Adam Horowitz
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Doe No. 2
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 4
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Stuart Mermelstein
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael J. Pike
|
Correspondents involved in same case |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-09-17 | N/A | Adam Horowitz, Esq. announced that the deposition was cancelled because Epstein and his client (P... | Deposition location | View |
| 2009-09-16 | N/A | Lobby Incident / Confrontation | Lobby of 250 Australian Ave... | View |
| 2009-09-16 | N/A | Scheduled Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 | 250 Australian Avenue South... | View |
| 2009-09-16 | N/A | Intimidation incident in the lobby. Epstein crossed paths with Jane Doe No. 4, stared her down, a... | Lobby of 350 Australian Ave... | View |
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
032.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
027.pdf
This document is a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal submitted on May 29, 2009, by attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs request permission to file their response to Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal, or alternatively, request the court to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) so they can adequately respond. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing attorneys representing Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and various other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
025.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida, arguing for the right to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs contend that Epstein aims to reveal their identities to harass and intimidate them, and they cite various legal precedents and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to support their request for privacy due to the sexual nature of the crimes committed against them as minors. The document also includes a service list detailing the attorneys representing various parties in related cases against Epstein.
020.pdf
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
016.pdf
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
012.pdf
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
024.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
022.pdf
This document is a legal reply brief filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs seek to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that revealing their identities would subject them to harassment, shame, and further trauma, particularly given their status as victims of sexual exploitation as minors. The filing also discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), statutory minimum damages under 18 U.S.C. ยง 2255, and accuses Epstein of using the threat of publicity to intimidate victims into settling.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in May 2009. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to preserve evidence related to allegations of sexual abuse, specifically citing evidence seized during a 2005 police search and other electronic/physical records located across his six international properties. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in related cases and references Epstein's previous guilty plea in 2008.
038.pdf
This document is a Motion to Reschedule Hearing filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert C. Josefsberg, representing Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and 102, requests to move a hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, because he will be attending his 50th College Reunion in Hanover, New Hampshire. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal teams associated with Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and various plaintiffs in related cases.
035.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs argue for the right to proceed anonymously, citing fears of harassment, public humiliation, and Epstein's alleged intent to intimidate victims by exposing their identities. The document lists numerous related cases and provides a service list of attorneys representing various parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
010.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Striking Docket Entry' filed on May 4, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., notifies the court that a previous docket entry was filed without a signature and has been re-filed correctly. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing numerous attorneys involved in this case and related cases against Epstein, including Bruce Reinhart (defense), Jack Scarola, and Brad Edwards.
008.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 101 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009. The plaintiff agrees to the court's order to consolidate ten separate cases filed by various Jane Does and C.M.A. against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery. The document includes a service list detailing the contact information for attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and the defendant.
EFTA00031937.pdf
A 2009 article from PalmBeachDailyNews.com details Jeffrey Epstein's release from Palm Beach County jail to serve one year of probation at his home without electronic monitoring. The article includes reactions from victims (Jane Doe No. 3 and No. 5) and their attorneys, who express outrage at the leniency of the sentence and fear of Epstein's wealth and influence. It also lists the specific conditions of his probation, including a curfew and restrictions on contact with minors.
DOJ-OGR-00030293.tif
This document contains a series of emails from September and August 2009 related to the 'Jane Does v. Epstein' case. Key events include confirmation that Jeffrey Epstein will not attend Jane Doe No. 4's deposition and requests by Michael J. Pike for Dr. Kliman's client questionnaires, threatening to file a motion if they are not provided promptly.
DOJ-OGR-00030275.tif
This document, a court filing from September 17, 2009, details the events surrounding an attempted deposition of Epstein that was ultimately cancelled. Epstein's attorneys initially decided he would not attend, but he later attempted to leave the building and watch via video feed, only to encounter the Plaintiff at the exit, leading to the deposition's cancellation due to the Plaintiff's distress.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013432.jpg
A 2009 LexisNexis printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article detailing the unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein's federal non-prosecution agreement. The article highlights that Epstein avoided life in prison for federal sex trafficking charges in exchange for a light state sentence, and controversially secured immunity for co-conspirators Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. Attorneys for the victims express outrage at the deal and the exclusion of victims from the process.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021653.jpg
An FBI FD-350 form containing a Palm Beach Post article from April 10, 2009. The article details a new civil lawsuit (the 12th) filed by attorney Robert Josefsberg on behalf of 'Jane Doe 101' against Jeffrey Epstein, alleging sexual abuse of a minor. It also discusses ongoing discovery disputes lead by attorney Adam Horowitz and notes Epstein's incarceration status at the Palm Beach County Stockade.
Jane Does v. Epstein
Confirming Epstein will not attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 in person, but may listen by phone/video.
Jane Does v. Epstein
Confirmation that Jeffrey Epstein will not attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 on the following day.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity