Starr
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Roth
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Defense prosecution negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Whitley
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Whitley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Roth
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Pepperdine Law
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Adversarial negotiating |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Corresponded |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Correspondent official interaction |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Communicated with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Collaborated on defense submissions |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Martin Weinberg
|
Collaborated on defense |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
John Roth
|
Correspondence handled by |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Collaborated on response |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Correspondent |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal dispute | Dispute between the prosecution (Sloman) and defense (Starr, Lefkowitz) over the notification of ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Narrator worked at Kirkland & Ellis. | Kirkland & Ellis | View |
| N/A | N/A | John Roth handled Starr's letter and reviewed materials related to the Epstein matter, limiting h... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deputy Attorney General Filip stated he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007, NPA modification letter. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-27 | N/A | Starr sends concluding email to Acosta regarding the Epstein matter. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-23 | Legal communication | Roth sent a letter to Starr and Lefkowitz concluding the federal review of the Epstein case. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-23 | N/A | Roth sends letter to Starr and Lefkowitz regarding USAO's review of the Epstein matter. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-23 | Communication | Roth sent a letter to Starr and Lefkowitz regarding the conclusion of a review into the USAO's ha... | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-27 | Communication | Starr and Whitley sent a second letter to the Deputy Attorney General, arguing the need for revie... | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-19 | Communication | Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip asking for a review ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-14 | Letter | Starr sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher reiterating complaints and requesting a ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-13 | Conversation | Starr spoke with Assistant Attorney General Fisher. | N/A | View |
| 2008-03-12 | Meeting | A meeting between Epstein's defense team and DOJ officials to discuss the case. It was described ... | The Department (DOJ) | View |
| 2008-03-12 | N/A | Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal Division regarding USAO act... | Unspecified | View |
| 2008-03-12 | N/A | Meeting attended by Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg (Epstein defense team), and Oosterbaan, Mandelker,... | Unspecified | View |
| 2008-03-12 | Communication | Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher, making it clear the defense team would want an ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-03-06 | Communication | Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express concern a... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-07 | N/A | Defense presents USAO improprieties and 'watered-down' resolution | Unknown | View |
| 2008-01-07 | Phone call | Acosta and Sloman spoke with Epstein's defense team about a media leak and their desire for a 'wa... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-07 | N/A | Phone conference following meeting | Phone | View |
| 2007-12-19 | N/A | Acosta sent a letter to Sanchez proposing revised language for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA... | N/A | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting between Acosta, USAO personnel, Starr, and Lefkowitz regarding the Epstein matter. | Unknown (likely USAO office) | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting: Defense presents federal jurisdiction issues, legal issues, and request for de novo review | Unknown | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting in Miami between Acosta, USAO representatives, and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Dershow... | Miami | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif
This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023148.tif
This document details events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing from June 2008 to June 2009, including communications between various officials regarding the handling of his case and concerns about the terms of his plea agreement. It highlights discrepancies and objections raised by Villafaña regarding Epstein's proposed custody arrangements, suggesting a potential violation of the agreement's spirit.
DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif
This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00023138.tif
This document details efforts by Acosta to revise the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with language concerning monetary damages for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, which was ultimately rejected by the defense. It highlights disagreements and frustrations between prosecutors and defense counsel regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Section 2255 provision, particularly concerning victim notification and Epstein's alleged delays in his guilty plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023137.tif
This document details interactions between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the USAO in late 2007, focusing on submissions, a key meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, and the defense's threat to pursue a Department of Justice review. The discussions revolved around defense complaints, a proposed revised indictment, and a new argument by Epstein's attorneys regarding the applicability of the state charge he agreed to plead guilty to. The document also highlights the USAO's internal review processes and Acosta's communication with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023136.tif
This document details the efforts of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in December 2007 to challenge the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the federal investigation. It describes how defense counsel Starr and Lefkowitz sent letters and 'ethics opinions' to Acosta, criticizing the investigation and accusing an individual named Villafaña of improper conduct and federal overreaching, while Epstein reaffirmed his acceptance of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
This document excerpt details concerns raised by Acosta regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically about challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the defense team's tactics. Acosta's letter expresses frustration over the lack of finality and issues being appealed to Department Headquarters, while also setting a deadline of December 7, 2007, for a decision on the Agreement. It also describes Acosta's discussions with OPR and a subsequent response to Acosta from Starr and Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00023254.tif
This document excerpt details legal arguments and communications surrounding victim notification in the Epstein case in late 2007. It highlights disagreements between legal representatives (Starr, Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta, Villafaña) regarding victim status, notification requirements, and the appropriate compensation mechanisms, with a specific focus on an individual referred to as 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif
This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.
DOJ-OGR-00023251.tif
This document details communications and disagreements among legal parties regarding victim notification practices and the timing of Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing in late 2007. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Starr, and Fisher are involved in discussions concerning the Justice for All Act, the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the proper procedure for informing victims of the case's developments, including objections from defense counsel and directives from prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.
DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications within the USAO and negotiations with Epstein's defense team in December 2007. It highlights the conflict regarding victim notification, with prosecutor Villafaña expressing frustration about a 'Catch 22' situation where she felt unable to notify victims or file federal charges. The text also details draft letters sent to US Attorney Acosta and State Attorney Krischer, and meetings with defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz attempting to limit federal involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021416.jpg
This document, a legal filing, details disputes and communications from 2007 concerning victim notification and compensation in a federal case related to Epstein. It highlights arguments between legal figures like Lefkowitz, Starr, Acosta, and Villafaña regarding the interpretation of victim rights laws and the handling of specific victims, including 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein. The text reveals concerns about the government's adherence to victim notification requirements and allegations of misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021415.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice OPR report detailing the failure to notify Jeffrey Epstein's victims of his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña prepared notification letters on December 7, 2007, but was ordered by her superior, Sloman, to 'Hold the letter' after Sloman received a request from Epstein's defense attorney (Sanchez) to delay notification. The document highlights internal conflict, with an FBI agent and Villafaña expressing concern and disgust over the delay and defense influence.
DOJ-OGR-00021414.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the prosecution (represented by Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr and Lefkowitz) regarding the government's obligation to notify victims under the VRRA. The prosecution argues for the necessity of informing victims about Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and his upcoming state plea deal, scheduled for December 14, 2007, while the defense objects strongly. The document includes excerpts from letters exchanged between the two sides, outlining their legal positions and the specifics of the proposed plea agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021413.jpg
This legal document details the contentious communications in late November and early December 2007 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The core conflict revolved around the timing, content, and legal necessity of notifying victims about Epstein's upcoming state plea hearing, with the defense arguing for delay and review, and the prosecution asserting its obligations and threatening to void the plea agreement. The dispute involved a series of letters and instructions, highlighting the friction in executing the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021310.jpg
This document details events in late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, where federal authorities concluded their review and declined to intervene further. Subsequently, federal prosecutor Villafaña discovered the proposed state plea agreement's sentencing terms appeared to violate the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by not requiring Epstein to be confined in the county jail, leading her to suspect foul play.
DOJ-OGR-00021308.jpg
This legal document details communications from May 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, where his defense team, including Starr and Whitley, petitioned the Deputy Attorney General for a review. They argued the federal prosecution was unwarranted, irregular, and politically motivated due to Epstein's "close personal association" with former President Bill Clinton. In response, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General instructed the U.S. Attorney's Office to postpone a June 2, 2008 plea deadline pending the completion of this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021302.jpg
This legal document details how prosecutor Acosta, responding to the defense's desire for a 'fresh face', engaged the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) to review the evidence in the Epstein case. CEOS attorney Villafaña traveled to Florida, interviewed victims, and reported back to Acosta and Sloman on the victims' severe trauma and their desire for significant jail time for Epstein rather than restitution. The document also notes the CEOS Trial Attorney's assessment to OPR that the victim witnesses presented numerous challenges for a potential prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing events in late November 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes attempts by Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Lefkowitz) to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to complain about the NPA's civil damages provision and victim notification plans. The text highlights internal DOJ dissent, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan calling the deal 'egregious' and 'advantageous for the defendant,' while Prosecutor Villafaña expressed a desire to indict Epstein due to defense tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00021263.jpg
This document details the intensification of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case during September 2007. It describes the prosecution, led by Acosta and Villafaña, engaging with Epstein's defense counsel, Gerald Lefcourt, over the terms of a plea deal. The focus of the negotiations shifted to the length of imprisonment, with the USAO moving from a two-year minimum to considering an 18-month sentence, while the defense pushed for a sentence involving home confinement.
Epstein matter
Letter received by OPR and handled by John Roth.
Concluding the matter
Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, expressing unhappiness with the government's treatment of his client (Epstein) but acknowledging their legal defeat and wishing for closure without ill will.
Victim notification
Starr complained that the government inappropriately provided oral notification of a victim letter to a girl's attorney.
Concluding email on Epstein matter
Acknowledged they reached 'the end of a long and arduous road,' expressed unhappiness with government's treatment of his client, but recognized appellate motions lost, seeking closure.
Complaints regarding Epstein case
Starr thanked Fisher for speaking with him, reiterated the defense team's complaints, and requested a meeting with her, Lefkowitz, and Whitley.
Substantive challenges to NPA and Epstein investigation, ...
Starr transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz to Acosta, challenging the NPA and the conduct of the Epstein investigation, and raising concerns about victim notification.
Challenges to NPA and Investigation Conduct
Transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz challenging the NPA and the 'background and conduct of the investigation'. One 20-page submission criticized Villafaña and federal overreaching, another 13-page submission reiterated complaints about § 2255 component of NPA.
Substantive challenges to NPA and investigation into Epstein
Starr transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz. These submissions presented challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the conduct of the Epstein investigation, particularly regarding victim notification issues.
Substantive challenges to NPA and Epstein investigation, ...
Starr transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz to Acosta, challenging the NPA and the conduct of the Epstein investigation, and raising concerns about victim notification.
Deadline for 'Affirmation'
Set a deadline for the defense to transmit Epstein's 'Affirmation'.
Directive regarding victim notification letters
Acosta informed defense counsel Starr that he had directed prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until 5 p.m. on December 7 to give the defense time to review options.
Request for meeting
Argued USAO improperly compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages
Conclusion of the case
Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, expressing unhappiness with the outcome but acknowledging defeat and a desire for closure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity