Thread by @realjusthuman

🧵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).

https://twitter.com/realjusthuman/status/1947694238306865442

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.

Today, July 23, Judge Engelmayer denied that motion.

"It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access grand jury materials."

Maxwell's motion made no showing at all as to WHY she should have access to the material.

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.
👏👏👏👏👏

"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!"

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.

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.

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.

DOJ is not asking for the SDFL court to unseal.

They are asking them to TRANSFER the matter to the SDNY.

And "to conclude... that Epstein's case qualifies... release the associated grand jury transcripts, etc..."

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

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?"

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?

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…

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."

Don't miss this.

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

For now.

: )

Chill. This was ALWAYS headed for an appeal.

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

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)

The Court sees the applicable Rules as requiring an exception.

Here are those Rules.

"The Gov't indirectly acknowledges the need for... an exception" in its filing.

"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."

Makes sense, right?

Furthermore, "The Gov't's request... does not arise out of a judicial proceeding... the trial-level proceedings concluded years ago."

"...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."

"the Gov't wants the Petition to be granted so that it can release the evidence to the public at large."

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."

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."

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.

Thanks for reading.

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

https://x.com/realjusthuman/status/1946682463813591066