Jorge J. Perez is an attorney residing in South Florida. He attended the University of Miami for his undergraduate studies and then the University of Florida for law school.
A proud Gatorcane, the Florida-residing attorney Jorge J. Perez roots for whichever team is winning. In his spare time, Jorge enjoys a number of hobbies. Reading is a favorite pastime, and Jorge J. Perez is especially fond of all things history, particularly that which precedes the 20th century. Jorge also likes walking at a comfortable pace and partaking in fine dining, especially when the food is paid for by someone else.
Some of Jorge’s favorite restaurants offer Cuban cuisine. Havana Harry’s, La Carreta, and Sergio’s in South Florida rank highly for Jorge. Not only is Cuban food delicious, inexpensive, and evocative of Jorge’s heritage, it is also low-fat!
As mentioned previously, Florida attorney Jorge J. Perez is a self-professed history buff. Much of his knowledge of history is self-taught, as well. Jorge J. Perez is notably interested in the ancient Roman world, both the Republic and the subsequent Empire. Jorge agrees, as some historians have noted, that in many ways Rome was the first modern nation-state, in its multi-tiered sophistication and great complexity.
Coinciding with his love of history is attorney Jorge J. Perez’s appreciation for travel. Excluding Australia, Jorge has visited every major continent the planet has to offer. Spain ranks at the top of his list when it comes to travel destinations, and Jorge has visited the country seven times already. Each trip took him to a different region, resulting in unique experiences when it came to food, music, culture, architecture, and more. Since attorney Jorge J. Perez’s grandparents were born in Spain and migrated to Cuba in the 1920s, Jorge’s connection to Spain is deep-rooted and personal.
Jorge J. Perez loves to read biographies and anything that is historically interesting.
July 7: Tuesday Round-Up
In today’s issue of Edith Robert’s Tuesday Round-Up, she highlights a unanimous decision pertaining to the penalization of presidential electors who vote for candidates they did not pledge to support; the ruling here was that laws that punish electors do not go against the Constitution.
