HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011338.jpg

10 fd. 12 [3 14 15 16 i) 18 wife) 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 H3VOGIU1 "mistake", and that was indicated in the pleading withdrawing Ww the summary judgment motion as follows: Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the public filing in the Crime Victims Rights Act case of the client's allegations against Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims Rights Act case by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to be a tactical mistake." "Tactical mistake." "For that reason Edwards and Cassell have chosen to withdraw the referenced filing as a condition of the SeceLement ." That's all a very interesting lawsuit, but that's a lawsuit that does not have Ms. Giuffre as a party. It was Cassell and Edwards versus Alan Dershowitz, with claims going back and forth. Cassell and Edwards were, of course, vindicating their own professional interests and their professional reputation responding to the attacks that had been made by Mr. Dershowitz, and they chose to settle the case, as did Mr. Dershowitz, for undisclosed financial reasons. And also, from the fact I think your Honor is now aware, that there were some witnesses who were not available. Sarah Ransome has come forward in this case to say that she was a traffic to Alan Dershowitz in the same way that Ms. Giuffre alleges, and that was information that has only recently become available. The point is, you have enough business on your hands SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011338