| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
7
|
7 | |
|
person
Robert D. Critton, Jr.
|
Co counsel |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Ken Starr
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-06-19 | N/A | Submission of letter regarding NPA clarification. | Sent via Federal Express | View |
| 2009-06-07 | N/A | Order Granting Motion for Limited Appearance of Jay P. Lefkowitz | West Palm Beach, Florida | View |
| 2009-06-04 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Limited Appearance | U.S. District Court, Southe... | View |
| 2009-05-21 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Limited Appearance for Jay P. Lefkowitz | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2009-05-21 | N/A | Order granting motion for limited appearance of Jay P. Lefkowitz on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein ent... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-08-22 | N/A | Deadline (Friday morning) for Epstein's counsel to advise on client's election regarding victim l... | Unknown | View |
| 1996-12-02 | N/A | Admitted to practice law | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated June 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). The order grants a motion for the limited appearance of attorney Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. to represent Jeffrey Epstein and authorizes him to receive electronic filing notifications at jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com.
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on June 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert D. Critton, Jr. moves for the admission of Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes certificates of service to opposing counsel and a certificate of good standing for Lefkowitz from the District of Columbia court.
This document is a legal motion filed on May 21, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Local counsel Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Jay P. Lefkowitz (of Kirkland & Ellis LLP) pro hac vice to represent Jeffrey Epstein. The document outlines Lefkowitz's qualifications, confirms payment of the admission fee, and provides service information for all counsel of record.
This document is a court order (specifically Document 25-2 entered on 05/21/2009) from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. permission to appear and participate in the action on behalf of the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and authorizes the receipt of electronic filings at the email address jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com. The document appears to be a proposed order as the judge's signature lines are blank.
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black, dated August 26, 2008. The letter confirms a 'final list' of 32 victims, discusses the logistics of victim notification letters, and demands confirmation of payment for Mr. Josefsberg's fees. It also explicitly warns that if Epstein breaches the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the Office intends to indict him.
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SD FL) to Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Lefkowitz and Black) dated August 20, 2008. The letter addresses the implementation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, specifically the payment of fees to Special Master representative Robert Josefsberg and disputes regarding victim notification lists. The U.S. Attorney offers an ultimatum: stick to the September 2007 victim list (leaving Epstein open to prosecution for later-identified victims) or include victims known as of June 30, 2008, which would require Epstein to compensate them.
A letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis to the US Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida) dated June 19, 2009. The letter seeks to clarify ambiguous provisions within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Paragraph 8 regarding waivers of liability and potential civil claims. Lefkowitz argues that the waiver applies to single violations rather than multiple asserted violations and reserves the right to use statute of limitations defenses.
Legal correspondence from Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, to prosecutor Jeffrey Sloman regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The letter defends Epstein's agents contacting potential witnesses, confirms the plea and sentencing date of January 4, 2008, and insists on Epstein receiving an 18-month sentence with standard Florida state work release privileges ('equal treatment'). Lefkowitz also raises concerns about the government's handling of victim representation under 18 U.S.C. ยง 2255.
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida), signed on behalf of Alexander Acosta, to Jeffrey Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz. The letter aggressively rebuts Lefkowitz's allegations of misconduct, specifically denying a conflict of interest regarding the potential appointment of Bert Ocariz and defending the office's handling of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and victim notifications. The author expresses surprise at the attacks given previous cooperation and asserts that the office made significant concessions to Epstein during negotiations.
Discussing ongoing obligations under the NPA, specifically Paragraph 8, and seeking clarification to avoid future misunderstandings.
Referenced as the letter being responded to.
Referenced as a letter receiving a separate enclosed response.
Clerk ordered to provide electronic notification of filings to jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com
Authorization for Jay P. Lefkowitz to receive electronic notices at jay.lefkowitz@kirkland.com
Response to allegations regarding the AUSA's role in the investigation, conflicts of interest regarding Bert Ocariz, and handling of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Response to Sloman's letter of Nov 5, 2007. Discusses NPA compliance, witness contact, plea timing, media, and sentencing terms.
Referenced letter that raised points regarding witness contact and sentencing timing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity