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 . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Biloktanskyl. Tod. 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923) (Brandeis, J.), quoted in Baxter". Pahnigiano, 425 U.S 308, 319 (1976). And that silence takes on an even more sinister cast when combined with the fact that Epstein's sexual intere

Q. Okay. Who else? A. Mr. Marty Weinberger. Mr. Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Jay Lefkowitz. The firm of Burma

case. A. Okay. MR. PIKE: Form. And move to strike. THE WITNESS: Mr. Roy Black. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. Who else? A. Mr. Marty Weinberger. Mr. Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Jay Lefkowitz. The firm of Burman Critton Luttier. That's it for the moment. Q. How much have you paid the law firm of Burman Critton and Lu

kay. Who else? A. Mr. Marty Weinberger. Mr. Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Jay Lefkowitz. The firm of Burman Critton L

(1st Cir. 2003); Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). See also Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000) ("The Baxter holding is not a blanket rule that allows adverse inferences to be drawn from invocations of the privilege against self-incrimination under all cir

e ate. Case No. Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterb Goldbe r & Weiss, P.A.

ge without requiring the complainant to produce evidence in support of its allegations would impose too great a cost and exceed the authorization of Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)]." See LaSalle Bank Lake View, 54 F.3d at 391; see also National Acceptance v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924, 931-32 (

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

s not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); Accord, Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. at 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical an

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

or touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical an

n, Exhibit “B”; Exhibit “F”; “Exhibit”J ”; “N” and See Edwards Affidavit, 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 Epstein for many years; (b) in one news arti

, 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 Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, “I’m on my 20th book... The only per

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

s not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical an