Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Jane Doe And Her Unredacted Memo Of Law In Opposition To Being Unmasked By Leon Black (Part 2) (10/5/26)

Transcript

Jane Doe And Her Unredacted Memo Of Law In Opposition To Being Unmasked By Leon Black (Part 2) (10/5/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to another episode of
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking back up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with Jane Doe and her Memorandum
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: of Law in Opposition, the defendant's motion to force Jane
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Doe to disclose her full name publicly. Part 3. Defendant's
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: history of retaliation illustrates the extremely high risk of harm
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: to Ms. Doe and innocent non-parties. Defendant chose to file
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: his motion to reveal Ms. Doe's name in in a
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: blatant effort to threaten her. If this motion is granted,
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: defendant will abuse the litigation process and amass his vast
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: resources to encourage media outlets and social media commentators to
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: target Ms. Doe and those close to her. His repeated
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: false claims about Ms. Doe and her legal counsel are
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: specifically intended to invite retaliation, victim blaming, and ridicule. This
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: is specifically what the second sealed plaintiff looks for, the
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the party
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: seeking to proceed anonymously. Factor 2 also accounts for the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: risk of retaliatory harm Ms. Doe's family would face upon
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: disclosure of her identity. Ms. Doe's biological and adoptive families,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: both of which have minors in their homes, are undoubtedly
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: non-parties who would be attacked and scrutinized if Ms. Doe's
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: name was released publicly. and victims' families are all too
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: often subjected to the same retaliation. Jane S. Ressler, Anonymous
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs and Sexual Misconduct, 50 Seton Hall, L. REV 955-975
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: When a 14-year-old girl went public with rape allegations against
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: a 17-year-old star football player in their small Missouri town,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: her family was nearly destroyed by the backlash. The girl's
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: mother was fired from her job in a veterinary clinic
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: and the girl attempted suicide. and their house was mysteriously
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: burned down. The family was forced to relocate to another city.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Defendant has repeatedly brought non-parties into this litigation, CECF 30,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: describing in some specific detail the ways in which his
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: investigator questioned Ms. Doe's family members and high school classmates
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: in an effort to intimidate plaintiff. Factor 2 is especially
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: relevant to this case because of the tangible risk that
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: disclosure of Ms. Doe's identity would pose to her family, friends,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and acquaintances. Other courts have held that the Factor 2
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: weighs in favor of anonymity when forcing a plaintiff to
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: reveal her name would escalate the harassment and intimidation that
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: she has already been subjected to. Doe v. Niagara University, No. 23, C.V., 1311,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: LJV 2024, WDNY April 1st, 2024. Defendant has argued that
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: since defendant is already aware of Ms. Doe's identity, disclosure
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: would not increase the risk of retaliation. But disclosure would
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: allow defendant, as he has already done, to instigate third
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: parties to cause plaintiff and her family harm. Doe's 1-4 vs.
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: Focus holding that the risk of such an investigation tilted
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: Factor 2 towards favoring anonymity. Here, Ms. Doe's fear of
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: such investigation is more than speculative. Defendant has a history
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: of using his wealth and influence to intimidate those who
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: get in his way, His engagement of private investigators to
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: track down Ms. Doe's biological family and former acquaintances is
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: only one such example. He has also directed his agents
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: to file aggressive and defamatory motions and lawsuits against any
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: woman who speaks out about his abuse and counsel who
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: represents those women, including the sanctions motioned in this case.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: A malicious prosecution case against counsel for plaintiffs Black v. Wigdor, No. 158062, 2023,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: NY Supreme Court, and a retaliatory RICO case action against
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: counsel for plaintiff whose dismissal has been affirmed by the
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Second Circuit. Black v. Gonnevea. Indeed, only a few months ago,
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Black's counsel threatened to file another sanctions motion and report
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's counsel to the bar if Ms. Doe's proposed amended
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: complaint were to be filed on the docket. In the
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Focus case, the court held that the defendant's prior threats
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: against plaintiffs, along with the possibility of the defendant instigating
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: third parties to cause plaintiffs harm if the plaintiffs were
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: not allowed to proceed anonymously, made the risk of retaliation tangible.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: The same concerns are present here. Defendant has demonstrated that
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: threatening plaintiffs who accuse him of sexual misconduct is his
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: modus operandi, and he is unafraid to use his wealth
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: and power to induce others into carrying out his threats.
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: since the risk of retaliatory harm to Ms. Doe and
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: innocent non-parties would increase if she was forced to proceed
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: under her real name. Factor 2 heavily favors in favor
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: of anonymity. 4. Medical corroboration with a motion to proceed
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: under a pseudonym is not required. It would be reversible
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: error to hold that in order to satisfy the third
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: seal plaintiff factor, plaintiff must submit evidence to corroborate her harm.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: The Second Circuit has never held that a party, including
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: a rape victim, must submit corroboration to justify her anonymity.
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Court decisions in this circuit, both sealed plaintiff in 2008
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: and after, have ruled that parties can proceed with a
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: pseudonym without supporting affidavits. C.E.G. Trooper 1 v. New York
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: State Police No. 22 Civ. 893 LDH TAM 2024 W.L.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: 1345516 Eastern District of New York March 29th, 2024. Sexual Assault,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: Doe v. Kachila, No. 23, Civ, 103095, DEH, 2023, WL845446, SDNY,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: December 6th, 2023. Permitting plaintiff to proceed anonymously because of
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: the potential harm from a sexual assault and resulting medical
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: and psychological treatment records becoming public. Finding that sex trafficking
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: victims risk to their physical and psychological well-being were more
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: than speculative without medical testimony. Doe on behalf of No.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: 1 Doe vs. Nygaard, No. 20 Civ 6501 ER 2020
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: WL4890427 at 1 SDNY New York, August 20, 2020, granting
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: sexual assault survivors motion to proceed anonymously in a suit
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: against a world-renowned fashion designer without medical testimony against affirming
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: that they would suffer harm from identification. Doe No. 1 v.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Syracuse University, No. 18, Civ. 496, at 10, NDNY, September 10, 2018.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Report and recommendations adopted. Holding that plaintiff would proceed anonymously
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: because of the plainly serious stigma associated with allegations that
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's actions were discriminatory. Defendant argues that since Ms. Doe
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: has not submitted supporting medical documentation, there is no tangible
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: risk of psychological harm resulting from her public identification. He
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: further contends that since plaintiff has thrust herself into the
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: public discourse, she has no right to complain about what
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: would undoubtedly happen if she was forced to continue with
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: litigating her claims without the protection of anonymity. To suggest
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: that a rape victim, who was a minor at the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: time and experienced horrific rape, including anal penetration, would not
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: be harmed if read traumatized by disclosing her identity is ridiculous.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: There is a large amount of publicly available data about
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: the reluctance of rape victims in particular to report, and
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: among violent crimes, sexual assault is one of the most
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: underreported with federal government reports showing only 310 of 1,000
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: sexual assaults are reported to the police. Such data proves
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: that continued stigma in our society associated with being rape victim,
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: and there is no justification for continuing to impede victims,
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: further in connection with civil claims. The public has a
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: strong interest in holding perpetrators and third-party institutions that help
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: facilitate sexual crimes accountable. Civil financial penalties encourage companies to
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: take the steps needed to protect people from sexual crimes.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: The public wants victims to pursue justice because that is
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: critical to addressing public safety, especially given that less than
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: 1% of reported rapes result in criminal prosecution. Holding that
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: a victim, who was a minor at the time of
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: the rape and one that involved anal rape, must be
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: forced to disclose her name publicly would impede this public interest.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: The public does not have a strong interest in the
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: identity of a sexual assault victim This is why the
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: New York legislature adopted New York Civil Rights Law Section
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: 50B to protect rape victims from the harm inherent in
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: public scrutiny. See Doe v. Niagara University, No. 23, Civ. 1311, LJV.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: Although the public has an interest in this litigation, that
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: does not necessarily mean that the public has a similarly
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: strong interest in learning the identities of all of the
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: individuals involved. The complaint details horrifying events. It says that
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff, as a minor, was trafficked, violently physically abused
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: and raped, including forceful anal penetration against her will. As
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: set forth in the complaint, defendant threw Ms. Doe down
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: onto a massage table so violently that he knocked the
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: wind out of her. The covered Ms. Doe's mouth with
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: his hand to prevent her from screaming as he ripped
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: off her shirt and her underwear. Defendant called Ms. Doe demeaning, shameful,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: disgusting names as he pinned her down. He laughed at
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: her helplessness and mocked her while she cried. Defendant used
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: adult toys to penetrate Ms. Doe's vagina and rectum with
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: such force that she felt tearing in her internal tissue.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Defendant used his mouth to draw blood from Ms. Doe's
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: vaginal area, causing her to scream and instinctively kick at Defendant.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: Defendant then called her a whore and a slut before
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: throwing Ms. Doe to the floor and grabbing her by
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: the legs. Defendant used his extreme weight to brutally rape Ms. Doe,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: with such force that she felt he was crushing her
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: pelvic and hip bones. The unimaginable pain Ms. Doe felt
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: was so intense, that she disassociated. She felt like she
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: could not breathe. After appearing to finish, defendant grabbed Ms.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Doe by the wrists and slammed her into the wall,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: ignoring her cries of fear and pain. Defendant's brutality caused Ms.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Doe to suffer internal abrasions in her rectum that continue
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: to cause her pain, and panic attacks at the beginning
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: of her menstrual cycle each month, when the sight of
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: blood coming from her body brings back the horrifying memory
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: of defendant raping her. The psychological trauma to Ms. Doe
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: and her substantial emotional distress as a result of these
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: acts should not be minimized and she should not have
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: to prove through documentation pre-discovery that it's re-traumatizing to relive
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: these events in this litigation. Despite countless courts holding that
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: acts of rape are sufficient to allow a party to
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: proceed anonymously and no Second Circuit decision holding that she
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: needed to corroborate her own experiences, Black claims that her
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: anticipated harm is nothing more and mere speculation. As mentioned above,
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: it is confounding that her harm can even be categorized
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: as mere speculation, despite the fact that New York City's
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: civil rights law, Section 50B, was enacted precisely to protect
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: rape victims from the harm inherent in public scrutiny. Moreover,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: it's easy to imagine plaintiffs who may not have access
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: to medical professionals, such as those preceding pro se, and
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: it would be a fundamental error to rule that a
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: plaintiff must procure formal letters from from health care providers
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: or other affidavits, to submit to a court to avoid
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: being publicly shamed. Ms. Doe's allegations involve highly intimate non-consensual
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: sexual activity and would engender public criticism, ostracism, victim-blaming, and
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: slut-shaming on account of any role the public would assume. Ms.
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: Doe played in the assault. In the complaint, plaintiff asserts
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: that she experiences panic attacks and other severe psychological harms
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: resulting from defendant's rape. Removing her status as Jane Doe
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: will subject her to additional public scrutiny, especially given the
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: defamatory allegations made by defendant in his now-denied sanctions motion.
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: He has called plaintiff a fraudster, accusing her of having
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: specific diagnosed illnesses and a long history of dreaming up
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: alternate realities. Incredibly, Black has gone so far as to
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: imply that she has somehow made up the fact that
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: she is developmentally and cognitively disabled. by studying the behavior
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: of autistic people. He repeatedly alleges that Ms. Doe received
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: particular medical care and attempted to argue that this is
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: evidence that she's a liar. Defendant's tactics were intended to
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: convince the public and this court that Ms. Doe is
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: delusional and therefore cannot be trusted. And Black filed his
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: motion for sanctions before the start of discovery, knowing that
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: it had no chance of success, instead using the motion
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: to attempt to create a false narrative about Ms. Doe
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: and her counsel. The same backhandedness is apparent here. Defendant
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: claims that discovering that Ms. Doe has spoken frequently and
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: publicly about Epstein and her abuse led him to file
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: his motion, ECF 119 at 6. Notwithstanding this contention's falsity,
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: defendant supposed discovery of this information occurred over a year ago. Crucially,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: the timing of defendant's motion reveals his actual motive to
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: punish Ms. Doe and those close to her because his
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss was denied and and because her amended
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: complaint is soon to be filed. The fact that there
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: is no reason for a defendant to be raising this
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: motion at this time in the litigation is telling, and
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: itself shows the lengths he and his counsel will go
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: to to try and intimidate Ms. Doe and her counsel.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: All right, we're going to wrap up right here, and
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: in the next episode, we'll finish this bad boy off.
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.