Ghislaine Maxwell: Daddy and Epstein Made Me

Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team has uploaded two separate documents in the lead-up to her June 28 sentencing hearing. They are complaining she is just a patsy because Jeffrey Epstein died in custody.
In defending herself, she points to alleged Epstein co-conspirators that should be punished (Sarah Kellen) and gratuitously mentions two former partners, Gateway founder Ted Waitt and her estranged husband Scott Borgerson.
She also claims she met Epstein after her father's death, totally ignoring the evidence tabled in her trial last year that clearly showed she had a relationship with Epstein seven months before her father's death aboard the Lady Ghislaine. Plus, she lived in New York City when her Dad died.

Keep up to date with the latest twists and turns in this Epstein investigation with The Prince and the Pervert Podcast.https://jeffreyepsteinpodcast.com/ [https://jeffreyepsteinpodcast.com/]

Support our work on Patreon for exclusive content from AU$3 a month. We have some awesome new merchandise as a thank you. Full link: https://www.patreon.com/JeffreyEpsteinPrincePervert?fan_landing=true [https://www.patreon.com/JeffreyEpsteinPrincePervert?fan_landing=true]


Find us: Twitter: https://twitter.com/ohreallytruly https://twitter.com/lisapodcasts. Join the Prince and the Pervert Podcast Facebook group.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
A global criminal conspiracy, a prince, a jailed social aide, and a
billionaire who may or may not havebeen murdered. Welcome to the world of
the Jeffrey Epstein. The Prince andthe Pervert Podcast journalists Lisa and Jan bring
you the ultimate deep dive. Hello, and welcome to The Prince and the

(00:21):
Pervert Podcast. My name is JanTarren and this week you're going to get
two episodes back to back hopefully.So for the first episode, I'm going
through some documents which will set itup nicely for Gallaine Maxwell's sentencing on June
twenty eight, and then as soonas we can, we'll get today's episode

(00:42):
that we've just recorded up for you. It's all about the supporting letters from
documents six sixty three and we're goingon a trip to the Jersey Islands.
The media went into an absolute frenzyas Galaine Maxwell's team docuted their pre sentencing
report. Now that was document sixsix three, and oh boy, I

(01:08):
pulled it apart immediately. It wasa seventy seven page document. About thirty
six pages was her actual submission.The rest was exhibits and letters of support.
But what most people missed was therewas document six six two, and

(01:29):
it's a memorandum of Gallaine Maxwell insupport of her objections to the pre sentence
investigation report. We haven't seen thepre sentence report from the government, but
reading this twenty nine page document,we get a fair idea. Now,

(01:49):
the biggest takeaway from documents six sixtythree was that she doesn't want the minimum
of twenty plus years. She justwants about five years. But document six
six two breaks that all down andexplains the difference between what Galayne Maxwell's team
reckons she should get compared to thegovernments. So let's have a look through

(02:14):
documents six six two and then I'llget into six sixty three. One thing
of note is that in both ofthese documents there is utterly no reference to
the well being of survivors or anycontrition or any concern for these survivors,
not a sorry, nothing. Sodocument six six two starts with and I

(02:40):
quote Galayne Maxwell respectively submits this memorandumin support of her objections to the previous
Sentence Investigation Report PSR and her claimthat the correct sentencing range under the United
States Sentencing guidelines is fifty one tosixty three months, not the two ninety

(03:06):
two to three sixty five month rangecalculated by the US Probation Office in the
PSR, as set forth more fullybelow. The lower range is correctly calculated
because one, the two thousand andthree guidelines applied to Miss Maxwell's offense conduct,

(03:27):
not the two thousand and four guidelines, and two the enhancements under four
B one point five brackets repeat anddangerous sex offender against minors close brackets,
three B one point one brackets,aggravating role close brackets, and two G
one point three B two B bracketsuse of undue influence close brackets do not

(03:54):
apply. As I said earlier,we haven't yet seen or at the time
of recording this, we haven't seenthe prosecution the government's pre sentence report,
but we can glean from what herteam has written here that the government has
suggested a range of incarceration of twohundred and ninety two months to three hundred

(04:17):
and sixty five months, which equatestwo roughly twenty four years and four months
two thirty years and four months.Now. Remember she'll be turning sixty one
on Christmas Eve, so the upperrange means she wouldn't get out until her
nineties However, her fifty one tosixty three months, which she believes is

(04:41):
correct, comes down to four yearsand three months to a maximum of five
years point three months, and itall hinges according to her team. On
the difference between the two thousand andthree guidelines and the later two thousand and
four guidelin lines now, her argumentis that the two thousand and three guidelines

(05:04):
apply to the offense conduct and Iquote there is no dispute that the two
thousand and four guidelines, which tookeffect on November one, two thousand and
four, call for a much harshersentence than the two thousand and three guidelines.
If the court applied all of thesame enhancements that are applied in the

(05:28):
PSR, the recommended sentencing range underthe two thousand and three guidelines would be
roughly seventy five percent less than therecommended sentencing range under the two thousand and
four guidelines one hundred and sixty eightto two hundred and ten months based on
a combined adjusted defense level of thirtyfive under the two thousand and three guidelines

(05:53):
Versus two hundred and ninety two tothree sixty five months based on a combined
adjusted defense level forty under the twothousand and four guidelines. The party's dispute,
however, whether the offense conduct endedbefore or after November one, two
thousand and four, and whether acourt or a jury must make that finding.

(06:15):
Essentially, she wants to be sentencedon the two thousand and three guidelines,
not the two thousand and four guidelines. And this is what this document
is basically about. And I quoteprobation. And the government assert that the
two thousand and four guidelines apply becausethe second superseding indictment brackets the S two

(06:38):
indictment generally alleges that the criminal conductended in or about two thousand and four,
and the court should find, basedon the trial testimony and other evidence,
that the offense conduct continued through theend of two thousand and four.
That is legally and factually incorrect.For the reason set forth more fully below,

(07:03):
the court must apply the two thousandand three guidelines in this case because
one the jury not the court mustdetermine the end date of the criminal conduct
when that fact dictates which guidelines bookapplies, consistent with the ex post facto
Clause two. Even if the courtmay make that determination, the trial record

(07:27):
is insufficient to find that the offenseconduct continued past November one, two thousand
and four, the effective date ofthe two thousand and four guidelines, and
three, it would not serve thegoals of sentencing to apply the Harsher two
thousand and four guidelines in this casewhen the record is clear that miss Maxwell

(07:49):
was no longer actively participating in theoffense conduct by two thousand and two or
two thousand and three at the laterdown. Further, they write here the
S two indictment alleges only that criminalconduct ended in or about two thousand and

(08:09):
four, and does not specify whetherthe conduct continued into November and December two
thousand and four, nor was thejury asked to make a specific finding as
to the end date of the offenseconduct. Because the jury did not make
the necessary factual finding, the courtcannot apply the two thousand and four guidelines

(08:35):
and must instead apply the two thousandand three guidelines. Note here that they
said the S two indictment alleges consideringshe was found guilty, the S two
indictment isn't alleged. The next coupleof pages is about the trial record is
insufficient to support a finding that theoffense conduct can tinued past November one,

(09:01):
two thousand and four. Now thesuperseded in ditment. It was bringing Caroline
minor Victim four into this, andshe was in those two thousand range.
Galaine Maxwell's team is using Caroline asthe whipping post in this to try and
pull back to the two thousand andthree guidelines. And I quote the government's

(09:26):
claim is based solely on one Caroline'svague recollection that she stopped performing sexualized massages
for Epstein in two thousand and fivewhen she was eighteen years old, and
two two message pad slips that werenever admitted in evidence. Such meager and

(09:48):
unreliable evidence is insufficient to support afinding that the offense conduct continued into the
last two months of two thousand andfour, especially when determination has such a
significant effect on the recommended sentencing range. Instead, the credible evidence in the
trial record established at most that Epsteinwas receiving sexualized massages in his Palm Beach

(10:16):
residence through the summer of two thousandand four, before the two thousand and
four guidelines took effect. Now,in this Galai Maxwell's team really goes hard
on Caroline. Apparently she's not trustworthy. She's got memory problems, and I
quote Caroline's recollection that she was eighteenwhen she stops seeing Epstein cannot be credited.

(10:41):
Caroline's memory of the timeline of events, in particular her age at the
time of the relevant events, wasdemonstratibly inconsistent and unreliable. For example,
Caroline initially testified that she was fourteenyears old when Virginia Roberts first took her

(11:01):
to Epstein's Palm Beach residence, whichwould have been in two thousand and one.
However, when Caroline was confronted oncross examination with her prior deposition testimony
in two thousand and nine, sheagreed that Virginia first took her to Epstein's
house in May or June two thousandand two, when she was fifteen years

(11:22):
old, as stated in her deposition. Then, on redirect, Caroline changed
her testimony yet again and testified thatshe first went to Epstein's house when she
was thirteen years old, which wouldhave been two thousand. Caroline also testified
that she was fifteen going to besixteen when she recruited her friend Tatum to

(11:45):
give Epstein massages, which would havebeen towards the end of two thousand and
two or early two thousand and three. However, according to the message pad
slips that were admitted in evidence,the earliest of dates to January two thousand
and three. Tatum did not begincalling the Palm Beach residence until April two

(12:07):
thousand and four, when Caroline wasseventeen. Caroline further testified that she had
trouble remembering details of the events inquestion, and affirm that she doesn't remember
the times and dates of her visitsto Epstein's Palm Beach residence. The government
asserts that Caroline's recollection can be creditedbecause, even if she cannot recall the

(12:33):
year that an event took place,she has been consistent about how old she
was when the event took place.As set forth above, this claim is
flatly contradicted by the record. IfCaroline could not accurately remember how old she
was when she first met Epstein,the court should not credit her recollection of

(12:56):
how old she was when she lastsaw him, then go in on the
message pads that were offered up inevidence. Furthermore, it would be improper
for the court to rely on Caroline'srecollection and the message slips to find that
the offense conduct lasted until two thousandand five, because the government alleged in

(13:16):
the S two indictment that the offenseconduct ended in or about two thousand and
four, not in or about twothousand and five. The initial indictment charge
miss Maxwell with offenses that lasted upto and including in or about nineteen ninety

(13:37):
seven. The S two indictment,which the government filed after it had located
and interviewed Caroline, charged offense conductthat lasted up to and including in or
about two thousand and four. Theexpanded end date of the S two indictment
was based solely on Caroline's anticipated testimonyand cooperating evidence. Yet the government alleged

(14:05):
that the offense conduct ended in twothousand and four, even though the government
knew Caroline's recollection of when she lastvisited Epstein and was aware of the two
message slips when it filed the Stwo indictment. The court should hold the
government to its allegations and not allowit to expand the end date of the

(14:28):
offense conduct for purposes of sentencing.For these reasons, the record is insufficient
for the court to find that theoffense conduct continued past November one, two
thousand and four, the effective dateof the two thousand and four guidelines.
The court must therefore apply the twothousand and three guidelines. Now. Point

(14:50):
C is the goals of sentencing arenot served by applying the more onerous two
thousand and four guidelines based solely onEPs beans conduct. If the Court finds
the offense conduct continued past November first, two thousand and four, it should
nevertheless vary downwardly and sentence Miss Maxwellas if the two thousand and three guidelines

(15:18):
apply. The variance would account forthe fact that Miss Maxwell had stopped actively
participating in the offense conduct by twothousand and three at the latest, when
the earlier guidelines were in effect.Such a variance would provide just punishment for

(15:39):
the offense and promote respect for thelaw because it would punish Miss Maxwell only
for the conduct for which she wasdirectly responsible, rather than artificially inflating her
sentence based on two months worth ofEpstein's criminal conduct in which she was not

(16:00):
evolved. There is no evidence inthe record that Miss Maxwell did anything in
furtherance of the conspiracy in November orDecember two thousand and four. In fact,
the evidence clearly showed that by thattime Miss Maxwell was in a committed
relationship with another man, and SarahHelen had taken over responsibility for scheduling the

(16:26):
massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence. Miss Maxwell's assistant, Kimberly Espinoza,
testified that by two thousand and two, Miss Maxwell had moved on from Epstein,
had stopped coming to the office,and had begun a long term relationship
with Ted Waite. Further down insome the record is clear that by two

(16:49):
thousand or two or two thousand andthree at the latest, Miss Maxwell had
stopped actively participating in the offense conductand had been replaced by Kellen, and
that sentence there is possibly the onlyacknowledgement in any of these documents. Applying

(17:11):
the two thousand and four guidelines wouldsignificantly increase Miss Maxwell's sentencing range based on
a finding by a mere perponderance thather co conspirator Epstein engaged in the offense
conduct in the final two months oftwo thousand and four that Miss Maxwell had

(17:32):
nothing to do with and was notpersonally responsible for. Now in determining what
her team believes her sentencing should be. They also looked at what they call
the five point adjustment under us SGfour B one point five. Now her

(17:52):
team says they do not apply andI'll read probation and the governments seek to
substantially crease Miss Maxwell's guidelines range byadding a five point adjustment under USSG four
B one point five, applicable toa repeat and dangerous sex offender against miners.

(18:15):
That one adjustment increases Miss Maxwell's advisorysentencing range from one hundred and sixty
eight slash two hundred and ten monthstwo hundred and ninety two slash three sixty
five months, a roughly seventy fivepercent increase. But four B one point

(18:37):
five was intended to apply only tohabitual sexual offenders who present a high risk
of recidivism and pose are continuing dangerto the public. Here, the government
concedes that the defendant is not adanger to the public. There is no
evidence that the defendant herself is sexuallyattracted to miners. The conduct that gives

(19:00):
rise to the adjustment ended almost twentyyears ago, and there is no evidence
that the defendant has reoffended and noconcern that she will ever reoffend. So
point a Miss Maxwell does not presentart continuing danger to the public. It

(19:21):
is clear from the guidelines, commentary, and the congressional intent underlying the creation
of four B one point five thatthe adjustment does not apply to Miss Maxwell.
In sharp contrast, Miss Maxwell hasnever been accused of any sex offenses
or any crimes for that matter,in the almost twenty year period since the

(19:45):
conducted issue in this case ended.There is absolutely no evidence that Miss Maxwell
is attracted to miners or has thesort of uncontrollable impulses that would compel her
to reoffend. According to the trialrecord, it was Epstein who had such
proclivities, whereas Miss Maxwell's role wasto facilitate Epstein's sexual abuse. Indeed,

(20:10):
after she moved on from Epstein inthe early two thousands, Miss Maxwell was
involved in two long term relationships withmen who had young children and was actively
involved in their lives without even theslightest hint of impropriety. Now, another
one of the adjustments is US SGthree B one point one. This is

(20:37):
leveled at people who have been anorganizer, leader, manager, or supervisor
of one or more other participants inthe abuse, and I quote the guidelines
are clear that for any of thethree aggravating role enhancements to apply, the
court must first find that Miss Maxwell'ssupervised at least one other criminal participant in

(21:03):
the offense. A participant is definedas a person who is criminally responsible for
the commission of the offense, butneed not have been convicted. There is
no evidence in the trial record thatMiss Maxwell supervised another criminal participant in the
offenses against Jane, Annie Farmer orCaroline, which formed the basis for the

(21:26):
three offense groups in the PSR.According to the trial testimony, the only
criminal participants in the offenses involving Janeand Annie Farmer were Epstein and Miss Maxwell.
There is certainly no support in therecord that Miss Maxwell supervised Epstein.
In fact, the record is clearthat the opposite is true. Epstein directed

(21:52):
and managed Miss Maxwell, who washis employee. According to the record,
there were several people joyed by Epsteinwho interacted with Jane and Annie Farmer and
whom Miss Maxwell supervised in her roleas manager of Epstein's properties in the late
nineteen nineties e g. Juana Lessiin Palm Beach and various unnamed employees at

(22:17):
Zoro Ranch. The record also reflectsthat Miss Maxwell had the same role in
coordinating payroll and expenses for Epstein pilotsLarry Viszowski and David Rogers, who transported
Jane on Epstein's private planes, butthese people had no knowledge of the criminal
conduct and do not qualify as criminallyresponsible participants for the purpose of the aggravating

(22:47):
role enhancement. Similarly, there isno evidence in the trial record that Miss
Maxwell's supervised another criminal participant in theoffenses against Caroline. Apart from Epstein,
Sarah Kelen was the only other personidentified in the trial record as a criminal
participant in the offenses against Caroline.Among other things, Caroline testified that Sarah

(23:12):
Kelln schedule massage appointments for her andtook nude pictures of her at the Palm
Beach residence on one occasion. Therecord is clear, however, that Miss
Maxwell did not supervise Sarah Kellen.Rather, Kellen was hired by Epstein as
his assistant to replace Miss Maxwell andtake over responsibility for scheduling massage appointments and

(23:38):
other property management tasks at a timewhen Miss Maxwell was moving on from Epstein
and was no longer actively managing theday to day affairs of his residences.
Put it this way, Gallain Maxwell'steam is now trying to fingerpoint at Kellen,
like why you're going me? Youshould be going Kellen. And another

(24:00):
reason galais Maxwell's team believes that sheshouldn't get a huge sentence is the criminal
activity was not otherwise extensive. Evenif the court finds that miss Maxwell supervised
another participant, the record does notsupport a finding that the criminal activity related
to Jane, any Farmer, orCaroline was otherwise extensive, as the government

(24:26):
contends. For example, the governmentcannot use conduct from the two thousand and
one two thousand and four time periodrelated to Caroline to justify applying the aggravated
role enhancement to the criminal activity innineteen ninety four to nineteen ninety seven related
to Jane, or in nineteen ninetysix related to any Farmer. The government

(24:52):
nevertheless attempts to justify the enhancement asto each of the three minor victims by
may a broad assertion about the natureand scope of the conspiracy as a whole,
rather than making an individualized determination thatthe criminal activity was otherwise extensive as

(25:14):
to each Because that is insufficient toestablish that the criminal activity was otherwise extensive.
Miss Maxwell should at most be subjectto a two point enhancement under US
SG three B one point one.And Finally, the two point undue influence
enhancement under SUS SG A two Gone three B two B does not apply.

(25:42):
Finally, it would be improper forthe court to apply a two level
enhancement on the grounds that a participantin the criminal activity unduly influenced a minor
to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.First, it will constitute impermanentsable double counting
to apply to G one point threeB two B to the offense conduct related

(26:07):
to Jane, Annie Farmer, andCaroline, because it would punish Miss Maxwell
for the same harm that was fullyaccounted for in the base offense levels for
counts three, four and six.Second, under the two thousand and three
guidelines which should apply in this case, the two point enhancement only applies if

(26:30):
a participant otherwise unduly influenced a minorto engage in a commercial sex act.
There is no evidence that Jane orany Farmer engaged in a commercial sex act.
Accordingly, the enhancement should not applyto their two offense groups. Third,

(26:52):
the evidence does not support the Carolinewas unduly influenced to provide sexualized massages
for Epstein. The undue influence enhancementapplies when a participant's influence over the minor
compromise volunteerinness of the miner's behavior.Apart from Virginia Roberts initially offering Caroline the

(27:17):
opportunity to massage Epstein, the recordindicates the Caroline sought out additional massage appointments
herself and recruited other miners to performsexualized massages to make more money. In
some the record does not support theconclusion that Miss Maxwell or anyone else compromised

(27:38):
the volunteeranness of Caroline's behavior. Accordingly, the enhancement should not apply to Caroline's
offense. Group three. We're almostat the end of documents six six two,
and what they've done is put ina header called the correct sentencing range
is fifty one to sixty three monthsunder the two thousand and three guidelines,

(28:04):
They actually set out the various timesthat should be applicable to all these different
offenses. Conclusion, for the foregoingreasons, the court should apply the two
thousand and three guidelines which yield aproperly calculated sentencing range of fifty one to
sixty three months. Should the courtapply the two thousand and four guidelines,

(28:29):
it should not apply the enhancements underfour B one point five, three B
one point one, and two Gone point three, respectively, submitted Christian
R. Everdel. So they gaveyou a bit of an insight into what
the government had said in their pretrial and why the government said she should
get a range between two hundred andninety two months to three hundred and sixty

(28:52):
five months because they were calculating onthe two thousand and four guidelines. Maxwell's
team saying, hey, nothing happenedfrom November two thousand and four on Whens.
You can't prove it, so itmust be on the earlier guidelines,
which is two thousand and three,which is seventy five percent less. Obviously,

(29:17):
they sat down, looked at thesentencing guidelines and realized they were absolutely
pathetic when it came to various sexualassault and sex trafficking crimes, that they
fixed those sentencing laws so that theyreflected the crime. But of course Galay
Maxwell's team believes that she should haveit based on the two thousand and three,

(29:40):
not the two thousand and four.Now, let's talk about document six
sixty three that everybody went mad aboutlast week when it hit the docket.
This is from Galais Maxwell's team,Bobby C. Sturnham, Christian R.
Evadel, Jeffrey Polluccia, and LauraManager sentencing memorandum on behalf of Galaine Maxwell.

(30:03):
It's a seventy seven page document,but only thirty six pages make up
the memorandum. The rest is orexhibits in letters of support, but Lisa
will take you through those later.I'm going to dig into this document now.
You may have seen that I dida Twitter thread within twenty minutes of
this document dropping. I was outraged, absolutely outraged, and it starts off

(30:30):
and I quote on behalf of ourclient, Gallaine Maxwell. We respectfully submit
this memorandum in connection with sentencing,which is scheduled for June twenty eight,
twenty twenty two. As set forthbelow, we request that the court grant
Miss Maxwell a significant variance below theadvisory sentencing guidelines range of two ninety two

(30:56):
two three sixty five months, andbelow the two hundred and forty month sentence
recommended by the Probation Department. Wehaven't seen that report from the probation Department.
Back to the memorandum, Galaine Maxwellstands before the court because of her

(31:17):
association with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago inthe nineteen nineties and early two thousands.
Never before that time, and neveragain in the roughly twenty year period since
the conduct underlying this case occurred.Has Miss Maxwell ever been accused of a

(31:37):
crime, much less a scheme tosexually abuse miners. Point of note here,
in nineteen ninety six she copped athousand dollars fine for drink driving in
the UK. The witnesses at trialtestified about Miss Maxwell's facilitation of Epstein's abuse,
but Epstein was always the central figure. Epstein was the mastermind. Epstein

(32:04):
was the principal abuser, and Epsteinorchestrated the crimes for his personal gratification.
Indeed, had Gallayne Maxwell never hadthe profound misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein over
thirty years ago, she would notbe here. The majority of this document

(32:25):
is blaming it all on Epstein,but blaming it on the fact that Epstein
died and wasn't sentenced to any jailtime. Most of this document pushes that
Glaine Maxwell was just a patsy forEpstein, that the fact he died in
custody and wasn't tried. They're pushingthat the government had to cover their ass

(32:45):
and that's why she was arrested andwent to trial. That she's just a
patsy for the men's behavior, andI quote, but this court cannot sentence
Miss Maxwell as if she was aoxy for Epstein simply because Epstein is no
longer here. Miss Maxwell cannot andshould not bear all the punishment for which

(33:08):
Epstein should have been held responsible.Miss Maxwell has already experienced hard time during
detention under conditions far more onerous andpunitive than any experienced by a typical pre
trial detainee, and she is preparingto spend significantly more time behind bars.

(33:32):
Okay, she's not a typical pretrial detainee, considering that not all pretrial
detainees are in jail because of sextrafficking crimes. Back to it, her
life has been ruined since Epstein's death. Her life has been threatened, and

(33:52):
death threats continued while she is incarcerated. Footnote. Most recently, an inmate
in Miss Maxwell's threatened to kill her, claiming that an addition or twenty years
incarceration would be worth the money she'dreceive for murdering miss Maxwell and footnote.
Now, some have said or gossipedthat maybe somebody was put up to say

(34:15):
this because it works in the Maxwell'sfavor, but let's face it, anyone
who has found guilty of sex crimesis in danger in the prison system.
It's often referred to as prison justice, and back to it, it would
be a travesty of justice for herto face a sentence that would have been

(34:37):
appropriate for Epstein. In its finalpresentence investigation report, Probation recommended a sentence
of two hundred and forty months imprisonment, a slight downward variance from the sentence
recommended by the advisory guidelines. Wehave submitted objections directly to Probation, which

(34:58):
are amplified in the accompanying submission.We respectedly submit that, in light of
the circumstances discussed below, including extraordinarypunitive conditions of solitary confinement, and the
ongoing COVID nineteen pandemic, a sentencebelow the two thousand and forty months recommended

(35:19):
by Probation would be sufficient but notgreater than necessary to achieve the objectives of
sentencing articulated in eighteen USC. Threefive five three A. The next header
is the context of the case.This is not the first time the events
in this case were investigated and resolved. This case is a revival of the

(35:44):
prosecution commenced in the Southern District ofFlorida against Epstein, which resulted in a
state court conviction pursuant to a nonprosecution agreement. The plea and sentence were
negotiated without notice to epstein victims.The sweetheart deal created an uproar among his

(36:05):
victims and the public, which wasfueled by and featured in ongoing coverage in
the Miami Herald. The public outcryled to the removal of Alexandra Acosta from
his cabinet post as Secretary of Laborfor his role as US Attorney for the
Southern District of Florida overseeing the Epsteinprosecution, and an investigation by the DOJ

(36:30):
Office of Professional Responsibility. Epstein wasundercharged and underpunished. Epstein never faced his
accusers, and his accusers were deniedjustice. Epstein was the target and the
focus of the prosecution until his deathin custody of the Bureau of Prisons in

(36:51):
August twenty nineteen. Epstein's death,approximately one month after his arrest, eliminated
any prospect of a trial, againshocking and disappointing his accusers. It also
highlighted the failure of the US governmentto ensure that an inmate in federal custody
in such a sensitive and high profilecase could be kept safe and alive to

(37:16):
face trial. In the face ofstrong media and public uproar following Epstein's death,
the government faced an urgency to appeasethe renewed distress of Epstein's accusers and
to repair the tarnish reputations of theDOJ and the Bureau of Prisons in whose

(37:37):
custody Epstein died. There would beno trial for Epstein and no public vindication
and justice for his accusers. Thegovernment now had a huge hole to fill
Epstein's empty chair. Although four womenhad been specifically named as co conspirators or

(37:59):
accomplice of Epstein in connection with hiscontroversial Florida plea deal, and although three
of those same women were anonymously referencedin the twenty nineteen s DMY indictment charging
Epstein, the government chose not toprosecute any of them. Instead, the

(38:20):
spotlight turned to Gallaine Maxwell, withwhom Epstein had had a relationship that was
long since over and who was notnamed in the Florida sweetheart Deal. So
let's have a look at this sweetheartdeal that Gawaine's team is referring to.
On page five of the seven pagesweetheart Deal, there's this interesting paragraph in

(38:45):
consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guiltyand to provide compensation in the manner described
above, if Epstein successfully fulfills allthe terms in conditions of this agreement,
the Unite States also agrees that itwill not institute any criminal charges against any

(39:06):
potential co conspirators of Epstein, includingbut not limited to, Sarah Kelen,
Adriana Ross, Leslie Groff, orNadia marching Cover. So now Gallaine Maxwell's
team is saying, because she wasn'tnamed specifically in that sweetheart deal, she's

(39:27):
not a co conspirator. Yet shetried to use that clause and she was
told she couldn't use that clause toget out of trouble. There's also a
school of thought that the including butnot limited to which means unnamed people was
put in there and her name wasremoved. Some people believe, and we

(39:49):
have no basis, there's no facts, there's no evidence pointing to this,
but some people do believe that theMaxwell family, particularly the brothers, demanded
that the Maxwell's surname not be includedin this document because you don't want to
bring any harm or reputation damage tothe strong, upstanding Maxwell's surname. And

(40:14):
back to the document. Miss Maxwelldid not appear in the two thousand and
nineteen s Dmy indictment against Epstein,nor was she the subject of the two
thousand and seven Southern District Florida grandjury presentation. Now, when Epstein was
in court in two thousand and nineteen, journalist Sandy Backham was there, and

(40:37):
she has tweeted and written and appearedon video many times about what she saw
and what she heard in that courtroomand when they closed off the case after
Epstein died, she was in courtto hear many of the victims have their
say. In November last year,Sandy tweeted, today the Gallain Maxwell trial

(40:59):
begins. You might be interested inthe three days I spent in court with
Jeffrey Epstein. After he died,there was a hearing and thirty of his
victims spoke, Gallaine is a monster. They all said, she recruited,
she trained, and she participated inrapes. So she may not have been

(41:21):
arrested in two thousand and nineteen ornamed in the charges, but the victims
all squared off in court and saidshe was. Now, of course,
it's not just Jeffrey's fault. It'salso the fault of the press, the
media, and those of you whoconsume media. I quote. The media

(41:42):
coverage was relentless and voluminous, dozensof broadcast documentaries, tens of streamed videos
and podcasts, and publication of somefifty books and thousands of superficially written articles.
And as you may remember, oneof the books that Lisa wrote and
I helped out on, which wasavailable on Amazon, was actually named in

(42:06):
court papers. So we're glad tobe up there. The tsunami of one
sided, overwhelming negative coverage about MissMaxwell that followed the arrest and the death
of Epstein presented Miss Maxwell as acharacter sure of evil, a depiction that
has inevitably shaped the public's opinion ofher. Naughty media, but in sentencing

(42:30):
Miss Maxwell. The court cannot beinfluenced by this exonorable drumbeat of public condemnation
calling for her to be locked awayfor good. The court cannot heal the
wounds caused by Epstein by heaping onMiss Maxwell's shoulder, the pain of every
one of his victims, the outrageof society, the public scorn of the

(42:53):
community, and then driving her outof the community forever. So Galain Maxwell's
team is saying it was all Epsteinand that she caused absolutely no pain.
Now they get to Galain Maxwell's arrestand tension, and I quote. At
dawn on July to twenty twenty,a team of more than a dozen FBI

(43:15):
agents arrested Miss Maxwell at the NewHampshire home where she had taken refuge after
Epstein's death to escape the upsurge ofhighly intrusive media coverage that had engulfed her
and her family. She had relocatedalone, separating from her family, to
safeguard her husband and two young stepchildren, and to secure the personal safety of

(43:39):
her family and herself. At thattime, Miss Maxwell was the target of
numerous death threats and threats of violence, and was being hunted by the Press
further down, her lawyers had beenin contact with prosecutors in the months preceding
her rest and would have arranged forherself surrender. A note here, Annie

(44:00):
Farmer was attempting to bring a civilcase against Girlaine Maxwell during this period,
but they couldn't find her in personto give her a summons to court.
Her lawyers said they didn't know herphysical address, so yeah, she wasn't
hiding and everyone could find her,so unusual for pre COVID days. It

(44:22):
was arranged that her summons were sentelectronically via email. That was highly unusual.
So her saying that she wasn't completelyhiding away, that her lawyers knew
when everyone knew where she was.Yeah. Now. So now she carries
on more about her jail conditions andthe fact that just recently Miss Maxwell was

(44:45):
a target of a credible death threatfrom a fellow inmate. So having death
threats laid at you for being foundguilty of sexual offenses against miners is apparently
reason to have your sentence reduced.Okay, Now, They also talk about
her adjustment to incarceration and I quote, despite her extraordinary restrictive conditions of detention,

(45:09):
Miss Maxwell has availed herself of anyprogramming or work opportunity available to her.
While in solitary confinement. She completedsix courses, but until transferred to
general population, she never had theopportunity to make use of that training.
This is to say she's a bitof a model prisoner. However, she

(45:31):
completed six courses, yet in thetime up until the trial, she was
constantly saying she wouldn't have enough timeto prepare enough for trial because there was
so much to do, So howcould she do six courses? Another contradiction
brought forward by Maxwell's team. Now. Page nine of the memorandum is headed

(45:55):
Gallaine's Personal Circumstances and Characteristics. Thisis all about her life, her history
from when she was born, andthis nice subheading Family Tragedy and Controversy talks
about how she was born and thenjust days later one of her brothers,
Michael, had an accident was ina coma for years. At age three,

(46:19):
she stood in front of her motherand simply said, Mummy, I
exist. It talks about how herfather worked away a lot, that her
mother went traveling or went to staywith their father, and she was left
at home in the care of nanny's. It spoke about due to her father,
the late Robert Maxwell's career as amember of Parliament and a press baron,

(46:43):
that there were death threats against herand her siblings. It also spoke
about her father's cruelty. I quotemister Maxwell employed corporal punishment on his children.
Galaine vividly recalls a time when,at age teen, she tacked a
poster of a pony on the newlypainted wall of her bedroom. Rather than

(47:06):
mar the paint wick tape, shecarefully hammered a thin tack to mount the
poster. This outraged her father,who took the hammer and banged on Gallaine's
dominant hand, leaving it severely bruisedand painful for weeks to come. Now,
the part about Mummy I Exist waswritten in Betty Maxwell's book that she

(47:28):
published in the nineties. However,this recollection of her hand a hammer and
her father wasn't in that book.But saying it was severely bruised and painful
for weeks. She was thirteen andBob was a big man and a hammer.
I think it would have been morethan bruised. But it's also a
bit insulting to anyone who had horrificfamily upbringing as well. Not everybody turns

(47:52):
to crime. The memorandum goes intowhen Maxwell died under a massive cloud when
discovered the pension funds for his mediaempire had disappeared. With mister Maxwell deceased,
her brothers Ian and Kevin, employeesof their father, shouldered the accusations.

(48:12):
It was well chronicled that when herfather did die when he fell off
the back of the Lady Gallaine,the yacht he named after her, that
she was the one who turned outorganized the funeral, and reports say that
she turned up with a bag fullof cash and spent the day in the
office on the Lady Gallaine shredding paper. So while Ian and Kevin shouldered the

(48:34):
accusations, it seemed, according toreports at the time, she was heavily
involved. And as we know lastweek, the infamous financial papers of that
time have been found on the Islandof Jersey, a UK territory, and
these papers seemed to indicate there wasa lot of money left life after Epstein.

(48:58):
In two thousand and three, MissMaxwell began a seven year romantic relationship
with Theodore ted Waite and developed astrong and loving bond with his four children,
ranging in age from six to twelve. Her relationship with Waite was on
track for marriage and gave her whatshe always hoped for and most wanted,
the opportunity for a loving, stablefamily life and the chance to become stepmother

(49:22):
to Waite's children. But her hopeswere destroyed, as was so much of
her life, by her previous associationwith Epstein. A Miami lawyer named Scott
W. Rothstein Esquire attempted to blackmailWaite to keep Miss Maxwell's name out of
civil lawsuits related to Epstein that hislaw firm was planning to file. Miss

(49:47):
Maxwell's relationship with Waite could not survivethe blackmail threats and it ended soon afterwards.
Now there's a footnote with this.Through his law firm Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler
A, Rothstein perpetrated a massive onepoint two billion dollar ponzi scheme in Florida,

(50:10):
touting r r A as the preeminent sexual harassment firm in the country.
Rothstein claimed to be representing numerous underagegirls who had been involved with Epstein.
In the spring of two thousand andnine, r A recruited Bradley J.
Edwards Esquire, who immediately joined thefirm. By the end of October

(50:35):
two thousand and nine, Rothstein becamea fugitive and later returned to face arrest
to plead guilty to RICO charges inSouthern District of Florida and receive our fifty
year sentence. Rothstein targeted Wait,the deep pocket co founder of Gateway,
Inc. Because of his ongoing relationshipwith Miss Maxwell, who had previously been

(51:00):
involved with Epstein. Rostein demanded tenmillion to keep Miss Maxwell's name out of
civil lawsuits. Wait successfully resisted Rostein'sblackmail attempt, but Miss Maxwell was named
in lawsuits filed by r A.Ultimately, Miss Maxwell's relationship with Waite did

(51:22):
not survive the ordeal. So GallaineMaxwell's team is trying to paint Brad Edwards
as a baddie and that Paul Gallainehas just been punished over and over again.
Now, the reason why many survivorsdo civil suits, it's not because
their accusations. Their allegations won't standup for criminal charges. It's just that

(51:45):
in many places there's what they calla statute of limitations that after a certain
number of years have passed since anoffense, you can't lay criminal charges,
and due to the trauma of suchevents, many survivors aren't in the head
space to approach police within that designatedperiod, so many survivors rely on civil

(52:07):
suits and I'll continue the same thinghas now occurred again several years later as
a result of this prosecution. Intwo thousand and thirteen, Miss Maxwell began
a new relationship with a man shewould later marry. She was with her
husband, this is Scott Morganson forover seven years and became a devoted stepmother

(52:30):
to her husband's two youngsters, whowere ages three and four and a half
at the start of the relationship.Sadly, the marriage could not survive the
negative impact of this case, nora husband's association with his dishonored wife.
Interesting choice of the word dishonored here. And by the way, she actually

(52:54):
knew Borg well before two and thirteen. Rama her ocean foundation, which if
you drill into it and look atTed Waite's successful foundation for the ocean,
it's very close to what he had. But Borg was on tax records at

(53:14):
the beginning of two thousand and twelveas a board member of Terrama. Now,
according to Business Insider, Terrama washalf a million dollars underwater, whereas
Ted Waite's foundation has distributed millions ofdollars for various projects. So Terrama actually

(53:36):
did nothing out there for the oceans. Oh well, she got to speak
at the United Nations and back toit. Miss Maxwell has always worked hard.
Her many educational, occupational, andovocational accomplishments include being an emergency medical
technician EMT, a helicopter pilot,a submerser pilot, a banker, partnering

(54:01):
with the Cleveland Clinic to establish atele medicine platform to enable people in remote
areas to obtain quality medical treatment,helping develop the Clinton Global Initiative, and
supporting a variety nonprofit and charitable organizations. In two and twelve, at age

(54:21):
fifty, she turned a lifelong passionfor the oceans into a nonprofit environmental organization,
the terror Mar Project, with themission of creating a global ocean community
based on the idea of shared ownershipand responsibility of the global commons the high
seas and international waters. She spokeon topics related to ocean conservation, giving

(54:45):
Ted talks and delivering a speech atthe United Nations National Geographic and Oxford University
were among the organizations that collaborated insupport of the project. The Terror Project
was closed after Epstein's death to spareher partners from invasion of privacy by the

(55:07):
press due to their association with her. The next letters from family and friends,
accompanying letters from family and remaining friendsbrackets. Most have cut ties due
to fear of association and the lureof cancel culture. Close brackets a test
to Gallaine's character. Each offers afirst person narrative of some aspect in her

(55:32):
life, in sharp contrast to hercharacterization as a villain, rich heiress and
vapid socialite. Quick note here richheiress considering those Jersey papers, it's yet
to be seen. Lisa has gonethrough these exhibits and these letters. She's
absolutely busting at the seems to tellus more about these ones. Then we

(55:54):
get to the non guideline sentence wouldbe suffici but not greater than necessary to
achieve the goals of sentencing, whichmeans they don't want the two thousand and
four guidelines for sentencing to be used. They want something lower, yes,
as low as that four years andthree months or five years and three months

(56:15):
as the upper limit. They're proposing. Miss Maxwell is not a danger to
the community. In fact, afterleaving Epstein, Miss Maxwell was involved in
committed long term relationships with two men, both of whom had young children,
who continue to support her. Well. I haven't seen a notice support from

(56:37):
Ted Waite, the guy who shepreviously had a relationship with, who had
that attempt at blackmail, And wherewas Scott Borginson during the trial. A
guideline sentence is not necessary to achievespecific or general deterrence. This is Miss
Maxwell's only brush with the law.Not correct nineteen ninety six drink driving charge

(57:01):
a thousand dollars fine. Yes,it's not in the realm of sex trafficking,
but it's another indication of Galais Maxwell'somissions. And again Galaine Maxwell's team
is blaming public opinion and work culturerather than identify a particular class of similarly

(57:22):
situated defendants who will be deterred fromcommitting specific crimes. Probation essentially makes the
sweeping assertion that a harsh sentence forMiss Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people
from exploiting poor people. Considering thiswhole case, the case that we sat

(57:46):
through, which obviously Galaine Maxwell's teamhave forgotten was about how money and privilege
and power was used to recruit theseminor children. In many case the survivors
were from lower economic families. Gettingpaid two hundred dollars for a massage was

(58:07):
one of the ways that they dragthese girls in and kept them, especially
when it comes to Caroline, minorvictim four. In this case, the
goals of sentencing will be achieved bya significant downward variance from the unduly harsh
guidelines range of two hundred ninety twothree hundred and sixty five months and probations

(58:30):
recommended two hundred and forty months sentencefor offense conduct that occurred eighteen to twenty
five years ago, and where asixty year old female defendant with no prior
or post offense history of misconduct,requires no rehabilitation by incarceration and poses no

(58:51):
risk of recidivism. Then they gointo how unusually harsh the pre sentence confinement
was and how that means it warrantsa downward variance, that the conditions she
was held in before trial means thatshe should be rewarded with a lower sentence.
They note her no prior criminal record, that she posed a threat to

(59:15):
no one, that she had nosuicidal tendencies pastor present, and was not
charged with crimes of violence. AndI quote the treatment meted out to Miss
Maxwell during her twenty two month periodof isolated detention was unparalleled. From the
outset. Miss Maxwell's conditions of detentionwere extraordinarily restrictive and unjustifiable in view of

(59:40):
her personal circumstances, and were manifestlyunreasonable and unnecessary in view of meaningful alternatives
available in the MDC. There isno explanation for her extraordinary conditions of confinement
other than calculated efforts by the DOJ, BOP, MDC and prosecutors to prevent

(01:00:05):
another Epstein debarcle. Obviously they're referringto his death and to ensure that Miss
Maxwell would fill the chair vacated byEpstein's demise. And on page twenty three,
at times searches were conducted in inappropriateways and were especially painful, humiliating,
and intimidating, as when her breastsand genitalia were touched in a rough

(01:00:31):
and reckless manner. Reports by MissMaxwell and counsel concerning sexually inappropriate searches by
corrections officers went nowhere, And I'mglad to see that Glenn Maxwell and her
team acknowledge the fact that touching breastsand genitalia is really not the done thing.
Any farmer said so too. Inthe trial, they talk about her

(01:00:54):
inaudoquate nutrition, the size of hercell, that she was only allowed two
fifteen minute phone calls per month,limiting contact with family, most especially with
her husband and stepchildren, and Iquote she was denied access to basic hygiene
items eg. Soap, toothbrush,toothpaste, and provided only a limited amount

(01:01:17):
of toilet paper. I don't notehere that she refused to flush her toilets,
which was docketed by the MDC asstaff members complained about the stench.
As a result of being provided aninadequate diet, Miss Maxwell has lost about
twenty pounds and suffered from teligion,effluvium brackets, hair loss due to distress,

(01:01:43):
and paul nutrition closed brackets. Complaintsmade during trial regarding her inadequate daily
nutrition were received as a nuisance ratherthan cause for concern and attention. Now,
I've spoken many times about the family'sconcerns about her weight and carrying on.
She's lost so much weight. Nowthis was refuted on the docket many

(01:02:04):
times by the DJ in December twentytwenty and April twenty twenty one. In
fact, in the December when theycounted the family and her team's claimed she'd
lost so much weight, she actuallyweighed a few pounds more than she did
when she was arrested. Conclusion,Gallaine Maxwell is not an heiress, villain

(01:02:24):
or a vapid socialite. She hasworked hard her entire life. As I
said earlier, those Jersey papers maychange that. She has energy, drive,
commitment, a strong work ethic,and desire to do good in the
world. She has supported friends andfamily through tough times in personal crises,

(01:02:45):
and currently is assisting women in herunit at the MDC. She endeavored to
contribute to society, eg By becomingan EMT, developing a platform so that
people in remote areas could receive qualitymedical assistance, helping launch the Clinton Global
Initiative, creating Tarama, providing geedtutoring for inmates in her unit, and

(01:03:09):
will continue to do so throughout hersentence and when she rejoins the community beyond
prison walls. She has also triedto protect the people around her Ted Waite's
children, her step children, thepeople at Tarama from the onslaught of press
and public vilification that come with havingbeen associated with her. She had a

(01:03:32):
difficult, traumatic childhood with an overbearing, narcissistic and demanding father. It made
her vulnerable to Epstein, whom shemet right after her father's death. Again,
did Gleam Maxwell's team actually sit throughthe same trial we did. Her

(01:03:52):
father, Bob died on November fifth, nineteen ninety one, Yet tabled in
evidence during the court case last yearwere flight logs from April nineteen ninety one,
and it's clearly shown on those flightlogs on April twenty, six months

(01:04:12):
before Bob died, that she wason a test flight with Epstein and Mark
Epstein, his brother, for oneof the planes that Epstein was going to
buy. So, while the familyand her legal team are still trying to
push this narrative that she was thispoor, grief stricken young woman who just
fell prey to Epstein after her daddied, she knew him well enough months

(01:04:35):
before to take a test flight withhim and his only sibling, And I'll
continue it is the biggest mistake shemade in her life, and one that
she has not and never will repeat. She has never been accused of anything
untoward in the over fifteen year periodsince her relationship with Epstein ended. In

(01:04:58):
fact, she has been involved intwo committed, long term loving relationships with
men who had young children. Sheis not a danger to the community,
and there is no concern about recidivism. In opposing an appropriate sentence, we
urge the court to credit number offactors. Miss Maxwell is being sentenced for

(01:05:19):
non violent offenses which occurred decades agonineteen ninety four to two thousand and four.
Miss Maxwell is over sixty years old. Miss Maxwell is not a danger
to the community in any way.Miss Maxwell has no prior criminal history or
prior bad acts. Let's just ignorethat drink driving. Miss Maxwell has served

(01:05:45):
the entirety of pre sentenced detention duringthe covid pandemic. Miss Maxwell served twenty
two months a pre sentenced detention underextraordinarily abnormal and restrictive conditions of solitary confinement,
as a non violent defendant who posedno danger to herself or others.
Miss Maxwell is being sentenced solely forreasons of punishment. Miss Maxwell is not

(01:06:12):
being sentenced for rehabilitation. Miss Maxwellposes no risk of recidivism. In addition,
Miss Maxwell's personal characteristics and history oflawful behavior pre and post dating the
offense conduct further distinguishes her situation andwarrants sentencing consideration. Probation recognizes that a

(01:06:34):
downward variance is warranted in this case. However, notably absent from Probation's justification
is any mention of detention served duringthe pandemic and under harsh conditions of solitary
confinement. We submit that the appropriatesentence in this case is one that is
well below the advisory guideline range.So essentially, it boils down to her

(01:07:00):
team saying that she should be punishedbecause it should be Epstein and she's a
patsy, that it's the work cancelculture, it's the bad media and those
who consume media. It's her father, it's her bad childhood, and they
continue to use the term alleged inrelationship to the crimes that she was sentenced

(01:07:21):
to. But the idea that GalaimMaxwell's team wants to drop her sentence range
from the suggested twenty four to thirtyyears down to four years and three months
to a maximum of five years andthree months is what we call just taking
the piss. So thank you verymuch for listening, and don't forget to

(01:07:44):
keep an eye out for the nextepisode. That'll drop as soon as we
can get it up. Stay safe. Bye. Hi, it's Lisa here.
Do you want to help us producethe Prince in the Pervert podcast.
One of our kind listeners has beenasking how they can support us, so
we've started a Patreon account, whichnot only benefits you in terms of extra

(01:08:06):
content and exclusive content, it alsohelps us just cover our costs. At
the end of the day, thisis a labor of love and we're determined
to follow the case until the end. These women absolutely matter. That's why
we're doing this work and we areall in this together. Details of the

(01:08:26):
Patreon account are in the show notes. Thank you.