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-00021283.jpg
This legal document details the negotiations for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. It shows Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, arguing against certain terms and proposing alternatives to prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. The document includes a direct email from Lefkowitz to Acosta questioning the rejection of a plea deal and concludes with the defense introducing a confidentiality clause into the NPA for the first time.
DOJ-OGR-00021282.jpg
This legal document details communications from Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, specifically Sanchez and Lefkowitz, to prosecutors Acosta and Lourie on September 22-23, 2007. The defense vehemently argues against a sexual offender registration requirement, claiming it was based on a 'misunderstanding' from a September 12 meeting where they were allegedly told by prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek that the charge was not registrable. The document contains excerpts from emails where the defense calls the registration a 'life sentence' and pleads for reconsideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021278.jpg
This legal document details a critical point in the plea negotiations for Jeffrey Epstein around September 20, 2007. It shows Epstein's defense team rejecting a federal plea agreement to pursue a "state-only" deal, primarily to avoid the federal sexual offender registration requirement. The document captures the internal communications among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta, and State Attorney Barry Krischer, as they react to the defense's shift in strategy and establish a hard deadline for filing charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021275.jpg
This document details the plea agreement negotiations in the Epstein case on September 19, 2007. It outlines the communications between prosecutor Villafaña and defense counsel Lefkowitz, including Villafaña's push to finalize a deal and Lefkowitz's submission of a 'redline' draft with specific terms. The document also reveals the involvement of Villafaña's colleague, Lourie, who reviewed the draft agreement and questioned certain provisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021272.jpg
This legal document from a court filing details plea negotiations concerning Jeffrey Epstein on September 18, 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña rejected a proposal from Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, for a 12-month sentence, insisting the U.S. Attorney required at least 18 months. The document includes a detailed email from Villafaña to her colleagues outlining the stalled negotiations and subsequent discussions with Lefkowitz about an alternative plea structure involving two separate charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021270.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the plea negotiations between prosecutor Villafaña and Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz. It outlines the strategy to structure state and federal sentencing to manipulate jurisdiction for prison purposes without alerting the judge. It also explains Villafaña's justification for the non-prosecution agreement covering co-conspirators, stating that the USAO viewed Epstein as the priority and wished to avoid highlighting uncharged conduct to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00021269.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the 2007 plea negotiations between the US Attorney's Office (Villafaña, Sloman) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz). It highlights a specific email from Villafaña suggesting a Miami venue to minimize press coverage, which was later scrutinized during CVRA litigation. Crucially, it details the defense's counter-proposal to include immunity for four female assistants who facilitated Epstein's crimes, protection from immigration proceedings for two of them, and the withdrawal of legal processes seeking Epstein's computers.
DOJ-OGR-00021262.jpg
This legal document details events in the Jeffrey Epstein case from 2007, focusing on the circulation of a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) by USAO attorney Villafaña. It describes a key meeting on September 7, 2007, where Epstein's defense attorneys, including Starr, met with prosecutors, including Acosta, to argue against federal charges. Starr specifically appealed to Acosta by highlighting their shared experience as Senate-confirmed officials.
DOJ-OGR-00021212.jpg
This document provides a timeline of key events in the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008. It details the opening of the investigation, meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's counsel, the decision to offer a state-based resolution, and the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline concludes with Epstein's guilty plea in state court, a subsequent legal challenge by a victim (Jane Doe), and the start of Epstein's work release program.
DOJ-OGR-00021191.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, detailing the timeline of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case from July to September 2007. It outlines key events, including meetings between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), the FBI, and Epstein's defense team, and chronicles the evolution of the plea agreement terms, such as the reduction of the proposed incarceration period. The document highlights the roles of specific attorneys, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie, in the negotiation process.
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00003312.jpg
This document details communications from late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It begins with a letter from Roth to Epstein's counsel, Starr and Lefkowitz, confirming that federal prosecution is appropriate, and then shifts to prosecutor Villafaña's efforts to enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña expresses strong suspicion that Epstein's attorneys are misrepresenting the terms of his confinement, telling her he would be in a jail 24/7 while planning for him to be at a less restrictive 'stockade', which she reports to a colleague, Sloman, as a violation of their agreement.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00003303.jpg
This document details events in early January 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, starting with the postponement of a plea hearing due to issues with the state charge. It describes a meeting where defense attorney Sanchez alleged a media leak by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and pushed for a lenient plea deal, followed by a phone call where Epstein's full legal team reiterated their desire for a 'watered-down resolution'. Amid these negotiations, USAO personnel expressed concern about delays and initiated a full internal review of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003293.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, details the contentious negotiations between federal prosecutors (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in October 2007. It describes the defense's successful request to postpone Epstein's state guilty plea and the prosecution's growing frustration with the defense for revisiting settled issues. The prosecutors also express suspicion that the defense's delay tactics were motivated by a new civil lawsuit filed against Epstein in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
DOJ-OGR-00003282.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the specific negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights the inclusion of the controversial clause granting immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator,' which AUSA Villafaña added and DOJ official Lourie failed to reject, despite Lourie explicitly rejecting a separate request for an immigration waiver. The document also records Lourie's later admission to OPR that the broad non-prosecution agreement likely stemmed from U.S. Attorney Acosta's reluctance to charge Epstein at all.
DOJ-OGR-00003272.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's communications and justifications regarding a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Villafaña explains to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) her strategic decisions, including the structuring of state and federal sentences, the rationale for not prosecuting Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, and the handling of immigration matters concerning Epstein's assistants. The text reveals internal government discussions about the controversial plea agreement and the legal reasoning behind its terms.
DOJ-OGR-00003266.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations in September 2007 between the USAO (represented by Villafaña, Acosta, and others) and Epstein's defense team. It outlines the drafting of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) proposing a 20-month jail sentence (reducible to 17 months with 'gain time') and notes a critical meeting on September 12 involving the State Attorney's Office to discuss state charges. The text also reveals internal USAO strategy, including preparing a revised indictment in case negotiations failed.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023132.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea following the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team, including Kenneth Starr calling senior DOJ official Alice Fisher, and disagreements between the USAO and defense regarding the timeline for the plea entry, which was eventually set for January 4, 2008. The document also highlights internal communications regarding Epstein's failure to use 'best efforts' to comply with the NPA timeline.
DOJ-OGR-00008794.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 2021, presents an argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense contends that a supplemental jury instruction given by the court was incorrect and prejudicial, citing multiple Second Circuit precedents to argue that confusing or misleading instructions at a critical stage of deliberation can be grounds for reversal. The filing asserts that this error applies to multiple counts and requests a curative instruction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031798.jpg
An email exchange between 'J' (using the jeevacation@gmail.com address associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and attorney David Schoen regarding a news article about the 2008 plea deal. Schoen criticizes the article's claim that victims were silenced and comments on other lawyers involved, specifically Dershowitz and Lefkowitz. 'J' responds dismissively, stating that 'every outlet needs a sex story.'
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_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.
Response to accusations
A five-page letter responding to accusations made against her personally.
Defense complaints
Submissions raising defense complaints regarding the case
Defense Complaints
Lefkowitz's submissions raising defense complaints.
Reply to objection
Acosta accused the defense team of presenting 'collateral challenges' and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the NPA, the government was ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to trial.
Response to objections regarding NPA
Acosta replied to Lefkowitz, accusing the defense of delaying the NPA and stating they were ready to 'unwind the Agreement' and proceed to trial.
Objection to proposed draft notification letter
Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta strongly objecting to the draft notification letter, arguing the government was not obligated to send it until after Epstein's plea and sentencing.
Objection to proposed draft notification letter
Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter, arguing the government was not obligated to send it until after Epstein's plea and sentencing, and that victims had no right to appear.
Draft notification to victims
Asking USAO to refrain from notifying victims until after defense counsel met with Fisher
Response to complaint
Directing him to raise concerns with Villafaña or Sloman
Complaint about victim notification
Complaining about plan to notify victims about § 2255 provision
Draft victim notification letter
At Sloman's instruction, Villafaña provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter.
Draft victim notification letter
Villafaña provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter, advising victims of the state court plea date.
Complaint about private investigators
Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators for Epstein were contacting victims about financial settlements.
Correspondence restricting USAO communication
Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, "Your recent correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney's Office . . . raises concern."
Postponement of Epstein's Guilty Plea
Lefkowitz sent an email seeking agreement to postpone Epstein's state court guilty plea from October 26, 2007, to November 20, 2007, citing a scheduling conflict and noting the State Attorney's Office had agreed. Acosta later agreed.
Response to Lefkowitz's letter
A revised draft response letter, drafted by Sloman and revised by Acosta, which described Lefkowitz's claims as “inaccurate” and rejected the alleged promise as a “gag order.” The document notes OPR found no evidence it was ever sent.
Response to Lefkowitz's claims
A revised draft response, prepared by Sloman, which added the term 'inaccurate' to describe Lefkowitz's claims and stated that the office would not agree to a 'gag order'.
Assurances from breakfast meeting
Lefkowitz represented that Acosta had assured him the USAO and FBI would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office or contact witnesses/claimants regarding Epstein's plea and sentence.
Assurances from breakfast meeting
Lefkowitz represented that Acosta had assured him the USAO and FBI would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office or contact witnesses regarding Epstein's plea and sentence.
Concessions made during breakfast meeting
Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta claiming Acosta had made three significant concessions during their meeting regarding non-intervention in the state case.
Concessions made by Acosta during a breakfast meeting
Lefkowitz's October 23, 2007 letter claimed Acosta made three concessions: not to interfere with the state's case, not to contact victims, and not to intervene regarding Epstein's sentence, allowing for work release.
Epstein's guilty plea
Lefkowitz sent a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007.
Epstein's guilty plea
Lefkowitz sent a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007.
Guilty Plea
Stating Epstein expected to enter guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007.
Concerns with USAO proposal
Lefkowitz emailed Sloman identifying 'areas of concern' with a proposal the USAO had made days before.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity