Got Proof? The Dersh Accusation

Up to now, the only sort of whore accusation ever leveled at former Harvard lawprof was always paired with the word “media,” and nobody got terribly bent out of shape about it.  But the accusations leveled by Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell (yes, that Paul Cassell) take it in a direction that few would have ever imagined.

While I’m no big fan of the Dersh, never would I have imagined something like this:

Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.

One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.” NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

The “Epstein” refers to Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire who, according to the complaint, kept a stable of four underage female sex slaves.  The complaint further alleges that the government entered into a “secret non-prosecution agreement” with Epstein, without the “victims'” knowledge, and they now seek to vindicate the victims’ rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

But in the midst of their efforts on Epstein, others are brought into the mix. Dersh, Prince Andrew “(a/k/a Duke of York)” and others:

Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them.

The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA.

The Dersh has reacted to this accusations with outrage, as might be expected, and assuming they aren’t true, and given the nature of the accusations, it would seem that there will be paper trails all over the place to either prove or disprove the accuracy of the claims, has sputtered a challenge to the lawyers:

“I’m planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera,” he said. “I’m also challenging the young woman and the lawyers to level those charges against me outside of the courtroom, so that I can sue them for defamation…..Finally, I’m challenging the woman to file criminal charges against me because the filing of false criminal charges is a crime.”

While the image of Dersh having sex at all might be too horrible for many to contemplate, the notion of him being pedophile rather than pedagogue is incredible.  Having leveled the accusation, any moderately competent and ethical lawyer would have made awfully damn sure to have his ducks lined up before doing so.  As of this point, however, there is nothing more to support the claim than the words on paper seeking to add a couple more victims to the case.

Dersh’s challenge, for Edwards and Cassell to put their own butts on the line for having raised such a heinous allegation, raises a very curious problem. Their allegations against the Dersh (as well as the Duke) are legally untouchable as of now.  As my buddy, defamation lawyer Marc Randazza, explains:

I respect Dershowitz’ challenge. He knows that the lawyers are immune from a defamation suit under the litigation privilege. They know that too.

Its sorta like Dershowitz saying “lets go fight behind the school, where the teachers won’t break it up as I curb stomp you.”

They claim that this all happened, yet nobody brought a civil claim against any of these rich guys? I wasn’t there. So, maybe this all went down the way they say it did. I, for one, call bullshit.

Given the status of these accusations, which are raised in the context of an action against the government for its purported violation of the CVRA, and not against the Dersh or the Duke, it has the benefit of smearing them, immunity from defamation and precluding any direct confrontation by the accused.  In other words, Edwards and Cassell get to spill this sordid scandal and the people they accuse are left without frontal recourse.

Of course, it could be true, but then, it could be complete nonsense.  It would seem that there would be a ton of evidence that would strongly, if not conclusively, prove the allegations one way or the other.

And if it should turn out that neither the Dersh nor the Duke (nor the miscellaneous world leaders swept into the mix for good measure) have done what they are accused of doing, what exactly can be done to undo the damage?  As with Marc, the allegations here are so wild and outlandish as to raise some very serious red flags, and would seem to have been well worth a civil action on behalf of the “victims” years before.

So is this a calculated scheme, with some bold-faced names thrown in for juice?  And if so, is it really possible that Edwards and Cassell are so incompetent and unethical as to spew such allegations without having the proof to back it up?  Stay tuned, as this case can only get uglier.

14 thoughts on “Got Proof? The Dersh Accusation

  1. Marc R

    Following the case locally, there was a lot of outrage that Epstein only got 18 months for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation with like 40 girls and entirely escaped federal prosecution. The feds here never defer to the local SA office. But no way did Dershowitz substantively handle the federal non-prosecution agreement down here. That was obviously local defense counsel… and the idea that Dersh not only had such a close hand in negotiating it, but negotiated it so as to remove his criminal co-conspirator liability, there’s no way that’s true. Hopefully he didn’t engage in the sexual conduct at issue, but more ridiculous is that he got himself out of criminal liability by negotiating Epstein’s case in the southern district here.

    1. SHG Post author

      The allegations are so explosive and bizarre (not to mention needless, as in what difference does it make whether Prince Andrew was involved, even if he was), that they better have done their due diligence and nailed down proof beyond the victim’s say-so or it will be the death of Cassell’s credibility. I note that most people won’t give a damn about Cassell’s cred, but then, there isn’t much else for Dersh to do.

  2. Turk

    Taking ugly and turning it bizarre, Dershowitz in an interview started talking about anti-semitic and anti-Israel emails he got.

    That is a diversion from “never met her, don’t know her, and let her say this to the press so I can sue her.”

    I thought he was more media-savvy than that.

      1. Turk

        How many more layers of bizarre can be added to this story?

        Many. What the under-or-over? (I’m taking the over no matter how many layers you add.)

    1. Yerachmiel Lopin

      The antisemitism card is the last refuge of Jewish scoundrels. Andrew is doubtlessly bitching about guillotine-wielding anti-royalists.

      Dersh is, as usual, being pugnacious. I find it absurd for Dersh to play the antisemitism charge. He is like the deceased in a murder mystery with too many enemies to count.

  3. DHMCarver

    I was interested to note when I checked the Volokh Conspiracy this morning that there was no post (so to speak) on this case — despite the fact that it involves one of the “conspirators” (Cassell), one of the favourites of a few of the “conspirators” (Dershowitz), and an issue that would normally be prime fodder for that blog. Perhaps this is related to your other post about what happened to the VC after it went into Amazon’s fold?

    1. SHG Post author

      I suspect (no basis, just speculation) that no one there knows what to make of Cassell’s actions here, and they won’t take a leap in either direction.

      1. DHMCarver

        That was my thought as well — but I was bemused, and perhaps even disappointed, nonetheless. There are enough “no opinion, just noting” posts on VC, that the omission is rather glaring. One of the promises of a blog is that the author (or the collective authors) will be willing to take a risk. Otherwise, we can just stick with the NYTimes or the WaPo itself, no?

  4. John Barleycorn

    Poor Dirsh…”youth” is a bitch and will never catch you. Unless you try to go back and grab what is done or pretend it has never begun or never was.

    Or something like that anyway that damns concise.

    Poor Dersh. I am going to get ten demerit karma points just for rolling in his butter.

    Hire a competent CDL Dersh. You may not need one but if you do now would be the time.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj_kK1j3CV0

    1. Michael

      Looks like he decided to go in a different direction, filing a motion to intervene and a sworn declaration denying the allegations. It’s full of assertions that can be checked relatively easily; he’d be crazy to have filed it if he really did have any sexual contact with Jane Doe #3. (You can find the motion and the declaration at Marc Randazza’s blog, link omitted as per SJ rules).

      If he’s telling the truth in his response to the claim that he avoided efforts to depose him on the subject of these allegations, it does not reflect well on Jane Doe #3’s lawyers.

  5. Pingback: To The Dersh’s Defense | Simple Justice

Comments are closed.