Monday, January 5, 2015

Prince Andrew sex claim: Alan Dershowitz threatens action : Destroying reputations with unsubtantiated allegations

BBC  A US lawyer says he is planning legal action against a woman who claims she was forced to have sex with him and Prince Andrew when she was a minor.

Alan Dershowitz told the BBC he wanted her claims to be made under oath.

He and the Duke of York were named in documents filed in a Florida court over how prosecutors handled a case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace has denied the woman's claims that she was forced by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew.

On Saturday, the palace issued a further statement, in which it "emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship" with the woman.

The Mail on Sunday has identified the claimant as Virginia Roberts, but the BBC has not been able to verify her identity. 

The woman behind the allegations says she was forced to sleep with the prince when she was under age, and on three occasions - in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein - between 1999 and 2002.

Mr Dershowitz, a former Harvard Law professor, said he intended to legally challenge the woman's allegations. 

"My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to speak in court. If she believes she has been hurt by me and Prince Andrew, she should be suing us for damages.[...]


  1. Dershowitz has no case. Unfortunately i, two people suing each other can make such wild accusations against a third party, with completeimmunity.

    The twist in this case is that the state department may intervene to protect US interests vis a vis england. But that wont help dershowitz, only prince Andrew.

  2. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 5, 2015 at 3:06 PM

    Perhaps Meir Kin should hook up with Alan Dershowitz to sue ORA for all the defamation against him. I would be happy to see ORA slapped with a multi-million dollar lawsuit!

  3. That is not correct. A law suit does not provide protection from defamation claims. Also, complaints are filled under penalty of perjury so are subject to criminal sanctions.

  4. Meir Kin is not a very nice guy according to this article:

    Is there something else we should know? Before you come out with any allegations, are your allegations made on a publicly available website?

  5. Monty - you are not a very nice guy. You, "Rabbi" Kanefsky, and your ORA fellow travelers are the REAL threat to all Jewish women. Kanefsky's bogus article is slanderous, misandrist, false and deceptive.

    You and your ORA-bot pals continually spew false and deceptive feminist ideologies, covered with a thin layer of fake "halacha", that only serve to confuse and mislead Jewish women and the Jewish public.

    Rabbeinu Gershom's "ban of excommunication against any man who divorced his wife" only applied in cases where the Jewish wife was compliant with halacha. The ban was never intended to apply to a Jewish woman who rebelled against the Torah and against her husband (moredes). These limits on the ban are clearly stated in Igros Moshe by Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L.

    In this case MK's wife is clearly a moredes after she's been litigating in non-Jewish courts against her husband for years. But I guess the concept of a moredes simply doesn't exist by the ORA faithful.

  6. Llawsuits are an exception to defamation (or almost) any claim. I can testify complete slander against you in court (especially in a third party case like this, where dershowitz has no right to cross examine, or rather preclude defamatory statements, since he is not a party to this case) and the only alternative is to have the DA prosecute for perjury (they almost never do).

    Besides, dershowitz opens his personal life open to public scrutiny, including his income, other finances, his love life, etc. Besides, he has little monetary claim, since he is retired and or this won't affect his income.

    That said, he claims to have receipts that he as

  7. Mr. Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor. Yet he's being interviewed on a popular news channel. From the vantage point of making a case to the public, I didn't follow his logic. He said he would prefer the case be aired in the media rather than in a lawsuit. I assume he will have his day in court to confront his accuser, if the courts in England are like they are in the U.S. So, why would he want his accuser to be speaking to the media? A thought: maybe he's trying to smoke out his accuser, and use public statements the accuser will make to undermine future statements the accuser will make. Anyway, something doesn't add up.

  8. Correction. I researched a little more and realized the allegations were made in a U.S. court, and not, apparently, in a lawsuit. The point I made in my previous comment stands: why in the world would someone who is saying they are falsely accused want to have the accuser make their allegations to the media?

  9. Further investigation reveals my hunch was right. Mr. Dershowitz is seeking statements of his accuser so that he can file a defamation lawsuit, according to

    "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 to Politico. "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."

    Cassell and Edwards responded in a statement sent to HuffPost: "We have been informed of Mr. Dershowitz's threats based on the factual allegations we have made in our recent filing. We carefully investigate all of the allegations in our pleadings before presenting them. We have also tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects, although he has avoided those deposition requests. Nevertheless, we would be pleased to consider any sworn testimony and documentary evidence Mr. Dershowitz would like to provide which he contends would refute any of our allegations."

  10. Prof. Dershowitz is somewhat of an expert on American Law, so i would assume he knows what he is doing . Prince Andrew will most likely have immunity, and will be hard to prove he did anything.
    Dershowitz wants to fight back, especially at the lawyers representing the young girl. He presumably can show enough safek in the case, that he was not present at any of the locations where the alleged acts are claimed to have taken place.

    He also pointed out that the Jane Doe has repeated claims about our Prince Andrew, but not about him. In any case, this is a chillul Hashem when several prominent Jewish names are mentioned in such a case.

  11. Congratulations!!! You finally got yourself a webpage so you can get all your aggression out in one place. Well done!! Now, you have repeatedly told us in comments on this blog that Meir kin has been denied access to the local Chabad Shul. Is this true? Is that allegation on your website too? It would be very unfortunate for your credibility if it turns out your allegations weren't based on anything at all.

  12. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 6, 2015 at 4:11 PM

    TO MONTY The ORA TROLL: ORA has failed once again as MK has established his own shul and couldnt care less about Chabad or ORA. He has moved on with his life and remarried with a Heter! The feminists are out of options now!!!!

  13. I am so pleased it has all worked out for you and MK. You must be laughing now at everyone, given that MK doesn't care about Chabad and Ora. One question remains however. Why are you so angry and why do you feel the need to express your anger anonymously in this way? You have what you want, everyone is a winner? Or is there something else you're not telling us?

  14. The_Original_Bored_LawyerJanuary 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM

    A testifying witness generally enjoys complete immunity from private defamation suits. The theory being he or she should be completely free to tell the court the truth, without worry of suit.

    However, if someone deliberately lies under oath (either in a civil or criminal case), then, of course, he or she can be criminally prosecuted for perjury. But that is extremely rare, and hard to prove.

    (By the same token, judges and prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from civil suit for anything they do in their job -- even if they take a bribe! But, of course, they are not immune from criminal prosecution, if that is warranted.)

  15. why do you feel the need to express your anger anonymousl

    Are you not commenting anonymously as well?

  16. If, however, the woman gives dates of when the incident occurred, and Dershowitz can show that he was elsewhere then, he could prove that she lied under oath. Perhaps that's what he's trying to achieve.

  17. I am not trying to tell a story, he is. And he sounds pretty angry about it too! I wonder what us going on with him!

  18. You seem pretty upset yourself. In any case, I see nothing wrong with expressing anger anonymously.

  19. Why is he angry? MK has everything he wants and doesn't care about Chabad or ora according to his earlier comments.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.