Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» Sacha Stone with Anna von Reitz and others
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 1:42 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Dr. Steven (struggling to stay relevant) Greer - Makes Contact in Charlotte
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:27 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Carrying Stones & Digging Holes August 9, 2020~Who R U: Law
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:24 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Heated Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:23 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» US appeals court denies bid to resurrect Bundy standoff case
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:22 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Supermarket Shock: Crisis In America's Food Supply | Sneak Peek | CNBC Prime
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:21 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» New Banking Block Chain USA Federal Reserve Announcement
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:19 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» The REAL LOCAL Residents of SLAB CITY Tour- (Documentary)
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:17 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Creepy TikTok Videos You Might Not Wanna Watch At Night
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:16 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» IDENTIFIED: Mystery Seeds from China
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 12:00 pm by PurpleSkyz

» #QTard Drama Theater - Did THEY Attack The White House Today? plus MORE
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 11:41 am by PurpleSkyz

» Chilling Details Emerge About White House Shooting After Gunman Is Taken Down
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 11:27 am by PurpleSkyz

» BBC News London Surrey Wildfires 10 August 2020
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 11:18 am by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ Long Interstellar Spacecraft Spotted Flying Behind Sun in Solar System - "Real McCoy" plus MORE
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 11:16 am by PurpleSkyz

» Australian Professor: Ivermectin ‘Amazingly Successful’ in Killing Coronavirus
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 10:59 am by PurpleSkyz

» Police State Australia
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 10:50 am by PurpleSkyz

» Mainstream Media and Science Exposes COVID-19 as a Hoax
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 10:49 am by PurpleSkyz

» Dave Schmidt - Meta 1 Coin - Sgt Shultz 2020!
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyToday at 1:43 am by RamblerNash

Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyYesterday at 6:49 pm by LadyDragon

» United States Electoral College
Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence EmptyYesterday at 12:41 pm by PurpleSkyz





You are not connected. Please login or register

OUT OF MIND » OUT OF MIND » #EPSTEINDIDN'TKILLHIMSELF » Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence

Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence

 j   July 6, 2020 
Published: July 5, 2020

Source: Eric Zuesse
US District Court Judge Loretta Preska , who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush, and whom his son had considered promoting to the Supreme Court, ruled in a case on July 1st, ordering the attorneys for one of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia (Roberts) Guiffre, to “destroy” a list of men who had taken advantage of Epstein’s “girls.”
This action pertains to a case not only against Epstein, who is dead, but against his friend and colleague Ghislaine Maxwell, who happened to become arrested by the FBI in Bedford New Hampshire the very next day, on July 2nd .
Judge Preska said  that Giuffre’s attorneys:
Cooper & Kirk shall destroy (a) all materials from Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, currently in its possession, save for the transcript of Ms. Giuffre’s deposition in that case and (b) all work product derived from the Maxwell materials. Cooper & Kirk shall submit to the Court an affidavit detailing the steps that it took to destroy the materials.”
Her order to the attorneys stated that Giuffre :
alleged that Ms. Maxwell was a ringleader in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking scheme, a trusted lieutenant of Epstein’s who facilitated his purported trafficking of underage girls to prominent individuals. Ms. Giuffre’s defamation action against Mr. Dershowitz alleges that Mr. Dershowitz was one of the prominent individuals who took advantage of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell’s trafficking scheme and that Ms. Giuffre was forced to have intercourse with Mr. Dershowitz when she was underage. Ms. Giuffre alleges that Mr. Dershowitz’s false denial of such contact defamed her.”
Preska’s order does not say that the names of the men on that list are to be kept confidential and not available to the press, but instead that Giuffre’s attorneys are to “destroy” it.
As Colin Kalmbacher reported, at Law and Crime on July 1st, under the headline “Judge Orders Virginia Giuffre’s Lawyers to ‘Destroy’ Their Jeffrey Epstein Files, Bars Dershowitz from Accessing Them” :
At issue here are two separate legal controversies:
(1) a protective order issued in 2015 by Judge Robert W. Sweet in a since-settled defamation case between Giuffre and Epstein’s alleged groomer and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell;
and (2) a more recent series of extant defamation, back-and-forth claims between Giuffre and Dershowitz.
The Giuffre v. Maxwell protective order is the major legal lock-and-key which has long-protected the Epstein files. A process is currently underway for both sides to sift through those documents and eventually make many of them available for public consumption.
Although other copies of that list might exist (which are not likewise being ordered by Preska to be destroyed, but could possibly be brought forth as evidence in other trials), Judge Preska’s order prohibits Dershowitz’s use of Giuffre’s copy of that physical list, as being evidence in this trial, which isn’t between Giuffre and Maxwell, but instead between Giuffre and Dershowitz — who claims to be not on that list and to need that list in order for him to prove his personal defamation case against Giuffre, who says that he is on the list.
The Court’s ruling said :
the Maxwell Protective Order prohibits information designated as CONFIDENTIAL from being “disclosed or used for any purpose except for the preparation and trial of [the Maxwell] case.”
The alleged reason  that the ruling provides to “destroy” the list is that
Critically, the agreed-upon unsealing procedure can only work as intended if non-parties are willing to participate. Handing over to Mr. Dershowitz all of the materials from Maxwell, which would necessarily include all of the sealed filings that are the subject of the unsealing protocol, would threaten that balance. Non-parties [to the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case] may question the legitimacy of that process if Mr. Dershowitz can obtain, without any regard whatsoever for their interests, the sealed materials for the mere reason that disclosure would make mounting his defense and litigating his counterclaims against Ms. Giuffre more convenient [in other words: to assist Dershowitz’s case against Giuffre].The Court will not risk collateral damage to the Maxwell unsealing process by modifying the protective order.”
The “balance” that’s referred-to there is allegedly the right of both the accuser Giuffre and the accused Maxwell to have their privacy protected. Dershowitz says he wants this list in order to prove that his name isn’t on the list. The Court’s “Protective Order” had been issued in 2016 in the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case, so as to:
protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information that will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in [Maxwell].” (Id.) The order accordingly permits the parties to designate as CONFIDENTIAL certain materials produced in discovery that “are confidential” and that implicate “common law and statutory privacy interests” of Ms. Giuffre and Maxwell Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”).
Preska’s ruling includes a footnote in which she says :
Bubbling underneath the debate about modification of the Maxwell Protective Order is a more practical concern: the temptation that the Maxwell materials might inspire for a litigant in Mr. Dershowitz’s position. As a general matter, Mr. Dershowitz’s battle with Ms. Giuffre has proceeded in very public — and frequently toxic — fashion. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz Twitter Posts from June 22, 2020, available at https://twitter.com/AlanDersh  (suggesting that Ms. Giuffre should be “prosecuted and sent to prison” for perjury). More importantly, and perhaps reflecting Mr. Derhsowitz’s desire to defend himself in the public eye, Counsel for Mr. Dershowitz noted at oral argument that “Professor Dershowitz obviously wants all information [contained in the Maxwell materials] to be out there, to be public … because he believes it exonerates him.” (Transcript at 21:21-24.)
That lengthy footnote concludes :
Thus, given the public character of this litigation [between Dershowitz and Giuffre] and what is at stake for the litigants, production of the Maxwell materials to Mr. Dershowitz would raise additional risk of leakage from the materials at issue in the Maxwell[-v.-Giuffre] unsealing process into filings in the Dershowitz action. This would further undermine the unsealing process in Maxwell.”
Perhaps any men who had raped any of those girls will be long in their graves and well-established in the history-books before their having been on Ghislaine Maxwell’s lists will become publicly known. If that turns out to be the outcome, then the girls and the public will be “screwed” yet again, and Judge Preska’s order exhibits no concern about that.
A judge is supposed to represent the public’s interests, even in private disputes. But perhaps private interests take precedence in America’s courts. The public’s interests are not even mentioned in the judge’s ruling. Though the word “public” is stated there six times, it never concerns the public’s interests, but only private ones, such as “given the public character of this litigation and what is at stake for the litigants” .
What about the public? They’re mentioned only as being voyeurs. Is this American ‘democracy’ ?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Share This Article…

via Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Epstein Evidence


Thanks to: https://jonsnewplace.wordpress.com


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum