Skip to main content
Skip to content

Duplicate Document

This document appears to be a copy. The original version is:

Victims' CVRA filing alleges government withheld discovery on Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein in 2011
Case File
kaggle-ho-015626House Oversight

Victims' CVRA filing alleges government withheld discovery on Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein in 2011

Victims' CVRA filing alleges government withheld discovery on Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein in 2011 The passage reveals that victims in a Crime Victims' Rights Act case sought discovery about high‑profile figures (Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein) and that the government allegedly resisted providing it. This suggests a possible concealment of information linking powerful individuals to alleged misconduct, offering a concrete lead (date, case numbers, parties) for further investigation. While the claim is not yet verified, it ties together influential actors and a potential abuse of prosecutorial discretion, warranting follow‑up. Key insights: Victims filed a CVRA petition (Jane Doe No.1 & No.2) in 2008 against the United States (9:08‑cv‑80736).; Discovery requests were made on Oct. 11, 2011 seeking info on Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and Jeffrey Epstein.; The government allegedly attempted to avoid providing the requested discovery.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-015626
Pages
1
Persons
14
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Victims' CVRA filing alleges government withheld discovery on Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein in 2011 The passage reveals that victims in a Crime Victims' Rights Act case sought discovery about high‑profile figures (Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein) and that the government allegedly resisted providing it. This suggests a possible concealment of information linking powerful individuals to alleged misconduct, offering a concrete lead (date, case numbers, parties) for further investigation. While the claim is not yet verified, it ties together influential actors and a potential abuse of prosecutorial discretion, warranting follow‑up. Key insights: Victims filed a CVRA petition (Jane Doe No.1 & No.2) in 2008 against the United States (9:08‑cv‑80736).; Discovery requests were made on Oct. 11, 2011 seeking info on Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and Jeffrey Epstein.; The government allegedly attempted to avoid providing the requested discovery.

Persons Referenced (14)

Paula Epstein

s by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to

Steven Andrew

lly seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government

Jane Does

sis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CA

Edward Jay Epstein

s by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to

Kenneth Marra

ty seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE REC

Ilan Epstein

s by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to

Larry Page

ion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an in

Bradley Edwards

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards

Paul Cassell

is separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two

Prince Andrew

ecifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government

Alan Dershowitz

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells R

a retired federal judge

he party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT T

Jeffrey Epstein

s by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to

Mark Epstein

s by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to

Tags

kagglehouse-oversighthigh-importancecrime-victims'-rights-actdiscoveryconfidential-recordslegal-strategysexual-abuse

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking some of the materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept confidential in this case. Dershowitz’s argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge Marra’s order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading -- description of the events surrounding Judge Marra’s ruling striking certain documents. A more complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are somehow “confidential” even in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act case — much less in this separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of “Jane Doe No. 1” and ‘Jane Doe No. 2” under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery

Related Documents (6)

House OversightDepositionNov 11, 2025

Deposition of Prof. Paul Cassell alleges Alan Dershowitz’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein sex‑trafficking and possible concealment of evidence

The transcript contains multiple specific allegations linking a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network, references to flight logs, a ‘black book’, a non‑p Cassell claims the pleading alleges Dershowitz abused [REDACTED - Survivor] and “other minors” based on a He asserts that Epstein repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about Dershowitz, s

76p
House OversightOct 17, 2015

Deposition of Prof. Paul Cassell alleges Alan Dershowitz’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein sex‑trafficking and possible concealment of evidence

Deposition of Prof. Paul Cassell alleges Alan Dershowitz’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein sex‑trafficking and possible concealment of evidence The transcript contains multiple specific allegations linking a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network, references to flight logs, a ‘black book’, a non‑prosecution agreement, and possible obstruction of investigations. It names dates, documents, and individuals (e.g., [REDACTED - Survivor], Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova) that could be pursued for corroboration, document requests, or subpoenas. The claims are unverified but, if true, would be a major scandal involving a prominent legal figure and a billionaire sex‑trafficker, making it a high‑value investigative lead. Key insights: Cassell claims the pleading alleges Dershowitz abused [REDACTED - Survivor] and “other minors” based on an 89‑page Palm Beach Police report listing 23‑24 victims.; He asserts that Epstein repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about Dershowitz, suggesting a pattern of concealment.; Cassell references flight logs showing Dershowitz traveling with Epstein and a woman named “Tatiana” (potentially a minor) in 1998‑2005.

1p
House OversightJan 17, 2014

Bradley Edwards’ Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein’s Summary Judgment Motion – Claims of Abuse of Process, Witness Tampering, and Links to High‑Profile Figures

Bradley Edwards’ Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein’s Summary Judgment Motion – Claims of Abuse of Process, Witness Tampering, and Links to High‑Profile Figures The filing enumerates numerous specific leads that, if verified, tie Jeffrey Epstein to a wide network of powerful individuals (Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, etc.) and to alleged obstruction of federal investigations, witness intimidation, and a non‑prosecution agreement. It also references concrete documents (exhibits, deposition excerpts, flight logs, FBI emails) that could be pursued for forensic analysis, discovery requests, or FOIA requests. The combination of high‑profile actors, alleged criminal conduct, and detailed procedural allegations makes this a strong investigative lead. Key insights: Edwards alleges Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering substantive questions, creating adverse inferences.; The motion cites a “Holy Grail” journal allegedly listing underage victims and high‑profile contacts (Trump, Clinton, etc.).; Claims that Epstein’s attorneys (including Alan Dershowitz) may have helped suppress victim testimony and influence the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

1p
House OversightMar 20, 2017

Court filings reveal alleged links between Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network and high‑profile figures including Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz

Court filings reveal alleged links between Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network and high‑profile figures including Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz The documents contain multiple sworn statements, media excerpts, and court orders that reference alleged sexual encounters between [REDACTED - Survivor] (Jane Doe 3) and Prince Andrew, as well as accusations against Alan Dershowitz. While many of the claims have been publicly reported, the filing includes sealed exhibits and specific procedural motions (Rule 21/15) that could provide new evidentiary leads, such as the referenced sealed documents and the alleged list of other powerful individuals (politicians, business executives, foreign leaders). The presence of a judge’s order striking certain allegations and the detailed procedural history suggest actionable avenues for further discovery and verification. Key insights: Exhibits list media articles linking Prince Andrew and Dershowitz to alleged sexual abuse of a minor.; Court order strikes detailed allegations but preserves the right of Jane Doe 3 to reassert them with proper evidence.; Reference to a “list of numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well‑known Prime Minister, and other world leaders” in the Rule 21 motion.

1p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

[REDACTED - Survivor] v. Alan Dershowitz – Allegations of Sex Trafficking, NPA Manipulation, and Defamation

The complaint provides a dense web of alleged connections between Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, and the 2008 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA). It cites specif Roberts alleges she was trafficked by Epstein from 2000‑2002 and forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is accused of helping draft and pressure the government into the 2008 NPA that shielded

87p
House OversightUnknown

[REDACTED - Survivor] testimony and filings implicate Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein in alleged sex‑trafficking and possible NPA cover‑up

[REDACTED - Survivor] testimony and filings implicate Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein in alleged sex‑trafficking and possible NPA cover‑up The document combines a sworn complaint, detailed deposition excerpts, and internal communications that directly name high‑profile individuals (Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, former U.S. President‑linked figures) and describe alleged illegal conduct, a non‑prosecution agreement, and possible FBI involvement. It provides specific dates, locations, and payment details that can be pursued for forensic financial tracing and further legal discovery, making it a strong, actionable lead with high public sensitivity. Key insights: Giuffre alleges Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz were among the men she was forced to service for Epstein.; The complaint states Epstein’s 2007 Non‑Prosecution Agreement (NPA) barred federal charges against him and co‑conspirators, and granted immunity to Maxwell.; FBI agents located Giuffre in Australia in 2011 and de‑briefed her at the U.S. Consulate, indicating law‑enforcement awareness of the network.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.