Epstein Secrets

e defenses without questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about her false and outrageous allegations against him. For this reason, Jane Doe No. 3's reliance on Peisach v. Antzma, 539 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is misplaced. In Peisach, the Third District held that an ex-husband in a post-divorce custody d

the subpoena are at the very heart of this issue, which Edwards and Cassell have placed squarely in dispute. There simply is no basis for crediting Jane Doe's assertions of "irrelevance." Jane Doe No. 3's alternative argument — that she should be shielded from any discovery in this action because Dershow

e defenses without questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about her false and outrageous allegations against him. For this reason, Jane Doe No. 3's reliance on Peisach v. Amino, 539 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is misplaced. In Peisach, the Third District held that an ex-husband in a post-divorce custody di

the subpoena are at the very heart of this issue, which Edwards and Cassell have placed squarely in dispute. There simply is no basis for crediting Jane Doe's assertions of "irrelevance." Jane Doe No. 3's alternative argument — that she should be shielded from any discovery in this action because Dershowi

inor child and a victim of sexual trafficking. There is no reason this non-party should be forced to produce her diary from when she was a child. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (court of appeal holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by granting d

lations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, N