{"id":209874,"date":"2020-07-06T06:10:41","date_gmt":"2020-07-06T06:10:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=209874"},"modified":"2020-07-09T05:57:19","modified_gmt":"2020-07-09T05:57:19","slug":"judge-orders-destruction-of-epstein-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=209874","title":{"rendered":"Judge Orders \u2018Destruction\u2019 of Epstein Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse — via Off-Guardian July 5, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Trump with Mossad agent and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in the 1990’s. Many politicians are blackmailed to ensure obdience. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n

US District Court Judge Loretta Preska<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, 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\u2019s alleged victims, Virginia (Roberts) Guiffre, to \u201cdestroy\u201d a list of men who had taken advantage of Epstein\u2019s \u201cgirls.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judge Preska said<\/strong><\/span><\/a> that Giuffre\u2019s attorneys:<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Her order to the attorneys stated that Giuffre<\/strong><\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

alleged that Ms. Maxwell was a ringleader in Jeffrey Epstein\u2019s sex-trafficking scheme, a trusted lieutenant of Epstein\u2019s who facilitated his purported trafficking of underage girls to prominent individuals. Ms. Giuffre\u2019s defamation action against Mr. Dershowitz alleges that Mr. Dershowitz was one of the prominent individuals who took advantage of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell\u2019s trafficking scheme and that Ms. Giuffre was forced to have intercourse with Mr. Dershowitz when she was underage. Ms. Giuffre alleges that Mr. Dershowitz\u2019s false denial of such contact defamed her.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Preska\u2019s 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\u2019s attorneys are to \u201cdestroy\u201d it.<\/span><\/p>\n

As Colin Kalmbacher reported, at Law and Crime on July 1st, under the headline \u201cJudge Orders Virginia Giuffre\u2019s Lawyers to \u2018Destroy\u2019 Their Jeffrey Epstein Files, Bars Dershowitz from Accessing Them<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a><\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

At issue here are two separate legal controversies:<\/span><\/p>\n

(1) a protective order issued in 2015 by Judge Robert W. Sweet in a since-settled defamation case between Giuffre and Epstein\u2019s alleged groomer and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell;<\/span><\/p>\n

and (2) a more recent series of extant defamation, back-and-forth claims between Giuffre and Dershowitz.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s order prohibits Dershowitz\u2019s use of Giuffre\u2019s copy of that physical list, as being evidence in this trial, which isn\u2019t between Giuffre and Maxwell, but instead between Giuffre and Dershowitz \u2014 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s ruling said<\/a><\/strong><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

the Maxwell Protective Order prohibits information designated as CONFIDENTIAL from being \u201cdisclosed or used for any purpose except for the preparation and trial of [the Maxwell] case.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The alleged reason<\/strong><\/span><\/a> that the ruling provides to \u201cdestroy\u201d the list is that<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s case against Giuffre].The Court will not risk collateral damage to the Maxwell unsealing process by modifying the protective order.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cbalance\u201d that\u2019s 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\u2019t on the list. The Court\u2019s \u201cProtective Order\u201d had been issued in 2016 in the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case, so as to:<\/span><\/p>\n

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].\u201d (Id.) The order accordingly permits the parties to designate as CONFIDENTIAL certain materials produced in discovery that \u201care confidential\u201d and that implicate \u201ccommon law and statutory privacy interests\u201d of Ms. Giuffre and Maxwell Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (\u201cMs. Maxwell\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n

Preska\u2019s ruling includes a footnote in which she says<\/a><\/strong><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s position. As a general matter, Mr. Dershowitz\u2019s battle with Ms. Giuffre has proceeded in very public \u2014 and frequently toxic \u2014 fashion. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz Twitter Posts from June 22, 2020, available at https:\/\/twitter.com\/AlanDersh<\/span><\/a> (suggesting that Ms. Giuffre should be \u201cprosecuted and sent to prison\u201d for perjury). More importantly, and perhaps reflecting Mr. Derhsowitz\u2019s desire to defend himself in the public eye, Counsel for Mr. Dershowitz noted at oral argument that \u201cProfessor Dershowitz obviously wants all information [contained in the Maxwell materials] to be out there, to be public \u2026 because he believes it exonerates him.\u201d (Transcript at 21:21-24.)<\/span><\/p>\n

That lengthy footnote concludes<\/a><\/strong><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s lists will become publicly known. If that turns out to be the outcome, then the girls and the public will be \u201cscrewed\u201d yet again, and Judge Preska\u2019s order exhibits no concern about that.<\/span><\/p>\n

A judge is supposed to represent the public\u2019s interests, even in private disputes. But perhaps private interests take precedence in America\u2019s courts. The public\u2019s interests are not even mentioned in the judge\u2019s ruling. Though the word \u201cpublic\u201d is stated there six times, it never concerns the public\u2019s interests, but only private ones, such as \u201cgiven the public character of this litigation and what is at stake for the litigants<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

What about the public? They\u2019re mentioned only as being voyeurs. Is this American \u2018democracy<\/strong><\/span>\u2019<\/a>?<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/span><\/a>, and of CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media<\/h4>\n

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paypal<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Patreon<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Judge Loretta Preska has a pedigree. President GH Bush originally appointed her while President GW Bush considered promoting her to the Supreme Court. Was she protecting either of them or their associates with this ruling?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[41,93],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Inside_the_White_House_and_Washingtons_Beltway","category-historic-sexual-abuse"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209874","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=209874"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209874\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":209901,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209874\/revisions\/209901"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=209874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=209874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=209874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}