Epstein Secrets

sel, confirming that "I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th [2008] date." See October 31, 2007 Email from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). On November 5, 2007, despite Mr. Sloman's having sent the October 31 email only a week earlier, after learning th

hat her subpoena sought.' As a weak explanation of the many complaints about Ms. Villafana's misconduct and her flagrant violations of the USAM, her Criminal Division Chief, Matthew Menchel, eventually characterized her as "unsupervisable." In August 2007, Ms. Villafana demanded that, in exchange for a deferral o

ts responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to an independent third-party." See Tab I, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 4, f.3. The Truth: • That such an assignment was the SDFL's "unilateral" decision is false. Before the SDFL decided to assign selection of th

• The SDFL neither deferred to the 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

ent representation that “/T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be app

our review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch.” (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas relevant to the inquiry were not considered