Everyone is looking for Ghislaine Maxwell but I’ll betcha her attorney Ty Gee knows where to find her!?
And I am EVER SO CURIOUS as to who is footing her bill for Attorney, Ty Gee? How much is this man GETTING PAID to protect a procurer for the worst abuse imaginable? How much does he stand to make from EVIL?
And folks I am sickened by Ty Gee and Judge Loretta Preska already. I know how the victim in abuse, (in this case Virginia Giuffre), gets railroaded, and by that I mean RUN OVER, in a court of law with money available for corruption. (John Paul DeJoria/Criminal affiliates w/ a direct red phone line to Washington D.C, in my case, and Carly Singer/Latitude Solutions)
WE NEED TO WATCH TY GEE AND JUDGE LORETTA PRESKA VERY CLOSE.
This story below SICKENS ME. The documents in this case should have been unsealed long ago.
But read it and see, just how harboring the court already is of, thus far, unnamed abusers and those that looked the other way, at a minimum.
WHY IS EVIL BEING SO ACCOMMODATED BY THE COURT??? Being treated with kid gloves, and a chance of response, and a chance to further hide their EVIL?
~ However, Ghislaine Maxwell has argued that ‘individuals falling into that category should be notified each time their name appears in a document that could potentially be unsealed and allowed to raise an objection’.
McCawley writes that Maxwell’s goal is ‘an attempt to delay and complicate the unsealing process to ensure that no further misconduct becomes available to the public’.
The attorney tells the judge in a letter that although both sides had mostly agreed on the protocol for contacting non-parties, ‘we have come to an impasse on a few key issues’.
Maxwell has excluded two motions – that were previously decided upon by the last judge in the case – from the unsealing process, according to McCawley.
In the first document, Giuffre had accused Ghislaine Maxwell of failing to disclose the existence of an email account.
The second motion sought to prevent Maxwell from using parts of a deposition transcript that Giuffre had intended to use if the defamation case had gone to trial.
Instead the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2017. It is not clear who gave the deposition and what it contained.
McCawley writes that Maxwell refuses to include these documents because they contain ‘an abundance of critical information relating to the issues in this case that Defendant does not want made public’.
Ty Gee, an attorney for Maxwell’s Colorado-based firm, provided the court with a proposed letter to send to the non-parties.
The letter reads: ‘This case involves allegations of sexual abuse and sexual trafficking of minors. Some documents submitted to the Court were filed under seal. You are receiving this Notice because your name appears in one or more sealed court documents in this case…’
The letter goes on to alert the individual that although currently their names are in documents under seal, ‘that document may be unsealed in the future, which means it will be publicly available’.
It goes on to provide two options for the non-parties on how to respond.
They can ‘do nothing’, as the letter states, which means that their name would be at risk of being released into the public domain without their input if the court decides.
Alternatively, the individual can ask, within 14 days of getting the letter, to see excerpts of the documents including their name. They are forbidden to share with anyone other than their lawyer.
Any individuals who filed objections will not be identified in the court filing.
Within 14 days of getting the excerpts, they have an opportunity to object to unsealing the documents, in a ‘succinct’ manner and ‘shall state the reasons for the objection’.
Following any individuals’ objections, Maxwell and Giuffre then have an opportunity to respond.
Maxwell, Giuffre and any objecting individual can then request a court hearing after receiving a response to their objection.
Only once this process is complete, the Court will set ‘the time and date it will decide in open court the objections lodged as to each set of motions’.
It is then up to the court to decide whether the sealed items will remain under seal, be unsealed in a redacted form, or be released in its entirety.
Then the process will begin again with the next set of motions.
Judge Loretta Preska, presiding over the case, has previously stated that ‘there is a great deal of public intrigue surrounding the unsealing of the documents at issue here’.
“It is not only a great deal of public intrique”, Judge!
It is also a MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR OTHERS TO HAVE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF WHO THESE ROTTEN HUMANS ARE?
As long as abuse and abusers are kept secret…the abuse will go on and on and on and on……..