Epstein Secrets

for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman was appointed Chief of the USAO’s Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became the FAUSA, and Sloman’s office was located with Acosta’s in the Miami office’s executive suite. As FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil, Criminal,

.............17 2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File .............18 3. July 14, 2006: Villafaña Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case......18 4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation .................

etary of Labor, but he resigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO’s handling of the Epstein case. Jeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he became Deputy Chief of the USAO’s Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes Se

·tt:ier~~: F1IIiia USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation Mid-2006 through Mid-2009 2007 2008 Alexander Acosta .Jeff Sloman Jeff Sloman Matthew I\Ienchel Sept 24, 2007 - NPA is signed June 30, 2008 - Epstein pleads guilty in state court mnm Jeff Sloman (Acting) July 22, 200? :- E

Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. Thoughts? Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental “scrutiny of the NPA scheme” and that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case.”96 2. Le

iance with the USAO’s demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that “we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein’s home prior to th

o the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.” 352 Sloman replied, “Good.” 232 Villafaña told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she s

led Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a “general discussion about staying out of the civil litigation.” 308 Sloman’s draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO would not accept a “gag order.” OPR recovered

ent had the “right” to address Epstein’s concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be “unseemly” to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta

doesn’t try to do an end run.” That same morning, Epstein attorney Sanchez, who had not been involved in negotiations for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, “[I] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only one issue outstanding and [I] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense s

ather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement 136 Villafaña also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein regist

rosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country,

TA00226423 Memorandum Subject Changes to Child Exploitation Statutes in Title 18 September 26, 2006 To R. Alexander Acosta Thomas Mulvihill Jeffrey Sloman Kenneth Now Robert Waters Andrew Lourie Roger Stefin Karen Atkinson Rolando Garcia Bruce Brown Richard Boscovich Barbara Martinez From cc:

pervisory responsibility over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when: 1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination of prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or 2. The person is: a. A high-

t responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of our correspondence from the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “

nted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal stat