Letter from U.S. Attorney Kevin Acosta to Kenneth Starr cites concerns over Epstein plea‑deal negotiations and potential collusion by defense counsel
Summary
Letter from U.S. Attorney Kevin Acosta to Kenneth Starr cites concerns over Epstein plea‑deal negotiations and potential collusion by defense counsel The passage reveals an internal DOJ communication highlighting that prosecutors were aware of possible tactics to undermine the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. It names specific officials (Kevin Acosta, Kenneth Starr) and suggests that defense counsel may have been coordinating to preserve Epstein’s freedom, which is a concrete lead for further document requests and interviews. While the information is not entirely novel, it provides actionable details (dates, parties, alleged obstruction) that could deepen investigations into the handling of the case. Key insights: Acosta’s December 2007 letter to Kenneth Starr flags Epstein’s failure to schedule a plea hearing, violating the September agreement.; Prosecutors expressed concern that defense counsel was deliberately filing collateral challenges to keep the agreement intact.; The letter implies internal DOJ awareness of possible obstruction tactics by Epstein’s legal team.
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Related Documents (6)
Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires
The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 v. UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to more tha
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00039421 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant
Rol Slack lir „kite'
Rol Slack lir „kite' 2/949 Arcrwite a." 2434 7 Antai, Liu) 3 cut, , 4,/e EFTA00183732 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AfilL/ArtO PART/H.3We; ' Cntercup Cantor 163 East 53'd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 WNW rwerA.COM September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (56D 820-8777 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re:Jeffrey Bpstein Dear • Facsimile: In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact pawn in the' mended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thoso letters as they are sent. • Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josofsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements unde
Alleged quid‑pro‑quo between Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein’s defense team, implicating Kirkland lawyers and senior officials
The passage links a sitting cabinet member (Alex Acosta) to a lenient plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein and suggests possible career‑advancing favors from powerful law firm partners (Kirkland & Ellis) and Acosta, then U.S. Attorney, approved a 13‑month sentence for Epstein despite serious sex‑trafficking The email alleges Acosta negotiated the plea deal with Kirkland lawyer Jay Lefkowitz, a former col
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00077606 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.