Epstein Secrets

September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner “Jane Doe 1” filed in her true name a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking review of the district court’s order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief, the government argued that “as a mat

SAO’s Major Crimes Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief of the USAO’s Criminal Division, based in Miami. As Criminal Division Chief, Menchel was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation, and he participated in meetings and other communications with defense coun

Consulted ....................................................................................202 1. July 2007: Villafaña’s Email Exchanges with Menchel .........................202 2. Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but

ttorney General appointed Sloman to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for the district. Sloman left the USAO to enter private practice in June 2010. Matthew I. Menchel joined the USAO in 1998 after having served as a New York County (Manhattan) Assistant District Attorney for 11 years. After several years as a lin

the USAO in 1998 after having served as a New York County (Manhattan) Assistant District Attorney for 11 years. After several years as a line AUSA, Menchel became Chief of the USAO’s Major Crimes Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief of the USAO’s Criminal Division, based in Miami. As Cr

344 In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). The Fifth Circuit opinion was not binding precedent in Florida, which is within the Eleventh Circuit. 345 United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at *11 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Victims who wished to be heard were permitted t

efforts to obtain the missing computers, but he believed that “there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly” regarding the plea. Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafaña’s efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only “vaguely.”

th the USAO’s demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that “we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein’s home prior to the state s

ded to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and offering a plea to conspiracy “to make a plea attractive.” Similarly, before learning that Menchel had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epstein’s counsel, Villafaña had considered offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy

", to the extent discernable, every case brought under §2422(b) in this district includes use of the intemet. There are only four reported cases in the Eleventh Circuit involving use of the phones only: three of them concern telephone calls to travel agencies advertising overseas underage sex touriand involved expli

kswilawoom FAITH A. FRIEDMAN IM•cimweelcoutlaw.com BY FEDERAL EXPRESS July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4'h Street Miami, Florida 33132 Andrew Lo

s Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite-400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting was extr

at 24-25. The Court further discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and EFTA00206708 this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [s] it] may be better to have acomplete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what actions were taken. And I don't know

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, , and Acosta in the negotiations at various times." U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 28. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals that th

at 24-25. The Court further discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and EFTA00206745 this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [s] it] may be better to have acomplete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what actions were taken. And I don't know

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." U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 28. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals th

ase, the CVRA did not apply. The EFTA00207822 question of application of the CVRA to this situation appears to be an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit. The parties jointly propose a briefing schedule to present that legal issue to the Court for resolution. Once the Court resolves that legal issue

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. Lowrie, Menchel, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times." U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. The letter also stated: "Three victims were notified sh

individual woman. As the statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal

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

— are normally kept confidential. Rule 11(cX1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits judicial involvement in plea negotiations, and the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that there is a "bright line rule" that courts should not offer any comments on plea negotiations. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 8

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

ed Mr. Epstein's rights and privileges, Mr. Epstein and his counsel intervened to assert their rights, both in the district court, and on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. See Doe No. 1, supra. That there would be no judgment against Mr. Epstein at the end of this CVRA litigation, however, was understood throughout t

rs with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with experti

ts production in this case. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the

nchel has a personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's 120. This could potentially show misconduct by Menchel, and also potentially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing