Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
kaggle-ho-014680House Oversight

Court denies motions and considers limited intervention request by Alan M. Dershowitz in civil case involving alleged sexual abuse

Court denies motions and considers limited intervention request by Alan M. Dershowitz in civil case involving alleged sexual abuse The passage references a procedural filing by a well‑known attorney (Alan M. Dershowitz) seeking to intervene and strike alleged defamatory statements. While it hints at sexual‑abuse allegations, it provides no concrete names, dates, financial transactions, or evidence of misconduct by high‑level officials. The lead is primarily about court procedure, offering limited investigative value beyond confirming Dershowitz’s involvement. Key insights: Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 filed a Rule 21 motion to join the case.; The court denied the Rule 15 motion and will strike portions of the Rule 21 filing.; Alan M. Dershowitz filed a motion for limited intervention to strike alleged “outrageous and impertinent” allegations against him.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-014680
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Court denies motions and considers limited intervention request by Alan M. Dershowitz in civil case involving alleged sexual abuse The passage references a procedural filing by a well‑known attorney (Alan M. Dershowitz) seeking to intervene and strike alleged defamatory statements. While it hints at sexual‑abuse allegations, it provides no concrete names, dates, financial transactions, or evidence of misconduct by high‑level officials. The lead is primarily about court procedure, offering limited investigative value beyond confirming Dershowitz’s involvement. Key insights: Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 filed a Rule 21 motion to join the case.; The court denied the Rule 15 motion and will strike portions of the Rule 21 filing.; Alan M. Dershowitz filed a motion for limited intervention to strike alleged “outrageous and impertinent” allegations against him.

Tags

kagglehouse-oversightcivil-procedurecourt-filingssexual-abuse-allegationlegal-interventionrule-12(f)
0Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Nlatthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorne

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Du..ument 511 Entered on FLSD Docku, J3/29/2010 Page 1 of 11

11p

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.