by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 23 – Back on September 10, DOJ charged NAASÓN JOAQUÍN GARCÍA and others with "sexual, financial, and related criminal conduct victimizing members of the La Luz del Mundo Church over many years... to facilitate the systemic sexual abuse of children and women—including the creation of photos and videos of sadistic child sexual abuse."
Garcia was taken into Federal custody in California and transported to New York on September 18. On September 23, with two California-based lawyers next to him, Garcia was brought before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Loretta A. Preska. Inner City Press was there, from thread:
Judge Preska: What is the status of discovery?
AUSA: We got warrants in California, and seized electronics.
Judge: Mr. Garcia, we will next see you here on December 15
[Judge Preska also handed Giuffre v Ghislaine Maxwell]
On October 10 the US Attorney's Office proposed a protective order beyond what Naason Joaquin Garcia would agree to, letter on Patreon here
On October 16, a co-defendant pled not guilty: "Arraignment as to Eva Garcia De Joaquin (4) The defendant is presented and arraigned on the indictment and enters a plea of not guilty."
On October 17 counsel to Naason complained to Judge Preska about the proposed protective order, saying they wouldn't be able to share information with Naason and that they want to share it with witnesses in foreign countries. Email on Patreon here
On October 23 Judge Preska OK-ed the US order: "ORDER as to (25-Cr-370-1) Naason Joaquin Garcia. The Court is in receipt of the following documents: (1) the Government's October 10, 2025 motion requesting that the Court enter the attached proposed protective order, (dkt. no. 30); (2) Defendant Naason Garcia's(See Footnote 1 on this Order) October 17, 2025 opposition, (dkt. no. 32); and (3) the Government's October 20, 2025 reply, (dkt. no. 33). Defendant opposes the motion arguing that the "Attorney's Eyes Only" ("AEO") provision would infringe on Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by prohibiting counsel from discussing certain discovery with his client. (See generally dkt. no. 32.) Defendant asks the Court to amend the proposed protective order by: (1) deleting the phrase "or the content of the AEO Material" from Paragraph 9 and (2) adding to the paragraph: "Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the right of defense counsel to discuss with defendants the contents or substance of any evidence in this case for the purpose of preparing the defense case." (Dkt. no. 32 at 9.) Notably, the proposed protective order is standard practice in this district. (See, e.g., dkt. no. 63, United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023) (entering protective order that included AEO provision over the same Sixth Amendment objection).) Additionally, Defendant's objections are unripe. The proposed protective order establishes a protocol for the parties to resolve any AEO-designation disputes. It is premature now, before discovery has been produced, for the Court to rule on how Defendant's Sixth Amendment arguments and the Government's substantial witness safety, obstruction, and privacy concerns interact to resolve purely theoretical disputes about AEO designations. Accordingly, the Government's motion is GRANTED. The Court enters the attached protective order. The Clerk of the Court shall close dkt. no. 30. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/23/2025)
More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here
The case is USA v. Garcia, et al., 25-cr-370 (Preska)
***
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
