Epstein Secrets

08-80736-C1V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs. vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz (herein, "Prof. Dershowitz"), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jan

g duplicative discovery to that which is already being sought in Broward County Circuit Court. One forum is enough to litigate reputations] issues. B. DERSHOWITZ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION WHEN HE HAS DECLINED TO DEFEND HIS REPUTATION IN OTHER ACTIONS. Dershowitz also claims that he h

and they have spread around the world. What makes them doubly troubling is their irrelevancy: although categorically false, the allegations against Prof Dershowitz have absolutely nothing to do with whether the United States government violated its duty to confer with the Plaintiffs prior to entering into the n

in New York in Epstein's home. It was in Epstein's room (not the massage room). I was approximately 16 years old at the time. I called Dershowitz "Alan." I knew he was a famous professor. 27. The second time that I had sex with Dershowitz was at Epstein's house in Palm Beach. During this encounter

n-a I legal ions—tota Ily-fa Ise-38194285 I 573 (Dershow kz: "Right now. they have accused me of these .

e latest date on which, according to Dershowitz, the Government made the decision not to pursue federal criminal charges against Epstein. DE 285 at I. Dershowitz appears to be unaware that the Government told the victims well after that date that the Government was still "investigating" the case. DE 48 at 16.

2015 Page 27 of 40 attorneys proffered in her earlier motion — i.e., that Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doc No. 3 to numerous persons, including Dcrshowitz. If the Court believes it would be useful. Jane Doe No. 3 requests an evidentiary hearing to prove she is telling the truth 19 and directs the Court

. 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." This "[sJilence is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Bilokumsky 'Tod, 263 U.S. 1

witz"), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action (the "Joinder Motion"), filed as of record at DE 279. Having no remedy in this proceeding for the harm to his reputational interest, P

n the defamation action established that stories, sold to tabloids for large sums of money, were in fact false. Those accused by Ms. =, Professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, denounced her as a "serial liar." Regardless, Ms. is not one of the three accusers identified in Counts One through Four of the Supe

t false. Those accused by Ms. =, Professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, denounced her as a "serial liar."

n fact false. Those accused by Ms. =, Professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, denounced her as a "ser

stein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in 2007, or in its 2019 indictment of Epstein, which charged Epstein with sex trafficking offenses from 2002-2005. Joinder is improper when the offenses are separated by such a significant time period and do not relate to each other. See Martinez, 1993 WL 322768, at *8-

ents made by in 2015 were "obvious lies." Those wild, now known to be false, claims included her assertion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and politicians, and her age at the time of the claimed trafficking. The counts, collectively, are thus illogically

ion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and politicians,

ssertion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and po

racter, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan." Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). "Joinder is proper where the same evidence may be used to prove each count," United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir.1991), or if the counts have

ents made by in 2015 were "obvious lies." Those wild, now known to be false, claims included her assertion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and politicians, and her age at the time of the claimed trafficking. The counts, collectively, are thus illogically

ion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and politicians,

ssertion that she had been sexually trafficked to Alan Dershowitz among other famous celebrities and po

racter, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan." Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). "Joinder is proper where the same evidence may be used to prove each count," United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir.1991), or if the counts have

KYC in Progress - # 01515565 73376 00000416180 Alan C. Fox Revocable Trust Deirdre Judge FOX, ALAN RELATIONSHIP 3/4/ 2016 no material changes Alan is divorcing Daveen Fox and in a relationship with Asha Dusbabe k. 89 Armen Brash, Andrew Galivan, Michael J. Davis, Michael Jacoby Los Angeles

Fund X, LP Client 00000424752 Joan ne Jensen 6/10/2016 30 day Temporary Exception for a borrowers resolution which will be issued through this Joinder agreement as stipulated in our procedure manual. Armen Brash 21 Armen Brash, Andrew Galivan, Michael J. Davis, Michael Jacoby US-Onshore 0133347

IRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, VS. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. / DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ’S REDACTED MOTION TO MODIFY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER Defenda

! JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, V. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING SUBPOENA SERVED ON NON-PARTY JANE DOE NO. 3 Non-party Jane Doe 3, by and through unde

Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents. L DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS DEFAMATION CASE. In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy b

/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. / REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz hereby replies in support of his Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282). Prof. Dershowitz’s only interest in joining this case

N FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz hereby replies in support of his Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282). Prof. Dershowitz’s only interest in joining this case is to strike the false, sensational and irrelevant allegations against him. In its response (DE 290), the govern

e defense attorneys’. Moreover, because the first time Jane Doe #3 made these contemptible allegations against Prof. Dershowitz was in her Motion for Joinder in December 2014, those allegations are irrelevant as to the inquiry of whether Jane Doe #3’s rights under the CVRA were violated at the time the NPA

enor Michael Cemovich: RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103, By: Jay M. Wolman, Esq. Counsel for Intervenor Alan Dershowitz: EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP, 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10020, By: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq. I This daytime business a

ion (the "Joinder Motion") included numerous details about sexual abuse and listed the perpetrators of her abuse. repeatedly named Maxwell in the Joinder Motion as being personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein. *2 On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued

g Order, ECF No. 348. One hundred sixty-seven documents were sealed pursuant to the Sealing Order. On August 11, 2016, Intervenor Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz" or "Intervenor Dershowitz") moved to unseal three documents: (1) portions of a Reply Brief submitted by Churcher in support of her motion to quash