WHOOPEE!! JUDGE HANDS MAXWELL HER HEAD ON A JAILHOUSE PLATTER
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
As I told you last week, Ghislaine Maxwell was trying her darndest to get her trial reopened, her case overturned, the seas to part, whatever she could do to get a toehold to try to get herself out of prison. As I also told you, this included the filing of a massive memorandum last week in which she claimed that a) the DOJ drop of some Epstein files revealed new evidence that warranted her having a new trial, and b) that Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement should cover her.
I also told you that the judge was *ticked*, because she filed the memorandum well past the deadline, but he let it in anyways. (I also included that entire memorandum, with her exhibits, for Notes from the Front members. Anyone, member or not, can read that post here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/wow-i-have-the-memorandum-just-filed?utm_source=publication-search )
Well, faster than you can say “snowball’s chance in hell” (which was, in fact, what I said in that previous post with the memorandum, and the magic word was even “snowball”) Judge Englemayer just today came out with a *67* page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members, and you are going to L-O-V-E it!!!) *slamming* Maxwell and making *so* clear “not gonna happen” that…wait for it..oh gosh I’m giddy with glee… he *ends* the opinion and decision with… ohmygosh…this is so amazing:
“The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith…”
[Note: Some social media accounts are claiming that this decision has to do with Maxwell seeking a pardon – *it does not* – it has to do with her seeking to get a new trial or otherwise reopen the case.]
Now, the context for that closing statement is that he is saying that Maxwell is likely to appeal and to try to claim “in forma pauperis” status, which is Latin for “I’m just a poor little thing with no money so will the court please waive the fees for filing an appeal”. It’s not necessarily uncommon for a court to include that “The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith…” language – however when it *is* common it often means “what we have here is a vexatious litigant who is using up the Court’s time with specious motions because it costs them almost nothing to file pro se, and they will do the same thing to the Court of Appeals if they are allowed to file in forma pauperis.” So he’s putting the Court of Appeals on notice; In fact Judge Englemayer’s full sentence there is “The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; in forma pauperis status is thus denied for purposes of an appeal.”
Of course, that’s at the very end of the decision, here’s how it starts (you’re going to love this too!) – the very first words of this glorious smackdown are:
“This decision resolves a post-conviction challenge by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to her five felony convictions, all arising from her participation, with the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, in the sexual abuse of young girls over the course of a decade. On December 29, 2021, the jury convicted Maxwell of those offenses, based on trial evidence of her guilt that was overwhelming. It included the testimony of multiple victims recounting abuse by Epstein and Maxwell, plus extensive corroborative evidence, documentary and testimonial. On June 28, 2022, the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, who presided over trial, sentenced Maxwell principally to a term of 20 years’ imprisonment. The Second Circuit then affirmed Maxwell’s conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court later denied her petition for certiorari.”
BOOM!
On page 2:
“Maxwell’s claims are all meritless and all or almost all are frivolous. The vast majority are procedurally barred – either because Maxwell made and lost the same arguments on direct appeal, or because she could have made such arguments on appeal but elected not to do so. And the purported “new” evidence to which Maxwell points, principally materials released under the EFTA, is largely irrelevant to the charges against Maxwell and does not support her claims of error. On the contrary, to the extent it is relevant, far from exculpating her, it incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges.”
(gleeful chortle)
And in this footnote near the end we learn that “Maxwell argues that, but for the admission of the massage table, she would not have been convicted.” As if that was the only compelling evidence (it was, by far, not).
And if you loved the beginning and the end, you will really love *everything* in between! And Notes from the Front members, that 67-page decision is in your inbox now!
My dedication to bringing you the facts and combatting misinformation is based on my decades of experience as an attorney and law professor, and is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:
– Join Notes from the Front: It’s just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com
– Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
– Share this post
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word “gleeful”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is so gleeful! ;~)
(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney and law professor emeritus – all me, no AI, the buck stops here.)
Source