If they can do it for a sex cult, why not for Epstein and Maxwell?


It’s amusing to watch the brouhaha over the Justice Department’s mistaken publication of a student prostitute’s customer list in the Sarah Lawrence sex cult case.

New York’s business elite was left shaking in its boots Tuesday after a list of alleged clients of the student prostitute in the Sarah Lawrence ‘sex cult’ case was inadvertently published online.

The list, which was entered into evidence under seal in the ongoing trial of accused cult leader Larry Ray, includes lawyers and businessmen and socialites throughout the Tri-state area.

DailyMail.com acquired a copy of the list of 121 names which was taken down nearly as fast as it was put up.

A top executive at The Gap clothing firm and her husband was one of two married couples included. A former New York State Supreme Court judge is also named.

Another alleged client is a painter who has studios in Manhattan’s East Village and in Italy. A third is an architect, famous for designing college and university buildings. 

An investment executive who was also in pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous little black book of contacts is also listed.  

Other names include a hedge fund manager who has donated millions to charity and has his name on a museum building in New York, a Washington DC, lobbyist who has worked for a foreign resistance movement and an international diamond dealer. 

Also included is an executive at the Metropolitan Transit Authority, an account executive at Amazon and a veteran travel writer. 

. . .

… somehow the government posted the ‘sealed’ document online and then immediately scrambled to stop the information getting out.

‘Per order of the Court, government exhibit #3217 (GX 3217) was admitted under seal,’ a spokesman for the Department of Justice wrote in an email soon after the document was taken offline.

‘This file was inadvertently loaded to the U.S. v. Ray file share. Please do not reproduce, share, or use this exhibit in any way, if you have downloaded this file, please delete it.’

But the department’s plea is unlikely to be successful as the document has already been posted on Twitter.

There’s more at the link.

I have no problem at all with the client list being published.  If conduct is criminal, those who encourage, buy and support it are surely as guilty as those who engage in it.  Sauce for the goose, and so on, etc. etc.

However, why the hell have we still not seen any of the names of the clients/guests/whatever of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell?  They were surely as guilty of the couple’s crimes – by participating in them, even if they didn’t pay for them – as the two perpetrators.  The Justice Department must have their names by now.  By not publishing them, it’s a tacit admission that there’s “one law for the rich/powerful, and one for the poor/powerless”.  I wonder how many Washington D.C. elites would be “shaking in their boots” today, if that client list had been published by mistake?

It’s not what you know, or even who you know – it’s what you can get away with.  I wonder how much behind-the-scenes blackmail goes on to prevent the publication of sordid details like that?  And I wonder how many important decisions – maybe even high court verdicts – are “influenced” by threats to reveal such information?



  1. My understanding is that Epstein’s “little black book” contains both his clientele and names of people he wanted to get to know. The latter are completely innocent, but there’s nothing in the book to say which names are which.

  2. Not one question from prosecutors in the MG trial as to who were the clients or even a single client. It's almost as if the DOJ was desperate to make the trial all about MG and no one else was guilty of anything. The fix was obviously in because MG defense attorneys didn't raise the question either.

  3. @JC Salomon. Epstein's black book may have listed both customers and future acquaintances, but all it would have taken was an investigation to determine which were which. As far as I can tell the DOJ was aggressively disinterested.

  4. @boron: If people were coerced or forced into prostitution – or were underage – then as an adult, I do care.

  5. They'll publish the names, addresses and work info on little people who get picked up on street prostitution, but the rich and fabulous?

    Yeah, two sets of rules.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *