Alan Dershowitz has spent the last several years going on TV and calling his accusers — victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring — liars. After he challenged his accusers to sue him as the only way to settle this once and for all, he promptly claimed she had no basis to sue him once she went and filed a suit.

To escape the defamation suit, Dershowitz claimed that every new statement he makes about Virginia Giuffre in the media should be considered a mere republishing of stuff he said years ago and therefore couldn’t possibly form the basis of a suit. Judge Loretta Preska looked at that argument and backhanded it to the rear of the courtroom:

Dershowitz, who has proclaimed his appreciation of chutzpah, Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah (1992), employs it to advance the argument that his actions are analogous to a passive republication. Surveying the cases shows that this ain’t that.

The rule, designed to prevent someone bringing a defamation claim based on the reprinting of an earlier defamatory statement. It’s not, as Dersh was hoping, an opportunity to make new statements so long as they follow the gist of past potentially defamatory statements. As Judge Preska put it, “[t]he single publication rule was meant to protect the weary, not the wily” and his recent statements were clearly designed to reach new audiences.

It cannot be law that, having spoken in 2015 and not having been sued within one year, Dershowitz is now able to “go on TV seven days a week, 20 channels a day forever and say the same things.”

But Dershowitz did get some good news in that his motion to disqualify Boies Schiller was granted on the grounds that BSF attorneys will likely be advocate-witnesses in the matter.

Could this have been a little baby splitting on Judge Preska’s part? Because while it’s true that Dershowitz has made clear that he intends to force BSF attorneys to testify to defend themselves from his claim that they’re engaged in some kind of crazy extortion racket to get him, it shouldn’t be that a defendant can affirmatively hurl claims about opposing counsel and then successfully get counsel removed from the case. Judge Preska claims that BSF inserted themselves into the facts of the case when the pleading discussed prior settlement conversations with Dershowitz, yet those are only in there because Dershowitz has made public claims about the content of those conversations.

For her part, BSF partner Sigrid McCawley said:

We are pleased that the defamation case against Alan Dershowitz is going forward and that he will face the call for justice. We will appeal the disqualification decision, which is a result of Mr. Dershowitz’s manipulation of the system to classify us as witnesses so our client will be deprived of trusted, longtime counsel.

UPDATE: Virginia Giuffre also offered a statement:

I am grateful for the Court’s decision to deny Alan Dershowitz’s shameful attempt to dismiss my defamation case against him. I will no longer be silenced. I will no longer be shamed. I will see Alan Dershowitz in a court of law. But I am dismayed by the Court’s decision in this case to deprive me of my counsel. For over five years, my lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner have worked tirelessly to bring Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators to justice. When it was not in vogue and not a breaking news story, my lawyers Sigrid McCawley and David Boies stood up to the muscle of the Epstein machine and its grip on the legal system. It is no surprise that Alan Dershowitz, who was part of Epstein’s ecosystem of power and privilege, is attempting to manipulate the legal system in the face of the serious charges I have brought against him. The reckoning of accountability has begun and today’s decision will be appealed.

Judge Preska herself calls this all “litigation jujitsu” and it seems a troubling precedent to set, but she concluded that Giuffre would be best served with independent counsel capable of cross-examining BSF about the truth of Dershowitz’s conspiracy claims. Still, while Giuffre may well find independent counsel, consider what might happen to a different pro bono client when her counsel is taken from her based upon her alleged defamer’s clever arrangement of claims?

In any event, this case is far from over.

(Read the whole opinion on the next page…)

Earlier: Alan Dershowitz Says He Has A ‘Perfect Sex Life,’ Answering The Question Literally No One Asked

Who’s Up For A Fun Night Out Watching Alan Dershowitz Talk About Sex Trafficking?

Dershowitz’s Motion To Disqualify Boies Schiller Immediately Dumped For Hilarious Reason

Harvard Law School’s Dershowitz Moves To Disqualify Boies Schiller In Sex Trafficking Case

Dershowitz Wanted A Trial Over Sex Trafficking Accusations — He’s Getting One

Some (Tentative) Good News For Alan Dershowitz… And Some More Bad News

I Just Had To Think About Alan Dershowitz’s Underwear And Now So Do You

Alan Dershowitz Says He Thinks He Should’ve Gotten Epstein A BETTER Deal In Wild Doubling-Down Interview

After Publicly Demanding His Accusers Sue Him, Dershowitz Is Arguing That His Accusers Have No Basis To Sue Him

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.