{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "69",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 69 of 349\n\nMenchel's reply email began with a rebuke:\n\nBoth the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question.\n\nAs you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.\n\nAlong that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment. It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys' concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case.66\n\nIn the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with Sanchez and respond to Villafaña's complaints:\n\nLilly Sanchez called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know that my discussion with Lilly Sanchez was made with the US Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly Sanchez expressed interest in pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents. In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one\n\n66 Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie.\n\n42\nDOJ-OGR-00004366",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 69 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Menchel's reply email began with a rebuke:\n\nBoth the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question.\n\nAs you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.\n\nAlong that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment. It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys' concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case.66",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with Sanchez and respond to Villafaña's complaints:",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lilly Sanchez called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know that my discussion with Lilly Sanchez was made with the US Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly Sanchez expressed interest in pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents. In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "66 Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "42",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004366",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Menchel",
      "Sanchez",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Lilly Sanchez",
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "US Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "June 26th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004366"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}