- Joined
- Feb 26, 2019
- Messages
- 45,173
- Reaction score
- 22,836
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I decided to finally buckle down and get to summarizing apologies it took this long but motivation and real life so! Lets get started.
Each chapter is a batch of documents in image file folders. The release can be found here. https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1TrGxDGQLDLZu1vvvZDBAh-e7wN3y6Hoz?usp=sharing
Epstein files notes
Applicant Ghislain Maxwell filed for extension of writ of certiorari 15 jan 2025
Contains more detail why defendants motions were denied
Chapter 3
Studies on sex trafficking
Chapter 4
Motion to seal documents for new trial denied
Chapter 5
Addresses juror who planned a trip during time that they were to serve.
Each chapter is a batch of documents in image file folders. The release can be found here. https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1TrGxDGQLDLZu1vvvZDBAh-e7wN3y6Hoz?usp=sharing
Epstein files notes
Applicant Ghislain Maxwell filed for extension of writ of certiorari 15 jan 2025
- Maxwell appeals her June 29th 2022 conviction in the Southern District of New York
- She was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation if US code 2423 (a) and sex trafficking of a minor.
- She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months followed by supervised release of 3 years, 3 years and 5 years respectively total 35 years.
- The court also imposed fines of $250,000 dollars for each count totaling $750,000
- Jeffery Epstein’s non prosecution agreement in the southern district of florida barred Maxwell’s similar plea in the southern district of NY
- Second superseding indictment complied with statute of limitations
- The district court abused its discretion in denying maxwell’s rule 33 motion for a new trial, claimed violation if her 6th amendment right to a fair and impartial jury
- District court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of or prejudicial variance from the allegations in the second superseding indictment
- Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable
- Epstein’s NPA does not bind the southern district of NY in Maxwell’s case (different districts)
- Her indictment complied with the statute of limitations as USC 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse committed before the statute’s enactment.
- Court did not abuse its discretion in denying maxwell’s rule 33 motion for a new trial based on a juror’s erroneous answers during voire dire.
Contains more detail why defendants motions were denied
Chapter 3
Studies on sex trafficking
Chapter 4
Motion to seal documents for new trial denied
Chapter 5
Addresses juror who planned a trip during time that they were to serve.
- Discussing Epstein’s properties, office and employees with Mr. Visoski
- Witness named Maxwell as number 2 rank in Epstein’s hierarchy
- Witness said she handled finances, witness’s spending and spending in the office
- Epstein had many personal assistance including professional shoppers for items on properties
Last edited: