John Roth
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mark Filip
|
Professional reporting |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kenneth W. Starr
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mark Filip
|
Professional supervisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alex Acosta
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Correspondence handled by |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Provided information to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Deputy Attorney General
|
Discussed matter with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Communication |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | John Roth handled Starr's letter and reviewed materials related to the Epstein matter, limiting h... | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-20 | N/A | Delivery of messenger packet containing supplemental submissions and documentation binders to Joh... | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2008-06-20 | N/A | Submission of defense materials by Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to the DOJ (John Roth) regardi... | Email correspondence | View |
| 2008-06-19 | N/A | Date of the letter | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-13 | N/A | Epstein/call in from John Roth | [REDACTED]ofc. | View |
| 2008-05-28 | Legal action | The USAO, instructed by John Roth, rescinded the deadline for Epstein's guilty plea and Sloman no... | N/A | View |
EFTA00013785.pdf
A 14-page letter from attorney Stephanie D. Thacker to DOJ official John Roth arguing against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Thacker contends the case lacks federal jurisdiction (no interstate travel for illegal purposes, no commercial sex trafficking) and should remain a state matter. She highlights credibility issues with witnesses who admitted to lying about their age and accuses the lead detective of omitting exculpatory evidence in search warrant affidavits.
EFTA00013602.pdf
An email chain from June 20, 2008, detailing the submission of legal defense documents by Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) to John Roth at the DOJ. The documents include a 'Principal Submission' and a 'Summary of Misconduct'. Roth forwards this to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (Alex Acosta's office), noting the volume of material and suggesting a delay in responding. Acosta instructs his staff to print the documents.
EFTA00013482.pdf
This document is a digital calendar entry record for June 13, 2008, scheduling a 30-minute call described as 'Epstein/call in from John Roth'. The record includes metadata indicating it was originally stamped on June 11, 2008, but the record itself was created/modified in the system in 2015. The organizer, specific location details, and attendee list are redacted.
EFTA00013469.pdf
This document is an electronic calendar entry for a scheduled call on June 13, 2008, between Epstein and John Roth. The event is classified as 'X-PERSONAL' and was scheduled to last 30 minutes. The organizer and attendees are redacted, though the location is noted as an office.
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.
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-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-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-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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012134.jpg
This document is a letter dated June 19, 2008, from Kenneth W. Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, Esq. Starr argues that federal prosecutors (USAO/SDFL) improperly interfered in Epstein's state sentencing negotiations by insisting on a harsher sentence (18 months prison + 1 year house arrest) despite claims by Mr. Sloman that they would defer to the State. Starr alleges a 'critical appearance of impropriety' regarding the federal motivation for prosecuting Epstein and requests an oral presentation to review the matter.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012132.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008, arguing that a new New York-based Grand Jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein violates his September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The letter contends that the NPA protects associates like Leslie Groff and [Redacted], and asserts that the new investigation is a 'fishing expedition' lacking federal jurisdiction (internet luring, travel, etc.). The defense claims that statements from three principal accusers (names redacted) actually undermine the prosecution's case and deny essential elements required for federal charges.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012131.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The firm argues that a previous review of the Epstein case by the DOJ/CEOS was insufficient and requests a true 'de novo' review, citing recent Supreme Court decisions (*Santos* and *Cuellar*) that weaken the federal case. The letter complains that AUSA Villafana has violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement by re-initiating a grand jury investigation and subpoenaing a [redacted] individual to provide testimony and documents (photos, emails, phone records) on July 1, 2008.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012140.jpg
A legal letter from Kenneth Starr (Kirkland & Ellis) to John Roth dated June 19, 2008, regarding Jeffrey Epstein's case. Starr disputes a claim by Mr. Sloman that the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) was willing to defer sentencing length to the State, asserting instead that federal prosecutors insisted on a specific prison term (18 months plus house arrest). Starr argues this created an appearance of impropriety and requests an oral presentation to facilitate Roth's independent review of the matter.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012138.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The letter argues that a new Grand Jury subpoena violates Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and asserts that the investigation in New York lacks the federal elements (internet luring, coercion, etc.) necessary for prosecution. The defense claims that three principal accusers (names redacted) have given sworn statements that contradict the prosecution's case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012136.jpg
A letter from Kenneth Starr (Kirkland & Ellis) to John Roth (DOJ) dated June 19, 2008, arguing that federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. Starr outlines four supplemental submissions being sent to the DOJ, which include allegations of misconduct during the federal investigation, a rebuttal to claims by the Miami USAO, and a letter from a former CEOS attorney. The document indicates an aggressive legal defense strategy aimed at preventing federal charges.
Supplemental Submissions Packet
Messenger packet containing four submissions, binders, and checklists.
Response to CEOS review of Epstein investigation
Argument against federal prosecution, citing lack of federal nexus, witness credibility issues, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Sentencing negotiations and review request
Starr disputes Sloman's characterization of the sentencing negotiations, arguing federal prosecutors improperly interfered in state matters and insisted on harsher sentencing. Requests an oral presentation.
Epstein Prosecution / Review of Matter
Disputing Sloman's account of negotiations; requesting oral presentation for review.
Federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein
Cover letter regarding supplemental submissions arguing against federal prosecution.
Epstein/call in from John Roth
Scheduled call for 30 minutes
Epstein/call in from John Roth
Scheduled call event lasting 30 minutes
History of negotiations and misconduct claims
Recounting history of negotiations culminating in NPA and addressing misconduct claims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity