Epstein Secrets

npersuaded by the letter and the presentation, but I agreed that I should carefully review transcripts of the recorded statements given to PBPD for Brady issues." Since witness credibility was clearly at the fore, I undertook efforts " The requested documents and items were never provided. 15 As the

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

ir statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming person! injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the tbnn of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avail

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

it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or dur

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

each was astonished that any evidence Ms. Villafana purported to have was not shared with the State or made available to Mr Epstein's attorneys as Brady evidence. Ms. Villafana launched a totally unsupportable and vastly overreaching sex trafficking investigation without providing notification to th

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,

ed to provide the draft indictmatt. We understand that we have no statutory right to a FRI 302 that inculpates Mr. Epstein (although we believe that Brady principles would encourage the disclosure of P131 302 reports that exonerate him). We are Lammed that there is information that could be rebutted i

en 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

e attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would

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

s it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or durin

ed Epstein’s sentencing exposure...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman. 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. Mench

he State, nor even discussed with. the State, the length of Mr. Epstein’s incarceration. In a letter to the defense, Criminal Division Chief, Matthew Menchel rejected the sentence contemplated by the State’s plea agreement, writing that “the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-y