NY - Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein confidante, arrested on Sex Abuse charges, July 2020 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SandyMC23 said:
I am 100 percent convinced that Maxwell is not in a jail cell. This is one of the biggest cases of the past 20 years and there is NOT ONE photo of her in custody. Not one photo in a jumpsuit. No photos of the arrest which is quite unusual in such a high profile case. It would be the equivalent of the media ignoring the OJ Simpson case. Seriously. Let's be real ? Can we? The last photo of her is at an In and Out Burger reading a CIA operatives book. Again, that shows the ties both Maxwell and Epstein had with CIA and we know by now we can't trust them. Remember MK ULTRA? I use to be soooo aggravated when people denied it and said i was a conspiracy theorist, but then in the 90s the President admitted to the public it did occur and the CIA was testing people without their knowledge. Just one of dozens examples.
Click to expand...
She was denied bail because she is a flight risk. Just because there are no pictures of her doesn't mean she's not in jail. I'm assuming the media was not allowed in the courthouse, since there are only sketches of her.
 
MsBetsy said:
She was denied bail because she is a flight risk. Just because there are no pictures of her doesn't mean she's not in jail. I'm assuming the media was not allowed in the courthouse, since there are only sketches of her.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, because of Covid, it was done remotely, and she was heard on audio through conferencing.
 
Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources

"On Feb. 29, 2016, the office’s top human trafficking prosecutor, Amanda Kramer, met with defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and his alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, sources tell the Daily News. The attorneys urged Kramer to open an investigation of the duo. But Kramer had many questions, including how Epstein’s controversial non-prosecution agreement with the Southern District of Florida in 2007 would impact a new investigation, the sources said.

The attorneys attempted to pique Manhattan federal prosecutors' interest in a second meeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly committed perjury, two sources said. The sources said a second meeting occurred, but another source familiar with the outreach to the government insisted it never happened. Epstein was paying Maxwell’s legal bills at the time and the victims' attorneys believed the pair were in a perjury conspiracy, sources said.

Both efforts went nowhere.

“We were saying to anyone who would listen: We’ve got clients who were abused. Some of them were underage. We have the evidence. There’s a whole record that’s been developed. We can establish beyond any reasonable doubt there was a massive sex trafficking ring going on," said David Boies, an attorney for Epstein victims.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney at the time, Preet Bharara, was not aware of the meetings, The News confirmed. It was unclear how far up the Southern District’s chain of command the proposal went."

I'm assuming Preet Bharara will address whether the upper echelons at SDNY knew or not.
 
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Good morning. Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal seeking to block the release of a deposition that prosecutors allege shows her perjuring herself hits the Second Circuit this afternoon. I will cover it live at 2 p.m. Eastern. Background,
@CourthouseNews

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

The docket also shows Maxwell will be challenging an order in her criminal case rejecting her bid to modify a protective order. That will take place after the appeal over her deposition. Given the pandemic, this live coverage will be virtual.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

Attorney Adam Mueller introduces himself on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, describing the files whose unsealing order is under appeal. "We're talking about hundreds of pages, not thousands of pages." He refers to Maxwell's "entire 418-page" deposition from April 2016.

@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

Maxwell's attorney differentiates the deposition from the other unsealed files: "The presumption of access that attaches is much more limited to the presumption of access that attaches to summary judgment material."

1h

Maxwell's attorney Adam Mueller argues that his client relied on the confidentiality provisions in agreeing to be deposed in the defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre. "All the record evidence is that she reasonably relied upon the protective order," Mueller said.

1h

Maxwell's attorney Adam Mueller says the confidentiality over the deposition is stronger because, in the civil case: "This case did not go to trial." It led to a settlement—and of course, the protracted public-access battle that remains ongoing.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

Judge Pooler: "Counsel, you concede that these are judicial documents." Mueller responds yes. Judicial documents are entitled to the presumption of access.

1h

Judge Pooler: "Counsel, you concede that these are judicial documents." Mueller responds yes. Judicial documents are entitled to the presumption of access.

1h

The crux of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument is that Judge Preska's order did not adequately address her claim that she relied upon the confidentiality protections in agreeing to the 2016 deposition in the first place.

1h

Raggi: "You're not denying that there is a presumption of access here," but he's arguing that the doc should not be given the same weight as if it were summary judgment material. Maxwell's attorney agrees.

1h

Judge Cabranes asks whether Does 1 and 2 raised any objections. Maxwell's attorney says they objected to their names being disclosed and wanted to have the ability to lodge other objections in the future.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

Judge Cabranes asks whether Ghislaine Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during the 2016 deposition. Maxwell's attorney Adam Mueller says she did not because she relied upon the promised confidentiality protections.

1h

Maxwell's attorney Adam Mueller claims that the deposition is filled with "'When did you stop beating your wife?'-type" questions. "The question itself implies an answer, as all leading questions do," Mueller says.

1h

Virginia Giuffre's counsel David Boies is now up, clarifying where things stand with Does 1 and 2: "The objections that were lodged were solely on the use of the name. They did not object to the release of the transcripts and the depositions."

1h

Boies goes to the heart of Maxwell's argument that she relied upon the confidentiality provisions of the protective order. Citing the Agent Orange case, Boies says that confidentiality was limited.


1h

Judge Pooler: "Your client, Ms. Giuffre, won the case, settled the case with Ms. Maxwell, correct?" Boies: "Yes, your honor."
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

Judge Pooler: What is her interest in making it public? What does she care about it? Boies concedes the media's claim to public access is stronger than hers. Boies: "But one of the things that is particularly important to my client is that there not be selective unsealing."


1h

Boies: "I think my client has a legitimate interest in saying that if certain portions of the sealed files are to be public... that the entire record be revealed so there is not a misleading impression, not misleading information."

1h

Misleading who, Judge Pooler asks, noting that there is no more lawsuit, because of the settlement.

59m

Pooler says she is looking into whether Ms. Giuffre has a legally cognizable interest in the release of the deposition that can be brought to the court. (The media's interest is separate.)


56m

Judge Raggi is now up, asking about Boies' position that Ms. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy: "What is the purpose of these parties entering into a protective order if there's no protection?"
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
54m

Boies' answer has to do with the passage of time: "When Maxwell gives her testimony, if there's no protective order in place, then that testimony could be immediately disseminated."


52m

For example, Boies said, a once-confidential deposition could figure in a case that goes to trial. (Again, this 2015 defamation suit settled and did not go to trial, and the open-records fight is over the sealed files over that litigation.)

50m

Judge Cabranes: "What decree would you ask us to enter that would achieve your objectives?" Boies essentially asks him to affirm the district court's ruling allowing the release of the deposition.

50m

Cabranes: So you're seeking the unsealing of the deposition material's in their entirety with the exception of Doe 1 and 2. Boies answers yes.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
48m

The Miami Herald is now up, with Christine Walz arguing for the paper and
@JKBJournalist
. "Ms. Maxwell's reliance argument is entirely misplaced," Walz says, adding the parties cannot override the presumption of public access.

48m

Walz for the Herald and Julie Brown: "It is not required that there be an absence of media publicity for a defendant to have a fair trial."



45m

Judge Pooler: "I am very impressed with the work that
@JKBJournalist
and the Miami Herald have done in this case."

45m

Pooler adds that the Herald and Julie Brown's work have been helpful to the victims, before asking whether Ms. Maxwell may be a victim too. Walz says she disagrees with that notion, but she says that the question is, in any event, irrelevant.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
43m

Judge Cabranes asks whether the Herald and Julie Brown are the only intervenors in the case. Walz notes that
@Cernovich
has joined in their position on the briefings.

40m

Rebuttal argument from Adam Mueller for Ghislaine Maxwell: "Judge Sweet in his order which this court reviewed in the first appeal ... noted that the settlement was contingent upon confidentiality." He moves on: "The final point is about fair trial."


Maxwell's attorney Adam Mueller: "We want a fair trial to happen," Mueller says, adding he does not want multiple appeals to hold up the process. Judge Raggi presses him on the fair trial argument.

38m

Replying to
@KlasfeldReports
Maxwell's attorney adds: "We don't think it's asking too much to simply preserve status quo," Mueller says. "Of course there will be a public criminal trial." This will all be aired then, he adds.


35m

Maxwell's attorney also cites the risk of witnesses potentially conforming their testimony to released materials. Judge Raggi does not appear to be convinced, noting: "We would never put a gag order on their ability to publish on those grounds."



33m

The panel reserves decision on Giuffre v. Maxwell. They now turn to Maxwell's related criminal case.


BBM.
 
33m

Adam Mueller back up, saying he has a constraint on his oral arguments: The protective order constrains him from arguing exactly how he would like to amend the protective order.

28m

Given the secrecy surrounding the protective order, oral arguments on the criminal case's appeal are elliptical. Maxwell's attorney Adam Mueller is arguing that the cases should be consolidated. Live-tweeting here will be sporadic as I file a story on the civil appeal.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
5m

Judge Cabranes presses prosecutors on why Ghislaine Maxwell cannot share sealed information that she obtained via her criminal discovery under seal with Judge Preska, who is presiding over the civil case.

3m

Judge Nathan, who is presiding over the criminal case, allowed Maxwell to provide summaries of information that she learned via her prosecution with Judge Preska under seal for her civil case. This does not allow her to share the files themselves, the government says.

1m

To anyone listening in, the second appeal involving Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal prosecution is on a bit of an arcane issue. The protective order prevents the parties from describing just what information prosecutors do not want Maxwell to share with the judge in her civil case.
 
@KlasfeldReports
·
10m

Prosecutors claim that allowing Ghislaine Maxwell to share info she learned from her criminal case with the judge in her civil case would risk exposing that info. Maxwell's team says that's not true: She is only asking to share the former info under seal with a judge, they say.


1m

Judge Raggi appears skeptical of that claim. Why would Judge Preska agree to an ex-parte submission under seal in adversarial proceedings, she asks. Raggi calls it "disingenuous" to suggest that there's no risk that the info would go beyond Judge Preska.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 2,650 (members: 62, guests: 2,588)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
2,588
Total visitors
2,650
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,428
Messages
18,140,333
Members
231,385
Latest member
lolofeist
Back
Top