Jane Doe No. 102
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim alleged |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert C. Josefsberg
|
Client |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Katherine W. Ezell
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Litigation adversaries |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff vs defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Litigation opponents |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Recruiter victimizer |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Defendant plaintiff |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jane Doe No. 102 approached at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited as Epstein's underag... | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| 2015-03-24 | N/A | Document entered on FLSD Docket | Florida Southern District C... | View |
| 2010-12-13 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-12-07 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (DE 64) filed. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-10-29 | N/A | Court Order Granting Extension of Time | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-08-07 | N/A | Order entered granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-06-18 | N/A | Order entered on docket granting extension of time. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal ... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102's Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-22 | N/A | Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102 filed a Motion for No-Contact Order. | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Complaint [DE 1] | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1] | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-03-25 | N/A | Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. | Southern District of Florida | View |
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. § 2255, and accuses Epstein of using the threat of publicity to intimidate victims into settling.
020.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Limited Appearance' filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It lists multiple civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. The United States, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña (under U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta), files this notice to respond to a court order regarding Epstein's 'Motion to Stay Proceedings,' while explicitly stating the U.S. is not becoming a party to the litigation.
016-03.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein and his associates to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically highlighting records of domestic and international travel (including private airplanes), phone communications, financial records, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly prohibits the destruction, alteration, or deletion of potential evidence dating back to 1998.
013.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on May 20, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, involving multiple consolidated cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff C.M.A. formally withdraws her objections to Epstein's motion to identify her by her legal name in the case style and in third-party subpoenas, rendering the motion to dismiss moot, though she continues to object to dismissal on alternative grounds. The document lists numerous 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys representing both the plaintiffs (Jack Scarola, Jack P. Hill) and the defendant (Richard Willits, Robert Critton, Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart).
009.pdf
This document is an Order of Transfer from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated May 2009. Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp transfers the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Kenneth A. Marra because it is related to multiple other actions pending before Judge Marra against Epstein. Judge Marra formally accepts the transfer on the second page.
006.pdf
Legal document filed on May 11, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-80656). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally entered their appearance as counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 102. The document includes a certificate of service listing other counsel involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger for the defense and attorneys from Podhurst Orseck, P.A. for the plaintiff.
064.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.
064-01.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida (Exhibit A), signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. The order mandates that Epstein and his agents preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including records of domestic and international travel on private airplanes, phone communications, computer data, and items resulting from the October 25, 2005 search of his Palm Beach home. It establishes preservation timelines ranging from 1998 to 2005 depending on the specific plaintiff and defines sanctions for wrongful destruction of evidence.
061.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The motion seeks to force Epstein to answer 23 specific Requests for Admission regarding his net worth (specifically if it exceeds $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of Caribbean property, and specific allegations of sexual battery, assault, and sex trafficking of minors. Epstein had previously refused to answer these questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
045.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Joinder' filed on June 8, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join a motion for a 'No-Contact Order' against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing alleges that Epstein's associate, Hayley Robson (who originally recruited the victims), has been harassing Jane Does 4 and 7 via text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by Epstein. The plaintiffs argue that a court order is necessary to prevent Epstein from contacting or harassing victims through third parties like Robson.
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.
034.pdf
This document is a response filed by the United States Government (as amicus curiae) in May 2009 opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay various civil lawsuits against him. The government argues that there are no 'special circumstances' justifying a stay because Epstein is not currently under indictment, and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intended to facilitate restitution for victims, not to shield Epstein from civil discovery. The filing lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and emphasizes that staying the cases would prejudice the victims' rights to speedy proceedings and restitution.
033.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Limited Appearance' filed by the United States government in the Southern District of Florida on May 29, 2009. The filing, signed by Assistant US Attorney A. Marie Villafaña under US Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, consolidates multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein (Plaintiffs include various Jane Does and C.M.A.). The United States enters as Amicus Curiae solely to respond to a court order regarding Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings, explicitly stating it does not become a party to the litigation nor take a position on the outcome of the civil suits.
028.pdf
This document is a motion filed on May 26, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 requesting a court order to compel Jeffrey Epstein to preserve all evidence, including electronic data, documents, and physical items located at his six international properties. The plaintiffs argue that given Epstein's status as a sex offender and his previous attempts to reclaim seized property (which may include child pornography), there is a high risk he will destroy incriminating evidence, including flight logs ('records of domestic and international travel') and computer files. The document lists the specific types of digital and physical evidence sought and notes that Epstein's counsel had failed to respond to a previous preservation letter.
028-03.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion by Plaintiffs (Jane Doe No. 101 and 102) to preserve evidence in their cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including flight logs ('travel in Defendant's private airplanes'), phone records, computer data since 1998, financial records regarding payments to victims, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly forbids the destruction, deletion, or alteration of any such evidence.
023.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections' filed on May 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.M.A. withdraws her objections to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to compel her to identify herself by her legal name in the case style and third-party subpoenas, though she maintains her objection to the case being dismissed sua sponte. The document lists numerous related cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys involved.
019.pdf
This document is a consolidated court order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 14, 2009, covering multiple civil lawsuits (Jane Does, C.M.A., etc.) against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra requests the United States government provide its official position regarding Epstein's motion to stay these civil cases. Epstein argued that defending himself in these civil suits might violate his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO and subject him to criminal prosecution.
018.pdf
This document is a court order dated May 14, 2009, from the Southern District of Florida, consolidating eleven separate civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery and procedural motions. Judge Kenneth A. Marra designates 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein' as the lead case for filings and sets strict limits on depositions to prevent duplication, ruling that defendants and common witnesses may be deposed only once across all cases. The order aims to improve judicial economy and efficiency in handling the multiple lawsuits filed by various Jane Does and other plaintiffs.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010598.jpg
This document, likely a page from a House Oversight report, details the legal strategies employed by attorney Edwards against Jeffrey Epstein, specifically the use of flight logs to prove a federal nexus for sexual crimes. It discusses a complaint by 'Jane Doe No. 102' alleging the use of Epstein's plane for transporting minors as young as 12 for abuse by Epstein and his friends. Additionally, it references a Fall 2009 interview with the New York Daily News where Epstein denied wrongdoing and claimed civil suits were result of jealousy over his success.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010595.jpg
This legal document (page 30, likely from a House Oversight production) outlines evidence justifying the deposition of Alan Dershowitz in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It cites testimony from housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez placing Dershowitz at Epstein's home when minors were present, flight logs placing him on Epstein's plane between 2002-2005, and a $30 million donation from Epstein to Dershowitz's university. The text also alleges Dershowitz attempted to discredit victims to the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office despite potentially being an eyewitness to the victims' presence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010592.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing the contentious discovery process in cases against Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's attorneys aggressively questioned victims and how attorney Edwards sought to depose Bill Clinton based on his connections to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines specific allegations against Maxwell regarding the procurement and abuse of minors and mentions Clinton's travel with Epstein to Africa.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013473.jpg
This document is a legal declaration by an attorney representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein. It details the legal strategy regarding RICO and federal claims, specifically the importance of flight logs in establishing a federal nexus via interstate commerce for sexual abuse cases. It also mentions the attorney's departure from the RRA law firm following the exposure of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme and the subsequent settlement of Epstein cases in July 2010.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013471.jpg
This legal document outlines the justification for deposing Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein. The text details evidence linking both men to Epstein, including flight logs showing extensive travel on Epstein's plane (2002-2005), testimony from housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez regarding Dershowitz's presence at Epstein's home during abuse, and allegations of Clinton's close relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. It also references a Vicky Ward Vanity Fair article and a $30 million donation to Harvard.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013366.jpg
This legal document outlines the justification for deposing Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein. Paragraph 14 details Dershowitz's close friendship with Epstein, his presence at Epstein's home during alleged abuse, and his role in preventing felony charges. Paragraph 15 details Clinton's relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, allegations of an affair, and extensive travel on Epstein's plane (over 10 times) between 2002 and 2005.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity