Epstein Secrets

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

ed her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley. Meanwhile, Oosterbaan’s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, i

AG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. 1Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice onAngust 3 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior, 08-80736-CV-MARR.A P-014942 EFTA00224729 By May 2007, AUSA Vill

reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exp

ial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Lourie in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and me/FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. W

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

in a suite prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon successful completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the federal interest will not he vindicated in the absence of a Iwo year term in state prison." See August 3.2007 letter. Such an arti

as of traditionally local concern. we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prOSCCUtiall Was appropriate. However, on August 3. 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of incarceration in a su

vement The inclusion of Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion, " . . .unueccssary entanglement of the government in such eases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence

AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. Mr. Menchel resigned for private_practice on August 3 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior_ 08;80736-CV-MARRA P-014942 EFTA00225329 By May 2007, AUSA Vill

reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exp

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

ial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Lourie in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We a

ase and promised a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will co

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

ial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Lourie in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We a

ase and promised a willingness to assist in the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3,2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 4Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will con

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

initial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We a

suance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will c

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

As a weak explanation of the many complaints about Ms. Villafana's misconduct and her flagrant violations of the USAM, her Criminal Division Chief, Matthew Menchel, eventually characterized her as "unsupervisable." In August 2007, Ms. Villafana demanded that, in exchange for a deferral of federal prosecution,

y as yet unnamed plaintiffs, and (3) the risk that the promise of uncontested damages may compromise so called "victim" testimony, all of which Mr. Whitley advised made it important that the NPA be reviewed at the highest levels of the Justice Department. See December 5, 2007 Memorandum of J. Whitley t

AG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. 'Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. EFTA00190438 By May 2007, AUSA Villafana began seeking approval

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

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

ent • The inclusion or Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his ;minion. . . .unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence s