Menchel
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 | OPR Interviews conducting a retrospective review of the case handling. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Dispute | A professional dispute occurred between Villafaña and Menchel over the handling of plea negotiati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the dispute, taking statements from ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews with prosecutors involved in the Epstein case. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Internal USAO discussions regarding the viability of federal prosecution vs. a negotiated plea deal. | USAO | View |
| 2025-06-26 | Phone call | An informal discussion between Lilly Sanchez and Menchel about what it might take to resolve the ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) negotiation | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Plea negotiations began in earnest, almost three weeks before NPA was signed. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Villafaña raised the issue of consulting with victims before the NPA was signed. Acosta, Sloman, ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Drafting and negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement/plea letter for Jeffrey Epstein. | USAO | View |
| 2007-08-03 | Personnel change | Menchel left the USAO. | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-03 | Plea counteroffer | The USAO rejected the defense's proposal and countered with a required two-year term of imprisonm... | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-03 | Communication | Menchel's letter specifying an August 17 plea deadline was sent. | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-03 | Personnel change | Menchel left the USAO before the parties drafted the NPA. | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-03 | Discussion | A discussion involving Menchel about victim notification occurred before August 3, 2007, when it ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-03 | Departure | Menchel's last day in the office. | USAO | View |
| 2007-08-03 | N/A | Approximate date by which Menchel left the USAO, referenced to establish timeline of a conversation. | View | |
| 2007-08-03 | N/A | Cutoff date for Menchel's involvement with actions/decisions. | USAO | View |
| 2007-08-03 | N/A | Menchel raised concern about victims exaggerating stories for damages from Epstein during a discu... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Meeting | Menchel scheduled a meeting with defense counsel to facilitate the USAO’s presentation of a 'term... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Meeting | Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaña, and FBI agents meet with Epstein’s counsel to propose two-yea... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Meeting | The USAO presented its plea proposal to Epstein's defense team. The defense countered, arguing ag... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | N/A | USAO presents NPA term sheet | Unknown | View |
| 2007-07-31 | N/A | Meeting: USAO presents NPA term sheet | Unknown | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Meeting | A meeting occurred between Epstein's defense team and the prosecution, which was followed up by a... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021228.jpg
This document, likely an OPR report, details internal DOJ discussions from May 2007 regarding the prosecution strategy for Jeffrey Epstein. It reveals Prosecutor Lourie's preference for a pre-indictment plea deal to avoid the risk of a judge rejecting the deal after seeing the full scope of Epstein's crimes in an indictment. The document includes an email from Lourie to Marie Villafaña suggesting a strategic indictment using only 'unknown' victims to scare the defense, while holding back victims with potential impeachment issues (referenced as 'myspace pages') for a later superseding indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021227.jpg
This document details internal discussions within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami during May-June 2007 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes how prosecutor Villafaña submitted a memorandum seeking to file charges by May 15, but her managers, including Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, paused the process to conduct a more thorough review, including seeking analysis from the DOJ's CEOS section. The document highlights the tension between the desire to move quickly on the indictment, as pushed by the FBI, and the managers' more cautious approach, which ultimately delayed the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021226.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications between federal prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel) regarding the initial prosecution memorandum for the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights the prosecutors' concerns about Epstein's high-profile defense team, the belief that state prosecutors intentionally sabotaged the case in the grand jury, and strategic discussions about selecting 'clean' victims to ensure a successful indictment. The document also notes Acosta's lack of recollection regarding reading the specific prosecution memo, citing his reliance on senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00021225.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations regarding the federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. It describes AUSA Villafaña's 82-page prosecution memorandum dated May 1, 2007, which recommended a 60-count indictment, and the subsequent strategic disagreement by supervisor Lourie, who preferred a narrower strategy focusing on victims with fewer credibility issues. The text also highlights the unusual involvement of the Miami 'front office' in approval decisions typically handled by the West Palm Beach office.
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
This legal document details the early stages of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in July and August 2006. It highlights the internal communication dynamics, showing investigator Villafaña bypassing her immediate supervisor to report directly to a senior management team in Miami, including Sloman and Acosta. The document also reveals the FBI's distrust of the local State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein, and describes the initial evidence-gathering efforts, which included flight manifests and victim interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00021212.jpg
This document provides a timeline of key events in the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008. It details the opening of the investigation, meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's counsel, the decision to offer a state-based resolution, and the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline concludes with Epstein's guilty plea in state court, a subsequent legal challenge by a victim (Jane Doe), and the start of Epstein's work release program.
DOJ-OGR-00021196.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a chapter of a legal or investigative report concerning the U.S. Government's handling of the Epstein investigation. It outlines the timeline and topics related to the government's interactions and communications with victims between 2005 and 2008, focusing on the roles of the USAO and FBI. Key events include the interpretation of victim rights laws (CVRA), the process of victim notification, and internal discussions among officials like Villafaña, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about consulting victims before and after a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00003257.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in early August 2007. On August 2, Epstein's lawyer, Sanchez, proposed a sentence of home confinement and restitution, arguing a state prison sentence was unacceptable. The following day, the USAO, through a letter drafted by Villafaña, rejected this offer and countered that a two-year term of imprisonment was the minimum acceptable sentence to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003251.jpg
This document details conflicting accounts surrounding a July 26, 2007 meeting concerning a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. While Menchel and Acosta provided vague recollections to the OPR, Villafaña claimed she was left “shocked and stunned” by the abrupt decision to offer a two-year sentence, which she described as “random” and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines. The document establishes that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer the two-year term of imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg
This document details the internal decision-making process of the USAO in July 2007 regarding the Epstein case, specifically Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a two-year prison term. It highlights a pivotal meeting on July 26, 2007, where supervisor Matthew Menchel ordered prosecutors and FBI agents to halt federal investigative steps because Acosta had decided to offer a 'two-year state deal' instead of federal charges. The text notes that prosecutors were actively preparing a revised indictment and seeking to investigate Epstein's assistants just days before this directive was issued.
DOJ-OGR-00003248.jpg
This document details prosecutor Villafaña's efforts during the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to obtain computer equipment removed from his Palm Beach residence. Believing the equipment contained crucial evidence like surveillance video, Villafaña made formal requests to Epstein's defense counsel, consulted with other Department of Justice sections, and communicated with defense representatives who delayed and ultimately failed to comply with the request.
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
This document is a page from a legal report detailing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's testimony to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding his decision not to federally prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta justified his actions by citing the Petite policy, which respects state sovereignty, arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice" like no jail time, which did not occur with Epstein's two-year state sentence. He also expressed concerns that a federal trial would be traumatic for victims and could set a bad legal precedent by conflating state-level solicitation with federal trafficking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg
This legal document from April 2021 details events from May 2007 concerning the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, revealing significant internal disagreement within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutor Villafaña strongly objected to holding further meetings with Epstein's defense team, led by counsel Lefcourt, fearing it would compromise their strategy, and documented her dissent in a draft email to her supervisors, Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman. The document highlights the strategic conflicts among prosecutors as they considered how to proceed with the high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
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).
DOJ-OGR-00003228.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications regarding the initial federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights emails from prosecutor Lourie to Menchel discussing a 50-page prosecution memo, the strategy to use only 'clean victims' (those without impeachment baggage), and the assertion that the State Attorney's Office intentionally sabotaged their own grand jury case. The document also covers OPR interviews where Menchel recalls this as his introduction to the case, and then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta admits he likely did not read the prosecution memo, relying instead on his senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg
This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.
DOJ-OGR-00003225.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2006 and early 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt, and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. The defense sought a meeting to "make a pitch," leading to an internal disagreement between prosecutors Villafaña, who opposed the meeting without first receiving documents, and Lourie, who granted the meeting believing it was strategically valuable to hear the defense's theories. Ultimately, a meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, despite Villafaña's objections and her belief that the defense would not provide the requested evidence and would only use the meeting to discredit victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003223.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the initial federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in July-August 2006. It highlights the distrust federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman) held toward the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein. It also details the unusual reporting structure where 'Miami' senior management took direct authority, bypassing local supervisors, and notes the FBI's collection of flight manifests and victim testimony despite intimidation tactics by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00023077.jpg
This document details prosecutor Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for pursuing a state-level, pre-indictment resolution in the Epstein case. Acosta cited the novelty of trafficking prosecutions at the time, issues with witnesses and evidence, and the belief that a state resolution offered more flexibility than a federal one. The document also includes statements from other legal professionals, Menchel and Villafaña, who described the general aversion of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida to binding plea agreements like Rule 11(c) pleas.
DOJ-OGR-00023194.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a timeline of meetings between the USAO (including Alexander Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz). It covers the period from February 2007 to January 2008, categorizing meetings as 'Pre-NPA' and 'Post-NPA'. The table logs specific participants and topics, including the presentation of the NPA term sheet, discussions of investigation improprieties, and the negotiation of state plea provisions.
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