Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17217House OversightOther

Anecdotal recollection of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow custody case with unrelated banter

The passage contains personal anecdotes and speculative dialogue about Woody Allen, with no concrete names, dates, transactions, or actionable leads linking powerful actors to misconduct. It offers no Mentions Woody Allen and Mia Farrow custody dispute Includes irrelevant conversation about dead historical figures No specific allegations, financial flows, or legal documents cited

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017369
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage contains personal anecdotes and speculative dialogue about Woody Allen, with no concrete names, dates, transactions, or actionable leads linking powerful actors to misconduct. It offers no Mentions Woody Allen and Mia Farrow custody dispute Includes irrelevant conversation about dead historical figures No specific allegations, financial flows, or legal documents cited

Tags

personal-anecdotecustody-disputeentertainmenthouse-oversight

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.
4.2.12 WC: 191694 Woody Allen vs. Mia Farrow In my article on the 10 greatest legal blunders of the 20" Century, I included on my list, the decision by Woody Allen’s lawyers to sue Mia Farrow for custody of several of her adopted children as well as the one child they conceived together. I played an unusual role in that lawsuit, in which both sides were focused heavily on the media: Woody was concerned that negative coverage, particularly of allegations involving sexual improprieties with a young girl, might ruin his career; and Mia’s concern that any coverage might hurt her children. Every legal maneuver in the case was made with an eye (sometimes two) on the media. I first met Woody Allen when he was filming Manhattan. He was given to me as a birthday present by a group of friends, one of whom knew Woody from his earlier film “The Front.” [check dates] He agreed to meet me for lunch. He didn’t know he was my birthday present. When I told him, he immediately began to speculate as to who he would want as a present: “Louis Armstrong,” he said would be his first choice. “He’s dead,” I reminded him. “Exactly,” he replied. “Jimmy Hoffa would be my second choice.” “He’s missing,” I said. “Exactly,” he repeated. He then asked me which dead person I would have wanted to represent as a criminal lawyer. I immediately replied “Jesus.” “Do you think you could have won?” he asked. “In front of a Jewish jury, maybe.” “Those biblical Jews were tough. They didn’t tolerate troublemakers like Jesus. They probably wouldn’t have liked Jews like us from Brooklyn,” Woody mused. “Yeah, but imagine how different history would be if a Jewish lawyer saved Jesus. They couldn’t accuse us of killing their Lord.” “But he wouldn’t have been their Lord, if you had won. He wouldn’t have been crucified. And without crucifixion, there’s no Christianity, so if you had won they’d be blaming the Jews for destroying Christianity.” Woody reminded me of the riff that got Lenny Bruce into so much trouble. Bruce quipped that if the Roman’s electrocuted rather than crucified their enemies, millions of Christians would be walking around wearing tiny electric chairs around their necks. 282

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.