r/Epstein • u/EpsteinForums • 1d ago
News article Case against Leon Black dismissed after plaintiff said she was ‘medically incapable of continuing’ | Jeffrey Epstein
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/16/leon-black-civil-rape-lawsuit-dismissed-epsteinA federal judge has agreed to dismiss a lawsuit brought against Leon Black after the plaintiff in the case, who had accused the private equity billionaire of rape, said she was “medically incapable of continuing” and at risk of “acute psychiatric crisis”, including suicide.
The woman known only as “Jane Doe”, who claimed in a lawsuit that was first filed in July 2023 that she had been “handed off” to Black by his associate Jeffrey Epstein and then sexually assaulted by him, had been acting without a lawyer in the case. Doe has alleged that the assault occurred in 2002, when she was a teenager.
“My request [to dismiss the case with prejudice] is not a concession concerning the truth of my allegations, a retraction of my statements, or an acceptance of defendant’s disputed positions; it reflects only the medical reality that I can no longer safely pursue this litigation,” Doe wrote in a legal filing submitted to the court on 12 October.
260
u/PolygonLodge 1d ago
Sad, disheartening and frustrating.
Money and power win again.
57
-13
u/kahirsch 1d ago
Weird. My other comment is voted down to -8, hiding it from everybody, but nobody has replied to it. It seems like something that's important to know when a case is dismissed.
The judge sanctioned the plaintiff "Jane Doe" and her lawyers for lying and other misconduct. Most damningly, parts of Jane Doe's "journal" were found to be fabricated, throwing doubt on the whole of the journal. The judge considered dismissing the suit, but decided on lesser sanctions.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67633736/388/doe-v-black/
Why is nearly every comment here assuming that Jane Doe, who we know nothing about, is telling the truth?
17
u/Spectra8 1d ago
why would Leon Black, Epstein's buddy, tell the truth, by your standards?
-12
u/kahirsch 1d ago
Huh? When did I say anything about Leon Black?
7
u/ineyy 20h ago
That's what the article is about so I'm not sure what you are talking about. The whole Epstein's case doesn't rest upon Jane Doe's journal, there were thousands of people involved. But I think that's what you are trying to imply.
-3
u/kahirsch 18h ago
I'm not talking about the "whole Epstein case", I'm talking about this case, Jane Doe v. Leon Black.
I haven't said anything about Leon Black, I'm just pointing out that Jane Doe falsified her journal in a significant way. It's not a question of "he said, she said", the judge ruled that at least 3 sonograms in the journal were not what Jane Doe claimed, and the other 10 were suspicious.
People in this sub apparently take the position that if somebody makes an accusation against "Epstein's buddy", the accusation must be true and not questioned. An obviously ludicrous viewpoint.
4
u/Socialimbad1991 20h ago
When were parts of the journal found to be fabricated??? Nothing I can find supports that claim.
1
u/kahirsch 18h ago
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67633736/388/doe-v-black/
To summarize, none of the sonograms in Plaintiff's journals contain visible, complete dates, locations, or practice names denoting where the sonograms were taken, and several sonograms even omit Plaintiff's name. In several of the images, this information is cut off, scratched out, or covered with an obscuring liquid. At least three of the sonogram photographs spread across three years of journals appear to have been taken in Virginia during Plaintiff's known 2006 pregnancy, despite Plaintiff's representation that these sonograms were taken between 2002 and 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. See Journal 2 at 26; Journal 3 at 21; Journal 4 at 17; March Hearing at 29:4-30:9. For those three photos, the Court agrees with Stewart's conclusion and finds by clear and convincing evidence that these three sonograms "do not indicate pregnancies prior to the known 2006 pregnancy of the Plaintiff." Stewart Report at 20.
For the remainder of the sonograms, the Court finds clear evidence that the images were manipulated in a manner that renders them untraceable by date and location. Consequently, the Court cannot agree with Stewart that these sonograms are traceable to Plaintiff's 2006 pregnancy. See Stewart Report at 20. Rather, they seem to have been consciously manipulated to obscure their origins, and they appear in the context of other manifestly altered images. Accordingly, even though the Court finds reason to be suspicious of these sonograms' authenticity, it does not find clear and convincing evidence that the remaining ten sonograms are fraudulent.
0
u/Gamerboy11116 14h ago
We can all see that this is likely bullshit, right? That this is probably propaganda meant to obfuscate the truth? That this person doubtlessly has merit to their claims, but money is being thrown around to cast doubt on it?
0
u/kahirsch 14h ago
this person doubtlessly has merit to their claims
Doubtlessly? What do you know about Jane Doe that leads you to believe this?
This is not propaganda. This is the finding of the judge.
4
u/Gamerboy11116 13h ago
The fact that she is “Jane Doe”, for one; anonymous, so no notoriety to gain. Second, it’s Leon Black, who we know did commit atrocities, because… he’s Leon Black. Please do any research. Third, people don’t just go out and randomly sue these people; that’s just bullshit, people always act like it happens way more than it is. Fourth, this person was apparently the same Jane Doe behind the journal from the Epstein files.
Fifth, I’m not a fucking idiot. This exact same thing happens to, quite literally, every single accuser. We can all see what is happening here, right? At least, I wish we all could…
-17
u/kahirsch 1d ago
The judge nearly threw the whole case out in April because the plaintiff and her lawyers had lied.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67633736/388/doe-v-black/
Don't assume that Jane Doe is telling the truth.
6
u/chappelld 20h ago
Imagine simping for a billionaire rapist.
-3
u/kahirsch 18h ago
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that we shouldn't insist on the truth when someone sues a billionaire who has been accused of rape?
145
u/Basic_Assignment_981 1d ago
Wealthy people’s legal teams often go on the offensive by digging into victims’ personal, medical, and family histories to undermine their credibility in court. This happened in parts of the Black case, where medical records and diaries became a focus. It shifts the whole case from putting the accused on trial to putting the victim on trial, turning the legal process into a psychologically devastating experience for them.🤷🏻♀️
21
u/kat-n-FL 1d ago
Indeed, though the public knows much more now and hopefully can see past the screens.
24
u/Basic_Assignment_981 1d ago
People are definitely more aware now, but the gap between knowing the truth and actually getting justice is still so frustrating.⚖️😔
1
u/omg_dont_strawman_me 13h ago
The sonograms in the diaries were being used as evidence for abuse, but were found to be falsified and added after the fact in court.
Call it offensive lawyers or whatever. But if she’s telling the truth, she sabotaged her claims by manufacturing evidence and getting caught.
3
u/Basic_Assignment_981 11h ago
Even if some evidence was messed with later out of desperation or pure stress, that doesn't just erase the actual crime or the other solid facts in the case. Hyper-focusing on one mistake to completely wipe out all the suffering is literally the go-to playbook for defense lawyers to distract everyone from the real perpetrator
1
u/omg_dont_strawman_me 9h ago
Right she could’ve experienced real abuse, and lied out of desperation.
That’s why I don’t think everything should be thrown out. It’s just now, we will need corroboration she couldn’t manufacture or control. And more of the journals should be examined for any other falsifications. Especially given how many people she names throughout them
1
268
u/FlackoFonsy 1d ago edited 1d ago
“My request [to dismiss the case with prejudice] is not a concession concerning the truth of my allegations, a retraction of my statements, or an acceptance of defendant’s disputed positions;
It reflects only the medical reality that I can no longer safely pursue this litigation.”
That’s beyond heartbreaking. I hope more than anything somebody finally tips the domino on this scumbag and he’s in a prison cell so all the girls he wronged are finally able to get their justice without the fear of retaliation.
168
u/slow70 1d ago
That sounds like intimidation
13
u/avoral 17h ago
My immediate thought
9
u/slow70 16h ago
The entire statement is even worse.
"My request [to dismiss the case with prejudice] is not a concession concerning the truth of my allegations, a retraction of my statements, or an acceptance of defendant's disputed positions; it reflects only the medical reality that I can no longer safely pursue this litigation," Doe wrote in a legal filing submitted to the court on 12 October.
37
u/Fantastic_Step8417 1d ago
I hope she's safe
58
u/suhmyhumpdaydudes 1d ago
She's not safe dude.
23
u/Maremdeo 1d ago
These people are so awful. We need to purge them. Comic book level supervillains. How do these lunatics keep this power?
1
123
u/THATchick84 1d ago
She was at risk of psychiatric crisis BECAUSE of what they did to her.. Case dismissed, I hate our so-called justice system. Want to get away with horrific crimes in the states? Just make sure you traumatized your victim enough. Sickening.
39
38
29
u/AlarmedSnek 1d ago
Interesting that an “innocent” man wouldn’t want the trial to continue to clear his name.
10
u/untrainedmammal 1d ago
I get the idea but no.
I wouldn’t want that because a trial can only do one thing and that is put you in prison or cost you money and harm. Without the trial you are already innocent. If there is no trial you are by nature and law innocent. So no, I wouldn’t want a trial and neither would anyone else regardless of their true innocence or not.
5
u/AlarmedSnek 1d ago
You’re way too logical for this world, friend. He doesn’t want a trial because they would find all his crooked shit in discovery. I’m just using their words against them; an innocent man with nothing to hide would just go to trial to clear his name.
-1
u/Plane-Map7400 1d ago
The plaintiff dropped it so there's nothing to go to trial about. The legal baseline is presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, so legally speaking his name was already clear and is still clear. 'Court of public opinion' might be different but thats neither here nor there.
What do you want him to say - "nooo, please keep suing me!"?
Innocent or guilty... it's not really in anyones interest to encourage further legal action against themselves.
86
u/Original_Cattle5824 1d ago
The Guardian didn't do it justice. Here is the actual letter: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67633736/481/doe-v-black/
(My highlighting)
"My ability to undertake these responsibilities should not be mistaken for evidence that I can safely continue doing so. I am autistic and live with severe post-traumatic stress disorder, as documented in the record. As explained in ECF No. 479, these conditions do not impair my ability to understand information, exercise independent judgment, or make informed decisions. They do, however, materially affect my ability to process complex, ambiguous, rapidly changing, and socially mediated information under adversarial pressure.
The redaction process requires precisely those functions while exposing me to thousands of pages containing graphic accounts of sexual trauma, intimate medical and familial information, third-party disclosures, and materials originating in separate confidential proceedings. Many documents were neither submitted nor authorized by me, were not contemporaneously in my possession, or had never previously been available for my review. I have nevertheless been expected to evaluate their origins and context, assess former counsel's representations, interpret disputed Court directives, identify potentially irreversible disclosures, and negotiate consequential redaction decisions.
...
My concerns are not with the principle of public access or lawful unsealing, but with the manner in which the Court's confidentiality and anonymity protections are being implemented. I have identified serious, unresolved concerns regarding Defendant's proposed redactions, yet my documented disabilities and present medical incapacity prevent me from continuing to negotiate these consequential disclosures directly with opposing counsel, whose interests are fundamentally adverse to mine.
The stakes of these decisions extend well beyond the courtroom. In high-profile sexual-assault proceedings, deeply sensitive information can be combined with other publicly available details, rapidly disseminated, and amplified in ways that cannot meaningfully be reversed. For survivors already living with profound trauma, the consequences of identification, harassment, and prolonged adversarial proceedings can be psychologically devastating and potentially lifethreatening. Having already experienced public identification, repeated unwanted contact, and serious deterioration in my health, I am acutely aware of these risks. Yet I am being required to assume personal responsibility for preventing further disclosures through precisely the adversarial process I am no longer medically capable of navigating.
The scale and changing scope of that process only compound the difficulty. The original spreadsheet identified 150 entries, 107 marked sealed. The expanded spreadsheet identifies 234 entries, 191 marked sealed—an increase of 84 entries without removal of any from the original list. I do not suggest that every addition was improper. Rather, the expansion illustrates that I have been expected to determine not only what information may safely be disclosed, but which materials fall within the Court's unsealing directives in the first instance, while simultaneously safeguarding my anonymity and the privacy of others.
...
In the interest of transparency and an accurate understanding of the existing record, I respectfully request that the Court consider authorizing the preparation of an appropriately redacted version of my prior in camera submission concerning informed consent, confidentiality, and the circumstances of my former representation. That submission contains contemporaneous communications relevant to my understanding of the purposes for which sensitive information was requested, the assurances under which it was provided, and the distinction between my own statements and representations subsequently made by former counsel."
--
Do I think that Black's lawyers knew this could break her? YES. Despite their protestations that she is lying, they know she has been badly abused and is traumatized and they know how to take advantage of that. Of course they do! The "Fat F*ck" who pays them has associates who understand how to manipulate trauma victims. (Epstein and Ghislaine are likely not the only of his associates who have been able to take advantage of the knowledge of how to manipulate.)
Do I think the Guardian was underhanded in how they phrased that she asked for help and then gave up? YES.
Project Mockingbird applies.
I highly doubt her request for release of documentation showing what she said vs what her lawyers said will be honored.
Is there a phrase for "High-Profile 'Victim' Lawyers are Tools for the CIA and Organized Crime?"
24
u/kat-n-FL 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sad to read this. Is there such a thing as an adult advocate who could handle this? These men are evil... good triumphs over evil though the battle will be arduous.
1
u/Baeolophus_bicolor 20h ago
you would have to be under a guardianship or be found incompetent or unable to assist in your defense to get some kind of ad litem or advocate who could make legal decisions for you.
22
u/tietack2 1d ago
This guy is in open contempt of a Congressional subpoena. Congress should hold him in contempt. Options include fines or incarceration in jail cell at congress.
9
u/Boopy7 1d ago
Jim Jordan also did this, it seems Congress has very little ability to hold people accountable. I remember back when they also didn't call in plenty of other people who should be forced to testify, like the entire Trump family, for example. So I don't EVER rely on Congress for justice.
1
u/ALiddleBiddle Mod 1d ago
These refusals didn’t start with the Trump administration. It’s disappointing that we’ve rarely held people accountable.
2
0
u/brett_baty_is_him 18h ago
Yeah Congress does unless it’s fauci
2
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe 16h ago
Fauci appeared and made good on his subpoena
Congress just had nothing to do against Fauci other than put on a circus
2
u/brett_baty_is_him 14h ago
Yeah I’m saying Congress doesn’t whip out its enforcement unless it’s a witch-hunt against fauci
6
15
u/Ankhesenkhepra 1d ago
I like the article bringing up him stonewalling congressional close-door meetings, too. This isn’t just one rape allegation. Black was close to Epstein—and innocent men don’t tend to “stonewall” investigations that will exonerate them.
16
u/AZgirl70 1d ago
Rage full tears fill my eyes. These monsters deserve the worst punishment. May the victim find sprinkles of peace in abundance as she heals.
14
29
37
u/Winterpearls 1d ago
This is the same Jane doe who was forced to carry 2 pregnancies for Epstein and Maxwell when she was 14 yrs old. This is the girl with the journal
12
u/Original_Cattle5824 1d ago
She was 16 when she was first sent to Epstein, and yes, she is the girl with the journal.
9
3
u/Boopy7 1d ago
i can't tell if it is the same Jan Doe as the one with the journal, but if so, I don't even know if she did carry two pregnancies, esp since she used someone else's sonogram (possibly just to represent herself, but why?) The whole thing is confusing, esp now that Edwards and other lawyers emphatically want to distance themselves from Black's accuser -- I think this may be that one, and even other victims have said they do not consider her authentic, I think? I realize that there are plenty of false victims out there now, it's really frustrating bc there are also REAL victims and now it gets confusing.
1
u/kahirsch 1d ago
This is the Jane Doe who claimed she was forced to carry 2 pregnancies. But the judge found that at least 3 sonograms were not from the years she said, but from a pregnancy when she was 21, and the other ones were suspicious.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67633736/388/doe-v-black/
To summarize, none of the sonograms in Plaintiff's journals contain visible, complete dates, locations, or practice names denoting where the sonograms were taken, and several sonograms even omit Plaintiff's name. In several of the images, this information is cut off, scratched out, or covered with an obscuring liquid. At least three of the sonogram photographs spread across three years of journals appear to have been taken in Virginia during Plaintiff's known 2006 pregnancy, despite Plaintiff's representation that these sonograms were taken between 2002 and 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. See Journal 2 at 26; Journal 3 at 21; Journal 4 at 17; March Hearing at 29:4-30:9. For those three photos, the Court agrees with Stewart's conclusion and finds by clear and convincing evidence that these three sonograms "do not indicate pregnancies prior to the known 2006 pregnancy of the Plaintiff." Stewart Report at 20.
For the remainder of the sonograms, the Court finds clear evidence that the images were manipulated in a manner that renders them untraceable by date and location. Consequently, the Court cannot agree with Stewart that these sonograms are traceable to Plaintiff's 2006 pregnancy. See Stewart Report at 20. Rather, they seem to have been consciously manipulated to obscure their origins, and they appear in the context of other manifestly altered images. Accordingly, even though the Court finds reason to be suspicious of these sonograms' authenticity, it does not find clear and convincing evidence that the remaining ten sonograms are fraudulent.
1
u/Gamerboy11116 14h ago
Bot.
0
u/kahirsch 14h ago
What is written above comes directly from Judge Clarke's opinion linked above. Calling me a bot doesn't change anything.
For those three photos, the Court agrees with Stewart's conclusion and finds by clear and convincing evidence that these three sonograms "do not indicate pregnancies prior to the known 2006 pregnancy of the Plaintiff."
0
u/Gamerboy11116 13h ago
I have no doubt; the corruption runs deep. It would be appreciated if you stopped spreading propaganda, though.
0
u/Baeolophus_bicolor 21h ago
the journals were fabricated
-1
u/Gamerboy11116 14h ago
Stop lying please
0
u/omg_dont_strawman_me 13h ago
There’s literally 3 counts of falsified evidence from the journal directly related to her claims of abuse. Thats what the court said.
Sure this doesn’t mean the whole thing was fabricated, but nothing in that journal is credible without some sort of independent corroboration she couldn’t manufacture/control.
0
u/Gamerboy11116 8h ago
Again, please stop spreading this garbage. We can all see what is happening here.
24
10
4
5
4
6
u/jsyk 1d ago
ben black, leon black's son (approximately age 39 now,) is the head of a whole federal department as part of trumps administration
ben black is also is in the epstein files for going on dates with epsteins girls. he did not resign and no one noticed. he's still one of trumps head of administration
3
u/throwaway68656362464 1d ago
i can’t imagine being one of these women afraid for my life with all the whistleblowers and victims dying
4
2
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Original_Cattle5824 1d ago
She did, but you are mixing up some of her statements. Trump wasn't old then - she said the old President should have thought of Chelsea, and she also talked about George Mitchell being old. The 5-letter redaction placed next to the quote about Ivana was someone who shouldn't brag.
2
2
1
1
u/Brick_Cabin2529 13h ago
can you imagine. the bravery it took for her to even get this far. look at that ogre. imagine him biting on your labia at age 13 and ever ever recovering from that
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
u/EpsteinForums please reply to this comment with submission statement and files numbers or link to them if posting a released file. Your submission statement must explain why your post is relevant to the r/Epstein community.
Posts without a submission statement might be removed at the discretion of the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.