Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Sloman

Person
Mentions
421
Relationships
84
Events
122
Documents
207
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
84 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Villafaña
Business associate
22 Very Strong
20
View
person Acosta
Business associate
19 Very Strong
16
View
person Villafaña
Professional
11 Very Strong
28
View
person Acosta
Professional
11 Very Strong
30
View
person Lefkowitz
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person Villafaña
Subordinate supervisor
8 Strong
4
View
person Menchel
Professional
7
3
View
person Lourie
Business associate
7
3
View
person Belohlavek
Professional
7
2
View
person Mr. Herman
Business associate
6
2
View
person Villafaña
Professional supervisory
6
2
View
person Acosta
Subordinate supervisor
6
2
View
person Roy Black
Professional
5
1
View
person Villafaña
Professional collegial
5
1
View
person Villafaña
Friend
5
1
View
person victim's attorney (former law partner)
Business associate
5
1
View
person Sanchez
Business associate
5
1
View
person Alexander Acosta
Professional advisory
5
1
View
person A victim's attorney
Business associate
5
1
View
person Lourie
Professional
5
1
View
person Belohlavek
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Oosterbaan
Professional
5
1
View
person Lefkowitz
Adversarial
5
1
View
person West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor
Professional
5
1
View
person Sanchez
Defense prosecution negotiation
5
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A The defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007, NPA modification letter. N/A View
N/A Investigation OPR investigated whether the USAO violated department policy and whether prosecutors were influen... N/A View
N/A Investigation OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecuti... N/A View
N/A N/A Villafaña reports Epstein is at the Stockade instead of Main Detention Center. Palm Beach View
N/A N/A Prosecution of Epstein N/A View
N/A Meeting An initial meeting regarding the Epstein investigation. N/A View
N/A N/A OPR Interviews with prosecutors involved in the Epstein case. Unknown View
N/A Investigation OPR's investigation into the non-prosecution provision and whether Epstein received special treat... N/A View
2018-01-01 N/A OPR Review/Interviews Unknown View
2008-12-03 Meeting A scheduled meeting between Villafaña, Black, and Sloman to discuss Epstein's work release. Villa... N/A View
2008-11-26 N/A Acosta recused from Epstein case due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis. USAO View
2008-06-28 N/A Villafaña reports back to Sloman about Reiter's intention to notify victims. N/A View
2008-06-03 N/A Sloman sent a lengthy letter to the Deputy Attorney General detailing negotiations with Epstein's... N/A View
2008-06-03 N/A Sloman sent Roth a lengthy letter recounting negotiation history. DOJ View
2008-05-28 Legal action The USAO, instructed by John Roth, rescinded the deadline for Epstein's guilty plea and Sloman no... N/A View
2008-04-18 Complaint Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney regarding a perceived violation o... N/A View
2008-03-06 Communication Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express concern a... N/A View
2008-02-25 Communication Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan that the CEOS role should be 'review only'. Oosterbaan informed Sloman.... N/A View
2008-02-01 N/A Villafaña becomes aware of notification requirement and prepares written notification. N/A View
2008-01-18 N/A Attorney contacted Sloman to discuss civil litigation and criminal charges against Epstein. N/A View
2008-01-07 Meeting Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney Sanchez, who alleged misconduct by the USAO's media s... N/A View
2008-01-07 N/A Defense presents USAO improprieties and 'watered-down' resolution Unknown View
2008-01-07 N/A Meeting between USAO and Defense Attorney Sanchez Unknown (likely USAO office) View
2008-01-07 N/A Phone conference following meeting Phone View
2008-01-07 Phone call Acosta and Sloman spoke with Epstein's defense team about a media leak and their desire for a 'wa... N/A View

EFTA00013527.pdf

An internal email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS) dated November 13, 2007. The email discusses a 'Revised Epstein Letter' and includes an attachment named '071113_Sloman_Ltr_to_Lefkowitz_v2.wpd,' suggesting correspondence between a government official (Sloman) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz). The sender notes a change regarding the 'naming of counsel.'

Email
2025-12-25
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023203.tif

This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for Epstein's prosecution and victims' interests, despite a public narrative suggesting collusion with defense counsel. The report details Villafaña's efforts to protect victims' anonymity, expand the case scope, and draft victim notification letters, while refuting claims that she was 'soft on Epstein' based on witness statements and email context.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023198.tif

This document analyzes the circumstances surrounding a breakfast meeting between Acosta and Epstein's defense counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, on October 12, 2007, and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2007. OPR concludes that Acosta did not make significant concessions during the breakfast meeting, as the key provisions of the NPA, including Epstein's 18-month sentence and sexual offender registration, were established prior to the meeting and not materially altered thereafter. The document also references a Miami Herald article critical of Acosta's involvement.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif

This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023189.tif

This document discusses the legal defense strategies employed by Jeffrey Epstein's extensive team of attorneys, highlighting their ability to secure concessions despite initial USAO requirements. It details how prominent lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr influenced prosecutor Alex Acosta, and addresses assertions from individuals like Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie that their relationships with Epstein's counsel did not affect their actions, while noting the significant financial investment in Epstein's defense.

Report excerpt / legal analysis
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023184.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report detailing witness challenges and concerns surrounding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It includes recollections from individuals like Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta regarding the viability of a federal prosecution, victim reluctance to testify, evidentiary hurdles, and the eventual negotiated result that led to Epstein serving time and registering as a sexual offender.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023180.tif

This document, an excerpt from a report, discusses OPR's investigation into whether Epstein's status, wealth, or associations improperly influenced the outcome of his case. It concludes that OPR found no evidence of such influence, despite news reports in 2006 identifying Epstein as wealthy and connected to prominent figures like William Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. The report notes that FBI personnel initially unfamiliar with Epstein later became aware of his connections, including those who had been on his plane, and that his legal team's mention of Clinton in pre-NPA letters was contextual.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023175.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details OPR's findings that Acosta's decision to approve a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, resulting in an 18-month sentence, did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards or constitute professional misconduct, despite OPR criticizing certain decisions made during the investigation.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif

This document, an excerpt from an analysis report (Chapter Two, Part Three), discusses the public and media scrutiny following the Miami Herald's November 2018 report on the handling of the Epstein investigation. It focuses on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), allegations of a 'sweetheart deal' by Acosta and the USAO due to improper influences, and OPR's investigation into these matters, concluding that Acosta reviewed and approved the NPA terms and is accountable for it. The report also mentions other individuals (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña) involved in the case.

Report excerpt / analysis
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023156.tif

This document details events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's compliance with his home detention and supervision terms between 2009 and 2010. It highlights his alleged violations, efforts to transfer his supervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the USAO's opposition to these requests, ultimately concluding with Epstein completing his sentence in Florida on July 21, 2010. The text also addresses the veracity of claims about Epstein's cooperation in the Bear Stearns case, which officials in the Eastern District of New York denied.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023153.tif

This document details events in November 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's work release, which USAO official Villafaña believed breached his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Villafaña communicated her concerns to defense attorney Black and other officials, leading to a notice of NPA violation and the recusal of Acosta from the case. The document highlights the ongoing dispute regarding the terms of Epstein's incarceration and the perceived special treatment he received.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023148.tif

This document details events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing from June 2008 to June 2009, including communications between various officials regarding the handling of his case and concerns about the terms of his plea agreement. It highlights discrepancies and objections raised by Villafaña regarding Epstein's proposed custody arrangements, suggesting a potential violation of the agreement's spirit.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif

This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.

Report excerpt / internal memorandum
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif

This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.

Report/legal document excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023141.tif

This document details the Department's review of the Epstein case from February to June 2008, initiated by Epstein's defense attorneys. It highlights internal discussions and notifications within the US justice system, including a February 28, 2008, notification from USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior to the Civil Rights Division regarding an ongoing child exploitation investigation involving Epstein. The notification, prepared by Villafaña and edited by Sloman, assessed the case as not being of "national interest" and anticipated charges under specific U.S. Code sections.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023138.tif

This document details efforts by Acosta to revise the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with language concerning monetary damages for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, which was ultimately rejected by the defense. It highlights disagreements and frustrations between prosecutors and defense counsel regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Section 2255 provision, particularly concerning victim notification and Epstein's alleged delays in his guilty plea.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023137.tif

This document details interactions between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the USAO in late 2007, focusing on submissions, a key meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, and the defense's threat to pursue a Department of Justice review. The discussions revolved around defense complaints, a proposed revised indictment, and a new argument by Epstein's attorneys regarding the applicability of the state charge he agreed to plead guilty to. The document also highlights the USAO's internal review processes and Acosta's communication with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the case.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif

This document excerpt details concerns raised by Acosta regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically about challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the defense team's tactics. Acosta's letter expresses frustration over the lack of finality and issues being appealed to Department Headquarters, while also setting a deadline of December 7, 2007, for a decision on the Agreement. It also describes Acosta's discussions with OPR and a subsequent response to Acosta from Starr and Lefkowitz.

Internal communication/report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023131.tif

This document details communications and events surrounding a legal agreement, likely related to Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights disagreements over gag order provisions, the selection of a special master, and concerns raised by USAO representative Villafaña regarding the selection of a private attorney and defense attacks. The document mentions the signing of an NPA addendum by Epstein and his attorneys on October 29, 2007.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023129.tif

This document details negotiations and communications surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum in late 2007. It highlights disagreements and strategies among prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, Lourie) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz), including the postponement of Epstein's plea and concerns about Epstein's alleged attempts to discredit victims and influence the legal process. The text also includes Acosta's perspective on not dictating to the state attorney's office.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023127.tif

This document details discussions and events surrounding the settlement process for victims related to Epstein. It highlights disagreements between Lefkowitz and Villafaña regarding victim communication and legal procedures, and records meetings and email exchanges between Acosta, Sloman, and Lefkowitz concerning an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a breakfast meeting in West Palm Beach in October 2007.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023122.tif

This document details the finalization and signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. It highlights the edits made by Acosta, including changes to Epstein's plea and sentencing requirements, and communications between various parties like Villafaña, Lourie, and Lefkowitz regarding the agreement's language and confidentiality. The document also notes the USAO's duty to redact protected information before disclosure.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023120.tif

This document details communications and events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal and sex offender registration in September 2007. It highlights objections from Sanchez and Lefkowitz to the registration requirement, citing a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting where prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek initially stated the offense was not registrable. The document shows efforts by Epstein's defense to avoid registration and secure an 18-month federal camp sentence.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023094.tif

This document details changes made by Menchel to a draft letter by Villafaña regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal, focusing on the shift from a federal plea to a state imprisonment term. It highlights the involvement of several individuals including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie in discussions and decisions surrounding the Rule 11(c) plea, with an email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, suggesting Acosta's ultimate decision to nix the federal plea.

Report excerpt / legal document analysis
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023325.tif

This document is a review of documents obtained by OPR from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), the FBI, and other Department components related to the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. It details the types of records reviewed, including emails, correspondence, and investigative materials, and notes a data gap in Acosta's email records.

Document review
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
76
As Recipient
42
Total
118

Conversation with Lilly Ann Sanchez

From: Sloman
To: Unknown

Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting his conversation with Sanchez about the Epstein case.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Revised addendum portion

From: Sloman
To: ["Lefkowitz", "Acosta"...

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.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Rejection of suggested revision

From: Sloman
To: ["Villafaña"]

Sloman clarified to Villafaña that 'Jay’s suggested revision has been rejected.'

Email
N/A
Communication Source

NPA addendum

From: Sloman
To: ["Alex"]

Sloman noted in an email that he had 'just got off the phone with Alex' before offering a revised addendum.

Phone call
N/A
Communication Source

Instruction regarding victim contact

From: Sloman
To: Villafaña

Villafaña recalled Sloman responding to her email by telephone, stating, "[Y]ou can’t do that now."

Phone call
N/A
Communication Source

NPA Addendum Revision

From: Acosta
To: Sloman

Immediately after a breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta phoned Sloman regarding a revision to the Addendum language.

Phone call
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Villafaña's email

From: Sloman
To: Villafaña

Sloman responded to Villafaña, stating that defense counsel had put an 'insidious spin' on her role and reassured her that her work was valued.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

NPA Addendum Revision

From: Sloman
To: Lefkowitz

Following a call from Acosta, Sloman emailed a revision of the Addendum language to Lefkowitz.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Evidence Review

From: Sloman
To: Villafaña

Notified that Robert Senior would review evidence de novo

Internal communication
N/A
Communication Source

Handling of Epstein's NPA

From: Sloman
To: ["OPR"]

Sloman described Acosta as process-oriented and believed the USAO gave Epstein 'too much process'.

Interview
N/A
Communication Source

Draft victim notification letter

From: Sloman
To: Acosta

Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited version and asked, "What do you think?"

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Government's Obligation to Notify Victims

From: Sloman
To: ["Lefkowitz", "Acosta"...

Asserted that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of proceedings, restitution, and the status of the investigation, and addressed defense objections.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Revised Draft Victim Notification Letter

From: Sloman
To: Lefkowitz

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.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Acosta's handling of the Epstein case

From: OPR
To: Sloman

Sloman was interviewed by OPR and recalled that Acosta was sensitive to Petite policy and federalism concerns regarding the Epstein case.

Interview
N/A
Communication Source

Plea hearing and victim notification

From: Sloman
To: OPR

Sloman explained his expectations for the plea hearing and the lack of direct instruction to Villafaña regarding victim contact.

Interview
N/A
Communication Source

Communication protocol and NPA deadline for Epstein case

From: Sloman
To: ["Lefkowitz"]

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.

Letter
2025-12-01
Communication Source

Transfer of supervision

From: Black
To: Sloman

Seeking USAO's agreement to transfer supervision of Epstein's community control phase to the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Letter
2009-09-01
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Black
To: Sloman

Noting Villafaña's concern about Epstein and that defense team would abide by Sloman's decision.

Email
2008-11-26
Communication Source

Concerns regarding potential impeachment evidence

From: Villafaña
To: Sloman

Discussed concern that notifying victims of damages rights would compromise cross-examination.

Email
2008-08-01
Communication Source

Re: Victim Notification

From: Sloman
To: Villafaña

Good.

Email reply
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Victim Notification

From: Villafaña
To: Sloman

Villafaña reported that Chief Reiter 'is going to notify victims about the plea'.

Report
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Victim Notification

From: Villafaña
To: Sloman

Informed Sloman that PBPD Chief Reiter 'is going to notify victims about the plea.'

Email
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Consultation with Mandelker

From: Sloman
To: Mark Filip

Claimed Acosta consulted with Mandelker regarding deferring notification to the State Attorney.

Letter
2008-06-03
Communication Source

History of negotiations and misconduct claims

From: Sloman
To: John Roth

Recounting history of negotiations culminating in NPA and addressing misconduct claims.

Letter
2008-06-03
Communication Source

Decision making process

From: Sloman
To: Filip

Stated Acosta made decision with Mandelker.

Letter
2008-06-03
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search