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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive, Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 14 – When a defendant who pled guilty to crack sales is charged with shop lifting with nine days left on his Supervised Release, what happens? A hearing on this set for 11:30 am on June 13 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge J. Paul Oetken at first did not begin due to a late arriving Assistant US Attorney.

  Then the shoplifting was shrugged off and the Supervised Release allowed to run. Judge Oetken told the defendant to just make sure to not commit another crime before the June 23 expiration of his Supervised Release.

 The case was transferred to Judge Oetken from the docket of Judge Robert W. Sweet (RIP), who in his sentencing of the defendent noted archly that his nickname was "Stupid" and said he could not disagree with the moniker. Now this.

Also before Judge Oetken, on June 13, eleven days before his trial for his role in the planned armed robbery of a drug shipment in Harlem, Jesus Miguel Matos wanted to change lawyers. He said "I don't feel safe" with his assigned council. The request to change was denied by Judge Oetken.

  Back on May 15, Judge Oetken began a hearing with Matos and his (second) lawyer Antonio Ricco say saying, "Mr. Matos is charged in a four count indictment. He's changed counsel once. I have him new counsel because he wasn't getting along with his earlier lawyer." That was Kenneth A. Paul.

  But on June 6 Matos wrote to Judge Oetken that he wants to change from Ricco. The letter is not in the public docket, and the government on June 13 said it hasn't seen it. During the June 13 hearing, with Inner City Press the only media present, Matos complained that Ricco had his criminal history level wrong, and was disrepectful to his family members. He said, "I don't feel safe."

  Judge Oetken replied that he thought this was an attempt to delay the trial, and/or that Matos is just frustrated with the government or the law. He denied the request to change counsel. And so they will go forward together on June 24. Ricco's position is not enviable. But nor is Matos'. Watch this site, @InnerCityPress and the new @SDNYLIVE.

Also before Judge Oetken, the Qatar ruling family's abuse of employees and laws was exposed in an off the record initial conference on February 14; Inner City Press was the only media present.

Inner City Press wrote an exclusive story that day, February 14, then more in the following few days as more sources contacted us. Now it has learned that the UK's Daily Mail days later on February 21 false claimed an exclusive on the story, here.

On June 1 Inner City Press reported that the Qatari royals' lawyers were on the cusp of succeeding in burying the case in mediation by JAMS. A low-ball settlement - except for attorneys fees -- was submitted to SDNY Judge Oetken on June 1. The total is $150,000, fully half being attorneys' fees; it is signed by the royals without any admission.

 And now on June 10, this: "ORDER: The proposed settlement at Docket Number 36-1 is approved, and the case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court shall retain jurisdiction solely to resolve any disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/10/2019) (jca)."  So the issue of human trafficking has been buried, for money, in the SDNY.

Tellingly, the cover letter stated that "Defendants – who are members of the royal family of Qatar – noted that if they received certification from the State Department, they would potentially be considered diplomats entitled to full immunity, resulting in immediate dismissal of the litigation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." So the Qatar royals used the threat of support from the U.S. State Department to cover up human trafficking. We'll have more on this - and there is more on Patreon, here.

Earlier the Qatari royals' lawyer complained of a text message from Benjamin Boyd.  Judge Oetken noted to "uncertainty as to how Defendants caught sight of the offending text message in the first place," left it open to pursue the issue later, without prejudice.

  On April 17 the Qatari royals' lawyers filed a motion to stay the proceeding past the June 14 return date, for mediation by JAMS. Judge Oetken's order on the motion is listed but no live in the docket.

   The plaintiffs' lawyers, Pardalis & Novavicka through Araidne Panagopoulou engaged in other mundane FLSA litigation in front of Judge Oetken even on May 20, here, seem unaware of the explosive human rights aspects revealed / revealable in this case. It's one in which the public, through the Press, must stay alert, and on Notice - watch this site.

On April 10 we reported that these Qatari royals, stating that they are diplomats, are seeking to further extend the case, writing that "Defendants Sheikh Jassim Abdulaziz Al-Thani and Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani (“Sheikh and Sheikha”) are Qatari residents and diplomats, and as a result, frequently travel to Doha for reasons pertaining to their diplomatic duties and their participation in other civic engagements. At the moment, Sheikh and Sheikha (and members of their staff, many of whom are anticipated to be document custodians in the litigation) are scheduled to be in Qatar for the remainder of the month of March, through the beginning of April to prepare for and attend the formal opening of the Qatar National Museum (as Sheikha is the Chairperson of Qatar Museums). The parties have actively participated in written discovery thus far; they have already exchanged document requests and interrogatories, and they are in the process of negotiating a confidentiality stipulation. However, as a result of Sheikh and Sheikha’s (and their staff’s) travel schedules, Defendants anticipate some subsequent delays in the upcoming stages of discovery, especially pertaining to data collection of ESI from custodians (as requested by Plaintiffs) and the scheduling of their depositions (which are currently noticed for April 16, 2019). In order to ensure that Defendants are able to collect, process, review and produce ESI responsive to Plaintiffs’ document requests, and schedule mutually agreeable dates for depositions to take place in New York thereafter, Defendants respectfully request that the current discovery deadlines be modified as follows: Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Deposition Completion Date May 1, 2019 July 1, 2019 Completion of all Fact Discovery June 10, 2019 August 9, 2019 Status Conference June 14, 2019 August 16, 2019 (or any other date that is convenient for the Court)." Back to August?  Since its exclusive report that day, Inner City Press has been contacted by more employees and whistleblowers and a range of apparent legal violations by the Qatar royal family has come to light.

Beyond the failure to pay overtime which was the subject of the February 14 proceeding, Inner City Press is now informed that others of the Qatar royals' workers are brought in through JFK airport on private jets, into limousine that drive onto the tarmac. These employees are then made to work long hours with no protections in the mansion at 9 East 72nd Street in Manhattan.

Inner City Press is informed, tellingly, that one female worker from the Philippines in forced to sleep in front of  Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al-Thani's bedroom room so that she can be ready to bring him food or water or even give massages at any hour. His wife Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani, the sister of Qatar's ruler, buys art for Qatar's museum and runs the "Reaching Out To Asia" foundation. Meanwhile her workers have their hair pulled and a tooth broken by her son. When workers are fired they are urged to fly to Doha where they would face arrest.

The scams work this way: the Qatari royals' employees signed contracts in Doha and then are told that their visas to the US, unless they are smuggled / trafficked in through the JFK Airport tarmac, are under the control of the royals. While waiting to be processed at JFK they are presented with a new less favorable contract and told if they do not sign it, they will not be admitted. If they work for the family in Qatar, they face imprisonment for any disagreement.

In New York the family's close protection guards, some without visas, brandish illegal large knives. NYPD was called when the royals sought to have one fired employee, Chantelle McGuffie, removed from her apartment at 221 East 50th Street near the UN. Still this family, these systematic crimes, have yet to be acted on by authorities including the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York despite the facts dragged through the SDNY court.

Inner City Press, in reporting this despite threats - at the UN, Qatar's state media Al Jazeera has worked with UNSG Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric to have Inner City Press roughed up and banned, see Columbia Journalism Review here - aims to put an end to this impunity. Watch this site.

Background: the sister of the ruler of Qatar is being sued by at least three employees who say they were made to work six days a week without being paid overtime, and were retaliated against. Inner City Press was the only media present at the initial pre trial conference on the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 14, and was tempted to object when the Qatari royal's lawyer from the Proskauer law firm urged SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken for a confidentiality order.

Royals of a gas-rich emirate that has locked up poets for criticizing them, seeking to cover up their retaliation and refusal to pay overtime? It remains to be seen how much will be covered up in the case. The defendants are Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani and Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al- Thani.

From the answer to the Complaint: "Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft began his employment in Doha, Qatar and that he accompanied Defendants when they moved to New York, but otherwise deny the  allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.  40. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.  41. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their European travels in various countries during the summer of 2016, but upon information and belief,  otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.    42. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their trip to Qatar in the summer of 2017, but otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the  Complaint.  43. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their European travels in various countries during the summer of 2018, but upon information and belief,  otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.    44. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft traveled with the family to Miami and Boston."