Key Names Linked to Epstein’s Transactions 1. Associates & Employees Paid by Epstein - Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein’s longtime associate; received millions for "consulting." - Sarah Kellen (now Sarah Kensington) – Alleged Epstein recruiter; payments labeled "salary." - Leslie Groff – Epstein’s former assistant; frequent transfers. - Eva Andersson-Dubin (former Miss Sweden and wife of billionaire Glenn Dubin) – Received payments labeled "consulting." - Jean-Luc Brunel (late French modeling scout accused of trafficking) – Funds for "modeling agency expenses."
2. Lawyers & Legal Teams - Alan Dershowitz – Harvard law professor; received payments for legal services (he claims they were for legitimate work). - Darren Indyke & Richard Kahn – Epstein’s longtime lawyers; managed shell companies.
3. Scientists & Academics - Marvin Minsky (late MIT AI pioneer) – Payments linked to Epstein’s science donations. - Stephen Kosslyn (Harvard psychologist) – Grants from Epstein-linked entities.
4. Russian & Eastern European Connections - Modeling Agencies – Suspect payments to MC2 Model Management and other firms. - Unnamed Russian/Ukrainian Women – Transfers to individuals with Slavic surnames (amounts matching alleged "recruitment fees").
5. Shell Companies & Entities - Southern Trust Company (Epstein’s Virgin Islands entity) – Moved millions to other accounts. - Financial Trust Co. – Another Epstein-controlled vehicle. - Nova Scotia LLC – Linked to property deals.
---
Where These Names Appeared 1. Deutsche Bank Settlement (2021) - The DOJ’s case before Judge Salas revealed some names in exhibits, though many were redacted. - Leaked internal bank documents (e.g., "Epstein’s Suspicious Activity Reports") later provided more details.
2. JPMorgan Chase Lawsuit (2023) - Unsealed records named Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and Epstein’s lawyers as recipients of funds. - Emails showed JPMorgan employees discussing Epstein’s "high-risk" status but keeping him as a client.
3. Paradise Papers & Other Leaks - Offshore records tied Epstein to entities in the Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and Delaware.
---
Controversies & Redactions - Many names remain hidden, citing privacy or ongoing investigations. - Alan Dershowitz and others have fought to keep records sealed. - Victim settlements often include confidentiality clauses, obscuring money trails.
---
What’s Still Unknown - "John Doe" Enablers: Banks allegedly processed payments for powerful figures (e.g., politicians, billionaires), but these names are shielded. - Harvard & MIT Ties: Epstein’s donations to scientists are still being scrutinized.
---
Key Sources - Deutsche Bank’s SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports) – Obtained by journalists. - JPMorgan’s Unsealed Lawsuit Documents – Available via the Southern District of New York court filings.
The names of perpetrators linked to Jeffrey Epstein—identified by victims, court documents, or investigative reports—include a mix of prominent figures, associates, and enablers. While some have been publicly accused in lawsuits or testimonies, others remain shielded by sealed records or settlements. Below is a non-exhaustive list based on available legal and media sources:
---
1. Named in Court Filings or Victim Testimonies Epstein’s Inner Circle - Ghislaine Maxwell - Convicted (2021) for sex trafficking minors; Epstein’s chief recruiter. - Victims identified her as directly involved in abuse.
- Jean-Luc Brunel (deceased) - French modeling agent; accused of trafficking girls to Epstein. - Found dead in Paris jail (2022) while awaiting trial.
- Rinaldo Rizzo - Epstein’s pilot; named in lawsuits for transporting victims.
- Leslie Groff - Epstein’s assistant; alleged to have scheduled "appointments" with victims.
High-Profile Figures Accused by Victims
- Prince Andrew (Duke of York) - Settled a lawsuit (2022) with Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of abuse. - Named in Epstein’s "black book" and flight logs.
- Alan Dershowitz - Accused by Virginia Giuffre; he denies it and claims exoneration. - Epstein paid him for legal work.
- Glenn Dubin (hedge fund billionaire) - Accused by Giuffre of abuse; denies allegations.
- Les Wexner (L Brands founder) - Epstein’s longtime financier; accused of turning a blind eye. No direct abuse claims.
- Bill Richardson (late former NM governor) - Named in Giuffre’s lawsuit; denied claims before his death.
- Marvin Minsky (late MIT scientist) - Accused in court docs of assaulting a minor; never charged.
---
2. Named in Unsealed Documents or Investigations - Leon Black (Apollo Global co-founder) - Paid Epstein $158M for "tax advice"; no abuse allegations but ties scrutinized.
- David Copperfield (magician) - Named in Giuffre’s deposition as a friend of Epstein; no abuse claims.
- Stephen Hawking (late physicist) - Listed in Epstein’s emails for travel to Virgin Islands; no abuse allegations.
- Adriana Ross - Epstein’s house manager; accused of facilitating abuse.
---
5. Sealed or Mysterious Names - "John Doe 1-10" - Repeatedly referenced in Giuffre’s lawsuit; identities protected. - "The Professor" - Unidentified man accused in victim testimonies.
---
Key Sources - Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit (Giuffre v. Maxwell). - Maxwell’s 2021 trial testimony. - Epstein’s flight logs (released in 2009). - Unsealed JPMorgan/Deutsche Bank records.
I've never seen the justification in the Constitution for a judge ceiling files and keeping them from the public. In fact if my recollection is correct the Constitution specifies a public trial specifically. Information is supposed to be seen by the public so the public is always aware of what's going on. Can somebody please point to the legal standing that gives the judge the right to seal any file from the public.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: SEALED RECORDS IN JEFFREY EPSTEIN-RELATED LITIGATION Case No. 1:20-cv-XXXX
MOTION TO UNSEAL RECORDS Pursuant to the First Amendment, Common Law Right of Access, FRCP 26(c), and Ethical Imperatives
---
I. INTRODUCTION Movant, The Miami Herald LLC, respectfully moves to unseal all records in the above-captioned matter, including but not limited to: - Depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew - Deutsche Bank Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and JPMorgan Chase transaction logs - Unredacted versions of the "Black Book" and flight logs
This Motion is grounded in: 1. Constitutional and common law presumptions of public access; 2. The overwhelming public interest in transparency regarding systemic elite abuse; 3. Ethical concerns over conflicts of interest and judicial impartiality; 4. Statutory obligations under the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act (2022).
---
II. LEGAL STANDARD A. First Amendment and Common Law Right of Access The First Amendment and common law guarantee public access to judicial records to ensure accountability and prevent corruption (Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)). Sealing requires: 1. A compelling governmental interest; 2. Narrow tailoring to serve that interest (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1984)).
B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Under FRCP 26(c), courts may seal records only for "good cause," which must outweigh the public’s right to know (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)).
C. Ethical Canons Judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety (Canon 2, Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges).
---
III. ARGUMENT A. Presumption of Access Overcomes Secrecy 1. First Amendment Precedent: - Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978): Recognized a common law right to inspect judicial records. - United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995): Sealing must be justified by "countervailing factors," such as national security or victim safety—neither of which apply broadly here.
2. Public Interest in Epstein’s Network: - Epstein’s crimes involved billionaires (Leon Black), politicians (Bill Clinton), and academics (Marvin Minsky). - Deutsche Bank admitted to processing $12+ million in suspicious transactions for Epstein, while JPMorgan paid $290 million to settle sex trafficking claims. - The public has a right to scrutinize financial ties to Apollo Global Management and MIT’s Media Lab donations.
B. Failure to Justify Continued Sealing 1. No Valid Privacy Interests: - Victim names: Can be redacted under Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), but substantive testimony (e.g., Virginia Giuffre’s depositions) must be released. - Elite associates: Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew have no privacy claim to public acts (Dershowitz’s payments for legal work; Andrew’s flight logs).
2. No Ongoing Investigations: - Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are deceased or convicted. The FBI closed its investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators in 2023.
C. Ethical Concerns and Conflicts of Interest 1. Judge Esther Salas’s Trauma: - After the murder of her son by a litigant, Judge Salas advocated for the Daniel Anderl Act to shield judges’ personal information. - While understandable, this advocacy risks unconscious bias toward sealing records broadly, violating Canon 2’s requirement to avoid impropriety.
2. Institutional Corruption Risks: - The DOJ’s non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007 and Deutsche Bank’s $26 million slap-on-the-wrist fine exemplify systemic leniency toward powerful actors. - Sealing records perpetuates impunity.
D. Statutory and Historical Imperatives 1. FOIA’s Spirit of Transparency: - While FOIA exemptions (5 U.S.C. § 552) don’t directly apply here, courts have cited its principles to unseal Epstein’s Grand Jury records (In re Epstein, 62 F.4th 681 (2d Cir. 2023)).
2. The Miami Herald’s Precedent: - This Court unsealed 2,000 pages of records in Giuffre v. Maxwell (2019) after media pressure, revealing Sarah Kellen’s role as a recruiter.
---
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED Movant respectfully requests: 1. Immediate unsealing of all non-redacted Epstein-related records; 2. In camera review to redact only truly sensitive details (e.g., victim SSNs); 3. Recusal of Judge Salas under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (appearance of bias); 4. A hearing within 14 days.
---
V. CONCLUSION The Epstein case is a watershed moment for judicial transparency. Sealing records to protect elites violates the Constitution, common law, and public trust. As the Miami Herald’s Pulitzer-winning reporting demonstrated, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit A: Giuffre v. Maxwell unsealed deposition excerpts (2019). 2. Exhibit B: DOJ’s deferred prosecution agreement with Deutsche Bank (2021). 3. Exhibit C: Judicial ethics complaints regarding Judge Salas’s public statements.
---
STRATEGIC NOTES - Media Coalition: Partner with The New York Times and Wall Street Journal to file joint motions. - Legislative Pressure: Cite the Daniel Anderl Act’s focus on judicial security, not public secrecy. - Public Campaign: Highlight redacted names like "John Doe 107" (allegedly a U.S. senator).
This motion balances legal rigor with public outrage, forcing courts to confront their role in enabling elite impunity.
[ + ] TheBigGuyFromQueens
[ - ] TheBigGuyFromQueens 0 points 2 hoursMay 12, 2025 06:18:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] the_old_ones
[ - ] the_old_ones 4 points 11 hoursMay 11, 2025 21:17:58 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 15 hoursMay 11, 2025 17:15:20 ago (+1/-0)
Clownworld.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 1 point 15 hoursMay 11, 2025 17:03:59 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] MeyerLansky
[ - ] MeyerLansky [op] 0 points 15 hoursMay 11, 2025 17:13:06 ago (+0/-0)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: SEALED RECORDS IN JEFFREY EPSTEIN-RELATED LITIGATION
Case No. 1:20-cv-XXXX
MOTION TO UNSEAL RECORDS
Pursuant to the First Amendment, Common Law Right of Access, FRCP 26(c), and Ethical Imperatives
---
I. INTRODUCTION
Movant, The Miami Herald LLC, respectfully moves to unseal all records in the above-captioned matter, including but not limited to:
- Depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew
- Deutsche Bank Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and JPMorgan Chase transaction logs
- Unredacted versions of the "Black Book" and flight logs
This Motion is grounded in:
1. Constitutional and common law presumptions of public access;
2. The overwhelming public interest in transparency regarding systemic elite abuse;
3. Ethical concerns over conflicts of interest and judicial impartiality;
4. Statutory obligations under the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act (2022).
---
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. First Amendment and Common Law Right of Access
The First Amendment and common law guarantee public access to judicial records to ensure accountability and prevent corruption (Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)). Sealing requires:
1. A compelling governmental interest;
2. Narrow tailoring to serve that interest (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1984)).
B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Under FRCP 26(c), courts may seal records only for "good cause," which must outweigh the public’s right to know (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)).
C. Ethical Canons
Judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety (Canon 2, Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges).
---
III. ARGUMENT
A. Presumption of Access Overcomes Secrecy
1. First Amendment Precedent:
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978): Recognized a common law right to inspect judicial records.
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995): Sealing must be justified by "countervailing factors," such as national security or victim safety—neither of which apply broadly here.
2. Public Interest in Epstein’s Network:
- Epstein’s crimes involved billionaires (Leon Black), politicians (Bill Clinton), and academics (Marvin Minsky).
- Deutsche Bank admitted to processing $12+ million in suspicious transactions for Epstein, while JPMorgan paid $290 million to settle sex trafficking claims.
- The public has a right to scrutinize financial ties to Apollo Global Management and MIT’s Media Lab donations.
B. Failure to Justify Continued Sealing
1. No Valid Privacy Interests:
- Victim names: Can be redacted under Doe v. Del Rio, 241 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), but substantive testimony (e.g., Virginia Giuffre’s depositions) must be released.
- Elite associates: Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew have no privacy claim to public acts (Dershowitz’s payments for legal work; Andrew’s flight logs).
2. No Ongoing Investigations:
- Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are deceased or convicted. The FBI closed its investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators in 2023.
C. Ethical Concerns and Conflicts of Interest
1. Judge Esther Salas’s Trauma:
- After the murder of her son by a litigant, Judge Salas advocated for the Daniel Anderl Act to shield judges’ personal information.
- While understandable, this advocacy risks unconscious bias toward sealing records broadly, violating Canon 2’s requirement to avoid impropriety.
2. Institutional Corruption Risks:
- The DOJ’s non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007 and Deutsche Bank’s $26 million slap-on-the-wrist fine exemplify systemic leniency toward powerful actors.
- Sealing records perpetuates impunity.
D. Statutory and Historical Imperatives
1. FOIA’s Spirit of Transparency:
- While FOIA exemptions (5 U.S.C. § 552) don’t directly apply here, courts have cited its principles to unseal Epstein’s Grand Jury records (In re Epstein, 62 F.4th 681 (2d Cir. 2023)).
2. The Miami Herald’s Precedent:
- This Court unsealed 2,000 pages of records in Giuffre v. Maxwell (2019) after media pressure, revealing Sarah Kellen’s role as a recruiter.
---
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Movant respectfully requests:
1. Immediate unsealing of all non-redacted Epstein-related records;
2. In camera review to redact only truly sensitive details (e.g., victim SSNs);
3. Recusal of Judge Salas under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (appearance of bias);
4. A hearing within 14 days.
---
V. CONCLUSION
The Epstein case is a watershed moment for judicial transparency. Sealing records to protect elites violates the Constitution, common law, and public trust. As the Miami Herald’s Pulitzer-winning reporting demonstrated, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
DATED: October 1, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Baker-White
Legal Director, The Miami Herald LLC
3511 NW 91st Avenue
Miami, FL 33172
[email protected]
(305) 376-1234
---
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit A: Giuffre v. Maxwell unsealed deposition excerpts (2019).
2. Exhibit B: DOJ’s deferred prosecution agreement with Deutsche Bank (2021).
3. Exhibit C: Judicial ethics complaints regarding Judge Salas’s public statements.
---
STRATEGIC NOTES
- Media Coalition: Partner with The New York Times and Wall Street Journal to file joint motions.
- Legislative Pressure: Cite the Daniel Anderl Act’s focus on judicial security, not public secrecy.
- Public Campaign: Highlight redacted names like "John Doe 107" (allegedly a U.S. senator).
This motion balances legal rigor with public outrage, forcing courts to confront their role in enabling elite impunity.