Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17296House OversightOther

Doe filing alleges Prince Andrew lobbying and confidentiality deals tied to Epstein case

The passage links Prince Andrew and high‑profile attorney Alan Dershowitz to alleged lobbying and confidential plea negotiations in the Epstein matter, suggesting possible foreign‑commerce implication Jane Doe #3 alleges Prince Andrew lobbied the U.S. government for a favorable plea arrangement for J Claims that confidentiality and "blank check" provisions were negotiated in connection with Prince

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010740
Pages
1
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage links Prince Andrew and high‑profile attorney Alan Dershowitz to alleged lobbying and confidential plea negotiations in the Epstein matter, suggesting possible foreign‑commerce implication Jane Doe #3 alleges Prince Andrew lobbied the U.S. government for a favorable plea arrangement for J Claims that confidentiality and "blank check" provisions were negotiated in connection with Prince

Tags

prince-andrewjeffrey-epsteinforeign-commerceforeign-influencelobbyingalan-dershowitzlegal-exposurepolitical-lobbyingplea-negotiationshouse-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.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 6 of 19 Second, Jane Doe #3 claims that she needed to defame Prof. Dershowitz and others in the Joinder Motion because of discovery disputes between the government and Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. This does not even make sense, legally or factually. Jane Doe #3’s right to join in this case has nothing to do with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s entitlement to documents in discovery. In fact, the discovery requests that Jane Doe #3 cites to in her Response as purported cover for their sliming of Prof Dershowitz show that their argument is factually bogus. Prof. Dershowitz is mentioned in only two of twenty-five requests for production propounded by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. (See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s First Request for Production to the Government Regarding Information Relevant to Their Pending Action Concern [sic] the Crime Victims Act, at DE 225-1 at 26-38.) Both requests, nos. 8 and 21 seek his communications with the government in his role as Mr. Epstein’s defense attorney. There is no issue of complicity or knowledge in any misconduct. Moreover, a fact conveniently omitted by Jane Doe #3 is that Prof. Dershowitz is one of eleven lawyers whose communications Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 sought in the requests for production. As the Court knows, Prof. Dershowitz had no material connection to this case—as to the merits or as to discovery—before he was dragged in by Jane Doe #3. Third, Jane Doe #3 claims that the smears against Prof. Dershowitz are relevant to show that Prof. Dershowitz had a motive to negotiate “confidentiality” and “blank check” provisions discovery requests regarding her belief that Prince Andrew was somehow involved in “lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement,” and because her allegations against Prince Andrews occurred in London, therefore “affect[ing] foreign commerce” are patently absurd. (DE 291 at 20 and 18, fn. 10.) Because Jane Doe #3’s other allegations are replete with allegations of interstate activity and because implications of Prince Andrew’s involvement in “lobbying” for the NPA are entirely nonsensical, it is obvious that the inclusion of claims against Prince Andrew were included solely for their intended audience: the media. 6

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-KAM

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48

13p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01401218

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

SE?Oet

M SE?Oet ASO Se , R‘N)C% 5C>CUMC- 7- f9 kCseriA/C GteCC Hi t\iCt :5122122, 1:31 PM --7—Jmrerepstent—galepedts Epstein a massage". She claims she was taken to his mansion, Perversion of Justice, Miami Herald, where he exposed himself and had sexual intercourse with i November 3O, 2018. her, and paid her $2OO immediately afterward0161 A similar $50-million suit was filed in March 2008, by a different woman, who was represented by the same lawyer EL-29i These and several similar lawsuits were dismissal Ea°1 All other lawsuits have been settled by Epstein out of court: b$11 Epstein made many out-of-court settlements with alleged victims.0.21 Victims' rights: Jane Does v. United States (2014) A December 3o, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe 1 ) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rietts Act by the U.S. Department of Justice's NPA with Epstein and his limited 2008 state plea. There was a later unsucc

17p
Court UnsealedAug 9, 2019

Maxwell Disputes

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------- ............................................. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, 15-cv-07433-RWS Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Contested Facts and Plaintiff’s “Undisputed Facts” Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 Laura A. M

38p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

5/2222,1:31 PM

5/2222,1:31 PM Jeffrey Epstein - Wikipedia WIKIPEDIA 5 6 >cOnt -TriRccritvc - 1 ti yemp. OLD c_,_„,,,ReN, Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Edward Epstein (/'epsti:n/ EP-steen;14 January II 2o, 1953 — August 10, 2019) was an American financier and convicted sex offenders[31141 Epstein, who was born and raised in Brooklyn New York City, began his professional life by teaching at the Dalton School in Manhattan, despite lacldng a college degree. After his dismissal from the school, he entered the banking and finance sector, working at Bear Stearns in various roles; he eventually started his own firm. Epstein developed an elite social circle and procured many women and children; he and some of his associates then sexually abused themjs/146/171 In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had sexually abused her u -near-old daughter.lA Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a ch

9p

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.