What DID The Nephilim Find So Appealing In These Nasty Rascals?

nypost |  A federal judge ripped into Jeffrey Epstein cohort Ghislaine Maxwell for misleading the court on her marriage and wealth in a scathing decision denying her release on a $28.5 bail package.

“The defendant now argues that her newly revealed relationship with her spouse signals her deep affective ties in the country, but at the time she was arrested, she was not living with him and claimed to be getting divorced,” wrote US District Judge Alison Nathan of Maxwell’s mysterious marriage to tech CEO Scott Borgerson in newly unsealed court papers.

After Maxwell’s July bust, she was denied release to home confinement on a $5 million bond and had refused to disclose the name of her secret husband.

But in the 58-year-olds’s renewed motion for bail, her attorneys argued that the couple had lived an idyllic and devoted life in an oceanfront mansion in Manchester, Mass., supporting her claim of strong family ties to the country.

Prosecutors countered that she told pretrial services that she and Borgerson, 43, planned to split up.

The judge pointed out in the new papers that at the time of Maxwell’s arrest, she was hiding out on a sprawling compound in New Hampshire — not holed up with her hubby. Nathan’s denial of Maxwell’s bail proposal was disclosed Monday but the full 22-page ruling wasn’t unsealed until Wednesday.

Further, Nathan said, were Maxwell to be released, the British socialite proposed living with a friend, not Borgerson “undercutting her argument that that relationship would create an insurmountable burden to her fleeing.”

In another blow to Maxwell’s bid for freedom, the judge called her out for a “pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous information to the court or to pretrial services.”

The accused child abuser claimed at the time of her arrest she was worth just $.3.5 million — leaving out Borgerson’s assets and those that had been transferred to a trust. In her latest financial disclosures, she admitted that she and Borgerson’s net worth was about $22.5 million.

The vast disparity between the two figures “makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation was the result of the defendant’s misestimation rather than misdirection,” Nathan wrote.

“That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances.”