The release to the media by Congressman Raskin (Dem., Maryland), of Ms. Maxwell’s privileged client-attorney email correspondence with me is as improper as it is a denial of justice.
Congressman Raskin is a Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee, an attorney and law professor. He must be aware that his conduct undermines the whole legal process. His action should be a matter for professional disciplinary action.
There have been appropriate consequences already for employees at Federal Prison Camp Bryan. They have been terminated for improper, unauthorized access to the email system used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow inmates to communicate with the outside world.
The provision of those emails to a federal official who then caused them to be shared with the media is a breach of constitutional protections including the First, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments afforded to all prisoners.
Dressing the improper action up as ‘Whistleblower Information’ does not mitigate the fact that the mails were both illegally obtained and put to unconstitutional purpose. It is clear that no effort to fact check the credibility or veracity of the so called “whistleblower” was made by the Representative or his offices. For Rep. Raskin to seek to make political capital from such publication and from the content of personal emails between Ms. Maxwell and a family member is both shocking and reprehensible.
Regrettably, this is just the latest example of Ms. Maxwell's constitutional and human rights being ridden roughshod over. This began in July 2020 with her two years of torturous incarceration in solitary isolation and suicide watch at the infamous MDC Brooklyn, followed by more than three years at FCI Tallahassee, an institution that the DOJ's own Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) on independent investigation found to be filled with black mold, with inmate food contaminated with rodent droppings and infested with insects.
Ms. Maxwell will shortly be filing a Habeas petition with the Federal District Court (SDNY). Habeas petitions are distinct from petitions to the Supreme Court, in that they relate to prisoners’ rights and conviction challenges.
Contrary to Rep. Raskin’s assertion, Ms. Maxwell has not requested a commutation – or made a Pardon – application to the second Trump Administration. Prior to any such application a Prisoner needs to demonstrate that all possible avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
In Ms. Maxwell’s case, her Habeas petition provides the court with material evidence not available at her trial in November–December 2021. In the four years since the verdict new evidence has indeed come to light – and is continuing to do so. The Habeas petition demonstrates that had this evidence been available it would have had a material impact on the trial’s outcome.
It also demonstrates unequivocally that significant government – and juror – misconduct occurred pre-, during and post- trial, making the verdict at the very least unsafe. It shows that Ms. Maxwell has every right to expect rapid and meaningful relief from the court, thus potentially obviating the need for any further action relating to her imprisonment.
