HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
2.03 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (response to motion)
File Size:
2.03 MB
Summary
This document is page 14 of a legal response filed by Edwards and Cassell in the case Edwards v. Dershowitz. The text argues that Dershowitz selectively uses parts of Virginia Giuffre's affidavit while attempting to seal the rest, preventing a fair assessment of his claims that her statements are 'preposterous.' The document includes a transcript of a BBC interview from January 2015 where Dershowitz categorically denies the allegations, claims he does not know Giuffre, and threatens the opposing lawyers with defamation suits and disbarment proceedings.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bradley Edwards | Plaintiff/Attorney |
Plaintiff in the case Edwards vs. Dershowitz; accused by Dershowitz of filing false stories.
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant |
Defendant in the case; quoted extensively denying allegations and attacking opposing counsel.
|
| Paul Cassell | Attorney |
Attorney for Edwards; target of Dershowitz's media attacks and disbarment threats.
|
| Ms. McCawley | Spokesperson/Attorney |
Issued a statement on behalf of David Boies claiming Dershowitz's description was not true.
|
| David Boies | Attorney |
Mentioned in relation to a statement made on his behalf by Ms. McCawley.
|
| Ms. Giuffre | Witness/Affiant |
Her affidavit is a subject of dispute regarding confidentiality and Dershowitz's characterization of it.
|
| Sarah Montague | Journalist |
BBC Radio 4 interviewer who spoke with Dershowitz.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) |
Media outlet where Dershowitz appeared to discuss the allegations.
|
|
| BBC Radio 4 |
Specific radio station hosting the interview.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied via the document footer stamp (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2015-01-03
Dershowitz interview on BBC Radio 4 with Sarah Montague.
BBC (Broadcast)
Relationships (3)
Dershowitz states: 'I don’t know this woman.'
Parties in lawsuit; Dershowitz threatens disbarment and defamation suit.
Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of David Boies.
Key Quotes (7)
"Dershowitz description of what was said is not true."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #1
"Dershowitz is willing to inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit whenever it serves his purpose"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #2
"The story is totally made up, completely out of whole cloth."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #3
"I don’t know this woman. I was not at the places at the times."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #4
"It is part of a pattern of made up stories against prominent people and world leaders."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #5
"I am also challenging them to repeat them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #6
"That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to the disciplinary committee."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,375 characters)
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 14 of 20
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 14 of 20
Dershowitz description of what was said is not true.” Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of
David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015).
David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015).
More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to
inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit whenever it serves his purpose – and,
indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as “preposterous.” But then he asks this Court to
place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having
filed a “preposterous” affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz’s
attack.
inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit whenever it serves his purpose – and,
indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as “preposterous.” But then he asks this Court to
place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having
filed a “preposterous” affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz’s
attack.
Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare
confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on
Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting
Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations:
confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on
Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting
Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations:
Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don’t even ask for a hearing
to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves
from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made
up, completely out of whole cloth.
I don’t know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of
made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in
recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I
am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not
telling the truth. I am now challenging them to have their client put these charges
under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat
them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . .
And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was
knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false
story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to
the disciplinary committee.
to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves
from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made
up, completely out of whole cloth.
I don’t know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of
made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in
recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I
am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not
telling the truth. I am now challenging them to have their client put these charges
under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat
them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . .
And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was
knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false
story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to
the disciplinary committee.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015634
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document