Monday, January 31, 2022
Sunday, January 30, 2022
Saturday, January 29, 2022
UN Staffer Indicted For Raping in Iraq and US Gets Delay to Feb 28 Then Maybe Trial Date
By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Thread
SDNY Courthouse, Jan 28 – UN former staff member Karim Elkorany was arrested then freed on $500,000 bond on September 2, 2020 in connection with drugging and raping women in Iraq while working for the UN in 2016, then allegedly lying to the FBI about it in 2017.
A superseding indictment belatedly unsealed on October 29, 2020 said Elkorany raped a UN contractor, in the US and Dohuk, Iraq. And still the UN did nothing.
On November 9, 2020 another brief status conference in the case, which Inner City Press live tweeted, below.
On August 17, 2021, Elkorany's motions to try to suppress evidence against him, gathered with search warrants, were denied, order on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.
On January 28, 2022 the US Attorney's Office asked for yet more delay in the UN rape case, to February 28. But it did say "if the parties are unable to reach agreement on a pretrial disposition within that time, the Government expect to ask the Court to set a trial date, citing 18 USC 3771(a)(7) for the proposition that victims have the right to proceeding free from unreasonable delay. Yeah. Watch this site.
From November 9, 2020: AUSA Richenthal says the US is reviewing more electronic devices.
Elkorany's lawyer Dawn Cardi asks for 90 more days' delay, since some of the discovery is marked "Restricted."
Judge Buchwald: In the times of COVID, to maintain social distance between lawyer and defendant, 90 days is not unreasonable. We are heading into the end of the year period, very different this year. I ask you to make sure that the 90 days is all the time needed
And so February 9 at 10:30 am was arrived at. And Inner City Press again covered it, here and below (Podcast here)
Now on May 17, Elkorany's lawyers say they "have provided to the government defense counsel's pretrial motions... we intend to confer with the government about its view as to how to proceed in terms of filing and/or redacting and/or seeking the Court's permission to file under seal certain documents." Secrets about UN rapes - but this is a public process, despite the UN's routine cover ups.
And delays: on July 23, a request was made to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, which is not only for defendants but also the public, from July 30 to October 28. Where is this case going? More immunity and cover up?
From February 9: Elkorany's lawyer wants to delay 90 days.
The Assistant US Attorney says given the victims in this case they want to move faster.
Elkorany's lawyer says she has some state trials so she need more time.
Now AUSA says 30 days to respond to defense's motions. That would be June 10. And see here.
Inner City Press, which has asked the UN in writing for comment, will continue to cover it.
The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York stated that Elkorany, "a former communications specialist with the United Nations in Iraq, was charged in an Indictment in Manhattan federal court with two counts of making false statements to special agents of the FBI in an effort to conceal his drugging and sexual assault of multiple women while he worked for the UN...In or around December 2016, Victim-1 reported the sexual assault to the UN. The UN initiated an investigation, through which ELKORANY was notified of the substance of Victim-1’s allegations against him."
The UN claims it has a zero tolerance and blacklisting policy for sexual abuse, but despite a victim complaining to the UN in this case, on Wednesday Elkorany was leaving freely in New Jersey when he was arrested.
The superseding indict which was intially wrongly kept under seal says Elkorany raped Victim-2, a UN contractor, in Dohuk, Iraq and in the US. So the UN's inaction contributed to the rape of a UN contractor - and still NOTHING from the UN of Antonio Guterres. We'll have more on this.
On September 16 the US Attorney's Office, already under fire for withholding information, filed a Protective Order to withhold from the Press and public information about this UN official's "names and/or other identifying information or photographs of individuals alleged to have been sexually assaulted and/or drugged by the defendant or with whom the defendant had a romantic or physical relationship; (b) non-public nude, semi-nude, or sexualized photographs," if it has been " provided to the Government by the United Nations." So the UN has been producing pornography, and is not itself indicted, only this Elkorany? We'll have more on this.
On September 2 after 6 pm, as exclusively reported by Inner City Press which has been banned from the UN for its questions, was released on a bond to be signed by his father and brother, but allowed to leave home to work from 8 am to 6 pm.
There was another proceeding on September 10, before District Judge Naomi Reice Bulkwald. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:
Elkorany's lawyer has not responded to the US Attorney's proposed protective order. Note: little in this case should be withheld or sealed - it is about spending public's money for a UN staffer to drug and rape women in Iraq, then have the UN cover it up.
AUSA Pomerantz: There are cell phone and laptops that the FBI is in the process of extracting. [What will they show about the UN of @AntonioGuterres ? ]
Since the cell phones and devices are being extracted to produce discovery, next date is November 9, 11:45 am. Inner City Press will continue to cover this case and the UN.
Then in the docket, this: "Pretrial Conference as to Karim Elkorany held on 9/10/2020. Initial conference as to Karim Elkorany held by telephone on 9/10/2020. Lara Pomerantz, Amanda Houle and Daniel Richenthal for the government; Dawn Cardi for the defendant; Defendant Karim Elkorany; court reporter present. Conference scheduled for November 9, 2020 at 11:45a.m. Speedy trial time excluded until November 9, 2020."
Inner City Press also covered the September 2, 6:20 pm presentment of Elkorany, here:
Elkorany is represented by Dawn Cardi of Cardi & Edgar LLP of 99 Madison Avenue.
Judge Cott: I take it you are retained, Ms. Cardi?
Cardi: I am.
Judge Cott: Mr Elkorany, if you are a citizen of another country you may have a right to consular notification.
Cardi: He pleads not guilty.
Judge Cott: First, confirm you are waiving a public reading.
Cardi: Correct.
AUSA Houle: "The parties have a proposed bail package. A $500,000 personal recognizance bond co-signed by his father Awny ELkorany and brother Nor Elkorany. Surrender of all passports by five pm tomorrow. Home detention at parents' home.
AUSA Houle: He can leave 8 am to 6 pm for work.
AUSA Houle: Refrain from any contact with victims. Drug testing and treatment as directed by Pre Trial Services. Release today provided he is fitted for GPS which we understand Pre Trial is prepared to do.
AUSA Houle: Dan Richenthal has confirmed they can do it. Richenthal: Officer Trale (sp) told me it would be possible to 5 pm. So I'm not positive.
Judge Cott: What do you want to do? Cardi: I am proposing he return home and return tomorrow morning.
Cardi: The suretors probably can't sign today either.
Judge Cott: When was he arrested?
AUSA Houle: 6 am this morning.
Cardi: My client does not have his phone and no money to get back to New Jersey. Can someone lend him the money?
Judge Cott: I cannot deal with minutia like this right now.
Elkorany was listed as a UN "Communications Specialist" -- Fleming's forte -- on press releases about Toyota, here. He was interviewed on UN Radio, here. But of course, UN Spokesperson Staphane Dujarric claims he knows nothing about it and that Guterres has a "principled position."
Inner City Press is asking the UN, On UN staffer Karim Elkorany, indicted in SDNY for lying to FBI about drugging and raping women while working for UN in Iraq, immediately state what the outcome of the victim complaining to the UN was - and why Elkorany was back at liberty in New Jersey.
This is specifically asked in the context of this statement: "UNDP participates in a joint project with other UN agencies to maintain a system-wide database called "Clear Check" to ensure that former personnel involved in substantiated cases of sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse with one entity in the UN system cannot be employed by another entity." So what did the UN actually do, other than transport a rapist from New Jersey to Iraq then bringing him home to live free?
The case is US v. Elkorany, 20-cr-437 (Buchwald). Watch this site.
***
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
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
In Rochester Drug Co-op Trial Doud Moves For Acquittal Prior to Closing, Says No Conspiracy
By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 28 – A major opioids jury trial is set to begin on January 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Inner City Press will cover the trial.
Laurence F. Doud III, the former CEO of Rochester Drug Co-operative, was indicted in 2019, and the case was assigned to District Judge George B. Daniels, while will preside over the trial.
On January 16, two days before jury selection, Doud's lawyer Robert C. Gottlieb wrote to Judge Daniels to oppose admission of the testimony of Barbara Castro, an opioids addict.
Assistant US Attorneys Thomas Burnett, Nicolas Roos and Alexandra Rothman had indicated they intend to call Castro "as early as Tuesday, January 18, 2022, in the afternoon."
But Day 1 went long. Inner City Press live tweeted it.
On Day 2, a witness who worked under Doud at RDC cried on the stand. Inner City Press live tweeted here and below.
Day 3 came toward a close, with the same witness, with two POVs on a closed door meeting between Larry Doud and Jessica Pompeo leading to the latter's tears, but why? Live tweeted here.
On January 24, at the end, Doud's lawyer bristled at being told, again, that the DEA is not on trial. Inner City Press live tweeted, here and below.
On Janaury 25, as the US said it is nearing resting its case and the defense fretted about not having a witness ready - in the US v. Maxwell trial that meant the defense was finished too - an expert took the stand. The taxpayers are paying him $900 an hour, for 50 hours so far. Inner City Press tweeted it here
On January 26, a pharmacy owner from Staten Island (and before that Bay Ridge, Brooklyn) testified, after he cut a cooperator's deal on Jan 14. It is coming to a close. Inner City Press live tweeted here and below.
On January 27 the evidence wrapped up and Inner City Press live tweeted the wrapping up, here and below.
On January 28, with the trial not meeting, Doud's lawyers put in a Rule 29 motion for acquittal, arguing that even the US' star witness William Pietruszewski acknowledged on cross he had entered no conspiracy. They quote his answer that Joe Brennan "never said he wanted the medications diverted for non-medical purposes," and said Jessica Pompeo (now Bouk) and Amy Skibickhi were in the same boat. From Judge Daniels statements so far, this motion would seem to have little chance of success. Watch this site.
in opioids trial against Larry Doud of Rochester Drug Co-op, it's the final day of witnesses. Judge Daniels has criticized Doud's lawyer's argument about yesterday's cooperator.
In the morning there was a Doud "character witness" who said she could not think of a single negative adjective to apply to Doud. Now an expert is disagreeing with / rebutting the government's / taxpayers' $900/hour expert Cutler of Harvard
Q: Was Larry Doud incented to sell controlled substances based on his compensation structure? Objection! Judge Daniels: Sustained. I'm not sure he's qualified to answer.
Q: No further questions at this time. AUSA: Good afternoon, Mr. Martinovik (sp). Did you meet with the defense attorneys this morning? Witness: Yes. AUSA: Didn't you say you had an unmovable conflict today? Objection! (on delay)
It's past 4 pm on the final day of evidence in opioids prosecution of US v. Doud's and defense lawyer Gottlieb is still cross examining from the HEPA-filter equipped booth. Gottlieb: You see pharmacies were suspended or terminated - were you asked to look at them?
AUSA: Objection! Judge Daniels: Mr Gottlieb, do you have anything further? Gottlieb: I have nothing further. Re-direct. AUSA: Mr. Fiore, just so everyone is clear, do you know if RDC actually stopped selling, or the defense exhibit is inaccurate?
Witness: No, I don't know.
AUSA: Call up exhibit 918, last page, page 37. This was a termination. This pharmacy, how much in Oxy? Witness: $41. AUSA: And this one? Witness: $8300.
AUSA: No further questions. Judge Daniels: We'll adjourn for the weekend.
Judge Daniels: I hope we just have the closings on Monday. But we might have a bit more evidence then.
AUSA: Jury charge when? Judge Daniels: 2 pm tomorrow, responses noon Saturday. AUSA: Exhibits on a drive? Or do we use paper? Judge Daniel: Let me see, I'll check the protocol.
Defense: The sales data takes like ten minutes to load. Judge Daniels: We could bring the jurors out and explain, they could narrow their request. AUSA: Do we provide note pads? Judge Daniels: We do that. See you Monday
From January 26: opioids trial of US v. Larry Doud of Rochester Drug Co-operative nearing end, Judge Daniels has been asking defense lawyer Gottlieb why witnesses not ready, now a pharmacist on stand.
Pharmacy owner: I signed up with RDC, it was easy. The customers were re-selling the pills, unfortunately. AUSA: And your pharmacist? Owner: He basically slept all day. AUSA: Is this is a photo of him sleeping? Owner: Yes.
AUSA: Did you fill prescriptions for Doctors like Suarez and Carl Anderson? Owner(Paulson, of "Regal Remedies" on Staten Island) Yes.
Email is read into the record, about how many opioids were being sold, ending with "It's Staten Island, need I say more?" story later
Paulson now on cross:
Doud's second chair: You don't actually know Mr. Doud, do you? Paulson: I do not. Doud's 2d chair: You signed a cooperation agreement just before trial, and surrender to jail, right? Paulson: Correct.
Doud's 2d chair: You sold pills out of the back door of your pharmacy, didn't you? Paulson: Yes. Doud's 2d chair: You fraudulently held yourself out as a pharmacist, weren't you? Paulson: Yes.
Doud's 2d chair: You filed false papers with RDC, didn't you? Paulson: I did. Doud's 2d chair: They wouldn't know the papers were false, would they? Paulson: I dealt with doctors they knew were hot. Doud's 2d chair: That's not my question.
Doud's 2d chair: You worked before at a pharmacy on 86th Street in Brooklyn, right? Paulson: Yes. Doud's 2d chair: And that's a working class neighborhood, fair to say? Paulson: Fair to say. No further questions.
Re-direct. AUSA: Who sold you the drugs? Paulson: RDC. AUSA: Did they appear to be decieved? Paulson: Not to me. AUSA: No further questions.... The government calls its own paralegal as a witness.
Judge Daniels, to jury: I intend to finish with witnesses tomorrow. I won't have you come in Friday, I've heard there is a storm. Closing arguments on Monday. Adjourned.
From January 24: Opioids trial of US v. Larry Doud of Rochester Drug Co-operative still plugging along, on cross examination after day of compliance witness in the charged conspiracy.
Defense: Are you aware of any law that defined suspicious orders or orders of unusual frequency? Witness: I'm not sure. Defense: Were you aware that the DEA didn't even want registrants to tell it when they found red flags? Witness: I did not.
Judge Daniels dismisses the jury. Now AUSA argues again, the DEA is not on trial, Mr. Doud is. Defense lawyer Gottlieb: There were instances that RDC went out of its way to do compliance. Not a perfect job, but they did it.
Gottlieb: My client's live is on the stand [on the line] and I have a right to cross examine. I don't need lessons from the government. Judge Daniels: I think of the case from the jurors' perspective, not the lawyers' perspective.
Judge Daniels says, We are breaking for the day, & that tomorrow morning he has to deal with another matter before resuming the trial (sentencing then class action settlement. But we'll keep on it
After the trial date, the defnse put in a letter seeking to exclude 95 slides to be used by US expert David Cutler, on Doud's income, comparisons of opioids shipments and on compliance adequacy, on which they say Cutler is not an expert.
Day 3: Larry Doud at defense table leaning forward listening to re-direct examination about particular pharmacies "turned on" by Rochester Drug Co-operative.
AUSA: You see this email, where Larry Doud wrote, I don't think it's going to end well? Witness: Yes. AUSA: Then this one is later. What's going on? Witness: We were questioning if we should release the order. But we did.
AUSA: And GX 278? Witness; A red flag suspension on Stanton. But it was years later... In this other case, even after Julius Morton went, there were still red flags. Even after they were turned off, management turned them back on.
Witness: This was from Larry Doud, I was cc-ed. He asked, Why does it make Jessica so long to do the reports? Sure seems like a slow process. AUSA: No further questions.
Defense re-cross: You said "upper management" was responsible, right? But wasn't that Bill P? Witness: Not necessarily.
Judge Daniels: We have a witness in from Rochester. You may take off your mask. Witness 2: I was the credit manager of RDC.
AUSA: What is a credit limit? Witness 2: The amount of credit we extend them. AUSA: What is a credit hold?
Witness 2: For example if they are behind on payment. AUSA: Did Larry Doud ever ask you to lift them? Witness 2: Yes.
AUSA: Did you know Jessica Pompeo? Witness 2: Yes.... One time Larry went in and met with her then she came out with eyes red. She said Larry made her release the hold on an account. Defense: Is it illegal to remove a hold? Witness: No.
Judge Daniel: Already, we are done for the day.
Day 2: Now there are tears on the witness stand, with Larry Doud directly accused on not reporting irregularities to DEA
Assistant US Attorney: While you worked in the compliance department, how many orders were flagged? Witness: Many. AUSA: What is this? Witness: The DEA Month and Orders of Interest report, from 2012 to 2017. AUSA: Was anything reported? Witness: No.
AUSA: What did you write here? Witness: That there was a red flag, High cash for benzo. AUSA: Read from "man oh man."
Witness: "All the new stores we are bringing on have issues."
AUSA: Meaning? Witness: That we had seen red flags. AUSA: Read the 1st paragraph from Julius Morton.
Witness: One of the partners, Roman of a pharmacy in Yonkers, he said we at RDC is picking up rejects from Cardinal and other distributors. Witness: Doud said the DEA was loosening up its visits - Defense: Objection!
Judge: Ask her how she knows. AUSA: Ms. How do you know this? Witness: Larry told us. He wanted accounts turned on as soon as they passed our credit check.
AUSA: And this? Witness: It's Larry Doud to me, it says "I do not want to slow this down." AUSA: No due diligence?
Witness: No, we were not reviewing the dispensing data. AUSA: Did Dowd speak to you? Witness: Yes. He said, turn them on for controlled substances.
AUSA: Play the voicemail. "Larry came into my office... I don't want Larry to be thinking I'm being obstinate."
AUSA: GX 502-T is an accurate transcript of your voicemail? Witness: Yes. AUSA: Are you aware of a pharmacy called 59 Street, in Brooklyn? Witness: Yes.
Defense: Can we have a side bar? Judge Daniels: Uh... Defense: It'll be brief. [Note: Now Doud is sitting alone at the defense table, looking at witness and his lawyers conferring with prosecutors and Judge Daniels at the sidebar
They're back. AUSA: Was this pharmacy, 59th Street, turned on while Larry Doud was at the company? In 2016? Defense: Objection! Let the witness answer. Judge: Sustained. AUSA: OK, look at this email. Witness: It's December 2016. Larry was there.
Witness: Petropinto... David Taylor, previous vetted, oxy 30 mg. Bay Ridge, family medicine, high cash. 90% cash for South Shore Pro Health. Lambrakis, 100% cash.
AUSA: And Carl Anderson? Witness: We flagged him.
It's 4:55 pm. Judge Daniels excuses the juror and tellst the witness to step down. Defense lawyer Gottlieb: Anything after March 2017 is not relevant. Allowing it in creates a real due process for us. We weren't put on notice.
Judge Daniels: If I stole a car then they discover it later, that's admissible. It's fair game. Government? AUSA: She'll say she reported later because Larry Doud wasn't there saying don't report. We can brief it overnight.
Day 1: AUSA accusing Team Doud of putting the US on trial.
First US witness against Doud is a former DEA agent, now working in a different job in Virginia. "I dealt with the registrants in the field."
Assistant US Attorney: What did you do in that role? Witness: I was the chief. I went to industry sponsored conferences
AUSA: What is Subsys? Witness: An opioid spray for break-through pain. AUSA: Fentanyl? Witness: Yes. It's very dangerous. AUSA: What's this? Witness: A bottle of Oxy.
AUSA: What's this? Witness: A chart showing the supply chain... It shows how the drug gets from the manufacturer to the user. Inner City Press
It's approaching 4:30 pm and Doud's lawyer's cross continues (still no user as Inner City Press reported on yesterday)
Defense: Do you agree that a distributor has no way to know if a pharmacy's info is accurate & has no obligation to investigate a prescription?
Defense confronts witness with prior testimony, then asks: Isn't it the case the distributors often use outside consultants to conduct investigations? Witness: Yes...
The case is US v. Doud, 19-cr-285 (Daniels)
***
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 Guiffre Case Andrew Asked For Psychologist & Husband Now Cites Consent and Dirty Hands
By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Vlog
Guardian UK - Honduras - Song Maxwell Book
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 28 – Prince Andrew was sued on August 9 by Virginia Giuffre, under the New York State Child Victims Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (where Inner City Press found it that day in the docket).
On September 13, a proceeding before SDNY Judge Lewis A. Kaplan largely about service of process, but also the settlement agreement the sealing of which is being challenged before SDNY Judge Loretta Preska. Inner City Press live tweeted the September 13 proceeding, here and below (podcast here)
On January 12, Judge Kaplan issued a 43 page Order denying Andrew's motions to dismiss Guiffre's complaint, now on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.
On January 26 Andrew filed his answer, mostly boiler plate but citing the "doctrine of unclear hands" -- unclean with what? -- and stating "Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent" -- by a minor? Andrew demands a jury trial, perhaps with an eye to how Juror 5 / "Scotty David" is helping Ghislaine Maxwell request a new trial. Watch this site.
On January 14, after Andrew was stripped of military titles, Guiffre though counsel filed a letter asking Judge Kaplan for orders to depose two people in the UK:
Shurki Walker, Dunstan Road, Golder Green, London who has stated that "she was a witness to the Defendant's present at Tramp; and
Robert Ashton Olney of Berwick Road, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, Prince Andrew's former enquerry (or assistant) whose name "appears in Epstein's Black Book." Letter on Patreon here.
Later on January 14, Andrew asked for two in Australia: Enclosed are two Letters of Request to the Central Authority of Australia, which seek discovery of relevant information under the applicable Rule 26 standard from Robert Giuffre and Judith Lightfoot, both of whom are residents of Australia. Mr. Giuffre is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s husband, who allegedly met Plaintiff in Thailand in or about 2002 when she was attending a massage training course and recruiting one or more women to perform sexual acts for Jeffrey Epstein... Dr. Lightfoot is Plaintiff’s psychologist, from whom Plaintiff sought counseling. Dr. Lightfoot has relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s alleged abuse by Epstein and Maxwell." Letter on Patreon here.
On Saturday, January 15, Judge Kaplan signed and issued an order asking for each side's opposition to the other's request, including any proposed specifications under Article 11(b) of the Hague Evidence Convention, by January 20. Inner City Press will remain on the case. Song here.
Back on January 4, the day after the Jeffrey Epstein - Giuffre settlement and release was unsealed (Inner City Press put it on its DocumentCloud here), Judge Kaplan held an oral argument on Prince Andrew's motion to dismiss. Inner City Press live tweeted it here (podcast here)
OK - now Prince Andrew argues to try to dismiss complaint of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, using Epstein settlement / release unsealed yesterday. Inner City Press put out book #MaximumMaxwell & will live tweet, thread below
Andrew's lawyer: Giuffre released Mr. Epstein and others, "other potential defendants." It must apply to Andrew, it could apply to the head football coach of the University of Kansas.
Judge Kaplan: Who is a potential defendant?
Judge Kaplan: This language excludes people who had already been named, no? Andrew's lawyer: It's a distinction without a difference. Prince Andrew was not named -- Judge Kaplan: But the use of the word potential, neither you nor I can find the meaning.
Andrew's lawyer Brettler: Prince Andrew could have been sued but was not. Ms. Giuffre intended to release royalty --
Judge Kaplan: Including the Sultan of Brunei? Brettler: If there are allegations against him. [What about Norway's Princess Mette-Marit?]
Judge Kaplan: I understand that you are asserting this, but that does not mean it is correct. There could be a different view.
Brettler: I don't think you need to get there. Ms. Giuffre made allegations against royalty and academics and released them.
Judge Kaplan: We do not have Mr. Epstein here to hear what his view was. He was offering X dollars for the broadest release the other party was willing to give him. But she may have intended it more narrowly. Brettler: I agree with the concept. But --
Judge Kaplan: The phrase is, Other potential defendants. What did she have in mind?
Brettler: The plain language of the contract. Judge Kaplan: We're not talking about the parole evidence rule now. Were there two interpretations? Yes.
Judge Kaplan: Turn to the next point. Andrew's lawyer Brettler: Ms. Giuffre needs to lock herself into a story today. What date did this place on? And a place - all we have is an apartment. She doesn't explain what the abuse was.
Brettler: Before Prince Andrew must answer, he should be told specifically what all the allegations are.
Judge Kaplan: That dog is not going to hunt. She has not obligation to do that in the complaint, only in discovery. Brettler: Her claims should be tested.
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Brettler, I understand your point. It's just not the law. Brettler: She needs to allege an Article 130 allegation under the New York penal law. She doesn't.
Judge Kaplan: I'm obliged to accept as true, at this stage, the allegations.
Judge Kaplan: She says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. Brettler: We don't know what the conduct was. Judge Kaplan: Involuntary sexual intercourse. There's no doubt that that means, at least since someone else was in the White House. [#BillClinton]
Brettler: The last point, the Constitutionality of the New York CVA. This case was filed after the second temporary extension in light of COVID. Was former Governor Cuomo's extension Constitutional? Ms. Giuffre waited- it's untimely.
Brettler: The extension was done by executive order, not by the legislature convening -- Judge Kaplan: Have you briefed the issue of the Governor's power to do this, under state law? Brettler: We could brief it. Ms. Giuffre is well represented...
Brettler: She has given plenty of interviews all over the world, then files this lawsuit... It is unfair, it is unjust, it should be dismissed. Judge Kaplan: Thank you. Let's turn to the other side. Guiffre's lawyer David Boies: Their arguments are changing.
Boies: In their motion to dismiss, they attack the legislative revival and contrast it to what Governor Cuomo did. Other courts have addressed that. Now they attack Governor Cuomo. Also, here there is a lack of implied consent. Let me turn to the release...
Boies: We concede that "potential defendant" could have more than one interpretation. We say it means a person subject to jurisdiction, and accused of the activity alleged in that action. But Prince Andrew was not subject to jurisdiction.
Judge Kaplan: There could be overlap between the Federal and the common claims, no?
Boies: Yes. But the only claim that the defendant asserts from the 2009 complaint that would cover Prince Andrew: transporting someone for illegal sexual activity.
Boies: There's no allegation that Prince Andrew was the trafficker. He was a person "to whom the girls were trafficked." Counsel did not address this... If a third party beneficiary to a contract claims they were covered, the parties to the contract can respond
Boies: Here, there is no reasonable reliance. The defendant did not even know about this contract until recently. And their affirmative defenses are not appropriate at this motion to dismiss stage.
Judge Kaplan: Let me asking you about the second part of Paragraph 2 Judge Kaplan: What about this: "1st Parties & 2d Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal."
Boies: I see what the court is saying - that the parties explicitly agreed, that the only person who could assert this release would be Epstein.
Judge Kaplan: What about "neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any copy hereof, nor the terms hereof shall be used or disclosed in any court, arbitration, or other legal proceedings, except to enforce the provisions of this Settlement Agreement."
Boies: Only Epstein could raise it. Judge Kaplan: OK, Mr. Brettler, I'll give you five minutes, and I suggest you address the points I raised to Mr. Boies. Brettler: I take the paragraph to mean the settlement could not be used to show Mr. Epstein's guilt.
Judge Kaplan: But the deal was to be secret. Paragraph 2 left the right of enforcement in the hands of the contracting parties, who weren't to tell anyone about it.
Judge Kaplan: Take the Sultan of Brunei - and I'm not casting aspersions, it's just a convenient example -- [#GoogleTheSultan]
the point is, it's pretty hard to square with No third parties can enforce it and no one will be told about it
Brettler: Melissa, could you pull it up on your computer?
Melissa Lerner: It sets venue in Palm Beach.
Judge Kaplan: Could Epstein and Giuffre have authority to make 3d parties accept Palm Beach jurisdiction? Brettler: Epstein and Ms Giuffre [he says it GOOF-ray]
Judge Kaplan: The language your colleague read to me has Epstein and Giuffre in their benevolence limiting third parties to Palm Beach, which they had no authority to do...
Judge Kaplan: I thank you all. You'll have a decision pretty soon.
On December 28 Prince Andrew's lawyer contested jurisdiction of the court in a filing showing Giuffre's Colorado voter's registration and record, asking that the case by stayed until Giuffre can be deposed for two hours. Contesting jurisdiction is one thing - and filing a person's phone number and voting records is quiet another. Watch this site.
On December 14, Judges Kaplan and Preska together signed an order setting a timeline and process for releasing the Epstein settlement agreement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre: "In the absence of a showing, on or before December 22, 2021, of good cause by a party to either of these actions or by a duly authorized executor, administrator, or other representative of the Estate Mr. Epstein, the Court will file the entire Document on the public record on or about January 3, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 12/14/21)." Full document on Patreon here.
On November 3 in a routine proceeding Judge Kaplan issued a supplemental scheduling order that "any requests for letters rogatory or letters of request, and any notices pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1, shall be filed no later than December 15, 2021.
Opposition and reply papers with respect to defendant's pending motion to dismiss the complaint shall be filed by 11/29/2021. Reply due by 12/13/2021. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/3/21)."
On November 26, the day after Thanksgiving, Giuffre's lawyers asked Judge Kaplan for permission to file under seal not only Giuffre's 2009 settlement agreement with Epstein, but only the 2020 settlement with the Epstein Victims' Competition Fund, or least the amount and "the names of nonparties that Plaintiff did not release." Ghislaine Maxwell and her collaborators? Full letter on Patreon here.
Watch this site.
On October 6, Judge Preska so-ordered the release of the Epstein deal to Prince Andrew. The request from David Boies (who also represented Harvey Weinstein, and Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos): "We write in our capacity as counsel to Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, 1:21-cv-06702-LAK, pending before Judge Lewis Kaplan, to follow up on our letter dated September 23, 2021. ECF No. 344. Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate has now consented to Ms. Giuffre providing a copy of the confidential agreement at issue to Prince Andrew. We thus request permission from the Court pursuant to this Court’s Protective Order to furnish a copy of the release to Prince Andrew’s counsel."
On October 25, Judge Kaplan set a (long) schedule for Giuffre v. Prince Andrew: "CONSENT SCHEDULING ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED as follows: Amended Pleadings due by 12/15/2021. Joinder of Parties due by 12/15/2021. Deposition due by 7/14/2022. Discovery due by 7/14/2022. Pretrial Order due by 7/28/2022. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/25/21)." Watch this site.
On September 24 Prince Andrew's lawyer Andrew B. Brettler signed an agreement that Andrew "will not challenge service of process."
On September 28 Judge Kaplan docketed this: "ORDER RE SCHEDULING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, It is hereby, ORDERED as follows: Counsel for both parties promptly shall confer regarding an agreed scheduling order. If counsel are able to agree on a schedule and the agreed schedule calls for filing of the pretrial order not more than six (6) months from the date of this order, counsel shall sign and file within twenty-one (21) days from the date hereof a consent order in the form previously attached to Dkt. 7 for consideration by the Court. If counsel are unable to agree on such a scheduling order, plaintiff and defendant each shall file with the Court, on or before October 22, 2021, a letter setting forth that party's proposed schedule, the rationale for its proposal and any objections to its adversary's proposal, and a description of the discovery that it proposes to conduct, including proposed depositions. 2. Regardless of whether a proposed consent scheduling order is filed on or before October 22, 2021, a video or teleconference will be held on November 3, 2021 at 11 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time." Watch this site.
On the evening of September 16, Judge Kaplan approved Guiffre's motion for alternative service. Game on.
There's the famous photo, with Prince Andrew with his arm around Giuffe's waist and Maxwell in the background. The first cause of action is Battery.
Then, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and damages. Inner City Press will follow and report on the case.
The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 21-cv-6702 (Kaplan).
***
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.