What were 4 Secret Service men doing on Jeffrey Epstein’s Jet at Tax Payer expense? THEY WERE BILL CLINTON’S SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION DETAIL!
 4_secret_service_jet


Clinton shared Epstein’s plane with “Kellen” and “Maxwell” on at least 11 flights in 2002 and 2003—before any of the allegations against them became public. This is verified by the pilots’ logbooks, which were entered into evidence in civil litigation surrounding Epstein’s crimes.


3038b582-3409-411c-a1ae-2a53a0ebfd1d

In January 2002, for instance, Clinton, his aide Doug Band, and Clinton’s Secret Service detail are listed on a flight from Japan to Hong Kong with Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and two women described only as “Janice” and “Jessica.” One month later, records show, Clinton hopped a ride from Miami to Westchester on a flight that also included Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman described only as “one female.”

 


Teens listed on Epstein’s Jetstream manifest along with Bill Clinton, Secret Service Detail are the same teens identified in “long lost” police report below.


Palm Beach Police Reports: Jeffrey Epstein case by SyndicatedNews


Note:  Michael I. Krauss wrote this article but we have had to edit the original because so much has surfaced about this case.

Michael I. Krauss Michael I. Krauss Contributor

Civil lawsuits are not acts of state: to the contrary, they are disputes between private parties. No permission or license is required to file such a suit (though a filing fee may have to be paid to the court that will eventually hear the matter).

aQAZcTi.jpg.pagespeed.ce.lYFVOh3c_hU9NXmv4_g8

Jeffrey Epstein’s lover, Ghislaine Maxwell was a prominent guest at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

There exists in principle no prior restraint (no required preliminary hearing binding over for trial; no grand jury indictment; etc.) required before filing a civil complaint.

24FBCB4600000578-2922773-Flight_logs_from_August_2002_show_Bill_Clinton_aboard_the_plane_-m-7_1422026613901

In some jurisdictions, civil complaints must be accompanied by a sworn statement (also known as an affidavit) by the plaintiff, typically stating that “facts stated therein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.”

54b18d8484fec

(L) Cindy Lopez and  (R) Sarah Kellen are on manifest along with Bill Clinton and 4 Secret Service men.

In those jurisdictions a knowingly false complaint can be punished by a perjury conviction.

9423f0d9c66068ef15203e636d530ecf10c2d132

 

andrew-girl-madame

Prince Andrew, Victoria Roberts (underage) and Ghislaine Maxwell known for the seedier side of partying

dnews jh judge cassell

Judge Cassell

 

andrew von aspen

Prince Andrew reportedly introduced to Ms Von Aspen after “following her round like a puppy all night”.

Civil complaints are frequently defamatory – it often hurts a defendant’s reputation to have the world (litigation documents are in principle made public) read that she allegedly beat/threatened/lied to/defrauded the plaintiff.

ANDREW

Brazilian model slow dancing with Prince Andrew at St. Tropez

588909-168c68f4-9d1d-11e4-b0c3-1d439f0b9016

Ghislaine-Maxwell-_3152976c

Ghislaine Maxwell, pictured with Epstein, says claims against her are ‘lies’ (She was accused of being the madame). In this photo they both were invited by Prince Andrew to stay at one of the Royal Family’s homes.

andrew st tropez

As the drinking and partying progresses so does the fun.

Epstein-Dershowitz-Dear-Old-Buddies

Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz

What if those charges are false, even made up? In that case, in addition to a possible perjury prosecution as mentioned above, the tort of malicious prosecution is typically available to the aggrieved defendant against the perjurious planitiff, once the original lawsuit has been dismissed. But what if the complaint includes defamatory statements against someone who is not being sued?

What if I sue Smith for battery, and in my complaint I assert that Smith enlisted Jones (whom I am not suing) to help beat me? If my complaint is baseless, Smith may sue me for malicious prosecution, and the state may prosecute me for perjury.

prince_anadrew2

2483865200000578-2900787-image-a-6_1420730714254

partyFEATURE

But may Jones sue me for anything? Jones is not being sued, so a malicious prosecution lawsuit is not available. A perjury prosecution, even if available, would not compensate Jones financially. And Jones may not sue for libel, since court documents are typically privileged against defamation suits. Indeed, neither perjury nor subornation of perjury may in principle form the basis for a civil action.

ALAN

An absolutely livid Alan Dershowitz, vociferously vowing to avenge his honor and his good name. He was the attorney that originally defended Jeffrey Epstein’s original ‘unlawful sex with minors’ case and somehow managed to get Epstein’s records sealed. Sealing those records is the problem because it is illegal to deny the victims of their human rights in order to protect the wealthy involved in the case (and that means everybody)

Alan Dershowitz is a high profile emeritus member of the Harvard law faculty, an attorney for (in)famous criminal defendants, and a courageous public intellectual defending Israel against vile international anti-Semitism. Paul Cassell is a former associate deputy attorney general, a former assistant United States Attorney, a former judge on the United States District Court in Utah, and a professor at the University of Utah.

Prince Andrew is the second son and third child of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, and is currently fifth in line to succeed his mother as monarch. Here’s a three-part summary of the tangled web that has ensnared these men:

1. In May 2006, Palm Beach, FL police filed a probable cause affidavit stating that billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein should be charged with several felony counts of unlawful sex with minors. The disgusting saga of alleged goings-on at the Epstein residence has been detailed elsewhere, and is too lascivious to be mentioned in this column.

Epstein, who has settled several civil lawsuits filed against him by these young women and who has been described as a “pasha” who believes himself to be above the law, was a friend of very influential politicians and other celebrities. He assembled a (presumably high-priced) legal “dream team” composed of Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz, among others.

In 2008 a very controversial plea agreement was reached whereby Epstein would plead guilty on a state felony charge of soliciting a prostitute. The plea agreement included a federal promise not to prosecute. Epstein served thirteen months on the state charge, and has since had to register as a sex offender. He sometimes resides on his own island (ironically, perhaps, part of the United States Virgin Islands), presumably making it easier to comply with sex offender restrictions.

2. Michael Reiter, former Palm Beach police chief, has stated that Epstein received “very unusual” treatment in the plea deal negotiated between federal officials and Epstein’s attorneys. Currently, some of those victims are challenging the plea agreement in federal court.

These women contend that the agreement was negotiated without their knowledge and in violation of their federal rights as victims under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Cassell is one of the attorneys representing a woman who has just asked to join this federal lawsuit.

The woman, self-described in court pleadings as “Jane Doe #3” but named in The Guardian, makes many very serious allegations against Epstein in her very recent court filing. One allegation is that “Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

Other allegations state that she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York (Prince Andrew) [here is a photo of the two together, when Jane Doe #3 was no longer a minor] and with “numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders.” The filing goes on to state that, “Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them.”

3. Reactions to the court filing by Jane Doe #3, asking to join the federal lawsuit challenging the 2008 plea agreement, have been swift. Dershowitz has filed a motion to intervene in the federal case, in order to “protect his reputation” against the “outrageously false” accusations of Jane Doe #3.

On CNN he called Jane Doe #3 a “serial perjurer, serial liar, serial prostitute,” though he added that he had never met her. Possibly Dershowitz was deliberately defaming her in order to attract a lawsuit which would allow him to defend himself. In the same light, Dershowitz has called Cassell and his co-counsel Bradley Edwards “sleazy, unprofessional, unethical lawyers” who should have known that their client, Jane Doe #3, is “lying through her teeth.” These two lawyers then sued Dershowitz for defamation. Their suit states, in pertinent part,

“Immediately following the filing of what the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, knew to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading, DERSHOWITZ initiated a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment.”

[It should be noted that Epstein himself had previously sued Edwards, alleging that Edwards had manufactured false child molestation claims against Epstein, intended to be sold to investors as part of a massive Ponzi scheme; but Epstein’s suit was dismissed as baseless and resulted in the launching of a malicious prosecution countersuit by Edwards against Epstein, which is still pending.]

  • Now that the basic structure of this remarkable series of events has been set forth, its relevance to my Forbes column (which usually deals with Legal Ethics and with Tort law) should be evident.
  • Dershowitz’s former client, Epstein, has been accused of dozens of intentional torts of the most salacious variety.
  • Edwards and Cassell’s client,“Doe,” arguably implies, in a suit against third parties, that Dershowitz and Prince Andrew also committed the tort of battery (since a coerced young minor female is plausibly incapable of valid consent to intercourse).
  • Dershowitz accuses Edwards and Cassell of unethical behavior. Edwards and Cassell claim that Dershowitz’s accusation constitutes the tort of defamation.

embed---hilton-prince-andrew

Who’s the victim here (apart, of course, from the many females upon whom Epstein is alleged to have preyed)? Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell can all plausibly claim to be victims. Are they, though? Here’s how the bottom line should be reached:

1. Claims against Dershowitz and Andrew by Jane Doe #3 are unproven, and should not be believed by readers until and unless evidence is forthcoming. Jane Doe #3 has defamed Dershowitz, but that defamation is privileged (whether or not it is true) because it is contained in a court document. If Doe repeats her claim outside court proceedings, that repeated claim would not be privileged and would subject her to liability unless, of course, the claim is true. Even if Doe’s accusation was knowingly false, and would subject her to a perjury prosecution, that prosecution would not result in compensation for Dershowitz. Finally, any defamation by Doe is NOT defamation by her attorneys, Edwards and Cassell.

2. An attorney is entitled to believe his client unless he has evidence that she is lying. Dershowitz will be challenged to produce evidence that Cassell and his co-council knew that Jane Doe #3 was lying, especially as Dershowitz’s unsubstantiated (to my knowledge) charge about Doe’s character flaws is unlikely to be seen as self-evident to her attorneys. Dershowitz has not, to my knowledge, publicly produced evidence that Edwards and Cassell should have reasonably believed Doe to be lying (in which case they might still have been permitted to reproduce her accusation).

3. Absent such evidence, Edwards’ and Cassell’s claim of per se defamation (via Dershowitz’s professional slur) is a very strong one. Dershowitz’s assertion about these two attorneys attacks the essence of their professional integrity.

4. Dershowitz’s stated intent to demand disbarment of Edwards and Cassell implies that he has more evidence than merely that Jane Doe #3 was lying (if, indeed, she was lying). Cassell and his co-counsel would have to have known she was lying, or at the very least they would have to have had no reasonable grounds to believe her, in order for them to have behaved unethically in defending her assertions.

5. Edwards and Cassell have no obligation to exhaustively investigate Jane Doe #3’s claim before proceeding. Professional ethics do require, however, that they investigate sufficiently to give them prima facie reasons to believe that her accusations are neither frivolous nor gratuitous. An attorney is not just a scrivener: he should not casually reproduce every outlandish thing his client states. Did Cassell and Edwards fail in their duty? Their libel suit against Dershowitz will presumably be the forum where we will learn the answer to this question. This is because Dershowitz, in his defense to the libel suit, will try to show that his accusations are true (since truth is a defense to libel) by detailing Cassell’s and Edwards’ alleged unprofessional and unethical behavior. Cassell and Edwards will presumably attempt to rebut any evidence that Dershowitz provides. If the Edwards/Cassell defamation suit goes to trial, we will be enlightened about all three attorneys.

6. Meanwhile, Prince Andrew, known in England as the “Playboy Prince,” apparently plans not to sue anyone, despite Britain’s more liberal libel laws. It’s not clear that he has suffered any damage, and of course it’s not clear that a suit will help him in any way (it would keep Jane Doe #3’s accusations in the public eye longer).

It is not unusual for public charges to be followed by defamation suits. It is highly unusual, however, for the principal protagonists to a public debate about a scandal to be highly reputable attorneys, none of whom were involved in the original scandal. It remains to be seen whether Dershowitz and Cassell can both emerge from this episode with their reputations fully intact.

Edwards Cassell v Alan Dershowitz Defamation Lawsuit by SyndicatedNews

Alan Dershowitz Affidavit by SyndicatedNews

The daughter of disgraced Mirror newspapers chief Robert Maxwell said her character had been defamed.  Documents lodged with a court in Florida say the 53-year-old introduced her former boyfriend Epstein to powerful individuals, including Prince Andrew, after moving to New York in 1991 following the death of her father on his yacht.

caseytucker

Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker were passengers on Epstein’s jet. Their names showed up on the flight logs.  According to the documents, a woman identified as Jane Doe 3 says Ms Maxwell asked her to visit Epstein’s Florida mansion when she was 15 years old.

The document says: “Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as they had done with many other victims.

“Maxwell took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls, including Jane Doe 3.

Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz Sex Slave Lawsuit by SyndicatedNews


hawkingonboatThe Smoking Gun, reports that in spite of his history, Jeffrey Epstein remains extremely popular and just about everyone (including youth groups) accept his money in spite of his being a convicted child molester.

Along with teen aged girls, Jeffrey Epstein loves science and innovation and donates to the world’s leading scientists which remain his friends.

Epstein refers to himself as a “science and education philanthropist” who sponsors “cutting edge science around the world.”

In 2012, Epstein hosted Stephen Hawking at a science conference held on his private Caribbean island. The theoretical physicist joined the sex offender, three Nobel Prize winners, and other noted scientists like Lawrence Krauss for a discussion on gravity.

Lawrence Krauss is highly interesting in his own right… His Wikipedia biography features him as an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project. He has also authored the following books:

Routinely, an academic would make it a point to steer clear of a felon with a child molestation history but Krauss seems fine with it.

Photos from the conference show Hawking and Krauss (above) on a boat off Little St. James, the Epstein-owned island located near the east end of St. Thomas. In another picture, seen below, Hawking is at an island mixer with Lisa Randall, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University.

hawkingmixerAccording to Epstein, his charitable foundation has sponsored Hawking and other prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates David Gross, Frank Wilczek, Gerard ‘t Hooft, and the late Gerald Edelman.

Epstein’s island–which is now his principal residence, according to sex offender registries–has recently been the subject of allegations leveled by Virginia Roberts, a former teenage masseuse who claims that she became Epstein’s “sex slave.”

Lisa Randall, featured on the right side of the photo above is an American theoretical physicist and leading expert on particle physics and cosmology. She is the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science on the physics faculty of Harvard University. Her research includes elementary particles and fundamental forces and she has developed and studied a wide variety of models, the most recent involving extra dimensions of space.

She has advanced the understanding and testing of the Standard Model, supersymmetry, possible solutions to the hierarchy problem concerning the relative weakness of gravity, cosmology of extra dimensions, baryogenesis, cosmological inflation, and dark matter. Her best-known contribution is the Randall–Sundrum model, first published in 1999 with Raman Sundrum.

Visiting Epstein’s island and breaking bread with him doesn’t seem to bother Lisa Randall’s academic sensibilities or worry her about gaining a reputation of rubbing elbows with a convicted child molester who remains on the sex offender registry.
|

 

  • retiredbobinFla.

    Is anyone surprised Bill Clinton is involved???