By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 15 – Ghislaine Maxwell, charged with sex trafficking and false statements in a second superseding indictment, has requested an in-person arraignment citing previous press coverage and debacles(s).
Inner City Press on April 2 requested audio and video access for the arraignment on April 23. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.
On August 27, when the SDNY confirmed its fourth quarter schedule, the November 29 trial date was confirmed as firm: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Clerk's Office has now confirmed that a jury trial in this case has been scheduled to commence on November 29, 2021. This is a firm trial date."
Now on October 15 Maxwell through counsel has replied that she should get one-day mail service in the MDC, or her freedom. Letter on Patreon here. She cites "a BOP version of 'my dog ate my homework.'" She concludes, It is time for the Government and the Court to seriously reconsider Ms. Maxwell's detention."
Then Judge Nather ruled, no: "ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Counsels of record for the Government dated 10/15/21 re: Government response to Order of The Court dated 10/15/21 (Dkt No. 348).ENDORSEMENT: Based on the information in this letter the Court will not enter the Defendant's requested order. See Dkt. 346. However, it is the Court's firm expectation that a defendant in a pre-trial posture like Ms. Maxwell will in most circumstances receive legal mail within approximately 1 business day. Going forward, if another delay occurs, the Defendant may renew the request for a specific order requiring delivery within the time frame. With this understanding and in light of the unusually early pre-trial disclosure schedule set by the Court, the Court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell and her attorneys are fully able to prepare for trial. This resolves Dkt. No. 346. SO Ordered.. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/15/21)." Watch this site.
Maxwell wants to keep prospective juror questioning - voir dire - and selection even more sealed from the public and Press. On October 13 Judge Nathan gave the US until October 18 to respond: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's motion for an order granting individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. Dkt. No. 341. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by Monday, October 18, 2021 (Government Responses due by 10/18/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/13/21)" and docketed October 14.
On October 12 the US Attorney's Office asked that its joint jury questionnaire be sealed: "he defense respectfully requests that the joint proposed juror questionnaire and joint proposed voir dire be filed under seal to avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The Government consents to the defense’s request." Watch this site.
On October 5 Judge Nathan asked: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is currently in the process of planning logistics for trial in this matter and requires the parties' best and current estimate of length of trial. The Court plans to have the jury sit 5 days a week from 9am until 5pm. Given that jury selection will be complete by November 19 and opening statements will occur on November 29, the Court requests that the parties provide their best estimate as to when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. This will allow the Court to assess the likelihood that trial may continue after the Christmas holiday and therefore whether the jury may be required to sit some days during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. Accordingly, on or before October 12, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to confer and submit a joint letter with their best and current estimate as to when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/5/2021)."
On October 12, the estimate is a six week trial.
On August 30, Maxwell through counsel argued that in order to file her "motions in limine" by October 18, she needs disclosure by the prosecution of "the specific co-conspirator statements it intends to admit at trial... The government says that, at least as of August 18, it intends to seek admission of co-conspirator statements by only two individuals: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein's referenced in Paragraph 25(d) of the S2 indictment."
Here's what Paragraph 25(d) says: "On multiple occasions between in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein, MAXWELL, or one of Epstein's other employees called Minor Victim-4 to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-4 to massage Epstein. For example, in or about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's called Minor Victim-4 to schedule such appointments."
On September 3, Judge Nathan granted it nothing that the US has not alleged danger to co-conspirators: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court ORDERS that at the same time that the Government discloses Jencks Act material, the Government shall also disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the Government will refer at trial. The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/3/2021)." Full order here. Watch this site.
On August 18 Maxwell's lawyers complained about the MDC switching her legal video calls from WebEx to Zoom and, they accuse, recording the calls. They named an MDC staffer by only one name, Leon, and quoted from MDC Legal's response.
On August 23, AUSA Maurene Comey replied, acknowledging that "due to an oversight by MDC IT staff, however, that same virtual room had also been assigned for a different group's use at the same time as the defendant's VTC appointment... MDC and BOP staff spent several days working to set up a unique VTC virtual room for the defendant's exclusive use on the BOP's system."
Now on August 25 Judge Nathan has ruled: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant submitted a letter on August 18 informing the Court about disruptions of attorney-client video teleconferences. Dkt. No. 319. After conferring with MDC Legal, the Government responded on August 23. Dkt. No. 326. According to the Government and MDC Legal, the Defendant's difficulties in communicating with her counsel via video teleconference have been resolved, and the Government's letter sufficiently addresses her other requests. The Court finds MDC Legal's assurance that Defendant's communications have not been interfered with, recorded, or listened to sufficient. No further application for relief was made in Defendant's August 24 reply. Dkt. No. 327. The Court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell is fully able to communicate with her defense counsel and to prepare for trial. If Defendant experiences further issues in communicating with her counsel, she should promptly notify the Court after conferring in good faith with the Government and MDC Legal. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/21)."
When Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motions for a bill of particulars, she put in a footnote that she "presumes the Government intends to disclose this information [a list of unnamed co-conspirators] at the same times that... it discloses Jencks Act material." On August 18, the US said it has no such intent.
Now Judge Nathan has ordered the parties to meet and confer about disclosure, and if not agreed by August 26, for Maxwell to file a response to DOJ position by August 30. Watch this site.
On August 18 Maxwell's lawyers complained about the MDC switching her legal video calls from WebEx to Zoom and, they accuse, recording the calls. They name an MDC staffer by only one name, Leon, and quote from MDC Legal's response. What will Judge Nathan do? Watch this site.
On July 30, acting on filings about an op-ed concerning the applicability of Bill Cosby's release to Maxwell, Judge Nathan issued a three page warning: "The Government has moved for an order requiring David Markus to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 following an op-ed that he authored opining on the merits of this pending case. Dkt. No. 309. Mr. Markus is plainly a lawyer associated with the defense in this case. His formal representation has involved handling at least one pre-trial issue for Ms. Maxwell—in particular, appeals to the Second Circuit of this Court’s bail-denial determinations. Nevertheless Mr. Markus argues that he is not subject to Rule 23.1... Nothing in the rule limits its application to lawyers who have formally noticed an appearance. To the contrary, as the text throughout the rule makes clear, it applies to statements made by lawyers (and others) “associated” with “pending or imminent criminal litigation.” S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a) (last updated Oct. 29, 2018); see also Rule 23.1(b) (“a lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation”); Rule 23.1(c) (“lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense”). An attorney need not be of record in order to be sufficiently “associated” with a case as to justify application of disciplinary rules regarding extrajudicial statements. Such is the case with Mr. Markus’s role in the pending matter. As noted, Mr. Markus has attended a proceeding in this Court, after which he spoke to the press on Ms. Maxwell’s behalf. He has represented Ms. Maxwell on appeals of this Court’s pre-trial bail determinations. Moreover, Mr. Markus has identified himself as Ms. Maxwell’s appellate lawyer in a published op-ed discussing his opinion of the merits of this case. These facts mean that the public, which includes potential jurors, may perceive Mr. Markus as an authoritative source of information regarding the pending matter and may readily consider his remarks to be accurate and reliable. Mr. Markus is therefore ORDERED to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1. The Government does not ask the Court to discipline Mr. Markus based on his op-ed... All those associated with this case must act to ensure the case is tried solely in court or else they risk being deemed responsible for any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the upcoming trial. See S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h). In addition to the impact it could have on this matter, failure to comply could also result in attorney discipline. Id. Rule 23.1(i)." Order on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.
Back on June 15, Maxwell through her lawyers complained that in the MDC jail "last week, raw sewage permeated Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell, necessitating her removal to another cell... vermin droppings fell from air vents." Full letter on Patreon here
On May 10, the US Attorney's Office wrote to Judge Nathan to proposed starting the trial on November 29, noting the Thanksgiving week before and the importance of having AUSA Maurene Comey involved.
And on May 11, Judge Nathan issued an order confirming she will request that date, with jury selection to begin November 15: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has considered the parties' proposals regarding the commencement of trial. Dkt. Nos. 275, 276. For the reasons stated in the Government's letter, the Court will request November 29, 2021 from the Clerk's Office as the trial start datethat is the date (pending approval from the Clerk's Office consistent with the SDNY COVID protocols) that opening statements will be made to the jury. However, the Court will also request from the Clerk's Office that jury selection occur during the week of November 15."
On May 6, the US Attorney's Office wrote in that "The Government has now determined that, for a subset of the photographs requested by the defendant, the Government previously provided the defense with scanned images of this subset of photographs from the FBI Florida file. The original photographs are currently in the FBI’s possession. Accordingly, because some of the original photographs are currently in the Prosecution Team’s possession, the Government will make them available to the defendant for inspection upon request." Full submission on Patreon here.
After Maxwell's complaint about flashlight checks and eye coverings, the US Attorney's Office on May 5 wrote in, full letter on Patreon here
After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC prison, on July 2 Acting US Attorney for the SDNY Audrey Strauss announced and unsealed in indictment of Maxwell on charges including sex trafficking and perjury.
Inner City Press went to her press conference at the US Attorney's Office and asked, Doesn't charging Maxwell with perjury undercut any ability to use testimony from her against other, bigger wrong-doers? Periscope here at 23:07.
Strauss replied that it is not impossible to use a perjurer's testimony. But how often does it work?
At 3:30 pm on July 2 Maxwell appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampsire, before Magistriate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
(Also live tweeted bail denial of July 14, here.)
In the July 3 media coverage of Maxwell, media all of the world used a video and stills from it of Maxwell speaking in front of a blue curtain, like here.
What they did not mention is something Inner City Press has been asking the UN about, as under UNSG Antonio Guterres with his own sexual exploitation issues (exclusive video and audio) it got roughed up and banned from the UN: Ghislaine Maxwell had a ghoulish United Nations press conference, under the banner of the "Terramar Project," here.
On July 5, after some crowd-sourcing, Inner City Press reported on another Ghislaine Maxwell use of the United Nations, facilitated by Italy's Permanent Representative to the UN, UN official Nikhil Seth and Amir Dossal, who also let into the UN and in one case took money from convicted UN briber Ng Lap Seng, and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, also linked to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
At the Ghislaine Maxwell UN event, the UN Deputy Secretary General was directly involved.
List of (some of) the participants on Patreon here.
Inner City Press has published a phone of Maxwell in the UN with Dossal, here. But the connection runs deeper: Dossal with "25 years of UN involvement" was on Terrarmar's board of directors, one of only five directors, only three not related to Maxwell by blood and name.
The directors: Ghislaine Maxwell, Christine Malina-Maxwell, Steven Haft, Christine Dennison and... Amir Dossal. Inner City Press is publishing this full 990 on Patreon here.
Dossal has operated through the UN Office of Partnership, with Antonio Guterres and his deputy Amina J. Mohammed, here.
And the links to the world of UN bribery, including Antonio Guterres through the Gulbenkian Foundation, runs deeper. More to follow.
Antonio Guterres claims he has zero tolerance for sexual exploitation, but covers it up and even participate in it. He should be forced to resign - and/or have immunity waived.
Terramar has been dissolved, even though Maxwell's former fundraiser / director of development Brian Yurasits still lists the URL on his (protected) Twitter profile, also here.
But now Inner City Press has begun to inquire into Ghislaine Maxwell's other United Nations connections, starting with this photograph of another day's (or at least another outfit's) presentation in the UN, here. While co-conspirator Antonio Guterres has had Inner City Press banned from any entry into the UN for two years and a day, this appears to be in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) chamber. We'll have more on this, and on Epstein and the UN. Watch this site.
The case is US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (Nathan).
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
