← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Alice Poe And Her Claims Against Jeffrey Epstein And The Jeffrey Epstein Estate
00:12:35
One of the best ways to get a grip on what Epstein was up to is to listen to what the survivors say. What better way to do that then to take a look at their allegations that have been filed in court? In this episode, we are taking a look at the...
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right back into those court 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 ST19PB80 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 counsel on behalf of Claimant Alice Poe, 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 1. This motion and the subsequent notice of claim are timely and properly filed pursuant to the Virgin Islands Probate and Fiduciary Rule 11 Title 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 affidavit to a place within the Territory State specific in the notice within the six months from the date of the notice as such a notice was dated September 13, 2019, filed on September 18, 2019, and directed such claims to be presented to the office of their attorneys or the Clerk of this court. See also 15 Virgin Island Code section 391, publication of notice of of administrators. 2. 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, Esq. Of Troutman Sanders, LLP, the attorneys for the executors of the estate. Attached Hereto is Exhibit 1 is a true and correct of one of those fully executed stipulations. 3 Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that this court also grant Claimant the ability to present her notice of claim anonymously under pseudonym. 4. If the fact that both of the parties in the proceeding 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. 5 First and foremost, this sort of decision is within the direct purview of this court. C. Doe v. C A R S Protection Plus Inc. 527 F.3d 358. 371 Third Circuit Court, 2008. The decision whether to allow a claimant to proceed anonymously rests within the sound discretion of the court. 6 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 v. Meglis and its progeny. See Doe vs. 654 F.3d 404 Third Circuit, 2011 Meglis. See also DM vs City of Berkshire, 929 F. Sup.2d 390 E. DPA 2013 Burke's Doe vs Rutgers, 2019 U.S. district Court Lexis 75139 DNJ 2019. 7 In this case, it is clear that when applying the 9 Meglis factors 66 that favor anonymity and 3 that disfavor anonymity, an 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, 654 F.3d at 409. 8 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 moven's name was already widely known. See Rutgers at 5 and 6, citing the Meglis at 4. 10 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 410 see also Rutgers, 2019 U.S. district Lexis 75139, at 5, 9. 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 6 and 7 see also Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, 64 Misc.3d 1220 A, Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2019. 10. Indeed, as opposed to using a pseudonym merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation, Clayman 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 6 and 7. See also Doe vs. Sewell's Jewelry, Inc. 2008 New York Miscellaneous Lexus 8733 Supreme Court, New York City, 2008 Doe vs. New York University, 6 Miscellaneous, 3d 866 Supreme Court, New York City, 2004 sealed plaintiff and sealed defendant, 537 F.3d 185 Second Circuit, 2008. 11 Third, unlike Meglis, where the district court recognized that there is no allegation that falsely creates suspicious person alert or a widespread problem, here the facts are more similar to Burke's 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 410. See also Burks F. Spp.2d at 402. 12th 4th Similar to Rutgers, there is a strong chance that this claim will not be resolved on its own merits if the litigant 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 7 and 8. The court here should decide in conformity with the court in Rutgers, where they agreed with the movement's arguments that that the public is harmed when alleged abuse goes unchallenged because movements fear litigating publicly. 13 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 an illegal or ulterior motive to her desire to hide her name. See meglis at 411 see also Rutgers at 10 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, as 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 4. 11 See also Rutgers at 10 Doe 2008 New York Miscellaneous Lexus at 16 and 17 Doe. 6 Miscellaneous, 3d at 879 sealed plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 189 and 1901991 McKinney, Session Laws of New York at 2211 and 2212. Sexual assault victims have unfortunately had to endure a 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. 14 Furthermore, even when turning to the other side of the scale and the factors disfavoring anonymity, Klayman still comes out ahead. 15 While Klayman 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. 16 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 litigants identities. See Meglis at 411 see also Rutgers at 12. Here the claimant is not a public figure. 17 this litigation 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. See Rutgers at 12 citing To Do v. Rider University, 2018 U.S. district 133, 146D 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. 12 citing to La v. Hoffman, 2015 U.S. district Lexis 94564 DNJ 2015, granting movints motion to proceed anonymously and observing that although the identities of the Movants will not be included in the filings in this matter, the public will maintain access to the docket and filings in this case. 18 finally, the last factor weighing against disclosure is not applicable as there is no party opposing the use of a pseudonym. 19 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 and circumstances favor anonymity. Wherefore claimant prays 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 improper. This document was dated the 6th of March of 2020, 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.