The siblings of Ghislaine Maxwell have released a joint statement after the U.S. judge assigned to rule over her habeas corpus petition dismissed her claims as “frivolous” and “meritless” - while the mainstream media are intentionally refusing to cover the important points raised in that very petition.
Maxwell had appealed against her five felony convictions, claiming her constitutional rights had been “violated in multiple respects”.
But, ruling yesterday, anti-Trump U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, who was nominated into his position by Barak Obama, stated that the appeal “falls very far from the mark”, adding: “Nearly all its claims are procedurally barred; the overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence adduced at trial conclusively established her guilt; and her petition’s claims are demonstrably meritless, and generally based on speculation, distortions, and/or outright falsehoods.”
He did not specify what he believed to be “falsehoods”, nor provide evidence to support his claim.
The habeas petition raised concerns over how Maxwell was denied her constitutional rights during her trial.
The habeas highlighted, with evidence, multiple issues, including that two jurors lied on their juror application forms that they had never been victims of sexual abuse (the opposite turned out to be true, and those jurors are now proven to have emotionally pressured other jurors into finding Ghislaine Maxwell guilty and to dismiss their doubts about the credibility of her accusers); that evidence submitted to the court by prosecutors was intentionally misrepresented; that evidence was withheld from her legal team, and that she was even prosecuted at all, considering that the non-prosecution agreement granted to Epstein also protected his alleged ‘co-conspirators’.
This month, Maxwell submitted a supplementary filing that listed further issues with her conviction - yet, as with all of her previous filings, there delivery to the judge was hugely delayed despite Maxwell filing them on time.
The judge’s ruling, in my opinion, seems to have been decided long before he ever set eyes on the habeas itself, for such a swift ruling is curiously abnormal, considering that habeas petitions usually take over a year to rule on.
In fact, when I asked an individual close to Ghislaine Maxwell why the judge passed his ruling so swiftly, they told me that ‘the judge wanted to quickly get it off his docket.’
It has also been pointed out that the judge may have harboured bias. Some had already told me that they believed Engelmayer being able to rule over the petition was questionable, particularly due to his prior demonstrable support for the rulings made by Judge Alison Nathan during Maxwell’s trial. He had previously worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where Ghislaine was convicted, and as an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
In his ruling, Judge Engelmayer also acknowledged, concerningly, that he had not responded to every point raised in the habeas, and I do not believe that he even took the time to read it in full, particularly the supplementary document.
During one of my past interviews with the renowned Professor Alan Dershowitz (who was also accused by one of Epstein’s former girlfriends, Virginia Giuffre), he told me that Maxwell should have at least been given a retrial, particularly due to the fact that jurors had lied on their application forms and had unfairly and unconstitutionally influenced the outcome.
Today, the. Maxwell family have issued the following joint statement:
“It is with profound regret, though not surprise, that the Maxwell family notes the dismissal by the SDNY District Court’s Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of our sister Ghislaine’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While we had hoped for a more measured judicial consideration of the serious constitutional and due process questions raised, the tenor and substance of the ruling — denying even an evidentiary hearing and effectively seeking to preclude further appeal —render this outcome both disappointing and shocking.
The court’s opinion, as published, is marked by a tone of sarcasm and disdain that, in our view, undermines the appearance of impartiality and invites scrutiny of the judge’s conduct. Ghislaine’s claims are characterised as “demonstrably meritless” and “frivolous” and, whilst admitting that her “…arguments were not addressed in full in this decision” goes on to say that the Court adopts by reference the arguments by the Government in its opposition, which comprehensively dispatches these”. Indeed, the judge goes as far as to praise the government’s case as “…far from being discriminatory or unjust, this was the epitome of a virtuous prosecution”. These troubling issues, coupled with the refusal to permit factual development through a hearing, raise legitimate concerns about bias and other judicial failures in a case that has attracted extraordinary public and political attention.
Notwithstanding the District Court’s conclusion, we have encouraged our sister to maintain her fight for a fair hearing and to apply to the court for the necessary relief — including, if required, a certificate of appealability — so that she may lodge an appeal and have these issues properly reviewed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
We are not here to re-litigate the trial in the press. But we are stating clearly: our sister is not going to let the matter rest. The District Court’s ruling contains multiple, concrete errors that she intends to challenge fully.
We remain steadfast in our support of Ghislaine who will continue to pursue every available legal avenue to ensure that the constitutional and due process questions in this case receive the serious, neutral consideration they deserve.”