Skip to content
Case File
d-18993House OversightOther

Court strikes numerous paragraphs in filings involving Jane Doe aliases and denies Alan Dershowitz's intervention motion

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #014852
Pages
1
Persons
3

Summary

The passage details routine procedural rulings—striking impertinent paragraphs and denying a motion to intervene—without revealing new facts, financial flows, or connections to high‑profile actors bey The court struck multiple paragraphs from declarations citing non‑party details. Jane Doe #3 and #4 are pseudonyms; no substantive allegations disclosed. Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene was den

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Persons Referenced (3)

Tags

motion-to-interveneprocedural-rulingprivacycourt-filingpseudonymlegal-exposurehouse-oversightprocedural
Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

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
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

Court transcript excerpt referencing alleged defamation claim involving Ms. Giuffre/Maxwell and mention of Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague procedural discussion about a joinder motion and a brief, unsubstantiated reference to Alan Dershowitz. It lacks concrete details such as dates, transactions, or specific The court is addressing a joinder issue related to a defamation claim by Ms. Giuffre/Maxwell. Counsel mentions Alan Dershowitz in passing, suggesting possible involvement or relevance. No specific fa

1p
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

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 OversightDepositionNov 11, 2025

Witness Testimony Blocked Over Attorney-Client Privilege in Epstein-Related Trial

The passage suggests that key testimony about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Alan Dershowitz, and possibly former President Clinton is being suppressed by invoking attorney‑client privilege, indi Attorney‑client privilege is being used to block questions about Epstein and Maxwell. The court previously barred non‑Fifth Amendment questions about Dershowitz. Reference to “Clinton” and “other wor

1p

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