Judge overseeing Epstein case dies in March before case unsealed

An elderly federal judge presiding over a key lawsuit relating to financier pedophile Jeffrey Epstein died Sunday, adding another twist to the drawn-out legal saga and to efforts to unseal still-secret details about the conduct of Epstein, his enablers and one of his accusers...

The settlement did not end the controversy, however. During the course of the case, Sweet approved blanket sealing of many of the submissions from both sides, detailing some of the best arguments and evidence they intended to present if the case went to trial...

The secrecy eventually prompted motions from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, author and social media personality Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald to unseal some or all of the records in suit.

Dershowitz, a former lawyer for Epstein, is seeking unsealing because he says the court files contain evidence that can prove him innocent of claims Giuffre and another woman made that they had sex with him at Epstein’s direction. Cernovich has said he’s offended by the secrecy in the case and eager to expose pedophilia among American elites. The Miami Herald sought the information as part of reporting for a series it wound up publishing last year...

Sweet turned down the motions, prompting a series of appeals.

At an argument session earlier this month, three 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals judges seemed to view the secrecy in the suit as excessive and unjustified.

All the judges on the panel appeared to favor making some records from the case public soon, but there was some discussion about the process for considering opening all the records. One question debated at the argument was whether Sweet should oversee that process or whether it should be handed over to another judge. That question is now moot.

Maxwell has opposed unsealing records in the case. In addition, last week, two anonymous individuals came forward to urge the appeals court not to release information in the court files about third parties who may have been discussed during depositions in the case.

www.politico.com...

He was 96, but damn, as if this case needs more weirdness surrounding it.




ETA: dates from March! I saw linked it off Drudge.

a reply to: RadioRobert

On one hand, it's such a hairy case you'd want to look into it more than what it may be.

On the other hand, guy was almost 100.

On the third hand, Epstein case aside, I find it very concerning someone that old is still in the position they were in.

Age is wisdom and all that, but it's also a bell curve.

ETA: Looking at the quoted block, is this really 6 months old? Seems pretty irrelevant to what's happening now.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'm getting a "page not found". A 96 year old judge died 2 months ago. Same guy??

a reply to: carewemust

Oh, it is a couple months old! Good catch!

Spock addressed my point, why is a 96 year old still a jurist?

That was almost 5 months ago. It says 3/25.

Another

"Coincidence" !!!!!!! 😃

a reply to: MisterSpock

Yeah. This had to have happened before the release, because they are talking about releasing evidence from the civil suit.

And as soon as that happened, the Feds decide to arrest Epstein before the evidence is released.


Caught the headline on Drudge and thought "are you kidding me?" Didn't see the date.


It actually reads as though this guy helped seal it all up, and the appeals court (and his death) cleared the way for the unsealing. And the govt only took action against Epstein after the information was ordered to be unsealed and made public.


So relevant, but not a current event as I thought on first seeing it on Drudge.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

He was 96, but damn, as if this case needs more weirdness surrounding it.

Notwithstanding the Faux Pas,

The poor old judge probably succumbed to some of the evidential video.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Yes, I added that disclaimer to the OP and in thread before your post.


And now, I've added it to the title to avoid more confusion.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The third party thing is what stands out to me. Sounds like intelligence agencies were involved.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Or people such as the Clintons and Richardson or anyone regardless of political party who !ay have faced being named in connection.

But the Daily Beast suggests that Acosta was told to let it go to because he belonged to intelligence.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: muzzleflash

Yes, I added that disclaimer to the OP and in thread before your post.

the


And now, I've added it to the title to avoid more confusion.

Oh ok cool. I didn't see it in time.

Thanks for sharing this info anyways because I had not heard about it until now.
It's interesting and relevant still I think.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Is it coincidence that the lead Prosecutor quit, just 4 days before Epstein's alleged death?

a reply to: muzzleflash

No worries. I initially thought it was current because it was just on Drudge, and I hadn't heard it previously.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: randomthoughts12

Or people such as the Clintons and Richardson or anyone regardless of political party who !ay have faced being named in connection.

But the Daily Beast suggests that Acosta was told to let it go to because he belonged to intelligence.

It would be nice to know which intelligence outfit he was supposedly part of.

a reply to: RadioRobert
😁 I just feel the judge would want to protect intelligence agencies over the clintons or someone with power especially being that old.

It does seem you can kind of pay to seal documents these days but something like that seems it would need government approval. So yeah who was in power that time does matter.

The fight to keep it stays sealed just seems like it would be more for protecting a Ally or our own CIA.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: RadioRobert

The third party thing is what stands out to me. Sounds like intelligence agencies were involved.

That plus, as RadioRobert pointed out, the Feds didn't take action on his case until after the orders came to make some of the information about the case public.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The whole issue stinks to High Heaven
and is a disgrace to justice.
Even if he was transferred to a more
secure location and this is all a ruse.

Do you think The World views
The United States of America as the
beacon on the hill with the blatant
obvious banana republic corruption
that has come to light as of late?

This is beyond shameful and will be
the rapid undoing of this nation if
justice is not served swiftly and severely.

Not just those involved in this particular case,
but the whole "Soft Coup" as of late.

Either we are ALL EQUAL under the law,
or there is no equality at all.
If that proves to be the case, then it is all
a farce. God help us all.
S&F

Isn't it feasible IF there is a conspiracy afoot that those behind it are playing the long game? They obviously took the judge out first , given his age and the fact they offer him before Epstein means they wouldn't connect the two....