Susan Edelman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Professional journalistic |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Professional |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Professional press source |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Journalist press secretary |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Journalist source |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Professional journalist press officer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Professional media relations |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Danny Frost
|
Professional press |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-06 | N/A | Correspondence regarding the sealing of documents in People v. Epstein. | View | |
| 2018-12-04 | N/A | Susan Edelman requests briefs from Manhattan DA office. | New York | View |
| 2018-12-01 | N/A | Publication of the article regarding the 2011 hearing. | New York | View |
| 2018-12-01 | N/A | Publication of article 'Manhattan DA sided with pedophile billionaire after botching investigation.' | New York Post | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016472.jpg
An email from Susan Edelman, a reporter for the NY Post, to the New York County District Attorney's Office. Edelman requests the DA's appellate brief regarding a sex-offender registry case and acknowledges that victim names may need to be redacted. The document contains a standard confidentiality footer from the DA's office and a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016471.jpg
An email exchange from December 2018 between NY Post reporter Susan Edelman and Danny Frost, Director of Communications for the Manhattan DA. Edelman requests information regarding the Epstein case. Frost declines, stating the brief is filed under seal pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b to protect sex offense victims; Edelman challenges this, noting that typically only victim names are redacted, not the entire document.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016470.jpg
An email exchange from December 5, 2018, between NY Post reporter Susan Edelman and Manhattan DA Communications Director Danny Frost. Frost asks if a requested 'cover page' is for publication or background information, noting that publication requires legal review. Edelman confirms the request is for her information only, not for publication.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016469.jpg
An email chain from December 5, 2018, between reporter Susan Edelman and Danny Frost, the Director of Communications for the Manhattan DA. Edelman questions Frost regarding an attached document, specifically asking if a judge ordered it sealed or if the sealing was merely stated by the DA's office, noting that the cover page is unclear. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016468.jpg
This document is an email exchange from December 5, 2018, between Susan Edelman (NY Post Reporter) and Danny Frost (Director of Communications for Manhattan DA Cy Vance, Jr.). Edelman inquires about a specific date and whether a court order exists to seal a document. Frost responds with the date 'August 2011.' The document contains the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016468.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016467.jpg
An email exchange from December 5, 2018, between NY Post reporter Susan Edelman and Manhattan DA Communications Director Danny Frost. Edelman questions whether the DA's office unilaterally sealed a document without a hearing. Frost responds that they are bound by Civil Rights Law § 50-b rather than a court order. The document bears a House Oversight Committee stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016466.jpg
An email exchange from December 5, 2018, between New York Post reporter Susan Edelman and Danny Frost, Director of Communications for the Manhattan DA. Edelman challenges the denial of a document request, arguing that victim names could simply be redacted. Frost responds that the document is filed under seal and he cannot violate it, but suggests 'off the record' that the Post should have their lawyers petition the court directly.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016465.jpg
This document is an email chain from December 6, 2018, between NY Post reporter Susan Edelman and Danny Frost, Director of Communications for the Manhattan District Attorney. Edelman questions why the DA's office sealed documents in the Epstein case rather than filing a redacted brief, accusing them of covering up facts. Frost responds that sealing is routine practice under Civil Rights Law § 50-b for sex crimes but confirms the DA's office will not oppose a petition by the Post to unseal a redacted brief.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016462.jpg
A 2018 New York Post article reporting on a January 2011 court hearing where the Manhattan DA's office, represented by Jennifer Gaffney, requested a downgrade of Jeffrey Epstein's sex-offender status from Level 3 to Level 1. The request stunned Judge Ruth Pickholz, who noted she had never seen prosecutors make such a downward argument for such a troubling case. The document is stamped as part of a House Oversight Committee review.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016425.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal affidavit, likely filed by representatives of the New York Post in December 2018. It details the newspaper's efforts to unseal legal briefs related to an appeal by Jeffrey Epstein, chronicling communications between Post reporter Susan Edelman and the Manhattan DA's office, as well as the affiant's communications with Epstein's lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg. The DA's office indicated they would not oppose a petition for a redacted brief.
Unknown (Body text only)
Request for the DA's appellate brief in the sex-offender registry case, acknowledging potential need for redactions.
Unknown (Body text only)
Request for the DA's appellate brief in the sex-offender registry case, acknowledging potential need for redactions.
Unknown
Request for the DA's appellate brief in a sex-offender registry case, acknowledging need for redactions.
RE: request
Explains that sealing documents is routine under Civil Rights Law § 50-b for sex crimes, but states the DA will not oppose a petition for a redacted brief.
Re: request
Asking why the DA's office didn't file a redacted brief and if they would fight a petition for one.
Re: request
Asks why the DA filed under seal instead of redacted, accusing them of covering up facts, and asks if they would fight a petition for a redacted brief.
RE: request
Explaining the legal basis for sealing documents (Civil Rights Law § 50-b) and stating the DA will not oppose a petition for a redacted brief.
RE: request
Explaining the legal basis for sealing documents (Civil Rights Law § 50-b) and stating the DA will not oppose a petition for a redacted brief.
Re: request
Asking why the DA's office didn't file a redacted brief and if they would fight a petition for one.
Unknown (reply chain)
Attached, thanks.
Re: request
Argues that the law allows for redaction of victim names and asks why the whole document is denied.
Re: request
Clarifying that the action is prescribed by Civil Rights Law § 50-b.
Re: request
States the document is filed under seal and cannot be provided. Suggests 'off the record' that she petition the court.
Re: [Unknown]
Thanks, Danny, Is there a judge's order sealing this document? Or is it just stated by the DA's office. It's unclear on this cover page. Sue
N/A (Reply chain)
Attached, thanks.
Re: request
Stating they do not have a court order but are bound by Civil Rights statute.
Re: request
Argues that while victim names can be redacted, the whole document should not be denied.
Re: request
Initial greeting (rest of message cut off or implied in thread context).
Re: request
Declining request because the brief is filed under seal pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b to protect victims of sex offenses.
Re: request
Asking if the requested cover page is for publication or information; notes legal check required if for publication.
Re: request
Asking if the decision to seal the document was unilateral by the DA and if there was an opportunity to object.
Re: request
Clarifying that the requested information is for personal information, not publication.
Re: request
Initial inquiry in this specific visible thread segment (content not fully visible, but starts the chain shown).
Re: [Unknown]
P.S. What is the date of this document?
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity