DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
754 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
754 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing that quotes a lengthy email from an individual named Menchel to a recipient identified in a footnote as Sloman. In the email, Menchel severely criticizes Sloman for acting without authorization in the investigation of Mr. Epstein, specifically for preparing an indictment memo and misleading agents. Menchel also clarifies that his own conversation with Lilly Sanchez about the case was an informal exploratory discussion, not a formal plea offer, and was conducted with the full knowledge of the US Attorney.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Menchel |
Author of a reply email rebuking the recipient and explaining a conversation with Sanchez.
|
|
| US Attorney | US Attorney |
Mentioned as not having decided on prosecution in the Epstein matter and having conveyed concerns about the case to t...
|
| First Assistant | First Assistant |
Mentioned as having made it clear to the email's recipient that the office had concerns about the Epstein case.
|
| Mr. Epstein |
The subject of the investigation and potential prosecution being discussed.
|
|
| Sanchez |
Mentioned in the context of a conversation with Menchel regarding the Epstein matter.
|
|
| Villafaña |
Mentioned as having made complaints to which Menchel is responding.
|
|
| Lilly Sanchez |
Person who had an informal discussion with Menchel about the Epstein matter before a June 26th meeting.
|
|
| Sloman |
Recipient of the message from Menchel, as noted in a footnote.
|
|
| Lourie |
Copied on the message from Menchel to Sloman, as noted in a footnote.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US Attorney's office | government agency |
Referred to as 'the office' throughout the document, which had concerns about the Epstein case and had not authorized...
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned in a hypothetical scenario where they would not have interceded in the Epstein case if he had been convicte...
|
| The State | government agency |
Mentioned as not having done an adequate job in vindicating victims' rights in the Epstein matter, which is why the U...
|
Timeline (2 events)
June 26th
A meeting is mentioned, with the clarification that Lilly Sanchez's call to Menchel happened before this date.
before June 26th
An informal discussion between Lilly Sanchez and Menchel about what it might take to resolve the Epstein matter.
Relationships (3)
Menchel sent a strongly worded, critical email to Sloman regarding Sloman's handling of a legal case, indicating a contentious professional relationship or a superior-subordinate dynamic.
Menchel and Lilly Sanchez had a phone call to have an 'informal discussion' about resolving the Epstein case.
Menchel states that his discussion with Lilly Sanchez was made with the US Attorney's full knowledge, indicating they work together and Menchel operates under the US Attorney's authority.
Key Quotes (4)
"Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question."Source
— Menchel
(The opening rebuke in Menchel's reply email.)
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
Quote #1
"As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case."Source
— Menchel
(Concluding a paragraph accusing the recipient of preparing an indictment memo and misleading agents without authorization.)
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
Quote #2
"Lilly Sanchez called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter."Source
— Menchel
(Explaining the circumstances of his conversation with Lilly Sanchez in response to Villafaña's complaints.)
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
Quote #3
"As you and the agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office ever would have interceded."Source
— Menchel
(Explaining the rationale for the office's involvement in the Epstein matter.)
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,699 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page70 of 258
SA-68
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 68 of 348
SA-68
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 68 of 348
Menchel’s reply email began with a rebuke:
Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate
and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls
your judgment into question.
and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls
your judgment into question.
As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether
to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have
respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.
to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have
respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.
Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you
made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US
Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first
authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns
about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of
legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros
memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment.
It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that
the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our
decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys’
concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about
indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization
by anyone to seek an indictment in this case.⁶⁶
made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US
Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first
authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns
about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of
legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros
memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment.
It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that
the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our
decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys’
concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about
indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization
by anyone to seek an indictment in this case.⁶⁶
In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with
Sanchez and respond to Villafaña’s complaints:
Sanchez and respond to Villafaña’s complaints:
Lilly Sanchez called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It
was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea
offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take
to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason
why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the
first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an
adequate job in vindicating the victims’ rights. As you and the
agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that
resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI
nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know
that my discussion with Lilly Sanchez was made with the US
Attorney’s full knowledge. Had Lilly Sanchez expressed interest in
pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all
the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents.
In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has
hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one
was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea
offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take
to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason
why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the
first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an
adequate job in vindicating the victims’ rights. As you and the
agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that
resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI
nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know
that my discussion with Lilly Sanchez was made with the US
Attorney’s full knowledge. Had Lilly Sanchez expressed interest in
pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all
the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents.
In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has
hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one
___
⁶⁶ Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie.
⁶⁶ Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie.
42
DOJ-OGR-00021242
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document