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-00021399.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details how prosecutor Villafaña handled victim notification in the Epstein case prior to charges being filed. Villafaña created a custom letter for FBI agents to hand-deliver to victims, outlining their rights under the CVRA, though she claimed this was not intended to formally activate USAO CVRA obligations. The report notes that while Villafaña informed supervisors Lourie and Sloman, the letters were not reviewed by management (including Acosta), who viewed such notifications as routine tasks.
DOJ-OGR-00021385.jpg
This document details the chaotic final stages of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiations in September 2007, highlighting how the absence of key personnel like Menchel, Lourie, and Sloman led to a lack of clear ownership and fragmented decision-making. The text specifically critiques a broad provision in the agreement not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators,' noting it was accepted with little discussion despite internal concerns, which ultimately precluded the USAO from prosecuting others involved in Epstein's criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021384.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the handling of the Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office. It details a significant communication breakdown between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and AUSA Marie Villafaña regarding the signing of Epstein's 2007 plea agreement (NPA), where Villafaña felt forced to sign a deal she opposed while Acosta claimed he intended to give her veto power. It also highlights how senior management (Menchel) blocked Villafaña from meeting directly with Acosta, resulting in final decisions being made without input from the prosecutor most familiar with the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021380.jpg
This document details an investigation into the origins of a two-year sentence proposal for Jeffrey Epstein, contrasting the differing recollections of prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman with documentary evidence. The record shows no indication that Epstein's team initially proposed the two-year term; in fact, they argued against any federal prosecution just before the offer was made. The document also outlines alternative, harsher sentencing options the U.S. Attorney's Office considered, such as a plea to a federal offense with a much longer sentence or a conspiracy charge, and why those options were ultimately rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021378.jpg
This page from an OPR report critiques the USAO's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically regarding the failure to seize Epstein's computers. It details how prosecutors Sloman and Villafaña postponed litigation to obtain the computers, and how US Attorney Acosta signed the NPA—which effectively ended the pursuit of this critical evidence—despite likely being aware of the ongoing efforts to obtain it. The report argues the USAO gave away significant leverage and potential evidence of crimes without proper consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021374.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It criticizes the reliance on state procedures for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), noting that the specific state charges selected allowed Epstein to avoid sex offender registration in New Mexico due to age-of-consent laws. It also details that Acosta was aware the Palm Beach Police Department distrusted the State Attorney's Office, yet he proceeded with a plea deal that relied heavily on state authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00021368.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the conflicting recollections of prosecutors Acosta and Lourie regarding a broad provision not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators,' with Lourie suggesting it could have been a message to victims while Acosta focused on Epstein's punishment. OPR concludes the provision was likely intended to protect Epstein's four assistants and other employees, not victims or his influential associates, and that its inclusion was not carefully considered by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021354.jpg
This document is part of a legal filing detailing an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into prosecutor Menchel's handling of the Epstein case. The investigation focuses on whether Menchel's prior dating relationship with defense counsel Sanchez in 2003 created a conflict of interest or improperly influenced a plea deal offered years later. The document outlines Menchel's and his supervisor Acosta's conflicting and corroborating statements regarding the decision-making process for the plea, and concludes it would have been prudent for Menchel to disclose the relationship to his supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing potential conflicts of interest within the USAO regarding the Epstein case. It details interviews with officials Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta, concluding that personal relationships with defense attorneys did not improperly influence the case. The text highlights Acosta's eventual recusal in late 2008 due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis, and a separate inquiry regarding his potential role at Harvard Law School given Alan Dershowitz's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021351.jpg
This legal document discusses the effectiveness of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, in portraying his case as legally complex to prosecutors like Alex Acosta. It also examines whether preexisting relationships between prosecutors (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta) and defense counsel improperly influenced the outcome, concluding, based on an OPR investigation, that they did not. The document highlights how Epstein's wealth funded a formidable defense that successfully negotiated concessions from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021349.jpg
This legal document, part of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes whether Alexander Acosta's actions in the Jeffrey Epstein case were motivated by improper influences. It argues that Acosta's decision to pursue a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA), which included jail time and sex offender registration, was a more stringent outcome than the likely state-level sentence, which prosecutor Menchel described as a mere 'slap on the wrist.' The document uses this and other evidence, including recollections from prosecutors Sloman and Menchel, to suggest Acosta was not acting to improperly benefit Epstein but was navigating complex policy and federalism issues.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report (page 146 of the original report, filed in court in 2021 and 2023) detailing the justifications provided by USAO prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta) for entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein rather than pursuing a federal trial. The prosecutors cite significant evidentiary challenges, including unreliable witnesses, victims who 'loved' Epstein or would claim they lied about their age, and the trauma a trial would cause victims. Acosta admits his knowledge of the case facts was not 'granular' and that he relied on the diligence of his team, particularly Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021344.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations, specifically noting that key decisions were made before US Attorney Acosta met with defense counsel Lefkowitz. The report cites prosecutor Villafaña's explanation that the decision to pursue an NPA was driven by evidentiary risks and victim privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021342.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that there was no evidence that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein was influenced by bribes, corruption, or his wealth and status. It notes that while Epstein was not initially well-known to the FBI agents or prosecutors in 2006, press coverage in July 2006 alerted them to his high-profile connections, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. An FBI agent is quoted acknowledging they knew who had been on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00021340.jpg
This legal document, a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) did not violate department policy by declining to prosecute two of Epstein's foreign national assistants, which would have triggered their deportation. The report also states that the evidence does not establish that prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, were influenced by improper motives like Epstein's wealth when they agreed to terms favorable to him.
DOJ-OGR-00021338.jpg
This legal document analyzes the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein in light of the Department of Justice's 'Ashcroft Memo,' which mandates charging the 'most serious readily provable charge.' It contrasts the federal indictment for sex trafficking prepared by prosecutor Villafaña, which carried a 168-210 month sentence, with the eventual plea deal of an 18-month sentence on state charges. The document also reveals internal disagreement, with prosecutors Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceiving risks in the federal case, while Villafaña and the CEOS Chief believed the charges were appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021337.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The OPR concludes that U.S. Attorney Acosta did not violate any clear standards or commit professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation through the NPA, which required Epstein to plead to state charges. The report affirms that Acosta had the authority to make this decision and that the attorneys involved exercised sufficient competence and diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00021334.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It concludes that attorneys Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct because they acted under the direction and approval of U.S. Attorney Acosta, who held broad discretionary authority. The report specifically notes that OPR found no violation of clear statutes or policies in the negotiation and entry into the NPA, including the controversial provision regarding the non-prosecution of unidentified third parties.
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.
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.
Follow up on Pros Memo
Asking if Menchel read the memo, discussing legal 'keys' regarding travel and victim age, and criticizing the State Attorney's Office.
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.
Case discussions
"I know we would have spoken about this case a lot, okay? And I'm sure with Jeff as well, and there were conversations -- a meeting that I had with Marie and Andy as well."
Transmittal of Prosecution Memorandum
Discussing Marie Villafaña's 50-page memo, Epstein's wealth and defense team, the state's mishandling of the grand jury, and strategy for 'clean victims'.
Initial prosecution memorandum
Lourie made Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence when forwarding the memorandum.
Re: Request for meeting with Acosta
Sternly worded rebuke rejecting the request for a 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.
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.
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.
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'.
Initial prosecution memorandum
Forwarding memo and making Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence.
Epstein case handling
During his OPR interview, Menchel discussed his conversation with Sanchez about the plea proposal and his communications with Acosta.
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).
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.
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'.
No Subject
Footnote 70 states that Menchel forwarded an email to Sloman.
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.
No Subject
Menchel told OPR his belief that Epstein would have gone to trial if charges were filed and the USAO's weighing of risks.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity