Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has served legal papers to an alternative media website in order to stop them from publishing details surrounding a case involving sex trafficking.
In January, Mike Cernovich of Cernovich Media filed a motion to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell – a case involving a sex trafficking victim and an accused sex trafficker.
A woman who claimed that New York financier Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her for sex when she was a teenager may pursue a lawsuit accusing British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell of defamation for calling her allegations lies, a U.S. judge ruled.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
In a decision on Monday night, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet in Manhattan denied Maxwell’s request to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit.
Ghislaine Maxwell filed a 70-page motion for summary judgment with the court under seal. As the civil lawsuit is a public proceeding, the case should never have been sealed.
Cernovich Media retained leading first amendment attorney Marco Randazza to represent the interests of the public and the many readers and listeners of Cernovich Media.
The courts belong to the people, not the parties. The First Amendment demands that court proceedings be open to the public. How can a free press do its job in keeping a watchful eye over the workings of government if those workings are sealed?
In a desperate attempt to keep the public from learning about the wrongdoings by high level government officials in relation to pedophilia and trafficking, Epstein has filed a motion to “quash” Cernovich’s lawsuit.
In a plot twist fitting of a Kafka novella, the entire motion is redacted.
I can’t tell you what this motion claims, nor can I defend myself in court against these secret charges.
My due process rights are being violated, as it’s impossible for me to respond to this motion, as I don’t know what’s it in and cannot read what accusations pedophile Epstein has made. Here is another excerpt.
As my free speech lawyer Marc Randazza said:
There is a First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings. We don’t have secret trials. You use the people’s courts, you do it in public. This entire case seems infected with an air of secrecy that is constitutionally unconscionable. When you look at this document, and Ms. Giuffre’s filings, where not even a single word is open to the public? Even documents from the CIA that have national security implications are less redacted than this. The people have a right to know how their courts are being used.
How can the judge allow this?
What is Jeffrey Epstein hiding?
Why is he afraid of me?