HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704.jpg
2.35 MB
Extraction Summary
9
People
8
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / letter
File Size:
2.35 MB
Summary
In this confidential letter dated May 27, 2008, attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley urge Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip to intervene in the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. They allege that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, specifically Jeffrey Sloman, imposed an arbitrary deadline for a Non-Prosecution Agreement to prevent an independent DOJ review. The letter highlights Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Clinton and alleges misconduct by the USAO, including leaks to the New York Times and conflicts of interest involving Sloman's former law partner.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kenneth W. Starr | Attorney (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) |
Author of the letter representing Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Joe D. Whitley | Attorney (Alston & Bird LLP) |
Co-author of the letter representing Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Mark Filip | Deputy Attorney General |
Recipient of the letter, asked to review the prosecution.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Client / Defendant |
Subject of the proposed federal prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
| Bill Clinton | Former President |
Mentioned as having "close ties" to Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Jeffrey Sloman | First Assistant U.S. Attorney |
Accused of imposing arbitrary deadlines to prevent review.
|
| Jay Lefkowitz | Attorney |
Sent an email to Alex Acosta informing him of the review request.
|
| Alex Acosta | U.S. Attorney |
Recipient of email from Jay Lefkowitz.
|
| Unnamed Individual | Mr. Sloman's former law partner |
Filed civil lawsuits against Epstein; authors suggest conflict of interest.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kirkland & Ellis LLP |
Law firm representing Epstein (Kenneth Starr).
|
|
| Alston & Bird LLP |
Law firm representing Epstein (Joe Whitley).
|
|
| Office of the Deputy Attorney General |
Recipient organization.
|
|
| United States Department of Justice |
Parent organization of recipient.
|
|
| United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (USAO) |
Prosecuting office being criticized in the letter.
|
|
| Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) |
DOJ section that reviewed the case arguments.
|
|
| New York Times |
Media outlet that received alleged leaks.
|
|
| State Attorney of Palm Beach |
Local prosecutor involved in state judicial matters.
|
Timeline (2 events)
June 2, 2008
Deadline imposed by USAO (Sloman) for Epstein to comply with the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Miami
May 19, 2008
Submission of initial request for review to Deputy AG Filip.
Washington, DC
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address of Kenneth Starr.
|
|
|
Address of Joe Whitley and Mark Filip.
|
|
|
Location of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
|
|
|
Location of State Attorney.
|
Relationships (3)
Letter states Epstein is a 'prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton.'
Starr refers to Epstein as 'our client'.
Letter mentions lawsuits filed by 'Mr. Sloman’s former law partner'.
Key Quotes (5)
"...profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704.jpg
Quote #1
"Mr. Sloman’s letter... appears to have been deliberately designed to deprive us of an adequate opportunity to seek your Office’s review in this matter."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704.jpg
Quote #2
"...CEOS has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were 'compelling.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704.jpg
Quote #3
"...deliberate leak to the New York Times of numerous highly confidential aspects of the investigation..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704.jpg
Quote #4
"...recent crop of civil lawsuits filed against Mr. Epstein by Mr. Sloman’s former law partner."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,862 characters)
Kenneth W. Starr
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
Phone: 213-680-8440
Alt. Phone: 310-506-4621
Fax: 213-680-8500
kstarr@kirkland.com
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
Phone: 213-680-8440
Alt. Phone: 310-506-4621
Fax: 213-680-8500
kstarr@kirkland.com
Joe D. Whitley
Alston & Bird LLP
The Atlantic Building
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1404
Ph: 202-756-3189
Fax: 202-654-4889
joe.whitley@alston.com
Alston & Bird LLP
The Atlantic Building
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1404
Ph: 202-756-3189
Fax: 202-654-4889
joe.whitley@alston.com
May 27, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE (202) 514-0467
CONFIDENTIAL
Honorable Mark Filip
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Judge Filip:
This letter briefly supplements our prior submission to you dated May 19, 2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton.
The need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday, May 19, 2008, First Assistant Jeffrey Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would be seeking your Office’s review. Mr. Sloman’s letter, which imposed a deadline of June 2, 2008 to comply with all the terms of the current Non-Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”), plus new unilateral modifications, on pain of being deemed in breach of that Agreement, appears to have been deliberately designed to deprive us of an adequate opportunity to seek your Office’s review in this matter.
The USAO’s desire to foreclose a complete review is understandable, given that the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS made clear that it did not do so. Indeed, CEOS declined to examine several of the more troubling aspects of the investigation of Mr. Epstein, including the deliberate leak to the New York Times of numerous highly confidential aspects of the investigation and negotiations between the parties as well as the recent crop of civil lawsuits filed against Mr. Epstein by Mr. Sloman’s former law partner.
The unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed deadline set by the USAO was done without any respect for the normal functioning and scheduling of state judicial matters. It requires that Mr. Epstein’s counsel persuade the State Attorney of Palm Beach to issue a criminal information
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025704
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document