DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
1.01 MB
Extraction Summary
9
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
12
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.01 MB
Summary
This legal document details the early stages of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in July and August 2006. It highlights the internal communication dynamics, showing investigator Villafaña bypassing her immediate supervisor to report directly to a senior management team in Miami, including Sloman and Acosta. The document also reveals the FBI's distrust of the local State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein, and describes the initial evidence-gathering efforts, which included flight manifests and victim interviews.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Villafaña |
An investigator or prosecutor central to the Epstein case, communicating with supervisors and managing evidence colle...
|
|
| Sloman | Supervisor |
A supervisor in the Epstein investigation, communicating with Villafaña, Acosta, and Lourie.
|
| Acosta | Supervisor |
A supervisor in the Epstein investigation, informed by Sloman and updated by Villafaña.
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation |
The individual charged and arrested by the State Attorney's Office and under investigation by the FBI.
|
| State Attorney Krischer | State Attorney |
Mentioned in an email from Acosta to Sloman regarding a potential heads-up about the federal investigation.
|
| Lourie | Supervisor |
A supervisor who learned of the case from Sloman and was involved in communications about case management.
|
| Menchel | Supervisor |
A senior manager in the Miami office who was part of the supervisory chain Villafaña communicated with.
|
| Chief Reiter | Chief |
An individual Villafaña planned to meet with to convince him to relinquish evidence to the FBI.
|
| Alex [Acosta] | Supervisor |
Referenced by his first name in an email from Lourie to Sloman, confirming his identity as Acosta.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
The agency that initially charged and arrested Epstein.
|
| FBI | government agency |
The agency that formally opened a case to investigate Epstein on July 24, 2006.
|
| Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as an entity Sloman speculated was not trusted by the federal team.
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, which conducted interviews with personnel like Sloman and Villafaña regarding ...
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the FBI office handling the Epstein investigation and where Villafaña's immediate supervisor was based.
|
|
|
Location of the senior managers (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel) who assumed authority for the case.
|
Relationships (4)
The relationship was strained, as Villafaña bypassed her immediate supervisor to communicate directly with a higher supervisory chain (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Acosta).
They communicated via email about case strategy, with Acosta asking for Sloman's opinion on approaching the State Attorney.
They communicated via email about case management and the flow of information from Villafaña.
The relationship was marked by distrust from the FBI's side. Sloman feared that information shared with the State Attorney's Office would be 'leaked straight to Epstein' and speculated about a relationship between someone in that office and Epstein's defense team.
Key Quotes (12)
"are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday"Source
— Villafaña
(Told to Sloman on July 24, 2006, regarding the FBI's plan to review evidence from the State Attorney's Office.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #1
"appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?"Source
— Acosta
(In an email to Sloman, asking about the strategy for communicating with the state prosecutor.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #2
"No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein."Source
— Sloman
(His reply to Acosta's email, expressing distrust of the State Attorney's Office.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #3
"Miami” purposefully assumed all the “authority” for the case"Source
— Villafaña’s immediate supervisor
(Describing her view that senior managers in the Miami office took control of the investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #4
"highly unusual"Source
— Villafaña’s immediate supervisor
(Her characterization of the Miami office assuming authority over the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #5
"to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI."Source
— Villafaña
(Her stated purpose for meeting with Chief Reiter regarding state grand jury transcripts.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #6
"scared and/or embarrassed"Source
— Villafaña
(Explaining to Sloman and Lourie the state of some victims in the Epstein case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #7
"everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story."Source
— Villafaña
(Contrasting the willingness of victims to cooperate with the resistance from other parties.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #8
"a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guys."Source
— Sloman
(In a July 24, 2006 email to Lourie, describing the Epstein case, referred to as 'Operation Leap Year'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #9
"we didn’t trust the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office"Source
— Sloman
(His speculation during an OPR interview about why he advised against contacting State Attorney Krischer.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #10
"Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the case?"Source
— Lourie
(In an August 25, 2006 email to Sloman, after Villafaña sent a substantive update to the entire supervisory chain.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #11
"At this point, I don’t really care. If Alex says something then I’ll tell her to just run it through you guys."Source
— Sloman
(His response to Lourie's email about Villafaña's updates.)
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
Quote #12
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,086 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page49 of 258
SA-47
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 47 of 348
SA-47
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 47 of 348
On July 24, 2006, Villafaña alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney’s
Office had charged and arrested Epstein.28 On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally
opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafaña
told Sloman that the FBI agents “are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to
review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday,” and she noted that her target date for filing federal
charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was
“appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might
go?” Sloman replied, “No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.”29
Office had charged and arrested Epstein.28 On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally
opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafaña
told Sloman that the FBI agents “are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to
review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday,” and she noted that her target date for filing federal
charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was
“appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might
go?” Sloman replied, “No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.”29
Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more
active role in supervising the investigation, Villafaña continued to update Acosta and Sloman
directly on the progress of the case.30 Villafaña’s immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had
little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafaña directed her
emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the
immediate supervisor’s view, however, “Miami” purposefully assumed all the “authority” for the
case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as “highly unusual.”31
active role in supervising the investigation, Villafaña continued to update Acosta and Sloman
directly on the progress of the case.30 Villafaña’s immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had
little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafaña directed her
emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the
immediate supervisor’s view, however, “Miami” purposefully assumed all the “authority” for the
case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as “highly unusual.”31
By late August 2006, Villafaña and the FBI had identified several additional victims and
obtained “some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the
communication and travel in interstate commerce” by Epstein and his associates. Villafaña
reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney’s Office would not provide transcripts from the
state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter “to convince him to
relinquish the evidence to the FBI.” Villafaña also told her supervisors that she expected “a
number of fights” over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply
“after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys.”
obtained “some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the
communication and travel in interstate commerce” by Epstein and his associates. Villafaña
reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney’s Office would not provide transcripts from the
state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter “to convince him to
relinquish the evidence to the FBI.” Villafaña also told her supervisors that she expected “a
number of fights” over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply
“after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys.”
Villafaña’s reference to anticipated “fights” and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask
whether she was referring to the victims. Villafaña responded that the problems did not involve
victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to
document demands as overly burdensome. Villafaña explained to Sloman and Lourie that some
victims were “scared and/or embarrassed,” and some had been intimidated by the defense, but
“everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story.” Villafaña
whether she was referring to the victims. Villafaña responded that the problems did not involve
victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to
document demands as overly burdensome. Villafaña explained to Sloman and Lourie that some
victims were “scared and/or embarrassed,” and some had been intimidated by the defense, but
“everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story.” Villafaña
28 On the same day, Sloman emailed Lourie, whom Villafaña had not yet briefed about the case, noting that
Operation Leap Year was “a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guys.”
Operation Leap Year was “a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guys.”
29 During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall what he meant by this remark, but speculated that it was
likely that “we didn’t trust the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office,” and that he believed there may have been “some
type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney’s Office] and the defense team.”
likely that “we didn’t trust the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office,” and that he believed there may have been “some
type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney’s Office] and the defense team.”
30 After Villafaña sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman,
and Acosta on August 25, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: “Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the
case?” Sloman responded, “At this point, I don’t really care. If Alex says something then I’ll tell her to just run it
through you guys.”
and Acosta on August 25, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: “Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the
case?” Sloman responded, “At this point, I don’t really care. If Alex says something then I’ll tell her to just run it
through you guys.”
31 OPR understood “Miami” to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office,
that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafaña told OPR, that she believed Epstein’s attorneys
“made a conscious decision to skip” her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory
chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta.
that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafaña told OPR, that she believed Epstein’s attorneys
“made a conscious decision to skip” her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory
chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta.
21
DOJ-OGR-00021221
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document