| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-01-01 | Legal motion | A motion by a non-profit (National Security Archive) regarding the Rosenberg grand jury proceeding. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing, argues against the disclosure of Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury materials. The author contends that the current 'immense public interest' in the Epstein and Maxwell cases is mere public curiosity about an ongoing case and does not meet the standard of historical importance that justified disclosure in past cases like the Hiss espionage case or the 'In re Biaggi' case. The document distinguishes the current request from precedents where materials were released decades later, after witnesses had died, or when the subject of the testimony themselves requested the release.
This legal document argues against the release of grand jury transcripts in the pending case of Maxwell. The author contends that secrecy is necessary to protect still-living witnesses, including active law enforcement personnel and alleged victims. The document also refutes the government's cited precedent, the Rosenberg case, arguing it is inapplicable because it involved a decades-old, concluded case, unlike Maxwell's ongoing one.
This legal document argues for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the case of Epstein and Maxwell. It contends that the extraordinary nature of their crimes, the vast number of victims, and the public interest in full accountability outweigh the usual need for grand jury secrecy. The filing emphasizes that unsealing the transcripts would help expose the full network of enablers without forcing victims to face further retaliation and that the victims themselves support this transparency.
This legal document discusses the timing of grand jury proceedings as a factor in deciding whether to release information to the public. It contrasts the recent case involving Maxwell and Epstein, where victims are still alive and the events are relatively recent, with historical precedents where the passage of time has diminished the need for secrecy. The argument suggests that the circumstances of the Maxwell case, particularly its recency, weigh against the release of grand jury materials.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity