Joshua I. Schiller
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Teresa Helm
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Maria Farmer
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Juliette Bryant
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 1000
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Juliette Bryant
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-20 | N/A | Filing of letter requesting oral argument in Helm v. Indyke et al. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2019-11-20 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-11-14 | N/A | Filing of Civil Cover Sheet for Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF | United States District Cour... | View |
2021.03.29%20Response%20-%20Response.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by the Co-Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate (Indyke and Kahn) on March 29, 2021, opposing the US Virgin Islands Government's appeal regarding their failed motion to intervene in probate proceedings. The executors argue the Government's petition is untimely as the original motion was denied over a year prior, and that the Government's emergency motion regarding estate assets is moot because the estate has replenished the Victims' Compensation Program funds. Attached exhibits include the original 2020 opposition brief and a March 2021 press release confirming the sale of Epstein's NYC and Palm Beach properties to fund the compensation program.
030.pdf
This document is a letter dated March 20, 2020, from attorney Joshua I. Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Judge Paul G. Gardephe. It requests oral argument regarding the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case of Helm v. Indyke et al. The letter argues that the Plaintiff's claims are timely under New York law and doctrines of equitable estoppel/tolling, contrary to the Defendants' assertions.
015.pdf
This document is a Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order filed on February 6, 2020, in the case of Teresa Helm v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff outlines broad discovery requests, including Epstein's flight logs, helicopter logs, financial records, Amazon order history, and communications with government officials and co-conspirators. The Co-Executors attempt to limit the scope of discovery strictly to the alleged abuse of the plaintiff and her damages, and the document outlines conflicting proposed deadlines for the discovery process.
013.pdf
Legal correspondence from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Judge Gardephe regarding the case Helm v. Indyke et al. The letter argues against the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, asserting that Plaintiff Teresa Helm's claims are timely under NY CPLR § 215(8)(a) due to the recent termination of Epstein's criminal case (August 2019) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel based on Epstein's intimidation and manipulation tactics. The letter also argues that challenges to punitive damages are premature at this stage of litigation.
002.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on November 11, 2019, in the Southern District of New York for a lawsuit brought by Teresa Helm against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The defendants named are Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of Epstein's estate. The nature of the suit is classified as 'Other Personal Injury' under Torts, and the plaintiff demands a jury trial.
014.pdf
This document is a legal letter from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on behalf of Plaintiff Maria Farmer in the case 'Farmer v. Indyke et al.' It argues against the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, asserting that Farmer's claims are timely under NY CPLR § 215(8)(a) because they were filed within one year of the termination of the criminal action against Jeffrey Epstein (Aug 29, 2019). The letter also argues that equitable estoppel applies due to threats made against Farmer, including a specific death threat involving the West Side Highway.
010.pdf
This document is a letter from Maria Farmer's legal counsel to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald opposing Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene in the case *Farmer v. Indyke et al.*. Dershowitz sought to intervene to strike Paragraph 39 of Farmer's complaint, which alleges that Farmer, while working at Epstein's NY mansion, saw Dershowitz go upstairs while young girls were present. The letter argues that Dershowitz has no right to intervene, that the allegations are relevant to the sex-trafficking conspiracy and Farmer's silence, and that the motion to strike is meritless.
002.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on November 12, 2019, in the Southern District of New York for a lawsuit initiated by Maria Farmer against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The nature of the suit is categorized as 'Other Personal Injury' under diversity jurisdiction, as the plaintiff resides in Arkansas and the defendants are deemed citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands (Epstein's domicile). The plaintiff demands a jury trial.
026.pdf
This document is a Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order filed on February 6, 2020, in the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The Plaintiff requests broad discovery including flight logs, financial records, Amazon history, and communications with government officials and co-conspirators, while the Co-Executors attempt to limit the scope strictly to the Plaintiff's alleged abuse. The document outlines proposed deadlines for document requests, HIPAA releases, and expert discovery, noting significant disagreements between the parties on the timing of these phases.
025.pdf
A legal letter from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Judge Lorna G. Schofield arguing against the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss in the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al. The letter argues that the Plaintiff's claims are timely under New York Law (CPLR § 215(8)(a) and § 213-c) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel due to Epstein's intimidation tactics. It also asserts that punitive damages should be addressed after discovery.
007.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on November 20, 2019, in the Southern District of New York, supporting a motion for 'Jane Doe 1000' to proceed anonymously in her civil suit against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff alleges she was sexually trafficked and abused by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing forced sexual acts and the use of sex toys. The motion argues that anonymity is necessary to protect the plaintiff from severe emotional distress, public scrutiny, and potential retaliation from Maxwell, who was described as being 'at large' at the time of the filing.
006.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously' filed on November 20, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 1000, is suing Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The filing is submitted by attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.
002.pdf
Civil Cover Sheet filed on November 14, 2019, in the Southern District of New York for a lawsuit brought by Jane Doe 1000 against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The suit is categorized under 'Other Personal Injury' and claims diversity jurisdiction, noting Epstein's domicile as the U.S. Virgin Islands. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.
013.pdf
This document is a letter from plaintiff's counsel (Boies Schiller Flexner) to Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. in the case *Bryant v. Indyke et al.*, dated January 29, 2020. The letter argues against the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, asserting that Juliette Bryant's claims are timely under New York statutes (CPLR § 215(8)(a) and § 213-c) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel due to Epstein's intimidation tactics. It details that Bryant was a resident of New York during the abuse (2002-2005 era) and was raped repeatedly by Epstein at his New York home.
010.pdf
A joint letter dated January 10, 2020, from legal counsel representing plaintiffs (victims) and defendants (Epstein Estate executors) to Judge Debra Freeman. The letter provides a status update on discovery schedules and settlement discussions, specifically noting the development of a Victims' Compensation Program awaiting approval in the US Virgin Islands. The parties request a court conference in early February 2020.
002.pdf
Civil Cover Sheet (Form JS 44) filed on November 14, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Juliette Bryant, a resident of South Africa, is suing Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The nature of the suit is classified as 'Other Personal Injury' tort, with jurisdiction based on diversity (foreign citizen vs citizens of another state/USVI).
EFTA00030306.pdf
This document is a Notice of Deposition filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 24, 2020. The plaintiff (name redacted) notifies the defendants that the oral deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled for April 29, 2020, at the offices of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. The document lists the legal counsel representing the plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate.
EFTA00023292.pdf
This document is a civil complaint filed on November 14, 2019, by Jane Doe 1000 against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff alleges she was recruited in late 1999 under the guise of modeling opportunities for Victoria's Secret, then subjected to years of sexual abuse, manipulation, and trafficking by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in New York and Palm Beach. The complaint details Epstein's wealth, his specific properties in NY and NM, his 2008 plea deal, his 2019 arrest and death, and specific instances of abuse involving Maxwell.
Re: Farmer v. Indyke et al., Case No. 19-cv-10474
Response to Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference regarding motion to dismiss, arguing claims are timely and equitable estoppel applies.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity