David Boies Sues Alan Dershowitz In Latest Defamation Lawsuit Tied To Epstein Scandal

FoxNews Screenshot

Defamation lawsuits are flying New York between leading lawyers involved in the Jeffrey Epstein controversy. We recently discussed a court’s ruling against Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz in his effort to dismiss a defamation case against him. Now, leading litigator David Boies has filed his own defamation lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court. The filing came one day after Dershowitz on Friday — just one day after Dershowitz made accusations against him and his clients in his own defamation lawsuit in federal court.

Dershowitz once dared his accusers to sue him in the ongoing controversy over his role in the alleged abuse of underaged girls in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. One did just that. Virginia Giuffre has claimed that she was forced to have sex as an underaged girl with friends and acquaintances of Epstein, including Dershowitz. Dershowitz called her a liar on multiple occasions, including statements he never met Giuffre and that she is a “serial perjurer,” a “serial liar,” and a “serial prostitute.” She sued him for defamation and U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York has rejected Dershowitz’s motion to dismiss and held that Dershowitz will have to face a trial on her claims.  Former judge Paul Cassell has also leveled charges against Dershowitz, accusing him of being one of the abusers of underaged girls.

Dershowitz has emphatically denied the allegation and, while admitting that he accepted a massage, he insisted that he “kept my underwear on.”

Boies represents accuser Sarah Ransome, and accused Dershowitz of “an effort to distract attention from his own misconduct, Defendant has engaged in a campaign to attack and vilify each of the lawyers who have represented his victims, one of which is Plaintiff.” He noted that Dershowitz is engaging in the attacks because he is a “long-time friend and lawyer for convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein” and has been “personally accused under oath by two women of sexually abusing them when they were young.”

Boies states that Dershowitz went beyond defending himself and began defaming other lawyers when he stated that the lawyers for the victims told their clients to “intentionally lie about having sex” with him as part of Epstein’s sex ring.

Boies insists that he “has no practical alternative but to [sue Dershowitz for defamation]” as Dershowitz has repeatedly demanded. For his part, Dershowitz doubled down on his attacks on the opposing counsel and publicly declared “David Boies seems to forget that truth is a total defense to a defamation action. I will prove the truthfulness of everything I’ve ever said about David Boies, and I look forward to cross-examining him under oath.”

The case could highlight the difference drawn by courts over statements made in court and outside of court. As we have previously discussed, most of what lawyers and witnesses say would constitute defamation outside of court. Lawyers often accuse people of crimes or lying in court. Thus,  in a prior hearing former Judge Cassell (as counsel for the victims) openly asserted that sealed documents establish that Dershowitz (who represented Epstein and helped negotiate the deal) did have relations with the underaged girls that Epstein reportedly made available to his powerful friends.  Such statements are treated as privilege and protected from defamation lawsuits. However, that litigation privilege can be lost once a lawyer walks outside of court. It applies to certain out of court statements including, as we discussed, some pre-trial letters. For example, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the absolute privilege applied to the publication of pleadings online and dissemination of the pleadings to the press in Norman v. Borison (2011). Many states extend privilege to delivering papers outside of court, giving pleadings to the media, correspondence related to litigation. Statements characterizing filings fall into an uncertain area and lawyers have been sued for public statements about opposing parties.

I have long criticized the secret deal that Epstein secured in 2007 with former United States attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and the former United States labor secretary under President Trump, Alexander Acosta. The deal was a disgrace. It not only allowed Epstein to avoid a lengthy prison stint but, as recently found by a federal court, it violated federal law by hiding the details from more than 30 identified victims of Epstein.

Under the extraordinary agreement, Epstein pled guilty to state charges, accepted 13 months in jail, and registered as a sex offender. He not only avoided a life sentence but secured an agreement to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week, out of jail on “work release.” He simply had to sleep in jail. Moreover, the Southern District of Florida also agreed that he would not be prosecuted federally.

Dershowitz is now facing multiple lawsuits and each will force discovery and depositions. Given the reference in the comments to the underlying allegations against Dershowitz by at least two women, the scope of the discovery is likely to include the Epstein allegations. Indeed, the jury is likely to hear those allegations in court. It is ironic since Epstein himself (with Dershowitz’s help) was able to avoid such a trial.

41 thoughts on “David Boies Sues Alan Dershowitz In Latest Defamation Lawsuit Tied To Epstein Scandal”

  1. Dershowitz kept his underwear on? Of course, and bill Clinton didn’t inhale! lol

  2. the PRC has deployed eighteen nuclear-armed CSS4 ICBMs, with a substantial number of these missiles targeting the United States. The PRC is also developing a new generation of
    more advanced mobile ICBMs, which would enhance its ability to target the United States.

  3. FAA flight records and other documents reveal that former Senator George Mitchell particpated in Epstein’s ‘Fantasy Island’ statutory rape activities. Yet Mitchell approved Penn State’s (the Sanctuary City for Paedophiles) early release from former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s ‘punishment’, for which Penn State paid a handsome bribe.

  4. However this plays out, it’s not going to end well for Mr. Dershowitz. At the very least it shows an astounding level of bad judgment on his part for putting himself in such a position.

  5. “The whole of anything is never told; you can only take what groups together. What I have done has that unity—it groups together. It is complete in itself—and the rest may be taken up or not, later.” Henry James

    And never was this truer than in the Epstein case, which will reverberate for years to come.

  6. Anyone who believes that Acosta made that deal without pressure from above is dumber than a box of rocks.

  7. The terms in Epstein’s NPA of early 2009 where “associates and co-conspirators” are also not to be prosecuted smells of self-dealing on the part of Dershowitz, since he negotiated the agreement and may have been the originator of the “associates” clause. As an acusee in the case, Dersh went way outside the bounds of ethics to even represent Epstein. How did Alex Acosta not see this and move to have Dersh removed as Epstein’s counsel?

  8. The entire Epstein case was heartbreaking. From what I have read, it sounds like he and his girlfriend were adept at grooming teenage girls.

    The ultra rich have their groupies. I wouldn’t even call them courtesans. They desperately fawn over the rich and famous, but all they are is a booty call. You see them at events sometimes. Dressed inappropriately, and behaving atrociously. They are not respected, but don’t realize it. Madame Claude could have provided more elegance.

    It was my understanding that many girls were groomed to become such groupies. They were excited at the thought of hanging out with the jet set crowd, of being desired by men who could have anyone they wanted. The money. The stuff. Speaking face to face with all these big names. Were they going to marry a prince or a billionaire? In the end, they were just prostitutes. When that realization set in, they knew they’d been used. There were allegations of actual assault, but most were of statutory rape, grooming teenagers to become prostitutes. In most cases, there was manipulation, rather than force. Young girls can be vulnerable, as their self esteem may not be very robust at that age. Nor do some understand their own worth.

    The woman who accused Epstein of forcing her to sleep with men, like Prince Andrew, did not describe force. She described Prince Andrew as being rather awkward and sweet. She did not in any way give him the impression that she did not want to be there. Unless there was more information than I read, that was an incident of manipulation and grooming, not force.

    This was a cautionary tale for parents of daughters to discuss the perils of men who take advantage.

    I have no idea what Dershowitz did or didn’t do. He has denied the allegations vociferously, and will have his day in court. I like Dershowitz, but was appalled at the deal he cut for Epstein. He was doing his job as a lawyer to propose that deal. The fact that it was accepted was a gross miscarriage of justice.

    Intellectually, I understand the logic that the accused deserve the best legal representation they can get. But the reality is that I view lawyers who represent those actually guilty of terrible crimes with distaste. That’s not really fair on my part. You are entitled to a lawyer but I’ll look down upon him. It’s a bias on my part.

    1. I agree that some of these teen girls were not rape victims in the usual sense. The 17 y/o seemed to be quite agreeable to being wined and dined by famous people. Now she is older; married with kids and wants to cash in. Even worse are the 17 y/o males who sleep with their 24 y/o English teacher, and then sue as a victim of “child” abuse. Any16/17 y/o male who sleeps with the teacher knows exactly what he is doing and is most likely the instigator. He is not a child and should not be treated as such by the courts. I served with 17 y/o young men in the Air Force, and they were held to and performed at the same standards as everyone else. That being said, a line must be drawn somewhere between legal and jail bait. And the adults who cross that line should be punished accordingly, with due consideration given to the age and sophistication of the minor. As to Dershowitz and Boies, it will be fun to watch the battle of the legal titans!

    2. Karen,

      Former LA head of the FBI, Ted Gunderson was on the trial of these Epstein Pedo networks run by certain groups in US foreign intel outfit that have been using it for blackmail, etc…

      Infowars has been covering it for well over the last decade & it’s note over, much more is coming out.

      One claim is that Epstein’s girl friend’s dad’s last name was Maxwell. That he worked/built up that intel network… raping underage kids, torturing them, snuff films, satanic worship crap, etc., for the super wealthy royals.

      So when the Maxwell got old he turned over his/intel outfit’s pedo network to Epstein & his daughter.

      There are certain other intel/govt/private groups that that pedo crap really pisses them off & they are working to burn them to the ground.

      1. Oky1:

        Pedophilia is the Achilles Hell of the Left. Starts in Hollywood and meanders through salons in DC and NYC. Break that chain and the whole Left comes tumbling down. They know it and that’s why Epstein’s live wasn’t worth the proverbial plug nickel. His assassination was as much warning as murder. Sexual deviancy in the form of late term abortion, pedophilia, #metoos hold the Left together. Note the closing of ranks around these pervs by corporate media.


        1. I think a lot of us hate this topic, but it seems it’s being exposed everywhere, every week.

          One legal thing we can do that may help some is to help Vets4child rescue.org

          And then we can also keep the topic alive in the publics mind so they can report it to the PD if they see anything.

          I think these short sometimes funny memes help:


          1. Hi Cindy:)

            I’m checking out but I looked back & I see it appears you’ve your own personal stocker.

            Maybe it’s like a lost kitten.

            LOL Gnite

              1. “…obsessed with me.”


                It’s highly unlikely; there’s no evidence that anyone but Cindy is “obsessed” with Cindy.

                  1. Cindy to Oky1 about “Anonymous” at 2:14 AM:

                    “…LOL Yep, he-she-it is obsessed with me. It happens alot in my line of work.🤣”

                    Cindy may be obsessed with you, too, Paul. Only Cindy would know. Well — and you.

                    1. Cindy:
                      “George Soros has too much money.”
                      Likely all from extracted dental gold, “degenerate” art auctions, and pilfered jeweled menorahs.

  9. Victims aside (hard to ignore them, but the press, justice, the rich/powerful all succeeded in ignoring them for years), it is satisfying to watch the squirming and weaseling by powerful people.

    Let more of the story come out.

    1. This is like a years’ long train wreck. Every so often, incredibly, something new and terrible will come out, like Bill Clinton in the blue dress, or now Dershowitz’s legal battle heating up.

  10. The haters, the abusers and the liars take up more room in our nation’s discourse than is healthy for us.
    Volatility sells.

  11. Don’t know Dershowitz but do know Mary & David Boies. The latter don’t make ungrounded filings. That said, Boies seems to have thin proof if Dershowitz is to be believed. If the defense documents exist, I think this case is doomed.

    1. Attorney Alan Dershowitz “challenged,” indeed tainted women, including a particular woman, to file suit against him for defamation, which she did.

      What was attorney Dershowitz’s response?
      filed Attorney Dershowitz a motion to dismiss, which was denied.

      Did Attorney Dershowitz file file an appeal? Not based on any public record known, at least to me.

      What does this show of the “character” of attorney Alan Dershowitz?

      Specifically, what does this show of “character” of attorney Alan Dershowitz to prance and dance on television, but act in contradiction to his “words” when professing on TV? Credibility? Hypocrisy? Deceiver?

      For us common, ordinary people, simply “lie … r?!”

      O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!
      Walter Scott

      What does it say about the “character” of people work to support, defend, excuse or explain away the “lie … r” of attorney Alan Dershowitz?

      When confronted on whether he did in fact accept a message from one of the women at Epstein’s mansion, Dershowitz admitted that he did but insisted “I kept my underwear on.”

      Credible, credibility?

      dennis hanna

      1. Dennis Hannah:
        Interlocutory appeals to denials of motions to dismiss are extraordinary relief under the statute (28 USC 1292) and extremely rare. Both the district court and the appeals court have to agree the issue of law is one of great moment. A non-constitutional issue of defamation law typically wouldn’t qualify. I wouldn’t put much stock in the lack of an appeal.

Comments are closed.