Connect with us

International

Ghislaine Maxwell to be sentenced in Epstein sex abuse case

Published

8 minute read

NEW YORK (AP) — Ghislaine Maxwell, the jet-setting socialite who once consorted with royals, presidents and billionaires, is set to be sentenced Tuesday for helping the wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse underage girls.

The 11 a.m. sentencing in New York is the culmination of a prosecution that detailed how the power couple flaunted their riches and prominent connections to lure vulnerable girls as young as 14, and then exploit them.

Prosecutors said Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial, sexually abused children hundreds of times over more than a decade, and couldn’t have done so without the help of Maxwell, his longtime companion and onetime girlfriend.

“Maxwell’s conduct was shockingly predatory. She was a calculating, sophisticated, and dangerous criminal who preyed on vulnerable young girls and groomed them for sexual abuse,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

In December, a jury convicted Maxwell of sex trafficking, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts and two conspiracy charges. Prosecutors say she deserves 30 to 55 years in prison.

Maxwell, 60, has denied abusing anyone. Her lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan to impose a sentence of no more than five years.

“The witnesses at trial testified about Ms. Maxwell’s facilitation of Epstein’s abuse, but Epstein was always the central figure: Epstein was the mastermind, Epstein was the principal abuser, and Epstein orchestrated the crimes for his personal gratification,” they wrote in a court filing.

Epstein and Maxwell’s associations with some of the world’s most famous people were not a prominent part of the trial, but mentions of friends like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Britain’s Prince Andrew showed how the pair exploited their connections to impress their prey.

Over the past 17 years, scores of women have accused Epstein of abusing them. Many described Maxwell as acting as a madam who recruited them to give massages to Epstein.

The trial, though, revolved around allegations from only a handful of those women.

Four testified that they were abused as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at Epstein’s mansions in Florida, New York, New Mexico and the Virgin Islands.

Three were identified in court only by their first names or pseudonyms to protect their privacy: Jane, a television actress; Kate, an ex-model from the U.K.; and Carolyn, now a mom recovering from drug addiction. The fourth was Annie Farmer, who identified herself in court by her real name after speaking out publicly.

They described how Maxwell charmed them with conversation and gifts and promises that Epstein could use his wealth and connections to help fulfill their dreams.

Then, they testified, she led them to give massages to Epstein that turned sexual and played it off as normal.

Carolyn testified that she was one of several underprivileged teens who lived near Epstein’s Florida home in the early 2000s and took up an offer to massage him in exchange for $100 bills in what prosecutors described as “a pyramid of abuse.”

Maxwell made all the arrangements, Carolyn told the jury, even though she knew the girl was only 14 at the time.

The allegations against Epstein first surfaced publicly in 2005. He pleaded guilty to sex charges in Florida and served 13 months in jail, much of it in a work-release program as part of a deal criticized as lenient. Afterward, he was required to register as a sex offender.

In the years that followed, many women sued Epstein over alleged abuse. One, Virginia Giuffre, claimed that Epstein and Maxwell had also pressured her into sexual trysts with other powerful men, including Prince Andrew. All of those men denied the allegations and Giuffre ultimately settled a lawsuit against Andrew out of court.

Federal prosecutors in New York revived the case against Epstein after stories by the Miami Herald in 2018 brought new attention to his crimes. He was arrested in 2019, but killed himself a month later.

Eleven months later after his death, Maxwell was arrested at a New Hampshire estate. A U.S., British and French citizen, she has remained in a federal jail in New York City since then as her lawyers repeatedly criticize her treatment, saying she was even unjustly placed under suicide watch days before sentencing. Prosecutors say the claims about the jail are exaggerated and that Maxwell has been treated better than other prisoners.

Her lawyers also fought to have her conviction tossed on the grounds of juror misconduct.

Days after the verdict, one juror gave media interviews in which he disclosed he had been sexually abused as a child — something he hadn’t told the court during jury selection. Maxwell’s lawyers said she deserved a new trial. A judge disagreed.

At least eight women have submitted letters to the judge, describing the sexual abuse they said they endured for having met Maxwell and Epstein. Four of them plan to make oral statements at sentencing, including two women — Annie Farmer and Kate — who testified at the trial.

In letters to the judge, six of Maxwell’s seven living siblings pleaded for leniency.

Anne Holve and Philip Maxwell, her eldest siblings, wrote that her relationship with Epstein began soon after the 1991 death of their father, the British newspaper magnate Robert Maxwell.

They said Robert Maxwell had subjected her daughter to “frequent rapid mood swings, huge rages and rejections.”

“This led her to becoming very vulnerable to abusive and powerful men who would be able to take advantage of her innate good nature,” they wrote.

Prosecutors called Maxwell’s shifting of blame to Epstein “absurd and offensive.”

“Maxwell was an adult who made her own choices,” they wrote to the court. “She made the choice to sexually exploit numerous underage girls. She made the choice to conspire with Epstein for years, working as partners in crime and causing devastating harm to vulnerable victims. She should be held accountable for her disturbing role in an extensive child exploitation scheme.”

Larry Neumeister And Tom Hays, The Associated Press

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Automotive

Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.

Key Details:

  • Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.

  • The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.

  • California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.

Diving Deeper:

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.

California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.

A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.

The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.

Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.

California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.

As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Published on

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’

The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.  

Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice. 

There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”

The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.  

The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice. 

David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities. 

Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced. 

Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one. 

He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.” 

The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?” 

It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?  

The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.  

If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic. 

There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X