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-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021354.jpg
This document is part of a legal filing detailing an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into prosecutor Menchel's handling of the Epstein case. The investigation focuses on whether Menchel's prior dating relationship with defense counsel Sanchez in 2003 created a conflict of interest or improperly influenced a plea deal offered years later. The document outlines Menchel's and his supervisor Acosta's conflicting and corroborating statements regarding the decision-making process for the plea, and concludes it would have been prudent for Menchel to disclose the relationship to his supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing potential conflicts of interest within the USAO regarding the Epstein case. It details interviews with officials Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta, concluding that personal relationships with defense attorneys did not improperly influence the case. The text highlights Acosta's eventual recusal in late 2008 due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis, and a separate inquiry regarding his potential role at Harvard Law School given Alan Dershowitz's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021351.jpg
This legal document discusses the effectiveness of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, in portraying his case as legally complex to prosecutors like Alex Acosta. It also examines whether preexisting relationships between prosecutors (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta) and defense counsel improperly influenced the outcome, concluding, based on an OPR investigation, that they did not. The document highlights how Epstein's wealth funded a formidable defense that successfully negotiated concessions from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021349.jpg
This legal document, part of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes whether Alexander Acosta's actions in the Jeffrey Epstein case were motivated by improper influences. It argues that Acosta's decision to pursue a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA), which included jail time and sex offender registration, was a more stringent outcome than the likely state-level sentence, which prosecutor Menchel described as a mere 'slap on the wrist.' The document uses this and other evidence, including recollections from prosecutors Sloman and Menchel, to suggest Acosta was not acting to improperly benefit Epstein but was navigating complex policy and federalism issues.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report (page 146 of the original report, filed in court in 2021 and 2023) detailing the justifications provided by USAO prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta) for entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein rather than pursuing a federal trial. The prosecutors cite significant evidentiary challenges, including unreliable witnesses, victims who 'loved' Epstein or would claim they lied about their age, and the trauma a trial would cause victims. Acosta admits his knowledge of the case facts was not 'granular' and that he relied on the diligence of his team, particularly Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021344.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations, specifically noting that key decisions were made before US Attorney Acosta met with defense counsel Lefkowitz. The report cites prosecutor Villafaña's explanation that the decision to pursue an NPA was driven by evidentiary risks and victim privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021342.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that there was no evidence that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein was influenced by bribes, corruption, or his wealth and status. It notes that while Epstein was not initially well-known to the FBI agents or prosecutors in 2006, press coverage in July 2006 alerted them to his high-profile connections, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. An FBI agent is quoted acknowledging they knew who had been on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00021340.jpg
This legal document, a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) did not violate department policy by declining to prosecute two of Epstein's foreign national assistants, which would have triggered their deportation. The report also states that the evidence does not establish that prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, were influenced by improper motives like Epstein's wealth when they agreed to terms favorable to him.
DOJ-OGR-00021338.jpg
This legal document analyzes the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein in light of the Department of Justice's 'Ashcroft Memo,' which mandates charging the 'most serious readily provable charge.' It contrasts the federal indictment for sex trafficking prepared by prosecutor Villafaña, which carried a 168-210 month sentence, with the eventual plea deal of an 18-month sentence on state charges. The document also reveals internal disagreement, with prosecutors Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceiving risks in the federal case, while Villafaña and the CEOS Chief believed the charges were appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021337.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The OPR concludes that U.S. Attorney Acosta did not violate any clear standards or commit professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation through the NPA, which required Epstein to plead to state charges. The report affirms that Acosta had the authority to make this decision and that the attorneys involved exercised sufficient competence and diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00021334.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It concludes that attorneys Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct because they acted under the direction and approval of U.S. Attorney Acosta, who held broad discretionary authority. The report specifically notes that OPR found no violation of clear statutes or policies in the negotiation and entry into the NPA, including the controversial provision regarding the non-prosecution of unidentified third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00021333.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the public scrutiny following the 2018 Miami Herald report and OPR's investigation into whether the 'sweetheart deal' was motivated by improper influence. The text confirms that Alexander Acosta reviewed, revised, and approved the NPA, accepting full responsibility for it during his OPR interview.
DOJ-OGR-00021316.jpg
This legal document details concerns from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), voiced by an individual named Villafaña, regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release arrangement in Palm Beach County. Villafaña alleges that Epstein's lawyers schemed to make him eligible and that his application contained significant inaccuracies, such as listing a foundation with his lawyer's phone number as his employer. The document also notes a potential conflict of interest where Epstein paid thousands of dollars per week to off-duty sheriff's deputies for protection, seemingly in violation of work release rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021315.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts in November 2008 regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. Prosecutor Villafaña argued Epstein's 12-hour-a-day release to the 'Florida Science Foundation' breached his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) requiring 24-hour confinement, prompting her to ask superiors if she could indict him. Concurrently, USAO official Alex Acosta recused himself from the case due to employment discussions with Epstein's defense firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021314.jpg
This document details the conflict between federal prosecutors (USAO) and local officials regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. It reveals that Epstein and his lawyer, Jack Goldberger, misled the court about Epstein's employment at the 'Florida Science Foundation,' a shell entity created in November 2007 using Goldberger's office address, despite Epstein claiming in court it had existed for 15 years. The Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed Epstein on work release in October 2008 without notifying the USAO, contradicting previous assurances.
DOJ-OGR-00021310.jpg
This document details events in late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, where federal authorities concluded their review and declined to intervene further. Subsequently, federal prosecutor Villafaña discovered the proposed state plea agreement's sentencing terms appeared to violate the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by not requiring Epstein to be confined in the county jail, leading her to suspect foul play.
DOJ-OGR-00021309.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal review of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2008. It describes how Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and prosecutor John Roth reviewed defense appeals (initiated by Ken Starr) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), with Filip ultimately dismissing the defense's arguments as 'ludicrous' and refusing to meet with Epstein. The text also highlights prosecutor Marie Villafaña's sarcastic and angry reaction to learning that State Attorney Barry Krischer had secretly negotiated a light 90-day jail sentence for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021308.jpg
This legal document details communications from May 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, where his defense team, including Starr and Whitley, petitioned the Deputy Attorney General for a review. They argued the federal prosecution was unwarranted, irregular, and politically motivated due to Epstein's "close personal association" with former President Bill Clinton. In response, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General instructed the U.S. Attorney's Office to postpone a June 2, 2008 plea deadline pending the completion of this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
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