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-00021414.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the prosecution (represented by Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr and Lefkowitz) regarding the government's obligation to notify victims under the VRRA. The prosecution argues for the necessity of informing victims about Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and his upcoming state plea deal, scheduled for December 14, 2007, while the defense objects strongly. The document includes excerpts from letters exchanged between the two sides, outlining their legal positions and the specifics of the proposed plea agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021413.jpg
This legal document details the contentious communications in late November and early December 2007 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The core conflict revolved around the timing, content, and legal necessity of notifying victims about Epstein's upcoming state plea hearing, with the defense arguing for delay and review, and the prosecution asserting its obligations and threatening to void the plea agreement. The dispute involved a series of letters and instructions, highlighting the friction in executing the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00021412.jpg
This legal document details the federal handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case in late 2007, specifically around his state plea hearing. It reveals that federal officials, including Villafaña, did not inform new victims of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because they believed Epstein would still be federally charged. The document also outlines the coordination and communication challenges between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the State Attorney's Office regarding who was responsible for notifying victims for the state court proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00021411.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2007 and 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and counsel for Epstein (Lefkowitz) regarding victim contact and a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). While the FBI continued to investigate and interview new potential victims, the prosecution team decided not to inform victims about the NPA, citing concerns that discussing financial settlements would compromise them as witnesses and create impeachment evidence. The document highlights the internal rationale for limiting victim notification, balancing legal obligations with strategic concerns in the case against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021410.jpg
This document details the complex discussions and objections surrounding victim notification in a legal case, likely involving Epstein, during late 2007. It highlights concerns raised by the FBI and defense attorneys, particularly Lefkowitz, about the implications of direct victim contact, including potential impeachment material, confidentiality breaches, and grand jury secrecy rules. Various parties, including Villafaña, case agents, and the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer, navigated these issues, with Villafaña also raising ethical concerns about 'cold calling' victims under Florida Bar Rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021408.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal handling of victim notifications regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña directed agents to inform victims about the deal without disclosing the full text, citing confidentiality clauses and the belief that victims only needed to know about restitution rights. The text highlights a discrepancy between what agents claim they told victim Courtney Wild in October 2007 versus Wild's 2015 declaration stating she was misled about the federal case being dropped.
DOJ-OGR-00021407.jpg
This document details communications from September 2007 concerning a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Case Agent Villafaña, prosecutors Acosta and Lourie, and defense attorney Lefkowitz discussed how to handle the NPA's disclosure, with a focus on preventing it from becoming public while navigating legal requirements and informing victims. Villafaña also attempted to coordinate the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims and sought guidance on what information could be shared with them and other agents.
DOJ-OGR-00021405.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an investigative report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing interviews about the failure to notify victims before a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed. It presents conflicting accounts from key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta regarding the USAO's policy on victim consultation under the CVRA for pre-charge resolutions. The text highlights internal disagreement and confusion over the legal obligations to victims, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan disagreeing with the USAO's stance but not finding it to be an abuse of discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
This legal document details a factual dispute investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the Epstein case. Prosecutor Villafaña claimed her supervisors—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—instructed her not to consult with victims about plea negotiations, an instruction they all deny recalling. The document outlines the conflicting testimonies and notes that while OPR could not definitively resolve the disagreement, it found no documentary evidence to support Villafaña's claim of a specific meeting or instruction on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021399.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details how prosecutor Villafaña handled victim notification in the Epstein case prior to charges being filed. Villafaña created a custom letter for FBI agents to hand-deliver to victims, outlining their rights under the CVRA, though she claimed this was not intended to formally activate USAO CVRA obligations. The report notes that while Villafaña informed supervisors Lourie and Sloman, the letters were not reviewed by management (including Acosta), who viewed such notifications as routine tasks.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00021385.jpg
This document details the chaotic final stages of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiations in September 2007, highlighting how the absence of key personnel like Menchel, Lourie, and Sloman led to a lack of clear ownership and fragmented decision-making. The text specifically critiques a broad provision in the agreement not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators,' noting it was accepted with little discussion despite internal concerns, which ultimately precluded the USAO from prosecuting others involved in Epstein's criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021384.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the handling of the Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office. It details a significant communication breakdown between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and AUSA Marie Villafaña regarding the signing of Epstein's 2007 plea agreement (NPA), where Villafaña felt forced to sign a deal she opposed while Acosta claimed he intended to give her veto power. It also highlights how senior management (Menchel) blocked Villafaña from meeting directly with Acosta, resulting in final decisions being made without input from the prosecutor most familiar with the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021382.jpg
This legal document analyzes decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta that created difficulties in enforcing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the USAO's internal debate on whether to declare a breach of the agreement and highlights a critical change Acosta made to the NPA's language, weakening the requirement for Epstein to enter a guilty plea. The document suggests these decisions made it significantly harder for the USAO to prove Epstein was intentionally failing to comply with the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021380.jpg
This document details an investigation into the origins of a two-year sentence proposal for Jeffrey Epstein, contrasting the differing recollections of prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman with documentary evidence. The record shows no indication that Epstein's team initially proposed the two-year term; in fact, they argued against any federal prosecution just before the offer was made. The document also outlines alternative, harsher sentencing options the U.S. Attorney's Office considered, such as a plea to a federal offense with a much longer sentence or a conspiracy charge, and why those options were ultimately rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021378.jpg
This page from an OPR report critiques the USAO's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically regarding the failure to seize Epstein's computers. It details how prosecutors Sloman and Villafaña postponed litigation to obtain the computers, and how US Attorney Acosta signed the NPA—which effectively ended the pursuit of this critical evidence—despite likely being aware of the ongoing efforts to obtain it. The report argues the USAO gave away significant leverage and potential evidence of crimes without proper consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021374.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It criticizes the reliance on state procedures for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), noting that the specific state charges selected allowed Epstein to avoid sex offender registration in New Mexico due to age-of-consent laws. It also details that Acosta was aware the Palm Beach Police Department distrusted the State Attorney's Office, yet he proceeded with a plea deal that relied heavily on state authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00021368.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the conflicting recollections of prosecutors Acosta and Lourie regarding a broad provision not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators,' with Lourie suggesting it could have been a message to victims while Acosta focused on Epstein's punishment. OPR concludes the provision was likely intended to protect Epstein's four assistants and other employees, not victims or his influential associates, and that its inclusion was not carefully considered by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
DOJ-OGR-00021363.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations between the USAO and Epstein's defense. It concludes that while prosecutor Villafaña's emails to defense attorney Lefkowitz appeared accommodating—suggesting 'off campus' meetings and venue changes to avoid press—OPR did not find evidence that these actions were motivated by improper favoritism or that Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz materially altered the sentence. The document notes that state officials, not the USAO, were responsible for granting Epstein work release privileges.
DOJ-OGR-00021362.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing claims made by Lefkowitz about concessions from Acosta regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). OPR examined three claims from Lefkowitz's October 23, 2007 letter and found that evidence did not support them, concluding that Acosta did not agree to interfere with state proceedings or alter the NPA's sentencing provisions. The document cites subsequent communications from USAO representatives Sloman and Villafaña that reinforced the original terms of Epstein's 18-month jail sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021361.jpg
This legal document details the post-meeting communications and ongoing negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office (represented by Acosta and Sloman) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights a significant dispute over alleged concessions Acosta made during a breakfast meeting, as claimed by Lefkowitz in an October 23, 2007 letter, and a contemporaneous draft response from the USAO refuting those claims.
DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
No Subject
Villafaña thanked Sloman for 'the advice and the pep talk' and explained her decision regarding the private attorney selection due to an 'appearance problem' and concern about defense attacks.
No Subject
Discussion about the draft addendum, leading to agreement on its terms.
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.
Emails relating to Epstein matter
Acosta instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to potential conflict of interest.
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
Sloman told OPR about witness challenges and concerns regarding legal theories, including unreliable and impeachable witnesses, and vulnerable victims.
Addendum Language
Immediately after a breakfast meeting, Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the Addendum language.
Addendum Revision
Sloman emailed Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language.
Barry
"Someone really needs to talk to Barry."
Recusal instruction
Instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to conflict of interest.
Breakfast meeting follow-up
Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the meeting.
Addendum revision
Sent a revision to the Addendum language.
Evidence Review
Notified that Robert Senior would review evidence de novo
Witness challenges
Described unreliable witnesses and those who 'loved' Epstein.
Epstein Plea Deal
Admitted they should have pushed for harsher terms but denied corruption or intimidation.
Plea hearing and victim notification
Sloman explained his expectations for the plea hearing and the lack of direct instruction to Villafaña regarding victim contact.
Computer issue recollection
Sloman told OPR he 'vaguely' remembered the computer issue.
Plea Deal Decision
Sloman discussed how the two-year plea offer was reached and the roles of Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie.
Villafaña's belief in the case
Sloman told OPR that Villafaña 'always believed in the case' against Epstein.
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.
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.
Handling of Epstein's NPA
Sloman described Acosta as process-oriented and believed the USAO gave Epstein 'too much process'.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity