Jane Doe

Person
Mentions
614
Relationships
126
Events
160
Documents
291
Also known as:
Jane Doe II

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.
126 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Jeffrey Epstein
Legal representative
19 Very Strong
15
View
person Bradley J. Edwards
Client
17 Very Strong
12
View
person BRAD EDWARDS
Client
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Edwards
Client
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Abuser victim
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Bradley James Edwards
Client
8 Strong
4
View
person MS. MAXWELL
Legal representative
8 Strong
2
View
person Jane Doe's Mother
Family
8 Strong
3
View
person Mr. Epstein
Legal representative
8 Strong
2
View
person Mr. Trump
Legal representative
8 Strong
2
View
person Epstein
Perpetrator victim
7
3
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Plaintiff defendant
7
2
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Victim abuser
7
3
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Alleged abuser victim
7
3
View
person THEODORE J. LEOPOLD
Client
7
3
View
person Jane Doe's Father
Family
7
3
View
person Haley Robson
Plaintiff defendant
6
1
View
person narrator
Client
6
1
View
person DONALD J. TRUMP
Legal representative
6
1
View
person Robert S. Glassman
Client
6
2
View
person Edwards
Legal representative
6
2
View
person JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
Legal representative
6
1
View
person Jeffrey Herman
Client
6
2
View
person Sarah Kellen
Plaintiff defendant
6
1
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Victim abuser
6
2
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Herman on behalf of Jane Doe, her father, and stepmother against Jeffrey... N/A View
N/A N/A Jane Doe dropped her lawsuit against Epstein due to parental squabbling. N/A View
N/A N/A Epstein's molestation of Jane Doe and other minors. N/A View
N/A N/A Exhaustive attempts by Jane Doe and other plaintiffs to obtain discovery from Epstein, including ... N/A View
N/A N/A Bradley James Edwards filed complaints against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of two redacted clients ... N/A View
N/A N/A Sexual assault of three minor girls N/A View
N/A N/A Bradley James Edwards filed state court actions on behalf of two redacted clients and a federal c... N/A View
N/A N/A Intimidation of Jane Doe Jane Doe's home/Hiding place View
N/A N/A Sexual assault of Jane Doe Epstein's home (massage room) View
N/A N/A Sexual assault of Jane Doe involving massage and specific sexual acts. Epstein’s mansion in Palm B... View
N/A N/A Dismissal of RICO claim Federal Court View
N/A N/A Jeffrey Epstein filed an answer to Jane Doe's complaint, invoking his Fifth Amendment right to si... N/A View
N/A N/A Jeffrey Epstein took Jane Doe's deposition, asking questions suggesting she is fabricating allega... N/A View
N/A N/A Filing of Complaint for sexual assault and abuse. Palm Beach County, Florida View
N/A N/A Filing of state and federal court actions against Jeffrey Epstein. Florida View
N/A N/A Civil action against Epstein represented by Edwards. Court View
N/A N/A Epstein sexually abused three clients of Edwards (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe). Unknown View
N/A N/A Epstein filed a summary judgment motion regarding federal nexus. Court View
N/A N/A Epstein settled the case before trial. Court View
N/A N/A Acting classes Herbert Berkoff Studios and... View
N/A N/A Voice lessons Unknown View
N/A N/A Taking of photographs of minor Plaintiff without her knowledge Unknown View
N/A N/A Car trips for Doe driven by Decedent's drivers Unknown View
N/A Alleged criminal activity Defendants allegedly participated in an enterprise and a pattern of criminal activity, including ... Florida View
N/A Recruitment and assault Ms. Robson recruited Jane Doe and brought her to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Jane Doe was in... Epstein's mansion in Palm B... View

056-01.pdf

A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated August 2009 in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants Sarah Kellen's request to adopt co-defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Reply as her own arguments in the case.

Court order
2025-12-26

052.pdf

This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on July 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs 'Jane Does 2-7' against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs allege that Epstein hired private investigators to harass and intimidate them by contacting their former employers, ex-boyfriends, and friends to ask intrusive personal questions and potentially 'out' them as sexual abuse victims. The motion seeks a court order to stop Epstein's investigators from making ex parte contacts with nonparties associated with the plaintiffs.

Legal motion (motion for protective order)
2025-12-26

050.pdf

This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.

Legal filing - notice of compliance
2025-12-26

048.pdf

This is a legal reply filed by Sarah Kellen's attorney in July 2009, requesting the court set aside a default judgment in the case brought by Jane Doe II. The document argues that service of process in New York was legally deficient because the 'nail and mail' method was used without proper due diligence (attempts were made when Kellen was known to be out of town) and that the default was entered prematurely before the response deadline. Kellen also asserts a meritorious defense, stating she did not conspire with Jeffrey Epstein to commit sexual battery and was unaware of what occurred privately between Epstein and the Plaintiff.

Legal pleading (reply to plaintiff's response)
2025-12-26

047.pdf

This document is a Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law filed on July 14, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The Plaintiff opposes Sarah Kellen's motion to set aside a default judgment, arguing that Kellen was properly served via 'nail and mail' in New York on April 23, 2009, after six attempts, and deliberately ignored the lawsuit. The filing asserts Kellen has provided no evidence she didn't receive service and has failed to present a meritorious defense as required by law.

Legal memorandum
2025-12-26

045.pdf

This document is a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff lists 23 specific interrogatories regarding Epstein's finances, properties, travel, and alleged sexual abuse of minors, all of which Epstein refused to answer by invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The motion argues that Epstein's blanket refusals are improper and requests the court force him to answer or provide a privilege log.

Legal pleading (motion to compel answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories)
2025-12-26

043.pdf

This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The motion argues that Epstein has improperly asserted blanket Fifth Amendment privileges in response to sixteen specific requests for production of documents, including telephone records, appointment books, financial records, and correspondence. The Plaintiff requests the Court to order Epstein to answer the requests, provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocations, and produce a privilege log.

Legal motion / court filing
2025-12-26

040.pdf

This document is a 'Notice of Reliance' filed on June 19, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV-80469) in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team informs the court that despite the Plaintiff filing an Amended Memorandum of Law on June 12, 2009, Epstein will not file a new supplemental reply but will instead rely on his previous arguments filed on June 1, 2009. The document outlines the procedural history of the motion to dismiss and includes a certificate of service listing attorneys for both parties.

Legal notice (notice of reliance)
2025-12-26

039.pdf

A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated June 16, 2009, granting a default judgment against Sarah Kellen in a civil case filed by Jane Doe II. Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that Kellen failed to respond to the complaint despite being properly served under New York state law. Jeffrey Epstein is listed as a co-defendant in the case header.

Court order (order of default)
2025-12-26

037.pdf

This document is a Plaintiff's Motion for Default filed on June 12, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida against Sarah Kellen in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The motion asserts that Kellen has been avoiding service but was successfully served according to New York law and failed to respond. Notably, it alleges that Kellen is aware of the legal action and has visited Jeffrey Epstein at the Palm Beach County Jail on several occasions.

Legal motion (motion for default)
2025-12-26

037-01.pdf

This document is an Affidavit of Service filed in the Southern District of Florida for the case Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein. It details multiple attempts by process server Joseph Sanchez in April 2009 to serve Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Bonk) at her New York apartment. After several failed attempts where the doorman stated she was out of town or not home, service was eventually effected on April 25, 2009, by leaving the papers with the doorman, identified as Hector 'Doe', followed by a mailed copy.

Affidavit of service (legal)
2025-12-26

031.pdf

This document is a Reply by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to Plaintiff Jane Doe II's opposition to his motion to dismiss a civil suit (Case 09-CIV-80469). Epstein's defense argues that a concurrent state action requires dismissal of the federal case, that the 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 ('Masha's Law') cannot be applied retroactively to conduct from 2003-2005 to increase damages, and that the Plaintiff misrepresents the terms of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement with the US Attorney's Office. The document details specific dates in 2003 and 2004 where the Plaintiff alleges she received payments for acts of prostitution.

Legal filing (motion reply)
2025-12-26

021.pdf

This document is a Notice of Filing Proposed Order submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2009. It lists eleven separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs, including Jane Does 2-7, 101, 102, C.M.A., and Doe II. The filing serves to submit a proposed order related to case no. 08-80119 and includes a service list of attorneys involved in the litigation.

Legal filing (notice of filing proposed order)
2025-12-26

020.pdf

This document is the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss in a civil case. The Plaintiff argues that the federal court has jurisdiction alongside state claims, that the 2006 amendments to 18 U.S.C. §2255 regarding damages should apply retroactively or are procedural, and that interstate commerce requirements were met via phone calls made by co-defendant Sarah Kellen from a New York number. The document details specific dates of solicitation between 2003 and 2005 and alleges a conspiracy involving Epstein, Kellen, and Haley Robson to procure minors for prostitution.

Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant epstein's motion to dismiss
2025-12-26

016.pdf

This document is a legal motion filed on May 15, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, case number 09-80469-CIV-MARRA. Plaintiff Jane Doe II requests an extension until May 22, 2009, to file a reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, citing complex issues and other business. Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, was consulted and did not oppose the extension.

Legal motion (unopposed motion for enlargement of time)
2025-12-26

013.pdf

This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 6, 2009, against Plaintiff Jane Doe II. The defense argues that the federal case should be dismissed because a nearly identical state case was filed 10 months prior, and because the plaintiff is improperly applying a 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 retroactively to conduct alleged to have occurred between 2003 and 2005, thereby violating the Ex Post Facto clause. Additionally, the motion argues that the statute does not allow for multiplying damages per incident and that the plaintiff failed to allege the necessary interstate commerce elements required for federal jurisdiction.

Legal motion (motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum of law)
2025-12-26

013-02.pdf

This document is a Clerk's Notice of Reassignment from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, dated April 10, 2009. It notifies parties in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case ID: 502008CA020614XXXXMB) that the case has been reassigned from Judge Diana Lewis to Judge Donald W. Hafele. The document lists attorneys Robert Critton Jr, Michael Pike, Isidro Garcia, and Jack Goldberger on the distribution list.

Court notice (clerk's notice of reassignment)
2025-12-26

009.pdf

This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys on May 4, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein opposes the court's potential order to consolidate multiple civil lawsuits (filed by various 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs) for all discovery purposes, arguing that while consolidating depositions is acceptable, full consolidation would confuse distinct facts and defenses unique to each case. The filing lists numerous related case numbers and requests clarification on how consolidation would operate regarding motion practice.

Legal pleading (response in opposition and motion to clarify)
2025-12-26

007.pdf

This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 1, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-CIV-80469) by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a five-day extension to file a response to Jane Doe II's complaint. The extension (until May 6, 2009) was requested because Epstein's counsel, Robert D. Critton, Jr., was preparing for an unrelated state court trial. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel, Isidro M. Garcia, agreed to this extension.

Legal motion (unopposed motion for extension of time)
2025-12-26

006.pdf

This document is a Court Order from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, dated April 28, 2009, presided over by Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order grants the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order against piecemeal depositions, limiting Jeffrey Epstein (Defendant) to a single deposition of each plaintiff across ten related civil cases. It also consolidates four specific cases (08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993) for the purposes of discovery and orders parties in the remaining six cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.

Court order
2025-12-26

005.pdf

This document is a court order from March 30, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sara Kellen (Case No. 09-80469-CIV-MARRA) in the Southern District of Florida. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders counsel to confer and file a joint scheduling and discovery report pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order outlines specific deadlines for pretrial discovery planning and scheduling conferences.

Court order
2025-12-26

004.pdf

This document is an Order of Transfer from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated March 2009. Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp transfers the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 09-80469) to Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The transfer is ordered because the case is related to several lower-numbered cases already assigned to Judge Marra (including 08-80069, 08-80119, etc.).

Court order (order of transfer)
2025-12-26

003.pdf

This document is an 'Order of Pretrial Procedures' from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated March 25, 2009, in the civil case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. It outlines the procedural requirements for the case, including deadlines for scheduling meetings, reports, and discovery planning, and warns of sanctions for non-compliance. The document also includes a sample 'Scheduling Order' template detailing rules for pretrial stipulations, jury instructions, and witness lists.

Court order (order of pretrial procedures)
2025-12-26

002.pdf

This document is a Civil Summons from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated March 24, 2009. It notifies defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (a.k.a. Sarah Bonk) that they are being sued by Jane Doe II and must respond within 20 days. Notably, the summons lists Sarah Kellen's address in New York City and Jeffrey Epstein's address as the Palm Beach County Stockade, including his inmate jacket number.

Civil summons
2025-12-26

024.pdf

This document is an unopposed motion filed on September 18, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in the Southern District of Florida (Case 08-80804) against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss until 15 days after the court rules on a pending motion to remand the case to state court due to alleged lack of federal jurisdiction. The document lists legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.

Legal motion (unopposed motion for enlargement of time)
2025-12-26
Total Received
$2,600,800.00
30 transactions
Total Paid
$400.00
1 transactions
Net Flow
$2,600,400.00
31 total transactions
Date Type From To Amount Description Actions
N/A Received Unknown Jane Doe $0.00 Plaintiff was enticed by "promises of money" to... View
N/A Received employer Jane Doe $100,000.00 Hypothetical salary for absolute income example View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $0.00 Epstein chose to settle the case before trial. View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein/E... Jane Doe $0.00 Cash payments View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $0.00 Mention of intent to give massage for monetary ... View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $0.00 monetary com[pensation] for a massage (implied ... View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $0.00 Promise of payment for a massage (pretense for ... View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $0.00 Defendant intended to pay cash in exchange for ... View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $300.00 Payment for massage mentioned in complaint View
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $200.00 Fee paid on each occasion after Epstein ejacula... View
2017-10-01 Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $2,500,000.00 Settlement payment. View
2016-06-20 Paid Jane Doe U.S. District Cou... $400.00 Filing Fee for Complaint (Receipt Number 0208-1... View
2005-01-01 Received Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe $300.00 Payment for 'massage' (sexual acts). View
2004-11-09 Received Epstein/Kellen Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff for alleged acts View
2004-11-09 Received Mr. Epstein (impl... Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff documented in End... View
2004-10-12 Received Mr. Epstein (impl... Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff documented in End... View
2004-10-12 Received Epstein/Kellen Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff for alleged acts View
2004-10-09 Received Epstein/Kellen Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff for alleged acts View
2004-10-09 Received Mr. Epstein (impl... Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff documented in End... View
2004-08-30 Received Epstein/Kellen Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff for alleged acts View
2004-08-30 Received Mr. Epstein (impl... Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff documented in End... View
2004-07-30 Received Mr. Epstein (impl... Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff documented in End... View
2004-07-30 Received Epstein/Kellen Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff for alleged acts View
2004-06-07 Received Mr. Epstein (impl... Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff documented in End... View
2004-06-07 Received Epstein/Kellen Jane Doe $0.00 Payment received by Plaintiff for alleged acts View
As Sender
12
As Recipient
10
Total
22

Police Report

From: Jane Doe
To: Police

Witness admits to lying to police about who was in the car with her when she went to Epstein's house.

Statement
N/A

No Subject

From: Jane Doe
To: Kelly Bovino Umekubo

Plaintiff believes she communicated with Kelly Bovino Umekubo.

Communication
N/A

Money and modeling career

From: Unspecified
To: Jane Doe

Plaintiff was enticed with promises of money and a modeling career to attend parties.

Promise/enticement
N/A

Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Doe, Exhibit A

From: Jane Doe
To: THE COURT REPORTER

A written declaration by the plaintiff, submitted as Exhibit A in the case.

Legal declaration
N/A

Criticism of Epstein plea bargain

From: Jane Doe
To: Public

A victim appeared on TV to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain.

Television appearance
N/A

Criticism of plea bargain

From: Jane Doe
To: Public

Criticism of the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received.

Television appearance
N/A

Silence

From: Defendant Trump
To: Jane Doe

Threatened that she would disappear like a specific 12-year-old female if she spoke out.

Verbal threat
N/A

Defense

From: Jeffrey Epstein (Counsel)
To: Jane Doe

Questions suggesting Jane Doe is fabricating allegations.

Deposition
N/A

Criticism of Plea Bargain

From: Jane Doe
To: public

Jane Doe exercised First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain.

Television appearance
N/A

N/A

From: Darren Indyke
To: Jane Doe

Phone records showing calls made by Indyke to Jane Doe

Call
N/A

Instructions

From: Jeffrey Epstein
To: Jane Doe

Told her to remove her clothes; later told her to write down her name and phone number.

Verbal
N/A

Massage Request

From: Jeffrey Epstein
To: Jane Doe

Epstein called Doe over the telephone requesting a massage for payment, which was a fraudulent pretense for sexual acts.

Call
N/A

Investigation Interview

From: Jane Doe
To: Michelle Pagan

Jane Doe met with Pagan approximately 10-12 times regarding the case.

Meeting
N/A

Victim Statement

From: Jane Doe
To: THE COURT

A statement read by Ms. Moe describing Maxwell's manipulation and role in Epstein's abuse.

Court statement
2021-04-01

Victim Statement

From: Jane Doe
To: THE COURT

Written statement read aloud by Ms. Moe describing abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.

Statement
2020-12-10

Victim impact statement regarding Jeffrey Epstein

From: Jane Doe
To: THE COURT

Jane Doe provides a statement to the court detailing her sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein in 2004 at Zorro Ranch when she was 15 years old. She describes the psychological manipulation and trauma she endured.

Court testimony
2019-09-03

Threats

From: Blocked/Unavailable nu...
To: Jane Doe

Short threatening calls (approx 20 seconds) received after filing the initial complaint.

Call
2016-04-26

Investigators at their homes

From: Ex-boyfriends
To: Jane Doe

Investigators were knocking on their doors trying to talk about Jane Doe.

Call
2010-07-01

Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum Alfredo...

From: Jane Doe
To: Court

Plaintiff's request to secure Alfredo Rodriguez for testimony.

Legal motion
2010-06-29

Deposition Preparation

From: Jane Doe
To: Mr. Leopold

Met 'this morning' to prepare for deposition.

Meeting
2008-02-20

Solicitation

From: SARAH KELLEN
To: Jane Doe

Scheduling times for Plaintiff to appear at Epstein's home for 'massages' or sexual services.

Call
2003-06-01

No Subject

From: Darren Indyke
To: Jane Doe

Threatening call stating Jane Doe owed Decedent $10,000 for rent paid on her apartment.

Phone call
1998-01-01

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity