Skip to content
Case File
d-32217House OversightOther

Jane Doe #3 seeks to block Alan Dershowitz's intervention in civil case

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010738
Pages
1
Persons
1

Summary

The passage merely outlines procedural arguments in a civil defamation suit and does not provide concrete leads about financial flows, wrongdoing, or high‑level actors. It mentions a well‑known academ Jane Doe #3 filed a motion for joinder and opposes Alan Dershowitz's request to intervene. The filing claims Dershowitz has no direct interest yet seeks to protect his reputation. Citations to prior

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

legal-strategydefamationcivil-litigationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightprocedural-motion
Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court denies Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene in Jane Does case (Case 9:08‑cv‑80736‑KAM)

The passage merely records a routine procedural ruling denying a motion to intervene. It mentions Alan Dershowitz, a high‑profile attorney, but provides no concrete allegations, financial flows, or mi Judge denied Dershowitz's motion to intervene on March 24 2015. Dershowitz is accused of contradictory statements about possessing records. The filing lists attorneys for Jane Does No. 1‑4.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

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

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Edwards & Cassell argue Dershowitz should not be allowed to reference sealed court records in defamation case involving Giuffre affidavit

The passage reveals a dispute over confidentiality of court records that could expose statements linking Alan Dershowitz to alleged sexual conduct with Virginia Giuffre and to settlement discussions i Dershowitz is accused of selectively quoting sealed records while preventing opposing parties from d Reference to Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit alleging oral sex performed for Jeffrey Epstein. Alleged misu

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court filing alleges Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew forced minor Jane Doe #3 into sexual acts on multiple trips with Epstein

The passage provides specific allegations linking a high‑profile U.S. lawyer and a senior British royal to sexual abuse of a minor, citing locations, travel itineraries, and a formal court pleading. T Alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 by Alan Dershowitz on private planes and in multiple jurisdictio Alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 by Prince Andrew in London, New York, and on Epstein’s U.S. Vi

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

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 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 campaig Dershow

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Professor Alan Dershowitz seeks limited intervention in civil case, citing Fifth Amendment protections

The passage outlines a procedural filing by Dershowitz to intervene in a lawsuit and argues against adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment claims. It mentions no concrete financial flows, wrongdoing, Dershowitz files a motion for limited intervention to defend against alleged defamatory claims. The brief cites case law on adverse inference from Fifth Amendment assertions. If the court grants join

1p

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.