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
Of course you do, Nick. Facts have never inhibited your ability to spout nonsense.
This whole thing is nauseating.
However, I have an issue with the term “sex slave”. Are you a slave if you go home at night, stay with your parents, go to school and conduct normal activities? I understand the underage sex trafficking charge. However, unless you are restricted in your freedoms to get away and to tell someone what is happening……I am skeptical of the “slave” designation.
In related news, Bubba got hit w/ another ashtray over the weekend. And, does anyone buy how Harry Reid hurt himself, using a rubber band workout device? I think the Mormon likes gin.
Nick – Harry Reid has had several ‘sports’ related injuries requiring a doctor. This one I have a little trouble with.
“If Dershowitz is innocent, then shouldn’t he want to clear his name officially in court of law and not in a newspaper?”
No. If one were given the opportunity Dershowitz has- clearing your name for free in the press rather than engaging in expensive litigation to accomplish the same result why would he, or anyone rational choose the courts? Screw that, and that isn’t even considering that the judgment of the public won’t even revolve around his guilt or innocence, just the effectiveness of his PR.
this pedophilia stuff is probably pervasive in the ruling class. they all sit around thinking they are Plato, Aristotle, Nero, Caligula, etc. having their way with little boys and girls.
Sick pukes.
DC and the other state capitals need to be emptied of corruption. There is a never ending stream of putrefaction coming from the highest levels of government and commerce.
Sex trafficking, especially in minors, is a terrible tragedy. I recall reading about a former prostitute who changed the way her local community handled the victims of sex trafficking. Formerly, even minors caught in busts were treated as criminal prostitutes. It was depressing because the same girls would get arrested over and over again. This woman, I forgot her name, treated the girls as victims who needed help rather than criminals. Some were kidnapped, some were troubled girls who ran away from abusive homes, and some were into drugs. All were tragedies.
I found an article about a different intervention program than the one I read about, but with similar attributes:
http://www.9news.com/news/article/317869/0/Ex-prostitute-reveals-her-story-new-healing-option-for-sex-trafficking-victims
Doody:
Politicizing housing, plus having vast funds with no accountability, is a recipe for corruption we are all familiar with in DC.
We need to come up with better ideas for housing the poor. “The Projects” were a disaster. The whole “Home Ownership is a Right” that forced subprime, no money down loans, was a disaster.
But here we go, shoveling more money at a problem when we should be thinking outside the box, and making every step transparent and accountable.
When we refuse to adjust our strategy as we get feedback on outcome, we fail to reach our goals.
Dershowitz negotiated an immunity agreement that would protect any co-conspirators from federal prosecution. Am I correct that the state could still file charges?
I agree with Professor Turley that it seems rather strange to threaten to disbar attorneys for the statements of their clients. I assume that visitors to a private island would take a private jet. Can any pilots on this site tell me if passenger manifests are required, and always accurate?
I also agree with Rafflaw that Dershowitz should clear his name in court.
It is deeply troubling that the powerfully-connected Epstein was able to get off with 13 months for allegedly sex trafficking minors. It does not sound like the victims were considered. I hope there is an investigation. Was an unfair plea deal offered to avoid embarrassment?
The Google translator says that the word dersh is offender and witz is joke. He is a joke offender.
Paul, there was clear evidence of plagiarism. It appears Dershowitz and yourself share the same ethical standards.
James – there were conflicting charges of plagiarism and committees who cleared him, as well as his publisher. What there clearly is is bad blood between to two.
Cassell should have a look at what happened to Mike Nifong when he was too credulous.
rafflaw – isn’t Dershowitz allowed to do both and if he is falsely accused what is his remedy?
If Dershowitz is innocent, then shouldn’t he want to clear his name officially in court of law and not in a newspaper?
Paul, Dick Cheney is a man who has publicly admitted to torture. Do I believe him about that? Yes, I do. I thought he was guilty of torture even before he openly admitted to this war crime. Nevertheless, I equally believe that Dick Cheney has a right to a fair, civilian trial for the war crime of torture.
To think something is not the same as to prove it in a court of law. What I was addressing is your seeming dismissal of rape as mostly a bunch of lies “going south”. I was pointing out that rapes are underreported and that the powerful, in general, are believed far more readily than those who don’t have power. This is true in cases of rape and in many other political and criminal matters.
Jill – please do not read into my comments something that is not there. I asked for caution given the latest ‘rape’ cases and you condemn him for being powerful. I guess Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton are also guilty using your standard.
Turley’s source: The Daily Mail
palm beach florida police say they have all kinds of evidence.
This was covered up by democrats. So much for hillary clintons presidential run. Bill Clinton has been screwing her for years and she has set women back more than any republican.
Talk about your war on women, they make the republicans look like pikers.
Paul, to defend yourself and refute charges of plagiarism is one thing, to go after a man’s job and his lively hood is completely another.
James – if someone falsely accused me of plagiarism I would go after his job, his home and his life.
Paul, I wanted to add one thing. One person involved in this case has been convicted. We cannot say if Dershowitz is guilty of raping these children or child. We do know that one man kept several children as sex slaves. These particular rape charges were proven in a court of law and did not go south.
Jill – the 3rd one was not part of the criminal case. She is the one accusing Prince Andrew and Dershowitz.
Paul,
Every charge in the legal system must be put in that category until proven in a court of law.
As a general rule, rape is underreported. Further, powerful men are much more likely to be believed than a young girl or women. That is how our society works.
Jill – I think these men are being tarred with a broad brush right now. And Dershowitz makes a good point. Say it in public, not where it is privileged.
Are you familiar with Annie Oakley? She spent the last years of her life fighting libel charges against her. If I remember correctly, she won all but one. Still, she spent more in legal fees than she every got in court awards. However, her reputation was so valuable to her that she was willing to do it.
Even though you are saying you are giving Dershowitz the benefit of the doubt right now, out of the other side of your mouth you are condemning him because he is a powerful person. He either is innocent until proven guilty or we hang him first and then give him a fair trial.