Skip to main content
Skip to content
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
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

Tags

subpoena-abusemedia-campaigndefamationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightmedia-intimidationcourt-intimidation

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

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.

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.