PAGLIUCA | Lawrence van Rijn

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.

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?

Tag Archives: PAGLIUCA

First of two

Is avoidance & evasion the same?

Recent Posts

Archives