HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012173.jpg

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, “the was not really up to speed on the facts” o CEOS’ review was not de novo: " By letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before Mr. Sloman’s letter), Mr. Oosterbaan advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: [T]he question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. Oosterbaan, p. 1 (emphasis added). See also, id. p. 2 (“Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action.”); and p. 5 (“Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorized federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.”). «For the factual record of its “abuse of discretion” review, CEOS relied on the very same prosecution memo that it had already reviewed in rendering its prior opinion, stating: As you know, our review of this case is limited, both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. See Id., p. 1 (emphasis added). « Nor did CEOS review any facts related to the irregular provisions in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement or the numerous complaints of prosecutorial misconduct, both of which are inextricably intertwined with the impropriety of the investigation. Jd. at 1. a, NOTIFICATION OF WITNESSES. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: e Mr. Sloman dismissed the totality of the defense’s objections to the inappropriate notification the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely that: “[Y Jou objected to victims[”] being notified of time and place of Epstein’s state[-]court sentencing hearing.” HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012173