Jane Doe
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
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.
012.pdf
Legal filing from May 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team accepts consolidation of multiple civil cases for depositions but opposes general consolidation for all discovery, arguing that individual cases have distinct facts and defenses that would be confused by a blanket consolidation. The document lists numerous related case numbers (e.g., 08-80119, 08-80381, 09-80469) and requests clarification on the court's previous orders regarding case management.
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.
006.pdf
This document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 28, 2009. It addresses ten separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs (Jane Does and C.M.A.). The order grants the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases for discovery purposes and grants a protective order limiting Epstein to a single deposition per plaintiff to prevent piecemeal depositions, while also ordering parties in remaining cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.
046.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated September 4, 2020, by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The document lists numerous civil cases filed against 'Indyke et al.' (Epstein's estate executors) by various victims (Does, Farmer, Helm, etc.). The order acknowledges a stay in proceedings to allow plaintiffs to pursue settlements through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program and mandates monthly status reports starting October 1, 2020.
070.pdf
A court order dated September 4, 2020, by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman of the Southern District of New York. The order directs the docketing of stays in multiple lawsuits against Indyke et al. and Nine East 71st Street et al. to allow plaintiffs to pursue settlements through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. Parties are required to submit status reports starting October 1, 2020.
027.pdf
Scheduling Order issued by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman on February 11, 2020, for multiple consolidated cases against the Epstein estate (Indyke et al.). The order sets deadlines for initial disclosures, discovery requests, motions to amend, fact discovery completion (June 10, 2020), and expert reports.
021.pdf
This document is a Scheduling Order issued on February 11, 2020, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman in the Southern District of New York. It consolidates deadlines for discovery, expert reports, and settlement discussions across thirteen related civil cases involving plaintiffs (many anonymous Does) suing 'Indyke et al.' (referring to the Epstein estate executors) and 'Nine East 71st Street'. The order establishes a timeline for fact discovery to conclude by June 2020 and expert discovery by July 2020.
012.pdf
This document is an Emergency Motion filed on June 14, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team to quash a subpoena and prevent the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, scheduled for the following day. Epstein's lawyers argue that the subpoena issued by C.L.'s counsel (Spencer Kuvin) is premature under Rule 26(d) and that the cross-notice by Jane Doe's counsel (Brad Edwards) is invalid because discovery in the Jane Doe case had already concluded on May 31, 2010. The document includes the motion, a subpoena exhibit, and a cross-notice exhibit.
051.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated September 4, 2020, signed by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The order lists numerous civil cases brought by victims (many under pseudonyms like Jane Doe, Katlyn Doe, Priscilla Doe) against Indyke (Epstein's estate executor) and other entities. The order acknowledges a stay in proceedings to allow plaintiffs to pursue settlements through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and mandates monthly status reports starting October 1, 2020.
011.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated January 14, 2020 (misdated 2019 in signature), by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The order addresses thirteen separate civil cases brought by alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein against his estate and associates (Indyke et al.). The judge sets deadlines for proposed discovery schedules (Feb 6, 2020) and schedules a joint pretrial conference for February 11, 2020, to coordinate supervision despite the cases not being formally consolidated.
EFTA00031984.pdf
This is a legal declaration filed in the SDNY case Jane Doe v. Darren Indyke. A pilot who worked for Epstein starting in 1991 provides testimony regarding his flight logs from 1994-1997. The pilot confirms two specific flights (Nov 11, 1996, and May 9, 1997) involving a specific female passenger (name redacted) traveling between West Palm Beach, Teterboro, and Santa Fe, noting that he used generic descriptions like 'Baby' or 'Nanny' when names were unknown.
EFTA00028471.pdf
An email thread from November 6, 2019, involving attorneys from Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP regarding the case Doe v. Indyke, et al. (1:19-cv-08673-KPF). Associate Kyla Magun writes to Judge Failla to submit a courtesy copy of a response letter filed by Roberta Kaplan on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe, countering letters filed by the defendants the previous night.
EFTA00027830.pdf
A 2020 travel questionnaire for an AUSA from the Southern District of New York requesting travel to Stockholm, Sweden. The purpose was to interview a Swedish witness ('Jane Doe') regarding the ongoing and sensitive investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The traveler was accompanied by three other AUSAs and one FBI Special Agent.
EFTA00024724.pdf
This document is a letter motion from the U.S. Department of Justice to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman requesting a stay of the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke' pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that proceeding with civil discovery would prejudice the criminal trial by exposing witnesses, risking harassment, and allowing Maxwell to circumvent criminal discovery limitations. The letter references the June 2020 indictment of Maxwell for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse scheme.
EFTA00023140.pdf
This document is a civil complaint filed on March 17, 2020, in the Southern District of New York by 'Jane Doe' against the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn). The plaintiff alleges she was recruited 19 years prior (around age 22) by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and subjected to years of sexual abuse, trafficking, and psychological control across Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, Paris, and the USVI. The complaint seeks damages for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA) and lists specific assets, including high-value real estate and two aircraft (N908JE and N909JE), as subject to forfeiture.
EFTA00020090.pdf
This document is a 'Touhy Request' dated June 8, 2020, sent by attorney Robert S. Glassman to US Attorney Geoffrey Berman. It requests the production of evidence gathered during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein for use in a civil lawsuit (Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.). The request specifically seeks photographs, flight logs, videos, correspondence, and trust documents (specifically 'The 1953 Trust' dated August 8, 2019) related to a Jane Doe victim who met Epstein at a Michigan summer camp in 1994.
EFTA00020088.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 2020 regarding a 'Touhy Request' for evidence in the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.' in the SDNY. Attorney Robert Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP submits the request, and internal recipients (likely government officials given the nature of a Touhy request) discuss fulfilling it, noting it is similar to a request from 'Kaplan' and does not interfere with ongoing proceedings, with the exception of 'Item 8'.
EFTA00019467.pdf
An email dated June 8, 2020, from attorney Robert Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP regarding a 'Touhy Request' for tangible and documentary evidence in the case of Jane Doe v. Indyke et al. (SDNY Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF). The email serves as a cover letter for an attached PDF document, noting that a physical copy will also be sent via FedEx. The recipient's name and contact information are redacted.
EFTA00017101.pdf
An email thread from September 2019 in which attorney Gloria Allred contacts an individual (forwarded to the FBI) to arrange an interview with a victim located in New York. Allred proposes a meeting at 'The Lotte' on September 12th involving the victim and a subsequent meeting with another redacted individual. The forwarding party confirms they agreed to the meeting.
EFTA00016286.pdf
This document is an opposition letter filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe's counsel against Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to stay civil proceedings in the case Doe v. Indyke. The Plaintiff argues that Maxwell has been actively participating in the litigation from jail (filing answers, issuing discovery requests) despite claiming it is a burden, and that a stay is not required for Plaintiff to participate in the Epstein Claims Resolution Program. The letter asserts that the public interest is best served by allowing the civil case to proceed to expose the criminal enterprise of Epstein and Maxwell.
EFTA00014452.pdf
A letter from the U.S. DOJ (SDNY) to attorney Robert Glassman regarding a request for information in the case Jane Doe v. Indyke. The DOJ authorizes the release of FedEx invoices, electronic search warrant documents, and a photograph of Glassman's client found during a physical search of Jeffrey Epstein's residence, while declining to provide grand jury materials.
| 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 |
No Subject
Plaintiff believes she communicated with Kelly Bovino Umekubo.
Criticism of Plea Bargain
Jane Doe exercised First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain.
N/A
Phone records showing calls made by Indyke to Jane Doe
Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Doe, Exhibit A
A written declaration by the plaintiff, submitted as Exhibit A in the case.
Money and modeling career
Plaintiff was enticed with promises of money and a modeling career to attend parties.
Instructions
Told her to remove her clothes; later told her to write down her name and phone number.
Massage Request
Epstein called Doe over the telephone requesting a massage for payment, which was a fraudulent pretense for sexual acts.
Defense
Questions suggesting Jane Doe is fabricating allegations.
Silence
Threatened that she would disappear like a specific 12-year-old female if she spoke out.
Criticism of plea bargain
Criticism of the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received.
Investigation Interview
Jane Doe met with Pagan approximately 10-12 times regarding the case.
Criticism of Epstein plea bargain
A victim appeared on TV to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain.
Police Report
Witness admits to lying to police about who was in the car with her when she went to Epstein's house.
Victim Statement
A statement read by Ms. Moe describing Maxwell's manipulation and role in Epstein's abuse.
Victim Statement
Written statement read aloud by Ms. Moe describing abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
Victim impact statement regarding Jeffrey 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.
Threats
Short threatening calls (approx 20 seconds) received after filing the initial complaint.
Investigators at their homes
Investigators were knocking on their doors trying to talk about Jane Doe.
Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum Alfredo...
Plaintiff's request to secure Alfredo Rodriguez for testimony.
Deposition Preparation
Met 'this morning' to prepare for deposition.
Solicitation
Scheduling times for Plaintiff to appear at Epstein's home for 'massages' or sexual services.
No Subject
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