House Oversight — Estate records
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010735
Microsoft Word - 1A6C.27
- Pages
- 19
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 1 of 19 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, vs. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 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 is to strike the false, sensational and irrelevant allegations against him. In its response (DE 290), the government compellingly set forth the many reasons why Jane Does #3 and #4’s request, filed over 6 years after the commencement of the CVRA case, should be denied. Jane Doe #3’s false allegations against Prof. Dershowitz were not included in her statement to the government, were not made to the FBI when she was initially contacted by that agency, were not included in her civil action against Epstein in 2009, were not included in her recorded interview with her attorneys in 2011 and were not included in her interview with the British press in 2011. These allegations first appeared in Jane Doe #3’s Motion for Joinder in December 2014 (DE 279), and therefore have absolutely no relevance as to whether there was a CVRA violation when Epstein and the government executed the Non-Prosecution Agreement in September 2007. The request for limited intervention was initiated to give Dershowitz a voice in the proceedings if and only if the Court allowed the Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 2 of 19 joinder of Jane Doe 3 and her untimely allegations to the underlying CVRA case. If the Court rejects the pending motion for joinder (DE 279), then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations against Dershowitz, or, alternatively, determine the possible mootness of his Motion for Limited Intervention. Of course, if the Co […]