Inner City Press: October 2021

Sunday, October 31, 2021

Ghislaine Maxwell Pre-Trial Unsealing Blues, by Matthew Russell Lee @SDN...

Saturday, October 30, 2021

In Colombia FARC Drug Case Talk of Intercepts Now US Gives 58 Transcripts, 55 Calls

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 – Fabio Simon Younes Arboleda was indicted, with four others, for trying to import 10,000 pounds of cocaine from Colombia into the United States.

On November 17, 2020 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Valerie E. Caproni held an arraignment and bail hearing. Inner City Press covered it.

The US Attorney's office emphasized the defendant's connections with Seuxis Paucis Hernandez-Solarte a/k/a Jesus Santrich, of the FARC in Colombia. Reference was made to Maduro of Venezuela, and the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico.

The argument for bail was that he could live in Florida, near Orlando.

But Judge Caproni did not go along - she denied bail, and set the next proceeding for December 4.

On November 27 in advance of that proceeding Younes' lawyer wrote to Judge Caproni that "he consents to be appearing solely via counsel" and that his own cell phone number has by the Westchester County Jail been "designated for attorney-client communications and not subject to recording."

On December 4, Judge Caproni held a proceeding and Inner City Press covered it. She asked about the status of a co-defendant and was told that while the US Attorney's Office was seeking extradition, Columbia had released the person sought. He now believed to be near the Venezuela border, but the AUSA said all efforts are being made to capture him.

Jump cut to August 17, 2021, when Judge Caproni held another conference in the case and Inner City Press again covered it. There was walk of intercepted communications in Colombia. The defense's pre-trial motions are now due on January 14, with the government's response on February 11.

Another proceeding was set for December 16. Judge Caproni said, referring to COVID, that she hopes by next summer proceedings are closer to the pre-pandemic status quo than for now.

On October 29, the US Attorney's Office filed a status report that it has given the defense 58 transcripts, and Spanish-language summaries of 55 calls intercepted by Colombian authories.

The overall case is US v. Hernandez-Solarte, et al., 18-cr-262 (Caproni)

***

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.

UN Groups Pitch Murky Crypto Coins While SG Guterres Bans Press That Asks UN

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive, Patreon
Honduras - The Source - The Root - etc

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 30 – Asa Saint Clair was questioned for wire fraud by the US authorities at 845 United Nations Plaza in September 2019 for his involvement in a dubious cyber-currency called Igobit, issued through a UN-linked "inter-governmental organization" called the World Sports Alliance.

Inner City Press, before being banned from the UN by Secretary General amid its questions about his corruption and links to UN briber CEFC China Energy, reported on the World Sports Alliance, including here and here and here, on Burundi.

On October 23, 2019 Inner City Press now covering the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was the only media in the SDNY Magistrates Court when Asa Saint Clair was brought into the court in shackles. He was arrested in California trying to get on a plane to Madagascar by way of Paris. More on Patreon here.

Now in October 2021, we present the claimed crypto-currency program of another UN affiliated group, the World Association of Former United Nations Interns and Fellows:

"WAFUNIF has launched a charitable cryptocurrency program, which has been vetted by our compliance department in cooperation with our blockchain technology provider."

And yes, it is UN affiliated - and under Guterres, Press questions to confirm or deny such things are blocked and refused: "WAFUNIF received the Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and Associational Accreditation with the Department of Public Information (DPI). And in October 1983, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) accorded it the Consultative Status in the General Category. In September 1987, in recognition of WAFUNIF’s significant contribution to the International Year of Peace, United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuellar designated it as an Official Peace Messenger, an honor conferred in a special ceremony held at the United Nation Headquarters in New York."

This is the UN under Antonio Guterres, corrupt censor.

There is a pattern here: in the Ng Lap Seng case, even after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, he went to jail but those he bribed in the UN remain free and in action. The same is true for Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, up to the level of Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Even in terms of fraudulent coins, Inner City Press has exposed and asked the UN in writing about the use of Guterres' image to sell coins by former UN ambassador of El Salvador Carlos Garcia. He was shown in the Ng Lap Seng case to be helping with money laundering by Francis Lorenzo, still someone not sentenced by SDNY and its AUSAs Richenthal and Zolkind.

Nor did they ask on UN official Meena Sur, whom Inner City Press publicly exposed as linked to now SDNY-investigatived WSA, here.

And Garcia continued his coin scam with Guterres' image, and now WSA's Saint Clair is about to be bailed - even as his case remains hours later sealed.

Inner City Press, exclusively covering all this even amid attempt to limit its access and real time reporting, will continue on these cases. Watch this site.

For Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Inner City Press Files To Unseal Motion and For Exhibits Access

By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song Video
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 – 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.

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 it; #CourtCaseCast and song

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.

For Ghislaine Maxwell Trial She Opposes Minor Victim 3 and Doctor Rocchio on Grooming

By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song Video
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 – 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 nailed down: "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."

Judge Alison J. Nathan has set a schedule for (final?) sealing motions: "reply briefs, if any, are due by October 27, 2021. The parties are ORDERED to file on the public docket all briefing with both parties’ proposed redactions, and a joint letter justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), on or before October 29, 2021."

In a flurry of motions in limine filed after 7 pm on October 29, Maxwell's lawyers opposed among other things testimony from Minor Victim 3 (whom they refer to as Accuser-3) and from Brown University Doctor Lisa Rocchio about grooming. Filing on Patreon here.

Near midnight on October 27, Maxwell's lawyer filed a letter, but withheld a motion: "Attached is Ms. Maxwell’s motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Subsection (2)(c) of the Rule requires this motion to be sealed unless this Court orders otherwise. Accordingly, unless instructed by the Court, Ms. Maxwell will not file this motion on the public docket. The Rule also requires Ms. Maxwell to notify the alleged victims whose behavior is at issue in the motion. Accordingly, unless otherwise directed, we will serve a redacted copy of this motion tailored to each alleged victim addressed in the motion on their counsel of record and provide proof of service to the Court when it is accomplished."

Meanwhile, as Inner City Press first reported, another MDC female inmate, a terrorism defendant from Yemen Arwa Muthana, has complained "that in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, to which prisoners from the emptied out MCC have been taken, "there have been brown bits of dirt and debris in the water and that she and the other women were told to 'drink water out of the sinks near the showers, or the sink near the slop sink.'" Notably, Maxwell who has talked laptop and mail has not raised this. Pellegrino? Inner City Press will cover the trial, and all the comes before and after it; #CourtCaseCast and song

Maxwell wanted to keep prospective juror questioning - voir dire - and selection even more sealed from the public and Press.

Strauss replied that it is not impossible to use a perjurer's testimony. But how often does it work?

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.

At the Ghislaine Maxwell UN event, the UN Deputy Secretary General was directly involved.

List of (some of) the participants on Patreon here.

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.

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.

In 1 Ed Henry Fox Sex Harassment Suit 5 Day Trial While In NPR and CNN Case Can Amend

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 – Jennifer Eckhart and Cathy Areu sued Fox News, Ed Henry, Sean Hannity and others. Their cases have since been severed.

On July 21, 2021 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams held an oral argument. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below (podcast here)

On September 22 Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein held a discovery proceeding, and Inner City Press covered it. The result: "CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial document requests and initial interrogatories will be served on or before October 15, 2021. Motions due by 9/17/2022. Discovery due by 4/29/2022. The parties intend to submit a proposed confidentiality and protective order to the Court no later than November 12, 2021, unless they agree otherwise. The parties anticipate that trial will last 5 days, and Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 9/22/2021)."

Another case, Edward Henry v. Fox New Network LLP et al, 21-cv-7299 (Abram) had a proceeding before Judge Abrams on October 28. Inner City Press live tweeted here:

now in Ed Henry v. FOX News and Suzanne Scott, who Henry says turned against him and publicly humiliated him, there's a proceeding

Judge Abrams: I find that a discretionary extension of the time to serve is justified. The Judge Engelmayer case is distinguishable - here, the failure to serve was not willful. Let's talk about next steps. What does FOX News intend to do - a motion to dismiss?

FOX lawyer: Yes, we intend to move to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute and the First Amendment. We'd like a stay of discovery. Ed Henry's lawyer Joel MacMull: The state anti-SLAPP provision for a stay of discovery does not in Federal court

Judge Abrams: Tell me what your thinking is. Ed Henry's lawyer: Let's formulate the briefing schedule. If we choose to amend, we'll contact [Fox lawyer Avi] Weitzman in the first instance.

Weitzman: For a reply, we'd like December 17. Ten days.

Judge Abrams: Have a good day all. Stay safe. We are adjourned.

On October 29, yet another case, Henry v. National Public Radio, et al., 21-cv-5724 (Abrams). The lawyer for co-defendant CNN suggested that to save time and fees Henry should amend the complaint to try to address what would be raised in a motion to dismiss. Judge Abram gave time for that, and stayed discovery.

From July 21, 2021: Fox News' lawyer says that even if Fox knew of prostitution, it would not make out a sex trafficking claim for purposes of Federal jurisdiction. "She hasn't alleged that Mr. Henry coerced anyone into a commercial sex act."

Fox News' lawyer: She alleged Ed Henry had an affair with a Las Vegas stripper. But that is not even workplace conduct.

Judge Abrams: But if he promised to get a woman into an important place to get a job, why isn't that a thing of value?

Judge Abrams: Why can't I consider his text message asking, Why did you turn away today? Fox News' lawyer: Her claims are time barred. Those communications are not sexual. Judge Abrams: Isn't it part of that harassment? Fox News' lawyer: It is too remote in time

Fox News' lawyer: The alleged rape was in 2017. The text is 20 months later. It's too remote. Judge Abrams: There are texts saying, Are you playing hard to get. The Morgan case says it is not too remove-- Fox News' lawyer: I think you're talking about the Sullivan case.

Fox News' lawyer: They were co-workers. Mr. Henry was not a manager. Their first contact was through a private Twitter message. Nor is there a sufficient allegation that Fox knew of Mr. Henry's misconduct. She reported it, three years later.

Judge Abrams: Wasn't she asked, in her exit interview, if she had been sexually harassed? Fox News' lawyer: It is not an admission of knowledge. In this day and age it is common to ask that in an exit interview. To find that way would disincentivize asking

Fox News' lawyer: She concedes in his briefing that when she said toxic workplace, she didn't mention sexual harassment. But we don't have to read her mind.

Fox News' lawyer: She claims that Fox firing Mr. Henry without giving her prior notice was a form of retaliation. She says Fox's Rule 11 motion is also retaliation. That cannot be a cognizable claim. She has already filed and amended. And the motion is authorized

Fox News' lawyer: She says that Mr. Henry's filing, which included intimate photographs, is Fox News' fault. But Fox didn't endorse the filing. Anyway, the Rule 11 motion is against Ms. Area and the firm representing her. I want to defend my honor, about hiring me

Fox News' lawyer: Ms. Areu's case was severed. And hiring me is not an admission -- Judge Abrams: I find those arguments offensive and will not consider them. Fox News' lawyer: Anyway, the statute doesn't apply to images included in a legal pleading.

Ed Henry's lawyer: If he was trying to date someone, that does not support that he was a habitual sex harasser. His statement about putting her in a room with important people was after they had a sexual relationship. Judge Abrams: Before the alleged rape--

Ed Henry's lawyer: There was a relationship, then an offer to help. That cannot be sex trafficking. They had sex. They had a relationship; it continued. You can't just say, it's turned into sex trafficking because they spoke about supporting each other

Ed Henry's lawyer: Maybe he's puffing. But it's not enough. In the Weinstein cases, there are very specific allegations, many meetings before he gets them into a hotel room. In the David case you decided, he suggested she had the film role. That's not this.

Ed Henry's lawyer: There's no need to entice her - he's already in a relationship with her. He's a political anchor. She doesn't talk about politics. Why would she believe she would be on a political show?

Ed Henry's lawyer: The "Yo, why did you turn away" was just a greeting. Mr. Henry cannot be personally liable under these cited statutes because he was not her supervisor. Judge Abrams: What about gender animus? Ed Henry's lawyer: We're not conceding anything.

Ed Henry's lawyer: We were within our right to append the pictures Judge Abrams: Why couldn't you just describe them in writing? Ed Henry's lawyer: We redacted the more intimate sections.

Judge Abrams: I have a hard stop coming up. [So a ruling today is unlikely - Inner City Press will stay on the case(s)

Ms. Eckhart's lawyer cites Bill O'Reilly. Judge Abrams: Under state law, the employer would have to condone or approved. Eckhart's lawyer: They condoned it. Even approved it, by promoting him.

Eckhart's lawyer: My client was told, You're going to face repercussions if you pursue the complaint. Then she was terminated despite her outstanding performance. We didn't plead that Fox asks everyone if they faced harassment, despite what Ms. McKenna said.

Judge Abrams: Why should I read into "toxic environment" that she was alleging protected activity? Eckhart's lawyer: Fox understood that she could have been raising a concern about harassment and discrimination. Judge Abrams: And the sex trafficking claim? Eckhart's lawyer: He made promises to her that were fraudulent. Then he violently attacked her. This is Weinstein-esque. He pushed her head down.

Eckhart's lawyer: I've never seen anything like this, the filing of those photographs. We cited photos of my client handcuffed, not these photographs. This was gratuitous. How can they argue it is a common legal practice?

Judge Abrams: What about the redactions? Eckhart's lawyer: You can see around the thong... Also, when you're raping a woman, that fact that she's a woman obviously has something to do with it.

Eckhart's lawyer: They called Ms. Areu a hot potato. That's not appropriate. Fox News' lawyer: It was the situation created by the Wigdor firm I was referring to. Ed Henry's lawyer: The photos were relevant. Even rape would not make out a sex trafficking case.

Judge Abrams: Well argued on all sides. I will reserve decision. Adjourned.

On April 20, 2021, SDNY Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein held an oral argument as to whether Judge Abrams' stay on discovery should remain in place until Fox's motion to get out of the case is decided. Inner City Press live tweeted it here: (podcast here)

Ed Henry's lawyer: My client is out of a job for months, unable to clear his reputation. The fact that Fox is pointing to document in its system that might help Mr. Henry is not the point. We need the case to move forward. I agree with the plaintiffs on that.

Ed Henry's lawyer: We need the plaintiff's emails, with us and others. Maybe there's a way to limit the nature of the discovery we get as to Fox.

Judge Gorenstein: OK, I'll give Fox a chance to reply. Fox's lawyer: We don't think Fox should be dragged into it

Magistrate Judge Gorenstein: Defendant's argument with dismissal as to it have support. I am sympathetic to Plaintiff's wish to move forward, and Henry's, to try to defend his reputation. But there is not much prejudice, like elderly witnesses...

Judge Gorenstein: As to the breadth of discovery, there are limits to what a third party has to produce, versus a party. Electronic discovery is expensive to re-do. So, I conclude the stay previously ordered by Judge Abrams should remain in place.

So: there will still be a stay on discovery, until Fox's motion to get out of the case is decided.

On October 19, Ed Henry had fired back, including "7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between Ed Henry and Jennifer Eckhart, dated October 21, 2015. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a message, dated January 2, 2016, from Jennifer Eckhart to Ed Henry sending him a “Playlist” of songs via Dropbox. Included in this “Playlist” are songs like “Coffee (Fucking)” (which features the lyrics “Fucking in the morning . . . I’ve never felt comfortable like this . . . Sweet dreams turn into fucking in the morning”) and “Cockiness (Love It When You Eat It)” (which features the lyrics “I want you to be my sex slave . . . Set my whole body on fire”). 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of email correspondence Jennifer Eckhart sent to Ed Henry, dated January 13, 2016, with a link to a picture of a man’s tattoo, as well as a screenshot from that webpage. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibits G-U are true and correct copies of photographs Jennifer Eckhart sent Ed Henry in 2017. In exhibits I, J, M, and Q, Plaintiff’s intimate parts have been purposely obscured. Dated: New York, New York October 19, 2020."

The exhibits was in PACER, and public - then on the morning of October 20, they were not available. Jennifer Eckhard's lawyer wrote in:

"we made an emergency application to the ECF Help Desk to temporarily seal these exhibits pending a formal application to Your Honor, which was granted early this morning. Case 1:20-cv-05593-RA Document 91 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 2 The Honorable Ronnie Abrams October 20, 2020 Page 2 While we expect that Defendant Henry will attempt to draw a false equivalency between the text messages that Plaintiff included in her Amended Complaint in an effort to justify his behavior, there is obviously no comparison between words sent by a party and disseminating nude images of someone to the general public. Indeed, in New York, public dissemination of nude images in this manner is actually unlawful. See N.Y. Penal Law § 245.15. Notably, we are not seeking to redact or seal any of the non-image related exhibits that Defendant Henry filed with his motion to dismiss (notwithstanding the fact that this material is also irrelevant at the motion to dismiss stage). These pictures also represent the type of confidential and sensitive information that are normally sealed in the course of litigations. In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987). Courts have identified particular examples of “higher values.” See e.g., Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), 2017 WL 1787934, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017)"

Will this citation to Maxwell work? On October 22 Ed Henry fired back: "Re: Jennifer Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al., Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-05593 Dear Judge Abrams: We write on behalf of Defendant Edward Henry in response to the October 20, 2020 letter motion filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Eckhart, requesting that this Court seal certain documents filed by Mr. Henry in connection with his motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and for a more definite statement. See Dkt 91. Mr. Henry opposes Plaintiff’s request to seal these documents from the public. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s application should be denied for improper use of the Court’s “Emergency Sealing” process and for her offensive and meritless argument that under New York law the “public dissemination of nude images in this manner is actually unlawful,” citing to New York Penal Law 245.15. (See Plaintiff letter at 2.) In actuality, the Emergency Sealing Request is intended for instances when a party mistakenly files its own confidential information, not to hide from public view documents that the party finds embarrassing. See SDNY Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions § 21.7 (April 1, 2020). Plaintiff, therefore, had no right to seek emergency sealing through the ECF office. Moreover, Plaintiff has no need to seek relief on an emergency basis. In her letter, Plaintiff falsely contends that Mr. Henry did cfoti@maglaw.com (212) 880-9530 October 21, 2020 Case 1:20-cv-05593-RA Document 94 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 4 The Honorable Ronnie Abrams October 21, 2020 2 not inform Plaintiff about the photographs prior to filing. To the contrary, as far back as July, Mr. Henry’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Mr. Henry was in possession of the photographs which we believed proved the fallacy of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff obviously knew the nature of the photographs she had sent Mr. Henry and could have sought relief from their becoming public prior to the filing. She chose not to do so. Her decision instead to utilize the Emergency Sealing mechanism is a blatant misuse of the court system and requires that the temporary stay be lifted immediately."

But the sealing was not lifted. Judge Abrams ruled that since she can't consider such "extrinsic" material on a motions to dismiss, the photos are not judicial documents, at least not for now: "Sealing requests are subject to the test set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). That test requires the Court to first determine whether the documents at issue are “judicial documents” by examining whether they are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States v. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). If the documents are judicial documents, then a common law presumption of access attaches, and the Court must then consider the weight of that presumption against any “competing considerations.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119–120. In light of the fact that these exhibits were submitted in connection with Defendant Henry’s motion to dismiss, they would generally be considered judicial documents entitled to a presumption of public access. See City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Ablyazov, No. USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 10-21-20 Case 1:20-cv-05593-RA Document 95 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 2 2 15-CV-5345, 2019 WL 4747654, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (“Documents submitted in support or opposition to a motion to dismiss are judicial documents.”). The Court nevertheless grants the motion to seal the fifteen photographs. Not only do these exhibits contain highly sensitive images that Plaintiff has an understandable interest in keeping private, cf. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“In determining the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy, courts should first consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public.”), but they also constitute extrinsic evidence which this Court is not permitted to consider—and thus should not have been filed—in conjunction with this motion to dismiss. See Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 231 (2d Cir. 2016), see also Kopec v. Coughlin, 922 F.2d 152, 155–56 (2d Cir. 1991). Hence, they are not at this time “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d at 239. Taken together, these considerations outweigh any presumption of access, and the Court finds that—at this juncture—sealing is appropriate under Lugosch. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exhibits 7–21 of docket entry 85 is GRANTED, albeit without prejudice to an application to unseal the exhibits at an appropriate time. The Court will file these exhibits under seal, visible to only the parties (Jennifer Eckhart, Fox News Network, LLC, Ed Henry, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Howard Kurtz); counsel for the parties; and court staff. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 91." Watch this site.

We'll have more on this, too. For now we note that the Guiffre v. [Ghislaine] Maxwell case cited above was cited elsewhere in the SDNY on October 20, in support of sealing or not docketing mere words, letters by Suspicious Activities Report leaker / whistleblower Natalie Edwards, which Inner City Press applied to unseal, October 20 order here.

Ms. Areu says Sean Hannity threw a $100 bill on the set desk and "began calling out to men in the room and demanding that someone take Ms. Areu out on a date for drinks at Del Friscos."

At issue on October 7 was whether the separate the two women's cases. This will be done.

Update: After Inner City Press published the above about the October 7 proceeding, we received the following which we publish in full:

Statement from FOX News on the Cathy Areu amended complaint “As we have maintained, the accusations against Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Howard Kurtz are utterly devoid of merit. Ms. Areu’s allegation that women are not treated equally at FOX News is also provably false and yet another malicious attempt to smear the network with baseless claims. In fact, FOX News has provided more leadership opportunities for women than any other cable news network, including featuring more solo women anchors and hosts on-air and retaining a senior staff comprised of more than 50% female executives.”

Statement from FOX News in response to Wigdor lawsuit filing: “Based on the findings of a comprehensive independent investigation conducted by an outside law firm, including interviews with numerous eyewitnesses, we have determined that all of Cathy Areu’s claims against FOX News, including its management as well as its hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity & Howard Kurtz and its contributor Gianno Caldwell, are false, patently frivolous and utterly devoid of any merit. We take all claims of harassment, misconduct and retaliation seriously, promptly investigating them and taking immediate action as needed — in this case, the appropriate action based on our investigation is to defend vigorously against these baseless allegations. Ms. Areu and Jennifer Eckhart can pursue their claims against Ed Henry directly with him, as FOX News already took swift action as soon as it learned of Ms. Eckhart’s claims on June 25 and Mr. Henry is no longer employed by the network.”

The lead case is Eckhart et al v. Fox News Network, LLC et al., 20-cv-5593 (Abrams / Gorenstein)

***

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.