Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-34501House OversightOther

Acosta and Starr Discuss Victim Notification and 2255 Provision in Epstein Case

The passage reveals internal communications involving former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr regarding victim notification and compensation under the 2255 Acosta sent a December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez outlining proposed victim notification l Kenneth Starr is mentioned as having taken issue with the compensation methodology. Judge Edward B

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #012201
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals internal communications involving former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr regarding victim notification and compensation under the 2255 Acosta sent a December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez outlining proposed victim notification l Kenneth Starr is mentioned as having taken issue with the compensation methodology. Judge Edward B

Tags

kenneth-starrjeffrey-epsteinus-attorneyvictim-rightsvictim-notificationlegal-procedurelegal-exposurehouse-oversight2255-provisionprocedural-misconduct

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Esq. May 19, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 6 B. Method of Compensation and Notification. During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of compensation (hereinafter “the 2255 provision”)’ and the SDFL’s intention to notify the victims under 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (you objected to victims being notified of time and place of Epstein’s state court sentencing hearing). In response, the SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta’s December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. He proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: “Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein’s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.” Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the federal resolution as required by law; however, “[w]e will defer to the discretion of the State Attomey regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes.” As you know, _ you rejected these proposals as well. See December 26, 2007 correspondence from J ay Lefkowitz to USA Acosta. . ? Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to an independent third-party. This was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum wherein it was mutually agreed that former United States District Court Judge Edward B: Davis would serve as the independent third-party. Judge Davis selected the venerable law firm of Podhurst and Josefsberg to represent the approximately 34 alleged identified victims.

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48

13p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S INITIAL DISCLOSURES Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, makes its Initial Disclosures, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A), and state: Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)fil: 1. R. Alexander Acosta Dean, School of Law Florida International University Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall 11200 S.W. 8'h Street Miami, Florida 33199 (305) 348-1118 Dean Acosta was the United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the non-prosecution agreement was negotiated. 2. was the First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened, and the non-prosecution agreement was negot

10p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG I t.'"...1. ;Or • > EXHIBIT B-127 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014941 57 EFTA00224728 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Airs: Assistant LAS Auorney 99N.& eth Street Aftam: Ft 33132 (305) 961-9100 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 2, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein is a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for sexual favors. In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. Marie Villafana of our West Palm Beach b

14p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01325051

20p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

-- I have received and reviewed your letter. I cannot print and sign until I am back in the office on 11/15.

Dear -- I have received and reviewed your letter. I cannot print and sign until I am back in the office on 11/15. From: To: Cc: Subject: L.n.scb E. ktc Jcincy J-pw.ctiti - Lsni6atiun nuustivital Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:20:52 +0000 Importance: Normal Thanks much Enjoy your cruise and thank you very much for the information. I.(USAFLS) Thursday. November I4Rrt> arp the FRI aceRntc invnlvprl in the original investigation: Original supervisor was (I think he is now in DC). Later replaced by The ASAC and SAC also attended meetings to discuss the plea negotiations. From our Office, most of the key players are gone, but their electronic files will have to be preserved: R. Alexander Acosta At DOJ, there is/was At Palm Beach PD, was the Chief, he is no longer there. as the Detective. I think he is still there. Those were the only two we ever dealt with. The lawyers for Epstein were: Kenneth Starr Jay Lefkowitz Alan Dershowitz Lily Roy Black Jack Goldber

3p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.