Menchel
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Business associate |
14
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Professional supervisory |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional supervisory |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lilly Sanchez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
US Attorney
|
Professional subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional supervisory contentious |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional contentious |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional subordinate supervisor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Romantic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Trial considerations for Epstein case, including victim trauma and evidentiary challenges | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR interviews regarding Epstein's case and sentencing discussions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interview with Menchel | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel interview with OPR | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing a prosecution... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews with prosecutors involved in the Epstein case. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews conducting a retrospective review of the case handling. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews regarding the handling of the Epstein case. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Menchel's Outlook records indicate he scheduled lunch with Sanchez after she left the USAO. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | OPR conducted interviews with Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Villafaña about the origins of... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | Menchel was interviewed by OPR regarding his recollection of the events. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Numerous meetings occurred between the subjects (prosecutors) and Epstein's team of nationally kn... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing the prosecuti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Internal discussion | The USAO considered various charging and plea options for Epstein, including a plea to a federal ... | USAO | View |
| N/A | Meeting | An 'early' meeting where Villafaña claims she raised the government's obligation to confer with v... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding the two-year plea deal resolution. | USAO (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Internal USAO discussions regarding the viability of federal prosecution vs. a negotiated plea deal. | USAO | View |
| N/A | Legal discussion | Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie discussed perceived risks and concerns with the evidence and ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the dispute, taking statements from ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Communication | Villafaña replied to Menchel's email, a week after acknowledging his authority to OPR. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A meeting to discuss how to proceed with the Epstein case, where the FBI insisted on lifetime sex... | USAO in Miami | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR investigated whether the USAO violated department policy and whether prosecutors were influen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Dispute | A professional dispute occurred between Villafaña and Menchel over the handling of plea negotiati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Decision to resolve case through guilty plea in state court | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023203.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for Epstein's prosecution and victims' interests, despite a public narrative suggesting collusion with defense counsel. The report details Villafaña's efforts to protect victims' anonymity, expand the case scope, and draft victim notification letters, while refuting claims that she was 'soft on Epstein' based on witness statements and email context.
DOJ-OGR-00023198.tif
This document analyzes the circumstances surrounding a breakfast meeting between Acosta and Epstein's defense counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, on October 12, 2007, and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2007. OPR concludes that Acosta did not make significant concessions during the breakfast meeting, as the key provisions of the NPA, including Epstein's 18-month sentence and sexual offender registration, were established prior to the meeting and not materially altered thereafter. The document also references a Miami Herald article critical of Acosta's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif
This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023189.tif
This document discusses the legal defense strategies employed by Jeffrey Epstein's extensive team of attorneys, highlighting their ability to secure concessions despite initial USAO requirements. It details how prominent lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr influenced prosecutor Alex Acosta, and addresses assertions from individuals like Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie that their relationships with Epstein's counsel did not affect their actions, while noting the significant financial investment in Epstein's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00023184.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report detailing witness challenges and concerns surrounding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It includes recollections from individuals like Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta regarding the viability of a federal prosecution, victim reluctance to testify, evidentiary hurdles, and the eventual negotiated result that led to Epstein serving time and registering as a sexual offender.
DOJ-OGR-00023180.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, discusses OPR's investigation into whether Epstein's status, wealth, or associations improperly influenced the outcome of his case. It concludes that OPR found no evidence of such influence, despite news reports in 2006 identifying Epstein as wealthy and connected to prominent figures like William Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. The report notes that FBI personnel initially unfamiliar with Epstein later became aware of his connections, including those who had been on his plane, and that his legal team's mention of Clinton in pre-NPA letters was contextual.
DOJ-OGR-00023175.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details OPR's findings that Acosta's decision to approve a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, resulting in an 18-month sentence, did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards or constitute professional misconduct, despite OPR criticizing certain decisions made during the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif
This document, an excerpt from an analysis report (Chapter Two, Part Three), discusses the public and media scrutiny following the Miami Herald's November 2018 report on the handling of the Epstein investigation. It focuses on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), allegations of a 'sweetheart deal' by Acosta and the USAO due to improper influences, and OPR's investigation into these matters, concluding that Acosta reviewed and approved the NPA terms and is accountable for it. The report also mentions other individuals (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña) involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023137.tif
This document details interactions between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the USAO in late 2007, focusing on submissions, a key meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, and the defense's threat to pursue a Department of Justice review. The discussions revolved around defense complaints, a proposed revised indictment, and a new argument by Epstein's attorneys regarding the applicability of the state charge he agreed to plead guilty to. The document also highlights the USAO's internal review processes and Acosta's communication with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023090.tif
This document details discussions and drafts surrounding a non-prosecution agreement for Epstein, focusing on victim compensation and the requirement for Epstein to register as a sex offender. It mentions key individuals like Acosta, Menchel, and Villafaña, and highlights changes made to Villafaña's initial draft before presentation to defense counsel. The text also references relevant legal statutes concerning civil remedies for victims of certain crimes and a memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford.
DOJ-OGR-00023094.tif
This document details changes made by Menchel to a draft letter by Villafaña regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal, focusing on the shift from a federal plea to a state imprisonment term. It highlights the involvement of several individuals including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie in discussions and decisions surrounding the Rule 11(c) plea, with an email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, suggesting Acosta's ultimate decision to nix the federal plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif
This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.
DOJ-OGR-00023242.tif
This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.
DOJ-OGR-00023237.tif
This document details Villafaña's process for victim notification in an unspecified case, where she created her own letters and directed FBI agents to deliver them, believing it provided more assistance than legally required. It highlights that these letters were not reviewed by supervisors and that the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no direct contact with victims in the Epstein matter, despite Villafaña's claim of having shown the letter to a specialist who approved it. The document also touches upon the USAO's lack of standardized victim notification procedures and the context of Epstein-related CVRA litigation in July 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif
This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.
DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg
This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021462.jpg
This legal document details an OPR investigation into the failure to consult with victims before signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It presents conflicting recollections from key figures like Acosta and Villafaña regarding the decision-making process. OPR concluded that while the failure to consult did not constitute professional misconduct under the CVRA standards at the time, it was a criticism-worthy failure to treat victims with fairness and respect.
DOJ-OGR-00021461.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding victim notification prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007. It highlights conflicts where prosecutor Villafaña raised concerns about the legal requirement to consult victims, but was overruled by supervisors Sloman, Menchel, and Acosta, who cited confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) did not apply to pre-charge resolutions. The document also notes Menchel's concern that notifying victims might cause them to exaggerate stories to seek financial damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
This legal document details a professional conflict between two government attorneys, Villafaña and Menchel, over plea negotiations in the case of Mr. Epstein. Villafaña accused Menchel, her superior, of violating victims' rights by not consulting them, while Menchel defended his discretionary authority and criticized Villafaña's actions and judgment. The document reveals that on the same day Villafaña criticized Menchel, she herself contacted the defense (Sanchez) about a potential resolution without first speaking to the victims, highlighting the complexities and differing interpretations of prosecutorial obligations.
Judicial attitudes in West Palm Beach and Southern Distri...
Menchel told OPR that federal judges in West Palm Beach were viewed as "pro-prosecution" and that the USAO viewed judges in the Southern District of Florida as averse to Rule 11(c) pleas.
Prosecution Memorandum Transmittal
Discussing Marie's 50-page memo, Epstein's wealth and attorneys, the state's failure, and FBI timeline.
No Subject
Menchel rebukes Sloman for the tone and substance of a prior email, stating Sloman acted without authorization by preparing an indictment memo for the Epstein case. Menchel clarifies that his conversation with Lilly Sanchez was an informal discussion, not a plea offer, and was done with the US Attorney's knowledge.
State Attorney's Office actions
Footnote 62 indicates Menchel told OPR his understanding of the State Attorney's Office's actions regarding the Epstein case.
Meeting with Epstein's defense
Lourie told Menchel he didn't see a downside to a meeting, but that 'Marie is against it.' Menchel responded that it was 'premature'.
Rationale for Plea Deal
Menchel explained the fear of losing at trial and causing victim trauma as reasons for the plea deal.
Circumstances of computer equipment removal
Black's letter to Menchel explained the circumstances relating to the removal of computer equipment from Epstein’s home (forwarded by Villafaña).
Epstein case resolution
Villafaña sent an email to Menchel regarding a potential resolution and requested to be advised if anyone had communicated anything contrary to her ideas to Epstein's attorneys.
No Subject
Menchel sent an email to Villafaña which she viewed as a rejection of her request to meet with Acosta. Menchel later discussed this email exchange with OPR.
Re: Epstein case resolution
Menchel responded to Villafaña's email, notifying her that he had proposed a state plea to Sanchez, which was rejected as a 'non-starter'.
Reply to Villafaña's accusations.
Menchel replied to Villafaña's email, calling it "totally inappropriate," denying any violation of Departmental policy, and asserting his discretionary authority as Chief of the Criminal Division.
No Subject
Footnote 70 states that Menchel forwarded an email to Sloman.
Epstein case handling
During his OPR interview, Menchel discussed his conversation with Sanchez about the plea proposal and his communications with Acosta.
Preliminary settlement discussion.
Menchel had a conversation with Sanchez which he told OPR was not a plea offer and was part of preliminary settlement negotiations.
Case conduct and authority
A memo or letter from Menchel to Villafaña asserting his authority as Criminal Division Chief, refuting claims he violated policy, stating the US Attorney has ultimate purview, and admonishing Villafaña for disregarding the chain of command.
Re: Case and e-mail exchange
An email from Villafaña to Menchel (addressed as Matt) stating she now has time to focus on the case and their email exchange. This was sent a week after her communication with OPR.
Epstein Investigation and Villafaña
Menchel confirmed to OPR he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation and asserted that Villafaña had a 'history of resisting supervisory authority'.
Resolution of case through a guilty plea
A lengthy and heated email exchange regarding the decision to resolve the case via a guilty plea in state court.
Defense resistance to turning over computer
Menchel told OPR that 'there could be a lot of reasons why' defense counsel would resist turning over an entire computer.
Acosta's handling of the Epstein case
Menchel was interviewed by OPR and remembered Acosta approaching the case from a 'broader policy perspective' and described the potential state sentence for Epstein as a 'slap on the wrist'.
Recollection of June 26, 2007 meeting
A written response from Menchel to OPR indicating he had no independent recollection of the June 26, 2007 meeting.
Recollection of June 26, 2007 meeting
A written response from Menchel to OPR indicating he had no independent recollection of the June 26, 2007 meeting.
Interaction with Villafaña
Menchel told OPR his side of the story regarding his email to Villafaña, denying he 'ordered' her to do anything and explaining the context.
Recollection of discussions regarding victim notification
Menchel wrote to OPR stating he had no recollection of any discussions or decisions about whether the USAO should notify victims in the Epstein matter.
Follow up on Pros Memo
Asking for general opinion on the case; highlighting legal hurdles regarding travel purpose and victim age.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity