Sloman
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Business associate |
22
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Subordinate supervisor |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Business associate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Belohlavek
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Herman
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional supervisory |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Roy Black
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional collegial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victim's attorney (former law partner)
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Professional advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A victim's attorney
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Belohlavek
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Defense prosecution negotiation |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Discussion and agreement on the addendum's terms after a draft was sent and a phone call occurred. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sloman briefly left the USAO and entered private practice specializing in plaintiffs' sexual abus... | Miami | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter concerning Epstein's plea deal, incl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Early meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel where Villafaña raised victim consultation issue a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | John Roth handled Starr's letter and reviewed materials related to the Epstein matter, limiting h... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel arguing against victim notification letters | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sloman met with Dershowitz and informed him of USAO's opposition to early termination and transfe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victim notification process regarding Epstein's case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial considerations for Epstein case, including victim trauma and evidentiary challenges | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR interviews regarding Epstein's case and sentencing discussions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta anticipated leaving USAO and considered employment with Kirkland & Ellis, leading him to r... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007, NPA modification letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews conducting a retrospective review of the case handling. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews with prosecutors involved in the Epstein case. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Internal USAO discussions regarding the viability of federal prosecution vs. a negotiated plea deal. | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding the two-year plea deal resolution. | USAO (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña reports Epstein is at the Stockade instead of Main Detention Center. | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Legal dispute | Dispute between the prosecution (Sloman) and defense (Starr, Lefkowitz) over the notification of ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing a prosecution... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | OPR conducted interviews with Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Villafaña about the origins of... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A meeting to discuss how to proceed with the Epstein case, where the FBI insisted on lifetime sex... | USAO in Miami | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Sloman told Villafaña that pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal process | Discussions regarding whether to contact victims about the potential resolution of the case befor... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif
This document discusses issues related to victim communication and transparency surrounding the Epstein case, highlighting how the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was kept secret, leading to victims feeling ignored and public criticism. It criticizes the USAO for not prioritizing victim communications and notes that decisions by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña contributed to these problems, emphasizing the need for more unified and transparent engagement with victims. OPR recognizes inconsistencies in communication between the FBI and USAO and suggests greater oversight in future cases involving multiple Department components.
DOJ-OGR-00023315.tif
This document analyzes legal conduct related to the Epstein case, focusing on prosecutor Villafaña's alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards in early 2008. It discusses whether her actions violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) concerning false statements and dishonest conduct, referencing the Eleventh Circuit's findings on the government's handling of victim notifications. The text cites several Florida Bar legal cases to support its analysis of attorney conduct and intent.
DOJ-OGR-00023310.tif
This document details the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) findings and criticisms regarding Acosta's handling of victim notification in the Epstein case. It focuses on Acosta's personal involvement in the notification process, his decision to defer responsibility to the State Attorney, and his failure to ensure victims were properly informed of Epstein's state court pleas, despite his staff's efforts. The document highlights the inadequate communication and coordination between the USAO, Acosta, and the State Attorney's Office concerning victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif
This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif
This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.
DOJ-OGR-00023276.tif
This document details the process of victim notification following Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement in July-August 2008. AUSA Villafaña played a central role, sending letters to victims, coordinating with the FBI, and proposing language for victim contact, while also addressing disputes over the final victim list with the defense counsel and her supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
This document excerpt details discussions and concerns surrounding victim notification and the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta provided accounts to OPR regarding the federal plea process, communication between federal and state authorities, and the challenges of victim identification and notification, including a potential $150,000 payment for victims. The text also highlights discrepancies in victim counts and the impact of Epstein's defense team on inter-agency communications.
DOJ-OGR-00023264.tif
This document details an interview with Villafaña regarding her interactions with victims in a case involving Epstein. It describes her communications about a non-prosecution agreement, the victims' concerns about the legal process and potential exaggeration of claims, and her rationale for not discussing the agreement with some victims. It also includes statements from a CEOS Trial Attorney and an FBI agent about victim notifications and interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023263.tif
This document details FBI interviews of Jeffrey Epstein's victims in early 2008, focusing on victim Wild's willingness to testify and confusion regarding the case's status. It also describes the emotional distress of other victims and communications between officials like Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman regarding victim management and the difficulties of prosecution. The text references contemporary news articles about the case and highlights discrepancies in FBI reporting of victim interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023262.tif
This document details the efforts of FBI agent Villafaña, the FBI, and a CEOS Trial Attorney in organizing the case against Epstein and interviewing victims between January and May 2008. It describes an attorney's attempt to file civil litigation against Epstein and the reporting of a $50 million civil suit and an anticipated plea deal by the New York Post. The document also notes that the FBI and prosecutors interviewed additional victims and that an FBI report indicates a victim's belief that Epstein should be prosecuted.
DOJ-OGR-00023254.tif
This document excerpt details legal arguments and communications surrounding victim notification in the Epstein case in late 2007. It highlights disagreements between legal representatives (Starr, Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta, Villafaña) regarding victim status, notification requirements, and the appropriate compensation mechanisms, with a specific focus on an individual referred to as 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif
This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.
DOJ-OGR-00023251.tif
This document details communications and disagreements among legal parties regarding victim notification practices and the timing of Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing in late 2007. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Starr, and Fisher are involved in discussions concerning the Justice for All Act, the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the proper procedure for informing victims of the case's developments, including objections from defense counsel and directives from prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00023248.tif
This document is page 210 of a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations and external pressure regarding victim notification in the Epstein case during October 2007. It highlights defense attorney Lefkowitz's aggressive efforts to prevent the government from notifying victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), arguing it would violate confidentiality. It also details an internal ethics consultation where a Professional Responsibility Officer advised prosecutors to stop notifying victims if they were concerned about impeachment material.
DOJ-OGR-00023246.tif
This document details the process of informing victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, including differing accounts of those communications. It highlights Villafaña's role in directing victim notifications and the USAO's confidentiality clause. News reports from October 2007 confirm Epstein's plea deal for state charges and the federal agreement to drop its probe, with victim Courtney Wild providing a contrasting recollection of the information she received.
DOJ-OGR-00023245.tif
This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023242.tif
This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.
DOJ-OGR-00023237.tif
This document details Villafaña's process for victim notification in an unspecified case, where she created her own letters and directed FBI agents to deliver them, believing it provided more assistance than legally required. It highlights that these letters were not reviewed by supervisors and that the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no direct contact with victims in the Epstein matter, despite Villafaña's claim of having shown the letter to a specialist who approved it. The document also touches upon the USAO's lack of standardized victim notification procedures and the context of Epstein-related CVRA litigation in July 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif
This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.
DOJ-OGR-00021484.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report criticizes the USAO and FBI for their lack of coordination and transparency in communicating with victims during the Epstein investigation, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It notes that the failure to inform victims created a public perception of collusion and ignored the victims' rights under the recently passed CVRA. The report highlights contradictory communications sent to victims, including instances where the FBI stated the case was under investigation while the USAO stated it was resolved via a state guilty plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg
This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
Draft victim notification letter
Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited version and asked, "What do you think?"
Government's Obligation to Notify Victims
Asserted that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of proceedings, restitution, and the status of the investigation, and addressed defense objections.
Computer issue recollection
Sloman told OPR he 'vaguely' remembered the computer issue.
Revised Draft Victim Notification Letter
Forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter for comment, detailing the completion of the federal investigation and the terms of Epstein's state plea deal.
Recusal instruction
Instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to conflict of interest.
Revised addendum portion
Shortly after the breakfast meeting, Sloman emailed Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafaña) mentioning a phone call with 'Alex' and offering a revised portion of the NPA addendum.
Breakfast meeting follow-up
Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the meeting.
Plea hearing, victim notification, public perception
Sloman stated his expectation for the plea, denied directing Villafaña, and addressed the 'public perception' of hiding results, explaining the notification and restitution mechanisms.
Epstein's custody arrangements
Recounted speaking with Goldberger who 'swore' Epstein would be in custody 24/7 during community confinement, but then 'let it slip' he wouldn't be at jail but stockade, violating NPA spirit.
No Subject
Menchel rebukes Sloman for the tone and substance of a prior email, stating Sloman acted without authorization by preparing an indictment memo for the Epstein case. Menchel clarifies that his conversation with Lilly Sanchez was an informal discussion, not a plea offer, and was done with the US Attorney's knowledge.
Instruction regarding victim contact
Villafaña recalled Sloman responding to her email by telephone, stating, "[Y]ou can’t do that now."
Villafaña's belief in the case
Sloman told OPR that Villafaña 'always believed in the case' against Epstein.
NPA Addendum Revision
Following a call from Acosta, Sloman emailed a revision of the Addendum language to Lefkowitz.
Rejection of suggested revision
Sloman clarified to Villafaña that 'Jay’s suggested revision has been rejected.'
Thanking for advice and pep talk
Villafaña thanked Sloman for his advice regarding the defense attorneys' allegations of impropriety and explained her reasoning for initially selecting a private attorney and then agreeing to a Special Master.
Communication protocol and NPA deadline for Epstein case
Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz asking that all future communication be directed to Villafaña and reiterated that the USAO would terminate the NPA unless Epstein complied by June 2, 2008.
Transfer of supervision
Seeking USAO's agreement to transfer supervision of Epstein's community control phase to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
No Subject
Noting Villafaña's concern about Epstein and that defense team would abide by Sloman's decision.
Concerns regarding potential impeachment evidence
Discussed concern that notifying victims of damages rights would compromise cross-examination.
Re: Victim Notification
Good.
Victim Notification
Informed Sloman that PBPD Chief Reiter 'is going to notify victims about the plea.'
Victim Notification
Villafaña reported that Chief Reiter 'is going to notify victims about the plea'.
History of negotiations and misconduct claims
Recounting history of negotiations culminating in NPA and addressing misconduct claims.
Consultation with Mandelker
Claimed Acosta consulted with Mandelker regarding deferring notification to the State Attorney.
History of negotiations with Epstein's counsel, NPA, Epst...
A lengthy letter recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional misconduct. Included prosecution memorandum, proposed charging documents, NPA with addendum, and Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Sanchez.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity