Judge Rules Lawyers Must ‘Destroy’ Jeffrey Epstein Files

The following is an excerpt from an article in Newsweek.

Judge Rules Virginia Giuffre’s Lawyers Must ‘Destroy’ Jeffrey Epstein Files

Attorneys for Virginia Giuffre, who publicly accused Jeffrey Epstein of sex trafficking, must destroy files they obtained on Epstein after a Wednesday ruling by a federal judge.

Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking. Allegedly, Epstein procured women to have sexual relations with high-profile individuals, such as Prince Andrew. Information about Epstein, culled from a 2015 civil suit filed against Epstein by Giuffre, allegedly contained the names of individuals with whom Epstein had conducted business.

Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled Wednesday that Giuffre’s lawyers had come into possession of the documents improperly, noting that the protective order could only be enforced during the civil lawsuit proceedings which had already been settled. Preska wrote that all the materials in the files “shall be destroyed.” (Continued…)

Read more by clicking the link below:


Order “Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism” by Sharyl Attkisson today at Harper Collins, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books a Million, IndieBound, Bookshop!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 thoughts on “Judge Rules Lawyers Must ‘Destroy’ Jeffrey Epstein Files”

  1. Stephen Triesch

    I’m no lawyer, but this seems like a very strange order considering that one of Epstein’s top associates has just been arrested, and the Epstein material may very well have a bearing on her case or on future prosecutions of other Epstein friends and associates. I can understand the judge enforcing a temporary gag order on speaking about – or releasing – the material, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a judge demanding that evidence be DESTROYED.

    1. what do you want to bet somebody paying her off? Seems to be the rule for our
      so-called “leaders” in this country now.

  2. Giuffre is traveling the world with Epstein and her parents are no place to be seen, Was she an ’emancipated minor’, did she look 18 years old?
    What was the age of consent at the time this incident is alleged to have happened?
    Had her parents reported her as a runaway or did they suspect she had been kidnapped?

    Just so there is no misunderstanding, I really do not care about Giuffre or her allegations against Prince Andrew. He is not our problem.
    There are actual victims of sexual abuse and human trafficking out there. Look into “Pizzagate”. If it is a rumor or smear, tell us, show us. From what I understand, many of the same people are involved.

    How about something really important, like the coup against President Trump. That threatens the existence of the United States. Once again, I believe there are many of the same perpetrators involved.

  3. Good, responsible non-partizan reporting should follow the story to unearth why this judge made such a ruling. The public should know who he is, how he came to have his position as a judge, what he has written, who supported him and what his politics are – if they can be defined. It is evident that a full-court-press has been undertaken to cover up vital information pertaining to who the participants in the ruin of young girls are in fact.

    1. Thank You, Ron. Tons of Questions about this. Thank you;, Sharyl Attkisson for being driven by a Quest for Truth. Keep It Up Please.

  4. Newsweek? Not used to seeing cutting edge legal news in that sort of publication. Curious.

    They didn’t mention who appointed the judge.

  5. Some Random Paralegal

    The Newsweek article was poorly reported. (Shocking.) I found a slightly better one at lawandcrime.com that explains the documents at issue are covered under a protective order from an old defamation suit between Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell. While I haven’t seen the protective order in question, it’s a very common type of order that usually contains a requirement that all confidential documents produced in discovery be destroyed within some period of time after conclusion of the case – usually 30-90 days. Dershowitz somehow knew or guessed Giuffre’s attorneys hadn’t destroyed some of the documents Maxwell had produced, and in asking the court for access to them, alerted the judge that the protective order had not been complied with. In light of this, it’s not surprising that she would order the documents destroyed. It just means Dershowitz will have to get them some other, less convenient way.

Scroll to Top