Latest News
 

22 August 2025 Our statement in response to the release of the tapes and transcripts: "Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent and never should have been tried, much less convicted, in this case. She never committed or participated in sexual abuse against minors, or anyone else for that matter.  In fact, the government has admitted that it did not even consider her a conspirator during the extensive investigation into Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.  The only reason she was ever charged is that she served as a scapegoat after Jeffrey Epstein died in prison.  Ms. Maxwell did not receive a fair trial. Jurors lied to get on the jury, and the outcome was tainted from the start.   The materials newly released by the Department of Justice make this clear.  Ms. Maxwell answered every question. She did not refuse to respond and did not dodge any question. She supported her answers with documents and other objective evidence. Her demeanor and credibility are clear for anyone to hear.  She was able to do this despite five torturous years in custody, some of which in the worst imaginable conditions.    That stands in stark contrast to people like Virginia Giuffre, who has been demonstrated to have fabricated claims about President Trump, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and many others. She later had to admit her “mistakes” and was so untrustworthy that even New York prosecutors would not put her on the stand. The difference could not be more striking.  It demonstrates that the case against Ghislaine Maxwell was built on lies.   We are thankful to the Department of Justice and to Todd Blanche for making these tapes and transcripts public so that people can judge for themselves. We are also grateful to the President for his continued commitment to the truth in this matter and for refusing to cave to the mob." David Oscar Markus

​

01 August 2025 "We can confirm Ghislaine Maxwell is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Bryan in Bryan, Texas"
Bureau of Prisons

 

29 July 2025 Ghislaine's Counsel respond on her behalf to Congressional Subpoena 
"... we would like to find a way to cooperate with Congress if a fair and safe path forward can be established... We remain open to working with the Committee to find a path forward that respects her constitutional rights and enables her to assist the American people and the Committee in its important oversight mission"​

​

28 July 2025 Ghislaine's Reply Brief rebutting Government opposing her US Supreme Court Petition

​​​​

25 July 2025 Attorney David Markus speaking to the media at the Conclusion of 2nd day of Ghislaine's Interview by the DoJ's Tod Blanche, Deputy Attorney General., Tallahassee

​
15 July 2025 MAXWELL FAMILY FILES STATEMENT
 

Link To Ghislaine's Petition to the Supreme Court

Accompanying Filed Amicus Brief - Link Here

​​​
Media Comment

Julie K. Brown: Groundbreaking Epstein journalist, or ridiculous myth-peddler?
3 Aug 2025

The Idiocy of the Epstein Mythology
10 July 2025
"Epstein hysteria, like other hysterias, has tended to erode civil liberties and injure due process"
By Michael Tracey for Compact

​

Prior Related Events

GHISLAINE FILES A PETITION TO THE US SUPREME COURT 

 

Link To Petition

Accompanying Filed Amicus Brief - Link Here​
 

Today, Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a Petition to the US Supreme Court asking to be heard and to resolve the difference between Florida, New York and the other Federal Districts in their interpretation of the scope of a promise not to prosecute.

 

The US DOJ entered into a Non Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to not prosecute Jeffrey Epstein or his co-conspirators after JEFFREY EPSTEIN  paid fines, paid “victims” millions of dollars and served 13 months in Prison.

 

Despite that Agreement promising that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States, after forum shopping, prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell in New York.  New York is an exception, and treats the NPA promise differently than most of the rest of the United States and Florida where the Epstein contract was made and where no further prosecution could be brought. Part of the Supreme Court's duty is to resolve differences between the districts and Ghislaine Maxwells lawyers are asking the Court to resolve this difference between the Districts.

​

GHISLAINE’S 2ND CIRCUIT APPEAL LAUNCHED

Appeal Hearing : Tues March 12th, 2024 at 2 PM EST 

Ghislaine's Response Brief Filed 07/27/23   --- 

Click Here for Appeal Filed
Click Here for Press Statement                         

Click Here for Family Statement

​

Statement of the Case

“The Government prosecuted Ms. Maxwell (“Maxwell”) as a proxy for Jeffrey Epstein.  It did so to satisfy public outrage over an unpopular non-prosecution agreement and the death in federal custody of the person responsible for the crimes, Epstein.   In its zeal to pin the blame for its own incompetence and for Epstein’s crimes on Maxwell, the Government breached its promise not to prosecute Maxwell, charged her with time-barred offenses, resurrected and recast decades-old allegations for conduct previously ascribed to Epstein and other named assistants, and enthusiastically and uncritically joined forces with plaintiffs’ attorneys, whose interests were financial, to develop new allegations that would support charges against Maxwell.  The Government’s scrupulous adherence to the law in prosecuting a criminal defendant is foundational to our system of justice. Here, the Government repeatedly fell short of its obligations.” (Taken verbatim from the text of the Appeal itself).

​

Summary of Key Appeal Points

• Court misapplied existing Non-Prosecution Agreement which was binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District of New York

• Convictions on Counts Three, Four & Six to be vacated; court should neither have extended statute of limitations nor applied law retroactively in respect of them

• Appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury denied by the court refusing a new trial and refusing specified cross-examination of a juror by the defense 

• Court erred in constructively amending counts Three and Four of the indictment by failing to issue to the jury a clarifying instruction resulting in unsafe convictions on those counts

• Sentence should be vacated and referred for resentencing as court erred in applying an incorrect guideline range and offense level.