Jane Doe 4
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Co plaintiffs potential |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL G. CASSELL
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Adam D. Horowitz
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Filing of a motion for joinder in the CVRA action on behalf of Jane Doe 3 and 4. | Unknown | View |
| 2014-12-30 | N/A | Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 moved to join as petitioners. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-09-17 | N/A | Deposition scheduled but canceled due to an incident involving Jeffrey Epstein and the plaintiff. | Florida Science Foundation ... | View |
| 2009-09-17 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein made face-to-face contact with the plaintiff, Jane Doe 4, immediately before the ... | Approaching the deposition ... | View |
013.pdf
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
010-03.pdf
This is a court order from Judge Kenneth A. Marra denying motions by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 to join an existing lawsuit filed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 against the US Government regarding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Epstein case. The judge ruled that adding new parties was unnecessary as their claims were duplicative and they could instead serve as witnesses. Significantly, the Judge sua sponte ordered the striking of 'lurid details' and allegations made by Jane Doe 3 regarding being trafficked to high-profile non-parties (including politicians and world leaders), deeming them impertinent to the specific legal claim against the government. Consequently, Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene to strike these same allegations was denied as moot.
EFTA00027809.pdf
This document is a 'Government's Notice of Proposed Procedures for the Determination of a Remedy' filed by the United States in the case of Jane Doe 1 & 2 v. United States. The government proposes a schedule where Petitioners must first submit their proposed remedies, followed by a 60-day period for the government to consult with victims before responding. The government argues this consultation is essential because potential remedies, such as rescinding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, could negatively impact other victims who have already received compensation or wish to avoid further trauma.
EFTA00027776.pdf
This document is a legal filing by Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and 2 in May 2019, arguing for specific procedures to determine a remedy after the court ruled the Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The petitioners argue the Government should immediately announce its proposed remedy, specifically the rescission of the NPA's immunity clauses, and request limited discovery including depositions of key figures like former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz regarding a secret 2007 'breakfast meeting.' The filing includes correspondence between victims' counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office, highlighting the Government's delay tactics and the recent recusal of the Southern District of Florida office.
DOJ-OGR-00030305.tif
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on September 17, 2009, detailing the cancellation of a deposition involving Jeffrey Epstein. The deposition was called off because Jeffrey Epstein made face-to-face contact with the plaintiff, Jane Doe 4, which her counsel, Adam Horowitz, stated intimidated her and violated a prior stipulation that Epstein would not be present. Defense counsel, Robert Critton, argued that Epstein was instructed to leave the building and planned to appear via Skype, and that the encounter would not have happened if the plaintiff and her counsel had arrived on time.
DOJ-OGR-00030289.tif
This legal document, a Memorandum of Law, discusses the denial of a protective order sought by plaintiffs in a case (9:08-cv-80119-KAM). The motion aimed to prevent a named party, Epstein, from attending depositions and to exclude him from all depositions of the plaintiffs. The court finds that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" and that the motion does not meet the necessary burden for Jane Does 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021932.jpg
This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript (House Oversight). It details the legal strategy of a legal team (including the witness and co-counsel Mr. Edwards) regarding the decision in the Summer/Fall of 2014 to approach the U.S. Attorney's Office to add Virginia Roberts and Jane Doe 4 as parties to a case. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined this request, leading to a legal filing on December 30th.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021840.jpg
This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript of Paul G. Cassell, questioned by Mr. Simpson. They discuss a 'motion for joinder' filed in a previous 'CVRA action' on behalf of Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. The document confirms that Cassell and attorney Bradley J. Edwards were co-signatories on this motion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity