DOJ-OGR-00003309.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 133 of 348 In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafafia of “encouraging civil litigation” against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, 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 Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS’s review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein. Oosterbaan’s letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations “would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests.” The letter specified that CEOS’s review addressed the “narrow question” of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts, analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that “federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate” and that Acosta “could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case.” On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta “not shunt me off to one of your staff.””’ Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting: (1) CEOS’s letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a “novel application” of relevant federal statutes;'°° (2) CEOS’s conclusion that federal prosecution would not be “an abuse of discretion” was “hardly an endorsement” of the case;!®” (3) CEOS did not address Epstein’s prosecutorial misconduct allegations; and (4) “critical new evidence,” in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed “that represented Epstein victims. The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman’s past association with the attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims’ potential civil lawsuits against Epstein. 166 Oosterbaan’s letter stated, “Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute.” This statement referred to a defense argument based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to “adult prostitution where no force, fraud or coercion was used.” Oosterbaan stated that “the Department’s efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children”—even if wholly local—and “the exploitation of adults through force, fraud, or coercion.” He then observed that the fact “that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive.” 167 Oosterbaan began his letter, however, by making it clear that CEOS had considered “the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.” 107 DOJ-OGR-00003309