Epstein Secrets

r § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, consider themselves to be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our un

mounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern, (see United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cr. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)"

§ 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did riot, now or in the past, consider themselves to be victims. • During the last few months. Mr. Herman, First Assistant...MI former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged 4-victims." It is our under

t amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a mute concern, (see United Stares' Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (1Ith Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)

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

or intimidation. These arc the elements required by the statute, and they are not met here. Although CEOS could, perhaps, point to United Slat% v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11°' Cir. 2007) as a case that, standing alone, involved wholly intrastate conduct, the facts of that case are far different in key

r § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, consider themselves to be victims. • During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Slornan's former Jaw partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It 'is our

at amounted to. at moss, the ,elicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. (rye Unita Shawl. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, c.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law -does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)

rmer law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged "victims." It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the EFTA00192764 &bell 08/02/08 05. 10.11$ MON 15: 02 MON 13:25 FAX FAX 305 I 530 213 6440 080 8500 EXECUTIVE OFFICE Al RK

mounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern. free United Stater v. Evans, 476 F.36 3176, 1 (I lot Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state rogulationy

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

or intimidation. These are the elements required by the statute, and they are not met here. Although CEOS could, perhaps, point to United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11" Cir. 2007) as a case that, standing alone, involved wholly intrastate conduct, the facts of that case are far different in key re

s co-conspirators. None of this type of activity comes close to the facts regarding Mr. Epstein. Finally, but significantly, the prostitution ring in Evans was not, in fact, entirely intrastate as the companion case of one of the Evans co-defendants makes clear. See, United States v. Madison, 477 F.3d 13

amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern, (see United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law “does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)”

t no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described i

amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern, (see United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law “does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)”

t no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described i

amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented, Since prostitution is fundamentally a state concern, (see United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law “does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation}’

t no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a minor, or of any other individual, occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants (as described i