Does

Person
Mentions
7
Relationships
1
Events
0
Documents
3
Also known as:
Does 1 and 2 J. Does 1 and 2

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
1 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
organization Servants of Paraclete
Legal representative
6
1
View
No events found for this entity.

EFTA00022960.pdf

This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team objecting to the unsealing of specific docket entries (143, 173, 199, 164, and 230) in the civil case brought by Virginia Giuffre. The defense argues that these documents contain sensitive information regarding non-parties ('Does'), inadmissible hearsay, and prejudicial materials such as flight logs and police reports that were improperly filed to bias the court. The filing emphasizes the need to protect the privacy of non-parties and the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct.

Legal filing (objections to unsealing and memorandum brief)
2025-12-25

EFTA00017074.pdf

This document is a legal response filed on June 24, 2020, by Intervenors Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Co. arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's objections to unsealing specific court documents (Dkt. Entries 143, 164, 172, 199, and 230). The Intervenors argue that Maxwell's privacy claims are unsubstantiated and do not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, particularly regarding allegations of sex trafficking and abuse of minors. The filing explicitly mentions that the documents in question include a 'Flight Log Summary Chart' and 'flight logs', police reports, and deposition transcripts, arguing that these should be made public.

Legal filing / court document
2025-12-25

DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a motion or a judicial opinion, dated February 5, 2016. It outlines the legal standards for a 'motion to reconsider' in federal court, citing various precedents. The text explains that while not formally recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, district courts have inherent discretionary authority to reconsider non-final orders, but the scope for doing so is narrow and limited to specific grounds such as new law, new evidence, or correcting clear error.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity