Jeffrey Epstein’s loudest victim Virginia Giuffre is battling a woman associated with a sex trafficking case who is fighting tooth and nail to remain anonymous, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal.
Giuffre, who famously accused Prince Andrew of sexually molesting her as a teenager, filed court documents in Manhattan federal court seeking to unseal the name of the woman labeled as Jane Doe #133.
“Doe 133’s objections to unsealing are the same as those the Court has already rejected numerous times: that unsealing certain documents might be embarrassing, would expose nonparties to media attention, and could result in some unfortunate association between the non-parties and Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell,” Guffre’s renowned attorney Sigrid S. McCawley wrote in a legal brief.
“But as the Court has previously recognized, such generalized concerns about annoyance or embarrassment are insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents in a case of great public interest like this one.”
Jane Doe #133 is among hundreds of anonymous characters implicated or simply named in a now-settled 2015 defamation lawsuit Guffre filed against Epstein’s alleged pimp Maxwell — who was convicted of sex trafficking and is 20 years in federal prison – for publicly calling her a liar.
Even though the case was settled out of court in 2017, some of the Does have spent thousands in legal fees in a desperate bid to remain anonymous, but Guffre is equally bent on unsealing the massive case file in the interest of justice.
Even Maxwell dropped her objections to revealing the names of all the Does, according to CNN.com. Epstein was suspiciously found hanging from his jail cell bunk bed in 2019 while awaiting sex trafficking charges.
Jane Doe #133 is mentioned in 13 documents which includes a deposition, a letter a declaration and an email chain, according to court documents.
McCawley also argued that Jane Doe #133’s name has already been revealed in two of the 13 documents that were unsealed.
Visit the all-new RADAR SPORTS for all the on and off-field activities of the biggest names in the games.
“Doe 133 also claims that unsealing would unduly harm their privacy and reputational interests, and that outweighs what, according to Doe 133, is a minimal public interest in the material,” she wrote in court documents. “That Doe 133 has already been subject to media attention counts against sealing, as an ‘important consideration’ of “whether the information sought to be kept confidential is already public.”
“In light of the amount of already public information about Doe 133, and their mere generalized concerns about negative publicity and reputational harm, the Court should overrule their objections to unsealing.”