Epstein Secrets

25 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates Reportiny and lranscrirrix, inc Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't don't tell me w

vt, kouo• 33133 5 of 316 EFTA00234229 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

e 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates ReparlillS and 1.71111Gliptill11. Inc. Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 6 7 8 with him. Where did you meet him? 9 10 friend's house. 11 12 13

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

5 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 sor & Associates [tenoning and Inniscrivinn. Inc. Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't -- don't tell me

iovt. NOM* 33133 Go1316 EFTA00232138 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANI Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

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

lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. Because the Supreme Court had