Jeffrey Herman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
[REDACTED] Deponent
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
Client |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Deponent
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lanna Leigh Belohlavek
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Federal Prosecutor (unnamed)
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Civil Complainants
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 1
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
Acquainted knows of |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 2
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Client
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edwards/Horowitz
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theodore Leopold
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Goldberger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 3
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Horowitz
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theodore Leopold
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 2
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | A press conference was held by Mr. Herman after filing the lawsuit. | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | A lawsuit was allegedly filed by lawyer Jeffrey Herman on behalf of the deponent. | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | A lawsuit was filed by lawyer Jeffrey Herman on behalf of the deponent. | Unknown | 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 |
| N/A | N/A | Lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Herman on behalf of Jane Doe, her father, and stepmother against Jeffrey... | N/A | View |
| 2008-03-05 | N/A | Jane Doe No. 3 files federal lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. | West Palm Beach | View |
| 2008-02-05 | Fax transmission | Jeffrey Herman sent a 3-page fax containing correspondence to Lanna Leigh Belolavek and Jack Gold... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-24 | N/A | Filing of first lawsuit by Jane Doe | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2008-01-24 | N/A | Filing of federal lawsuit and subsequent news conference. | Federal Courthouse, West Pa... | View |
| 2008-01-18 | Legal notification | The law firm Herman & Mermelstein PA sent a letter to the State Attorney's Office to advise them ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-18 | Legal retainer | A client retained the law firm Herman & Mermelstein PA to represent him and his minor daughter in... | N/A | View |
001.pdf
This document is a Notice of Removal filed by defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Haley Robson, seeking to move a civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendants argue that the non-diverse defendant, Haley Robson, was fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal. Attached as Exhibit A is a deposition transcript of Jane Doe (whose name is redacted) taken on February 20, 2008, in a related criminal case, where she is questioned about her age, MySpace profiles, inconsistencies in her statements to police regarding sexual contact with Epstein, and her interactions with various attorneys and law enforcement officials.
EFTA00010507.pdf
This document is a court opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States. The court ruled that the government violated the Petitioners' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The court granted partial summary judgment for the Petitioners regarding the CVRA violation and denied the government's cross-motion, while deferring the issue of remedy to a later date.
DOJ-OGR-00030539.jpg
This document is a Notice of Deposition for the legal case State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2006CF009454AXX) in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. Issued on February 8, 2008, by attorney Jack A. Goldberger, it schedules a deposition for February 20, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse. The notice was formally sent to attorneys involved in the case, including Lanna Belohlavek of the State Attorney's Office, Theodore J. Leopold, and Jeffrey Herman.
DOJ-OGR-00030439.jpg
This letter, dated January 18, 2008, is from attorney Jeffrey Herman of the law firm Herman & Mermelstein PA to Lanna Leigh Belohlavek at the State Attorney's Office. Herman formally notifies the State Attorney's Office that his firm has been retained to represent a client and his minor daughter in their legal claim against Jeffrey Epstein.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00031541.jpg
Attorney Jeffrey Herman writes to Lanna Leigh Belohlavek of the State Attorney's Office on February 5, 2008, regarding the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Herman states that a subpoena for a deposition scheduled for the next day was improperly served, the intended deponent is unaware of it and will not appear. He also notes that as counsel for a party in a related civil claim, he was not notified by Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, and requests to be included in future scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00033034.jpg
This is page 46 of a deposition transcript involving an unnamed witness, questioned by Mr. Tein and defended by Mr. Leopold. The witness confirms that attorney Jeffrey Herman was the lawyer who first sued Jeffrey Epstein on their behalf. The questioning turns to whether Herman advanced the witness's family any money, at which point Mr. Leopold objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00033000.jpg
This document is page 12 of a deposition transcript involving attorneys Mr. Tein and Mr. Leopold. Mr. Tein questions a witness (whose name is redacted) about whether they are aware that a lawyer named Jeffrey Herman filed a lawsuit on their behalf. Mr. Leopold objects based on attorney-client privilege, specifically referencing conversations between himself and the witness, as well as an 'attorney from Miami'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019228.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter addressed to the Honorable Mark Filip on May 19, 2008, arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The text utilizes testimony from redacted witnesses to claim that no interstate commerce laws were violated, that the women lied about their ages (claiming to be 18), that no coercion or force was used, and that encounters were often non-sexual massages. It also critiques the conduct of federal prosecutors and the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010586.jpg
This document describes Jeffrey Epstein's obstruction of the discovery process in civil lawsuits filed by attorney Edwards. It details how Epstein utilized the 5th Amendment to refuse answering substantive questions regarding the sexual abuse of minors during at least five depositions. A specific transcript excerpt from March 8, 2010, is included where Epstein refuses to answer Mr. Horowitz regarding an assault on Jane Doe 3 and makes false accusations about attorney Jeffrey Herman.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013339.jpg
This document describes Jeffrey Epstein's obstruction of the legal discovery process in civil cases filed by attorney Edwards. It details how Epstein repeatedly invoked his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination during at least five depositions to avoid answering questions about sexual abuse. The text highlights a specific deposition on March 8, 2010, where Epstein refused to answer a question regarding Jane Doe 3 and deflected by making attacks on the opposing counsel's partners.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025357.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum addressed to Mark Filip arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The author cites deposition testimony from alleged victims (Miller, Beale, Gonzalez, Laduke) to claim there was no interstate coercion, that the women lied about their ages (claiming to be 18), and that the encounters were often non-sexual or consensual without force. The document also criticizes the conduct of federal prosecutors and notes a connection between a prosecutor and civil attorney Jeffrey Herman.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021647.jpg
An FBI file containing a 2008 Palm Beach Post article detailing Jeffrey Epstein's work-release program while serving an 18-month sentence for soliciting prostitution. The article reveals Epstein was allowed to leave jail six days a week (Friday through Wednesday, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.) to work at his West Palm Beach office, monitored by GPS and a private deputy paid for by Epstein. Attorneys representing his victims expressed shock that they were not notified of his release until weeks after it began.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021526.jpg
An FBI FD-350 form archiving a March 6, 2008, Palm Beach Post article titled 'Another suit alleges sex during massage.' The article details a federal lawsuit filed by 'Jane Doe No. 3,' represented by attorney Jeffrey Herman, alleging Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted her during a massage at his Palm Beach home when she was 16 (in 2004/2005). The article mentions recruiter Haley Robson, Epstein's defense attorney Jack Goldberger's denial, and Epstein's prior 2006 indictment for solicitation of prostitution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021525.jpg
This document is a newspaper clipping from The Palm Beach Post dated February 27, 2008, reporting that a girl (Jane Doe) dropped her lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy money manager, due to squabbling between her divorced parents. The article details allegations of sexual activity with Jane Doe when she was 14, other accusations against Epstein, and the legal history of the involved parties, including Epstein's 2006 indictment for felony solicitation of prostitution and the father's 2001 federal fraud conviction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021523.jpg
This document is an FBI filing (Form FD-350) containing a newspaper clipping from The Palm Beach Post dated February 1, 2008. The article details a second civil lawsuit filed against Jeffrey Epstein in two weeks, seeking over $50 million for sexual acts committed against a minor (Jane Doe No. 2) in 2004 or 2005 at his Palm Beach mansion. The article outlines the recruitment method involving another girl, the specific allegations of sexual contact during a massage, and a $200 payment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021521.jpg
This document is an FBI FD-350 form containing a newspaper clipping from The Palm Beach Post dated January 25, 2008. The article reports on a federal lawsuit filed by attorney Jeffrey Herman on behalf of a 14-year-old girl ('Jane Doe') and her parents against Jeffrey Epstein, seeking over $50 million for alleged sexual assault in 2005. The article details the allegations, including Epstein's preference for minors, and describes a counter-strategy by Epstein's legal team (Goldberger, Sanchez, Lefcourt) to discredit the plaintiffs by highlighting the parents' criminal history and alleging financial motivation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012434.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript where an unnamed witness is questioned by an attorney, Mr. Tein. The witness denies knowing individuals named Marie Villafona and Jeffrey Sloman but confirms that they know someone named Jeffrey Herman. The questioning also covers a visit by 'two ladies and two guys' to the witness's house and whether any cell phone communication occurred.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012406.jpg
This document is page 11 of a deposition transcript, likely from September 29, 2010. An attorney, Mr. Tein, questions an unnamed deponent about their awareness of a $50 million lawsuit filed on their behalf against Jeffrey Epstein by attorney Jeffrey Herman. The deponent's counsel, Mr. Leopold, repeatedly objects but the deponent ultimately confirms their awareness of the lawsuit.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012405.jpg
This document is page 10 of a deposition transcript, likely from September 29, 2010. Attorney Mr. Tein questions a redacted deponent, represented by attorney Mr. Leopold, about their awareness of a lawsuit filed on their behalf by lawyer Jeffrey Herman. Mr. Leopold objects to the question, citing attorney-client privilege, leading to a dispute over the validity of the privilege claim.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Jeffrey Herman | Witness's family | $0.00 | Mr. Tein asks if Mr. Herman 'advanced your fami... | View |
Lawsuit
Lawsuit filed on behalf of the witness.
Legal representation
Conversations regarding potential financial advances (subject to privilege objection).
Work-release program notification
Notification about Epstein's work release status.
State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006CF00945...
A letter sent via facsimile regarding an improperly served subpoena for a deposition, stating the deponent will not appear and requesting to be included in future scheduling communications.
Subpoena for Deposition
The letter mentions an unsuccessful attempt by Jeffrey Herman to contact Lanna Leigh Belohlavek by phone on the day the letter was written.
Lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein
Announcement of lawsuit alleging sexual assault of a minor.
[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] individually and on behalf of t...
Attorney Jeffrey Herman informs the State Attorney's Office that his firm has been retained to represent a client and his minor daughter in a claim against Jeffrey Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity