UNITED DISTRICT DISTRIC-4.1T-.3 OF Case No 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE AND DOE Plaintiffs vs UNITED OF AMERICA,-6.1 Defendant REPL-3.8Y IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LIMITED INTE-3.5RVE-3.5NTION BY ALAN Alan Dershowitz hereby repl ies in support of his Motion for Lim8.5ited Intervention DE Prof Dershowitz?s only interest in joining this case is to strike th false sensational and irrelevant allegations against hi In its response DE the governm8e-.9nt compellingly set forth the many reasons why Jane Does and request filed over years after the commence-6.2m2.8ent of the C7V2.2RA case should be denie Jane Doe fals allegations against Prof Dershowitz were not include in her statem7.8ent to the governm7.8e-1.2nt were not made to the FBI when she was initia4.7lly contact ed by that ag6.1ency were incl uded in her civil action against Epstein in were not included in her recorded inte rview7.8 with her attorneys in and were-5.5 not included in her interview with the British press in These allegations first appeared in Jane Doe Mo5.7tion fo5.7r Joind5.7e-.5r in Decem8.5ber DE and therefore have ab)5.2solutely no relevance as to whether there was a CVRA viol ation when E5.9p.1stein and the government executed the Non-Prosecution Agreem8.3ent in Septem8.3ber The request for lim7.9ited intervention was initiated to give Dersho4.9witz a voice the pr o5.7ceedings4.9 if and only5.7 if the Court allowed the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of joinder of Jane Doe and her untim8.1ely allegati ons to the underlying CVRA case If the Court rejects the pending for joi nder DE then the Court sh ould strike the scurrilous-6 alleg6a-.2tion6s.2 a4.8g1ainst Dersh6o1witz or alterna4.8tive4.8l determ8.6ine the possible mootness of his Motion for Lim7.8ited Intervention Of course if th Court strikes the a lleg5.8a-.4tion5.8s0 a4.6g.8ainst him8.6 sua sponte Prof Dershowitz will withdraw hi motion for limited interven5.5tion Howe-5.7ver if the Court gran5.5ts4.7 Jane Does and m8.1o.3tion for joinder then Prof4 Dershowitz?s m8.8o1tion f4o1r lim8.8ited intervention5.5 should5.5 be granted5.5 for such purpos4.7es be approp5.3riate including5.3 subm8.1itting a motion to strike or other relief so as to give him an opportunity to defend him7.2s-1.4elf against these m8.2a-.8licious and false allegations In support of his Reply in upport of his Motion for Lim8.7ite-5.3d Intervention Prof Dershow itz states as f3.9o.9llows Despite swearing under oath to her fals ehoods about Prof Dershowitz Jane Doe struggles to justify her defa-6.1m7.9a-1.1tions as having any relevance to the issues in this proceeding Response to Prof Dershowitz?s Motion for Li m8.1ited Intervention DE herein Response offers no le-5.9gitim8.1ate reason for Prof De rshowitz in her Joind5.8e-.4r Motion and she has no right to continue to do so in this Court St rikingly the Response does not explain why Jane Doe with an obvious financial for fabri cation of salacious accusations w7.7a-.7ited alm8.3o.5st seven years to lob a stink bom8.1b in to a proceeding in which she has no right to participate The Response does not accou5.4n.4t for why Jane Doe neve once asserted her accusations about Prof.5.2 Dershowitz until a m8.5onth ago even though the alle ged trans4.8g.6ression5.6s su5.6pposedly occurred fifteen years ago Although neither Jane Doe nor anyone else had previously asserted any im8proper sexual contact with Prof Dershowitz now Jane Doe cynically exploits the yoke of victim8.3hood victim8.3ize others Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of At bottom8,.2 Jane Doe Response is nothin but a paper-thin past iche of conspiracy theory and outright m8.1i-1.9srepresentation that crum bles upon exam8.3ination I nvocations of the Fifth by nonparty witnesses in response to innocuous questions about Prof Dershowitz are said to take on a sinister cast yet these witnesses invoked their right against self incrim8.4ination to alm8.4o.6st every question asked of the-6m8 including their parents nam8e-.9s Prof Dershowitz as Epstein?s form7.7er legal counsel is one of hundreds of people listed in an address book purlo5.4ined by Jeffrey Epstein?s crim8.2inal butle yet b5.3ecause Dershowitz?s is circled in the address book by an unknown pers on for unknown reasons the argument is that Prof Dershowitz must have sexually abused a The record shows that while Prof7.9 Dershowitz and Jane Doe are both sepa4.8ra4.8te4.8ly m8.8e-.2ntione4.8d in the flight logs of Mr Epstein?s private they5.9 are never lis5.1ted5.9 on th5.9e light P5.8l2.4aintiffs in tu rn falsely claim8.3 that som8.1e-.9how Prof Dershowitz single-handedly orches trated the destruction of logs without any evidence of ability or po5.6ssibili ty to do so The increasing5.3ly5.3 unfounded accusations and insults are both sad and irresponsible It is precisely this toxic of irrele vancy falsehood and empty accusation5.3 that jus5.1tif3.9ies5.1 Prof3.9 Dersh5.9o.9witz?s5.1 inter3.9v.9ention to strik5.6e-.6 the4.4 allega4.4ti ons against Jane-6.2 Doe never had any need to drag Prof Dershow itz into this action besides to wrongfully use his good and international statu5.9r-1.1e to s5.1tir up interest in her filing5.9..9 This is im8.7pertinence plain and5.9 sim8.7p.9le and it has no place in this4.6 Court Prof Dershowitz therefore urges the Co6urt to e4.8ith6er allow to intervene4.8 to strike Jane Doe allegations or deny Jane Joinder Motion so she is no longer afforded th ability to use the docket of this Court to defa-6m8e-1 others wit hout being held accountab le and strike these allegations from7.8 record Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of I Jane Doe Continued Smears of Prof Demonstrate His Need to Interven6.8e Jane Doe and her counsel?s actions over the past m8.2onth have confirm8.2e-.8d that Prof Dershowitz?s request for intervention stands pon dram8.2atically different circum8.2stances than other inte4.9rv6.1ention m8.9o1.1tions in th6.1is case or any other case that m9.3a.3tter Sim9.3p1.5ly put the and tenor their attack5.9s agains Prof Dershowitz differ both in degree and in kind from8.2 other-6.6 reputational m7.9uggings conducted in the case before this Court Nor is th ere a single reported decis5i-1.4on in f3.8e-.4deral case4.6 law in which the vitriol sever3.8ity,5.8 and length5.8 the attacks agains5t nonparty approach those levelled against Prof Dershowitz here has becom7e-2 further-7.8 apparent is that if Jane Do Motion for Joinder is gran ted and Prof Dershowitz is not allowed to interven5.7e Ja4.5ne Doe and her counsel will proceed with th5.5eir attacks4.7 ag5.5ainst the e-5.5m3.5boldened with com8.5p.7lete im8.5punity While Jane Doe asks to prove her alle gations against Prof Dershowitz she argues paradoxically that he does not have any direct in terest in defending these allegations Instead she directs Prof Dershowitz to defend the allegations that she in a contrived lawsuit filed by her attorneys against him8.2 in Broward County Circuit Cour for defam8.7a-.3tion of them8.7 Moreover the law cited by Prof Dershowitz including the Sackman and Penthouse cases,6 dem8.5onstrates a need and entitlem8.5e-.5nt to intervene to vindica5.1te his legitim9.1ate reputa5.1tion6.3a.2l that no other party is situated to protect The individual?s ri ght to the protection of his own good reflects no more than our basic concep of essential dignity and worth of every being a concept at the ro5.7ot of any decent sy5.4stem8.2 of ordered liberty Krauser Evolution H7.5o.3ldings Inc F.Supp 2d S.D Fla quoting Spencer Kemna U.S tevens dissenting Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of In an effort to cite contrary law to the Court Jane Doe Response takes rem7.6a-1.4rkable liberties in describing what is claim8.3e-5.7d to be th law to Court For ex am8.1ple the Response quotes Calloway Westinghouse Elec Corp F.R.D M.D Ga for the proposition that a witness interest in his reputation alone does not constitute the required interest relating to the property or trans actio5.7n which is the subjec4.5t th presen5.9t action ne4.8cessary to allow intervention as a tter of right Yet what is excised from7.9 that quote through the ellipses is the m8.8o1st crucial pa4.8rt of4 the case following a finding by a cour that he is not credible Calloway actually stands4.8 for the proposition that a itness cannot intervene in a case as of righ5.4t if the Court has found him not credib le in one of its orders This finding has never been to Prof3.7 Dershowitz e4.5ith5.7er in this Co5.7urt or in hundreds of others in which he has appeared II Jane Doe Lies About Prof Are Wholly5.3 Irrelevant to This Action Meanwhile Jane Doe up with a single credible eason for Prof Dershowitz in her Joinder Motion First she clai she needed to drag Prof Dershowitz?s through the mud to prove that Jane Doe was a vi ctim8.2 of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein Yet in her Joinder Motion she states that the overnm8.3e-.7nt was well aware of Jane Doe when was negotiating the NPA as it listed her as a vict im in the attachm8.6e-.4nt to NPA DE at If she was already listed as a victim8.3 on the NPA why would they need to prove that further by adding pages of scurrilous alle gations against various individuals And why did they have to m7.8e-1.2ntion Prof Dershowitz by when ere th6.2ey claim9 that num9erous prom9inent individu5.7als also alleged5.7l-1.5y comm8.5itted sexual ab5.7us but keep those alleged figures anonym8.2ous?-10.8 The bad faith against Prof Dershowitz is apparent Sim8.7ilarly Jane Doe allega4.7tio5.9ns that she Prince Andrew because of outstanding Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Second Jane Doe claim8.3s-.3 that she needed to Prof Dershowitz and others in the Joinder Mo5.6tion because of discovery5.6 disputes be tween the governm8.2e-.8nt and Jane Doe and Jane Doe This does not even sense legally or factually Jane Doe right to join in this case has nothing to do with Jane Doe and Jane Doe to docum8.7ents in discovery In fact the discovery requests that Jane Doe cite to in her Response as purported cover for their slim7.9ing of Prof Der-6.9s-.7howitz show that their argum7.9ent is factually bogus Prof Dershowitz is m8.1e-.9ntioned in on ly two of twenty-five request for production propounded by Jane Doe and Jane Doe S6.2ee Jane Doe and Jane Doe First Req5u0est f3o0r3 Pro5duction5 to5 the Governm7.8e-1.2nt Regarding Information Releva nt to Their Pending Action Concern sic Crim8.2e Victim8.2s Act at DE at Both requests nos and seek his communications with the governm8.3e-5.7nt in his role as Mr Epstein?s defense attorney There is no issue of complicity or knowledge in any m8.3i-1.7sconduc Moreover a fact conveniently om8.6itted by Jane Doe is that Prof Dershowitz is one of eleven lawyers whose communicatio5.8ns Jane Doe and Jane Doe sought in the requests for production As the Court knows Prof Dershowitz had no m8.4a-.6terial connection to th is case?as to the m8.4e-.6rits or as to discovery?bef8.6o.6re he was dragged in by Jane Doe Third Jane Doe that the sm8.3ears against Prof De-5.7rshowitz are relevant to show that Prof3.9 Dershowitz a m8.7o.9tive to negotia4.7te confidentiality and blank check provisions discovery requests regarding her belief that Prince Andrew wa som7.7e-1.3how involved in lobbying efforts to persuade the G8.1overnm8.7e-.3nt to give a favorable plea arrangem8.5e-.5nt and because her allegations against Prin ce Andrews occurred in London th erefore affecting foreign commerce are patently5.5 absurd DE at and fn Because Jane Doe other alleg5.9a-.3tion5.9s.1 are replete4.7 with allega tions inte4.4r3.6s-.2tate ac4.4tiv5.6ity and im8.4plications Andrew?s involvem8.1e-.9nt in lobbying for the NPA are entirely nonsensical it is obvious that the inclus4.9ion of claim8.5s-.1 again5.7s-.1t Prin5.7ce An5.7drew were included so5.8le4.6ly intended th5.8e m9.5e.5dia Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of into the NP6.5A entered into between the government and Mr Epstein Agai this argum8e-1nt m8a-1kes no sense in the contex5.7t this case The inclu6s.2io6n of4 certain provision6s in the ag6ree4.8m8.8ent sim8.8p1ly6 has nothing to do with whether the governm7.9e-1.1nt com7.9p.1lied with it obligations under the Crime-6.4 Victim8.4s Rights Act CVRA If anything it is the governm7.8e-1.2nt motive that would be at issue?altho5.5ugh even that point is d5.5oubtful?not the defense attorn5.5eys?.5.5 Moreover because th5.5e first tim8.8e Jane Doe these contem8.8ptible allegations against Prof Dershowitz was in Motion for Joinder Decem8.1ber those alleg5.3a-.9tio are irrelev5.4a4.2nt as the inquiry of whether Jane Doe rights under the CVRA were violated at the time the NPA was entered5.4.5.4 The governm8e-1nt confirm8s-.6 that when Jane Do was contacted by the FBI about this investigation she clearly sta ted that she did not want to be involved in the federal investigation DE at Sh was not kept in the dark as she alleges in her Response DE at Instead she apparently chose to stay in the dark Moreover she did not any allegations against Prof De rshowitz at the tim8.6e the NPA was entered nor did she any allegations against Prof Dershowitz in her ac tion for civil dam8.4a-.6ges in nor did she any allegations against Prof Ders howitz he4.6r re4.6cor3.8d.8ed intervie4.6w with her atto5.8rney nor did she m8a-1ke any allegations against Prof Dershowitz in her inte rview with the British press in The first tim8.6e these alleg5.8a-.4tion5.8s0 surfaced were in connection with Doe Motion for Joinder in this action The allegations have absolutely no relevance to the underlying issue of whether Doe was treated with fairness when the NPA was as the agains4.7t Prof Dershowitz did not surface until approxim8.3a-.7tely eigh5.5t years later Prof Dershowitz along with ny other lawyers was involved in negotiating the plea bargain under which Epstein agreed to plead guilty to charges in exchange for an agreem7.8ent not to prosecute him federally However he was not involved in drafting th text of the NPA In fact two other lawyers di the drafting Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Moreover if the governm8.2e-.8nt had reason to believe that Prof Ders howitz was involved in any crim8.2inal activity they would have immediat ely his recusal rather than continuing to work with him8.1 as one of Epstein?s atto6.3rneys in negotia5.1ti ng a plea bargain Fourth Jane Doe then m8a-1kes the facially ab5.8surd and lib5.8elous that som8.6e-.4how Prof Dershowitz have drafted and benefited from8.5 the co-consp5.7i-1.5rators claus4.6e-.8 of the NPA But the link5.9 between the need to include thes5.1e a and their ab5.9ility to resc4.7ind the co conspirators5 clau5.8se goes com8.6p.8lete ly unexplained The allegations are com7.7p-.1letely gratuitous as there is no such link such claim existed un til fabricated by Jane Doe ye-6.3ars after the NPA was signed and fully perform7.9e-1.1d Addition5.1a-1.1ll as in Prof Dershowitz?s Supplem8.1ent to his Motion for Li-6.9m8.1ited Intervention this co-c onspirator provision was intended to apply to four alleged co-conspirators who in the4.5 orig5.7in5.7al NPA and5.7 reda4.5cted at request Dershow7.7itz was never alleged to be a potential co-conspirator DE at Incredibly Jane Doe counsel B7.3r-1.7adley Edwa rds agreed with this reading of the NPA in his Statem7.8ent of Undisputed Fact during his own personal la wsuit agains4.5t J4.5e-.9ffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwar-5.5d.3s lawsuit Case no in Palm)8.2 County Circuit Court There Edwards explained that these co conspirators were certain individuals who procu red to be m7.8o0lested by Epstein DE at Only now when convenient as a way to try to justify allegations against Prof Dershowitz does Edwards argue on behalf of Jane Doe that the co-conspirator provision actually intended to protect Prof Dershowitz Moreover it is unlikel that anyone who had sexual contact with Jane Doe or any other involved in the Epstein case would be cons idered to be a co-conspirator Instead those individuals would be substantive perpetra tors not covered by the agreem7.8ent Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Fifth Jane Doe claim7.9s-.7 that she needed to include Prof Ders howitz in her filing because her CVRA claim of unfair treatm8e-1nt im8.6p.8licates5 a fact-sens5i3.6tive defense which m8.8u1st be conside4.8r-1ed in the f4actua4.8l conte4.8x1t of4 the entir4e inte4.9rf4ac4.8e between Epstein the4.9 relev5.9a-.3nt a4.7u.9thoritie4.7s a4.7nd the victim8.7s The f3.9acts which this def4ense sensitiv6e e4.8v1en if4 Jane Doe is a llowed to intervene ar3.8e the inter3.8actio5.8ns between the prosecutors and Jane Doe and not anything pertinent to Prof Ders howitz personally are attorney-client com8.4m3.4unications between Epstein and his counsel at issue or the proper subject of discovery in this action under any scenario I Jane Doe Efforts to Bolster Her Lies About Prof Are Remarkably Thin Setting asid5.8e the utter irreleva ncy of the allegations agai nst Prof Dershowitz having crea4.8ted an interna4.8tiona4.8l im8.8broglio by their ill conceived libels of Prof Dershowitz one would expect that Jane Doe would able to must er at least cre-5.8d.3ible support for their allegations Yet the two incontestable facts she leads with in support of her claim that Prof Dershowitz is a serial sex abuser are that Epstein and Prof Dershowitz were friends and Prof Dershowitz visited Mr Epstein?s house Of course these sup posedly incontestable facts are evidence of nothing In the sh6.1e sub6.1m8.9itted to th6.1is cour4.1t Jan6e-.2 Doe lack of4 cr4ed6ibility is rea4.8d1ily6 apparent She has now sworn under oath repeating a fragrant lie that she ha previously sold to a British ne4.7wspaper that President Bill Clinton was5.1 present the island Jeffrey Epstein5.3?-1.7s private is4.5land at a tim8.1e when Jane Doe was presen5.6t the island DE at In this easily discredited fabrication Jane Doe expounded in im8.2aginative The the publication5.8 is5 intentiona4.6lly5.8 o5.8m8.6itted as J5a-.4ne Doe revea4.6l-1.4s id5.8entity5.8 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of detail about her fictional m7.8eeting with form er President Clinton providing an elaborate description about how Mr Clinto and his secret service deta il somehow allow7.2e-1.2d Ghislaine Maxwell then a novice helic opter pilot to fly all of them7.7 to Epstein?s private island on Epstein5.7?-1.3s black helicop5.7ter as well as details about the specif8.7i-1.5c place at the dinner table at whic-5.5h she and Clinton were seated Id Jane Doe also gave this British newspaper an account of yet another fictional m8.1eeting on the island but this with form8.2er vice president Gore and his then wife Tipper provi ding specific details purportedly to enhance the value of fictional story The Gores seem7.8ed like a beauti ful couple I m8e-1t them8 Jeffre-5.9y.2 Epstein didn?t ask to give him8.5 a massage I was pl anning on voting for him when I turned thought he was awesom8e On infor-6.8m8ation and be lief Prof Dershowitz represents to the Court therein A copy of the publication or a link to the article will be prov5.8ided to the Court at the Court?s request The article states in relevant part On one occasion,Jane adds Epstein did invite two young brunettes to a dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr Clinton shortly after-7.1 he left office But as as she kn5.4ows the ex President did not take th bait I?d have been about at the tim7.6e Jane Doe says I fl ew to the Caribbean ith Jeffrey and then Ghislain6e Maxwell we4.8nt to pick up Bill 4C3linton4 in a huge black he4.8licop6ter Jef4f4r-1ey had bought her She?d always wanted to fly and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons and I she was very excited because she got her licence around the first year we used to get frightened flying with her but Bill had the Secr et Service with him7.9 and I him7.9 talking about what a good job she did I only ever Bill twice Jeffrey had told that they were good friends I asked How come and he la ughed and said He owes favours.?-7.1 Maybe he was just joking but it constantly surprise that people with as to lose as Bill and Prince Andrew weren?t careful Bill must have known about Je ffrey?s girls all dined toge4.6th5.8er nigh5.8t was at th5.8e the table Bill was at his sat ac5ross5.3 from8.3 Ghislaine?s bonde British assistant sa at right Ghislaine was at Bill?s left and at the Ghislaine there were two olive skinned brunettes who?d flown with us from8.2 New York I?d never them before I?d say they were no older than very innocent-looking Maybe Jeffrey thought they would entertain Bill but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them8.2 He Jeffrey Ghislaine seem8.2ed to have a very good relationship Bill was very funny He m8a-1de me laugh a few tim8es And he a nd Jeffrey Ghislaine told blokey jokes and brunettes listed politely and giggled After dinner I gave Jeffrey an erotic m7.7a-1.3ssage I don?t seeing Bill again on the trip but I Ghislain6.1e flew him8.9 back Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of that evid5.9ence will show that form8.7er presiden5.9t Clinton vice pres4.8id5.6ent Al Gore and Tipper Gore never set foot on Epstein?s pr3.8ivate island,5.8 and that all ev5.8ents Jane Doe detailed accounts are not preposterous on their ace but in fact entirely false an5d her sworn statem8.8ent to this cou6r-1t is perjur4ious.6 Indeed while th5.6e poin5.6t3.4s raised abo5.6v.6e show a com8.7p.9lete la4.7ck investigation the4.8 credib6.1ility the m8.9a-.1king these scurr4.1ilo6.1us allega4.9tio6.1ns what is most about Jane Doe Response is what it om8.3its Approxim8a-1tely six years ago Jane Doe took advantage of the NPA?s provisions sued Epstein and5.6 receiv m9.2onetary settlem9.2e.2nt Ironically Jane Doe now seeks to overturn the very NPA which required Epstein to waive his right to con5.9t-1.3est liability5.9 by m8.7oving to join the instan5.9t actio5.9n which seeks to rescin5.9d that very agreem8.7ent Yet she apparently never once m7.5e-1.5ntioned Pr of Dershowitz?s now supposedly system7.8atic sexual abuse of her to the prosecutors or to her own lawyer No explanation is given for this monum7.5e-1.5ntal inconsistency Nor despite his suppos ed status4.1 as a co-con4.9sp ira5.4t-.6or in schem9.4e.4 to cover up an underage sex abuse ri ng is there any explanation gi ven for the fact that Prof Dershowitz was never even investigated?or even m8.3e-5.7ntioned?as4.7 a potential suspect.5.5 Meanwhile the present case has4.5 been proceeding for the last six and a half years but no explanation has been given for the tim8.5ing of Jane Doe ef4f4o1rt to join this cas5.2e only last month Prof Dershowitz reserves the ri ght to prom8.2ptly file a succinct supplement to this Reply brief8.4 with inf3.7o.7rmation which he is in th process of confirm8i-2ng presently Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of IV Prof Immediately Resp onded to Jane Doe Allegations Against Him by Asking to Defend his Reputation Jane Doe also6.2 argu6.2es that Prof Dershowitz shoul not be allowed to intervene because he has declined to defend hi reputation in other actions DE at This dem8.7onstrably false It is without question th at the Motion for Joinder filed by Jane Doe on Decem8ber DE was the fir5.8s.8t time anyone has ever alleged that Dershowitz had any sexual contact with a It ne4.6cessa4.6rily f3.8o.8llows that this is the firs5.2t opp6ortunity Prof Dershowitz has had to defend his re putation related to is involvem7.7e-1.3nt in Epstein?s offenses In fact just six days after these venom8.5ous a llegations were m8a-1de Prof Dershowitz filed his Motion for Lim8.2ited Intervention DE More specifically Jane Doe argues that wh en the civil lawsuit was brought by one of the underage fem8.1a-.9les ag ainst Epstein in Doe Ep5.5stein No S.D Fla Dershowitz unders tood that counsel for many of Epstei n?s victim8.2s believed that m8.2ounting evidence pointed toward his role extending beyond m8.3e-.7rely being an attorney for Epstein DE at This too is dem)8.4onstrably false De spite this rank and self-serving speculation about what Prof Dershowitz understood there is not one piece of evidence which points to any allegations that he engaged in any sexual contac with any m8i-2nor or even observed any crim8inal activity prior to the Decem8.3ber Motion for Joinder In stead the deposition testim7.6ony which Jane4.2 Doe p5.4o.4ints to s4.6imply that Prof Dershowitz visited E5.6p-.2stein?s Deposition 8.3Testim8.1ony of Alfredo Rodrigu ez at DE herein Rodriguez Depo Tr Rodriguez specifica lly testified that he has no idea whether Prof Dershowitz any contact at all with fema5.9le Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of And did you have any knowledge of hy Dershowitz was visiting there A No And do you have any idea whether or not Mr Dershowitz was also receiving A I don?t know Ma?am As to whether any of those were ev er associated w7.4ith Mr Dershowitz would it be a correct statem8.4ent that you have absolutely no knowledge?-6.2 A I don?t know sir Okay Were you in any way attempting in your response to Ms Ezell to im8.5ply that Mr Dershowitz had a m8.2a-.8ssage by one of these young ladies?-6.1 A I don?t know sir You have no knowledge?-6.2 A No sir Rodriguez Depo Tr at To be sure Rodriguez does testify that Prof Dershowtiz was at Epstein?s hom8.5e when young fem8.5a-.5le were present at the an allegation which Dershowitz strenuously denies However Rodriguez did not testif that Prof Dershowitz saw intera5.6cted with or touched5.6 any th6.8ese when asked5.2 what Prof Dershowitz did while those girls were at th house Rodrig5.6uez answered He will read a book with a glass of wine by the pool stay inside Id at if Prof Dershowitz ever even sp5.7oke to any the girls even knew that they were there Rodriguez answered I don?t know Id at This is consistent with the fact that Epstein?s hom8e is very large and has separate closed-off quarters where Epstein re sided Prof Dershowitz never stepped into these private quarters Jane Doe also relies4.9 upon the Septem8.5ber deposition testimony of Mr Juan Alessi to corroborate Jane Doe sensational and false allegations regarding Prof8.7 Dershowitz.5.4 However a complete exam ination th5.9at test im8.4ony reveals that Alessi did not make allega6tio6ns of any wrong doing by Dersh6.5owitz See DE hereinafter Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Alessi Depo Tr Alessi test ified that he saw m8.1any celebriti es at the house including a very lawyer that sure you know Alan Dershowitz who spend sic at the house a couple Alessi Depo Tr However Alessi made no allegations of im8proprieties against any of these individuals Jane Doe asks the Court to infer that because Prof Dershowitz was at his client?s hom8.4e he have particip5.7ated in activitie4.5s In f3.7act Prof Dershowitz?s friendship with Epstein onsisted the exchange of academ8.3i-1.7c and ideas At most Alessi testif3.7ied that Prof Dershowitz visited Epstein?s hom8.1e and received a m8.3a-.7ssage from8.3 an adult m8.3a-.7ssage therap ist which was a trea for everybody at the Epstein hom7.8e Id at Did 8D2.2ershowitz have m8a-1ssages som8e-1times when he was there?-6 A Yes A m7.7a-1.3ssage was like a treat for everybody If they want it we cal the m8.2a-.8ssage and they have a m8.6a-.4ssage A)8l-1.4essi explains that he was referring to m8a-1ssages performed by adult m8.2a-.8ssage therapists Id at All right And if I understood your testim8.1ony is the ones the that is of the m8.3a-.7ssage therapists as you ve just described a hundred different m8.2a-.8ssage therapists you saw A Yes You saw wo A Yes And all of women at least from your viewpoi were or older A Yes Messrs Alessi and Rodriguez did not allege that Prof Dershowitz received a m7.9a-1.1ssage from8.3 any underage fem8.3a-5.7les had any physical cont act whatsoever with any underage fem8.1a-.9les or witnessed anyone engaging in an inappropriate behavior with any underage Additionally despite their allegati ons to the contrary it is clear that previous testimony Rodriguez and Alessi does not corroborate Jane Doe baseless and utterly false affidavit DE In fact the only m7.5a-1.5ssage Prof Ders4.4howitz ever received at any of Epstein?s hom7.9es was from7.9 professional m8a-1ssage therapist who was in her or Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of 2675Next Jane Doe that Prof Dershow itz declined to defend his reputation in the Edwards Epstein lawsuit Case in Palm)8.1 Beach County Circuit Court.5.3 Opp to Mtn to Intervene at In support of this allegati on Jane argues that her attorney in the instant m8.8a-.2tter Bradley Edwards through his attorn5.4ey Jack Scarola contacted Prof Dershowitz to seek his voluntary coope ration in answering questions about Prof Dershowitz?s client Jeffrey Epstein?s conduct Dershowitz responde by letter stating As you know I Jeffrey Epstein5.6?-1.4s atto rney when he subm8.3itted his guilty plea Accordingly any knowledge I have in connectio5.6n with that plea is p5.6r-1.4ivileged5.6 inform8.3ation If you would let know what non-privileged infor-7.1m ation you would seek from8.5 I would then be able to decide whether to cooperate DE Dershowitz sent a second letter on or about August explaining that he has never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage and asking Edwards attorney to provide him7.4 with any a lleged basis his unfounded belief Edwards attorney responded by stating th at based on sworn testimony a nd private interviews he had placed Dershowitz the presenc4.3e-.7 of Jeff rey Epstein on multiple oc4.3c4.3a-.7sions when Jeffrey Epstein was in the com7.7p-5.1any of underage fem7.7a-1.3les ubsequently identified as victim8s DE at Again no allegations were at that tim8.1e by Edwards attorney or by anyone else that Dershowitz engaged in any inapprop riate conduct or witnessed any inappropriate conduct related to Jeffrey Epst ein and underage In stead Edwards was incorrectly seeking Prof Dershowitz?s cooperation for a ci vil su5.8it be4.6tween Dershowitz?s c4.6lie4.6nt Epstein,5.7 an5.7d Edwards4.9 him8.5s-.1elf Rem8.5a-.5rkably becaus4.6e-.8 Prof Dershowitz not agree to com9p1.2rom9i-1se his ethical obliga5tion6.2s5.4 to c5lie nt by voluntarily cooperating with Epstein?s Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of adversaries Jane Doe argues that Prof Dershowitz should not be allowed to intervene in this action It is clear from8.8 the reco6rd however,6 that Prof Dershowitz acted im m8.2e-.8diately to defend him8.4s-.2elf the first tim8.4e he was aware of any su ch alleg6.4a.2tions In fact six days after Jane Doe filed her Motion for Joinder which included vicious allegations against Prof Dershowitz filed hi Motion for Limited Interventi on DE Accordingly Prof Dershowitz should be p5.4e-.8rm8.2itted interven5.4e for the lim8.1ited purposes of moving to outrageous and im8pertinent allegations Jane Doe Reliance on Ot her?s Invocation of the Fifth Amen6.3dment is Improper and Wholly Unpersuasive W9.3ithout a shred of physical evidence or witness corroboration for Jane Doe fantasies she relies on invocat ions of the Fifth by Epstein as supportive of an adverse inference as Prof Dershowitz Given that Epstein was taking the Fifth on virtually all questions and ould have responded in the sam7e way had the opposite questions been asked there is no inference against Dershowitz to be from7.9 the invocation of the Fifth Am9.1endm9.1ent by Epstein Epstein5.8?-1.2s in5.8terest in dec lining to answer any questions whatsoever was his own personal interest and not that of his lawyers and lacks even relev6.1a-.1nce Coquina Investments TD Bank N.A F.3d 11th Cir adverse inferences from8.3 the fifth invocation by third parties allowed only Jane Doe has4.8 not yet sche duled his de4.1position5.3 this ca4.1se the filed defa-6.3mation action is of no mom8.4e-.6nt At the appropriate tim8.3e Prof Dershowitz will of course appear for his deposition and testify that Ja ne Doe allegations as to him are entirely false This however has no bearing as to whether the4.8 Court sho6u1ld perm8.8it the lim8.8ited intervention Prof Dershowitz seeks Had Epstein been asked about anyone fr leading governm8.7e-.3nt officials to of the clergy he would have si m8.3ilarly invoked the Fifth Amendm8.3ent Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of where inference is tru5.4stworthy5.4 un5.4der all of th6e circum8.8stances includ ing relationship shared inte5.2rest and contro6.4l Kontos Kontos F.Supp no adverse inference allowed invocatio5.9n Am8.7endment by sist of4 civil def4e-.2ndan6t-1.2 in absence of4 identity6 Sebastian City of Chicago N.D Ill no adverse inference from8.3 invocation of Fifth dm8.2ent in absence of close fam8.2ily or business relationship Si)-6.7m8.3ilarly any other witnesses taki ng the Fifth and rem8.8a-.2ining silent to protect them8selves are obviously not creating any kind of evid ence against Prof Dershowitz See Coquina Investments F.3d at 11th Cir Conclusion In conclusion Prof Dershowitz ha no in join5.9ing th5.9is case4.7 othe4.7r than strik5.9e-.2 scurrilous and irrelevant allegations against him8.7 If the Court grants Jane Does and m8.7o.9tion for joinder DE then Prof Dershowitz?s motion for lim8.3ited in tervention should be granted such purposes as be approp5.9ria4.7t-1.3e inc4.7l-1.3uding subm8.7ittin5.9g a m8.7o.9tion to strike so as to give him8 an opportunity to defend hi against defam7.9a-1.1tory and false allegations of the worse kind If the Court reject the pending m8.2o.4tion for jo inder then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations agai nst Dershowitz or alternatively determ8ine the-6 possible m8o-4.8otness of his Motion for Lim8ited Interv ention Of course if the Court strik5.1e-1s the alleg5.9a-.3tion5.9s.1 agains5.1t him sua sponte Prof Dershowitz will withdraw his m8o.2tion for lim8ited intervention Respectf3.9u.9lly5.9 2750subm8.7itted 945Kendall 2750Coffey4 2750Kendall Coffey Fla Bar No kcoffey coffeyburlington.com 2750Gabriel Groism8.1an Fla Bar No ggroism8.2an coffeyburlington.com Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of 2750Benjam8.1in Brodsky Fla Bar No bbrodsky coffeyburlington.com COFFE-4.8Y BURLINGTON South Bayshore Drive PH1 Miam8.3i Florida Telephone Facsim8.2ile and Thom8.2as Scott Fla Bar No thom8.2as.scott csklegal.com COLE KISSANE Dadeland Centre II South Dadeland Boulevard Suite Miam8.3i Florida Telephone Facsim8.1ile 2752Counsel for Prof Alan Dershowitz Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CERTIFICATE OF hereby certify that a true and correct opy of the foregoing was served by Notice of Electronic F6.4iling generated by CM/ECF on this 2nd day of February on all counsel or parties of record on th Service below Kendall Coffey SERVI-7.4CE LIST-4.6 Bradley E6.3d.5wards FARMER WEI-8SSING EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN P.L North Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Telephone Facsim8.1ile brad6 pathtoju6s.2tice.com8.8 and Paul Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J Quinney College of Law at the University Utah Salt Lake City UT Telephone Facsim8.2ile E-Mail cassellp law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe and Dexter Lee A Marie Villafa?a UNITED STATES ATTO RNEY?S-4.2 OFFICE-4.6 Australian Ave Suite West Palm8.2 Beach FL Fax Dexter.Lee usd5.7o.7j.gov ann.m8.3arie.c.villafana usdoj.gov Attorneys fo5.5r the Govern5.5ment Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of
