DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
1020 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
13
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1020 KB
Summary
This legal document details internal disagreements within a U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case, likely against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña pushed for a rapid indictment, citing concerns about ongoing crimes, but her superiors, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, believed she was moving too fast and that more review was necessary. The conflict led to multiple communications seeking direction and was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Menchel |
A prosecutor or manager involved in reviewing a case, who believed Villafaña was moving too fast and needed more time...
|
|
| Villafaña |
A prosecutor pushing for charges in a case, described as being in a 'rush'. She sought direction from her managers an...
|
|
| Lourie |
A colleague involved in the case review, questioned by OPR, and who communicated with Menchel about Epstein's attorneys.
|
|
| Sloman |
A manager who was questioned by OPR and received emails from Villafaña seeking direction on the case.
|
|
| Acosta | Senior USAO manager |
A senior manager who needed more time to review the case and was considered the ultimate decision-maker. He was quest...
|
| Alex Acosta | Senior USAO manager |
Full name for Acosta, mentioned in an email from Villafaña to Sloman.
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation |
His defense counsel was seeking information and a meeting with prosecutors. Villafaña was concerned he was continuing...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, which questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the case timeline a...
|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, where senior managers like Acosta were involved in the case.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Department of Justice, indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00021230'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a quote from Villafaña's supervisor: 'it appeared “Miami didn’t want the case prosecuted.”'
|
Relationships (3)
The document details a professional disagreement. Menchel believed Villafaña was moving too fast ('out over her skis') on a case, causing 'discontent' between them. Menchel ultimately rebuked her in an email.
Acosta was a senior manager who Villafaña reported to indirectly. Acosta believed Villafaña's timeline was 'really, really fast' and that he needed more time to make a decision, indicating a difference in opinion on the case's urgency.
Key Quotes (13)
"trouble understanding"Source
— Menchel
(Said to Villafaña regarding why she was in a 'rush'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #1
"given how long this case has been pending."Source
— Menchel
(Said to Villafaña as a reason for his confusion about her 'rush'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #2
"really, really fast."Source
— Acosta
(Describing Villafaña's timeline for filing charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #4
"out over her skis a little bit"Source
— Menchel
(Describing Villafaña's position on the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #5
"was going to be the one making the call"Source
— Menchel
(Referring to Acosta's role in deciding whether to go forward with charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #6
"This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision on."Source
— Menchel
(Told to OPR, explaining the need for more time.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #7
"the facts and the law didn’t suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict."Source
— Sloman (relaying his belief about Menchel and Lourie's conclusion)
(Sloman's belief about Menchel and Lourie's conclusion after their review.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #8
"[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will not do any good. Am I right about that?"Source
— Villafaña
(In a May 15, 2007 email to Sloman.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #9
"Taken care of."Source
— Sloman
(His only response to Villafaña's May 21, 2007 email asking for direction.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #10
"In terms of the issue of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don’t stop until they’re behind bars. That was our time concern."Source
— Villafaña
(Explaining to OPR the reason for her 'rush' on the Epstein case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #11
"Miami didn’t want the case prosecuted."Source
— Villafaña’s immediate supervisor
(Told to OPR, describing the supervisor's perspective on the situation.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #12
"led the agents to believe that [filing charges in] this matter was a foregone conclusion."Source
— Menchel
(In a July 5, 2007 email rebuking Villafaña.)
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
Quote #13
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,090 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page58 of 258
SA-56
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 56 of 348
SA-56
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 56 of 348
he is comfortable before proceeding.” Menchel told Villafaña he had “trouble understanding” why she was in a “rush” “given how long this case has been pending.”44
OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafaña’s timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafaña was “very hard charging,” but her timeline for filing charges in the case was “really, really fast.” Menchel described Villafaña as “out over her skis a little bit” and “ahead of” Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.45 Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta “was going to be the one making the call” about whether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchel told OPR, “This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision on.” Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a “granular review” of the proposed charges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and “obviously” had concluded that “the facts and the law didn’t suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict.” Lourie told OPR that he believed “the case was moving ahead.”
Villafaña continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed Sloman, noting that “[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will not do any good. Am I right about that?” Sloman responded, “Yes.” On May 21, 2007, three weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafaña emailed Sloman and Menchel asking for “a sense of the direction where we are headed—i.e., approval of an indictment something like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment drastically different from the current draft?” Sloman responded only, “Taken care of.”46
D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which Villafaña Opposes
Meanwhile, Epstein’s defense counsel continued to seek additional information about the federal investigation and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In a May 10, 2007 email to Menchel, Lourie reported that Epstein’s attorneys “want me to tell them the statutes
---
44 Villafaña explained to OPR that the “rush” related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls: “In terms of the issue of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don’t stop until they’re behind bars. That was our time concern.” Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña offering this explanation to him. OPR notes that in their respective statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR’s draft report, Menchel and Villafaña expressed contradictory accounts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those conflicts in order to reach its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the testimony of other subjects and witnesses, to the extent available.
44 Villafaña explained to OPR that the “rush” related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls: “In terms of the issue of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don’t stop until they’re behind bars. That was our time concern.” Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña offering this explanation to him. OPR notes that in their respective statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR’s draft report, Menchel and Villafaña expressed contradictory accounts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those conflicts in order to reach its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the testimony of other subjects and witnesses, to the extent available.
45 Sloman similarly recalled that Menchel thought Villafaña was “ahead of where the office was internally” and that caused “discontent” between Villafaña and Menchel. Villafaña was not the only one, however, who was surprised that the indictment was not approved immediately. The case agent told OPR that it seemed “everything changed” after Villafaña submitted the prosecution memorandum, and the momentum towards an indictment abated. Villafaña’s immediate supervisor told OPR that from her perspective, it appeared “Miami didn’t want the case prosecuted.” However, Menchel rebuked Villafaña in his July 5, 2007 email to her for having “led the agents to believe that [filing charges in] this matter was a foregone conclusion.”
46 Sloman could not recall during his OPR interview what he meant by this remark, but he speculated that he had spoken to Menchel, and Menchel was going to take care of it.
30
DOJ-OGR-00021230
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document