US
Treasury Leaker Edwards
Secrecy Opposed by Inner City
Press 3d Filing to SDNY Judge
Woods
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Video,
thread,
Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Aug 5 –
The U.S. Treasury employee
accused in October 2018 of
leaking Suspicious Activity
Reports about Paul Manafort
and others, Natalie Edwards,
pleaded guilty to one count on
January 13, 2020 before U.S.
District Court Southern
District of New York Judge
Gregory H. Woods.
Edwards
got a plea agreement for
between zero and six months
and a $9500 fine which her
lawyer afterward told Inner
City Press was a standard
fine. Video here;
live tweeted thread
of plea proceeding here.
More on Patreon here.
On August
4, Inner City Press filed its
second opposition to the
attempt to make Edwards'
submissions to SDNY Judge
Woods disappear as supposedly
not judicial documents. A day
later, Inner City Press'
submission has not been
docketed; the US Attorney's
Office / DOJ is silent on this
attempted disappearance of
evidence.
In this
context it may be useful to
consider a document signed
"May Edwards" which says she
has and has submitted
information on questions
including "Yemen (2015),"
Libya, Iran, China, Maria
Butina and the Clinton
Foundation, photo
1 here, 2
here.
Inner City
Press entirely opposes the
disappearance of these
judicial documents, submitted
to SDNY Judge Gregory Woods.
And so on August 5, it
submitted this: "I write for a
second time pursuant to your
July 22, 2020 order and in
further support of the July 21
application for press and
public access to submissions
to this Court by defendant
Natalie Mayflower Sours
Edwards, that triggered a
judicial conference. They are
judicial documents, contrary
to the July 30 opposition
submitted by Edwards'
counsel. On August
4 Inner City and I emailed to
your Chambers our reply.
Twenty four hours later, it is
not docketed. So, first, this
is a formal request that our
responses to Edwards'
counsel's submission be
docketed as hers was, as
Docket No. 65.
Second, in further opposition
to the withdrawal /
disappearance of what Ms.
Edwards submitted to this
Court triggering the
conference(s), since for now
we cannot know of what it
consisted, consider that the
following is already in the
public record, citing Yemen,
China, Clinton, Iran:
here and here.
Furthermore,
even what is characterized as
attorney - client is of public
interest, including because
after having know to be well
compensated counsel from
Brafman & Associates, now
Ms. Edwards has taxpayer
funded CJA counsel. Was she
paying Brafman &
Associates? Or was someone
else paying? We
had hoped for docketing and
ruling on the judicial
documents issue without
getting into the specifics of
press interest, which as in
FOIA litigation should not be
inquired into by a court or
government agency." Watch this
site.
Watch this site.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
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
|
,
