Why would I, humble citizen of Hoi Polloi Nation, feel obliged to defend noted Harvard Law Professor, writer, and criminal attorney Allan Dershowitz, who specializes in difficult higher court appeals? He’s a millionaire and has access and knowledge of the judicial system way beyond a lay person’s comprehension. I am Citizen Schmuck, probably like you, dear reader (if indeed anyone reads this) struggling to pay my mortgage, health insurance bills, and other expenses.
The reason is that Dershowitz and I have something in common. We like to defend ourselves from slander and damage to our reputations. Yes, my reputation is as important to me as his is to the world that knows him. The world that knows him will also know that his name has been associated with that of notorious billionaire playboy and convicted pedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
You can read about Epstein’s sexual predations on a number of web sites from the Huffington Post to the Daily Caller. If you do, you will also note that Epstein liked to entertain celebs on his private island in the Caribbean. Epstein has hosted high profile people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and it is alleged also that Dershowitz was present at some of these sexual soirees and participating in the corruption of minors.
What this is about, though, is that Dershowitz has been deprived of the right to a defense. Imagine that a high profile lawyer like Dershowitz, with all the resources of law, has been muffled and menaced by a court system which cares less about facts than about the tangle of bureaucratic laws that enables someone to criminally accuse you while you have no right to defend yourself against the accusations—in this case of pedophilia.
Dershowitz is not taking it lying down as you might expect. Today’s Wall Street Journal contains his essay explaining his side of the story. You need to read Kafka, as Dershowitz suggests, to understand why he cannot sue the lawyers who brought the hearsay to a criminal court while they have sued him for defending himself. Dershowitz has challenged the lawyers to show any evidence they have, other than the self-serving statements of certain women who were ostensibly engaged in sexual practices on Epstein’s private island and elsewhere. Dershowitz has courageously risked everything in signed statements waiving statute of limitations if any of the allegations against him can be proved.
Of course, the sleazeball attorneys bringing the civil case (named in Dershowitz’ WSJ article) are not interested in proving anything except how much money they can get from the U.S. government. Yes, the primary target of this smear is the U.S. government prosecutors who made a deal with Epstein, accepting his guilty plea on lesser charges in exchange for a lighter prison sentence. The lawsuit, however, names Dershowitz and Prince Andrew and just about anyone who flew over the island as victimizers of the poor young women who were paid to perform sex acts with high profile Epstein guests.
To be clear, there are several women who allegedly worked in the sex trade, who filed suit against the U.S. government for making a deal with Epstein and his lawyers—without their participation. To give additional heft to the suit, and to apply and accuse publicly, the lawyers and the ‘plaintiffs’ have used high profile names as a sort of public reputation blackmail.
If underage women were raped or preyed upon, then those cases should be tried in the customary criminal courts and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The problem here is that that the attorneys who brought the suit are taking advantage of a special interest quirk in the law that essentially puts Dershowitz under a gag order. They are not interested in filing criminal rape cases against Dershowitz or Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton, because they know that, in doing so, they risk being disbarred and jailed for false accusations.
Dershowitz is right to disobey the law and bring the case to the court of public opinion—though he risks a great deal in doing so. Congress needs to change that special-interest protection that the lawyers in this case have so that the truth can come out.