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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 19 – In a case against Peter Nygard for rape, sexual assault and sex trafficking, on May 7, 2020 there was a pre-motion conference before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Edgardo Ramos. Inner City Press covered it, see below.

 On December 15, 2020 Nygard was reported arrested in Canada, to be presented under the Extradition Act. Inner City Press has asked the US Attorney's Office for the SDNY to " say if this is pursuant to a DOJ / SDNY indictment and extradition request."  They replied, "Per Department policy, we cannot comment on extradition matters." Then minutes later they confirmed it.

On September 13 it was reported that Nygard's extradition hearing, which was to have been from Nov. 15 to Nov. 19, was been changed to Oct. 1. It finally occurred, in stages, in January 2022. But Canadian law said nothing could be reported except the outcome - which is detention. So when will Nygard arrive in New York? Watch this site.

On May 26 the US Attorney's Office filed a list of properties subject to forfeiture as a result of the offenses described in Counts Two through Five of the indictment, including 9450 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Chatsworth, California; 5409 Ocean Front Alk, Marina Del Rey, California; 13700 Saticoy Street, LA; and a condominium in 1 Yawl Street, Marina Del Rey. California dreamin'...

 On January 8, Judge Ramos ruled: "ORDER entered [15] Motion for Conference. Plaintiff is directed to respond to Defendant's letter by Wednesday, January 13, 2021."

On January 13 the sons' lawyers responded, that Nygard has no right to ask for a stay, and that no one can show that the sons are the "victims in the criminal action."

On February 5, Nygard was trying to stay one of the civil cases against him, pointing to the SDNY indictment and his incarceration in Canada pending extradition. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

Jump cut to October 19, 2022, when Judge Paul G. Gardephe ruled: "ORDER as to Peter Nygard. The Court is in receipt of a proposed Consent Order of Interlocutory Sale of Real Property located at 13800-13704 Saticoy Street, Los Angeles, California (the "Property"). The Property is the subject of a forfeiture allegation in an indictment naming Defendant Peter Nygard. (Dkt. No. 2) The Government seeks authorization to sell the Property but does not explain whether the Defendant has any interest in the property, whether he consents to the sale, or whether he has notice of the sale. Counsel for the Defendant is directed to respond to the Government's proposed Consent Order of lnterlocutory Sale of Real Property by October 26, 2022. SO ORDERED."

Back on February 15 - U.S. President's Day - the plaintiffs' lawyer Greg G. Gutzler submitted a proposed order to Judge Ramos, agreeing to a "discretionary" stay of the case, which of course they could move to lift "should circumstances so warrant."

On February 16, Judge Ramos granted the stay: " STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY ACTION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned Parties to this Action, and it is hereby ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED, by this Honorable Court, that pursuant to the exercise of this Court's discretion and inherent authority in the interests of justice, this action is hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. At any time, the undersigned Parties, or any of them, may move to lift the discretionary stay in the interests of justice, should circumstances so warrant. Case stayed. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/16/2021)."

From February 5: Nygard's lawyer: This case should be stayed. Mr. Nygard has been indicted for these allegations. And the plaintiffs have now asked Mr. Nygard to admit or deny each paragraph of the DOJ indictment.

Now Nygard's lawyer cites "the Louis Vuitton case," and one called Lunkes. Cites Fifth Amendment rights of Nygard as favoring a stay.

Now plaintiff's lawyer: Mr. Nygard has trafficked minors and young adults and has raped them. The indictment addresses the network of girlfriends and confederates he has adopted to lure these victims to these locations to abuse.

 Judge Ramos: Were the victims abused only by Mr. Nygard? Or others as well? A: It says, "and others." [Plaintiffs' lawyer is having to argue against TVPRA stay provision, says "nothing in the indictment says anything about trafficking of family members....

 Plaintiffs' lawyer: Nygard wanted to make a man out of them, and had a girlfriend rape them. Judge Ramos: Isn't that luring too, since minors can't consent? Plaintiff's lawyer: These are unique circumstances.

Judge Ramos: I think the TVPRA stay question is a close one. But the discretionary stay, not so much.

  And so on the motion to stay, Nygard is to file his formal motion on February 26, and reply on March 26. Inner City Press will stay on these cases.

Watch this site.

 Nygard faces nine counts in the SDNY, including racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking of a minor, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, and two counts of transportation for purpose of prostitution.

Inner City Press has uploaded the sealed indictment to Patreon here, also this song & pod

 Back on August 16, another case against Nygard was filed by the same firm, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC via Greg G. Gutzler, this time alleging that Nygard had his sex-worker girlfriend have sent with his two then underaged sons.

 On November 25, Nygard's lawyer asked Judge Ramos of a pre-motion conference, seeking to file a motion to dismiss. It was scheduled for December 10, and Inner City Press sought to cover it.

But during the short proceeding, Nygard's lawyer Christopher Harwood demanded that it be sealed. At the end, Judge Ramos told the court reporter not to docket the transcript but rather show it to Harwood (and plaintiffs' counsel). So the result of the US Attorney's Office probe is less, rather than more, transparency to the public. Here is the minute order: "Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edgardo Ramos: Pre-Motion Conference held on 12/10/2020 by telephone. Defendants are granted leave to file a motion to dismiss with the following briefing schedule: moving papers due January 11, 2021; response due February 11, 2020; and reply due February 25, 2021. The parties are granted leave to file memoranda 40 pages in length, and a reply 20 pages in length. Defendants' application to seal portions of the transcript discussing the a potential stay of this action and the stay of the related action, Does No. 1 -10 v. Nygard, et al., 20-cr-1288, is GRANTED."

Note: that other case is CV (civil), not criminal. Freudian slip?

This one is John Does 1-2 v. Nygard et al., 20-cv-6501 (Ramos).

 The June 3 proceeding started with the allegation that Nygard has made some Google search results disappear. Plaintiffs' lawyer went through a "deletion log" of documents which were deleted, including the litigation hold. He quoted Bates stamp numbers of pages, while saying he's not sure what they refer it.  "There's a wire by Nygard for $10 million... They deleted photos from a place in Winnipeg where Nygard held pamper parties."  

Judge Ramos: Did Nygard put pictures of these pamper parties on the corporate website?  Answer: Yes. But they took some of them down. 

Judge Ramos: All of the servers are now with the Richter Advisory Group, right?  Answer: It's a Canadian receiver with a different agenda, different powers than you, Your Honor. They are trying to recover assets for, for example, White Oak.

As argument continued, Inner City Press dug around in the docket, and following URLs, came across and tweeted the link to this Richter report on April 2020 about Nygard Holdings, here.

 Plaintiffs' lawyer: We want IT expert to go in and check what Richter is doing.  Judge Ramos: Let's here from defense counsel.

 Harwood of Morvillo Abramowitz: The Richter report does not assert that evidence destruction occurred. It only identifies file deletions Nygard lawyer now claiming that Greg Fenske only deleted web links like "help desk," and corporate documents; says there is no basis to say that improper deletions occurred. 

Judge Ramos: Is it just that you believe Mr. Genske or whatever his name is?  A: Fenske. 

Judge Ramos: Unlike Mr. Gutzler, I am very familiar with this type of firm, they hire computer forensic experts.

  Plaintiff's lawyer asks that Greg Fenske, who deleted Nygard documents, submit an affidavit to Judge Ramos.  Judge Ramos: You say these are photos of a Falcon Lake party - is the allegation that a lot sexual assaults took place there? A:  Yes, a Jane Doe says so.

Judge Ramos: And you're saying the pamper party photos were on the public-facing website? A: Yes. Then they were deleted. Right before Richter took over the servers. We are requesting discovery on this. Judge Ramos: The info is safe with Richter Group.

Plaintiffs' lawyer says he has 10 more Nygard victims who want to sign on "to be a new Jane Doe." He says one was raped in New York. 

Judge Ramos: Plaintiffs are coming here two weeks too late but I don't see how defendants are prejudiced. So I grant plaintiffs leave to file an amendment complaint, by next Wednesday June 10. Nygard gets 3 weeks to file motion to dismiss, July 1.  Nygard's reply on its forthcoming motion to dismiss will be due July 29. Inner City Press will continue to report on this case.

   Plaintiffs' lawyer said, Nygard lives above his store in New York, in violation of zoning, holds "pamper parties. The complaint in Nygard v. Bacon, which at Para 3 says "Nygard Inc since 2005 has carried on business at its world headquarters at 1435 Broadway, NY NY 10018." Apparently Nygard lives upstairs. 

  Judge Ramos said, I'm going to let Nygard file a motion to dismiss - though it is true that your arguments today have gotten into disputes of fact. Let's get some dates Ms. Rivera.     Lawyer said, 30 days is a weekend.     Judge Ramos deadpanned (by phone) that These days one day is the same as the other. So the motion to dismiss is due June 8, opposition July 8, reply July 22. With that, Judge Ramos says, we are adjourned. Be safe. The civil case is Does No. 1-10 v. Nygard, et al., 20-cv-1288 (Ramos).

The criminal case is US v. Nygard, 20-cr-624 (Gardephe)

***

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 for