Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 2 of 19 joinder of Jane Doe 3 and her untimely allegations to the underlying CVRA case. If the Court rejects the pending motion for joinder (DE 279), then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations against Dershowitz, or, alternatively, determine the possible mootness of his Motion for Limited Intervention. Of course, if the Court strikes the allegations against him sua sponte, Prof. Dershowitz will withdraw his motion for limited intervention. However, if the Court grants Jane Does #3 and #4’s motion for joinder, then Prof. Dershowitz’s motion for limited intervention should be granted for such purposes as may be appropriate including submitting a motion to strike or other relief, so as to give him an opportunity to defend himself against these malicious and false allegations. In support of his Reply in Support of his Motion for Limited Intervention, Prof. Dershowitz states as follows: Despite swearing under oath to her falsehoods about Prof. Dershowitz, Jane Doe #3 struggles to justify her defamations as having any relevance to the issues in this proceeding. Her Response to Prof. Dershowitz’s Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 291) (herein “Response”) offers no legitimate reason for defaming Prof. Dershowitz in her Joinder Motion, and she has no right to continue to do so in this Court. Strikingly, the Response does not explain why Jane Doe #3, with an obvious financial motive for fabrication of salacious accusations, waited almost seven years to lob a stink bomb into a proceeding in which she has no right to participate. The Response does not account for why Jane Doe #3 never once asserted her accusations about Prof. Dershowitz until a month ago, even though the alleged transgressions supposedly occurred some fifteen years ago. Although neither Jane Doe #3 nor anyone else had previously asserted any improper sexual contact with Prof. Dershowitz, now Jane Doe #3 cynically exploits