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

erfered improperly with the state’s authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR: 245 In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the i

t despite Oosterbaan’s favorable opinion of the case, “[t]his was . . . a bit of uncharted territory,” involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited. Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he “probably” did not see any impediment to going for

d in the case and describing it as a “highly sensitive” case involving “a high profile, very rich defendant.”39 After CEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that the memorandum was “exhaustive” and “well done” and noting that Villafaña “has correctly focused on

fices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). CEOS, based in

: — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012669 0027006 05/16/2008 11:16 FAX gooz a 05/16/08 FRI 11:08 FAX U.S, Department of Justice Criminal Division Andrew G, Oosterbaan, Chief 1460 New York Avanue, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8780 FAN: (202) §}4-1793 Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section May

federal prosecution. We have discussed the factual and legal issues you raise with the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, and we consulted with the Office of Enforcement Operations concerning the petite policy. We are examining the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proce

ive witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.! Not surprisingly, Ms. Villafana issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ’s Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice a

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.