Federal judge orders documents naming Jeffrey Epstein's associates to be unsealed
Federal judge orders documents naming Jeffrey Epstein's associates to be unsealed
A federal judge in New York has ordered a vast unsealing of court documents in early 2024 that will make public the names of scores of Jeffrey Epstein's associates.
"Sorry the cameras malfunctioned and 4 of the guards destroyed the documents then committed suicide. Nothing is to be done here."
Something something Panama Papers...
I bet that Venn diagram is a circle.
The Panama Papers weren't swept under a rug, you just didn't follow news on them.
Also Epstein 100% killed himself, and unsealing this info won't tell you anything meaningful, because predators who hide among the rich don't fucking tell every person they meet that they're a predator.
Conspiracy theories are never a good look on anyone.
Why this list was ever sealed to begin with is beyond me.
Because powerful people were his associates. I'm surprised it is being unsealed.
I bet there is some catch. The only thing unsealed will be boring stuff. Oh it turns out a company Bill Clinton owned stock in, back in 1991, did some construction work for a property Epstein owned. It isn't going to be stuff like "here is a video of Justice Thomas raping a kid".
Most of the names will be innocent people and victims. All of them will be sent death threats and harassed because people will consider them pedophiles. People can't understand two things at once (Epstein was a socialite and a child trafficker) and they don't know what being an associate of Epstein implies. There's good reasons to keep the list private from the masses.
Not sure how true this is given:
Anyone who did not successfully fight to keep their name out of the civil case could see their name become public -- including Epstein's victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.
I imagine anyone who was innocent and an associate had the money to hire the right lawyers to remove themselves.
I also imagine those who should be on it, also won't be.
6th amendment of the US Constitution cuts both ways. People have the right to observe what the government is doing in criminal cases. If the US government is refusing to let the public know what is going on during these procedures the possibility of corruption goes from low to almost certain.
The judge stated some names will be redacted as they were victims. I also doubt someone would interact with Epstein several times and not know. He wasn't even trying to hide it.
To protect the privacy of the rich?
Probably more because it'll tip the ones who actually have cases open on them off.
That's like 90% of what's in still classified docs from controversial moments in domestic investigations, information which could show the hand to people currently under investigation, and also techniques the FBI uses in evidence gathering which aren't known to the wider public and who's exposure could lead to suspects catching wise and closing the avenue.
If you've ever seen one of those get smart posts about how to avoid being identified at a demonstration, Domestic Intelligence is openly trying to avoid more shit being added to those lists of ways to avoid detection. Yes it's absolutely adversarial to the privacy of the public but it's a lot less conspiratorial than a blood libel agenda to cover up the child trafficking of the rich.
Probably because being on a list of names is not proof of any wrongdoing or crime but will most definitely be interpreted as such by people on the internet.
deleted by creator
Until another judge says it will stay sealed.
Why would a judge say that? Like are they defending the corrupt ? Genuinely curious
Anyone who did not successfully fight to keep their name out of the civil case could see their name become public -- including Epstein's victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.
Well, this tells us that we probably won't see any notable people in the release then...
"Anyone not powerful, rich or politically-connected enough to scrub their names from the record will be shown."
This is 100% going to fuck all of the victims and none of the perpetrators.
They'll unseal them but all envelopes contain only an "I Owe You" from Trump, and under his signature he wrote in small font "I declassified them after I took them home"
You know Dems were in that book, too, right?
Uh-oh, we bout to have a dead judge!
It's sad that every post the top level comments are these low effort posts. I was really hoping posters like you would just stay with reddit.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution in furthering this conversation, and your exemplary interpersonal skills.
It's exactly the kind of cynical doomerism I was looking to get away from
Hope that judge has real good security.
The judge was shot 400 times, a likely suicide.
Please. He fell onto those bullets at the bottom of an ellevator shaft!
I hope that judge is well protected and this isn't an edited list of people.
Noam Chomsky once said that his dealings and business with Epstein were none of our business and we should fuck off. I hope we get to find out more about his and other rich people's dealings with Epstein
January 1 - This is just the emotionally charged distraction. Keep watchful for the event that needs to go under the radar. A change in laws or policy, a new war, or anything that is meant to erode people's privacy, security or freedom. The US has a history of implementing undesirable changes during holiday periods when there's little opposition. Possibly something like this;
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-they-must-defeat-hpsci-s-horrific-surveillance-bill
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is set to expire on December 31, 2023
There goes the entire Republican Party
The goes the government
It will be real interesting to see who files a motion objecting to the unsealing and appeals it to a higher court.
PLEASE
they'll shriek
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE VICTIMS
"What sealed documents?"
At this point it's a single box with 3 labeled but empty manilla folders, a stack of completely random useless papers, and a spiral bound "2009 workplace ethics" manual.
Are "associates" and "customers" considered synonyms in legalese? If not, this list may not be as juicy as people think.
Customers pay, associates are given comps
what the fuck is an associate
noun /əˈsōsēət,əˈsōSHēət/ 1. a partner or colleague in business or at work.
oh
One who associates...
Lol now that they had enough time to tamper with them, time to "unseal" them
It’s Deja vu all over again
A bit of common sense finally?
Unsealed BUT with copious amounts of black marker used on the list to cover up names.
What a dumb move. All the names? The judge must know that people will not be smart enough to realize being on the list doesn't mean you're guilty of any crime. And it's going to include victims? And people who might have just been included in an email?
I'm all for going after any criminals, but the problem with the outcome of this is that people are stupid and will think that inclusion on the list is the same as guilt. If we are also talking about people who fought successfully to have their names protected, it's the rich people with means who won't end up being made public.
If people were generally rational, this would be a good thing. But we're not, and it seems that all sense is thrown out the window when it comes to Epstein.
This isn't the "flew on his jet a few times" sort of associates, they were named in Giuffre's court case.
The documents are part of a settled civil lawsuit alleging Epstein's one-time paramour Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated the sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre. Terms of the 2017 settlement were not disclosed.
Low effort version of this post:
Nice try, Andrew.
You read part of the article, found something you think confirms your point (it does not) and then just stopped reading and thinking. Your issue is that you're trying to be right, rather than trying to figure out what is right.
Also from the article:
Some of the names may simply have been included in depositions, email or legal documents.
And very explicitly
including Epstein's victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.
And also
The documents may not make clear why a certain individual became associated with Giuffre's lawsuit,
As I said, people aren't rational especially when it comes to Epstein. I appreciate you coming to me and demonstrating this for everyone.
I use to say "all extremes call for their opposite". Since almost no information ever transpires about this whole scandal, the opposite is to release all the names to the public. It was to be expected. If we were trusting the justice system, this would seem inappropriate. But we have what we have, and making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the "bad" guy can escape public's attention. That of course, is valid only if the list is comprehensive and some names have not already been taken out.
It is indeed unfortunate that a lot of people who didn't deserve and didn't want any bad attention will get some.
I'm not saying I agree with the move. I'm saying it was to be expected.
[Edit made: grammar & missing words]
making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the “bad” guy can escape public’s attention.
Problem is that we don't know if this is the case. It was noted in the article that some people were able to get their names retracted already and that she is leaving time for other people to plead their case. We all know, and this part of the reason for lack of trust in the legal system, that it favors the rich...so for all I know it's rich likely guilty people who were able to pay for a lawyer to argue to get themselves removed, while some poor regular joe got caught up in an email for God knows what innocent reason, who is going to get harassed by the mindless mob.
Expected? Maybe. A bad move, almost certainly. People want blood when it comes to Epstein and when that happens rationality takes a back seat.
Saying "people are stupid so we shouldn't have information" is so anti-humanist. Mob mentality. We have courts, why does public opinion matter? Its actually up to these important people to protect their image if its worth so much - but they don't, they're living their lives. Often with even less moral consideration than a regular guy.
And your call to wealth being a shield from danger? Bill gates seems to have lost his marriage over his involvement with Epstein. And that Prince guy in Britain, the rest of the royal family talks shit about him.
Somehow, as of lately, when people start to talk about rationality it is mostly about some bizarre stuff like bombing datacenters or living in a country that leads an aggressive war because you earn more.
Maybe it's just a survivor bias and everyone is about bizarre stuff in these times, though