Epstein Secrets

0 Server ',signature Printed name and tide Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: EFTA00128738 .30-9311200 Herman 8iMermelsay • gar32:42 p.m. 17-03-2010 8 /9 MIlir Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 489-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2010 Page 3 of 4 AO 88B (R

ess there is compliance with the applicable provisions. The procedure is mandatory and governs state and federal proceedings and has been upheld in the United States Supreme Court, See U.S. ex rel, Iouhv v. gaze% 340 U.S. 462 (1951). In addition, the Privacy Act (Title S, U.S.C., Section 552a(b), prohibits the release of age

idly to discuss his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a consensual arrangement." United States. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 1977). The Rule jr is derived from "the inescapable truth that for plea bargaining to work effectiv an d fairly, a de

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA0020536

idly to discuss his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a consensual arrangement." United States. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 1977). The Rule jr is derived from "the inescapable truth that for plea bargaining to work effectiv an d fairly, a de

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA0020534

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

78), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein's intent in that regard, is an clement of the crimes that must be prove

ly to discuss his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a consensual arrangement." United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 1977). The Rule is derived from "the inescapable truth that for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a defen

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA001778

her civil suits that were filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint, Jane Doe #41. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA). 48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar law

sponsibilities, PAUL G. CASSELL clerked first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-1985) and then from 1985 to 1986 clerked for the United States Supreme Court before serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney EFTA00188845 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L,,,,ument 291-10 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 7 Edwa

poning aid Tram ripurm, Inc 1 2 Page 48 Florida Bar? 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 what you discussed 8 with him. Where did you meet him? 9 A. I was shopping in my -- he showed up a

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g, Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

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

1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein’s intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be proven