Relationship Details

This document is a confidential letter dated May 19, 2008, from attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. The attorneys represent Jeffrey Epstein and are requesting a review of federal involvement in his case, characterizing it as a 'quintessentially state matter.' They argue that a recent review by CEOS was insufficient because it ignored allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors in the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office and failed to assess the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.

This document is page 2 of a letter from attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Mark Filip, dated May 27, 2008, advocating for Jeffrey Epstein. The attorneys argue that the prosecution is politically motivated due to Epstein's association with Bill Clinton and complain about arbitrary deadlines imposed by Mr. Sloman and the USAO. They request a tolling of the July 8, 2008 deadline and an independent review of the case, claiming Epstein is being forced to demand a more severe punishment than the State Attorney deemed appropriate.

Attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley write to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip requesting a review of federal involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case, which they characterize as a 'quintessentially state matter.' They criticize a previous 'limited' review conducted by CEOS at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, alleging it ignored professional misconduct by federal prosecutors and failed to assess the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.

This document is a legal letter dated May 27, 2008, from Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, supplementing a request for an independent review of the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The letter argues that the prosecution is an unprecedented extension of federal law against a figure with 'close ties to former President Clinton' and complains that Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman imposed an arbitrary June 2 deadline to force compliance with a Non-Prosecution Agreement, thereby attempting to bypass the requested review. The lawyers also allege misconduct, including leaks to the New York Times and conflicts of interest involving Sloman's former law partner filing civil suits against Epstein.

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.

This document is a court exhibit containing a printout of a New York Times 'Letter to the Editor' published on March 5, 2019, written by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (including Ken Starr). The attorneys argue that the number of women involved in the investigation was exaggerated, deny the existence of an international sex-trafficking operation or sex parties at his home, and assert that Epstein is entitled to 'finality' regarding his plea deal. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.

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.

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.