DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
1.14 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
12
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.14 MB
Summary
This legal document details internal conflicts within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña was perceived by her managers, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, as rushing to indict, creating tension and disagreement over the case's timeline and direction. The document highlights differing perspectives on the urgency of the case and the decision-making process, as investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Menchel | Manager/Supervisor |
Questioned by OPR, expressed opinions on Villafaña's timeline, communicated with Villafaña, Sloman, and Lourie.
|
| Villafaña | Prosecutor/Attorney |
Subject of discussion regarding her perceived "rush" to file charges, author of emails to her managers seeking direct...
|
| Lourie | Manager/Colleague |
Questioned by OPR about the case timeline and received an email from Epstein's attorneys.
|
| Sloman | Manager/Colleague |
Questioned by OPR, received and responded to emails from Villafaña regarding the case direction.
|
| Acosta | Senior Manager |
Identified as the ultimate decision-maker on the charges, believed Villafaña's timeline was too fast. Referred to as ...
|
| Epstein | Subject of Investigation |
His defense counsel sought a meeting with USAO managers. Villafaña expressed concern that he was continuing to abuse ...
|
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 (4)
There was professional disagreement and "discontent" between them. Menchel viewed Villafaña as rushing the case ("out over her skis") and rebuked her in an email, while Villafaña sought direction from him.
Acosta was Villafaña's senior manager and the ultimate decision-maker. He described her as "very hard charging" with a timeline that was "really, really fast." Villafaña seemed to understand she needed his approval but was frustrated by the delay.
They were colleagues who discussed the case. Menchel believed Acosta needed more time to make a decision and was the one "making the call."
Epstein was the subject of a federal investigation by the USAO. His defense counsel was seeking a meeting with senior USAO managers, indicating an adversarial legal context.
Key Quotes (12)
"rush"Source
— Menchel
(Describing Villafaña's perceived haste in the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #1
"given how long this case has been pending."Source
— Menchel
(Menchel's reason for not understanding Villafaña's rush.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #2
"very hard charging"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's description of Villafaña to OPR.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #3
"really, really fast."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's opinion on Villafaña's timeline for filing charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #4
"out over her skis a little bit"Source
— Menchel
(Menchel's description of Villafaña's approach to the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #5
"was going to be the one making the call"Source
— Menchel
(Referring to Acosta's role in deciding whether to file charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #6
"This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision on."Source
— Menchel
(Menchel's statement to OPR about the need for more time.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #7
"[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-00003232.jpg
Quote #8
"Taken care of."Source
— Sloman
(His brief reply to Villafaña's May 21, 2007 email asking for direction.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #9
"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
(Her explanation to OPR for the "rush" on the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #10
"Miami didn’t want the case prosecuted."Source
— Villafaña’s immediate supervisor
(Statement to OPR about the supervisor's perspective on why the indictment was not approved.)
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
Quote #11
"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-00003232.jpg
Quote #12
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,006 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE 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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document