Dershowitz
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Roy Black
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Cassell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
jeeitunes@gmail.com
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Roberts
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefcourt
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged coconspirators |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Doe
|
Accuser accused |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Roberts
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe Number 3
|
Accused abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edward & Cassell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Acquaintance |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Mentioned in alleged sex tapes context |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional indirectly connected via epstein case and harvard |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Hillary Clinton
|
Mentioned in alleged sex tapes context |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bill Clinton
|
Mentioned in alleged sex tapes context |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Sloman met with Dershowitz and informed him of USAO's opposition to early termination and transfe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Narrator worked at Kirkland & Ellis. | Kirkland & Ellis | View |
| N/A | N/A | Media interviews given by Dershowitz | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Recent depositions | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dershowitz admits to visiting Epstein's home once with family. | Epstein's home | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dershowitz admits to visiting Epstein's New Mexico ranch once for a few hours. | Epstein's New Mexico ranch | View |
| 2020-09-09 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 2020 WL 5439623, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2020) is ci... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-04-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 1 in Case 1:19-cv-03377 | Court (implied) | View |
| 2015-05-01 | N/A | Dershowitz requested confidential settlement negotiations to claim mistaken identity. | Not specified | View |
| 2015-01-03 | N/A | Press inquiries regarding Prince Andrew and allegations involving Clinton and Dershowitz. | N/A | View |
| 2011-10-11 | N/A | Victims filed discovery requests with the Government, seeking information about Dershowitz, Princ... | Federal court (S.D. Fla.) | View |
| 2008-05-01 | N/A | USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's counterpart regarding ... | Harvard Law School (potenti... | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting between Epstein's defense team and USAO officials | Miami | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting: Defense presents federal jurisdiction issues, legal issues, and request for de novo review | Unknown | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting in Miami between Acosta, USAO representatives, and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Dershow... | Miami | View |
| 2007-06-26 | Meeting | A meeting between USAO personnel and Epstein's defense team, where the defense presented their ar... | Miami USAO | View |
| 2007-06-26 | N/A | Meeting: Defense presents legal issues, investigation improprieties, and federal jurisdiction issues | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022721.tif
This document appears to be an index or a glossary of terms, likely from a legal transcript or report. It lists various words and names along with corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in a larger document. Key terms include 'Dempster', 'Diego', 'Diana', 'Dershowitz', 'Department', and 'District', suggesting a legal context.
DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif
This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023156.tif
This document details events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's compliance with his home detention and supervision terms between 2009 and 2010. It highlights his alleged violations, efforts to transfer his supervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the USAO's opposition to these requests, ultimately concluding with Epstein completing his sentence in Florida on July 21, 2010. The text also addresses the veracity of claims about Epstein's cooperation in the Bear Stearns case, which officials in the Eastern District of New York denied.
DOJ-OGR-00023137.tif
This document details interactions between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the USAO in late 2007, focusing on submissions, a key meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, and the defense's threat to pursue a Department of Justice review. The discussions revolved around defense complaints, a proposed revised indictment, and a new argument by Epstein's attorneys regarding the applicability of the state charge he agreed to plead guilty to. The document also highlights the USAO's internal review processes and Acosta's communication with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000769.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of grand jury transcripts with narrowly tailored redactions to protect the identities of victims like Ms. Farmer, citing their strong privacy interests as established in previous cases. However, it argues against redacting the names of third parties who have not been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, suggesting such an effort "smacks of a cover up" and requires independent court scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and a key meeting related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It describes a June 26, 2007, meeting where Epstein's attorneys, led by Dershowitz, argued for the case to be handled by the state, an argument the USAO team found unpersuasive. Despite internal concerns about the strength of certain aspects of the case, the USAO team left the meeting intending to proceed, but the document concludes by noting that in July 2007, Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state plea deal to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021231.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing internal DOJ deliberations in May 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights a conflict between prosecutors Lourie (who favored meeting with defense) and Villafaña (who strongly opposed it, arguing the case warranted prison time rather than probation negotiations). The text includes details of emails and a draft memo where Villafaña expresses concern that meeting with Epstein's lawyers, including Lefcourt and Dershowitz, would reveal too much prosecution strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg
This legal document from April 2021 details events from May 2007 concerning the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, revealing significant internal disagreement within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutor Villafaña strongly objected to holding further meetings with Epstein's defense team, led by counsel Lefcourt, fearing it would compromise their strategy, and documented her dissent in a draft email to her supervisors, Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman. The document highlights the strategic conflicts among prosecutors as they considered how to proceed with the high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00032344.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report, dated February 17, 2006, details an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The reporting officer, Joseph Recarey, describes reviewing telephone message books where an individual named Sarah took messages for Epstein, including incriminating phrases like "I have girls for him." The report also documents unsuccessful attempts by Recarey and Det. Caristo to contact two potential witnesses, a minor located via a high school yearbook and another individual named Tatum Miller, whose father's phone number was under subpoena.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031798.jpg
An email exchange between 'J' (using the jeevacation@gmail.com address associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and attorney David Schoen regarding a news article about the 2008 plea deal. Schoen criticizes the article's claim that victims were silenced and comments on other lawyers involved, specifically Dershowitz and Lefkowitz. 'J' responds dismissively, stating that 'every outlet needs a sex story.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017959.jpg
This page is from a legal complaint filed on April 16, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. It outlines allegations of libel against Alan Dershowitz, claiming he intentionally and maliciously made false statements about the plaintiff, Roberts (likely Virginia Roberts Giuffre), to destroy her credibility as a sex trafficking victim. The document asserts that Dershowitz acted on behalf of himself and Jeffrey Epstein, knowing the statements were false, and that these statements damaged Roberts's professional reputation as the president of a non-profit.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017953.jpg
This document is a page from a 2019 legal filing detailing May 2015 settlement negotiations initiated by Alan Dershowitz with Virginia Roberts' lawyers. Dershowitz attempted to argue that Roberts had confused him with Nathan Myhrvold and denied being at most of Epstein's properties, admitting only brief visits to a home and the New Mexico ranch with his family. The filing notes that investigations subsequently proved Dershowitz's representations about his whereabouts to be false.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017821.jpg
This document is a court filing (Page 4 of 6) from April 16, 2019, discussing various allegations related to Jeffrey Epstein. It details claims by 'Ransome' about being recruited as a masseuse, held against her will, and forced into sex by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, leading to a civil lawsuit. The document also describes Epstein's plea deal, which quashed an FBI investigation, and includes a photograph of Virginia Roberts with Prince Andrew, with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background, where Roberts claims she was a sex slave and had sex with the prince.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027550.jpg
This document is a log of digital messages exchanged in December 2018 between Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias jeeitunes@gmail.com) and a redacted individual. The conversation focuses on damage control and PR strategy following media scrutiny (referencing a Miami Herald article), with Epstein discussing commissioning op-eds from Ken Starr or Alan Dershowitz. Notably, Epstein writes that he has been asked 'what can I give them on djt' (Donald Trump) and mentions hiring a PR team.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027275.jpg
This document is a forensic log of an iMessage conversation from April 10, 2018, between 'jeeitunes@gmail.com' (associated with the user 'jee', likely Jeffrey Epstein) and a redacted individual. The conversation concerns legal representation, with the redacted individual suggesting Dershowitz will be the 'next lead lawyer,' a notion Epstein rejects ('I hope that is a joke') before stating he has 'Weingarten coming' instead.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015626.jpg
This document is a legal response in the case of Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072), arguing against the sealing of records based on Judge Marra's order. It details that Dershowitz's argument for confidentiality is a misunderstanding, and references a 2008 federal case (Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States) filed by Edwards and Cassell pro bono, on behalf of underage sex abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein, where discovery requests were made in 2011 seeking information about Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015614.jpg
This email from Susan Moss, Judicial Assistant to Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV, conveys court rulings in the case of Edward & Cassell v. Dershowitz. The judge quashed a subpoena against the law firm Boies Schiller but granted parts of a subpoena regarding 'Jane Doe #3,' while establishing strict protocols for a future deposition, including a 4-hour limit and the requirement of a Defendant-paid special master to rule on objections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015545.jpg
This document contains responses to legal interrogatories (questions 13-16) provided by attorneys Edwards and Cassell regarding their client, Jane Doe #3. It details that Jane Doe #3 began informing Brad Edwards of abuse allegations involving Dershowitz via phone calls starting in 2011 and filed a public affidavit in 2015. The attorneys state they have not seen photographic evidence of Jane Doe #3 with Dershowitz but are attempting to obtain such materials from the U.S. Attorney's Office.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021911.jpg
This document is page 88 of a rough draft transcript, likely from a House Oversight investigation. A speaker discusses representing a victim of sex trafficking and recalls details regarding Alan Dershowitz. The testimony focuses on a legal complaint (Jane Doe 102) filed by Bob Josefsburg, which alleged that one or more 'academicians' sexually abused a victim identified as Jane Doe 3.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021846.jpg
This is a page from a rough draft of a deposition transcript marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp. The questioning focuses on a legal pleading where the witness is listed as counsel, specifically regarding allegations that Alan Dershowitz participated in the abuse of 'Jane Doe Number 3' (identified in the text as Miss Roberts) and was an eyewitness to sexual abuse. The discussion establishes a timeframe of knowledge regarding these allegations on or before December 30, 2014.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021806.jpg
This document is an email chain from January 3, 2015, between Jeffrey Epstein and a redacted associate. They discuss press inquiries related to Prince Andrew being 'under fire' and allegations detailed by an accuser (name redacted) involving Bill Clinton being on 'the island' and Alan Dershowitz. Epstein dismisses the allegations as 'all fantasy' while the correspondent expresses approval of 'Alan's response.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021770.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a Palm Beach Post article dated August 14, 2006, discussing the legal battles surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and the conflict between his defense team and Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter. It details allegations against Epstein involving minors, his lawyers' attempts to discredit Reiter by calling him a "nutcase" and bringing up his divorce, and Reiter's criticism of State Attorney Barry Krischer's handling of the case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, addressed to Thomas E. Scott, Jr. regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The text outlines legal arguments concerning discovery abuses, specifically arguing that one cannot claim privilege or undue burden for documents that do not exist, and providing a broad legal definition of 'control' over documents to include those held by third parties like attorneys or accountants. The document was entered on the FLSD Docket on March 24, 2015, and bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
Publicity of documents
Stated he wants 'everything to be made public'
Legal Testimony
Mentioned as context for defamatory statements
Allegations of sex tapes
Dershowitz said in a tweet that an 'unbalanced woman' has 'delusions of having sex tapes of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and other prominent figures'.
Statements concerning Roberts
Allegedly false and damaging statements calling Roberts's truthfulness into question.
Confidential settlement negotiations
Dershowitz sought to convince lawyers that Roberts was mistaken and confused him with Nathan Myhrvold.
Response to discovery requests
Produced no documents; made vague commitments to produce documents in the future.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity