Epstein Secrets

es previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in this action. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this day of ,201 KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: All counsel EFTA00188716 EFTA00188717 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I UNITED S

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

nt, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as

ition, dated December 28, 2004, with exhibits; the Request for Judicial Notice submitted in Opposition by Mr. Williams, dated December 28, 2004; the Joinder by Encana defendants in McGraw-Hill's motion; the Declaration of Julie K Buxbaum in Support of the Joinder by Encana, dated December 22, 2004, with

nt, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as

ition, dated December 28, 2004, with exhibits; the Request for Judicial Notice submitted in Opposition by Mr. Williams, dated December 28, 2004; the Joinder by Encana defendants in McGraw-Hill's motion; the Declaration of Julie K Buxbaum in Support of the Joinder by Encana, dated December 22, 2004, with

in which Ms. Maxwell and others were given immunity from prosecution. • That these statements, ultimately stricken by United States District Court Marra, were widely publicized. • Ms. Maxwell, through her lawyer in London, issued a response that claims in the CVRA pleading were "obvious lies." •

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

in which Ms. Maxwell and others were given immunity from prosecution. • That these statements, ultimately stricken by United States District Court Marra, were widely publicized. • Ms. Maxwell, through her lawyer in London, issued a response that claims in the CVRA pleading were "obvious lies." •

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

the Court need look no further than Dershowitz’s counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz’s Counterclaim (styled as “False Allegations in the Joinder Motion”) contends that Edwards and Cassell should pay him damages because they “filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled ‘Jane Doe #3 and Jane D

ral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking s

he party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE REC

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs,

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