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.

a mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more than nothing ... and less than everything. . ." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States' Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to wha

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

y a mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more than nothing ... and less than everything..." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States'. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to wha

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

y a mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more thy' nothing ... and less than everything. .." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States" Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en ham: Court considered whether and to wha

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

mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more than nothing . . . and less than everything. .." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to wha

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

mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more that nothing . . . ancliess than everything. .." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States I Ballinger, 395 I3d 1218 (1 1 th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en bane Court considered whether and to wh

ent's (unopposed) motion. FN3.See a1so3 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 52

t 336 163 L.Ed2d 48 (2005). Whether a statute is unconstitutional as applied is also a question of law subject to de nerd review. United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218, 1225 (11th Cir.) (en bane), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct 368, 163 L.Ed2d 77 (2006). A. I3) Count One of the indictment cha

Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). Telephones and cellu- lar telephones are instrumentalities of in- terstate commerce. See Pipkins, 378 KM at 1295; Ballinger, 395 F.3d at 1226. Ev- urged by Evans. Nor is there anything in the legislative history of § 1591 suggesting that Congress intended the statute to

his and any other issues at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Gocil? Gerald B. Lefcourt cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Roy Black, Esq. Alan I )ershowit, EFTA01660187

a mode of analysis that allows Congress to regulate more than nothing ... and less than everything..." (O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en Banc Court considered whether and to wha