memepedia
log in

#ghislaine

346 results found
GHISLAINE MAXWELL UPDATE
Intervening parties in the case request to Judge Preska to speed up the declassification process of the documents that Ghislaine does not want released to the public.
A small reminder that these docs will include reportedly THOUSANDS of highly recognized names. CEO's, celebrities, politicians and more.
_ The Judge already ordered the
unsealing of the documents month ago. Ghislaine has been slow
walking it to try and avoid release,
All while she is preparing her criminal trial she faces.
Let's see how Judge Preska responds in a day or two.
As I've been saying, Ghislaine is also another HUGE bombshell the DS is doing their best to control. This is going to do serious damage to the names involved in these documents when they are unsealed.
Eyes on
Case Document 1225 Filed Page 2 of 2
July 30, 2021
Page 2
objecting Does referenced in the document set, then those documents will be released once and need not be revisited. The only remaining documents requiring review after that will be documents referencing ing Does that do not include references to objecting Does.
Much of Ms. Maxwell's submission focuses on her desire to delay the proceedings while her criminal trial is pending. But the public has been waiting for years to have these documents unsealed many of which were improperly sealed from the start. A right to access means a right to timely access. The news media's reporting on judicial records "must be timely to be newsworthy and to allow for ample and meaningful public discussion regarding the functioning of our nation's court systems." _Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 585. Oth ir. 2020) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Erie Cty., N. 6
2014) ("recognizing the 'importance of immediate access where a right to access is
Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer, 440 F. Supp. 532, 563 (E.D. Va. 2020) ("To efficiently inform the public, the media must have complete and timely access in our increasingly data-driven decision making."). Ms. Maxwell's attempts to stall the unsealing process are in direct contravention of the public's right to timely access.
Finally, Intervenors request that the same procedure for placing non-objecting Does' submissions on the record from the current Unsealing Protocol be carried over into any revised protocol. The current protocol provides that objecting Does may file their submissions under seal, and then the Court staff will redact as appropriate, insert pseudonyms, and then place the redacted submissions on the docket. Any objections must be public to allow Intervenors and the public to assess the form and merit of the objections being made and meaningfully respond to them.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
/s/ Christine N. Wale,
Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
Cynthia A. Gierhart
Case Document 1225 Filed Page 1 of 2
Holland & Knight
31 West 52nd Street I New York, NY 10019 I T 212.513.3200 I F 212.385.9010
Holland & Knight LLP I
Christine N. Walz
+1 .212-513-3368
Christine
Sanford L. Bohrer
+1 305-789-7678
'Sandy
com
July 30, 2021
Via ECF
The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
District Court Judge
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: INTERVENORS' LETTER REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE UNSEALING PROTOCOL Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cy-7433-LAP
Dear Judge Preska:
Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co. respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's inquiry at the July 1, 2021 hearing regarding ways to streamline the unsealing protocol moving forward, and in response to Ms. Giuffre's and Ms. Maxwell's letter
(Dkt. 1224).
Intervenors ask that the Court adopt the proposal submitted by Ms. Giuffre. (See Dkt.
1224.) Reviewing all of the documents referencing objecting Does at once will significantly reduce the number of times a single document is reviewed, redacted (if warranted), and released.
This will streamline the process and allow for more timely and meaningful access to these records.
Ms. Maxwell's submission argues that this proposed process is too onerous while her counsel prepare for her criminal trial, but her proposal (and the status quo) require far more duplication and therefore more work, absorbing more of her counsel's time. If the Does continue to be split into multiple groups with multiple rounds of reviews, as Ms. Maxwell proposes, then a single document such as initial disclosures or a witness list will continue to resurface in every round, only to have redactions removed from a few names each time, thereby multiplying the review. Instead, if all objecting Does are considered at the same time, along with any non-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL UPDATE Intervening parties in the case request to Judge Preska to speed up the declassification process of the documents that Ghislaine does not want released to the public. A small reminder that these docs will include reportedly THOUSANDS of highly recognized names. CEO's, celebrities, politicians and more. _ The Judge already ordered the unsealing of the documents month ago. Ghislaine has been slow walking it to try and avoid release, All while she is preparing her criminal trial she faces. Let's see how Judge Preska responds in a day or two. As I've been saying, Ghislaine is also another HUGE bombshell the DS is doing their best to control. This is going to do serious damage to the names involved in these documents when they are unsealed. Eyes on Case Document 1225 Filed Page 2 of 2 July 30, 2021 Page 2 objecting Does referenced in the document set, then those documents will be released once and need not be revisited. The only remaining documents requiring review after that will be documents referencing ing Does that do not include references to objecting Does. Much of Ms. Maxwell's submission focuses on her desire to delay the proceedings while her criminal trial is pending. But the public has been waiting for years to have these documents unsealed many of which were improperly sealed from the start. A right to access means a right to timely access. The news media's reporting on judicial records "must be timely to be newsworthy and to allow for ample and meaningful public discussion regarding the functioning of our nation's court systems." _Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 585. Oth ir. 2020) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Erie Cty., N. 6 2014) ("recognizing the 'importance of immediate access where a right to access is Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer, 440 F. Supp. 532, 563 (E.D. Va. 2020) ("To efficiently inform the public, the media must have complete and timely access in our increasingly data-driven decision making."). Ms. Maxwell's attempts to stall the unsealing process are in direct contravention of the public's right to timely access. Finally, Intervenors request that the same procedure for placing non-objecting Does' submissions on the record from the current Unsealing Protocol be carried over into any revised protocol. The current protocol provides that objecting Does may file their submissions under seal, and then the Court staff will redact as appropriate, insert pseudonyms, and then place the redacted submissions on the docket. Any objections must be public to allow Intervenors and the public to assess the form and merit of the objections being made and meaningfully respond to them. Sincerely yours, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP /s/ Christine N. Wale, Christine N. Walz Sanford L. Bohrer Cynthia A. Gierhart Case Document 1225 Filed Page 1 of 2 Holland & Knight 31 West 52nd Street I New York, NY 10019 I T 212.513.3200 I F 212.385.9010 Holland & Knight LLP I Christine N. Walz +1 .212-513-3368 Christine Sanford L. Bohrer +1 305-789-7678 'Sandy com July 30, 2021 Via ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: INTERVENORS' LETTER REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE UNSEALING PROTOCOL Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cy-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co. respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's inquiry at the July 1, 2021 hearing regarding ways to streamline the unsealing protocol moving forward, and in response to Ms. Giuffre's and Ms. Maxwell's letter (Dkt. 1224). Intervenors ask that the Court adopt the proposal submitted by Ms. Giuffre. (See Dkt. 1224.) Reviewing all of the documents referencing objecting Does at once will significantly reduce the number of times a single document is reviewed, redacted (if warranted), and released. This will streamline the process and allow for more timely and meaningful access to these records. Ms. Maxwell's submission argues that this proposed process is too onerous while her counsel prepare for her criminal trial, but her proposal (and the status quo) require far more duplication and therefore more work, absorbing more of her counsel's time. If the Does continue to be split into multiple groups with multiple rounds of reviews, as Ms. Maxwell proposes, then a single document such as initial disclosures or a witness list will continue to resurface in every round, only to have redactions removed from a few names each time, thereby multiplying the review. Instead, if all objecting Does are considered at the same time, along with any non-
Holland Knight
GHISLAINE MAXWELL UPDATE &
Intervening parties in the case request to Judge Preska to speed up the declassification process of the documents that Ghislaine does not want released to the public.
A small reminder that these docs will include reportedly THOUSANDS of highly recognized names. CEO's, celebrities, politicians and more.
The Judge already ordered the unsealing of the documents month ago. Ghislaine has been slow walking it to try and avoid release,
All while she is preparing her criminal trial she faces.
Let's see how Judge Preska responds in a day or two.
As I've been saying, Ghislaine is also another HUGE bombshell the DS is doing their best to control. This is going to do serious damage to the names involved in these documents when they are unsealed.
Eyes on
Case Document 1225 Filed Page 2 of 2
July 30, 2021
Page 2
objecting Does referenced in the document set, then those documents will be released once and need not be revisited. The only remaining documents requiring review after that will be documents referencing no ing Does that do not include references to objecting Does.
Much of Ms. Maxwell's submission focuses on her desire to delay the proceedings while her criminal trial is pending. But the public has been waiting for years to have these documents unsealed many of which were improperly sealed from the start. A right to access means a right to timely access. The news media's reporting on judicial records "must be timely to be newsworthy and to allow for ample and meaningful public discussion regarding the functioning of our nation's court systems." _Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 585. Oth
ir. 2020) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Erie Cty., N.Y.
2014) ("recognizing the 'importance of immediate access where a right to access is
Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer, 440 F. Supp. 532, 563 (E.D. Va. 2020) ("To efficiently inform the public, the media must have complete and timely access in our increasingly data-driven decision making."). Ms. Maxwell's attempts to stall the unsealing process are in direct contravention of the public's right to timely access.
Finally, Intervenors request that the same procedure for placing non-objecting Does' submissions on the record from the current Unsealing Protocol be carried over into any revised protocol. The current protocol provides that objecting Does may file their submissions under seal, and then the Court staff will redact as appropriate, insert pseudonyms, and then place the redacted submissions on the docket. Any objections must be public to allow Intervenors and the public to assess the form and merit of the objections being made and meaningfully respond to them.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
/s/ Christine N. Walz
Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
Cynthia A. Gierhart
Case Document 1225 Filed Page 1 of 2
Holland & Knight
31 West 52nd Street I New York, NY 10019 I T 212.513.3200 I F 212.385.9010
Holland & Knight LLP I
Christine N. Walz
+1.212-513-3368
Christine
Sanford L. Bohrer
+1 305-789-7678
July 30, 2021
Via ECF
The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
District Court Judge
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: INTERVENORS' LETTER REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE UNSEALING PROTOCOL Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cy-7433-LAP
Dear Judge Preska:
Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co. respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's inquiry at the July 1, 2021 hearing regarding ways to streamline the unsealing protocol moving forward, and in response to Ms. Giuffre's and Ms. Maxwell's letter
(Dkt. 1224).
Intervenors ask that the Court adopt the proposal submitted by Ms. Giuffre. (See Dkt.
1224.) Reviewing all of the documents referencing objecting Does at once will significantly reduce the number of times a single document is reviewed, redacted (if warranted), and released.
This will streamline the process and allow for more timely and meaningful access to these records.
Ms. Maxwell's submission argues that this proposed process is too onerous while her counsel prepare for her criminal trial, but her proposal (and the status quo) require far more duplication and therefore more work, absorbing more of her counsel's time. If the Does continue to be split into multiple groups with multiple rounds of reviews, as Ms. Maxwell proposes, then a single document such as initial disclosures or a witness list will continue to resurface in every round, only to have redactions removed from a few names each time, thereby multiplying the review. Instead, if all objecting Does are considered at the same time, along with any non-
Holland Knight GHISLAINE MAXWELL UPDATE & Intervening parties in the case request to Judge Preska to speed up the declassification process of the documents that Ghislaine does not want released to the public. A small reminder that these docs will include reportedly THOUSANDS of highly recognized names. CEO's, celebrities, politicians and more. The Judge already ordered the unsealing of the documents month ago. Ghislaine has been slow walking it to try and avoid release, All while she is preparing her criminal trial she faces. Let's see how Judge Preska responds in a day or two. As I've been saying, Ghislaine is also another HUGE bombshell the DS is doing their best to control. This is going to do serious damage to the names involved in these documents when they are unsealed. Eyes on Case Document 1225 Filed Page 2 of 2 July 30, 2021 Page 2 objecting Does referenced in the document set, then those documents will be released once and need not be revisited. The only remaining documents requiring review after that will be documents referencing no ing Does that do not include references to objecting Does. Much of Ms. Maxwell's submission focuses on her desire to delay the proceedings while her criminal trial is pending. But the public has been waiting for years to have these documents unsealed many of which were improperly sealed from the start. A right to access means a right to timely access. The news media's reporting on judicial records "must be timely to be newsworthy and to allow for ample and meaningful public discussion regarding the functioning of our nation's court systems." _Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 585. Oth ir. 2020) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Erie Cty., N.Y. 2014) ("recognizing the 'importance of immediate access where a right to access is Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer, 440 F. Supp. 532, 563 (E.D. Va. 2020) ("To efficiently inform the public, the media must have complete and timely access in our increasingly data-driven decision making."). Ms. Maxwell's attempts to stall the unsealing process are in direct contravention of the public's right to timely access. Finally, Intervenors request that the same procedure for placing non-objecting Does' submissions on the record from the current Unsealing Protocol be carried over into any revised protocol. The current protocol provides that objecting Does may file their submissions under seal, and then the Court staff will redact as appropriate, insert pseudonyms, and then place the redacted submissions on the docket. Any objections must be public to allow Intervenors and the public to assess the form and merit of the objections being made and meaningfully respond to them. Sincerely yours, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP /s/ Christine N. Walz Christine N. Walz Sanford L. Bohrer Cynthia A. Gierhart Case Document 1225 Filed Page 1 of 2 Holland & Knight 31 West 52nd Street I New York, NY 10019 I T 212.513.3200 I F 212.385.9010 Holland & Knight LLP I Christine N. Walz +1.212-513-3368 Christine Sanford L. Bohrer +1 305-789-7678 July 30, 2021 Via ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: INTERVENORS' LETTER REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE UNSEALING PROTOCOL Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cy-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co. respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's inquiry at the July 1, 2021 hearing regarding ways to streamline the unsealing protocol moving forward, and in response to Ms. Giuffre's and Ms. Maxwell's letter (Dkt. 1224). Intervenors ask that the Court adopt the proposal submitted by Ms. Giuffre. (See Dkt. 1224.) Reviewing all of the documents referencing objecting Does at once will significantly reduce the number of times a single document is reviewed, redacted (if warranted), and released. This will streamline the process and allow for more timely and meaningful access to these records. Ms. Maxwell's submission argues that this proposed process is too onerous while her counsel prepare for her criminal trial, but her proposal (and the status quo) require far more duplication and therefore more work, absorbing more of her counsel's time. If the Does continue to be split into multiple groups with multiple rounds of reviews, as Ms. Maxwell proposes, then a single document such as initial disclosures or a witness list will continue to resurface in every round, only to have redactions removed from a few names each time, thereby multiplying the review. Instead, if all objecting Does are considered at the same time, along with any non-