In ISIS
Support Case Against Husband and Wife Nov
14 Trial Set As Visit By Phone Not
Possible
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTROOM
Exclusive, Feb 3 – The
criminal case against a couple
charged with trying to support
ISIS and attack cadets at West
Point has run into a dispute
among Criminal Justice Act
lawyers and a lengthy sealed
proceeding on August 31.
Further proceeding were held
on September 1 and then on
November 5 (Vlog
1 and 2,
podcast here)
Arwa
Muthana
married James
Bradley and
the Department
of Justice
says they
tried to go
join ISIS, on
a ship from
Newark, after
speaking to an
undercover law
enforcement
officer about
today "taking
out" cadets at
West Point
with a
vehicle. DOJ's
Complaint is
online here.
On
February 3,
2022 there was
a conference
in the case,
which Inner
City Press
called in to and
covered. A trial
date was set -
November 14 -
and discovery,
including some
from the
Hossain case
Inner City
Press also
covered, was
discussed.
Then
at the end Bradley
said it was he
and his wife's
first anniversary
and
since they
were not in
court, could
they stay on
the line and
talk. At first
Judge
Engelmayer said
yes, then was
reminded by
his deputy
that there
were others,
unidentified,
on the line.
So no, Judge Engelmayer
began to say.
Inner City
Press hung up,
to allow
this virtual
visit amid
COVID if
possible.
Watch this
site.
Back
on
November 5,
2021 both were
physically
in
court;
Bradley's
parent were
the only
people, along
with Inner
City Press, in
the gallery.
Bradley's
lawyer Ma
asked that a
visit be
allowed. Three
minutes were
agreed to,
with no
physical
contact.
Discovery
issues have
arisen,
with Bradley
unable to
access the law
library in the
MDC in
Brooklyn due
to lock downs.
Judge
Paul A.
Engelmayer
noted that
sometimes
laptop
discovery in
the cell is
not
appropriate,
alluded he
said to a sex
trafficking
case.
Bradley
in the jury
box looked
surprised. The
case, Inner
City Press
infers, was US
v. Randall /
Rivera, which
it also
covered. It
will continue
to report on
this case. The
current cast
of players:
Christine
Delince,
Karloff
Commissiong
for Arwa
Muthana,
Richard Ma and
Anthony
Cecutti for
James Bradley,
and alone on
November 5 at
DOJ's
table,
Jason
Richman.
On
August 31,
Inner City
Press was
there - for
large
portions, in
the courthouse
hallway.
And on October
8, it emerged
that the
defendants'
lawyers may no
be CIPA
cleared. Later
in October,
Arwa Muthana
complained of
dirty water in
the MDC, where
co-resident
Ghislaine
Maxwell is
fighting to
get the names
of jurors but
no call-in
line for
trial.
#CourtCaseCast
podcast here.
The case
was listed in the day's
calendar of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York. SDNY
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer had
summoned the lawyers, noting
that "the Court expects the
participants, given the
sensitivity of the situation,
to attend the conference in
person."
Given that
criminal proceeding are
presumptively public, and
given the COVID / Delta
pandemic, Inner City Press
called in on the AT&T
conference line assigned to
Judge Engelmayer. But,
strangely, it then asked that
an additional pass-code be
entered.
Inner City Press went to the
courtroom, at 1:50 pm for a
proceeding listed as starting
at 1:30 pm.
Inside, defendant
Arwa Muthana with a veil
covering her hair sat with US
Marshals with two attorneys.
Another CJA lawyer, Sabrina
Shroff, sat in the gallery,
along with the Assistant US
Attorney assigned to the
case.
On October
26 Muthana through counsel
complaint that in the
Metropolitan Detention Center
in Brooklyn, to which
prisoners from the emptied out
MCC have been taken, "there
have been brown bits of dirt
and debris in the water and
that she and the other women
were told to 'drink water out
of the sinks near the showers,
or the sink near the slop
sink.'" Judge Engelmayer
signed an order for the MDC to
provide Muthana with clean and
bottled water by October 29"
-- three days from now.
Another request was redacted.
Back on
August 31 the lawyer in the
front, Christine Delince, had
complained to Judge Engelmayer
that Ms. Shroff had spoke with
her client. But it emerged
that the client had reached
out to Ms. Shroff, via
CORRLINKS email. Ms. Shroff
told Arwa Muthana that her
lawyers were working hard for
her. But she maintained that
she has a right to speak to
whoever reaches out to
her.
The
ancillary issued raised by Ms.
Delince, whose letter is
partial redacted, is that if
Bradley suggested to Muthana
that she contact CJA lawyer
Shroff, a conflict of interest
may be raised.
Judge
Engelmayer ordered most
people, including the Press,
out of the courtroom.
Inside were
Muthana and her two lawyers.
In the hallway outside were
Shroff, two AUSAs, Inner City
Press and another CJA lawyer
waiting for a sentencing
scheduled for 2 pm. That
defendant was brought up on
the elevator in shackled, then
taken downstairs
again.
After nearly an
hour, some but not all of
those in the hall were allowed
into the courtroom: the other
lawyers in or around the case,
including Shroff and two
lawyers for co-defendant James
Bradley, one of whom announced
that "everyone but the
government" could come in.
But Inner City
Press was told it could not
come in.
Later still, the
AUSA on the case was allowed
in, but not the AUSA awaiting
the now delayed 2 pm
sentencing nor the defense
lawyer for that
case.
When at last all
of the Muthana and Bradley
lawyers came out, no summary
of what had occurred was
provided. The delayed
sentencing appeared to come
together, but the court
reported had been kept too
long for the Muthana case.
So the
sentencing was pushed to
September 2; Judge Engelmayer
said that in the Muthana and
Bradley matter, two defendants
were being urgently produced
on September 1 (presumably
Muthana and Bradley - though
it is reported that another
man Bradley was communicating
with was arrested at JFK
Airport in July 2019).
On
September 1 in the morning,
there was nothing in the case
listed in the day's SDNY
Calendar on PACER. But Inner
City Press understand that
whatever happened, happened in
the morning. And later into
the docket, this: "Minute
Entry for proceedings held
before Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer:Status Conference
as to James Bradley, Arwa
Muthana held on 9/1/2021.
Defendants present (in
custody) with attorneys,
Christine Delince, Karloff
Commissiong, Richard Ma &
Anthony Cecutti. AUSAs Jacob
Gutwillig present. Sabrina
Shroff present. Court reporter
present. See transcript." See
transcript when? It is not in
the docket.
Certainly
attorney-client privilege is
important. So too is the
principle that criminal
proceedings in Federal court
are open to the press and
public, to the maximum extent
possible.
Once the AUSA was
invited back in on August 31,
obviously attorney-client
issues were no longer at
issue. So what was the basis
of excluding the press and
public, and still not
providing any disclosure what
happened? Even so that CJA
lawyers know when it is
appropriate to return a
communication from the MDC,
and when it is not, in the
Court's view?
The case is US v.
Muthana, et al., 21-cr-277
(Engelmayer)
[There's more to
the story: Arwa Muthana is the
older sister of Hoda Muthana,
who ran away from her family
to join ISIS in 2014 but later
sought to return to the
US. "Anyone that
believes in God believes that
everyone deserves a second
chance, no matter how harmful
their sins were,' she told TV
news from a refugee camp in
2019. A federal judge
ruled later in 2019 that Hoda
was no longer a U.S. citizen
and could not return to the
country. Hoda and Arwa
are daughters of a Yemeni
diplomat who became a
naturalized citizen while on
assignment in the United
States. We'll have more on
this, too - including the UN
(corruption) angle.]
***
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 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|