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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-12-07 | N/A | Starr and Lefkowitz submitted 'independent ethics opinions' to Acosta. | N/A | View |
| 2007-12-07 | N/A | Starr and Lefkowitz send 'ethics opinions' to Acosta complaining about federal investigation and ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-12-05 | Communication | Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta reaffirming the NPA. | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-30 | Communication | Acosta replied to Lefkowitz's letter and also sent a letter to Starr setting a deadline for holdi... | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-29 | Communication | Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta objecting to the draft notification letter. | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-28 | N/A | Sloman instructs Villafaña to provide Lefkowitz with draft victim notification letter. | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-28 | Communication | Villafaña provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter at Sloman's instruction. | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-21 | Meeting | Lefkowitz informed Acosta and Sloman that Starr had placed a call to Fisher. | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-21 | N/A | Unscheduled Meeting: Defense discussion of victims’ attorney representative procedure | Unknown | View |
| 2007-10-23 | Legal communication | Lefkowitz sent a letter describing three specific concessions he claimed Acosta made during the b... | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-23 | Communication | Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court. | state court | View |
| 2007-10-23 | Meeting | A breakfast meeting to discuss the Epstein case and NPA. | Miami | View |
| 2007-10-12 | Meeting | Acosta has breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz. | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-12 | Meeting | A breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz where assurances regarding the Epstein case were... | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-12 | Meeting | A breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz that drew criticism. Lefkowitz later claimed Aco... | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-12 | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz. | Marriott hotel, West Palm B... | View |
| 2007-10-12 | N/A | Negotiations for NPA addendum language, including selection of attorney representative and reimbu... | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-12 | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz, followed by Acosta communicating with Sloman. | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-12 | N/A | Meeting: Defense discussion of NPA terms and likely appeal to Department | Unknown | View |
| 2007-10-12 | Negotiation | Ongoing negotiations via email and phone calls regarding the language of the NPA addendum. | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-12 | N/A | Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast | Marriott hotel in West Palm... | View |
| 2007-10-10 | Communication | Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter arguing against direct contact with victims by federal agents. | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-10 | N/A | Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta expressing disagreements with Villafaña regarding the ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-05 | Communication | Defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a letter responding to the USAO’s special master proposal. | N/A | View |
| 2007-10-01 | N/A | Negotiations on NPA Addendum | USAO / Remote | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021364.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing detailing an OPR interview with prosecutor Villafaña about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein NPA negotiations. Villafaña defends her collegial communication style with defense attorney Lefkowitz as a tactic to complete the assigned task, while remaining firm on substantive terms. She also explains her strategic reasoning for agreeing to a plea deal provision that protected Epstein's associates from prosecution, which was to avoid excessive court scrutiny that could jeopardize the entire agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021363.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations between the USAO and Epstein's defense. It concludes that while prosecutor Villafaña's emails to defense attorney Lefkowitz appeared accommodating—suggesting 'off campus' meetings and venue changes to avoid press—OPR did not find evidence that these actions were motivated by improper favoritism or that Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz materially altered the sentence. The document notes that state officials, not the USAO, were responsible for granting Epstein work release privileges.
DOJ-OGR-00021362.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing claims made by Lefkowitz about concessions from Acosta regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). OPR examined three claims from Lefkowitz's October 23, 2007 letter and found that evidence did not support them, concluding that Acosta did not agree to interfere with state proceedings or alter the NPA's sentencing provisions. The document cites subsequent communications from USAO representatives Sloman and Villafaña that reinforced the original terms of Epstein's 18-month jail sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021361.jpg
This legal document details the post-meeting communications and ongoing negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office (represented by Acosta and Sloman) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights a significant dispute over alleged concessions Acosta made during a breakfast meeting, as claimed by Lefkowitz in an October 23, 2007 letter, and a contemporaneous draft response from the USAO refuting those claims.
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-00021316.jpg
This legal document details concerns from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), voiced by an individual named Villafaña, regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release arrangement in Palm Beach County. Villafaña alleges that Epstein's lawyers schemed to make him eligible and that his application contained significant inaccuracies, such as listing a foundation with his lawyer's phone number as his employer. The document also notes a potential conflict of interest where Epstein paid thousands of dollars per week to off-duty sheriff's deputies for protection, seemingly in violation of work release rules.
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-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.
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-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
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-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.
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-00021294.jpg
This legal document details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in late 2007, caused by a new strategy from his legal team to appeal to senior Department of Justice officials to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It chronicles communications between the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's attorneys, including Kenneth Starr and Jack Goldberger, regarding scheduling conflicts and Epstein's compliance with the agreement. Ultimately, these efforts delayed the plea hearing by months, with a final date set for January 4, 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00021293.jpg
This document page describes communications and actions taken in late October 2007 related to a non-prosecution agreement. It details an email from Acosta expressing frustration with negotiations, Sloman's subsequent communication with opposing counsel Lefkowitz that led to an agreement, and the signing of an addendum by Epstein's attorneys. The document also includes an email exchange between prosecutors Villafaña and Sloman discussing the propriety of selecting a private attorney for victims versus a Special Master, and Sloman reassuring Villafaña in the face of criticism from defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
This document describes the conflicting accounts surrounding a breakfast meeting between prosecutor Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz. A letter from Lefkowitz claims Acosta promised the USAO would not interfere with Epstein's state-level plea deal, a claim Acosta's office refuted in an unsent draft letter calling it "inaccurate." The text also details Acosta's later, differing recollections of the meeting and contrasts them with media reports that a secret deal was struck at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00021289.jpg
This page of a DOJ report details negotiations in October 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Lefkowitz argued strongly against federal agents or the USAO contacting victims about the settlement, citing confidentiality and grand jury rules. The document chronicles the scheduling of a breakfast meeting between US Attorney Acosta and Lefkowitz in West Palm Beach on October 12, 2007, while prosecutor Villafaña was on sick leave.
DOJ-OGR-00021288.jpg
This document details the legal wrangling in October 2007 regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights the friction between government attorneys (Villafaña, Sloman) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz, Sanchez) over the interpretation of victim compensation procedures (§ 2255) and the role of a special master. Notably, Villafaña expresses frustration with the defense's attempts to limit victim lawsuits, at one point asking her supervisor, "Can I please just indict him?"
DOJ-OGR-00021287.jpg
This document details the conflicts that arose immediately following the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), focusing on the September-October 2007 period. The central issue was the selection of an attorney representative for the victims, where AUSA Villafaña's choice, Lefkowitz, was challenged by her colleague Sloman due to a potential conflict of interest, as Lefkowitz was recommended by an AUSA Villafaña was dating.
DOJ-OGR-00021286.jpg
This document outlines the specific terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein, including deadlines for his guilty plea (Oct 2007) and self-reporting (Jan 2008). It explicitly grants immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator' and four assistants, waives Epstein's appeal rights, and notes the parties' intent to keep the agreement private. The document also details a communication from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, expressing concern over media leaks after the New York Post reported on the 18-month plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021285.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal communications regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts by the prosecution team (Villafaña, Acosta) to limit the disclosure of the agreement's terms, specifically regarding financial damages, to the Palm Beach Police Chief and the public. The document outlines the specific provisions of the NPA, including the guilty plea to solicitation of minors, the 30-month recommended sentence structure, and the handling of victim damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021284.jpg
This document details the finalization and signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein on September 24, 2007. It describes how Acosta made crucial last-minute edits to the agreement, removing requirements for the state court and State Attorney's Office, and how Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz, transmitted the signed agreement with a request for it to be kept confidential.
No Subject
Discussion about the draft addendum, leading to agreement on its terms.
No Subject
Transmittal email for revised NPA, stated "we have not and don't plan to ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated.
No Subject
Acosta's reply about being happy to talk but wanting [M]arie on the call to avoid undermining staff during negotiations and allowing interlocutory appeals.
Response to allegations of misconduct
Villafaña responded to Lefkowitz's allegations of misconduct, specifically addressing 'false' allegations that the government had made.
Reiterating concerns with § 2255 provision
Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta, asserting the § 2255 provision was 'inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable'.
USAO's concern about Epstein's delays
Lefkowitz sent a follow-up letter to Acosta asserting that Epstein was intentionally delaying plea entry and that defense counsel was making efforts to resolve issues.
Non-prosecution language
Villafaña's email continued to include language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees.
Addendum Revision
Sloman emailed Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language.
Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) details and USAO fl...
Lefkowitz emailed Villafaña about a draft NPA with a 20-month jail sentence and 10 months of community control, questioning USAO flexibility on the § 2255 procedure, contrasting it with 18 months jail and 12 months community control.
N/A
Asking that USAO try to keep the NPA from becoming public.
Addendum revision
Sent a revision to the Addendum language.
Plea Postponement
Request to postpone plea from Oct 26 to Nov 20 due to scheduling conflict.
Unknown
Refusing private 'interlocutory' appeals without staff present.
Revised NPA
Sent revised NPA; stated they don't plan to ask for immigration proceedings.
Plea options
Conveyed two options Lourie suggested: original proposal with 18-month sentence or state charges plus two federal obstruction charges.
Resolving open issues
Reference to a 4:30 call.
Plea negotiations
Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta, who then directed Villafaña to return the call.
Revised Draft Victim Notification Letter
Forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter for comment, detailing the completion of the federal investigation and the terms of Epstein's state plea deal.
No Subject
Villafaña’s publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, which drew criticism.
Plea options for Epstein
Villafaña sent a lengthy email to Lefkowitz conveying two plea options suggested by Lourie, involving state and federal charges with different sentence lengths, and also mentioned her willingness to seek approval from Acosta for another federal plea option.
Meeting to resolve outstanding issues
Villafaña offered to have a face-to-face meeting 'off campus' at a 'neutral' location to finalize the NPA negotiations.
Rejection of proposal for Epstein's plea
Lefkowitz questioned Acosta about the rejection of their proposed plea deal for Epstein, outlining the terms and asking why they were not satisfactory.
NPA Addendum Revision
Following a call from Acosta, Sloman emailed a revision of the Addendum language to Lefkowitz.
Request to postpone Epstein's guilty plea
Lefkowitz emailed Acosta seeking to postpone Epstein's guilty plea from October 26, 2007, to November 20, 2007, citing a scheduling conflict.
Agreement to postpone guilty plea
After getting input from Acosta, Sloman emailed Lefkowitz and agreed to the postponement of the guilty plea.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity