Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35519House OversightOther

Letter from DOJ Assistant US Attorney Sloman Misrepresents Independent Review of Epstein Investigation

The passage reveals that a DOJ official (Jeffrey Sloman) claimed an independent, de novo review of the Jeffrey Epstein case, but internal documents suggest the review was conducted by Drew Oosterbaan, Jeffrey Sloman’s May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz claims an independent de novo DOJ review. The review was actually performed by Drew Oosterbaan, who had previously reviewed the prosecution me Oo

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #012172
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals that a DOJ official (Jeffrey Sloman) claimed an independent, de novo review of the Jeffrey Epstein case, but internal documents suggest the review was conducted by Drew Oosterbaan, Jeffrey Sloman’s May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz claims an independent de novo DOJ review. The review was actually performed by Drew Oosterbaan, who had previously reviewed the prosecution me Oo

Tags

jeffrey-epsteininternal-doj-documentslegal-reviewinvestigative-misconductlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightinternal-biasprocedural-misconductdepartment-of-justice

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
ff \ KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA Sloman Dated May 19, 2008 In a May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attomey Jeffrey Sloman provided what purported to be a summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. Mr. Sloman’s letter is fraught with inconsistencies, false and misleading characterizations and outright falsehoods. The comparison below between the false assertions in Mr. Sloman’s letter and what actually transpired is only the tip of the iceberg. We respectfully submit that Mr. Sloman’s letter alone demonstrates the degree to which the record of facts have been distorted and these distortions have permeated this unprecedented investigation. 1. “INDEPENDENT” AND “DE NOVO” REVIEW. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: e “[W]e obliged your request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice.” Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 5, ¥ 3. The Truth: e CEOS’ review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de novo. o CEOS’ review was not “independent:” « Drew Oosterbaan, who conducted the review on behalf of CEOS, had already reviewed the prosecution memo on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with defense counsel at the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) in September of 2007, he opined that he so believed in the prosecution that he “would try the case myself.” * Indeed, Mr. Sloman acknowledges that Mr. Oosterbaan had previously opined on this matter, stating: This particular attack on this statute [18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)} had been previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by . . . CEOS prior to the execution of the [Deferred Prosecution] Agreement [in September 2007]. Id., p. 5 (emphasis added). * The statute Mr. Sloman referred to (§ 2422(b)) lies at the heart of the Epstein investigation. Thus, according to Mr. Sloman, Mr. Oosterbaan was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision regarding applying the key statute under which the SDFL proposed prosecuting Mr. Epstein.

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

IthibiSlornam

IthibiSlornam taco L•fhwitit EFTA00176182 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: 99 M.E. 41' Street Miami, FL 33132-211! (305) 961-9299 Facsimile: (305) 530-6444 December 6, 2007 I write in response to your recent e-mails and letters regarding victim notification and other issues. Our Office is trying to perform our contractual obligations under the Agreement, which we feel are being frustrated by defense counsel's objections. The Office also is concerned about Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. More than three weeks ago we spoke about the failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Roland

18p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00013865

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Rol Slack lir „kite'

Rol Slack lir „kite' 2/949 Arcrwite a." 2434 7 Antai, Liu) 3 cut, , 4,/e EFTA00183732 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AfilL/ArtO PART/H.3We; ' Cntercup Cantor 163 East 53'd Street New York, New York 10022-4611 WNW rwerA.COM September 2, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (56D 820-8777 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re:Jeffrey Bpstein Dear • Facsimile: In response to your letter dated August 26, 2008, I am confirming that Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact pawn in the' mended victim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thoso letters as they are sent. • Also, we plan on speaking to Mr. Josofsberg this week to discuss a procedure for paying his fees. We intend to comply fully with the agreement and Mr. Epstein will pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates for his work pursuant to the agreement facilitating settlements unde

136p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein

From: To: Cc: Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:23:26 +0000 I mportance: Normal Dear Roy: Jeff Sloman contacted me and asked me to return your call regarding the Epstein matter. I am forwarding to you an e-mail that I sent to Jay Lefkowitz last night. and I can call you at 3:30 to speak about your list of issues. If that time does not work, please let me kno‘N what times you are available. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:55 PM To: ; Jay Lefkowitz Cc: USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Lefkowitz: I understand that the Deputy Attorney General has completed his review of the Epstein matter and has determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case is appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein has until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United Sta

2p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

[REDACTED - Survivor] v. Alan Dershowitz – Allegations of Sex Trafficking, NPA Manipulation, and Defamation

The complaint provides a dense web of alleged connections between Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, and the 2008 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA). It cites specif Roberts alleges she was trafficked by Epstein from 2000‑2002 and forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is accused of helping draft and pressure the government into the 2008 NPA that shielded

87p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Prosecutors allegedly colluded with Jeffrey Epstein’s defense to shape a non‑prosecution agreement

The passage provides specific names (U.S. Attorney Geoffrey B. Acosta, lead prosecutor Marie Villafafia, DOJ official Sloman, defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz) and concrete details of private meetings a Emails show prosecutors used private accounts to discuss deal terms with Epstein’s lawyers. Acosta met privately with defense counsel at a Marriott hotel to keep the non‑prosecution agreement Victim

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.