Jane Doe #1
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane Doe #2
|
Co plaintiffs |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe #2
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
4
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe #2
|
Co plaintiffs current victims |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|
Legal representative |
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 |
| 2015-03-24 | N/A | Document entered on FLSD Docket | Florida Southern District C... | View |
| 2015-01-02 | N/A | Jane Doe #1 filed action against the Government, alleging CVRA violation. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2008-07-21 | N/A | Matter removed to Federal Court (DE 1). | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2007-10-26 | N/A | FBI Special Agents met with Jane Doe #1 at a restaurant. | Restaurant (unnamed) | View |
| 2007-10-26 | N/A | FBI Special Agents met with Jane Doe #1 to explain the resolution of the investigation. | Unknown | 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.
008.pdf
This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on August 8, 2008, requesting an extension to file a response to the complaint in the case of Jane Doe #1. Epstein's lawyers argue that the deadline should be aligned with parallel cases (Jane Doe Nos. 2-5) to September 4, 2008, to promote judicial economy. The document notes that co-defendants Haley Robson and Sarah Kellen had not yet been served at the time of filing.
008-01.pdf
A court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe #1 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants the Defendant's Motion to Align Response Date. Copies were furnished to several attorneys including Bruce Reinhart and Jack Goldberger.
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.
EFTA00016005.pdf
This document is a confidential grand jury exhibit listing criminal charges and overt acts (O.A.) against Jeffrey Epstein and redacted co-defendants relating to Jane Doe #1. The table details specific dates between March 2004 and April 2005 with charges of conspiracy to entice a minor to engage in prostitution and enticement of a minor. It highlights a pattern of alleged criminal activity involving multiple defendants.
EFTA00014125.pdf
This document is a letter dated August 1, 2008, from attorney Brad Edwards to an Assistant US Attorney regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards argues for the inclusion of specific facts in a court notice, specifically that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) barring federal charges was negotiated in secret in 2007 and withheld from victims due to a confidentiality clause until after Epstein's state plea in June 2008. Edwards also demands a full copy of the NPA, FBI interview reports of his clients, and a hearing transcript.
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.
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.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013468.jpg
This document is an affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards detailing his representation of victims of Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Edwards outlines his interactions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña, alleging that the prosecution failed to inform him of a secret non-prosecution agreement and withheld evidence despite admitting to having proof of Epstein molesting at least 40 minors. The affidavit highlights the timeline of the plea deal and the subsequent revelation that federal prosecution would be blocked.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013408.jpg
A March 2011 article from the Palm Beach Daily News reporting that attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein's victims filed court papers seeking to invalidate his non-prosecution agreement. The attorneys argue the U.S. Attorney's Office violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by concealing the deal and sending false notifications to victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013494.tif
This affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards details his representation of victims of Jeffrey Epstein in 2008, including the filing of state and federal lawsuits. It highlights his interactions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña regarding Epstein's plea agreement and concerns that information about the federal prosecution implications of the state plea was not fully disclosed to his clients.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014085.jpg
This document is a legal response filed on March 24, 2015, by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida. They are responding to Alan Dershowitz's supplement for intervention, arguing that he has failed to provide specific evidence refuting Jane Doe #3's allegations that he sexually molested her, despite his public claims on Fox Business to the contrary.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014047.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (Vol. 104) discussing the federal case 'Does v. United States' and the controversial nonprosecution agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The text details how, despite evidence that Epstein molested over 30 girls between 2001 and 2007, he was allowed to plead to lesser state charges after a 'year-long assault on the prosecution' by his defense team. The page includes footnotes citing court documents, media reports connecting Epstein to Prince Andrew, and a letter from former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the pressure faced by prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022211.jpg
This article from The Virgin Islands Daily News (reprinted from the Miami Herald) details how federal prosecutors admitted in 2013 to bowing to pressure from Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, led by Kenneth Starr, regarding the non-prosecution agreement and victim notifications. It highlights the disparity between Epstein's lenient treatment—including work release and a private jail section—and the severity of his crimes involving dozens of underage girls. The document also references the 2008 sentencing hearing, the FBI's unfiled 2007 indictment, and the frustrations of local law enforcement officers like Detective Joseph Recarey.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014103.jpg
This document is a legal response filed on March 24, 2015, in the Southern District of Florida, containing a Defendant's responses to discovery requests regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The requests seek documents proving the presence of the Defendant's nephew and Epstein's legal team on Epstein's private plane, as well as flight manifests linking the Defendant to Epstein. The Defendant objects to requests regarding the legal team by citing allegations from 'Jane Doe #3' regarding her abuse between 1999 and 2002, arguing that post-2002 travel records are irrelevant to the specific action.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016455.jpg
This document serves as a narrative summary of the tense negotiations between the US Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman) and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Lefkowitz, Starr) around 2008. It details how Epstein's lawyers aggressively pressured the government to prevent victim notification, leading to a secret non-prosecution agreement while the FBI briefly continued investigating in NY and NM. The text notes that in 2013, the government finally admitted they backed down on victim notifications due to objections from Epstein's attorneys.
Investigation Status
Agents met victim at a restaurant; did not disclose the finalized NPA.
Victim Notification / Case Status
Stated 'your case is under investigation' and informed her of rights as a victim/witness of a federal offense.
Victim Notification
Notifying Jane Doe #1 of her rights under the CVRA as a victim/witness.
Victim Rights
Notification of rights under CVRA.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity