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

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms.l iaccount was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frie

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

independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was misleading, as it omitted that this

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.

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this