DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page73 of 258
SA-71
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 71 of 348

proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein’s criminal culpability.
Lastly, I was not trying to “dictate” a meeting with the U.S. Attorney
or anyone else. I stated that I “would like” to schedule a meeting,
asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense
attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With
respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say
that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the
forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified
as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to foster spirited
debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . .
[M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child
exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences
threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case
whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights.

In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to
begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your
suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by
Epstein’s attorneys. . . . If there are any specific issues that you or
the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.70

Villafaña did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel’s
message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even
though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise
her concerns.71 Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not “order” Villafaña to refrain from
raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafaña
foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, “the context of this exchange is, she is running
roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You’re not
in charge of it. I’m not in charge of it. [Acosta’s] in charge of it.” Acosta, who was apparently
not aware of Villafaña’s email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective,
Villafaña was not “frozen out” of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him
directly for a meeting.

B. Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from
Epstein’s Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts

As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation,
one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer
equipment removed from Epstein’s home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although
Villafaña took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts.

___
70 Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman.

71 Villafaña told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect Sanchez to Villafaña, but that
Menchel responded it was not Villafaña’s “place” to tell him to whom he should direct communications.

45

DOJ-OGR-00021245