Drew Oosterbaan

Andrew G. "Drew" Oosterbaan is a former federal prosecutor who was chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the Department of Justice Criminal Division during the 2006 to 2008 federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. He reviewed the prosecution memorandum of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, offered his section's attorneys for trial, attended Alexander Acosta's first meeting with Epstein's defense team, and in May 2008 signed the Criminal Division's letter finding that a federal prosecution "would not be improper or inappropriate." The Office of Professional Responsibility examined his role in its 2019 to 2020 investigation and found no professional misconduct by any subject.¹²

Career

Oosterbaan was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida for nearly ten years, where he "managed a trial-intensive section and individually handled complex grand jury investigations and prosecutions involving public corruption, violent crime, computerized child pornography/exploitation, and the crash of ValuJet Flight 592." He became deputy chief of CEOS in January 2000 and helped run Operation Avalanche, an undercover investigation of subscribers to online child pornography sites. Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed him chief of the section on November 14, 2001, calling him "a strong leader and aggressive career prosecutor who will diligently investigate and prosecute child exploitation and obscenity crimes." A footnote to the OPR report describes him and Andrew Lourie, a senior official of the Florida office on the Epstein matter, as "good friends."¹²

The Epstein Review, 2007

On May 10, 2007 Lourie sent Oosterbaan the prosecution memorandum of Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña, describing the case as "highly sensitive" and involving "a high profile, very rich defendant." Oosterbaan called the memorandum "exhaustive" and "well done" and offered a CEOS attorney to assist. On July 18, 2007 he wrote to Jeffrey Sloman, Matthew Menchel and Lourie that Villafaña "did a terrific job," that her "charging decisions are legally sound," and that he would send "whatever and whoever you need."²

A privilege log filed in the victims' Crime Victims' Rights Act litigation lists his correspondence that August: an August 7, 2007 email from Villafaña "regarding Epstein meeting"; an August 7 chain from Sloman to Oosterbaan, Villafaña and Acosta on the same subject; August 8 emails with Villafaña "regarding case staffing and plea negotiations"; and an August 8 chain among Oosterbaan, Acosta, Villafaña and others "regarding 'The meeting on Epstein.'"³

On August 31, 2007 he traveled to West Palm Beach to review the file so that he could represent "the interests of the prosecution team," told Villafaña the case was "really good," and offered to help at trial. On September 6 Villafaña told Sloman that consulting the victims before any resolution was, "as [Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, ... required under the law." The victims were not consulted before Epstein's June 2008 plea. OPR dates Acosta's first meeting with Epstein's defense team, which Oosterbaan attended at the West Palm Beach office, to September 7, 2007. A chronological log prepared for the same litigation records a meeting on September 10, 2007 attended for the government by Acosta, Oosterbaan, Sloman, Villafaña and John McMillan and for Epstein by Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz and Lilly Ann Sanchez.²⁴

When Villafaña circulated a revised draft of the agreement that month, Oosterbaan answered that "the counter-offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's understandable"; he later told OPR he did not recall reading the draft at that point and "had no involvement with it." The agreement was signed on September 24, 2007. On November 28, 2007, asked by Lourie for his view, he wrote that he was "not thrilled" with it, that Epstein's conduct was unusually "egregious ... particularly because of its serial nature," and that the agreement was "pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims," adding that Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher "would not and should not consider or address the NPA other than to say that she agrees with it."²

The Criminal Division Review, 2008

In February 2008 Epstein's lawyers told Acosta they wanted review above Oosterbaan's level; Acosta replied that they could seek whomever they wished but that the review would proceed with him. A CEOS trial attorney whom Oosterbaan had assigned to prepare the case had by then met with the victims; after the defense obtained the Criminal Division review, Oosterbaan instructed her to stop work on it, and she told OPR that "things just stopped." On March 12, 2008 Oosterbaan and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker met Starr, Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg; a CEOS deputy present called it largely a "listening session," with Starr "saying some outrageous things." The privilege log lists March 19 to 21, 2008 emails among Villafaña, Oosterbaan, Andrew Gelber of CEOS, Sloman and Robert Senior "about meeting between Epstein counsel and CEOS and follow-up questions," and April 4 to 7 emails "regarding status of CEOS review of Epstein matter."²³

His letter to Lefkowitz of May 15, 2008, cleared in advance by Mandelker, Fisher, the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and its Office of Enforcement Operations, concluded that on its "narrow" review "federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate," that Acosta "could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case," and that "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." The letter stated that CEOS had not reviewed the agreement's terms. Acosta resolved the case through the state plea. After the plea in June 2008 Oosterbaan wrote to Villafaña, "Congratulations, Marie," and "at long last! Your work on this matter was truly exceptional, and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well."²

The OPR Investigation

After Senator Ben Sasse's letters of December 2018, OPR opened its investigation on February 6, 2019. Oosterbaan told investigators that the U.S. Attorney's Office's position that the Crime Victims' Rights Act did not require pre-charge consultation was a "serious and legitimate disagreement" rather than misconduct, and added, "maybe I should have been more aggressive with how ... I dealt with [the USAO]." The November 2020 report found that Acosta "exercised poor judgment" in resolving the investigation through the agreement and found no professional misconduct by any subject.²⁵