Epstein Secrets

08-80736-C1V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs. vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz (herein, "Prof. Dershowitz"), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jan

g duplicative discovery to that which is already being sought in Broward County Circuit Court. One forum is enough to litigate reputations] issues. B. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION WHEN HE HAS DECLINED TO DEFEND HIS REPUTATION IN OTHER ACTIONS. Dershowitz also claims that he h

and they have spread around the world. What makes them doubly troubling is their irrelevancy: although categorically false, the allegations against Prof Dershowitz have absolutely nothing to do with whether the United States government violated its duty to confer with the Plaintiffs prior to entering into the n

in New York in Epstein's home. It was in Epstein's room (not the massage room). I was approximately 16 years old at the time. I called Dershowitz "Alan." I knew he was a famous professor. 27. The second time that I had sex with Dershowitz was at Epstein's house in Palm Beach. During this encounter

n-a I legal ions—tota Ily-fa Ise-38194285 I 573 (Dershow kz: "Right now. they have accused me of these .

e latest date on which, according to Dershowitz, the Government made the decision not to pursue federal criminal charges against Epstein. DE 285 at I. Dershowitz appears to be unaware that the Government told the victims well after that date that the Government was still "investigating" the case. DE 48 at 16.

2015 Page 27 of 40 attorneys proffered in her earlier motion — i.e., that Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doc No. 3 to numerous persons, including Dcrshowitz. If the Court believes it would be useful. Jane Doe No. 3 requests an evidentiary hearing to prove she is telling the truth 19 and directs the Court

. at 122 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. Oct. 8, 2009). In short, all the key conspirators in Epstein's sexual trafficking ring who could be asked about Derhowitz's involvement took the Fifth." This "[sJilence is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Bilokumsky 'Tod, 263 U.S. 1

d be asked about Derhowitz's involvement took the Fifth." This "[sJilence is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Bilokumsky 'Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). quoted in Baxter 1 Palmigiano, 425 U.S 308, 319 (1976). And that silence takes on an even more si

l basis for believing Mr. Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Und

of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(iii): With regard to former President Bill Clinton,

uted Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had

he most persuasive character."' Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. k)Idberger aewpa.com Robert D.

zed long ago, "[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those situations. In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action

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

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

vided notice of a possible deposition. 14. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Alan Dershowitz’s deposition in the civil suiis against him. Dershowitz was properly noticed because: (a) Dershowitz has been friends with Epstein for many years; (b)

d relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts filed in support of Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment. • With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undis

rt of Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment. • With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to former President Bill Clinton, Edwards had sound legal

f the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most