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

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing 258 CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was “very unusual.” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth commented, “I don’t know how it is that you give

er with Sloman after Menchel’s departure. Despite these discussions, though, it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information, such as Oosterbaan’s strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafaña’s concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA.

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:26 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Man

aan, Andrew Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:26 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Mandelker, Sigel; Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update I just got off the phone with Jay Leficowitz. It was a positive conversation centered mostly on

ty Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan: Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 Enclosed, please find our submission as discussed at the meeting. This submission includes a brief executive summary;

tation and Obscenity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan: Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 Enclosed, please find our submission as discussed at the meeting. This submission includes a brief