Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00587591DOJ Data Set 9Other

Jeff Sloman

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00587591
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

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.
Jeff Sloman Robert Senior A Marie Villafana Dear Counsel We received notice this morning that the Podhurst firm has filed a civil Complaint seeking over $2,000,000 in addition to the $526,000 they have already been paid by Jeffrey Epstein for their work as attorney representatives. As we communicated to you in prior correspondence dated and (and during our February 2010 meeting with you) there exists significant differences between Mr. Epstein and the attorney- representative over what portions of the latter's bills were within Mr. Epstein's obligations under the NPA. Mr. Epstein has been attempting to resolve the outstanding invoices through efforts to review with the attorney representative the particulars of his charges, through settlement discussions with the attorney representative and through his signing a Special Masters Agreement which would allow a neutral third party to make a binding resolution as to what portions of the invoices at issue are reasonable, non- duplicative, and within Mr. Epstein's NPA-obligations. It was only several days ago that Mr. Epstein even received an up to date invoice seeking payment for legal work dating back to . We regret these efforts did not resolve the matter and that the Podhurst firm elected instead to litigate. Mr. Epstein has today placed the entire disputed amount of $2,000,000 in a trust account (detail) pending the results of the litigation. Mr. Epstein has always agreed that he is entirely responsible for any settlement-related fees that are not excessive and will take no litigation position inconsistent with that understanding. YT RB MGW EFTA00587591

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Internal DOJ communications reveal contested Deferred Prosecution Agreement for Jeffrey Epstein and alleged pressure to secure a state plea with st...

The passage provides concrete names (Matthew Menchel, Marie Villafana, Andrew Lourie, J. Slovan), dates, and specific procedural actions regarding Epstein's DPA, suggesting a possible manipulation of Menchel (Criminal Division Chief) rejected the state‑plea term, insisting on a two‑year state impris The DPA allegedly restricts the state judge from offering probation or alternative sanctions. Andr

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:04 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein I just received a call from the FBI telling me that Vanity Fair is sniffing around again. The reporter is a former detective. He told the FBI agent that his sources tell him "the State has been bought off," and asked if our investigation had been sent to "the circular file." Nesbitt responded, "All I can tell you is that we have an open investigation." On another note, I am going to see the grand jury tomorrow and I anticipate a number of questions regarding the status of the indictment. I'm not sure what, if anything, I can tell them. And I did not hear back regarding making changes to the indictment. Can I get some feedback on that? Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL

651p
Dept. of JusticeOtherUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01325031

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June IS, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States At

20p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 iVest Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)8204711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 January 22, 2010 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Re: Jeffrey Epstein/B.B. Dear Mr. Kuvin: Thank you for your letter regarding the deposition of Mr. Reiter. I have not received or reviewed a copy of Mr. Reiter's deposition, so I do not know the substance of his testimony. In response to your questions, no computer was seized from Mr. Epstein's home, and the FBI did not return any computer equipment to Mr. Epstein, or any lawyer or investigator working for Mr. Epstein. While Chief of Police, Mr. Reiter was provided with a copy of the list of identified victims that was provided to Mr. Epstein via his attorneys. A cover sheet provided that the document should be treated as confidential, pursuant to T

1p
OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 2

DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01325031

20p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NI and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. FILED by D.C. JUN 1 8 2013 STEVEN M LARIMORE CLERK U S DIST. CT S 0 of FLA - W PB OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the court on various motions. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: I. The petitioners' protective motion seeking recognition of the availability of various remedies attaching to the CVRA violations alleged in this proceeding [DE 128] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request for any particular form of relief or remedy in connection with the court's fmal disposition of petitioners' CVRA petition on the merits. 2. The intervenors' motion to strike the petitioners' supplemental authority regarding privilege claims [DE 177] is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The petitioners' sealed motion for the co

51p

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.