By William Craddick
Source: Disobedient Media
In January 2017, social media personality Mike Cernovich filed a motion to intervene in the much-publicized lawsuit between a victim of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Giuffre (nee Roberts) and Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been accused of acting as a groomer for a sex trafficking network run by Epstein. Cernovich’s motion included a request to unseal documents in the case filed by Maxwell as part of a motion for summary judgement which relate to “adjudication of the merits of the action.” On his personal blog Cernovich stated that his involvement stemmed from public interest in learning details about the alleged madam of a “massive international sex-trafficking ring.” But is Cernovich’s interest in the case legitimate?
An examination of the facts indicates that Cernovich’s interest may not be legitimate. Most other major parties to the case seeking to unseal documents – such as Alan Dershowitz and the Miami Herald – are also likely involved out of their own illegitimate interest. Not only could their intentions be said to have been imputed to Cernovich, but statements made by counsel for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein as well as Cernovich’s own actions and statements before and during the case imply that his decision to intervene stems from an improper motive.
I. Plaintiff’s Criticism Of Cernovich
In their response to Cernovich’s motion to intervene and unseal, lawyers for Virginia Giuffre delivered a scathing reply. Central to the plaintiff’s claims was the contention that Cernovich’s motion was indistinguishable from a previous motion to unseal filed by Dershowitz, and was presented with the same intent.
Giuffre’s attorneys noted that Cernovich was requesting Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgement which included nearly 700 pages of exhibits but none of the other records in the case, which spanned 586 docket entries at the time of filing. As a motion for summary judgement is composed of a party’s strongest argument for an immediate favorable ruling, it could be expected that Maxwell’s motion would be heavily one sided and the exhibits contain mostly information that would be harmful to the plaintiff. Cernovich did not request Giuffre’s response in opposition to the motion, meaning that he had no intention of giving his audience a nuanced, balanced view of that case in the event that his motion was granted.
Furthermore, the plaintiff noted that Cernovich’s motion sought to acquire all of the documents sought by Dershowitz. They further postulated that this “coincidence” was potentially related to the longstanding ties Mike Cernovich has had to Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz had previously starred in a feature film produced by Cernovich called “Silenced.” In now-deleted promotional material for Silenced posted to Cernovich’s blog Danger and Play, he described Dershowitz as an “inspiration” and “personal joy.” The summer before joining Giuffre’s suit against Maxwell, Cernovich had posted an image of himself with Dershowitz “talking free speech” during the period that he was working on Silenced.
The very reason that the court had imposed a protective order in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case was due to the fact that it involved sex abuse and trafficking of minors and young women. While a protective order shields all parties from harm and embarrassment, it is primarily intended to shield victims by concealing their identities. This would have been obvious to anyone reading the original complaint, but would have been especially apparent to Cernovich since he is a licensed attorney in the state of California. Mr. Cernovich no doubt knew that were his motion to be granted, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein would at the very least suffer emotional…