Ghislaine Maxwell trial

[chancery]

Not that I care, any sentence will be long, I think. Terry Trussell got seven years iirc, and Maxwell's deeds surely merit longer incarceration, yes?

Trussell's sentence was excessive.

It been a while, and I would need access to old Fogbow to refresh my recollection of the fairly extensive research that I and knowledgable others did at the time, but as I recall, Trussell was sentenced under an oppressive Florida sentencing system that mandates consecutive sentences for separate charges arising from the same conduct. A 2-3 year sentence would have been fair, anything over 5 years would have been harsh, and 7 years was grotesque. I suspect that Trussell was generally in favor of the Florida sentencing philosophy before it was applied to him, so there's a certain karma, but that doesn't make it right

[LM K]

For completeness, here is part of the way, I think

Charge 1 - Conspiracy to entice a minor to travel to engage in sex acts. 18 U.S.C. § 371 (the actual office on enticing a minor is 18 U.S.C. § 2422)
371 - each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 2 - not guilty. I did not lookup

Charge 3 - Conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in illegal sex acts 18 U.S.C. § 371 (the actual office of transporting a minor is 18 U.S.C. § 2423)
371 - each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 4 - Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in illegal sex acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and 2.
2423 "...shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life." § 2 only regards that she can be considered the Principal if I am reading this correctly.

Charge 5 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 6 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623 - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Thanks Northland. So it looks possible that she's facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Good.

I think she'll get at least 15-20 years. She has multiple victims, her victims were under 17, she conspired with another to commit the crimes, and she engaged in these crimes over several years.

[filly]

Charge 5 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 6 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623 - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It's "perjury" and I think I heard she will be tried for that in the future.

[raison de arizona]

Interesting thread.

[filly]

For completeness, here is part of the way, I think

Charge 1 - Conspiracy to entice a minor to travel to engage in sex acts. 18 U.S.C. § 371 (the actual office on enticing a minor is 18 U.S.C. § 2422)
371 - each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 2 - not guilty. I did not lookup

Charge 3 - Conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in illegal sex acts 18 U.S.C. § 371 (the actual office of transporting a minor is 18 U.S.C. § 2423)
371 - each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 4 - Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in illegal sex acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and 2.
2423 "...shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life." § 2 only regards that she can be considered the Principal if I am reading this correctly.

Charge 5 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 6 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623 - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Thanks Northland. So it looks possible that she's facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Good.

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks Northland. So it looks possible that she's facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Good.

??? How does that give a mandatory minimum of ten, please? Is it part of federal sentencing guidelines?

[sugar magnolia]

Thanks Northland. So it looks possible that she's facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Good.

??? How does that give a mandatory minimum of ten, please? Is it part of federal sentencing guidelines?

From Northland's link

Charge 4 - Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in illegal sex acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and 2.
2423 "...shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life."

From the Joyce Alene tweet

Count four: Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison:

[northland10]

Charge 5 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 6 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623 - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It's "perjury" and I think I heard she will be tried for that in the future.

I don't know what I was thinking at the time.

[northland10]

Thanks Northland. So it looks possible that she's facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Good.

??? How does that give a mandatory minimum of ten, please? Is it part of federal sentencing guidelines?

From Northland's link

Charge 4 - Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in illegal sex acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and 2.
2423 "...shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life."

From the Joyce Alene tweet

Count four: Transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison:

For the record, my quote came from the US Code on the Cornell website. When I tried to get a sense from the sentencing guidelines, I found the base level for charge 4 was 28 which for her history would be under 10 years. I found there were probably increases that would apply and get it to 10 years but I decided I had no clue what I was doing and gave up.

[Res Ipsa]

AAaaaannnnd here comes the bullshit...

Interesting thread.

Ah, yes, despite the recollection of any actual victim, Maxwell holds the goods on the Sekrit Kabal of Child Molestors.

We'll find out which "globalists" are poisoning the wells and kidnapping the children... any day now!

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

BAE45C65-C3E6-4D38-8139-BF094F6E4A6B.jpeg (108.03 KiB) Viewed 2996 times

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks to the lawfolk for the info on sentencing.

At 60 years old - a youngster to many of us! - even 10 years leaves her much of a future, given that being resident in a prison isn't good for one's general health and longevity. I'm not a fan of long sentences, but this is not one episode of out-of-character rage, desperation or idiocy, her behavior was chronic, knowing, cynical, exploitative abuse of many vulnerable young people, so she has earned a proportionate punishment.

From the little I have read, it seems any appeal by Maxwell is going to be a long shot, as it would effectively (in my understanding) need to demonstrate that the trial judge mismanaged the trial badly enough to affect the verdict. Money sometimes buys a special sort of, ah, justice, but I don't see it working too well here.

I wonder whether Prince Andrew's sweat glands are working now? He escaped attention during the trial, mainly because Virginia Giuffre wasn't called as a witness, but now the searchlights are swinging in his direction again.

[AndyinPA]

BAE45C65-C3E6-4D38-8139-BF094F6E4A6B.jpeg

It's a good start, but not exactly an apology.

[raison de arizona]

BAE45C65-C3E6-4D38-8139-BF094F6E4A6B.jpeg

It's a good start, but not exactly an apology.

No kidding. After seeing what they pulled, I'm completely underwhelmed. I suppose something is better than nothing. I guess I just expected more of them, like I do PBS, and when they let me down... Argh.

[Uninformed]

Whilst the BBC has always been too close to the "establishment", in recent years their standard of reporting, with some exceptions, has been in decline. Although funding issues may be partly to blame the apparent desire to "modernise" (aka dumbing-down) seems to be the main cause.

[raison de arizona]

AAaaaannnnd here comes the bullshit...

Interesting thread.
https://twitter.com/eliehonig/status/14 ... 26144?s=21

Ah, yes, despite the recollection of any actual victim, Maxwell holds the goods on the Sekrit Kabal of Child Molestors.

We'll find out which "globalists" are poisoning the wells and kidnapping the children... any day now!

Did you even bother reading the thread? Because it doesn't appear you did. I'll synopsize.

The author was the co-chief of the organized crime unit at SDNY. He is a former state and federal prosecutor. He is currently a senior legal analyst at CNN. He isn't some internet rando.

The SDNY (like everyone) likes to "cooperate up," he says, but since #1 (Epstein) and #2 (Maxwell) are already done that isn't going to happen. So much for your "Sekrit Kabal of Child Molestors."

Which brings us to an unusual wrinkle. Maxwell *might* be able to give up information on others who were less involved in the conspiracy, but were otherwise major power players -- men who knowingly had sex with Epstein's underage girls, for example. (9/12)

That isn't a figment of everyone's imagination.

Bottom line: Maxwell's cooperation is not particularly likely, but it is possible. You'd need (1) Maxwell to be willing and fully on board, (2) SDNY to be fully convinced of her truthfulness, and (3) a realistic plan to use her information vs. others. (End, 12/12)

[RVInit]

Thanks to the lawfolk for the info on sentencing.


I wonder whether Prince Andrew's sweat glands are working now? He escaped attention during the trial, mainly because Virginia Giuffre wasn't called as a witness, but now the searchlights are swinging in his direction again.

I think Alan Dershowitz also is sweating bullets. As far as I know these are the two men who have been identified by victims to have spent time at the island, where much of the abuse took place. Of course, Dershowitz kept his underwear on while getting a massage by a teenager.

[Maybenaut]

AAaaaannnnd here comes the bullshit...

Interesting thread.
https://twitter.com/eliehonig/status/14 ... 26144?s=21

Ah, yes, despite the recollection of any actual victim, Maxwell holds the goods on the Sekrit Kabal of Child Molestors.

We'll find out which "globalists" are poisoning the wells and kidnapping the children... any day now!

Did you even bother reading the thread? Because it doesn't appear you did. I'll synopsize.

The author was the co-chief of the organized crime unit at SDNY. He is a former state and federal prosecutor. He is currently a senior legal analyst at CNN. He isn't some internet rando.

The SDNY (like everyone) likes to "cooperate up," he says, but since #1 (Epstein) and #2 (Maxwell) are already done that isn't going to happen. So much for your "Sekrit Kabal of Child Molestors."

Which brings us to an unusual wrinkle. Maxwell *might* be able to give up information on others who were less involved in the conspiracy, but were otherwise major power players -- men who knowingly had sex with Epstein's underage girls, for example. (9/12)

That isn't a figment of everyone's imagination.

Bottom line: Maxwell's cooperation is not particularly likely, but it is possible. You'd need (1) Maxwell to be willing and fully on board, (2) SDNY to be fully convinced of her truthfulness, and (3) a realistic plan to use her information vs. others. (End, 12/12)

Allow me to add: (4) Some corroboration by an actual victim.

From what I gather, that shouldn’t be too difficult to come by. But I think a real victim is going to have to step forward if any cooperation deal with Maxwell can realistically net any convictions.

[Kendra]

Blink, and you may have missed the big news that came down shortly before the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict—in the same courthouse.

“Federal Judges Order Release of Jeffrey Epstein Civil Settlement at Issue in Lawsuit Against Prince Andrew” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fe ... ce-andrew/ via
@lawcrimenews

There was a really interesting conversation on CNN last hour about Maxwell's use to prosecutors if she tries to cooperate to get sentence reduction. Fed prosecutors like to go up the chain, not downward, unless there's some big fish to catch. Then there's her credibility as a witness, specifically because she pled not guilty, they put her up as a witness in any potential future trial - the defense attorney would likely play hardball.

[filly]

And then there are the perjury charges. She gets convicted on those, she's not going to be of much use as a witness.

[LM K]

Allow me to add: (4) Some corroboration by an actual victim.

From what I gather, that shouldn’t be too difficult to come by. But I think a real victim is going to have to step forward if any cooperation deal with Maxwell can realistically net any convictions.

Sadly, Virginia Giuffre won't be the right victim to use. She's contradicted herself multiple times. Any testimony by her will be viewed skeptically by a jury.

I absolutely believe Giuffre is a victim in the Epstein/Maxwell circle. But she's not the best victim to use to get Maxwell to flip.

Frankly, whom would Maxwell flip on other than Prince Andrew and Dershowitz? There's no known evidence that others might be under the prosecutor's microscope. I know there was an accusation against Trump, but that never gained traction in court.

[LM K]

And then there are the perjury charges. She gets convicted on those, she's not going to be of much use as a witness.

I think those were dropped. They were part of the indictment, but the perjury charges were never addressed in court.

[northland10]

Charge 5 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Charge 6 Purgery - 18 U.S.C. § 1623
1623 - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It's "perjury" and I think I heard she will be tried for that in the future.

Well, I suppose the dentist might think being a room in the sugarhouse where molasses is drained from the sugar might be worthy of the crime of supporting tooth decay. She probably was probably not being charged with that.

As for the charges I did, I realized the indictment posted above was an older one. A later indictment included the other, and much more severe charges (and Perjury was, as you said, not part of this trial though those charges did exist).

So for an update with the bigger of the 2 not covered before:

Count 6 - Sex trafficking of a minor - 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (b) (2) and 2.

(2)if the offense was not so effected, and the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for not less than 10 years or for life.

The offense level for 1591 (b)(2) appears to be 30 (97-121 months). I don't know what else gets added and how this works with Count 4 which was an offense level of 28 because I really don't understand this stuff.

Count 5 is Sex trafficking conspiracy.

[filly]

And then there are the perjury charges. She gets convicted on those, she's not going to be of much use as a witness.

I think those were dropped. They were part of the indictment, but the perjury charges were never addressed in court.

Ghislaine Maxwell Now Faces Another Criminal Trial for Perjury

Prosecutors say Maxwell lied under oath during 2016 deposition

Judge severed the perjury counts from the sex-trafficking case





December 29, 2021, 6:34 PM EST


Ghislaine Maxwell’s guilty verdict is likely not the last trial result she will face.

The 60-year-old will be in court again -- probably next year -- on charges that she lied under oath about boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls.

After the verdict Wednesday, in which the former British socialite was found guilty of five out of six sex-crime charges, she is already facing as many as 65 years in prison. Her lawyers have not said yet whether they will appeal.


But Maxwell requested those charges be tried separately from two perjury counts, and U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan agreed in April.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... or-perjury

[Kendra]