Epstein Secrets

dling the federal investigation of Epstein. He asked to meet with her but she said that she believed such a meeting would be premature. In December, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt again contacted AUSA Villafafia to set a meeting. In advance of such a meeting, AUSA Villafafia requested documents

port any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their M

dling the federal investigation of Epstein. He asked to meet with her but she said that she believed such a meeting would be premature. In December, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt again contacted AUSA Villafafia to set a meeting. In advance of such a meeting, AUSA Villaftula requested documents

port any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their M

ntation of Epstein 12 8/4/2006 Victim Notification Letters 13 WI1/2006 Victim Notification Letters 14 1/17/07- 2/1/07 Correspondence between Lilly Ann Sanchez, Gerald Lelcourt, Andrew Laurie, A. Marie Villafrina, and John McMillan regarding 2/1/2007 Meeting 15 11/13/06- 1/22/07 Subpoenas to

ation (id). I specifically asked Mr. Menchel if he had any comments or concerns but received no response (id)17 On Monday, May 21, 2007, I wrote to Chief Menchel and FAUSA Sloman for "guidance" and "a sense of the direction where we are headed" (id. at 3). Again, no response. On that day, PBPD and save them

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 Mr. Menchel that I be

a fair trial."). 35 Regardless of that position, as noted earlier, the decision to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement was made by Chief Menchel, and his email of July 5, 2007 informed me that he was the person vested with the discretion to vary from any Department policy and that he had und