Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
In this episode, we're going to dive right back into
those core documents and we're going to take a look
at the claims made by Alice Poe against Jeffrey Epstein's estate.
So let's get to it. Case number st Dash nineteen
DASH PB Dash eighty in the matter of the Estate
of Jeffrey e Epstein, Motion to proceed anonymously in filing
a claim for unliquidated and unsecured damages. Come now, the
Undersigned Council, on behalf of claimant Alice Poe, claimant a
victim of the Estate of Jeffrey e Epstein, and file
this motion to proceed anonymously in filing a notice of
claim for unliquidated and unsecured damages, and in support thereof
State one. This motion and the subsequent notice of claim
are timely and properly filed. Pursuing to the Virgin Islands
Probate and Fiduciary Rule eleven titled Notice to Creditors and
Persons indebted to the Estate, which notes that all persons
having claims against the estate are to present or deliver
to the executor or administrator their claims verified by Affidavid
to a place within the territory specific in the notice
within the six months from the date of the notice.
As such a notice was dated September thirteenth, twenty nineteen,
filed on September eighteenth, twenty nineteen, and directed such claims
to be presented to the office of their attorneys or
the Clerk of this Court. See also fifteen Virgin Island Code,
Section three ninety one Publication of Notice of Administrators. Two.
Claimant files this motion as she has a claim to
be made against the estate and intends to file a
summons and verified complaint in New York County of New
York to that effect, where she will also be using
the Alice Poe pseudonym, something that dozens of her sister
survivors have done and stipulated to with Bennett J. Moskowitz,
esquire of Troutman Sanders, Llp, the attorneys for the executors
of the estate. Attached here too is Exhibit one is
a true and correct of one of those fully executed
stipulations three. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Court
also grant claim it the ability to present her notice
of claim anonymously under pseudonym four if the fact that
both of the parties in the preceding will likely ultimately
stipulate for claimant to file anonymously is not persuasive enough,
Courts in this circuit have also granted such relief even
when it's opposed. Five. First and foremost, this sort of
decision is within the direct purview of this court. Cee.
Doe versus c Dot A Dot R Dot S Protection
Plus Incorporated, five twenty seven F Dot three D three
fifty eight three seventy one, Third Circuit Court, two thousand
and eight. The decision whether to allow a claimant to
proceed anonymously rests within the sound discretion of the court. Six. Indeed,
in making such decisions, courts in this circuit have continually
applied a balancing test type approach, using several factors outlined
by the Third Circuit. In the case of Doe verse
Meglis and its progeny see Doe versus Meglis six fifty
four F Dot three D four oh four, Third Circuit
twenty eleven Meglis. See also DM versus City of Berkshire
nine twenty nine F Dot Sup. Two D three ninety
e Dot d PA DOT twenty thirteen, Burks Doe versus Rutgers,
twenty nineteen US District Court Lexus seven five one three
nine DNJ. Twenty nineteen seven. In this case, it is
clear that when applying the nine Meglis factors, six that
favor anonymity and three that disfavor anonymity, and overwhelming majority
of them support Claimant's use of a pseudonym, while the
few that do not are either not applicable to the
case or do not do enough to tip the scales
see Meglis six fifty four ft three d at four
O nine eight. Regarding the first factor in favor of anonymity,
the facts of this case stand in sharp contrast to
instances where the courts have found that anonymity would be
futile because the movement's name was already widely known see
Rutgers at five and six. Citing to Meglis at four
to ten, Moven's name, picture, and home address had been
disclosed on a publicly circulated flyer. Here the facts align
more with Rutgers, as claimant has gone above and beyond
to maintain her confidentiality, which has never been made public,
including by eventually filing her lawsuits as Alice Poe and
stipulating with the estate to do the same see Meglis
at four ten. See also Rutgers, twenty nineteen US District
Lexus seven five one three nine at five nine second
as for the reasonableness of the harm that the litigant
is seeking to avoid here, similar to the facts of Rutgers,
Claimant wishes to proceed anonymously in order to protect her
mental and physical health and the right to fully and
fairly litigate this action. See Rutgers at six and seven.
See also Doe versus Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York
sixty four Miscellaneous, three d twelve twenty A. Supreme Court,
Westchester County, twenty nineteen ten. Indeed, as opposed to using
a pseudonym merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that
may attend any litigation, Claimant seeks to proceed anonymously to
preserve her privacy in this matter of a sensitive and
highly personal nature that will have a lifelong impact on
her and her family's lives. See Rutgers at six and seven.
See also Doe versus Suol's Jewelry Incorporated. Two thousand and
eight New York Miscellaneous Lexus eight seven three three Supreme Court,
New York City, two thousand and eight, Dough verse New
York University, six Miscellaneous, three D eight sixty six, Supreme Court,
New York City, two thousand and four, Sealed plaintiff and
sealed defendant, five point thirty seven f Dot three D
one eighty five, Second Circuit, two thousand and eight, eleven third.
Unlike Meglis, where the district court recognize that there is
no allegation that falsely creates suspicious person alert are a
widespread problem, here the facts are more similar to Burks
in that disallowing anonymity would likely deter those who have
been falsely accused of sexual abuse from vindicating their rights
due to the stigma that invariably attaches from having one's
name publicly attached to such a deplorable act. See Meglis
at four ten. See also Berks nine twenty nine f.
Dot spp Dot two d at four O two twelve fourth.
Similar to Rutgers, there is a strong chance at this
claim will not be resolved on its own merits if
the litigand is denied the opportunity to proceed using a pseudonym,
as a claimant will potentially sacrifice a potentially valid claim
simply to preserve her anonymity see Rutgers at seven to eight.
The Court here should decide in conformity with the Court
and Rutgers, where they agreed with the movement's arguments that
the public is harmed when alleged abuse goes unchallenged because
Moven's fear litigating publicly thirteen. As for the final factor
weighing in favor of anonymity, claimant is not seeking to
use a pseudonym for nefarious reasons, nor has there been
any allegation that claimant has illegal or ulterior motive to
her desire to hide her name see Meglis at four eleven.
See also Rutgers at ten, as opposed to simple public
humiliation and embarrassment, which have been determined not to be
sufficient grounds for allowing a claimant to proceed anonymously. In
this case, there is no illegitimate ulterior motive because his
referenced above, identification of claimant's true identity poses a risk
of mental or physical harm, and the case involves information
of the utmost intimacy see Meglis at four eleven. See
also Rutgers at ten Dough two thousand and eight, New
York Miscellaneous Lexus at. Sixteen and seventeen Dough six Miscellaneous
three d at eight seventy nine, Sealed Plaintiff five point
thirty seven f Dot three d At one eighty nine
and one ninety nineteen ninety one McKinney Session, Laws of
New York at twenty two eleven and twenty two twelve.
Sexual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a terrible
invasion of their physical privacy. They have a right to
expect that this violation will not be compounded by a
further invasion of their privacy. Fourteen. Furthermore, even when turning
to the other side of the scale and the factors
disfavoring anonymity, claimant still comes out ahead. Fifteen. While claimant
acknowledges that there is a thumb on the scale, that
is the universal interest in the favor of open judicial proceedings,
she is not asking the record to be sealed, rather
simply to proceed anonymously. Sixteen. Next, the Court must consider whether,
because of the subject matter of this litigation, the status
of a litigant as a public figure or otherwise there
is a particularly strong interest in knowing the litigant's identities.
See Meglis at four to eleven. See also Rutgers at twelve.
Here the claimant is not a public figure seventeen. This
litigation all also involves a member of a particularly vulnerable class,
or the subject matter is highly personal, the public has
an interest in protecting the identity of the litigant. Ce
Rutgers at twelve, citing to Doe versus Ryder University, twenty eighteen.
U S. District Lexus one three three one four six DNJ.
Twenty eighteen. Here claimant alleges that she is the victim
of a sexual assault, so allowing her to proceed as
an alice poe while preserving the public's right to access
the docket and proceedings in this case strikes the appropriate
balance between these competing interests. See Rutgers at twelve, citing
two La versus Hoffmann, twenty fifteen, U S. District Lexus
nine four five six four DNJ. Twenty fifteen. Granting movement's
motion to proceed anonymously and observing that although the identities
of the movements will not be included in the filings
in this matter, the public will maintain access to the
docket and filings in this case. Eighteen. Finally, the last
factor weighing against disclosure is not applicable as there is
no party opposing the use of a pseudonym nineteen. Applying
the factors referenced in the litany of case law to
the specific facts of the claimant's case makes clear that
this should be permitted to proceed anonymously. She is a
victim of sexual abuse, a matter of highly sensitive and
personal nature. She is not seeking to avoid mere embarrassment,
but rather to protect her physical and mental well being.
It is well known that victims of sexual crimes are
often not believed and have their reputations put into question.
Thus identification of her poses a serious risk of retaliatory
harm to her, and the estate will not be prejudiced
because her identity will be known to it and their counsel,
and thus they will be able to properly investigate her claim.
As such, the court here should find the totality of
the factors in circumstances favor anonymity. Wherefore, claimant praise that
the Court grant a her emotion seeking the right to
proceeding in this action under pseudonym in its entirety, and
see all other further relief as this Court may deem
just and proper. This document was dated the sixth of
March of twenty twenty and it was signed by AJ
Weiss and associates. All Right, folks, that's going to do
it for this one. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box.