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-00021333.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the public scrutiny following the 2018 Miami Herald report and OPR's investigation into whether the 'sweetheart deal' was motivated by improper influence. The text confirms that Alexander Acosta reviewed, revised, and approved the NPA, accepting full responsibility for it during his OPR interview.
DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.
DOJ-OGR-00021263.jpg
This document details the intensification of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case during September 2007. It describes the prosecution, led by Acosta and Villafaña, engaging with Epstein's defense counsel, Gerald Lefcourt, over the terms of a plea deal. The focus of the negotiations shifted to the length of imprisonment, with the USAO moving from a two-year minimum to considering an 18-month sentence, while the defense pushed for a sentence involving home confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
This legal document details communications among prosecutors Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. The prosecutors debated strategy concerning defense counsel's efforts to delay litigation and prevent the government from obtaining computer evidence. Ultimately, Acosta decided to meet with the defense, postponing investigative steps and deadlines, believing it was better to keep the matter within the USAO rather than letting it escalate to the main Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021259.jpg
This document details events from August-September 2007 in the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on U.S. Attorney Acosta's decision to meet with Epstein's newly hired, high-profile attorneys, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals internal tensions, with the FBI pushing for federal prosecution, while Acosta strategized with his colleague Sloman to manage the new defense team and prevent them from escalating procedural complaints to Washington D.C. The document also notes Acosta's prior professional relationship with Starr and Lefkowitz from his time at their law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021254.jpg
This legal document describes a meeting on July 31, 2007, between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team to discuss a plea deal. The USAO presented a proposal that included a federal sentencing range of 188 to 235 months, while Epstein's attorneys argued for alternatives like home confinement, citing safety concerns in prison. Prosecutor Villafaña later expressed concerns to the OPR that the defense team could 'manipulate' a state-level sentence and that the USAO would be 'giving up all control.'
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflict and confusion regarding the decision to offer Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal with only a two-year prison term. It highlights Prosecutor Villafaña's shock at the decision, noting she felt it violated sentencing guidelines and that she had not been consulted. The document confirms that U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ultimately made the decision for the two-year term, despite conflicting recollections from supervisors Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie regarding how and when this was communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021247.jpg
This document excerpt details the defense's ongoing efforts in July 2007 to halt a federal investigation into Epstein and prevent the government from obtaining computer equipment, including sending letters to the USAO. Concurrently, CEOS endorsed Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan finding the defense's arguments unpersuasive and offering CEOS's assistance for the prosecution. The document also references a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the removal of computer equipment from Epstein's home.
DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg
This legal document details internal conflict within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of Epstein. It describes prosecutor Villafaña's unsuccessful attempt to meet with her superior, Acosta, a contentious email exchange with her colleague Menchel that was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and her efforts to obtain computer evidence from Epstein's home. The document highlights disagreements on strategy and procedure among the prosecutors handling the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021241.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a report (likely by the OPR) detailing internal conflicts within the prosecution team regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It features a contentious email from prosecutor Villafaña to supervisor Menchel, accusing him of undermining the case, violating the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights, and showing weakness by offering a plea with no federal conviction. The text also includes Menchel's justification to OPR, stating that while he understood Villafaña's anxiety to file charges, her tone was disrespectful to U.S. Attorney Acosta, who sought a more 'dispassionate' approach.
DOJ-OGR-00021240.jpg
This legal document details a disagreement between prosecutors Menchel and Villafaña in July 2007 regarding a proposed state plea deal to resolve a federal investigation into Epstein. Menchel, asserting the decision was ultimately made by Alex Acosta, defended the state plea, while Villafaña argued it was contrary to Department of Justice policy, did not reflect the gravity of the offense, and went against the wishes of victims she had consulted.
DOJ-OGR-00021239.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility) reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. It details Alexander Acosta's justification for the non-prosecution agreement, citing the difficulty of federal trafficking prosecutions at the time (2006-2007) and a preference for state resolution. The document also discusses the legal strategy regarding Rule 11(c) binding pleas and the interaction between federal and state prosecutors, noting the State Attorney's Office desire for 'political cover'.
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta justifies the decision not to pursue a more aggressive federal prosecution by citing the Petite policy, which presumes deference to state prosecutions, and arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice." He also expresses concerns that a federal trial would have set unfavorable legal precedent regarding solicitation versus trafficking and would have been traumatic for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021237.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflicts and decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in mid-2007. It highlights prosecutor Villafaña's concerns about unauthorized communications between her superiors (Menchel/Lourie) and Epstein's defense team, specifically regarding a state-based plea deal. The text outlines U.S. Attorney Acosta's reasoning for pursuing a state resolution rather than federal charges, citing concerns about victim testimony and legal issues, despite believing the victims' accounts. Footnotes clarify the specifics of the Ashcroft Memo and disputes between Acosta and Sloman regarding who was involved in the decision-making.
DOJ-OGR-00021236.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the decision to resolve a federal investigation against Epstein with a state plea deal. It details the rationale behind the decision, citing concerns about the case's viability and state jurisdiction, and specifically recounts communications from June and July 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and Epstein's defense team regarding the proposed state resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and a key meeting related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It describes a June 26, 2007, meeting where Epstein's attorneys, led by Dershowitz, argued for the case to be handled by the state, an argument the USAO team found unpersuasive. Despite internal concerns about the strength of certain aspects of the case, the USAO team left the meeting intending to proceed, but the document concludes by noting that in July 2007, Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state plea deal to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021233.jpg
This page from an OPR report details internal conflicts within the USAO in June 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña urged speed, believing Epstein was still offending, while supervisors Menchel and Lourie preferred to engage with defense counsel, believing Epstein was 'under a microscope' and unlikely to re-offend. The document details the supplementation of the prosecution memo with information on a new Jane Doe and a specific victim who had sexual contact with both Epstein and an assistant, as well as the logistics of setting up a meeting with defense counsel Sanchez.
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions within a prosecutor's office regarding the Epstein case. It outlines the author's opposition to meeting with the defense, led by Lefcourt, arguing it would undermine the prosecution. The document also reveals significant internal conflict, as prosecutor Villafaña expressed fears to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) about the case's direction and was cautioned by her supervisor about insubordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021231.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing internal DOJ deliberations in May 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights a conflict between prosecutors Lourie (who favored meeting with defense) and Villafaña (who strongly opposed it, arguing the case warranted prison time rather than probation negotiations). The text includes details of emails and a draft memo where Villafaña expresses concern that meeting with Epstein's lawyers, including Lefcourt and Dershowitz, would reveal too much prosecution strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
This legal document details internal disagreements within a U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case, likely against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña pushed for a rapid indictment, citing concerns about ongoing crimes, but her superiors, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, believed she was moving too fast and that more review was necessary. The conflict led to multiple communications seeking direction and was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00021229.jpg
This document outlines internal DOJ deliberations from May 2007 regarding the strategy for charging Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Lourie advocated for a pre-indictment plea to maintain control over the case and avoid judicial scrutiny of dismissed counts, noting that sentencing guidelines suggested a 20-year range. Meanwhile, prosecutor Villafaña urged immediate action when Epstein traveled to New Jersey, but was blocked by Menchel and U.S. Attorney Acosta, who wanted more time to review the case.
Re: Request for meeting with Acosta
Sternly worded rebuke rejecting the request for a meeting.
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.
Redraft of plea letter
Forwarded redraft suggesting a discussion the next morning.
Initial prosecution memorandum
Forwarding memo and making Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence.
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'.
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'.
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.
Judicial Environment
Discussed the reputation of West Palm Beach judges and their stance on binding pleas.
Response re: Sanchez conversation
Notified Villafaña he told Sanchez a state plea with jail/sex offender status might satisfy U.S. Attorney, but Sanchez called it a 'non-starter'.
Victim Consultation
Stated that consultation with victims was not required.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rationale for Plea Deal
Menchel explained the fear of losing at trial and causing victim trauma as reasons for the plea deal.
Prosecution Memorandum Transmittal
Discussing Marie's 50-page memo, Epstein's wealth and attorneys, the state's failure, and FBI timeline.
Follow up on Pros Memo
Asking for general opinion on the case; highlighting legal hurdles regarding travel purpose and victim age.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity