Epstein Secrets

d acted in any way inappropriately with regard to Virginia [Giuffre], that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, t

al abuse Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish Edwards and Cassell’s strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover, contrary to assertions made i

uded that “at this juncture in the proceedings” details about the sexual abuse she had suffered was unnecessary to making a determination “of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join [the other victims’] claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details r

at question. I am aware that never before 2014, end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way inappropriately with regard to Virginia [Giuffre], that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that Ihad ever been with her. I was completely aware ofthat. There had never been any allega

body had taken the photograph. Given the surrounding circumstances, I thought perhaps Mr. Epstein had taken the photograph. So that would have shown Virginia Roberts's sexual abuse was not confined just to Florida, not confined to the New York mansion; it would have -- it would have presumably continued into London

owerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard

aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts. I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of

t proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public examination.” Barron vy. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, “[t]he burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall alw

ulevard Miami, FL 33160 For Jane Doe BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jane DOE II RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2

to accomplish this purpose. Miami Herald Publ'g Co.'. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 6 (Fla. 1982). This test, as well as the standard announced in Barron'. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), was essentially codified in former Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, now 2.420, which was applicable in both crim

12, 2016, and in support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order shou

n M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12,

support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order should be modi

poena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9

al abuse Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish Edwards and Cassell’s strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover, contrary to assertions made i