Jane Doe #2
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe #1
|
Co plaintiffs |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe #1
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator complex |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe #1
|
Co plaintiffs current victims |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Victim subject complex |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged perpetrator alleged victim |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Lawsuit | Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, where Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are petitioners against th... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's state court plea hearing, where Bradley Edwards began representing Jane Doe #2. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to join the action. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2015-03-24 | N/A | Document entered on FLSD Docket | Florida Southern District C... | View |
| 2008-02-01 | N/A | Jane Doe #2 brought a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit against Epstein. | Court (Jurisdiction unnamed... | View |
| 2007-12-10 | N/A | Villafaña contacted the attorney for 'Jane Doe #2' about preparing victim notification letters. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Interview | A victim (Jane Doe #2) gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable to Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | A victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI favorable to Epstein. Villafaña told OPR she ... | N/A | View |
| 2005-04-01 | N/A | Overt Act 123: Conspiracy to entice a minor to engage in prostitution. | Unknown | View |
| 2005-03-31 | N/A | Overt Act 122: Conspiracy to entice a minor to engage in prostitution. | Unknown | View |
| 2005-03-31 | N/A | Count 43: Travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct. | Unknown | View |
| 2005-03-30 | N/A | Count 60: Attempted enticement of a minor to engage in prostitution. | Unknown | View |
| 2005-02-06 | N/A | Overt Acts 95, 96, 97: Conspiracy to entice a minor to engage in prostitution. | Unknown | View |
| 2005-02-05 | N/A | Count 6: Enticement of a minor to engage in prostitution. | Unknown | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe, approx 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became a victim. | Palm Beach, FL | View |
006.pdf
This document is a letter from Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel to Judge Richard Berman arguing for pretrial release on bail. The defense proposes strict conditions including home detention, GPS monitoring, and a substantial bond secured by Epstein's $77 million Manhattan home and private jet, with his brother and friend as co-sureties. The letter argues Epstein is not a flight risk (citing his U.S. ties and surrender of passport) and that the current charges are barred by a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
014-08.pdf
This document is a declaration by FBI Special Agent Timothy R. Slater, executed in 2015, detailing his involvement in the 2006-2007 investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Slater describes locating and calling a potential victim (whose name is redacted) in early 2007 while accompanied by lead agent Nesbitt E. Kuyrkendall. During the call, the woman confirmed knowing Epstein but refused to cooperate, stating she had moved away to distance herself and wanted to leave the situation in her past.
010-12.pdf
This document is a Protective Order designated as Exhibit L (and Exhibit 1) in Case 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, filed in May 2014. Issued by Judge Kenneth Marra, it grants a motion by Intervenors (led by Roy Black) to keep correspondence between themselves and the United States Attorney's Office confidential ('CDM'). The order establishes strict protocols for the handling, marking, and limited disclosure of these materials during the litigation between Jane Does #1-2 and the United States.
010-11.pdf
This is a court order from September 2014 in the case of Jane Doe v. United States, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's intervention. Judge Kenneth Marra granted in part and denied in part Epstein's motion for a protective order regarding correspondence between his lawyers and the US Attorney's Office. While the court agreed to restrict dissemination of materials to the press to avoid publicity in this 'high profile' case, it rejected Epstein's request to automatically require court permission to seal every future filing.
EFTA00021553.pdf
This document is a corrected motion for joinder in a legal case, filed on January 2, 2015, by Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4, seeking to join an existing lawsuit against the United States. The motion details allegations of sexual abuse and sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell against Jane Doe #3, including forced sexual relations with Alan Dershowitz, and argues that the new victims' circumstances are relevant to the court's assessment of their joinder.
EFTA00016004.pdf
This document is a confidential Grand Jury charge sheet listing specific 'Overt Acts' (O.A.) and 'Counts' (Ct) against Jeffrey Epstein regarding 'Jane Doe #2'. The charges date from February to April 2005 and include conspiracy to entice a minor to engage in prostitution, enticement of a minor, and travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct. A co-defendant or entity identified as 'JEGE' is listed alongside Epstein for Count 43.
EFTA00013926.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on August 1, 2008, by attorneys for victims (Jane Doe #1 and #2) in the Jeffrey Epstein case, arguing that the U.S. Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The filing details how the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI secretly entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein in September 2007 while misleading victims for months that the investigation was ongoing and that federal charges were still possible. The motion requests the court to order the government to produce the full Non-Prosecution Agreement and FBI interview reports, and to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy for the violation of the victims' rights.
EFTA00013595.pdf
This document contains correspondence from attorney Brad Edwards to the U.S. Attorney's Office in July 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards disputes the government's proposed stipulation of facts, specifically regarding when victims were notified of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA), and asserts that he and his clients were kept in the dark about the NPA while urging federal charges. The attached July 3rd letter formally requests federal prosecution, characterizing Epstein as a prolific predator who abused over 100 girls, arguing that the state plea deal was grossly inadequate.
EFTA00013570.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on August 1, 2008, by victims of Jeffrey Epstein (Jane Doe #1 and #2) against the United States Government. The victims allege violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically that the government entered into a secret Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein in September 2007 without conferring with them and actively misled them into believing a federal investigation was ongoing. The filing requests the court to order the production of the NPA and an FBI interview report, and to schedule a hearing to determine remedies for the violation of the victims' rights.
EFTA00006378.pdf
This document consists of a cover sheet labeled 'Jane Doe #2' and a page containing four 'Important Message' phone slips from March 14, 2003. The messages are addressed to Jeffrey Epstein ('JE' or 'Mr Epstein'). Identified callers include Les Wexner, who left a message to 'Pls call', and an individual named Tony; other caller identities are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00030308.tif
This document is an invoice from Visual Evidence to Burman, Critton & Luttier, dated September 17, 2009, for services related to a videotaped deposition of Jane Doe #4 in the case 'Jane Doe #2 v Epstein'. The invoice details charges for tech time and digital tape stock, totaling $290.00, and notes that the master tape contained discussions among attorneys regarding the deposition's cancellation, with no copies retained by Visual Evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00023276.tif
This document details the process of victim notification following Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement in July-August 2008. AUSA Villafaña played a central role, sending letters to victims, coordinating with the FBI, and proposing language for victim contact, while also addressing disputes over the final victim list with the defense counsel and her supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00023273.tif
This document details events surrounding Epstein's state plea, focusing on victim notification failures and the actions of various legal and investigative parties. It highlights Villafaña's efforts to identify victims and contact their attorneys, and statements from victims (Wild, Jane Doe #2) expressing their lack of awareness regarding the plea's implications for their cases. The document also notes discrepancies in the State Attorney's Office's communication about the case closure and Epstein's sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00023267.tif
This document discusses the application of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) rights, referencing a federal prosecution related to a 2005 BP oil refinery explosion where victim notification was initially bypassed. It also details how, in June 2008, victims like Wild and Villafaña sought legal representation from Bradley Edwards to understand the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting communications and the role of OPR in investigating such interactions.
DOJ-OGR-00023254.tif
This document excerpt details legal arguments and communications surrounding victim notification in the Epstein case in late 2007. It highlights disagreements between legal representatives (Starr, Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta, Villafaña) regarding victim status, notification requirements, and the appropriate compensation mechanisms, with a specific focus on an individual referred to as 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif
This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.
DOJ-OGR-00000315.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, was limited in scope. It contends the NPA only barred federal prosecution for specific offenses within the Southern District of Florida and did not prevent the United States from bringing other federal criminal charges against him elsewhere. The document quotes the agreement to support its claim that the federal government's ability to prosecute Epstein was not fully relinquished.
DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed by the United States government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The U.S. requests the dismissal of a petition filed by 'Jane Doe #1' and 'Jane Doe #2' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The primary argument for dismissal is that the court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction required to hear the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000280.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 11, 2019, details the legal proceedings and agreements surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the jurisdictional complexities of his alleged crimes, the government's efforts to prosecute him despite a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) entered into with the USAO-SDFL in 2007, and the defense's arguments against the notion of flight risk, citing Epstein's history of international travel with returns to the U.S. and his intent to contest charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021416.jpg
This document, a legal filing, details disputes and communications from 2007 concerning victim notification and compensation in a federal case related to Epstein. It highlights arguments between legal figures like Lefkowitz, Starr, Acosta, and Villafaña regarding the interpretation of victim rights laws and the handling of specific victims, including 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein. The text reveals concerns about the government's adherence to victim notification requirements and allegations of misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021415.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice OPR report detailing the failure to notify Jeffrey Epstein's victims of his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña prepared notification letters on December 7, 2007, but was ordered by her superior, Sloman, to 'Hold the letter' after Sloman received a request from Epstein's defense attorney (Sanchez) to delay notification. The document highlights internal conflict, with an FBI agent and Villafaña expressing concern and disgust over the delay and defense influence.
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010533.jpg
This document is a page from a book by James Patterson included in House Oversight findings. It details the February 2008 filing of a $50 million lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein by 'Jane Doe #2,' alleging sexual assault of a minor (approx. 16 years old) between 2004 and 2005. The text quotes the complaint describing Epstein's wealth, properties (NY, NM, St. Thomas, Palm Beach), and his 'scheme' to recruit economically disadvantaged girls.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015607.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing arguing against a subpoena issued to a non-party (Jane Doe No. 3). The text asserts that the Defendant is abusing subpoena power to harass the non-party by seeking irrelevant personal financial information, specifically requesting records of payments from Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002, and information regarding a potential book deal. The filing argues that whether Epstein paid the minors he trafficked is irrelevant to the current action.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity