Troll me about “Jane Doe,” please — not others

Well, I’m apparently the big trending topic right now on TikTok, over my interest in reporting on the Cornell “Jane Doe” and her sleazy profit-seeking lawyers. One of whom, Thomas Giuffra, somehow made the seamless transition from making stuff up about Sean “Diddy” Combs, and soliciting anyone who ever came within twelve football fields of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to get a nice fat financial settlement, to now going after an Ivy League university with a very plentiful endowment — supposedly for covering up a Congo Warzone-Style Gang Rape. How noble and altruistic of this hero lawyer. (Who happens to be a male, if you couldn’t tell.)

Because of my journalistic activity on this matter, my family members are currently being bombarded with crazed calls and messages, because numbskulls on the internet think it’s me. (My dad has the same first name.)

They’re also inundating the current owners of my childhood home in West Caldwell, NJ, thinking I live there, which I do not. My parents sold the house in 2022, and I have not resided there for any period of time since 2018.

People are such absolute lunatics on this stuff.

If you want to troll me over my shockingly deplorable interest in reporting on the identity of a claimant in an extortionist huckster lawsuit, troll ME, please. Not others who have nothing to do with it.

I’d be happy to explain how the capricious application of anonymity has been egregiously and cynically misused in recent civil proceedings. For example, here’s a Jane Doe in an Epstein-related matter whose name and identifying information I published in May. Her identity is STILL being shielded by the courts, despite it being judicially ruled that she literally fabricated wackjob evidence, and hallucinated her entire sick tale. That is, she never even met Epstein or Maxwell. She defrauded the court system, and also the DOJ through her repellent cadre of lawyers, one of whom miraculously had to “retire” days after I published my article. And yet, she was still awarded a $2.5 million JP Morgan settlement.

Or how about the lead litigant in the Bank of America / Epstein lawsuit, whose lawyer Sigrid McCawley had frantically argued would be terribly re-traumatized and re-victimized if her identity were ever made public. Or at least, that’s what Sigrid argued from October 15, 2025, when the lawsuit was filed, to August 27, 2026, when Judge Rakoff approved the $73 million settlement. Mysteriously, the dire concerns that were previously raised about protecting this purported victim’s identity, and ensuring she was forevermore a “Jane Doe,” vanished on September 5, 2026 — days after the big $$$$$$ payout was approved, and our lovely “victim” decided to make a voluntary PR rollout, via one of the professional victim industry’s favorite journalists at the Wall Street Journal. Congratulations to “Julia Molchanova” on overcoming her desperate fears of public exposure shortly after becoming an official multi-millionaire.

So yes, I continue to regard it as squarely in the public interest to erode this preposterous norm which says anyone who ever claims victimhood of any kind, even if there’s not the slightest smidgeon of corroboration or vetting — and then accuses others BY NAME of the most sensational, reputation-destroying crimes — is entitled to permanent anonymity by judicial fiat, which then gets further reenforced as a matter of ideological dogma by bamboozled, cowardly media.

Oh by the way, the latest development with the Cornell “Jane Doe” — according to the deluge of leaks now curiously appearing in the New York Times and elsewhere — is that she told Title IX investigators she supposedly WANTED to be gang-raped, so the men could later be charged with crimes? WHAT? Get the hell out of here with this bullshit.

I’m not going to be cowed, sorry. Just leave my family members and other random people out of it.

---