| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 1
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Herman
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Non-party
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Herman
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| N/A | N/A | Litigation regarding representation | Separate civil proceeding | View |
| 2008-02-06 | N/A | Receipt of Motion for Protective Order in chambers | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
This document is a Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories in a 2009 civil case against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff, whose name is redacted, details her residence history and her interactions with Epstein between 2002 and 2003, stating she visited his Florida home roughly twice a week to provide massages after being introduced by a friend. The document reveals she recruited other females for Epstein in exchange for payment, used drugs (Morning Glory, Angel Trumpets, cocaine, marijuana) during the relevant period, and lists various legal counsel and law enforcement entities involved in the investigation.
A court order from the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, dated February 7, 2008, in the case of State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Sandra K. McSorley orders Epstein's attorney, Jack A. Goldberger, to respond within five days to a 'Motion for Protective Order' filed by Theodore Leopold, an attorney representing an unnamed non-party.
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.
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.
A motion filed by a non-party attorney.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity