Epstein Secrets

D, ¶ 15. The first declaration actually included multiple photographs purportedly of Jane Doe No. 3 as a minor, including one of Jane Doe No. 3 and Prince Andrew. Id. ¶ 32. With respect to Dershowitz, Jane Doe No. 3's first declaration provided gratuitous (and false) details about six specific instances in wh

d the names of prominent people, including Prince Andrew. That the allegations were improper and irrespon

eneral public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Vietims=Rights-26tetr Id. The Joinder Motion included similar public allegations against Prince Andrew. Edwards and Cassell filed the Joinder Motion on the public docket in the Federal Action, without any accompanying motion to seal. The Joinder Moti

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

d the names of prominent people, including Prince Andrew. That the allegations were improper and irrespon

views and avoided rather than sought publicity. As to the federal lawsuit, Judge Marra has already held that the allegations against Dershowitz (and Prince Andrew) should never have been included in Jane Doe No. 3's pleadings at all. And, even if those allegations had some legitimate purpose, which Judge Marra

general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Id. The Joinder Motion included similar public allegations against Prince Andrew. Edwards and Cassell filed the Joinder Motion on the public docket in the Federal Action, without any accompanying motion to seal. The Joinder Moti

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the

BREAK --- media outlet in exchange for your statements (whether "on the record" or "off the record") regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and/or being a sex slave.” Whether Jane Doe No. 3 has interacted with the media has nothing to do with the Florida Defamation Action.

") regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and/or being a sex slave.” Whether Jane Doe No.

d to meet Prince Andrew - Epstein trained her ‘as a prostitute for him and his friends’ As the UK's special representative for international trade, the Duke of York holds an important position, requiring sound judgement and widespread respect. + More Videos But those qualities have been thrown into question sin