Kirkland & Ellis
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jay
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ADA from Vance's office
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Potential employment |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jay
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Employment negotiation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Employment negotiation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bill Barr
|
Employment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Potential employment |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) Hearing presided by Judge Pickholz. | New York State Court (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta began discussing possible employment with Kirkland & Ellis and recused himself. | USAO | View |
| 2009-01-01 | N/A | Bill Barr joined law firm Kirkland & Ellis. | N/A | View |
| 2008-11-26 | N/A | USAO advised Department of Justice about Acosta's recusal from Epstein-related matters due to pot... | N/A | View |
| 2008-11-26 | N/A | Acosta recused from Epstein case due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis. | USAO | View |
| 2008-06-20 | N/A | Delivery of messenger packet containing supplemental submissions and documentation binders to Joh... | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2008-06-19 | N/A | Date of the letter requesting a 'de novo' review. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Kirkland & Ellis represented Epstein during Florida investigation. | Florida | View |
| 2007-12-11 | N/A | Request for de novo review of evidence underlying proposed indictment. | Internal Office | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021259.jpg
This document details events from August-September 2007 in the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on U.S. Attorney Acosta's decision to meet with Epstein's newly hired, high-profile attorneys, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals internal tensions, with the FBI pushing for federal prosecution, while Acosta strategized with his colleague Sloman to manage the new defense team and prevent them from escalating procedural complaints to Washington D.C. The document also notes Acosta's prior professional relationship with Starr and Lefkowitz from his time at their law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021209.jpg
This document details the legal team assembled by Epstein following the opening of a USAO investigation in late 2006. Epstein hired several high-profile attorneys, including former federal prosecutors Guy Lewis and Lilly Ann Sanchez, and later retained Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, who contacted the USAO on his behalf in August 2007. The defense team was further expanded with the addition of attorneys Martin Weinberg and Joe D. Whitley.
DOJ-OGR-00021205.jpg
This document outlines the professional histories and specific roles of several key figures from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) who were involved in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It details the career paths of Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, and Andrew C. Lourie within the USAO, describing their supervisory responsibilities, participation in meetings with defense counsel, and involvement in negotiating the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text also notes the career transitions of former U.S. Attorney Acosta, including his recusal from the Epstein matter and subsequent roles as Secretary of Labor and university dean.
DOJ-OGR-00021204.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a DOJ report (likely the OPR report) detailing the structure of Florida law enforcement and the background of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. It outlines the roles of the Palm Beach State Attorney and Sheriff's Office, Acosta's professional history, and his direct involvement in negotiating Jeffrey Epstein's controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and subsequent state plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00003207.jpg
This document, page 31 of a DOJ report (likely the OGR report), details the professional biographies and specific roles of USAO officials Jeffrey Sloman, Matthew Menchel, and Andrew Lourie in the Epstein investigation and the negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights Sloman's negotiation of an NPA addendum, Menchel's communication of the two-year plea deal, and Lourie's role in the NPA negotiations before his departure. The text also notes Alexander Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019 due to criticism regarding the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019411.jpg
This document appears to be the final page of a larger email correspondence. It contains only standard legal boilerplate text (a confidentiality disclaimer) associated with the law firm Kirkland & Ellis ('kirkland.com') and a Bates stamp indicating it is part of a House Oversight Committee investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019224.jpg
Attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley write to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip requesting a review of federal involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case, which they characterize as a 'quintessentially state matter.' They criticize a previous 'limited' review conducted by CEOS at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, alleging it ignored professional misconduct by federal prosecutors and failed to assess the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019222.jpg
This document is page 2 of a letter from attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Mark Filip, dated May 27, 2008, advocating for Jeffrey Epstein. The attorneys argue that the prosecution is politically motivated due to Epstein's association with Bill Clinton and complain about arbitrary deadlines imposed by Mr. Sloman and the USAO. They request a tolling of the July 8, 2008 deadline and an independent review of the case, claiming Epstein is being forced to demand a more severe punishment than the State Attorney deemed appropriate.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022018.jpg
This text, likely from a memoir or legal account, defends a controversial prosecution decision regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The author argues that the plea deal was the best possible outcome given the evidence and victim reluctance at the time, ensuring jail time and sex offender registration rather than risking a failed trial. The passage also criticizes the defense's tactics, including personal investigations into prosecutors, while acknowledging frustrations with Epstein's treatment in state custody.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022016.jpg
This document appears to be an excerpt from James Patterson's book 'Filthy Rich' (marked as House Oversight evidence) detailing the aggressive legal defense mounted by Jeffrey Epstein. The text describes a 'year-long assault' on prosecutors by an 'army of legal superstars' including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, noting that the defense investigated prosecutors' families to find grounds for disqualification. It chronicles the negotiations leading up to the June 30, 2008 guilty plea, where the prosecution insisted on two years imprisonment and sex offender registration.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010551.jpg
This document appears to be an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' (likely quoting Alexander Acosta) submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. The text provides a first-person justification of the Epstein plea deal, arguing it was the best outcome given the risks of trial and state laws at the time. The narrator describes receiving a congratulatory call from an FBI Special Agent-In-Charge and peace-making communications from Epstein's high-profile defense team (Black, Dershowitz, Lefkowitz, Starr) whom the narrator knew from previous legal work.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010550.jpg
This document is a page from a book, marked as a House Oversight exhibit, written from the perspective of a prosecutor (likely Alexander Acosta) defending the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The text argues that the plea deal was necessary due to evidentiary challenges and victim reluctance, while acknowledging that Epstein's lenient treatment in state custody undermined the sentence. It also highlights aggressive defense tactics, including the investigation of prosecutors' private family lives and appeals to Washington, and mentions defense attorneys Lefkowitz and Starr.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010549.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' (pages 208-209), included as an exhibit in a House Oversight report. It details the aggressive legal strategy employed by Jeffrey Epstein's 'army' of high-profile attorneys (including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr) against the prosecution, including investigating prosecutors' families to find grounds for disqualification. The text confirms that despite these efforts, Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008, to state charges requiring 18 months imprisonment and sex offender registration.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010548.jpg
This document appears to be an excerpt from James Patterson's book 'Filthy Rich' (submitted as evidence to House Oversight), narrating the perspective of the U.S. Attorney (likely Alexander Acosta) regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It details the aggressive tactics used by Epstein's high-profile legal team ('Dream Team'), which included investigating prosecutors' families to find grounds for disqualification. The text outlines the plea negotiations in Fall 2007 and Epstein's eventual guilty plea on June 30, 2008, to state charges involving 18 months (referenced as 'two years' in offer) of imprisonment and sex offender registration.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010524.jpg
These pages from the book "Filthy Rich" describe Chief Reiter's frustration with the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, leading him to contact the FBI and federal prosecutor R. Alexander Acosta. The text details Reiter's initial hope in Acosta, Acosta's background working under Ken Starr and clerking for Samuel Alito, and the pushback Reiter received for pursuing the investigation so aggressively.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023047.jpg
This article from the Virgin Islands Daily News, originally by the Miami Herald, details how Alexander Acosta, as a federal prosecutor, negotiated a controversial non-prosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. The deal allowed Epstein to avoid federal prison and concealed the extent of his crimes from his victims. The article highlights the involvement of high-profile figures and the ongoing trauma experienced by the victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031984.jpg
This document is a fragment of an email from an attorney named Jay, representing Jeffrey Epstein through the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The sender addresses an unknown recipient regarding inquiries about Epstein, characterizing recent press coverage as inaccurate and defamatory, and invites specific factual questions. The document contains a redacted phone number and a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025360.jpg
This is page 8 (the signature page) of a legal letter dated May 19, 2008, addressed to Mark Filip. Attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley request that the recipient review the case and discontinue federal involvement, arguing that the matter should be closed by the State and that current federal attempts involve an overreach of statutes. They request a meeting to discuss these issues of federalism and selectivity. The letter mentions U.S. Attorney Acosta.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025353.jpg
This document is a confidential letter dated May 19, 2008, from attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. The attorneys represent Jeffrey Epstein and are requesting a review of federal involvement in his case, characterizing it as a 'quintessentially state matter.' They argue that a recent review by CEOS was insufficient because it ignored allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors in the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office and failed to assess the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025705.jpg
A legal letter dated May 27, 2008, from Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Mark Filip regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The attorneys argue that the prosecution appears politically motivated due to Epstein's friendship with Bill Clinton and claim the USAO would not prosecute a standard 'John' in this manner. They request a review of the case and the tolling of an 'arbitrary' deadline set by prosecutor Mr. Sloman.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021405.jpg
This document appears to be a page containing only the legal disclaimers and footers from an email chain. It links Jeffrey Epstein to the email address 'jeevacation@gmail.com' and indicates a connection to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis via the 'postmaster@kirkland.com' address. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021404.jpg
An email from attorney Jay Lefkowitz to Alexandra Wolfe dated March 7, 2011. Lefkowitz, representing Jeffrey Epstein, addresses Wolfe's inquiries, asserting that previous press coverage of Epstein has been inaccurate and defamatory. He requests that Wolfe send factual questions for him to answer and provides his contact information.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012152.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal memorandum from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, acting as defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The text argues against charging Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking), claiming his actions lacked the necessary elements of force, coercion, or recruiting, and characterizing him as a 'local John' rather than a trafficker. The lawyers assert that interactions were consensual and that women initiated contact by calling Epstein's assistant.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012149.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal memorandum from Kirkland & Ellis LLP defending Jeffrey Epstein against federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The text argues that the prosecution lacks evidence of 'inducement' or 'enticement' occurring over the phone or internet, noting that communications were often handled by secretaries and did not contain explicit content. The defense claims the women involved ('masseuses') were 'friends of friends' who visited Epstein's home voluntarily, often without direct prior contact with Epstein himself.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012147.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal memorandum from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, defending Jeffrey Epstein. The document argues that Epstein's conduct does not violate federal statutes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), or 2423(b), specifically focusing on § 2422(b) (coercion/enticement). The defense asserts that because Epstein's assistants made the phone calls to schedule massages without discussing sexual acts or possessing criminal intent at the time of the call, the 'interstate facility' element of the federal crime is not met.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity