Connect with us


Ghislaine Maxwell FIRED By Lawyers For Failing To Pay Nearly $900K In Legal Fees




Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers fired the convicted sex trafficker for failing to pay nearly $1 million in legal fees.

Attorneys representing Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence in a low-security prison in Tallahassee, Fla., to receive money from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, have withdrawn their attorney.

Quintairos, Prieto Wood & Boyer claims Maxwell failed to pay them “despite repeated requests, according to court documents filed in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

Maxwell filed a lawsuit against Epstein’s Virgin Islands estate in March 2020, seven months after Epstein allegedly killed himself at the Metropolitan Corrections Center in New York.

TRENDING: HUGE: GOP lawmaker obtains new documents showing Joe and Hunter Biden working to sell US natural gas and drilling rigs to China – HAS WHISTLEBLOWERS WILL WITNESS (VIDEO)

She alleges that Epstein “promised compensation for the advance payment of attorneys’ fees, security costs, costs of finding safe housing, and all other expenses.” [she has] Centre County Reportably arose and will arise as a result of her prior employment with Jefferey Epstein.” corresponding Court filings obtained from the Dail Mail.

“The costs she envisioned were ‘related to a threatened, pending or completed proceeding [in] relationship to Epstein … and his alleged victims,” the publication reads. “Maxwell argued that during her relationship with Epstein, he ‘promised that he would support her financially.’ Inside her suit it says that he ‘made those promises…repeatedly, both in writing and in conversation.'”

Maxwell now has sixty days to find a new legal team. But obtaining legal counsel will be a major challenge.

The socialite is also being sued by her criminal defense team for failing to pay over $878,301 in attorney fees.

Maxwell is “bankrupt” after a series of “suspiciously temporal [property] Transfers” of her estranged husband Scott Borgerson, according to a complaint filed by her Denver District County criminal defense team Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, PC on Aug. 22.

Lawyers representing Ghislaine Maxwell in her attempt to extort money from Jeffrey Epstein's estate have fired the convicted sex trafficker

The Denver-based law firm is suing Borgerson, Maxwell and their brother Kevin Maxwell.

Borgeson and Maxwell allegedly Secretly married in 2015 without even her own family members knowing. Borgeson “then released Maxwell from prison during a “confrontational” phone call following her December 2021 sentencing.

But, according to HMF court filings, Borgeson continued to shield Maxwell’s assets and worked to “protect” millions of her wealth from creditors. The complaint also alleges that Kevin Maxwell falsely assured the firm that “he was on the verge of receiving financing” and “personally guaranteed to keep a balance of $100,000 in Ghislaine’s client escrow account at all times,” but the Funds are quickly exhausted.

“Mr. Maxwell and the family attorney repeatedly told HMF that Mr. Borgerson controlled Ms. Maxwell’s money and was responsible for delaying payments to the company,” HMF alleges in the complaint.

Kevin Maxwell strongly made “false promises” that there are “sufficient cash and assets to cover the total amounts either due to be paid and to be due in the coming months,” the lawsuit continues.

In June, Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for grooming and molesting underage girls for Epstein.

The British socialite had a long-standing relationship with HMF, who was also represented in a now-settled 2015 defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a survivor of Epstein’s sex ring.” The Daily Beast reports.


Removing Candidate’s Ballotpedia Page Isn’t Libelous




From Judge Phillip Green’s report and recommendation of Tuesday in Trouten vs. Ballotpedia (WD Mich.):

Plaintiff alleges that Ballotpedia “withdrew the ‘Bryan Trouten for the United States House of Representatives’ campaign from its website.” Plaintiff alleges that this action constitutes defamation and/or defamation under state law. Plaintiff seeks $5,000,000.00 in damages.

First of all, it should be noted that the plaintiff does not allege that the defendant made false or defamatory statements about him. Instead, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant merely removed information about him from their website. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s allegation fails to satisfy the first element. But the plaintiff goes on to allege that by removing the information in question from its website, the defendant falsely “claimed that”. [Plaintiff] has withdrawn his campaign.” Thus, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s actions falsely implied that Plaintiff had withdrawn his campaign.

Michigan implicitly admits a cause of defamation. To enforce such a claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defamatory implication is “materially false.” Plaintiff alleges that he did not withdraw his candidacy for the US House of Representatives and that, moreover, he submitted in a timely manner to the State of Michigan the documents necessary to be considered a written candidate. Thus, contrary to the arguments of the defendants, the plaintiff’s allegations fulfill the original element of the analysis.

{Defendant claims it is merely “listed [Plaintiff] as an inactive candidate after the Michigan State Department released an official list of candidates with no [Plaintiff’s] name on it.” The defendant further alleges that “[w]When Trouten informed Ballotpedia that he was an active write-in candidate, Ballotpedia updated its encyclopedia to reflect that status.” These claims are not supported by any evidence and go beyond the scope of a request made under the federal provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) The Court therefore disregarded the allegations in question. If Defendant wanted to present evidence and argue that it was entitled to a remedy by right, it should have filed a motion [for summary judgment] pursuant to Federal Code of Civil Procedure 56.}

Plaintiff’s claim nevertheless fails because the suggestion that plaintiff withdrew his candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives is simply not defamatory because it does not tend to damage plaintiff’s reputation or discourage third parties from communicating with plaintiff to kick. See, for example, Kevorkian v. American Medical Association (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (the court “may by operation of law determine whether a statement may actually have libellous substance”).

The plaintiff’s claim also fails for a second Centre County Report. Because the Complainant was a candidate for public office, he will be considered a public figure for the present purposes. Therefore, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with “actual malice” or “with knowledge thereof”. [its implied statement] was false or with reckless disregard for whether or not it was false.” Plaintiff has made no allegations of facts which, if proven, would meet that standard. Thus, plaintiff’s claim alternatively fails on that ground.

In its response to the present motion, Plaintiff fails to advance any argument or name any authority against Defendant’s motion. Rather, the plaintiff simply states: “I didn’t want that[o] much information about my case disclosed to the defense because I have factual material facts as well as much other factual evidence deemed problematic in this case.” This vague, unsworn testimony does not advance the plaintiff’s position. The plaintiff goes on to say, “I’d like to end this” and asked to “speak [his] side of the case personally” because “[i]It will definitely provide the material needed to understand the case a little better….” The court appreciates plaintiff’s desire to be heard, but plaintiff has presented no argument or authority to suggest that a hearing would help the court determine the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the plaintiff’s lawsuit….

Congratulations to Joseph E. Richotte, Jennifer A. Dukarski, and Barrett RH Young of Butzel Long, PC, who represent Ballotpedia.

Continue Reading


Biden Scales Back Student Debt Relief




“The Biden administration is cutting its sweeping student-debt-forgiveness program for several million Americans whose government student loans are owned by private companies over concerns the industry would challenge it in court.” Politically reports.

“The Department of Education will no longer allow borrowers on federal private student loans to receive forgiveness under the administration’s plan … The administration had previously said those borrowers would have a way of relieving the administration of $10,000 or $20,000 per borrower to obtain. ”

favouriteLoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading


GOP’s AG Nominee In Michigan Pushes Election Fraud Lies While Facing Election Fraud Probe




Matthew DePerno, the Republican nominee for Attorney General in Michigan who made a name for himself spreading lies about the 2020 election — and by becoming the target of an investigation into illegally rigging voting machines — he spends the final phase of his election campaign spreading new lies about alleged electoral crimes.

In a recent meeting with the Detroit Free Press editorial board, DePerno claimed that voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan, were “broken into” in 2020. the newspaper said on Tuesday. He also said that his opponent in the November 2022 election, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), had failed to investigate the alleged crime.

“Why not write a story about December 4th 2020 when I pointed Dana Nessel to an actual crime of two tabs actually used in the November 2020 election where security tapes were removed, machines were broken into, ‘ DePerno said.

But none of this is true, the Free Press reported.

For one, the paper noted, DePerno never filed any criminal charges with law enforcement. More importantly, the candidate still has not provided any evidence or even a detailed description of the crime he said took place.

His allegations appear to stem from a 2020 civil lawsuit filed by his client Bill Bailey, which alleged that there was a vote counting issue in Antrim County on election day was evidence of possible widespread fraud in Michigan. (In fact, it was a simple, quickly resolved human error.) Unofficial early results showed then-President Donald Trump losing the rural, conservative county, but an immediate recount showed he had won, 61% to 37%.

As part of the legal challenge, DePerno alleged that some voting machines in the country of Antrim lacked the security tape normally placed over them after elections, suggesting they may have been compromised. But the group of inspectors that DePerno was part of hadn’t looked at the machines up to weeks after the election, the Free Press reported – long after that the security tape could have been legally removed.

Still, DePerno claimed that “there is evidence that someone who was not authorized removed the tape … during the election.” According to the Free Press, he has presented no such evidence.

He also told the outlet that he believes Nessel was aware of allegations of tampering and did nothing to address them.

“You can’t deny that Dana Nessel knew about the allegations,” DePerno said. “Nor can you deny that Dana Nessel has never taken any steps to investigate these claims. Not a single witness was contacted to give a statement [Michigan State Police].”

Both Nessel’s office and the Antrim County clerk reiterated this week that they believe the claims are unfounded.

The lawsuit went nowhere. A court of appeal found in April that the “plaintiff merely asked a series of questions without making any specific factual allegations as required”.

In a statement to HuffPost, DePerno’s campaign declined to comment further on the allegations or the lawsuit. “We’re done heating up the Antrim County case,” a spokesman wrote.

Former President Donald Trump endorses Republican Matthew DePerno as Attorney General at a rally April 2 near Washington, Michigan.

Scott Olson via Getty Images

“They are domestic terrorists”

DePerno’s allegation of voting machine manipulation actually reflects parts of an investigation into his own Alleged actions: Nettle’s office has said that DePerno was one of the “main instigators” of what it was described as a potential “conspiracy to gain unlawful access to voting machines to be used in the 2020 general election”.

At the Bureau’s request, a special prosecutor is currently investigating DePerno and right-wing activists who the Bureau says attempted to access and break into the machines as part of their attempt to spread voter-busting myths.

DePerno and others, including far-right Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, have reportedly pulled it off take in hand some machines during this effort. Leaf also sent a sheriff’s deputy and a private investigator from city to cityAsk office workers for information.

According to Nettle’s officethe group then took the machines to “hotels and/or AIRBNBs in Oakland County” for them to break into and “test” on the equipment.

It is a crime in Michigan too “acquiring unlawful possession” of voting machines.

DePerno has previously called the state investigation a “witch hunt” and pledges his campaign website to “prosecute the people who corrupted the 2020 election and allowed fraud to permeate the entire electoral system.”

DePerno’s efforts have been a source of widespread lies about the 2020 election.

Former CEO Patrick Byrne, a key funder in an effort to cast doubt on the 2020 results, sent a team to examine the machines in Antrim County and wrote a report claiming, that Dominion-branded voting machines were in the area were “intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent flaws to create systemic fraud and affect election results.”

This report was repeated exposedbut it was still quoted in a Draft implementing regulation in 2020, claiming that Trump, then still president, had the power to seize voting machines nationwide.

“This is not a question. … The whole thing is rigged,” Byrne, now one of several people confronting you Defamation lawsuit of domination, said in a video this month.

Byrne then called out to Nessel, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D), and Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Elections Bureau: “They are domestic terrorists. I say it. Sue me.”

Continue Reading