Connect with us

News

Epstein And Maxwell Investigation Ongoing Potential New Charges Coming

Published

on

There could potentially be more charges coming in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking case, Miami Herald reported.

In a filing filed on Friday, federal prosecutors expressed within the document that the federal grand jury investigation into Epstein, his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell and their potential co-conspirators is ongoing, the news agency wrote.

Maxwell was arrested and charged in July in the Southern District of New York with four counts of sex trafficking of a minor stemming from allegedly recruiting and grooming at least three girls between 1994 and 1997 for Epstein to abuse, as Anewspost reported.

Anewspost further reported that Maxwell also stands accused of participating in the abuse of at least one of the victims, who claims that Maxwell raped her repeatably. Maxwell as also accused in Virginia Giuffre’s deposition of participating in orgies with Epstein.

Giuffre alleges that Epstein kept her as a ‘sex slave’ with Maxwell’s assistance.

Maxwell is seeking to use what her lawyers have described as “critical new information” that they obtained from the government in the criminal case to block the release of her 2016 deposition from a separate civil defamation suit that was brought by Virginia Giuffre, an alleged victim of Epstein and Maxwell, in 2015. The case was actually settled in 2017 for an undisclosed sum however media organizations then sued for documents in the case to be made public reopening the case.

Federal prosecutors argued in the recent filing on Friday that if Maxwell gains permission to release the information she’d like to put forth it would endanger their ongoing investigation.

“It would be grossly inappropriate for defense counsel to be permitted to sift through the criminal case discovery and cherry-pick materials they may believe could provide some advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse by victim plaintiffs, delay court-ordered disclosure of previously sealed materials, or any other legal effort the defendant may be undertaking at any particular time,” the prosecutors wrote.

It’s unknown whether that investigation could potentially lead to more charges against Maxwell, charges against other people within Epstein and Maxwell’s network, or charges against their high profile friends who were involved in the abuse.

“As the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has stated publicly, the investigation into the conduct of the defendant in this case and other possible co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein remains active,” prosecutors wrote. “The full scope and details of that investigation, however, have not been made public.”

Maxwell’s lawyers argue that the release of her deposition could damage her chances at a fair trial, due to the negative publicity that would follow. “If the unsealing order goes into effect, it will forever let the cat out of the bag,” the lawyers said, warning that “intimate, sensitive, and personal information” about Maxwell might “spread like wildfire across the Internet.”

Reuters reports, that her lawyers also argued an unsealing would “let the cat out of the bag” and cause irreversible and unconstitutional negative publicity, as well as undermine the “truth-seeking function” of Maxwell’s trial by leading witnesses to “recast their memories of events from decades ago.”

It’s not surprising that Maxwell’s lawyers would seek to try to prevent victims from recasting their memories or telling their tale during a trial. As John Vibes reported for Anewspost, lawyers for Maxwell attempted to silence Jeffrey Epstein’s victims through the courts, by requesting that a judge block the victims from posting about evidence from the criminal case online. The terms proposed by Maxwell’s legal team also attempted to dictate which evidence could be seen in court.

“There is a substantial concern that these individuals will seek to use discovery materials to support their civil cases and future public statements,” the lawyers wrote, according to The Guardian.

Maxwell’s lawyers asked the appeals court for permission to seal more than 1,000 pages of additional materials, which include her deposition, filed with the appeal.

Some documents from the defamation case were released last month when Judge Loretta Preska ordered that 80 documents or hundreds of pages would be made public, Anewspost previously reported. During the court hearing at Manhattan’s federal court, Judge Loretta Preska ruled Maxwell’s right to privacy was outweighed by the need for the documents to become public.

Anewspost previously reported that Bill Clinton was seen with at least two young girls according to Giuffre’s testimony. Giuffre’s testimony also included a 139-page document titled: “The Billionaire’s Playboy Club” in which she accused Prince Andrew of groping her and another girl. All of the accused have denied allegations.

The files didn’t just include testimonies naming names by Giuffre, they included personal emails between Epstein and Maxwell, as well as information from a discussion between Giuffre and her lawyer as Anewspost previously reported. Maxwell’s attorney’s earlier argued that the records should be kept under seal, stating it was a “personal intrusion into her sex life.” Her lawyers also expressed that the files were “extremely personal, confidential and subject to considerable abuse by the media”.

Maxwell is separately seeking to have prosecutors identify her three accusers of her indictment and challenging her confinement conditions at the Brooklyn jail.

Prosecutors say they are protecting the identities of sexual assault victims and are under no legal obligation to identify them.

In the past, Maxwell’s lawyer, Jeff Pagliuca, even went as far as outlining seven categories which he believes prosecutors, the FBI, and victims’ lawyers should be banned from talking about when referencing Maxwell’s case. This list includes the “character or reputation of the accused” and “any opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case.”

Pagliuca further stated the case was inappropriately handled with the raid at Maxwell’s $1 million home in New Hampshire on July 2nd. Adding, Maxwell was apprehended “without notice.” Someone should probably tell Pagliuca and the rest of Maxwell’s lawyers that they are trying to defend an accused pedophile and silence alleged victims from speaking out about their horrific experiences.

Pagliuca wrote: “Because plain vanilla surrenders lack the fanfare and attendant media coverage afforded to secret, armed, raids at dawn, the Government chose to invade Ms. Maxwell’s New Hampshire residence, arrest her, and stage a media presentation that included numerous statements that prejudice Ms. Maxwell’s right to a fair trial.”

Frankly, it’s quite appalling to watch lawyers attempt to prevent victims of sex trafficking from speaking and getting well-deserved justice. But what’s more shocking is the attempts to hide evidence in their favor to shield their client whom they know has a plethora of evidence against her proving guilt, asking for a “fair trial.” Suppressing evidence and trying to silence victims from speaking, as well as the media from reporting, isn’t a fair trial that’s anything but and it’s utterly disturbing lawyers would go to these lengths for an accused pedophile and procurer of children.

Maxwell is indicted under six counts in Manhattan federal court by a secret Grand Jury the charges allege that Maxwell helped Epstein groom girls as young as 14 years old, going back as far as 1994. The indictment admonitions include – conspiracy to entice minors, transporting minors, and perjury. As Anewspost reported, Maxwell has pleaded not guilty set to have her trial next July in 2021.

Alex Baldridge is an activist and freelance journalist from the midwestern United States who was inspired to become a writer after watching the development of the Wikileaks story and the persecution of Julian Assange. Alex is especially interested in topics like surveillance, the rise of automation, foreign policy, prison reform, and the legal system.

Advertisement

News

Colombian Govt Wants To Legalize Cocaine And Then Sell It

Published

on

This article was originally published On Dec 3, 2020

Colombia is one of the most notorious producers of cocaine in the world, despite the fact that the country has gone to great lengths in hopes of diminishing the trade of the drug trade within its borders.

Now, some members of the Columbian government are proposing a new approach. They are calling for the drug to be legalized and for the government to take control of the industry for themselves.

In a new bill first proposed earlier this year, senators Iván Marulanda and Feliciano Valencia call for the Colombian government to take total control of the cocaine industry to bolster public funds and cut violent cartels out of the trade.

In a recent interview with VICE, Marulanda explained that the government would purchase coca at market price from the 200,000 farming families that are believed to be involved in the trade.

The senators argued that it would actually be cheaper for authorities to buy the crop from the farmers than it would for them to destroy their crops. It costs the government roughly $1 billion every year to destroy coca crops, while it would only cost about $680 million to buy it.

The thing is, we have to recover control over the state. We’re losing control of the state to corruption, narcos in politics. They’re in municipalities, in departments and in congress. All the way to the highest echelons of government,” Marulanda explained.

From here, the state would supply cocaine to users and research groups looking to study its use for painkillers, but it would not be sold recreationally. However, cocaine use is already legal in Columbia, after a court ruled that personal consumption was a human right.

Marulanda is not sure if his bill will make an impact, or how long it will take to gain traction, but he is hoping to make it a major election issue in 2022.

‘The first big obstacle is to open up the conversation among public opinion. This has been a giant taboo. Colombians are born and raised under this assumption that drug-trafficking is a war. There’s no information about coca and cocaine. So, with this bill we hope to open the conversation,” he explained.

In recent years, the government has stepped up their military-police-style enforcement of the industry, and yet cocaine production continues to grow in the country.

Coca cultivation reached 212,000 hectares last year, a rise of nearly 2% from 208,000 hectares the year before, according to figures released by the White House in March. Potential pure cocaine production, meanwhile, rose to 951 metric tons, an 8% increase, according to the Associated Press.

“It’s pretty remarkable that they manually eradicated 100,000 hectares last year and didn’t move the needle,” Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America think tank said earlier this year. “I guess it means replanting has at least kept pace.”

It seems that no matter what the government does, the cocaine keeps on coming, so politicians are willing to try things that may drastic. However, as Marulanda pointed out in his interview with Vice, cutting out the criminal middlemen will reduce the violence seen in the country’s drug war, and also make the drug safer for the people who use it.

UPDATE: Historic win for coca/cocaine regulation Bill in Colombian Senate – 22nd April 2021

Continue Reading

News

Another Little Black Book That Once Belonged To Epstein With New Names Is Found

Published

on

It is well-known that the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein kept detailed records of all the powerful people that he stayed in contact with. There is a notorious “little black book” that was published by Gawker in 2015, which exposed many of the powerful people in his circle. This book is believed to contain the contacts that he most frequently called around 2004 and 2005. However, a new list of contacts, recently published by The Insider, reveals new names that were friends with Epstein in the 1990s.

The new black book has the names of 349 people, many of whom did not appear in the list that was previously released to the public.

Among the names on the list are Suzanne Ircha, who’s married to Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets, famous wall street investor Carl Icahn, supermarket owner John A. Catsimatidis, actress Morgan Fairchild, former New Republic owner Marty Peretz; and Cristina Greeven, the wife of CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

The new black book was made public through a strange twist of fate. A woman initially found the book in the late 1990s and saved it for many years until she finally sold it on eBay.

Denise Ondayko, the woman who found the book, said she was walking down Fifth Avenue in the mid-’90s when she spotted a black address book on the ground. She said that she didn’t realize it was Epstein’s book at the time, because he was pretty much unknown to the public, but she did realize that it had a lot of famous names and figured that it might be worth something, so she held onto it.

Last year, Ondayko was cleaning out an old storage unit where she was keeping some of her things and she stumbled upon the book. Now that Epstein was all over the news, the information contained in the book was much more obvious to identify.

Ondayko said she reached out to everyone in the media that she could, including John Oliver, Rachel Maddow, and The New York Times, but none of them ever got back to her, so she eventually just put it up for sale on eBay.

The buyer was Chris Helali, an aspiring politician from Vermont. He purchased the book for $425.

Helali also tried reaching out to the media, including journalists that were already reporting on Epstein, but none of them seemed interested. Finally, Nick Bryant, the reporter who wrote the original Gawker black book story forwarded the book to the Insider who decided to publish.

Insider hired Dennis Ryan, a former forensic document examiner and laboratory supervisor for the Nassau County Police Department, to verify the authenticity of the book. Ryan says that the book is definitely from the late 90s, and many of the dates and addresses match up perfectly with Epstein’s properties and known contacts at the time.

The Insider also reached out to dozens of contacts listed in the book who had never previously been publicly associated with Epstein. Fourteen acknowledged on the record that they knew or had met Epstein in the ’90s.

There are over 120 names that appear in both books, including Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Some of the other names included, Steve Rattner, Beth Anne Bovino, Dominique Bluhdorn, Jill Harth, Ted Field, Robert Nunnery, Stanley Shopkorn, Steve Ruchevsky, Ellen Susman, William and Ann Nitze, Les Gelb, Ron Daniel, Sandy Warner, Cyril Fung, Marius Fortelni, Michael Cutlip. Many of these names aren’t necessarily famous, but they are very powerful people in business and finance.

The address book is now available in a searchable database on the Insider, but it is unfortunately hidden behind a paywall.

 

Continue Reading

News

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Lawyers Cite Cosby Case As Precedent To Have Her Released From Prison

Published

on

Last week, former actor Bill Cosby was released from prison on a technicality, despite the fact that he admitted to drugging and assaulting multiple women, and was accused by many others. After his release, legal experts warned that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent that attorneys in similar cases would use to get their clients released as well.

Now, just a week later, Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers are arguing that she should have her case thrown out on the same grounds, according to The Guardian.

Cosby was released because the prosecutor involved initially didn’t press any charges, and claimed that Cosby would not be facing any legal trouble, so when Cosby later confessed, his confession was called into question and no longer admissible in court. The judge also ruled that Cosby had no chance of a fair trial because evidence that was not admissible was so freely available in the media that the jury was unable to make a judgment without considering those facts.

Photo: AP

Maxwell’s case is similar because the first time that Epstein was arrested for human trafficking, he was given a sweetheart deal by Alex Acosta, a friendly prosecutor. The deal helped Epstein avoid any serious jail time, but it also gave him and his associates legal protection from being held accountable for any future crimes.

Obviously, it is not possible to shield a criminal from the consequences of actions that they will take in the future, so Epstein was arrested again many years later after it was discovered that he continued his crimes long after his initial arrest. If Epstein and his friends did have any kind of immunity from that deal, it ended when they continued to commit crimes after the deal was made.

Still, Maxwell’s lawyers are optimistic after Cosby’s recent release.

“The government is trying to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same offenses for which she was granted immunity,” Maxwell’s lawyers wrote in a statement to Judge Alison Nathan.

However, the judge has previously ruled that the deal did not apply to the current case.

In an opinion piece for the New York Daily News, Maxwell’s attorney David Oscar Markus wrote that releasing Bill Cosby from prison was the right decision, and that Ghislaine Maxwell should be released as well. Markus argued that prosecutors should have to keep the promises that they make to suspects, because people will sometimes incriminate themselves if they think they have immunity.

However, many times prosecutors are corrupt and make promises that are against the best interests of the public, as we saw in Jeffrey Epstein’s first “sweetheart deal” with Alex Acosta while he was district attorney in Southern, Florida. Prosecutors are lawyers, they aren’t the judge and jury, and they shouldn’t hold this much power in a case this serious.

Judge Alison Nathan has not yet responded to the recent request, but she did condemn the recent opinion piece that was published by her lawyers in the New York Daily News earlier this week.

Continue Reading

Trending

Total
222
Share