7, 2007. At the September 7, 2007 meeting, with Drew Oosterbaan in attendance, the government dismissed the defense's objections and set a September 21, 2007 deadline to finalize a non-prosecution agreement or t

g that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment." See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Of course, this position is contrary to Section 9-2031D of the U.S. Attorney's Manual (indicating that the "result" of a state prosecution is "pre

District of Florida, for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceeding. In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 3 EFTA00731148 12. In August 2007, in a clear attempt to coerce

enchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Subsequently, Ms. 4 EFTA00731149 emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no less than 18 months of incarcer

District of Florida, for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceeding. In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 3 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001656 EFTA00209835 KIRKLAND & ELLI

enchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Subsequently, Ms. 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001657 EFTA00209836 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP emailed the defense stating that United States Attorne

n District of Florida, for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceeding. In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012162 --- PAGE BREAK --- 12. 13. 14, 15. 16.

Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Subsequently, Ms. 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012163 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Villafana emailed the defense stating that United States Atto