Anne P. Mitchell Esq

Attorney ⚖️
Law Professor 🎓
Federal Law Author 🖋
"You are a goddess rockstar of the highest order." - Wil Wheaton

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

HERE'S WHY IT SOMETIMES *LOOKS* LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION ISN'T FOLLOWING COURT ORDERS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY ARE: STAYS EXPLAINED

by @annepmitchell - attorney, federal law author, law professor emeritus

There are some people out there who still insist that this administration just ignores court orders, and that's simply not true. They *are* following court orders in the overwhelming majority of cases, and even in the handful where they appear to be ignoring court orders, they are hanging their "ignoring" of the court orders based on how they construe those court orders, or in some cases they claim that they are trying to comply but are having difficulty doing so (in which case they are producing documents to the Court to demonstrate their claim).

Even in the now notorious "planes in the air" case, where the Court ordered the planes turned around, the administration argued that by the time they received the order the planes were no longer in U.S. airspace, and so were no longer under the jurisdiction of the Court.

The point is, they don't generally just silently ignore court orders, or even openly defy court orders.

By far the most common cause of the misunderstanding - of people thinking that the administration is just ignoring court orders - is when a court issues an injunction (which is reported in the news) and then the administration *appeals* the injunction, and a "stay" is granted (which is often *not* reported in the news).

A stay is basically a court hitting the 'pause' button on the injunction. It is a procedural mechanism which allows the otherwise-enjoined party to continue doing what the injunction prohibits (or to not do what the injunction requires) while the case is still going on in the lower court.

Again, it is a procedural action, it is *not* a decision on the merits of the case, although it *can* tell you how the court granting the stay thinks the case may go. In fact, it must predict that. Here are the factors that an appellate court must consider when deciding whether to grant a stay:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant would be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether issuance of the stay would substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.

Sometimes the same court that issues the injunction will then immediately *stay its own injunction* pending appeal, because the administration has said they are going to appeal it and requests that the injunction be stayed by the Court that issued the injunction while it is being appealed.

Of course I am simplifying for a general audience what can be a very complex area of procedure, but *generally*, for the purpose of the average person reading the news or headlines on social media, when you hear someone say "What does it matter, they will just ignore the court order anyways", well, that's just plain wrong.

(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of federal law. Never miss one of my legal updates! Get them in your inbox - it's *free*. Sign up here: https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh )

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

MAXWELL TRIAL TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7: FATHER OF THE CHILD, VIRGINIA RECRUITS, AND HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney and law professor emeritus giving you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Never miss one of my legal updates! Get them in your inbox - it's *free*. Sign up here: https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

(This is part of our ongoing series covering the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, day by day, including the transcripts for each day. Notes from the Front members: today's transcript is in your inbox so that you can follow along.)

Day 7 of the Maxwell trial starts out, as it always does, with the attorneys for both sides in conversation with the Judge, before the jury is brought in - so the jury isn't privy to any of these discussions, but we are, because we have the transcript!

There is a great deal of discussion about whether "Jane's" (one of the victims who has testified under a pseudonym - I have to imagine that by now more people are familiar with pseudonyms than ever before!) brother can be called as a witness. The defense *was* going to put him on the stand, but then they withdrew him, and now the government (who is prosecuting Maxwell) is considering subpoenaing him.

You'll also see that the Judge has made a ruling on whether something can be admitted as evidence by the government, and the Judge has ruled that the government can admit it. This is still during the conversations between just the Judge and the attorneys. And even though the Judge has already said that yes, that piece of evidence can be admitted, the defense's attorney requests the Judge's permission to object when it is admitted in front of the jury (to which the Judge agrees). In other words, Maxwell's lawyer wants to be sure that the *jury* sees that the defense has objected to the introduction of this bit of evidence.

Then the jury is brought in, and today's first witness, Janine Gill, is sworn in. Ms. Gill is a property manager in Florida and she manages... wait for it... bet you thought I was going to say Epstein's property, but nope... she manages HR for Mar-a-Lago!

She is brought in to authenticate the document that the defense objected to. First she confirms the Mar-a-Lago personnel file for Sky Roberts. He is Virginia Guffrey's (nee Roberts) father. Then she is shown what must be Virginia's birth certificate, and she confirms that it says “father of child”. That is her entire testimony at this point, but you will see how it all relates during the conversation between the Judge and the lawyers.

Gill is excused and the next witness called is Shawn (no last name for what will be obvious reasons).

Shawn is, at the time of the trial, 38-years old. He is there to testify about when he was in high school, when he was 17 and his girlfriend Carolyn was 14. Carolyn, he testifies, was recruited for Epstein by Virginia.

Then ensues a rather difficult section of testimony - here is just a bit of it:

Q. How did Jeffrey Epstein come up in that group of people?
A. Virginia said that she worked for a guy out on Palm Beach. And Carolyn could make money if she wanted to come do massages.
Q. Were you present when Virginia said that to Carolyn?
A. Yes.
Q. About how long after you met Virginia did she bring up this topic of massages in Palm Beach?
A. Two to three weeks. Very soon.
Q. What do you remember Virginia saying to Carolyn about that?
A. That she could come out and give a guy a massage, and she would leave with a couple hundred dollars.
Q. What was the name of the guy?
A. Jeffrey.
Q. How did Carolyn respond?
A. She was excited to make money.
...

Q. That first time you went to Jeffrey Epstein's house, who, if anyone, went inside the house?
A. Virginia and Carolyn.
Q. About how long were they inside?
A. An hour, hour and five minutes.
Q. After Carolyn and Virginia came back outside, what, if anything, did they have with them?
A. Money.
Q. In what denomination?
A. Hundred dollar bills.

---

I'm going to stop quoting that section of testimony here, other than this bit further down, which deserves the light of day:

Q. When Carolyn was 14 years old and going to Jeffrey Epstein's house, could you describe her level of intelligence and education?
A. She was a child. Yes, ma'am.

---

Shawn then is questioned about and reveals that he was dating two other girls at the same time he was dating Carolyn: Melissa and Amanda (it seems that Shawn was a bit of a dog in high school). And they both went to Epstein's as well.

Next comes witness Nicole Hesse. She worked at Epstein and Maxwell's house in Palm Beach, doing housekeeping and maintenance, when Epstein and Maxwell were away.

She is there to authenticate three message notebooks that contain phone messages that she personally took while Epstein and Maxwell were away. And the objections and discussions of these, starting at around page 70 of the transcript, are a *great* lesson in hearsay and the various exceptions!

I want to remind people that each of these transcripts is over 250 pages long, and so the above are just a few of the things that I pulled out which I thought would interest you. There are many, many more things in each of these transcripts.

Notes from the Front members: The trial transcript for day 7 is in your inbox now! If you're not a member you can join here now and access the document: https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

My reporting is reader-supported. If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining me and supporting my reporting (and my coffee habit). It's just $5 a month, it's easy to cancel, and you will truly be supporting what I do here. Plus as a member you get all of the documents that I include with every post! You can join at the link right above.

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word "pseudonym". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about pseudonyms! ;~)

#Epstein #EpsteinClass #Maxwell

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

BREAKING! BIPARTISAN BI-CAMERAL 'EPSTEIN TRANSPARENCY ACT II' BILL INTRODUCED JUST NOW TO ALLOW STATES, DAS, AND *VICTIMS* TO SUE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL!!

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney and law professor emeritus. Never miss one of my legal updates! Get them in your inbox now - it's *free* (I promise). Sign up here:
https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

Now how often do I use the term "Breaking!" Bloody rarely, that's how often. But this is truly breaking news!

Representative Massie JUST introduced a *bipartisan* *bi-cameral* (that means people in both the House and the Senate have signed on to sponsor it) bill that they are calling the "Epstein Files Transparency Act II"!!

And it is specifically crafted to allow states (attorneys general), district attorneys, *and members of Congress* to sue the U.S. Attorney General for "unlawfully withholding, redacting, delaying, concealing, removing, or failing to publish Epstein-related records."

But wait! There's more!! It also includes a private right of action (that means that (some) private individuals can also sue under the new statute) so that the *victims* can sue to obtain " full, unredacted records concerning themselves or the harm they suffered, including relevant FBI FD-302 reports"!!

There's more, quite a bit more, but these are the standout provisions and I've been on the go all day, and I need to eat. BUT I'm including both the announcement from Rep. Massie, and the actual text of the bill, for Notes from the Front members.

Notes from the Front members: the announcement and text of the bill are in your inbox now!

My reporting is reader-supported. If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining me and supporting my reporting (and my coffee habit). It's just $5 a month, it's easy to cancel, and you will truly be supporting what I do here. Plus as a member you get all of the documents that I include with every post! You can join here now:

https://t.co/YwOHIKWJOw

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "breaking. It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about breaking things! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

WOW! I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF TED WAITT'S TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE ABOUT EPSTEIN AND MAXWELL - SO MANY REVEALS!

What, you don't know who Ted Waitt is? Don't worry, you're not alone. He was the founder and CEO of Gateway Computers (remember them, with their cow-themed marketing materials?). But that's not the interesting part. The interesting - indeed revealing - part, is that *he was Maxwell's boyfriend*! *For 6 years*!

In his 117-page testimony (included for Notes from the Front members), Waitt shares that he first met Maxwell in 2003 during a dinner party at which Bill Clinton was also present.

There's a great deal of discussion about "what did Epstein think of your relationship", and about the fact that Maxwell was still working for Epstein during the first part of Maxwell and Waitt's relationship.

An email from Maxwell to Waitt in early 2004 is shown to Waitt. In it Maxwell tells Waitt, among other things, that "JE and I are still talking aboutthe W W H W of our relationship". Waitt is questioned about that.

Now, I have that email (included for Notes from the Front members), and what I find at least as interesting, but what is not mentioned in the testimony, is that it is part of an email chain in which Maxwell tells Waitt that she received voicemail from Waitt's estranged wife, Joan, and Maxwell tells Waitt:

"I could not hear her very clearly but what I could understand is that she was asking me to stay away from you as you were working through things - or something to that effect. I saved them if you want or need to hear them."

Because, yes, Ted Waitt was newly separated from his wife, Joan, when he first met Maxwell.

Can you imagine trying to work out your marriage - *with four children, no less* - and having Maxwell be the 'other woman'??

Then they pivot for a bit and talk about the first time that he met Hillary Clinton. He says that it was at a small private dinner with Bill and Hillary - how small, how private, who else was there, they want to know. They go off record - because they had to go off record you think that the answer to “who else was there” must be some high-powered head of state. But he says he'll answer it and it turns out that the answer is.... Ted Danson and his wife Mary Steenburgen. Oh the intrigue!

There is a lot more discussion of the Clintons, and just when you wonder why they are focusing so much on the Clintons it becomes evident with this question:

"During his deposition to this committee, President Clinton testified that he felt he was closer to Ms. Maxwell because of you. Why do you think President Clinton would say that you were the reason he was closer to Ms. Maxwell?"

Now, as a reminder, the transcripts of Bill and Hillary's closed-door depositions with the House *still* have not been officially released, but I have them for you. In fact I got the transcripts, the audio, and the video, to Notes from the Front members back in *March*. You can find them all here:

https://t.co/wnOHdFOhFz

There's also a bit where they talk about a Mr. Rothstein seeming to "request" money from Waitt in exchange for keeping Maxwell's name out of some civil lawsuits. Maxwell had told the DOJ that was the reason that she and Waitt broke up. The transaction never happened, but Maxwell's version of why they broke up is *very* different from Waitt's version (basically, he says, he knew she was never going to be a person he would marry).

And *then* they ask him about a series of monthly payments that he made to Maxwell. $30,000 a month, for about two years. What, pray tell, were these for?

"These were monthly payments I made for what I felt was my share of her and to help with her expenses of her staff, the house. I had maintained an office in the residence at East 65th Street, I had clothes there, I spent time there. And I think she -- I was just providing financial support because I was using it so I felt it was the right thing to do."

$30,000 a month. For his share of her personal expenses.

What do you think about that?

And yet, when asked "Was it your understanding that Ms. Maxwell probably was not able to cover the totality of those expenses on her own?" he responded:

"I was never privy to Ms. Maxwell's financial affairs. But I think she appreciated the assistance."

So, we are to believe that he said something like "Hey, I have no idea what it costs you to run your household, but let me contribute, how does $30,000 sound?"

But here's the thing: those payments were made to an LLC - the 116 East 65th Street, LLC - ...and that LLC was controlled by… wait for it.. Darren Indyke.

*Now* what do you think of that?

There's more, of course, much more, and for Notes from the Front members who want to delve into it, both the transcript of Ted Waitt's testimony, and that email between Maxwell and Waitt, are in your inbox now.

If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! It's just $5 a month and not only will you be supporting my research and reporting for you, but you will have access to all of the documents, to our livestreams, and to our members-only chat! You can join here and of course you can cancel any time!

https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the number $30,000. It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about thirty-thousand dollars! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

WOW!! I HAVE THE *FULL* INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PRISON LEADING UP TO AND INCLUDING EPSTEIN'S DEATH

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

Yesterday I shared with you the 1953 Trust which Epstein executed, along with his will, just a couple of days before he died. And I told you about the phone call that he made just hours before he died, and I told you that call was not only *not* to his mother as he had claimed to the prison personnel (in fact she had been dead for years), but it was to the primary beneficiary of the 1953 Trust, his girlfriend Karyna Shuliak. AND I told you how in the Trust, Shuliak was given, among other things, the diamond ring and 48 loose diamonds that we had discussed finding last week! AND that it turned out he was planning to marry her!

Finally, in terms of refreshing your memory, I told you that the DOJ had "invited" Shuliak to tell them what was said in that phone call, and that she "declined", but that her lawyer told the DOJ that while his client did not want to talk to them (imagine that) that the lawyer could share that they talked about "books, music, and hygiene while incarcerated", and how the press surrounding Epstein had "gotten crazy".

Well, as a result of all of my digging and investigating, yesterday I came across the full, unredacted report that the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) produced based on their investigation.

Some of you may have seen some of it before, but *now* we know so much more, so that it brings some of the content and conclusions into context. (And yes, I'm including the full 128-page report for Notes from the Front members.)

I want to focus on two things in the report, although of course all of it is ..interesting, to tie it in to our previous discussions: Shuliak, and the "flash of orange" on the security camera video.

For some reason they don't use Shuliak's name at all, anywhere in the report, but rather refer to her as "Individual 1".

And yet, in the executive summary at the top, they say "Although Epstein said he was calling his mother, in actuality he called someone with whom he allegedly had a personal relationship."

Clearly in the executive summary they are identifying Shuliak, even if not by name, while in the full report they sanitize it to "Individual 1".

It's almost as if one person wrote the executive summary, and another wrote the detailed report, and .. .could it be?.. that one hand at the DOJ didn't know what the other was doing?

Anyways, in the full report, under the heading "Epstein is Allowed to Make an Unmonitored Telephone Call on August 9", the details about the phone call take up three full pages, and then the section detailing their *investigation* into the phone call, headed "MCC New York Staff Allowed Epstein to Place an Unmonitored Telephone Call on August 9", take up the better part of two more pages, and that is where we are going to focus our attention.

That section starts out saying "The OIG’s investigation and review revealed that on the night before his death, Epstein placed an unrecorded, unmonitored telephone call using a non-Inmate Telephone System line from p.m. to p.m. Other than an MCC New York call log, no other BOP records exist regarding this unmonitored call, including the identity of the person Epstein called or a summary of the conversation."

Then there is some language about the rules and procedures around this call that were *supposed* to be followed, but weren't, and then the investigation goes on to say "The Unit Manager told the OIG that he escorted Epstein from his attorney visit to the shower area of the SHU, where he connected a telephone into an unrecorded legal line and dialed the phone number provided by Epstein. The Unit Manager said that when a male answered the call, he handed the telephone to Epstein, and then left MCC New York for the day because his shift had ended."

Wait a darned minute. A *male* answered the phone? That means that there was a man with Shuliak, and he answered the phone and then handed it to her. This may mean nothing - or it may mean that, for example, the man who answered was one of Epstein's attorneys (making his using the 'legal line' seem legit) BUT clearly the man was *not* Epstein's mother (which is to whom the Unit Manager was led to believe Epstein was making the call). We need to know who that man is, and what he knows! Because I’m guessing that this was a prearranged call, and he knows something.

The more you dig into this stuff, even if it clears up one mystery, it leads to three more mysteries.

Which is my cue to turn to the "flash of orange".

I'm sure you all know that the security cameras (air quotes) malfunctioned (/air quotes) the night that Epstein died. But one camera caught something, which has been reported as, and our transcript of Tova Noel's testimony (I sent you that two days ago) confirms, "A flash of orange can be seen going up the stairs of L tier. Inmates are currently on lockdown, it is possible someone is carrying inmate linen or bedding up the stairs."

But what you may not have heard is that Epstein hung himself, or was hung, by a strip of *orange cloth*.

(In fact the right-hand image in the screenshot attached to this post, which are two of the photos contained in the report, is of the cloth that was around his neck.)

Remember when I said that the more you dig into this stuff the more it leads to more, not fewer, mysteries?

I'm thinking that it's possible that the "flash of orange" was someone bringing the orange cloth to Epstein's cell, either to hang him or so he could hang himself.

(WARNING: The report includes a description of the position of the body when they found it, which I found fascinating and think points to his having... help... in doing it, but that's just me.)

As I've said elsewhere, when you add *everything* up on the timeline, including his executing the will and the trust, and then his calling Shuliak, who was the prime beneficiary of that trust, the next day and right before he died - it's pretty clear that Epstein *knew* he was going to die in the very near future, one way or another. In fact I think that it's likely that he knew when he spoke with Shuliak that it was going to happen before the next morning. As I keep saying - he was an asset (that much is clear from that 3-hour secret recording of him, Ehud Barak, and Larry Summers), and when you are an asset who gets captured you either take yourself out or someone will do it for you, because you know too much. Those "asset bites a cyanide capsule" scenes in the movies are based on reality.

There is of course a lot more in this report, and I look forward to what you Notes from the Front citizen sleuths find! If you're not a Notes from the Front citizen sleuth, I hope that you'll join us in this one!

Notes from the Front members: the full report on the investigation is in your inbox now. Be sure to let us know what you find in our private chat here: https://t.co/t4tVxawzKY

If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! It's just $5 a month and not only will you be supporting my research and reporting for you, but you will have access to all of the documents, to our live shows, and to our *private* members-only chat! You can join here and of course you can cancel any time!

https://t.co/imzXgolXqp

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "flash. It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about flashes! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

OMG!! REMEMBER THE DIAMONDS AND FAKE PASSPORTS IN EPSTEIN'S SUITCASES? REMEMBER EPSTEIN'S LAST CALL?? I FOUND THE DOCUMENT THAT TIES THEM ALL TOGETHER!!

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - giving you zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

Remember when I had to cut my post about the prison guard's testimony in Epstein's death inquiry short yesterday because I'd just discovered a different document that needed its own post? This is that post.

And yes, those are Jeffrey Epstein's initials in the screenshot attached to this post.

What I found is the elusive 1953 Trust. They tried to keep this document secret for years. You've all seen Epstein's last will, which he curiously executed just 48 hours before he died. It's like he knew he was going to die soon, and as you who follow me know, I firmly believe that he *did* know, because as a compromised asset he knew that he either needed to take himself out or be taken out.

Well the 1953 Trust was also updated and execute two days before Epstein's death.

And yesterday I told you about the last phone call that Epstein made - the shower call - which he told prison personnel was a call to his mother, but she'd actually died in 2004.

It was actually to his girlfriend Karyna Shuliak. Correction - according to the 1953 Trust, *fiancée* Karyna Shuliak.

Now, remember my post from a couple of weeks ago, in which I'd found the FBI's inventory of two suitcases that had been seized after the FBI raided Epstein's house? You will recall that those two suitcases *weren't at* Epstein's house when it was raided because Richard Kahn had them in his possession, and eventually he turned them over to the FBI (which is when they inventoried them).

(If you're a new Notes from the Front member and so didn't receive either the guard's testimony or the documents in the FBI inventory you can find them in the archive here: https://t.co/CZ82rBstIk )

Ok, so recall that in the FBI inventory there was a diamond ring, along with exactly (and this is important) 48 loose diamonds.

There were also assorted other things, including a fake passport with Epstein's image but in someone else's name, and a fake Treasury agent badge.

But it is the diamonds on which we are going to focus, and tie this all together.

BECAUSE IN THE 1953 TRUST EPSTEIN GIVES THE DIAMOND RING AND THE EXACTLY 48 DIAMONDS TO KARYNA SHULIAK!!

What's more, in the trust, in a handwritten addendum.. HE SAYS HE WAS PLANNING TO MARRY HER!!

But wait, there's more, this document (included for Notes from the Front members) reveals *so much* of the untold story!

In the 1953 Trust ("1953" because that was the year that Epstein was born.) there are *40* separate money bequests to *named* individuals, *all* at least $1million, going up to $50million for Darren Indyke!

No wonder nobody wanted this document to surface!

But surface it did, in a DOJ drop after which it was quickly disappeared (it may or may not be there now, whether a document is on the DOJ site these days seems to depend on the phase of the moon, the alignment of the planets, and the combined IQ of the DOJ staff on any given day).

So, to tie it all together, here is the almost-certain scenario:

Epstein knows that his days are numbered. Either he has been tipped off that he's going to be eliminated, or he's decided to do it himself first. Either way he knows that he's not going to be around for very long.

On August 8th he executes the updated will and 1953 Trust.

On August 9th, as was his usual practice, he spent a lot of time in an attorney conference room at the MCC prison. Then when he was brought back up to the area with his cell, he was taken to make that phone call, the phone call to his "mother" who was actually girlfriend Karyna Shuliak.

There is almost *zero* way that Epstein did not discuss the contents of the trust with Shuliak during that call, which I believe he knew was going to be his final call to her. Mere hours later (early on August 10th) he was dead.

Now, in yet *another* document that I just found (which also needs its own post, which I will do) I learned that Karyna "declined" to be interviewed by the Feds about the content of that phone call (or anything else). Her attorney told the Feds that "Epstein told [Shuliak] that the press had gotten crazy, and they discussed personal things such as books, music, and hygiene while incarcerated" and that Epstein told her "that he loved her, to be strong, and that he would not be able to call her again for another month."

And, again, by the next morning he was dead.

Among other things you will see in the 1953 Trust are the names (some redacted) of 22 individuals and businesses who owed Epstein money, including Leslie Groff and Shuliak herself. The trustees are directed to, essentially, pay off their debts.

As I said, this is a very interesting and revealing document, which has remained mostly buried until the DOJ released it for a bit.

Notes from the Front members: the 1953 Trust document is in your inbox now. Note that it is a confidential document - do *not* post it publicly.

If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! It's just $5 a month to get all my posts right in your inbox (stop relying on this site's algorithm! :~) ) and not only will you be supporting my research and reporting for you, but you will get immediate access to this document and all of our documents, to our live videos, and to our *private* members-only chat! You can join here and of course you can cancel any time!

https://t.co/pQfWAvnElh

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "diamonds". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about diamonds! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

HOLY COW!! I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SECURITY GUARD ON DUTY ON THE NIGHT OF EPSTEIN'S DEATH AND IT'S SO INCRIMINATING! (BUT NOT IN THE WAY YOU THINK)

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - providing you with zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

Mystery continues to surround the circumstances of Jeffrey Epstein's death, and one of the people at the center of it is one of the guards at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) who was on duty that night, Tova Noel. And I have the transcript of her closed-door testimony before Congress.

You see there were two guards on that particular duty at that time, Noel and Ghitto Bonhomme. And during the time that Epstein either killed himself or was killed*, Bonhomme was asleep. So it was just Noel.

(*I want to be clear that I am convinced that Epstein did die that night, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that some of the evidence I have uncovered makes clear that he was an asset to at least one government. I'm not saying he was a spy, I'm saying he was an asset - a useful person, and a person who *knew a lot*. A person who knew too much to risk having him spill what he knew in a trial in order to save his own skin. Assets know that when they are compromised they either need to take themselves out, or they will be taken out. More on that below.)

By now you likely know that there were "security camera failures" during the night that Epstein died, and most of you have heard of the infamous "flash of orange" that appeared on the one security camera that caught something.

Noel *swears* that the flash of orange was *not* her, and goes into great detail explaining how it could not have been her. But the only other person who was supposed to be there was Bonhomme, and he was asleep.

And *nobody* else was supposed to be in that area - it was, after all, after 10pm.

When you read this you will learn that Epstein spent nearly all of his waking hours in the attorney conference area. Noel says "I had limited interactions with Mr. Epstein because he spent most of each day downstairs in the attorney conference room."

You will also learn that the way that inmates made phone calls was by a guard or other personnel bringing them a phone which would be plugged into a jack in the wall. And it seems that the one working phone jack at the time was by the shower. This is why you will see Noel saying that Epstein made a call from the shower the night before he died.

It's important to note that the line feeding the shower jack was a "legal line", meaning for inmates to call their lawyers, so it was *not* a recorded line.

So that the call was made "in the shower" was not really unusual. What *was* unusual is that a) the person who brought Epstein from the attorney conference room to the shower and gave him the phone was not a guard, it was a counsellor and/or MCC 'manager' named Bullock, b) the call went *unmonitored* (Bullock or *someone* should have stayed nearby for the duration of the call), and c) Epstein had said that he needed to call his mother which was unusual because d) his mother had died several years before. Which one would think that Bullock should have known.

Here's who it has been determined he called (not his mother from beyond to tell her he was on his way). He called his girlfriend, Karyna Shuliak. I believe to tell *her* that he was about to take a trip to the beyond. Because Shuliak was a *huge* beneficiary of Epstein's trust and of course if he knew he was not long for this world he would want to make sure she knew about his bequest to her and...HOLY FLOCK!!! I just now while writing this discovered something else *huge* in a different document having to do with Shuliak and Epstein's bequest to her! It needs its own post so I'm going to close this post and start on the next one. (Oh by the way, the indictment is of the entire system at MCC! When you read this document you will see that there were *so many procedural breakdowns*, that Noel was pressured to falsify records (including Noel being told to sign a form saying she had completed her training *when she hadn't), that the guards were pressured to pull double overnight shifts (so many that with the overtime Noel hit her annual salary just halfway through the year), and many more *shocking* process and procedure shortcuts and just plain negligence and dereliction of duty!)

In the meantime, Notes from the Front members: Tova Noel's testimony is in your inbox. Please join our discussion in our private chat on Substack with your thoughts! Here's the link so you don't have to go find it - new members are also welcome to join the chat! https://t.co/lPtBgKJnha

If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! It's just $5 a month and not only will you be supporting my research and reporting for you, but you will have access to all of the documents, to our live shows, and to our private members-only chat! (No trolls because trolls won't pay even $5 to do their trolling!) You can join here and get this document immediately, and of course you can cancel any time!

https://t.co/fNGAGBWvLy

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUenUo

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "shower". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about showers. :~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

I HAVE THE FULL OPENING STATEMENT MADE BY EPSTEIN ASSISTANT AND "CO-CONSPIRATOR" LESLIE GROFF TO THE HOUSE LAST WEEK AND IT'S EYE-OPENING

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

Last week Leslie Groff, who worked for Jeffrey Epstein as an assistant for nearly 20 years, testified behind closed doors for the House Oversight Committee. But I have her *full* opening statement (as do Notes from the Front members, I have made it into a pdf for you and it's in your inbox now).

Why Groff's testimony didn't draw as much media attention as did Sarah Kellen's I don't know. It should have.

In it Groff provides a *very* detailed view into the day-to-day goings-on in Epstein's world. She describes a terrifying environment of being on call constantly, and where any misstep could lead to her being fired. As an example of the former, she describes being ordered *very late in the day* to "source a dozen chocolate croissants made in New York, to be delivered to Palm Beach by 9:00 the next morning."

And as an example of the latter, "When I made an error with an appointment, he screamed that I ruined his day and that the time he lost could never be replaced." (How do you like the time you are losing now, Jeff?)

Groff was under the same strict orders that we heard about from Juan Alessi in day 4 of the Maxwell trial: she was not to speak with anybody, "I was never to associate with their friends or contacts. Or I would be fired."

And she refers to Helen Kim, someone whom I think needs to be subpoenaed. You see, Leslie Groff was hired to *replace* Helen Kim as Epstein's assistant. Kim *trained* Groff. Yet we almost never hear about her. In fact, pretty much the only place you will hear about Helen Kim is in transcripts. (We'll hear more about both Kim and former Epstein assistant Kimberly Espinoza on day 11 of the Maxwell trial.)

Anyways, this 11-page opening statement is really illuminating. Plus providing the name of at least one more person who needs to be subpoenaed.

Also I will leave you with this one thought - after you read what Leslie Groff says about being one of the named co-conspirators who are to be untouchable, with full immunity, in Epstein's plea deal, see if you don't agree with me about this: It occurs to me that maybe Epstein included the names of the four women as co-conspirators not out of some fealty to these women, but to *set them up to take a fall for him in the future*.

Notes from the Front members: Leslie Groff's statement is in your inbox now. Please join our discussion in our private chat on Substack with your thoughts! Here's the link so you don't have to go find it - new members are also welcome to join the chat! https://t.co/lPtBgKJV6I

If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! It's just $5 a month and not only will you be supporting my research and reporting for you, but you will have access to all of the documents, to our live shows, and to our private members-only chat! (No trolls because trolls won't pay even $5 to do their trolling!) You can join here and get this document immediately, and of course you can cancel any time!

https://t.co/DXbW13jNoG

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "croissants". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about croissants ;~) (And darn it, now I'm hungry!)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

WOW.. TRANSCRIPT OF DAY 4 OF THE MAXWELL TRIAL: MASTERCLASS ON CHILD SEX ABUSE, ALESSI'S EYE-OPENING TESTIMONY INCLUDING VIRGINIA, ORDERS HE WAS UNDER, AND SO MUCH MORE!

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

On the fourth day of the trial of Ghislane Maxwell - and by inference Jeffrey Epstein in absentia - you're going to hear from witnesses of whom you likely have never heard, and one that you have.

The first is Paul Kane from the Professional Children's School. He is the Director of Finance, and he is there to talk about how Epstein financed "Jane's" tuition at the school.

But it is the *next* witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, whose testimony is going to open your eyes. Dr. Rocchio is a highly credentialed psychologist specializing in child sexual abuse trauma. What's more, she's an expert *forensic* psychologist. And she walks us through several aspects of that, including not just the trauma of the acts themselves, but what the *betrayal of trust*, the trust which the victim has been groomed to develop in the perpetrator - what that *betrayal* does to someone.

I think you'll learn as much from the cross-examination as from the direct testimony. And note how the defense tries to make into a weakness the very thing that the prosecution has made a strength: namely that Dr. Rocchio does not know the victims, has never met with the victims, and is speaking from clinical and forensic expertise.

Also note how many of the defense's questions for Dr. Rocchio aren't really for her at all - they are the legal equivalent of political theater - they are legal theater for the jury.

But Dr. Rocchio, well, this isn't her first rodeo (which I think rhymes with Rocchio) and she handles herself very well in the face of the defense's trying to discredit her background.

And juuuust when you think "wow, this transcript was a two-fer!".. .nope! Because here comes Juan Alessi on the witness stand!

Now some of you may know that Alessi served as something of a maintenance man, handyguy, and household overseer for Epstein. But did you know that before that he worked for... wait for it.. Les Wexner's *mother*??

Alessi reveals a lot from the stand, including that Maxwell was in fact, at least for a time, Epstein's girlfriend. I mean, we knew that, in our hearts, but here is corroboration. Alessi started working for Epstein in 1990, and when Maxwell arrived on the scene in 1991 she advised Alessi that she was now "the lady of the house". Eventually she interfered with Alessi's relationship with Epstein to the point that she instructed Alessi to only speak to Epstein when spoken to, and to never make eye contact with him.

And then there is this exchange:

Q. Over the years that you worked for Mr. Epstein, about how many times do you remember seeing the female guests by the pool?

A. Oh, many, many times. Over the 12 years that I work there, hundreds of times.

Q. And over those hundreds of times, about what percentage of the time were those females topless?

A. I would say 75, 80 percent probably.

75 TO 80 PERCENT OF THE TIME!!

Of course by seeing other girls topless, it would normalize it for anyone who was reluctant.

And by normalizing being topless, well...

You'll also read what life was like for Juan Alessi under Maxwell and Epstein's rule. Because that's what it was. Just as the girls were treated like objects, so it was for Juan Alessi: he was an object to be subjugated.

And the household manual - oh..my...gawd. Maxwell apparently thought she was the freakin' Queen of Epsteinland and all of the help were her subjects.

And it includes this very telling instruction:

"Remember that you see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing".

Chilling.

And he talks about seeing Jane.. and Virginia. About picking Jane up from school.

And how *he saw Virginia at Mar-a-Lago*! And saw her arrive for the first time at the house! This is the first time that we have had an eye-witness to Maxwell’s meeting Virginia, verifying everything that Virginia said in terms of when and how she was ensnared by Maxwell!

There's a lot more to Alessi's testimony in this transcript. Be sure to look for where he talks about the Rolodex.

Notes from the Front members: the original transcript is in your inbox now!

If you're not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! It's just $5 a month and not only will you be supporting my research and reporting for you, but you will have access to all of the documents, to our live shows, and to our *private* members-only chat! You can join here and of course you can cancel any time!

https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "Rolodex". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about a Rolodex! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

WOW. SO MUCH REVEALED BY FIRST VICTIM WITNESS IN MAXWELL EPSTEIN TRIAL AND WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

For those just joining us we're going through the transcripts of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, however the thing is - and many people seem to not realize this - the trial transcripts reveal *so much* about Epstein and his actions as well. And these transcripts are the closest we will ever come to having Epstein himself on trial because, well, he either killed himself, or was killed, *before* he could stand trial.

Think about that - Epstein was in prison *awaiting* trial - it's entirely plausible that someone had him taken out before he could stand trial - before that trial would reveal so many things that so many people want to keep hidden. I am the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist, but it's very clear that he was an asset, and when assets are compromised they know they either need to take themselves out or they will be taken out.

By our going through these transcripts, gleaning what we can, *this* is one way to honour the victims - to try to give them at least some modicum of justice.

And so I am explaining these transcripts and going through them with you, one day at a time - all 22 days of the trial and sentencing (with the actual transcripts included for Notes from the Front members).

We are on day 3 of the trial and transcript, but first I want talk about what happened in the second half of day 2, because that is when the first victim takes the stand. (Notes from the Front members, you received the day 2 trial transcript yesterday - if you missed that you can join now and get access to the previous transcripts.)

You will remember that there was a victim referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane'. And now Jane has taken the stand.

Here is a some of Jane's initial testimony:

---
Q. Now, Jane, I want to ask you, did there come a time in your life when you met someone named Jeffrey Epstein?

A. Yes.

Q. What year was that?

A. 1994.

Q. Did there come a time in your life when you had sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein?

A. Yes.

Q. How old were you when that first happened?

A. Fourteen years old.

Q. Did that happen once or more than once when you were 14 years old?

A. More than once.

Q. Was there ever anyone else in the room with you when you had sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein when you were 14 years old?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was most frequently in the room when you had sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein when you were 14 years old?

A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
---

Now, I want to remind you that *I* know, with 99% certainty (even more certain than I was yesterday as I have done further research) who 'Jane' is and, again, I am not going to share that publicly. And knowing who it is makes it all the more real :~( because I can actually visualize her, Epstein, and Maxwell. :~(

Jane goes into a *lot* more in her day 2 testimony, including descriptions of orgies, which I will not repeat here. For those of you who have yesterday's transcript, Jane's testimony starts on page 158.

Ok, on to day 3.

Day 3 picks up with Jane where day 2 left off, after some housekeeping/administrative discussion between Judge Nathan and the attorneys.

Then Jane comes back to the stand. The attorneys take her through her time at Interlochen Center for the Arts. This seems to be one of Epstein and Maxwell's prime hunting spots.

Once again the defense takes the angle of attacking Jane's credibility, and also trying to get her to say that everything bad that happened was Epstein, although from the above-quoted day 2 testimony you can see very clearly just how involved Maxwell was.

And you can understand why so few victims want to testify.

You will also notice that in several places the defense refers to FBI 302s (remember those are the written records of statements given to the FBI by people who have witnessed or are victims of a crime). As I have told you elsewhere, people can, and do, say anything in those statements, including things that are not (and could not possibly be) true - *but* they are also essentially under oath when they give those statements, and so they are useful for impeaching a witness on the stand. BUT you also have to remember that 302s are what the witness said orally to the FBI agent, and then the agent is taking it down, and the agent is transcribing it. So the agent's narrative as recorded in the 302 can be *wrong*. Not generally, and not broadly, but as it comes to specifics, which you will see in this transcript.

And you will *love* how the Judge takes the defense attorney to task for trying to introduce impeachment evidence from documents that *haven't been submitted as evidence" by just reading them, complaining that Jane's testimony "has changed like a hundred thousand times". At the end of that exchange Judge Nathan simply closes that discussion with "We're in vigorous disagreement." Fortunately, what the Judge says goes. :~)

You'll also love the 'cleanup' that the prosecution's attorney that day, Ms. Moe, does after the defense's cross-examination is done (this is known as re-direct), which includes:

---

Q. And you were asked about whether in your meetings with the government you were asked about the questions that I was going to ask you on direct examination. Do you remember being asked about that?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did I or any other prosecutor ever tell you what to say on the witness stand at this trial?

A. No.

Q. What did we tell you to do?

A. Just tell the truth.

Q. Has anyone told you what to say at this trial?

A. No.

And...

Q. I want to ask you about your meetings with the government. When you met with the FBI and the government, did you cover every detail of your entire relationship with Maxwell and Epstein in every meeting with the government, or did you talk about different topics at different times at different meetings?

A. Different topics, different times, different meetings.

Q. Did you take any notes during the meetings?

A. No.

Q. Who took the notes?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you have any opportunity to review any notes or reports of any meetings for accuracy?

A. No.

---

Hopefully you see how that interchange plays into the defense trying to impeach Jane with 302s.

But here is a real bombshell:

The defense was trying to make something of the fact that Jane had spoken with a reporter and only mentioned Epstein, not Maxwell.

On redirect Ms. Moe asked Jane about this:

---

Q. When you spoke with that reporter, did that reporter threaten to reveal your identity publicly if you wouldn't speak with him?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that why you spoke with the reporter?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make an agreement with the reporter in order to make sure your identity wasn't revealed?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that agreement?

A. The agreement was to briefly discuss only how I had met Jeffrey Epstein.

Q. And in exchange for doing that, what did the reporter agree to do?

A. He promised to keep my name anonymous.

---

DISGUSTING!!!

There’s trying to get a story - and then there’s threatening to ruin someone’s life. :~(

Notes from the Front members: the transcript is in your inbox now!

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can get all of my posts *and* the documents sent directly to you! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/Np1WbsXBlc

Not a Notes member and don't want to spend $5? Join for free! (you just won't get the original documents or access to our private chat):

https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "reporter". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about a reporter! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

WOW! KELLEN WAS ALSO *MAXWELL'S* ASSISTANT, A DEEP VIEW OF ZORRO RANCH, BEDS ON PLANES, A MYSTERY, AND MORE!

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

This is day 2 of the Maxwell trial series, where we dig deep into the transcripts of each day. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because Maxwell's trial is over that there is not *important*, *very* important, and relevant, information to be found. It is in these records - sworn statements by witnesses under penalty of perjury - that we will find the nuggets that can lead us to *other* perpetrators and co-conspirators.

In today's transcript, day 2 of the trial, we get a detailed tour of Zorro Ranch and Epstein's other properties, as well as Maxwell's properties.

We also get a tour of the airplanes, *including* that some of the planes had master (in more ways than one) bedrooms - even just the thought of what went on in those bedrooms turns my stomach.

Before the jury is brought in the Court and the attorneys attend to some administrative details, for example there is a juror who has an issue with needing to travel during the trial. Then the jury is brought in and Larry Visoski is put back on the stand, and he starts with the tours.

And then a mystery: the prosecution abruptly starts questioning Visoski about whether he has ever flown Epstein to Traverse City, Michigan (yes). Does Visoski know what Interlochen is? Well, actually here is the actual dialogue from the stand:

---

Q. During what season do you remember taking those trips to Michigan?

A. I don't remember it being cold, because I know it gets pretty cold up there. It had to have been summer or, you know, maybe close to fall when cherry season was happening because I think that's the cherry capital.

Q. When traveling to Traverse City, Michigan, where, if anywhere, do you remember picking up Mr. Epstein's luggage?

A. I can only recall one time that Mr. Epstein had called or somebody notified me to pick up the luggage in the lobby of the Interlochen School of Music.

Q. About when was that?

A. I don't have an accurate date. I could only say the '90s.

Q. And what is Interlochen?

A. I believe it's a school for gifted children that are talented musicians, singers, etc., world-renowned type of school.

Q. How many, if any, female passengers who flew on Mr. Epstein's plane do you remember who were singers?

A. I can recall one.

[NOTE: Then Ms. Comey (the government's (i.e. the prosecution's) lawyer) *shows Visoski something that *only he, the jury, and the other lawyers get to see* and they continue]

Q. Now, Mr. Visoski, without saying the name out loud, would you please look at the first and last name on this exhibit.

A. Yes.

Q. Is the first and last name on that document the name of the female singer you remember being a passenger on Mr. Epstein's plane?

A. Yes.

Q. To be clear, is that the first and last name of the female singer you remember being a passenger on Mr. Epstein's plane?

A. Yes, it is.

---

Then she tells Visoski to refer to that person with the pseudonym 'Jane'.

Now here's what else you need to know, during this part of the trial, the government *also* introduced 5 birth certificates (also under seal), one each from Rhode Island, Missouri, California, Massachusetts, and England/Wales.

These birth certificates would have been introduced to prove that the people named on them were underage during certain years of the Epstein epoch. And from the chronology of the transcript, it seems very likely that one of the birth certificates belongs to 'Jane', and that she was an underage girl, picked up from Interlochen by Epstein.

WHO IS THAT SINGER??

Now, my research indicates who it likely was - in fact I’m pretty confident in my identification. But I'm not going to post it publicly (but I will share it privately with Notes from the Front members - because sharing it in a private space is *very* different than putting it out on a public social media platform).

The next person that Visoski talks about in this transcript is Virginia!

Then the defense cross-examines him and hammers him as to whether any of the women he saw on the planes who were *not* with family members looked to be under 18 (or, elsewhere, under 20). This is them trying to sow doubt in the minds of the jury, but Visoski doesn't have a degree in age estimation, *plus* of course these girls were dressed and made-up in a way to make them seem older than they were.

Then the defense gets Visoski to acknowledge that he never saw anyone engage in an intimate activity during the flights.

Well *duh*, in fact he had already said, on the stand, that the cockpit door was closed during flights. But, you see, it's all about planting things in the jury's minds.

(Then a break during which we learn that judges have "light weather robes" (and presumably cold weather robes as well).)

Then the defense tries to deflect by insinuating that Sarah Kellen was the person arranging flights with girls, not Maxwell. She is, after all, a handy co-conspirator on which to try to pin things.

Finally, for now, the defense tries to get Visoski all twisted up with regards to 'Jane'. He says he remembers meeting her once, and describes her in detail (those details matching the person I think it is). But there are 3 times when her first name appears on a passenger manifest (it's not a very common first name, although there is someone in Epstein’s orbit with the same first name - it’s all about sowing doubt).

There's quite a bit more, we're about half-way down today's transcript at this point, but I'm going to stop here. Of course Notes from the Front members can read the transcript for themselves (it’s in your inbox now!)

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can get all of my posts *and* the documents sent directly to you! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

Not a Notes member and don't want to spend $5? Join for free! (you just won't get the original documents or access to our private chat):

https://t.co/SmDqFdoIAh

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "nuggets". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about nuggets! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

THE MAXWELL SERIES: THE PRETRIAL TRANSCRIPT

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

We're kicking off the Maxwell series of 22 transcripts with the pretrial transcript of the last pretrial hearing before jury selection and the trial actually begin. This pretrial hearing took place on November 23, 2021. The trial started on November 29th (we'll be covering day 1 of the trial tomorrow). The jury has been selected, and will be seated at the beginning of the trial.

One of the benefits of starting here, then going into the transcripts for each day of the trial, then to the transcript of the sentencing, is that you will get a really good overview of how criminal trials unfold and are conducted, and Notes from the Front members who want to do a really deep dive will also have each transcript (yep, all 22 of them).

Maxwell's trial was overseen by Judge Alison Nathan, an Obama appointee. She served in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) until March of 2022, when she was confirmed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, having been nominated for that position by Biden. Where, in the transcripts, you see "The Court:", that is Judge Nathan.

As Judge Nathan calls the Court to order, she asks lead government attorney Maurene Comey if she has anything she wants to bring up before Judge Nathan starts with what's on her list. Comey does indeed have things she wants to bring up, such as the disallowing of certain topics from the defense's cross-examinations. These include questions about prior criminal convictions of the witnesses, and "other personal information that might either identify anonymized witnesses or embarrass witnesses."

Then Maxwell's lead defense attorney, Jeffrey Pagliuca, speaks up, saying that the defense believes that questions about these things should clearly be *within* bounds.

You can sense that not only is Judge Nathan no-nonsense, but as this is the culmination of a long series of court actions (the case was filed back in June of 2020, and it is now November 2021, so it's been more than a year of motions, hearings, etc.), by this time her patience may have been worn a bit thin, and she admonishes first Comey to have further dialogue with the defense, and then she admonishes the defense, interrupting Pagliuca mid-sentence, saying "You'll have a mature, reasonable discussion, and come to some agreement where agreement can be had."

Just like an overworked, weary parent lecturing her two squabbling children.

And it's only the beginning of the hearing!

Then the government (i.e. Comey - and yes she is James Comey's daughter) tells the Court that the defense has *subpoenaed* one of the victim's *attorneys* to be a witness in this case, saying that the government "has no idea what admissible testimony that attorney could possibly offer at this trial that would not be covered by attorney-client privilege."

To which Pagliuca responds "I don't think that it's appropriate for me to have to discuss defense strategy in this context."

To which *the Court* responds "That's fine. There will be no -- without briefing, you will not call an attorney for a witness, period."

Like I said, I'm pretty sure her patience is wearing thin, and the trial hasn't even started yet!

The next issue to be brought up is that there is going to be a financial institution (a representative thereof) called as a witness, and it turns out that one of the jurors (Juror 93) is an attorney at that financial institution. And that while the government attorneys were meeting with this witness there were attorneys from the financial institution (not the juror) present. This isn't an existing issue per se, but it could *become* an issue, so the government is making the Court aware of it.

By the way, you'll encounter some terms with which you may not be familiar so:

"voir dire" = jury selection

"impeach" = in the courtroom context it means to use a witness' own previous testimony or other statements to catch them in a lie. It's the legal equivalent of "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

Next the defense clarifies that because there is a massive amount of documentary evidence in this case, it will be presented electronically on screens to the witnesses on the stand, to the Court, to the jurors, and to opposing counsel, rather than passing out hard copies.

But *some* materials need to still be introduced on paper, says the Judge, because they contain sensitive, sealed information (like victim identities) that the public is not allowed to see, and the screens are visible to the public. The defense doesn't like this, he says it will be "an unwieldy and impossible project".

---
THE COURT: To use paper?

MR. PAGLIUCA: To use --

THE COURT: The way trials have been done for a very long time?
---

(I love this judge.)

As is often the case during pretrial proceedings, one side or the other is seeking to convince the judge that certain evidence should be excluded or admitted, and the judge is letting them know her ruling on that. The same goes for questions regarding the classification of witnesses (are they a witness to facts, or an expert witness), including a witness who is going to give testimony about the extraction of data from hard drives that have been submitted as evidence.

Next they take up a matter of how to word a particular jury instruction regarding the testimony of 'Witness 3', and the Court suggests:

"However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein."

You see, the government wants to add the word "solely" to that instruction; the Court says that would suggest that Maxwell *could* be convicted on the basis of that testimony if it was taken in conjunction with other testimony.

If you read the transcript you will quickly come to see that there is a reason that I say that attorneys have degrees in hair-splitting, and the conversation around the jury instruction is a great example.

You will also discover that a witness known as 'Accuser 2' is expected to testify about being victimized at Zorro Ranch where, the Court says, Accuser 2 was above the legal age of consent in New Mexico, even though *not* above the age of consent in New York, where the trial is being held.

This is the last matter of law discussed in the hearing, the very last moments of this pretrial hearing talk about how the jurors will be questioned by the Judge at the start of the trial as to whether they heard, read, saw, talked about, or researched anything about the case since they were last there.

And that's it for today!

Whew, and the trial hasn't even started yet!

Notes from the Front members: The pretrial transcript is in your inbox now.

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, the Maxwell series is a great time to join! For just $5 a month you will get all 22 transcripts and explainers, and can also stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/24mWSnmnHp

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "squabbling". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about squabbling! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

HERE IT IS! THE MAXWELL TRANSCRIPT SERIES! WE'RE GOING THROUGH 22 TRANSCRIPTS FROM PRE-TRIAL TO TRIAL TO SENTENCING. (TRANSCRIPTS INCLUDED!)

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

There was so much interest in the Maxwell transcripts that I committed to you to do a series where we go through all of the transcripts of each day of the trial, starting with the pre-trial hearing, through the entire trial, to the request for a new trial based on statements made by "Juror 50", to the actual sentencing hearing in which the judge delivered Maxwell's sentence to her. The transcripts of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial and sentencing give us both a broad and deep view into so many aspects of the inner workings of Epstein's machine, and Maxwell's roles in that machine of trauma and horrors, the latter being articulated by, among other things, all of the victim and witness testimony during the trial.

As a happy coincidence this will *also* give you a comprehensive lesson on how the criminal trial court system works / doesn't work, again, from pre-trial to conclusion. (All of course in plain English - I never imagined my background as a law professor would be being put to use like this!)

The first installment will be posted later today - I'm giving you this heads-up in case you aren't signed up with my Notes from the Front but want to receive this series. By signing up you will receive each installment right in your inbox along with a pdf of the actual transcript. You can sign up below - it's $5 a month and of course it's fine (and easy) to cancel at any time. (And yes, it's fine to share this)

Sign up for Notes from the Front to get in on the Maxwell series here:

https://t.co/0FvbuVIKhz

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

My interview on the Secret World of Human Trafficking podcast with David J. Story is live! In it I talk about the unredacted victim statements, the MLM (multi-level marketing) nature of how Epstein built his stable of young girls, and more. You can listen to it here (feel free to share):

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

I HAVE EPSTEIN ASSISTANT SARAH KELLEN'S TRANSCRIPT FOR YOU - HERE ARE MY HOT TAKES!

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

In addition to Bondi's transcript, about which I just posted, I have Epstein assistant Sarah Kellen's transcript for you, in fact it's even longer than Bondi's, coming in at a hefty 149 pages and I have also converted this one to a searchable pdf for you. (Included for Notes from the Front members.)

[NOTE: Because I'm posting this as soon as I have it done for you, and that means it's late in the day, I will also be posting this tomorrow morning.]

Now some of the big news coming out of Ms. Kellen's testimony is that she named two of the men, besides Epstein, who abused her. I actually broke that news for you the week before last, telling you that Kellen named former Miami Mayor Philip Levine and celebrity hairstylist Frédéric Fekkai, asserting that both had abused her. She also said that fashion photographer Patrick Demarchelier (deceased) had exposed himself to her, but she rebuffed him, saying "he tried," and explaining that "He walked over to me with his pants down, and I refused to..."

Levine's people have put out a statement saying that “Nearly a quarter century ago, our client had a brief intimate encounter with another consenting adult. Any allegation suggesting otherwise is not true.”

Which is interesting in that instead of the standard "I never touched that woman" he instead is acknowledging the event, but casting it in a *very* different light.

And it turns out that Frédéric Fekkai not only abused Kellen, but *he* is the one who introduced her to Epstein *afterwards*. It's almost like Fekkai had his way with her and then thought "Oh, she's just the sort of tasty, abuseable morsel that Jeffrey would enjoy."

And then this, ohmygod:

"Q: Which visitors would have seen the nude photographs of you?

A: Anyone that was in the Paris apartment. He had a massive, almost life-size nude photo of me in the gym above the fireplace. On the island in the gym, he had a massive -- I don't know - - like 8-foot-long photo of me naked. On his desk at the ranch, he had a nude photo of me. Ghislaine blew up like a massive probably 3 foot by 4 foot photo of me on a -- mounted it to foam core. I believe that was on the island. He had a nude photo of me in the gym in Palm Beach. So I guess whoever, any visitors, any staff members."

Stop reading for a minute, and take a moment to try and put yourself in the place of a young woman who can't hide from the fact that *everyone* gets to her naked. You have no way to cover up your nakedness - no way to hide -because it's on display all over the place. Any visitors, any staff members, they all get to see you naked - get to stand and stare as long as they like. And you can't do anything about it. No matter that you are wearing clothes *now*, they have seen you naked.

It's horrific.

And then this:

"Rep. Garcia: I know that it's been publicly reported by the media that Jeffrey Epstein was a visitor -- in some media reports, a frequent visitor -- to Mar-a-Lago. Was this the case when you were working for Jeffrey Epstein?

Ms. Kellen. In the beginning.

Mr. Garcia. It was? Okay.

Ms. Kellen. He would use the gym a lot there.

Mr. Garcia. Okay. You said the gym out there?

Ms. Kellen. Uh-huh.

Mr. Garcia. Okay. What was your overall understanding of Jeffrey Epstein's relationship to Mar-a-Lago?

Ms. Kellen. I knew that he had been friendly with President Trump. I went with Jeffrey to the gym there a few times. I remember, one of those times, meeting Mr. Trump for, like, 5 minutes a t Mar-a-Lago. That was my only encounter with him during my employment. I had seen photos of him -- them together around the houses. So I knew that they were friendly in that regard."

She also confirms that Trump broke it off with Epstein and banished him from Mar-a-Lago, saying "Trump banned him from going because he had hit on, like, a member's daughter or something along those lines."

Then she talks quite a bit about Zorro Ranch, the day to day running of it, and some of the frequent visitors, including particle physicist, Oppenheimer colleague, and Santa Fe institute founder Murray Gell-Mann.

Then Rep. Stansbury starts asking Kellen questions, and talking about the New Mexico Truth Commission. And Rep. Stansbury and Kellen have this exchange:

"Ms. Stansbury. But you are aware that there were other women who were both brought to the ranch who were local as well as non-local who were o n the ranch property?

Ms. Kellen. I'm not aware of anyone locally."

The reason I am bringing this to your attention is because while Kellen may not be aware of anyone locally (and I believe her), *I* am aware of someone locally. In fact, as those of you who have been with me for a while may recall, I found not only evidence of a survivor who was trafficked locally to Zorro Ranch, but *I tracked down the person who trafficked them*, who is still alive. And who has not been named in any records so far as I am aware. And I gathered all of that information and gave it to Rep. Stansbury's office.

Will that person ever be questioned, let alone brought to justice? Who can say? I certainly hope so. It's in the Truth Commission's and the New Mexico DOJ's hands now. But even if that happens, it's unlikely that we will ever know. So I just have to be confident in the knowledge that I did my part, and did everything that I could.

Pay special attention to the last several pages, because if you have *ever* wondered how Epstein could pull this off - *how* he could ensnare these women, often quite smart women, and make them captive to his bidding, Kellen explains it in great detail. Also be warned - the first several pages talk about her own back story leading up to Epstein; it’s pretty rough.

Notes from the Front members: Our private chat about this transcript is here: https://t.co/pVbZIQuWPO
and Sarah Kellen's 149-page transcript is in your inbox now!

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/yBkLZkzqGu

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "ensnared". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about someone being ensnared.

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

I HAVE THE BONDI TRANSCRIPT FOR YOU! AND HERE A FEW THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - giving you the facts and the truth in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

Yes, I have the full Bondi transcript for you, all 111 pages of it, *and* I have converted it to a *searchable* pdf for you.

Now, I know that the first thing you want to know about it is the mentions of Trump.

His name appears in the transcript 74 times, across 31 pages.

The first several are in Bondi's opening remarks. But then they get to the questioning.

Of course, she has an attorney with her, Harmeet Dhillon, who objects a lot, and instructs Bondi not to answer a whole lot of things.

So there are a number of exchanges like this:

"Q: Okay. During your tenure, did President Trump direct you or any of your subordinates to take any official action related to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?

A: I'm not going to discuss any conversations that I've had with the President of the United States.

Q: It would be helpful for us just to understand whether that's just a refusal to discuss it full stop or whether that's an invocation of some version of executive privilege.

A: Privilege."

And:

"Q: To your knowledge, has DOJ released all Jeffrey Epstein-related files and documents that relate to President Trump?

A: To my knowledge, yes."

And:

"Q: It was reported by The Wall Street Journal that, in September of last year, President Trump told Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that, if she tried to expose the names of Epstein abusers that, quote, "My friends will get hurt." Were you present for that conversation?

A: Not to my knowledge.

Q: Were you aware of that comment being made at the time?

A: Not to my knowledge.

Q: Do you have any knowledge of which friends President Trump was referring to?

A: Not to my knowledge."

And:

"Q: We just wanted to ask, to the best of your knowledge, were any of the allegations against President Trump that were included in that release investigated by the Department of Justice?

A: I don't believe they were investigated by any Department of Justice, and that might be a question for the Biden administration because, if I recall, it all was just before the 2020 election, the salacious allegations."

And of course:

"Q: Did President Trump ever tell you that he had friends who could be exposed as abusers by the Epstein files release?

A: I'm not going to discuss any conversations that I've had with the President on any matter."

But they weren't all dodges - not when she can throw someone under the bus. Like Blanche.

Even though she never says anything overtly negative about him, time and again, when asked about just about *anything* having to do with the Epstein files, she says some version of "I relied on Blanche" or "Blanche would have been the one to handle that."

I *did* find this snippet interesting:

"Q: Attorney General Bondi, do you believe that Ghislaine Maxwell should receive a pardon?

A: No. I believe she should die in prison.

Q: Why?

A: She was a monster, just like Jeffrey Epstein. She recruited these young women to a life of prostitution and abuse. And I often think the women that do that are just as bad, if not worse, than the men, because she participated in it."

Now, this is just my quick skimming of an 111-page document. I'm sure that you Notes from the Front citizen sleuths will find much more. Let us know in our private Notes from the Front chat!

Notes from the Front members: The Bondi transcript is in your inbox now. Join our private chat about this transcript here:
https://t.co/kFJ2PGduTX

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) PLUS you’ll get in on our private chat about the transcript! Join here now:

https://t.co/tF36nl9THO

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom of this please leave a comment that includes the word "evasive". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about someone being evasive! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

WOW! THESE EPSTEIN FILES I FOUND CONTAIN *SO* MUCH! DIAMONDS, FAKE PASSPORT, AND MORE!

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - reporting on the facts and truth in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

You may have (or may not have) heard that in 2019, during the search of Epstein's townhome in New York, it was discovered that two suitcases had been spirited away.

Eventually Richard Kahn produced those suitcases to the authorities. One of the suitcases ("the blue suitcase") was secured with a lock. The other suitcase ("the black suitcase") was canvas and probably was not locked as the inventory doesn't mention it.

It seems relevant that just a few short weeks after these suitcases were delivered to the FBI, Epstein either killed himself or had help killing himself.

Among other things the FBI found a passport belonging to someone else, but with Epstein's face on it.

Well, I just found the actual email trail between the NYPD/FBI joint task force and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, discussing that passport - but also, oh, so much more (Notes from the Front members, a PDF of that actual email trail is in your inbox now).

But wait, there's more! Because I found the original FBI 302 - a form that more often summarizes interviews with witnesses and suspects, but in this case it is the *inventory* of the contents of those suitcases! (Also included for Notes from the Front members.)

I'm gonna call these suitcases Epstein's "quick getaway kit", because of the contents of them.

So what did investigators find in that quick getaway kit?

Diamonds. Lots of diamonds.

And cash - lots and lots of cash. *So* *much* cash! Some of it in foreign currency, some of it in U.S. currency.

And yes, the passport (more on that in a minute).

So, yeah, clearly the quick getaway stash.

Let's take them in order.

The diamonds were in the black suitcase. *48* loose diamonds, each with its own appraisal sheet. (Diamonds can be quickly converted to cash.)

And a diamond ring, in a case, in the blue suitcase.

*Why* did Epstein have a diamond ring on-hand? Was he planning to propose to someone? If so, who? Maxwell? Karyna? Surely they were too old for him. Perhaps he was saving it for a rainy day. Or, perhaps, more likely, he had it on hand for fast liquidation.

The cash. The documents tells us that there is an image showing the foreign currency. We don't know from which countries, or the amount, but if it had been just one country, or a small amount, they would almost certainly have just been listed along with the other cash that *is* listed in the document, rather than in an image. So while we can't know for certain, the odds are good that it was a fair amount of cash, from more than one country.

As we know that Epstein was fairly desperately trying to close a deal on a property in Marrakesh right before he was arrested in 2019, if I were a betting sort I'd bet it included Moroccan money.

And now to the passport

The passport, found in the blue suitcase, is issued in the name of Marius Fortelni. Marius Fortelni is a real, live person, originally from Austria, now residing in New York City, by way of Saudi Arabia.

The passport was issued by Austria, and shows Fortelni being domiciled in Saudi Arabia at the time that the passport was issued.

It shows a date of birth of July 30, 1954. I did a deep dive search just to be sure, and yes, July 30, 1954 is Fortelni's actual date of birth. (Epstein was born on January 20, 1953).

Now, I have images of the entire full passport (that's right), and the last time that passport was actually used (as in was stamped at a point of entry) was in 1983. It has an extension (renewal?) on the first page that is stamped 1987.

Why Epstein had Fortelni's passport with his own face on it seems pretty obvious. What is less obvious is how Epstein obtained Fortelni's passport and whether Fortelni was complicit.

Says the U.S. Attorney, "Try to contact him and ask if he has any reason to know why a passport from his native country with his name on it would have Jeffrey Epstein's photograph on it and be in a safe in Epstein's mansion?? Given the time pressure I think it's totally fine to call him if you want".

Now, I have searched *all* of the Epstein documents, and as best as I can tell Marius Fortelni was *never* interviewed. And the same goes for any Epstein-related court actions, not even as a documented witness. (In fact the only court action in which I found him appearing at all was in a legal scuffle over maritime insurance.)

HOWEVER, I *did* find that in 2015 he was reported to be the victim of a financial crime. And that at some point in time Fortelni's contact information was added to Epstein's contact list. Make of both of those what you will.

Now I've been focusing on the passport and diamonds and cash, but there is more, oh so much more, listed in that inventory.

For example, just to leave you with one more tidbit:

A FAKE TREASURY CUSTOMS AGENT BADGE!

I say fake because (and you have to take two of the included documents together) it is actually a U.S Treasury Customs agent badge wallet (you know, the kind they flash) that says 'Special Agent' but the thing inside that one would assume to be a U.S. Treasury Customs badge "appears to be more like a lapel pin or a novelty item". Meaning, almost certainly, that for some reason Epstein had a fake Customs agent badge that he could flash, misleading to whomever he was flashing it to *believe* he (or someone working for him) was a customs agent.

Notes from the Front members: The email chain, FBI 302 inventory, the email saying the badge is fake, and an image of the passport are all in your inbox now!

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/WAO4BJZgNQ

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "badge". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about ! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

OMG!! I JUST FOUND QUITE THE EPSTEIN DOCUMENT!

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

I just found a 264-page transcript from Maxwell’s trial that includes:

- Government witness testimony from Kimberly Meder, an FBI analyst on child exploitation and human trafficking, testifying about images they found on the CDs taken from Epstein's house , including that there was an image of Virginia on a particular CD.

- Government witness testimony from Stephen Flatley of the FBI Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) testifying about documents they found on the CDs taken from Epstein's house

- Victim testimony from "Carolyn" *including* testimony about starting at Epstein's at age 13 and then realizing at 18 that she was "too old", about Virginia recruiting her, and (remember, under oath) about seeing images of Maxwell *pregnant* in photos

And much, much more.

[NOTE: The references to binders throughout the transcript refer to what are essentially photo albums of evidence prepared for the trial so that the witnesses, court, and jurors can follow along with visual evidence.]

The transcript starts out with the government witnesses essentially authenticating images and documents, from the CDs, that are being entered into evidence. It may seem tedious, as the attorney introducing the evidence has to repeat the same questions for each piece of evidence, have the witness answer the questions, and then tell the Court that it is being offered into evidence (with opposing counsel objecting from time to time).

But pay close attention because not only does the witness disclose who is in the images (most often Epstein, Maxwell, or both), but when the evidence is written, such as an email, sometimes the attorney has the witness *read the email out loud*. Some of the email has been released with the DOJ drops but the sender and recipient are redacted. But here, in court, in the transcript, the witness is asked directly about who is the sender and who is the recipient - and the witness answers (for example the sender is Maxwell and the recipient is Sally Markham, both of whom are redacted in the DOJ files).

The emails may seem like they are about mundane topics (for example housekeeping, upkeep of, and stocking of the Palm Beach house), but it is in those very details that we get a fuller view into just what *exactly* was going on in there, and how. Did you know that Epstein used Downy fabric softener *and* Bounce dryer sheets? And that the Downy fragrance had to switched every few months? And that the massage creams had to be neat or he would be unhappy?

Then of course there is the cross-examination by Maxwell's attorney, trying to discredit the witnesses.

You'll probably be irked at how the government witnesses are cross-examined, but you'll be downright disgusted at the victim cross-examination, and the inferences therein.

Warning: There is explicit dialogue between attorney and victim in this transcript.

Notes from the Front members: The transcript is in your inbox now!

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/8QskS4PIbX

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "Downy". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about Downy! ;~)