| Melania Trump Gets Wolff
Case Dismissed in SDNY He Cited
Florida 770 Notices Sent to Him
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
May 22 – Journalist Michael
Wolff filed a defamation
lawsuit against Melania Trump
in New York State court on
October 21, 2025. On December
29, Melania Trump through
counsel filed a Notice of
Removal to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York, which
Inner City Press closely
covers and where it found it.
The notice says that she is a
resident of Florida and
therefore diversity
jurisdiction applies. Her
lawyers also wrote that
"plaintiff falsely and
maliciously asserted that Mrs.
Trump was somehow 'involved'
in the 'scandal' relating to
Jeffrey Epstein [and]
initiated this action in an
improper effort to preempt a
potential defamation lawsuit
against him by Mrs.
Trump." On January 26
Melania Trump's lawyers moved
to dismiss, or to transfer the
case to the Southern District
of Florida. On February 9
Wolff's lawyer opposed - and
filed Melania Trump's emails
with Ghislaine Maxwell, and an
FBI 203 about Paulo Zampolli,
who Inner City Press reported
on at the UN before being
thrown out of the UN by
Antonio Guterres, introducing
the first couple, on Patreon here On February 17
Melania Trump's lawyers
replied, leading with the
argument that there was be
effective service of process.
Full memo of law on Patreon here On February 24,
Wolff argued "If specific
personal jurisdiction over
Trump has not been
established, Wolff has made a
sufficient showing of
302(a)(3) New York contacts to
warrant a fair opportunity for
discovery on that issue. See
Cross-Motion, ¶6 and ¶7 (ECF
13). Wolff has shown that the
770.01 Notice– a notice that
had legal consequences for
Wolff in New York –
establishes 302(a)(3)
jurisdiction over Trump in New
York" - 14 page filing on
Patreon here On May 22, Judge
Vyskocil dismissed the case,
begining "n this case, a
chronicler of the First Family
sues the First Lady because
she threatened to sue him for
defamation. While Plaintiff
and the First Lady have a real
dispute, they must litigate it
according to the same
procedures as everyone else.
Plaintiff asks for a
declaration that, if the First
Lady sues him, he deserves to
win. That is not how the
federal courts work" - 45 page
Order on Patreon here More on X for
Subscribers here
and Substack here The SDNY case is Wolff v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10752 (Vyskocil)
*** 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. 
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis. Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com |
Friday, May 29, 2026
Melania Trump Gets Wolff Case Dismissed in SDNY He Cited Florida 770 Notices Sent to Him
On AI Beat As Suno Hides Its Training Data Inner City Press Request to Unseal Is Docketed in Boston Court
FEDERAL COURT, May 22 – In the
lawsuit between UMG Recordings and Sumo, many court
filings have been sealed. On May 22 Inner City Press as
part of its expanding artificial intelligence beat
coverage
filed to unseal.
U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge
F. Dennis Saylor, to his credit, docketed Inner City
Press' application to unseal, and directed the defendant
to respond to it by May 29:
"A
member of the press has submitted a letter opposing the
motion to impound. (Dkt. No. [233]). Consistent with the
protective order, defendant shall, on or before May 29,
2026, file with the Court a statement of the reasons the
material should be impounded that complies with Local
Rule 7.2 and addresses the issues raised in the letter."
Here's
from
Inner City Press' request:
I
am a reporter for Inner City Press and respectfully
submit this letter in opposition to the impoundment of
the supporting papers filed at Docket 230 on May 21,
2026, in the above- captioned matter, and requests that
the Court deny the impoundment or require Defendant
Suno, Inc. to make a specific, particularized showing of
good cause before any material remains under seal.
This is not an
ordinary copyright case. UMG Recordings, Capitol
Records, and Sony Music Entertainment — three of the
largest record labels in the world — have sued Suno,
Inc., one of the leading artificial intelligence music
generation companies, for copyright infringement based
on Suno's use of recorded music to train its AI system.
The central question — whether and how AI companies may
lawfully use copyrighted works to train generative AI
models — is among the most consequential legal issues of
this era. The
answer will shape the future of the music industry, the
AI industry, and the rights of artists, composers, and
copyright holders across every creative field. Millions
of musicians, songwriters, and listeners have a direct
stake in this litigation. So does every technology
company developing AI systems trained on human creative
work. This is precisely the category of case in which
the public's First Amendment and common law right of
access to judicial records is at its zenith.
Docket
230 impounds: •
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended
Complaint • Exhibit A to the Declaration of Rajan S.
Trehan • Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rajan S. Trehan
• Declaration of Daniel Delorey
These
are not peripheral discovery documents — they are the
core pleadings and supporting submissions for
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs'
memorandum of law contains the legal arguments that will
define the scope of this litigation. The Trehan
declaration exhibits and the Delorey declaration contain
evidence about Suno's training data that goes to the
heart of the copyright infringement claims. The motion
states that this material "contains information
regarding Defendant Suno Inc.'s training data"
designated "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only"
by Suno under the operative Protective Order. Dkt. 230
at 1.
The
motion itself reveals the critical procedural reality:
Plaintiffs "expressly reserve the right to object to
Suno's sealing the designated material." Dkt. 230 at 1.
Plaintiffs are impounding the material not because they
believe it should be sealed, but because Suno's "Highly
Confidential" designation under the protective order
compels them to seek impoundment as a precondition to
filing. This
is the same dynamic that courts have recognized as
problematic in other sealing contexts: a well- resourced
defendant uses a stipulated protective order to
designate materials as confidential, effectively forcing
the opposing party — and the public — to accept sealing
that the opposing party itself opposes. The parties
agreed that Suno would have five business days to file a
statement of good cause. See Dkt. 180 ¶ 22. That
deadline is approximately May 28-29, 2026. Inner City
Press urges the Court to hold Suno to a rigorous
standard when it files that statement.
Under First
Circuit precedent, there is a qualified First Amendment
and common law right of access to judicial records,
including documents filed in connection with substantive
motions. In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1 (1st
Cir. 2002); FTC v. Standard Financial Management Corp.,
830 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1987). The First Circuit has
recognized that the presumption of access is especially
strong for documents that are "central to the
adjudicatory process." Standard Financial, 830 F.2d at
410. A
motion to amend a complaint — and the memorandum of law
and declarations supporting it — are core adjudicatory
documents. They define the claims, identify the
evidence, and shape the entire course of the litigation.
A party asserting that such documents should be
impounded must demonstrate specific, particularized harm
from disclosure — not a generic invocation of "Highly
Confidential" designations made during discovery. The question
of what data Suno used to train its AI model is not a
peripheral trade secret — it is the central factual
question in this case. Suno has made public statements
about its AI capabilities and training methodology. The
notion that the training data facts are so sensitive
that even the legal arguments about them must be hidden
from the public does not satisfy the First Circuit's
standard.
The impounded
materials address what music Suno used to train its AI
system. This information is of direct public concern for
several reasons: First,
copyright law is a public law. It defines the rights of
creators and the obligations of those who use creative
works. The public has a right to know what conduct is
being alleged and what evidence supports those
allegations. Second,
the AI training data debate is a matter of active public
policy. Congress, the Copyright Office, and regulatory
agencies worldwide are actively considering how to
address AI training data and copyright. The judicial
record in this case is important public input into that
debate. Third,
artists and musicians — whose works may be at issue —
have a direct interest in understanding what is alleged
about how their recordings were used. Impounding that
information from them is particularly inappropriate.
Inner City
Press respectfully requests that the Court: (1) Decline to
impound Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 230) in its
entirety, as legal argument does not constitute
protectable confidential information and the public has
a First Amendment right to access pleadings that define
the scope of litigation;
(2) Require Defendant Suno, when it files its
statement of good cause under Local Rule 7.2 and Dkt.
180 ¶ 22, to identify with specificity which particular
facts or passages in each document would cause concrete
competitive harm if disclosed, and why that harm
outweighs the public interest in access; (3) Consider
whether targeted redaction of specific proprietary
technical details — rather than wholesale impoundment of
entire documents — would adequately protect any
legitimate confidentiality interests while preserving
public access to the legal arguments and general factual
contentions; and (4)
Make specific findings on the public docket as to any
material that remains impounded, consistent with the
First Circuit's requirement that sealing orders be
supported by specific findings. Standard Financial, 830
F.2d at 412. The
copyright questions presented in this case — whether and
how AI companies may use recorded music to train
generative models — will be decided in large part on the
factual record now being developed. The public,
including working musicians, AI developers, and every
person who interacts with AI-generated content, deserves
to understand the evidence and arguments that will
determine those questions. The First Amendment right of
access exists precisely for cases and requests such as
this.
The case is
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (1:24-cv-11611)
District Court, D. Massachusetts (F. Dennis Saylor IV)
Watch
this site.
In SDNY Tren de Aragua Case If Valero Calderon Wants to Plead Guilty Part 1 Cited
| In SDNY Tren de
Aragua Case If Valero
Calderon Wants to Plead
Guilty Part 1 Cited
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack SDNY
Exclusive,
May 22 – A defendant charged
with conspiracy to commit
carjacking as part of the Tren
de Aragua gang was presented
on December 12 before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Magistrate Judge Robyn F.
Tarnofsky. Inner City Press
was there, the only media in
the SDNY Mag Court. The
defendant Samuel Castro
repeatedly turned and gestured
to the law enforcement
officials in the back of the
courtroom; his Criminal
Justice Act appointed lawyer
said he wanted medicine for
his ear. He had
arrived from immigration
detention after being arrested
on November 6. On December 12
Castro was detained on consent
on the conspiracy
charges. On January 17, 2025 co-defendant Jarwin Valero Calderon came from the MDC to the Magistrates Court, with his CJA lawyer seeking release on bond. Inner City Press was there. Thread On September 19
Inner City Press was in the
SDNY Magistrates Court when
two more were brought into the
case, with murders and special
circumstances cited. On October 15 an
all-defendant conference held.
Four face possible death
penalty requests. Their
mitigation submissions are due
December 19, but defense
counsel said information is
hard to get from Venezuela -
and that Criminal Justice Act
investigations, interpreters
and mitigation specialists
have not been paid since July
3, before the shutdown. On October 17 the
Coordinating Discovery
Attorney filed a status report
noting that "the Office of
Defender Services offers free,
unlimited storage Box.com
accounts to all defense
counsel and staff working on
CJA cases." But who's paying
now? On November 13
after the shutdown ended Judge
Cote ordered "that defense
counsel shall submit the ex
parte mitigation reports by
December 4, 2025. (Signed by
Judge Denise L. Cote on
11/13/2025)." On November 17 a
change of plea was set, and on
November 20 it happened:
"Change of Plea Hearing as to
Sandro Oliveros-Chero.
Defendant withdraws his not
guilty plea and pleads guilty
as charged to counts 1 and 10
of the S2 indictment. The
Court accepts the guilty
plea. Sentence date set
for February 26, 2026 at 2:30
PM. Detention continued."
On December 8,
the move to another guilty
plea: ORDER as to Brayan
Oliveros-Chero: The Court
having been informed that the
defendant wishes to enter a
change of plea, it is hereby
ORDERED that a change of plea
hearing is scheduled for
December 18, 2025 at 3:30 PM Inner City Press
went on December 18 in order
to hear what sentencing
guideline was being given in
the plea agreement. It was and
is 117 to 131 months. On March 5,
Sandro: "JUDGMENT In A
Criminal Case (S2 25-Cr-41-5).
Date of Imposition of
Judgment: 3/5/2026. Defendant
Sandro Oliveros-Chero (5)
pleaded guilty to Count(s) 1s
and 10s. Count(s) All open
counts are dismissed on the
motion of the United States.
IMPRISONMENT: Twenty-four (24)
months on Count One, and Sixty
(60) months on Count Ten to
run consecutively to Count
One, for an aggregate term of
Eighty-Four (84) months." On March 9
co-defendants Perez-Gonzalez
asked for 72 months. On March 11, the
US Attorney's Office asked for
84 months - seven years. On March 13 on Brayan
Oliveros-Chero
the US
Attorney's
Office wrote
in asking for
the 117. On
March 20, ten
years or 120
months:
"JUDGMENT In A
Criminal Case
(S2
25-Cr-41-04).
Date of
Imposition of
Judgment:
3/20/2026.
Defendant
Brayan
Oliveros-Chero
(4) pleaded
guilty to
Count(s) 1s
& 10s.
Count(s) all
open are
dismissed on
the motion of
the United
States.
IMPRISONMENT:
120 months; 60
months on
count 1 and 60
months on
count 10 to
run
consecutively." On May 22, Judge Cote docketed that "as to Jarwin Valero-Calderon, should the defendants wish to enter a change of plea on May 26, 2026 at 3:30 PM, it is hereby ORDERED that the change of plea proceeding shall take place in Courtroom 110, 40 Foley Square in front of the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe.(Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 5/22/2026)." Judge Gardephe is the Part 1 judge for the week... The case is USA
v. Gonzalez Castro, et al.,
1:25-cr-41 (Cote)
*** 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.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis. Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com |