JANE DOE NO. 1
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane Doe's Mother
|
Family |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe's Father
|
Family |
7
|
7 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Herman
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
THEODORE J. LEOPOLD
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Theodore Leopold
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Edwards
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey M. Herman
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe's Stepmother
|
Family |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 2
|
Victims co petitioners |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accuser accused |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Spencer Kuvin
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim alleged abuser |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Dawn LaVogue Sandberg
|
Family |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Haley Robson
|
Recruiter victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Haley Robson
|
Alleged victim recruiter |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Alleged incident at workplace | Witness' place of employment | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | Jane Doe was lured into Epstein's home under false pretenses and was sexually assaulted by him. | Epstein's Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | Legal action | An attempt was made to serve a subpoena for deposition on State's witness Jane Doe No. 1 and her ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Attorney Theodore Leopold filed a 'Motion For Protective Order' on behalf of Jane Doe No. 1. | CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEE... | View |
| N/A | Legal dispute | Two law firms are litigating in a separate civil proceeding over who represents the interests of ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-01-01 | N/A | Alleged sexual assault of Jane Doe No. 1 by Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-09-03 | Court hearing | Victim impact statements are being delivered in court regarding the case against Jeffrey Epstein.... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2017-05-25 | N/A | Filing of Complaint | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2011-10-11 | N/A | Victims filed discovery requests with the Government, seeking information about Dershowitz, Princ... | Federal court (S.D. Fla.) | View |
| 2008-08-21 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Motion to Preserve Evidence and Expedite Certain Discovery (DE 12) | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-07-07 | N/A | Jane Doe No. 1 filed a petition to enforce rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. | Court | View |
| 2008-06-25 | N/A | Plaintiff filed complaint in State Court | Palm Beach County Circuit C... | View |
| 2008-05-13 | N/A | Date Jane Doe No. 1 reaches age of majority (18). | Unknown | View |
| 2008-02-22 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (DE 9) | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-02-22 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2008-02-20 | N/A | Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 1 deposed in state criminal case. | Florida | View |
| 2008-02-20 | N/A | Scheduled deposition of Jane Doe No. 1. | Florida | View |
| 2008-02-14 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs' Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by Jane Doe's Mother. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2008-02-06 | N/A | Original date for deposition/disposition (cancelled/moot). | Florida | View |
| 2008-01-24 | N/A | Original lawsuit filed (No. 08-CV-80069-KAM). | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Edwards and Cassell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1" and "Jane Doe No. ... | Federal court (S.D. Fla.) | View |
| 2007-11-22 | N/A | Thanksgiving Day; Start of estrangement between Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe's Father. | Unknown | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Sexual assault of 14-year-old Jane Doe No. 1 | Epstein's Palm Beach Mansion | View |
026.pdf
This document is an October 2008 court order granting a motion to remand the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen' back to state court. The federal judge ruled that the plaintiff had valid state-law claims (civil conspiracy, etc.) against defendant Haley Robson, a Florida resident, meaning her inclusion in the lawsuit was not 'fraudulent joinder' intended solely to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. The order details the plaintiff's allegations that Robson recruited her at age 14 from Loxahatchee, Kellen managed the encounter, and Epstein sexually abused her at his Palm Beach mansion.
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.
021.pdf
This document is an 'Opposition to Remand Motion' filed by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in September 2008 in the Southern District of Florida. The defendants argue that the case should remain in federal court because the plaintiff fraudulently joined co-defendant Haley Robson (a Florida resident) solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. The filing contends that the plaintiff has no valid cause of action against Robson for civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), or civil RICO under Florida law, arguing that Robson's alleged actions do not meet the legal standards for these torts.
013.pdf
Court order from the Southern District of Florida dated August 21, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders defendant Jeffrey Epstein to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence and Expedite Certain Discovery by August 26, 2008.
010.pdf
This is a Final Order of Dismissal from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated February 28, 2008. The case (08-80069-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON) involves Jane Doe No. 1 and family members as Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein as Defendant. Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case without prejudice and denied all pending motions as moot following the Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.
009.pdf
This document is a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice filed on February 22, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-80069). The plaintiffs (Jane Doe No. 1 and her parents) voluntarily dismissed their action against Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a certificate of service indicating that notice was sent electronically to attorney Theodore Jon Leopold and by mail to Jeffrey Epstein at his New York residence.
008.pdf
This document is a Notice of Non-Opposition filed on February 14, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe No. 1 et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs (Jane Doe No. 1, her father, and stepmother) inform the court that they do not oppose the motion to intervene filed by Jane Doe's mother. The document lists the attorneys representing the plaintiffs from the firm Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.
007.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on February 13, 2008, by the attorneys for Jane Doe No. 1 and her father in the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80069). The plaintiffs oppose a motion filed by Jane Doe's mother, Dawn LaVogue Sandberg, who sought to stay the proceedings until the minor plaintiff reached the age of majority. The plaintiffs argue that the mother's motion is procedurally defective, was not properly served on the defendant (Epstein), and that the mother lacks standing because the father has full legal custody of the child. The document emphasizes that the lawsuit concerns the sexual assault of Jane Doe No. 1 by Epstein when she was 14 years old.
005.pdf
This document is a 'Motion to Intervene and Supporting Memorandum of Law' filed on January 29, 2008, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-80069). Jane Doe's Mother seeks to intervene as a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, asserting she has claims sharing common questions of law and fact with the existing action. The document notes that Jane Doe's Father (a current plaintiff) does not agree to her intervention.
004.pdf
This is a Motion to Stay Proceedings filed on January 29, 2008, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Jane Doe's Mother (Intervenor-Plaintiff) requests the court pause the lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein until Jane Doe No. 1 turns 18 on May 13, 2008. The motion reveals that Jane Doe No. 1 is estranged from her father (who filed the suit) and that the father filed the suit without her knowledge or consent.
003.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 1 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80069-CIV-MARRA). Dated January 28, 2008, Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders counsel to confer and file a joint scheduling and discovery report. It outlines procedural deadlines for pretrial discovery and scheduling conferences pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
EFTA00031937.pdf
A 2009 article from PalmBeachDailyNews.com details Jeffrey Epstein's release from Palm Beach County jail to serve one year of probation at his home without electronic monitoring. The article includes reactions from victims (Jane Doe No. 3 and No. 5) and their attorneys, who express outrage at the leniency of the sentence and fear of Epstein's wealth and influence. It also lists the specific conditions of his probation, including a curfew and restrictions on contact with minors.
EFTA00015726.pdf
This document is a civil complaint filed on September 21, 2015, in the Southern District of New York by a redacted Plaintiff (identifiable by context as Virginia Giuffre) against Ghislaine Maxwell. The complaint alleges defamation arising from Maxwell's public statements in January 2015, where she called the Plaintiff a liar regarding allegations of sex trafficking and sexual abuse involving Jeffrey Epstein. The document details the history of the alleged abuse (1999-2002), the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, and Maxwell's specific efforts to discredit the Plaintiff's reputation.
DOJ-OGR-00000673.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, containing victim impact statements in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Courtney Wild identifies herself as a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse for years, accusing him of manipulating the justice system and calling him a coward for dying before he could be confronted in court. An attorney, Mr. Edwards, then introduces his client, Jane Doe No. 1, who begins her own statement by referencing Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00030433.jpg
This is the first page of a civil complaint filed on January 24, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-80069). The plaintiffs are a minor identified as Jane Doe No. 1, along with her father and stepmother, filing against Jeffrey Epstein. The complaint alleges sexual assault and abuse, noting that fictitious names are used to protect the minor's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00031556.jpg
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, on behalf of "Jane Doe No. 1" against defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The motion alleges that Jane Doe was a victim of Epstein, having been lured to his Palm Beach home and sexually assaulted. It references a criminal indictment filed by the State of Florida against Epstein on July 19, 2006, and a separate civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe.
DOJ-OGR-00031550.jpg
This is a legal document filed by attorney Jack A. Goldberger regarding a Motion for Protective Order concerning 'Jane Doe No. 1'. The filing states that the motion is moot because the attorneys (Goldberger and Leopold) agreed to schedule Jane Doe No. 1's deposition for February 20, 2008, with Leopold accepting service on her behalf. The document is dated February 7, 2008, and includes a certificate of service to attorneys Belohlavek, Leopold, and Herman.
DOJ-OGR-00031549.jpg
This legal document is a response filed by defendant Jeffrey Epstein's attorney to a 'Motion for Protective Order' submitted on behalf of a state's witness, Jane Doe No. 1. Epstein's counsel refutes the claim that serving a deposition subpoena constituted 'continuous and systematic harassment' and denies allegations of misconduct by any agent. The response also highlights a legal conflict between two attorneys, Theodore Leopold and Jeffrey Herman, who are both claiming to represent Jane Doe No. 1 in a separate civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00031544.jpg
This document is a legal certification and request signed by attorney Jack A. Goldberger on February 7, 2008. It requests the court deny a Motion for Protective Order as moot because the parties (Goldberger and Theodore Leopold) agreed to reschedule Jane Doe No. 1's deposition to February 20, 2008. The document certifies service to attorneys Lanna Belohlavek, Theodore Leopold, and Jeffrey Herman.
DOJ-OGR-00031543.jpg
This is a legal filing (Response to Motion for Protective Order) from the 2006 criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County. Epstein's defense denies allegations of harassment regarding the service of a subpoena to witness Jane Doe No. 1 and denies knowledge of an agent visiting her workplace. The document highlights a legal dispute between attorneys Theodore Leopold and Jeffrey Herman, both of whom claim to represent Jane Doe No. 1 in a separate civil proceeding.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015626.jpg
This document is a legal response in the case of Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072), arguing against the sealing of records based on Judge Marra's order. It details that Dershowitz's argument for confidentiality is a misunderstanding, and references a 2008 federal case (Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States) filed by Edwards and Cassell pro bono, on behalf of underage sex abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein, where discovery requests were made in 2011 seeking information about Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015534.jpg
This legal document (Page 4 of a filing from 2015) details the procedural history of complaints against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights the secretive nature of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, noting that victims were not informed due to a confidentiality provision. The text outlines specific legal actions taken by victims 'Jane Doe No. 1' in 2008 and Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 102) in 2009, explicitly stating Maxwell's role in recruiting Giuffre while she was a minor.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021717.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article dated August 19, 2011, detailing a court hearing regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Judge Marra heard arguments from victims' lawyers (Edwards, Cassell) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee concerning whether the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The judge also set a schedule for Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, to submit arguments regarding the unsealing of correspondence between the defense and federal prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021716.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article from August 2011 detailing legal arguments before Judge Kenneth Marra regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement. Attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, representing two Jane Does, argued that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The attorneys sought to nullify the agreement and unseal correspondence, aiming to expose Epstein to federal prosecution.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | JANE DOE NO. 1 | $300.00 | Payment after sexual assault/massage encounter | View |
Enforcement of CVRA rights
Alleging Government failed to provide rights promised in CVRA regarding Epstein plea arrangement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity