Epstein Secrets

from exhibit 30, which is correspondence sent by Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt, attorneys for Je

t. / ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL It is hereby ordered that the Unredacted version of Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. Dershowitz and Exhibit 30 of said Response be sealed until further order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Palm Beach County, Florida, this day

ung girls, there is no good reason that the Court should now allow a special, discretionary opportunity to intervene to respond to the allegations. C. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT. The Court should also deny Dershowitz's motio

ut lacking such an allegation, his existing motion does not allege any concrete impainnent of his interests supporting mandatory intervention. II. DERSHOWITZ IIAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(B). 7 During the hearing on Reinhart's intervention motion, the Governm

. 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.29 This Isjilence is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Biloktanskyl. Tod. 263 U.S.

is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United St

e maroon volume engraved with the following words: “Chief Judge David L. Bazelon 54 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017141 4.2.12 WC: 191694 Opinions 1962-1963 Alan M. Dershowitz, Law Clerk” It is a treasured possession. A year in the life of! And what a year it was. My first case involved a man named “Daniel Jackson Oliver

, he can instantly tell whether they know me from TV or from personal interactions—whether they know what he calls “The Dersh Character” or “the real Alan.” This sharp dichotomy between my public and private personas was brought home to me quite dramatically, when a major motion picture, Reversal of Fo

ty, a burial society, the Young Israel synagogue and the Torah V’Daas Yeshiva. Their day jobs were typical for their generation of Jewish immigrants. Louis Dershowitz, my paternal grandfather, sold corrugated boxes. Naphtali Ringel, my maternal grandfather, was a jeweler. My grandmothers, Ida and Blima, took care o

could aspire to work in an advertising firm or a “funeral parlor.” My mother asked whether I could be a lawyer, to which the counselor replied, “Mrs. Dershowitz, I’m afraid you have to go to college to be a lawyer, and your boy just isn’t college material.” Many years later, following a talk I gave at a temp

fe) HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017160 4.2.12 WC: 191694 Professor Dershowitz sees his job not as teaching “the specifics of la

f, the frequency and promiscuousness of its invocation — little more than a caricature of logical argumentation. From the beginning of my career as a First Amendment lawyer, I have taken aim at this analogy, both in my writings and in my cases. In my view, it is one of the least persuasive, though most influential

t: Last June, barely a week before their brief was due, the Houston lawyers handling Mr. Bakker's appeal, Don Ervin and Brian Wice, learned that Mr. Dershowitz was joining their legal team. He was to handle only a small part of Mr. Bakker's appeal, concerning the 45- year sentence meted out by Judge Robert D

New York Times story was headlined “400 Enroll in a Harvard Course on ‘Law and the Lawyer’ in the Vietnam War.” It reported that: According to Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz, who conceived the course, more than a dozen professors have volunteered as teachers, including Prof. Derek C. Bok, the dean-designate of the law sch

t with the Prime Minister. Suddenly a car pulled up. It was the mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, whom I knew. He rolled down his window and shouted, “Alan, you’ll never get a cab on a Friday afternoon. Where do you need to go?” I told him and he willingly agreed to drive us there. As I began to get into

ek C. Bok, the dean-designate of the law school. Professor Dershowitz said that the participating professors “reflect e

gions or “cults.” The difficult question of how to balance freedom of religion with the equally important freedom from religion—the two sides of the First Amendment coin—is never going to be neatly resolved in a pluralistic democracy; it is an ongoing tight rope walk that requires sensitivity from all sides. It a

ge defense letter and exhibits that the plaintiffs have filed under seal as Exhibit 30 to Plaintiffs= Response To Motion For Limited Intervention By Alan M. Dershowitz should remain sealed. e. The Proposed Confidentiality Order Correctly Resolves The Court=s Balancing Task The protective order proposed by the pa

se To Motion For Limited Intervention By Alan M. Dershowitz [DE 291]. This is a 40-page pleading addressing whether the Court should allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the Plaintiffs quote from a 2007 plea and setttlement negotiation letter that Epstein=s defense lawyers

leading addressing whether the Court should allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the P

= Response To Motion For Limited Intervention By Alan M. Dershowitz [DE 291]. This is a 40-page pleadi

rted not only by the Eleventh Circuit cases cited throughout this pleading but also by the Supreme Court, which upheld a protective order against a First Amendment challenge finding that information learned during the discovery process is not subject to public release in part because of the risk that informati

e and am available to discuss this and any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Goud? Gerald B. Lefcourt cati a .O i b m Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EFTA00176530 • C.) c EFTA00176531 STEVEN PINKER Johnstone Family Professor DEPARTMENT OF PSYC

RTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY Professor Alan Dershowitz Harvard Law School Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 June 28, 2007 Dear Alan, I'm happy to offer the help of my knowledge in linguistics to determine the natural interpretation of a statute you have inquired about. My commen

Goud? Gerald B. Lefcourt cati a .O i b m Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EF

is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or enticesminors. United St

nts you may have and am available to discuss this and any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Gerald 13. Lefcourt a idt Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. MIA CEOS._00099 EFTA00184657 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-47 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/20

ry truly yours, Gerald 13. Lefcourt a idt Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. MI

. Very truly yours, Gerald 13. Lefcourt a idt Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Blac

is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who 'knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United St

1-vb --a Gerald B. Lefcourt hi4640 L..) 6Th Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EF

ble to discuss this and any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, §c4-14 /( 0=1-vb --a Gerald B. Lefcourt hi4640 L..) 6Th Alan Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EFTA00284197 Tab A EFTA00284198 STEVEN PINKER Johnstone Family Professor DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLO

RTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY Professor Alan Dershowitz Harvard Law School Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 June 28, 2007 Dear Alan, I'm happy to offer the help of my knowledge in linguistics to determine the natural interpretation of a statute you have inquired about. My commen

is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United S

d am available to discuss this and any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Go-a( Gerald B. Lefcourt alak,,,.1 44A),,5 Alan Dcrshowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. EFTA00226777 STEVEN PINKER Johnstone Family Professor DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY

RTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY Professor Alan Dershowitz Harvard Law School Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 June 28, 2007 Dear Alan, I'm happy to offer the help of my knowledge in linguistics to determine the natural interpretation of a statute you have inquired about. My commen

OF PSYCHOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY Professor Alan Dershowitz Harvard Law School Harvard University Cambridg

is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who ' owingly' persuade or entice, or attempt If to persuade or entice, minors. Unite

any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Gam( A Lift --- Gerald B. Lefcourt cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. Alan I )ershowit/ EFTA00190138

is addressed to those who purposely and intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United St

secute him without an indict- ment. See 1 Charles Alan Wright, Fed. Prac- tice & Procedure § 121, at 518

gious organizations on federal income tax returns stated cause of action for dis- crimination among religions prohibited by establishment clause of First Amendment. 26 U.S.C.A. § 170; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Conan. Amend. 1. 4. Constitutional Law 4=,84(I) Establishment claus