Ghislaine Maxwell GUILTY on 5 of 6 Counts: Will She Appeal?

Ghislaine Maxwell GUILTY on 5 of 6 Counts: Will She Appeal?

🔹 Mindmap: https://mm.tt/map/2105681969?t=Q999Oc3TcG
🔹 Bar Chart: Days Taken in the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
🔹 Judge Nathan warns jurors about the increase in sickness in New York.
🔹 STICKS: The Court hinted deliberation may continue through the New Year Holiday, with no break!
🔹 Maxwell defense lawyer Christian Everdell submits a motion letter to the court, arguing the jury instructions are erroneous – appealable issue?
🔹 Jurors wanted even more transcripts! Shawn, Espinoza, Loftus, Richards and Young. 
🔹 Review of the testimony highlights from the trial and a break down of the jury transcript requests.
🔹 Your comments and questions!

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: 
💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):
👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699

Channel List:
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ
✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.
🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ 

Connect with us:
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  
🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq 

#WatchingtheWatchers #MaxwellTrial #GhislaineMaxwell #JeffreyEpstein

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert grr. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group. We're located in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. And today we're talking about Maxwell guilty verdict, five of six counts. Golin Maxwell. The jurors came back day. We were bracing for a lot more deliberation. And so they came back and rendered a verdict on five out of six counts and it's guilty. And so the headlines are flying all over the place. You know exactly what the outcome is, but how did it happen? That's what we've gotta talk about. And so let's just jump right into it. Shall we, you know where to ask the questions, you know where to find the clips let's get to the verdict. It started off today as usual with inner city press reporting. He said late today, after a lot of deliberation, after a lot of waiting, he reports a verdict has been reached in the us versus Maxwell case. Please be advised that a verdict has been reached in the above matter. The verdict will be announced in open court shortly. So inner city press is wandering around New York city and he hears that over the buzzer verdict has been announced. They get back to the monitors. They hear judge Nathan says as the defense attorneys and prosecutors and everybody piles into the courtroom says, judge Nathan, I'm going to read the verdict. After the jury comes in. And anyone in the courtroom who makes a noise will be removed, bring in the jury. So it happened. This is the scene. You can see here. Many people are masked up Omicron variant spreading around New York. Like wildfire judge has been on ultra high precautions, even going so far as to suggest that maybe there may be a mistrial due to the variant not gonna happen. Obviously we have a verdict, but this is what the jury looked like today. You can see at this table, these are the prosecutors at the defense table. You see some other people there who are present inner city, press reports, courtroom three 18 has Leah Sapian, who is interestingly inside the courtroom. This is an attorney. Who's not really registered my understanding in New York when she's been giving very interesting access, but she is there sort of a family friend at attorney and joined by her family, sisters, Isabelle, Christine. We have Kevin Maxwell who has been there many, many times. We've seen Isabelle and Kevin working their way to the court multiple days during this proceeding. And so the scene is set. The, the jurors are there. They're impaneled. They've reached a verdict Maxwell's defense team along with their family are waiting. Prosecutors are waiting with baited breath. Judge Nason says, as the jury enters, have you reached your verdict? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, foreperson stands up and says, your honor, we have, so the court clerk hands over the envelope, over to the prosecutor, over to the court clerk, hands it over to the judge. I'm sorry. The judge picks it up, opens up the envelope and says in the case of United States of America versus Golin Maxwell as to count one guilty angle and Maxwell just feels it. You can see it in her face as to count two, not guilty. And the defense team has a little bit of relief in the moment, but then judge Nathan can tens and opens up out of the envelope as to count three guilty. And then folks after that, it's just a cascade count, four guilty count, five guilty and count six as to Maxwell guilty, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I'd like to thank you for your service. You've been instrumental here in the execution of justice. Please see the bailiff for the final paperwork on your way out, have a very safe and happy new year jurors exit out of the courtroom. And we see some jury verdict forms that are going to look like this. Of course, these came from the jury instructions that distributed previously, and this is not what the final verdict is, but you can see as to count one, they're gonna check this box guilty, a conspiracy to entice individuals under the age of 17, to travel in interstate commerce, with intent to engage in illegal activity as to count two Jane, only that one got a lot of questions about Jane. Count two was enticement of an individual under the age of 17 to travel with intent to engage that one of course is a not guilty and the rest are guilty. We can see that we're gonna see these here soon enough, probably tomorrow. These will come out. These the will be signed off on by. I think it's juror 48. Who's the foreperson. And so he'll sign, Hey, or she will sign off on that tomorrow, but count three conspiracy to transport individuals under the age of 17 to travel. That one is a guilty count. Four transportation of an individual under the age of 17 Jane only guilty count five conspiracy to commit trafficking of individuals under the age of 18 guilty, and then count six trafficking of an individual under the age of 18, Carolyn only guilty. And so that's what the final verdict is going to look like. And you can imagine that the consequences could be somewhat severe. And so I don't don't think I posted the poll form, but I just updated the poll form. I know the show was sort of set up for another day of deliberation, which we did not get, but I think we have the poll form for the sentencing. If you want to opine on that, the mine map and the poll form are now in the chat. Let me pin those up there so we can ask a couple of questions. Let's take a look at those questions before we continue our coverage. Cuz there is still a lot more to talk about, but let's see what the questions might be bringing to us here. We have the Maxwell sentence. Okay. So some opining on the sentence here, we see this, the Maxwell sentence. Is it anywhere between zero to five to 10, 10 to 20 or 20 plus? What do you think it should be? What do you think it's going to be? People are, are throwing it up in there in the range now. Right? You know, we're, we're, we're certainly going to see what this looks like. And so you can answer this any which way you want, whether you think this is what she should get or whether you think this is what she will get, but like people are looking at the 20 plus hoping for a big, big sentence. We'll see. Also through this in here, we're not here quite yet. So we're gonna talk a little bit more about some of these issues, but what might the biggest appealable issues be for Maxwell now? Obviously they've been setting up an appeal for a long time. They have been filing motions left and right. Sort of presuming that they're going to lose and then be filing appeals. And so I just threw some of these in here. Something else is being the appealable issue. I'll be curious to see what people have to say about that, but we'll review some of this stuff here today, but we'll just throw that out there. Will others be prosecuted? We have 75% saying no, of course not probably a pretty obvious answer on that one. And then let's see, are you happy with this outcome? So we've got 45, uh, 49%, almost half saying yes. 20% saying no 30% still saying undecided, which is a fair answer at this point because there is, you know, she hasn't been sentenced yet. If she gets a slap on the wrist in probation or something, right then<laugh>, then you're probably gonna be unhappy about it. But if she gets 35 years, maybe you're happy with that one. And so you can see how that decision might change as well. And so, uh, keep those responses coming in. We'll check back in periodically as we go throughout the remainder of the coverage today, get some feedback from everybody. Now of course there were some amazing people covering this case. We've been following inner city, press aggressively. He's been doing an amazing job and he's over at SubT stack. He's on Twitter, he's got a Paton, he's got it all over the place. So make sure you're following him. But we also were following Adam class for doing the same thing. And so he was also posting this and he's also reporting same verdict here. Big shout out to Adam Feld for his reporting on this. He's, you know, really, really invested a ton of time getting this thing out to fruition. Same here with Joe Nierman. He was there, brought his mask and saying, lock her up, lock her up, lock her up.<laugh> and so, so, you know, there's a lot of reaction going on around there. Now I did also, uh, wanna give a shout out to Addie ads. I just, I just literally watched a video, a, a couple videos that he posted didn't have time to clip'em for today's show, but, uh, at Addie ads is out there and he was, he had a video of, uh, the reaction around the courthouse and there wasn't wasn didn't seem that, you know, that interested, you know, in other words, what happened outside of the Kim Potter courthouse was a lot more, uh, colorful in terms of activity. People were very, very, you know, loud and boisterous and, and, and cheering. I didn't see much of that outside of the Thurgood Marshall courthouse out there in New York. And so, you know, doesn't doesn't mean anything, but it was just an interesting thing to see. So also shoutouts to Addy ads. Now, a couple interesting things here that we can dive into now that this has happened, of course, we're gonna come back for sentencing and we're gonna start to see some more of these jury questions. They had a ton of questions today, but there's something interesting that happened today that I wanted to just put a pause in. And so remember, I think not yesterday on the show, because yesterday we talked about Burlington, the Burlington coat factory, uh, wild case that is getting a lot more attention now. But if you miss that, you can check that out yesterday. But on Monday we talked about Golin Maxwell and on Monday, remember what we spoke about. We said that the jurors were wanting highlighters and they wanted notepads and they wanted copies. They wanted color sticky notes and they were gonna be mixing and matching and they were gonna be mind mapping this stuff all over the place. They had 83 pages of jury instructions. They had no real urgency to come do a decision. We had some people who were thinking this thing through, they needed office supplies and the judge said, all right, get it to'em go get'em. And so they did, they started gathering these office supplies. And so you and I, and the rest of us out here in the community, we were just sitting around expecting this to take a while. Why do you need highlighters for if, if not to highlight the heck out of everything. And then suddenly we got a verdict today. Very weird, weird how that happened. And I made this bar chart before the verdict came out today because I was interested, uh, interested in observing the timeline here. You can see on this bar chart, we got a verdict today. And so the government, when they presented their case, they took about eight days now, really that's being generous to them. They really took about seven and a half days because one of those days was a sick day. If you remember that, so we can kind of get that out of there, but let's say, okay, you give'em eight days, same thing with the defense. They had like one and a half days, or, you know, kind of two days in their case. And then the jury was taking about, this was really about five and a half days. They had a half day in there. I think it was, uh, for some something else happened. I forget what it was. So I was, I was gonna see if the jurors actually took more time than the government to present their case turns out they didn't. It was about two days shy of it. But it was curious because it felt like they were gonna keep this thing going. Now we didn't talk about the Maxwell case yesterday, but at the conclusion of the conversation yesterday, it didn't seem like we were getting close to an outcome, right? Because this was what the daily news was reporting. They said that yesterday COVID cases could bring a mistrial in the Maxwell case because this variant is spreading through New York. There are people standing outside that, you know, trying to get testing and things like that. Judge Warrens and the jury said yesterday that they were at a good point towards a verdict. And so, you know, when I sort of saw this, I was thinking, I, I don't know what that means. A good point to me doesn't really mean that you're close, I guess maybe at a turning point. I don't know, but the judge warned about it yesterday. She said, we're seeing an astronomical spike in the number of COVID positive cases in New York city. And she sort of warned jurors a little bit. They, it came out with a note yesterday. So yesterday, like let's rewind the clock yesterday, 5:00 PM. It says our deliberations are moving along and we are making progress. We are at a good point. We would like to end today at 5:00 PM and continue tomorrow at 5:00 AM. So yesterday the jurors are like, yeah, we're moving along. We're at a good point, but doesn't sound like they're really close. At least that's how I was reading it. It didn't, it didn't seem to me like it was imminent. And so then the judge came out and this is where I think the defense might sort of, you know, latch onto this. The judge came out and told the government and defense lawyers yesterday at the, at the closing of yesterday that she was preparing to order jurors to continue to live through the weekend until they reach a decision. Right? So now you've got, look, if they don't have a decision soon, they've got Thursday, they've got Friday new year's Eve. They've got Saturday new year's day. They're gonna come back Friday, Saturday, Sunday, if they have to, the judge is preparing to tell them that why judge says, well, very simply we're in a vastly different place regarding the pandemic. Then we were only a week ago. We now face a highly and daily escalating risk that jurors and necessary trial participants would need to quarantine and disrupt the trial, putting our risk at risk, our ability to complete this trial. So I conclude proceeding this way is the best chance to give both the jury as much time as they need and avoid a mistrial as a result of the variant. Okay? So the variant is now coming into this thing. And so the judge is sort of, you know, hurrying this along and the defense is gonna say, well, that was inappropriate. You hurried it along. You came out and told the jurors that they were gonna have to be there on their holiday and they didn't want to do that. So they just went in there and said, all right, who's holding out. You, you're saying not guilty. Why moron? What are you dumb? And then it's, you know, it's, it's five or six people. Yeah, you are dumb because blah, blah, blah. And he says, fine, let's just get this over with. And so he flips or, or she flips, and then you get a verdict. Nathan said that she's not gonna force the jurors to come in if they had unmovable commitments, but she did ask them to continue to wear masks at all time. She says, I'm going to ask that deliberations continue forward on schedule every day. This week until a verdict is reach. So please make yourselves available. Should it be necessary for sit to sit for deliberations or the remainder of the week? And she says, of course by this, I don't mean to pressure you in any way. You should take all that time. You need have a good night, stay safe and healthy. So she, she tells them that I don't mean to pressure you in any way, but guess what? They came out. That's the defense argument, Bobby stern. Heim's gonna come out and say, yeah, judge, you know, as soon as you said that, as soon you threaten to keep them over the holiday break, they came out with the verdict. Very conveniently. Yeah. Isn't that in that interesting how that works. So we'll see how that happens. Now. I had a bunch of stuff to talk about today until the verdict came out and sort of changed everything, but there still are a couple things that worth discussing. So a couple of these appealable issues now that I want that, that we can still touch on. So we, we just talked about the first one, the idea that maybe the judge or the process was being hurried along too much, a little bit, and that's a violation of due process, right? If your son or daughter is getting a trial and you have a bunch of deliberating and, and contemplating over the evidence, you kind of wanna make sure that they do a good job at that, that your son or your daughter gets a fair shake when they're going through the system. And so if a prosecutor came out or a judge came out and said, uh, yeah, you know, Mrs. Your son or daughter, we're gonna have to hurry this along.<affirmative> and your perspective, your argument is, well, I'd like them to look at everything in detail, because this might result in my son or daughter going away to prison for 30 years. But the judge doesn't do that. The judge just pushes it and pushes it and pushes it. And so as a human people, right, you buckle to these pressures and people succumb to pure pressure all the time. And what happens in that situation of somebody who was a hard, no. Now has the mob of other jurors around them bearing down upon them to make a decision you have to change. Well, that's just the nature of jury deliberation, isn't it sure. But it's also something that the defense is gonna latch onto and you can expect that. So we saw that. The other issue that I think is interesting is yesterday, there's a little bit of a conflict over these jury instructions. And so, uh, yesterday ever Dell Maxwell's defense lawyer filed a motion that got docketed yesterday. He actually filed it the day before it hit the docket on 1228, you can see, he was upset about one of these jury instructions. And so the jury just came back obviously, and they just rendered a verdict. And Maxwell's defense team is not gonna be happy about this verdict, but guess what? Before they rendered the verdict, they complained about the instructions. You remember how this all happened? Do you remember that every time the jurors came out and they had a jury question that there was that one incident where Maxwell's team, they left the courtroom and they came back in and they said, you know what? We want a copy of that? Want a copy of that? Uh, note there, judge. And judge said, Ugh, all right, well, we gotta redact it cause we got the name on it. And so we're gonna go through the whole formal process. And they did. And they gave the Maxwell defense team a copy of that note. Well, one of those notes, it could have been that note or another note. It doesn't matter. They didn't like the question that the jurors gave to them. And so what are they going to do to try to appeal this? They're gonna say, well, not only were, were the jurors rushed and, and hurried along in this process, but they also had a bad set of instructions. Of course, they came to a guilty verdict judge. Obviously they would, they were following the different guidelines. If they would've had the right instructions, they would've baked the right cake. They wouldn't have made it so disgusting and falling apart, but they didn't. And because we objected to this, your honor, because we made a complaint about this, the jurors hinted that they were going as skew, that they were interpreting these rules problematically. And we tried to correct it, your honor, we filed a motion on 12 27, 2 days before the verdict came out, asking for your help in correcting this, you didn't do it. And that's an appealable issue. No wonder if she got found guilty because you issued wrong instructions. And so that's what he filed back on 1228. And of course this type of stuff is not done because he's expecting to win it on this. At this moment. This is all done to build a record so that he's got something that he can appeal later on in the future. He can't come back. Well's team, can't come back and, and expect a judge to do something about a problem that they didn't raise when it happened. Sort of that concept, right? Well, you didn't complain about it when it happened. Therefore there's nothing I can do to fix it. You object, you make a, you make a record of this and then you deal with it. And so this is what he filed two days ago before this verdict came out. And so we'll just take a quick look at this and then we'll take a look at the mind map and we'll sort of play around and explore that non prosecution agreement. And then I imagine we'll take the rest of the hour or so for, for questions. But you can see here that we've got judge Nathan is the person who's being addressed. Christian ever sends this in. And he's saying, listen, judge, we got a question from a jury. We respectfully submit this question. We need to give the jury additional instruction to correct the apparent errors in their understanding of counts two and counts. Four recall though, count two was a not guilty. So we don't really care about that count, but as to count four, yeah, he's gonna say that this argument applies to that one. And so here's what he's concerned about. The jury's note this afternoon came in it's court exhibit 15. This is what the jurors asked and remember Maxwell's guilty on count four under count four. If the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight jurors are asking. So in other words, if Maxwell helped Jane return, but not the flight to New Mexico, where if the intent was for Jane to engage in activity, can she be found guilty under the second element? Okay. That's a really complicated lead goal question. Lot of stuff that you can fight over about that under count four, if Maxwell aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, where if the intent was for Jane to engage in activity, can she be found guilty under the second element? So it's, it's like not even a, a good question, right? What are they even asking? I don't even really know it. It's a, it's a, it's a convoluted question. Where slash if the intent was for Jane, can she be found guilty? So they're being very specific here. And so the court responded and says the court account for alleges. If you actually take the account, it says, arrange for Jane to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions where this would happen. So the court just responded and referred the jury back to instruction, number 21 of the jury charge. So this is where they were. The, the judge just sent them right back here and said, well, we're not gonna answer that. Just go look at instruction. Number 21. Well, if you go back to instruction, number 21, then it says something about being transported from Florida to New York. But what did they talk about? They asked about it sounds like New Mexico juries note this afternoon. So, so they're asking about New Mexico, but the indictment it, or the count in count four says from Florida to New York, they're asking about New Mexico. So you see here, he's saying, there's a problem here, judge, why are they talking about this? And so here's his argument, right? He he's making an argument. Judge, you should have done something on this. You should have issued a curative instruction. You should have corrected the jurors. They're misinterpreting this. They're asking about flights and second elements in New York and Florida and the indictment doesn't match the jury instructions. And the jurors are confused. And we're concerned that because they're so confused, they're gonna find her guilty. And so I'm asking judge for you to resolve this. So he did. He says, listen, judge, without further instructions, the jury could convict Maxwell based on a constructive amendment or on a prejudicial variance from the indictment. He's saying that at that, that the ultimate outcome, the final conclusion of all of this is Maxwell is now the jurors are now altering the indictment. They're making this constructive amendment, a constructive amendment being something that is not a formal amendment, right? You can have a formal document that, you know, this is an amendment. This is an addendum to a contract, but you can also have sort of a constructive amendment where we just kind of just do, I know the contract says that it says I'm supposed to pay you on the 15th. And it doesn't work for me. It doesn't work for you. How about I just pay you on the 20th, right? Which is you good with that? All right. So we're just gonna sort of amend it, but we're not gonna go back and formally amend the document. So here he's saying that because the judge gave the jury the wrong instructions. It's, it's a constructive amendment. It it's modifying the underlying indictment in a way that's not permissible. It's changing it. And the jurors are hinting that they're interpreting this in a problematic way. Based on the question, we can peer into their minds based on what they're asking. He says the court have recently explained the law. And so he gives us some guidance, right? I, if you, if you wanna prove this, you gotta show all this stuff. He says, the second court has given us some more guidance on this. And he also talks about a variance. It occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but evidence at trial proves facts make materially different in contrast to a constructive amendment. He says here court exhibit 15 indicates the jury is considering a conviction on the substantive and they did. They did. They, they actually convicted her on this, on a substantive transportation offense charged in count four, based on Jane's alleged travel two. And from New Mexico, a co an activity that took place while she was there. He says, that is not what the indictment alleges count. Four alleges that Maxwell arranged for Jane to be transported from Florida to New York. That's it? He says as such a conviction on count four must be based on evidence that Maxwell intended Jane to travel from Florida to New York and in New York violate the law in New York. And so the government has represented. They say to the court on numerous occasions, that Maxwell cannot be convicted on any of the four man act counts, including count four, without proof of an intent to violate New York law that excludes any conduct. They say that would've occurred in New Mexico. So jurors are asking about New Mexico. He's saying you can't do that. So he goes back and he, he actually clips out from the government's testimony. I think, I think is what he's clipping. He says the only illegal activity identified in the entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New Mexico. So there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly that reason. So do you see what he's doing here? He's going back and he's saying, judge, there's a lot of potential for confusion here. You've got Palm beach, Florida. You've got New York, you've got New Mexico. You've got little St. James. You've got a whole bunch of complex things happening here. And the jury just came back out in court, exhibit 15, in one of the jury notes, they asked about this they're conflating the issues they're making the indictment read away that it doesn't, they're saying that any of this activity that might involve New Mexico might be enough to be considered under count four. But they're saying we can't do that. And in fact, we've had a conversation about this judge. We talked about this previously here is a, an excerpt from trial transcript, 31 40 10 16. We said specifically, there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly that reason. Uh, and there is confusion about this. Hence the jury question. So it says now Christian ever, and I think this is an appealable issue. We'll see if it goes anywhere. Despite the government's confidence about these ever says that the note indicates the jury is considering a conviction. James alleged travel is that the core of the criminality happened in New York, a conviction based on James travel to and from New Mexico and any activity that allegedly occurred, there would be premised on the facts elicited at trial that completely distinct from allegations in the indictment. Okay. So look, and this is a very important point, and this is something that I think gets missed a lot of the time in legal analysis for criminal law, the indictment is the game plan like that, that's it. You don't get to say, well, you know, um, it, it was kind of trafficking, but not really. And so we're gonna get somebody with like attempted trafficking or here's a better example. Somebody saying, uh, this actually came up in this case, the idea being that Glenn Maxwell, maybe didn't commit offenses against a minor. Remember we were talking about two of these victims and some of them were actually over the age of consent. And so you couldn't consider any, any activity that took place in the, in those locations to be involving a minor. And so the response to that was, well, find this charger with an charge, her as an adult charge go Maxwell. If those, if those individuals were actually over the age of consent, okay, you can't get her as a minor as trafficking minors, but how about trafficking, adults or how, you know, how about prostitution charge her with something else? True. Yeah. Fine. Go ahead and do that. But that's not in the indictment. That's not what they charged her with. This trial is about what they charged her with. And so if it's gonna be a little bit different, if it's gonna be a little bit distinct, that's not how this works. You don't get to say, oh, well, in that case, uh, we thought she was a minor turns out she's not a minor. So we're just gonna go ahead and amend all of this stuff and then charge her with a, uh, a different statute because we screwed up during the charging process. Don't get to do that. And so here, he's saying that's what's happening. The original underlying indictment is being modified. It's being changed. It's evolving. As the case goes by, as the jury instructions landed on the desks of the jurors, it is different. And so he says, listen, judge, if this court does not instruct the jury, that they cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on out for based on the alleged events in New Mexico, it's going to permit the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell of an offense. Other than that, that was charged in the indictment and it's gonna constitute a constructive amendment and a, and a constructive amendment. Like this is per say, reversible error without a showing of prejudice. You see what that is there? And he cited. Guess what case he's citing. Watch this folks watch this second circuit case from 1998. Oh yeah. Cuz that's the, that's the district that he's in. That's the circuit that he's in and guess who's going up to that second circuit court. Oh yeah. Judge Allison, Nathan the judge from the go Maxwell trial<laugh> so he's gonna pee kill it. And he's telling them, Hey judge, listen a constructive amendment. Like this is per se reversible error without a showing of prejudice. Now the judge ultimately didn't care. You know, the judge denied this. We're we're gonna see this. But here's the further of the argument says at the very least, if the jury convicts Maxwell on count four, based on James alleged activity, New Mexico, it would be a substantial variance from the allegations in the indictment, in the indictment. It requires UN intent that Jane traveled to New York and violate New York law. And he says, so therefore the court should instruct the jury as requested below to prevent a variance from occurring. The should have told him, this is what he's saying. He says, Maxwell has no burden to prove prejudice. At this point, since the variance can still be prevented by a curative instruction. So judge we're alerting you of this problem. They're gonna come out here and they might convict her on count four, which they did. And I'm warning you. This could be a problem. But at this point, because we have a verdict when he wrote this, you can fix it not anymore. Moreover, because the same issue arises with respect to the substantive. Enticement offense is charged in count two. The court must give the same instruction as to count to as well. We also see that he wants a supplemental jury instruction. So he's saying that order to correct this error, you should give them another note. Look at all this case law, second circuit, 2001 second circuit, 1960, we got second circuit, 2014, we have another second circuit, 1985. Right? And the, and the, the older, the case, it doesn't, you know, don't think about those as, uh, all that meaningful other just, just to sort of give you a smattering of the dates it goes on. He says the jury note indicates the jury is confused about the second element of count four. And by extension, the third element of count two, now count two doesn't matter because she was not guilty on that one, but he goes through a little bit further and he says that they need a curative instruction. So here's what he recommended. And this was a couple days ago, he said for the reason set forth above we request the jury, give the jury the follow additional instruction tomorrow. Okay. So they, in other words that been, he submitted this on the 27th that would've been yesterday, the 28th, he wanted to, you know, sort of, there was an 83 page document. Adel wanted to insert something else in there. And he wants to say jurors as to the third element of count two, you must determine whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That Maxwell acted with intent, that Jane would engage in activity within New York, within New York as to the second element, you must determine whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Maxwell transported Jane, with the intent that Jane would engage, engage in activity within the state of New York in violation of the law, an intent that Jane engaged in activity in any other state, other than New York cannot form basis of these two elements as to count two and count four. Okay. So you see how this is working. This is why it's very complicated. It's why it's, it's, it's, it's such a tall order to ask, you know, a group of 12 people to agree on anything like lunch, get a group of 12 people together and say, what do you like on your pizzas? Can we order one set of pizza for everybody? How would that go? Not, well, it<laugh>, it doesn't go well. So here you have the same concept. Now, all these complicated rules, all these different permutations, you've got different people, reading things differently, and a lot of pressure coming down to bear. And so they did this, not because the judge was gonna come out here and, uh, do anything about it. Because if and when as happened today, they come out and find her guilty on that count four. They now have an appealable issue. And throughout this entire trial, they've been doing this as to every one of these counts. And we've been watching this every turn of the page. So after that letter was filed yesterday, judge Allison, Nathan denied. It said, no, not gonna happen. Class Feld reported said that this was filed in the wee hours of the night and said, well, you know, the jury actually didn't ask about this says, you know, she also says that the defense's final proposed instruction is also quote, just wrong. Jurors can consider conduct outside New York and deciding conduct in New York. She right. So she's sort of interpreting it differently. Now, if she's wrong about that, that's reversible error. Okay. That's exactly why he filed that motion and said, well, I'm gonna argue that it's other than that, that they can't consider conduct outside of New York. She says, sure they can including all the stuff in New Mexico. So it's not a problem about that. Now again, you can see that inner city press we're, we're sort of watching this theme happen about these other things that might be problematic or might be appealable. Judge, Nathan sort of had this little, uh, reversal happening here back on December 28th. This was yesterday. She was talking about deliberations going up, you know, speed up or pausing them. What do they want to do? She says about Omicron. She left the courtroom to make a decision. Now inner city press noted the, this, when the jurors said that they were having some issues, she told jurors previously that they were gonna be off this Thursday and this Friday. But now she's saying they're gonna be deliberating December 31st and January 1st. What happened about that? So is that actually true? Right? I mean, I I'm sure it is inner city press is there. He's watching this, but if it, you know, if it is the case that judge Nathan went out there and said, okay, jurors, you're getting two days off Thursday and Friday have a nice new year's uhoh Aron came now I'm scared. Now we're going to have to flip this. You're gonna be here Thursday, Friday, in fact, Saturday and Sunday if need be. But they, but the judge already said that one thing one way. And if she said something one way, and then you have a bunch of jurors that say, oh great, we're gonna have Thursday and Friday off and we're gonna start making plans. And, and then they do that. And then they start, you know, uh, scheduling things. And then the judge comes back and says, no, you have to decide now Saturday and Sunday, I don't care what it takes. New year's party. Cancel it. You're gonna ring in 2022 in New York city in the third grade Marshall courthouse over here. And so what does that do to the jurors? Do they just flip their position and go, well, I had that barbecue. My wife is gonna kill me if we don't be, if we're not there on new year's day, I'm a dead man. So wrap it up. What'd you say? Not guilty, not anymore, buddy. Boy. Flip your verdict on that. So he's noticing, is that an appealable issue? We don't know. And so judge Nathan sort of, as this went on was saying, well, I'm just gonna tell them every day, this week, which of course is a change. It's not Thursday and Friday going off. We had some other conversations take place. And before the jurors came to their conclusions, you know, this is a weird thing because they wanted a bunch of transcripts. Even today. Remember this today, this is how this started. Five hours ago, class fail reported that they wanted a whole series of additional transcripts. They wanted Sean, this was Carolyn's boyfriend. They wanted Espinoza. This was Epstein's ex assistant at the Epstein and co company. They wanted these two defense witnesses who were both FBI agents today. And they also wanted the testimony of Elizabeth LTI, the expert witness today. They wanted that they, we are, they of clarified this. We are requesting the transcript of expert witness on memory. And so we're all just sitting around here, right? You can see here, this was five hours ago and we're all just going, man. They're getting a lot of these transcripts. And now they're having disputes about this. There's a dispute about redacting. The testimony of simply Espinoza. We already heard from her. We've got Loftus, all that took place earlier this morning. It goes to two 12, and now, okay, we still have the same conversation. So now at 2:00 PM this afternoon, inner city press is reporting that Bobby stern Heim says we got another note at the jury table. And so at this point in this, in this trial, the jurors know full well that the judge is like urging them to get this case resolved. You're gonna be here all week throughout the all week. That means Thursday and Friday. I know I told you, no, I know it's new year's Eve, but we're gonna be here. And so they still ask for more transcripts, they come back and say, may we please have the Larry Viki testimony here? And there's laughter in the courtroom, people are going, what the heck is going on with these jurors? And the laughter is sort of like, well, I, I sure, I guess, do they wanna do, should we just print all of them? Do they want the transcripts from everybody? Just guess em, all and card'em in there. People are sort of like, okay, I guess, I guess they're gonna be deliberating through new years. People are laughing about this cuz they just keep going down the list and they want more and more transcripts. And at class fail is reporting the same thing he's saying, Hey, they're scrutinizing the testimony of both former Epstein pilots. And so we, we were, you know, calculating this and it's kind of a hilarious thing, but there were people on Twitter saying how many, how many people have asked for transcripts? You've got Katie Fang here says I'm struggling with how many asks there have been for transcripts and class Feld notes and says, yeah, there's been 13 of them. The prior eight were all government witnesses, all four accusers. We had a ex Epstein pilot, David Rogers, who was here, uh, Juan lessi, Matt, Matt testified Greg Parkinson. And so clave says 24 witnesses in total, the defense called nine. So 13 out of 33 total witnesses. And these were earlier numbers in the day. And so I, I sort of went through this after they asked for vio and I think these are up to date numbers. So the government presented 24 witnesses. You can see that here, the defense presented nine witnesses here, I believe that's right. And so the jurors were asking for all of these transcripts, I mean they were asking for basically 13 transcripts, 14, maybe with Viki and uh, about five of those came from the defense and the other eight came from the, the government. And so we were, were trying to sort of tease out what they were asking about what were they thinking, what was going through my, you know, through, through the juror's heads. And this is kind of the breakdown of the, the transcripts that they were asking for. So they had Epstein's two co-pilots. We had David Rogers and we had VI Saki here. They read those, they read Juan Alesi. We had the four victims, Kate Caroline, we had Annie farmer. We have Jane the four victims. We have Parkinson. And then we have Sean. Sean was the boyfriend of Carolyn. And we also have, uh, Matt, who was the boyfriend of Jane, the soap opera actor. And so there was something interesting that stood out to me when you compare and contrast that with the defense witnesses, the defense witnesses, of course, they had a lot less of them. I think they called nine is what we said. Yeah. Nine. So they called four, almost half of their witnesses. They wanted transcripts for. And they had, uh, the two FBI agents. They had Amanda Young and they had Richardson. I believe that was his name Richards. And then they had Espinoza and then they had Dr. LTI. Now, remember Dr. LTIs was the expert witness that the defense called, but notice that they didn't want the transcripts of Dr. Lisa Rocko, no expert witness trans were warranted. So why would they call the defense expert, but not, or I'm sorry, when I say called they're requesting to reread the transcripts, but not the prosecution. Interesting. So this was the scene from when Viki testified, you know, Viki gave us a lot of details about a lot of this. I was gonna go through this in more tale. Don't think that we need to do that now because we sort of know what the jurors are thinking. And so the rest of this was just basically a recap. And so I think it's now a good time to take a look@thequestionsfromourfriendsatwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And I've seen a couple super chats come in as well. We've got Fatus is here. Good to see you. Fatus says, how does this affect prince Andrew lawsuit? So, uh, I don't think that it does really right. That's a civil case and Maxwell is not a party to that case at all. I think that it is, uh, a moral, a moral boost. Certainly, you know, that, that this organization, this, this disgusting scheme of people can, you know, be cracked to some degree. And so, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll be curious to see, um, where that goes. Now we, that case is scheduled for a whole slew of activity early next year. I think a bunch of stuff is gonna be, uh, we've got status conferences. A lot of the stuff is gonna be, uh, broadcast, although you can't record it or re-broadcast it, but it's gonna be a little bit more accessible and it's a civil case. So it's a little bit different standard. So it's a great question. Fatus I don't think it's, you know, I don't think it's gonna Virginia jure is gonna have that case and would've had that case regardless of what happened here, because it's, it's a separate party, right? It's she's going directly against, um, prince Andrew and she has different claims than what Maxwell had. So he's not to my knowledge, he's not part of a conspiracy claim or anything like that. So it is a little bit separate. I think she's charging him with, uh, or suing him for battery and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which sort of are separate issues. Not real. I mean, they're, they're, they're related, but they're, they are separate, I think, criminally speaking. So it's a great question. Nate Kidwell says fantastic chats and discussion really enjoyed having your insights throughout even thought it was obvious. Great. Seeing you break down the steps, even though it was obvious. Great seeing you break down the steps. Well, thanks Nate. Yeah, I mean, we went through this one from beginning to end. We invested a lot of time on this case and you know, it's a, it's an outcome that I think a lot of people are happy with and, and I'm happy to see that there is a chip in the facade. You know, I like to see when the people who are part of a different power, who typically have operated under a different set of rules and she did Glenn Maxwell in this whole organization, right. They ran around like kids in a candy store doing whatever they wanted for the last 30 years or so. So to see that happen is of course, very good news, but it's bittersweet to me for a little reason. And that's because I think what's gonna happen here is the government. He's just gonna call it. Oh, got it. Doug. Doug done. Oh, well done everybody. Good job there. Uh, Allison Moe and uh, Maureen Comey. Well done. Let's go have a cocktail. Shall we perfect. And all of the Epstein stuff is gonna be done. All the go inmates. It's all just done. We're just done with it. And the, the real people who, you know, who orchestrating and funding this and sort of making it all happen and using the services, aren't going to be brought to justice. And that's what sort of irritates me about this. They're just gonna wrap this up, put a nice bow on it and we're done move on to the next case. And so that's, you know, of course not something that I wanna see, although I am, uh, I am happy that there is a resolution here that went the way that it did not applicable says, man, you're a great law teacher. Keep it up, Rob. Well, thank you. Not applicable. I appreciate that. And those were from YouTube. So let's check over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and we'll check in with the form as well. The poll form and see what the poll form says. We got the Maxwell sentence poll form saying that we've got 20 plus 70, uh, 38% say 20 plus years, we've got five to 10 years say 20%. Uh, this is pretty evenly split biggest appealable issue. Non prosecution agreement is in the lead with 30% COVID urgency rushing a verdict looks like 50, uh, 26%, 16% say jury instructions. And it could be something else. 83% say, nobody else is gonna be prosecuted. This is it. And 65% now are saying happy with at the verdict 21% still undecided. And so I think that's fair. I think that there's gonna be a lot more to come on this. We got some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com Viente cuz prime says, see, I was right. All you had to do was deny them hot pockets. That's it. Once they didn't have any hot pockets, they get, they got that, that hanger and they were very hangry. Vient kiss also says your practice must do well. Those business cards are fancy. Well, you know, we like to class things up around here. They are pretty, pretty nice. They've got this nice little, um, come on. There you go. They've got this nice, nice little, um, kind of what is that? It's like a foil type of thing. It's pretty, it's pretty fancy. Uh, thank you for that V kiss. I'm proud of them. We have another one here from Sergeant. Bob says I did earlier opine that all the requests for more info was because they were trying hard to make that leap to beyond reasonable doubt, juror reps of the general public do not have any use for people like Golin or those that enable. They were trying hard to make that leap, trying, grasping doing their civic duty. They wanted to find a reason to let her go and adhere to that presumption of innocence. And they read and they read and they highlighted and they highlighted and they sticky to it up, but they couldn't come to the conclusion. And yeah, I think you're right. Sergeant Bob nobody's got any use for those, for those types of people. No question about it. Molly says thank you. Should we expect the piggy? The squeal should Molly says thank you. Should we expect the piggy? The squeal? Uh, the piggy, maybe two squeal. Oh, I see what you're saying there, Molly. In other words, Maxwell, is she going to, uh, start singing like a Canary? I don't know.<laugh> I dunno. We're gonna continue to pay attention to that. That's for sure. Now the other question, of course, why don't we, why don't we poll form that we got some we got, we can add some interesting poll on this now. Uh, do we wanna ask the Epstein question? Should we ask that question? Yeah, maybe we should. All right. So, um, how do I change this here? Golin Maxwell. We're gonna add one more question here. How about Glen Maxwell? Uh, is she going to turn on anybody else? So we'll say, uh, implicate others, uh, remain silent or how about, uh, we'll call it, we'll call it silenced. How, how about, how about voluntarily silent? We'll call it voluntarily silent and invol silent.<laugh> all right. And so we have a new poll. Uh, now that's on the form is Maxwell. Now that she's gonna be remanded to custody for the foreseeable future, is she likely to a implicate others? B voluntarily remain silent or C B involuntarily, silent ALA<affirmative> Jeffrey Epstein.<laugh> let's see here. Involuntarily silence. Let's take a look at this response and uh, do a summary on this one. All right. Here's here. We got it. Glenn Maxwell. Will she implicate other<laugh> 20% say she's gonna implicate others. We've got 6% say remain silent 9%. Say, uh<laugh>. No, not, not that many responses yet. So 61% are saying involuntarily silent. So I think we can see how this one's gonna go.<laugh> all right. And so let's see what else we've got over from watching the Watchers. Good question, Molly. Good question on that one. Let's see what else we've got. DEI McBride says, as ironic as this sounds Maxwell stands a much better chance on appeal than she did at trial. The application of the circuit 2008 plea agreement to include Maxwell is a question of law, which the jury is a fact finder could not touch. This is one of those unusual cases where an appeal is a better shot for a defendant than the trial itself. Totally agree with you on that Digi McBride. In fact, let's pause for a moment and explore that issue. Shall we? So if we go over to the mine map, which is available down in the description below, you're gonna see there are some people poking around up there. Uh, shout outs to everybody who's in the house. Musically kid is checking out along with, uh, a, a number of guests over there. And so let's revisit this. So we've got the Galin Maxwell mine map, and we'll pull that up there on the screen. And the reason, uh, the DJ McBride was talking about this as a very, very big, uh, potential issue that I think that her defense team is going to, uh, sink in on is over here. Remember that in the Jeffrey Epstein wing of the mine map, we have a, a lot of activity going on over here in particular, we have this entire non prosecution agreement. So let's close this up. We'll we'll sort of, uh, close up, close up. Some of the, the unindicted unnamed co-conspirators people tossing, you know, number of names around in there. They are all unnamed. We don't know who they are, but there was a non prosecution agreement that came back out from Jeffrey Epstein. And this was back in, let me take a quick look at this one. Pull this actual document up. Yes. Okay. So here, this is, let me see if I can zoom in on this puppy a little bit. So this is the Epstein, the Jeffrey Epstein non prosecution agreement. This was filed. This looks like, uh, the Florida docket back in 2016 place in a file. Now, folks, this is something that is fairly okay. Non prosecution agreements are a common thing, happens regularly. It'll say something like, okay, look, we know that you were charged with a domestic violence offense. We're gonna enter this non prosecution agreement. We won't prosecute you. It's your first defense. If you got into an altercation, fine, as long as you go and you complete some counseling and get some domestic violence therapy and you, you know, you never do it, blah, blah, blah. Then we won't prosecute you. And we're gonna fill out this non prosecution agreement. You do this, we won't prosecute you. It's a prosecutor's office policy. You know, you get your first one, an opportunity to work it away. Common. This is not common. What we're seeing here is absolutely uncommon. In fact, I've never seen anything like it before, because what we have here is a non prosecution agreement that doesn't just bind Jeffrey Epstein, but it binds all of a number of co-conspirators that are named in this document. And also other unnamed co-conspirators. So like James Bond has a license to kill kind of a thing. This is like a license to commit crimes and not be implicated because this prosecutor, this non prosecution agreement is so big. And over broad that the umbrella covers virtually everybody. So this is a strange thing that happened. And so this non prosecution agreement was entered in the investigation of Epstein and he had some of the best lawyers in the country, arguably the world, the investigation concluded in around 2007, all of this background from 2001 to around 2007, this is page seven. Now they're saying Epstein seeks to resolve this globally. And so he's gonna do certain things in order to get the benefits of this agreement. And we're gonna do certain things. Why the government agreed to this? I have no idea. I don't know what type of leverage that Epstein had over the us government to get such a blanket type of non prosecution agreement like this it's nuts, but here, here are the terms Epstein's gonna plead guilty. He actually has to plead guilty tow the charges 30 months, sentence, six months, jail, 12 months, six months in jail for all charges. And he basically, you know, this is like a, like a, I think he went and spent the day there and then went back home, you know, work release, all sorts of stuff. Epstein's attorneys are gonna provide a list of all the victims. He's gonna create the Epstein thems compensation fund. Right? All of these things come outta here. Now Epstein understands that the us attorney has no requirement, uh, to make the states comply with any of this stuff. Epstein's aware that he's, uh, you know, waving his rights and things like that. This is signed off on by Epstein. We also have a Marie vife and our Alexander Costa. Now there's a section in here that we skipped over, but it's right here. This is what, so the government just told us what they want out of Epstein. Right? They gave us this. They said that Epstein is, you know, gonna serve time in jail. He's gonna identify the victims. He's gonna waive his rights. He's going to, you know, resolve all of these things and, and, and Epstein's going to do that, right? He's going to suffer. He's going to be penalized. So what is his reason for entering into this agreement? Doesn't he want something he wants to get something out of this, right? Otherwise, why he would, why would he enter into it? Well, he's getting a pretty good deal. Here is what, for some reason, he got in consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation through the Epstein victim's compensation fund, as described above. If he successfully fulfills all terms of his agreement, us says no criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein. Look at this line, including, but not limited to Sarah Kell. So my question is if, if, uh, Glen Maxwell was a co-conspirator and she just got prosecuted and convicted, why is Sarah ke not getting it? Okay. Because she's in this as a co-conspirator of Epstein, why did she get written off? Why did Adriana Ross? Why did Leslie GRA why did Nadia Marcine Cova not get prosecuted? And why is Maxwell not considered this a potential co-conspirator of Epstein? Any potential co-conspirator Maxwell charges came after this 2007 plea deal? I think she's included in this plea deal. I think that she is included. I think that this covers her. I think that she is any potential co-conspirator of Epstein. She is, she just got convicted for conspiring with Epstein. So I think she's protected by this thing. And the judge decided that she wasn't, this is a problem in the law. I think the case should have been dismissed, right? Because you can make the same argument where the criminal charges for Adriana Ross, where the charges for Leslie gruff are the charges for Nadia Marcine. Cova they're nowhere to be found. Why is that? Well, and it's these women right here. They're all here. Nadia Marcine. Cova 35 allegedly had encounters with underage girls. She was also an on and off girlfriend of Epstein's sounds basically exactly like what may Maxwell was doing. Why is she not being prosecuted while she's protected by this agreement? I would argue. So is Maxwell. And I'm not saying that to support, you know, please don't misinterpret this as like, oh, well, Maxwell should just walk free. My, my bigger issue with this whole underlying case is why was this agreement even concocted in the first place? Why was that allowed? And why is it being, you know, why is Maxwell just sort of being the, the sacrificial lamb on this thing? These women were involved. They're in a government document. They signed off on it. Leslie GRA 53 was reported Lee Epstein's executive assistant for 20 years. Not gonna get, not gonna hear from her Adriana Ross. She was in her thirties, also an ex model who allegedly helped organize massages for Epstein. We didn't hear from her, her in this trial. Why not? Sarah ke same conversation 40 now also allegedly had a Rolodex of women. She called to give massages at Epstein's home in Palm beach, Florida. She flew hundreds of times on Epstein's private jet, the Lolita express. She was an actual recruiter. And that's why she apparently is also a horrible neighbor too, over from the New York post recruiter and a horrible, you know, she's a, a, a sex slave recruiter, but she got written out. She's protected saying she was a victim, not a monster. So why is this woman Epstein walking with Sarah ke she is immune from this whole thing, But not Gill Maxwell because they all fall under the agreement. But Maxwell doesn't as a potential. Co-conspirator not so sure about that. All right, let's see what else you've got to say over at. That's a great question thing for the opportunity to dive into that DJ McBride per says, Maxwell and Epstein were poised to live a life. Most people would not even imagine. There was so much they could have done with their lives. So many people they could have helped while living life free of want. Yet one died in prison. The other may very well do the same of old age. Of course, just a shameful waste of life. It is, you know, they say that sometimes people just get commande or overtaken by evil or depravity or something happens. You know, some something over overtakes a person, and it is tragic. It is sad when that happens, you know, it happens all the time. It happens a lot with addictions. It happens a lot with, uh, people just, just losing, you know, people just lose and they lose themselves to an evil side of, of life. And it's a sad thing. And it's, and it's cascading, right? Consequences ripple throughout the world in a very horrendous way. Leafy bug says I'm not happy with the outcome only because I think the trial should have been much broader and there should have been a lot more people. I on trial gasoline Galene is far from the only guilty party here. She's probably not even a major player, but everything is being dumped on her. Doesn't look like justice to me. Yeah. I'm not a fan of that leafy bug. I'm not either, you know, Maxwell's a monster, no question about that. What these people were doing was heinous and horrendous, but she is not the sole proprietor of this organization. She's not the queen bee of this thing. Many other people were involved and I have a sneaking suspicion. It involves some very powerful people. Maybe even people deeply rooted in the us government. And so for them to just, oh, we're done. Oh no, it's done. We're done. We're cutting. Good job, Marine Comey. Good job, Allison Moe. Good job.<affirmative> well done, but there's a lot more work to do. I mean, if you're interested in that or is this just the end of it? It's just the end of it. Which is, which is, you know, not good. Let's see. Tic is prime says I found a picture of how bad the presence of Aron was in the courtroom. Let me see. This is a very interesting link that you sent over here. I am. What is this one? I am Lu who is this? I am Lu planet, a ruler of the planet Amron per se, is that from, um, future Amma. It looks like a future Amma drawing, but I didn't watch that show so I don't get it. So I apologize for that Vous, but I'm sure it's hilarious and I'm sure other people get it and I'm sure they're laughing hysterically. Thank you for sharing it. Sergeant Bob says being held during Christmas would be one thing I do not think most jurors would think new year's would be that big of a deal. Maybe I've just seen too many new year's Eves usually while working well I'm with, to you Sergeant Bob, I'd be more irritated that I'm not in bed by 10 o'clock, you know, but they are in New York. So maybe they go down to that, you know, time square and they turn it into a big thing. I'm not sure, but yeah, about, about 10 o'clock, you know, it's midnight on the east coast. Sergeant Bob says ever Dell's pretty sharp, but I, he is not cheap. Good analysis by you. Thank you, Sergeant Bob and Sergeant Bob, by the way, if you look, if you're not a member over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, Sergeant Bob sent an amazing email yesterday. That was a conversation about the story we talked about yesterday, the Burlington coat officer involved shooting. And so, uh, very good feedback. He sent an email with a diagram that was by min lucky. And so we had a good conversation about that earlier this morning@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And we may talk about that, uh, when, when that case comes back up in the queue, we put together a queue, oh, you wanna see the queue? Hmm. Do I have this pulled open here? Yeah. So also@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, we were putting together a case list, sort of the docket that we're gonna be covering for the new year. Uh, let me show you what we've got here while we've got this open. We've got Julian Asange Garrett Wolf, Ray char Brooks, Ryan Remington. I'm not gonna read through the whole list. You can sort of see him here. Of course, Alec Baldwin, Kyle Caruth the Crumbley Darrell Brooks, the Whitmer plot, Steve Bannon Maxwell were here. Now she is in trial, but now we're gonna be scheduled for sentencing. And so we're gonna have to find out when that sentencing date is Kim Potter, Durham investigation, SCOTUS mandates. We've got Dominic black and the written house case. We've got day bell case. We've got a lot of stuff coming up in 2021. But Sergeant Bob is, uh, a very, very awesome part of our community. We're grateful for you. We have, uh, your stalker says, Rob your heads up just your rumble stream doesn't seem to be working. I forgot to mention that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It is not working. So I use restream to syndicate, to show across a couple different places. I emailed. I, uh, submitted a support ticket to them today and they're aware of the problem. They know that it's not working for custom RTMP. They said that a fix is right around the corner. So hopefully we're back up over there on rumble tomorrow, thunder seven says, Maxwell will now name names. If she's given a five plus year, no way she's going to do hard time. While the perps go free, we all know about prince Andrew, Clinton gates and the others, but not from the madams lips. What a story she has to tell, unless the intelligence agencies get to her before she spills the beans. That's from thunder seven, which is a good reminder to check back in on the V voluntarily or the involuntarily silent question. And at 76% say she'll be involuntarily silent, whatever that means. I don't know what that means. You know, I don't know.<laugh> look at this. Look at this little red look at this little green sliver here. We've got one person says she's just gonna voluntarily. She's gonna remain silent. Well, what is this one? Why did I put that there? No, we can get rid of that. We can get rid of that question. That that's a, that's a, that's a mistake that shouldn't be there.<laugh> all right. So we got a few more questions from our friends@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com English. Dave says, you asked for our opinion, but what's yours. You've think this will, this is the right decision. If so, what sentence do you think she should get? What sentence do you think she will get? So, you know, it's a good question. You know, I don't know what sentence she is going to get and it's hard. Listen, generally, generally folks I'm always gonna default to there's reasonable doubt out in every case.<laugh> so, so I think that, you know, I think there was a lot of reasonable doubt in this case. And I genuinely mean that I really think that there was, I'm not sure that this is the right legal decision, but it sort of feels like the right moral decision. And so it's a complicated position to be in. And I say that with all due respect to, uh, to, you know, the prosecutors out there and everybody who's jumping for joy on this case, but this government case, this prosecutorial case from a defense attorney perspective, okay. Even if you're happy with this outcome, let's talk about the mechanics of this case. This case was garbage. Okay. They, they presented four victims. Two of which were like, we got instructions that they're not really even victims multiple of the victims were, were sort of terrible witnesses. We had Jane who said, I don't recall a number of different times. We had Carolyn who was as you know, a former recovered drug, not even a recovered drug addict, I think like an actual active drug addict. And so, you know, not, not that there's anything wrong with, with, with that. I, you know, have a lot of people in that space. I know a lot of people that have been in that world and recovered well, but the point here is you're talking about credibility. You're talking about reliability, you're talking about memory and the government's case here, they to took eight days and they arrested at, they, they know they had a terrible case. It was a garbage case. The case is 20 years old. There's plenty of reasonable doubt. I think legally not a good outcome based on what I have seen presented in court, but the right moral thing to happen, right? She's a monster. She's been a monster for a long time. I'm a defense attorney. So I'm always gonna hold the line on the, uh, the reasonable doubt standard. I think it's a very high standard. And so I would argue that there's a lot here that, that I could latch onto and find reasonable doubt about. And, but that being said, right, the reason why, the reason why it's sort of a bittersweet verdict, I think moral relates the right thing to do. I don't want people like this running around. I don't like people who are part of the oligarchy operating according to a different set of rules. And when I talk about criminal law and justice, these are the types of cases that I support being prosecuted, right? People who are operat as though the rules don't apply to them rather than the high schooler who got popped with weed in his car on the way home from high school. Right. That's not that these are different tiers. And so when I see an outcome like this, for somebody who's in a different category, I can say, yeah, you know, morally, that feels like it's the right outcome. Certainly, but legally it's hard. It's hard for me. It's hard for me to, to do cart. I think the case was very weak. I think the prosecutors knew it was very weak. They rested after eight days, eight days in this case, that's embarrassing. Right. And they know it. And so the jurors found, they saw through the smoke screen of a multimillion dollar defense, but she's also, you know, she's also got a lot of leverage and you also have to think about this from a sentencing perspective. You know, the judge is gonna hear this also. And the judge, you know, I'm not sure what the judge is gonna do in terms of sentencing. You know, a lot of the testimony, a lot of the allegations about what go Maxwell did in this case were about holding hands and touching breasts, right. To in torpedoes and things like that. Epstein, a lot of the, a lot of the, the testimony was about what Epstein did, not a lot about what Maxwell did. And so when you're talking about sentencing now, right, the judge has to take that into consideration. You can't punish Golin Maxwell for what Jeffrey Epstein did to the women. And what did Maxwell do? Well, we don't know. Jeremy Madrea says RA, what type of battery do you think it'll be Lippo? Or N N I M H. That will definitely to help. What type of charges are used? Sorry. Couldn't help myself. Jeremy, that's a Virginia ju FRA joke. She's filing criminal charges, not charges for battery. Battery is a physical touch that happens in an offensive manner. We have another one from tweak says, Rob, an update on the sleazy, Andrew and JRE, civil lawsuit, Epstein settlement, which JRE to be made public affects the prince Andrew Case. Yeah, this is coming out. It says a 2009 settlement agreement between the late financer Epstein, Virginia free. Those will be made public next week. January 3rd. Yeah. Saying, uh, okay. Here's from tweak. He says, it will be interesting to see what other names might be included in the settlement. Not very optimistic, but I'm still not entirely sure that this whole Epstein saga is over yet. I hope not. Right. And I, I, I really hope not. I think that these there's a lot of problematic things that, that, that happened here and the tentacles go far and wide. And we certainly wanna see that those people are brought to justice. We have another one from Sergeant. Bob says she will roll over if, if gains are reduced sentenced, if she gains a reduced sentence. I see. So Sergeant Bob is saying, yeah, if they give her a deal, she'll talk. Otherwise, no, Madam Golan says I'm getting a tat from my cellmate tonight. Like McAfee, not suicidal. You know, I saw another story. Another, another blurb that maybe somebody from ABC news was actually there at the, at the courthouse, potentially interviewing her. We'll see, Kincaid says, Hey, Rob, I agree. I think the agreement will end the end, clear her don't wanna annoy you. So I will keep it short. I would like a guess on when you think she'll be freed, LOL, that agreement is simply insane. It is insane. I, so, uh, I think it would. So here, my, my take on this kind of from the beginning has been that she gets convicted, but then she wins on an appeal. Just the same way that Cosby did. Cosby was convicted, went up on an appeal. Cosby's a free man. And most of the country didn't even know that happened. What I thought he was convicted. Didn't he go to prison? Yep. But then not same type of thing. Now there's been some pushback on that. I think news now, Wyoming, I'm not sure if he's here, but he's, he, he said that it's a little bit different because it, in that case, there was consideration in legal terms. In the Cosby case, what he did is he actually did something in exchange for that protection. Cosby said, I'm gonna sit down. I'm gonna give a deposition in exchange for this deposition. I want protection from anything I say during the deposition, he said some things that incriminated him, the government prosecuted him using his own statements. He got convicted. Government should never have done that. They gave him immunity. So they couldn't have prosecuted him. News now has said, and he's on YouTube news. Now Wyoming says that that is the consideration that distinguishes this from the Maxwell case, that, that didn't do anything in order to earn that protection. And so my question of course, would, which is, I think it's a valid point, but my question of course would be did any of the other co co-conspirators and nobody else has been charged. Why is Maxwell? Unless we know that the named co-conspirators in that document, like Nadia and Leslie, if they did they give the government something in order to, to, to get that benefit. I don't know. Kincaid says, yeah, that, that agreement's insane. We have another one says, uh, no question. Can the prosecution offer a sentence reduction for other suspects? How might that likely play out? Thanks, Joe. The best. Yeah. That's a good question. So, so, so certainly right. The prosecution is gonna make a recommendation for sentencing. And if they have anything that might sway them or anything that they want in order to negotiate for a better reduced recommendation, that would be a conversation worth happen, you know, have having right now, a lot of the time, these conversations happen before the trial takes place, but you can do in, in law, it's called a free talk. It's it's, it's a thing, right? You, you bring a defendant in you. This person knows a bunch of stuff. You negotiate a deal with the opposing side, the detective, the investigator in the case, and you say, listen, we've got some data. You want the data. We wanna make sure that this person doesn't get, you know, hurt as a result of giving you this data. What do you have to offer us? If you can work out a deal, you have a free talk, tell'em everything, go for it. And then that happens. So, you know, it's, it's, it's something that is not applicable in, in a lot of cases, but in some cases it is the government want something badly. And if you have that, that is leverage that you can use in your case, crouch shield, cat lady says, I agree with you. 100% Maxwell was definitely covered under the agreement. Yeah. So even though it's like a moral victory, it's like, yeah, okay, fine. She got convicted, but I'm not sure that it's, it's over leafy bug says, I think Maxwell would've already implicated others if doing so have been any benefit to her. I don't see how she could blackmail her way out of her predicament. At this point, if she has verifiable dirt on big names, it seems to me that she has an incentive to not go public with this, as it could still be used as a deterrent to her being Epstein in prison. If she puts what she knows into the public domain, it no longer has any value for her. That's from leafy bug. That's true. Right? That is true. It's it's leverage. And so if she gives up that data without getting something in exchange for it, she loses that leverage. So why would she do that? It's a good point. I don't think that she would, and we have a few more, we've got osie lawyer says, uh, thank you from an osie lawyer says I followed your coverage of this every day today, I got the best birthday present ever guilty. Plus your coverage.<laugh> happy birthday. Osie lawyer. Well, that's a nice, that's a nice Christmas present. And you know, who's unhappy with her belated birthday present Gill Maxwell. Yeah. Her birthday was the same day. As the day we celebrate the birth of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ and her birthday present was delayed. Amazon delivery was, uh, backed up a little bit and she got a big fat guilty verdict, five of them on her lap today and, uh, Aussie lawyer you're celebrating as well. So it's just a birthday season. Cheer is in the air. Happy birthday. Thanks for being here. And for, uh, for writing in, from, from the land down under, we've got another one from the osie lawyer says like you I'm frustrated by the brevity of the prosecution's case. However, the strategy of running a case can often involve being succinct with the strongest evidence and the charges only or available. Yeah. That's there is true to that. Right? And I think that, I think that as a prosecutor, you can risk going too long. I mean, look, what happened in the Kyle written house, Thomas binger, James Krause. I mean, it was the most drowning, boring prosecution that, that you could see and it, it didn't work out well for him. I mean, they got sort of nationally AMED for their performance in that case. And there's, there's a, there's a there's truth to that. You know, if you, if you continue to beat a dead horse, if you, if, if it takes you six weeks to say what you could say in two, say it in two or brevity is the soul of wit consolidate that thing. Now, I don't think that's what they were doing here. I think that their case was bad. They sort of treated this like a throwaway case and they took eight days and nobody else is being prosecuted. And that's the end of it. Feisty lady says, have you seen the court order signed today to make public the settlement agreement with the prince? Andrew? Here's a link to the document. I feel like we covered this before, but I didn't know there was a new doc. Yeah. It's a new document filed today. And I didn't see this one. Wow. Okay. So no, I have not seen this. We covered something about this, but this is brand new. Let's look, a document entitled as settlement has been released, said to have been executed by the plaintiff and by the late Epstein, same document been filed in another case in light of ceiling order in the first action it's been filed seal on December 14th, we ordered that in the absence of showing honor before December 22nd, that this was gonna be public on July 3rd. No showing has been made. Okay. So that's what this is. Yeah. Okay. Yes. A awesome. So we did talk about this that's right. And they said that they wanted them to respond as to why it should not be unsealed court said we're gonna be unsealing this thing, unless you tell us why we shouldn't, nobody responded. So they're just affirming it accordingly on or about January 3rd. It's unsealed.<laugh> perfect. Specifically the court shall unsealed and place on the public court docket. Ugh. That's just great news. That's really, that's gonna be fun. So, uh, we'll see. What's in there. This is a signed settlement agreement executed by Virginia jure and Jeffrey Epstein. It's a settlement agreement. We'll see what's in there. We'll see how much of this is redacted or not, but thank you for bringing that my attention. So that came in from feisty lady. Thank you for that feisty lady. Very, very cool. Okay. What else do we have? A couple more we've got suspicious. Chick is here, says I feel like that she is the quote sacrificial lamb and absolutely no other big names were dropped. I honestly think judge Nathan fumbled the case on purpose. She's gonna win her appeal and walk free. This was too easy. That's from suspicious chick. Yeah, I think, I think you're onto something there. And I think you have a right to be suspicious. Leafy bug also says slightly off topic question. I watched the latest season of Narcos Mexico, the DEA agent infiltrated a 12 step group, undercover posing as a addict. He would form relationships with recovering addict who were traffickers when their trust over time and bust them when they offered him a smuggling job. Have you ever heard that this kind of thing happening law enforcement infiltrating these kinds of recovery programs? I have not heard of that. You know, that type of stuff would be very, uh, looked down upon sort of, depending on that would be, that would be an extremely bad form, you know, to, to sort of go in there and, uh, try to try to try to manipulate people who are in the, in the throes of their addiction and trying to recover. I think that would be looked at with very, very bad form. I mean, may any law enforcement agencies or, or I'm sorry, judges, you know, they sort of refer people to these programs because they are so powerful. But if a law enforcement officer was doing something like that, you know, I, I don't think that anybody would look kindly on that. It would sort of be like, it it's a sacred thing. It'd be like trying to use your pastor or starting a church so that you could exploit people, right? That's a, that's a religious relationship or like a, a counseling relationship or like a, you know, a, a therapist, patient relationship lawyer. It it's sort of like that. And it's sort of viewed with that same type of reverence. And so law enforcement stepping all over that would not be looked kindly upon by the legal system. We have Kinkaid says, I do not think that Maxwell needs to the language. I do not think Maxwell needs reads. Like the language could easily include her. Like you said, someone just want it to lay low for a minute. Which means the dirty deeds will all be going on. Yeah. So they'll wrap it up. They'll set it aside and then we'll see where it, it goes. We've got, uh, English. Dave says it AIE like Ozzie, not AIE. So say Ozzie. AIE like Ozzie, not AIE Ozzie. Ozzie EZ. Thank you for correcting me. I'm just a dumb Arizona boy. I don't know any of this stuff, Ozzie. Thank you. All right. Foil hated tin man says, did anyone see Epstein's dead body? Not trying to be too macab but too easy to make him see someone else. New identity foil hated tin, man. Yeah, he got kind of carted out of there on a gurney and we didn't see too much in his'em. Did we? Very interesting. VI Antica says, it's funny how the feds infiltrate rings of non-existent terrorist groups, but get nowhere near the sex trafficking rings, by the way, you didn't get my package yet. I don't think so. I don't think so. Antica, did you send me something<affirmative> no, I don't think so. But it does remind me, I did get a package from beyond reasonable doubt. Sorry, cuz I didn't get yours, but I put this one here. This is from beyond reasonable doubt says celebrate your reach. Each show makes a bad time better. That is from beyond reasonable doubt on watch the watchers.locals.com. And it was a very beautiful succulent that was delivered to my office. It came before Christmas and I apologize for saying thank you for that, but I absolutely love it. It's out there on my desk. And so I wanted to say thank you for sending that in, but Vient kiss. No, I didn't get anything from you. I don't think so.<laugh> Ozzie lawyer says thanks English days. It's death. Definitely Ozzie, but Aussie is cute. All right, well I'm gonna correct it. It's Ozzie, Ozzie lawyer. Sorry. I didn't know.<laugh> and I think we have one more before we wrap it up for the day. Kincaid says, sorry for the typo. Speaking of religion, did you hear Facebook is making deals with some, for their metaverse no fake is making deals with religions for their metaverse. Uh, no, I did not see that. And uh, that my friends is it for the day. I think that's all that we've got to talk about, about Maxwell for the foreseeable future. There will be some more documents and new stuff is gonna continue to come out. As the, uh, sentencing date gets scheduled as more of these exhibits roll out. And so before we wrap up for the day, I want to, uh, I wanna welcome some new people to our community, big shoutouts to gotcha. Good. Signed up@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We've got Jim 2008. FCON us. N Y yeah. Well is here re not R w see Chuck David mark on w Shindo nosy, Texas Rosie, TAs, mom, cookie monster two. AJ DHA. We've got Molly pop Inc guitar. Terry, Randy J Westworld, equestrian girl, Richie DC, red Jersey, Nick dragon things and stuff. Donna 1 0 7 Theves we've got Jimmy w big brother bites, Kimmy cat three, Kevin AEY Antar 24 queen of Tennessee we're Rey Lee music box lady and big rear in the house over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and there's other people chatting away over there. We've got, get, go, man. We've got feisty lady, Dave, two jumping Jeff rats over there. Tweak parallel. Miss lucky. MoPOP fill and fly over no one, you know, moose in the house. What's up Jeremy Kinkaid, chairman of the boards there, the antique kiss prime suspicious chick be spec black, cat Meow, and many others@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And that might friends. Is it for me for the day. We're gonna be back here to do it all again tomorrow. And I hope you join us 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, central 6:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye.