| In Kevin
Spacey Trial Rapp Cites Weinstein and Me
Too While Keller Mocks His Low CD Sales
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Stand-up
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
-
Video
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 11 – Anthony Rapp's
lawsuit against Kevin Spacey
was removed to Federal court
in November 2020, and an
anonymous co-plaintiff C.D.
was added.
Spacey wanted to
make C.D.'s name public, to
order to conduct discovery, he
says. C.D.'s lawyers
opposed it, letter on Patreon
here.
On May 26, 2022
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan held a
hearing, with Spacey
testifying, on Rapp's motion
to remand the case. Judge
Kaplan at the end said it is
his present intention to deny
the motion to remand, and that
the trial will start in
October. Inner City Press
attended then tweeted here.
[Then video
here]
On October
6, 2022, the
trail began. On the
way in video I,
II; afterward
Space
and Vlog.
Here's
the live tweeted thread
by Inner City
Press of the openings,
here
On
October 7, Day
2, with
a stated
victim of the
Public Theater
of Joe Papp, a
Rapp friend
who was told,
and the
beginning
(direct) of Rapp
himself. Thread here.
OK
- in Kevin Spacey trial, Anthony Rapp is
still on the stand on direct examination.
Rapp's lawyer: I want to direct your
attention back to Precious Sons, and how Ed
Harris held you in that play. Was it similar
to how Kevin Spacey picked you up, like a
bride?
Rapp: With Ed Harris, it was loving, nothing
sexual about it.
Rapp's lawyer: When if ever did Ed Harris
grind his pelvis into you? Rapp: Never.
Rapp's lawyer: When if ever did you
feel Ed Harris was trying to get with you
sexually?
Spacey's lawyer: Objection! Relevance.
Judge: Sustained. Rapp's lawyer: Where
did you go next? Rapp: Interlochen, the
rigorous music camp.
Rapp's lawyer: When did it come back to you?
Rapp: I went to see "Working Girl" in my
local cinema, and saw him on the screen and
it was like someone poked me with a cattle
prod.
Rapp's lawyer: Have you watched others
of his films? Rapp: Usual Suspects, LA
Confidential, American Beauty...
Rapp's lawyer: Why did you go to them? Rapp:
I am an actor. I felt it was part of my job
to go see them. I steeled myself and tamped
it down
Rapp's lawyer: Have you seen Kevin
Spacey in a play? Rapp: Yes, Lost in
Yonkers. Rapp's lawyer: And television?
Rapp: Only on award shows. Rapp's lawyer:
Did you attend Oscar parties? Rapp: Yes, at
Elizabeth Law's on the Upper East Side.
Rapp's lawyer: What about you throwing
pencils at the screen, as was brought up
earlier in the trial?
Rapp: Elizabeth use to throw a rubber
chicken at the screen. I threw a pencil, my
version. I had watch the Oscars since I was
a kid.
Rapp: I was at an event, in a large
bathroom, and Kevin Spacey walked in. It was
startling to be in his gaze. I wanted to get
out. I went out.
Rapp's lawyer: Anthony, have you ever
written a tell-all book?
Rapp: Not a tell-all. A memoir of love,
focused only on the time I was in Rent, the
workshop production, the off-Broadway, my
mother - a three year period is the main
thrust
Rapp's lawyer: When did you mother
give up her career for yours?
Rapp: She only put it on pause until she
went back to Joliet... Once when I was 13,
she slapped me. I said, I will slap you
back. Then the next year in NY, she came in
and slapped me. I slapped back
Rapp's lawyer: Did you fight with a
boyfriend? Rapp: Yes, Josh Safron. We were
in an alleyway by the theater, a Sunday in
July. He said, Never talk to me again. I saw
red and I launched myself at him and knocked
him down.
Rapp's lawyer: What did you do after
that fight?
Spacey's lawyer: Objection to the
characterization as a fight.
Judge: Sustained. Rapp's lawyer: After
the altercation -- Spacey's lawyer:
Objection. Judge: Sustained.
Rapp's lawyer: When you get the
interviews about these events, what concerns
did you have? Rapp: I had already told my
producers and the PR people of Startrek
DIscovery I was contemplating doing this. I
was aware Kevin Spacey was in the middle of
House of Cards
Rapp's lawyer: Did you want a career like
Kevin Spacey's? Rapp: No, I was fine with
what I had. I could be picky about
projects... I read about Me Too & Harvey
Weinstein, I identified with it
Rapp's lawyer: How has the case been? Rapp:
I was in line to enter the building this
morning and Kevin Spacey was there. It was
hard to breathe.
Rapp's lawyer: When if ever have you
regretted bringing this lawsuit? Spacey's
lawyer: Objection Judge: Sustained
Rapp: I brought this lawsuit hoping I
could help protect others. Judge Kaplan:
Strike that last remark. [Rapp drinks
from bottle of water, closes his eyes]
Rapp's lawyer: No further questions.
Judge: We'll take a break.
Jury entering! Judge Kaplan:
Cross-examination. Ms. Keller. Spacey's
lawyer Keller: This is the article where you
went public, right? Rapp: Yes.
Keller: You decided in a quiet moment by the
window, yes? Rapp: What do you mean? Keller:
You said that.
Keller: Lupita Nyong'o is a legitimate star,
right? Rapp: Yes.
Keller: She had a meteoric rise, correct?
Rapp: Yes. Keller: Let's look at your
deposition. You said you were moved. True?
Rapp: I was.
Rapp's lawyer: Can she read the whole
question? Judge Kaplan: I'll read it... No,
move on. Keller: You got an award for
accusing Mr. Spacey, yes? Rapp's lawyer:
Objection, relevance. Keller: I can make an
offer of proof. Judge Kaplan: Not necessary.
Overruled.
Keller: You wrote to Vary of Buzzfeed
that you wanted to expose someone powerful
but do it in the best way, right?
Rapp: Can I see that? Keller: Yes. And this
was before the op-ed by Ms. Nyong'o -
five days before, Vary told you Buzzfeed
wanted you to have impact
Keller: So in the article, you claim
Mr. Spacey picked you and Mr. Barrowman out
and invited you to the Limelight clubs,
right? Rapp's lawyer: Objection - misstates
the evidence. Judge Kaplan: Overruled.
Keller: You didn't tell Mr. Vary one
word about Jack Lemmon that night, did you?
Rapp: I don't know that for certain. Keller:
Do you think night clubs in NYC are fully
going at 8 pm?
Rapp: I had no way to know at the time.
Keller: How old are you now? Rapp: 50.
Keller: And you don't know when things
start? Rapp: I haven't been to a club in a
while.
Keller: You told Vary that it was fun at the
Limelight, yes?
Rapp: I did. The conversation was good, but
at the club, I couldn't hear. Keller:
So it was fun, or it was unpleasant - which
one?
Keller: Mr. Spacey was flirting with Mr.
Barrowman, right? Rapp: I don't recall.
Keller: You claim only you were invited to
the party at Mr. Spacey's apartment, yes?
Rapp: That's my recollection.
Keller: You say your made your way safely
home - was danger lurking? Rapp: I wouldn't
say that. Keller: But you did, in your
deposition on page 37, lines 18 to 24.
Keller: Mr. Barrowman says Mr. Spacey
had a dog, a brown lab - and you've never
mentioned it, right? Rapp: I do not remember
a brown dog.
Judge Kaplan: Ms, Keller, how much
more do you have? Keller: Quite a bit.
Judge: Jurors may take a break. Thread will
continue.
OK - they're back. Keller: Let's talk more
about Mr. Barrowman. You went radio silence
with him?
Rapp: We weren't close friends. Judge:
Answer the question. You know what radio
silence is. Rapp: It sounds intentional.
Judge: I'm not going to quibble with you
Keller: In your book, you say you were
growing restless with your mother's
presence, right? Rapp: Only during
rehearsals.
Keller: Come on, wasn't it because your
brother was molested by her boyfriend? Rapp:
I wasn't aware of that then. Keller: You say
that at Mr. Spacey's, when you went into be
bedroom, David Letterman was on TV, right?
Rapp: Yes. Keller: And he had the Late Night
Show? Rapp: I don't know what it was called.
Keller: The first time you were really
questioned about your Kevin Spacey story was
in your deposition in this case, right?
Rapp: No. Vary questioned me. Keller: Your
good friend, who said he would leave things
vague so Mr. Spenser could not rebut - that
friend?
Keller: So when Mr. Spacey's body was
on you, he didn't touch your p*nis, did he?
Rapp: No. Keller: He didn't try to get you
to touch his, did he? Rapp: He did not.
Keller: How long was he on top? Rapp: It was
a frozen moment for me. Keller: That's not
my question
Keller: And when you tried to leave, you're
saying Mr. Spacey was at the door, right?
Rapp: Yes. Keller: But you don't know how he
got there... I know you're on Star Trek
Discovery, but you're not alleging he used a
transporter, are you? Break taken.
They're back. Keller: Buzzfeed
reported that you wanted to shout, This guy
is a fraud, right? Rapp: Is that in the
article? Keller: Yes. You thought he was
portraying himself as straight, correct?
Rapp: Yes.
Keller: You called yourself queer? Rapp:
Yes.
Keller: Did you end a relationship with a
boyfriend because he wouldn't come out as
gay?
Rapp: May I explain? It was because he
would not be photographed with me at an
event for the play "Rent" Keller: Because
that would out him, right? Rapp: Yes.
Keller: Kevin Spacey's star rose, and
you were having trouble getting media
attention, true? Rapp: When are you
referring to?
Keller: 1996 and onward. Rapp: That is not
accurate. Keller: Kevin Spacey was in L.A.
Confidential, and you went to see him in it?
Rapp: Yes
Keller: When you put out a CD and went to
sell it on a college campus, you sold only
26 CDs, right?
Rapp: Did I say "only"? Judge Kaplan: Are
you saying that selling 26 CDs after a
concert is a success? Rapp: At that concert,
yes.
Keller: You were in "You're a Good Man,
Charlie Brown." You couldn't claim that's in
the same league at The Iceman Cometh, right?
Rapp: They are different kinds of shows.
Judge Kaplan: We'll break here.
Watch
this site.
Back on
September 17,
Spacey through
counsel filed
a letter
seeking to limit
the
anticipated
testimony of
Dr. Lisa M. Roccio - who
also testified for
the
prosecution in
US v. Ghislaine
Maxwell:
"Defendant
Kevin Spacey
Fowler (“Mr.
Fowler”) will
and hereby
does move this
Court, before
the United
States
District Judge
Lewis A.
Kaplan, in the
United States
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York,
located in the
Federal
Courthouse,
500 Pearl
Street, New
York, NY
10007, on
October 6,
2022, or a
date to be set
by the Court,
for an order
in limine to
preclude
plaintiff
Anthony Rapp
from offering
expert
testimony on
credibility
issues and
other improper
opinions of
his expert
witness, Lisa
Rocchio, Ph.D.
Under Federal
Rule of
Evidence
401-403,
701-702, and
other
applicable
law, Mr.
Fowler brings
this motion to
preclude Dr.
Rocchio from
testifying at
trial about
opinions or
information
that would
invade the
province of
the jury and
are otherwise
inappropriate
for expert
opinion. Dr.
Rocchio’s
report
includes
opinions and
conclusions
that purport
to opine on
the
credibility of
Plaintiff and
his
allegations,
as well as the
purported
corroboration
of other
evidence. This
is plainly
improper. Dr.
Rocchio also
provides
impermissible
expert
opinions
constituting
legal
conclusions
and a
narrative
description of
hearsay
statements of
which she has
no personal
knowledge.
Relatedly,
Plaintiff’s
counsel should
be precluded
from asking
questions of
Mr. Fowler’s
rebuttal
witness,
Alexander
Bardey, M.D.,
about
credibility
issues,
including
without
limitation
allegations of
unrelated
alleged
misconduct of
Mr. Fowler.
Dr. Bardey was
not designated
to opine about
credibility
issues or
anything to do
with a
psychological
evaluation of
Mr. Fowler.
Nor was Dr.
Rocchio. And
other
allegations of
sexual
misconduct are
entirely
irrelevant to
either
expert’s
opinion.
Finally, Mr.
Fowler seeks
an order
precluding Dr.
Rocchio from
testifying at
trial about
any opinions
not stated by
her in her
report or at
her
deposition."
Full letter
on Patreon here.
On
September 9,
in the run up
to the October
6 trial,
Spacey through
counsel
indicated he
wants to make
public Rapp's sexual
history. From
his filing:
"I write
to inform Your
Honor that Mr.
Fowler will be
filing a
motion in
limine that
bears on the
Court’s
consideration
of Plaintiff’s
objections to
transcript
designations
submitted on
September 8,
2022." Complete
filing on
Patreon here.
Back
on June 6, Judge Kaplan issued
two orders: one dismissing
Rapp's first cause of action
but not the rest of the
complaint, the second denying
his motion for remand (argued
below). The first order
recounts Rapp's allegation
that when he was 14, Spacey
put him back down on a bed,
"grazing" his buttocks. Order
on Patreon here.
On August 25,
this: "TRIAL ORDER: The Clerks
Office is scheduled to provide
the Court a jury panel for
this case on Thursday. October
6, 2022. On that day, the
parties must be present in
Courtroom 21B by 9:30 AM ready
to begin jury selection and
proceed immediately to trial.
You are instructed to take the
following steps in connection
with the trial as further set
forth in this Order.
( Jury Selection set for
10/6/2022 at 09:30 AM in
Courtroom 21B, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007
before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.)
(Signed by Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan on 8/25/22)."
As to jury
selection, Judge Kaplan on
September 7 ordered, "ORDER.
Consistent with the Rule, the
Court will examine prospective
jurors, as it does in all
cases, and will take the
parties' helpful joint
questionnaire into
consideration in formulating
its own examination. Upon
conclusion of the Court's
examination, it will afford
counsel adequate opportunity
to suggest additional
questions and ask any that the
Court considers proper. The
request to have prospective
jurors complete a written
questionnaire in writing is
denied. Among other reasons,
it agrees that "jurors tend[]
to understand written
questions differently from
those who draft[] the
questions, leading to
substantial difficulty in
parsing their responses."
United States v. Treacy, 639
F.3d 32, 47 (2d Cir. 2011). SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/7/22)."
Back on August 9,
Judge Kaplan ruled: "Fowler's
motion to compel is GRANTED to
the extent that it seeks (a)
production of Vary's pre-2017
communications with Rapp, 2021
communications with Darlow
Smithson Productions, and
documents regarding any
interactions between Vary and
Fowler and (b) a supplemental
deposition. Vary shall sit for
a supplemental deposition not
to exceed four hours and
answer, to the extent
consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion, all
questions he refused to answer
at his initial deposition and
all reasonable follow up
questions and questions about
or relating to the newly
produced documents and matters
disclosed therein. The
documents shall be produced no
later than August 15, 2022.
The supplemental deposition
shall take place on a date
mutually acceptable to Vary
and the parties, which shall
be on or before September 9,
2022."
Back on September
9, 2021, Judge Kaplan held a
proceeding about 60 new names,
and sealed affidavits. Inner
City Press live tweeted it here
and below.
On
October 4 Spacey asked to seal the UK High
Court's Order which, he says, orders him to
destroy material by October 7. Full letter on
Patreon here.
On
December 9 at 4:30 pm, six hours after the US v.
Ghislaine Maxwell trial was paused at
least for one day due to an ill prosecutor,
Judge Kaplan held another proceeding
in Rapp v. Spacey (or Fowler)
and Inner City Press
live tweeted it here,
podcast (including on
Maxwell and UN) here.
On December
10, Rapp's
lawyer
wrote to Judge
Kaplan and asked
that his forthcoming
protective order
including an order
prohibiting
disclosure of names
of those alleging
abuse by Spacey -
full letter on
Patreon here.
On
March 10, 2022 a
trial date was
set: "ORDER,
This case is set
for trial on
October 4, 2022
at 9:30 a.m.
subject to any
changes
warranted by
pandemic
circumstances."
On March
14, digging in
Miscellaneous
cases, Inner
City Press
came upon satellite
litigation
between Spacey
and Adam Vary,
who citing
the First Amendment
and shield
laws declined
to answer
questions at a
deposition.
Judge
Kaplan ordered
Vary to answer
the subpoena by
May 31. On May 23,
Vary's counsel
asked for
reconsideration
or a two week
stay in order
to appeal.
On May 27
Vary's counsel
filed another
letter,
including
"nearly all of
the materials
contain
unpublished
newsgathering
information
that we
maintain is
privileged and
shielded from
production,
but we
acknowledge
was not
provided
or
obtained
subject to
promises of
confidentiality.
However, there
are a handful
of source
names
and
information
that was
provided
pursuant to
promises of
confidentiality.
Our
understanding
is that the
confidential
sources
corroborate
Mr. Rapp’s
account, but
do not want to
have
their
information
exposed.
Although we
maintain that
both
non-confidential
and
confidential
unpublished
newsgathering
materials are
privileged and
shielded from
disclosure,
there
are
special
protections
and
considerations
for
confidential
source
materials."
Full letter
on Patreon here.
On June 7,
Judge Kaplan
offered this secord
clarification:
"ORDER denying
[23 in
22-mc-0063]
Letter Motion
for Discovery;
denying [24 in
22-mc-0063]
Letter Motion
for Discovery.
On May 19,
2022, this
Court ordered
that Mr. Vary
submit, under
seal, for in
camera review
various
materials that
he may be
withholding
from
production in
order to
inform its
analysis of
whether he has
satisfied his
burden of
showing that
the materials,
if indeed
there are any,
should be
produced to
the defendant.
On June I,
2022 it
granted in
part Mr.
Vary's request
for additional
time within
which to
comply. (The
May 19 and
June I orders
are referred
to
collectively
as the
"Orders.") Mr.
Vary now seeks
a stay of the
Orders insofar
as they (I)
require the
submission for
in camera
review of any
withheld
materials that
contain what
he calls
"confidential
source
information"
and (2)
supposedly
require such
submission of
"post-subpoena
attorney-client
communications."
Dkt. 23. The
proposed stay,
if granted,
would remain
in effect for
"14 days after
the later of
the following
events: (a)
the Court's
ruling on Mr.
Fowler's
motion for
summary
judgment; and
(b) the
Court's ruling
on Mr. Rapp's
renewed motion
to remand. Dkt
159, 172,
20-cv-09586."
Id. The
ostensible
justification
for this
relief is to
afford Mr.
Vary's counsel
additional
time to
"consider and
possibly seek
appellate
review of
those portions
of the Court's
Orders, and
then, if Mr.
Vary does seek
appellate
review, stay
[the Orders]
until the
outcome of
such review."
That
case is Fowler
v. Vary,
22-mc-63
(Kaplan)
Inner
City Press
will continue
to follow these
cases.
From back on Dec 9: now in
Rapp v. Kevin Spacey (for
rape of 14 year-old), a
proceeding in SDNY by
phone, in a case which
Inner City Press has been
reporting on and will, in
haitus from #MaxwellTrial
which has no call-in line,
live tweet:
Spacey, defending himself
from claim he raped Rapp,
wanted get discovery into
all of his past
relationships.
Spacey's lawyer: He's only
alleging that Mr Fowler
[that is, Kevin Spacey]
picked him up and dropped
him. It's essentially
child abuse, not sexual
assault.
On January
10, 2021 Spacey's lawyer wrote
to Judge Kaplan to preclude
Rapp from calling
Justin Dawes as a
witness,
including
portions
of his
December 28, 2021 deposition.
They argue
that Dawes
withheld
information, the name of
an "unnamed
friend."
On January 12,
Rapp's lawyers
filed a 5 page
letter
including that
"Mr. Dawes, he
agreed to
voluntarily,
without a
subpoena,
testify about
how Spacey
made an
inappropriate
sexual advance
on him when he
was a minor...
" at one point
his hand was
on my leg. You
know, I
thought it was
mildly
uncomfortable.
I did not, you
know, feel
threatened,
but I thought
it was a kind
of, you know,
probing of a
sexual nature
to see how
comfortable I
was with
that.'" Full
letter on
Patreon here.
Watch this
site. Inner
City Press will stay on it
- podcast
Watch this site.
From February 23:
Lawyers for Kevin Spacey are
arguing to strike testimony of
Doctor Seymour H. Block.
Spacey is being sued civilly
for sex abuse.
Judge
Kaplan: You are asking me to
make an important decision, in
a country that values public
trials as much as we do, in
the unique circumstance of a
person who sued and also went
to the press with it. In
advance.
Plaintiffs
lawyer: When my client gave
the interview before this
case. So there was no attempt
to influence the jury. In
fact, when my client spoke to
the press this case would have
been barred by the statute of
limitations.
Judge
Kaplan: But if disclosure
would harm him, why did he go
to the press? Plaintiff's
lawyer: They did not reveal
his name. Judge Kaplan: But he
couldn't know it would work.
The publication checked his
account with others. There was
a chance he would be ID-ed
Judge Kaplan:
What's that case you're
citing? Defense: Doe, 241 FRD
154, 159 (SDNY, 2006). And
another one by Justice
Brennan, about how public
trials bring in more
witnesses. CD made his
decision. We have our due
process rights. [He calls
Spacey "Mr. Fowler"]
Judge Kaplan: On
a proper showing, the
pleadings need not contain the
name of a party, no? Defense:
They have to meet the Doe
factors. And CD has not met
his burden. Plaintiff: Doe v.
Colgate, the plaintiff went to
the press and was still
anonymous.
Judge
Kaplan: I'm going to wait
until you make your expert
disclosure. Plaintiff's
lawyer: There is a person
beyond Mr Rapp who is aware of
this. And Mr Rapp is not
seeking to withhold his name.
Judge Kaplan: You
need to file the relevant
piece of the deposition.
The proceeding ends, just like
that.
From February 2:
Spacey's lawyer says it is
unfair for C.D. to proceeding
anonymously. "While it is true
we have C.D.'s name, only if
we make it public can others
come forward with evidence
about him... this is the right
to due process."
C.D.'s lawyer:
The sealed plaintiff versus
sealed defendant factors weigh
in our favor. We are talking
about the rape of a minor. The
declaration by his therapist
shows he would suffer harm if
his name is made public.
Judge: If
it happened it's abhorrent.
But I don't have to be
reminded of what Mr Spacey is
accused of in every sentence.
CD's lawyer: Spacey said, as
to Rapp, that if it happened
he was sorry. But here he is
denying it entirely.
Judge: You're not
getting anywhere.
Judge Kaplan: Get
me your papers, and you'll get
a decision promptly. Until
then, don't disclose the name
to third parties - except to
Mr. Rapp, subject to sealing.
Spacey's lawyer:
Every day is lost time.
So Rapp's
deposition will go forward,
with C.D.'s real name said at
it but reported in the
transcript as C.D..
Inner City Press will continue
to report on this case. More
on Patreon here.
The case is
Rapp et al v. Fowler,
20-cv-9586 (Kaplan)
***
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
|
,
