[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Niels Groeneveld [@nigroeneveld](/creator/twitter/nigroeneveld) on x 12.8K followers Created: 2025-07-22 17:34:07 UTC Footnotes of Omission: What the Appeals Court Brief Didn’t Want You to See In the long paper trail of USCOURTS-ca2-22-01426-0—the appellate case involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre—some of the most revealing absences are found not in the arguments presented, but in the footnotes left blank, redacted, or conspicuously omitted. Legal briefs are strategic documents. They do not simply recount fact; they curate narrative. And what is left out often speaks louder than what remains. Across the appellate filing, certain footnotes reference sealed documents, unnamed individuals, or prior rulings “on file with the court” but unavailable to the public. In legal practice, this is a common tactic—a shield justified as protecting non-parties, but which also serves to protect systemic privilege, institutional inertia, or reputational risk. In this case, however, the omissions carry outsized weight, given the international scope and criminal gravity of the underlying allegations. For example, references to specific non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) with the U.S. government are shrouded in indirect language. Rather than directly quoting or citing the terms of Epstein’s 2007 NPA with the Southern District of Florida, the brief alludes to it as a “complicating precedent”—without spelling out that it immunized “any potential co-conspirators,” language that arguably shielded Maxwell and others from federal indictment for years. This omission is not editorial oversight—it is calculated silence. More glaring is the language surrounding the sealed depositions. The appellate brief discusses the potential harm to Maxwell from unsealing her 2016 deposition, but fails to include direct quotations that would allow a reader—or appellate judge—to gauge the nature of the alleged harm. Instead, the court is expected to take counsel’s word for it, absent the very evidence that forms the crux of the appeal. And though reference is made to “dozens of non-party names,” no effort is made to distinguish between those merely mentioned and those implicated. Crucially, the footnotes omit any contextual mention of why Giuffre’s lawyers, and the intervening press coalition, pushed so hard for unsealing. The brief frames it solely as reputational injury to Maxwell, without footnoting the fact that those sealed documents include allegations about the recruitment, grooming, and abuse of minors—acts which, if proven, are not merely embarrassing, but criminal. Equally telling is what the footnotes avoid when discussing the timeline of events. There is no mention of the grand jury investigations quietly closed, of the civil lawsuits quietly settled, or the public figures privately panicked. Names like Jean-Luc Brunel, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Darren Indyke are absent, even though they are recurrent actors in the sealed materials. Their exclusion from the brief is not dictated by irrelevance, but by strategy. The appellate brief also sidesteps the implications of judicial behavior. Absent is any reference to Judge Kenneth Marra’s 2019 ruling, which found that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to inform Epstein’s victims of the NPA. This ruling, a judicial rebuke of prosecutorial conduct, is reduced to a footnote in history rather than included in a footnote where it belongs. Why does this matter? Because in a case where the public interest is immense—where private jets, presidents, royals, and hedge fund magnates all orbit the same gravitational field—what is omitted shapes the boundary between transparency and obfuscation. The appellate court brief, while professionally constructed, functions not only as legal argument, but as reputational triage. And every redacted exhibit, every sealed transcript, every euphemistic footnote serves that purpose. In the end, Footnotes of Omission is not just a metaphor—it is a methodology. It reveals how appellate law can be a battlefield not only of evidence, but of what counts as evidence. It shows how silence is structured, and how justice, when filtered through elite access and institutional caution, can leave its most critical facts in the margins. XX engagements  **Related Topics** [maxwell](/topic/maxwell) [blank](/topic/blank) [ghislaine maxwell](/topic/ghislaine-maxwell) [ghislaine](/topic/ghislaine) [Post Link](https://x.com/nigroeneveld/status/1947711769461289322)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Niels Groeneveld @nigroeneveld on x 12.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-22 17:34:07 UTC
Footnotes of Omission: What the Appeals Court Brief Didn’t Want You to See
In the long paper trail of USCOURTS-ca2-22-01426-0—the appellate case involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre—some of the most revealing absences are found not in the arguments presented, but in the footnotes left blank, redacted, or conspicuously omitted. Legal briefs are strategic documents. They do not simply recount fact; they curate narrative. And what is left out often speaks louder than what remains.
Across the appellate filing, certain footnotes reference sealed documents, unnamed individuals, or prior rulings “on file with the court” but unavailable to the public. In legal practice, this is a common tactic—a shield justified as protecting non-parties, but which also serves to protect systemic privilege, institutional inertia, or reputational risk. In this case, however, the omissions carry outsized weight, given the international scope and criminal gravity of the underlying allegations.
For example, references to specific non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) with the U.S. government are shrouded in indirect language. Rather than directly quoting or citing the terms of Epstein’s 2007 NPA with the Southern District of Florida, the brief alludes to it as a “complicating precedent”—without spelling out that it immunized “any potential co-conspirators,” language that arguably shielded Maxwell and others from federal indictment for years. This omission is not editorial oversight—it is calculated silence.
More glaring is the language surrounding the sealed depositions. The appellate brief discusses the potential harm to Maxwell from unsealing her 2016 deposition, but fails to include direct quotations that would allow a reader—or appellate judge—to gauge the nature of the alleged harm. Instead, the court is expected to take counsel’s word for it, absent the very evidence that forms the crux of the appeal. And though reference is made to “dozens of non-party names,” no effort is made to distinguish between those merely mentioned and those implicated.
Crucially, the footnotes omit any contextual mention of why Giuffre’s lawyers, and the intervening press coalition, pushed so hard for unsealing. The brief frames it solely as reputational injury to Maxwell, without footnoting the fact that those sealed documents include allegations about the recruitment, grooming, and abuse of minors—acts which, if proven, are not merely embarrassing, but criminal.
Equally telling is what the footnotes avoid when discussing the timeline of events. There is no mention of the grand jury investigations quietly closed, of the civil lawsuits quietly settled, or the public figures privately panicked. Names like Jean-Luc Brunel, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Darren Indyke are absent, even though they are recurrent actors in the sealed materials. Their exclusion from the brief is not dictated by irrelevance, but by strategy.
The appellate brief also sidesteps the implications of judicial behavior. Absent is any reference to Judge Kenneth Marra’s 2019 ruling, which found that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to inform Epstein’s victims of the NPA. This ruling, a judicial rebuke of prosecutorial conduct, is reduced to a footnote in history rather than included in a footnote where it belongs.
Why does this matter? Because in a case where the public interest is immense—where private jets, presidents, royals, and hedge fund magnates all orbit the same gravitational field—what is omitted shapes the boundary between transparency and obfuscation. The appellate court brief, while professionally constructed, functions not only as legal argument, but as reputational triage. And every redacted exhibit, every sealed transcript, every euphemistic footnote serves that purpose.
In the end, Footnotes of Omission is not just a metaphor—it is a methodology. It reveals how appellate law can be a battlefield not only of evidence, but of what counts as evidence. It shows how silence is structured, and how justice, when filtered through elite access and institutional caution, can leave its most critical facts in the margins.
XX engagements
Related Topics maxwell blank ghislaine maxwell ghislaine