Maxwell Family Starts Website to Show Ghislaine’s Innocence – As Questions About Due Process Arise

For those who believe in due process, the case of Ghislaine Maxwell is worth examining.

Of course, the public has, by and large, decided she is guilty — ineligible for due process such as the presumption of innocence, the right to confront her accusers, have effective assistance of counsel, and the right to participate in her own defense.

But this is a case where we need to monitor due process most closely. If it can be taken away from a much-hated defendant on some novel theory, it will be later used against others, many others. The erosion of liberty happens this way.

For my own part, I presume, along with the letter of the law, that Maxwell is innocent until a jury of 12 unanimously agree she is not, or that she admits guilt.

I have not studied her case extensively, although that may be impossible since there are many hidden matters and I suspect misleading “facts” that have been “revealed” or not, making any conclusion of guilt or innocence nothing more than a hasty conclusion.

Maxwell, 59, is charged with sex trafficking minors, in conspiracy with the late Jeffrey Epstein, when she was in her thirties. These are old crimes – and she became a criminal defendant only after Epstein died.

She may be guilty. She may be the monster she is described to be — but I need more proof.

Maxwell is also charged with perjury based on sworn statements made in a 2016 deposition in a civil case where she denied “recruiting” girls for Epstein or taking part in orgies and other activities. She professed her innocence in a civil case and the federal government charged her with perjury – for the simple reason, they say, that she is not innocent.

Epstein Remains Legally Innocent

While dozens of women made claims that Epstein sexually abused them when they were minors, going back to the 1990s and into the early 2000s, Epstein is legally innocent of sex trafficking charges the feds leveled against him in July 2019.  That’s because he was never proven guilty. A month after he was charged, on August 10, 2019, the US government was precluded from ever persuading a jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when he died in his prison cell.

The government was quick to blame Epstein – saying he committed suicide. But there is evidence that the government is lying. We will get into that in a later post. I am not the only one who has doubts about the government’s official story.

A Rasmussen Reports survey in 2020 showed that only 21% of Americans believe the government’s story that Epstein killed himself; 27% were undecided, and more than half — 52% believe that Epstein was murdered [because he had damaging information about powerful men, presidents, royalty, billionaires, etc.].

Prince Andrew with Jeffrey Epstein.

That a government is not trusted by a majority of the governed on their story of how the most notorious defendant in their criminal justice system wound up dying in custody is perhaps the most potent argument I can offer for the necessity of preserving due process.

After Epstein died, Maxwell was substituted and the same government entities who oversaw the arrest, prosecution and protection of Epstein, were in charge of these tasks for Maxwell.

Maxwell Defense Is Stymied

The case against Maxwell consists of the accusations of four anonymous women who allege Maxwell was Epstein’s procurer of underage females between 1994-2004. Epstein was allegedly the principal abuser of the girls. Maxwell  denies having any role in anyone’s abuse.

She was indicted on July 2, 2020, almost a year after Epstein’s death. Until that time, she had not been charged or indicted in any jurisdiction with these crimes which date back 25 years. Her trial is scheduled for July 12.

The central figure, Epstein, is alleged to have engaged in deviant misconduct with dozens, if not hundreds, of alleged victims. Curiously, the U.S. Government did not charge Epstein with any of the alleged crimes they charged Maxwell with, when he was alive.

Secret Accusers?

In any world that is not a product of the mind of George Orwell, or part of the fabric of Communist China or similar tyrannic states, what I am about to share with you ought to be horrifying:

Forget that you hate Maxwell and Epstein.

Just consider the idea of due process for a moment and specifically the 6th Amendment right to confront your accusers.

It reads: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The government has refused — its refusal has been supported by the judge — to reveal the identities of Maxwell’s accusers.

That’s right, Maxwell does not know who is accusing her of deeds she allegedly did 20-25 years ago.

If we’re talking about due process, she has the absolute right to know the names of her accusers. She also has the right to receive copies of specific evidence, all dates, and details underpinning the charges.

As it stands now, the defense has to speculate as to which individuals are the victims in the indictment. If it is true that the late, and perhaps conveniently dead, Epstein abused hundreds of girls, and the government has four that tie Maxwell to his crimes, how will Maxwell know who they are, if the government does not tell her?

You might argue that she doesn’t need to know. She is guilty anyway so why waste the court’s time with a trial.

But she has a right to a trial, a right mentioned five times in the US Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments).

The 6th Amendment states she has the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him [her]”

We cannot suspend the U.S. Constitution because we hate someone.

Maxwell’s request for Discovery, to learn the identity of her accusers, so she could mount an effective defense, by investigating and adequately preparing for trial, was denied by the Judge’s Order.

Judge Alison Nathan did not say she would never let her know the names of her accusers. The government will have to tell her at some point — closer to trial.  But with three months to go until trial, Maxwell will be hard-pressed to prepare her defense without knowing their names today, let alone a month from now.

These alleged crimes occurred mostly during the last century. It will be difficult for the defense to try to investigate them, with Epstein dead and memories fading and evidence vanishing. The sooner she is permitted to begin, the better.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Held Without Bail

Maxwell is currently a pre-trial detainee at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center [MDC]. By some accounts, MDC is among the worst prisons in the federal system, an advantage for prosecutors since most of the inmates there are not convicts but those awaiting trial.

Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center has been called the greatest tool prosecutors in the Eastern District of NY have for beefing up conviction stats. By destroying the health and mental competence of defendants awaiting trial and for encouraging even innocent defendants into coercive plea deals, just so they can get out of MDC and into a much better, regular prison, it is a breeding ground for grooming the DOJ’s stock and trade — future conviction stats.

The defense of this case demands mental acumen, ample time to review voluminous discovery materials produced by the government, and many hours trying to find evidence to defend oneself. It requires considerable time to consult with attorneys who need to have access to the defendant.  None of this is easily facilitated at MDC.

At MDC, Maxwell’s access to the prison resources available to other pretrial detainees has been curtailed or eliminated. This treatment threatens Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right to participate in her defense.

Maxwell is not only in pretrial custody at one of the worst prisons in the USA, she is also in solitary confinement – to date, for more than 270 days. Solitary confinement, as everyone knows, or ought to be able to imagine, destabilizes a person mentally and physically, making it harder, if not impossible, to defend oneself.

Maxwell’s lawyers also say her health is deteriorating, which the government denies, a statement so brazen that it makes them highly suspect as truth-tellers, since, obviously, any human being’s health will deteriorate if kept in a cage, without sunlight, fresh air, human company, or decent food for months on end.

If We Hate Her, Can’t We Punish Her Before Trial?

According to her attorneys and her family, Ghislaine Maxwell is surveilled 24 hours a day by security cameras and by prison guards who take notes on her every activity, including phone conversations with defense counsel.

Her cell is searched multiple times a day and she has been forced to undergo numerous and invasive body scans.

Her cell is a 6ft x 9ft space, with a concrete bed and toilet.  She is not permitted into the corners of the cell and she must remain a minimum of 2.5ft from the cell door. There is no flat surface in her cell for her to work on legal documents while she in her cell. The drinking water is full of contaminants and the food is inedible.

Her food has been fed to her on plastic trays that have melted when exposed to microwaved heating, making the food inedible and unsafe.

There is no natural light in the cell, only fluorescent lights so bright that they hurt her eyes. Two walls of the cell are external masonry block walls with no insulation. Depending on the temperature it can lead to condensation on the walls by the bed.

Guards rotate every two weeks and each shift has different expectations and practices that conflict with other teams.

This is impacting her health and ability to prepare properly and mount a defense.

Not surprisingly, Maxwell is suffering from weight and hair loss, and her eyesight is “failing.” Who would not go blind in time with no natural light and harsh fluorescent lights blaring 24/7.

The conditions are so bad that no one can maintain good health in a facility that does not allow its detainees to have any outdoor time, is too cold or too hot, and where the food is inedible, and it seems this is all done purposely, for it could be easily corrected if the will was there. One can assume that her [and others’ treatment there] is done deliberately to destabilize them and weaken their ability to defend themselves at trial.

She Doesn’t Flush the Toilet?

Recently the feds wrote in a filing that Maxwell was responsible for having a dirty jail cell and not flushing the toilet, making it necessary to “flush out” the persistent filth there.

Her lawyer, Bobbi Sternheim, accused prosecutors of lying, and trying to “publicly embarrass and humiliate Ms. Maxwell in the hostile court of public opinion.”

“To suggest she willingly lives in squalor is absurd,” Sternheim wrote to Judge Nathan. But there is little question she lives in squalor – and by design, not hers but the government’s.

But prosecutors said jail staff recently ordered Maxwell to clean her “very dirty” cell, which smelled because she “frequently did not flush her toilet after using it.”

They said the order was not in retaliation for Maxwell’s having complained about a routine pat-down search.

Sternheim admitted the cell stinks but that’s because “toilets [are] overflowing in a nearby cellblock.

“Due to lack of privacy, Ms. Maxwell refrains from using the toilet in the isolation cell and, as directed by the guards, she flushes frequently to avoid plumbing problems,” she wrote.

Sternheim said inmates, including Maxwell, must drink dirty tap water and are surrounded by mold, vermin, cockroaches and rodents.

Crimes of the Past

The accusations of three of the anonymous accusers allege Maxwell’s crimes occurred 25 years ago, during the mid-1990s. A fourth, anonymous woman alleges she was abused when she was 14, starting 20 years ago and continued to as recently as 16 years ago when she was 18.

Some of the anonymous allegations appear uncorroborated. The defense claims, for instance, that the government is unable to prove that Accuser-3 was even underage when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein. [Maxwell denies she procured these girls for Epstein in any event.]

Money Considerations

The four anonymous accusers will likely seek, or already have sought, [we don’t know since we do not know who they are] through civil litigation, monetary damages — from the estate of Epstein, estimated to be worth $559 million, and from Maxwell, whose net worth, with her husband, according to her bail proposal, is $25 million.

Obviously, civil lawsuits will be strengthened by a conviction of Maxwell.  The accusers can also expect to acquire money through mandatory victim restitution if Maxwell is convicted.

All four of the accusers may become rich. [That does not mean that I believe the accusers are lying, or mistaken or would change their stories in order to become rich. How can anyone know, since their identities are unknown?]

This is an additional reason – monetary incentives [as if an additional reason is needed] why the defendant is entitled to know the names of her accusers and to conduct a robust investigation.

It is a matter for the “finders of fact,” the jury, to determine whether the accusers were recruited by Maxwell for sex with the late Epstein when they were underage or not. The accusers should be identified to the defense immediately in order that their allegations, their history and their motives can be vetted, just as the Confrontation Clause in the US Constitution contemplates.

The accusers, now in their 30s and 40s, are no longer children. Their names will be shielded from the public. There is no reason that their accusations cannot be investigated and, when they are called as witnesses, they cannot be confronted vigorously under cross-examination.

To expect that accusers should not be questioned or challenged or subjected to skepticism or held to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” just because the crime they allege is gruesome, is to throw out due process and state that in, for instance, sex crimes, only the accuser has any rights at all – and the mere accusation of a sex crime is tantamount to guilt.

Family Steps in

Last Friday, an alternative narrative to “Maxwell is guilty and deserves to be punished prior to trial,” was presented by her six brothers and sisters, along with other family and friends, who developed, published, and now maintain a website, Realghislaine.com.

The website promises to follow her case carefully and provide “exclusive content, news, commentary and useful resources” with a point of view that suggests Maxwell is not the “monster” the US Dept. of Justice portrays her to be, or the “fictional one-dimensional character created by the media.”

“We believe wholeheartedly in our beloved sister’s innocence,” her siblings write on the new website.

To Seek Due Process Is Not Condoning Sex Trafficking

For my own part, I do not know if Maxwell is innocent or guilty. Maybe she is guilty as sin and worked, several decades ago, to help a deviant man take advantage of innocence, which is despicable.

Maybe, as rumor has it, she was involved in greater crimes, of blackmailing royals, politicians and billionaires whom Epstein and her lured to private islands, or fancy Florida compounds, and secretly filmed them with teenage girls.

None of that is charged conduct.

But as horrifying as sex trafficking is, it is not justification for abandoning due process.

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

If we did not all agree to hate her, and agree that she is undoubtedly guilty, we might consider the strangeness of the way this case is being handled:  A woman is accused of acting in conspiracy with a man who died in government custody under suspicious circumstances, and was arrested only after the man died.

The case against her is built on accusers whose identities are hidden from her, alleging crimes that happened decades ago, while the defendant is locked away in a dungeon, unable to defend herself.

The media coverage is virtual stenography taken from the government’s narrative, including parroting the government’s suicide story, without mention that competent experts have offered evidence that the man – the principle villain – did not commit suicide, but was murdered.

Ghislaine Maxwell may indeed be guilty, but I would prefer that it is proven through due process.

 

 

 

 


About the author

Frank Parlato

39 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Frank-

    Maybe the DOJ does not want to share the names of the witnesses with the defense….

    …Because the DOJ is worried, Ghislaine’s attorneys or family will make out of court settlements/payoffs to the witnesses.

    There can be no doubt the Maxwell family has considerable wealth and resources.

    Their father was a criminal and apples don’t fall farm the tree.

    • Still, my friend, like it or not, the accused has a right to know the names of her accusers. The Constitution has to trump the DOJ’s calculations. That’s what due process is about.

      • Frank-

        Normally I would agree….But the Epstein/Maxwell case may contain BIG players. Men who should be brought to justice.

      • Revealing the victims’ names too early opens them up to intimidation, threats and possibly danger. If they are minors, their names are further protected under law. She will learn them well before trial. That is sufficient. It’s not as if these allegations are a mystery to her.

        Also, isn’t it odd that defense is complaining that one victim is not a minor but then claiming they are being denied the names of the victims?

    • I disagree, too, Frank.

      The complaintant is the government, the People.. Not the girl photographed or trafficked. The victims would be witnesses.

  • I wish we had the same kind of details of KR and Clare Bronfman’s prison stay thus far. Any hope for that in the near future, Frank?

    • We’re working on it…But until federal prisons stop following their current COVID-19 protocol, the movement of guards inside is very limited. That’s why we haven’t been able to get any recent updates.

  • Frank, you’re being logically inconsistent. First you state that Maxwell must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, public opinion notwithstanding.

    Then you opine that the government is lying and Epstein didn’t commit suicide, citing public opinion as proof that he was murdered.

    So which is it? Is public opinion evidence of guilt or isn’t it?

  • Due process is important. Obviously. But you can’t be blind to facts that have been made public about a case. And you are allowed to form an opinion based on those facts right? Tell me, Frank, honestly, did you presume Keith Raniere was innocent of the crimes he was charged with before he was convicted by a jury? You sure had an opinion about Keith’s guilt if all your stories made public on the Frank Report are an indicator.

    In the Ghislaine Maxwell case, people have an opinion too, based on information made public. For a starter the (in)famous photo with accuser Virginia Roberts and Prince Andrew (and herself). This is not even included in this case against Maxwell (except for the perjury part). Or what about the civil lawsuit for defamation (Roberts vs Maxwell 2015-2017) that Maxwell settled (for millions) one day before court proceedings started. Would you settle for millions of dollars if you were innocent? No. Then Maxwell fought for years to keep her depositions sealed. There were two depositions. The second one was ordered by the judge because she gave evading answers to questions in the first one. And what did those depositions show us? Sure, she didn’t invoke the fifth, but in essence, it was a non-deposition (according to the judge who ruled to unseal): it was lightyears away from an open and honest testimony. Is this behaviour befitting an innocent person that has nothing to hide?
    _____

    Epstein remains legally innocent
    That’s true. The case was closed after his death.
    “The government was quick to blame Epstein – saying he committed suicide. But there is evidence that the government is lying.” Please elaborate on this evidence. I hope you don’t mean the report of Dr. Baden that was paid for by Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother. Please note Epstein tried to kill himself on July 23th 2019, but failed. He succeeded on his second attempt.

    He should have been on suicide watch permanently after the first attempt, by the way, not just two weeks.
    Bradley Edwards, a lawyer for one of the victims, is convinced he killed himself as is the (former) inmate that was assigned to him as his “counselor” and had hours of contact with him. Edwards’ book “Relentless Pursuit” about this case is excellent and also has some interesting facts about Maxwell. For instance that she was not available for a deposition in a civil case against Epstein (2009) because “she had to go to England to take care of her sick mother and was not coming back” only to return to the States (if indeed she ever had left) for the wedding of Chelsea Clinton where she was photographed. And on and on it goes….
    ____

    Secret accusers
    I agree that the government should inform the defendant of the names of the four accusers (victims would be a better word, by the way). As far as I have an understanding of it, underage victims of sex crimes are allowed to be anonymous to a certain point (to protect them). That makes sense. But they are adults now, so I agree the government should inform the defendant who they are.

    But does that mean Maxwell doesn’t yet know how they are? Of course not! She knows exactly who they are and can prepare her defence accordingly. For starters, we have Annie Farmer. She already has gone public. From the information given in the first indictment (https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/389/108655/Maxwell-Indictment-1.pdf), some background info and a simple google search we can conclude another victim is Nadia Björlin. Ghislaine and her lawyers know all this. Please spare me their lament that they don’t know who the victims are and can’t prepare a defence. Another victim was assaulted in Maxwell’s townhouse in London according to the (first) indictment. We are not talking about Prince Andrew and Virginia here (that was in 2001), this is 1994-1997. So, good old Jeffrey was only a few times at her townhouse in London. Maxwell knows who this victim is.
    _____

    Held without bail and prison conditions
    Imagine the public outcry if Maxwell were found dead in her cell (or anywhere else if granted bail). I understand that the government wants her to attend her trial and takes all necessary measures to assure she does.

    “At MDC, Maxwell’s access to the prison resources available to other pretrial detainees has been curtailed or eliminated. This treatment threatens Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right to participate in her defense.”

    Eliminated? Have you read the government’s memo to the judge with regard to her resources? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20591426/ghislaine-maxwell-is-vaccinated.pdf
    Excerpts from this memo:
    “ The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to both a desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government on which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys.”
    and,
    “Accordingly, the defendant is permitted out of her cell from 7am to 8pm every day. While in the day room, the defendant has exclusive access to the MDC desktop computer, the laptop, a television, a phone on which to place social or attorney calls, and a shower. The defendant is also permitted outdoor recreation every day, although she has the option of declining such recreation time if she wishes. The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. Currently, the defendant receives five hours of videoteleconference (“VTC”) calls with her counsel every weekday, for a total of 25 hours of attorney VTC calls per week.”

    Hardly a shining example of denial of access to resources is it? Do you think Keith had access to this kind of resources when he was in pre-trial detention at MDC?

    Yes, the conditions of MDC are awful and shouldn’t be. But I doubt this is easily correctable and I doubt it’s on purpose. I didn’t hear you complain about MDC’s conditions when Keith and Clare were incarcerated at MDC.
    _____

    she doesn’t flush the toilet
    This was apparently communicated by the BOP to the government in a request by the judge for an update on Maxwell’s conditions in prison. This is indeed what the government says in her memo to the judge (see link above). I find it hard to believe that someone doesn’t flush the toilet after use in jail or anywhere else for that matter. I find Maxwell’s response to this accusation credible. If this is indeed a lie from the BOP (and hence the government) to make Maxwell look bad that’s reprehensible and it will damage the government’s credibility in this case.
    _____

    crimes of the past
    As long as the charges don’t conflict with the statute of limitations she can be prosecuted. I don’t think the victims have forgotten what happened to them 25 years ago.

    “Some of the anonymous allegations appear uncorroborated. The defense claims, for instance, that the government is unable to prove that Accuser-3 was even underage when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein.”
    In reply to the multiple bail requests, the government informs the judge that they have a strong case. The case appears even stronger after the recent expansion of the charges.
    _____

    money considerations
    Epstein’s estate has constructed a fund for victims. To be able to receive from this fund, victims have to end/waive all civil lawsuits connected to the Estate or (former) employees of Epstein, including Maxwell. It is my understanding that first payouts have been made, for instance with regard to Annie Farmer. So, assuming there will be no more civil litigation against Maxwell, there are no monetary incentives in the criminal case other than the possibility of victim restitution upon conviction. But this is how the system works and not specific to this case.
    _____
    family steps in

    I read everything on the website her family and friend made in her defence. With friends like that, who needs enemies? You can draw parallels with the “dossierproject” and letters of recommendation that were submitted on Keith and Clare’s behalf. Glowing testimony of the deep goodness and honesty and high morale of the person in question. And a deep and outspoken belief in their innocence. With everything that has come to light about Ghislaine, the civil litigation, multiple women who have spoken about their abuse from Epstein and Ghislaine’s role in it, you have to do better than just say “she’s innocent”. You have to address the accusations with facts.

    I predict Maxwell will be found guilty in a court of law and will spend the rest of her life in jail.
    To paraphrase one of her alleged victims: “If you hurt kids, that’s where you go”.

    • Steven J.-

      I actually took time to read your comment on this day of rain in Massachusetts.

      You make a lot of good points.

      Thanks for sharing!!!

  • They found her with multiple passports. A phone wrapped in tinfoil. Really high-level security employed. She ran even when they were at her front door (finally) after playing cat and mouse.

    She could have come in willingly. Forfeited her passports etc.

    She was/is the definition of a flight risk.

    Please do not leave out all the many choices over months and months that got her to this point.

    It discredits the valid points that you have to make about due process.

  • So, it’s not OK for the court of public opinion to judge her, but you’re saying we should know the accusers’ names so the court of public opinion could judge them. Interesting “logic.”

    • I am not saying the public should know their names, all I am saying is the accused should know their names. She doesn’t. And that’s outrageous.

      • I totally agree – she ought to have known immediately when she was charged. This is outrageous.

        In fact, l don’t believe she should have ever been charged for matters so long when they were dealt with under a NPA. The main accused person is dead and the alleged female co-conspirators like Maxwell were earning a living following employment orders – and caught up with manipulative Epstein requests.

        They have not been accused of any alleged events past 2005 or so which was dealt. Therefore they have not done (accused) anything wrong for decades. Maxwell was getting on with her life contributing to society and not hurting anyone (absent Epstein ). It is highly questionable and it’s unfair to even charge her.

        Due process has already been denied and how you defend yourself if we are now meant to believe uncorroborated accusations.

        Woman and teenagers were happy to earn money and send their friends to Epstein to earn money (strict liability federal law says its unlawful if under 18 yet this is arbitrary – this was never a heinous like females being kidnapped and forced like in the film TAKEN (really heinous) – for example in the USA a 19 yo male can have a massage or sexual relations with 16 yo and travel from new york to LA and be at risk of sex trafficking of a minor as could have Elvis with 14 yo Priscilla (strictly unlawful but not heinous yet with ridiculous penalties).

        • It was a heinous crime. It is a heinous crime. Crimes.

          You don’t get to sex traffic children for years and then get a pass on prosecution when the criminal enterprise falls apart and you stop because you have no choice.

          You have really lost the plot.

          If you want to fight for laws that make sex with children permissible – you go for it. And let us know how that turns out.

          But you don’t get to commit crimes and then argue that, in fact, they should not be crimes.

          That is not a successful argument.

        • Rebecca,

          —Woman and teenagers were happy to earn money and send their friends to Epstein to earn money (strict liability federal law says its unlawful if under 18 yet this is arbitrary – this was never a heinous like females being kidnapped…

          How do you explain the three 12-year-old French girls sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday?

          Is that an example of consenting adults making independent decisions based on financial rewards?

          Please answer my question. I would seriously appreciate a reply. I am opened minded enough to change my opinion.

          Example:

          Nicki Clyne changed my opinion of her. I no longer believe she was brainwashed; I believe that she made a decision as an adult and acted independently.

      • Did you ever figure out who sent you the Ghislaine Maxwell Photoshopped fast-food photos before mainstream media published them?

        Just curious

  • Epstein knew names and I am sure those names were really relieved at his “suicide”.
    Ghislaine is still alive. That tells you she does not have names. Really that simple.

    If guilty, she supplied the kids to Epstein but she had no clue who he was sending them to. I wonder if she regrets not knowing names. Might be dead, but might not be. Instead, considering her age, odds are she will die in jail, guilty or not.

  • Every defendant, no matter how reprehensible, deserves Due Process of Law.
    Due Process of Law includes knowing the identity of her accusers.
    In America, we must not allow the establishment of Star Chambers.

    Note to the Nicki Clyne Dancers.
    Dance for Ghislaine.
    Ghislaine’s relatives are quite well to do.
    Her husband is Scott Borgerson who owns a hedge fund called CargoMetrics.
    Her sisters, Isabel and Christine, are computer scientists who co-founded Magellan, an early search engine much like Google.

    Ghislaine Maxwell
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghislaine_Maxwell

    Christine Maxwell
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maxwell

    Isabel Maxwell
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Maxwell

    Isabel’s son and Ghislaine’s nephew, Alexander Djerassi, worked for Hillary Clinton when Hillary was Secretary of State.

    ‘SPECIAL TREATMENT’ Hillary Clinton ‘gave Ghislaine Maxwell’s nephew a job at US State Department after Bill’s trips to paedo island’
    https://www.the-sun.com/news/1371745/clinton-gifted-job-ghislaine-maxwell-nephew/

    • —Every defendant, no matter how reprehensible, deserves Due Process of Law.

      Every defendant deserves a day in court except for Allison Mack, right Shadowstate.

      She was never found guilty in a court of law.

      Mack made a plea deal because she was looking at a 30-year prison sentence and the DOJ conviction rate stands at 95%. When you are 40, a sentence of 30 years is basically a life sentence

      Do the MATH!!!!

  • Frank-

    RE The Real Justice and Due Process:

    If Ghislaine Maxwell, was not under lock-and-key and 24hr personal prison guards, and she happened to die…

    ….Everyone, including Claviger, conspiracy addicts like Shadow, and yourself would cry out from the mountaintops: CONSPIRACY!!!

    Sorry, Old Chap, she may know where the Epstein tapes are kept, her personal rights to due process are superseded, by the possibility of getting the big players.

    You probably think I’m wrong but think about the men who have been kept in Guantánamo. Maxwell played a role in the Epstein pedophile ring that preyed on Eastern European preteens.

    • To Anonymous:
      The Constitution mandates that an accused is able to confront an accuser.
      That means the accused MUST know who is making the accusation.
      Jane Doe # 1 is not good enough.
      The public need not know the accuser’s true name.
      The accused must know.

    • To Everyone and Frank:

      Everyone demanding due process, you are all the same group of people, who cried foul when Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide or was murdered need to put a lid on it:
      \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
      I want Ghislaine Maxwell to make it to trial.

      Solely, so I don’t have to hear you conspiracy buffs cry and complain. 😉
      \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

      ***
      If she does get put into the general population with no guards, she will commit suicide because she knows she’s fucked.

      • What if Ghislaine finds out the names of the witnesses and they start to be assassinated?

        Like what happens with Clinton associates (loose strings).

  • The MDC is a travesty and an embarrassment for the country. The only thing stranger than the Epstein saga ( cryogenics, the black book, the Lolita Express, private island, C.IA.) is the lack of interest from the media. I suspect Ghislaine, however guilty or innocent, will be the sacrificial lamb, someone to atone for all the crimes that can’t be named.

  • Pure opinion and conjecture:

    1. Epstein was murdered;

    2. Your guess who has the power to do a hit behind prison walls, but whoever did it is was waaaaaay up there;

    3. GM knows a shit ton, enough to rattle some of the biggest names in the world;

    4. She is being held for her own security.

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg; “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson; “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been featured prominently on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and acted as lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” He was credited in the Starz docuseries, 'Seduced,' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato has appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest, which was ironic since many credit Parlato as being one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083

Archives