Ghislaine
Maxwell Dec 5 Letter to
SDNY Now Docketed With
Claim Never Sought Media But UN
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Scoop Patreon,
thread
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 18 – The possible release
of the names in Jeffrey
Epstein's little black books,
at least those made part of
judicial or "negligibly
judical" document, was argued
again on January 16 before U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
Loretta A.
Preska.
The lawyer for
Ghislaine
Maxwell, who
had a United
Nations press
conference
that UN now
refuses to
answer Inner
City Press
questions
about, argued
for a more
extensive
protocol since
some of the
people in the
documents do
not have
counsel or are
overseas. (And
where, you
might asks, is
Ghislaine
Maxwell.)
At the
January 16
hearing, Judge
Preska asked
why Maxwell's
December 5
letter to her
was not in the
docket. Her
lawyer said
they would put
it in - and
late on
January 17,
during the
Chris Collins
sentencing,
they did.It
says among
other things:
" Despite the
Second
Circuit’s best
efforts, it
made serious
mistakes. For
example, it
redacted a
non-party’s
name in one
location but
not another;
so the media
immediately
gained access
to that name.
As another
example, it
redacted Ms.
Maxwell’s
email address
(which linked
to her own
domain name)
in one
location but
not another;
shortly
afterward
hackers
breached the
host
computer.
It would be
hard to
overstate the
“media’s”
interest in
this case. By
“media” we
include all
constituents
of the
twenty-first
century
media—established
newspapers and
broadcast
media,
internet
publications
of every kind,
bloggers,
hackers who
publish on the
internet,
social media
users, and
every person
who owns a
computer,
tablet or
smart phone
who
distributes
information to
others. The
lawyers for
the parties
and
non-parties
have received
hundreds of
emails and
telephone
communications
and inquiries.
Some of the
parties,
including
plaintiff
Giuffre and
other
plaintiffs and
their
respective
lawyers and
public
relations
consultants,
have stoked
and are
actively
stoking media
interest for
their own
ends.
Ms. Maxwell
has not sought
out any media
attention" --
Never sought
media
attention? Then why did
she hold a
press
conference in
the UN,
one on which
the UN has
still yet to
respond? We'll have
more on this.
Judge
Preska
said she may
rule on
pending sealed
motions in her
courtroom with
a court reporter. But
no other
reporters?
Judge Preska,
despite once
having ordered
Inner City
Press out of a
criminal
proceeding, is
more
transparent
than many. So
we hope to
have more on
this.
Ironically, as
the January 16
proceeding
were UN
correspondents,
for example
from the BBC,
which never
asked the UN
about
Ghislaine
Maxwell's UN
press
conference nor
about the banning
of the Press from
the UN
"Press" Briefing
Room by
UNSG Antonio
Guterres after
it asked him
about his links
to Patrick
Ho's CEFC
China Energy.
We'll
have more on
this as well.
Back
in September
Sigrid
McCawley,
lawyer for Ms.
Giuffre,
replied that
that list of
one thousand
is already
public. To
this, Judge
Preska did not
directly
reply. She
stayed focused
on getting a
schedule down.
Maxwell's
lawyer Jeffrey
S. Pagliuca
said one week
was too fast
for him given
his many other
commitments.
Judge Preska
gave him two,
to name
categories,
then one week
each for a
five and three
page brief.
She said she
can't read
small
footnote,
12-point font
only.
Her court room
was full,
unlike her
colleague
Gregory H.
Woods' down
the hall for
an abuse under
color of law
trial, or even
like the UN
bribery trial
of Patrick Ho
she oversaw.
On September 4
UN-based (and
pro-UN) media
which did not
cover the
bribery trial
showed up for
a procedural
hearing about
a dead
pedophile.
This while
they don't
cover UN
Secretary
General
Antonio
Guterres
concealing by
failing to
answer on
child rapes by
UN
peacekeepers,
and concealing
with
censorship his
own financial
links to
Patrick Ho.
Inner City
Press will
continue to
cover both.
Epstein's suicide
came eleven days after Inner
City Press exclusively removed
irregularities at the MCC
including Epstein then being
allowed to use without
supervision all day, every day
one of the only two legal
visit rooms for prisons in the
Special Housing Unit of the
Metropolitan Correctional
Center. Other defense lawyers
exclusively complained to
Inner City Press about not
being able to see on a timely
basis their clients in the
MCC. Now what will be done
about the MCC's (lack of)
supervision? Nothing it seems.
Watch this site.
***
Feedback: Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
Box
20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY
NY 10017
Other, earlier Inner
City Press are listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner
City Press, Inc. To request reprint or
other permission, e-contact Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com for
|