Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And The Grand Jury (9/25/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And The Grand Jury (9/25/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:01
Speaker 1: The hits for Ghislaine Maxwell and her co-conspirators keep on
0:06
Speaker 1: coming it was announced today that the grand jury is
0:11
Speaker 1: still convened and they are still investigating the co-conspirators who
0:17
Speaker 1: were involved in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise now we have
0:21
Speaker 1: known that especially here on the Jeffrey Epstein show we
0:25
Speaker 1: have most certainly known that more indictments were on the
0:28
Speaker 1: way I have talked to about that fact extensively here,
0:32
Speaker 1: and I have been adamant that the charges we see
0:35
Speaker 1: Maxwell getting hit with now, the original charges, those were
0:39
Speaker 1: just placeholders. Those were a reason to bring her in,
0:43
Speaker 1: get her arrested, and get the ball rolling. But there
0:46
Speaker 1: is most assuredly more coming down the pipe, and you
0:50
Speaker 1: see this especially in federal indictments all the time. It
0:54
Speaker 1: starts out with a And then before you know it,
0:57
Speaker 1: you have 15, 20, 30 charges in some instances that
1:01
Speaker 1: you're fighting. And I expect nothing different here. And I
1:06
Speaker 1: also expect that, as I've said numerous times in the past,
1:10
Speaker 1: the second other people start getting arrested, I expect this
1:14
Speaker 1: to become a RICO case. There's no other way that
1:18
Speaker 1: they can prosecute this than besides using RICO. Once other
1:22
Speaker 1: people are arrested, indicted... and called co-conspirators, it is obviously
1:27
Speaker 1: a criminal conspiracy, and then there is no way that
1:31
Speaker 1: it is not also a RICO case. Now, this situation tonight,
1:37
Speaker 1: when we're getting this information from the prosecution about the
1:41
Speaker 1: grand jury, it's a pretty big deal, right? It's a
1:44
Speaker 1: big nugget to get that confirmation, because what it does
1:49
Speaker 1: is it puts pressure on the co-conspirators to Just knowing,
1:54
Speaker 1: just them knowing now that this grand jury is in
1:57
Speaker 1: session still and that they're still investigating into these co-conspirators
2:01
Speaker 1: and they're hearing evidence. It is, it has to be
2:04
Speaker 1: a nightmare scenario for everybody involved. And also, I don't
2:11
Speaker 1: think that they would announce this or let this be
2:14
Speaker 1: brought to light unless other arrests were imminent. Now, I
2:20
Speaker 1: would say within the next few weeks, we should see
2:23
Speaker 1: more arrests here. But who knows with the way the
2:26
Speaker 1: justice system works in this country and how screwed up
2:29
Speaker 1: things are. You know, I don't know if that's the case,
2:33
Speaker 1: but usually when you see signs like this and you
2:36
Speaker 1: hear these rumblings like we did before Ghislaine was arrested, remember,
2:41
Speaker 1: usually more arrests are coming and the indictments are about
2:45
Speaker 1: to be unsealed. So that's where we're at right now.
2:49
Speaker 1: And that is most certainly the biggest news of the day.
2:53
Speaker 1: So let's jump into our article from Law and Crime
2:57
Speaker 1: and take a look at what they have to say
2:59
Speaker 1: about this situation, considering they have been such a good
3:03
Speaker 1: resource throughout this whole entire ride when it comes to
3:07
Speaker 1: the ins and outs of the legal part of the case, right?
3:10
Speaker 1: Because that stuff's hard to understand. We're not lawyers. I mean,
3:13
Speaker 1: most of us aren't. I'm sure a couple of people
3:16
Speaker 1: out there might be who are listening or a few people.
3:18
Speaker 1: But for the vast majority of us, we're just trying
3:21
Speaker 1: to figure out, you know, make odds of ends from
3:24
Speaker 1: some of this legal stuff. So it's nice to have
3:26
Speaker 1: a resource like Law and Crime. The author of this
3:31
Speaker 1: article is Colin Kalmbacher. Headline, Prosecutors Reveal Secret Investigation of
3:37
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell other Epstein co-conspirators is ongoing. And again, usually
3:43
Speaker 1: they won't reveal stuff like this unless things are already
3:47
Speaker 1: in motion because they don't want to tip their hand, right?
3:50
Speaker 1: They're playing it close to the vest. They don't want
3:52
Speaker 1: these people to lawyer up, clam up, try and run,
3:54
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. So usually they play this really
3:57
Speaker 1: close to the vest. So I'm wondering what the motivation
4:02
Speaker 1: is behind the scenes for them coming out and putting
4:04
Speaker 1: this on the record. Federal prosecutors in New York City
4:09
Speaker 1: revealed there is an ongoing and separate grand jury investigation
4:14
Speaker 1: into Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, co-conspirator, fellow child abuser, and
4:19
Speaker 1: alleged sex trafficking accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell in various court documents
4:24
Speaker 1: filed Friday afternoon. So already we're seeing that the case
4:28
Speaker 1: is blooming, right? We're seeing that it's growing. You add
4:32
Speaker 1: a little bit of water to it, in this case,
4:34
Speaker 1: more evidence. And then before you know it, your crops
4:38
Speaker 1: start to bloom. And that's what's going on here for
4:41
Speaker 1: the prosecution. They're adding water, they're adding the evidence, they're
4:44
Speaker 1: building their case, and things are growing exponentially. As the U.S.
4:51
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, SDNY,
4:54
Speaker 1: has stated publicly, the investigation into the conduct of the defendant,
4:59
Speaker 1: and in this case, and other possible co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein,
5:04
Speaker 1: remains active. the government noted in a letter of motion
5:07
Speaker 1: to the U.S. District Judge Allison Nathan. The full scope
5:11
Speaker 1: and details of that investigation, however, have not been made public.
5:16
Speaker 1: And that's where we're at, right? That's what we've been discussing.
5:19
Speaker 1: And that's what we're doing and speculating on who might
5:22
Speaker 1: be involved in this. And when you follow all of
5:25
Speaker 1: the evidence and you look at all of the players
5:28
Speaker 1: who have been on the Epstein stage throughout this whole
5:31
Speaker 1: entire disgusting ordeal, Well, it's obvious who they're talking about here.
5:38
Speaker 1: The core four, most certainly. Maybe Jean-Luc Brunel. And I
5:42
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprised if there's a couple of surprise names
5:45
Speaker 1: that we aren't even expecting to be in there. Because
5:48
Speaker 1: it really looks to me like they're going for the
5:50
Speaker 1: neck here. It looks like what they're doing is they're
5:54
Speaker 1: really blooming this case out. They're going to have several
5:57
Speaker 1: different investigations going, a ton of evidence going on, and
6:01
Speaker 1: then they're going to tie it all up together in
6:03
Speaker 1: a pretty neat bow in one big gigantic RICO case.
6:08
Speaker 1: And once that occurs, I know, I know, you're probably
6:11
Speaker 1: sick of hearing it by now, but once that occurs,
6:14
Speaker 1: this becomes a whole new ballgame. Just look how everybody
6:18
Speaker 1: who gets slapped with a RICO case fights tooth and
6:20
Speaker 1: nail to try and make it so it is not
6:23
Speaker 1: a RICO case. Take a look at Nexium. Take a
6:25
Speaker 1: look at R. Kelly. Prosecutors declined to share any details
6:31
Speaker 1: about that additional grand jury investigation, but offered to provide
6:35
Speaker 1: them to Nathan in private under judicial lock and key
6:39
Speaker 1: if she requests such information. So what they're saying is, look,
6:43
Speaker 1: this investigation is going on. We are diving deep into
6:48
Speaker 1: these co-conspirators. We have our net thrown wide, and we're
6:52
Speaker 1: going to see what the catch is, the catch of
6:55
Speaker 1: the day is. And they're telling the judge, Judge Nathan,
6:58
Speaker 1: that if she wants to see what they're working on
7:01
Speaker 1: in private, they would gladly show her what's going on.
7:05
Speaker 1: But as of now, this stuff is still secret, right?
7:09
Speaker 1: This is still sealed under the grand jury. And they're
7:13
Speaker 1: going to continue to investigate in the confines of the
7:18
Speaker 1: juror's room. So it's very interesting to see. just exactly
7:24
Speaker 1: where this ends up and how many people are under
7:28
Speaker 1: indictment right now by sealed indictments, right? Indictments we don't
7:32
Speaker 1: know about. And obviously the most interesting part for us
7:37
Speaker 1: is when are those indictments going to be unsealed? To
7:43
Speaker 1: the extent it would be useful to this court for
7:45
Speaker 1: the government to further elaborate on the nature of the
7:48
Speaker 1: ongoing grand jury investigation... The government is prepared to file
7:52
Speaker 1: a supplemental letter specifically on that subject ex parte and
7:57
Speaker 1: under seal should the court request such an explanation. A
8:01
Speaker 1: footnote and a separate letter of motion explained. So again,
8:05
Speaker 1: that letter that they filed is just letting the court
8:07
Speaker 1: know that they'll gladly bring to the court's attention what's
8:11
Speaker 1: going on in the grand jury hearings right now and
8:16
Speaker 1: that it is still... under seal because they have not
8:21
Speaker 1: finished their investigations but obviously judge nathan has incredible power
8:27
Speaker 1: when it comes to overseeing what goes on here and
8:31
Speaker 1: they are going to do whatever she wants to do
8:34
Speaker 1: if she wants this letter filed of course the government
8:36
Speaker 1: is going to do that because the government obviously feels
8:39
Speaker 1: like they have a strong case here either way One
8:44
Speaker 1: of those motions was filed in reference to an August
8:46
Speaker 1: 17th letter filed by Maxwell's criminal defense attorneys. The government
8:51
Speaker 1: asked the court to redact certain portions of that already
8:54
Speaker 1: filed letter in a motion that is heavily redacted itself.
8:59
Speaker 1: And you can come and check out the article, obviously,
9:02
Speaker 1: at Law and Crime, and they have all of the
9:04
Speaker 1: documents posted with hyperlinks, so you can go and read
9:08
Speaker 1: them yourselves. We'll read through this redacted letter real quick,
9:11
Speaker 1: but it's Like I just said, heavily redacted. As described above,
9:16
Speaker 1: the grand jury investigation is active and ongoing and resulted
9:20
Speaker 1: in new charges being brought just last month in this case. Redacted, redacted, redacted.
9:26
Speaker 1: Two big gigantic black boxes of redactions. In sum, the
9:30
Speaker 1: government respectfully submits that the exhibits to the defense letter,
9:34
Speaker 1: which consist entirely of filings that have been ordered sealed
9:37
Speaker 1: by other judicial officers, should also be filed under seal
9:42
Speaker 1: in this case while the grand jury investigation remains ongoing.
9:46
Speaker 1: For the same reasons, the government proposes redacting any portions
9:50
Speaker 1: of the defense letter that, big time redaction once again, Accordingly,
9:54
Speaker 1: the government respectfully requests the court permits the redactions to
9:58
Speaker 1: the defense letter proposed in Exhibit A hereto and that
10:02
Speaker 1: both the unredacted defense letter and the exhibits thereto remain
10:06
Speaker 1: under seal until further order of the court. Additionally, because
10:11
Speaker 1: the instant letter discusses the government's ongoing investigation and references
10:15
Speaker 1: about three sentences redacted, The government also respectfully requests that
10:21
Speaker 1: it be permitted to file a redacted version of this
10:24
Speaker 1: letter on the public docket and that the unredacted version
10:27
Speaker 1: of this letter, as well as Exhibit A to this letter,
10:30
Speaker 1: be filed under seal. So again, I am not a lawyer, right?
10:35
Speaker 1: But I think it's a little bit of a tell
10:38
Speaker 1: that they want this on the public docket, but they
10:41
Speaker 1: want it redacted. I think they want the public to
10:43
Speaker 1: understand that there is more coming down the pipe. I
10:47
Speaker 1: think the prosecutors are keenly aware of the scrutiny that
10:51
Speaker 1: they're under to do the right thing in this case.
10:53
Speaker 1: Because let me tell you what, if they don't, I
10:57
Speaker 1: am not even kidding you. It is pitchforks and torches time.
11:04
Speaker 1: The government's second motion requests that the SDNY deny a
11:07
Speaker 1: recent request from Maxwell's counsel in certain civil cases to
11:11
Speaker 1: file discovery materials produced by the government under SEAL. In
11:16
Speaker 1: other words, it appears that Maxwell's criminal case is becoming
11:20
Speaker 1: perhaps unexplainably entwined with the protective order for the discovery
11:25
Speaker 1: in the years old and long settled defamation case between
11:29
Speaker 1: herself and Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts. The government attempts to
11:34
Speaker 1: explain the convoluted situation. So basically what they're saying here
11:39
Speaker 1: is that Maxwell is trying to use... The protective order
11:44
Speaker 1: for the discovery from the years-old case in this new
11:47
Speaker 1: case and trying to intertwine the two. And as the
11:51
Speaker 1: authors just stated here, it most certainly has become a
11:54
Speaker 1: convoluted situation that is not easy to follow. And that
11:58
Speaker 1: is exactly what Ghislaine Maxwell and her lawyers want. They
12:01
Speaker 1: want the water to be muddy. They want this to
12:04
Speaker 1: be dragged out. They want to appeal, and then they
12:06
Speaker 1: want to appeal the appeal. And they will do everything
12:08
Speaker 1: in their power to make that the case. Subpoenas were
12:14
Speaker 1: issued to a certain recipient... after the government opened a
12:17
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation... into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators.
12:24
Speaker 1: For obvious reasons and in keeping with its standard practice...
12:27
Speaker 1: the government did not notify the defendant or her counsel
12:30
Speaker 1: that it had issued the subpoenas. In response to receiving
12:34
Speaker 1: the subpoenas, the recipient advised the government that it believed
12:37
Speaker 1: that certain existing protective orders precluded full compliance. All right,
12:42
Speaker 1: so they were asking, they subpoenaed people in the case, right?
12:46
Speaker 1: Subpoenaed some information, subpoenaed some people. And What's going on
12:51
Speaker 1: is the defense is saying that the protective orders preclude
12:56
Speaker 1: full compliance, meaning they don't have to comply fully because
12:58
Speaker 1: of the protective order from the other case. See what
13:02
Speaker 1: they mean here by convoluted now, how it's intertwined? Accordingly,
13:07
Speaker 1: in or about February 2019, the government applied ex parte
13:12
Speaker 1: and under seal to each relevant court to request modification
13:16
Speaker 1: of of the respective protective orders to permit compliance with
13:20
Speaker 1: the subpoenas. Accordingly, in or about February 2019, the government
13:26
Speaker 1: applied ex parte and under seal to each relevant court
13:30
Speaker 1: to request modifications of the respective protective orders to permit
13:34
Speaker 1: compliance with the subpoenas. In or about 2019, one court,
13:38
Speaker 1: court one, granted the government's application and permitted that the
13:44
Speaker 1: government share its order and only that order, which itself
13:49
Speaker 1: prohibited further dissemination to the recipient. Subsequently, the second court,
13:54
Speaker 1: Court 2, denied the government's application. Because the relevant grand
13:58
Speaker 1: jury investigation remains ongoing, both Court 1 and 2 have
14:03
Speaker 1: ordered that the filings regarding the subpoenas remain under seal,
14:08
Speaker 1: except that both have expressly permitted the government to produce
14:11
Speaker 1: those filings to the defendant as part of its discovery
14:15
Speaker 1: obligations in this criminal case. The defense letter now seeks
14:19
Speaker 1: to use those discovery materials... In the civil case. So
14:23
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do is use the materials from
14:26
Speaker 1: the discovery here in the criminal case over in the
14:29
Speaker 1: civil case. So she's trying to get the old two
14:33
Speaker 1: for one here, right? Remember Preska made Virginia's newer lawyers,
14:38
Speaker 1: Cooper and I forget the other gentleman's name, destroy the
14:42
Speaker 1: copies of those documents. And basically Maxwell, excuse me, let
14:47
Speaker 1: me explain a little bit better than that. of the
14:49
Speaker 1: documents that they received from Boies and Schiller after they
14:52
Speaker 1: took over the case when Dershowitz filed the defamation against Boies.
14:58
Speaker 1: So they got some information and some files from that
15:02
Speaker 1: case and brought it over into their case. And remember,
15:06
Speaker 1: Preska decided that that wasn't allowed and she made them
15:09
Speaker 1: destroy those copies. So it's kind of the same situation
15:12
Speaker 1: here that Ghislaine Maxwell is looking at, right? She wants
15:15
Speaker 1: to use the... information from one case to help her
15:19
Speaker 1: in the other case, and the government, the prosecution, is
15:22
Speaker 1: saying no way. Essentially, Maxwell is complaining that the government
15:27
Speaker 1: provided certain information to an unnamed person connected to the
15:31
Speaker 1: Epstein criminal investigation, and she wants to use those machinations
15:35
Speaker 1: to her advantage in at least one civil case, which again,
15:40
Speaker 1: is presumably the ongoing release of Epstein materials connected to
15:45
Speaker 1: the Roberts controversy. And that, the government says, is absolutely
15:50
Speaker 1: not the point of the criminal discovery process. No, it
15:53
Speaker 1: is not. Discovery is to help the defense get themselves
15:57
Speaker 1: prepared for trial. Here's what we got. This is what
15:59
Speaker 1: you're looking at. Time to build your defense. It is
16:02
Speaker 1: not for you to wrangle and try and use loopholes
16:05
Speaker 1: and use what you find in discovery to help you
16:08
Speaker 1: in your civil case. There is good reason why both
16:12
Speaker 1: parties proposed and the court ordered a protective order that
16:15
Speaker 1: prevents the defendant from using materials obtained through the process
16:20
Speaker 1: of criminal discovery in any of the many civil cases
16:23
Speaker 1: in which she is or could become a party, the
16:27
Speaker 1: motion continues. To allow the defendant to do so would
16:30
Speaker 1: permit the dissemination of a vast swath of materials in
16:34
Speaker 1: including those that are confidential due to witness privacy interests,
16:39
Speaker 1: personal identifying information of third parties, and irrelevance in ongoing
16:44
Speaker 1: grand jury investigations. So we know how Maxwell has conducted
16:50
Speaker 1: herself in the past, right? She's intimidated people. We know
16:52
Speaker 1: the way she treated Maria. We know the way she
16:55
Speaker 1: treated others. So we're going to let her have access
16:58
Speaker 1: to the private information of people involved in the case?
17:01
Speaker 1: Zero chance of the prosecution saying... No way in hell. Here,
17:07
Speaker 1: the government was particularly concerned about the defendant's interest in
17:11
Speaker 1: blurring these lines because, among other reasons, her counsel in
17:15
Speaker 1: the criminal case are also her counsel in the civil cases.
17:19
Speaker 1: And that's why I referred to the Boy Schiller situation
17:23
Speaker 1: with Dershowitz and Virginia having to get other legal counsel
17:27
Speaker 1: in that specific area because it kind of parallels what's
17:32
Speaker 1: going on here. It would be grossly inappropriate for defense
17:36
Speaker 1: counsel to be permitted to sift through the criminal case
17:38
Speaker 1: discovery and cherry-pick materials they may believe could provide some
17:42
Speaker 1: advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse
17:47
Speaker 1: by victim plaintiffs, the lay court, ordered disclosure of previously
17:51
Speaker 1: sealed materials, or any other legal effort the defendant may
17:55
Speaker 1: be undertaking at any particular time. And yet, That is
17:59
Speaker 1: what the defendant proposes. Again, it's all about slowing it down.
18:03
Speaker 1: That's what she's trying to do here, folks. All the
18:06
Speaker 1: other little minutia that's going on here, the legalese, it's
18:10
Speaker 1: fine and well. But Ghislaine Maxwell is trying to slow
18:13
Speaker 1: things down here. That's what her lawyers want. They want
18:16
Speaker 1: more time to formulate their case. They're hoping that perhaps
18:20
Speaker 1: some kind of miraculous evidence shows up or that Ghislaine
18:25
Speaker 1: is able to work out a deal where she rats
18:27
Speaker 1: on other people or whatever it may be. But I'll
18:30
Speaker 1: tell you what. They understand that they're in a very
18:34
Speaker 1: dangerous situation, legally speaking. And they understand that the ground
18:39
Speaker 1: that they're holding is untenable. Maxwell is currently in prison
18:43
Speaker 1: and awaiting trial on various charges related to her alleged
18:46
Speaker 1: role in Epstein's decades-long crime. Sex trafficking operation that preyed
18:51
Speaker 1: on young girls. Read both letter motions in full below.
18:55
Speaker 1: And both of the motions are here for you to
18:58
Speaker 1: check out. Just click the link, hyperlink, and you can
19:00
Speaker 1: go read them yourself. Try and digest them. Navigate your
19:04
Speaker 1: way through the word soup of legalese. And, you know,
19:09
Speaker 1: we keep it going, right? This is a huge, a
19:12
Speaker 1: huge deal. It just validates what we already knew, obviously,
19:16
Speaker 1: that there is still things going on behind the scenes.
19:19
Speaker 1: There's going to be more indictments. And, folks, this is far,
19:25
Speaker 1: far from over. If you'd like to contact me, you
19:28
Speaker 1: can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com.
19:36
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I.
19:42
Speaker 1: Airline credit card rewards have helped. What's up everyone and
19:45
Speaker 1: welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
19:49
Speaker 1: we're going to take... a look at Ghislaine Maxwell's response
19:52
Speaker 1: in opposition to the government's motion to unseal the grand
19:56
Speaker 1: jury transcripts. Case number 120-CR-00330-PAE. United States of America versus
20:02
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell's response in opposition to government's motion
20:13
Speaker 1: to unseal grand jury transcripts. Introduction Jeffrey Epstein is dead.
20:20
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell is not. Whatever interests the public may have
20:24
Speaker 1: in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into
20:27
Speaker 1: grand jury secrecy. In a case where the defendant is alive,
20:31
Speaker 1: her legal options are viable, and her due process rights remain.
20:36
Speaker 1: When Epstein died, prosecutors from the Southern District of New
20:39
Speaker 1: York pivoted and made Maxwell the face of his crimes.
20:43
Speaker 1: She became the scapegoat and the only person the government
20:46
Speaker 1: would put on trial. She was convicted in a media
20:49
Speaker 1: firestorm of false reporting and mischaracterizations of the evidence. Oh yeah?
20:54
Speaker 1: Sue me. Pretty simple, right? Sue everybody that defamed you.
20:58
Speaker 1: She won't do that, though, because she knows that people
21:00
Speaker 1: are telling the truth about her. Now with her case
21:03
Speaker 1: pending before the Supreme Court, the government seeks to unseal untested,
21:07
Speaker 1: hearsay-laden grand jury transcripts which contains statements presented in secret
21:13
Speaker 1: and never challenged by the adversarial process. Maxwell has never
21:17
Speaker 1: been allowed to review those transcripts even though the government
21:20
Speaker 1: did not oppose her request to do so. The government
21:24
Speaker 1: seeks to unseal the grand jury transcripts citing historical interest
21:28
Speaker 1: without regard for how that release will affect Maxwell's privacy interests,
21:32
Speaker 1: her appending petition, and any future litigation. The government's memorandum,
21:37
Speaker 1: Docket 796, cloaks itself in Craig, but that case emphasized
21:42
Speaker 1: that disclosure requires the most careful judgment and the public's
21:46
Speaker 1: curiosity in a defendant's secret conduct at a grand jury
21:49
Speaker 1: hearing cannot eclipse the right the defendant has to secrecy
21:53
Speaker 1: and overwhelm his objection to public discourse. Second Circuit, 1997.
21:59
Speaker 1: Because this is ongoing litigation in a criminal case involving
22:03
Speaker 1: a living defendant with existing legal remedies, the government's motion
22:07
Speaker 1: should be denied. The government fails to establish special circumstances
22:12
Speaker 1: warranting disclosure of grand jury materials in an ongoing case.
22:17
Speaker 1: Section 2. There is a tradition in the United States
22:21
Speaker 1: that is older than the nation itself. That grand jury
22:25
Speaker 1: proceeding shall remain secret. In Craig, 131 F. 3D at 101
22:29
Speaker 1: and 102, quoting Biagi, 2nd Circuit, 1973, This tradition of
22:37
Speaker 1: secrecy is codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6E.
22:41
Speaker 1: The Rule of Secrecy is not without exceptions, however, the
22:45
Speaker 1: Rule 6E3 lists several exceptions. The Second Circuit has additionally
22:50
Speaker 1: recognized that there are certain special circumstances in which release
22:54
Speaker 1: of grand jury records is appropriate, even outside the boundaries
22:58
Speaker 1: of Rule 6E3. Importantly, the discretion of a trial court
23:03
Speaker 1: in deciding whether to make public the ordinarily secret proceedings
23:07
Speaker 1: of a grand jury investigation is one of the broadest
23:10
Speaker 1: and most sensitive exercises of careful judgment that a trial
23:13
Speaker 1: judge can make. And Craig involved a petition by a
23:18
Speaker 1: doctoral candidate to unseal the nearly 50-year-old grand jury testimony
23:23
Speaker 1: of a high-ranking government employee, Harry Dexter White, based on
23:27
Speaker 1: historical interest in White's suspected role as a communist spy.
23:32
Speaker 1: The court, in Craig, denied the petition to unseal. On appeal,
23:36
Speaker 1: the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition,
23:40
Speaker 1: finding that the court did not abuse its discretion. when
23:43
Speaker 1: it found that sufficiently exceptional circumstances did not exist to
23:47
Speaker 1: warrant disclosure. In affirming the lower court's denial of the
23:50
Speaker 1: motion to unseal, the Second Circuit acknowledged historical interest as
23:55
Speaker 1: a potential basis for disclosure and offered a non-exhaustive list
23:59
Speaker 1: of factors that a trial court might consider when confronted
24:03
Speaker 1: with ruling on a motion to unseal. Those factors include,
24:07
Speaker 1: but are not limited to, 1. the identity of the
24:10
Speaker 1: party seeking disclosure, 2. Whether the defendant to the grand
24:14
Speaker 1: jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure. 3. Why
24:18
Speaker 1: disclosure is being sought in the particular case. 4. What
24:22
Speaker 1: specific information is being sought for disclosure. 5. How long
24:26
Speaker 1: ago the grand jury proceedings took place. 6. The current
24:29
Speaker 1: status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and
24:33
Speaker 1: that of their families. 7. The extent to which the
24:36
Speaker 1: desired material, either permissibly or impermissibly, has been previously made public.
24:42
Speaker 1: And eight, whether witnesses to the grand jury proceeding who
24:46
Speaker 1: might be affected by disclosure are still alive. And nine,
24:51
Speaker 1: the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case
24:54
Speaker 1: in question. In Craig, the court noted that all of
24:58
Speaker 1: the factors and their precise significance must be evaluated in
25:02
Speaker 1: the context of the specific case. The timing of the
25:06
Speaker 1: request to unseal is one of the most crucial elements
25:09
Speaker 1: to be considered by the district court. Here, the grand
25:12
Speaker 1: jury convened just five years ago, not decades ago. This
25:16
Speaker 1: is not a case where the passage of time eroded
25:19
Speaker 1: many of the justifications for continued secrecy, nor is it
25:23
Speaker 1: a case where time has brought about the death of
25:26
Speaker 1: the principal parties involved in the investigations, as well as
25:30
Speaker 1: their immediate families. Epstein may be dead, but Maxwell is
25:34
Speaker 1: alive and litigating her case. Maxwell's petition for a writ
25:39
Speaker 1: is pending before the Supreme Court. She's preparing a habeas petition.
25:44
Speaker 1: Disclosure of grand jury material at this stage risks irreparably
25:48
Speaker 1: tainting the legal process by injecting sealed testimony into the
25:51
Speaker 1: public debate while judicial review is ongoing. The reputational harm
25:57
Speaker 1: from releasing incomplete, potentially misleading grand jury testimony untested by
26:02
Speaker 1: cross-examination would be severe and irrevocable. Those allegations, if released
26:08
Speaker 1: in raw, untested form, would inevitably influence any future legal
26:12
Speaker 1: proceeding should Maxwell succeed in her post-conviction litigation. The government's
26:17
Speaker 1: proposal to redact victim-identifying information does not mitigate this harm.
26:22
Speaker 1: The substance of the allegations, not the names, creates the prejudice.
26:27
Speaker 1: Public curiosity is insufficient when Maxwell's legal and reputational interests
26:32
Speaker 1: are at stake. These factors weigh heavily in favor of
26:35
Speaker 1: preserving the secrecy of the grand jury material Although the
26:39
Speaker 1: government's memorandum sets forth that certain aspects and subject matters
26:43
Speaker 1: of the transcript became public during Maxwell's trial, Maxwell has
26:47
Speaker 1: never had an opportunity to review the entirety of the
26:51
Speaker 1: grand jury materials of her case. The government provided a
26:54
Speaker 1: list to the court under seal of witnesses whose accounts
26:58
Speaker 1: were conveyed in the grand jury and a corresponding list
27:01
Speaker 1: noting which witnesses testified at trial. That list has not
27:06
Speaker 1: been disclosed to us. The government's memorandum, however, acknowledges that
27:10
Speaker 1: the law enforcement witnesses who testified before the grand jury
27:14
Speaker 1: are alive and remain active in the NYPD and FBI, respectively.
27:20
Speaker 1: The government's memorandum also disclosed that many of the complaining
27:24
Speaker 1: witnesses who formed the subject matter of the grand jury
27:27
Speaker 1: witness testimony are also alive. This factor likewise counsels against
27:32
Speaker 1: disclosure of the grand jury transcripts given the need to
27:35
Speaker 1: protect both active law enforcement personnel and alleged victims. 3.
27:41
Speaker 1: There is no precedent supporting release of grand jury transcripts
27:44
Speaker 1: in a pending case like this one, yeah? No precedent
27:47
Speaker 1: for your client getting moved either, but here we are.
27:51
Speaker 1: None of the cases cited by the government justify disclosure here.
27:55
Speaker 1: A National Security Archive involved a decades-old grand jury proceeding
27:59
Speaker 1: against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg relating to charges of conspiracy
28:04
Speaker 1: to commit espionage by providing information about the atomic bomb
28:08
Speaker 1: to Soviet agents. In 1951, the Rosenbergs were tried, convicted,
28:13
Speaker 1: and sentenced to death. They were executed in 1953. In 2015,
28:20
Speaker 1: upon a motion by a non-profit institution and others, Judge
28:24
Speaker 1: Hellerstein granted a petition to unseal the grand jury testimony
28:28
Speaker 1: of David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's brother. In granting the petition
28:34
Speaker 1: to unseal Greenglass' grand jury testimony, the court observed that
28:39
Speaker 1: in the 65 years that had passed since the Rosenberg trial,
28:43
Speaker 1: many believed that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent and had been
28:46
Speaker 1: framed by Greenglass. As a result, and only after Greenglass
28:50
Speaker 1: had passed away, The court concluded that Greenglass' grand jury
28:53
Speaker 1: testimony should be released since it provided information in a
28:57
Speaker 1: case of historical interest to the public. It's noteworthy that
29:01
Speaker 1: Judge Hellerstein refused to unseal the transcript while Greenglass was alive,
29:06
Speaker 1: finding that Greenglass' interest in preserving the secrecy of his
29:09
Speaker 1: grand jury testimony was sufficient to prevent its unsealing during
29:14
Speaker 1: his life, despite the public interest in the case. A
29:17
Speaker 1: petition of American Historical Association involved a similar request by
29:22
Speaker 1: historical associations in 1998 to unseal transcripts of two special
29:27
Speaker 1: grand juries convened from 47 to 1950 pertaining to espionage
29:33
Speaker 1: investigation of Alger Hiss. Hiss, a former high-ranking State Department official,
29:39
Speaker 1: was convicted of committing perjury and responding to allegations that
29:43
Speaker 1: he was a Soviet spy. Hiss maintained his innocence until
29:47
Speaker 1: his death and publicly suggested that his prosecution was a
29:51
Speaker 1: political hit job by Richard Nixon to mobilize public opposition
29:55
Speaker 1: to communism. In granting the request to unseal the 50-year-old
30:00
Speaker 1: grand jury material, the court noted the significant passage of
30:03
Speaker 1: time along with the fact that most of the relevant witnesses,
30:07
Speaker 1: including Hiss, had died. The court ultimately ruled that the
30:11
Speaker 1: great historical importance of the Hiss case outweighed the minimal
30:15
Speaker 1: interest in preserving secrecy. Idea 293 Disclosure is being sought
30:21
Speaker 1: in this case due to the immense public interest in
30:23
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's cases, along with public interest
30:28
Speaker 1: in the government's handling of those investigations and prosecutions. The
30:34
Speaker 1: public interest identified by the government, while understandable, is insufficient
30:38
Speaker 1: to warrant disclosure of grand jury materials at this time.
30:42
Speaker 1: The government frames this interest as historical, yet It is
30:47
Speaker 1: nothing more than widespread and intense public curiosity about an
30:51
Speaker 1: ongoing criminal case. Neither in petition for National Security Archive
30:56
Speaker 1: nor petition of American Historical Association support the conclusion that
31:02
Speaker 1: the Maxwell grand jury material should be released. Each of
31:05
Speaker 1: those cases involve testimony dating back at least five decades,
31:10
Speaker 1: along with grand jury testimony relating to defendants and witnesses
31:14
Speaker 1: who were deceased. in Biagi is equally unavailing. In Biagi 478,
31:19
Speaker 1: Second Circuit, 1973, that case involved the unsealing of grand
31:25
Speaker 1: jury testimony of a U.S. congressman, Mario Biagi, who had
31:29
Speaker 1: not been indicted and who had waived any protection to
31:32
Speaker 1: secrecy by seeking complete disclosure in the form of a
31:35
Speaker 1: motion requesting disclosure of his own testimony for its own sake.
31:40
Speaker 1: The government and Biagi moved to unseal Biagi's grand jury
31:44
Speaker 1: testimony only after Biagi petitioned a three-judge panel in the
31:47
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York to examine his grand jury
31:50
Speaker 1: testimony and publicly report whether he had invoked any constitutional
31:55
Speaker 1: privilege relating to his personal finances or assets. The Second
32:00
Speaker 1: Circuit affirmed the District Court's order directing the public disclosure
32:04
Speaker 1: of Biagi's testimony based solely on his waiver, finding that
32:07
Speaker 1: no matter how much or how legitimately the public may
32:11
Speaker 1: want to know whether a candidate for high public office
32:14
Speaker 1: has invoked a privilege against self-incrimination before a grand jury
32:18
Speaker 1: or has lied about having done so, that interest must
32:22
Speaker 1: generally yield to the larger one of preserving the salutary
32:26
Speaker 1: rule of law embodied in Rule 6E of Federal Rules,
32:30
Speaker 1: a criminal procedure. But that is not this case. Maxwell,
32:35
Speaker 1: unlike Biagi, has preserved her right to grand jury secrecy
32:38
Speaker 1: and vigorously opposes disclosure of the grand jury material. Lastly,
32:43
Speaker 1: the Florida case, the government cites, C.A. Florida Holdings v.
32:47
Speaker 1: Dave Ehrenberg, has no precedential value in this jurisdiction and
32:52
Speaker 1: involved a civil suit under Florida public records, not federal
32:56
Speaker 1: grand jury materials protected, under Rule 6e. See Order Granting
33:01
Speaker 1: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Trial Court's February 29,
33:06
Speaker 1: 2024 Order, C.A. Florida Holdings, Dave Ehrenberg and Joseph Abruzzo.
33:12
Speaker 1: 15th Circuit, July 1, 2024. It is wholly in opposite.
33:17
Speaker 1: There is no precedent for unsealing grand jury transcripts in
33:20
Speaker 1: an ongoing matter like Maxwell's case. Accordingly, the government motion
33:25
Speaker 1: should be denied. Conclusion The government's motion to unseal the
33:29
Speaker 1: grand jury materials in this matter should be denied. This
33:33
Speaker 1: was dated August 5th, 2025 and it was signed by
33:38
Speaker 1: David Oscar Marcus. All of the information that goes with
33:42
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box. The
33:45
Speaker 1: hits for Ghislaine Maxwell and her co-conspirators keep on coming.
33:51
Speaker 1: It was announced today that the grand jury is still
33:55
Speaker 1: convened and they are still investigating the co-conspirators who were
34:01
Speaker 1: involved in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise. Now, we have known that,
34:05
Speaker 1: especially here on the Jeffrey Epstein Show, we have most
34:09
Speaker 1: certainly known that more indictments were on the way. I
34:12
Speaker 1: have talked about that fact extensively here, and I have
34:16
Speaker 1: been adamant that the charges we see Maxwell getting hit
34:20
Speaker 1: with now, the original charges, those were just placeholders. Those
34:24
Speaker 1: were a reason to bring her in, get her arrested
34:28
Speaker 1: and get the ball rolling. But there is most assuredly
34:31
Speaker 1: more coming down the pipe. And you see this, especially
34:34
Speaker 1: in federal indictments all the time. It starts out with
34:38
Speaker 1: a couple of charges. And then before you know it,
34:41
Speaker 1: you have 15, 20, 30 charges in some instances that
34:45
Speaker 1: you're fighting. And I expect nothing different here. And I
34:49
Speaker 1: also expect that, as I've said numerous times in the past,
34:54
Speaker 1: The second other people start getting arrested, I expect this
34:57
Speaker 1: to become a RICO case. There's no other way that
35:01
Speaker 1: they can prosecute this than besides using RICO. Once other
35:05
Speaker 1: people are arrested, indicted, and called co-conspirators, it is obviously
35:10
Speaker 1: a criminal conspiracy. And then there is no way that
35:14
Speaker 1: it is not also a RICO case. Now... This situation tonight,
35:21
Speaker 1: when we're getting this information from the prosecution about the
35:24
Speaker 1: grand jury, it's a pretty big deal, right? It's a
35:28
Speaker 1: big nugget to get that confirmation because what it does
35:32
Speaker 1: is it puts pressure on the co-conspirators. Just knowing, just
35:37
Speaker 1: them knowing now that this grand jury is in session
35:41
Speaker 1: still and that they're still investigating into these co-conspirators and
35:44
Speaker 1: they're hearing evidence, it is, it has to be. A
35:49
Speaker 1: nightmare scenario for everybody involved. And also, I don't think
35:55
Speaker 1: that they would announce this or let this be brought
35:57
Speaker 1: to light unless other arrests were imminent. Now, I would
36:03
Speaker 1: say within the next few weeks, we should see more
36:06
Speaker 1: arrests here. But who knows with the way the justice
36:10
Speaker 1: system works in this country and how screwed up things are.
36:14
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know if that's the case. But usually...
36:17
Speaker 1: When you see signs like this and you hear these
36:20
Speaker 1: rumblings like we did before Ghislaine was arrested, remember, usually
36:25
Speaker 1: more arrests are coming and the indictments are about to
36:29
Speaker 1: be unsealed. So that's where we're at right now. And
36:33
Speaker 1: that is most certainly the biggest news of the day.
36:36
Speaker 1: So let's jump into our article from Law and Crime
36:40
Speaker 1: and take a look at what they have to say
36:43
Speaker 1: about this situation, considering... They have been such a good
36:47
Speaker 1: resource throughout this whole entire ride when it comes to
36:50
Speaker 1: the ins and outs of the legal part of the case, right?
36:54
Speaker 1: Because that stuff's hard to understand. We're not lawyers. I mean,
36:57
Speaker 1: most of us aren't. I'm sure a couple of people
36:59
Speaker 1: out there might be who are listening or a few people.
37:02
Speaker 1: But for the vast majority of us, we're just trying
37:05
Speaker 1: to figure out, you know, make odds of ends from
37:08
Speaker 1: some of this legal stuff. So it's nice to have
37:10
Speaker 1: a resource like law and crime. The author of this
37:14
Speaker 1: article is Colin Kalmbacher. Headline, prosecutors reveal secret investigation of
37:20
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell. Other Epstein co-conspirators is ongoing. And again, usually
37:26
Speaker 1: they won't reveal stuff like this unless things are already
37:30
Speaker 1: in motion because they don't want to tip their hand, right?
37:33
Speaker 1: They're playing it close to the vest. They don't want
37:35
Speaker 1: these people to lawyer up, clam up, try and run,
37:38
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. So usually they play this really
37:41
Speaker 1: close to the vest. So... I'm wondering what the motivation
37:45
Speaker 1: is behind the scenes for them coming out and putting
37:48
Speaker 1: this on the record. Federal prosecutors in New York City
37:52
Speaker 1: revealed there is an ongoing and separate grand jury investigation
37:57
Speaker 1: into Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, co-conspirator, fellow child abuser, and
38:02
Speaker 1: alleged sex trafficking accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell in various court documents
38:07
Speaker 1: filed Friday afternoon. So already we're seeing that the case
38:12
Speaker 1: is blooming, right? We're seeing that it's growing. You add
38:15
Speaker 1: a little bit of water to it. In this case,
38:17
Speaker 1: more evidence. And then before you know it, your crops
38:22
Speaker 1: start to bloom. And that's what's going on here for
38:24
Speaker 1: the prosecution. They're adding water. They're adding the evidence. They're
38:28
Speaker 1: building their case. And things are growing exponentially. As the U.S.
38:34
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, SDNY,
38:38
Speaker 1: has stated publicly... The investigation into the conduct of the
38:41
Speaker 1: defendant and in this case and other possible co-conspirators of
38:46
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein remains active, the government noted in a letter
38:50
Speaker 1: of motion to the U.S. District Judge Allison Nathan. The
38:54
Speaker 1: full scope and details of that investigation, however, have not
38:58
Speaker 1: been made public. And that's where we're at, right? That's
39:01
Speaker 1: what we've been discussing and that's what we're doing and
39:03
Speaker 1: speculating on who might be involved in this. And when
39:08
Speaker 1: you follow all of the evidence, and you look at
39:10
Speaker 1: all of the players who have been on the Epstein
39:12
Speaker 1: stage throughout this whole entire disgusting ordeal, well, it's obvious
39:19
Speaker 1: who they're talking about here. The core four, most certainly.
39:23
Speaker 1: Maybe Jean-Luc Brunel. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's
39:27
Speaker 1: a couple of surprise names that we aren't even... expecting
39:30
Speaker 1: to be in there because it really looks to me
39:33
Speaker 1: like they're going for the neck here it looks like
39:35
Speaker 1: what they're doing is they're really blooming this case out
39:39
Speaker 1: they're going to have several different investigations going a ton
39:43
Speaker 1: of evidence going on and then they're going to tie
39:45
Speaker 1: it all up together in a pretty neat bow and
39:48
Speaker 1: in one big gigantic RICO case. And once that occurs,
39:53
Speaker 1: I know, I know, you're probably sick of hearing it
39:55
Speaker 1: by now, but once that occurs, this becomes a whole
39:58
Speaker 1: new ballgame. Just look how everybody who gets slapped with
40:02
Speaker 1: a RICO case fights tooth and nail to try and
40:04
Speaker 1: make it so it is not a RICO case. Take
40:07
Speaker 1: a look at Nexium. Take a look at R. Kelly.
40:12
Speaker 1: Prosecutors declined to share any details about that additional grand
40:15
Speaker 1: jury investigation... but offered to provide them to Nathan in
40:19
Speaker 1: private under judicial lock and key if she requests such information.
40:24
Speaker 1: So what they're saying is, look, this investigation is going on.
40:28
Speaker 1: We are diving deep into these co-conspirators. We have our
40:33
Speaker 1: net thrown wide and we're going to see what the
40:37
Speaker 1: catch is, the catch of the day is. And they're
40:40
Speaker 1: telling the judge, Judge Nathan, that if she wants to
40:43
Speaker 1: see what they're working on in private, they would gladly
40:47
Speaker 1: show her what's going on. But as of now, this
40:50
Speaker 1: stuff is still secret, right? This is still sealed under
40:54
Speaker 1: the grand jury. And they're going to continue to investigate
41:00
Speaker 1: in the confines of the juror's room. So it's very
41:04
Speaker 1: interesting to see just... exactly where this ends up and
41:09
Speaker 1: how many people are under indictment right now by sealed indictments, right?
41:14
Speaker 1: Indictments we don't know about. And obviously the most interesting
41:20
Speaker 1: part for us is when are those indictments going to
41:22
Speaker 1: be unsealed? To the extent it would be useful to
41:28
Speaker 1: this court for the government to further elaborate on the
41:30
Speaker 1: nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation... The government is
41:34
Speaker 1: prepared to file a supplemental letter specifically on that subject
41:39
Speaker 1: ex parte and under seal should the court request such
41:42
Speaker 1: an explanation. A footnote and a separate letter of motion explained.
41:47
Speaker 1: So again, that letter that they filed is just letting
41:50
Speaker 1: the court know that they'll gladly bring to the court's
41:54
Speaker 1: attention what's going on in the grand jury hearings right
41:58
Speaker 1: now and that it is still... under seal because they
42:04
Speaker 1: have not finished their investigations but obviously judge nathan has
42:09
Speaker 1: incredible power when it comes to overseeing what goes on
42:12
Speaker 1: here and they are going to do whatever she wants
42:17
Speaker 1: to do if she wants this letter filed of course
42:19
Speaker 1: the government is going to do that because the government
42:21
Speaker 1: obviously feels like they have a strong case here either
42:24
Speaker 1: way One of those motions was filed in reference to
42:29
Speaker 1: an August 17th letter filed by Maxwell's criminal defense attorneys.
42:34
Speaker 1: The government asked the court to redact certain portions of
42:36
Speaker 1: that already filed letter in a motion that is heavily
42:40
Speaker 1: redacted itself. And you can come and check out the article, obviously,
42:46
Speaker 1: at Law and Crime, and they have all of the
42:48
Speaker 1: documents posted with hyperlinks, so you can go and read
42:51
Speaker 1: them yourselves. We'll read through this redacted letter real quick,
42:55
Speaker 1: but it's Like I just said, heavily redacted. As described above,
43:00
Speaker 1: the grand jury investigation is active and ongoing and resulted
43:03
Speaker 1: in new charges being brought just last month in this case. Redacted, redacted, redacted.
43:09
Speaker 1: Two big gigantic black boxes of redactions. In sum, the
43:14
Speaker 1: government respectfully submits that the exhibits to the defense letter,
43:17
Speaker 1: which consist entirely of filings that have been ordered sealed
43:21
Speaker 1: by other judicial officers, should also be filed under seal
43:25
Speaker 1: in this case while the grand jury investigation remains ongoing.
43:30
Speaker 1: For the same reasons, the government proposes redacting any portions
43:33
Speaker 1: of the defense letter that, big time redaction once again, Accordingly,
43:38
Speaker 1: the government respectfully requests the court permits the redactions to
43:41
Speaker 1: the defense letter proposed in Exhibit A hereto, and that
43:45
Speaker 1: both the unredacted defense letter and the exhibits thereto remain
43:49
Speaker 1: under seal until further order of the court. Additionally, because
43:54
Speaker 1: the instant letter discusses the government's ongoing investigation and references
43:59
Speaker 1: about three sentences redacted, The government also respectfully requests that
44:04
Speaker 1: it be permitted to file a redacted version of this
44:07
Speaker 1: letter on the public docket and that the unredacted version
44:11
Speaker 1: of this letter, as well as Exhibit A to this letter,
44:13
Speaker 1: be filed under seal. So again, I am not a lawyer, right?
44:18
Speaker 1: But I think it's a little bit of a tell
44:21
Speaker 1: that they want this on the public docket, but they
44:24
Speaker 1: want it redacted. I think they want the public to
44:26
Speaker 1: understand that there is more coming down the pipe. I
44:30
Speaker 1: think the prosecutors are keenly aware of the scrutiny that
44:34
Speaker 1: they're under to do the right thing in this case. Because,
44:38
Speaker 1: let me tell you what, if they don't, I am
44:41
Speaker 1: not even kidding you, it is pitchforks and torches time.
44:46
Speaker 1: The government's second motion requests that the SDNY deny a
44:49
Speaker 1: recent request from Maxwell's counsel in certain civil cases to
44:53
Speaker 1: file discovery materials produced by the government under SEAL. In
44:58
Speaker 1: other words, it appears that Maxwell's criminal case is becoming
45:02
Speaker 1: perhaps unexplainably entwined with the protective order for the discovery
45:08
Speaker 1: in the years old and long settled defamation case between
45:11
Speaker 1: herself and Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts. The government attempts to
45:16
Speaker 1: explain the convoluted situation. So basically what they're saying here
45:21
Speaker 1: is that Maxwell is trying to use... The protective order
45:26
Speaker 1: for the discovery from the years-old case in this new
45:29
Speaker 1: case and trying to intertwine the two. And as the
45:33
Speaker 1: author just stated here, it most certainly has become a
45:36
Speaker 1: convoluted situation that is not easy to follow. And that
45:40
Speaker 1: is exactly what Ghislaine Maxwell and her lawyers want. They
45:44
Speaker 1: want the water to be muddy. They want this to
45:46
Speaker 1: be dragged out. They want to appeal and then they
45:48
Speaker 1: want to appeal the appeal. And they will do everything
45:51
Speaker 1: in their power to make that the case. Subpoenas were
45:56
Speaker 1: issued to a certain recipient after the government opened a
45:59
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators.
46:06
Speaker 1: For obvious reasons and in keeping with its standard practice,
46:09
Speaker 1: the government did not notify the defendant or her counsel
46:12
Speaker 1: that it had issued the subpoenas. In response to receiving
46:16
Speaker 1: the subpoenas, the recipient advised the government that it believed
46:19
Speaker 1: that certain existing protective orders precluded full compliance with All right,
46:24
Speaker 1: so they were asking, they subpoenaed people in the case, right?
46:28
Speaker 1: Subpoenaed some information, subpoenaed some people. And what's going on
46:33
Speaker 1: is the defense is saying that the protective orders preclude
46:38
Speaker 1: full compliance, meaning they don't have to comply fully because
46:41
Speaker 1: of the protective order from the other case. See what
46:44
Speaker 1: they mean here by convoluted now, how it's intertwined? Accordingly,
46:49
Speaker 1: in or about February 2019, the government applied ex parte
46:54
Speaker 1: and under seal to each relevant court to request modification
46:58
Speaker 1: of the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the subpoenas. Accordingly,
47:04
Speaker 1: in or about February 2019, the government applied ex parte
47:09
Speaker 1: and under seal to each relevant court to request modifications
47:14
Speaker 1: of the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the subpoenas.
47:19
Speaker 1: In or about 2019, one court, Court 1, granted the
47:23
Speaker 1: government's application and permitted that the government share its order
47:28
Speaker 1: and only that order, which itself prohibited further dissemination to
47:33
Speaker 1: the recipient. Subsequently, the second court, Court 2, denied the
47:37
Speaker 1: government's application because the relevant grand jury investigation remains ongoing
47:43
Speaker 1: without both court one and two have ordered that the
47:46
Speaker 1: filings regarding the subpoenas remain under seal, except that both
47:51
Speaker 1: have expressly permitted the government to produce those filings to
47:55
Speaker 1: the defendant as part of its discovery obligations in this
47:58
Speaker 1: criminal case. The defense letter now seeks to use those
48:02
Speaker 1: discovery materials in the civil case. So what they're trying
48:06
Speaker 1: to do is use the materials from the discovery here
48:09
Speaker 1: in the criminal case over in the civil case. So
48:13
Speaker 1: she's trying to get the old two-for-one here, right? Remember,
48:17
Speaker 1: Preska made Virginia's newer lawyers, Cooper and I forget the
48:22
Speaker 1: other gentleman's name, destroy the copies of those documents. And basically, Maxwell...
48:29
Speaker 1: Excuse me, let me explain a little bit better than that.
48:31
Speaker 1: Of the documents that they received from Boies and Schiller
48:34
Speaker 1: after they took over the case when Dershowitz filed the
48:38
Speaker 1: defamation against Boies. So they got some... some information and
48:43
Speaker 1: some files from that case and brought it over into
48:46
Speaker 1: their case. And remember, Prescott decided that that wasn't allowed
48:50
Speaker 1: and she made them destroy those copies. So it's kind
48:53
Speaker 1: of the same situation here that Ghislaine Maxwell is looking at, right?
48:57
Speaker 1: She wants to use the information from one case to
49:01
Speaker 1: help her in the other case. And the government, the
49:07
Speaker 1: Maxwell is complaining that the government provided certain information to
49:11
Speaker 1: an unnamed person connected to the Epstein criminal investigation, and
49:15
Speaker 1: she wants to use those machinations to her advantage in
49:19
Speaker 1: at least one way. one civil case, which again is
49:22
Speaker 1: presumably the ongoing release of Epstein materials connected to the
49:27
Speaker 1: Roberts controversy. And that, the government says, is absolutely not
49:32
Speaker 1: the point of the criminal discovery process. No, it is not.
49:36
Speaker 1: Discovery is to help the defense get themselves prepared for trial.
49:40
Speaker 1: Here's what we got. This is what you're looking at.
49:43
Speaker 1: Time to build your defense. It is not for you
49:45
Speaker 1: to wrangle and try and use loopholes and use what
49:48
Speaker 1: you find in discovery to help you in your civil case.
49:52
Speaker 1: There is good reason why both parties proposed and the
49:55
Speaker 1: court ordered a protective order that prevents the defendant from
49:59
Speaker 1: using materials obtained through the process of criminal discovery in
50:04
Speaker 1: any of the many civil cases in which she is
50:07
Speaker 1: or could become a party, the motion continues. To allow
50:11
Speaker 1: the defendant to do so would permit the dissemination of
50:14
Speaker 1: a vast swath of materials, including those that are confidential
50:18
Speaker 1: due to witness privacy interests and personnel, personal identifying information
50:23
Speaker 1: of third parties and irrelevance in ongoing grand jury investigations.
50:28
Speaker 1: So we know how Maxwell has conducted herself in the past, right?
50:33
Speaker 1: She's intimidated people. We know the way she treated Maria.
50:36
Speaker 1: We know the way she treated others. So we're going
50:39
Speaker 1: to let her have access to the private information of
50:41
Speaker 1: people involved in the case. Zero chance of the prosecution
50:44
Speaker 1: saying no way in hell. Here, the government was particularly
50:51
Speaker 1: concerned about the defendant's interest in blurring these lines because,
50:55
Speaker 1: among other reasons, her counsel in the criminal case are
50:59
Speaker 1: also her counsel in the civil cases. And that's why
51:02
Speaker 1: I referred to the Boy Schiller situation with Dershowitz and
51:06
Speaker 1: Virginia having to get other legal counsel in that specific
51:11
Speaker 1: area because it kind of parallels what's going on here.
51:16
Speaker 1: It would be grossly inappropriate for defense counsel to be
51:18
Speaker 1: permitted to sift through the criminal case discovery and cherry-pick
51:22
Speaker 1: materials they may believe could provide some advantage in their
51:26
Speaker 1: efforts to defend against accusations of abuse by victim plaintiffs,
51:30
Speaker 1: the lay court, ordered disclosure of previously sealed materials, or
51:34
Speaker 1: any other legal effort the defendant may be undertaking at
51:38
Speaker 1: any particular time. And yet, That is what the defendant proposes. Again,
51:44
Speaker 1: it's all about slowing it down. That's what she's trying
51:46
Speaker 1: to do here, folks. All the other little minutia that's
51:49
Speaker 1: going on here, the legalese, it's fine and well. But
51:53
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell is trying to slow things down here. That's
51:56
Speaker 1: what her lawyers want. They want more time to formulate
52:00
Speaker 1: their case. They're hoping that perhaps some kind of miraculous
52:04
Speaker 1: evidence shows up. or that Ghislaine is able to work
52:08
Speaker 1: out a deal where she rats on other people, or
52:10
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. But I'll tell you what. They
52:14
Speaker 1: understand that they're in a very dangerous situation, legally speaking.
52:19
Speaker 1: And they understand that the ground that they're holding is untenable.
52:24
Speaker 1: Maxwell is currently in prison and awaiting trial on various
52:27
Speaker 1: charges related to her alleged role in Epstein's decades-long crime.
52:31
Speaker 1: sex trafficking operation that preyed on young girls. Read both
52:35
Speaker 1: letter motions in full below. And both of the motions
52:39
Speaker 1: are here for you to check out. Just click the link, hyperlink,
52:42
Speaker 1: and you can go read them yourself. Try and digest them.
52:46
Speaker 1: Navigate your way through the word soup of legalese. And,
52:50
Speaker 1: you know, we keep it going, right? This is a huge,
52:54
Speaker 1: a huge deal. It just validates what we already knew, obviously,
52:59
Speaker 1: that there is still things going on behind the scenes.
53:02
Speaker 1: There's going to be more indictments. And folks, this is far,
53:07
Speaker 1: far from over. If you'd like to contact me, you
53:10
Speaker 1: can do that at bobbycappucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com.
53:18
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I.