Epstein Secrets

e are several emails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of a GAL and the possibility of a restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the AUSA in 21 Mandatory restitution under § 3663A requires a conviction for

itation cases was a hot-button issue at the time. The District of Alaska USAO had a multi-victim child exploitation case with a wealthy defendant (Boehm) where they had set up a trust fund with a bank and a trustee. With Drew Oosterbaan's help, I explored setting up a similar situation in the Epstein

al EFTA00225432 EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From Re: Exhibit # 5/18/2007 Matthew Menchel A. Marie Villafatia Email informing Menchel of intent to subpoena Roy Black's private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization 26 5/21/2007 Matthew Menchel and Jeff Sloman

ding 18 U.S.C. S 2255 38 7/81/2007 Email from Marie ViKaiak toJeff Molnar], Man Menchel, and Andrew Lourie summarizing proposed plea terms as per Menchel recommendation 39 7/81/07- 8/3/07 7/31/2007.8/3/2007 Entails between Jeff Montan, Matt Moretti, Andrew Louric, and Marie VilLafaria regarding pl

have to register inapplicability of 18 USC 2422 to Epstein's conduct; and reiteration of 2255 concerns. Attachment: 7/6/07 Lefcourt letter Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia with attachments 12/17/2007 Jeff Sloman Marie Villafafia Email inquiring about case status and informing Sloman regarding

rest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 2 Your letter references U.S. I Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund settlement. I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter

ter handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' identities were not initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that case: "This filing is made ex parte because Boehm, in his

est Palm Beach Office and by attorneys with the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, but which was awaiting review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The Office deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate your client's request for a meeting. The Office als

uance of several subpoenas. At that time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting with Matthew Menchel, who was then Chief of the Criminal Section. By that time, our Office had already received a proposed initial indictment package, which had been re

ts. In addition to the well-established state restitution statute, the defense offered a federal proposal that was similar to the resolution in the Boehm case, where the conduct was far more egregious. There, the defendant bought and distributed crack cocaine and cocaine to underage girls; admitted t

it is whether they can require the defendant to serve a sentence that was not even "available" to State prosecutors. Id. In this case, however, Mr. Menchel has not asked for anything that State prosecutors could not have obtained. The fact that State authorities chose—for unquestionably legitimate reaso

without substantiation, that the proposed State plea agreement failed to vindicate the federal interest. On August 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Menchel rejected the State's new proposed plea agreement. He flatly stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year te

re. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal sta tes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base

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

impartial, independent representative be. appointed to administer that fund. Notably, such a restitution fund was created in a federal case, U.S. v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). The federal prosecutors here rejected this idea, and they insisted that an attorney representative, paid for

contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. “= Message from "A. on Fri, ----- To: "Lilly Subject: Menchel Dear Lilly: Thank you for your letter of August 2nd regarding your proposal on how to resolve the Epstein matter. ‘ As we explained at our meeting on

al interest, and, at this time, he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Matthew Menchel — Chief, Criminal Division cc: Roy Black Gerald Lefcourt R. Alexander Acosta Jeffrey Sloman Andrew Lourie A. Marie Villafafia Margot Moss, Esq.

copies and 1 color copy Plea Negotiations (redwell) — folders: Non Prosecution Agreement — Final; Attorney Notes re Revised Indictment; Research re Boehm case; Research re possible misdemeanors; Notes re Plea Negotiations; Plea Agreement drafts; Draft Non Prosecution Agreements; Information Packet dra

Sloman & Lourie; 7/6/07 Lefcourt & Dershowitz to Sloman; 7/25/07 Lefcourt & Dershowitz to Menchel; 8/2/07 EFTA00066350 Sanchez to Menchel; 8/3/07 Menchel to Sanchez; 9/17/07 to Lekowitz; 10/25/07 Sloman Itr to Davis; 11/8/07 Lefkowitz to Sloman; 11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?); 11/28/07

court to Lourie; 6/18/07 to Lefcourt; 6/25/07 Lefcourt to Sloman & Lourie; 7/6/07 Lefcourt & Dershowitz to Sloman; 7/25/07 Lefcourt & Dershowitz to Menchel; 8/2/07 EFTA00066350 Sanchez to Menchel; 8/3/07 Menchel to Sanchez; 9/17/07 to Lekowitz; 10/25/07 Sloman Itr to Davis; 11/8/07 Lefkowitz to Slom

est in maintaining their privacy: (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; ' Your letter refaitinces U.S. v Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund sealement I asked ow prosecutor to contact the AOSA in that ease. In that matter, t

n to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead

er handler! between It. apatdit and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm is well, the victims' identities were net Initially disclosed. At the AUSA wrote In dint cam "This filing is made cx ante because Boehm in hit plea

n to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal statutes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein’s case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base t

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