Does Ghislaine Maxwell Have an Agreement for Bond?

The Government filed a peculiar letter request with the Court last night. First, it identifies Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney as Christian Everdell, even though no entry of appearance has been filed.

Everdell is a former AUSA in the Southern District of New York whose main beat was international drug traffickers, like El Chapo and his Colombian associates, and some FARC members and some of the more ridiculous cases, like the ones I've written up many times as the "DEA's Most Excellent African Adventures." (And don't just take it from me, see Ginger Johnson's more excellent article, The Narco-Terror Trap, especially on the Oumar Issa case.

Curiously to me, Everdell resigned in November 2016, months after Chapo was caught for the last time in January and about to be extradited. El Chapo arrived here in January, 2017.

I would think that a prosecutor who spent ten years chasing El Chapo, FARC and Colombian traffickers (even getting a medal from a police group for his work on El Chapo) would stay to see him prosecuted. [More...]

Everdell also worked on the cases of several of the bigger snitches at El Chapo's trial, such as Jorge Milton Cifuentes-Villa and his brother Hildebrando. But Everdell filed motions to withdraw from all his cases in November, 2016 and entered private practice a few months later. I think there's a story there, but I have no idea what it is, other than maybe he wanted El Chapo tried in the SDNY and got mad that the EDNY got the case. Again, just supposition but his departure stuck out to me like a sore thumb.

Second, the letter asks the court to set a bail hearing (not a detention hearing) on Friday afternoon July 10, and says this is the date and time Everdale requested, which is fine with the Government.

Lastly, the Government's letter says the Government agrees that Everdale's proposal that he file his bond motion Thursday by noon and the Government will answer Friday by noon, in time to have the hearing Friday afternoon. If the bail issue were still contested, it sure doesn't give the Government much time to respond. And what court wants to read the first side's argument late Thursday and the second sides' argument an hour or two before the hearing the next day when such a big decision -- bail or pretrial detention until trial-- is on deck?

Answer: Notwithstanding the motion for detention the Government filed last week seeking pretrial detention and no bail for Maxwell before trial, it appears to me the parties now have an agreement for pre-trial release on bond. Perhaps they differ on a condition or two, which will be apparent from their motions, but the timing signals to me they are in basic agreement that she should be released.

I think the most critical clue is that the defense asked for a Friday afternoon hearing. Who does that when whether you win or lose, your client is likely to spend another weekend in jail? If the matter proceeded to a contested hearing, and the judge ruled Maxwell should be released on bail Friday afternoon, the Government could throw a wrench in the whole thing because just by telling the court they intend to appeal the release order. The Court would have to grant a stay of the release order and hold Ghislaine in custody until a reviewing court rules on the Government's appeal.

Conversely, if Maxwell proceeded to a contested hearing on Friday afternoon and lost, she'd also be facing a wasted weekend in jail because there'd be no way to schedule a review hearing before Monday. At least if the hearing was Thursday and she lost, the review/ appeals papers could be filed Friday morning and an expedited hearing date be set. I just can't think of a defense lawyer who would pick Friday afternoon for a bail hearing unless he had an agreement with the government as to release on bail.

The accusers will be so upset if Ghislaine gets bail. Virginia Roberts, aka Guiffre, says she cried "happy tears" after her arrest. The accusers seem to have Ghislaine all but drawn and quartered.

One more note: There are so many media references to Maxwell being "on the lam". Baloney. The indictment wasn't issued until June 29, an arrest warrant would not have issued before then. It was the media she was hiding from since Epstein's death, not the law.

2020 meet 2002, nothing has changed, Guilt Sells in America.

< Sunday Open Thread: Post-Holiday Edition | Supreme Court: Trump Not Immune From DA's Subpoena of Tax Records >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hiring as her defense attorney someone (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 06, 2020 at 06:59:47 PM EST
    whose principal experience is as a prosecutor in that same district (and not very long ago) may also suggest she is contemplating the strategy of trading information for leniency. Do you think the Sovereign District of New York (as the SDNY prosecutors like to refer to themselves, and as federal prosecutors in other district call them by way of criticizing their failure to comply with national policy directives) has the ovaries to go after Prince Andrew? And is G-Max frightened enough of what could happen to her to turn on her oldest and most "important" friend?

    Inquiring minds want to know! (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2020 at 07:16:59 PM EST
    A question that (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 06, 2020 at 09:07:37 PM EST
    for some reason not enough people are asking is, who told Acosta Epstein "belongs to intelligence"?

    Whoever it was, they were apparently in enough of a position of authority to make Alex snap-to pretty quckly.

    So why isn't that line of inquiry being pursued?

    The judge denied the joint request (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    for a Friday bond hearing, and set it as a videolink hearing (from the detention center, that is) on Thursday. (Saw this bulletin Tuesday morning, but cannot find now where I saw it, so no link; sorry.) If that is correct, it is a pretty clear indication that the judge is leaning toward pretrial detention and against granting bond.  

    well if the Government withdraws its (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    motion for detention, the court could only decide to detain her on its own if it finds

    "A)a serious risk that such person will flee;
    (B)a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror."

    To deny bond based on the presumption re: the seriousness of the offense requires a motion by the government. (I'm assuming the government withdraws its motion. I don't think I've ever had a judge who denied bond when the Government didn't seek detention).


    The government's preliminary motion (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    for detention makes a pretty strong case for insurmountable risk of flight, don't you think?

    How Does One Handle the Issue of Client Safety? (none / 0) (#6)
    by msaroff on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    Assuming that the allegations are untrue, there are many people interested into taking matters into their own hands, and others who simply do not want the sort of through investigation of the matter that a vigorous defense would provide.

    There are therefore a lot of people who want her dead, and how does one keep Ms. Maxwell physically safe?

    She is quite wealthy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    and can afford whatever private security she wants and feels she needs.

    I am more worried about the case if bail is denied (none / 0) (#9)
    by msaroff on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    I'm thinking about what happened to Epstein.

    I do not know what you think "happened (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 07, 2020 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    to Epstein." Myself, I have no reason to think he did not commit suicide, taking advantage of total dereliction of duty by the overworked and under-motivated BOP staff. I gather you are implying that you somehow have reason to believe otherwise.

    I never had much opinion on this. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 08, 2020 at 09:12:17 AM EST
    Until I saw the Netflix doc. Considering the depths of depravity that Epstein reveled in, AND considering the people he knew and connections he had, I don't believe for a second that Epstein committed suicide. Suicide seems to be completely counter to the person the documentary described.

    But then, I think the Warren Report is a work of fiction.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 08, 2020 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    about the Warren Commission Report, and I am far from a conspiracy theorist, as you know.

    I could see Epstein (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 08, 2020 at 10:27:08 AM EST
    killing himself if he was very emotionally invested in his public image and in his group status amongst the 1%. This was the end of his high-flying, rarefied existence. Plus, all the inconvenient questions he could avoid answering for only so long and the people he might be forced to give up..

    Also, he was probably looking at spending a long time in protective custody and living in fear that a 'mistake' might place him in with the general population, which has been known to happen.

    I think he took the Frank Pantangeli in Godfather II way out.


    Defense Lawyers (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alexei Schacht on Wed Jul 08, 2020 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    I think there is no mystery as to why Everdell left the SDNY before the Guzman case was tried. He was never really part of the investigation. The case was an EDNY/SDFL/NDDS prosecution all the way. El Paso and and SDCA had indictments also, and Chicago was interested as well. But this as always going to be EDNY as they had the most and best cooperators and AG who made the decision (Loretta Lynch) came from EDNY. And Guzman was never indicted in the SDNY.

    The lack of a notice of appearance is curious. Docket entry number 8 is a letter from Everdell's partner Mark Cohen and they could not file this letter without first filing a notice of appearance. It almost seems like maybe its an ECF problem since Cohen could not file a letter without being counsel on the case. Strange.  

    In many districts (including my own home dist) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 08, 2020 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    You don't have to enter an appearance on a separate document in a federal criminal case. You file whatever is the first thing you want to file -- a motion, a letter, whatever -- and if the ECF system does not recognize you as involved in the case you get a query screen asking if you want to be added to the case, and if so, in what capacity ("lead counsel" or "notice," basically). If you check "lead," you have entered your appearance.