Jefferey Epstein found dead in jail cell

#4,402
#4,402
lawgator1 said:
The poster doesn't understand how judicial assignments work in related cases. Another typical MAGA know nothing idiot getting clicks from other MAGA morons eager to gobble it up.
Click to expand...
it's highly suspicious one judge gets all these cases as it was highly suspicious anti-trump liberal judges got the bogus cases against Trump

from GROK:

The claim that there is a "1 in 3.73 trillion" chance of Judge Paul Engelmayer being assigned all seven Epstein-related cases in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) appears to originate from posts on X and a related article on Infowars. This calculation assumes there are 45 district judges in the SDNY and that case assignments are purely random, leading to the probability of one judge being assigned all seven cases as (1/45)^7, which equals approximately 1 in 3.73 trillion.

However, this claim lacks verification from primary sources, and several factors undermine its credibility:
  1. Case Assignment Process: The SDNY does not assign cases purely at random. Cases are distributed based on factors like judicial workload, case complexity, and related case rules (e.g., cases involving similar parties or issues may be assigned to the same judge for efficiency). This makes the assumption of pure randomness questionable.
  2. Specific Cases: The seven cases cited (e.g., Doe v. Indyke, Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke, NYT v. Bureau of Prisons, Black v. Ganieva) are not all directly tied to Epstein’s criminal prosecution. Some are civil cases or ancillary matters, and it’s unclear if all were active simultaneously or assigned to Engelmayer at the same time. Without a detailed timeline and case records, the claim that he oversaw "all seven" Epstein-related cases is speculative.
  3. Lack of Evidence: The 3.73 trillion figure is attributed to "Grok" in the Infowars article, but no methodology or court data is provided to confirm the assignments or the calculation. Court records or dockets would be needed to verify which judges were assigned to these cases.
  4. Bias in Source: The Infowars article and X posts label Engelmayer as a "hack Obama judge," indicating a partisan framing that may exaggerate or misrepresent the situation for rhetorical effect. This suggests the claim may be more about narrative than factual accuracy.
  5. Engelmayer’s Role: Engelmayer is confirmed to be overseeing the Justice Department’s request to unseal grand jury records in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, as noted in recent reports. However, this does not confirm he was assigned all seven Epstein-related cases, as the claim suggests. His involvement in Maxwell’s case is due to the original trial judge, Alison Nathan, moving to an appellate court.
Without access to SDNY case assignment records, it’s impossible to confirm the exact probability or whether Engelmayer was indeed assigned all seven cases. The 3.73 trillion figure assumes a simplistic model that likely doesn’t reflect the court’s actual assignment practices. While it’s possible for one judge to handle multiple related cases, the extraordinary odds cited appear designed to imply impropriety rather than reflect a rigorous statistical analysis.

He is a hack Obama Judge...GROK will figure that out someday.
 
Last edited:
#4,405
#4,405
BeardedVol said:
View attachment 758317
View attachment 758314
View attachment 758315

Click to expand...
I have some questions:

has the particular judge in this case been the same judge as in other proceedings related to Trump as stated by the social media post? I only ask because I don't believe everything a random poster says.

If I read that right judges are drawn from a pool, is that correct? My form of ADD makes legalese difficult to interpret.

If those two things above are indeed true, and I won't claim to know the math, wouldn't it make one judge receiving all those cases at least improbable? Again only if the above is accurate.
 
#4,406
#4,406
KB5252 said:
I have some questions:

has the particular judge in this case been the same judge as in other proceedings related to Trump as stated by the social media post? I only ask because I don't believe everything a random poster says.

If I read that right judges are drawn from a pool, is that correct? My form of ADD makes legalese difficult to interpret.

If those two things above are indeed true, and I won't claim to know the math, wouldn't it make one judge receiving all those cases at least improbable? Again only if the above is accurate.
Click to expand...
I linked the published rules from the SDNY's website, those are snips from that document, feel free to click on it and read the PDF if you wish.
 
#4,410
#4,410
BeardedVol said:
I linked the published rules from the SDNY's website, those are snips from that document, feel free to click on it and read the PDF if you wish.
Click to expand...
No offense but I just don't grasp the legalese as stated above. But from what I can understand it does seem to say that cases are drawn from a pool of judges...... If my interpretation was correct and this particular judge has indeed been on the receiving end of all of those cases involving or associated with Trump, then I would find that unlikely enough to believe they likely weren't following protocol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#4,411
#4,411
lawgator1 said:
He's also lying about not having considered it. Of course they are dangling it, if she'll play ball and say anything about Trump in the files isn't true. Thats the price.
Click to expand...
So if that's the case, you are hating the player.... Wait. Of course you are. He's better at the game than any of your team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jxn Vol
#4,412
#4,412
lawgator1 said:
He's also lying about not having considered it. Of course they are dangling it, if she'll play ball and say anything about Trump in the files isn't true. Thats the price.
Click to expand...
Your getting almost as excited as you were during the beginning of the Russia stuff. Hope this one turns out better for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, SpaceCoastVol and Orangeburst
#4,414
#4,414
BernardKingGOAT said:
Couldn't make this up if you tried, but he sits on the Senate Education committee. A couple of months ago, he asked the clueless Sec of Education, Linda McMahon, "WHAT WAS WE RANKED in the world in education in 1979?"
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but syntax, grammar and just plain proper English are not important anymore. It's an old people thing I guess. I would highly doubt anyone under the age of 40 even noticed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#4,415
#4,415
Donald Trump described Jeffrey Epstein as 'the greatest' in a newly unearthed message he wrote for the disgraced billionaire on a copy of his 1997 book 'Trump: The Art of the Comeback.'

Trump addressed a copy of the book to Epstein in October the year it was printed, according to The New York Times, which published a picture of the now-president's handwritten message.

The words of admiration allegedly read: 'To Jeff - You are the greatest!'

The short note is signed off by Trump, and dated October 1997.

The Times reported that the contributor list for the gift also included former Victoria's Secret owner Leslie H. Wexner, Wall Street titan Alan C. Greenberg, and Nobel-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann.


www.dailymail.co.uk

Trump letter calling Jeffrey Epstein 'the greatest' emerges

President Trump described Jeffrey Epstein as 'the greatest' in a newly unearthed letter, marking a new development in the relationship the president has spent weeks trying to bury.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
#4,418
#4,418
jmacvols1 said:
what are the Dems trying to hide

Click to expand...


Both parties are complicit. When you will yall realize that. Stop talking Democrats vs Republicans. We know they're both never gonna release the files unless forced to be court order. They're just using it for theater. Just like the Republicans did in the lead up to the election.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top