Skip to main content
Skip to content
Acosta met with Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz to discuss sealing non‑prosecution dealLawrence Krauss call logs and chat excerpts with no substantive content
Case File
d-25288House OversightOther

Internal memo flags potential selective federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and possible profit motive for lawyers

The passage suggests that senior Justice Department officials were asked to review a decision to prosecute Epstein, noting possible selective enforcement and a scheme to profit certain lawyers. It nam Mark Filip (then Acting Attorney General) received a memo about a CEOS review of the Epstein case. Mr. Acosta requested the CEOS review and was told the decision on prosecution rested with him. CEOS

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #025354
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage suggests that senior Justice Department officials were asked to review a decision to prosecute Epstein, noting possible selective enforcement and a scheme to profit certain lawyers. It nam Mark Filip (then Acting Attorney General) received a memo about a CEOS review of the Epstein case. Mr. Acosta requested the CEOS review and was told the decision on prosecution rested with him. CEOS

Persons Referenced (2)

Mark Filip

“Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 2 By way of background, we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEO...”

Jeffrey Epstein

“...s beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. * . * * In a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement...”

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinprocedural-misconductlegal-ethicsfinancial-incentivejustice-departmentcivilcriminal-comminglingfederal-prosecutionlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightselective-prosecutionselective-enforcement
View on oversight.house.gov
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #025354

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.
Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 2 By way of background, we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words, “fair.” That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that we had raised “many compelling arguments” against the ISAO’s suggested “novel application” of federal law in this matter. Even so, CEOS concluded, in minimalist fashion, that “we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought” and that the ULS. Attorney “would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion shouid he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein” thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted (emphasis added), Rather than assessing whether prosecution would be appropriate, CEOS, using a low baseline for its evaluation, determined only that “it would not be impossible to prove .. .” certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems invoiving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr, Epstein. We respect CEOS’s conclusion that its authority to review “misconduct” issues was precluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS’s view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would be abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr, Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. The two base-level concerns we hold are that (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have. raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. * . * * In a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law-—-the USAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in A001439

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS Kenneth W. Starr To Call Writer Directl : 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 www.kirkland.com June 19, 2008 Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Facsimilo: Dir. Fax: I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we believe that a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. I appreciate your having informed us that you already have our May 19 and May 27 communications to the Deputy Attorney General, as well as our prior written submissions to CEOS and to the Southern District of Florida. In light of the significant volume of our prior submissions and to facilitate your review, we have drafted four supplemental submissions that will provide a roadmap for your investigation of this matter. Given the bulk of these documents a

5p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Internal Justice Department memo flags potential selective federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein

The passage reveals an internal review (CEOS) that was requested by an unnamed Mr. Acosta and discusses the Justice Department’s consideration of prosecutorial discretion in the Epstein case. It sugge CEOS conducted a limited review at the request of Mr. Acosta regarding federal prosecution of Jeffre The review concluded only that prosecution was not categorically barred, delegating the decision b

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01965864

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: I I I I a EFTA00209306 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIF

16p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Letter from Epstein's lawyers to Deputy Attorney General requesting DOJ review of Miami U.S. Attorney's push for federal prosecution

The passage reveals an attempt by high‑profile lawyers (Kenneth Starr, former independent counsel) to intervene in a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, citing political connections to former Pres Lawyers Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley petitioned Deputy AG Mark Filip to review the Miami U.S. Attor The letter claims the Miami office set an arbitrary June 2 deadline to force compliance with a mod

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.