Epstein Secrets

nd of another AUSA whom Villafaña was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafaña or the other AUSA. 144 For example, the Miami Herald’s November 2018 investigative report stated that “on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that woul

the defense and State Attorney’s Office, or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta’s approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman’s, Menchel’s, Lourie’s, and Villafaña’s involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta. Under OPR’s analytical framework, an attorney who

n, Lourie, and Villafaña were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at 134 different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in formulating the USAO’s initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made

so Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). 206 OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their repres

stitution charges,” immunized from prosecution Epstein’s co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein’s victims the terms of the NPA. Following the Miami Herald’s report, and after receiving a Congressional request to investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO

rneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but fa

ase through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lourie, and Ann Marie C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation o

perience feeling confused and believing she had been misled. OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Ac

two prostitution charges,” immunized from prosecution Epstein’s co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein’s victims the terms of the NPA. Following the Miami Herald’s report, and after receiving a Congressional request to investigate, OPR. initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO

e case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lourie, and Ann Marie C. Villafana. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of E

ttorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but fai

the experience.feeling confused and believing she had been misled. OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafana, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acos