Skip to main content
Skip to content
Women Empowerment Seminar Proposal Featuring Former White House Counsel Kathryn RuemmlerAllegations of US State Department contracts linked to Afghan opium trade and bioterrorism, plus historic claims of Clinton-era terrorism sponsorship
Case File
d-19395House OversightOther

Allegations of Incomplete DOJ Review and Potential Prosecutorial Misconduct in Jeffrey Epstein Case

The passage alleges that the Criminal Division’s Office of Special Counsel (CEOS) performed a limited, non‑de novo review of the Epstein investigation, relying on possibly flawed summaries from the US FAUSA Jeffrey Sloman’s May 19, 2008 letter promised an independent de novo review that was never com CEOS admitted its review was limited factually and legally, not a full factual inquiry. Allegation

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #012187
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage alleges that the Criminal Division’s Office of Special Counsel (CEOS) performed a limited, non‑de novo review of the Epstein investigation, relying on possibly flawed summaries from the US FAUSA Jeffrey Sloman’s May 19, 2008 letter promised an independent de novo review that was never com CEOS admitted its review was limited factually and legally, not a full factual inquiry. Allegation

Persons Referenced (2)

Jay Lefkowitz

“...to this analysis. Yet, it is clear that CEOS did not conduct such a review. In his recent letter to Jay Lefkowitz, First Assistant United States Attorney (“FAUSA”) Jeffrey Sloman confirmed our understanding that t...”

Jeffrey Epstein

“...ng appearance of impropriety, and, at worst evidence an intent and effort to unfairly prejudice Mr. Epstein to the financial benefit of the friends and colleagues of the prosecution team in the USAO, then wh...”

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinus-attorneyprosecutorial-misconductlegal-reviewinternal-memoslegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightinternal-government-reviewdepartment-of-justice
View on oversight.house.gov
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #012187

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC Mr. John Roth June 19, 2008 Page 5 A full and fair review of the facts here is critical to this analysis. Yet, it is clear that CEOS did not conduct such a review. In his recent letter to Jay Lefkowitz, First Assistant United States Attorney (“FAUSA”) Jeffrey Sloman confirmed our understanding that the USAO was to have “facilitated” an “independent de novo review of the investigation” by the Department. (May 19, 2008 Sloman letter at p. 5). Yet, the CEOS review was not complete, and by its own terms not de novo. As CEOS itself noted, “our review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch.” (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas relevant to the inquiry were not considered at all by CEOS. In essence, CEOS was only in a position to make the most cursory possible review, an “abuse of discretion” review, without considering the facts at the necessary level of detail, and without taking into account the many and varied issues of misconduct we have raised in this case. As the CEOS letter indicates, “we did not review the facts, circumstances, or terms included in the plea offer nor any allegations that individuals involved in the investigation engaged in misconduct.” (CEOS letter at p. 2). All of this begs the question — if it is not CEOS’ role to “conduct a complete factual inquiry,” and CEOS did not consider any of the allegations of misconduct here, which at the very least have created a strong appearance of impropriety, and, at worst evidence an intent and effort to unfairly prejudice Mr. Epstein to the financial benefit of the friends and colleagues of the prosecution team in the USAO, then where and when can justice ever hope to be served in this case? This is a prosecution burden that cannot, and should not, be brushed aside. We contend the limited nature of the CEOS review deeply affected its conclusions. For example, CEOS most likely did not review original documents, such as transcripts, and instead relied on the summaries of federal prosecutors and FBI agents, against whom we have raised serious concerns regarding misconduct. If the summary memos from the USAO are as flawed as other USAO communications have been, and which we have been able to show are misleading and inaccurate, the CEOS abuse of discretion review is likely flawed as well. Moreover, although the USAO expected, and personally promised to us, an independent review, FAUSA Sloman’s letter also makes clear that our pivotal legal challenge to the use of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) had already “been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by .. . CEOS prior to” the recent CEOS review. (May 19, 2008 Sloman letter at p. 5). The fact that CEOS had to evaluate its own decision with respect to some of the allegations against Mr. Epstein prevents its subsequent review and opinion from being truly independent. Following this most recent CEOS review “limited both factually and legally,” and with no citation to any case law relative to the statutes in question, CEOS concludes merely, “federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate (CEOS letter at p. 5);” in essence, that the United States Attorney could bring this case in the exercise of his federal discretion should he so choose (“we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize | prosecution in this case.”). (CEOS letter at p. 2). However, CEOS drew the conclusion that the |

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

IthibiSlornam

IthibiSlornam taco L•fhwitit EFTA00176182 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 M.E. 41' Street Miami, FL 33132-211! (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 December 6, 2007 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. More than three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Roland

18p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00013865

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Rol Slack lir „kite'

Rol Slack lir „kite' 2/949 Arcrwite a." 2434 7 Antai, Liu) 3 cut, , 4,/e EFTA00183732 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AfilL/ArtO PART/H.3We; ' Cntercup Cantor 163 East 53'd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 WNW rwerA.COM September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (56D 820-8777 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re:Jeffrey Bpstein Dear • Facsimile: In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact pawn in the' mended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thoso letters as they are sent. • Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josofsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements unde

136p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein

From: To: Cc: Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:23:26 +0000 I mportance: Normal Dear Roy: Jeff Sloman contacted me and asked me to return your call regarding the Epstein matter. I am forwarding to you an e-mail that I sent to Jay Lefkowitz last night. and I can call you at 3:30 to speak about your list of issues. If that time does not work, please let me kno‘N what times you are available. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:55 PM To: ; Jay Lefkowitz Cc: USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Lefkowitz: I understand that the Deputy Attorney General has completed his review of the Epstein matter and has determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case is appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United Sta

2p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

[REDACTED - Survivor] v. Alan Dershowitz – Allegations of Sex Trafficking, NPA Manipulation, and Defamation

The complaint provides a dense web of alleged connections between Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, and the 2008 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA). It cites specif Roberts alleges she was trafficked by Epstein from 2000‑2002 and forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is accused of helping draft and pressure the government into the 2008 NPA that shielded

87p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Prosecutors allegedly colluded with Jeffrey Epstein’s defense to shape a non‑prosecution agreement

The passage provides specific names (U.S. Attorney Geoffrey B. Acosta, lead prosecutor Marie Villafafia, DOJ official Sloman, defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz) and concrete details of private meetings a Emails show prosecutors used private accounts to discuss deal terms with Epstein’s lawyers. Acosta met privately with defense counsel at a Marriott hotel to keep the non‑prosecution agreement Victim

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

DonateMore ways to support →
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.