Indyke
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Doe
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
DOE
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 1000
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Priscilla Doe
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Bennet J. Moskowitz
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Katlyn Doe
|
Litigation |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Katlyn Doe
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs (Does, Farmer, Helm, etc.)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Juliette Bryant
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
Lifestyles Convention
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs (Various Does, Farmer, Helm, etc.)
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
DEBRA FREEMAN
|
Judicial authority |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 1000
|
Plaintiff defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Priscilla Doe
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lisa Doe
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Farmer
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Helm
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Victim-1
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Norman Davies
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Plaintiff defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Various Plaintiffs (Does, Farmer, Helm, etc.)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Filing | Filing of a civil case, Doe 3 v. Indyke. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The Doe v. Indyke case was initiated after the Government opened its investigation and after the ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | The civil case Doe v. Indyke, where discovery was just beginning and the Government moved to inte... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-21 | N/A | Legal Conference | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-09-14 | N/A | Order Granting Motion to Stay in Doe v. Indyke | Court | View |
| 2020-09-14 | N/A | Order Granting Motion to Stay in Doe v. Indyke et al. | Court (Case No. 20-cv-00484) | View |
| 2020-03-30 | N/A | Original deadline for Defendants' reply papers | SDNY | View |
| 2020-03-05 | N/A | Transcript of Premotion Conference, Farmer v. Indyke, et al., No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-02-12 | N/A | Judge Lewis J. Liman issued an order denying the request for a pre-motion conference as moot and ... | New York, New York | View |
| 2019-08-05 | N/A | Intensive legal visits for Jeffrey Epstein. | MCC New York | View |
| 2019-08-02 | N/A | Legal visits for Jeffrey Epstein. | MCC New York | View |
051.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated September 4, 2020, signed by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The order lists numerous civil cases brought by victims (many under pseudonyms like Jane Doe, Katlyn Doe, Priscilla Doe) against Indyke (Epstein's estate executor) and other entities. The order acknowledges a stay in proceedings to allow plaintiffs to pursue settlements through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and mandates monthly status reports starting October 1, 2020.
020.pdf
This document is a Notice of Change of Address filed on March 9, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for Case No. 19-cv-10479-ALC (Juliette Bryant v. Indyke, et al.). Attorney Sabina Mariella notifies the court that she is changing firms from Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and will continue as counsel of record on the case.
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.
011.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated January 14, 2020 (misdated 2019 in signature), by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The order addresses thirteen separate civil cases brought by alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein against his estate and associates (Indyke et al.). The judge sets deadlines for proposed discovery schedules (Feb 6, 2020) and schedules a joint pretrial conference for February 11, 2020, to coordinate supervision despite the cases not being formally consolidated.
008.pdf
This document is an Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated December 26, 2019. In the case of Juliette Bryant v. Indyke, et al (Case 19-CV-10479), District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. refers the action to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman for general pretrial purposes, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive motions, and settlement.
EFTA00030305.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 24, 2020, originating from Aneisha Christie and forwarded by Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. The email serves as a formal service of a 'Notice of Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell' in the civil case '[Redacted] v. Indyke, et al.' The recipients include Laura Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca, presumably opposing counsel.
EFTA00029302.pdf
This document is an email dated October 15, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to a colleague regarding legal motions and docket citations. The email references '3500 folders' (likely Jencks Act material) and distinguishes between a plaintiff who sued under her real name and 'Victim-1' whose case is identified as 'Doe v. Indyke'. The document appears to be part of the preparations for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial or related civil litigation involving the Epstein estate executors.
EFTA00027883.pdf
An email dated December 12, 2019, from attorney Alex Conlon of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP to a redacted recipient, copying Roberta Kaplan. The email attaches a legal transcript from a conference held the previous day (December 11, 2019) in the case of 'Doe v. Indyke et al.' (Case 19-cv-8673), which Roberta Kaplan ('Robbie') had discussed in a call earlier that day.
EFTA00020090.pdf
This document is a 'Touhy Request' dated June 8, 2020, sent by attorney Robert S. Glassman to US Attorney Geoffrey Berman. It requests the production of evidence gathered during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein for use in a civil lawsuit (Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.). The request specifically seeks photographs, flight logs, videos, correspondence, and trust documents (specifically 'The 1953 Trust' dated August 8, 2019) related to a Jane Doe victim who met Epstein at a Michigan summer camp in 1994.
EFTA00020088.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 2020 regarding a 'Touhy Request' for evidence in the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.' in the SDNY. Attorney Robert Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP submits the request, and internal recipients (likely government officials given the nature of a Touhy request) discuss fulfilling it, noting it is similar to a request from 'Kaplan' and does not interfere with ongoing proceedings, with the exception of 'Item 8'.
EFTA00019467.pdf
An email dated June 8, 2020, from attorney Robert Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP regarding a 'Touhy Request' for tangible and documentary evidence in the case of Jane Doe v. Indyke et al. (SDNY Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF). The email serves as a cover letter for an attached PDF document, noting that a physical copy will also be sent via FedEx. The recipient's name and contact information are redacted.
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.
EFTA00016286.pdf
This document is an opposition letter filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe's counsel against Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to stay civil proceedings in the case Doe v. Indyke. The Plaintiff argues that Maxwell has been actively participating in the litigation from jail (filing answers, issuing discovery requests) despite claiming it is a burden, and that a stay is not required for Plaintiff to participate in the Epstein Claims Resolution Program. The letter asserts that the public interest is best served by allowing the civil case to proceed to expose the criminal enterprise of Epstein and Maxwell.
EFTA00014452.pdf
A letter from the U.S. DOJ (SDNY) to attorney Robert Glassman regarding a request for information in the case Jane Doe v. Indyke. The DOJ authorizes the release of FedEx invoices, electronic search warrant documents, and a photograph of Glassman's client found during a physical search of Jeffrey Epstein's residence, while declining to provide grand jury materials.
EFTA00014450.pdf
This document is an email chain from June to August 2020 between attorney Robert Glassman (Panish Shea & Boyle LLP) and a representative of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The correspondence concerns a 'Touhy Request' for evidence related to the case 'Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.' On August 4, 2020, the USANYS representative responded with attachments explicitly named as relating to information about Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00000770.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of victim Annie Farmer by her counsel Sigrid S. McCawley, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing supports redacting victims' personal information for privacy but strongly opposes redacting the names of co-conspirators and enablers, asserting that their identities should be public to ensure accountability and justice. It references other civil lawsuits against entities like JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank as part of a broader effort to hold third parties involved in the sex-trafficking scheme accountable.
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing that argues about the scope of plea agreements. It discusses whether a plea agreement made with a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district can prevent prosecutions in other districts, citing several legal precedents like United States v. Alessi and United States v. Russo. The document uses Leslie Groff, an assistant to Epstein, as an example and analyzes factors such as whether other USAOs or the Department of Justice were involved in the negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00021053.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00019433.jpg
This document is page 29 (labeled Page 34 of 58 in the header) of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the government is acting inconsistently by intervening to stay proceedings in the civil case 'Doe v. Indyke' to protect the criminal prosecution's integrity, while failing to do the same in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' regarding unsealing deposition materials. The text highlights that Jane Doe alleges abuse by both Epstein and Maxwell when she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00019396.jpg
Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 23, 2020, arguing against the unsealing of documents. Maxwell's defense contends that unsealing her deposition in a civil case (*Doe v. Indyke*) would prejudice her ability to litigate Fifth Amendment rights in her parallel criminal case before Judge Nathan. The document accuses the government of gamesmanship regarding the stay of proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00019641.jpg
This legal document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that unsealing materials from a past civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) would prejudice her current criminal trial. The author refutes this by contrasting her resolved 2017 civil case with another, active case (Doe v. Indyke), arguing the procedural differences justify the Government's different actions in each. The document concludes that unsealing documents in the Giuffre case poses no risk to the Government's criminal case as discovery is complete.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity