Epstein Secrets

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

d met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, Saige Gonzalez.5 At the same time (and until as recent] as March of 2008), the Official Florida Bar websitc continued to identify Mr. as a named partner in Mr. Herman's firm. See Tab 31, Florida Bar Website page. 39. Mr. Herman, who is the named

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

ai lerman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, .5 At the same time (and until as recently as March of 2008), the Official Florida Bar website continued to identify Mr. SIM as a named partner in Mr. Herman's firm. See Tab 31, Florida Bar Website page. 39. Mr. Herman, who is the na

rosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country,

(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 87 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but

ent had the “right” to address Epstein’s concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be “unseemly” to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta

n, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him “an absolute right to meet” with USAO officials because

nted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal stat

as recently as March of 2008), the Official Florida Bar website continued to identify Mr. Sloman as a named 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 mil