Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00208296DOJ Data Set 9Other

Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004

Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:26:15 +0000 Importance: Normal Hi Jacquie — Does that apply to Rolando's email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? And am I correct that Andy Lourie and Matt Menchel's emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:25 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request/ Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00208296
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity

Summary

Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:26:15 +0000 Importance: Normal Hi Jacquie — Does that apply to Rolando's email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? And am I correct that Andy Lourie and Matt Menchel's emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:25 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request/ Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:26:15 +0000 Importance: Normal Hi Jacquie — Does that apply to Rolando's email, too? Or only attorneys who are no longer employed here? And am I correct that Andy Lourie and Matt Menchel's emails are no longer accessible, even at EOUSA? Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:25 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Understood however, search for emails is done at the EOUSA level. The District has no access to mailboxes, mailboxes not longer reside in local servers. Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:20 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request/ Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 I am not aware that OPR has started any process regarding a search of e-mails of the previous U.S. Attorneys in Miami. OPR received an allegation of misconduct, and they asked for e-mails pertaining to the Epstein case, presumably so they could determine whether to open a full investigation. Since OPR was seeking preliminary information, they asked me to obtain certain e-mails regarding certain topics. Sent: Wednesday. February 23 2011 1:16 PM Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request/ Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 EFTA00208296 as had all contact with OPR, so I do not know. Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:06 PM Subject: Jeffrey Epstein -- OPR Request / Lit. Hold # 2010-FLS-0004 Please note that per USA Preservation Officer, EOUSA will be the one doing the search for the emails. This is done by the EOUSA's Information Systems Security Staff. OPR should contact them directly with the desired search strings. Do you know if your OPR POC has started the process ? Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:21 PM T C Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 Definitely it goes through Ted's staff. Anytime.OPR is involved in the reviewing something, it goes to Ted's staff first. I sent him an email and am waiting on a response—I will verify this, but I'm 98% certain. It shouldn't have had to be at your request—OPR should have known to contact Ted. I'll let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for all of.your help! Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:18 PM Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 I don't believe group has been involved on this. At least not per our request. Yes, Sloman and Acosta were USAs during the 2005-present period. Another question, if OPR needs to review current AUSAs mailboxes is the search also done by we put the emails on a PST for them to review. oup or do EFTA00208297 Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20114:10 PM Subject: RE: 2010-FLS-0004 If Lourie and Menchel departed prior to USAMail implementation in FLS, we won't have theirs. I can talk to our tech folks to see if it's even worth doing additional searching, but I believe the answer is that it's simply not available because of the way our systems were set up prior to USAMail. Acosta and Sloman were USAs during the 2005-present applicable period, right? I think that for the OPR question I need to double check wall I believe what happens is that TechOne provides access to their account data to someone on staff and they run the relevant searches and provide the search results. Do you know whether anyone from staff is aware of the OPR interest in this hold? Thanks, Sent: Tuesday. January 18 2011 2:33 PM Subject: Ref: 2010-FLS-0004 Need help again O. Lit Hold 2010-FLS-0004 I don't have Attachment 1 or 5 for Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menchel or Andrew Lourie all no longer with us. Acosta and Sloman served as USA and their email should be at TechOne. How do we go about finding out if archived email for Menchel and Lourie exist in our system. How about getting Acosta and Sloman emails for review, I understand OPR is asking. We do have copies of their N drives. Lourie, Menchel departure was previous to USAMail. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. EFTA00208298

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 2

DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01325031

20p
House OversightUnknown

Internal DOJ correspondence reveals contested plea negotiations and alleged obstruction tactics in the Epstein case

Internal DOJ correspondence reveals contested plea negotiations and alleged obstruction tactics in the Epstein case The passage details internal disputes over indictment strategy, alleged obstruction of justice, and negotiations involving a high‑profile defendant (Mr. Epstein). It names several prosecutors and defense counsel, suggesting possible misconduct or pressure on the Office of the State Attorney. While the identities are not top‑level officials, the connection to a potentially infamous figure and claims of fabricated charges provide a concrete avenue for further investigation (e.g., request FOIA records, interview involved attorneys). The information is moderately novel and could spark controversy if substantiated. Key insights: Accusations that a prosecutor (J. P. Lefkowicz) hid or manipulated evidence in an indictment package.; Claims that the Office delayed indictment for five months to allow defense presentations.; Alleged pressure to avoid prosecuting certain charges (obstruction of justice, obscene calls, child privacy violations).

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
Dept. of JusticeOtherUnknown

Summary or Timeline Document: DOJ-OGR-00023045

This document summarizes the USAO's roles and responsibilities during the Epstein investigation from 2006 to 2009 and lists key events, including the opening of the federal investigation, signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and Epstein's guilty plea and release.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Attorney‑Generated Oversight Memo Accuses DOJ Prosecutors of Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, and Political Motives in Jeffrey Epstein Federal Case

Attorney‑Generated Oversight Memo Accuses DOJ Prosecutors of Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, and Political Motives in Jeffrey Epstein Federal Case The document provides a detailed, contemporaneous account of alleged DOJ misconduct—including unauthorized subpoenas, misrepresentations to the court, undisclosed financial incentives to witnesses, ex‑parte communications, and leaks to the press—while naming senior DOJ officials (Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Marie Villafana and Jeffrey Sloman) and linking the case to former President Bill Clinton’s notoriety. These allegations, if substantiated, could expose abuse of prosecutorial discretion, potential violations of DOJ ethics rules, and political influence, making it a strong investigative lead. However, much of the material is defensive in nature and repeats known procedural complaints, limiting its novelty and concrete evidentiary hooks. Key insights: Alleged illegal re‑issuance of a grand‑jury subpoena after a Non‑Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed (July 1 2008 subpoena).; Claims that AUSA Villafana disclosed confidential case details to the New York Times and leaked information to reporter Landon Thomas.; Accusations that Villafana attempted to appoint a personal friend of her live‑in boyfriend as attorney‑representative for victims, suggesting a conflict of interest.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Internal DOJ correspondence reveals contested plea negotiations and alleged obstruction tactics in the Epstein case

The passage details internal disputes over indictment strategy, alleged obstruction of justice, and negotiations involving a high‑profile defendant (Mr. Epstein). It names several prosecutors and defe Accusations that a prosecutor (J. P. Lefkowicz) hid or manipulated evidence in an indictment package Claims that the Office delayed indictment for five months to allow defense presentations. Alleged

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.