Epstein Secrets

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

erson ..."). § 2423(b) is not such a statute. Federal court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak l

d Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. . In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Men

e deposition of the Secretary of Agriculture, whose order fixing the maximum rates to be charged at the Kansas City stockyards was being challenged. The Supreme Court observed that the proceeding before the Secretary "has a quality resembling that of a judicial proceeding," and that probing of the mental processes

yrkendall; (2) FBI S/A Jason Richards; (3) Jeffrey Sloman, who formerly served as both United States Attorney and First Assistant U.S. Attorney; (4) Matt Menchel, who formerly served as Chief of the Criminal Division; (5) Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana; and (6) R. Alexander Acosta, who formerly serv

as the appropriate course to take. Similarly, neither Mr. Sloman, the former First Assistant U.S. Attorney and former Acting U.S. Attorney, nor Mr. Menchel, the former Chief of the Criminal Division, were involved in any consultation with the victims. Their mental processes in making decisions on the E

Federal Rule of Criininai Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) do not appear to apply. See, e.g. Carlson v. United°States, $37 F.3d at 763 (7th CJ,T. 201(:,) ("As the Supreine Court put it, Rule 6(e) is 'but deciaratory' of the iong-standing 'principle' that ·'disclosuie' of grand jury materials is 'committed to the discretion o

orney’s Office, Andrew Lourie, in a transmittal letter with the prosecution memo of Assistant U.S'. Attorney Ann Marie Villafana, told Criminal Chief Matthew Menchel: “The state intentionally torpedoed [the case] in thegrandjury so it was brought to us. ” Appendix at 3 (OPR Report, p. 26 (emphasis supplied)). i '

d.2d 771, vacated judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded. On remand, the Court of Appeals, 322 F.3d 240, again affirmed. On appeal the Su- preme Court, 124 S.Ct. 2783, affirmed the 775 decision which granted the preliminary in- junction, and remanded for trial. Holdings: On remand, the United Sta

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Vi°Mena. Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday. July 31, 2007 1:37 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Lourie. Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: Emailing: Conf Plea Negotiations.wpd Attachments: Conf Plea Negotiations.wpd Hi all -- I fix

tatement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal c

ed Epstein’s sentencing exposure...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman. In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Mench

he State, nor even discussed with. the State, the length of Mr. Epstein’s incarceration. In a letter to the defense, Criminal Division Chief, Matthew Menchel rejected the sentence contemplated by the State’s plea agreement, writing that “the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-y