Epstein Secrets

ys in which they have tried to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict.” In Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, asking for his thoughts on defense counsel’s arguments. At the same time, at Lourie’s request, Villafaña sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie

upport the prosecution.” On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express “concern” about Oosterbaan’s participation in the case, and indicated that “they may ask for more senior involvement.” Acosta “informed them that they certainly had the righ

omplaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley. Meanwhile, Oosterbaan’s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assi

response from the Civil Rights Division to the notification. Criminal Division *until late Feb. 2008 Alice Fisher Assistant Attorney General Andrew Lourie * Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Oosterbaan Chief, CEOS Office of the

ection 2255 issue was raised. After considering the arguments raised at the September 71h meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and with Chief Oosterbaan, our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal suc

erstood that you wished to present federalism-based concerns regarding our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your arguments, I invited Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7h

ia to set a meeting. AUSA Villafafia requested documents in advance of such a meeting, but the request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA Andrew Lourie, who agreed to meet with Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs Lourie and Villafafia, as we

") 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

p.2, ¶ 2. The Truth: • It was the government, and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state charges to resolve the federal investigation. Andrew Lourie proposed declining prosecution in favor of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office had already reached a plea agreement, in

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

, p.2, 1 2. The Truth: • It was the government, and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state charges to resolve the federal investigation. Andrew Lourie proposed declining prosecution in favor of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office had already reached a plea agreement, in

ry led me to conclude that the inclusion of a provision under § 2255 would be the best way to protect the victims' right to restitution. CEOS Chief Oosterbaan described the agreement as "a very significant result that will serve the victims well" (Exhibit 71). I should note that a plea to one of the feder

hel had engaged in plea discussions with Lilly Ann Sanchez. (Exhibit 3.) The second was in early September 2007 after my discussion with CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan regarding this subject. (Exhibit 44.) Later, I believe after the NPA was already signed, Jeff Sloman told me that the Office had taken the position

Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completing my investigation. My co-counsel (John McMillan) agreed with me. Our supervisor, Andrew Lourie, overruled us. b. AUSA McMillan and I did not want to have a subsequent meeting with another set of attorneys for Epstein, including Lilly Ann Sanc

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.

an, p.2, q2. The Truth: e It was the government, and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state charges to resolve the federal investigation. Andrew Lourie proposed declining prosecution in favor of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office had already reached a plea agreement, in A