Skip to main content
Skip to content
Consultant claims direct contact with Julian Assange regarding potential U.S. indictmentTestimony of alleged trafficking victim describing exploitation by a man named Ron in Miami
1 duplicate copy in the archive
Defendant threatens Jane Doe No. 3 with perjury prosecution and media campaign

kaggle-ho-015600

Title Match
Case File
d-36209House OversightOther

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

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

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015600
Pages
1
Persons
3
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

Persons Referenced (3)

Jane Doe No. #3Samantha Power

“words demonstrate that he is abusing the subpoena power of this Court to try to get discovery that is irr”

Peter Power

“words demonstrate that he is abusing the subpoena power of this Court to try to get discovery that is irr”

Tags

subpoena-abusemedia-campaigndefamationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightmedia-intimidationcourt-intimidation
View on oversight.house.gov
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #015600

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

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)

Dept. of JusticeOtherUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01297437

Gratitude America - Google Search Page 1 of 1 403/, GrablUde IntoCa ck Alf Nen fl eas %know Maca atre 8-1linaS TWA, ;mow 44 300.033.4,6Sn 4031 SKWast GratitudeAmerica www.orasiudeamenetwei HONORING OUR. HEROES 'tannin Ow goner dew Reba. Restore. Recreate Reruns DotterteAppty lot a Reheat GratitudoAmetrices wassmn to 10 pomride Retreats Leadership Reba. Reface. & Reesman Out *Vets dem* a supoorton Van mutts Item gratiluleamened org • GratitudeAmerica. Inc - Home j Facebook

23p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

[REDACTED - Survivor] testimony and filings implicate Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein in alleged sex‑trafficking ...

The document combines a sworn complaint, detailed deposition excerpts, and internal communications that directly name high‑profile individuals (Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, former U.S. President‑li Giuffre alleges Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz were among the men she was forced to service for E The complaint states Epstein’s 2007 Non‑Prosecution Agreement (NPA) barred federal charges against

47p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Subpoena seeks Jane Doe's financial records tied to Jeffrey Epstein payments (2015 filing)

The passage reveals a federal court subpoena demanding documents on payments from Jeffrey Epstein to a Jane Doe victim, suggesting possible undisclosed financial flows linked to a high‑profile sexual‑ Subpoena issued by the Southern District of Florida in a civil case (Doe v. United States). Requests include all payments from Jeffrey Epstein or his associates to Jane Doe between 1/1/1999‑12 The fi

1p
House OversightUnknown

Motion to Quash Subpoena and Seek Protective Order for Non‑Party Jane Doe No. 3

Motion to Quash Subpoena and Seek Protective Order for Non‑Party Jane Doe No. 3 The passage is a routine procedural filing seeking to limit a deposition of an anonymous non‑party. It contains no substantive allegations, financial flows, or connections to high‑ranking officials, and offers no actionable leads beyond standard legal arguments. Key insights: Jane Doe No. 3 is a non‑party resisting a subpoena for deposition.; The motion cites Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) for protective orders.; The request limits questioning to alleged defamatory statements about Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Subpoena Demands Seek Evidence of Meetings with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Tipper Gore on Little Saint James Island

The passage reveals a discovery request that explicitly tries to link high‑profile political figures to the Epstein island, suggesting a possible undisclosed relationship. While the claim is unverifie Defendant’s subpoena request #24 asks for any documents showing meetings with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, The request is tied to a federal action identified as case OS‑SO736‑CIV‑MARRA/JOHNSON. Reference t

1p
Dept. of JusticeFeb 21, 2019

Epstein

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. _____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's

33p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.