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

Starr, Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney Martin Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during this meeting, Epstein’s attorneys

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

ember 19, 2007 write to follow up on the December I4th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.I I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address is

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

ember 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December le meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge end myself.' I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address is

suance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 'Mr. 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

ber 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 14th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address is