DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg

1010 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

8
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
8
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 1010 KB
Summary

This legal document details a factual dispute investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the Epstein case. Prosecutor Villafaña claimed her supervisors—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—instructed her not to consult with victims about plea negotiations, an instruction they all deny recalling. The document outlines the conflicting testimonies and notes that while OPR could not definitively resolve the disagreement, it found no documentary evidence to support Villafaña's claim of a specific meeting or instruction on this matter.

People (8)

Name Role Context
Villafaña Government employee, likely a prosecutor
Asserts she was instructed by her supervisors not to consult victims about plea discussions.
Acosta Supervisor
One of Villafaña's supervisors who she claims instructed her not to speak with victims. He does not recall such a mee...
Sloman Supervisor
One of Villafaña's supervisors who she claims instructed her not to speak with victims. He does not recall such a mee...
Menchel Supervisor
One of Villafaña's supervisors who she claims instructed her not to speak with victims. He does not recall such a mee...
Epstein
Mentioned in the context of the "Epstein matter" and victims' desire to obtain damages from him.
Oosterbaan CEOS Chief
Mentioned as having reminded Villafaña that consultation with victims is required by law.
Menchel's counsel Attorney
Commented on OPR's draft report, reiterating Menchel's contention that Villafaña's claim was inaccurate.
Menchel's attorney Attorney
Mentioned as pointing to evidence that allegedly refuted Villafaña's assertion.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
OPR government agency
Office of Professional Responsibility, which conducted interviews and investigated the conflicting claims of Villafañ...
USAO government agency
United States Attorney's Office, where Menchel worked until August 3, 2007.
CEOS government agency unit
Oosterbaan is identified as the CEOS Chief.
PBPD government agency
Mentioned in a quote from Villafaña's email, likely a police department involved in the case.
The Department government agency
Mentioned in the context of OPR's conclusion, likely referring to the Department of Justice.

Timeline (3 events)

2007-08-03
Menchel left the USAO.
2007-09-06
Villafaña sent an email to Sloman raising the victim consultation issue, who then informed Acosta.
An 'early' meeting where Villafaña claims she raised the government's obligation to confer with victims and was instructed not to.

Relationships (3)

Villafaña professional Acosta
Acosta was one of Villafaña's supervisors. Their accounts of events conflict regarding instructions about victim notification.
Villafaña professional Sloman
Sloman was one of Villafaña's supervisors. Their accounts of events conflict regarding instructions about victim notification. Villafaña emailed Sloman on 9/6/2007.
Villafaña professional Menchel
Menchel was one of Villafaña's supervisors. Their accounts of events conflict regarding instructions about victim notification.

Key Quotes (8)

"we were probably just entering into plea negotiations"
Source
— Villafaña (Describing the timing of an 'early' meeting with her supervisors.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #1
"Don’t talk to [the victims]. Don’t tell them what’s happening."
Source
— Uncertain, possibly Acosta (Instruction Villafaña claims she received from a supervisor.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #2
"Plea negotiations are confidential. You can’t disclose them."
Source
— Uncertain, possibly Acosta (Instruction Villafaña recalled receiving in a subsequent OPR interview.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #3
"is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time"
Source
— Acosta (His explanation to OPR about why he did not focus on the decision to solicit victims' views.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #4
"I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter."
Source
— Menchel (Written response to OPR regarding the victim notification issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #5
"we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal"
Source
— Menchel (Explaining to OPR why the issue of victim notification would have been premature.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #6
"the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law"
Source
— Villafaña (From a September 6, 2007 email to Sloman about the victim consultation issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #7
"telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein."
Source
— Menchel (A concern Villafaña recalled Menchel raising.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #8

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document