Jane Doe 3
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bob Josefsburg
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Academicians
|
Alleged abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL G. CASSELL
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan M. Dershowitz
|
Accuser accused |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged victim perpetrator |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Recruiter victim |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Service of process on Jane Doe 3 | Colorado | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of a motion for joinder in the CVRA action on behalf of Jane Doe 3 and 4. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell recruits 16-year-old towel girl (Jane Doe 3) to be massage therapist | Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach | View |
| 2014-12-30 | N/A | Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 moved to join as petitioners. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Jane Doe 3 made allegations to tabloid publications. | United Kingdom | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | FBI interview of Jane Doe 3 where she allegedly refused to cooperate. | Unknown | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Alleged incident of sexual abuse referenced in a deposition question. | Unknown | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Time period for which the Defendant is requesting personal diary information. | Unknown | View |
013.pdf
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
010-03.pdf
This is a court order from Judge Kenneth A. Marra denying motions by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 to join an existing lawsuit filed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 against the US Government regarding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Epstein case. The judge ruled that adding new parties was unnecessary as their claims were duplicative and they could instead serve as witnesses. Significantly, the Judge sua sponte ordered the striking of 'lurid details' and allegations made by Jane Doe 3 regarding being trafficked to high-profile non-parties (including politicians and world leaders), deeming them impertinent to the specific legal claim against the government. Consequently, Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene to strike these same allegations was denied as moot.
EFTA00029524.pdf
This document is an email from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) circulating a Rolling Stone article from July 2019 detailing Ghislaine Maxwell's background and connection to Jeffrey Epstein following his arrest. The article outlines her history as Robert Maxwell's daughter, her role in New York society, and specific allegations from victims (names redacted) regarding her role in procuring underage girls for Epstein and facilitating abuse involving figures like Alan Dershowitz. It mentions her presence at Mar-a-Lago and Chelsea Clinton's wedding, as well as her denial of all allegations.
EFTA00027809.pdf
This document is a 'Government's Notice of Proposed Procedures for the Determination of a Remedy' filed by the United States in the case of Jane Doe 1 & 2 v. United States. The government proposes a schedule where Petitioners must first submit their proposed remedies, followed by a 60-day period for the government to consult with victims before responding. The government argues this consultation is essential because potential remedies, such as rescinding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, could negatively impact other victims who have already received compensation or wish to avoid further trauma.
EFTA00027776.pdf
This document is a legal filing by Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and 2 in May 2019, arguing for specific procedures to determine a remedy after the court ruled the Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The petitioners argue the Government should immediately announce its proposed remedy, specifically the rescission of the NPA's immunity clauses, and request limited discovery including depositions of key figures like former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz regarding a secret 2007 'breakfast meeting.' The filing includes correspondence between victims' counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office, highlighting the Government's delay tactics and the recent recusal of the Southern District of Florida office.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022139.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a book detailing legal proceedings and allegations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses claims made by Virginia Roberts (Jane Doe 3) against Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and Alan Dershowitz, and includes a denial statement from Buckingham Palace regarding the allegations against Prince Andrew.
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_028965.jpg
A legal letter from attorney Martin G. Weinberg, representing Jeffrey Epstein, to John Zucker at ABC's Office of Legal Counsel. Weinberg attempts to dissuade ABC from airing a 'Good Morning America' interview with 'Jane Doe 3,' claiming her accusations are uncorroborated, recycled from 2011 UK tabloids, and were previously dismissed by a federal judge. The letter also notes that an FBI agent declared Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with the FBI regarding Epstein in 2007.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal response in the defamation case *Edwards v. Dershowitz* (CACE 15-000072). The filing argues against Dershowitz's motion for confidentiality, citing previous orders by Judge Marra in a federal CVRA case. The text explicitly mentions allegations of sexual abuse by Dershowitz against Ms. Giuffre and asserts that previous court orders allow for these factual details to be presented if properly supported.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015605.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing arguing against a subpoena issued by the Defendant to a non-party identified as 'Jane Doe 3.' The filing asserts that the Defendant is harassing the non-party by requesting irrelevant personal items like diaries and childhood photos from 1999-2002, a period when she was a minor victim of sex trafficking. It cites a Newsmax interview where the Defendant admitted to tracking the non-party to Colorado to serve her and expressed a desire to jail her.
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_021911.jpg
This document is page 88 of a rough draft transcript, likely from a House Oversight investigation. A speaker discusses representing a victim of sex trafficking and recalls details regarding Alan Dershowitz. The testimony focuses on a legal complaint (Jane Doe 102) filed by Bob Josefsburg, which alleged that one or more 'academicians' sexually abused a victim identified as Jane Doe 3.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021840.jpg
This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript of Paul G. Cassell, questioned by Mr. Simpson. They discuss a 'motion for joinder' filed in a previous 'CVRA action' on behalf of Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. The document confirms that Cassell and attorney Bradley J. Edwards were co-signatories on this motion.
Request for Production
Requests for diaries (1999-2002), photographs, and videos from when the non-party was a minor.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity