Epstein Secrets

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

he child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach, along with other criminal matters. In 2006, she was designated as the USAO’s first coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual exploitation and abuse.2 In 2006, Villafaña assumed responsibility for the Epstein investig

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

ta’s and Sloman’s “concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues” and Acosta’s concerns about “hurting Project Safe Childhood.” Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attacked the legal theo

al EFTA00225432 EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From Re: Exhibit # 5/18/2007 Matthew Menchel A. Marie Villafatia Email informing Menchel of intent to subpoena Roy Black's private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization 26 5/21/2007 Matthew Menchel and Jeff Sloman

ding 18 U.S.C. S 2255 38 7/81/2007 Email from Marie ViKaiak toJeff Molnar], Man Menchel, and Andrew Lourie summarizing proposed plea terms as per Menchel recommendation 39 7/81/07- 8/3/07 7/31/2007.8/3/2007 Entails between Jeff Montan, Matt Moretti, Andrew Louric, and Marie VilLafaria regarding pl

have to register inapplicability of 18 USC 2422 to Epstein's conduct; and reiteration of 2255 concerns. Attachment: 7/6/07 Lefcourt letter Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia with attachments 12/17/2007 Jeff Sloman Marie Villafafia Email inquiring about case status and informing Sloman regarding

Epstein may have been involved in the manufacture and/or possession of child pornography. Eradication of child pornography was a particular focus of Project Safe Childhood; its production and storage on computer equipment involved the use of items produced in interstate and foreign commerce; and child pornography was

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

legations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. i Attachment(s): Download U.S, v Jeffrey Epstein Indictment Topic(s): Project Safe Childhood Component(s): USAO - New York. Southern Press Release Number: 19-211 i Updated July 9, 2019 CA/Aronberg-0009.18 FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH

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

borhood prosecutors. In January 2004, AUSA Villafafia transferred to the West Palm Beach Office. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated Project Safe Childhood, and, in recognition of her expertise in child exploitation matters, AUSA Villafalia became the Southern District of Florida's first Project Safe C