DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
807 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
807 KB
Summary
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.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ashcroft |
Mentioned in the context of the "Ashcroft memo," a policy document.
|
|
| US Attorney | US Attorney |
Designated Menchel to exercise discretion, voiced concerns about the case, and has ultimate purview over policy decis...
|
| First Assistant | First Assistant |
Mentioned as someone who may desire to meet with the recipient of the communication.
|
| Epstein |
Subject of an investigation whose lawyers were mentioned, and against whom charges were not moving forward.
|
|
| Villafaña |
A key figure who communicated with OPR, disagreed with Menchel's representations, and replied to his email. She felt ...
|
|
| Menchel | Chief of the Criminal Division |
A key figure who had authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo, communicated with Villafaña and OPR, and was accuse...
|
| Acosta |
Participated in an initial meeting with Villafaña and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation. His attorney noted ...
|
|
| Sloman |
Participated in an initial meeting with Villafaña and Acosta regarding the Epstein investigation.
|
|
| Matt |
Addressed in an email from Villafaña, likely referring to Menchel.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAM | government policy/manual |
Mentioned as a policy that the author of the memo is accused of violating, likely the United States Attorneys' Manual.
|
| Criminal Division | government agency division |
Menchel is the Chief of this division.
|
| Project Safe Childhood | government program |
Mentioned in relation to concerns about the case hurting the program.
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, to which both Villafaña and Menchel made statements and acknowledgements.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction where major cases are worked.
|
Relationships (4)
The document details a conflict where Menchel, as Criminal Division Chief, asserts his authority over Villafaña. Villafaña told OPR she felt Menchel's email was 'meant to intimidate' and that he was putting her 'in her place,' while Menchel asserted to OPR that Villafaña had a 'history of resisting supervisory authority'.
They had an 'initial meeting' regarding the Epstein investigation.
They had an 'initial meeting' regarding the Epstein investigation.
Menchel states he is 'the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion' and that the US Attorney has ultimate purview over policy.
Key Quotes (6)
"Hi Matt -- My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your"Source
— Villafaña
(Excerpt from an email Villafaña sent to Menchel.)
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
Quote #1
"the possibility that bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims."Source
— Acosta's attorney
(A note from Acosta's attorney describing Acosta's concerns about the case, provided in a comment on OPR's draft report.)
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
Quote #2
"meant to intimidate"Source
— Villafaña
(How Villafaña characterized Menchel's email to OPR.)
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
Quote #3
"put in [her] place"Source
— Villafaña
(How Villafaña told OPR she felt after receiving Menchel's email.)
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
Quote #4
"jump the chain of command"Source
— Menchel (as perceived by Villafaña)
(Villafaña's perception of what Menchel was making clear she should not do.)
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
Quote #5
"history of resisting supervisory authority"Source
— Menchel
(Menchel's assertion to OPR about Villafaña, which he claimed warranted his strong response.)
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,066 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page71 of 258
SA-69
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 69 of 348
SA-69
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 69 of 348
on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show.
Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM – not you.
As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney.67 Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview and any decisions in that area ultimately rest with him.
Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein’s lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the district you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command – something you disregard with great regularity.
Villafaña acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable offense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that meeting.68 Villafaña told OPR that no one had communicated to her the “concerns” Menchel mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns.69
A week later, Villafaña replied to Menchel’s email, reiterating her concerns about the process and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward:
Hi Matt -- My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your
67 Neither Menchel nor Villafaña could recall for OPR to what concerns they were referring. In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s attorney noted that Acosta’s concerns were “the possibility that bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims.”
68 Menchel confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation.
69 Villafaña characterized Menchel’s email as “meant to intimidate” and told OPR that she felt “put in [her] place” by him. She perceived that Menchel was making it clear that she should not “jump the chain of command.” Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafaña had a “history of resisting supervisory authority” that warranted his strong response.
43
DOJ-OGR-00021243
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document