Epstein Secrets

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

an threatened to send to an undisclosed list of “victims.” The eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantive objections (which related to far more than the “time and place” of the state’s sentencing hearing) were: o Sending the lett

of 188 months. e Facing Ms. Villafana’s threatened draconian indictment, without the claimed offer of the right to raise objections in an appeal to AAG Fisher, the defense chose to negotiate an HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012176 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Agreement to Defer Prosecution to the State, an

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

LEFKOWFIZ, ESQ. , 2008 PAGE 2 OF 5 Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Mice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the execution of the Agreement. The Negotiation Phase During negotiati

listen. Along those lines, given the fact that we have already met once, with schedules being what they are, it makes sense for our criminal chief, Matt Menchel, to be included when you make another presentation, rather than working up the chain Incrementally. I realize you were being respectful in not attem

ons under the terms of the NPA. I then worked to find pro bono counsel for those victims (Exhibit B-23). On May 15, 2008, CEOS, DAAG Mandelker, and AAG Fisher completed their review, finding that our case against Epstein was neither improper nor inappropriate (Exhibit B-24). By that time, a revised indict

ussed above, restitution in child exploitation cases was an issue of growing concern, so I was mindful that this plea mechanism that Criminal Chief Menchel had devised with Lilly Ann Sanchez would extinguish, the victims' right to restitution. That was one of the reasons why, on July 4, 2007, I wrote to