Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

In Trial of Kevin Spacey Jury Finds Him Not Liable of Sexual Misconduct in 1986

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Stand-up
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - Video

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 20 – Anthony Rapp's lawsuit against Kevin Spacey was removed to Federal court in November 2020, and an anonymous co-plaintiff C.D. was added.
Then C.D. was removed and, on October 20, the jury ruled against Rapp, thread here and below. 

Spacey wanted to make C.D.'s name public, to order to conduct discovery, he says.  C.D.'s lawyers opposed it, letter on Patreon here.

On May 26, 2022 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis A. Kaplan held a hearing, with Spacey testifying, on Rapp's motion to remand the case. Judge Kaplan at the end said it is his present intention to deny the motion to remand, and that the trial will start in October. Inner City Press attended then tweeted here. [Then video here]

On October 6, 2022, the trail began. On the way in video I, II; afterward Space and Vlog. Here's the live tweeted thread by Inner City Press of the openings, here

On October 7, Day 2, with a stated victim of the Public Theater of Joe Papp, a Rapp friend who was told, and the beginning (direct) of Rapp himself. Thread here.

On October 11, Day 3, Rapp was on the stand all day, first on direct, then under cross examination, thread here.

On October 12, Day 4, Rapp was cross examined to the end - then under Rule 412, a courtroom closure. Thread here.

October 13 began with the news that Spacey's lawyer Jennifer Keller tested positive for COVID. It seemed the trial would be postponed - but, with instructions for testing Sunday and Tuesday, it proceeded, with Rapp's expert Roccio. Thread here.

On October 17, Kevin Spacey took the witness stand and said his father was a neo-Nazi and white supremacist - Inner City Press was there, thread here.

In the afternoon, Spacey explained (away?) his apology, and minimized his link(s) with Jeffrey Epstein, thread here.

On October 18, after cross of Spacey, his expert Dr. Bardey - instead of the expert he first paid, Dr. Loftus of Ghislaine Maxwell trial fame, who apparently didn't say what Spacey wanted and so wasn't called as a witness. Thread here.

On October 19, evidence in the case ended with re-re-direct and -cross of Spacey's expert Dr. Bardey. Thread here.

On October 20, the closing arguments, Inner City Press live tweeted them, thread here:

OK - now Rapp v. Kevin Spacey closings arguments, with Rapp's lawyer going first. 

Rapp's lawyer: We heard of [Spacey's lawyer] Ms. Keller that facts are stubborn things. And they are. So let's consider them. There is no evidence that Anthony was envious of John Barrowman, and Mr. Spacey's sexual interest in him.

Rapp's lawyer: Nothing in this record shows that Mr. Rapp at 14 had sexual feelings for Mr. Barrowman. They used this in their opening because they needed to prove it to win. And they didn't prove it. We'll talk about that night. But Ms. Keller overstated

 Rapp's lawyer: We heard from Andrew Holtzman, that Spacey came into his office with a noticeable erection and attacked me. That's what happened that day. Do you think if there was dirt on Holtzman they wouldn't have brought it out?

Rapp's lawyer: Let's talk about 1986 and the night that brings us here.  Kevin Spacey laughed and cried and did a Jack Lemmon interpretation. But there's an awful lot of things that Kevin Spacey does not remember. What did he say after Anthony Rapp came forward?

Rapp's lawyer: Mr. Spacey in his own email said he was heavily involved in drugs and alcohol. He said, I was drinking heavily and doing drugs. But now he says, the play was so demanding he didn't do either.

Rapp's lawyer: Outside the presence of this lawsuit, he admits to drugs and alcohol. Now he sees it doesn't look good and changes it. It lack credibility. It's no honest. It taints everything.

Rapp's lawyer: Even months after Mr. Rapp came forward, Mr. Spacey is writing to his buddy that he doesn't remember. Either he's lying to his friend, or he truly has no memory. But they he claims it all came back to him when he saw the article. It's not honest.

Rapp's lawyer: They go and depose John Barrowman. He too says Spacey took them out to dinner then to the Limelight. It was a forerunner to Studio 54, a disco in a church with lights and music and Page Six.  He takes a 14 year old to a hot club.

Rapp's lawyer: How is it appropriate to make a pass at a 19 year old when a 14 year old is in the bathroom? That's their defense. And why can Anthony sketch the apartment so well? Even if there's no door, does it mean he is lying? Is that what comes up for you?

 Rapp's lawyer: And after Spacey picks him up like a groom does and bride and Anthony escapes to the bathroom, when he comes out Spacey doesn't say he's joking, he asks, Don't you want to stay? This was trauma. But they say he just wants to bring Spacey down.

Rapp's lawyer: If this were only about bringing Mr. Spacey down, couldn't he have come up with a better story? More with the hands? They said Dr Rocchio is a paid expert. She testified two days without notes. Dr Bardey charges more, $500 an hour versus $450

 Rapp's lawyer: If you call a man a liar, you've got to give him a motive. Professional jealousy, at a time that Anthony is at the height of his career. Now it's homosexual rage. But Anthony said coming out was everyone's decision.

Rapp's lawyer: It doesn't matter where the story was published. Anthony came forward out of guilt, frankly, that he hadn't come forward before. He didn't tell his mother until the day she died.

Rapp's lawyer: Anthony has done this to hold Kevin Spacey accountable. Now they're saying that a person who was abuse has to avoid seeing the abuser, even on TV, or they're negligent.

Spacey's lawyer Jennifer Keller: Objection! We never argued that. Rapp's lawyer: I'll have a chance to speak to you again, after Ms. Keller and her excellent oratory skills. This happened. He has shared it with you. Thank you. Judge Kaplan: We'll take a break. You will be given menus.

 Now before she starts her closing argument, Jennifer Keller is hunched over with Spacey, planning what to say, how to respond to Rapp's closing? Drum roll.

Not hot mic moment for savvy Spacey: he pushes the defense table microphone to the side, and whispers in Keller's ear, like a baseball manager to a pitcher.

 Jury entering! Spacey's lawyer Jennifer Keller: I want to thank you jurors, on behalf of Mr Spacey, for paying such close attention. I never talked about homosexual rage, never said Anthony Rapp was in love with Mr Barrowman. I called him the Big Cheese in Joliet.

Keller: We are here because Mr. Rapp has falsely accused Mr. Spacey, of an incident that never occurred, in a room that does not exist. I am not going to call him Anthony. He is 51 years old. He is not a child.

Keller: Mr. Rapp tried to hitch his wagon to the #MeToo movement - which was necessary, women were not believed. But Mr. Rapp's story is dependent on their being a wall, and a bedroom. And neither existed. And his story, it seems it comes from Precious Sons

 Keller: This was a party story that Mr. Rapp kept telling. But he can't ID a single witness from the party, can't describe them. There was no party. Mr. Rapp's book is in evidence, as Exhibit Triple B. He wrote he was annoyed at his mother following him.

Keller: The book is a confessional. It says it is about Rent but it is not. It is about babyhood, and his boyfriend trying to leave him - except, the Kevin Spacey story is not there. And it's from 2006. It is not the work of a private person, let's put it that way

 Keller: Yes, I asked Mr. Rapp is, being on Star Trek, he moved from the bathroom to the room via a Transporter.  Yes we deposed Mr. Rapp first. Because, on the studio, we needed to lock him down so he couldn't, pardon me, wriggle out

Keller: This turns out to be one of the shortest parties in history. Was it a half hour party? This only make sense is no one is every going to ask you about the details.  The devil is in the details. This party never happened.

 Keller: Who does he tell about it? He tells his brother.  [Note: Kevin Spacey's brother Randy Fowler may be been nearly entirely absent from this trial, but will not be from forthcoming booklet soon here.]

Later, he tries to get The Advocate to publish a story in 2001 after Mr. Spacey gets an Oscar for American Beauty. It's strange - if Mr. Rapp was a gay activist, you wouldn't think he's want to out and claim a child molester

 Keller: Do you remember Brian Williams? Highly respected news man who lied about being in a helicopter gunship that was hit. He was exposed. President Reagan told a story how as an army photographer saw the Nazi death camp - never happened, never left the US.

Keller: No one saying Anthony was in a homosexual rage which is, I might say, an offensive phrase. But Mr. Rapp got a lot of attention from it. He got an "Out and Equal" champion award - and told a false story, about being inspired by the #MeToo NYT op-ed

 Keller: Imagine it were 2052 and someone accused you- Rapp's lawyer: I have to object. Judge: Sustained. Keller: A person is accused. How do you defend yourself? A bad person says, This person is a liar. But this is Me Too time. Mr Spacey is told he must apologize

Keller: Mr. Spacey gives Mr. Rapp the benefit of the doubt and issues a non-apology apology. He insists on "if." And in Feb 2018 Mr. Spacey writes, It's like hearing about a person I do not know. He muses it might have been later, when he was 19

Keller: If I've offended people, the way I cross examined Mr. Rapp, I'm sorry. But it's a necessary part of getting to the truth. It's fair to say that Precious Sons was the big moment in Mr. Rapp's life. It got some reviews but no one went to see it.

 Keller: If it bad judgment by a 26 year old to take a 19 year old and a 14 year old to the Limelight. I'm 69 but even I know clubs are not jumping at 7:30 pm. That's the time to take kids to a club. Is it evil? I like it was nice, actually.

Keller: Mr. Spacey because a global star. Mr. Rapp? Stardom did not follow him. It's hard to make a living as a working actor. Him saying there's no envy is like me saying I don't even Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's not credible

 Keller: You can Google him anywhere in the world -- Judge Kaplan: No you can't. There's no evidence in this trial about Google. Go on.  Keller: Mr. Rapp is well known now for taking down one of the greatest actors of his generation.

Keller: Dr Rocchio didn't talk about the baseline. So, Dr Bardey, of course we had to retain someone. He didn't go to Maine. We went down the street, to a NYU professor, who works at Bellevue. He can't say, but I'm going to say, that Mr. Rapp was faking it. Keller: Dr Bardey says he show narcissism. What is that?

[From the creative commons: 'Narcissism' comes from Ovid's Metamorphoses...When Narcissus rejects the nymph Echo the gods punish him, making him fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water.

Keller: Our star witness is the floor plan of the small studio apartment. Mr. Rapp has given an impossible story.  So I urge you, reject any compromise verdict, awarding $1 of damages. It. Didn't. Happen. 1 penny is too much.

 Keller: The first question on the verdict form is, Did Mr. Rapp prove by a preponderance of the evidence - he did not. Vote no. Judge Kaplan: In ten minutes, the rebuttal and my charge. [And then? This thread will continue]

 We're back, with Rapp's rebuttal and then jury charge. Rapp's lawyer: The proof has to come in the case, not in argument. Mr. Barrowman never told Anthony about what he said Mr. Spacey did, until the late 90s... Let's put up the verdict sheet. Judge Kaplan: No.

Rapp's lawyer: The first question on the verdict form is, Did we prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Spacey touched -- Judge Kaplan: If you can't restrain yourself, you'll have to sit down. Rapp's lawyer: We have proved it by a preponderance.

 Rapp's lawyer: Why are you getting on top of a child on a bed? There's a question, Did he do it to gratify Mr. Rapp's sexual desire? Keller: Objection! Beyond the scope! Judge: I'll allow it.

 Rapp's lawyer: Your award for the past should reflect all the ways it has impacted Anthony in the past. And as to the future, Dr. Rocchio says it continues.  Don't let him get it away this time.

Judge Kaplan: Counsel's personal wishes are not to be considered.

Judge Kaplan: My instructions are going to be in 4 parts.  It's going to be the shortest jury charge I've given in 28 years. 38 minutes later, instructions winding up.

Judge Kaplan: The exhibit will be sent in. Ladies and gentlemen, you may retire to deliberate. Keller says she is disappointed that Rapp's lawyer said, "I hope you don't let him away with it this time," which clearly implies there are other times. This was premeditated. There should be some kind of sanction.

Judge Kaplan: I'm not going to do anything now.

Judge Kaplan: If there is a defense verdict, it's a matter of professional conduct, if anything. If there's a plaintiff's verdict, it could be a matter for motion practice. Just like Mr. Rapp's answer about why did you bring this case. That's where we are.

OK - it's 4:02 pm and the plaintiff's team has reassembled at their table in the courtroom. The jury has reached a verdict - and it's hard to imagine it's for Rapp, if it's this fast.

Note: if the jurors answered Yes to Question 1, they'd have to go to Question 6. If they answered Yes to Question 2, they've have to go to Questions 3, 4 & 5. But if two No's, they just send a note back: we have a verdict. Now Spacey at defense table. Drum roll.

Judge Kaplan: I'm advised that we have a verdict. Please bring in the jury.

Judge Kaplan: Clerk will publish the verdict.  Question to jury. Answer: No.

Judge Kaplan: Is there a motion to dismiss the case?


Dismissed. It's over.

 Video outside of court here (Oct 18, Loftus Q) and here (Oct 17, Epstein plane Q).

Watch this site.

Back on September 17, Spacey through counsel filed a letter seeking to limit the anticipated testimony of Dr. Lisa M. Roccio - who also testified for the prosecution in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell: "Defendant Kevin Spacey Fowler (“Mr. Fowler”) will and hereby does move this Court, before the United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located in the Federal Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, on October 6, 2022, or a date to be set by the Court, for an order in limine to preclude plaintiff Anthony Rapp from offering expert testimony on credibility issues and other improper opinions of his expert witness, Lisa Rocchio, Ph.D. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401-403, 701-702, and other applicable law, Mr. Fowler brings this motion to preclude Dr. Rocchio from testifying at trial about opinions or information that would invade the province of the jury and are otherwise inappropriate for expert opinion. Dr. Rocchio’s report includes opinions and conclusions that purport to opine on the credibility of Plaintiff and his allegations, as well as the purported corroboration of other evidence. This is plainly improper. Dr. Rocchio also provides impermissible expert opinions constituting legal conclusions and a narrative description of hearsay statements of which she has no personal knowledge. Relatedly, Plaintiff’s counsel should be precluded from asking questions of Mr. Fowler’s rebuttal witness, Alexander Bardey, M.D., about credibility issues, including without limitation allegations of unrelated alleged misconduct of Mr. Fowler. Dr. Bardey was not designated to opine about credibility issues or anything to do with a psychological evaluation of Mr. Fowler. Nor was Dr. Rocchio. And other allegations of sexual misconduct are entirely irrelevant to either expert’s opinion. Finally, Mr. Fowler seeks an order precluding Dr. Rocchio from testifying at trial about any opinions not stated by her in her report or at her deposition." Full letter on Patreon here.

On September 9, in the run up to the October 6 trial, Spacey through counsel indicated he wants to make public Rapp's sexual history. From his filing: "I write to inform Your Honor that Mr. Fowler will be filing a motion in limine that bears on the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s objections to transcript designations submitted on September 8, 2022." Complete filing on Patreon here.

Back on June 6, Judge Kaplan issued two orders: one dismissing Rapp's first cause of action but not the rest of the complaint, the second denying his motion for remand (argued below). The first order recounts Rapp's allegation that when he was 14, Spacey put him back down on a bed, "grazing" his buttocks. Order on Patreon here.

On August 25, this: "TRIAL ORDER: The Clerks Office is scheduled to provide the Court a jury panel for this case on Thursday. October 6, 2022. On that day, the parties must be present in Courtroom 21B by 9:30 AM ready to begin jury selection and proceed immediately to trial. You are instructed to take the following steps in connection with the trial as further set forth in this Order. ( Jury Selection set for 10/6/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 8/25/22)."

As to jury selection, Judge Kaplan on September 7 ordered, "ORDER. Consistent with the Rule, the Court will examine prospective jurors, as it does in all cases, and will take the parties' helpful joint questionnaire into consideration in formulating its own examination. Upon conclusion of the Court's examination, it will afford counsel adequate opportunity to suggest additional questions and ask any that the Court considers proper. The request to have prospective jurors complete a written questionnaire in writing is denied. Among other reasons, it agrees that "jurors tend[] to understand written questions differently from those who draft[] the questions, leading to substantial difficulty in parsing their responses." United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 47 (2d Cir. 2011). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/7/22)."

Back on August 9, Judge Kaplan ruled: "Fowler's motion to compel is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks (a) production of Vary's pre-2017 communications with Rapp, 2021 communications with Darlow Smithson Productions, and documents regarding any interactions between Vary and Fowler and (b) a supplemental deposition. Vary shall sit for a supplemental deposition not to exceed four hours and answer, to the extent consistent with this Memorandum Opinion, all questions he refused to answer at his initial deposition and all reasonable follow up questions and questions about or relating to the newly produced documents and matters disclosed therein. The documents shall be produced no later than August 15, 2022. The supplemental deposition shall take place on a date mutually acceptable to Vary and the parties, which shall be on or before September 9, 2022."

Back on September 9, 2021, Judge Kaplan held a proceeding about 60 new names, and sealed affidavits. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

On October 4 Spacey asked to seal the UK High Court's Order which, he says, orders him to destroy material by October 7. Full letter on Patreon here.

On December 9 at 4:30 pm, six hours after the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial was paused at least for one day due to an ill prosecutor, Judge Kaplan held another proceeding in Rapp v. Spacey (or Fowler) and Inner City Press live tweeted it here, podcast (including on Maxwell and UN) here.

On December 10, Rapp's lawyer wrote to Judge Kaplan and asked that his forthcoming protective order including an order prohibiting disclosure of names of those alleging abuse by Spacey - full letter on Patreon here.

On March 10, 2022 a trial date was set: "ORDER, This case is set for trial on October 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. subject to any changes warranted by pandemic circumstances."

On March 14, digging in Miscellaneous cases, Inner City Press came upon satellite litigation between Spacey and Adam Vary, who citing the First Amendment and shield laws declined to answer questions at a deposition. 

Judge Kaplan ordered Vary to answer the subpoena by May 31. On May 23, Vary's counsel asked for reconsideration or a two week stay in order to appeal.

On May 27 Vary's counsel filed another letter, including "nearly all of the materials contain unpublished newsgathering information that we  maintain is privileged and shielded from production, but we acknowledge was not provided or  obtained subject to promises of confidentiality. However, there are a handful of source names  and information that was provided pursuant to promises of confidentiality. Our understanding is that the confidential sources corroborate Mr. Rapp’s account, but do not want to have their  information exposed. Although we maintain that both non-confidential and confidential  unpublished newsgathering materials are privileged and shielded from disclosure, there are  special protections and considerations for confidential source materials." Full letter on Patreon here.

On June 7, Judge Kaplan offered this secord clarification: "ORDER denying [23 in 22-mc-0063] Letter Motion for Discovery; denying [24 in 22-mc-0063] Letter Motion for Discovery. On May 19, 2022, this Court ordered that Mr. Vary submit, under seal, for in camera review various materials that he may be withholding from production in order to inform its analysis of whether he has satisfied his burden of showing that the materials, if indeed there are any, should be produced to the defendant. On June I, 2022 it granted in part Mr. Vary's request for additional time within which to comply. (The May 19 and June I orders are referred to collectively as the "Orders.") Mr. Vary now seeks a stay of the Orders insofar as they (I) require the submission for in camera review of any withheld materials that contain what he calls "confidential source information" and (2) supposedly require such submission of "post-subpoena attorney-client communications." Dkt. 23. The proposed stay, if granted, would remain in effect for "14 days after the later of the following events: (a) the Court's ruling on Mr. Fowler's motion for summary judgment; and (b) the Court's ruling on Mr. Rapp's renewed motion to remand. Dkt 159, 172, 20-cv-09586." Id. The ostensible justification for this relief is to afford Mr. Vary's counsel additional time to "consider and possibly seek appellate review of those portions of the Court's Orders, and then, if Mr. Vary does seek appellate review, stay [the Orders] until the outcome of such review."

That case is Fowler v. Vary, 22-mc-63 (Kaplan)
Inner City Press will continue to follow these cases.

From back on Dec 9: now in Rapp v. Kevin Spacey (for rape of 14 year-old), a proceeding in SDNY by phone, in a case which Inner City Press has been reporting on and will, in haitus from #MaxwellTrial which has no call-in line, live tweet:

Spacey, defending himself from claim he raped Rapp, wanted get discovery into all of his past relationships.

Spacey's lawyer: He's only alleging that Mr Fowler [that is, Kevin Spacey] picked him up and dropped him. It's essentially child abuse, not sexual assault.
On January 10, 2021 Spacey's lawyer wrote to Judge Kaplan to preclude Rapp from calling Justin Dawes as a witness, including portions of his December 28, 2021 deposition. They argue that Dawes withheld information, the name of an "unnamed friend."

  On January 12, Rapp's lawyers filed a 5 page letter including that "Mr. Dawes, he agreed to voluntarily, without a subpoena, testify about how Spacey made an inappropriate sexual advance on him when he was a minor... " at one point his hand was on my leg. You know, I thought it was mildly uncomfortable. I did not, you know, feel threatened, but I thought it was a kind of, you know, probing of a sexual nature to see how comfortable I was with that.'" Full letter on Patreon here.

Watch this site.
Inner City Press will stay on it - podcast

Watch this site.

From February 23: Lawyers for Kevin Spacey are arguing to strike testimony of Doctor Seymour H. Block. Spacey is being sued civilly for sex abuse.

 Judge Kaplan: You are asking me to make an important decision, in a country that values public trials as much as we do, in the unique circumstance of a person who sued and also went to the press with it. In advance.

 Plaintiffs lawyer: When my client gave the interview before this case. So there was no attempt to influence the jury. In fact, when my client spoke to the press this case would have been barred by the statute of limitations.

 Judge Kaplan: But if disclosure would harm him, why did he go to the press? Plaintiff's lawyer: They did not reveal his name. Judge Kaplan: But he couldn't know it would work. The publication checked his account with others. There was a chance he would be ID-ed

Judge Kaplan: What's that case you're citing? Defense: Doe, 241 FRD 154, 159 (SDNY, 2006). And another one by Justice Brennan, about how public trials bring in more witnesses. CD made his decision. We have our due process rights. [He calls Spacey "Mr. Fowler"]

Judge Kaplan: On a proper showing, the pleadings need not contain the name of a party, no? Defense: They have to meet the Doe factors. And CD has not met his burden. Plaintiff: Doe v. Colgate, the plaintiff went to the press and was still anonymous.

 Judge Kaplan: I'm going to wait until you make your expert disclosure.  Plaintiff's lawyer: There is a person beyond Mr Rapp who is aware of this. And Mr Rapp is not seeking to withhold his name.

Judge Kaplan: You need to file the relevant piece of the deposition.

The proceeding ends, just like that.

From February 2: Spacey's lawyer says it is unfair for C.D. to proceeding anonymously. "While it is true we have C.D.'s name, only if we make it public can others come forward with evidence about him... this is the right to due process."

C.D.'s lawyer: The sealed plaintiff versus sealed defendant factors weigh in our favor. We are talking about the rape of a minor. The declaration by his therapist shows he would suffer harm if his name is made public.

 Judge: If it happened it's abhorrent. But I don't have to be reminded of what Mr Spacey is accused of in every sentence. CD's lawyer: Spacey said, as to Rapp, that if it happened he was sorry. But here he is denying it entirely.

Judge: You're not getting anywhere.

Judge Kaplan: Get me your papers, and you'll get a decision promptly. Until then, don't disclose the name to third parties - except to Mr. Rapp, subject to sealing.

Spacey's lawyer: Every day is lost time.

  So Rapp's deposition will go forward, with C.D.'s real name said at it but reported in the transcript as C.D..  Inner City Press will continue to report on this case. More on Patreon here.

The case is  Rapp et al v. Fowler, 20-cv-9586 (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.

Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]