Judge Freeman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial referral |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-05 | N/A | Submission of Government letter supporting a stay in Doe v. Indyke civil case. | NYSD Court | View |
| 2020-06-19 | N/A | Order issued administratively denying Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice due to a st... | New York, New York | View |
| 2020-02-07 | N/A | Proposed Conference with the Court (Option 2) | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-02-06 | N/A | Proposed Conference with the Court (Option 1) | New York, NY | View |
| 2020-02-06 | N/A | Deadline to jointly submit proposed discovery plan | N/A | View |
| 2019-11-21 | N/A | Conference before Judge Freeman (transcript attached to email) | Court | View |
067.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated June 19, 2020, in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, et al. Judge Alison J. Nathan administratively denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without prejudice, citing a stay entered by Judge Freeman in a related matter.
035.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated November 27, 2019, in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, Corporation (an entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein). District Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourns the initial pre-trial conference scheduled for December 6, 2019, indefinitely (sine die) due to a general pre-trial referral to Judge Freeman.
033.pdf
A letter motion dated December 19, 2019, from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz representing the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and associated corporate entities, requesting a brief extension to respond to the complaint in Jane Doe 17 v. Indyke et al. The letter lists numerous corporate defendants linked to Epstein, including Nine East 71st Street Corp and Financial Trust Company. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request on the same day and noted that future requests should be directed to Judge Freeman.
EFTA00023488.pdf
Opinion and Order from the Southern District of New York regarding a Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her case against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell after accepting a settlement from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. Maxwell opposed the dismissal, demanding the compensation amount be disclosed for use in her criminal trial and 'court of public opinion,' and seeking to preserve her right to pursue legal fees. The Court rejected Maxwell's demand for the unredacted settlement amount but agreed to modify the dismissal order to allow future litigation regarding attorneys' fees and costs.
EFTA00019570.pdf
This email chain from December 2019 between the Kaplan Hecker & Fink legal team and redacted recipients discusses court transcripts and the administration of the Epstein Estate. Key revelations include the confirmation that Mark Epstein (Jeffrey's brother) was identified by Estate lawyers (Bennet Moskowitz) as the sole beneficiary of the estate. The emails also mention that the 'Feinberg draft protocol' (likely regarding the victim compensation fund) was received and considered a 'disaster' by Kaplan's team.
EFTA00016303.pdf
This document is an email sent on September 5, 2020, to Judge Freeman's chambers regarding the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke, et al.' The email submits an attached letter from the Government supporting a stay in the proceedings. The sender and other recipients are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00003018.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a rebuttal to a defendant's accusation that the Government delayed an indictment for tactical advantage. The author contrasts the Government's decision to stay the civil case of *Doe v. Indyke* with its inaction in the settled case of *Giuffre v. Maxwell*, arguing the different procedural postures and the risk of witness deposition in the active *Doe* case justified the different legal strategies. The document asserts that the Government's actions were logical and not part of a conspiracy to gain an advantage in the criminal case.
Request to intervene and stay Doe v. Indyke
The Government sent a letter to Judge Freeman requesting permission to intervene and stay the Doe v. Indyke case. The letter explained that, as far as the Government was aware, it was the only case in the district that had not been resolved or stayed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity