Epstein Secrets

nd Amended Counterclaim, attached as Exhibit A, which includes (a) two additional counts for defamation against Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell") (together, "Plaintiffs"); (b) additional, recently discovered facts in support of Dershowitz's defamatio

DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM AND FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS EDWARDS AND CASSELL Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.170(a), 1.170(e

ell made up the story. Whether ]'s statements are true or not — and we believe them to be trite — it really doesn't make a difference as to whether Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell reasonably believed them to be true" (emphasis added). This statement constitutes another extra-judicial statement on behalf of Edw

citation and quotation marks omitted). "Any doubt as to whether a motion for leave should be granted should be resolved in favor of the amendment." Santos v. Flores, 116 So. 3d 518, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). B. Standard for Punitive Damages In order to assert a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff o

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. L U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constituti

d by CM/ECF on this t5 day of March, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ounse or ant in e a e ase No. 084089-3 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice EFTA00

3 05 2010 Page 29 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 29 meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

e penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. I. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 ( I 1th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

e penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. I. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 ( I 1th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

se the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S.'. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. Edwards 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution p

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. I. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (1 l'h Cir. 1998); U.S... Edwards 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution p

of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead. ... In Santos. the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute, 18 . §1956. "The federal money-launder

aning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9 EF

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. EFTA00222820 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, e

9-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 24 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 24 Plaintiff's view. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

y Choice Rewards Points from UBS 029% Ream* points /re preeeted mei tee iith d the moth or the pace busmen dee It tee itch tattoo vottrneftcliclay Rewards point acridly deals cal be found on wnwubt CO) 100ADOMMCIS lune 2018 Year to dale Opening balance 74,127 68,849 Points earned 822 6,100 dosi

r statement LOS Francis' Senicts lent. (re firma MOS Financial Stoops es a muter ol al prnapal seanty.. ccnvnoSty and options mehraes LOS inertial Santos and LOS Bark USA an mired obsciatiesct LISS AG aid Milano of WS Sccuities ILC the Fins Invanat Shannent n addable won mount The Ferns en/oaten of

London e . 0207-622 & 8738 (11) EFTA00191487 Edwards, Andrew & Tfti 9 ~ H uth 0 07-2354121 (h) p

, eet t,i4410 . Iref ititf.90 mr.J -""" forwalc. Mr. se. ire CI () 8 "r" ) 44 Lafond 8: 443/9”if iloz i 13 p trajoheaigum • +metier .ic Mr Mr Santos A Zit cei figeneenirtuss)Olieterlo Mari Joseph luut2Trigg r. Lb. 33.72538-2 ,6;34 8 mae „ 2R, 0 22 46FAx uer33 6°7 26 6285 French ow. aien Cel-

. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (I I's Cir. 1998), and U.S. . Edwards supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of t

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) th