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

shington, D.C.; approximately four years as a policy fellow and law school lecturer; and nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department’s Civil Rights Division. He was presidentially appointed in 2002 as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and in 2003 as Assistant Attorney General in charge of

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

ial issues,” his own focus had been on “the legal side of things.” Notably, during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Civil Rights Division, Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the “background issues” that the Civil Rights Division ad

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

ictim interviews. x Villafaña revised the prosecution memorandum to focus “on victims who are unknown to Epstein’s counsel.” x The USAO informed the Department’s Civil Rights Division “pursuant to USAM [§] 8-3.120,” of the USAO’s “ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter” involving Epstein and others. x Villafaña se