Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17760House OversightOther

Professor Dershowitz seeks limited intervention in Jane Doe #3 case, citing Epstein's Fifth Amendment invocations

The passage provides a concrete procedural lead—Dershowitz’s motion to intervene and references to Epstein’s Fifth Amendment claims—but offers no new factual allegations, financial data, or direct tie Dershowitz filed a Motion for Limited Intervention six days after Jane Doe #3’s motion for joinder. The argument hinges on Epstein’s broad Fifth Amendment refusals, suggesting no specific inference a

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010750
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a concrete procedural lead—Dershowitz’s motion to intervene and references to Epstein’s Fifth Amendment claims—but offers no new factual allegations, financial data, or direct tie Dershowitz filed a Motion for Limited Intervention six days after Jane Doe #3’s motion for joinder. The argument hinges on Epstein’s broad Fifth Amendment refusals, suggesting no specific inference a

Tags

intervention-motionjeffrey-epsteinwitness-testimonylegal-strategylitigationfifth-amendmentlegal-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 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 16 of 19 adversaries, Jane Doe #3 argues that Prof. Dershowitz should not be allowed to intervene in this action’®. It is clear from the record, however, that Prof. Dershowitz acted immediately to defend himself the first time he was made aware of any such allegations against him. In fact, just six days after Jane Doe #3 filed her Motion for Joinder, which included vicious allegations against him, Prof. Dershowitz filed his Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 282.) Accordingly, Prof. Dershowitz should be permitted to intervene for the limited purposes of moving to strike these outrageous and impertinent allegations. V. Jane Doe #3’s Reliance on Other’s Invocation of the Fifth Amendment is Improper and Wholly Unpersuasive Without a shred of physical evidence or witness corroboration for Jane Doe #3’s fantasies, she relies on invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein as supportive of an adverse inference as to Prof. Dershowitz. Given that Epstein was taking the Fifth Amendment on virtually all questions, and would have responded in the same way had the opposite questions been asked, there is no inference against Prof. Dershowitz to be made from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein’. Epstein’s interest — in declining to answer any questions whatsoever — was his own personal interest and not that of his lawyers, and lacks even minimal relevance. Coguina Investments v. TD Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 1300, 1310-11 (11th Cir. 2014)(adverse inferences from the fifth amendment invocation by third parties allowed only * Jane Doe #3’s argument that he has not yet scheduled his deposition in this case, or the recently filed defamation action, is of no moment. At the appropriate time, Prof. Dershowitz will of course, appear for his deposition and testify that Jane Doe #3’s allegations as to him are entirely false. This, however, has no bearing as to whether the Court should permit the limited intervention Prof. Dershowitz seeks. ” Had Epstein been asked about anyone — from leading government officials to members of the clergy — he would have similarly invoked the Fifth Amendment. 16

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

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.