🚨😈😑 This Document Sheds Light on Perpetuation of Acosta's Stand Down Order, Assistant Prosecutor was Ordered to "Stand Down" on Obtaining Computer Evidence Against Epstein in 2007

On August 8, 2007, Villafafia informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay firm on our August 17th deadline." Villafafia also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. Noting that "there was some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a plea," Villafafia asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." Lourie pointed out that CEOS "has no approval authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to different agencies." Acosta replied, "This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit ... it's worth it."

As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafafia emailed Lourie inquiring whether she could "still go ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Villafafia was reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant.

On August 13, 2007, Villafafia advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of the litigation. However, reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel, which was scheduled for September 7, 2007.

Villafafia told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation concerning the computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."" Villafafia suspected the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed."

She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating position, but that her supervisors "did not seem to recognize that." Villafafia said she did not understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained. Instead, they instructed Villafafia to "keep calling the judge" to ask for a delay in the litigation
proceedings.

Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall "what the thinking was at the time" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafafia was "ordered to stand down." Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafafia's effort to obtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, however, told OPR that the computers might have contained "very powerful evidence" that possibly "could have changed our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making." In his OPR interview, Menchel was uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged to OPR, "You always want more as a prosecutor."

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Prior%20DOJ%20Disclosures/Memos.%20&%20Correspondence/EFTA02847284.pdf

File: EFTA02847284

🔗SOURCE ➡️ PsyopDaily, DOJ

Follow ➡️ @PsyopDaily