Doe
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Indyke
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brad
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul G. Cassell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan M. Dershowitz
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Author
|
Professional expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Accuser accused |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dershowitz
|
Accuser accused |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Alleged abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bill Clinton
|
Alleged sexual contact |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bin Laden
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged victim abuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan M. Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Accuser accused |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
PAUL G. CASSELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim sex trafficker |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Abuser procurer |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Defendant victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Abuser |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE #4
|
Proposed co plaintiffs new victims |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | State Attorney in Palm Beach County dropped a case regarding Jane Doe #3. | Palm Beach County | View |
| N/A | N/A | Woman accused of being a sex slave by Jeffrey Epstein levels claims against his friends. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Allegations made against Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jean Luc Brunel b... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The Doe v. Indyke case was initiated after the Government opened its investigation and after the ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | The civil case Doe v. Indyke, where discovery was just beginning and the Government moved to inte... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Connecticut disciplinary hearing for 'Doe' | Connecticut | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation by Alan Dershowitz's legal team verifying evidence against Jane Doe #3 | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | New court filing submitted asking for Jane Doe #3 and another woman to join a pending case. | West Palm Beach, Fla. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged sexual encounter or inappropriate contact | Little Saint James Island | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The 'Doe case' was stayed to avoid adversely affecting an ongoing criminal prosecution against Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged dinner party (disputed by Dershowitz) | Epstein's private island | View |
| 2015-01-21 | N/A | Filing of Jane Doe No. 3 public affidavit in the CVRA case. | Court (CVRA case) | View |
| 2015-01-02 | N/A | Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 For Joinder in Action filed by Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2009-11-05 | N/A | Epstein appeared at the location of Jane Doe #3's psychological IME to intimidate her. | IME Location | View |
| 2009-09-16 | N/A | Deposition of Jane Doe #4 | Unknown | View |
| 2002-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe #3 escaped to a foreign country. | Foreign country | View |
| 2002-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe #3 allegedly escaped Epstein and moved to Australia. | Australia | View |
| 2002-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe #3 alleges she escaped Epstein and moved to Australia. | Australia | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe #3 approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, began being sexually exploited by Epstein. | Epstein's mansion | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Period Jane Doe #3 alleges she was kept as a sex slave by Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his 'sex slave' and frequently sexually abused her. | West Palm Beach, New York, ... | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe #3 forced to have sexual relations with Alan Dershowitz on numerous occasions. | Florida, private planes, Ne... | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Alleged period Jane Doe #3 was kept as a sex slave. | Unspecified | View |
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee, 847 F.2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988) was decided, in which... | Connecticut | View |
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for a Protective Order filed by plaintiff M.J. on November 11, 2010, requesting the court bar Jeffrey Epstein from direct or indirect contact. The motion details a pattern of Epstein using private investigators to harass and intimidate victims and witnesses, specifically citing an incident on July 1, 2010, where a PI named Thaddeus Knowles followed 'Jane Doe' and flashed lights into her home. It also references Epstein's intimidation of other witnesses including Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff, and Alfredo Rodriguez, and his history of violating no-contact orders.
EFTA00027883.pdf
An email dated December 12, 2019, from attorney Alex Conlon of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP to a redacted recipient, copying Roberta Kaplan. The email attaches a legal transcript from a conference held the previous day (December 11, 2019) in the case of 'Doe v. Indyke et al.' (Case 19-cv-8673), which Roberta Kaplan ('Robbie') had discussed in a call earlier that day.
EFTA00027824.pdf
This document is an email thread from March 2020 discussing a Daily Beast article titled 'Is One of Jeffrey Epstein's Co-Conspirators Suing His Estate?'. The correspondents discuss a quote by Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, who condemns a lawsuit filed by a 'Doe' plaintiff, alleging the plaintiff is actually a co-conspirator who profited from Epstein's abuse.
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.
EFTA00016303.pdf
This document is an email sent on September 5, 2020, to Judge Freeman's chambers regarding the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke, et al.' The email submits an attached letter from the Government supporting a stay in the proceedings. The sender and other recipients are redacted.
EFTA00016019.pdf
This document is a confidential grand jury record listing Overt Acts (O.A.) and Counts associated with Jane Doe #3. It details charges against Jeffrey Epstein, redacted co-defendants, and corporate entities (Hyperion, JEGE) for conspiracy to entice minors to engage in prostitution and travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct between December 2004 and May 2005. The document specifically connects Epstein's travel entities (Hyperion, JEGE) to dates of alleged illicit activity.
EFTA00016016.pdf
This document lists criminal charges and overt acts related to Jane Doe #4, spanning from 2004 to 2005. It details numerous counts of conspiracy to entice a minor to engage in prostitution against redacted defendants, as well as specific counts against Epstein for enticement, travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and recruiting a minor for commercial sex acts.
EFTA00013484.pdf
This document is a digital calendar entry record detailing a deadline to file a response in the legal case 'Doe v. Epstein' set for May 29, 2009. The record indicates it was created or migrated into the current system in 2015 and lists the event classification as 'X-PERSONAL'. The identity of the organizer is redacted.
EFTA00013471.pdf
This document is a digital calendar entry record regarding a legal deadline for the case 'Doe v. Epstein' scheduled for May 29, 2009. The record contains metadata indicating it was created and modified in 2015, likely during evidence processing. The organizer of the event has been redacted.
EFTA00011364.pdf
This document is a forwarded email thread dated March 23, 2020. The content involves the circulation of a legal document titled 'doc 001 Doe vs Epstein estate complaint.pdf'. The original sender is Brad Edwards, a lawyer associated with Epstein victim representation, sending the file to a redacted recipient.
EFTA00006380.pdf
This document contains a cover sheet labeled 'Jane Doe #3' followed by two pages of phone message slips addressed to 'J.E.' (Jeffrey Epstein) dating from November 2004 and January 2005. The messages, though heavily redacted regarding the caller's identity, contain explicit references to procuring women, specifically the repeated phrase 'I have a female for him'. One message references a caller associated with 'Brazil' providing a new cell number for a female subject.
DOJ-OGR-00023268.tif
This document details interactions between prosecutor Villafaña, attorney Edwards, and victims' attorneys concerning the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña provided Edwards with the impression of an ongoing, expansive federal investigation but did not disclose the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or other specific case details, citing prosecutorial challenges and grand jury confidentiality. The document also highlights difficulties victims' attorneys faced in obtaining information from Villafaña and notes a government admission that federal charges and the NPA were discussed between Villafaña and Edwards.
DOJ-OGR-00000452.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a defense filing dated July 16, 2019, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman. It provides an explanation for a controversial passport carried by Epstein in the 1980s, claiming it was for protection against hijackers in the Middle East. The text further argues for Epstein's release on bail, asserting that despite intense media scrutiny (specifically from The Miami Herald) and public pressure since November 2018, Epstein traveled extensively yet always returned to the U.S., proving he is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing that argues about the scope of plea agreements. It discusses whether a plea agreement made with a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district can prevent prosecutions in other districts, citing several legal precedents like United States v. Alessi and United States v. Russo. The document uses Leslie Groff, an assistant to Epstein, as an example and analyzes factors such as whether other USAOs or the Department of Justice were involved in the negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00021053.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00030480.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter dated June 5, 2006, from the Law Offices of Gerald B. Lefcourt to Ms. Lanna Belohlavek. The letter argues against an aggravated assault charge in a specific case, contending that the facts do not align with the legal definition of a violent felony, as there was no suggestion of serious bodily harm or a deadly weapon. The argument is supported by legal citations, including Florida case law and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, to demonstrate that a plea to aggravated assault would be inappropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021345.jpg
This legal document details the significant reluctance of Jeffrey Epstein's victims to participate in a public trial, primarily due to privacy concerns, fear of public exposure, and emotional distress. Statements from officials Villafaña and Lourie, along with a declaration from an FBI agent, indicate that this victim sentiment was a major factor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in its handling of the case. The document highlights specific instances of victim trauma, such as a teenager's distress when her parents discovered her involvement after the FBI left a business card at their home.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00009166.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The defendant seeks to strike a motion to intervene filed by 'Juror 50', claiming it is inappropriate and not a 'judicial document' deserving public access. The author of this filing refutes these claims, arguing that the defendant's cited legal precedents are inapplicable and that Juror 50's motion is relevant to the judicial process and should not be struck.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00019642.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion by denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The filing asserts Maxwell provided no good cause to use criminal discovery materials in a civil case. It contrasts this with the 'Doe case,' which was stayed due to its potential interference with the criminal prosecution, a concern the document claims is not present in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case.
DOJ-OGR-00019641.jpg
This legal document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that unsealing materials from a past civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) would prejudice her current criminal trial. The author refutes this by contrasting her resolved 2017 civil case with another, active case (Doe v. Indyke), arguing the procedural differences justify the Government's different actions in each. The document concludes that unsealing documents in the Giuffre case poses no risk to the Government's criminal case as discovery is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00010129.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 522, filed April 6, 2012) discussing legal ethics, specifically the standard of knowledge required for an attorney to report fraud or perjury to a tribunal. It cites a case involving an attorney named 'Doe' where discipline was reversed because 'actual knowledge' of perjury is required, not just strong suspicion. The author of this document identifies themselves in a footnote as the expert witness who testified for Doe in the underlying Connecticut disciplinary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | British Tabloid | Doe | $0.00 | Payment for selling her story. | View |
Various
Statements reflected in the media.
Information regarding abuse/Dershowitz
Jane Doe No. 3 provided information related to the subject of abuse by Dershowitz.
Allegations
Information referencing Dershowitz by name concerning allegations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity