Epstein Secrets

attorneyJeffrey Herman represents six young women who’ve sued Epstein, claiming he sexually abused them at his Palm Beach home when they were minors. Herman said he received a letter about the work-release program from the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the past few days. But Herman says Epstein had,been,

007. However, at the request of Epstein's lawyers, the indictment was never presented to a federal grand jury. 25. Instead, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, negotiated a plea deal with Epstein's team of lawyers to grant immunity to Epstein (along with four named co-conspirators and an

rney Jeffrey Herman represents six young women who've sued Epstein, claiming he sexually abused them at his Palm Beach home when they were minors. Herman said he received a letter about the work-release program from the U.S. Attorney's Office within the past few days. But Herman says Epstein had been

07. However, at the request of Epstein’s lawyers, the indictment was never presented to a federal grand jury. 22. Instead, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, negotiated a plea deal with Epstein’s team of lawyers to grant immunity to Epstein (along with four named co-conspirators and an

the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed

lstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id. 49.

us that you already have our May 19 and May 27 communications to the Deputy Attorney General, as well as our prior written submissions to CEOS and to the Southern District of Florida. In light of the significant volume of our prior submissions and to facilitate your review, we have drafted four supplemental submissions that will

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

e 12 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013330 --- PAGE BREAK --- discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attomney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15" Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County ch

wsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at ¶ 94.) Othe

established in the NPA after learning that another attorney, established through the NPA, would be making unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters were "misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages," without inf

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at ¶ 94.) Othe

established in the NPA after learning that another attorney, established through the NPA, would be making unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters were "misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages," without inf