“EXCESSIVE bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. This is the Eighth Amendment of America’s sacred constitution. But is Ghislaine, as a woman with American citizenship, being granted such rights, enshrined by law – or is the law being broken?
This is the question now being raised by prominent judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Languishing in a Brooklyn jail renowned for its unsanitary conditions and widespread condemnation from human rights groups, Maxwell remains imprisoned in a small six foot by nine foot cell, with basic human rights such as the right to rest and sleep seemingly denied. A concrete bed, a book, a toilet, and just her own mind to escape the hellish situation she finds herself in.
She has been there for almost 300 days and counting – despite not being convicted of a single crime.
“No human being should have to go through what she’s been put through,” Ian Maxwell, Ghislaine’s devoted brother has said. “This is not the way that a democratic country should be running its prison system. It’s grotesque, and in that respect, it amounts to torture”.
And it appears that not only does the Constitution agree with him, but now, so too do prominent judges who have begun to pressure the American Government over the socialite’s abnormal treatment at the hands of a justice system accused of being hellbent on using Mrs Maxwell as a ‘patsy’ to cover their own failures in prosecuting Epstein.
On Monday, members of the three-judge panel pressed a government attorney on complaints filed by Maxwell’s defence counsel, who have repeatedly joined others in claiming Maxwell has been unnecessarily treated as a suicide risk.
“Is she a suicide risk or not?” U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan, a Donald Trump appointee demanded to know at the joint panel hearing. “Has the BOP concluded she’s a suicide risk, or is it some other reason that they’re shining lights all night long?”
Answering, Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Pomerantz said the government has not been told that Maxwell is a suicide risk, and passed-off the conditions of Maxwell’s confinement as “routine”.
“Routine to shine lights into the eyes of every prisoner every fifteen minutes during the night?” Pierre Leval, another prominent judge, appointed by Clinton, asked with suspicion. “Are you really telling us that?”
“There is absolutely nothing routine about it,” Defence Attorney David Markus interjected. “She’s been treated differently than any inmate ever in that institution.”
“BOP has never come out and said Ghislaine Maxwell is suicidal, because she’s not” he added. “They do this for the reason that Judge Level said, which is they don’t want an embarrassment like they had with Jeffrey Epstein. But that’s not a reason to treat someone in inhumane conditions so that they can’t prepare for trial.”
“For example, she’s kept up at night every 15 minutes with lights shined in her eyes so that they can check her breathing.
“She’s not suicidal. There’s no evidence that she’s suicidal. Why is the Bureau of Prisons doing this? They’re doing this because Jeffrey Epstein died on their watch.”
Speaking to the press, a source from the prison holding Maxwell said: “Given the death of Jeffrey Epstein in prison, everyone is obviously anxious to make sure that nothing happens to Ghislaine Maxwell.”
They, as with many others, seem to be forgetting one undeniable fact in this entire saga: Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein.
To date, Maxwell has not only been granted woefully inadequate conditions to form her defence, but has even been refused all requests to know the identity of her accusers. Meanwhile, on the other side of the prison’s thick walls, countless inconsistencies and proven fabrications made by self-described victims such as Virginia Giuffre continue to surface – largely ignored by the mainstream media and by a general public far-less interested in facts than in consuming the sensationalised soap opera projected to them by a click-bait-focused press.
It is demonstrable that not only does the section of the Eighth Amendment – that the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments” be forbidden – seem to have been, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell’s treatment, disregarded by the very government that is elected to protect such an Amendment; but that the banning of the requirement for “excessive bail” has also clearly been breached.
$28.5 has been offered as part of an extensive bail package to allow Maxwell the opportunity to fight what can only be described as a battle for her life.
The grounds on which the presiding judge in Maxwell’s case, District Judge Alison Nathan, has persistently based her dismissal to such an unprecedented bail package, however, is the unsubstantiated claim that Mrs Maxwell poses a flight risk.
Yet this assertion also falls flat in light of the further bail conditions offered by Ghislaine and her legal team – the renunciation of her British and French citizenships; the proposal to have the remainder of her finances placed into an account that can closely monitored; the offer to wear a tag and be in the company of armed guards, at her expense, 24 hours a day.
How can it be claimed that a 59-year-old woman (not being the lovechild of Wonder Woman and Harry Houdini) could possibly manage to escape such unrivalled blockbuster-esque conditions, let alone board a flight? And, if in a sudden violent burst of Bruce Lee proportions, Maxwell did indeed manage to disarm and disable a group of trained, heavily-armed guards and rush for the door – where would she go? What flight could she possibly board without a passport? What country could she possibly find refuge in?
Once more, one must refer to the words enshrined in law under the Constitution, but also to the pages of a basic dictionary.
“Excessive bail shall not be required.”
The definition of ‘excessive’: “More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.”
If the bulk of her wealth, her passports, her citizenship, the wearing of a tag, and the constant watch by a group of armed men, isn’t ‘excessive’, then we must ask what on earth do judges interpret as constituting ‘excessive’ under the constitution – A kidney? A leg?
Just six days ago, in the same country now essentially holding Maxwell in solitary confinement amidst a mirage of the right to the presumption of innocence, Jonathan James Cresswell, a man charged with brutally murdering his girlfriend, was granted bail and released from prison.
His bail package? $41,000.
Does he pose a flight risk? Who knows. Has he offered-up millions of dollars? His basic human right to privacy? Has he offered to be watched around the clock by officers carrying automatic rifles?
The answer to these questions is no; because (as America’s ‘justice’ system is evidently telling us) such a bail package for a man charged with the brutal murder of a woman, as opposed to historical accusations made against a woman by unidentified accusers, must undoubtedly be considered ‘excessive’.