Epstein Secrets

hat privilege. 4 You can either assert it or not assert it. 5 That's your right. But nobody's apparently going 6 to tell you that, at least Mr. Mermelstein is not 7 going to tell you that. 8 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Well, I was trying to 9 avoid -- 10 MR. CRITTON: Well, you're asking questions of 11 wha

na to incriminate me for -- for my lob. 6 And he says, no, no, no. But if you want to 7 get a lawyer, that's fine. 8 And that's where I got Mr. Murrell and he—lust 9 came to us, to sian this, to -- that was the end of it. 10 Q. Who got Mr. Murrell for you? 11 A. Who got it? Mr. Epstein. 12

hat privilege. 4 You can either assert it or not assert it. 5 That's your right. But nobody's apparently going 6 to tell you that, at least Mr. Mermelstein is not 7 going to tell you that. 8 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Well, I was trying to 9 avoid -- 10 MR. CRITTON: Well, you're asking questions of 11 wha

7 get a lawyer, that's fine. 8 And that's where I got Mr lancl 'ust 9 came to us, to sign this, to -- that was d of it. 10 Q. Who got Mr. Murrell for you? 11 A. Who got it? Mr. Epstein.  12 Q. When you met with this investigator at 13 Carabbas, 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- did he record

ce, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.’ United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must

e statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) ‘requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts r

med partner in Mr. Herman’s firm. See Tab 31, Florida Bar Website page. Mr. Herman, who is the named pariner in the former firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled “Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein,” despite the fact t