Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17031House OversightOther

Dershowitz Counterclaim Cites Alleged Epstein‑Forced Sexual Relations with Minor Jane Doe #3

The passage links a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) and a notorious financier (Jeffrey Epstein) to alleged sexual abuse of a minor, providing a concrete legal filing that could be pursued for Dershowitz’s counterclaim references alleged sexual relations with a minor (Jane Doe #3) forced by E The alleged abuse allegedly occurred in multiple locations, including private planes and several s

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015624
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage links a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) and a notorious financier (Jeffrey Epstein) to alleged sexual abuse of a minor, providing a concrete legal filing that could be pursued for Dershowitz’s counterclaim references alleged sexual relations with a minor (Jane Doe #3) forced by E The alleged abuse allegedly occurred in multiple locations, including private planes and several s

Tags

jeffrey-epsteincourt-filinglegal-strategyforeign-influencesexual-abusevirginia-giuffrealan-dershowitzlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightsexual-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 4 of 20 the materials in the records would be harmful to his _ professional reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi’s restriction on release of materials involving a privacy right, but noted that “statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were allegations in Carnegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages. These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it.” Jd at 1312. Of course, exactly the same principle applies here: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys Edwards and Cassell for their client Ms. [REDACTED] are not peripheral to this lawsuit — they are inherent to it. To see how “inherent” the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need look no further than Dershowitz’s counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz’s Counterclaim (styled as “False Allegations in the Joinder Motion”) contends that Edwards and Cassell should pay him damages because they “filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled ‘Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action’... .” Dershowitz Counterclaim at { 14. Dershowitz’s Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the allegations: The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as follows: One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. 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

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.