Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Judge Nathan And Her Management Of The Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Circus (6/29/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge Nathan And Her Management Of The Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Circus (6/29/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: Jump into this article from Lawn Crime and let's see
0:04
what the esteemed Adam Klassfeld has to say. Headline, Jeffrey
0:09
Epstein's plead deal doesn't protect Elaine Maxwell, judge rules in
0:14
rejecting dismissal motions. Now you all know how I feel
0:18
about Twitter. Place is an absolute shit show. In fact,
0:21
I can't even log onto it right now. It's some
0:23
weird message keeps popping up. Whatever. But if you're on
0:26
Twitter and you're interested in true crime and cases that
0:30
are working their way through the court, I highly suggest
0:33
following Adam Klassfeld. Dudes on point with all of the
0:39
all of the law situations that are going on in
0:42
DC and elsewhere, and he gives a very good overview
0:47
and puts things into a way that the common person
0:51
can understand what's going on. Right, so very rare. I'll
0:56
suggest that you even use the cesspool known as Twitter.
0:59
But if you are on there and you aren't following
1:02
Adam Klasfeld, then you're interested in this kind of stuff,
1:06
not just Epstein and Maxwell but other cases working their
1:09
way through the courts, then I definitely suggest giving him
1:12
a follow. Before being slapped with the new sex trafficking charges.
1:20
Gahlene Maxwell filed a flurry of motions trying to scuttle
1:23
her case by arguing her indictment was time barred and
1:28
violated a deal the US government made with Jeffrey Epstein
1:32
more than a decade ago. Now, usually federal cases are
1:38
time barred by five years, but when there's a child involved,
1:45
a youth involved, then you can prosecute people for their
1:50
whole entire life. Right, there's no getting off on statue
1:55
of limitations when there's a little kid. Usually it's five years,
1:59
but not in the case of children being abused. So Maxwell,
2:07
she was trying to get all this stuff thrown out,
2:09
as you all well know, she wants all of this
2:11
stuff tossed. She says, none of this stuff is viable.
2:14
This never happened. She wasn't me, I wasn't. There must
2:20
have been my twin sister. And the judge just isn't
2:25
having it. The judge is like, look, you're gonna stand trial,
2:29
You're gonna face the jerry of your peers, and the
2:32
chips are gonna fall wherever they may. But if you
2:35
think you're wiggling off this hook before the trial even begins,
2:39
think again, Maxwell's many motions fell flat before a federal
2:47
judge on Friday, except for one dividing her future trial
2:51
into two. So she's going to be charged in two
2:55
separate trials. Now the perjury charges are going to be
2:59
carried into a different trial. That way, it doesn't bleed
3:03
over from the defamation case into this new case with
3:10
stuff that might not be admissible. It's a bunch of
3:13
legal jargon type stuff.
3:14
Speaker 2: Folks.
3:15
Speaker 1: You know, we all know the system isn't set up
3:17
for people like us, right, It's not even set up
3:20
for us to understand half the time. You have to
3:22
sit down and like really dive into case law and
3:25
shit to even understand half of this stuff. And the
3:29
one I'm engaging in that sort of research and I'm
3:31
reading case law and I'm reading all this other jazz,
3:34
my eyes start to glaze over. It's just so boring
3:38
to me. But when you got a case like this,
3:44
you have to expect all kinds of craziness and bumps
3:47
in the road and curves. And so while I never
3:50
expected the case to get split into two trials, nothing
3:54
shocks me at this point, right, nothing at all. So
3:59
what I hope is that the original trial schedule for
4:01
the twelve still goes on, and then this next trial
4:05
maybe is the one that they do in twenty twenty two.
4:08
That's what I'm hoping, But again, I have no clue
4:13
how this will all break. One of Maxwell's multiple attacks
4:20
on our prosecution stemmed from the peculiar provision in the
4:23
Sweetheart plea deal federal prosecutors in Florida signed with Epstein
4:27
in two thousand and seven, a non prosecution agreement purporting
4:32
to shield Epstein's potential co conspirators. It's so weird, Like
4:38
who gets a deal like that. I mean, look, let's
4:43
be very real and very frank. If anybody thinks that
4:47
I enjoy sitting here talking about this case every single day,
4:50
putting all of this time into this case every single day.
4:54
Speaker 2: They're wrong.
4:56
Speaker 1: There are plenty of other things I'd rather be talking about.
5:01
But when you open the curtain a little bit and
5:04
you take a look at all the wild shit that
5:06
occurred in this case, and you see all of the
5:09
injustice that has taken place, and you see how the
5:13
federal government has basically just stomped on all of these
5:17
survivors of Jeffrey Epstein for decades. I don't know how
5:21
you can ignore it. I just don't know how people
5:26
ignore this kind of thing. And again, I'm certainly not
5:31
some sort of advocate for anybody. What I am, though,
5:37
is tired of the justice system not working, and this
5:43
just magnifies it to a degree that is blinding. US
5:50
District Judge Alison Nathan noted that Epstein signed the deal
5:54
with the Southern District of Florida, not the Southern District
5:57
of New York. And we've talked about a bunch and
6:01
a lot of other people did as well. People that
6:03
are much more well versed in the world of legal
6:07
matters than myself have said the same thing. There's no
6:10
way the plea deal was going to carry over from
6:13
Florida to New York. That shit was flying signed in
6:18
the state of Florida. So he's not being prosecuted on
6:25
those crime, I mean, she's not being prosecuted on those crimes.
6:28
They're being prosecuted on a whole new set of crimes
6:31
that allegedly occurred in New York. The court concludes that
6:37
the agreement does not apply in the district or to
6:40
the charge defenses. Nathan wrote in a thirty four page
6:43
opinion She's definitely not wrong about that, right. I mean,
6:47
how can you even attempt to try and weasele your
6:50
way into that plea deal that happened in Florida and
6:54
try and get it to cover you in New York.
6:58
That don't make any sense whatsoever. And again it's just
7:01
her lawyers. Look, they're running out of road, folks, They
7:05
are literally running out of road. What are they going
7:07
to do? The time is coming, where all the talk,
7:14
all the bs, it's all gonna be over with. The
7:21
trial's going to start, and then we'll see just exactly
7:26
what Maxwell has because as of now, she's in big trouble.
7:37
When prosecutors first charge Maxwell in July twenty twenty, the
7:41
indictment related to conduct between nineteen ninety four to nineteen
7:45
ninety seven. Though federal law typically imposes a five year
7:50
statute of limitations for most non capital offenses, Congress granted
7:55
prosecutors more latitude for crimes involving children through the passage
8:00
of the Protect Act of two thousand and three, which
8:03
allowed for prosecution during any time of the life of
8:07
the victim. So there you have it. That's what I
8:11
was talking about a little bit ago. And you know,
8:14
it's serious jeopardy for these people. And that should have
8:17
always been the case. There should be no in this instance,
8:23
a statue of limitations when there's all this evidence and
8:25
all of this circumstantial evidence that's been provided to the public,
8:30
even and lord knows what the prosecution has videos and pictures,
8:36
and I mean, come on, now, when you have this
8:40
sort of evidence and all of these witnesses, there has
8:45
to be a remedy. So I'm glad that the Protect
8:47
Act was passed in two thousand and three, and I'm
8:50
glad that it gives them the opportunity to attempt to
8:55
write such a grievous wrong. The judge rejected the argument
9:02
by Maxwell's defense counsel that the law did not have
9:06
retroactive application. Maxwell contends that it is unfair to allow
9:11
the government to prosecute her now for conduct that occurred
9:15
more than twenty years ago. But there is no dispute
9:18
that Congress has set the power, has the power to
9:22
set a lengthy limitations period or no limitations period at all.
9:27
The ruling states, so Congress made the ruling right. Let's
9:31
remember Congress makes the law right. Congress, they're the ones
9:35
who passed laws Okay, it's the judge's job.
9:40
Speaker 2: To uphold those laws.
9:42
Speaker 1: Not to interpret them like the Eleventh Circuit Court of
9:45
Appeals did, but to uphold them. So if Congress has
9:51
stated with this Act that they have passed that Maxwell
9:55
can be pursued, then gloves are off. Whatever legal remedy
10:01
there is, they should be pursuing it. I'm talking hit
10:04
her with every single charge in the book. Hell, that's
10:08
what they do to regular people. I've seen people get.
10:13
Speaker 2: Hit with.
10:16
Speaker 1: A CVS Walgreens type receipt now long those things are
10:23
full of rico charges, mid mid level, minor league type
10:29
people getting the business thrown at them. You know why,
10:33
because the government knows that they can do that. The government,
10:36
in most instances is the biggest bully of them all.
10:41
But in this case, when they should be flexing, when
10:46
they should be bullies, they're not. And I think that's
10:52
what's so confounding about this case, and I think that's
10:54
why so many people are fired up. It is done
10:58
so here judging that the difficulty of prosecuting these offenses
11:02
and the harm they work on children outweighs a defendant's
11:06
interest in repose. Maxwell's fairness argument is a gripe with
11:11
Congress's policy judgment, not an impermissibly retroactive application of the statute.
11:19
So again, like I was just saying, it's sounds like
11:21
you got your beef is with Congress there, Gilaane. Maybe
11:25
you guys didn't give them enough money. Maybe you and
11:27
Jeffrey should have given your buddies a little bit more money.
11:30
How much did Chucky Schumer get? Yeah, a ton? Should
11:34
we go through the list again of all the people
11:36
that got money? How much did good old Pete boota
11:39
judge receive before he gave the money back? Oh, I
11:42
gave the money back. Give me a break, all these
11:45
clown ass politicians. I guess you didn't go far enough, though, Glaine,
11:49
I guess you didn't in grease enough hands, stuff enough pockets.
11:54
You know, Before you know it, folks, Keilaine Maxwell will
11:59
be talking all kinds of other rubbish, and she'll be saying,
12:02
how you know, Oh, well, I'm at this facility now
12:09
and they're giving me a computer, but it doesn't have Netflix.
12:14
That'll be like the next argument from her. It's just
12:16
so absurd. Everything about her arguments here, every sort of
12:22
defense that her or her team brings up is just
12:25
more ludicrous than the last one. Maxwell did manage to
12:30
notch a narrow win, allowing her to cut her trials
12:34
into two. And that's what I was talking about in
12:36
the beginning. She's going to be charged separately for the
12:38
perjury and then for the other counts. That will be
12:42
the case the criminal portion of this case that we've
12:45
been discussing. One will focus on allegations that she groomed
12:52
and abused women and girls for Epstein's predation, and the
12:55
other will determine whether she lied in depositions while fighting
13:00
defamation claims by one of the alleged survivors, Virginia Roberts.
13:05
So again we'll have one on the perjury. It's gonna
13:08
focus on the lying. And I'm sure there's gonna be
13:10
some more sultry, disgusting information brought up in that case
13:16
as well, right, stuff we haven't seen yet. Stuff's gonna
13:19
get unsealed. We're gonna get to a discovery phase. Gonna
13:21
be pretty pretty gnarly, I'm guessing. And then of course
13:24
we have the big the big dog where Maxwell's looking
13:28
at life in prison, and that's these other charges, the
13:33
trafficking charges and those so we got ourselves a bit
13:40
of a split here. You know, we got one trial
13:43
coming up at hopefully July twelfth, and then this next trial.
13:46
Speaker 2: Who the hell knows.
13:47
Speaker 1: I mean again, I'm certainly not a lawyer. Does this
13:49
kind of thing happen concurrently? I don't. I don't even know, honestly.
13:56
Although some allegations of sexual abuse are relevant to both
13:59
sets of charges, many or not, Nathan wrote, at a minimum,
14:04
this will expand the scope of the trial far beyond
14:08
narrow the more narrow issues presented, So she's saying she
14:14
wants to stay focused on those main charges, and with these,
14:17
with the other issues and the defamation case blending into it,
14:21
it'll widen this scope massively, at least according to Judge
14:26
Nathan's ruling here, and while the court agrees with the
14:31
government that at least some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated,
14:35
there is little question that the jury's consideration of the
14:38
nature of the defamation action will require a significant investment
14:42
of time and resources to provide the requisite context. So
14:55
she thinks that two trials are going to be necessary
15:00
so that things can be streamlined. At least that's the
15:02
way it looks to me. She doesn't want to have
15:06
this all bald into one trial. She wants to make
15:08
sure it's two separate dockets so that things are moving
15:12
at a proper clip, would be my guess. The pair
15:23
of new sex trafficking charges that federal prosecutors filed against Maxwell,
15:28
since she filed her motions, are not covered by the
15:31
judge's ruling. Those new charges extend the length of the
15:34
alleged conspiracy until two thousand and four, and introduce a
15:39
minor victim four, who first agreed to be interviewed by
15:43
the government last summer. So remember it was ninety four
15:46
to ninety seven originally, and then it expanded another seven
15:51
years into two thousand and four when they hit her
15:54
with that superseded indictment. According to prosecutors, coronavirus error restrictions
16:04
made an in person interview unworkable until this past January.
16:09
I mean, okay, I guess right, that's in the past now, though, right,
16:13
I don't again, I don't want to hear these coronavirus
16:16
excuses when it comes to matters of law, folks, we
16:19
have to keep on getting on right. Everything's opening up,
16:22
people are going back to work, Things are starting to
16:24
move in the right direction. I heard the other day
16:27
like fifty percent of American adults have already gotten at
16:31
least one JAB. So the coronavirus stuff, as far as
16:35
using it as an excuse legally, it's really getting to
16:39
be annoying to me. Honestly, we have to function and
16:43
we have to keep things moving all right. Over the
16:49
next two months, the government worked expeditiously to conduct additional
16:53
investigation to corroborate minor victim number four, including by interviewing
16:59
a additional witnesses, revealing documents that have already been produced
17:03
to the Defense, and discovery and subpoenaing additional records, which
17:08
the government promptly produced to the Defense upon receipt the
17:13
government revealed earlier this month. So the government saying that
17:19
it has met and exceeded expectations when it comes to
17:25
records and paperwork and things that have to do with
17:30
the case and with Maxwell's defense. According to the government,
17:34
they have been all over that banging it out, making
17:38
sure that it happens, making sure Maxwell's team has everything
17:40
that they need. And Maxwell's team, on the other hand,
17:45
says that's not the case. The computers broke this. That
17:49
the other thing obviously, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Right,
17:53
we're dealing with two prolific liars, folks, the federal government
17:58
and Gilane Maxwell.
18:00
Speaker 2: So who are you gonna believe?
18:04
Speaker 1: Maxwell has moved a pauser trial, which is currently scheduled
18:07
for July twelfth this year. Prosecutors signaled that they will
18:11
oppose this measure. Her lawyer did not immediately respond to
18:15
an email requesting comment. And now in the description box
18:20
you'll find this link. And inside of this link you'll
18:24
you'll have the whole entire ruling from Judge Nathan all
18:28
thirty four pages. So I suggest if you want to
18:31
give that a glimpse that you do so. I always
18:33
think that it's a good idea to read the original documents.
18:37
And look, folks, this is gonna be a journey, right,
18:43
This is a It's gonna be quite the uh roller coaster,
18:48
So buckle up and prepare yourselves. One thing is for certain,
18:56
Heland Maxwell is going to be judged by a jury
19:01
of her peers. If you'd like to contact me, you
19:04
can do that at Bobby Kapucci at ProtonMail dot com.
19:08
That's bo Bby c ap you Cci at ProtonMail dot com.
19:15
You can also find me on Twitter at Bobby Underscore
19:20
cap you Cci. All of the links that go with
19:24
this episode can be found in the description box. Welcome
19:29
back to the Epstein Chronicles. Hope everybody's having a great
19:33
morning out there, and hopefully the rest of your day
19:36
is even better. Today on the program, we're going to
19:39
talk a little bit more about the possibility that Maxwell's
19:44
conviction gets overturned and that her trial is declared a mistrial. Now,
19:51
we have heard from several experts here on the podcast
19:55
and elsewhere about the eventuality of Maxwell's conviction and if
20:01
it will be overturned or not, and really all anyone
20:06
can do at this point is speculate. So when we're
20:10
in a situation like this, what I like to do
20:12
is add as many opinions from the experts as possible,
20:16
as much context as possible, so that we get as
20:20
clear of a picture as we possibly can. So today
20:24
that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna hear from another expert,
20:27
another legal expert, who's going to give us their hot
20:31
take on the current situation. But before we dive into that,
20:35
we're gonna touch real quick on Prince Andrew and his
20:39
sale of the Ski Schela. Now he is in a
20:45
big time bind, right, He's gonna owe a bunch of
20:48
money one way.
20:48
Speaker 2: Or the other.
20:49
Speaker 1: And it would lead one to believe that selling off
20:54
a property the way he is, you know, selling off
20:57
this property here in Switzerland, that that money would be
21:02
used to go to pay off legal fees and any
21:07
kind of settlement with Virginia Roberts. But according to Spencer Covin,
21:12
who is one of the lawyers for the survivors, he's
21:14
been relatively outspoken as well. He says that it looks
21:19
like a move of Andrew just basically reorganizing his funds
21:23
so he can protect that money and those funds from
21:27
being seized or having to give access to his accuser.
21:33
So that's a pretty interesting development on that end of
21:36
the case, and we're gonna wait for a little more
21:39
context to be provided, but it certainly is an angle
21:43
worth exploring. We know that Prince Andrew and his legal
21:46
team are relatively shrewd when it comes to things like this,
21:51
and anytime you have Singer and Brexler involved, you know
21:55
that there's some moves going on behind the scenes. So
21:59
if they feel like they can reorganize and you know,
22:02
get that money protected so that Virginia has an even
22:07
harder time getting to it. You know, that's what they're
22:09
going to do. The more layers of insulation they can
22:12
provide between old princely old boy over here and him
22:17
getting the hammer dropped on him, so much the better
22:20
from their perspective, right, So that's what they're going to
22:23
continue to do. And Prince Andrew look as much of
22:27
a boob as he is, the guy has a lot
22:30
of dough, he has a lot of influence, and he
22:33
has you know, the royal family. They might be acting
22:35
like they're not backing him, you know, for all intents
22:39
and purposes in the public view, but who knows what's
22:42
going on behind the scenes. And we know the Queen
22:44
hasn't completely exiled him. We know the Queen hasn't completely
22:48
told him to get lost, So behind the scenes, I
22:52
would guess that he is receiving support from the Queen
22:55
as well. And you know that this is going to
22:59
call a ton of money, So Prince Andrew's going to really.
23:04
Speaker 2: Have to figure it out.
23:06
Speaker 1: And it's my hope that Virginia's legal team continues to
23:10
be super aggressive and keep him on his heels because
23:13
you know what, that's.
23:14
Speaker 2: What he deserves.
23:15
Speaker 1: He deserves to wake up every morning, have anxiety, not
23:19
know what's coming next, and worrying about the other shoe
23:22
getting ready to drop, just like all of these survivors
23:26
had to worry for all of their lives basically after
23:29
they were abused by Epstein. So it's shitty when the
23:33
karma train comes around. Huh. Real shitty when it makes
23:36
a stop at your station. So that's a quick update
23:40
there about Prince Andrew and the ski and the skihouse
23:43
he had there for sale in Switzerland. And when we
23:46
get some more you know, information, some more context, we'll
23:49
dive in into a full episode about it if it's
23:53
noteworthy enough. But with that said, today we're going to
23:57
talk a little bit more about journalber fifty, Scotti David
24:01
and the situation surrounding the Maxwell conviction. Now I've said
24:09
from the beginning, it doesn't look good for mister Scotty
24:11
David certainly looks to me like he lied. Obviously, until
24:15
we have confirmation of that, it's just a guess, right,
24:19
But when you look at the tea leaves and you
24:22
look at how everything is, you know, falling here certainly
24:26
looks like he was loose with the truth and didn't
24:29
give all of the information that is required up front.
24:33
So if that's the case, then you would think that
24:36
Maxwell's team would certainly have merit for a mistrial. That's
24:40
what the common man would think, right, someone in the
24:42
peanut gallery who's not a lawyer, who doesn't follow this stuff. Well,
24:46
according to some of the experts, as Lee Corso would say,
24:51
not so fast, my friend. So today we have an
24:54
article from the New York Daily News and it's authored
24:58
by Jeffrey Abramson. Headline a will Glen Maxwell Jerr compromised
25:03
her right to a fair trial? And why that won't
25:06
be enough to invalidate the verdict. Now this has me
25:10
torn right because I want to see Maxwell go to
25:13
prison for the rest of her life. But at the
25:15
same time, I believe that there needs to be a
25:18
fair system that sends people to prison or we're all screwed.
25:23
We all know it's not fair as it is, so
25:25
are we going to get make it even less fair?
25:28
It's a pretty important situation when we're talking about a
25:32
jury being selected. And as much as I despise Maxwell,
25:36
as much as I want to see her rotten prison forever.
25:39
I want to make sure everything's on the up and up,
25:41
and I've said that from the very beginning here on
25:44
this podcast. I didn't want her to have any kind
25:48
of wiggle room anyway off the hook. And unfortunately, if
25:53
what we're hearing here and what I believe to be
25:57
true is true, then that's exactlyactly what we've given her,
26:01
or should I say what Juror fifty has given her
26:04
some wiggle room, a way to try and get herself
26:06
off the hook. Fortunately, for the world that large and
26:11
especially the survivors, I don't think it's going to work,
26:14
but it certainly gives her a few breaths, right, a
26:17
little bit of an air pocket as opposed to just
26:22
suffocating under the weight of sixty years in prison. Now
26:28
we're gonna have to see one way or the other
26:29
of what comes of this, and they're having their inquiry,
26:32
but until we get there, we're gonna take another look
26:35
here and see what mister Abramson, another expert, what he
26:38
has to say. Here's why one jurors misconduct requires Glaine
26:44
Maxwell's convictions to be tossed out, and here's why they
26:48
probably won't be The issue is whether Juror fifty failed
26:52
to disclose he had been sexually abused as a child.
26:55
The jury questionnaire specifically asked him about this. And you see,
27:00
this is the issue I have, right, As much as
27:02
I despise people like Maxwell, as much as I cannot
27:06
stand them, we have to have a system that works.
27:11
We have to have a system that at the very
27:13
least there's at least faith in the jury selection process.
27:16
Speaker 2: Right. So it's a big.
27:18
Speaker 1: Deal to me, and I think that it is a
27:22
gross move by jur number fifty if this all pans
27:25
out and it's proved to be that he did bs,
27:29
I think it's really a gross, gross move by this man,
27:34
and it really sets the survivors back and makes them
27:39
have to relive all of this. So I hope that
27:43
it doesn't have that effect, right, And I hope that
27:46
we don't get a mistrial here and they don't have
27:48
to go through all of this again. But Juror fifty
27:51
and him lying, if that's the case, certainly puts us
27:55
in a position where it is a possibility. Since Maxwell
28:02
faced charges of sex trafficking minor girls to Jeffrey Epstein,
28:05
the relevance of whether a potential juror had experienced sexual
28:09
abuse as a child was enormous. If Juror fifty had
28:14
made the required disclosure, the trial judge Alison Nathan almost
28:18
surely would have asked follow up questions during the part
28:21
of jury selection and the questionnaire section, and instead she
28:27
asked the juror forty eight questions, none of which were
28:30
about sexual abuse. So it certainly looks like he wasn't truthful.
28:35
Right when you look at everything that we have looked
28:38
at here on the podcast, everything you folks have read elsewhere,
28:41
it's rather obvious that he was not truthful on this questionnaire.
28:46
And that's gonna be a big problem. Now. Is it
28:48
going to be enough to get a mistrial declared? That's
28:52
the question we're all asking. The judge did ask whether
28:56
Juror fifty two of anything that would keep him from
28:58
being on, from being fair, and he assured the judge
29:02
there was nothing. So it looks like that jur fifty
29:06
was not truthful at all here, really, right, I mean,
29:10
with the judge, the questionnaire, all of it. If Maxwell's
29:14
lawyers had known of Juror fifty's history, they would have
29:17
probed the matter and probably challenged the jur for cause.
29:21
Speaker 2: They likely would have argued.
29:22
Speaker 1: That any juror who had been abused as a child
29:25
would identify with Maxwell's survivors and cannot be fair. Well,
29:29
that does sound like the case, right, You would think
29:33
that her lawyers would not want somebody like this on
29:36
the jury. Now, with that said, we have to also
29:41
keep in mind that maybe they made a mistake. Maybe
29:44
he was truthful and her lawyers missed it. Now do
29:48
I think that's the likeliest of possibilities. I do not.
29:51
But until we know, we can't just say that that
29:54
didn't happen. So that's why we're here digging through all
29:58
of this. We're trying to get to that goal, right,
30:00
swimming through the murk looking for some clarity. Nathan would
30:05
then have asked Juror fifty whether he could put aside
30:08
the past and decide the case solely upon the evidence.
30:11
If she were satisfied with Juror fifty's assurances, she would
30:14
have denied the challenge for cause. If unsatisfied, she would
30:18
have granted it. So that's how it works, right, Both
30:21
sides get to take a look at the jurors get
30:24
to try and choose potential jurors, and then if one
30:27
of them objects to a potential juror being selected, then
30:31
the judge comes in and she or he will make
30:34
that decision. But I would think that if mister juror
30:39
fifty here, Scottie David was honest, that Judge Nathan would
30:44
have pursued that line of questioning. And again that's just
30:49
my guess. Maybe Judge Nathan missed it too. But Ockham's
30:52
raiser and all right, even if they lost a challenge
30:57
for cause against Juror fifty, Maxwell's lawyers may I've used
31:00
one of their peremptory challenges to strike them within limits.
31:04
Peremptory challenges give either side the right to strike any
31:08
juror they suspect will favor the other side, And that
31:12
makes sense. That's the whole point of trying to select
31:14
a jury, right as opposed to just having a jury appointed.
31:18
The process is jurors, potential jurors are brought in, then
31:21
both sides get to question them, go through some different
31:25
scenarios and try and figure out who is going to
31:29
be best suited to sit and hear this case and
31:31
potentially get their client off or on the flip side,
31:35
who's going to be best to hear this case and
31:37
give the prosecution a conviction. In short, jurors fifties failure
31:44
to disclose his past kept the court and parties from
31:47
making informed decisions about his impartiality. As the Supreme Court noted,
31:52
the necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors is to serve.
31:57
Its purpose is obvious, and again the process has to
32:00
be followed. I know that if I was on trial,
32:03
I'd want as fair of a trial as I possibly
32:05
could have, and I certainly wouldn't want I don't know,
32:08
say it was a financial crime, right, I certainly wouldn't
32:12
want a juror who has been swindled to.
32:14
Speaker 2: Be on the jury.
32:17
Speaker 1: So you could definitely see where their objection would come from.
32:21
Now is that objection going to be strong enough? I
32:25
don't think so, but who knows. There's a lot of
32:28
precedent that has to be done away with if we
32:31
get an overturned conviction here. And like we've said several
32:35
times here on the podcast, once the court makes a decision,
32:38
you really have to show it some evidence for them
32:41
to change that decision. In nineteen eighty four, the Supreme
32:47
Court set out guidelines for determining when a juror's failure
32:50
to disclose relevant information is serious enough to violate a
32:54
defendant's right to an impartial jury to warn a new trial.
32:58
The court ruled apart. Plready, you must first demonstrate that
33:01
a juror failed to answer honestly a material question during
33:05
the questioning period, and then further show that a correct
33:08
response would have provided valid basis for a challenge for cause.
33:14
I mean, certainly looks to me like that's right on
33:18
pace with where we're at. Right applying that standard, Nathan
33:22
should with a reluctance, most of us share grant Maxwell
33:26
a new trial. This jurors silence denied Maxwell the right
33:30
to develop a valid challenge for cause. And here's where
33:34
I'm torn, right, I agree that you know her rights
33:42
as far as a fair trial need to be respected.
33:45
But again, I don't feel like I am educated enough
33:50
in the legal realm to dive in hard enough one
33:53
way or the other here and state definitively if this
33:56
should be a mistrial or not. It's really out of
33:59
my mind Lane, to be honest with you, folks, That's
34:02
why I'm trying to compile all of these opinions from
34:05
all of these experts, and you know that way we
34:08
can come up, you know, to a conclusion. But it
34:12
certainly looks like, if we're just going by the standards
34:15
set here by the Supreme Court, that Maxwell would have
34:18
cause at the very least to petition the court for
34:21
a new trial. But Nathan may well find that the
34:27
misconduct does not require overturning the guilty verdicts for starters.
34:32
She knows that courts have excused far worse during misconduct.
34:36
The Supreme Court has let stand guilty verdicts returned by
34:39
jurors drunk or high on cocaine. Other courts have found
34:42
verdicts valid even though jurors slept through the testimony. I mean, sheh.
34:48
If I was a defendant in the court and it
34:51
was found out that one of my jurors was high
34:54
on coke or drunk and I still got convicted, boy,
34:58
I'd be hot as hell. Let me tell you that
34:59
much right now. Now, I'd be fired up. Now, don't
35:02
get me wrong. Should be more mad at yourself for
35:05
you know, committing the crime. But imagine if you're innocent
35:09
and you get a juror who don't give a shit
35:11
comes in all you know gacked up on blow forget that.
35:16
Speaker 2: That's terrible, But.
35:17
Speaker 1: You know, the Supreme Court's going to Supreme Court, and
35:20
I guess the laws of the land are not for
35:23
mere peasants such as us to understand. After a trial
35:29
involving injury sustained in a motorcycle accident, the Supreme Court
35:33
in twenty fourteen let the jury verdict stand even though
35:37
the four person fail to disclose that her own daughter
35:40
had been at fault in a fatal motorcycle accident. So
35:43
even though the Supreme Court has on the one hand
35:47
rule that a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury,
35:50
its own subsequent decisions have made it difficult to enforce
35:54
that very right. And that's what I mean about precedent.
35:57
So Maxwell has an uphill battle to climb here, folks,
36:02
And it's never easy to get something overturned in the court.
36:05
But I think it's important for us to have full
36:08
context of the whole entire situation right, because what it does,
36:12
again is it just shows you how broken the system
36:15
is and how it needs to be reformed and fixed.
36:24
In addition, Nathan could find that any emission on juror's
36:27
fifty juror fifties questionnaire were cured during the questionnaire session
36:32
when she had the opportunity to look the juror in
36:34
the eye and determine whether he was honest when he
36:37
said there was absolutely nothing that would keep him from
36:40
being a fair jur And again, this is why I
36:43
talk about how important it is with these judges, folks.
36:47
Speaker 2: You know, Judge.
36:48
Speaker 1: Nathan's going to be the one who really, at the
36:50
end of the day, decides all of this. So if
36:52
we don't have good quality people sitting the bench, people
36:55
who actually care about the law and not you know,
36:58
promoting themselves for or their next gig, then we're going
37:02
to continue to be in a situation where the system
37:05
is just broken and there's no one there to guide
37:09
it correctly and put it back on course. You would
37:12
think that these judges would be, you know, the final barrier,
37:17
but a lot of times, you know, they're too busy
37:21
acting like the king in their own court. It is
37:29
the defense that bears the high burden of proving Juror
37:32
fifties bias. Nathan will probably not presume bias simply because
37:36
Juror fifty failed to disclose his child sexual abuse. She
37:41
is likely to require the defense to prove actual bias
37:44
and that the jur deliberately lied to get on the jury.
37:48
Juror fifty maintains that any emissions were due to the
37:50
length of the questionnaire and is rushing through it. So,
37:53
according to Scotty David, he didn't lie intentionally. If he lied,
37:58
it was the questionnaire was too long and he rushed
38:02
through it. That's his defense. Legally speaking, it should not
38:06
matter whether juror's fifties juror fifties mistakes on the questionnaire
38:10
were intentional or inadvertent. Either way, his emissions deprived the
38:15
defense of its constitutional right to probe him for bias.
38:19
But don't bet on Jeffrey Epstein's procure winning on this issue.
38:24
The author of this article is also the author of
38:29
We the Jury, The Jury System, and the Ideal Democracy,
38:33
and he's a professor of law and government at the
38:36
University of Texas at Austin. So just another perspective for
38:40
you folks to consider, another legal voice adding his opinion
38:45
to the mix. And really that's all we can do
38:47
at this point, right, get as much information compiled as
38:50
possible and try and figure out what's what. So that's
38:55
what we're going to continue to do here. We'll continue
38:57
to try and make a little sense of all of
39:01
this nonsense. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for
39:05
this morning's episode. I will be back later on like
39:08
usual with an evening update context episode certainly coming your
39:12
way in between. If you'd like to contact me, you
39:15
can do that at Bobby Capuci at ProtonMail dot com.
39:18
That's bo Bby c ap Cci at ProtonMail dot com.
39:25
You can also find me on Twitter at bo bb
39:28
Y Underscore c ap u Cci. The link to the
39:33
article that we discussed can be found in the description box.
39:38
Every One, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Glenn
39:43
Maxwell and her team we're asking for a super light
39:46
sentence at the upcoming sentencing next week, and they ask
39:52
for the absurd number of roughly five years. Now, anyone
39:57
with a brain in their head understands that five years
40:00
for her is one of the most ludicrous asks of
40:03
this century. This lady needs to do at least twenty
40:07
five thirty years at least, and thankfully the federal government agrees,
40:14
because the Feds in their written response to the Maxwell team,
40:18
well they came out and straight upset it. She deserves
40:20
at least thirty in prison, and I think that reflects.
40:24
Speaker 2: The mood of the whole entire world.
40:27
Speaker 1: For the most part, people are tired of people like
40:32
Maxwell getting away with shit like this on a regular basis.
40:36
These kind of people get off and it's been going
40:39
on for way too long, and finally one of them
40:43
gets caught up, one of them is being held accountable,
40:47
and her lawyers think she should get less time than
40:50
a seventy year old man who was engaging in quote
40:53
unquote illegal sports gambling. Tell me how that makes sense,
41:00
because it does not. I mean, look, folks, there's a
41:04
five year mandatory sentence. If you get caught with crack
41:08
rock the same amount of cocaine, well you'll probably just
41:12
get probation, But if you get caught with crack rock,
41:15
you have mandatory five federally. So you mean to tell
41:19
me Maxwell should get less time than somebody who gets
41:22
caught with some crack And then you wonder why I
41:26
talk about the two tier justice system with such rancor.
41:31
It's disgusting and it's gross, and people like Maxwell have
41:35
been able to manipulate the system and game the system
41:38
for way too long. Well, hopefully that party is coming
41:44
to an end. Today, we have an article from ABC
41:47
News headline Feds Gaalaine Maxwell deserves at least thirty years
41:54
in prison. This article was authored by Larry Neumeister over
41:59
at the Ootiated Press, British socialite, co conspirator, general, all
42:05
around scusbag, fellow child abuser, and bipedal serpent gole and
42:09
Maxwell should spend at least thirty years in prison for
42:13
her role in the sexual abuse of teenage girls over
42:16
a ten year period by her one time boyfriend co conspirator.
42:21
Uh you know, uh, co boss whatever you want to
42:25
call him, but one time boyfriend.
42:27
Speaker 2: That's so ridiculous.
42:29
Speaker 1: At this point, with everything we all know, we're still
42:32
gonna her call her his one time girlfriend. Huh okay,
42:37
financier Jeffrey Epstein, you mean pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Boy, we're
42:41
batt in a thousand here in this ap article, prosecutors
42:44
said Wednesday. In written arguments, prosecutors said she should serve
42:48
between thirty years and fifty five years in prison, reflecting
42:53
the federal sentencing guidelines. They made their recommendation to the
42:57
judge who will preside over the sentencing on Tuesday. In
43:01
Manhattan Federal Court. Yeah, that's right in line with what
43:05
they should be asking. There's no way that she should
43:08
be doing anything less than twenty twenty five years. That's
43:12
the bare minimum, because even then she still has a
43:17
shot to walk out of that jail at some point
43:19
if she gets twenty right, And to me, that's unacceptable.
43:25
This lady should be in prison for the rest of
43:27
her life. Keith ray Neery, same deal, And same with
43:30
that scumbag R. Kelly and any one of these other
43:35
silly ass rich people who think they can get away
43:37
with abusing poor people anytime they want.
43:41
Speaker 2: Well, the jig's up for you too.
43:43
Speaker 1: People might not have been paying attention before you got
43:46
our attention now. The sixty year old Maxwell was convicted
43:51
in December of sex trafficking and other crimes after a
43:54
month long trial that featured testimony from four women who
43:58
said they were abused in their teas, and four could
44:01
have easily been ten if the SDNY and the federal
44:07
government would have pursued this correctly, could have easily been
44:10
ten twenty women who came forward and gave their account
44:14
of what happened to them. But of course we all
44:17
know that the SDNY, the DOJ. The whole entire idea
44:23
was to forget that this ever happened. Unfortunately for them,
44:27
Epstein got busted a second time. If it wasn't for
44:30
that second arrest, we'd never even be here. None of
44:33
these people that are running around grand standing right now,
44:36
you know, these politicians or these blue check marks, none
44:39
of them really gave a damn about any of this.
44:41
And if it wasn't for the second time around and
44:44
a cost of being involved, a lot of these people
44:46
still wouldn't have cared. But the fact is this was
44:53
going on for years and years and years, right under
44:56
the noses of all these big mouths in New York.
45:00
And I find it ironic whenever any of them get
45:03
out there and try and tell us about other people's crimes,
45:06
when we know for a damn fact that Epstein and
45:08
Maxwell were running around right in their district and doing this.
45:12
And you mean to tell me none of them that
45:14
knew huh Si Vans and the rest of them, Okay, sure,
45:18
if that's what you want me to believe. Defense lawyers
45:22
said in a sentencing submission last week that she should
45:25
spend no more than five years in prison and shouldn't
45:29
pay for Epstein's crimes since he was the mastermind and
45:32
principal abuser and orchestrated the crimes for his personal gratification.
45:37
Once again, this is such a BS defense. If you're
45:42
the underboss, you're the capo, you're in trouble like everybody
45:46
else's What do you think because El Chopo is in
45:51
trouble that the rest of his people aren't. Everybody had
45:55
their hand in it, right, everybody that was involved, and
45:59
it's no different here. Maxwell and Epstein put this whole
46:02
entire thing into place, and they both were working over
46:06
time to make sure that girls were coming in. How
46:11
much more clear does it have to be? I mean,
46:13
I don't know where's the disconnect here. Now. Of course,
46:18
her legal team is going to do everything they can
46:20
to make it look like it was all Epstein and
46:23
Maxwell was just along for the ride. But that doesn't
46:28
match what we have heard from the survivors. And like
46:32
I've said from the very beginning, for me, anyway, it's
46:36
bypassed the bullshit, bypass all of these stupid ass journalists
46:40
who think they have an idea of what's going on,
46:42
and listen directly, you know what the survivors have to say,
46:46
and then, using court documents piecing things together, well you
46:49
come to a place that is very dark and very
46:53
very disturbing. Epstein took his own life in twenty nineteen
46:58
in jail as he a Manhattan federal sex trafficking trial. Allegedly,
47:04
but prosecutors said, Maxwell played an instrumental role in the
47:08
horrific sexual abuse of multiple young teenage girls between nineteen
47:13
ninety four and two thousand and four at some of
47:16
Epstein's palatial residences. They called her crimes monstrous. Well what
47:21
else would you call them, because that's exactly what they are.
47:24
A monstrous what she did to these girls, what these
47:28
girls said she did to them, and then what she
47:30
was convicted of, what else could you possibly call it?
47:35
As part of a disturbing agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell
47:38
identified groomed and abused multiple victims while she enjoyed a
47:43
life of extraordinary luxury and privilege. In her wake, Maxwell
47:47
left her victims permanently scarred with emotional and psychological injuries.
47:52
Prosecutors wrote, and all you have to do is listen
47:55
to what these ladies have to say about their time
47:58
spent with Glen Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and that'll tell
48:02
you everything you need to know about their mental state.
48:05
And even listen to what the older girls, older women
48:08
had to say about how things broke for them after
48:11
they got caught up in this web. Because while crimes
48:15
against children are the most heinous crimes in the whole world,
48:18
these crimes against women in any regard that damage can
48:23
never be undone, but it can be accounted for in
48:26
crafting a just sentence for Maxwell's crimes, they added. Prosecutors
48:30
also urged the judge to reject Maxwell's pleas for leniency
48:34
on the grounds that she has suffered in extraordinary ways
48:37
in jail while awaiting trial and afterward. Defense lawyers said
48:42
she faced death threats and harsh conditions that have caused
48:45
her to lose hair and weight. Anyone who is going
48:48
through a stressful period, this is going to occur. You're
48:51
gonna lose some hair, You're gonna lose weight. That's how
48:53
the body reacts. And she's not being treated any worse
48:58
than anyone else in that jail. The problem is she's
49:02
not being treated like she's at the RITZ. And that's
49:05
a big problem for so that's gonna be a big
49:07
problem for moving forward because breaking news. You are not
49:11
at the ritz and you're never going to be again,
49:16
if the prosecutors and the rest of us have anything
49:18
to say about it. Maxwell's appearance at trial proved these
49:23
claims were wrong, prosecutors said, adding the defendant, the defendant
49:27
is perfectly healthy.
49:28
Speaker 2: With a full head of hair.
49:30
Speaker 1: Okay, they said, Maxwell has enjoyed remarkable privileges as the
49:35
high profile inmate that vastly exceeded the benefits according to
49:38
the average inmate.
49:39
Speaker 2: That's a fact.
49:41
Speaker 1: And all you have to do again is go talk
49:43
to somebody who did jail time shouldn't be too our defined,
49:45
considering how many of our fellow citizens are locked up
49:49
and used, as you know, slave labor. Basically, just go
49:53
talk to them about their experiences in the system and
49:56
about how shitty their life was. And then you tell
49:58
me about Maxwell, how she had the computer for fourteen hours,
50:02
complete access to her lawyers, nobody around her, the dream
50:05
come true in prison. If you ask me, it is
50:08
unsurprising that a woman who had led a life of
50:10
incredible luxury should complain about her life as a prisoner,
50:14
But that fact does not come close to meriting leniency
50:18
at sentencing, much less the extraordinary degree of leniency the
50:22
defendant seeks. I like that language in the response by
50:26
the prosecutors because this is bs. What she's talking about
50:31
here is straight up garbage. Four and a half years,
50:34
I mean, come on. Prosecutors also attacked claims by Maxwell's
50:40
lawyers that she suffered a credible death threat in jail,
50:43
saying that an internal probe of the purported threat revealed
50:46
that an inmate remarked to someone in passing something to
50:49
the effect of, I'd kill her if someone paid me
50:52
a million dollars. As a result, they said, someone who
50:55
overheard the remark reported it to the inmate, reported it,
50:59
and the inmate would moved from the housing unit. So
51:03
ament a comment made in passing, like I said in
51:06
the From the beginning.
51:07
Speaker 2: Of all of this, I doubt it was a credible threat.
51:09
Speaker 1: The IRA, Someone's gonna assassinate her with a sniper. I mean, really,
51:14
the IRA. You couldn't come up with something more creative.
51:18
The IRA hasn't been involved in violence since the time
51:21
of troubles has ended. So where do you even come
51:24
up with?
51:24
Speaker 2: The IRA? Have we been watching too many movies? You know? Again?
51:28
Speaker 1: Though these are the same people who told us there
51:31
was a ninja in Jeffrey Epstein's bushes, so I guess
51:34
any BS story is possible with them. They also cited
51:38
what they described as Maxwell's complete failure to address her
51:41
offense conduct and or at her utter lack of remorse.
51:45
Instead of showing even a hint of acceptance or responsibility,
51:48
the defendant makes a desperate attempt to cast blame wherever
51:52
else she can, and it certainly seems like that she
51:55
really hasn't accepted her fate yet. And when you're looking
51:59
at this kind of prison sentence, it behooves you to
52:02
face the reality that you're going away forever and prepare
52:05
yourself mentally, because the second this sentencing happens, folks, listen
52:10
to me when I tell you the party really is
52:13
over for Glenn Maxwell. The whole protected status as an
52:18
inmate that's gonna go by the wayside once she's convicted
52:21
and sent mainline, then hey, that's you know, it's gonna
52:25
be up to the way she conducts herself. What happens
52:27
from there, because the people that she's gonna be bunking
52:31
with depending on where she gets sent, well, they're not
52:35
going to be the friendliest of people. Maxwell's efforts to
52:41
cast aspersions on the motives of the government for prosecuting
52:44
her and her claim that she is being held responsible
52:47
for Epstein's crimes are absurd and offensive. Prosecutors said, Maxwell
52:52
was an adult who made her own choices. She made
52:55
the choice to sexually exploit numerous underage girls. She made
52:59
the choice to conspire with Epstein for years, working as
53:02
partners in crime and causing devastating harm the vulnerable victims.
53:06
They said, Man, it sounds like I wrote that brief. Huh.
53:11
Very nicely done over there, getting things worded correctly, because
53:16
this is how you should be responding to this bullshit
53:18
that they're asking for. Prosecutors said, nearly all of the
53:23
twenty two and a half million in assets that Maxwell
53:26
claimed in a bell proposal that was never granted was
53:29
given to her by Epstein. Well, you know what's so funny,
53:33
And as far as I'm concerned, the prosecution screwed up here.
53:38
If they would have made this a rico case, they
53:39
could have used that against Maxwell because she would have
53:42
received ill gotten gains. Right, and then the second that happens,
53:45
you can freeze all of her money, every single dollar
53:48
she has, even if she is not the main target
53:51
of the operation. Once those RICO predicates are met, then
53:55
it's game time. The federal government has a lot of
53:58
lateral ability to sweep people up in these cases. And
54:05
you might not think that's how it works, but folks,
54:07
let me tell you it is. If you receive one
54:11
dollar in ill gotten gains, you can get caught up
54:14
in a RICO case.
54:15
Speaker 2: But for some.
54:16
Speaker 1: Reason, the government never brought one against Maxwell and Epstein.
54:20
I'll let you figure out what that reason is. The
54:24
defendant's access to wealth enabled her to present herself as
54:27
a supposedly respectable member of society who rubbed shoulders with royalty,
54:32
presidents and celebrities. That same wealth dazzled the girls from
54:37
struggling families who became the defendant, and Epstein's victim's prosecutors said, look,
54:43
they're not wrong, and all of these yutze ass royalty
54:47
and president and celebrities. They should be embarrassed. But you
54:51
have to have some kind of you know, self reflection
54:54
for that to occur, some sort of personal moral compass.
54:58
But these people don't care. They don't have that. The
55:03
sentencing submission also included quotes from letters written to the
55:07
judge by women who testified during the trial, including Kate,
55:11
an ex model from Great Britain, who said, the consequences
55:14
of what Maxwell did have been far reaching for me.
55:18
I have struggled with and eventually triumphed over substance use disorder.
55:22
I have suffered panic attacks and night terrors with which
55:25
I still struggle. I have suffered low self esteem, loss
55:29
of career opportunities. I have battled greatly with feeling unable
55:34
to trust my own instincts in choosing romantic relationships, she wrote,
55:38
And look, that is pretty much the way it sums
55:41
up for all of these girls, right. All of them
55:44
have suffered greatly because of the behavior of Glenn Maxwell.
55:48
Speaker 2: And the thought that Maxwell.
55:50
Speaker 1: Is going to even think about getting a light sentence
55:54
here is disgusting and hopefully it won't be the case.
55:58
And with the language being us used by the prosecutor
56:01
of the prosecutors in this filing, it sure seems to
56:04
me like they're going to try and get the full
56:07
thirty twenty five thirty at least. So that's positive and
56:12
we'll have to see what happens next Tuesday, but certainly
56:15
a positive development here with the clapback by the prosecution.
56:20
All Right, folks, that's gonna do it for this episode.
56:23
If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
56:24
at Bobby Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com. That's b O
56:29
B B Y C A p U C C I
56:32
at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find me on
56:35
Twitter at Bobby underscore c ap Ucci. The link that
56:41
I discussed can be found in the description box.