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

ad “made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed.” On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the

that Mr. Epstein will act in good faith and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00194762 ROY

st merely of a notification and will neither encourage nor discourage attendance or submission of materials related to the application. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman United States Attorney By: s/A. Marie Villafafia A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney Ro

consider 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone: 305-371.6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006. wiinv.Royelack.com EFTA00194766 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is me

uct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

that Mr. Epstein will act in good faith and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00183808 ROY

st merely of a notification and will neither encourage nor discourage attendance or submission of materials related to the application. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman United States Attorney By: s/A. Villa afia A. Assistant United States Attorney cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney Robert K. Senior, Acting

consider 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 30S-371.6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • suww.RoyBlack.com EFTA00183812 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Esq. , Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is memorialized in the NPA. Add

uct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

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

mmunicated in a straightforward and transparent way with Ms. Wild, and for that, we are genuinely sorry.393 On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild’s petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that “the CVRA does not apply before the commencement of crimina

te Burnett F OWL E RWH I T E All'otiNgTS AT LAW B URNETT MIAMI • F00 LAUDERDALE • WraT PALM UfA01 • 5T. PETER5OLMO 3067800201 December 7, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman First Assisiam United States Attorney United Stales Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: 1-(466 P.002

statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense ns a courtesy. in addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceed

e, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — namely, "that the liberty and property con

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:

Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the Tax Court of the United States, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. (Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title II, § 201(a), Oct. 15. 1970, 84 Stat 926, and amended Pub.L. 95-406, § 25. Sept 30, 1978, 92 Sta

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 “

alleged conduct with any individual woman. As the statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) ‘requires the specific i