Saturday, December 19, 2020

As FP Takes South Africa Ad Money To Praise It Questions on Cameroon Banned Like Press

By Matthew Russell Lee, PhotosPeriscope

UN GATE, Dec 18 – South Africa is leaving the UN Security Council this month, after not holding a single meeting on the slaughter in Cameroon, after helping ethno-state Burundi evade scrutiny, all with the assistance not only of SABC but now Foreign Policy, taking ad money from South Africa. Photo here.

 On December 18 Inner City Press which covers Cameroon and the UN's failure on it sought to ask South Africa's Ambassador / censor Jerry Matjila for his side of the story. But FP, which has remained silent more than two years on a journalist being roughed up in the UN and banned since, curated a Q&A of questions about gumbo diplomacy, sh*thole countries and faux Afro-Centrism, Inner City Press stream here.

  The Brand South Africa ad promised pro South Africa questions from "Sherwin Bryce-Pease UN BUREAU CHIEF: SABC NEWS, SOUTH AFRICA.... Colum Lynch... Michelle Nichols, THOMSON REUTERS and Amanda Price," Al Jazeera... 

  Today's is totally corrupt, with supposed watchdogs taking ad money from those they purport to interview, and censors from Reuters and Al Jazeera reading scripted questions by Zoom. We'll have more on this.

It's not just December 2020 - this is from 2019:

With the UN Security Council presidency for October 2019 being taken over by South Africa's Jerry Matjila, he bragged in his 1 October 2019 press conference that there would be 40 meetings in the month.

None, though, on the slaughter in Cameroon. And Inner City Press which most asks about that UN failure remains banned from the UN by Antonio Guterres. Matjila's predecessor Mutaboba raised it; Matjila has not. It was whispered to him to hand the third question to his own state media, after the first question was by the head of UNCA just back from a junket in China, asking about Chinese power. This is today's UN.  

  Matjila mock referred questions to Marthinus van Schalkwyk; there is no mechanism to get news of transparency from this Mission.

 Inner City Press'  application for re-accreditation to enter and cover the UNSC stakeout, submitted on 15 April 2019, was denied without explanation on April 17. ("Greetings Matthew LEE from ICP     INNER CITY PRESS,  Your media accreditation request, with reference no: M66561081, has been declined.")  This was repeated for the UNGA week, with nothing from South Africa.

 Alamy photos here.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

In SDNY On Crypto Currency Fowler Lawyers Withdraw & April Trial Canceled Fowler Speaks

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon here Thread

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 18 – Arizona based crypto-currency maven Reginald Fowler, with multiple accounts with the HSBC, appeared ready to plead guilty on January 15 to a single count, "operation of an unlicensed money transmittal business."

  After that fell through on financial issues, Fowler was hit with a five count Superseding Indictment, adding as a fifth count the catch-all, Wire Fraud. On March 5, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Andrew L. Carter emphasized this fifth count to Fowler, see below.

On November 13, Fowler's lawyers asked to make a secret filing to withdraw. Inner City Press believe these is a public right to all or part of these filings, as recently advocated for and obtained regarding the financial filings of David Correia to Judge Oetken.

 On November 23, Judge Carter set in motion of processing of partial unsealing between Fowler's exiting lawyers and the US Attorney's Office.

Now on December 18 Judge Carter held another proceeding, allowing Fowler's lawyers to withdraw and postponing his trial indefinitely. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:

AUSA: Mr. Fowler has been on notice. He should be required to retain counsel & keep to trial date.

Judge Carter: Mr. Fowler, I am allowing your counsel to withdraw. You could fill out a financial affidavit for court appointed counsel.

Fowler: I will seek a new one

 Fowler: I have used all my asset. I put my properties up for bail. I can't get a bank account. We don't have any income. We can't get to the assets. I want to find a firm that understands that.

 Fowler: If I have to, I'll come back and ask the court to help me find an attorney. I don't mind to sound disrespectful, sir. Judge Carter: It's fine. Given the holiday, I'll give you 45 days. Fowler: Yes sir, thank you.

Judge Carter: We are adjourned, to Feb 9. Judge Carter: It is unlikely a new counsel would be ready for trial in April. So I'm inclined to adjourn it, sine die. Mr Fowler: Thank you for your consideration, sir.

Judge Carter: We are adjourned.

Watch this site.

We'll have more on this - for now, here's the November 13 thread:

AUSA Greenwood says Fowler's lawyers should have to say more about why they want to withdraw. But US has said it is ok to make the filing secretly.  [Inner City Press disagrees]

 AUSA Greenwood: Let them file ex parte, then given the government access to all that is non privileged.  [Inner City Press: and what about the public?]

 AUSA Greenwood: These lawyers could then be employed as CJA [Criminal Justice Act]  Judge Carter: I give permission for ex parte filing on this conflict. I understand there is a public right, but in the first instance it's outweighed here. [But not filed yet]

 Judge Carter: Once I receive the documents I'll make a determination. [transitions to new Rule 5(g), but doesn't read script since these lawyers may withdraw] AUSA Greenwood: A potential withdrawal would impact trial date. Adjourned.

  Judge Carter proposed October 28 and Fowler's lawyers agreed. But the Assistant US Attorney said the lead counsel on the case has a trial near that time before Judge Denise Cote. She proposed August. Judge Carter said it is hard to get jurors in August "for a trial not as straight forward as a CBS Fall drama." Inner City Press was there; live tweeted thread here.

  Finally the parties agreed to start the trial on Monday January 11, 2021. Afterward Inner City Press waited by the elevators and, to see if Fowler was able to talk about Bitfinex, asking for his views of the XFL. He smiled, but on the advice of counsel... In the proceeding reference was made to defrauding the now defunct American Alliance of Football. Inner City Press asked, Will the XFL fare better? No.

 On October 15, Judge Carter held another proceeding and Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

 Now on October 23, Fowler's lawyers have put in more about how they want money unfrozen to fund his defense (that is, themselves). They write: "We are counsel to Mr. Reginald Fowler in the above-referenced action, and we submit this letter jointly with the government to request a bail hearing during the week of October 26, 2020. At the October 15, 2020 status conference, we advised the Court that we had informed the government of our intention to request a modification of the defendant’s current bail conditions to allow him to fund his defense. The Court instructed the parties to file a joint status report on the bail application today. Unfortunately, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement. By way of summary, the defense seeks an adjustment of the May 8, 2019 letter (the “Letter”)(attached), endorsed by the Court, which served as the basis of Mr. Fowler’s release on bond with conditions. Among other elements, the Letter includes, as the fifth bail condition, that “[n]o new lines of credit without [Pretrial Services] approval” shall be issued to the defendant. The Letter also references the five properties that the government required the defendant to post as security for the $5 million personal recognizance bond. The defense requests modification of both of these items." Full letter on Patreon here.

From Oct 15: Fowler's lawyer wants a delay of January 2021 trial date. Cites Portugal, saying the COVID situation there is "worse that in the US."

Judge Carter: I think it makes sense to postpone the trial. We need one of the bigger rooms, my courtroom is not one. Let's make the January 11 trial date now just another telephone conference. "At once point there was almost a resolution..."

Judge Carter: It seemed that forfeiture was the sticking point at the time. Has there been any progress? The Court could deal with forfeiture without a jury trial. Any discussions?

Fowler's counsel: They superseded the indictment. All discussions stopped.

AUSA Seb Swett: It's true, since we superseded, no talks.

Judge Carter: Mr Fowler could plead to the indictment, without a deal with the government, and we deal with forfeiture separately. Any thoughts?

Fowler's lawyer: There was always a looming wire fraud count
AUSA Swett: We would request a new trial date be set, maybe three months out from January 11.  Fowler's lawyer: We'd like the discovery for the wire fraud count. I don't see why since there's not threat of violence they are holding back all the 302s

Judge Carter: I'm not going to order US to provide that information, at least at this time. Let's pick an April trial date. Monday, April 12. We'll see what happens.

Fowler's lawyer: We'd like the security for his bond to be released. He's had $258 million frozen

Fowler's lawyer: We'd like a hearing on that next week.

Judge Carter: Let's set a date next week for a filing of a joint status report. Oct 23. And then a hearing if we need one. I exclude time to April 12, 2021. Adjourned.

 Watch this site. More on Patreon here.

 Previously, at what was billed as a change of plea proceeding, Fowler acknowledged the section of the law to which he was pleading guilty to violating: 18 US Code Section 1960. Yes, he said.

  Judge Carter said, We are here for a change of plea, and there was no objection. Judge Carter read from a plea agreement that Fowler had signed. All was going according to plan, until the issue of $371 million in forfeiture came up.

  Now on February 14, it would seem the plea is entirely and and pre-TRIAL schedule set: "Re: United States v. Reginald Fowler, S1 19 Cr. 254 (ALC) Dear Judge Carter: The parties respectfully write to request that the Court enter a schedule for pretrial motions in the above-captioned matter. The parties propose that pretrial motions be filed by February 28, 2020, with oppositions due on March 13, 2020, and any replies due on March 20, 2020." Inner City Press will continue on this case, and all things crypto in the SDNY.

    This is a case Inner City Press will continue to follow. It is US v. Fowler, 19-cr-00254 (Carter).

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

In Corrupt UN of Guterres UNESCO Security Service Dispute Takes Political Dimension

By Matthew Russell Lee & sources, Exclusive

UN GATE, Dec 18 – On December 10th, Inner City Press wrote about the deepening crisis at the security service of UNESCO, generated by the incompetent management of its Head, the French Nicolas Hergot.

This service is under severe strain for months now while the top managers of the agency are complacently closing their eyes in order to protect Hergot. 

The email sent by the STU President to all staff members (here), exposed blatantly the real situation and provoked an electroconvulsive psychodrama in the administration. An emergency meeting has been convened immediately attended by Director of DG’s Cabinet (France), DDG (China), ADG for Admin (UK) and Director HR (Japan). During that meeting, a destabilization plan for the STU has been outlined in order to overpower the President of STU and punish him for revealing openly the crisis. 

As a result, the DG Azoulay usual puppies, Director HR Kazumi Ogawa and ADG for Management Nicholas Jeffreys, instead of addressing the infirmities in the security service, initiated an intimidating pressure over the members of the STU Council.

Quite unfortunately, it worked with some, especially with the three Italian members of the STU Council, who opted to play the game of the administration aiming at destabilizing the STU President.    As usual, counting on the cowardice of some of its staff, the administration applied the divide and rule technique in a hope to shut down the right to speak at UNESCO and kill its unions rights that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  The STU destabilization started with the email from Director HR to STU Council members, but not copied to the STU President:  From: Director HRM Sent: jeudi 10 décembre 2020 14:06 To: STU Council  Copy: Jeffreys, Nicholas ; Brunner, Jennifer; Sadigova, Farida Sadigova Subject: STU - Malaise in the Security and Safety Service     Esteemed colleagues of the STU Council, I was shocked to see this message below, which was shared to all UNESCO staff, in the name of a staff association. The statements set out in this message are factually incorrect. We, both HRM and Chief Security, have been in regular contact with Presidents of both staff associations on numerous occasions on both the extraordinary and temporary conditions of travel as well as the reorganization of a shift system.     In my view, as a staff member, I also found it unfortunate to invoke the Director-General publicly in a missive such as this, particularly at this time, during the Executive Board when she is leading the efforts of the Secretariat to engage Member States on the future of the work of the Organization. This detracts rather than supports her during this crucial period.    

With a view to setting the record straight, ADG ADM would like to convene a meeting with the STU Council. We regret the short notice, but feel it is necessary to address this quickly. As such, we would like to invite you to a meeting at 16:00 today. Should it transpire that many of you not are not able to participate this afternoon, I would, as an alternative, propose 15:00 tomorrow, Friday 11 December.     While this matter is certainly unpleasant, I look forward to meeting with you in the spirit of addressing any concerns that you, our representatives, may have, so that we may continue to work together. The Director-General attaches great important to the role of staff associations, and counts on all of us to engage constructive cooperation, as we work together to meet the objectives of this noble Organization. Best, Kazumi Ogawa 

A senior staff member underscored: “Madam Ogawa says she is shocked. Quite amusing statement actually. She better be shocked about the lawlessness in her HR Bureau and all the HR shenanigans happening at UNESCO since her appointment in that position. Fibbing all the time is a perilous exercise, and Madam Ogawa should watch out since even the Japanese ambassador to UNESCO, who is known to be a respected man, will start knitting his brows. Protection of falsifiers of facts at D2 level has a limit”.

Actually, what Ogawa used as an argument to defend Azoulay’s administration is nonsense. To be “in regular contact with Presidents of both staff associations on numerous occasions” does not mean to consult them on a reform of a service according to the existing rules. But not respecting rules and procedures is the trademark of this administration, he added.  The Ogawa nonsensical email was followed by the email of her boss, the famed for his administrative dishonesty and lack of principles, Nicholas Jeffreys (UK).

As usual, Azoulay can count on both to lie as required since this is what they have been doing since their recruitment in order to protect her corrupted administration.    After influencing some STU Council members to betray further their President and publicly reverse his strong statement, Nicholas Jeffreys sent off the following “deploring” email to all staff members of the Agency: 

From: UNESCO Info  Sent: mardi 15 décembre 2020 16:41 To: Liste.UNESCO Subject: UNESCO Administration deplores the statement of the President of the STU  Reply to statement made by the President of the STU on 10th December 2020  UNESCO Administration deplores the statement made by the President of the STU on 10th December 2020, entitled “Malaise in the Security and Safety Service”, which contains factual errors. It notes that this statement was made by the STU President, and not endorsed by the STU Council.  (…) In this respect, UNESCO Administration recalls the Standards of Conduct of the International Civil Service, which state, inter alia, that “in using the broad freedom of expression they enjoy, staff representatives must exercise a sense of responsibility and avoid undue criticism of the organization”. The Administration deplores the attack on an individual staff member, contained in this message. Signed: ADG/ADM. Another misleading message from the British Pinocchio about supposed “factual errors” by the STU President and misinterpretation of facts to protect the administration. 

Luckily for the staff and unfortunately for the administration and its lousy representatives, the President of the other UNESCO Staff association, AIPU/ISAU, wrote himself to the DDG, Director Cabinet, Director HR and ADG Admin.  In his email of yesterday, 17 December, the President of ISAU confirmed that the two associations have never been consulted on the reform of the security service according to the rules, which confirms that the STU President is right in his alerting message about the situation in this service: “(…)

Furthermore, we inform you that ISAU had received a proposal from the head of the security service on February 11, 2020, but no consultation has taken place since. To be recorded that the new measures that will be implemented in January 2021 are not identical to those of the proposal of February 11”.  This message of ISAU corroborated the facts as exposed by the STU and put down the defensive and divisive plans of the administration.

Thus, its divide and rule technique that worked in the past did not work this time, possibly because reelection for a real DG is looming ahead in 2021.  In the meantime, the French Police Commissaire Nicolas Hergot proved to be unsuccessful in chasing the inhouse sources that exposed the sexual performance-based promotion affair of Kacyanides and his lovely mistress. He is considered not efficient, so it was decided by Azoulay that he will be seconded by another French Police Commissaire and one French Gendarme to be appointed shortly. Nicolas Hergot publicly vowed to transform the security service into a French gendarmerie style one. This is how UNESCO is becoming Frenchesco at all levels. 

Furthermore, taking into account that since his appointment, Hergot often showed disrespect and disdain to his colleagues, the ADG for Admin has summoned him in his office and told him to adapt with no delay his professional behavior to UNESCO’s standards. Still, as put by one of his colleagues: “Despite those firm instructions from his hierarchy, Nicolas Hergot, being a pure product of the French Police system will hardly be able to adapt his French Policeman style to the international environment of UNESCO. His appointment was a mistake. He is destroying our service”. This is clearly a case study about the way the French DG is imposing a French modus operandi at UNESCO.

Will member states’ representatives, who are fully aware about it, and brought this issue to a political level, follow her in this direction? The future elections in 2021 will say. Watch this site.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Suing Sacha Baron Cohen Roy Moore Gets 1 Hour Deposition But Limited No Appeal Yet

By Matthew Russell Lee,  PatreonthreadII

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 18 – Roy Moore's defamation lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen, which has survived a motion to dismiss, was on for a conference on July 31 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Andrew L. Carter. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

 On December, with the case reassigned to new(er) SDNY Judge John P. Cronan, another conference was held, which Inner City Press also covered and live tweeted, here.

Now on December 18, a long argument on whether Klayman foMoore can depose Cohen, and on what. Ultimately, Judge Cronan allows one hour, limited to corporate entities. Klayman asked him to certify it for appeal: denied. Inner City Press will continue to cover it, the December 18 live tweet is here, podcast here, email spat on Patreon here:

CBS / Cohen lawyer McNamara: We are proposing a protective order like one agreed to by  SDNY Judge Koeltl... It would cover commercially sensitive business info, private information, and information confidential by contract. Here, we want it to cover the entire action

McNamara: We want it to cover info about the development of the show, and financial info and marketing plans. 

Moore's lawyer Klayman: Court proceedings are to be in the public. This is not a Wall Street case - this is non complex

Klayman: Why should internal emails about Judge Moore and his wife be made public. How they viewed him, whether they thought that he was a pedophile or not - this is relevant information


 Klayman: Mr Cohen is a rich man, his lawyers cost $3000 an hour, put together. They want to designate anything, then we put our time in, it's a strategic method of keeping my client on defense, even though he's the plaintiff

 Klayman: I helped break up AT&T. This is not like that. It's about fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We are not Islamic Republic of Iran, we don't have Star Chambers.

Judge Cronan: We will be entering the order, if any problem I'll revisit

 Klayman: I'm here on a contingency fee basis. I'd like attorney's fees and costs if this protective order is abused.

Judge Cronan: You'd be welcome to make an application. Let's turn to the issue of Mr. Cohen's deposition. On Dec 3 I ordered limited discovery

Judge Cronan: The defendants are saying this is satire and political commentary. CBS/Borat lawyer: Exactly. [And the contractual language]

Judge Cronan: Malice will not be relevant, citing FN 4 of Ms. McNamara's letter - Inner City Press photo below McNamara: Mr. Cohen is not knowledgeable on corporate structure here... He played no role, other the signing them..

Judge Cronan: So Mr. Klayman, why do you need to depose Mr. Cohen? Klayman: You said discovery on "1st Amendment" and what we need to oppose motion

 Klayman: Mr. Cohen is not the Secretary of Commerce, he's no different than you or me. We have to put him under oath. Your Honor's been a lawyer for a long time, you know how important deposition are. Mr. Cohen knows why he set these structures up

Klayman: They've asked to depose Judge Moore, to find out if he's a pedophile. That's what's at issue here. This case is not like Borat. This is not routine satire, this is about destroying someone's life and reputation. They just don't want Mr. Cohen embarrassed Klayman: There is an impression you are being overly protective of Mr. Cohen and large corporate entities.  Judge Cronan: Mr. Klayman, that comment is as insulting as it it inaccurate.

 [Note: Klayman got into some trouble in SDNY in the past, before Judge Chin, in 1997, as Inner City Press reported here]

Judge Cronan: They are saying the contract preclude this. Inner City Press @innercitypress · 53m Klayman: There is no reason to preclude the deposition of Sacha Baron Cohen because he is a movie star. Judge Cohen: It's that others have more direct knowledge. Have you deposed the other two? Klayman: I'm a lawyer since Pearl Harbor Day. I start at the top

 CBS/Cohen lawyer: The other two could provide any information about the corporation. [Note: she must be pretty happy about the spat between Klayman and Judge Cronan on inappropriate deference to Borat]

Judge Cronan: What if the deposition of Mr. Cohen is allowed, but limited to the questions of his knowledge of the corporate entities? He was the owner, he had some level of knowledge. [Inner City Press would ask: Who would police this deposition? Film/stream it?]

McNamara: The fact is, those question would only take a few minutes. Why not do the other two people first? [She cites Judge Preska and 2d Circuit in the "boRAT' decision, mispronouncing it, perhaps on purpose]

 McNamara: If he stands by his allegations, we don't need the deposition [of Moore - seems they'll say anything to avoid deposition of Sacha Baron Cohen, or, that's their marching orders. Will Judge Cronan allow limited depo? Did Klayman allegation help?

Klayman: She just said, if we have a deposition it would only be a few minutes. She's under orders to keep him from testifying. He's known to be a fraudster. Ms. McNamara was being disingenuous at best - they were not supposed to get into issues of sexual conduct

 Klayman: Judge Carter tried to get us to settle. [Case was transferred from Judge Carter to Judge Cronan when he joined SDNY bench. Inner City Press is still unclear on which cases get redistributed -#crowdsource?

Klayman: My client was chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, that's pretty good. He respects you, but wants you to mete out equal justice. And so do I. She wants, heads I win, tails you lose. We deserve to take the deposition. Then can depose Judge Moore

Klayman: We've lost two weeks already. They want a fourth bite at the apple. Judge Cronan: Ms. McNamara, why isn't the intent of setting up the corporate entity relevant? McNamara: We've produced releases. Cheney signed it. Congressmembers signed it

McNamara: The entity was set up to be non-identifiable, so it couldn't be tracked back to a corporation like Showtime. But he disclaimed reliance on that misrepresentation. He was a judge, he understands agreements, and presumably understood this one. See, Borat

Judge Cronan: Wasn't Judge Carter's point that he had to accept what was alleged in the Complaint as true? Klayman: He had the corporate documents. He said, we need more discovery. It's in the record. Judge Cronan: Ms. McNamara, what was your understanding?

 McNamara: He was precluded from resolving it on motion to dismiss. I can quote from the Court's order...  Klayman: Judge Carter said discovery was relevant. So we want to depose Cohen Klayman: If this case is disposed of without this deposition, this case will come back to you...

Judge Cronan: I will permit a limited deposition of Mr Cohen, along terms I'll explain. Inner City Press @innercitypress · 23m Judge Cronan: I will allow a deposition of one hour. Limited to issues limited to the forthcoming motion to dismiss. Questions about the formation of the corporate entity. It sound like Mr. Cohen will have very little info on this, according to Ms. McNamara.

Judge Cronan: I am not comfortable precluding a deposition of Mr. Cohen, given the parameters I have laid out. If it exceeds the scope, I will shut down the deposition.


 Klayman: Why are you reversing yourself and precluding Firs Amendment? Judge Cronan: Mr Klayman, if you continue to cut me off, we will mute you. Klayman: You will mute me? ...McNamara: I think this is eminently reasonable and fair.

 Judge Cronan: Also, no inquiry into whether the entity was set up.  Klayman: But they intend to harass my clients. I would like you to certify this to the 2d Circuit.  Judge Cronan: Certify what? That application is denied.

 Jude Cronan: We are adjourned

    When the suit arrived for a pre-motion conference back on August 1, 2019 before Judge Carter, an even more preliminary matter was raised. Moore's lawyer Larry Klayman, previously of Judicial Watch, had yet to apply to be admitted to practice in the SDNY for the case, pro hac vice.    

The reason quickly came out. In a 1997 case before then District Judge Denny Chin, Klayman has asked Judge Chin about any contacts or connections with John Huang, a Democratic Party fundraiser Judicial Watch was then, well, Watching.   

It seems that when Judge Chin asked Klayman "You asked questions of the court, at least in part, because of my race?"  Klayman replied, "In part. And let me tell you why ... We are all human, and sometimes, sometimes subjective criteria can unwittingly, no matter how ethical, no matter how decent, no matter how honest someone is--and we believe you to be that--they can subjectively influence our decision-making. Honor has to search his own soul to a large extent."    

Judge Chin imposed a condition that Klayman, on any future pro hace vice application in the SDNY would have to disclose Judge Chin's order against him in that case, Macdraw, Inc v. The CIT Group Equip, et al.91-cv-05153 (DC). There was no sunset clause on this mandate to disclose.    

Judge Carter on August 1 summoned each party's lawyers to his robing room, first together then one by one, ex parte. When they emerged a schedule was set. Klayman's pro hac vice application is due on August 8, and then on August 22 the status of the case, including if the party's consent to referral to an SDNY Magistrate Judge.   

Inner City Press afterward in the hall outside Judge Carter's courtroom asked Klayman if he or his client are amenable to referral to a Magistrate. Klayman told Inner City Press that he found Judge Carter to be fair, emphasizing that was on the record, he would like it reported.   

When Inner City Press asked about a separate disciplinary action pending in the District of Columbia Klayman said it was a complaint by a dissatisfied client who sued Voice of America and said he had gotten Gloria Alred, who was at the SDNY this week speaking to the press about Jeffrey Epstein, to express support for him.     Klayman's Law Group, with an American flag on the business card he gave to Inner City Press, has offices in Washington and Florida. Whether the long ago interchange with Judge Chin will or should have an impact on this case in the SDNY in 2019 in a question for another day. August 8, to be precise.

 This case is Moore et al. v. Cohen et al., 19-cv-4977 (Cronan).

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017