HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086.jpg
1.73 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court document)
File Size:
1.73 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) arguing that Alan Dershowitz has failed to produce exculpatory documentary evidence in court despite publicly claiming on Fox News that such evidence exists to disprove Jane Doe No. 3's sexual misconduct allegations. The filing references a parallel state defamation case (*Edwards v. Dershowitz*) where Dershowitz also allegedly refused discovery requests. It suggests the court should infer the evidence does not exist and that the accuser's allegations are true.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant/Intervenor |
Accused of sexual misconduct by Jane Doe No. 3; accused of withholding documentary evidence despite public claims of ...
|
| Jane Doe No. 3 | Plaintiff/Victim |
Alleges she had sex with Dershowitz; called a 'serial liar' by Dershowitz.
|
| Cassell | Attorney |
Mentioned in quote regarding investigation; sued by Dershowitz for defamation in counterclaim.
|
| Edwards | Attorney |
Plaintiff in parallel state case (Edwards v. Dershowitz); sued by Dershowitz for defamation in counterclaim.
|
| Greta van Susteren | Media Personality |
Host of FOX show where Dershowitz appeared.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FOX |
TV network hosting Greta van Susteren show.
|
|
| Fox Business |
Referenced in footnote URL.
|
|
| US District Court (FLSD) |
Southern District of Florida, where this document was filed.
|
|
| State Court |
Venue for parallel defamation action (Edwards v. Dershowitz).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2015-01-08
Alan Dershowitz appearance on the Greta van Susteren show on FOX.
FOX Studios (Broadcast)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Florida Southern District Court.
|
Relationships (3)
Dershowitz denies allegations of sex; Jane Doe No. 3 alleges sex occurred.
Parties in Edwards v. Dershowitz; Dershowitz filed counterclaim against Edwards.
Dershowitz filed counterclaim against Cassell for defaming him.
Key Quotes (4)
"The woman is a serial liar."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086.jpg
Quote #1
"Now I can prove through documentary evidence that I was never at the times and places she [Jane Doe No. 3] alleges she had sex with me."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086.jpg
Quote #2
"Dershowitz has yet to produce a single document to this Court."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court should draw the obvious inference that Dershowitz, despite making broad claims to the media, has no such evidence to produce – because Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations are true."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,237 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 3 of 34
records that I couldn’t have been in these places. The woman is a serial liar. If [Cassell and
Edwards] had done that investigation, they would have come to the same conclusion.”¹
Similarly, on January 8, 2015, on the Greta van Susteren show on FOX, Dershowitz claimed:
“Now I can prove through documentary evidence that I was never at the times and places she
[Jane Doe No. 3] alleges she had sex with me.”² Yet despite having publicly claimed to have
“all kinds of records” and “documentary evidence” that “prove” Jane Doe No. 3 is lying,
Dershowitz has yet to produce a single document to this Court. Dershowitz’s intransigence is
not limited to this case, as he has also refused to comply with discovery requests in a parallel
defamation action in state court. His refusal has led to a pending motion to compel. See
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Edwards v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-
000072 (Feb. 23, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 1) (“despite having had 45 days to gather materials
that allegedly provide ‘absolute proof’ than he has never even met Jane Doe No. 3 – and despite
having told numerous media sources that he had already collected such information –
Dershowitz has provided none of these documents . . . .”).³ The Court should draw the obvious
inference that Dershowitz, despite making broad claims to the media, has no such evidence to
produce – because Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations are true.
Edwards] had done that investigation, they would have come to the same conclusion.”¹
Similarly, on January 8, 2015, on the Greta van Susteren show on FOX, Dershowitz claimed:
“Now I can prove through documentary evidence that I was never at the times and places she
[Jane Doe No. 3] alleges she had sex with me.”² Yet despite having publicly claimed to have
“all kinds of records” and “documentary evidence” that “prove” Jane Doe No. 3 is lying,
Dershowitz has yet to produce a single document to this Court. Dershowitz’s intransigence is
not limited to this case, as he has also refused to comply with discovery requests in a parallel
defamation action in state court. His refusal has led to a pending motion to compel. See
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Edwards v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-
000072 (Feb. 23, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 1) (“despite having had 45 days to gather materials
that allegedly provide ‘absolute proof’ than he has never even met Jane Doe No. 3 – and despite
having told numerous media sources that he had already collected such information –
Dershowitz has provided none of these documents . . . .”).³ The Court should draw the obvious
inference that Dershowitz, despite making broad claims to the media, has no such evidence to
produce – because Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations are true.
____________________________
¹ http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3976630676001/alan-dershowitz-the-woman-is-a-serial-
liar/? - sp=show-clips.
² http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/01/08/greta-alan-dershowitz-this-time-its-personal/.
³ Jane Doe No. 3 explained in her earlier response that the Court should not allow
Dershowitz to intervene here because he can protect his (alleged) reputational interests in the
pending defamation action. DE 291 at 11-12). The Court may be interested to learn that
Dershowitz has recently filed a counterclaim against Edwards and Cassell for defaming him in
that action – suggesting he can litigate his reputational interests there, and thus has no need to
do so here.
¹ http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3976630676001/alan-dershowitz-the-woman-is-a-serial-
liar/? - sp=show-clips.
² http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/01/08/greta-alan-dershowitz-this-time-its-personal/.
³ Jane Doe No. 3 explained in her earlier response that the Court should not allow
Dershowitz to intervene here because he can protect his (alleged) reputational interests in the
pending defamation action. DE 291 at 11-12). The Court may be interested to learn that
Dershowitz has recently filed a counterclaim against Edwards and Cassell for defaming him in
that action – suggesting he can litigate his reputational interests there, and thus has no need to
do so here.
2
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document