By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Song Video Song II
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Filing - Podcast
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 1 – Ghislaine Maxwell, charged with sex trafficking and other charges, faces a November 29, 2021 trial.
On October 29, she and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed a flurry of motions in limine, heavily redacted; the Government argued that trial exhibits are not public and will be withheld.
Inner City Press on April 2 wrote to the Court regarding access the arraignment on April 23. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below. Nov 1 podcast here.
On November 1, Judge Alison J. Nathan held a length hearing on the motions in limine. Inner City Press live tweeted the 11 am to 1 pm session here (podcast here) and now the 1:10 pm to 2:45 pm finale with Maxwell's saying "I have not committed any crime" and her conditions of confinement, here (podcast here)
2d part of pre-trial conference before Judge Alison Nathan Judge Alison J. Nathan: Let's turn to defense motion in limine 4, & let me hear from the US. Is it the US' position that this individual could be deemed a victim for restitution purposes?
AUSA Moe: I haven't thought it through & I'd want to confer with my Office.
AUSA Moe: The charge is conspiracy. Judge Nathan: But there has to be an intention to commit an illegal act. You have 403 questions and the like... I need to know the US' position, including for Defendant's 4.
AUSA Moe: At trial the issue will be Jeffrey Epstein's interest in underaged girls. But the defendant's conduct with those over 17 could be relevant.
Judge Nathan: In some cases well over the age of consent. I've excluded that. What's the difference here? AUSA Moe: She introduced sexual topics in a slow & gradual way. Judge Nathan: One might have moral judgment- but are you using the legal definition of victim?
Defense: At best the government is taking about pattern. That should be excluded. It is not probative of knowledge or intent. The conduct was not illegal [setting up dates with non-minors]. It was polite conversation.
AUSA Moe: We framed it as preference for girls under 18, we should have been more specific. When Minor Victim 4 was being trafficked, the defendant knew about Epstein's preferences from the conduct with Minor Victims 2 and 3.
AUSA Moe: It's like buying a ski mask before robbery - it's legal conduct that's relevant to a crime. Judge Nathan: But if the ski mask was bought three years before the robbery? That's 404b, evidence of methods and M.O.
Judge Nathan: I want to see a proposed limiting instruction and briefing. Gov't by the 5th, Defense response by the 10th. Mr. Everdell?
Defense lawyer Everdell: Fine. Judge Nathan: The US has agreed to exclude and redact evidence of defendant's false statements; I've severed the perjury charges.
Maxwell's defense lawyer: We have a problem that the US says it can establish a foundation but I'm skeptical about the foundation. It's an exhibit from 2009. We assume it was stolen and sold by the non deceased Rodriguez. So who authenticates it?
Judge Nathan: It's like the motion to exclude the search of Epstein's Palm Beach home. Who do I decide this at this stage? AUSA: We'll have law enforcement testimony. Defense: This is piecemeal, years after the fact. The seized item and try to relate them back
Judge Nathan: On the defense's motion to exclude the ID from photo array, I'm going to deny it. We begin our questionnaire process on Thursday. I'll video record the preliminary instructions tomorrow. Do you want to see it before Thursday? It's just a robe.
Judge Nathan: I won't ask jurors about vaccination in voir dire. But there will be differences in seating. For the non struck jurors, we'll ask Yes, No or I don't want to say
Judge Nathan: I think we'll do the peremptories on the 29th. AUSA Moe: Let me speak to plea offers. The government has not issued any, and they have not requested any. Defense: That is correct.
Judge Nathan: Ms. Maxwell is that correct?
Maxwell: I have not committed any crime.
Sternheim: What about the legal mail? It's been a week. AUSA Moe: Give me a moment.
Sternheim: If we hand-deliver material, she does not get it. If the US would do it, she'd get it.
AUSA: It's too time consuming. Sternheim: She was woken up at 3:45 am and brought here after five. It was cold. She is given food without utensils. She is shackled.
Judge Nathan: What's the application? Sternheim: That she be bought later. I'd like her released but I'll do that in writing. But she was woken up in the cell.
Judge Nathan: Is this different treatment in transport? Sternheim: I know no one who's arrived that early
Maxwell's lawyer Sternheim: She was brought here at 5:38 am. I've never seen this
Judge Nathan: I'll expect your filings in writing. We're adjourned.
On October 29, after the flurry of redacted motions, Inner City Press filed formal requests with SDNY District Judge Alison J. Nathan, now on DocumentCloud here:
Re: US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN), timely opposition to blanket requests to seal portions of motions in limine, trial exhibits, public access
Dear Judge Nathan: On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case. This concerns in the first instance the flurry of motions in limine filed earlier this evening, replete with redactions justified by a conclusory reference to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Government's Justifications for redaction (Docket No. 399, docketed at 10:06 pm on Friday Oct 29) cites Lugosch then says "The Government also seeks sealing of trial exhibits, which are not public." Inner City Press immediately opposes this.
As one example within this motions of limine, the Government has redacted the entirety of its Argument X, even the title and the page number. And as to trial exhibits, see for example Judge Jed S. Rakoff's order in US v. Weigand, 20-cr-188 (JSR), here.
There, Judge Rakoff ordered the US Attorney's Office to make trial exhibit available to the public at large. While this was done, belatedly, in US v. Parnas, it was refused in the current US v. Cole. It cannot be refused in this case. Also, Inner City Press understands that the listen-only call-in telephone lines available so far in the case, there may be an attempt to discontinue them. The Court should take judicial notice of continuing COVID-19 issues, including people's understandable concerns about congregating even in so-called overflow rooms. Be aware that the District for the District of Columbia still allows public phone access to all criminal proceedings, even those held in-person. That should happen here. The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for a short period of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).
For further example, in Docket No. 387, all exhibits are withheld and the expected testimony of already anonymized Minor Victim-3 is redacted. In Docket No. 382, Exhibits A through D, F, H and I are all withheld in full, and large portions of even the table of contests are redacted. How is the public to access the basis for withholding, when even the titles / subjects are withheld?
Inner City Press will cover the trial, and all the comes before and after; #CourtCaseCast and song I and song II:
Maxwell wanted to keep prospective juror questioning - voir dire - and selection even more sealed from the public and Press.
On October 18 the US Attorney's Office opposed the request, saying the the voir dire questions should be asked by Judge Nathan, and that there should only be sidebars on "sensitive questions such as those that relate to sexual abuse and media exposure." Full letter on Patreon here.
RCFP rightly submitted opposition, and Inner City Press and others in SDNY joined the opposition. And in a conference on October 21 on that as scheduling issues, Judge Nathan denied the request to seal. Inner City Press live tweeted it here (podcast here)
On October 22 the draft jury questionnaire was unsealed and Inner City Press has immediately published it on its DocumentCloud here, including "Have you or a family member ever supported, lobbied, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws, regulations, or organizations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse or sexual harassment?" Photo 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.
