Ken Starr

Person

Mentions

132

Relationships

Events

Documents

Relationship Network

Network Depth

Loading... nodes

Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.

23 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
person Jeffrey Epstein	Friend	12 Very Strong	10	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Client	12 Very Strong	6	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Legal representative	9 Strong	3	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Business associate	7	3	View
person Alexander Acosta	Legal representative	6	2	View
person Bill Clinton	Investigator subject	6	1	View
person Epstein	Client	6	2	View
person Alan Dershowitz	Business associate	6	1	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Professional	5	1	View
person The President	Legal representative	5	1	View
person e:jeeitunes@gmail.com	Business associate	5	1	View
person Bill Clinton	Legal representative	5	1	View
person Bill Clinton	Adversarial investigator	5	1	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Tracking monitoring	5	1	View
person The President	Commentator subject	5	1	View
person Jeffrey Epstein (e:jeeitunes)	Social professional interest	5	1	View
person Michael Wolff	Professional introduction	5	1	View
person Joe Whitley	Co counsel	5	1	View
person Alexander Acosta	Professional adversarial	5	1	View
person Jed Rubenfeld	Professional	5	1	View
person Jay P. Lefkowitz	Business associate	1	1	View
person Jeffrey Epstein	Potential advocate author	1	1	View
person Alex Acosta	Legal representative	1	1	View

Date	Event Type	Description	Location	Actions
N/A	N/A	Ken Starr Book Tour	Various	View
2018-12-15	N/A	Email correspondence between Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, and others discussing a public relat...	N/A (Digital Communication)	View
2018-12-15	N/A	Drafting of a public relations statement/defense regarding the 2008 Epstein plea deal.	Email correspondence	View
2018-12-15	N/A	An email discussion between Jeffrey Epstein's associates about crafting a public relations narrat...	N/A	View
2018-09-11	N/A	Ken Starr arrival/presence	New York (Implied)	View
2018-07-11	N/A	Proposed stay/meeting in New York involving Ken Starr	New York	View
2018-07-11	N/A	Ken Starr presence in New York (implied by 'ny 11, 12')	New York	View
2018-07-05	N/A	Discussion regarding Ken Starr lobbying Senators Cruz and Cotton for Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Co...	Washington D.C. (Implied)	View
2018-06-22	N/A	Ken Starr present in New York for the weekend.	New York (NY)	View
2018-05-19	N/A	Jeffrey Epstein introduces Michael Wolff and Ken Starr via email. Michael Wolff follows up, reque...	N/A	View
2018-05-19	N/A	Epstein facilitates a connection between Ken Starr and Michael Wolff for an off-the-record discus...	N/A	View
2018-05-19	N/A	Michael Wolff contacts Ken Starr, via an introduction from Jeffrey Epstein, to request an off-the...	N/A	View
2017-11-22	N/A	Meeting between Jeffrey Epstein and Ken Starr.	Unknown (Epstein's location)	View
2016-12-25	N/A	Ken Starr agrees to handle appeal for hip-replacement plaintiffs against Johnson & Johnson.	Federal Court	View
2016-12-25	N/A	Christmas Day correspondence.	N/A	View
2016-12-25	N/A	Holiday correspondence	N/A	View
2016-12-18	N/A	Legal inquiry regarding JASTA	N/A	View
2016-01-01	N/A	Ken Starr steps down as president of Baylor University amid mishandling of sexual assault allegat...	Baylor University	View
2016-01-01	N/A	Ken Starr stepped down as president of Baylor University amid sexual assault handling allegations.	Baylor University	View
2016-01-01	N/A	Ken Starr steps down as president of Baylor University amid sexual assault handling scandal	Baylor University	View
2010-12-27	N/A	Newsmax article published regarding Ken Starr's presidency at Baylor University	Baylor University, Texas	View
2008-06-23	N/A	DOJ official sends a letter regarding the Epstein matter to Epstein's legal team (Starr, Lefkowit...	N/A	View
2008-05-01	N/A	Justice Department affirmed Acosta’s right to prosecute after Starr's appeal.	Washington	View
2008-05-01	N/A	Justice Department affirmed Acosta's right to prosecute Epstein.	Washington	View
2008-01-01	N/A	Meeting at the Department level.	Department of Justice	View

017-20.pdf

This affidavit by attorney Bradley Edwards details difficulties in discovery for a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 10-81111). It alleges that key witnesses Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel evaded depositions by falsely claiming to be out of the country. Crucially, it lists specific individuals for whom Epstein paid legal fees to prevent them from testifying against him, explicitly labeling Sarah Kellen as a 'procurer of girls' and Nadia Marcinkova as a 'live-in sex slave', while also identifying his personal pilots and household staff.

Legal affidavit (case 9:10-cv-81111-wpd)

2025-12-26

Analysis Source

015-01.pdf

Affidavit by attorney Bradley Edwards in Case 10-81111 detailing obstruction tactics by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The document asserts that Jean Luc Brunel visited Epstein 67 times in jail and that both Brunel and Ghislaine Maxwell evaded depositions by falsely claiming to be out of the country. It explicitly lists Epstein's inner circle (including pilots and household staff like Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova) and notes that Epstein paid for their legal counsel to control their testimony.

Legal affidavit

2025-12-26

Analysis Source

EFTA00020711.pdf

This document is a 'Second Supplemental Privilege Log' from the case Jane Doe v. United States, listing internal DOJ, FBI, and USAO communications withheld from civil discovery. The log chronicles the timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from late 2006 to August 2008, detailing the internal deliberations regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), plea negotiations, and the drafting of the indictment. It reveals critical details such as internal disagreements over plea terms, Epstein's refusal to plead to anything other than 'assault on the plane,' Jay Lefkowitz's admission that he never intended Epstein to register as a sex offender, and the government's struggles with victim notification and harassment by Epstein's defense team.

Privilege log (second supplemental privilege log - box #4)

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00014496.pdf

This document contains an email chain between a partner at Edwards Pottinger LLC and likely federal authorities (SDNY/FBI) from late 2018/early 2019. The correspondence outlines preparations for a new investigation or prosecution, including requests for victim lists beyond those in the original Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Crucially, it provides a comprehensive list of lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein, his pilots, staff, and Ghislaine Maxwell, noting that Bruce Reinhart (now a magistrate judge) represented the pilots and staff.

Email correspondence

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00014007.pdf

Internal email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Ccing Alex Acosta) discussing a victims' lawyer's request to void Epstein's plea deal due to additional victims. The AUSA confirms they are bound by the agreement. The email also details a meeting with the Sheriff's Office where it was revealed Epstein's legal team (Goldberger, Starr) threatened to sue over unfavorable treatment, and that Epstein would be granted work release despite prior contradictions.

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00013855.pdf

A letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis to the US Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida) dated June 19, 2009. The letter seeks to clarify ambiguous provisions within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Paragraph 8 regarding waivers of liability and potential civil claims. Lefkowitz argues that the waiver applies to single violations rather than multiple asserted violations and reserves the right to use statute of limitations defenses.

Legal correspondence / letter

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00013554.pdf

An email chain from June 23, 2008, involving the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS). An official from ODAG sends a letter regarding the 'Epstein matter' to defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, copying US Attorney Alex Acosta. This email is then forwarded internally to other USAFLS staff with the comment 'FYI'.

Email chain

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00009229.pdf

This document is a transcript of an interview conducted by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility with R. Alexander Acosta on October 18, 2019. The interview focuses on Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in 2007. The transcript details discussions regarding the intake of the case, the assessment of evidence and legal issues including the petite policy, management decisions, and interactions with defense counsel.

Transcript of interview

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00009116.pdf

This document is a transcript of a deposition or interview with R. Alexander Acosta, conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The transcript covers discussions about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), victim notification issues, internal Department of Justice communications, and interactions with Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz. Acosta defends his office's decisions, emphasizing the goal of securing sex offender registration and restitution, while addressing criticisms regarding the perceived leniency and lack of transparency with victims.

Deposition transcript

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

EFTA00009016.pdf

This document is a transcript of a deposition or interview with former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The questioning covers the rationale for the state plea deal, the 2-year sentence, the "petite policy" considerations, interactions with defense counsel including Ken Starr, and specific terms of the NPA such as immunity for co-conspirators.

Deposition transcript

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023189.tif

This document discusses the legal defense strategies employed by Jeffrey Epstein's extensive team of attorneys, highlighting their ability to secure concessions despite initial USAO requirements. It details how prominent lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr influenced prosecutor Alex Acosta, and addresses assertions from individuals like Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie that their relationships with Epstein's counsel did not affect their actions, while noting the significant financial investment in Epstein's defense.

Report excerpt / legal analysis

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif

This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.

Report/legal document excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg

This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.

Doj office of professional responsibility (opr) report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing potential conflicts of interest within the USAO regarding the Epstein case. It details interviews with officials Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta, concluding that personal relationships with defense attorneys did not improperly influence the case. The text highlights Acosta's eventual recusal in late 2008 due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis, and a separate inquiry regarding his potential role at Harvard Law School given Alan Dershowitz's involvement.

Doj opr report (office of professional responsibility report)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021351.jpg

This legal document discusses the effectiveness of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, in portraying his case as legally complex to prosecutors like Alex Acosta. It also examines whether preexisting relationships between prosecutors (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta) and defense counsel improperly influenced the outcome, concluding, based on an OPR investigation, that they did not. The document highlights how Epstein's wealth funded a formidable defense that successfully negotiated concessions from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021309.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal review of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2008. It describes how Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and prosecutor John Roth reviewed defense appeals (initiated by Ken Starr) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), with Filip ultimately dismissing the defense's arguments as 'ludicrous' and refusing to meet with Epstein. The text also highlights prosecutor Marie Villafaña's sarcastic and angry reaction to learning that State Attorney Barry Krischer had secretly negotiated a light 90-day jail sentence for Epstein.

Department of justice / opr (office of professional responsibility) report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg

This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021301.jpg

This DOJ OPR report excerpt details the breakdown of plea negotiations in early January 2008. Epstein's defense team (Sanchez, Starr, Lefkowitz) pressed US Attorney Acosta and Sloman for a 'watered-down resolution' that involved no jail time and no sex offender registration, threatening 'ugliness in DC' regarding alleged leaks. Prosecutor Villafaña prepared contingency plans to restart the investigation, including interviewing victims in New York and abroad, while Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior conducted a full review of the evidence.

Department of justice / opr (office of professional responsibility) report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg

This document outlines the negotiations between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the language of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Section 2255 concerning victim rights and monetary damages. On December 19, 2007, Acosta proposed revised language to clarify victim rights as if Epstein had been convicted federally, but the defense rejected this, arguing it was legally incongruous to fit a civil statute into a criminal plea. The document highlights the mounting frustration of the prosecution regarding what they perceived as intentional delays by the defense.

Legal report / opr report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg

This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.

Doj/ogr report (office of professional responsibility/office of general counsel)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021297.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the friction between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (specifically Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Acosta expresses frustration with the defense's 'collateral challenges' and lack of finality, setting a strict deadline of December 7, 2007, for them to commit to the agreement or face trial. The text highlights Acosta's internal justification to OPR regarding his handling of the breach of agreement risks and the involvement of DOJ Headquarters.

Government report (likely doj opr report) quoting legal correspondence

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

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.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003315.jpg

This page from a DOJ OPR report details the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's placement on work release following his guilty plea. It highlights the disconnect between the USAO's expectation of 'continuous confinement' and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's decision to allow work release, as well as the legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz) to secure this privilege. The document establishes that while the USAO threatened to investigate if Epstein received special treatment, State Attorney Krischer confirmed Epstein's technical eligibility for the program.

Government report (doj opr report)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg

This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.

Government report (doj/opr report)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023194.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a timeline of meetings between the USAO (including Alexander Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz). It covers the period from February 2007 to January 2008, categorizing meetings as 'Pre-NPA' and 'Post-NPA'. The table logs specific participants and topics, including the presentation of the NPA term sheet, discussions of investigation improprieties, and the negotiation of state plea provisions.

Doj opr report (office of professional responsibility) / investigation record

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

Total Received

$0.00

0 transactions

Total Paid

$0.00

0 transactions

Net Flow

$0.00

0 total transactions

No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

As Sender

As Recipient

Total

Federal Jurisdiction

From: Ken Starr

To: Justice Department

Challenging federal jurisdiction of the case.

Appeal

N/A

Communication Source

Request for comment

From: The Herald

To: Ken Starr

Certified letter seeking response for the story (no response received).

Letter

N/A

Communication Source

Request for comment

From: The Herald

To: Ken Starr

Certified letter requesting response for the story (no response received).

Letter

N/A

Communication Source

Unknown

From: Ken Starr

To: Government attorneys

Correspondence between Epstein attorney and government supervisors

Correspondence

N/A

Communication Source

Unknown

From: Ken Starr

To: Government attorneys

Correspondence between Epstein attorney and government attorneys/supervisors not produced in discovery.

Correspondence

N/A

Communication Source

Request for comment

From: The Herald

To: Ken Starr

Certified letter and inquiry through spokesman regarding the story; no response received.

Letter

N/A

Communication Source

Re:

From: Ken Starr

To: J <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Starr provides a lengthy defense of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, arguing it was not a 'Sweetheart deal' and that the federal involvement was an overreach into a state-level matter. He characterizes Epstein's crime as 'solicitation of prostitution' without coercion or violence.

2018-12-15

Communication Source

Re:

From: Ken Starr

To: J <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Provides a written defense of Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal, arguing it was a state matter and federal involvement was an overreach. He characterizes the 'sweetheart deal' critique as misplaced and defends federal officials like Alex Acosta.

2018-12-15

Communication Source

Re:

From: Ken Starr

To: J <jeevacation@gmail.com>

2018-12-15

Communication Source

Re:

From: Ken Starr

To: Jeffrey Epstein (J)

Drafts a statement defending the plea deal ('Sweetheart deal!') and criticizing federal intrusion.

2018-12-15

Communication Source

Re:

From: Ken Starr

To: J <jeevacation@gmail.com>

2018-12-15

Communication Source

Re: Jed Rubenfeld

From: Ken Starr

To: Jeffrey Epstein

Can you talk? Impt.

2018-08-22

Communication Source

Re: Jed Rubenfeld

From: Ken Starr

To: Jeffrey Epstein (jeffr...

Wise counsel. Thx!

2018-08-22

Communication Source

Re: Jed Rubenfeld

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Ken Starr

Detailed advice on legal arguments regarding presidential immunity, Trump, and suggested talking points for Starr's book tour regarding the Clintons.

2018-08-22

Communication Source

Re: Jed Rubenfeld

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Ken Starr

i vote yes as it makes you relevant to today rather than merely re- reciting an old tale. :) or tail?

2018-08-22

Communication Source

Re: Jed Rubenfeld

From: Ken Starr

To: Jeffrey Epstein

Suggests connecting Epstein to Jed Rubenfeld regarding 'procedural fairness in campus adjudicatory proceedings' which might be relevant to 'your friend's unhappy situation'.

2018-08-17

Communication Source

Re:

From: Jeffrey E.

To: Ken Starr

Epstein asks Starr to speak to Michael Wolff 'totally off the record' about indicting a sitting president and questions if Trump Corp has 'constitutional baggage'.

2018-05-19

Communication Source

Re:

From: Michael Wolff

To: Ken Starr

Michael Wolff, after being introduced by Jeffrey Epstein, writes to Ken Starr. He offers to send Starr his book on the Trump White House and requests Starr's counsel and background information for a sequel focusing on legal cases against Trump, offering to speak 'off-the-record'.

2018-05-19

Communication Source

Re:

From: Ken Starr

To: Jeffrey E.

Starr agrees to the request: 'Happy to do so. Feel free to give Michael my email address.'

2018-05-19

Communication Source

Re:

From: Michael Wolff

To: Ken Starr

Michael Wolff writes to Ken Starr, expressing delight in meeting him and mentioning that Jeffrey Epstein has spoken of his friendship with and respect for Starr. Wolff offers to send Starr his book on the Trump White House and requests Starr's 'counsel and background' for a sequel focusing on the legal case against Trump. Wolff offers to speak on an 'off-the-record basis'.

2018-05-19

Communication Source