Sloman
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Collaborated on exchanged edits |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Informed objected |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Copied on letter |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
David Weinstein
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Superior subordinate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney (representing victim)
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional correspondence |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Corresponded |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Directed reported to |
1
|
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-00003293.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, details the contentious negotiations between federal prosecutors (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in October 2007. It describes the defense's successful request to postpone Epstein's state guilty plea and the prosecution's growing frustration with the defense for revisiting settled issues. The prosecutors also express suspicion that the defense's delay tactics were motivated by a new civil lawsuit filed against Epstein in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
DOJ-OGR-00003284.jpg
This document details the intense plea negotiations over the weekend of September 22-23, 2007, specifically focusing on the defense team's (Sanchez, Lefkowitz) attempts to avoid sex offender registration for Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argued there was a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting and that registration would preclude Epstein from serving his time in a federal camp, which was their primary goal for his safety. The document also includes a footnote indicating State Attorney Krischer faced pressure from Police Chief Reiter regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00003283.jpg
This document details discussions among prosecutors regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It covers the rationale behind a broad non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators and focuses on communications from September 21, 2007, between prosecutor Villafaña and State Attorney Krischer, who were finalizing Epstein's sentence and confirming that sexual offender registration was a non-negotiable term.
DOJ-OGR-00003281.jpg
This document, part of a legal case filed in 2021, details communications and negotiations from September 2007 concerning a potential plea deal for Mr. Epstein. It highlights discussions among various legal professionals regarding charges, sexual offender registration, and the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). A key aspect is the USAO's agreement, as part of a draft NPA, not to criminally charge Epstein's female assistants, employees of his corporate entity, and 'potential co-conspirators' in an ongoing federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
This legal document details recollections from a meeting on September 12, 2007, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Participants, including prosecutors like Lourie and Villafaña and others like Krischer and Belohlavek, discussed the terms of Epstein's plea, specifically whether he would serve an 18-month sentence in a county jail versus a state prison, and which charges he would plead to. The document highlights disagreements and differing memories among the participants regarding the decisions made and the authority to make them.
DOJ-OGR-00003266.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations in September 2007 between the USAO (represented by Villafaña, Acosta, and others) and Epstein's defense team. It outlines the drafting of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) proposing a 20-month jail sentence (reducible to 17 months with 'gain time') and notes a critical meeting on September 12 involving the State Attorney's Office to discuss state charges. The text also reveals internal USAO strategy, including preparing a revised indictment in case negotiations failed.
DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00003251.jpg
This document details conflicting accounts surrounding a July 26, 2007 meeting concerning a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. While Menchel and Acosta provided vague recollections to the OPR, Villafaña claimed she was left “shocked and stunned” by the abrupt decision to offer a two-year sentence, which she described as “random” and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines. The document establishes that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer the two-year term of imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg
This document details the internal decision-making process of the USAO in July 2007 regarding the Epstein case, specifically Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a two-year prison term. It highlights a pivotal meeting on July 26, 2007, where supervisor Matthew Menchel ordered prosecutors and FBI agents to halt federal investigative steps because Acosta had decided to offer a 'two-year state deal' instead of federal charges. The text notes that prosecutors were actively preparing a revised indictment and seeking to investigate Epstein's assistants just days before this directive was issued.
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg
This legal document from April 2021 details events from May 2007 concerning the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, revealing significant internal disagreement within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutor Villafaña strongly objected to holding further meetings with Epstein's defense team, led by counsel Lefcourt, fearing it would compromise their strategy, and documented her dissent in a draft email to her supervisors, Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman. The document highlights the strategic conflicts among prosecutors as they considered how to proceed with the high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
This legal document details internal conflicts within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña was perceived by her managers, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, as rushing to indict, creating tension and disagreement over the case's timeline and direction. The document highlights differing perspectives on the urgency of the case and the decision-making process, as investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg
This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.
DOJ-OGR-00003225.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2006 and early 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt, and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. The defense sought a meeting to "make a pitch," leading to an internal disagreement between prosecutors Villafaña, who opposed the meeting without first receiving documents, and Lourie, who granted the meeting believing it was strategically valuable to hear the defense's theories. Ultimately, a meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, despite Villafaña's objections and her belief that the defense would not provide the requested evidence and would only use the meeting to discredit victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003223.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the initial federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in July-August 2006. It highlights the distrust federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman) held toward the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein. It also details the unusual reporting structure where 'Miami' senior management took direct authority, bypassing local supervisors, and notes the FBI's collection of flight manifests and victim testimony despite intimidation tactics by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00004611.jpg
This document outlines the methodology used by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to review documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) and other federal agencies concerning the Epstein investigation. It details the types of records examined, including case files, correspondence, and electronic data from key individuals like Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña. The review uncovered a significant data gap in Acosta's emails, which was partially resolved after the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) discovered and corrected a data association error, recovering over 11,000 emails.
DOJ-OGR-00004606.jpg
This page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizes the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and the FBI for their handling of communications with victims in the Epstein case. The report finds that the decision to keep the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) secret and the delivery of inconsistent messages left victims feeling ignored and undermined public confidence. Decisions by officials Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña are noted as contributing factors to these failures in providing transparent and unified communication.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
DOJ-OGR-00033153.jpg
These handwritten notes appear to be a summary of various incidents and key points related to an investigation. The notes cover surveillance activities by Wackenhut possibly involving a P.I. with mob ties, local police matters like a burglary and a man in the bushes, and a chase involving a Chrysler 300. A key decision highlighted is the choice not to file charges against a co-defendant named Janusz Banacell.
DOJ-OGR-00023228.jpg
This document is a timeline graphic from a Department of Justice report detailing key events surrounding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) analysis in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It tracks internal DOJ communications, victim notifications, and court actions from 2006 to 2008, with an additional sidebar covering legal developments up to 2020. Key events include the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the deferral of victim notification regarding the plea deal, and subsequent court rulings finding that the U.S. violated the CVRA.
DOJ-OGR-00023194.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a timeline of meetings between the USAO (including Alexander Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz). It covers the period from February 2007 to January 2008, categorizing meetings as 'Pre-NPA' and 'Post-NPA'. The table logs specific participants and topics, including the presentation of the NPA term sheet, discussions of investigation improprieties, and the negotiation of state plea provisions.
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