UPDATE: A third John Doe has sought to keep the Epstein records sealed. Read his legal motion here.
After the Second Circuit Court Court of Appeals, in a lawsuit involving investigative Julie Brown of the Miami Herald and others, signaled it was prepared to order an entire vault of records unsealed, the mystery man made the unusual move of filing what’s known as an amicus curiae brief anonymously. Latin for “friend of the court,” an amicus curiae brief is only supposed to be filed when the brief will help the Court reach a proper conclusion of law.
Seeking to bypass ordinary judicial procedure with high-powered lawyers, the mystery man filed a brief that would only benefit himself, and called it an amicus brief.
The Miami Herald’s lawyers properly called out this outrageous move, which would get an ordinary lawyer sanctioned for abuse of the judicial process:
- “As a preliminary matter, John Doe’s proposed amicus brief is an improper vehicle by which to submit his arguments. See United States v. Gotti, noting that the phrase amicus curiae means, literally, ‘friend of the court,’ and ‘serv[es] for the benefit of the court and for the purpose of assisting the court in cases of general public interest’….”
- “John Doe is admittedly self-interested in seeking closure.”
What do we know about the mystery man?
He (almost certainly) partied with Jeff Epstein.
The mystery man didn’t retain ordinary lawyers. He hired the former Special Counsel to Robert Mueller and James Comey.
At the 11th hour, a John Doe filed an amicus brief asking the court to keep the records in the Epstein case sealed.
Ask any lawyer – this filing is unusual and inappropriate.
It gets more interesting….
The lawyer who filed the brief?
He worked for Mueller and Comey.
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) March 20, 2019
Lawyers of this pedigree charge $1,000 an hour, and I would estimate that the single brief cost between $75,000 and $125,000 to write.
We know that the man partied with Epstein because he practically admits as much in the brief.
- “The release of unredacted Summary Judgment Materials will thus substantially infringe the privacy and reputational interests of many third persons, potentially including Amicus, who have never been charged with a crime, have never been subject to civil proceedings, and have never been publicly identified by Giuffre.”
Why would the unredacted materials implicate John Doe if he didn’t party with Epstein?
- “Lacking knowledge as to who precisely is implicated in the Summary Judgment Materials, such invasion of privacy would occur without fair notice and the opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the presently unidentified persons would receive notice only after the harm resulting from publication had already occurred. At that point, the harm occasioned is irreparable.”
By the way, that is a totally b.s. argument. I’m a published constitutional law scholar and lawyer. That’s literally not how the law works. You don’t get to insert yourself into a case at the 11th hour by filing an amicus brief and claiming you’ll be embarrassed by what’s in the court files.
Sorry bro, you partied with Jeffrey Epstein. Choose better friends next time.
My guess is that the mystery man is Prince Andrew, or perhaps Bill Clinton.
Both Prince Andrew and former President Clinton were regulars at Jeff Epstein’s island, and given the caliber and cost of the lawyers who inserted themselves into the case, it’s not unreasonable to suspect it’s Prince Andrew or President Clinton.
- An ex-teen prostitute who claims she was billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s “sex slave” wants to haul the sex-offender financier into Manhattan federal court to testify in her defamation case against one of his former gal pals.
- If approved, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s lawyers plan to question Epstein about his alleged role in introducing the then-teen to Prince Andrew, her lawyers said.
- At a court hearing Thursday, Giuffre’s lawyers demanded that Epstein be called as a witness in her case, which is against one of his exes, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.
We don’t know for sure, of course. The amicus brief was filed by John Doe. Again, that’s literally not how the works, and the Court of Appeals should most emphatically refuse to accept the brief.
I filed this lawsuit in January 2017 and it wasn’t supposed to be like this.
It was a pretty clean-cut open records lawsuit.
The trial court denied my motion, and then the Miami Herald ended up joining the lawsuit.
Thank gosh. The costs have gotten way beyond what was anticipated, and having a major outlet like the Miami Herald involved has saved us a ton of time and money.
And now we have Mueller and Comey’s former lawyer representing a John Doe who may be a member of the Royal Family.
It’s like some True Detective sh-t we are on here.
For real, talk to some lawyers about this.
Go up to them and say, “Some guy just filed a John Doe amicus brief saying that records can’t be unsealed because he was out having sex with women at Jeffrey Epstein’s place.”
Any competent lawyer will look at you like you’re drunk or something. Then say, “Hey, don’t take my word for it. Here is an article from Politico:”
Lewin’s brief doesn’t provide any details about his client — identified in the brief by the pseudonym “John Doe” — beyond saying he “potentially” is mentioned in the underlying court filings and opinion. Lewin, who’s based in Manhattan, declined to comment.
“If the identities of non-parties are not adequately protected, the release of the Summary Judgment Materials in this case would likely cause severe and irreparable harm to a wide variety of non-parties, including those implicated in the conduct and those potentially victimized by it.”
Anyhow, I’ll keep you updated.
And you can kick in a few bucks for legal fees here.