282.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ________________________________________/ MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz (herein, “Prof. Dershowitz”), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action (the “Joinder Motion”), filed as of record at DE 279. Having no remedy in this proceeding for the harm to his reputational interest, Prof. Dershowitz hereby seeks to intervene in this action, both as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and permissively under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them. With respect to the legal framework for intervention, Prof. Dershowitz agrees with the general principles stated by this Court in its earlier Order on intervention dated September 26, 2011 (DE 99), including the broad discretion afforded district courts concerning intervention. However, as is summarized in the paragraphs that follow, this motion for intervention stands upon dramatically different circumstances than the prior motion, which was denied. The proposed Plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s defamatory falsehoods about Prof. Dershowitz are of an Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 1 of 10 2 entirely different order of magnitude, and they have spread around the world. What makes them doubly troubling is their irrelevancy: although categorically false, the allegations against Prof. Dershowitz have absolutely nothing to do with whether the United States government violated its duty to confer with the Plaintiffs prior to entering into the non- prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, and, if so, what remedies might apply. Because those are the issues to be adjudicated by the Court in the underlying lawsuit, it is apparent that the broadside against Prof. Dershowitz was ginned up for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of this case. Prof. Dershowitz must be given the opportunity to defend himself through intervention in this action. I. The Joinder Motion is nothing more than a vehicle to impugn the reputation of Prof. Dershowitz, filed with the certain result of stirring up media interest. The Joinder Motion purports to seek to add two new plaintiffs as parties to this litigation, but does not even attach a proposed amended complaint in violation of the local rules. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 15.1 (requiring a party who moves to amend a pleading to attach the original of the amendment to the motion). Instead, the paper simply proffers various salacious allegations as quotable tabloid fodder. Specifically naming Prof. Dershowitz, and identifying him as Mr. Epstein’s counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel allege that Jane Doe #3 was “required” to have sexual relations with Prof. Dershowitz “on numerous occasions while she was a minor,” and, in addition, that Prof. Dershowitz was “an eyewitness to the sexual abuse of many other minors.” (DE 279 at 4.) The Motion goes on to state that Prof. Dershowitz was involved in the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein which “provided protection for [Prof. Dershowitz] against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3.” (Id.) Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 2 of 10 3 To the great detriment of Prof. Dershowitz, and as Plaintiffs’ counsel surely anticipated, the contemptible allegations against Prof. Dershowitz and others have created a media firestorm. Over the weekend of January 3 and 4, 2015, major media outlets—including the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Jerusalem Post— picked up the story and highlighted the most libelous allegations against Prof. Dershowitz. Yet, as stated above, the allegations against Prof. Dershowitz are completely irrelevant to this case. The issue to be determined on the Plaintiffs’ Petition is whether, in violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, the United States Attorney’s Office breached its obligations to meet and confer with the Plaintiffs—including proposed plaintiff Jane Doe # 3, who has made the accusations against Prof. Dershowitz—prior to entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein on September 24, 2007. That issue turns on the government’s knowledge of Jane Doe # 3’s allegation at the time of the agreement, including, for example, whether she was designated as a witness by the government. What has been levelled against Prof. Dershowitz simply has nothing to do with any relevant issues in this case. In short, there was no legitimate purpose for including these extremely harmful allegations in the Joinder Motion. II. The allegations made against Prof. Dershowitz are outrageously false. Besides being wholly irrelevant, the allegations made in the Joinder Motion with respect to Prof. Dershowitz are categorically false. See Declaration of Alan Dershowitz, attached hereto as Exhibit A. In fact, they are absolutely outrageous. Prof. Dershowitz is married and has three children and two grandchildren. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. Prof. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 3 of 10 4 Goldberg. Prof. Dershowitz is, among other things, a civil liberties attorney. During his long and distinguished career, he has published more than one thousand articles in newspapers, journals and magazines on a variety of topics. He has published fiction and non-fiction works and law review articles about criminal and constitutional law. He has received awards from many institutions and organizations for his work, including the Anti-Defamation League. In his private legal practice he represents individuals and corporations, and even provides counsel to various world leaders. Prof. Dershowitz’s reputation, which is sterling, is at the core of his remarkable career. III. Prof. Dershowitz should be allowed to intervene under these circumstances. It is to protect his reputation for which Prof. Dershowitz seeks to intervene in this action. He is entitled to do so under these circumstances, both as of right and with the permission of the Court. Intervention as of right is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Rule 24(a)(2) requires the Court to allow anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Among the interests that satisfy these criteria are injury to reputation. Sackman v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 167 F.R.D. 6, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 663 F.2d 371, 373, 392 (2d Cir. 1981)). The burden of demons