Relationship Details

This document is an email containing the full text of a New York Times article from January 15, 2020. The article details a lawsuit filed by US Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The suit alleges Epstein trafficked girls as young as 11 on his private islands until 2018, using a computerized database to track victims and a 'ring of associates' to manage logistics. It also mentions illegal construction, a specific escape attempt by a 15-year-old girl, and the refusal to cooperate with investigators shortly before his death.

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.

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.

This document is a legal Opinion & Order from the Southern District of New York in the case of Mary Doe v. the Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's Estate. The court granted the executors' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's request for punitive damages. The judge ruled that New York law applies to the case because the torts occurred in New York, and under New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)), punitive damages cannot be awarded against the personal representatives of an estate.

Court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on April 30, 2020, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss Jane Doe 15's claim for punitive damages against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff alleged she was groomed by Epstein's secretary in New York and sexually abused by Epstein at his New Mexico ranch in 2004 at age 15. The court ruled that under both New York and New Mexico law, punitive damages cannot be recovered from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor.

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.

Defense counsel Bennet Moskowitz submits a letter to the Court in the 'Jane Doe 1000' case, attaching a recent Order from Judge Paul Engelmayer in the 'Jane Doe 15' case. The attached Order dismisses Jane Doe 15's claim for punitive damages against the Epstein Estate, ruling that under both New York and New Mexico law, punitive damages cannot be recovered from a deceased tortfeasor's estate. The Order details allegations that Jane Doe 15 was groomed by Epstein's secretary in New York and subsequently abused by Epstein at his New Mexico ranch in 2004.

This document is a legal motion filed on November 8, 2019, in the Southern District of New York, requesting that Plaintiff 'Jane Doe 17' be allowed to proceed anonymously in her lawsuit against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and associated entities. The motion argues that the sensitive nature of the sexual assault allegations, the risk of retaliation due to Epstein's wealth and connections, and the lack of public interest in her specific identity outweigh the presumption of open proceedings. Attached as Exhibit A is a September 11, 2019 Order from Judge P. Kevin Castel in a similar case (Katlyn Doe v. Indyke), which granted anonymity under nearly identical circumstances.

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.

This document is a legal memorandum filed by the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate moving to dismiss a complaint by Teresa Helm. The defendants argue that Helm's claims of battery and emotional distress, stemming from an alleged 2002 sexual assault in New York when she was 22, are time-barred by the statute of limitations which expired in 2005. They further argue that statutory exceptions for criminal proceedings do not apply because Epstein's indictment involved trafficking minors, whereas Helm was an adult, and that punitive damages are legally barred against an estate.

This document is a court filing dated April 28, 2020, submitted by attorneys for the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Paul Gardephe in the Teresa Helm case. It encloses a newly issued Opinion & Order by Judge Paul Engelmayer in a separate case (Mary Doe v. Indyke et al.), which grants the Estate's motion to dismiss claims for punitive damages. The court ruled that under New York law (EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)) and likely US Virgin Islands common law, punitive damages cannot be recovered from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor because they serve a penal rather than remedial purpose.

This document is a civil complaint filed on March 12, 2020, by Ghislaine Maxwell against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and its executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, as well as NES, LLC. Maxwell seeks indemnification for legal fees, security costs, and safe accommodation expenses she has incurred due to her prior employment with Epstein. The complaint alleges that Epstein repeatedly promised, both verbally and in writing (specifically in a 2004 letter), to support Maxwell financially and indemnify her, a practice he reportedly maintained during previous lawsuits in 2009 and 2017.