Letter from DOJ Assistant US Attorney Sloman Misrepresents Independent Review of Epstein Investigation

ff \ KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA Sloman Dated May 19, 2008 In a May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attomey Jeffrey Sloman provided what purported to be a summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. Mr. Sloman’s letter is fraught with inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations and outright falsehoods. The comparison below between the false assertions in Mr. Sloman’s letter and what actually transpired is only the tip of the iceberg. We respectfully submit that Mr. Sloman’s letter alone demonstrates the degree to which the record of facts have been distorted and these distortions have permeated this unprecedented investigation. 1. “INDEPENDENT” AND “DE NOVO” REVIEW. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: e “[W]e obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice.” Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 5, ¥ 3. The Truth: e CEOS’ review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de novo. o CEOS’ review was not “independent:” « Drew Oosterbaan, who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with defense counsel at the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) in September of 2007, he opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he “would try the case myself.” * Indeed, Mr. Sloman acknowledges that Mr. Oosterbaan had previously opined on this matter, stating: This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)} had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by . . . CEOS prior to the execution of the [Deferred Prosecution] Agreement [in September 2007]. Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). * The statute Mr. Sloman referred to (§ 2422(b)) lies at the heart of the Epstein investigation. Thus, according to Mr. Sloman, Mr. Oosterbaan was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision regarding applying the key statute under which the SDFL proposed prosecuting Mr. Epstein. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012172