Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and heiress who became a confidante of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and was later implicated in his alleged sexual crimes, has been arrested by the FBI. She was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire, around 8:30 a.m. Thursday on charges she conspired...

www.nbcnewyork.com

 

[Guess Who]

Her silence about what?

other names as I have been stating over and over again.

 

[Guess Who]

I don't think ANYTHING would be covered federally by any deal JE made with a state if that's what you mean. It is two different beasts. Two different courts with their own charges, etc. You could have your own state totally agree to never prosecute you and make a deal but if any offense you committed violated federal law, they can't excuse you from that or them so to speak. Neither controls the other or deals for the other.

Yep, much like the difference between two different states prosecuting the same person. Two totally different courts that most likely have slightly different laws and rules to abide by.

 

[Tresir]

other names as I have been stating over and over again.

Oh well we have been over that already. I don't know who would be paying her if their name is already out there. Her convictions relate to introduction/trafficking of three girls to Epstein. No other names came up in her trial AFAIK.

 

[Guess Who]

Oh well we have been over that already. I don't know who would be paying her if their name is already out there. Her convictions relate to introduction/trafficking of three girls to Epstein. No other names came up in her trial AFAIK.

That's my point is that it could be somebody who's name isn't out there. I am 100% positive that ALL the names that she was involved with did not come out at trial, for whatever reason.

 

[Tresir]

That's my point is that it could be somebody who's name isn't out there. I am 100% positive that ALL the names that she was involved with did not come out at trial, for whatever reason.

So like who for example ? Can you give more detail or an example?

 

[Tresir]

I don't think ANYTHING would be covered federally by any deal JE made with a state if that's what you mean. It is two different beasts. Two different courts with their own charges, etc. You could have your own state totally agree to never prosecute you and make a deal but if any offense you committed violated federal law, they can't excuse you from that or them so to speak. Neither controls the other or deals for the other.

Yes but that is one of the avenues she is appealing along, if I understand it correctly. I am no expert by any means though. All I know is there was one New Mexico, one NY and one Florida victim/offence.

As another example, she was being sued by Guiffre, at one point, until they settled out of court, so that offence wasnt charged.

 

[Tresir]

This is an interesting article and perspective about the Maxwell appeal.

My part in triggering Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal that could lead to a retrial

It was Lucia Osborne-Crowley’s interview with Juror 50 in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficking trial that led her legal team to appeal over her conviction. Here the journalist reveals how her reporting will land her in the dock as an appeal witness – and what she really thinks about the guilt...

www.independent.co.uk

 

[GrandmaBear]

The squeaky wheel gets the oil - that's all it is IMO.

JE never came to trial in his case so we will never know if the immunity deal would have covered him in NY.

It wouildnt' have. Florida cannot make a deal for any other state. They are all independent.

 

[Tresir]

It wouildnt' have. Florida cannot make a deal for any other state. They are all independent.

Ok well, for example, how come individual states were taking a particular Presidential candidate off their ballot, yet it got overturned at the federal level? Is that different in some way?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yep, much like the difference between two different states prosecuting the same person. Two totally different courts that most likely have slightly different laws and rules to abide by.

Yep. The deal did not cover him elseswhere and so he was arrested and charged. I don't think they were amused when FL let him go basically. That's what I recall thinking.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Ok well, for example, how come individual states were taking a particular Presidential candidate off their ballot, yet it got overturned at the federal level? Is that different in some way?

Yes. It's a federal election and you are talking about the US Supreme Court/Court of Appeals.

 

[GrandmaBear]

It's not the same at all. In any way. Those states are interfering in a federal election. There's nothing that relates in anyway to Epstein and his deal. It's comparing an oak tree with a goldfish lol. No offense intended I'm sure you know. We've been round about some of these things in the past and I know you want to but don't understand the way it works here because I remember trying to explain it.

It isn't perfect but states have a LOT of autonomy however they don't in all and federal can trump all states at times in some things.

In fact, sanctuary cities and housing known illegal aliens is as far as I know illegal by federal law and yet it continues. This is something imo that should be enforced but some have created a culture that makes it seem heartless while our crime rates skyrocket and more. I'll leave that there as it can't be talked about too much without having to get near politics.

States have a lot of power to operate their own state autonomously in I'd say a majority of ways. Some things though they don't. For instance banks are federal and have to follow federal guidelines, laws and so on.

Overall I'd say for the most part the federal govt doesn't interfere too much in what a state does and how it operates. One state can ban fireworks and the next allows them. Smoking same. Each charges what they want on car registration and there are different ways of doing it. In WI it is all the same cost for everyone. So much for a car, so much for a truck, etc. In MN it is by value and age of vehicle and I think IA is the same. That means poorer people with older cars pay less I guess. Property taxes are another. No part of property tax goes to the federal government in any state and they set the rates in each state. Some states don't charge income tax for the state (we pay both federal and state) but most do. Some states don't tax groceries, none of mine do, some do and I think that's total b.s. Sales tax I'm talking now.

None of this of course has anything to do with criminal defendants, criminal courts and JE or GM and any immunity deal.

 

[Tresir]

It's not the same at all. In any way. Those states are interfering in a federal election. There's nothing that relates in anyway to Epstein and his deal. It's comparing an oak tree with a goldfish lol. No offense intended I'm sure you know. We've been round about some of these things in the past and I know you want to but don't understand the way it works here because I remember trying to explain it.

It isn't perfect but states have a LOT of autonomy however they don't in all and federal can trump all states at times in some things.

In fact, sanctuary cities and housing known illegal aliens is as far as I know illegal by federal law and yet it continues. This is something imo that should be enforced but some have created a culture that makes it seem heartless while our crime rates skyrocket and more. I'll leave that there as it can't be talked about too much without having to get near politics.

States have a lot of power to operate their own state autonomously in I'd say a majority of ways. Some things though they don't. For instance banks are federal and have to follow federal guidelines, laws and so on.

Overall I'd say for the most part the federal govt doesn't interfere too much in what a state does and how it operates. One state can ban fireworks and the next allows them. Smoking same. Each charges what they want on car registration and there are different ways of doing it. In WI it is all the same cost for everyone. So much for a car, so much for a truck, etc. In MN it is by value and age of vehicle and I think IA is the same. That means poorer people with older cars pay less I guess. Property taxes are another. No part of property tax goes to the federal government in any state and they set the rates in each state. Some states don't charge income tax for the state (we pay both federal and state) but most do. Some states don't tax groceries, none of mine do, some do and I think that's total b.s. Sales tax I'm talking now.

None of this of course has anything to do with criminal defendants, criminal courts and JE or GM and any immunity deal.

Thanks for trying to explain. Will just have to see how these lawyers think they are going to win this .

 

[GrandmaBear]

Thanks for trying to explain. Will just have to see how these lawyers think they are going to win this .

yeah I more explained other things than the courts but just an an attempt with some of it.

you know imo no one person should have so much power they could have even GIVEN JE such a sweetheart deal even if it only covered their jurisidiction. It was outrageous and clearly bought and paid for or OWED to him for favors.

Her lawyers want it to stand for more than it does and imo I shouldn't have stood to begin with nor been made. Jmo.

 

[Guess Who]

So like who for example ? Can you give more detail or an example?

I have absolutely no idea. I don't know people in those circles. I just know how silence can be and is bought and money buys a shield of basically immunity and this case reeks of that .

 

[Guess Who]

yeah I more explained other things than the courts but just an an attempt with some of it.

you know imo no one person should have so much power they could have even GIVEN JE such a sweetheart deal even if it only covered their jurisidiction. It was outrageous and clearly bought and paid for or OWED to him for favors.

Her lawyers want it to stand for more than it does and imo I shouldn't have stood to begin with nor been made. Jmo.

It's ALL about the $$$.

 

[Guess Who]

This is an interesting article and perspective about the Maxwell appeal.

My part in triggering Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal that could lead to a retrial

It was Lucia Osborne-Crowley’s interview with Juror 50 in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficking trial that led her legal team to appeal over her conviction. Here the journalist reveals how her reporting will land her in the dock as an appeal witness – and what she really thinks about the guilt...

www.independent.co.uk

It's one trial observer/reporter's perspective about her own personal involvement on one aspect of her appeal. It's also another case of the old saying "throwing spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" on something the judge already dismissed.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Haven't read the link. As much as I'd like to stay up Daybell starts tomorrow, I haven't finished Tom's video yet on Delphi and I'm going to get behind on the active cases I want to follow really fast and already am.

I love to chat but this one may have to make a back seat for me for the moment. So freaking little time. Sigh.

 

[Tresir]

It's one trial observer/reporter's perspective about her own personal involvement on one aspect of her appeal. It's also another case of the old saying "throwing spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" on something the judge already dismissed.

She's going to be a witness by the sounds of it.

 

[Guess Who]

She's going to be a witness by the sounds of it.

Yes