Skip to main content
Skip to content
Paul Keating’s political commentary on Labor, US, EU and ChinaPirro questions Ilhan Omar's hijab as sign of sharia loyalty on air
Case File
d-22378House OversightOther

Court filing disputes joinder of Jane Doe #3's allegations against Prof. Alan Dershowitz

The passage merely outlines procedural arguments over whether a plaintiff’s allegations should be joined to an existing case and references unverified claims of sexual misconduct. It provides no concr Defendant (Prof. Dershowitz) seeks to strike alleged false allegations or to intervene if joinder is Jane Doe #3 is accused of fabricating claims with a “financial motive” after a seven‑year delay. T

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010736
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage merely outlines procedural arguments over whether a plaintiff’s allegations should be joined to an existing case and references unverified claims of sexual misconduct. It provides no concr Defendant (Prof. Dershowitz) seeks to strike alleged false allegations or to intervene if joinder is Jane Doe #3 is accused of fabricating claims with a “financial motive” after a seven‑year delay. T

Persons Referenced (2)

Jane Does

“...e, Prof. Dershowitz will withdraw his motion for limited intervention. However, if the Court grants Jane Does #3 and #4’s motion for joinder, then Prof. Dershowitz’s motion for limited intervention should be g...”

Alan Dershowitz

“...ending motion for joinder (DE 279), then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations against Dershowitz, or, alternatively, determine the possible mootness of his Motion for Limited Intervention. Of cour...”

Tags

joindercourt-filingdefamationsexual-misconduct-allegationpotential-financial-motivelegal-exposurehouse-oversightprocedural-motion
View on oversight.house.gov
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #010736

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 2 of 19 joinder of Jane Doe 3 and her untimely allegations to the underlying CVRA case. If the Court rejects the pending motion for joinder (DE 279), then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations against Dershowitz, or, alternatively, determine the possible mootness of his Motion for Limited Intervention. Of course, if the Court strikes the allegations against him sua sponte, Prof. Dershowitz will withdraw his motion for limited intervention. However, if the Court grants Jane Does #3 and #4’s motion for joinder, then Prof. Dershowitz’s motion for limited intervention should be granted for such purposes as may be appropriate including submitting a motion to strike or other relief, so as to give him an opportunity to defend himself against these malicious and false allegations. In support of his Reply in Support of his Motion for Limited Intervention, Prof. Dershowitz states as follows: Despite swearing under oath to her falsehoods about Prof. Dershowitz, Jane Doe #3 struggles to justify her defamations as having any relevance to the issues in this proceeding. Her Response to Prof. Dershowitz’s Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 291) (herein “Response”) offers no legitimate reason for defaming Prof. Dershowitz in her Joinder Motion, and she has no right to continue to do so in this Court. Strikingly, the Response does not explain why Jane Doe #3, with an obvious financial motive for fabrication of salacious accusations, waited almost seven years to lob a stink bomb into a proceeding in which she has no right to participate. The Response does not account for why Jane Doe #3 never once asserted her accusations about Prof. Dershowitz until a month ago, even though the alleged transgressions supposedly occurred some fifteen years ago. Although neither Jane Doe #3 nor anyone else had previously asserted any improper sexual contact with Prof. Dershowitz, now Jane Doe #3 cynically exploits the yoke of victimhood to victimize others.

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)

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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

STATEMENT BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ

3p
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

Forum Discussions

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

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