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

By Matthew Russell Lee

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, August 8 – Felix Sater during a testy cross examination on August 8 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker was asked if he remembered election day 2016 as a notable day.

  It was "a notably day for all Americans," Sater replied, smiling. Moments later when the same lawyer, Matthew Lane Schwartz of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP began a question about Sater knowing it is a felony to lie, Sater shot back, YOU know it is a felony - until Judge Parker cut it off.

  In the run up to the hearing Judge Parker received this letter, to unseal an email: "Re: City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Ablyazov, 15-CV-05345 (AJN) (KHP)
Dear Judge Parker: This firm represents the Khrapunov defendants. We write to ask the Court to order Plaintiffs to produce immediately an unredacted version of the attached email (Exhibit A, AlmatyBTA0252924). Plaintiffs’ grounds for redacting this email are not apparent. The email exchange is not attorneyclient privileged: no attorney-client relationship existed between Mr. Wolf and Mr. Schwartz. It is not work-product: (a) it is an exchange between adversaries, and (b) it is not in anticipation of litigation against a common foe. The work-product point is established by the timing. The email exchange took place after Mr. Sater had testified that he owned Litco (ECF 1099 at 7) and after BTA/Almaty admits having known about Mr. Sater’s financial involvement in the Tri-County settlement (ECF 1099 at 6). The letter is relevant to the upcoming evidentiary hearing as it bears on BTA/Almaty’s claim that, despite having worked closely with Mr. Sater and Litco for years and paying them millions, it learned about Mr. Sater’s ownership of Litco for the first time at Mr. Sater’s deposition on September 13, 2018 (ECF Doc 1099 at 7)." Inner City Press, present in Magistrate Judge Parker's courtroom for Sater's cross examination, will have more on this.

   Twelve days after a lawyer for the Trump Campaign told SDNY Judge John G Koeltl that  "the Russians hacked, Wikileaks published and we did... cheerleading," on July 30 Judge Koeltl issued an 81 page ruling essentially consistent with that line. Russia hacked was was exempt, Wikileaks was covered by the First Amendment, as were the Trump defendants. A key precedent cited at argument and in the ruling was Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), which Judge Koetlt said "made clear [that] there is a signficant legal distinction between stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else had stolen previously." Long live the First Amendment.

  But what about the right of the Press to cover criminal proceedings? On August 7 Judge Koeltl ordered Inner City Press to leave the presentment of a defendant arrested the day before, then when Inner City Press asked read out a case number which was and is not found on PACER...More on this exclusive story here.

by the  It was Michael A. Carvin from Jones Day, who was still speaking 45 minutes into the hearing when US District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl asked him to wrap up so he could hear the other defendants and then give equal time to the plaintiff, the Democratic National Committee.

  When the DNC's lawyer Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen Milstein took to the podium he called the Mueller report inconclusive. Forty minutes later he was discussion the "trespass of chattels" and Virginia law claims.

  The lawyer for the Aralarovs said there is no jurisdiction over them. The lawyer for Wikileaks Joshua Dratel, noting that he does not represent Julian Assange, said that as a publisher Wikileaks is covered by the First Amendment.

  The lawyer for George Papadapoulos said all he did was sent the summary about messages from Russia and a visit there. She rose again in rebuttal to say "You can consider the Mueller report." It seems the DNC's case is in trouble, even in this courtroom.

  The case is Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation et al., 18-cv-3501 (Koeltl).

Two months after Michael Cohen received a three year sentence in the SDNY, on February 7 Judge William H. Pauley III issued an order on how much information gathered during the investigation should be made public.

Now on July 17, Judge Pauley has denied the government's attempt to withhold, and ordered that it be filed on the public docket on July 18 at 11 am - an hour and a half after fellow SDNY Judge Richard M. Berman is set to issue his Jeffrey Epstein bond decision three stories below. From Judge Pauley's July 17 order: " On July 15, 2019, the Government submitted a status report and proposed redactions to the Materials ex parte and under seal. The Government now represents that it has concluded the aspects of its investigation that justified the continued sealing of the portions of the Materials relating to Cohen’s campaign finance violations. Although the Government agrees that the majority of the campaign finance portions of the Materials may be unsealed, it requests limited redactions to those portions to protect third-party privacy interests.  After reviewing the Government’s status report and proposed redactions, this Court denies the Government’s request. In particular—and in contrast to the private nature of Cohen’s business transactions—the weighty public ramifications of the conduct described in the campaign finance portions warrant disclosure. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (explaining that “financial records of a wholly owned business, family affairs, illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and similar matters will weigh more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public”). Moreover, the involvement of most of the relevant third-party actors is now public knowledge, undercutting the need for continued secrecy. See United States v. Basciano, 2010 WL 1685810, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2010) (“Shielding third parties from unwanted attention arising from an issue that is already public knowledge is not a sufficiently compelling reason to justify withholding judicial documents from public scrutiny.”). On balance, the “strong presumption of public access” to search warrants and search warrant materials under the common law far outweighs the weakened privacy interests at play here. See Cohen, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 621-22 (collecting cases).  3  The campaign finance violations discussed in the Materials are a matter of national importance. Now that the Government’s investigation into those violations has concluded, it is time that every American has an opportunity to scrutinize the Materials. Indeed, the common law right of access—a right so enshrined in our identity that it “predate[s] even the Constitution itself”—derives from the public’s right to “learn of, monitor, and respond to the actions of their representatives and representative institutions.” United States v. Erie Cty., 763 F.3d 235, 238-39 (2d Cir. 2014).  Accordingly, the Government is directed to file the July 15, 2019 status report and the Materials on the public docket on July 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m." Watch this site.

On February 20, Judge Pauley has granted an order pushing back Cohen's date of surrender to prison from March 6 to May 6, on the basis of a "more fulsome letter" submitted by his lawyers on February 12 - under seal.

  While much of the interest is in Cohen and, behind him, President Donald Trump, Pauley's order addresses the need for public oversight of Federal authorities including judges. From the SDNY decision in U.S. v. Cohen, 18-cr-00602: "the presumption of access is at its core tethered to the need for public monitoring of the federal courts and their exercise of judicial power. Cf. SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 847 (5th Cir. 1993) (explaining that “[t]he public’s right to information does not protect the same interests that the right of access is designed to protect”). As the Second Circuit explained, Monitoring both provides judges with critical views of their work and deters arbitrary judicial behavior. Without monitoring, moreover, the public could have no confidence in the conscientiousness, reasonableness, or honesty of judicial proceedings. Such monitoring is not possible without access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article III functions. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050." While a fine basis, this would militate not only for the release of search warrant records but more transparency and accessibilty day to day in the courts, something lacking even the day before in the presentment of Afghan national Haji Abdul Sattar Barakzai a/k/a Manaf for allegedly supporting the Taliban with heroin imports and sales, click here for that.

   Judge Pauley's February 7 order provides, "The Government is directed to submit a sealed, ex parte copy of the Materials by February 28, 2019 with proposed redactions in highlights consistent with this Opinion & Order. After reviewing the proposed redactions, this Court will direct the Government to file the redacted Materials on the public docket in this action."

   Previously from outside the Court in the Cohen case on December 12 surrounded by a sea of cameras and tripods, Inner City Press live-streamed: see Periscope broadcasts here and here. A week before that in Courtroom 12A there was a guilty verdict in the UN bribery trial...

More here

***

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 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for