Epstein Secrets

Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot.3 Regarding whether a show cause order shoul

Motion—and related filings—should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorne

reasons recently briefed to the Court concerning Professor Dershowitz's identical argument, the position is without me

on is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike

een admitted in a court of law; opening them up to the press presents an opportunity for abuse and misuse of the court's files. See United States v. Gatto, 17-CR-686 (LAK), 2019 WL 4194569, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2019) ("documents merely shown to witnesses or otherwise discussed in Court but not off

RNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger &Weiss, P.A. 25

imminent peril. See Gatto v. Pubblx Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that where there was no evidence to show that Gatto was placed in fear of imminent peril, there was no assault). In fact, the plaintiff does not even allege that Mr. Epstein touched her. Thus, there

RNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 2

ions fall far short of an "offer of corporal injury by force." There are no allegations that Jane Doe was placed in any fear of imminent peril. See Gatto 's. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that where there was no evidence to show that Gatto was placed in fea

sputed facts submitted by Mr. Edwards in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Edwards had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information (Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statem

he requisite elements is largely a question for a jury. See Patrick John McGinley, 21 Fla. Prac., Elements of an Action § 50:1 (2013-2014 ed.)(citing Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). The usual case of abuse of process involves some form of extortion. Scozari v. Baro

Exhibit “N” at 913. | 72. Edwards provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Dershowitz is believed to have been friends with Epstem for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, “I’m on my 20th book... The only pers