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-00021256.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021254.jpg
This legal document describes a meeting on July 31, 2007, between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team to discuss a plea deal. The USAO presented a proposal that included a federal sentencing range of 188 to 235 months, while Epstein's attorneys argued for alternatives like home confinement, citing safety concerns in prison. Prosecutor Villafaña later expressed concerns to the OPR that the defense team could 'manipulate' a state-level sentence and that the USAO would be 'giving up all control.'
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflict and confusion regarding the decision to offer Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal with only a two-year prison term. It highlights Prosecutor Villafaña's shock at the decision, noting she felt it violated sentencing guidelines and that she had not been consulted. The document confirms that U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ultimately made the decision for the two-year term, despite conflicting recollections from supervisors Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie regarding how and when this was communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021247.jpg
This document excerpt details the defense's ongoing efforts in July 2007 to halt a federal investigation into Epstein and prevent the government from obtaining computer equipment, including sending letters to the USAO. Concurrently, CEOS endorsed Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan finding the defense's arguments unpersuasive and offering CEOS's assistance for the prosecution. The document also references a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the removal of computer equipment from Epstein's home.
DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg
This legal document details internal conflict within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of Epstein. It describes prosecutor Villafaña's unsuccessful attempt to meet with her superior, Acosta, a contentious email exchange with her colleague Menchel that was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and her efforts to obtain computer evidence from Epstein's home. The document highlights disagreements on strategy and procedure among the prosecutors handling the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that quotes a lengthy email from an individual named Menchel to a recipient identified in a footnote as Sloman. In the email, Menchel severely criticizes Sloman for acting without authorization in the investigation of Mr. Epstein, specifically for preparing an indictment memo and misleading agents. Menchel also clarifies that his own conversation with Lilly Sanchez about the case was an informal exploratory discussion, not a formal plea offer, and was conducted with the full knowledge of the US Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021237.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflicts and decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in mid-2007. It highlights prosecutor Villafaña's concerns about unauthorized communications between her superiors (Menchel/Lourie) and Epstein's defense team, specifically regarding a state-based plea deal. The text outlines U.S. Attorney Acosta's reasoning for pursuing a state resolution rather than federal charges, citing concerns about victim testimony and legal issues, despite believing the victims' accounts. Footnotes clarify the specifics of the Ashcroft Memo and disputes between Acosta and Sloman regarding who was involved in the decision-making.
DOJ-OGR-00021236.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the decision to resolve a federal investigation against Epstein with a state plea deal. It details the rationale behind the decision, citing concerns about the case's viability and state jurisdiction, and specifically recounts communications from June and July 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and Epstein's defense team regarding the proposed state resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and a key meeting related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It describes a June 26, 2007, meeting where Epstein's attorneys, led by Dershowitz, argued for the case to be handled by the state, an argument the USAO team found unpersuasive. Despite internal concerns about the strength of certain aspects of the case, the USAO team left the meeting intending to proceed, but the document concludes by noting that in July 2007, Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state plea deal to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021233.jpg
This page from an OPR report details internal conflicts within the USAO in June 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña urged speed, believing Epstein was still offending, while supervisors Menchel and Lourie preferred to engage with defense counsel, believing Epstein was 'under a microscope' and unlikely to re-offend. The document details the supplementation of the prosecution memo with information on a new Jane Doe and a specific victim who had sexual contact with both Epstein and an assistant, as well as the logistics of setting up a meeting with defense counsel Sanchez.
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions within a prosecutor's office regarding the Epstein case. It outlines the author's opposition to meeting with the defense, led by Lefcourt, arguing it would undermine the prosecution. The document also reveals significant internal conflict, as prosecutor Villafaña expressed fears to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) about the case's direction and was cautioned by her supervisor about insubordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021231.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing internal DOJ deliberations in May 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights a conflict between prosecutors Lourie (who favored meeting with defense) and Villafaña (who strongly opposed it, arguing the case warranted prison time rather than probation negotiations). The text includes details of emails and a draft memo where Villafaña expresses concern that meeting with Epstein's lawyers, including Lefcourt and Dershowitz, would reveal too much prosecution strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
This legal document details internal disagreements within a U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case, likely against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña pushed for a rapid indictment, citing concerns about ongoing crimes, but her superiors, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, believed she was moving too fast and that more review was necessary. The conflict led to multiple communications seeking direction and was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00021227.jpg
This document details internal discussions within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami during May-June 2007 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes how prosecutor Villafaña submitted a memorandum seeking to file charges by May 15, but her managers, including Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, paused the process to conduct a more thorough review, including seeking analysis from the DOJ's CEOS section. The document highlights the tension between the desire to move quickly on the indictment, as pushed by the FBI, and the managers' more cautious approach, which ultimately delayed the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021225.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations regarding the federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. It describes AUSA Villafaña's 82-page prosecution memorandum dated May 1, 2007, which recommended a 60-count indictment, and the subsequent strategic disagreement by supervisor Lourie, who preferred a narrower strategy focusing on victims with fewer credibility issues. The text also highlights the unusual involvement of the Miami 'front office' in approval decisions typically handled by the West Palm Beach office.
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021212.jpg
This document provides a timeline of key events in the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008. It details the opening of the investigation, meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's counsel, the decision to offer a state-based resolution, and the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline concludes with Epstein's guilty plea in state court, a subsequent legal challenge by a victim (Jane Doe), and the start of Epstein's work release program.
DOJ-OGR-00021196.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a chapter of a legal or investigative report concerning the U.S. Government's handling of the Epstein investigation. It outlines the timeline and topics related to the government's interactions and communications with victims between 2005 and 2008, focusing on the roles of the USAO and FBI. Key events include the interpretation of victim rights laws (CVRA), the process of victim notification, and internal discussions among officials like Villafaña, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about consulting victims before and after a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00003316.jpg
This document details the conflicting communications and actions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's work release following his June 30, 2008 plea. It reveals that while federal prosecutors (USAO) and Epstein's own attorney indicated he would not get work release, a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official stated he was eligible, and he was ultimately placed in the program without the USAO's knowledge. The document also highlights Epstein's false statements to the court about his employment at the non-existent "Florida Science Foundation."
DOJ-OGR-00003315.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's placement on work release following his guilty plea. It highlights the disconnect between the USAO's expectation of 'continuous confinement' and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's decision to allow work release, as well as the legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz) to secure this privilege. The document establishes that while the USAO threatened to investigate if Epstein received special treatment, State Attorney Krischer confirmed Epstein's technical eligibility for the program.
DOJ-OGR-00003312.jpg
This document details communications from late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It begins with a letter from Roth to Epstein's counsel, Starr and Lefkowitz, confirming that federal prosecution is appropriate, and then shifts to prosecutor Villafaña's efforts to enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña expresses strong suspicion that Epstein's attorneys are misrepresenting the terms of his confinement, telling her he would be in a jail 24/7 while planning for him to be at a less restrictive 'stockade', which she reports to a colleague, Sloman, as a violation of their agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg
This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00003303.jpg
This document details events in early January 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, starting with the postponement of a plea hearing due to issues with the state charge. It describes a meeting where defense attorney Sanchez alleged a media leak by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and pushed for a lenient plea deal, followed by a phone call where Epstein's full legal team reiterated their desire for a 'watered-down resolution'. Amid these negotiations, USAO personnel expressed concern about delays and initiated a full internal review of the investigation.
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