FL Judge Strikes Allegations Against Dershowitz and Prince Andrew

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:10:00 AM EST
Tags: Alan Dershowitz, Jane Doe #3 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The federal judge presiding over the never ending victims rights lawsuit seeking to overturn a federal non-prosecution agreement against Jeffrey Epstein yesterday ruled Jane Doe #3, aka Virginia Roberts, and Jane Doe #4 cannot join Jane Does 1 and 2 as parties to the lawsuit. He also ruled that if called as witnesses for Jane Does 1 and 2, their evidence will have to be admissible, relevant and non-cumulative.

More importantly, the judge ordered all of Roberts' claims against Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and others stricken from the record, finding her allegations amounted to "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” In doing so, the Court said it was acting on its own accord, which made a ruling on Dershowitz' motion to intervene unnecessary. [More...]

The Court has considered Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) empowers the Court “on its own” to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

... Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene “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.” (DE 282 at 1). As the Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Dershowitz’s intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot ...

... The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government. These unnecessary details shall be stricken.The original Rule 21 Motion (DE 279) shall be stricken in its entirety...

As to the denial of Jane Doe #3 and 4's requests to be added as parties:

Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr. Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all “other similarly-situated victims”, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they should be fellow travelers in this purs