Epstein Secrets

independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was misleading, as it omitted that this

onditions to the State's proposed plea agreement. These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two-year prison term demanded by Mr. Menchel (discussed above) and a charge requiring him to register as a sex offender. 6 RFP MIA 000436 EFTA00225655 • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP describes th

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms.l iaccount was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frie

onditions to the State's proposed plea agreement. These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two-year prison term demanded by Mr. Menchel (discussed above) and a charge requiring him to register as a sex offender. 6 EFTA00067348 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 8. ALL IDENTIFIED VICTIMS BE P

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

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this