Lefkowitz
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Client |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Adversarial negotiating |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional opposing counsel |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
jeevacation@gmail.com
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
David
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafana
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional negotiating parties |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional prosecutor defense counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Meeting participants |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew Oosterbaan
|
Opposing counsel negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Discussion and agreement on the addendum's terms after a draft was sent and a phone call occurred. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations regarding Mr. Epstein's plea agreement, lasting seven weeks, described as 'spinning ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña sent a revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz and advised him about the controlling NPA if... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz sought to speak to Acosta regarding negotiations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña sent revised Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to Lefkowitz. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims under the § 2255 provisio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007, NPA modification letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz responded to Acosta's NPA proposal, raising 'troubling questions' and noting the incong... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | NPA Negotiation | West Palm Beach/Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz sent a follow-up letter to Acosta, expressing USAO's concern about Epstein intentionall... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between David Schoen and Lefkowitz regarding a prospective client. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentence Reduction | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting process of the NPA and federal plea agreement | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal dispute | Dispute between the prosecution (Sloman) and defense (Starr, Lefkowitz) over the notification of ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal negotiation | Negotiations over a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein, involving arguments, proposals, ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Narrator worked at Kirkland & Ellis. | Kirkland & Ellis | View |
| N/A | Legal negotiation | NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) negotiations between Villafaña and Lefkowitz regarding Jeffrey Ep... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz to discuss the NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Plea agreement negotiation | Discussions and communications regarding the terms of a plea agreement for Jeffrey Epstein, invol... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta made several conc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Plea deal negotiation regarding sentence length (18-month vs 20-month) and jurisdiction (state vs... | USAO | View |
| N/A | Legal negotiation | Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a revised draft Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) proposing an 18-month se... | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-16 | Legal drafting | Lefkowitz added a confidentiality clause to a new version of the NPA for the first time. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif
This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.
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-00023248.tif
This document is page 210 of a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations and external pressure regarding victim notification in the Epstein case during October 2007. It highlights defense attorney Lefkowitz's aggressive efforts to prevent the government from notifying victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), arguing it would violate confidentiality. It also details an internal ethics consultation where a Professional Responsibility Officer advised prosecutors to stop notifying victims if they were concerned about impeachment material.
DOJ-OGR-00023245.tif
This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.
DOJ-OGR-00021098.jpg
This legal document page describes the extensive, eight-month negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) starting in January 2007, contrasting it with a potential plea agreement that was also drafted. It emphasizes the deep involvement of multiple levels of the U.S. government, including the Department of Justice, the USAO for the Southern District of Florida, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the FBI, in the negotiation and approval process.
DOJ-OGR-00021096.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intended to have a broad scope, providing global immunity to Epstein and his co-conspirators beyond a specific district. It cites a 2007 email from prosecutor Villafana to defense attorney Lefkowitz, explicitly stating a preference not to highlight other crimes and other chargeable persons to the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00021441.jpg
This legal document details events from August to September 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on victim notifications. It describes how the Federal Court ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) to disclose the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and their attorneys. The document also discusses the USAO sending a revised notification letter after Epstein's attorneys objected to language in a previous version.
DOJ-OGR-00021433.jpg
This document outlines the internal DOJ communications in June 2008 regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement and the handling of victim notifications. It details how prosecutor Villafaña was instructed by superiors Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman to avoid direct victim notification, instead delegating that task to PBPD Chief Reiter. The text also confirms that the Deputy Attorney General had deemed federal prosecution appropriate just days before the plea deal deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ report (likely OGR) detailing the period between January and June 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes the legal tug-of-war between Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta) regarding victim notification under the CVRA, with the defense arguing federal notification was inappropriate. It also details internal DOJ reviews of the case evidence by senior officials (Senior, Oosterbaan, Mandelker, Fisher) which delayed the plea deal, while prosecutor Villafaña and the FBI continued to investigate potential federal charges in anticipation of an NPA breach.
DOJ-OGR-00021419.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the conflict and confusion regarding victim notification in the Epstein case. It highlights discrepancies between USAO officials (Sloman, Acosta) and DOJ Criminal Division (Mandelker) regarding who decided to defer victim notification to state authorities. It also includes excerpts from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, aggressively arguing that federal victims had no standing in the state case and should not be contacted by the FBI or informed of 'fictitious rights.'
DOJ-OGR-00021418.jpg
This legal document page from April 2021 details events from December 2007 related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), led by Acosta, to defer to the State Attorney's Office on the matter of notifying victims about Epstein's state court proceedings. The text includes a quote from a proposed communication outlining this deference and Acosta's subsequent explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he trusted the state to fulfill its legal obligations to victims.
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-00021411.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2007 and 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and counsel for Epstein (Lefkowitz) regarding victim contact and a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). While the FBI continued to investigate and interview new potential victims, the prosecution team decided not to inform victims about the NPA, citing concerns that discussing financial settlements would compromise them as witnesses and create impeachment evidence. The document highlights the internal rationale for limiting victim notification, balancing legal obligations with strategic concerns in the case against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021410.jpg
This document details the complex discussions and objections surrounding victim notification in a legal case, likely involving Epstein, during late 2007. It highlights concerns raised by the FBI and defense attorneys, particularly Lefkowitz, about the implications of direct victim contact, including potential impeachment material, confidentiality breaches, and grand jury secrecy rules. Various parties, including Villafaña, case agents, and the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer, navigated these issues, with Villafaña also raising ethical concerns about 'cold calling' victims under Florida Bar Rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021407.jpg
This document details communications from September 2007 concerning a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Case Agent Villafaña, prosecutors Acosta and Lourie, and defense attorney Lefkowitz discussed how to handle the NPA's disclosure, with a focus on preventing it from becoming public while navigating legal requirements and informing victims. Villafaña also attempted to coordinate the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims and sought guidance on what information could be shared with them and other agents.
DOJ-OGR-00021366.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that the controversial provision not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" was not the result of improper favoritism by prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. Instead, the report finds the broad language evolved from a narrower defense request during the exchange of drafts and was included with little internal discussion or analysis within the U.S. Attorney's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
Addendum revision
Sent a revision to the Addendum language.
No Subject
Villafaña’s publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, which drew criticism.
Reiterating concerns with § 2255 provision
Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta, asserting the § 2255 provision was 'inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable'.
Allegations of misconduct against Villafaña
Villafaña sent a letter to Lefkowitz responding to allegations that she had committed misconduct, specifically addressing 'false' allegations.
Allegations of misconduct against Villafaña
Villafaña sent a letter to Lefkowitz responding to allegations that she had committed misconduct, specifically addressing 'false' allegations.
Revised draft NPA
A footnote mentions Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA referring to four named assistants, an employee, and unnamed co-conspirators.
No Subject
Publicly released emails that drew criticism when the media learned of them during the CVRA litigation.
Concerns about Acosta's NPA proposal
Lefkowitz responded by letter suggesting Acosta's proposal raised 'troubling questions' due to incongruity of fitting federal civil remedies into a criminal plea agreement.
NPA Negotiations
Numerous email exchanges occurred between Lefkowitz and Villafaña throughout a Sunday evening.
New version of the NPA
Lefkowitz sent a new version of the NPA to Villafaña which included a confidentiality term for the first time.
Agreement
Revised plea agreement proposing immunity for four female assistants and withdrawal of legal process for computers.
Plea Deadline
Notified that Epstein had until close of business June 30, 2008 to comply with agreement terms including guilty plea and surrender.
Deadline Postponement
Notified that the plea deadline was postponed pending DOJ review.
Request for a meeting regarding Epstein prosecution
Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting, arguing that CEOS's letter raised several points justifying further discussion, such as the 'novel application' of statutes and unaddressed misconduct allegations.
Communication protocol and NPA deadline
Stated Acosta would not respond personally; set June 2 deadline for NPA compliance.
Follow-up on review process
Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta to confirm they would initiate the review process with Drew Oosterbaan but expressed misgivings due to Oosterbaan's stated readiness to prosecute the case himself.
CEOS review of the Epstein matter
Sloman informed Lefkowitz that CEOS was ready to proceed with the review and outlined the consequences depending on CEOS's decision regarding federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.
CEOS's role
Discussion about helping the process move forward and whether CEOS should partner with USAO
CEOS's role
Oosterbaan offered to take a fresh and objective look at the case and arguments to help move the process forward, suggesting CEOS should not partner with USAO if they take that objective role.
Victim Notification
Objecting to CVRA notification but agreeing some notice be given by the State Attorney.
Objection to victim notification
Asserted FBI should not communicate with victims and that victims were not relevant to state prosecution.
Potential Department Review
Lefkowitz notified Acosta that the defense team might pursue a department review if issues were not resolved promptly.
Dispute resolution agreement
Villafaña expresses frustration, stating she felt she 'bent over backwards' to consider the effect of the agreement on Mr. Epstein.
Unknown
Villafaña expressing frustration about a dispute resolution and stating she 'bent over backwards' to consider the agreement's effect on Epstein.
Dispute Resolution/Agreement
Villafaña expresses frustration, claiming she 'bent over backwards' to consider the effect of the agreement on Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity