Topic: Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell (Read 587 times)

Ghislaine Maxwell will no longer fight to keep names of 8 john does secret
https://nypost.com/2022/01/15/ghislaine-maxwell-will-no-longer-fight-to-keep-names-of-8-john-does-secret/

also worth noting. bottom of the 12 page settlement document release.. giuffre(V.roberts) didnt sign or date it.
so p. andrews defence has no proof the deal was finalised or settled.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60119368/32/1/giuffre-v-prince-andrew/
again NDA not applicable

Speaking of which here is an article pertaining to this conversation:

Jeffrey Epstein cut secret deal with Prince Andrew’s rape accuser

https://www.rt.com/news/545092-epstein-secret-deal-prince-andrew-accuser/

a. she can only name names to reduce sentance BEFORE those names are convicted with their own crimes by other victims.
    EG if prince andrew is found guilty of the giuffre civil case. its then too late for maxwell to then name p andrew for a sentance reduction. so she has a short window to decide on loyalty or liberty

b. she is already found guilty. there is no legal harm that can increase her sentance by naming names. there is only personal loyalty harm of losing friends by mentioning them.

..
with all that said. P.andrews case this week is trying to dismiss the giuffre case due to a 2009 'settlement' disclosure that giuffre cant put any legal actions against anyone linked to anything related to epstein maxwell...
this is a weak defense for p.andrew as the clause does not mean that if p.adrew done any random crime of burglary or murder or tresspass or [insert unlimited crimes] that guiffre cannot sue him.. so guiffre just has to say that p.andrew did not pimp/traffic her.... so nothing to do with the clause.. instead p.andrew raped her. (which she already is accusing him of)

worse case she has to pay back $500k to break the contract. (something she can easily raise via many social donation sites, if that is needed).. oh and guess what. epstein is dead. so he cannot enforce his contract anymore to try to stop her talking or claw back the $500k for talking

its like medical privacy. (doctor patient confidentiality) it stops applying after death because the patient is no longer alive to fight a breach of contract.

its like the national census released 100 years after date of report. as its believed all those within old census are now dead and so no one can fight any invasion of privacy.

meaning in short.. the 2009 NDA is no longer applicable. epsteins dead.

Maybe, yeah. The big way that the Maxwell case could relate to the P.Andrew case is if she decides she wants to get her sentence reduced by naming a few names. She can expect a very long sentence, and if she has (as she surely does) a list of names of big public figures, I'm sure she could get that sentence reduced. The two questions I suppose are: a) is she self-serving enough to be willing to sell out all of her friends? I think we know the answer to that one. But the second question, b) if she starts naming names, then she is admitting her own guilt... and is she willing to do that? Or will arrogance and pride prevent it?

giuffre and the prosecution done a smart thing there.. by keeping her out of it because they knew the defense would want the case sealed.

but part of the maxwell case is a known(well now unknown and sealed and not to be referenced in court) history of trafficking girls.
meaning those trying to prosecute P.andrew cant use maxwells case to show that p.andrew was surrounded by many underage girls when partying with maxwell on multiple occasions. meaning its just a case of just being 1 victim one perpetrator exchanging words and who's words should be believed.

if giuffre was in the maxwell case. then she would have been sealed/ordered to not mention things mentioned in maxwell case.

Giuffre wasn't called as a witness by the prosecution in the Maxwell case, so it looks like the intention is to treat the Prince Andrew thing completely separately.
She's due in court this week, so he'll be sweating over that. Andrew's legal team have tried to get the case dismissed on the basis that she doesn't live in the US any more, but the judge rejected the attempt.

if you want to pick a time that showed picking a political leader was bad due to them being terrible.. obviously trump is top of the list.

im surprised, that any of the feminist woke women voted for him. with all of his sexual harassment stuff, with his publicly know links to maxwell and epstein, before 2016

but then again.. american politics has always had problems

---

its cos of this
by sealing the case, the victims are not publicly known. and so if victims of maxwell were also victims of P.andrew. the victims cant use public knowledge of maxwell case as their evidence, because the 'public knowledge' did not disclose that maxwell was charged due to actions involving (real name victim). and the seal means they cant use court transcripts to link the two
.. basically they cant say 'maxwell was charged of crimes against me' as there is nothing in public domain linking victim to maxwell


there are many loopholes.
a. jurisdiction. decline american courts as accusations of crimes were about UK locations/events.
b. US case law/verdict not applicable to UK
c. UK CROWN prosecution service (like US DA) can decide its not worthy of a trial (emphasis CROWN)
     (when mother owns the court system, dont expect justice).

if P.andrews case is put aside, appeals should take it to international courts out of mothers hands

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Easy answer, it's because Saint George Floyd took a bit too many drugs than he could handle. Recall in May of 2020, before the DNC convention, Biden was going to pick your typical white woman democratic politician, maybe Amy Klobuchar, had it not been for BLM terrorists setting cities ablaze. It was only after Floyd's death that Biden proclaimed he *must* pick a woman of color. And so Harris is was. To not pick a woman of color during such racial tensions was to desecrate amongst the sacred space of woke social justice politics, and of course Biden must oblige to the radicals.

I agree, she's terrible.

There used to be a time leaders were aspired, these days is any of them even remotly liked?
How is someone with no carisma, average intellect and lacking international experience become vice president?
Any idiot can be the "leader" in a democracy.
In modern days when a prime minister runns a country into the ground he just quits, flees the country and gets another high paying job and the resident people can sort out the mess he left behind.

Blackmail is the world govenment
https://rumble.com/vmyx1n-monopoly-who-owns-the-world-documentary-by-tim-gielen.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2

I don't see a link between Kamala Harris and Epstein. Think about it logically -- Epstein only associates with the rich and powerful. Kamala Harris was just a California AG, and a senator in the past. Epstein wouldn't care about some AG or senator, they are not the elite. The elite are the billionaires, the former Presidents, the active federal government employees. Anyone on the state level is useless to him. And plus he lived in Florida not California so he had no use for Harris.

I spent a little time with it and could not find any doctoring.
Somebody would had to spend a lot of time, all details, free strands of hair and such to fabricate this thing.
Easy one to spot is the light source is the same as can be seen on shadows, to create one or the other shadow is a lot of work.


Fact checking came about once truth started to flourish.

Next up is Prince Andrew, I think the next hearing in the civil case is on Tuesday, with the trial towards the end of 2022, unless Andrew's lawyers can get the thing dismissed.
A little weird but not too surprising that he escaped relatively unscathed from the Maxwell trial. But the guilty verdict there will not do him any favours... he can try to wriggle free, but his reputation has already gone anyway. The question now is whether he can wriggle out of facing a trial.

Ghislaine,Ghislaine,Ghislaine (Jolene,Jolene,Jolene)
https://youtu.be/2lUO1rfeRE4

So court documents had been sealed, what is the meaning of cover-up?  Already before case started judge said, data is to sensitive, i say bullshit

I hope she gets locked up too Franky. The only way that she could pull a 2005 Epstein deal is if the media goes into a full blackout mode of the trial acting as though it does not exist and even puts the trial venue into total secrecy (last part might not happen, blackout certainly will knowing how our media "covers" things these days). I think whats gonna happen is that she will most likely "kill" herself like Epstein did or since they have a well-known bodyguard covering her then she'll suddenly die of "COVID". I'm sort of surprised that Epstein didn't die of "COVID" as that only helps another narrative that we are all being fed.


Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal

https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/

Will the US government accept any of those pleas? I'm not sure. Maybe they could use her to testify against others involved in the Epstein ring, but that also forces me to question whether these people want to bother holding anyone accountable. It would seem they're not very interested in accountability. After all, Epstein being offered a generous plea deal sent the message that if you're rich and powerful, you generally can avoid any consequences as long as you pay the right people. It was only after Maxwell was 60, long after these crimes were uncovered, that any charges were brought forth. All the mean while, Epstein and Maxwell travel the world, meet with the world's most powerful people, while avoiding any consequences for their crimes.

2010, Maxwell pictured fat Chelsea Clinton's wedding - https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/was-ghislaine-maxwell-at-chelsea

2008 IIRC was the point Epstein had been convicted, investigation starting back in 2005. You think someone would have said to the Clintons that this woman *may* be a sexual predator.




Fake picture - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/08/fact-check-altered-image-shows-jeffrey-epstein-next-kamala-harris/5672684001/

Well will they go after the "John's" now?
https://youtu.be/tNx06Bd655s

she will use up all of her appeal chances first to try claiming innocence. as per usual protocol of what lawyers do..

if she just mentioned names now. she loses all options of appeal.

.. then as last resort, she will claim she is guilty, try to lessen her sentence(though kinda late to switch), then claim remorse for actions, again try reducing her sentence because 'rehabilitation system works' where she is reformed(usual deceit)..  then seek further reduction in sentence if she can provide proof of other criminals.

but she is like 60+ so i hope she spends atleast 20-30 years locked up, and literally dies of old age behind bars even with sentence reductions.

i just hope that it wont be a 2005 epstein deal where he just had a silly curfew thing with special deals to give other criminals immunity

Guilty on 5 of 6 counts, okay I guess. After so many days I was almost certain on a hung jury. Not surprising is how little details of the Epstein network we got. Seems like they wanted to keep those matters private. Perhaps it was too unusual of a request for the public to be aware of crimes by the powerful, we're not entitled to these matters apparently.

I am not sure what grounds Maxwell might appeal on. However, even with an appeal, it would be in her best interest to start naming names, even if in a way such that she does not implicate herself, as long as she can back up what she says.

I am not sure if she actually waits for her appeals to be exhausted before she starts naming names, however, once she is sentenced, the fact that she didn’t corporate is pretty much set in stone in terms of her sentence.

I might see some kind of sweetheart deal in which she names Trump right before the 2024 election in exchange for a pardon, however I don’t think she would be able to corroborate Trumps implication, as I do not doubt she has already been offered a similar deal by prosecutors.