Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-33057House OversightOther

Allegations of Alan Dershowitz Manipulating Legal Proceedings to Avoid Perjury Determination

The passage outlines claims that Dershowitz refused to waive the statute of limitations and settled a case to avoid factual determination, and later publicly accused his accusers of perjury. While it Dershowitz allegedly refused to waive the statute of limitations for a potential sex‑abuse suit by V He reportedly settled a separate case (Edwards and Cassell) to avoid factual determination. On Mar

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017941
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines claims that Dershowitz refused to waive the statute of limitations and settled a case to avoid factual determination, and later publicly accused his accusers of perjury. While it Dershowitz allegedly refused to waive the statute of limitations for a potential sex‑abuse suit by V He reportedly settled a separate case (Edwards and Cassell) to avoid factual determination. On Mar

Tags

sex-abuse-allegationpotential-misconductlegal-strategydefamationcivil-litigationperjury-claimlegal-exposurehouse-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 1:19-cv-03377 Document 1 Filed 04/16/19 Page 7 of 28 19. Dershowitz has repeatedly, publically claimed that he wanted to have a trial that would determine the facts concerning his conduct. He said on national television that he would waive the statute of limitations so that Roberts could sue him for sex abuse. However, when Robert’s counsel asked Dershowitz to do so, Dershowitz refused -- and continues to refuse. 20. Similarly, when Dershowitz was faced with an actual case brought by Edwards and Cassell which would have determined the veracity of Roberts’ claims, Dershowitz settled to avoid that determination. 21. More recently, Dershowitz, perhaps believing that Roberts who is now living with her husband and children in Australia would not be prepared to engage in litigation, has again taken to claiming publically that he demands a trial on the question of whether Roberts committed perjury and made up her statements about him for money. For example on March 2, 2019: My “accusers are [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]...I hereby accuse my false accusers of committing the felony of perjury and challenge them to sue me for defamation.” (Exhibit 6). 22. Mr. Dershowitz now has what he claims to have been looking for. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 24. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (diversity jurisdiction) in that Roberts and Dershowitz are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs. 25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant resides in New York City; Defendant conducts regular business in New York City; and this action arose,

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #1:19-CV-03377

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.