Judge Rules Virginia Giuffre's Lawyers Must 'Destroy' Jeffrey Epstein Files

[mfcorey1]

Attorneys for Virginia Giuffre, who publicly accused Jeffrey Epstein of sex trafficking, must destroy files they obtained on Epstein after a Wednesday ruling by a federal judge.

Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking. Allegedly, Epstein procured women to have sexual relations with high-profile individuals, such as Prince Andrew. Information about Epstein, culled from a 2015 civil suit filed against Epstein by Giuffre, allegedly contained the names of individuals with whom Epstein had conducted business.

Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled Wednesday that Giuffre's lawyers had come into possession of the documents improperly, noting that the protective order could only be enforced during the civil lawsuit proceedings which had already been settled. Preska wrote that all the materials in the files "shall be destroyed."
Preska also requested proof that the documentation had been destroyed. "Counsel shall submit an affidavit detailing the steps taken to do so," Preska's ruling added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-rules-virginia-giuffre-s-lawyers-must-destroy-jeffrey-epstein-files/ar-BB16ewPS?ocid=spartan-dhp-feeds

[jorgevlorgan]

1. please tell me this is being appealed.

That is fucking insane. That means all the evidence against the people he worked with who helped him, is going to be destroyed.

[smirkymonkey]

2. WTF?

What is the legal basis for this? Any lawyers want to chime in? This just sounds really fishy.

[Brainfodder]

4. Why was there a ruling on this, at all?

Who was behind this?

[Nevilledog]

9. I've never heard of a judge ordering such destruction.

Illegally obtaining something should go to its admissibility in court, not to its very existence. The judge doesn't OWN the documents.

[madeup64]

3. They were improperly obtained

You can't use improperly obtained evidence at trial. She probably stole the docs from him so not obtained via a warrant or after probable cause established by an officer allowed a search. Fruit from the forbidden tree they call it.
Crude explanation anyhow. It's more technical I'm sure. I'm just a paralegal with limited criminal court/procedure knowledge.

[avebury]

5. Couldn't the documents be used

in a book to get the information out into the public if it cannot be used on a court case?

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[soothsayer]

7. They'll destroy the documents... but not the copies ha

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. So who is the judge protecting?