Fisher
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Governmental hierarchical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Copied on letter |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-03-12 | Communication | Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher, making it clear the defense team would want an ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-11-28 | N/A | Starr requests meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the NPA and civil damages... | Unknown | View |
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-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-00021307.jpg
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-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-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.
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-00003062.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a government brief, arguing against a defendant's claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. It cites numerous court cases (such as Boyd, Fisher, and Bryson) to establish that the act of production privilege for private papers has been limited and that the Fifth Amendment does not protect an individual from prosecution for perjury, even if testimony was improperly compelled. The core argument is that a citizen cannot lie to the government with impunity.
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
This legal document, page 125 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, discusses the application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the act of producing documents. It cites several legal precedents to argue that the privilege only applies when the act of production itself is testimonial and incriminating, not merely because the documents' contents are incriminating. The document further asserts that the Fifth Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individuals from governmental coercion, not from other moral or psychological pressures.
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00004792.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 307) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 25, 2021. The text argues against Maxwell's attempt to suppress deposition transcripts from a civil case, citing legal precedents (Oshatz, Wong, Knox) to establish that even if a protective order was modified, the testimony can be used, particularly in a perjury trial where the statements themselves are the crime. The government asserts that civil deposition testimony does not violate rights against self-incrimination in this context.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015503.jpg
This document discusses the application of game theory to both rational decision-making and evolutionary processes, using the Prisoner's Dilemma as a visual example. It explains how evolutionary dynamic models, where successful behaviors spread through reproduction or imitation, often converge to Nash equilibria similar to rational models. The text cites various biological and social applications, ranging from animal behavior to human rituals and indirect speech.
Involvement in Epstein NPA
During an OPR interview, Assistant Attorney General Fisher stated she played no role in the NPA and did not review or approve it.
Involvement in Epstein NPA
During an OPR interview, Assistant Attorney General Fisher stated she played no role in the NPA and did not review or approve it.
Request for meeting
Argued USAO improperly compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity