Epstein Secrets

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

323 In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, “Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating t

SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of

me AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.2 Above Mr. Lourie in the SDFL's chain of command were Matthew Menchel, Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince th

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

(SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel', First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <1Sloman@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG 57

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG EXH

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

tate that you intend to issue the victim notification letters o rda December 7. However, in a discussion late last week between Jeff Sloman and Mr. Sloman indicated that your Office would send us a revised version o e non on letter, which we have not received to date. ,While we believe that it is who

age 2 Finally, you state that you intend to issue the victim notification letters o rda December 7. However, in a discussion late last week between Jeff Sloman and Mr. Sloman indicated that your Office would send us a revised version o e non on letter, which we have not received to date. ,While we believ

torney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not commen

torney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:40 AM Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USA

ted to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "bode will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide vict

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: a Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Tuesday, June 03, 200810:40 AM Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAF

ttorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense