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.

or, 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 what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c

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

r, 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 what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c

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

, 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 what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c