| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Client |
17
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Bradley James Edwards
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe's Mother
|
Family |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Trump
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff defendant |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim abuser |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
THEODORE J. LEOPOLD
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane Doe's Father
|
Family |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Haley Robson
|
Plaintiff defendant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
narrator
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
DONALD J. TRUMP
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert S. Glassman
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Herman
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Sarah Kellen
|
Plaintiff defendant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Victim abuser |
6
|
2 |
| 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 |
A Proposed Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The document grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the deadline for responding to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss until 15 days after a pending motion to remand is decided. The document was entered on the docket on September 18, 2008.
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein moves to dismiss Counts I (sexual assault), II (civil conspiracy), and IV (civil RICO) of Jane Doe's amended complaint. The motion argues that the sexual assault claim improperly relies on a criminal statute with no private right of action, the conspiracy claim lacks an actionable underlying tort, and the RICO claim fails to allege a direct injury resulting from a predicate act. The document outlines relevant Florida case law and statutes to support the dismissal of these claims.
This document is a Motion to File Under Seal submitted by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen on July 25, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Epstein et al. The defendants request to seal their 'motion for stay' to protect a confidential agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The document includes certificates of compliance and service, noting that the plaintiff opposes the motion, and lists the legal counsel representing all parties involved.
This document contains a Proposed Order and an Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08-80804). Filed on August 13, 2008, the motion requests an extension to file a Civil RICO Case Statement until after the court rules on an upcoming motion to remand the case back to state court. The plaintiff argues the case was improperly removed to federal court and lacks federal jurisdiction. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
This document is a motion filed on August 21, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests the court to preserve evidence seized by the Palm Beach Police Department from Epstein's home, citing concerns that Epstein (who had recently pleaded guilty and was in jail) was attempting to retrieve the evidence through State Court and might destroy it. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
This document is a court order from August 5, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra denied the defendants' motion to file documents under seal, ruling that the U.S. Attorney's objections and confidentiality clauses did not outweigh the public's right to access court records, ordering the clerk to unseal specific docket entries.
This document is a Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Defendants Epstein and Sarah Kellen request an extension to answer the complaint until 10 days after a decision is made on their contemporaneous motion to stay the case, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3509 regarding civil stays during parallel criminal proceedings involving child victims. The document includes a service list detailing legal representation for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for Sarah Kellen.
Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen filed a request for oral argument on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida regarding a motion to stay civil proceedings pending the resolution of a criminal action. The document lists legal representation for all parties, including Jane Doe (Plaintiff) and Haley Robson (Co-Defendant). Attorneys Michael R. Tein and Guy A. Lewis are the primary signatories for Epstein.
This document is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Haley Robson, seeking to move a civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendants argue that the non-diverse defendant, Haley Robson, was fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal. Attached as Exhibit A is a deposition transcript of Jane Doe (whose name is redacted) taken on February 20, 2008, in a related criminal case, where she is questioned about her age, MySpace profiles, inconsistencies in her statements to police regarding sexual contact with Epstein, and her interactions with various attorneys and law enforcement officials.
This document is a summons and affidavit of service related to a lawsuit filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. Jane Doe, represented by her mother, is the plaintiff against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The document details the service of the summons on Sarah Kellen in New York City on April 19, 2008, and includes important legal notices in English, Spanish, and French regarding the lawsuit and the defendant's responsibilities.
This document contains the deposition transcript of 'Jane Doe' (a minor victim) dated February 20, 2008, and a Civil Complaint filed by her mother against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The deposition covers Jane Doe's family issues, credibility, drug use allegations, and interactions with law enforcement, while the Complaint details the 'scheme' wherein Robson recruited underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse under the guise of massages. The document also includes procedural filings regarding service of process on Haley Robson.
Legal response filed on March 12, 2010, by attorney Tama Beth Kudman on behalf of non-party witness Jean Luc Bruhnel (spelled Bruhnel in document). The filing opposes Plaintiff Jane Doe's motion to compel Bruhnel to appear for a deposition, arguing that Bruhnel is a French citizen who has left the US with no plans to return and cannot be compelled by the Court to return. The document asserts that the Plaintiff should use the Hague Convention or other international mechanisms to secure testimony abroad and accuses Plaintiff's counsel of misrepresentation and failure to follow proper procedure.
This document is a Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition and an associated Subpoena filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON). Plaintiff Jane Doe, represented by attorney Brad Edwards of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, commanded Jean Luc Bruhel to appear for a deposition on September 22, 2009, in New York City. The document contains the legal notice, the subpoena addressed to Bruhel at a New York address, and standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding subpoenas.
This legal filing is a Motion to Compel submitted by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission regarding his net worth, asset transfers, and allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of minors, which he had previously refused to answer by asserting Fifth Amendment privileges. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket assertion of the privilege is improper and that he must provide a particularized justification for each refusal or face an adverse inference.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
This is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The motion seeks a court order requiring Epstein to answer 16 specific requests for production of documents (including telephone records, photos, tax returns, and passport copies) or to provide a privilege log, as Epstein has refused to produce documents by asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's boilerplate objections are invalid, violate local rules requiring a privilege log, and that he must provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation for each request.
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.
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.
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.
| 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 |
Phone records showing calls made by Indyke to Jane Doe
Witness admits to lying to police about who was in the car with her when she went to Epstein's house.
Plaintiff believes she communicated with Kelly Bovino Umekubo.
Plaintiff was enticed with promises of money and a modeling career to attend parties.
A written declaration by the plaintiff, submitted as Exhibit A in the case.
A victim appeared on TV to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain.
Criticism of the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received.
Threatened that she would disappear like a specific 12-year-old female if she spoke out.
Questions suggesting Jane Doe is fabricating allegations.
Jane Doe exercised First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain.
Told her to remove her clothes; later told her to write down her name and phone number.
Epstein called Doe over the telephone requesting a massage for payment, which was a fraudulent pretense for sexual acts.
Jane Doe met with Pagan approximately 10-12 times regarding the case.
A statement read by Ms. Moe describing Maxwell's manipulation and role in Epstein's abuse.
Written statement read aloud by Ms. Moe describing abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
Short threatening calls (approx 20 seconds) received after filing the initial complaint.
Investigators were knocking on their doors trying to talk about Jane Doe.
Plaintiff's request to secure Alfredo Rodriguez for testimony.
Met 'this morning' to prepare for deposition.
Scheduling times for Plaintiff to appear at Epstein's home for 'massages' or sexual services.
Threatening call stating Jane Doe owed Decedent $10,000 for rent paid on her apartment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity