Hi gang - This is my best attempt at compiling as many key documents as possible to summarize what’s happened so far at trial.

This is meant to be a non-comprehensive summary, aiming for clarity and brevity over depth. If you want to learn more about the trial please take the time to read some of the news articles about it because that’s how adults learn about information going on in the world.

If you have any questions please put it in the megathread. Please keep this thread as a place for substantial updates rather than generalized discussion. Just from my own bias, I’m not going to consider information relating to which family member sat next to who and who sighed deeply as they walked through the door as a “substantial” update.

For my own sanity, and organization, I'm going to update it once daily after court adjourns for the day.

(note: the G#1 notation is just for me to keep track of how many witnesses from each side have gone thus far. It has no legal nor official significance)

November 29 - Evidentiary Hearing

Brief synopsis: Evidentiary hearing was held to determine whether evidence of the prior acts of molestation were admissible. Bobye Holt, a family friend, testified that Pest had confessed to her when he was younger and that the molestation took place over the course of years. Jim Bob Duggar testified and claimed to not remember much about the molestation but that it wasn’t a huge deal. The Defense claims that the information Pest confessed to Holt should be excluded under the clergy-penitent privilege rule.

People

Minute Order for Evidentiary Hearing

November 30 - Jury Selection

Brief synopsis: Both parties filed motions following up on the arguments from the previous day. Jury selection began. The potential witness list of 28 included Jill Dillard, Jedidiah Duggar, Jim Holt, Bobye Holt, Caleb Williams (note: I can’t seem to find the full list available anywhere but if you have others to add onto this list and have a source for it please let me know!). The jury was seated.

Government Motion

Defense Motion

[WGN9](https://wgntv.com/news/jurors-alternates-selected-in-josh-duggars-child-porn

!!Enjoy🔴!! ▷ World Junior Ice Hockey Championships Live Free ⤵⤵⤵🔴

Click Here To watch IIHF World Junior Championship 2022 Live Online

Watch IIHF World Junior Live Stream

*[#!ice Hockey TV]ᐈ World Juniors live streams—2022 IIHF U20 World Championship Live Free—World Juniors 2022 live stream—IIHF World Junior Championship 2022 Live Stream—World Junior Hockey Live Stream—iihf world junior championship live stream—U20 Hockey World Championship 2022 live—Hockey Live Stream.

United States v New Zealand | End of Year Internationals 2021

Venue: FedexField, Washington, D.C. | Weather: 16 C, Clouds

Officials: Angus Gardner, Moe Chaudhry, Scott Green, Brett Cronan (tmo)

Match Threads: /r/rugbyunion/wiki/matchthread

When

Lineups

Since the pretrial conference kicked off today we thought it would be best to create a new megapost of all substantial trial updates. PLEASE CHECK HERE BEFORE SHARING UPDATES and make sure that it hasn't already been shared. This applies to different news sources sharing the same information - If we have the information already, we don't need someone posting a different source repeating it.

Check out the previous megapost for the past 6 months of updates that have gotten us this far.

FAQs:

Who is testifying? We only know that Jim Bob has been attempted to be contacted to serve as a witness and it appears that Bobye Holt may also testify. Other than that we have no confirmation either way if any of the sisters or family members will testify. We know that the Government is asking an inmate, Robert Franklin, to testify. Dwain Swanson and Matthew Waller were also mentioned as witnesses.

Will the trial be streamed online? Can I go in person? Federal trials cannot be recorded by law. It should be open to the public but media outlets usually get priority when it comes to seating, for in person viewership. The best bet would be to get to the courthouse early in the day to try to get a seat; keep in mind that any access to social media or electronics are strictly prohibited during the proceeding. We have no way of knowing how packed the courtroom will or wont be.

Can the past statements from the family regarding the molestation be used at trial? More than likely, no, they would be hearsay since they're out of court statements. To get that evidence the Government would need to provide that witness themself to provide testimony under oath at trial.

FREE ACCESS TO THE DOCKET IS AVAILABLE HERE

Updates on the proceedings

Judge Brooks orders an evidentiary hearing with witnesses scheduled for Nov 29 11/18

Summary of the pretrial conferences - Evidentiary questions at issue, possible witnesses, etc.11/18

[Livestream from two

Link to court document 569

Dear Judge Nathan:

We write concerning an issue of pressing importance. It has come to the attention of the defense that one of the twelve jurors in this case (the “Juror”) has been giving oral and videotaped interviews to various members of the press concerning the jury deliberations. These interviews have been publicly reported in several media outlets. (Footnote 1)

Among other things, the Juror told reporters that he disclosed to the other members of the jury during deliberations that he was a victim of sexual abuse and further described his memory of those events. According to the Juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell.

MUCH OF THE LETTER IS REDACTED and then it picks up with

…presents incontrovertible grounds for a new trial under Rule 33.

REDACTIONS REDACTIONS REDACTIONS REDACTIONS REDACTIONS REDACTIONS REDACTIONS REDACTIONS

Should the defense prevail on this motion—and we believe the law and facts are clearly on our side—it would render all other post-trial motions moot. Ms. Maxwell should not have to expend precious time and resources briefing other motions when this motion can and should be dispositive.

Accordingly, the defense respectfully requests that the Court set a briefing schedule for this motion alone and defer setting a briefing schedule for any other post-trial motions.

Christian Everdell

Footnote 1 ^(See Lucia Osborne-Crowley, “‘They were all believable’: Maxwell juror says the jury was convinced by accusers’ accounts of a pattern of abuse,” The Independent (Jan. 4, 2022); Laura Collins and Daniel Bates, “‘Ghislaine was a predator as guilty as Epstein’: Maxwell juror describes the moment he ‘locked eyes’ with sex trafficker and reveals his own abuse ordeal,” Daily Mail (Jan. 5, 2022), available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-)

^(10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html; Luc Cohen, “Some Ghislaine)

^(Maxwell jurors initially doubted accusers, juror says,” Reuters (Jan. 5, 2022).)

My very basic understanding of the US Supreme Court is that today its primary function is to rule on wether or not laws are constitutional. But if I understand it correctly, Marbury v. Madison (1803) marks the first time the court ruled that a law established by Congress was unconstitutional. So what were they even doing before that landmark case?

First of all nearly everyone in this fight is going to be old as fuck. The minimum age is 35 and I'm not sure who the youngest senator is. For the Republicans they have the heavy hitters of Tom Cotton (only 44 years old) Josh Hawley (also very young and we know he lifts) and Rand Paul (who has experience fighting his neighbor). Also the Republican caucus is overwhelmingly male so that might give them an advantage.

For the Democrats it looks like their big hitters would be Booker and Ossoff (both obviously in shape and young)and Peters (big chungus energy)

The arena: The senate floor.

Rules: No rules other than no weapons or improvised weapons like hitting someone with a chair.

Preparation: Both sides get 1 week advance to prepare and train for the fight.

I was watching a rant from Connecticut senator Chris Murphy the other day about how hypocritical it is for the Republicans to claim to be pro-life during these judicial hearings while refusing to budge on gun control in America (because there was a school shooting in Michigan recently for context). What caught my attention was that he brought up the fact that the biggest drop in murder rates in America both occurred almost immediately after two of the biggest federal regulations concerning firearms in the past century. Now gun control isn't the topic I wanted to bring up, what I wanted to add is that there are loads of studies that show that crime in general also declined significantly in the decades following the decision of Roe V. Wade. America isn't the only country where this is the case, there's been similar studies in Canada and Romania that have shown that reduced crime rates do actually coincide with access to birth control and abortion over a period of several generations.

I don't think I need to explain why this happens, being forced to give birth when you're unprepared, physically at risk, or just straight up don't want to is an absolutely horrid scenario. But it's one that, never the less, the right wing of this country wants to shove down our throats. Compared to our allies, we also fail women when it comes to maternity leave, child care, your health insurance is tied to your job and if you're relying on your spouse's job for that, and your spouse is a prick who randomly decides to kick you off, you're screwed. But beyond just how messed up this is for women who will have unwanted pregnancies (which I can't emphasize enough IS more than enough reason to be concerned and hate that this decision is happening), even if you don't care about women this is still horrid for everyone else. Foster facilities will be overrun, hospitals will be hit hard WHILST we're still in a pandemic. Crimes will escalate due to children being raised in households that can't adequately provide for them so they'll be driven to pursue other avenues. Literally all sects of society will be hurt by this decision.

I'm a cis guy, so I'm not trying to claim to know what it's like to have to worry about dying in childbirth or wondering if I should get my tubes tied following a supreme court hearing. Nor am I pretending that this information isn't already firmly in the back of many women's minds on here. I guess I just needed to rant because I'm so sick and tired of the past c

#God Loves, Man Kills

The X-Men.

A team of brave men and women who protect a world that fears and hates them. For decades, the X-Men have put their lives and reputations on the line to fight for peace and equality between mutants and the rest of humanity. The founder of the X-Men, Professor Charles Xavier, made it his life's work to achieve a society where people who were born with "mutations" (or "gifts") could live peacefully among those who weren't, without the fear of being oppressed or discriminated against. Mutants didn't choose to be born different; while some were given fantastical powers (such as the ability to control the weather, others were saddled with permanent handicaps or different physical appearances. And some were born with the ability to poop ice cream.

Living in a world that's already populated with humans who get immense amount of power from radioactive arachnids, cosmic rays, alien technology, or obscene amounts of wealth, the X-Men fight not only to stop humans from oppressing mutants, but also mutants who seek to commit atrocities against innocent humans. This is a franchise that is brimming with rich stories and a hugely loyal fanbase, and that fight against prejudice is baked deeply into its core. A story about the X-Men is not an X-Men story if it doesn't deal with oppression, identity, and the act of "othering". It's no surprise that adaptations such as the 1992 animated series and the Fox movie franchise wasted little time putting those themes at the forefront.

But the X-Men's greatest defeat didn't come at the hands of dangerous foes like Magneto, Apocalypse, or Mr. Sinister. It didn't come from bigoted humans like Bolivar Trask, Senator Robert Kelly, or William Stryker. Nor it did come from Cyclops and Wolverine in-fighting, or that weird time Marvel tried to commit mutant genocide via the Inhumans (that's a drama post for another day, I swear). No, the X-Men's most humilia

The victims themselves, including Virginia Robert’s Giuffre, have long advocated for the identities of their victimizers to be known.

View Poll

Government asks to admit photographs of the interior of Epstein's house to corroborate Jane's testimony.

December 4, 2021 | https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17318376/523/united-states-v-maxwell/

Dear Judge Nathan:

The Government respectfully submits this letter moving to admit photographs from the interior of Jeffrey Epstein’s house in New York. As explained below, particular images are corroborative of testimony by the witness using the pseudonym “Jane.” They are therefore relevant to the issues before the Court. ^(1)

I. Applicable Law

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and the fact “is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“Relevant evidence is unless [another law] provides otherwise . . . .”). The “standard of relevance established by the Federal Rules of Evidence is not high.” United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1375 (2d Cir. 1985) (Friendly, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court’s “evidentiary rulings” are reviewed on appeal “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard,” and are disturbed only if “manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 662 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A] suggestion that an item of evidence relates to a period that is too remote goes to both the item’s relevance and its weight.” United States v. Certified Env. Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted.). But evidence of continuity between the time of the consequential fact and the time of the proffered evidence supports a finding of relevance. See, e.g., id. (evidence that predated the charged conspiracy by five years relevant because it concerned “a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct,” and evidence that postdated acts charged in the indictment provided evidence “of a longstanding continuous mental process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they “were offered to establish Roux’s sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that . . . is unlikely to vanish with the passage of time”). And evidence that corroborates earlier evidence is “admissible for the same reasons.” Cer

United States v. Maxwell - Document #570

Link to court docket

Jeffrey Pagliuca writes:

I write in response to the government’s letter of this morning requesting a hearing to consider a Juror’s statements to various media sources that the Juror was a victim of sexual assault. Doc. 568. The government’s request for a hearing is premature because based on undisputed, publicly available information, the Court can and should order a new trial without any evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court has held that to be entitled to a new trial, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). This standard applies even if the juror’s conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional.

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

Respectfully, it is not the proper function of the Court to contact the Juror and suggest that he retain an attorney or to secure the appointment of an attorney on his behalf. There is no indication this Juror either needs a lawyer or is indigent and qualifies for court-appointed counsel. Moreover, any such action would undermine the search for the truth and thus potentially compromise Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.

Ms. Maxwell intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the “interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Any submission will include all known undisputed remarks of the Juror, including recorded statements, the relevant questionnaire, and other noncontroverted facts. It is clear to Ms. Maxwell that based on this record alone a new trial is required. If this Court disagrees, however, Ms. Maxwell requests that a hearing be scheduled sooner than one month from now. Ms. Maxwell also suggests that all the deliberating jurors will need to be examined, not to impeach the verdict, but to evaluate the Juror’s conduct. Ms. Maxwell is drafting a Rule 33 motion to be filed on a schedule ordered by the Court.

Footnote - *The government cites United States v. Langford in support of its request for a hearing. Doc. 568, p 2. But the hearing in Langford concerned whether an honest answer f