Just Human Profile picture
Jul 23 42 tweets 12 min read Read on X
🧵UPDATE RE: Unsealing of federal grand jury transcripts in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (SDNY), United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (SDNY), and United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (SDFL).
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (SDNY)

On July 22, counsel for Maxwell, one of whom also represents Hillary Clinton in Trump's civil RICO case against her, filed a letter motion requesting access to the grand jury transcripts prior to submitting their response to the DOJ's request for their unsealing.Image
Today, July 23, Judge Engelmayer denied that motion.

"It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access grand jury materials." Image
Maxwell's motion made no showing at all as to WHY she should have access to the material. Image
She perhaps could have argued she needed access for an appeal based on some "deficiency" in her case and trial, but she did not.

After reminding her of all the crimes she was convicted of, he went on to remind her that those convictions have already been affirmed on appeal.
👏👏👏👏👏Image
"There is no compelling necessity for [granting the motion]."

"In the event the Court determines it would benefit from Maxwell's COMMENTARY... [we'll be in touch]."

He's not just saying "no" here; he is saying "Ah, hell no!" Image
That's a fun read.


That's update one of three.

On to the next case.storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (SDFL)

As in the other cases, DOJ filed their motion to unseal grand jury transcripts on July 18. The motions are almost entirely a copy/paste of each other.

However, unlike the SDNY motions, which were 4 pages in length, the SDFL motion is 6 pages.Image
The meaningful differences begin on page 4.

The court in Florida is bound by a 2020 11th Circuit court decision in a case called Pitch v. United States. Image
They are filing this motion to

PRESERVE IT FOR ANY POTENTIAL APPEAL.

They know it's likely going to be denied, and they are planning for that. Image
DOJ is not asking for the SDFL court to unseal.

They are asking them to TRANSFER the matter to the SDNY. Image
And "to conclude... that Epstein's case qualifies... release the associated grand jury transcripts, etc..." Image
The case, which is named In Re: Grand Jury 05-02 (WPB) & 07-103 (WPB), is assigned to Judge Robin Lee Rosenberg.

The next day, Judge Rosenberg made an order asking DOJ for supplemental briefings on two issues:

1. The Unsealing Request
2. The Transfer Request Image
On this issue of The Unsealing Request, Judge Rosenberg ask DOJ to clarify its legal position.

Is DOJ saying

--it accepts that the "Court must deny the petition" but is filing it anyway "so that it may...appeal?"

OR

--is DOJ "[arguing] that an exception applies that would permit the Court to grant the Gov't Petition?"Image
On The Transfer Request, Judge Rosenberg asks DOJ to clarify their legal position on the following:

(1) Is the petition eligible for transfer?
(2) What's the legal basis for the transfer?
(3) How do the grand jury materials here in the SDFL connect to the proceedings in the SDNY?Image
DOJ filed a response the next day.

It is barely 6 pages but also includes the motions filed in the Maxwell and Epstein SDNY cases for unsealing of grand jury materials there.

That is because this filing is aimed at appeal.

They know the SDFL must deny the request.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Which is exactly what the Court did today.

Judge Rosenberg denied DOJ's motion to unseal or transfer the materials.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…Image
Understanding > Reacting folks.

When you take the time to read this stuff and follow the lines of thought, it all makes a lot of sense.

And the reacting that others are doing just doesn't.
*edit

Typo a couple posts back. Should read:

DOJ is not only asking for the SDFL court to unseal.
Here's why the DOJ's motion is denied.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) provides specific exceptions for disclosing grand jury material.


But DOJ's petition is not based on any of those exceptions.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/r…
"Instead, the Government makes two arguments outside Rule 6."

1. Epstein is dead. Therefore, "many of the rationales supporting grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) no longer apply..."

2. "the public's strong interest... constitute[] a special circumstance justifying public disclosure."Image
Don't miss this.

The exception DOJ is arguing is only accepted in the 2nd and 7th Circuits.

For now.

: ) Image
Chill. This was ALWAYS headed for an appeal. Image
The reasons for denying the motion to transfer to the SDNY are a bit more difficult to explain in a thread but are understandable if you cross-reference with the Rule 6 cites.
The DoJ, or Gov't as it is referred to in the filings, "must first argue that there is a valid ground to request a Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) disclosure."

i.e., there's a judicial proceeding in another district, and they need this stuff Image
But who decides that? Who decides whether or not it is needed, and how do they decide that?

SCOTUS considered those questions and decided that "the court overseeing the related judicial proceeding" would be best placed to decide such an issue.

And that is Rule 6(e)(3)(G) Image
The Court sees the applicable Rules as requiring an exception. Image
Here are those Rules. Image
"The Gov't indirectly acknowledges the need for... an exception" in its filing. Image
"Because the Gov't does not seek disclosure under the Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) exception... the Gov't's request to transfer... is denied." Image
Makes sense, right? Image
Furthermore, "The Gov't's request... does not arise out of a judicial proceeding... the trial-level proceedings concluded years ago." Image
"...the Gov't does not seek the disclosure of evidence for itself. Indeed, the Gov't provided the evidence sought to be unsealed with the Petition." Image
"the Gov't wants the Petition to be granted so that it can release the evidence to the public at large." Image
Which means it doesn't meet the exception. Simple as that.
"the request to unseal arises from the Gov't's internal investigation, from its public statements about that investigation, and from great public interest in the investigation, but does not arise from the New York Federal Proceedings themselves." Image
Lastly, "the disclosure sought in this case would not be proper under clear Eleventh Circuit Law..."

Which, as was mentioned a couple of times before, the Gov't conceded in their petition, "but the Gov't wishes to preserve the issue for a potential appeal." Image
So the Petition is DENIED.
"as a matter of public interest"

Judge Rosenberg ordered all of this to be made public.

She'll get little to no credit for that because people are only seeing the clickbait titles and getting upset that it was denied. They're just seeing people posting OBAMA JUDGE SAID NO and things like that.

But she should get credit, because all of this makes a lot of sense, one, and two, she ordered it all to be made public.

So that people could REEEEEEEEEEact to it, lol.Image
Thanks for reading.

If you like this topic, I have a recent video that covers the Epstein Hoax extensively.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Just Human

Just Human Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @realjusthuman

Oct 9
"President Donald Trump has tapped a career government attorney who worked behind the scenes for years to root out misconduct in federal law enforcement to serve as the Justice Department’s next internal watchdog.

The White House on Friday named Don R. Berthiaume to serve as the department’s acting inspector general, a high-profile position that oversees internal investigations into fraud, waste and abuse in the department and its component agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons."Image
Berthiaume spent 10yrs at DOJ IG and worked some notable cases. Image
Image
Horowitz will move to the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General. Image
Read 4 tweets
Oct 8
🧵United States v. Comey

Comey appeared in person this morning and was arraigned on the two counts: (1) False Statements and (2) Obstruction of a Congressional proceeding. Image
The first order setting schedule sets the trial for 9 months previous to the indictment.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…Image
Unless both parties and the court have a time machine available, I think they will have to file motions asking for a new order, one that sets it for the next available January 5th.
Read 14 tweets
Sep 25
Comey.

"Federal prosecutors are expected to seek an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in the coming days, after the top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia — who opposed bringing charges — recently resigned under pressure from President Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC.

Prosecutors are rushing against the clock, before the statute of limitations involving one charge believed to be central to the case expires within the week."Image
"Earlier this week, prosecutors presented Lindsey Halligan -- Trump’s former personal attorney whom he appointed to lead the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia -- with a detailed memo recommending that she decline to bring perjury and obstruction charges against Comey, the sources familiar with the memo said.

A monthslong investigation into Comey by DOJ prosecutors failed to establish probable cause of a crime -- meaning that not only would they be unable to secure a conviction of Comey by proving the claims beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they couldn’t reach a significantly lower standard to secure an indictment, the sources said."Image
"Career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia investigated Mr. Comey and informed Mr. Trump’s political appointees at the Justice Department that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, according to several people briefed on those discussions." Image
Read 7 tweets
Sep 12
I wonder if the shooter injured himself dropping from the building like that?
I just finished reviewing updates from today. Good stuff.

Leaving a palm print is great and maybe they got DNA (huge!).

Hitting the grass hard left an identifiable shoe print (Converse), nice!

And we learned earlier they know both the route the shooter took through the neighborhood and back. THAT can lead to finding the transportation the shooter used. From there they can track via traffic cams, plate readers, and of course cameras on homes and businesses.

And they have the weapon used. DNA can be lifted from that plus finger prints, palm prints, arm prints, track purchases of the gun, scope, ammo, etc.

This is not a pro shooter or “hit” as some knuckleheads and disinfo clowns are spreading. This guy left the same way he came in, left foot prints, hand prints, the weapon, his DNA, his face on multiple cameras, etc.

Pros do not leave these behind.

Ignore the disinformation, the dumbasses, and black pillers.

Focus on the positives and on being the light and good in the world.

Pray for the Kirks, Law Enforcement, and our Nation.
BTW: I don't fault anyone for initially wondering if a professional was behind the rifle; that's fair enough. Just like people wondered if it was a trans activist. There was no evidence either way initially.

But the clues that it wasn't a pro have been present since the moment it happened.

You could tell by the sound, number one.

A pro would have used a suppressor.

Second, a pro would NOT have been that close, and the sound bouncing around the buildings gave away that the shooter was very close.

There are many accounts, usual suspects I'd say, who immediately jumped to narratives of it being a professional, it being a false flag, etc etc.

This is all so they can get clicks and views and build a bridge from the event to a conspiracy that blames the Jews or blames the CIA or whatever bogeyman they happen to prefer. The same thing happens every time (Baltimore Bridge, Butler PA, Rudy car accident, etc).

THOSE are the disinfo clowns and knuckleheads I am referring to.
Read 4 tweets
Aug 25
🪤 Image
This is frivolous, unconstitutional, and dumb, but it will get a lot of America haters to act out publicly, and the Dems will encourage/support them.

I think that's the point of doing it.

whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…
Also, if you want to penalize people burning flags, any flag, just enforce laws and ordinances already on the books against burning anything on public property without a permit.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 22
Flashback: November 2020

NSA General Counsel Michael Ellis reviews Bolton’s memoir and determines it contained classified material.

The New York Times
web.archive.org/web/2020111123…

h/t/ @nimkef x.com/realjusthuman/…Image
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(