quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

I guess you missed this, but Maxwell has yet to be sentenced!

No, I didn't miss that.

But you've clearly missed my point.

I believe the significant part of your point was: "It's done. As far as everyone involved here is concerned, that's a wrap.

IMHO for the reasons stated above, not the least to include Maxwell's own (self-serving) constitutionally recognized RIGHT to provide evidence that could mitigate her sentence, it's not over yet.

The defense rested early on the grounds that the "state didn't prove its case". Apparently the jurors thought differently.

Gislane made the gamble that she would not be convicted, so there was no need to make a deal prematurely. Now that she is convicted and facing hard time, basically the rest of her life in prison, she has more incentive to cooperate.

Pedophile enablers don't exactly get treated nicely in prison...


BUT

It is worth saying that rich and powerful men all over the world have a liking for young "pure" women.

The age of consent in Japan is 13, China is 14, Philippines is 12 (!). It is 14 in Italy, Brazil, Germany, Portugal, Serbia, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria. It is 15 in France, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, Romania, Czech Republic. The rest of Europe is mostly 16, except Ireland at 17, and Vatican City at 18. South Korea has the highest age I can find at 20, while North Korea is 15.

The US is mostly 16-18, depending on the state, with various exceptions for age proximity.

Epstein and Maxwell provided supply to meet a DEMAND. And prosecuting them is like prosecuting a drug dealer or drug kingpin. As soon as one is gone, another takes the place because the DEMAND is still there.

I'm simply saying that the prosecution isn't even asking for names. Yes, I'm implying that there is massive corruption here to protect the likely dozens of hugely influential and powerful men she might implicate.

She will be quietly put away, and that will be the end of this Epstein saga as far as the feds are concerned. They did their job and got their man (or woman). Justice is done. Everyone's happy. As far as her sentencing, I don't think it's even relevant at this point.

This is all happening in the media limbo that occurs between Christmas and New Year's. No one's even paying attention.

Of course this is all just my opinion.

^^^ But the CIVIL lawsuits will be flooding the courts now. Every young woman that was abused by Epstein and Maxwell now has a huge incentive to sue for damages, because a criminal court finding of guilty on the FACTS makes the civil case that much easier.

And these girls are going to NAME NAMES, or they will settle out of court for huge payments from the NAMES they choose not to NAME publicly.

Perhaps, but that's hardly true, righteous justice for the crimes committed.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
And these girls are going to NAME NAMES, or they will settle out of court for huge payments from the NAMES they choose not to NAME publicly.

Or get suicided.

quote:

Originally posted by Krazeehorse:
Or get suicided.

Cease and desist. That's a great way to get this thread locked. We're not doing the conspiracy theory thing.

News says Prince Andrew is asking that things be sealed now.

Sensationalistic description calls the request "unprecedented".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ro...-evidence-sex-abuse/

A lot of back and forth. Maxwell could provide evidence to try to get a deal. There isn’t much confidence that the relevant folks (prosecutors, judges) would have much interest in what she has to say. There is much suspicion that the folks who might make a deal with her just want it all to go away quietly. Hell, a cynic might think that she’d get a better deal for keeping her mouth shut…

Like many things, most of us don’t have enough of a crystal ball to *know* what is going to happen and are only guessing. Time will tell.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
A lot of back and forth. Maxwell could provide evidence to try to get a deal. There isn’t much confidence that the relevant folks (prosecutors, judges) would have much interest in what she has to say. There is much suspicion that the folks who might make a deal with her just want it all to go away quietly. Hell, a cynic might think that she’d get a better deal for keeping her mouth shut…

Like many things, most of us don’t have enough of a crystal ball to *know* what is going to happen and are only guessing. Time will tell.

The cases against both Epstein and Maxwell were filed because of the outrage caused by civil claims of those victimized (while underage) and the resulting publicity about how the matter was quietly "disposed of" originally. When prosecutors signed a agreement with Epstein to provide "immunity" to uncharged co-conspirators, this thing went viral.

Maxwell has nothing to lose by attempting to get a better sentence through cooperation with prosecutors and prosecutors have a lot to lose by trying to ignore the issue. If nothing else, they know refusing to obtain and utilize information provided by Maxwell gives her solid grounds for appeal of her sentence. Everyone has a right to provide a judge with mitigating evidence (such as cooperation), denying Maxwell that opportunity is a bomb no prosecutor would want to activate. It is in her best interest to not only cooperate, but to cooperate fully.

Getting everything all wrapped up before the new year..

****

Federal prosecutors end criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein’s prison guards

https://nypost.com/2021/12/30/...campaign=android_nyp

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I'm simply saying that the prosecution isn't even asking for names.

Exactly, it’s as simple as that.
Nobody who has any say in the matter cares for this to go any further.

Other than desire for justice, can anyone point to why they think this will continue.
What are you seeing from the Prosecutor.
What are you seeing from AG Merrick Garland.

All I am seeing is the rug lifted and the broom sweeping.

I'm betting she's been told either: 'Keep your mouth shut for once in your life, and you'll get a pardon in due time. If you don't you can rot in the slammer until the day you die'.

Alternatively, she's told them: 'Either I get a pardon or commutation when the fuss has died down, or I'm going to start naming names, starting with Slick Willie'.


.

The guards just got 100 hours of community service in lieu of a trial.

Admitted to lying on forms.

Lucky them.

Makes it reek of something fishy.

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:

Alternatively, she's told them: 'Either I get a pardon or commutation when the fuss has died down, or I'm going to start naming names, starting with Slick Willie'.


.

Yeah, but who's listening? She can name all the people she wants, many of those names the public already knows about, but if there's no prosecution, who the hell cares? Yeah, we care, but again we already know who they are. Has anything of consequence happened to any of them? Not really. I bet the DOJ is like, "yeah, name your names; cause really, who gives a shit?"

https://thepostmillennial.com/...-epstein-made-public

Perhaps a little more light will be shed on randy andy?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...may/?sh=c422c35d701d

Jul 1, 2012,01:01pm EDT
The Inside Story on How Roberts Changed His Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare


The Obamacare Supreme Court ruling seemed strange. Chief Justice John Roberts’ reasoning was incoherent. The conservative’s dissent read like it was originally meant to be a majority opinion. Now, we know why. According to Jan Crawford of CBS News, John Roberts switched sides in May, withstanding a “one-month campaign” from his conservative colleagues to change his mind.

“I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the court's deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down...the individual mandate,” said Crawford on CBS’ Face the Nation. “But Roberts, I’m told by my sources, changed his views, deciding to instead join with the liberals. There was a one-month campaign to bring Roberts back into the conservative fold, led, ironically, by Anthony Kennedy.”


' Stewart Baker notes that Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may have been aware that Roberts was the swing vote, because he gave a notably partisan speech on the Senate Floor directed at Roberts—and not mentioning Kennedy—in mid-May. "I have not seen much devoted to the Chief Justice's role," warned Leahy. "Why," asks Baker, "would the chair of the Judiciary Committee risk the appearance of trying to harshly strongarm the Court when his remarks wouldn't make the slightest difference?" Could Leahy have had inside information?'

'The irony is that Roberts didn’t have to rewrite the statute in order to issue a judicially minimalist opinion. He could have done what the Obama administration asked him to do: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, also sever the law’s guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions, and leave the rest of the law intact.

Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent. He added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, by way of his Medicaid ruling. And he forever tarnished his legacy as a Justice, and his promise to the nation that he would serve as an umpire, and “remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”'

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

_________________________________________________


To anyone who thinks this might be me, I did not know Epstein, never met him, and certainly never flew on any of his aircraft. pic.twitter.com/sakGSDZTE4



— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) August 14, 2019

"The only passable link to suggest Justice Roberts visited Epstein's private island is the name "John Roberts" on flight logs where there is zero evidence it is the Supreme Court Chief Justice."


https://www.newsweek.com/fact-...ivate-island-1555910

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...rey-epstein-n2601505

we could be heading towards a mistrial for Maxwell after a juror revealed he was abused as a child

Federal prosecutors on Wednesday asked the judge who oversaw Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial to investigate the process by which one of the jurors was chosen, after he told news outlets he was a sexual abuse victim and had discussed his experience during deliberations.

The prosecutors’ request, in a letter filed with the court, raised the possibility of additional inquiry into how jurors who voted to convict Ms. Maxwell had been selected and the prospect of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers moving to have a mistrial declared in the closely watched case.

Later on Wednesday, Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers indicated they planned to do just that, saying in two letters to the judge that their client would seek a new trial and that the judge “can and should order” one without holding a hearing, as the government had requested.

Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers said Ms. Maxwell planned to make her request under a federal rule that grants a judge the power to grant a new trial when the “interest of justice so requires.”

Scotty David, 35, a Manhattan resident who was identified in interviews with Reuters and a British newspaper only by his first and middle names, said he “flew through” the initial questionnaire and would have answered honestly about his own history of being sexually abused had he been asked during follow-up questioning, known as voir dire.

A copy of the juror questionnaire made public in the case specifically asks, “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”

David said he told his fellow jurors about his experience after some voiced doubt about the credibility of Jane and Carolyn — both pseudonyms — who are two of the four women who testified that Maxwell groomed them for sex with Epstein when they were just teenagers.

“When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse,” he said in the interviews with Reuters and The Independent.