mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003307.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "131",
    "document_number": "204-3",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 131 of 348\n\nwhether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function) and he said he'd get back to me later today.\n\nOosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to \"make sure the defense is okay with that,\" to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review. Oosterbaan explained to OPR that \"the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new problems and [the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with it, tell us now.\"\n\nBy February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS role should be \"review only.\" Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice, and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was \"ready to proceed immediately\" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that \"in the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation,\" but that, \"should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA].\" Sloman forwarded this email to Villafaña, who responded, \"Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls . . . .\"\n\nThe defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the Department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan on March 12, 2008.163 Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and \"made it clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support 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 right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate, and that whatever process would be given them was up to whomever they asked.\"\n\nThe next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email:\n\nWe appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate that review process with Drew Oosterbaan, and engage in a discussion with him about all of the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal and policy issues associated with this case. . . . However, due to our misgivings (engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself]) we may well find it necessary to\n\n163 The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January, but never got scheduled for that time. On February 25, Sloman informed Lefkowitz that the USAO was \"very concerned about additional delays\" in the Departmental review process, but would agree to a short extension of the March 3 deadline \"to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review.\"\n\n105\nDOJ-OGR-00003307",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 131 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function) and he said he'd get back to me later today.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to \"make sure the defense is okay with that,\" to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review. Oosterbaan explained to OPR that \"the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new problems and [the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with it, tell us now.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS role should be \"review only.\" Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice, and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was \"ready to proceed immediately\" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that \"in the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this Office will close its investigation,\" but that, \"should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA].\" Sloman forwarded this email to Villafaña, who responded, \"Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls . . . .\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the Department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan on March 12, 2008.163 Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and \"made it clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support 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 right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate, and that whatever process would be given them was up to whomever they asked.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate that review process with Drew Oosterbaan, and engage in a discussion with him about all of the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal and policy issues associated with this case. . . . However, due to our misgivings (engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself]) we may well find it necessary to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "163 The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January, but never got scheduled for that time. On February 25, Sloman informed Lefkowitz that the USAO was \"very concerned about additional delays\" in the Departmental review process, but would agree to a short extension of the March 3 deadline \"to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "105",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003307",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Acosta",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie",
      "Mandelker",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Starr",
      "Fisher",
      "Drew Oosterbaan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "CEOS",
      "USAO",
      "Department",
      "Main Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 25, 2008",
      "February 29, 2008",
      "March 12, 2008",
      "March 6, 2008",
      "April 16, 2021",
      "late January",
      "March 3"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003307"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely from a federal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the role of CEOS in reviewing the case and the interactions between various individuals involved in the case, including lawyers and government officials. The document includes footnotes and references to specific dates and events."
}