Ghislaine Maxwell claims immunity
-
https://technofog.substack.com/p/ghislaine-maxwell-seeks-dismissal
Tonight we saw the filing of a very interesting motion to dismiss - a motion we’ve been expecting - in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. To understand her arguments, we have to go back to Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 plea deal.
Recall the circumstances of the Epstein case. The Palm Beach Police Department had identified a number of underage victims targeted by Epstein and his co-conspirators. In exchange for pleading to a low level state charge and providing financial compensation to victims, the US agreed that it would “not institute criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.”
This was a unique and unusual plea deal. Typically prosecutors do not allow for this type of non-prosecution agreement for named co-conspirators. They never allow it for unnamed co-conspirators. This plea deal was kept secret by the DOJ for a number of years.
There’s a touch of irony that this secret deal is now being used against the government.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Argument: her “indictment violates the clear and unqualified terms of the non-prosecution agreement and should therefore be dismissed.”
Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the charges, which you can read on Scribd, has one key part that we think is important: whether the non-prosecution agreement applies to only south Florida conduct, or whether it applied to Maxwell’s New York conduct.
The government is more likely than not to win this argument, but it’s fairly close. And here is why: the non-prosecution agreement for co-conspirators does not specify that it is limited to south Florida. As Maxwell’s attorney’s observed:
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
https://technofog.substack.com/p/ghislaine-maxwell-seeks-dismissal
Tonight we saw the filing of a very interesting motion to dismiss - a motion we’ve been expecting - in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. To understand her arguments, we have to go back to Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 plea deal.
Recall the circumstances of the Epstein case. The Palm Beach Police Department had identified a number of underage victims targeted by Epstein and his co-conspirators. In exchange for pleading to a low level state charge and providing financial compensation to victims, the US agreed that it would “not institute criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.”
This was a unique and unusual plea deal. Typically prosecutors do not allow for this type of non-prosecution agreement for named co-conspirators. They never allow it for unnamed co-conspirators. This plea deal was kept secret by the DOJ for a number of years.
There’s a touch of irony that this secret deal is now being used against the government.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Argument: her “indictment violates the clear and unqualified terms of the non-prosecution agreement and should therefore be dismissed.”
Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the charges, which you can read on Scribd, has one key part that we think is important: whether the non-prosecution agreement applies to only south Florida conduct, or whether it applied to Maxwell’s New York conduct.
The government is more likely than not to win this argument, but it’s fairly close. And here is why: the non-prosecution agreement for co-conspirators does not specify that it is limited to south Florida. As Maxwell’s attorney’s observed:
