Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-36209House OversightOther

Defendant threatens Jane Doe No. 3 with perjury prosecution and media campaign

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015600
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage contains only vague accusations and media quotes about a private litigation dispute. It does not name any high‑profile officials, corporations, or foreign actors, nor does it provide concr Defendant claims Jane Doe No. 3 will be jailed for perjury. Defendant publicly called Jane Doe No. 3 a “prostitute” and “bad mother.” Defendant threatened to sue Jane Doe No. 3 for defamation and to

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

subpoena-abusemedia-campaigndefamationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightmedia-intimidationcourt-intimidation
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
result is that she'll go to jail because she will repeat her lies and we’ll be able to prove it and she will end up in prison for perjury.” (emphasis added). See Exhibit 1, New York Daily News, April 7, 2015. Defendant has subjected Jane Doe No. 3 to horrific public attacks including publicly calling her a “prostitute” and a “bad mother” to her three minor children. See Exhibit 2, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015. Defendant has gone on a media blitz campaign against this non-party for statements she made under oath in a federal action: “The end result of this case should be she [Jane Doe No. 3] should go to jail, the lawyers should be disbarred and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally innocent.” (emphasis added). See Exhibit 3, CNN International, New Day, January 6, 2015. “My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to speak in court.” (emphasis added). See Exhibit 4, Australian Broadcasting System (ABC), January 6, 2015. Defendant also stated, in an interview in Newsmax, that he is “considering” bringing a lawsuit against Jane Doe No. 3. “And we re considering suing her for defamation as well, but right now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and we served her and now she'll be subjected to a deposition.” (emphasis added). See Exhibit 5, Newsmax, April 8, 2015. Defendant’s own words demonstrate that he is abusing the subpoena power of this Court to try to get discovery that is irrelevant to this case, in the hopes of being able to intimidate Jane Doe No. 3 with the press and generate a claim against her. Considering the extensive abuse that Jane Doe No. 3 suffered as a minor child, and Defendant’s threats and intimidation, it would be both unreasonable and oppressive to require this non-party to comply with this subpoena duces tecum. Accordingly, Defendant’s subpoena should be quashed. See Exhibit 6, Defendant’s Subpoena to Jane Doe No. 3.

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01695623

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15 This cause is before the Court on Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE 311). Both motions are ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that they should be denied. I. Background This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 377

10p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR Document 256 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 23

Case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR Document 256 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant. Case No. 1:22-CV-10019 (JSR) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF (1) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (2) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES Booms SCHILLER FLOWER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Fax: (212) 446-2350 EDWARDB HENDERSON LEHRMAN LLC 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Counsel for Class Representative Jane Doe I and the Class EFTA00145643 Case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR Document 256 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE CLASS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTS THE SETTLEMENT 2 III. THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE JANE DOE 7'S OBJECT

23p
Dept. of JusticeOtherUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01368193

Page 20 of 32 The motion claimed that the woman. who was not identified in court documents, had sexual relations as a minor with Prince Andrew in London. New York and on Mr. Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Mr. Epstein told the woman to give the prince 'Whatever he demanded" and 'report back to him on the details? the motion said. Buckingham Palace took the unusual step of issuing a statement to rebut the accusations "This relates to longstanding and ongoing civil procee

1p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.