Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-20892House OversightOther

Alan Dershowitz seeks limited intervention in Jane Doe civil case alleging false claims tied to Epstein and a 2007 non‑prosecution agreement

The passage reveals that Dershowitz is attempting to intervene in a civil suit to refute allegations that were not previously disclosed to authorities, suggesting possible procedural manipulation or s Dershowitz filed a motion for limited intervention to contest allegations made by Jane Doe #3 and #4 The allegations against Dershowitz were absent from earlier statements to the FBI, civil filings,

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010735
Pages
1
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals that Dershowitz is attempting to intervene in a civil suit to refute allegations that were not previously disclosed to authorities, suggesting possible procedural manipulation or s Dershowitz filed a motion for limited intervention to contest allegations made by Jane Doe #3 and #4 The allegations against Dershowitz were absent from earlier statements to the FBI, civil filings,

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinprocedural-manipulationnonprosecution-agreementcivil-litigationlegal-filingforeign-influence-via-epsteinspotential-evidence-suppressionalan-dershowitzlegal-exposurehouse-oversightprocedural-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.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. / REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Alan M. Dershowitz hereby replies in support of his Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282). Prof. Dershowitz’s only interest in joining this case is to strike the false, sensational and irrelevant allegations against him. In its response (DE 290), the government compellingly set forth the many reasons why Jane Does #3 and #4’s request, filed over 6 years after the commencement of the CVRA case, should be denied. Jane Doe #3’s false allegations against Prof. Dershowitz were not included in her statement to the government, were not made to the FBI when she was initially contacted by that agency, were not included in her civil action against Epstein in 2009, were not included in her recorded interview with her attorneys in 2011 and were not included in her interview with the British press in 2011. These allegations first appeared in Jane Doe #3’s Motion for Joinder in December 2014 (DE 279), and therefore have absolutely no relevance as to whether there was a CVRA violation when Epstein and the government executed the Non-Prosecution Agreement in September 2007. The request for limited intervention was initiated to give Dershowitz a voice in the proceedings if and only if the Court allowed the

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

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
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

STATEMENT BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ

3p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
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
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Jane Doe victims contest Alan Dershowitz’s motion for limited intervention, alleging he hides truth about sexual molestation claims

The passage provides a concrete legal filing that references specific parties (Alan Dershowitz, multiple Jane Does) and a motion for limited intervention, suggesting a potential avenue for further dis Dershowitz filed a motion for limited intervention in a civil case (9:08‑80736‑Civ‑Marra/Johnson). He claims an affidavit from Jane Doe #3 disproves her allegations, but the filing says no evidence w

1p

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.