Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-25413House OversightOther

Witness explains delayed court filing and lack of contact with Professor Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a modest lead about a procedural delay in a 2015 filing and mentions a well‑known legal scholar, but it lacks concrete details on wrongdoing, financial flows, or high‑level offici Court record filed on Jan 21 2015 after months of delay by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Witness cites cost‑benefit analysis for not contacting Professor Alan Dershowitz before filing. Reference to a p

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #021933
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a modest lead about a procedural delay in a 2015 filing and mentions a well‑known legal scholar, but it lacks concrete details on wrongdoing, financial flows, or high‑level offici Court record filed on Jan 21 2015 after months of delay by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Witness cites cost‑benefit analysis for not contacting Professor Alan Dershowitz before filing. Reference to a p

Tags

court-filinglegal-strategyprocedural-delayalan-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.
Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 110 the court that you had been asking the government for consent since, I believe it was the Summer of 2014; is that consistent with your recollection? A. The exact timing, you know, if I looked at the documents, we could refresh my recollection. We put those documents into the court record in January 21st, 2015, the correspondence that we had had. The U.S. Attorney's Office had delayed, you Know, giving us an answer on that for as I recall, several months and ultimately they said, no, and that's why we filed the pleading. Q. Okay. My question is: Why, during that several-month period before you filed the motion itself, did you not contact Professor Dershowitz to ask him if this was true, and if he had any evidence to refute it? Why not contact the person you're accusing? A. I mean, there's a cost -- you know, again, this is going take a little bit of an answer, not as long as the other one. Q. I won't cut you off. A. No, you have been very polite. I appreciate that. This is about a five-minute answer, just so you got a heads-up. Okay. So the issue of why didn't I contact Mr. Dershowitz, it's a cost benefit situation. So what ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

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.