Supreme Court rejects Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her criminal conviction

[Coldwater]

Trump and is MAGA buddies are going to have to do their own dirty work

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Ghislaine Maxwell’s challenge to her criminal conviction for recruiting and grooming teenage girls for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.

Maxwell’s lawyer David Oscar Markus argued in court papers that an agreement Epstein made with prosecutors in Florida, in which the then-U.S. attorney pledged not to prosecute him or potential co-conspirators, should apply to one of the three counts in her case, which was prosecuted in New York.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1Nvzwp.img?w=768&h=511&m=6&x=571&y=285&s=321&d=321

"We’re, of course, deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s case," Markus said in a statement. "But this fight isn’t over. Serious legal and factual issues remain, and we will continue to pursue every avenue available to ensure that justice is done," he added.

The decision means that Maxwell’s conviction on three counts and her 20-year criminal sentence remain in place.

Link

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rejects-epstein-associate-ghislaine-maxwell-s-appeal-of-her-criminal-conviction/ar-AA1NXf7s?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=68e3f021939540d493f6cc493b0e0a03&ei=10

[newdeal2]

1. They tossed us a bone

It didn’t cost them or Trump anything really. Now they can go forward with trashing the rest of the constitution and pretend like they’re impartial.

[Maru Kitteh]

3. Hmm, not sure about that. I think it's Trump they're tossing the bone to. Maxwell

is in probably the best possible place for Trump right now. She is the most controllable, right now, where she is.

This bone was not for the victims or the public good, it was for Orange Jim Jones.

[bif]

2. DUPE

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220701053

[UTUSN]

4. K&R

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court won't review Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, which cited Epstein agreement

The convicted sex trafficker invoked Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous non-prosecution agreement that barred prosecuting his co-conspirators.

Supreme Court won’t review Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal, which cited Epstein agreement www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...

— Minka (@minkab.bsky.social) 2025-10-06T14:35:08.693Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/ghislaine-maxwell-appeal-supreme-court-epstein-trump-rcna235391

The Supreme Court declined to review Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal, in a rejection that could keep the sex trafficker locked up for another decade if President Donald Trump doesn’t grant her clemency.....

The federal Bureau of Prisons lists Maxwell’s release date as July 17, 2037. The 63-year-old was moved to a minimum-security facility after she had an unusual meeting this summer with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (a former Trump personal lawyer), during which she said she never saw Trump do anything “inappropriate.” Her conviction followed Epstein’s 2019 death in custody while he was being held on his own related charges.

Monday’s denial comes amid political fallout from the Trump administration’s attempts to fend off intense backlash to its refusal to release all the information it has on the late disgraced financier.

The legal argument in Maxwell’s petition centered on Epstein’s notorious non-prosecution agreement in Florida that said, in part, that “the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.” She argued that the agreement should have applied to her New York case. The Trump Justice Department opposed high court review, arguing, among other things, that the agreement wasn’t intended to bind districts outside of Florida.

Maxwell had urged the justices to take her case not only to resolve her appeal but also to settle a split among the nation’s courts about how to interpret such agreements. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers backed her appeal, asking the justices to grant review and “resolve the split among the circuits and ensure that defendants and their counsel can rely on the promises made by the United States in its written agreements.”