Skip to content
Case File
d-36938House OversightOther

Court hearing on limiting derogatory language in Giuffre defamation case

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011322
Pages
1
Persons
6

Summary

The passage merely records a procedural objection to calling a plaintiff a prostitute or slut in a defamation trial. It contains no concrete leads, transactions, or new allegations involving powerful Defense counsel objected to any derogatory language toward the plaintiff. The court is considering a motion to exclude terms like "prostitute" or "slut". The case involves defamation claims related t

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

legal-strategydefamationsexual-assaultlegal-exposurehouse-oversightcourt-proceedings
Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court hearing references alleged accusations involving world leaders and Alan Dershowitz in a sexual‑abuse case

The passage hints at a claim that a plaintiff’s statement links high‑profile figures (unspecified world leaders and Alan Dershowitz) to alleged wrongdoing, suggesting a possible foreign‑influence or e Plaintiff’s statement reportedly mentions "world leaders" and Alan Dershowitz as part of alleged lie Defense counsel argues the plaintiff would lose if she cannot prove Maxwell’s role. The court appe

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Defense team seeks protective sidebar to shield Boies Schiller lawyers from alleged aggressive language in trial

The passage is a routine procedural request in a court case, mentioning only the defense firm and its attorneys. It lacks concrete allegations, financial details, or connections to high‑level official Defense counsel requests a sidebar or in‑camera hearing to prevent certain statements from reaching Mentions alleged aggressive language by the defense team toward the plaintiff’s team. Specifically

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court transcript snippet discussing defamation claims involving alleged sexual abuse and references to Epstein and Maxwell

The passage provides a vague reference to alleged sexual abuse and a possible connection to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but offers no concrete names, dates, transactions, or actionable lead The case involves defamation claims centered on alleged sexual abuse. Plaintiff alleges the defendant was a 'madam' and co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein. The court is focusing on the truth or fals

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court denies amendment to add additional Jane Doe plaintiffs in CVRA case

The passage discusses procedural arguments about adding parties to a civil rights case and does not reveal any new allegations, financial flows, or involvement of high‑profile officials. It offers no Petitioners seek to add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as parties but the court finds it unnecessary. Government argues Jane Doe 4 lacks standing because she was not known when a non‑prosecution agreeme T

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court Dismisses Terrorism-Related Claims Against Al Rajhi Bank and Saudi American Bank, Citing Lack of Alleged Material Support Evidence

The passage outlines procedural rulings in a terrorism‑related civil suit involving major Saudi banks, noting the court’s dismissal of claims that the banks provided material support to al‑Qaeda. Whil District court dismissed Burnett ATA claim against Al Rajhi Bank and other ATA claims. Plaintiffs allege that Saudi American Bank knowingly provided material support to Osama bin Laden an Court found

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court denies addition of new Jane Doe plaintiffs in suit seeking to invalidate Jeffrey Epstein's non‑prosecution agreement

The passage reveals a pending civil action that challenges Jeffrey Epstein's non‑prosecution agreement and mentions additional alleged victims (Jane Doe 3 and 4). While it does not provide new factual Petitioners are seeking to invalidate Epstein's non‑prosecution agreement. Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 request to join the suit, claiming similar CVRA rights violations. The court rejected adding these

1p

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