Jane Doe #3 cites questionable case law to implicate Prof. Alan Dershowitz in alleged Epstein abuse

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 5 of 19 In an effort to cite contrary law to the Court, Jane Doe #3’s Response takes remarkable liberties in describing what is claimed to be the law to Court. For example, the Response quotes Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga. 1987) for the proposition that “a witness’ interest in his reputation alone . . . does not constitute the required ‘interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the present action’ necessary to allow intervention as a matter of right.” Yet what is excised from that quote through the ellipses is the most crucial part of the case: “following a finding by a court that he is not credible.” Calloway actually stands for the proposition that a witness cannot intervene in a case as of right if the Court has found him not credible in one of its orders. This finding has never been made as to Prof. Dershowitz either in this Court, or in hundreds of others in which he has appeared. Il. Jane Doe #3’s Lies About Prof. Dershowitz Are Wholly Irrelevant to This Action Meanwhile, Jane Doe #3 fails to come up with a single credible reason for naming Prof. Dershowitz in her Joinder Motion. First, she claims she needed to drag Prof. Dershowitz’s name through the mud to prove that Jane Doe #3 was a victim of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. Yet, in her Joinder Motion, she states that “[t]he Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA.” (DE 279 at 6.) If she was already listed as a victim on the NPA, why would they need to prove that further by adding pages of scurrilous allegations against various individuals? And why did they have to mention Prof. Dershowitz by name, when elsewhere they claim that “numerous prominent” individuals also allegedly committed sexual abuse, but keep those alleged figures anonymous? The bad faith against Prof. Dershowitz is apparent’. ' Similarly, Jane Doe #3’s allegations that she named Prince Andrew because of outstanding 5 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010739