Tag Archives: Ghislaine Maxwell

First of two

I had to take a small break, we all need to do this, but the realisation that the deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell Brough me was a little too overwhelming. Yes, we go from what we know versus what we can prove, yet the beginning giving us “Ms. Maxwell, when did you first recruit a female to work for Mr. Epstein?” With the response “I don’t understand what you mean by female”, so pardon my lack of empathy or diplomacy. Yet, when did she stop realising she had (saggy) tits and a vagina? There is a basic lack of understanding here and yes, we all accept that she should be not be given any understanding and comprehension here either. That is the setting she is going towards and that is the situation she faces. Now that she is begging for a fair deal, where was that understanding when the victims of Jeffrey Epstein went to court? She was not really into a fair deal then either, was she? And the stage that evolves from there is not a nice one either, we can hide behind the conspiracy theorists that are popping up all over, or we can go with the transcripts and depositions, two bad choices from the get go. If we look beyond, we need to see on HOW Ghislaine Maxwell was trained and prepped. Then an idea sprung to mind, it is seen on page 412 of the deposition “MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we are out of time, counsel”, the entire tactic was set so that questions could not be asked. Yet when a defendant knowingly intentionally sets the stage for time, the clock should be stopped, any question knowingly and intentionally evaded adds 10 minutes to the clock. In case of Ghislaine Maxwell with a question having to be risked 28 times, we see that she get to be deposed for an additional 280 minutes. I wonder if her counsel was ready for that. It is merely a thought, yet I feel sure I cannot be the only one having that thought, and even as this would be a most delightful idea on Ghislaine Maxwell, she is not the only, not by a long shot. 

Yet, I have no real answers at present, I cannot fix everything (at times I cannot fix anything). Yet the station of feelings that anyone would have is that we want the fix things that do not add up, it is a natural stance, at least for trouble shooters, it is, it might be for a troubled shooters too, but that is another discussion. 

It gets me to my predicament, I created a weapon system called Gordian One, it was designed to sink participating vessels of the Iranian navy (and optionally a really ugly dinghy too), yet now I realise that it will work on any vessel (as it would), if the test works, it could end shipping business as we know it, a side effect I am not proud of, but a person has got to eat and capitalising on appeasing greed driven people is not the worst sin to have. One could be the opening move for facilitation to the other. IF one works, the others have more value and when you deliver, there is every chance that they will too, continuation is a great taskmaster. It gets me to there other IP, IP that only now could work. The first is a new device called the Tome. Whether it becomes an iTome, or a Google Tome is beyond my care. I designed the concept to impact the cost of the NHS, a setting where the need for paper diminishes to a much larger degree is important, the setting was also a station to improve timelines and cut out several steps that doctors and hospital administrations need to rely on. A larger station of costs that dwindle on all in that environment, but as I saw it, any block of cost taken away lowers the cot of the NHS and offers a station for more staff, how could I not think that through. The fact that Google (or fruity fruit fruit) got a setting for additional revenue is not a failing, it is to some extent a one off and when a company knows that this is a state where millions of devices are sold, multiple nations move towards a new setting and renew a system that required overhaul for decades is not a bad step. 

So how did Ghislaine Maxwell fit into all of this? Consider of the accusations against her, and the dwindling feelings of her innocence in all this, and here I am, a simple person (or is that a simpleton), who came up with a weapon that could end shipping as we know it. And it is up for sale. Am I any better? My weapon is not meant to be used, but then Alfred Nobel had the same excuse when he came up with that plan, he merely thought of a solution to give relief to engineers. We tend to set two standards, one we hold ourselves to as we are allegedly and seemingly unable to consider bad ideas of our inventions, and the other one where we hold others to, they should have known better. It is a setting of hypocrisy and I won’t have it. We cannot set ourselves to one value, all whilst we know that there are two values in play.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Science

Is avoidance & evasion the same?

The stage has been set from the very beginning, Ghislaine Maxwell is out and there is a firing squad, she had hoped that it is was all going towards Epstein, but he offed himself, or so they say. So at this point there is the setting where Ghislaine Maxwell is out and in front and the firing squad wants its day, it want to fire bullets, so that they can say “I was in a firing squad”, yet the setting is less simple and when we see the deposition, we see more than we want, from the very beginning. From the very beginning those who read closer to what is actually said will see that Ghislaine Maxwell was well prepared, perhaps too prepared. I understand, this does not make sense to you, so let’s show you.

The very first question towards the girls involved is:

Q. When did you first recruit a female to work for Mr. Epstein? 

This is followed by the immediate response:

MR. PAGLIUCA: I object to the form and foundation of the question. I believe this is confidential information. I ask anyone who is not admitted in this case be excused from the room, please. 
MS. McCAWLEY: So the response to that question would — 
MR. PAGLIUCA: The subject matter of this question is confidential and I’m designating it as confidential.
 

As we see here, her attorney labelled the information ‘I’m designating it as confidential

This is the light in which this deposition sets, As I personally see it, there is a larger play at work, I would presume that the attorney has a view on a much larger playing area. This is further exposed  after certain parties are expelled from the room. 
Q: So Ms. Maxwell, when did you first female to work for Mr. Epstein? 
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again. I object to form and foundation of the question.
Q. You can answer the question. 

A. First of all, can you please clarify the question. I don’t understand what you mean by female, I don’t understand what you mean by recruit. Please be more clear and specific about what you are suggesting.

And we see more of this

Q. How old was the youngest female you ever hired to work for Jeffrey? 
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. 
Q. You can answer.
A. I have not any idea exactly of the youngest adult employee that I hired for Jeffrey. 
Q. When you say adult employee, did you ever hire someone that was under the age of 18?
A. Never 

This deposition is filled, filled to the brim of avoidance and evasionary tactics, Ghislaine Maxwell was indeed well prepared and the part you just saw is also the gravy of the train, if any of the ladies were ever under 18, that is the ballgame and she knows it, more importantly her attorneys do. This is not someone who cared, this is not someone who cared about the protection of children, and in this ABC does an even better job. They give the audience “Ms McCawley persists and asks Ms Maxwell, in different forms, a further 27 times if she believed Epstein sexually abused minors. Among Ms Maxwell’s responses were lines about how she believed Ms Giuffre was a liar and that she was not aware why Epstein had gone to jail in 2008. Epstein was originally convicted of securing and procuring an underage girl for prostitution in a plea deal that has been widely criticised” (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/ghislaine-maxwells-secret-jeffrey-epstein-documents-unsealed/12806036)

The fact that the same question was asked 28 times and evaded shows a larger stage and this deposition is merely one of a few pieces of paper to set the stage that her time is up, there is only so much the people will allow for and she knows this, even if she claims that she does not. So when we read: “Prosecutors will argue she lied when she gave the deposition released today when she denied knowing of Epstein’s alleged crimes”, you see the larger stage is not merely the fact tht she lied, if any of these questions, questions she evaded 27 times show that she lied, the prosecutor will have made a stage of intent, and that is a much larger setting in court, it will be the largest setting towards the 35 years in prison, a place she will not leave alive, so we see Ghislaine as a wounded animal trying to get out of the trap she laid for herself, a trap that sprung when someone allowed Jeffrey Epstein to commit suicide, because that too is still under review. So when we see “I never observed Jeffrey having sex with a minor”, whether true or not will not matter, if a minor was there and there is enough showing that she allegedly hired this person, or knew of this person, we have a stage where she is almost quite literally in the doghouse. Because either she hired the minor, or she knows who did and that is what she is seemingly desperate to avoid. Her having to point at someone else, if that person can enough reasonable doubt it will all tick to Ghislaine Maxwell and the deposition of 465 pages will have the foundation of being the rope that hangs her. This is to some degree seen on page 113 where we see 

Do you remember him visiting you and Jeffrey in New York in the spring of 2001? 

A socialite that cannot recall dates? Especially dates of important people? I have met a few socialites in my time and they all have an amazing ability to capture dates, more than I ever will, as such “spring of 2001” is almost a given, and as such the answer 

I have a recollection — you’ve asked me if I have a recollection of being in New York but if you are asking for a date, I cannot confirm that date. 

I merely see more evasion and avoidance, and any prosecutor will go over this position with a fine tooth comb, they will find more than I ever will. I merely notice one thing on page 412

MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we are out of time, counsel. 

After dozens of evasions and avoidance and countering the simplest of questions by statements of non-comprehension, we are faced with the response: I will state for the record there were questions today that remain unanswered because the witness has been instructed not to answer those questions and we will be raising our objections with the court to be able to have those questions answered in the near future.

And there we have the turnaround, at this time, there is every indication that the travels and settings of Ghislaine Maxwell are now out of time. 

I am not attaching the deposition at this time, even as it is out there on the internet, I am not sure if I am allowed to place the full 465 pages (with a massive word index at the end). Yet if you want to see the deposition, you can find it (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein-questions-dodged-unsealed-deposition-2020-10).

In my opinion, when any jury driven court gets a load of this, there is no way that they have will not have the ‘What is she hiding vibe’, and that does not stop a trial from being fair, it sets the stage where minors were in at the very least in danger, and optionally Ghislaine Maxwell let it happen, that and the Miami Dade Police affidavit shows a larger stage and that stage is about to get the limelight, every corner of that stage, so anyone caught in that stage will be in serious trouble and anyone seen in that stage will also illuminate the involvement of Ghislaine Maxwell. I see no other way to see this, but then I am not an administered US court professional, am I?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Deciding moments

We all have them, there I no exception, I had a deciding moment when I was confronted with the Probable Cause Affidavit of the Palm Beach Police Department, it was a 24 page setting that gives us the anger of what on earth ANY judge would consider Jeffrey Epstein to get away with what he did, and I wrote about it in January 2015 in the article ‘As we judge morality’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/), at that point I felt that NO ONE, and certainly not Ghislaine Maxwell should get away with hat happened to these minors, not because she was a socialite, but as a woman letting this happen to underage girls whilst she profits is so far below the belt that the belt cannot be seen anymore. Yet, I am also a person with some faith in the law (even thought judges giving way to Epstein here certainly dented the law and its champions). As such I was on the fence, leaning towards a ‘hell no’ when we were given ‘Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers attempt to keep deposition details secret’. And I in part understand “Lawyers say unsealing details related to Maxwell’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein will undermine her right to a fair trial”, there is the additional “The Manhattan US attorney used the deposition – which Maxwell believed was confidential – in its perjury allegation against her in the criminal case, claiming she lied under oath”. I believe there is an additional issue. It does not come to light in most articles, but when we consider ‘THE USE OF A CRIMINAL AS A WITNESS: A SPECIAL PROBLEM’ (at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/informant_trott_outline.pdf), we see something more. We see “A cooperating criminal is far more dangerous than a scalpel because an informer has a mind of his own, and almost always, it is a mind not encumbered by the values and principles that animate our law and our own Constitution”, I personally believe that Ghislaine Maxwell (or her lawyer) forgot hat it could also backfire to her and there is every chance that she could have opened a larger stage by her demanding immunity. The unsealing gives rise that she set no stage of any form of special consideration. This is seen in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 446 (1972). So even as her testimony was against Jeffrey Epstein, without the tied immunity, she can now be prosecuted and there is. stage where she is entitled to the 5th amendment, the right to not self incriminate, yet her own testimony is not linked to any immunity and now she is caught between optionally being found guilty and set against perjury, which is now being read as the optional stage that she lied under oath. And tht is merely one side, the Boston Globe is giving us ‘Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers scouring more than 300,000 pages of evidence from prosecutors in case linked to Jeffrey Epstein’ (at https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/09/metro/ghislaine-maxwells-lawyers-scouring-more-than-300000-pages-evidence-prosecutors-case-linked-jeffrey-epstein/). From my point of view, thee I the need to push towards the dead duck as much as possible, the more that can be pushed to one, the larger the stage of her somewhat protective escape. This is seen in “The government, the filing said, “is continuing the process of reviewing and preparing productions of electronic discovery materials, which include extractions of data from numerous electronic devices. The Government expects that it will meet the November 9, 2020 deadline for the completion of electronic discovery productions. Additionally, the Government recognises that its disclosure obligations are ongoing, and the Government will continue to review the Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials.”” Yet her arrest showed that she was digitally savvy, which now gives ‘preparing productions of electronic discovery materials’ and ‘additional discoverable or exculpatory materials’ are an issue as she had well over a year to get rid of any incriminating digital evidence, as such there is a much larger stage, in the work she was accused of, there is every chance that the digital fingerprint linking her to devices is no longer in existence (if it ever was), and as such the perjury stage might be the optional grass straw we see the Manhattan US attorney rely on to get a start and a grip on Ghislaine Maxwell. And now the stage of Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) makes sense. There we see “The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege”, the affidavit helped again Jeffrey Epstein, even as (in my personal view) Alexander Acosta screwed that up royally, the 13 month stage especially when you see the Probable Cause Affidavit of the Palm Beach Police Department. The witness account by Ghislaine Maxwell is useable as she (as far as I can tell) never considered asking for immunity, she wanted to steer clear, I wonder who her lawyer was there? Was he ever asked the questions that are on my mind (as well as anyone taking a serious look at this)? Consider that the witness stage was set and supported by the lawyer whomever it was at the time. As I far as I can tell, if there is immunity, the witness account cannot be used, whatever comes from their taints her in immunity turning that court event into a farce, there is the stage that the testimony is used to set perjury and from there is becomes a rough game for Ghislaine Maxwell. You see, there is a stage that gives us “The court held that the principle of witness immunity does not extend to immunity from punishment in respect of witnesses who knowingly make false statements under oath”, and thee the perjury is set in motion, if there is one part, one part is all that is needed to shred her testimony, she is fried bacon t the very least. And consider the expose to filth that we can see in the Jeffrey Epstein case, it is exceedingly more likely than not that one part could be found shredding any hope for Ghislaine Maxwell, she cannot hide behind some friends anymore and the rest were never friends and see her as way too toxic, as I personally see this stage, it is covered in cum-break-your-neck-gel, with the optimum patches of coconuts oil. 

If she keeps standing in this trial it is mot likely because there is a whole range of rich people too scared to be mentioned in any of this. That is the other side, her label (handed by the media I reckon) as Madam and her stage of houses and travel, that cannot have been from one person, I personally refuse to believe that, as such this trial, even as it is set to a 2021 event will out more than one surprise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Injustice, not the game

Many have heard of the game injustice, a game where you can defeat Superman as Batman, or Ryan Reynolds, oops I meant Green Lantern as the Flash. Lots of heroes, you can go through each of the timelines, and the game is for a lot satisfying, as you play your favourite hero, as you slice through the band of heroes, you feel justified.

There is another form of injustice and in the light of clampdowns regarding Covid-19 people are actually taking notice. We see the initial part from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53403270) and there we get a little timeline:

Epstein sex trafficking case: Timeline

  • 2005: One of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims, aged 14, reports him to the police in Palm Beach
  • 2006: Epstein is charged with unlawful sex acts with a minor
  • 2007: A plea deal is struck – instead of facing federal sex-trafficking charges, Epstein pleads guilty to two charges of soliciting prostitution, including with a minor
  • 2008: Epstein gets an 18-month sentence following the plea deal
  • November 2018: The Miami Herald publishes an explosive investigation into Epstein, the plea deal, and the dozens of women alleging abuse
  • July 2019: Epstein is arrested again, accused of sex trafficking of underage girls over a number of years
  • August 2019: Epstein is found dead in his prison cell while awaiting trial
  • 2 July 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell is arrested by the FBI at her New Hampshire home
  • 14 July 2020: Ms Maxwell pleads not guilty to charges of trafficking minors for Epstein and is denied bail

I myself took notice after the press took a jab at Prince Andrew, I mentioned it in ‘That what is ignored!’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/25/that-what-is-ignored/), where I wrote “I came to serious doubts to some regard of these events as I looked into the PDF of what I believe to be the original affidavit from the Palm beach Police Department”, when you see the timeline, 3 years before the Miami Herald caught on. Things did not add up and let’s be clear, the Affidavit was not hidden, it was out in the open for all to see, so after the Catholic Clergy got their rocks off, we get to hand over our children to the billionaires. So how is your feeling of injustice at present?

And we are not even ready for the main event. And whilst the media is trying to earn extra coins from clicks in the final showdown, we are treated to ‘It is revealed’, and ‘Ghislaine Maxwell helped to procure up to three girls a day for Jeffrey Epstein’s “sexual pleasure”, an alleged victim claims’, but where were these people whilst the evidence was out in the open? I had a THREE YEAR head start on the Miami Herald, I found parts others basically ignored. In this I am not attacking the Miami Herald, but what about all these other digital click vagrants (I think you still call them journalists)? They had the same access, I had no special access. Yet I looked beyond the accusations of Prince Andrew, I found other matters that did not add up and the press left it for dead, I wonder how driven they would be if it was their child. 

In light of the stages we see now, how much ACTUAL digging have these journalists done? 

Yet that is not the real injustice, the injustice goes beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. When we see the news, the actual decent news, we still see responses in many nations to the Coronavirus that many find baffling. Yet the people are not taking the questions out loud and in part the media is to blame. I state in part, because they report and they do that, yet as I see it, to some extent, the right people have not been given the amount of direct light and reporting space that should have been given. That’s how I see it, if you wonder Google “World Health Organisation Coronavirus” and see what you see in the news section, when you discard the links from the WHO themselves, you are not left with a lot. Consider that webspace costs next to nothing, now consider what news has been published. When you see the tally, these so called news agencies are not really giving you the load of daily updates, are they? And let’s not forget that the entire Jeffrey Epstein situation is at present ONE case, I wonder how we will be treated to sensationalism we will get exposed to with limiting factual information when it is the day of Ghislaine Maxwell in court. So how much worse is the real deal? How many issues never make it to court? How many others got the ‘nice’ treatment because they were powerful or because they were close friends to powerful people? In this stage of lockdowns and limited movement an increasing amount of people are looking in other places to avoid boredom and in the process they are being exposed to levels of injustice and levels of unacceptability that they would never accept and they are getting angry, in a stage where this cannot be vented. I believe that the riots in the US is merely a phase, it is not merely on BlackLivesMatter or George Floyd, they are true and real all-right, but I believe that these matters are now also gaining momentum as people realise that they are merely the tip of the iceberg and the inequality and imbalance is starting to show. And these people, not only in America are tired and angry. I reckon that a lot would not have happened, if the Corona lockdowns were not in all their faces, and let’s be honest, some governmental responses on a global stage have been off by a lot. 

So when we look forward I wonder what more will be up for evaluation.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Casing the BS

I get it at times, as, I reckon a lot of others, the case when we read something, we are driven (whether justified or not) to the thought that we are getting fed a case of utter bullshit. Now, this comes from a BBC article and the state I am in is not reflecting on the writer of the article, or the BBC, but in light of all this, the grub smells too foul to accept.

So it all started with ‘Deutsche Bank faces $150m fine for Jeffrey Epstein ties’, So, in light of all we have seen in the last few days and in light of what CNN revealed we see “Deutsche Bank has been hit with a $150m fine for failing to properly monitor its relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein”. And it goes downhill from there. In light of the last few days we need to set a proper timeline. Joker JE died on August 10th 2019, he got planted (was buried) after that and the cases we are seeing is the one he did 13 months for in 2008 and he was arrested again on July 2019. So, when we see “the bank had suffered ‘significant compliance failures’, processing hundreds of transactions for the late financier”, we see the quote and we see the hiding of damage, but the largest failure is with the both the regulators and the people scanning all this, for the mere reason that Epstein had a cleared path for well over 10 years, the entire Maxwell situation, and her financial tracks as CNN discovered it gives rise to a lot more. I wonder who checked EVERY account and transaction here, more important, who approved the creation of these accounts and who monitored certain stages of hiding funds, when we consider that these people are optionally equally guilty of endangering of lives of hundreds of children. You missed that part did you not?

So when DB comes with the excuse “It had spend almost $1bn to improve its training and controls and expand its anti-financial crime team to more than 1,500 people”, I wonder who investigated the exact amounts that added up to $1bn, I reckon that the spin people at DB earned their keep that day. How much was exactly spend on training? How much on procedures to identify wealthy people spending money on underaged vagina’s? I reckon that we will hear that this is not the banks job, but the CNN facts giving us “Prosecutors also detailed transfers they said Maxwell made between her own accounts. Since 2016, prosecutors say, Maxwell has held more than 15 bank accounts that have totalled between several hundred thousand dollars and more than $20 million. During that time period and as recently as 2019, prosecutors allege she moved hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time between her accounts: In March 2019, $500,000 from one of her accounts to another; four months later, more than $300,000 from one account to another. As recently as last year, prosecutors say she held at least one foreign bank account containing more than $1 million.” I wonder how many accounts were created by DB, in addition, when we look at the accounts and we see who and where each and every account was made, we might see an additional picture emerge. So why were regulators so eager to get this settled for DB now, instead of when we see the court case finalise with several, questions answered, I reckon that the friends of these regulators are not that eager to see certain revelations in court, the cost could be a lot higher than $150m. Yet, that is merely my point of view of the matter. I wonder what else Shan Wu (the CNN analyst) is optionally sitting on. 

The BBC also gives us “In an internal memo, Deutsche Bank chief executive Christian Sewing said it had been a “critical mistake” to accept Epstein as a client and acknowledged past lapses in the lender’s oversight. “We all have to help ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again,” he said.” So when did this happen, and when we look at the 2008 case and a few other matters, would it be inappropriate to ask whether Christian Sewing has any daughters? Is anyone else interested in the date of the internal memo #JustAsking?

Yet I digress from the one part that is revealing “We acknowledge our error of onboarding Epstein in 2013 and the weaknesses in our processes, and have learnt from our mistakes and shortcomings,” as such there were 6.5 years for damage to continue and in all this we see no revelation regarding how much shuffling was done for Ghislaine Maxwell. I do understand that the accused has rights to privacy, I get that there are laws and they should not be broken, yet the Deutsche Bank has broken compliance again and again and they can make a lot more than the $150m fine in mere hours. As such, will kids ever be safe again with banks the way they are in America, or is that the right setting? Deutsche Bank is global, so how many kids are in danger?

So I wonder, when someone investigates all these accounts that Ghislaine Maxwell was using, when we take transaction after transaction apart and check every terminal this went through, what else will we find, and if the Deutsche Bank is found in error of compliance again, will regulators set proper fines and limitations to banks involved, or will we see a half baked notification in the news with the added message ‘Oops!’ Just asking what is coming our way, and in my case it is not that drastic, yet there are plenty of mama’s and papa’s around to feel slightly different and a lot more stressed. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Oh what a show

Yes, Oh what a circus, Oh what a show. It is that setting I am listening to, Evita the soundtrack with Antonio Banderas and Madonna starring. It was updated only 4 hours ago, yet the founding article was placed almost 13 hours AFTER I published my story. The article ‘In pursuit of Ghislaine Maxwell, authorities allege mysterious financial dealings with Jeffrey Epstein’ (at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/03/us/ghislaine-maxwell-mysterious-financial-dealings-jeffrey-epstein/index.html) will give the people a lot to consider, especially when they give us “Maxwell was living on a 156-acre New Hampshire estate purchased for $1.07 million in cash in December 2019 “through a carefully anonymized LLC,” according to court papers and the realty company”, a 156 acre piece of real estate in New Hampshire? So, Jeff Bezos, wanna buy 5G technology concepts for $25 million post taxation? It is not the weirdest question to state, consider that before CNN rolled the die I gave you all “We see “Prosecutors allege that between 1994 and 1997 Ms Maxwell helped Epstein groom girls as young as 14. The charges say she would build a rapport with them – including by taking them shopping or to the movies – and would later coax them into giving Epstein massages during which they were sexually abused.”” I gave you more in the article ‘The FBI Snooze button’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/07/03/the-fbi-snooze-button/), in this, I am not doubting CNN, I am also not doubting the words of Shan Wu, a CNN legal analyst who gives us “that arouse my suspicions are the large transfers in the millions between her accounts and Epstein’s accounts, which raises the question, is there some kind of laundering going on?” And the star is decently given, it sets the stage that it took time to get some of the details and consider that I made some of the speculated conclusions within an hour if getting access to the data, al that and it took the CNN machines months? We accept that Shan Wu would need time to set the proper legal stage, but in all this there is a time lap where those connects to Jeffrey Epstein would have been able to vanish into the wind and I did make a speculated sage of numbers (based on Catholic numbers thanks to the Boston Globe) that there are optionally 300,000 child hunters out there, a person facilitating to these people should have been regarded as beyond dangerous, as such we see a much larger stage and the stage was out in the open, so why was it taking this long? Consider that Epstein died in August 2019, so where was the witch-hunt that the US had no problems to paint China with? Why was it not aimed at optional facilitators that cater to the needs of people like Jeffrey Epstein? Is that not a valid question?

CNN gives us more, yup they were on the case. They give us “Prosecutors say that between 1994 and 1997, the period that covers her indictment, the two were in an “intimate” relationship and that he paid her to manage his various properties, which ranged from an Upper East Side mansion to a sprawling ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico.” This gives us a rather large issue, the published Affidavit from Miami (see earlier mentioned blog), as well as the blog from January 2015 (art https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/) we see a much larger absence, there is every indication that they are missing from the unsealed documents as well (this is my speculation, I did not read those documents). As such, how much did the FBI miss? Were they asleep and did they miss the snooze button, or did they bring a Rohypnol Mickey? It is not the weirdest idea, it is like they walked up to a vagrant and the vagrant asks them ‘Does this rag smell like Chloroform? 

It is a stage where too many pieces are simmered to silence and either the media accepted this or were not willing to actually investigate. It took me an hour to find a lot of it and that was by merely investigating open sources. And all this gives us one other part that is not out in the open. The quote “federal prosecutors disclosed that for a five-year period beginning in 2007, Maxwell and Epstein exchanged more than $20 million dollars between their bank accounts, with the sums going first from Epstein to Maxwell, and then back to Epstein.” The question becomes ‘What does the IRS have?’ Let’s face it the US treasury coffers are empty at minus 25,000,000,000,000 dollar, so the question is relevant, more importantly what is the registered value of the New Hampshire estate and what are the tax briefs on that part? So are my questions out of bounds? I believe that this is not the case and that is before you take a look at Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, who is (as far as I can tell) seen at https://www.hmflaw.com/attorney-jeff-pagliuca.html. This man as an amazing career in law, this gives us that a man like this costs a lot more per hour than I make in a week implying that the retainer of this man can fuel a small state. So where does a socialite get access to this kind of money? We did see what money was involved, yet consider the last 5 years, how did she get her income (the IRS link again) and she has decently massive living expenses as well. This is not the kind of girl that is satisfied with $2.98 Hershey bites at Walmart, does it not fuel your questions? I think that people like Shan Wu have found a lot more, I wonder who is setting course of the CNN sails (perhaps for very valid reasons), yet when you consider what was out there for close to 15 years, I reckon that American citizens should not asking questions, they should shout at their congressional and senatorial representatives for endangering their children, yet that is merely my view on the matter. I wonder what Governor Chris Sununu and Senator Maggie Hassan both from New Hampshire will have to say on the matter during the week, don’t you? Og and when you are consider all the complex parts in what is part of all the estate and other matters, who dealt with those and as such what cogs were in play? To keep her name out of pampers takes time and involves a fair amount of people, were they ALL in the dark? I will let you decide. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

The FBI Snooze button

Don’t you just love your snooze button? I do, there are these moments that I have to be up at 07:01, but not always, and the idea of the snooze button that I remain under the warm blankets just a little longer in a half awake and half not stage is pretty addictive, intoxicatingly addictive. I reckon that there are loads of people who feel that way, even the FBI, even though one could argue that their snooze button is set to an annual option.

To see this we need to take a look at the Law and Crime site (at https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/anonymous-individuals-fight-possible-unsealing-of-details-related-to-alleged-epstein-sex-ring/) where we see on March 20th 2019 the following “The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is deciding whether or not to unseal documents from a lawsuit against a woman accused of running a sex trafficking ring with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Judges had given parties 15 days to argue why documents in a lawsuit brought against Epstein’s former partner Ghislaine Maxwell should not be unsealed.”, you know what, it might be longer than an annual snooze. The court records indicate that the FBI could have done a hell of a lot more to do something about the Maxwell factor in paedophelia. The BBC reported (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53268218) that she was arrested with ‘Jeffrey Epstein ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell arrested by FBI’, yet the setting does not match up, I had initial questions when I saw the affidavit in January 2015 and that was 9 years later. OK, I will say now there was no link to Ghislaine Maxwell at that point, yet the stage seemed delimited. You see the affidavit shows on pages 16 and 17 6 censured names, we cannot see the names, but if you consider the affidavit, the stage was larger, and that size was already visible in 2006, almost 14 years ago, so why did it take the FBI that long to get any traction? And let’s face it, it did not happen until AFTER Epstein allegedly committed suicide. And the affidavit describes events from almost a year before that date, the issue was larger!

Now that Maxwell has been arrested, the question is not what will she get, the question becomes who else is part of all this and what remains hidden as such, because the events that are criminal and part of sealed court documents whilst others remain untouched is as I see it a new low in American jurisprudence. There is actually a lot more in the BBC article. We see “Prosecutors allege that between 1994 and 1997 Ms Maxwell helped Epstein groom girls as young as 14. The charges say she would build a rapport with them – including by taking them shopping or to the movies – and would later coax them into giving Epstein massages during which they were sexually abused.” Yet when we see the timeline we see that optionally these girls who were still in high school, some would have been exposed to Ghislaine Maxwell and there is no clear trail how. If we look at it from a distance, grooming requires identifying, prepping the stage where they will have a conversation with an unknown person like Ghislaine Maxwell, and that is after you realise that this had been going on since 1994, 26 years is a long time to create a clientele, so there is every chance that she was not merely setting the stage for Epstein. If we consider the stage of Ghislaine Maxwell, a socialite, we need to consider the stage. A socialite is (according to the dictionary “a person who is well known in fashionable society and is fond of social activities and entertainment”, it is a title that also limits her activities, one failure and she is exposed. As such we ca argue that she had a system, a system with co-conspirators. And let’s face it, how often do you see a socialite scouring high school? Especially when the socialite is well over 50 (OK, she was half her age in those days). The stage does not match the activities, she had serious help, I see no other way there.

Even if we casually dismiss “claimed that Maxwell recruited her to be a “masseuse” for Epstein when she worked at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida club owned by President Donald Trump.” We see places (one that former president Clinton visited), a stage where security is a lot larger then normal, as such others wee in the know, camera’s that would have set the stage where people too young to be allowed were let in, the stage does not add up, when you start reading the affidavits, the documents and the connected briefs, there is a much larger stage to be seen. Do you think that a place like the Mar-a-Lago gets by with below par security? Several people avoided the boat with “In return, prosecutors declined to bring federal charges.” It was not about Epstein, in that phase a lot more would be brought to light, I have absolutely zero doubt about that. That part is partially visible when we consider “The agreement, which was offered by prosecutors working under then-federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta (President Trump’s current U.S. Labor Secretary), was made without informing any of the alleged victims in the case.” In addition, we see several people now in a stage where they are at the top of the legal profession, among them Kenneth Star and Alexander Acosta. So when we see “The appellate court ruled that the district court “failed to conduct the requisite particularized review when ordering the sealing of the materials at issue.” So what else did the district court fail to conduct?

And this has been out and about for close to a decade, so do we like the FBI snooze button at present? The fact that in all this federal players were left in the dark seems completely impossible to me, as such we need to include that there is every chance that Ghislaine Maxwell is part of something much larger, involving other players too, this is not the stage of a socialite, this is the optional stage of a facilitator. If this deviant behaviour is possible in 6% of the clergy, how many rich people would optionally be driven by similar illegal needs? If we accept that there are a little over 5 million multimillionaires in the USA, the 6% mark hands us that Ghislaine Maxwell might have had access to (or being sought by) up to 300,000 very wealthy people requiring her services. Now let’s be fair, they do not all know Ghislaine Maxwell, but see might and that makes this issue a lot larger than we previously considered. And it brings forth the issue of the FBI snooze button, perhaps I am wrong and they were very awake, and it took this long to get a group of people subpoenaed, but consider what I stated and the evidence as it was out and about, and in the media no less.

How many looked away whilst some of this was happening under their very noses?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

The Sex Mess

To be honest, I am not sure where I stand, there are too many manipulations going back and forth and it seems that being ‘royal’ is held against a person in this case, so there is a lack of balance, in addition a yank facing the statement “accuser asks Britain to ‘stand beside her’” got to me, after a few days of bad vibes, I decided to take a long lasting look at this situation, knowing I might get part of it wrong, but then I was never afraid to be wong, merely worried to lack outspokenness. The fact that the media is milking all this for the maximum of coverage, especially unadulterated exploitation coverage is another reason to take a long look at this.

We get to the story (by Caroline Davies) and I take a look at the first statement that sets the fire “Giuffre, who alleges she had sex with Prince Andrew on three occasions in 2001 and 2002 when she was 17 years old, told Panorama she stood by her claims she was instructed to have sex with the royal by Ghislaine Maxwell“, from my point of view Ghislaine Maxwell is the first hurdle.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the overlooked element

We get to the case Virginia Roberts v. Maxwell (2015), A 2018 exposé by Julie K. Brown in the Miami Herald revealed Jane Doe 3 to be Virginia Giuffre, who in 1999 was known as Virginia Roberts. An article (the cut) gave us at this point “After Maxwell disputed Giuffre’s earlier statements to the press and called her a liar, Giuffre sued her for defamation. The two settled the case“, so here is already one part where Giuffre settled, how is that setting a stage where ‘Brittain stands beside her?‘ She settled and got a pay day most people will not get up to over a lifetime of paid income. On July 3rd (at https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/in-major-development-court-orders-unsealing-of-docs-related-to-alleged-epstein-sex-trafficking-ring/) we see “The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of the summary judgment record of lawsuit against a woman accused of running a sex trafficking ring with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The impact of the news has been described as “potentially explosive,” given that the documents could shine sunlight on allegations against Epstein and his former partner and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, plus unnamed individuals who argued against the unsealing of documents“, in itself it does not push for one side or the other side, merely the fact that what was agreed upon, a face of additional pushes, especially as the US allowed for a stage where Jeffrey Epstein was alled to commit suicide in a pace where he was to be watched makes for a different setting. The case is important as it links to a few elements. “Giuffre previously accused Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz of having sex with her while she was underage and under Epstein’s control“, we also see at this point “Dershowitz called Giuffre a “certified, complete, total liar” in a conversation with the Law & Crime Network’s Brian Ross in Dec. 2018. He said Giuffre’s allegations against him were a “complete and total fabrication.”” it is important as it sets the reliability of Virginia Giuffre to something approaching absolute zero, yet that is not how others will see it (and that is fair too).

As Vanity Fair gives us “the documents, for the first time, reveal the names of powerful men who Giuffre alleges Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with, as well as new details about Epstein’s relationships with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. “A lot of important people are going to have a really bad weekend,” one person involved in the litigation told me. (Attorneys for Maxwell and Epstein did not respond to a request for comment.)” when we add “Giuffre alleged that from 1999 to 2002, she was used to perform sexual acts. She said she was just 16 when this began and claimed that other underage girls were used as well. According to the Miami Herald, Maxwell settled the case in 2017 for millions of dollars” there is a lack of clarity, the issue is not merely the lack of clarity, the issue becomes how often were deals struck where Giuffre was the recipient of millions according to some sources, the sources give the millions, but not in clarity where the funds ended up and it seems that the recipient is very much in question. This does not set HRH free from optional prosecution, it does however set a separate view on Virginia Giuffre, especially as she was requesting that ‘Brittain stands beside her?

In all this it is not HRH Prince Andrew that is on the judgement block, it is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell that is up for judgment. She is the first hurdle. Yet Virginia Giuffre becomes the second hurdle, that part is seen in the response ““I’m pleased that the truth will finally come out when these sealed documents are released. These ‘smoking gun’ emails and unpublished book manuscript will prove that I was deliberately framed for financial reasons and that my false accuser effectively admitted in writing that she never had sex with me,” Dershowitz said“, if that can be proven, we see her lacking as a reliable person, as well as one other part. 

Even as this becomes a much larger stage, that first hurdle, the stage that Virginia Giuffre accused Law Professor Dershowitz of will set a larger stage and will also ignores whatever else she quotes and makes promise of if this hurdle will show to be a false accusation by Virginia Giuffre. Any prosecutor who faces that point (if proven towards Professor Dershowitz) will face having to go to court against a member of the royal family whilst the claims of the accusations comes from a point of diminished reliability, good luck with that part of the equation, that is beside the point that the prosecutor will get additional demands on the setting of the stage should Professor Dershowitz be proven correct. Virginia Giuffre might end up in prison for a long time with nothing to show for it. more important, the stage is already one where the impact on HRH Prince Andrew is massive, as such whatever millions Virginia Giuffre had won in the past will all be up for grabs, I wonder if she’ll cry if that happens. 

No matter how we slice it, it is a mess from whatever side you look at it, in the end, certain individuals might have miscalculated on Epstein taking the self proclaimed hammer to his head, the mess is about to get a lot worse, the unsealing of one court file is showing to be the cause of it all, and it might not be the only one, there might be more up and coming.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics