GHISLAINE FILES A PETITION TO THE US SUPREME COURT 

 

Link To Petition​
 

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 USDOJ 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.