VERDICT WATCH NY - Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein confidante, arrested on Sex Abuse charges, Jul 2020 #3

[sds71]

The Court is in receipt of the Defense’s letter dated December 13, 2021, regarding
anticipated witnesses. The Government is ORDERED to submit a response no later than today, December 14, 2021, at 10:00 p.m. The Defense is FURTHER ORDERED to provide a copy of its anticipated witness order to the Court no later than today, December 14, 2021, at 12:00 p.m.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.542.0.pdf


United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding the question whether the
pending privilege issue could be resolved by a stipulation regarding the testimony of Robert Glassman. After considering the issue and conferring with defense counsel, the Government remains of the view that the statement in the email is not admissible and requires additional context for it to be understandable by the jury. (See Gov’t Letter at 7-8, Dkt. No. 528; 12/6/21 Letter from Robert Glassman at 3-4). Accordingly, the Government would not enter into such a stipulation
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.541.0.pdf



Ms. Maxwell is clearly trying to gain an unfair advantage over all these victims," said Robert Glassman, a lawyer for the anonymous plaintiff, who sued the estate and Maxwell in federal court under the pseudonym Jane Doe. "I've never had a case in my career where a defendant is blocking the plaintiff's attempt to dismiss the plaintiff's case."

Ghislaine Maxwell objects to potential witness' attempt to end civil lawsuit

 

[Chelly]

Much of this seems to me to be much ado about nothing. The US Attorneys are demanding that the Defense provide them with the order in which the Defense witnesses will be called. I don't know why that is a big thing. Judges sometimes in Pretrial Conference or right at trial will ask what order witnesses will be called but I have never been required to do so. The order in which witnesses are called often fluctuates due to their availability. A court can't require a party to call witnesses in a certain order.

It isn't a big thing. I referred to it as a game. Prosecution and Defense teams tend to play them for various reasons. Mostly to annoy the other side. imo

 

[sds71]

Luc Cohen
@cohenluc

Judge Alison Nathan, seated behind Schumer and to his left, takes a break from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial to attend her confirmation hearing for a spot on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[BUF]

Defense Can't Escape the Totality of the Evidence Against Ghislaine Maxwell

 

[Cool Cats]

Jeffrey Epstein's estate prevented his victims from suing Ghislaine Maxwell

DocumentCloud

In accepting money from the program, the accusers had to sign a release form, a copy of which has been obtained by Insider.

For his accusers, the $125 million distributed from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program gave a sense of closure that the criminal justice system couldn't.

The language in the release required the women to drop any existing lawsuits against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime associate who multiple women have accused of sexually abusing them and of trafficking them to Epstein. The release also forbids accusers who accepted compensation from ever filing a lawsuit against Maxwell in the future.

For some accusers, being locked out of civil litigation against Maxwell has raised the stakes of the ongoing criminal case against her. Maxwell is currently standing trial in Manhattan federal court for allegedly grooming and trafficking girls to Epstein, and sexually abusing some of them herself. She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

 

[otto]

Jeffrey Epstein's estate prevented his victims from suing Ghislaine Maxwell

DocumentCloud

In accepting money from the program, the accusers had to sign a release form, a copy of which has been obtained by Insider.

For his accusers, the $125 million distributed from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program gave a sense of closure that the criminal justice system couldn't.

The language in the release required the women to drop any existing lawsuits against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime associate who multiple women have accused of sexually abusing them and of trafficking them to Epstein. The release also forbids accusers who accepted compensation from ever filing a lawsuit against Maxwell in the future.

For some accusers, being locked out of civil litigation against Maxwell has raised the stakes of the ongoing criminal case against her. Maxwell is currently standing trial in Manhattan federal court for allegedly grooming and trafficking girls to Epstein, and sexually abusing some of them herself. She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Isn't that part of Prince Andrew's defence with Giuffre? Didn't she accept financial compensation in 2009 and agree to exclude Epstein, Maxwell, royals, and Epstein's associates from future lawsuits. Isn't that the reason that Giuffre dropped the lawsuit against one of Epstein's lawyers? Giuffre was excluded from the next financial settlement that was intended for several victims - can't remember whether she tried to collect and was excluded, or whether she had no association with that financial compensation agreement.

It makes sense that the victims could settle out of court and accept financial compensation, or they could pursue compensation in court, but not both.

 

[Legally Bland]

Isn't that part of Prince Andrew's defence with Giuffre? Didn't she accept financial compensation in 2009 and agree to exclude Epstein, Maxwell, royals, and Epstein's associates from future lawsuits. Isn't that the reason that Giuffre dropped the lawsuit against one of Epstein's lawyers? Giuffre was excluded from the next financial settlement that was intended for several victims - can't remember whether she tried to collect and was excluded, or whether she had no association with that financial compensation agreement.

It makes sense that the victims could settle out of court and accept financial compensation, or they could pursue compensation in court, but not both.

I don't think we know what it says, but it's due to be made public 3 Jan.



Order to Show Cause – #54 in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew (S.D.N.Y., 1:21-cv-06702) – CourtListener.com

 

[MrsWatson]

How does the financial agreement made with Epstein's estate have anything to do with the criminal charges Madame Maxwell is facing?

 

[otto]

I don't think we know what it says, but it's due to be made public 3 Jan.

View attachment 326589

Order to Show Cause – #54 in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew (S.D.N.Y., 1:21-cv-06702) – CourtListener.com

The DailyMail published Prince Andrew's response a couple of months ago. I downloaded it, but can't find the original link that I posted here anymore.

"Almost simultaneously with the voluntary dismissal of Professor Dershowitz, Giuffre initiated the instant action against Prince Andrew. Because Prince Andrew also falls within the specific categories of individuals who [blacked out] in the Epstein Action – i.e., “royalty” – the Court must dismiss her claims here in light of the plain language of the Release Agreement."
​

Page 11

"Giuffre’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because
[blacked out] from Epstein as consideration for releasing her claims and potential future claims against Epstein and others, who she alleged participated in his sex trafficking scheme and caused her harm. By its express terms, the Release Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice, releases not only Epstein but also [blacked out] Giuffre’s claims in this lawsuit arise from events that purportedly occurred more than 20 years ago. Because the allegations predate the effective date of Release Agreement, the broad general release contained therein bars Giuffre’s claims against Prince Andrew ...
​

Page 12

"Giuffre’s complaint in the Epstein Action alleges, in relevant part, that, “n addition to being continually exploited to satisfy [Epstein]’s every sexual whim, [Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by [Epstein]’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.” (RJN Ex. B, ¶ 21 (emphasis added).)​

Page 13

​

Case 1:21-cv-06702-LAK Document 34 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 36

​

 

[otto]

How does the financial agreement made with Epstein's estate have anything to do with the criminal charges Madame Maxwell is facing?

I believe it is because the 2009 agreement excludes Giuffre from testifying against Maxwell. We're all wondering why Giuffre is not a witness in this trial. It's possible that she waived her right to pursue any further complaint against Maxwell and all of Epstein's associates.

It sounds like other victims are facing the same option - to pursue charges or accept financial compensation.

Prince Andrew references that 2009 document.

 

[Legally Bland]

The DailyMail published Prince Andrew's response a couple of months ago. I downloaded it, but can't find the original link that I posted here anymore.

"Almost simultaneously with the voluntary dismissal of Professor Dershowitz, Giuffre initiated the instant action against Prince Andrew. Because Prince Andrew also falls within the specific categories of individuals who [blacked out] in the Epstein Action – i.e., “royalty” – the Court must dismiss her claims here in light of the plain language of the Release Agreement."
​

Page 11

"Giuffre’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because
[blacked out] from Epstein as consideration for releasing her claims and potential future claims against Epstein and others, who she alleged participated in his sex trafficking scheme and caused her harm. By its express terms, the Release Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice, releases not only Epstein but also [blacked out] Giuffre’s claims in this lawsuit arise from events that purportedly occurred more than 20 years ago. Because the allegations predate the effective date of Release Agreement, the broad general release contained therein bars Giuffre’s claims against Prince Andrew ...
​

Page 12

"Giuffre’s complaint in the Epstein Action alleges, in relevant part, that, “n addition to being continually exploited to satisfy [Epstein]’s every sexual whim, [Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by [Epstein]’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.” (RJN Ex. B, ¶ 21 (emphasis added).)​

Page 13

​

Case 1:21-cv-06702-LAK Document 34 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 36

I appreciate that, but that's from a legal argument by Andrew's lawyers and is obviously disputed by VRG's lawyers. I don't think it'll take long after it's public that the judge rules one way or the other.

 

[MrsWatson]

I believe it is because the 2009 agreement excludes Giuffre from testifying against Maxwell. We're all wondering why Giuffre is not a witness in this trial. It's possible that she waived her right to pursue any further complaint against Maxwell and all of Epstein's associates.

It sounds like other victims are facing the same option - to pursue charges or accept financial compensation.

Prince Andrew references that 2009 document.

At least one of the victims has received money from the victim fund.

Annie Farmer takes the stand in Ghislaine Maxwell trial | Daily Mail Online

The legal document the victims signed with the Epstein estate has nothing to do with criminal charges. That is a civil matter. The victims are not the one pursing a criminal case, the federal government is.

 

[sds71]

The compensation program's release didn't include a non-disclosure provision, so accusers could still accept money from the fund and talk about their experiences publicly. The release didn't prevent any accusers from cooperating with prosecutors conducting criminal investigations into Maxwell, either.

All four of the accusers in Maxwell's trial accepted money from the compensation fund. Maxwell's attorneys subpoenaed the fund, and her attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, told jurors in opening statements that the accusers all received between $1.5 million and $3.25 million from the program.

Jeffrey Epstein's estate prevented his victims from suing Ghislaine Maxwell

 

[otto]

At least one of the victims has received money from the victim fund.

Annie Farmer takes the stand in Ghislaine Maxwell trial | Daily Mail Online

The legal document the victims signed with the Epstein estate has nothing to do with criminal charges. That is a civil matter. The victims are not the one pursing a criminal case, the federal government is.

It's layers of complicated legal documents that I don't fully understand. It looks like Epstein tried to prevent anyone associated with him from facing any consequences for his actions.

Had Maxwell never met Epstein, it's likely that she would not be facing charges today. Epstein, on the other hand, found other accomplices even after Maxwell was involved with him.

 

[Chelly]

I believe it is because the 2009 agreement excludes Giuffre from testifying against Maxwell. We're all wondering why Giuffre is not a witness in this trial. It's possible that she waived her right to pursue any further complaint against Maxwell and all of Epstein's associates.

It sounds like other victims are facing the same option - to pursue charges or accept financial compensation.

Prince Andrew references that 2009 document.

From @otto post BBM
"It sounds like other victims are facing the same option - to pursue charges or accept financial compensation."
I know the above concept exists and supposedly is legal, but irritates the heck out of me. Like hush money. imo, my 2 cents.

Looking forward to tomorrow's start of defense's witnesses.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The names are fully disclosed to the prosecution. The defense are just asking that their full or real names not be disclosed publicly.

That's rich coming from the defence. Didn't Jeff Pagliuca disclose "Jane's" full name twice in court and also Carolyn's surname?

If members of the media and/or public are attending, are they in contempt of court if they release someone's name who is testifying under a pseudonym, or at the very least given a warning not to do so?

 

[JudgeJudi]

The DailyMail published Prince Andrew's response a couple of months ago. I downloaded it, but can't find the original link that I posted here anymore.

I think this is what you're after.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/modules/2021/09/andrew.pdf

 

[BUF]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Good morning from New York. Now that the prosecution wrapped up its case, legal experts answer some FAQ about the Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Why didn't the govt call the alleged co-conspirators? What happened to the big names? And more,
@LawCrimeNews

[URL="https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/this-is-a-trial-not-an-inquest-legal-experts-debunk-popular-misconceptions-about-ghislaine-maxwells-criminal-proceedings/"]'This Is a Trial, Not an Inquest': Legal Experts Debunk Popular Misconceptions About Ghislaine Maxwell's Criminal Proceedings[/URL]

 

[sds71]

@MartaDhanis

JUST IN: Judge Nathan just told the parties she is denying the defense’s request for anonymity of some of their witnesses. She ruled last night and will be entered in the docket soon.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.548.0.pdf

Eta:
@MartaDhanis

Defense just introduced to the court that one of their witnesses has COVID and suggest as a solution to either testify remotely or read a stipulation. Judge Nathan seems open to let the witness testifies remotely as the government says they'd like to be able to cross-examine

 

[Chelly]

@MartaDhanis

JUST IN: Judge Nathan just told the parties she is denying the defense’s request for anonymity of some of their witnesses. She ruled last night and will be entered in the docket soon.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.548.0.pdf

Eta:
@MartaDhanis

Defense just introduced to the court that one of their witnesses has COVID and suggest as a solution to either testify remotely or read a stipulation. Judge Nathan seems open to let the witness testifies remotely as the government says they'd like to be able to cross-examine

Judge Nathan made the right ruling. Defense's request for witness anonymity was absurd .