THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
Jeffrey Epstein may be dead, but his case is far from over.
The billionaire financier pedophile was well-connected to politicans, wealthy influentials, and other members of the elite, like modeling agent Jean Luc-Brunel who has mysteriously disappeared ever since an investigation into Epstein post-death was lauched to bring justice to his victims.
Let’s not forget that court documents unsealed just one day before Epstein was discovered hanging in his jail cell implicated numerous Democrat politicians, princes, and others.
Now, it’s to be decided if another round of declassification is to happen in the Epstein case.
And an anonymous “John Doe” is begging the judge not to let this happen, fearing that the release of his name will destroy his reputation, and perhaps his freedom!
The New York Post gave more information into the decision and why the unnamed man connected to Epstein doesn't want his name out there:
An anonymous man terrified he’s about to be named in court papers related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s alleged child sex trafficking ring is begging a judge not to release his name and identities of others accused — because it could tarnish their reputations, according to a surprise motion filed Tuesday.
Lawyers for the John Doe filed the letter Tuesday — just a day before Epstein’s self-proclaimed “sex slave” Virginia Roberts Giuffre is expected to join her lawyers in court as they continue efforts to unseal thousands of pages of documents related to her civil lawsuit against the dead pedophile’s alleged procuress.
“As a non-party to these proceedings, Doe lacks specific knowledge about the contents of the Sealed Materials,” his lawyers wrote to Manhattan federal court judge Loretta Preska. “But it is clear that these materials implicate the privacy and reputational interests of many persons other than the two primary parties to this action, Giuffre and Maxwell.”
The letter goes on to say a prior judge overseeing the case summarized the still-secret documents as containing a “range of allegations of sexual acts involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some famous, some not; the identities of non-parties who either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff or who allegedly facilitated such acts.”
Doe’s lawyers do not say in the papers if he is famous, or what accusations he expects to face in the court papers. His attorneys did not immediately return a message.
Bloomberg also stated:
The Jeffrey Epstein saga has a “John Doe” now.
An anonymous man on Tuesday urged a New York judge to permanently keep secret many of the remaining sealed documents in a defamation lawsuit filed by one of Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia Giuffre, against the late money manager’s confidante, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.
The man doesn’t explain why he believes his name may appear in the documents, or in what context, but he fears his reputation may be damaged by “unproven allegations of impropriety.”
Hundreds of pages of sealed documents in the 2015 case were already made public by an appeals court on Aug. 9, revealing for the first time unsubstantiated claims that Epstein had sent Giuffre to have sex with well-known people when she was a girl, including former U.S. Senator George Mitchell and asset manager Glenn Dubin. The men denied the allegations.
Now, two subsets of additional sealed documents are due to be analyzed by a judge who’ll decide if they should also be made public. Doe said he hadn’t been notified that his name appears in the sealed documents. A hearing on the matter is set for Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan.
“As a non-party to these proceedings, Doe lacks specific knowledge about the contents of the sealed materials,” his lawyers wrote. “But it is clear that these materials implicate the privacy and reputational interests of many persons other than the two primary parties to this action, Giuffre and Maxwell.”