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-00021481.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.
DOJ-OGR-00021479.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing whether prosecutor Villafaña violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) by failing to disclose the existence of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards. It references specific interviews conducted by Villafaña on January 31 and February 1, 2008, where she allegedly stated the matter was 'under investigation' despite knowing the NPA was signed. The text cites the Eleventh Circuit's concern that the government's actions moved from passive nondisclosure to active misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.
DOJ-OGR-00021476.jpg
This document details how prosecutor Villafaña and other federal agents handled communications with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Fearing that knowledge of potential monetary damages could compromise witness credibility, Villafaña deliberately withheld specific details about the NPA from victims during interviews in 2007 and 2008. The text contrasts the official explanation given to victims with the reality of the agreement, as later attested to by victim Courtney Wild.
DOJ-OGR-00021474.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the Epstein case, specifically criticizing Alexander Acosta's handling of victim notification. It details how Acosta intervened to stop his staff (Villafaña and Sloman) from implementing their notification plan, instead deferring responsibility to the State Attorney and Chief Reiter without ensuring a proper process was in place. Consequently, many victims were unaware of Epstein's plea hearing and only learned of the outcome through the media or after the fact.
DOJ-OGR-00021472.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing the failure of the USAO (specifically Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman) to coordinate with the State Attorney's Office regarding victim notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 2008 plea hearing. It reveals that despite a draft letter in December 2007 intended to provide a list of victims to the state, no evidence exists that the letter was sent, leaving state prosecutors (Krischer and Belohlavek) unaware of the federal identified victims. A footnote highlights that Epstein's attorneys explicitly asked the USAO not to inform victims of their rights under state charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021469.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the decision-making process behind the failure to notify victims of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 state plea hearing. It highlights a December 19, 2007 letter where US Attorney Acosta deferred notification responsibility to the State Attorney, citing jurisdiction issues. The text reveals internal conflicts and justifications, including fear that victim notification might cause the plea deal (NPA) to fall apart or lead to victim impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00021463.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.
DOJ-OGR-00021462.jpg
This legal document details an OPR investigation into the failure to consult with victims before signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It presents conflicting recollections from key figures like Acosta and Villafaña regarding the decision-making process. OPR concluded that while the failure to consult did not constitute professional misconduct under the CVRA standards at the time, it was a criticism-worthy failure to treat victims with fairness and respect.
DOJ-OGR-00021461.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding victim notification prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007. It highlights conflicts where prosecutor Villafaña raised concerns about the legal requirement to consult victims, but was overruled by supervisors Sloman, Menchel, and Acosta, who cited confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) did not apply to pre-charge resolutions. The document also notes Menchel's concern that notifying victims might cause them to exaggerate stories to seek financial damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021436.jpg
This document describes the events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in a Florida state court on June 30, 2008, at which no victims were present. It details how federal prosecutors, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, deliberately withheld written victim notifications until after the plea, based on a prior agreement. The text also notes that while subpoenas were issued to some victims, the State's efforts to ensure their participation or notification before the hearing were minimal or ineffective.
DOJ-OGR-00021435.jpg
This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021434.jpg
This legal document details conflicting accounts regarding the notification of victims for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008, state plea hearing. It focuses on communications between prosecutor Villafaña, investigator Reiter, and victim's attorney Edwards, particularly concerning a list of victims that was created and subsequently destroyed. The document highlights discrepancies in recollections from various depositions and declarations about what information was shared and with whom, forming a key part of the CVRA litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021427.jpg
This legal document details the actions of prosecutor Villafaña between February and April 2008 regarding the case against Epstein. Villafaña actively revised the prosecution strategy, sought pro bono legal counsel to protect victims from harassment by Epstein's defense team, and urged her supervisors for a swift resolution, highlighting the severe emotional toll on the victims. The document also includes Villafaña's justification to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for her statements to victims about the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021425.jpg
This legal document details the events of January 31, 2008, when CEOS Trial Attorney Villafaña and the FBI interviewed victims of Epstein, including one named Wild. The document highlights the emotional distress of the victims, Wild's stated willingness to testify, and conflicting accounts from prosecutors about whether the victims truly wanted to proceed with the case. It also reveals communication failures, as victims received contradictory information from the FBI about whether the case was resolved or still under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ report (likely OGR) detailing the period between January and June 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes the legal tug-of-war between Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta) regarding victim notification under the CVRA, with the defense arguing federal notification was inappropriate. It also details internal DOJ reviews of the case evidence by senior officials (Senior, Oosterbaan, Mandelker, Fisher) which delayed the plea deal, while prosecutor Villafaña and the FBI continued to investigate potential federal charges in anticipation of an NPA breach.
DOJ-OGR-00021419.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the conflict and confusion regarding victim notification in the Epstein case. It highlights discrepancies between USAO officials (Sloman, Acosta) and DOJ Criminal Division (Mandelker) regarding who decided to defer victim notification to state authorities. It also includes excerpts from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, aggressively arguing that federal victims had no standing in the state case and should not be contacted by the FBI or informed of 'fictitious rights.'
DOJ-OGR-00021418.jpg
This legal document page from April 2021 details events from December 2007 related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), led by Acosta, to defer to the State Attorney's Office on the matter of notifying victims about Epstein's state court proceedings. The text includes a quote from a proposed communication outlining this deference and Acosta's subsequent explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he trusted the state to fulfill its legal obligations to victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications within the USAO and negotiations with Epstein's defense team in December 2007. It highlights the conflict regarding victim notification, with prosecutor Villafaña expressing frustration about a 'Catch 22' situation where she felt unable to notify victims or file federal charges. The text also details draft letters sent to US Attorney Acosta and State Attorney Krischer, and meetings with defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz attempting to limit federal involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021416.jpg
This document, a legal filing, details disputes and communications from 2007 concerning victim notification and compensation in a federal case related to Epstein. It highlights arguments between legal figures like Lefkowitz, Starr, Acosta, and Villafaña regarding the interpretation of victim rights laws and the handling of specific victims, including 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein. The text reveals concerns about the government's adherence to victim notification requirements and allegations of misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021415.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice OPR report detailing the failure to notify Jeffrey Epstein's victims of his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña prepared notification letters on December 7, 2007, but was ordered by her superior, Sloman, to 'Hold the letter' after Sloman received a request from Epstein's defense attorney (Sanchez) to delay notification. The document highlights internal conflict, with an FBI agent and Villafaña expressing concern and disgust over the delay and defense influence.
Recusal instruction
Instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to conflict of interest.
Non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators
Sloman, who was not involved in negotiations, told OPR that in retrospect he understood the provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants.
Evidence Review
Notified that Robert Senior would review evidence de novo
No Subject
A letter was sent to Roy Black, which was signed by Sloman. This is mentioned in connection with the 'AUSA position'.
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.
Conversation with Lilly Ann Sanchez
Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting his conversation with Sanchez about the Epstein case.
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.
Rejection of suggested revision
Sloman clarified to Villafaña that 'Jay’s suggested revision has been rejected.'
NPA addendum
Sloman noted in an email that he had 'just got off the phone with Alex' before offering a revised addendum.
Plea Deal Decision
Sloman discussed how the two-year plea offer was reached and the roles of Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie.
Witness challenges
Described unreliable witnesses and those who 'loved' Epstein.
Victim notification
Sloman explained to OPR the concern that notifying victims about a potential $150,000 payment could compromise their testimony.
Addendum revision
Sent a revision to the Addendum language.
Instruction regarding victim contact
Villafaña recalled Sloman responding to her email by telephone, stating, "[Y]ou can’t do that now."
Handling of Epstein's NPA
Sloman described Acosta as process-oriented and believed the USAO gave Epstein 'too much process'.
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'.
Consultation with Mandelker
Claimed Acosta consulted with Mandelker regarding deferring notification to the State Attorney.
Decision making process
Stated Acosta made decision with Mandelker.
History of negotiations and misconduct claims
Recounting history of negotiations culminating in NPA and addressing misconduct claims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity