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

declined to allow a mere "reputational" interest to justify mandatory intervention. For example, Calloway'. Westinghouse Elea Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987). denied a motion to intervene where the alleged interest was a doctor's "own reputation and academic credibility." Id. at 74. The court denied inte

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.

e declined to allow a mere "reputational" interest to justify mandatory intervention. For example, Calloway" Westinghouse Eke. Cop., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987), denied a motion to intervene where the alleged interest was a doctor's "own reputation and academic credibility." Id. at 74. The court denied inte

/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

rties in describing what is claimed to be the law to Court. For example, the Response quotes Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga. 1987) for the proposition that “a witness’ interest in his reputation alone . . . does not constitute the required ‘interest relating to the property or t