Former federal judge and University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell is facing a rare threat of a bar complaint over his representation of a client in the notorious case of billionaire and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Even more rare is the source of the threatened complaint: retired law professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School. Epstein is good friends with Bill Clinton and Duke of York Prince Andrew, 54, who have been mentioned in litigation over allegations of the use of underaged “sex slaves” and Epstein’s alleged penchant for watching (and filming) people having sex with these girls. Dershowitz’s name has appears on the ignoble list contained in motions before a federal court in Florida. Dershowitz is now threatening to initiate disbarment proceedings against Cassell and Bradley Edwards, a Florida attorney who also represents Jane Doe #3 in the controversy.
Dershowitz says that the sex claims are a “completely, totally fabricated, made-up story” and that he is an “innocent victim of an extortion conspiracy.” That itself could be viewed as defamatory since it makes the lawyers active participants in such extortion and any such statements made in public would be unprotected by privilege governing statements in court.
Cassell and Edwards however did not respond in kind and said that they would confine their statements to court filings “out of respect for the court’s desire to keep this case from being litigated in the press.” They noted however that they have “tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects, although he has avoided those deposition requests. Nevertheless, we would be pleased to consider any sworn testimony and documentary evidence Mr. Dershowitz would like to provide which he contends would refute any of our allegations.” In other words, they are saying that if Dershowitz wants to refute these allegations, he should do so under oath.
Two women identified as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 filed a 2008 petition in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach that alleges violations of the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) in the prosecution of Epstein. These women claim that prosecutors cut Epstein, who has a long list of powerful friends like Clinton, a generous deal that failed to address their alleged victimization from sex trafficking and that prosecutors did not even bother to confer with them. They also claimed the right to be heard at public proceedings regarding any plea or sentence, to receive restitution and to be treated with fairness. Epstein was allowed to plead guilty in state court in Florida to two counts of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor and served 13 months in prison before being released in 2009. They want the deal rescinded.
Cassell entered the fray on behalf of Jane Doe #3, who said that she was 15 when she became a sex slave for Epstein, and Jane Doe #4 who said that she was 16 in 2002 when she was used in this fashion. The women claimed to have been abused by Epstein and passed around to his friends. One account details a dinner with Bill Clinton and his allegedly close relationship to Epstein.
Dershowitz has been named as one of the friends cultivated by Epstein. Dershowitz reportedly later helped negotiate the agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida to Epstein and potential co-conspirators — including allegedly Dershowitz himself.
One of the women has come forward. Her name is Virginia Roberts and she says that she was forced to sleep with Prince Andrews when she was a minor on three occasions – in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein – between 1999 and 2002. Dershowitz has indicated that he is preparing legal action against Roberts as well and wants her statements made under oath. He is quoted as saying “My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to speak in court. If she believes she has been hurt by me and Prince Andrew, she should be suing us for damages . . . I welcome that lawsuit. I welcome any opportunity that would put her under oath and require her to state under oath these false allegations.” Dershowitz has also said that these allegations against him thrilling “anti-Israeli zealots” who hate him for his defense of Israel.
What was a criminal case could now become a significant defamation case involving not just questions of per se defamation but questions of absolute privilege regarding court filings. I am still unclear as to any bar complaint against Cassell and his colleague. If any of these women allege (as reported) that Dershowitz was one of the men who has sex with them as minors, it is hard to see how the attorneys could be accused unless Dershowitz is seriously claiming that they are knowingly trying to help extort money from him or filing false papers. Cassell does not have a reputation for such actions. Indeed, he is highly respected as an advocate and an academic. An indication is found in his statement as to the basis for the disbarment effort: “I’m planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera.”
The association of these men with Jeffrey Epstein is itself shocking. At best, Epstein is a convicted sex offender and a truly creepy character. (Shortly after his release from prison, he was quoted as denying that he is a real criminal and said “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender’. It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.”). Those accused will hardly benefit by the association with such a character but the allegations obviously go well beyond the “bad friends” problem. In Clinton’s case, Roberts details how she was required to be at a dinner with Clinton where he and Epstein had a lively time. However, she did not personally see Clinton take advantage of two girls that were also at the dinner and appeared underaged. Nevertheless, the allegation of a former president having dinner with underaged girls at the house of someone later convicted of sex crimes could be viewed as itself defamatory if untrue.
As for the most sensational allegations, sex with minors is clearly a crime and an act of moral turpitude and would qualify as per se defamation. As such, no special damages would have to be proven. Clearly there are celebrities who would have to satisfy the higher standard under New York Times v. Sullivan and show either knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth. They would also have to either find statements made in public or somehow overcome the privilege associated with court statements.
In other words, this is a mess and it is likely to get messier.
Source: SL Tribune
Dershowitz seemed immoral and unethical the way he went after Norman Finkelstein years ago. The company he keeps further solidifies this in my mind.
James – I think that Dershowitz was responding to the vicious attacks on his book by Finkelstein. Finkelstein seems to have started it.
Safe Libraries and Jill …. I get it about your points, however on the subject of “rape” I must recuse myself…one reason is I nearly, stopped short within milliseconds, killed a man over the issue. I have a very strong bias on the subject, stronger than most could possibly imagine. I cannot discuss it rationally. That I’m not aware of whatever Dershowitz is accused of, but suspect, individually in his case, if proven, isn’t a major game changer for me….I’ll wait, now that I am marginally aware, for how the courts deal with it. I hope you understand that…if anyone is guilty of this activity, what I’d do, if left to me, isn’t printable. I cannot therefore comment at the allegation stage on individual cases. As I’ve said before, I’d rather be a fool than go out and prove it.
“Dershowitz is coming out with both barrels shooting. He is not taking the same path as Bill Cosby. There will be no prisoners!!!!”
That’s the response Dershowitz wanted to get. He’s playing the media because that’s where his experience trumps that of opposing council.
SafeLibraries,
It is interesting that you see the rape of children and women as a problem with blackmail of world leaders. If world leaders engage(d) in these horrendous crimes, their crimes ought to be exposed. The problem is not one of blackmail but of a crime against an innocent child along with illegal and destructive behavior which any rape entails.
Jill – we have just had two ‘rape’ reports that went south. Right now I am putting all rape charges in the ‘wait and see’ column.
Aridog,
These women are part of the world. If they were raped it matters. Many people blissfully regard the rape of women and children as having little meaning. That attitude while rather common, seems to show a real lack of concern for the wellbeing of others.
You do not strike me as a person who cares little for the welfare of others. I hope I am not mistaken in this.
@Aridog, actually, it might change world affairs. The whole matter of underage girls and their being filmed while being violated by world leaders, etc., raises the issue of blackmail of political leaders and all that goes along with that.
I am particularly delighted that I know nothing about whatever kerfuflle Dershowitz is involved with these days. Ignorance, at times, can be bliss. I’m guessing it does not change world affairs one whit, so there’s that.
Aridog – heads could roll. Prince Andrew is also named so this is in the gossip columns.
Jill:
unless Harry is 19 or 20, he probably belongs to NAMBLA or NAMGLA.
Harry,
Two young girls kept as sex slaves. Jail time and having to register as a sex offender. What is the question you have about this? Rape at any age is not legal.
Here is a link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/12/court-filing-levels-sex-claims-at-alan-dershowitz-200495.html
Dershowitz is a creep. Was nice to see Greenwald filet him at the Monk debate. A second rate hack mind spent defending apartheid and slow-mo genocide. Innocent until proven guilty, but creepy enough that I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Hope this shit bag’s career has an ignoble end.
the entire country is rotten at the top.
Time to get get rid of all the scumbags at all levels of government.
If you have plans to vote for jeb bush or hillary clinton, you are a moron.
I ran the name Dershowitz through the Dogalogue Machine translator and it comes out in English as “turdholder” not to be confused with Eric Holder. Can anyone of German persuasion provide more insight into this language barrier.
Cronyism: The Obama regime has quietly ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start donating hundreds of millions of dollars a year to a permanent affordable-housing slush fund for Democratic activist groups.
Earlier this month, while few were paying attention, Federal Housing Finance Agency chief Mel Watt sent letters to the mortgage giants to “set aside in each fiscal year 4.2 basis points of each dollar of unpaid principal balance of new business purchases to be allocated to the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund.”
That’s a 0.042% tax to equip the funds. HUD will run the housing fund; the Treasury Department will run the capital fund.
If the funds had been operating in 2010, when Fannie and Freddie together bought $856 billion in new mortgages, Fannie and Freddie would have pumped a whopping $360 million into the funds. Estimates put their total for fiscal 2015 at half a billion dollars.
The money will help build apartments for extremely low-income Americans, says Watt, the former Congressional Black Caucus leader whom President Obama hand-picked to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The funds will also help the poor afford their own homes through down payments and other assistance.
But nonprofit housing activist groups will distribute the funds. So count on money being diverted to ACORN fronts and clones, beholden to the Democratic Party, who in the past have laundered housing grant money to finance political campaigns.
As we’ve reported previously, ACORN affiliates are still operational in New York and other cities, having renamed themselves after ACORN was busted for fraud and corruption during the 2008 presidential campaign. They’re also still receiving HUD housing grants.
In the past, these groups have used HUD grants to pressure banks to make ill-advised home loans that sped the mortgage crisis. Now a permanently funded war chest will aid their shakedown — courtesy of taxpayers still on the hook for Fannie and Freddie.
The last thing the nation needs is another Washington scheme that further politicizes the lending and home-building markets. Yet rest assured that will be the end result of these national housing funds.
Making matters worse, they’re unaccountable to congressional appropriators, making them ripe for corruption and cronyism. We’re talking about billions of dollars funneling through left-wing nonprofits and floating around in urban reinvestment projects sponsored by the likes of Rahm Emanuel and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
With this potential $500 million slush fund, moreover, the Obama regime is effectively turning Fannie and Freddie into off-budget welfare agencies — indeed, a self-sustaining shadow government for the left wing that will survive even Republican administrations.
Now we know what the president really had in mind when he promised to “reform” the bankrupt mortgage giants.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/123014-732671-obama-orders-fannie-freddie-to-set-aside-housing-slush-fund.htm#ixzz3Nxeyj96P
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
I’m not clear on the sex with “minors” allegation. Does this mean a person under the age of 18 or one under the legal age of consent? It’s my understanding that the legal age of consent in some states (if not all) is below 18 which would allow for consensual sex with “minors.”
I did not hear about this until Dershowitz made his swinging defense. My regard for him went down several notches whether true or not. It is the associations he (and Clinton) keep that I find troubling.
Pogo, you are 100% correct. No story until it involves a prominent R.
Mr. Dershowitz is using the ruthless attack form of defense.
The problem is that while effective as a defense (sounds like the lawyers are rightfully intimidated), it does raise suspicions that there is more than just smoke in these allegations.
It is Mr. Dershowitz’s right to hit back, but in may turn out to be a poor strategy (especially if there is some foundation to these allegations).
I don’t peruse the MSM anymore, so are they all over the accusation that a US President chummed with a pedophile on a private island?
I’m guessing the answer is “no.”
MSM Scandal Algorithm:
——> Does it involve a Democrat?
If No, SCANDAL!!!!; Page 1 for 3 months.
If Yes, Delete.
Dershowitz is coming out with both barrels shooting. He is not taking the same path as Bill Cosby. There will be no prisoners!!!!
No priests, no problem.
Curiouser and curiouser!