This document is a background section of a legal motion filed by attorneys Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards in a defamation case. It argues that the Defendant (contextually Alan Dershowitz) is abusing subpoena power to harass a non-party victim, Jane Doe No. 3 (Virginia Giuffre), following a defamation campaign where the Defendant called the attorneys 'unethical' on the Today Show. The motion seeks to quash the subpoena to protect Jane Doe No. 3 from further intimidation.
This document is a LexisNexis printout of a Sun-Sentinel article from June 15, 2009, detailing a legal battle to unseal Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal with federal prosecutors. Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeff Colbath acknowledged procedural failures in sealing the deal and set a hearing for June 25, while attorneys for Epstein's victims, Bill Berger and Brad Edwards, criticized the "sweetheart agreement" and special treatment Epstein received. The article notes Epstein was serving an 18-month sentence with work release privileges and that local police had forwarded information to the FBI due to dissatisfaction with the State Attorney's handling of the case.
This document, stamped with House Oversight identifiers, appears to be a printout of a news article detailing a lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein and his former lawyers. It highlights allegations of orgies and sex trafficking involving minors at Little St. James and discusses Epstein's connections to high-profile figures, specifically noting Bill Clinton's flight history on Epstein's jet (2002-2005) and Prince Andrew's 2010 stay at Epstein's NY mansion. The text also references the 2005 investigation initiated by a mother in Palm Beach and mentions a specific victim identified as Jane Doe 102.
This document is page 88 of a legal text (likely a law review article by Cassell et al., Vol 104) included in a House Oversight Committee production. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) and the Department of Justice's interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding when a 'prosecution' officially begins and when victims can assert their rights. The text argues that the OLC's narrow interpretation—that prosecution only begins at indictment rather than complaint—is 'twisted' and contradicts standard criminal procedure definitions.
This document is the first page of Alan Dershowitz's legal objections and responses to initial document production requests filed by plaintiffs Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. The document was filed in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida (Case CACE 15-000072), but appears here as an exhibit in a federal case (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) docketed on March 24, 2015. It contains standard legal preliminary statements reserving rights regarding discovery and trial preparation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity