Relationship Details

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.

This legal document details a dispute between the prosecution (represented by Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr and Lefkowitz) regarding the government's obligation to notify victims under the VRRA. The prosecution argues for the necessity of informing victims about Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and his upcoming state plea deal, scheduled for December 14, 2007, while the defense objects strongly. The document includes excerpts from letters exchanged between the two sides, outlining their legal positions and the specifics of the proposed plea agreement.

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.

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).