SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 1 – 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. Nov 1 podcast here.
On November 1,
Judge Alison J. Nathan held a
length hearing on the motions
in limine. Inner City Press
live tweeted the 11 am to 1 pm
session here
(podcast here)
Judge Nathan:
I've received the motions in
limine. There are redactions
I'll discuss today. [Inner
City Press has opposed
including US redacting an
entire argument, Number 10, here]
Gov filed 11 motions, and
defense 13.
Judge
Nathan: The defendant's 12th
motion in limine involves
terminology: victims and minor
victims. Motion's denied.
Government can use the term
"victim" and "minor." As Judge
Furman explained, excluding
the term victim is impractical
[citing US v. Dupigny]
Judge
Nathan: The gov't asks that
eight victims be referred to
by pseudonyms in open court. I
grant the request. It will
protect the victims from media
harassment and their dignity
and privacy. See US v. Ranier,
and US v. Kelly in the EDNY
Judge Nathan:
Given the inflammatory nature
of the conduct alleged here,
it might cause harassment and
deter other victims from
coming forward... On voir
dire, I think the list method
makes sense.
Judge
Nathan: That leaves the issues
of sealing unredacted
exhibits. The government will
need to manage this.
Judge Nathan: The
US seeks to preclude evidence
of its motives in
investigating Ms. Maxwell, and
material about the Florida
investigation. The case law is
that the government is not
required to use any particular
method. Improper motive
arguments are for the court
Judge
Nathan: The Court will
preclude evidence of the
thoroughness of the
investigation. The 2d
Circuit's decision in Watson
indicate that sometime
evidence of thoroughness does
go to guilt.
[While
Judge Nathan is reading her
rulings on motions in limine,
we note in small SDNY
Courtroom 518, where UN briber
Ng Lap Seng was processed,
#GhislaineMaxwell appears in
prison blues, a white under
shirt with sleeves, & a
white mask, 2 Marshals behind
her
Judge Alison: If
the defense believes the US
has a legally improper motive
for prosecuting Ms Maxwell, a
motion should be filed with
the court. For purposes of the
jury, the US is not on trial.
Evidence of motive would be
highly prejudicial.
Judge
Alison: The Court will exclude
evidence about the Non
Prosecution Agreement. Epstein
agreed to pay for a lawyer for
an alleged victim. There was a
settlement of a civil suit.
The defense can cross
examination about bias.
Judge Alison: The
defense has not explained any
bias that relates to the Non
Prosecution Agreement, which
does not provide protection in
the SDNY. I don't see any
theory of bias that would be
relevant with respect to the
NPA.
Judge
Alison: The Non Prosecution
Agreement has a complex
background. It's not clear to
me it could never be admitted.
But based on what's before me,
No. Nor are the US' charging
decisions relevant. They
didn't indict her along with
Epstein...
Judge Alison
NATHAN: I will allow, on
cross, the issue of witnesses
who did not initially
implicate Ms. Maxwell. This is
relevant and admissible. And
witnesses' motives to
implicate Ms. Maxwell after
Mr. Epstein's death. The jury
must understand the context
Judge Nathan: I
will permit the defense to
cross examine police, to
impeach by suggesting bias. It
would not be outweighed by
[Rule] 403 prejudice. [Pause.]
Any questions? AUSA: Not from
the government. Defense: Not
at this time.
Judge
Nathan: The US seeks to
exclude evidence about
consent. Isn't it related to
the 412 motion?
AUSA: The
government agrees... Defense:
If a law enforcement officer
says they interview another
alleged victim and they didn't
mention our client, that's not
hearsay
Judge
Nathan: I'm not sure I can
resolve that in the abstract.
It sound like neither side
intends to open on that. AUSA:
True. It is the US' position
that it is hearsay, if offered
for the truth [of the matter
asserted]
Judge Nathan: The
Government has asked that its
entire Argument should be
sealed [Inner City Press
opposed that]. Judge Nathan: I
disagree. I think the theory
of prejudice runs counter to
the whole premise of pre-trial
motions. I don't see a basis
to seal this
AUSA Moe:
We don't oppose unseal at the
conclusion of the trial.
[What?] Judge Nathan: I don't
see a basis for sealing or
redaction. I'm not going to
grant that.
Judge Nathan:
Gov't 11 seeks to exclude
evidence that the defendant
was deemed a prevailing party
after a settlement. I grant
the motion. Let me ask the US,
if you have emails of
defendant setting up dates
with people who are not
minors, are you seeking to
admit?
AUSA Moe:
Yes. Judge Nathan: This is
about minors. So these emails
are not direct evidence.. What
about documents that post-date
the charged conspiracy, like
the address book?
AUSA Moe: The
document belonged to the
defendant. It had contact info
for minor victims.
Defense: I
don't believe that the witness
we are speaking about, who
didn't start working for Mr.
Epstein until after the
charged conspiracy, would be
able to authenticate the
documents, which are suspect,
with a lot of notations on
them. It's not relevant.
Judge Nathan: So
US will not mention in its
opening any message pads that
post-date the charged
conspiracy? AUSA Moe: Yes,
Your Honor.
Judge Nathan:
Let's take a 10 minute comfort
break.
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;
#CourtCaseCast and song
I
and song
II:
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.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
,
