Epstein Secrets

w Albert Christian Edward (a/Icla Prince Andrew, Duke of York); (c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz." Wh

. . . (b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/Icla Prince Andrew, Duke of York); (c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz." Wh

ined what Ghislaine Maxwell is doing there and who took that picture — while Jane Doe No. 3 has provided a sworn affidavit that the photographer was Prince Andrew's close friend (as well as sex trafficker and now-registered sex offender): Jeffrey Epstein. Jane Doe No. 29 As noted earlier, two other key conspira

lly seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government

rshowitz for sexual purposes. Numerous courts have declined to allow a mere "reputational" interest to justify mandatory intervention. For example, Calloway" Westinghouse Eke. Cop., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987), denied a motion to intervene where the alleged interest was a doctor's "own reputation and

KATONA,JOHN SCHRAM,RONALD FRAZIER,ANDREW S GRAY,JOHN R 10 MEADOWLAND PKWY LP

MARTIN L ARASKOG,RAND THOMKA-GAZDIK,ANDREW JENNEY,MEREDITH T TAYLOR,MARGARETTA

OU PROPERTIES II LLC WALKER,NANCY G CALLAWAY,BRENDA T RAQUET,WALTER F OCEAN GRAN

o the Court, Jane Doe #3’s Response takes remarkable liberties in describing what is claimed to be the law to Court. For example, the Response quotes Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga. 1987) for the proposition that “a witness’ interest in his reputation alone . . . does not c

ut keep those alleged figures anonymous? The bad faith against Prof. Dershowitz is apparent’. ' Similarly, Jane Doe #3’s allegations that she named Prince Andrew because of outstanding 5 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010739 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 6 of

w involved in “lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement,” and because her allegations against Prince Andrews occurred in London, therefore “affect[ing] foreign commerce” are patently absurd. (DE 291 at 20 and 18, fn. 10.) Because Jane Doe #3’s other allegati