Epstein case: Jane Doe 107 faces Monday deadline in anonymity battle

(NewsNation) — Monday marks a critical deadline in the high-profile Jeffrey Epstein case. The person identified as Jane Doe 107 must prove that if her name is released, it would cause her irrevocable harm.

It’s still not confirmed if Doe 107 is an accuser or an associate.

But by the end of the day Monday, her attorney must provide documentation explaining why their client’s safety could be at risk if her name is released.

They must also provide details about the hate mail she’s already received.

Just ahead of the release of the Epstein documents, Doe 107’s attorney Richard Levitt wrote a letter to the judge detailing his clients’ fears, reading in part, ”As Doe 107 has previously stated, she lives outside the United States in a culturally conservative country and lives in fear of her name being released.”

He further implied that she may face social stigma, harassment or even threats to her safety if her connection to the Epstein case is made known.

This comes after thousands of pages of documents, and more than 150 associates and accusers connected to the late convicted pedophile and financier have been released and named over the last couple of weeks.

Some names in the documents include former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, former President Donald Trump and Epstein’s attorney Alan Dershowitz.

“2008 is when he was convicted. Anybody who associated with him before that time kind of deserves the benefit of the doubt in my view,” Matt Murphy, a personal injury and criminal defense attorney, said. “Anybody afterward, once we have dates — I want to see who is seeing him, who was hanging out with him, who was socializing with him after everyone knew he was a pedophile.”

It is not clear if Doe 107’s affidavit has been filed yet and whether it will be made public.

Related articles

Town Board Meeting 9.23.25

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-kk9KhIsNVg

‘He just dynamites it’: Alarm sounded over Trump’s ‘smoking gun for abuse of power’



Legal commentator Elie Honig said during a podcast Sunday that the indictment of former FBI director James Comey might be "abuse of executive power."

Speaking to journalist John Avalon on The Bulwark's podcast, Honig, who is the author of the book When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump, said, "I mean, God, Trump basically, by mistake, published a DM demand to his AG that in any other environment would be seen as a smoking gun for abuse of executive power. And now it just seems like something happened two Fridays ago. And who can remember or care?"

He continued: "I do think more people will get indicted on the hit list. He gave us a hit list. I know there's speculation if it's a DM that he inadvertently posted. It has hallmarks of both."

Avalon said the indictment "seems like a new low in the politicization of justice and the persecution of [President] Donald Trump's enemies."

According to Honig, there is "the complete evisceration of this wall that has long existed between the White House and the political operation of the executive branch and the Justice Department's prosecutorial function."

"When the president gets involved in dictating who gets charged and who doesn't, prosecutorial decisions, then we have crossed the line. And that's something that both parties for decades. Presidents don't always love it. Presidents would like to have more control over prosecutors. But even going back to Nixon, they've always understood that there has to be some independent prosecutorial function. But that's changing now very quickly," he added.

Honig further noted that there is no law per se "saying DOJ must be separate and independent from the White House, from the president."

He added: "I mean, if you went to court and said, I want to sue because I think DOJ is no longer independent, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. This is more along the lines of a long established law foundational norm and tradition that both parties have long observed and respected."

Referencing his book, Honig noted how Trump 2.0 appears different from other presidencies.

"And part of the book is about ways that that has been chipped away over the years. But whether it's Nixon or Clinton, and they're not all equal, but Nixon or Clinton or Trump 1 or Biden, they've all chipped away at that wall in various ways."

"But now here comes Trump 2.0 and it's over. He just dynamites it. This is one of those things that's like not really enforceable. I mean, yes, Jim Comey can go into court and argue that he's being selectively prosecuted. And I think he's going to win on that. Given the things Trump has said and posted on social media publicly, he makes the case for him, but it's not like 'my fourth amendment constitutional right is being violated. My first amendment constitutional right is being violated.' It's just really like good government that we've long recognized that is now totally scrapped."

Avalon noted that "there is an unwritten part of the constitution, which is rooted in concepts of honor, decency, and common sense, as the founders intended and as everyone has recognized."

"And the rest of the quote, 'Rome wasn't built in a day, but it was burnt in one.' And Trump is burning something. I mean, FBI shows outside John Bolton's house. You've got [New York Attorney Genera] Letitia James next on the list."

Commenting on James' case, Honig said, "I've looked at the allegations against Letitia James. You know, I've been a critic, a sharp critic of Letitia James. But this mortgage fraud case is bogus. It's bonkers."

Roswell Park Alliance Foundation Welcomes Kyle Roche to its Board

Renowned attorney and real estate developer aims to further...