NEW YORK (AP) — Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend and longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell asked a federal judge on Wednesday to set aside her sex trafficking conviction and free her from a 20-year prison sentence, saying “substantial new evidence” has emerged proving that constitutional violations spoiled her trial.

Maxwell maintained in a habeas petition she has promised to file since August that information that would have resulted in her exoneration at her 2021 trial was withheld and false testimony was presented to the jury.

She said the cumulative effect of the constitutional violations resulted in a “complete miscarriage of justice.”

“Since the conclusion of her trial, substantial new evidence has emerged from related civil actions, Government disclosures, investigative reports, and documents demonstrating constitutional violations that undermined the fairness of her proceeding,” the filing in Manhattan federal court said. “In the light of the full evidentiary record, no reasonable juror would have convicted her.”

The filing came just two days before records in her case were scheduled to be released publicly as a result of President Donald Trump’s signing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The law, signed after months of public and political pressure, requires the Justice Department to provide the public with Epstein-related records by Dec. 19.

  • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 minutes ago

    This is a blatant fucking excuse to not release the full Epstein files so she can have a “fair” re-trial

  • Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Well, if she gets out, I’m sure some standup conservative will gun her down. Being anti-pedophile and pro-gun is their thing. Right? … Right?

  • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    17 hours ago

    This filing is, to me, quite odd.

    She has attorneys, and the cash to hire more, one of whom is quoted in this article (David Markus) but she is filing her present habeas petition pro se, which means when the petitioner is acting as their own attorney. To quote today’s NYT article:

    Ms. Maxwell’s court filing on Wednesday, known as a habeas petition, runs 52 pages and is signed only by her, without any indication that a lawyer helped her prepare it. Earlier this month, David Oscar Markus, who was then representing Ms. Maxwell, said in a letter to the judge, Paul A. Engelmayer, that she planned to file a petition without the assistance of a lawyer.

    It’s not unheard of, but it does kind of make me blink when someone who obviously has attorneys, and further access to both cash and more attorneys, suddenly goes pro se. Clearly she sees some benefit to this approach, because it’s not poverty or lack of representation that’s forcing her to represent herself.

    And not only did she go pro se, she had her attorney write the letter to the supervising judge in early December that said she intended to do so.

    I’m not an attorney, and I’d be very interested in hearing what anyone with actual legal experience thinks is behind this strategy, because on the face of it it’s incomprehensible to me. Beyond the actual wisdom in the old saying, “Anyone who represents themselves has a fool for an attorney,” on a practical level you just don’t do it unless you are absolutely forced to, especially in criminal proceedings, where slight procedural missteps can lose an entire case.

    Pro se habeas petitions are what prisoners with no money and lawyers write. What’s this fool’s reason?

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      31 minutes ago

      A lawyer can’t advise you to, or knowingly allow you to, lie. She’s likely planning to commit perjury and is either insulating her lawyers or preventing them from ratting her out as they are mandated to. It’s also possible she’s planning to throw her lawyers under the bus.

    • Wilco@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 hours ago

      A pro se litigant cannot get sanctions.

      This means they can also file some batshit crazy stuff and just get away with it, all a judge can do is say no.

      She will file something crazy and then hope to hit one of Trump’s bribed/loyal cult judges.

    • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      No rational person wants to represent her?

      Either the evidence is so laughable no one wants to touch it or no one wants to be known as the person who colluded with trump to release his pedo buddy

      • nomy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        She already has attorneys, multiple ones, she’s filed this herself.

        • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 minutes ago

          I understand that, I’m saying that perhaps it’s such a bad idea that no lawyer wants to be attached so she’s had to do it on her own

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        no one wants to be known as the person who colluded with trump to release his pedo buddy

        Lawyers have no shame.

  • Manjushri@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The judge will throw it out. Trump will then call him or her an activist democrat judge (only in all-caps and with more misspellings) and then pardon her “in the interest of justice.”

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      22 hours ago

      This (and Epstein’s associates in general) are some of the extremely few instances where I’d feel completely justified in calling for extrajudicial justice when normal justice fails us.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Vigilantism is a symptom of a failed justice system. I’d give good odds on this.

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Well, we definitely have a failed justice system, so it’s hard to disagree with your conclusion.

      • zd9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        21 hours ago

        You do realize this government has programs that scour social media for comments just like this, right? They’re real 21st century authoritarians, and while not quite as bad as China yet, they’re trying hard to get there.

        • NotSteve_@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Yeaaah but some of us are commenting from the sidelines in countries with free speech

          • zd9@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Yeah but do you have any oil perchance? Did you use olive oil with your eggs this morning? If so, THEY’RE COMING.

            • NotSteve_@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              With the way Trump talks about Canada and the fact we do have oil, you might not be wrong :(

            • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              You’re welcome to try, if you want to realize why Russia has had such an unfun time so far trying to invade a country whose people already speak your language and are mostly visually indistinguishable from you. The US does not have a good track record of successfully enduring in an occupation against guerilla warfare in the first place. If you thought Vietnam and Afghanistan were bad, or the 9/11 terror attacks were bad, there’s always a way it can get much, much worse and much more widespread. Nukes and strategic bombers and all the other wonderweapons the US has aren’t the “I win” button the US thinks they are. Those can make an army and a government surrender, but they can’t make a people surrender. And it’s the people they’ll have to worry about in the long run. Especially in Canada. Grab SKS, go inna woods. There’s a loooooot of woods up here.

              • nomy@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I suspect if something like that happened you’d see a lot of “refugees” streaming north across the border.

                Picking a fight with our northern cousins is absolutely a losing move that only a loser would consider.

                • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  54 minutes ago

                  We would welcome you and would invite you to grab scary black assault rifle, go inna woods too. There are plenty of woods here for everyone.

          • zd9@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Yep, you got it 100%. That’s exactly what I said, glad you could read.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Cool, I hope they see this and are ready to take on a well armed, highly decorated veteran, that they trained specifically to deal with a hostile invasion force, with lots of booby traps that I can deploy at will.

          • zd9@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            You can say that all you want. Fuck Trump. Fuck this regime. Fuck ICE. etc. but when you start promoting specific violent acts against specific people, things get more complicated. Probably still fine tbh, but historically the government has actually gone after social media users who say specific violent threats.

  • zd9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Nah. Get fucked and rot in prison for the rest of your life Ghislaine, and anyone else who associated with them (cough cough).

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    21 hours ago

    On one hand, the Constitution absolutely must be respected.

    On the other, I never want to hear another word from this world-class scumbag, her attorneys, apologists, or sympathizers.

  • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Surely it’s easier for Mossad to just murder this lady than put up with her reminding everyone about their boy Epstein by just being alive …