File 015650

Images

Text

Filing # 37557658 E-Filed 02/08/2016 06:20:47 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072
PAUL G. CASSELL,
v.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ALAN DERSHOWITZ’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER OR RELIEF FROM THAT ORDER
Non-Party Virginia Giuffre, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to
Defendant Alan Dershowitz’s Motion for Clarification of Confidentiality Order or Relief From
that Order and states as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 12, 2015 this Court issued an Order granting in part, non-party Virginia
Giuffre’s Motion to Quash the subpoena served by Defendant Alan Dershowitz and ordered
protective limits relating to her deposition. See Exhibit A, November 12, 2015 Order. On
December 18, 2016, this Court entered a Confidentiality Order holding that non-party Virginia
Giuffre’s deposition would be confidential. See Exhibit B, December 18, 2015 Confidentiality
Order. On January 16, 2016, Ms. Giuffre testified at her deposition in accordance with this
Court’s Order. The deposition was labelled confidential in accordance with this Court’s Order.
As the Court knows, Ms. Giuffre was a victim of sexual trafficking when she was a minor child.
Indeed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida has specifically recognized
her as a “victim” of federal sex offenses. Unsurprisingly, her deposition contains highly sensitive
information about her experiences as a minor child, including detail descriptions of sexual crimes
committed against her.
ARGUMENT
1. Non-Party Virginia Giuffre Agrees That Her Deposition Should Be Provided
Confidentially To Law Enforcement to Investigate All The Crimes Committed
Against Her
Defendant Dershowitz seeks to have the Court grant an exception to the confidential nature
of the deposition so that it can be provided to the Office of the State Attorney and the Office of the
United States Attorney for investigative purposes. Specifically, Defendant Dershowitz states in
his motion that he is hoping to have law enforcement investigate whether Ms. Giuffre committed
perjury by stating in her previously filed affidavit that it is her recollection that she witnessed
former President Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein’s island in the United States Virgin Islands
(“USVI”) 1 .
Setting aside Defendant Dershowitz’s baseless claims of perjury, Ms. Giuffre agrees that
her confidential deposition should be provided to law enforcement, including the United States
Attorney and the State Attorney in each jurisdiction where any alleged crimes occurred so that
they may investigate all of the crimes committed against her when she was a minor child. To
ensure that justice is served and that Defendant Dershowitz’s request is not just another charade
designed only to bully a sexual abuse victim, Ms. Giuffre asks the Court to impose the following
reasonable conditions relating to the disclosure:
�
Mr. Dershowitz agrees and is directed to cooperate with authorities and answer all
questions relating to the investigation of crimes against Ms. Giuffre.
1 Defendant Dershowitz conveniently ignores that publicly available flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein’s private
planes demonstrate that President Clinton travelled with Jeffrey Epstein and others to various locations
throughout the world including Europe, Africa and Asia. See Exhibit C, Excerpts of Flight Logs from
Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane.
2
�
�
�
�
Mr. Dershowitz agrees to make his client, Jeffrey Epstein, and others with relevant
testimony and with whom he has testified he shares a “common interest” – at least Epstein
and Maxwell – available to any law enforcement agency reviewing any alleged criminal
activities; or in the alternative, to attest to this Court that those necessary witnesses have
consented to full cooperation in the investigation Mr. Dershowitz is seeking permission to
initiate.
Mr. Dershowitz agrees to waive the statute of limitations in all jurisdictions for any
criminal conduct he participated in or was aware of relating to Ms. Giuffre so that law
enforcement can pursue any necessary charges. Defendant Dershowitz proclaimed that he
was willing to waive any statute of limitation for criminal conduct so this should not be an
issue. See Exhibit D, January 12, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Alan Dershowitz at 395.
“I had talked about the statute of limitations for criminal purpose was what I said, that I
would waive the statute of limitations for criminal purposes.”
Mr. Dershowitz agrees to provide the names and contact information for each State
Attorney and United States Attorney for which he has or is planning to provide
information relating to Ms. Giuffre; and agrees to jointly, with Ms. Giuffre’s counsel,
request that the State Attorney and United States Attorney, in the relevant jurisdictions,
investigate all potential criminal conduct. Both parties may provide any relevant
information they have that may assist the authorities with their investigation.
For all other purposes non-party Ms. Giuffre’s January 16, 2016 deposition transcript shall
remain confidential and sealed other than for confidential disclosure to law enforcement as
described above.
2. Mr. Dershowitz Has No “Evidence” of Perjury And Instead Is Simply Trying To
Bully This Victim
As explained above, Defendant Dershowitz wrongly suggests to this Court that non-party
Virginia Giuffre has committed perjury in an effort to taint the Court against this victim. His only
“evidence” of this alleged perjury is a self-serving opinion from his retained expert that an
“absence of records” in response to a FOIA request, establishes that former President Clinton was
never on Jeffrey Epstein’s island in the USVI. Defendant Dershowitz misrepresents the
government’s response. The government is only required to conduct a reasonable search of
readily accessible records. Accordingly, an “absence of records” response does not mean that
records do not exist. It simply means that in the course of the search, no records were found. See
Cunningham v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 961 F.Supp. 2d 226, 236 (D.C. 2013) (court reasoning that
“[t]he adequacy of a search is measured by a standard of reasonableness… The question is not
3
whether other responsive records may exist, but whether the search was adequate.”); Wilbur v.
C.I.A., 355 F.3d 675, 678 (D.C. 2004) (court explaining that “the agency’s failure to turn up a
particular document, or mere speculation that as yet uncovered documents might exist, does not
undermine the determination that the agency conducted an adequate search for the requested
records.”). Moreover, when dealing with a former President’s security detail travel, there are a
number of reasons why the government may not disclose those records.
As explained above, public flight records from Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane show that
President Clinton traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, if Defendant
Dershowitz wants to pursue this issue before the Court, then he needs to produce for deposition
testimony in this case and the proposed criminal investigation, the other witnesses that were
present on the island at the time former President Clinton was alleged to have visited, including
his client Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, to whom he has testified he is party to a joint
defense agreement. It is worth noting on that point, that despite Mr. Epstein’s counsel’s
attendance at depositions in this case, and Defendant Dershowitz’s claim that Mr. Epstein is still
his client, Mr. Epstein has taken extreme measures to avoid being deposed in this case despite
being ordered to deposition by this Court.
Indeed, it is also noteworthy that during Defendant Dershowitz’s recent deposition,
counsel for Mr. Edwards and Mr. Cassell asked Defendant Dershowitz the following question:
“Was Virginia Roberts lying when she said Jeffrey Epstein socialized with Bill Clinton during the
relevant time period?” Depo Tr. Of Alan Dershowitz, Vol. 4, January 12, 2016 at 511. Before
Defendant Dershowitz could answer, Mr. Dershowitz’s legal counsel interposed an attorney-client
privilege objection. Id. Perhaps Mr. Epstein’s defense counsel can provide to the Court an
appropriate privilege log regarding that objection – and all the communications between Mr.
Epstein and Defendant Dershowitz that would have been revealed in answer to that question – so
that the Court will have the benefit of a full record in ruling on this motion.
4
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Non-Party Virginia Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court allow a
limited release of her confidential deposition transcript to law enforcement subject to the terms set
forth above on pages 2-3.
Dated: February 8, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 356-0011
Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
By: /s/Sigrid S. McCawley________________
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 129305
Attorney for Non-Party Virginia Giuffre
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 8, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was served by Electronic Mail to the individuals identified below.
By:_/s/Sigrid S. McCawley_________
Sigrid S. McCawley
Thomas E. Scott
Thomas.scott@csklegal.com
Steven R. Safra
Steven.safra@csklegal.com
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156
Renee.nail@csklegal.com
Shelly.zambo@csklegal.com
Jack Scarola
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART
& SHIPLEY, P.A.
JSX@searcylaw.com
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409-6601
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Richard A. Simpson
rsimpson@wileyrein.com
Mary E. Borja
mborja@wileyrein.com
Ashley E. Eiler
aeiler@wileyrein.com
WILEY REIN, LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel for Defendant Alan Dershowitz
6