Showing posts with label Bob Josefsberg. Show all posts

"I'd Rather Not Answer That" = YES.



The inestimable Julie Kay breaks news as usual regarding the shameful effort by prosecutors in Alex Acosta's office to trap uber-lawyer David O. Markus, which resulted in an explosive $600k sanctions order by Judge Gold:
The three prosecutors themselves are appealing. Josefsberg and Pearson filed a notice of appeal for Hoffman, and Martinez and colleagues Maureen Lefebvre and Susan Tarbe filed a motion on behalf of Cronin.

Martinez said he will argue that Cronin and the others were wrongly denied the opportunity to speak at the hearing when they were sanctioned.

“They were excluded and didn’t have the opportunity to put on their case,” he said. “Just as [defense attorney David O.] Markus wants due process rights, we feel Mr. Cronin is entitled to his due process rights. It is appropriate for him to be heard by the judge.”

Gilbert has not yet filed a notice of appeal. Becerra, who moved to Greenberg from the U.S. attorney’s office, has taken the case pro bono, according to her secretary. Becerra is out of the office on parental leave.

When asked whether Martinez, a former Miami U.S. attorney, was representing him pro bono, Cronin said, “I’d rather not answer that.”
Oh man, that's rich -- was Sean so flustered by Julie's question that all he could do was say "I'd rather not answer" -- thereby answering by not answering? Was he not prepared to handle that inquiry? What's the big deal about going pro bono in the first place? (Note -- corrected, thx).

BTW, I love that these prosecutors are now pleading for due process -- which of course they deserve -- when it was apparent from the sanctions order that due process was not exactly at the top of their trial to-do list.

Also, didn't Cronin testify (lamely) for several hours before Judge Gold anyways? As the Judge repeatedly told him, "tell the truth, Mr. Cronin."

Plus, even my buddy Paul Calli gets quoted!

And, in a surprise move, so does Kendall Coffey.

Walter and Donald, sing this one out please.....

Proposed Clause Referencing Bob Josefsberg Removed From Non-Prosecution Agreement.


I'll leave it to the defense lawyers to comment on the overall approach taken here but this proposed language on settling several related civil suits sure seems unusual:

On its first draft in September 2007, it required that Epstein pay an attorney - tapped by the U.S. Attorney's Office and approved by Epstein - to represent some of the victims in civil suits they had filed against Epstein. That attorney is prominent Miami lawyer Bob Josefsberg.

Former prosecutor Johnson said he has never seen a provision like that before.

But an addendum to the agreement signed the following month struck Epstein's duty to pay Josefsberg if he and the victims did not accept a settlement and instead pursued litigation.

The agreement, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria Villafana, does not expressly state whether any victims were contacted or consulted before the deal was made.

Attorney Brad Edwards of Fort Lauderdale, who represents three of the young women, believes that none of the between 30 and 40 woman identified as victims in the federal investigation were told of the deal. Edwards said his clients were still receiving letters in the mail months afterwards saying the U.S. Attorney's Office assuring them Epstein would be prosecuted.

"Never consulting the victims is probably the most outrageous aspect of it..." Edwards said. "It taught them that someone with money can buy his way out of anything. It's outrageous and embarrassing for United States Attorney's Office and the State Attorneys Office."

Epstein now faces many civil lawsuits filed by the women, who are represented by a variety attorneys. In many, the facts alleged are the same: that Epstein had a predilection for teenage girls, identified poor, vulnerable ones and lured them to his home via other young women. The teens describe ascending a staircase lined with nude photographs of young girls and to the spa room where Epstein would appear in a small towel.

Former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, who represents one of the victims, and The Palm Beach Post sought the unsealing of the agreement. Berger refers to it as a "sweetheart deal."

Why would there be a proposed provision requiring payment only to one attorney who represents only some of the victims? Has anyone ever heard of this before?

BTW, Epstein you are one sick dude.

VIP Followers

Info recommended by: Webpages of law

Popular entries