HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010742.jpg

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 8 of 19 Moreover, if the government had any reason to believe that Prof. Dershowitz was involved in any criminal activity they would have immediately demanded his recusal rather than continuing to work with him as one of Epstein’s attorneys in negotiating a plea bargain. Fourth, Jane Doe #3 then makes the facially absurd and libelous claim that somehow Prof. Dershowitz must have drafted and benefited from the “co-conspirators” clause of the NPA. But the link between the need to include these allegations and their ability to rescind the “co- conspirators” clause goes completely unexplained. The allegations are completely gratuitous, as there is no such link. No such claim existed until fabricated by Jane Doe #3 many years after the NPA was signed and fully performed. Additionally, as stated in Prof. Dershowitz’s Supplement to his Motion for Limited Intervention, this “co-conspirator” provision “was intended to apply to four alleged co-conspirators, who were named in the original NPA and later redacted at their request.... Alan Dershowitz was never alleged to be a potential co-conspirator.” (DE 285 at 4°.) Incredibly, Jane Doe #3’s counsel, Bradley Edwards, agreed with this reading of the NPA in his Statement of Undisputed Fact during his own personal lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards, lawsuit (Case no. 502009-CA- 040800)) in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. There, Edwards explained that these co- conspirators were certain individuals who “procured minor females to be molested by Epstein.” (DE 291-15 at § 27.) Only now, when convenient as a way to try to justify allegations against Prof. Dershowitz does Edwards argue (on behalf of Jane Doe #3) that the “co-conspirator” provision was actually intended to protect Prof. Dershowitz. > Moreover, it is unlikely that anyone who had sexual contact with Jane Doe #3, or any other minor involved in the Epstein case, would be considered to be a “co-conspirator.” Instead those individuals would be substantive perpetrators, not covered by the agreement. 8 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010742