Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-14951House OversightOther

Victims' CVRA filing alleges government withheld discovery on Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein in 2011

The passage reveals that victims in a Crime Victims' Rights Act case sought discovery about high‑profile figures (Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein) and that the government allegedly resisted Victims filed a CVRA petition (Jane Doe No.1 & No.2) in 2008 against the United States (9:08‑cv‑8073 Discovery requests were made on Oct. 11, 2011 seeking info on Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015626
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals that victims in a Crime Victims' Rights Act case sought discovery about high‑profile figures (Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein) and that the government allegedly resisted Victims filed a CVRA petition (Jane Doe No.1 & No.2) in 2008 against the United States (9:08‑cv‑8073 Discovery requests were made on Oct. 11, 2011 seeking info on Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and

Tags

discoverylegal-strategyforeign-influencecrime-victims-rights-actsexual-abusehighprofile-individualslegal-exposureconfidential-recordsmoderate-importancehouse-oversightgovernment-concealmentsexual-misconduct

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking some of the materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept confidential in this case. Dershowitz’s argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge Marra’s order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading -- description of the events surrounding Judge Marra’s ruling striking certain documents. A more complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are somehow “confidential” even in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act case — much less in this separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of “Jane Doe No. 1” and ‘Jane Doe No. 2” under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #9:08-CV-80736

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

511 922,419 FtIN;Cf

511 922,419 FtIN;Cf f ift - ( df)t— Th-tittsf e: wr iwi mcfn .3:95Kona - apt?? It * ci of * C PRCta MOSPats Details of a civil lawsuit, made public in January 2035, contained a deposition from "Jane Doe 3" that accused Maxwell of recruiting her in 1999, when she was a minor, and grooming her to provide sexual services for Epstein.M A 2018 expose by Julie K. Brown in the M' revealed Jane Doe 3 to be , who was previously known as met Maxwell at Donald 'frump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, w en was a 16- year-old spa attendant.M She asserted that Maxwell had introduced her to Epstein, after which she was " omed by. the two [of them] for his pleasure, including lessons in Epstein's preferences during oral sex". 22n631 Maxwell has repeatedly denied any involvement in Epstein's crimes.L2i In a 2015 statement, Maxwell rejected allegations that she has acted as a procurer for Epstein and denied that she had "facilitated Prince Andrew's [alleged] acts of sexual abus

25p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01682184

186p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Jeffrey Epstein’s Elite Network and Unverified Claims of Government ‘Bounty Hunting’

The passage lists numerous high‑profile individuals and institutions linked to Epstein, providing names and affiliations that could be pursued for financial or influence investigations. However, it la Epstein claimed to have worked as a “bounty hunter” recovering money for the government or wealthy c He was a limited partner at Bear Stearns under mentorship of Ace Greenberg and James Cayne. Member

1p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01404801

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com>

6p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.