Jenkins v. Miller et al update

First of all, the platform host seems to have relented a bit and has allowe me to sign on without providing a second email address, so I'm back to being incognito, until further notice. So I'll go ahead and share more of what I have been able to learn about Janet Jenknin's RICO lawsuit against everyone who helped Lisa Miller shelter her daughter from the reach of her evil stepmother. Most of what I'll share is based on this website.
First of all, we learn the reason Lisa Miller is no longer named in the lawsuit: she settled privately, on the grounds that she waive her attorney-client privilege. Having accomplished that, the fight has moved into the area of just how much privileged material has to be provided. Lisa's legal team is arguing that her journals, retained by her lawyer for safekeeping, should be excluded, on the grounds of the right to personal privacy, and in a stroke of pure irony, they cite Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruling on birth control that opened up the way for Roe v. Wade and Obergeffel v. Hodges. The court shows the difficulty of settiling these issues ahead of the trial, giving us some clue as to why the lawyer fees continue to rack up without much progress. We are, as it turns out, on rather uncharted ground here.
"It is challenging to formulate a discovery plan that allows disclosure of the relevant portions of the journals while simultaneously protecting Miller's privacy. The journals likely contain private information that is irrelevant to the case. See, e.g., ECF No. 794 at 2 (Miller declaration stating that the journals contain “intimate details of romantic relations, financial struggles, personal reflections, and reflections on [her] day to day life”). On the other hand, for the reasons outlined above, they also likely contain private details relevant to the alleged conspiracy, including Miller's “spiritual beliefs” and even her “legal struggles with Ms. Jenkins.” --Jenkins v. Miller, 2:12-cv-184, 15 (D. Vt. Jun. 26, 2024)
What's particulary bizzare is that the court pages aloud through some of the allegedly privileged information, musing as to whether or not it should be allowed to be brought up at the trial--at the same time publishing it for all the world to see. In the end, it allowed the litigant to almost entirely pierce the veil of secrecy customarily allowed to a defendent in communication with his defense team.
And, despite Isabella's depostition that she is in no way having her interests defended by this proceeding, they still continue the legal fiction that this is all in the best interests of the "kidnap victim."
At last report, all defendents and ex-defendents who were overseas at various stages of this legal saga remain the the US pending outcome of the case.