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.

s used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States' Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a pers

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

s used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States' Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a pers

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

s used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States' Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a pers

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

used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5* Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a perso

can be brought. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, we are available. Very truly yours, Gerald B. Le court AdvD144 Alan M. Dershowit.c- cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. EFTA01729484 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) CASE ANALYSIS CHART A nationwide search of all cases listing charges un

Very truly yours, Gerald B. Le court AdvD144 Alan M. Dershowit.c- cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. EFT

. by private organization 9 EFTA01729493 COStiT.-; o " " )., ' PPe≥-em tMoittkiccig co.. A1v!. . .. , p,watqw:, • . 5th Cir. U.S. v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001) Internet Defendant met "14 yr-old"through IM chat; defendant kept in contact with her through Internet and attemp

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

s used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States' Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a pers

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

th Cir.2 5); United States Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir.2 ); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 227-29 (11th ir.2002); United States Farner, 251 F.3di 510, 513 (5th Cir.200 ; United States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir.2000). Page 7 *782 [1] To convict under § 2422(b). the Gove

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

used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a pers