This document is a page from a defense filing arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail. It asserts that the government has failed to justify continued detention, pointing to new evidence of Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S., specifically through her spouse and friends who have offered support, contradicting earlier government claims.
This document is a page from a Government filing opposing the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) bail application. It argues she is a flight risk who has sophisticatedly hidden her wealth by transferring millions of dollars to her spouse through trusts over the last five years, noting she brought over $20 million to the marriage while he brought only $200,000. The text highlights her lack of candor with Pretrial Services regarding her net worth and the ownership of her New Hampshire residence.
This legal document argues for the defendant's detention by highlighting her evasive behavior and lack of trustworthiness. It cites an instance where she fled from FBI agents and suggests her actions, like wrapping a phone in tin foil, were meant to evade law enforcement. Furthermore, it claims the defendant was deceptive about her wealth, reporting only $3.8 million to Pretrial Services when evidence suggests she has access to far more, indicating a willingness to deceive the Court.
This page from a government filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant is a flight risk. It highlights her time hiding in New Hampshire, her foreign ties to the UK and France, and the difficulty of extradition. A footnote reveals that in 2018, despite being married, both the defendant and her spouse listed their status as 'single' on bank trust account forms, which the government cites as evidence of a lack of candor.
This legal document is a court filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution asserts the defendant is a flight risk due to significant foreign ties, including citizenship in three countries, multiple passports, and foreign assets. The document argues her ties to the United States are weak, citing her lack of employment and dependents, and points to inconsistent statements she made about her marriage to undermine her claims of stability.
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 28, 2020, regarding the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details the Court's reasoning for denying bail, citing her as a 'serious flight risk' due to the nature of the charges involving minor victims, strong government evidence, and her substantial international ties. Specifically, the Court noted her French citizenship (and France's non-extradition policy), extraordinary financial resources, lack of candor regarding her finances to Pretrial Services, and lack of significant ties to the United States.
A transcript page from a court hearing dated April 1, 2021, likely involving Ghislaine Maxwell (represented by Mr. Cohen). The defense argues that the client's arrest, detention, and the COVID-19 crisis have made it difficult to provide financial information requested by Pretrial Services, specifically regarding a real estate transaction. The text also notes the government requested until November to complete discovery.
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 171) from March 2021 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing for bail release conditions. The defense proposes appointing retired Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. to monitor Maxwell's and her spouse's assets, specifically including proceeds from the sale of her London home. The text counters government arguments regarding Maxwell's 'lack of candor' by noting she was questioned by Pretrial Services while under extreme conditions including solitary confinement and suicide watch.
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 171) dated March 23, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for her release on bail, claiming she has transparently disclosed her assets (including those held jointly with her spouse) and refuting the government's claim that her wealth makes her a flight risk. A footnote strongly condemns the government's suggestion that defense attorneys would allow escrowed legal funds to be used to support Maxwell as a fugitive.
This page from a legal document outlines proposed bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell, including 24/7 private security and strict supervision by Pretrial Services. It argues against the government's opposition to bail and asserts that the District Court retains jurisdiction to decide on the matter despite a pending appeal in the Second Circuit.
This document is page 15 of a legal order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court argues against granting bail, citing Maxwell's lack of employment ties to the US, significant ties abroad, and a pattern of providing erroneous financial information to Pretrial Services, specifically underreporting her assets in July 2020 by omitting her spouse's assets and trust accounts.
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's ties to the United States, likely in the context of a bail hearing. The court acknowledges letters of support from the defendant's friends, family, and spouse, which aim to prove her strong connections to the country. However, the court remains unconvinced that she is not a flight risk, highlighting a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship as a significant tie, yet at the time of her arrest, she claimed to be getting divorced from him.
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the court. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity