Epstein Secrets

z.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 partner in the former firm of Herman, , & Mermelstein, filed five

re. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal sta tes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base

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 named partner in the formcr firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed

e. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United Stares v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ion of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and sex trafficking of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1591. United States v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). Boehm's actions, unlike Mr. Epstein's, also had a strong interstate nexus: Boehm purchased and distributed

ntativeJosefsberes fees B-89 9/2/2008 Mailed Amended Victim Notification letters to #1 )12, #3 (via Richard H. Willits), #4, #13, #8 friaJeffrey Herman), #9, #10, #11, #14, #16, #I7 (via Theodore Leopold), #20, #21, #23, #24, #25 (viaJelfrey Herman), #26 biaJellity Herman), #30, #31, #32, #33, #37

e are several emails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of a GAL and the possibility of a restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the AUSA in 21 Mandatory restitution under § 3663A requires a conviction for

itation cases was a hot-button issue at the time. The District of Alaska USAO had a multi-victim child exploitation case with a wealthy defendant (Boehm) where they had set up a trust fund with a bank and a trustee. With Drew Oosterbaan's help, I explored setting up a similar situation in the Epstein

o other "Jane Does" who filed similar lawsuits in the past six weeks. All three suits were filed by Miami lawyer Jeffrey Herman. More crime coverage Herman subsequently withdrew the first Jane Doe's lawsuit because of squabbling by her parents over the litigation. The girl may refile the suit after she t

impartial, independent representative be. appointed to administer that fund. Notably, such a restitution fund was created in a federal case, U.S. v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). The federal prosecutors here rejected this idea, and they insisted that an attorney representative, paid for

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal statutes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein’s case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base t

t the same time (and until 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 l