What is the issue? Virginia Giuffre asked to release documents that named names in her civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxill, which resulted in a long and ongoing open-records battle.
After six days of deliberations, the Manhattan jury that was part of Maxwell’s trial convicted her of five of six charges. Federal charges against Maxwell included conspiracy, violations the Mann Act and sex trading a minor. These were related to Jeffrey Epstein’s “Pyramid Scheme” of sexual abuse of minors.
The redactions could reveal hidden information that could cause ripples in the courthouse and elsewhere around the globe.
Giuffre, one among Epstein’s many victims, filed a federal suit in New York last August accusing Prince Andrew, Britain, of sexually abusing Giuffre on multiple occasions. This was when Giuffre was just 17 years old. Her lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz and his countersuit against Giuffre are also being fought in the Southern District.
Giuffre asked the judge to unseal the names and addresses of the John Does, which are currently kept secret by the judge. This was partly due to their concerns about how disruptive the media attention could be to their lives.
“Upon reviewing the objections of these Does, it is evident that their objections basically mirror objections to unsealing which this Court has already rejected,” Giuffre’s lawyer wrote. This was cited by the producer and host of the Prince and the Pervert podcast, which chronicles the events in this case.
Maxwell previously opposed the unsealing the legal names of John Does as revealed in still-sealed court records. However, Maxwell’s lawyer sent her a January 12th letter noting that Maxwell “doesn’t wish to further address” specific objections raised by Non-Party Does 17, 53 and 54, 55, 73.93.93. And 151. The full letter can be viewed below.
Maxwell may not be interested in keeping names secret, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t be revealed. This decision will be made by Judge Loretta Preska who is currently presiding over this case. It does indicate that Mawell, now a convicted felon is not concerned about protecting the names.
Or, Law and Crime’s Adam Klasfeld succinctly tweets:
Below is a letter from Maxwell’s attorney
