By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Song Video Song II
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Filing - Podcast
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 5 – 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 lengthy 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)
Inner City Press on October 29 filed opposition to both sides' extensive redactions. While still not docketed, Judge Nathan on November 2 put this order in the docket: "The parties are ORDERED to submit the proposals to the Court via email by November 4, 2021."
But as of 1 pm on November 5, none of them are in the docket. Why not? Instead, there is this order: "Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration regarding Disclosure of Juror Names... the motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 407, is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/5/2021). Watch this site.
On November 3 Judge Nathan set up another conference, on among other things the potential exclusion of an expert on grooming: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter in response to this Court's order dated October 31, 2021. Dkt. No. 406. The Court will hold a hearing on November 10, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. on the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021 conference. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 110 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The Court will provide information on public access (for the portion of the Daubert hearing that does not overlap with the Rule 412 issues) as soon as it is available."
Inner City Press asks, Why will public access not include a listen-only call-in line, as it did on November 3 in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, and in all DDC and other SDNY criminal cases? The question was asked in Inner City Press' October 29 filing, still not docketed. Watch this site.
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.
