Jane Doe 1
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Litigation victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
U.S. government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Co litigant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Cassell
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 2
|
Co petitioners co victims |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 2
|
Co petitioners |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim abuser |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Suicide Attempt (Aborted) | Isolated place | View |
| 2023-05-01 | N/A | Court order granting in part and denying in part JP Morgan's motion to dismiss Doe's First Amende... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-03 | Legal proceeding | Oral argument is set for the rehearing en banc of Jane Doe 1's petition. | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2020-08-07 | Court ruling | The court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel’s opinion. | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2020-04-14 | N/A | Court of Appeals denied Jane Doe 1's petition. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-04-14 | Court ruling | A panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition from "Jane Doe 1". | Court of Appeals | View |
| 2019-09-30 | N/A | Jane Doe 1 filed petition for writ of mandamus. | 11th Circuit Court of Appeals | View |
| 2019-09-30 | Legal filing | CVRA petitioner “Jane Doe 1” filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Court Hearing/Filing | Court (Southern District of... | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing of Jane Doe 1 and 2's Reply to Intervenor Epstein's Brief. | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing by Jane Doe 1 and 2 in the Florida CVRA case. | Florida | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing by Jane Doe 1 and 2 in Florida CVRA case regarding remedies. | Florida | View |
| 2019-07-21 | N/A | Approximate date for filing the brief mentioned (email states 'We file in about one week' from Ju... | Court (implied) | View |
| 2019-05-23 | Legal filing | Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 submitted a document on proposed remedies. | N/A | View |
| 2019-05-10 | N/A | Filing of Petitioners' Position on Procedures to Determine Remedy. | SD Florida Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | Summary Judgment Order entered by Judge Marra finding the Government violated the CVRA. | SD Florida Court | View |
| 2014-12-30 | N/A | Giuffre moved to join on-going litigation filed by Jane Doe 1 challenging Epstein's non-prosecuti... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2013-01-01 | N/A | Clients were told the NPA did not extend to New York or other jurisdictions | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Petitioners initiated the action. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2007-08-07 | N/A | Jane Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2's abuse to the FBI. | N/A | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Ja... | Palm Beach, Florida; United... | View |
003.pdf
This document is a 'Related Case Statement' filed on May 9, 2023, in the Southern District of New York. It formally links a new shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by the Operating Engineers Pension Fund against JPMorgan's board of directors (Case 1:23-cv-03903) with two existing cases filed by Jane Doe 1 and the US Virgin Islands against JPMorgan (Cases 22-cv-10019 and 22-cv-10904). The filing argues that all cases share a common factual basis regarding JPMorgan's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically alleging that the bank facilitated his abuse and that the board failed in its oversight duties.
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.
010-10.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated April 15, 2015, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion for a supplemental protective order. Epstein sought to keep correspondence between his lawyers and the US Government regarding his non-prosecution agreement sealed from the public. Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the public interest in determining if the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was violated outweighs Epstein's desire for confidentiality, stating that plea negotiations are not privileged.
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.
EFTA00037109.pdf
This document is a legal objection to a proposed $290 million class action settlement in the case of Jane Doe 1 v. Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase. Filed by the Marsh Law Firm on behalf of an anonymous Epstein survivor, the objection argues that the settlement amount is inadequate, the allocation plan is arbitrary, and the requested attorney fees (30%) are excessive. The filing also alleges potential conflicts of interest regarding Class Counsel's prior relationships with Epstein associates and requests that the Objector be allowed to appear virtually at the fairness hearing.
EFTA00030511.pdf
An email dated July 30, 2019, circulating a South Florida Sun Sentinel article. The article discusses the legal conflict regarding Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, noting that while some victims want new charges in Florida following his New York arrest, prosecutors argue others wish to avoid reopening the case to protect their privacy. Lawyers for victims Jane Doe 1 and 2 argue that the privacy concerns of some should not prevent the prosecution of Epstein and his co-conspirators.
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.
EFTA00027666.pdf
This document is an Opinion and Order from a U.S. District Court case related to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the history of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, from 1999 to 2007 in Palm Beach, Florida, and internationally. The document outlines the investigation by the PBPD and FBI, and the subsequent discussions and negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's legal team from 2006 to 2007, including efforts to secure a plea agreement and manage press coverage.
EFTA00022546.pdf
This document is a Reply Brief filed by victims Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's intervention brief regarding remedies for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The victims argue for the partial rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed in 2007, specifically the immunity provisions, on the grounds that the agreement was illegally concealed from victims in violation of the CVRA. The brief refutes Epstein's arguments regarding due process, contract law, estoppel, and separation of powers, asserting that the NPA is unenforceable due to its illegal formation and the government's failure to confer with victims.
EFTA00021441.pdf
An email from an attorney representing Jane Doe 1 and 2 discussing legal arguments in the Florida CVRA case against Jeffrey Epstein. The sender highlights a filing arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is limited solely to Florida crimes and does not extend to New York, countering a motion by Epstein's lawyer Marty Weinberg. The email notes that the victims were explicitly told in 2013 that the NPA was jurisdictionally limited.
EFTA00015560.pdf
In this July 14, 2019 email, attorney Paul Cassell contacts a redacted recipient (likely a prosecutor) regarding the legal representation of Jane Doe 1 and 2. Cassell discusses a forthcoming brief responding to Jeffrey Epstein's claims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically arguing that the NPA is limited to the Southern District of Florida. He offers to share the draft with the recipient's office prior to filing to ensure coordination and avoid interference.
EFTA00014538.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2019 discussing legal proceedings related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Jeffrey Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). An attorney representing victims 'Jane Doe 1 and 2' updates other parties (likely government officials or other counsel) on recent filings, arguing that the NPA does not extend to New York and is limited to Florida crimes. The thread also notes a recent motion by Epstein's lawyer, Marty Weinberg, regarding the scope of the NPA.
EFTA00014536.pdf
An email thread from July 2019 between a lawyer representing Jane Doe 1 and 2 (likely Paul Cassell based on Utah Bar mention) and an investigator/official. The lawyer updates the recipient on recent filings in the Florida CVRA case, specifically arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is limited to Florida and does not extend to New York, a point relevant to ongoing investigations. The recipient requests a call to discuss the lawyer's expertise on the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
EFTA00013359.pdf
This document is the Executive Summary of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report from November 2020 investigating the conduct of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and other prosecutors regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that while Acosta exercised "poor judgment" in resolving the case via the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, he and his staff did not commit professional misconduct as defined by DOJ standards. The report details the history of the investigation, the secret negotiations, the subsequent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), and the eventual fallout leading to Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019.
EFTA00011475.pdf
This document is an Executive Summary of a November 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report investigating the 2006-2008 federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. It details the negotiation of the controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) approved by then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta, which allowed Epstein to plead to lesser state charges, and examines the failure of the government to consult with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The report concludes that while Acosta and other attorneys did not commit professional misconduct by definition, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case via the NPA and the government failed to treat victims with necessary forthrightness.
EFTA00010542.pdf
This document is the United States Government's legal response to proposed remedies by victims (Petitioners) of Jeffrey Epstein following a court finding that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The government admits its communication with victims was insufficient but argues against the Petitioners' request to partially rescind the NPA, citing contract law, potential harm to other victims relying on the agreement, and separation of powers. Instead, the government proposes holding a public hearing for victim impact statements, arranging meetings between victims and DOJ representatives, and mandating additional training for prosecutors.
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-00000716.jpg
This document is page 78 of a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, containing victim impact statements. One victim details the psychological trauma caused by Epstein, including a near-suicide attempt, and expresses frustration that his death allowed him to escape sentencing. The page concludes with the beginning of a statement from a second victim who describes being raped by Epstein when she was a 16-year-old virgin.
DOJ-OGR-00002539.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the timeline of events following the Miami Herald's 2018 reporting and Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death. It covers the dismissal of the indictment against Epstein due to his suicide, the ongoing CVRA litigation by victims (specifically Jane Doe 1) in the 11th Circuit regarding the government's failure to confer with victims before the NPA, and the initiation of the OPR investigation requested by Senator Ben Sasse.
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein case concerning victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Following Epstein's death, a district court denied the victims' (petitioners') motion for remedies, such as rescinding the non-prosecution agreement, deeming the issue moot. The document also covers an appeal by a victim named Wild and the government's legal arguments that its CVRA obligations were not triggered because charges were never filed in the original district.
DOJ-OGR-00021181.jpg
This legal document outlines the events following Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, including the dismissal of his federal indictment in New York and the progression of a Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit in Florida. It details a specific victim's appeal and the government's arguments. The document also describes the initiation of an investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into potential prosecutorial misconduct, prompted by a Miami Herald report and a formal request from Senator Ben Sasse.
DOJ-OGR-00003183.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the timeline following Jeffrey Epstein's August 2019 suicide, including the dismissal of his indictment in SDNY and the conclusion of CVRA litigation in Florida where the court found the government had not litigated in bad faith but had violated the CVRA. It summarizes the appellate history of 'Jane Doe 1' seeking a writ of mandamus in the 11th Circuit regarding the non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Additionally, it marks the initiation of the OPR investigation into DOJ attorney misconduct, triggered by a request from Senator Ben Sasse following the Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting.
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_015535.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:15-cv-07433) details Virginia Giuffre's interactions with the FBI in 2011 regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's sexual abuse while she was hiding in Australia. It outlines Maxwell's attempts to avoid deposition by falsely claiming a permanent move to London due to her mother's illness. The document also records Giuffre's establishment of the non-profit 'Victims Refuse Silence, Inc.' in late 2014 and her legal motion to join Jane Doe 1 in challenging Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
Abuse by Jeffrey Epstein
Documented events regarding the man she now knows as Jeffrey Epstein.
Petition for writ of mandamus
Seeking review of district court's order denying remedies.
Standard CVRA victim notification letter
Promised protection of rights, including right to confer with attorney and be heard in public proceeding, stated case was under investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity