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

On Maximum Maxwell Juror 50 thisbeartravels Deleted But Seen by Team Maxwell Far and Near

By Matthew Russell Lee, Author Amazon Patreon Song
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Radio - Podcast

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 12 -- The storm or scam around the Ghislaine Maxwell trial was pulling in two directions. Juror 50's gushing to the media, only after his bosses at the Carlyle Group gave him the green light, raised the specter of a mistrial.

  Meanwhile, Judge Nathan ruled that even the filings of Juror 50's lawyer, Todd Spodek who had written to say he was, in fact, the chosen lawyer, would be excluded from the case's docket. Why?

  The argument was made that this was all organic, that Juror 50's Instagram account had been seen and so he'd been contacted and decided, with the Carlyle Group's blessing, to go public. But why then had the Instagram accounts, or at least screen shots of it, not been published?

  Kurt stopped asking, and published, here and here. thisbeartravels, indeed. Hadn't Team Maxwell asked for all prospective jurors' names so they could check their social media before allowing them on Maxwell's jury? And here?  Game on.

   But a question he had, after Judge Nathan's order that Juror 50 didn't have standing to weigh in on whether there should even be a inquiry was, why hadn't Juror 50's retained counsel simply filed his motion into the docket?

  He clearly had SDNY filing privileges on PACER - he had filed, just for example, his sentencing submissions on Danforth, then the errata thereto as they say. So why let his client's submissions be redacted, much less by Maxwell?

 And why wasn't the challenge to Team Maxwell's and DOJ's redactions in the docket? #MaximumMaxwell

  The larger question was how the "Scotty David" interviews came about. And now, The Carlyle Group. From #MaximumMaxwell to #MirroringMaxwell.

#MaximumMaxwell (paperback here); soon #MirroringMaxwell.

The book "Maximum Maxwell" was on 12/29/21 available here

Inner City Press covered the trial, and all the comes before and after it; #CourtCaseCast and song I, Song 2, Song 3, fifth song, Nov 27 song and now, the Dec 29 verdict song here now Jan 8 Scotty David chatty juror song here

The underlying 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 including Maximum Maxwell, and other Maximum, on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

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

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Author'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] for