Opaque deposition excerpt referencing Alan Dershowitz and alleged personal connections
Summary
The passage hints at a possible personal relationship and undisclosed individuals in a deposition, but provides no concrete names, dates, transactions, or verifiable evidence. It is largely speculativ Mentions a conversation with Alan Dershowitz about a defamatory statement. Alleges the deponent claimed ignorance while the text suggests familiarity with a client. References omitted individuals in
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionTags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
Opaque deposition excerpt referencing Alan Dershowitz and alleged personal connections
Opaque deposition excerpt referencing Alan Dershowitz and alleged personal connections The passage hints at a possible personal relationship and undisclosed individuals in a deposition, but provides no concrete names, dates, transactions, or verifiable evidence. It is largely speculative and lacks actionable details, limiting its investigative usefulness. Key insights: Mentions a conversation with Alan Dershowitz about a defamatory statement.; Alleges the deponent claimed ignorance while the text suggests familiarity with a client.; References omitted individuals in a list (GM0006‑0015) that may be relevant.
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.
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.
EFTA01656173
Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition
Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition The passage references a claim that Alan Dershowitz disclosed a criminal extortion scheme involving unnamed clients during a deposition, and mentions related defamation lawsuits. While the details are vague and unverified, the involvement of a high‑profile attorney and a federal courtroom provides a concrete lead (date, location, parties) that could be pursued. The claim is moderately controversial and potentially sensitive, but it lacks clear novelty and specific financial details, limiting its score. Key insights: Dershowitz allegedly told lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell that "your clients were involved" in a criminal extortion plot.; The statement was made on October 15, 2015, during a deposition in Broward County, Florida.; Bradley and Cassell had sued Dershowitz for defamation, and Dershowitz had filed a countersuit.
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
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.