Back to Results

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015628.jpg

Source: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT  •  Size: 0.0 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 85.0%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 8 of 20 Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the motion. One week after receiving the Government’s objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre (i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion) seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared “confidential” in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the Government’s objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify the two women as “victims” eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining “crime victim” protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. Giuffre, the motion indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 (“If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove the following . .. . “). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3’s participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new victims was relevant to existing issues). After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane Doe No. 3 “a serial liar” who “has lied through her teeth about many world leaders.” —_ http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/us/dershowitz-sex-allegation/, Dershowitz also repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell “two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers.” Jd On HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015628

Document Preview

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015628.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015628.jpg
File Size 0.0 KB
OCR Confidence 85.0%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,030 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04T16:25:59.114232