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, Nov 25 – Attempted censorship comes in many forms. In 2019 Inner City Press reported on a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which Maureen Ottoson sued Sumitomo Bank. Inner City Press was not unsympathetic to Ms. Ottoson - in fact, she wrote in thanking Inner City Press for its coverage.   But jump cut to November 2019: Ms. Ottoson wrote to Inner City Press: "Please permanently delete the information within the 2 pages/web-links below as follows."

  Inner City Press wrote back: " Hi. That's not how journalism works. And your case(s) are public in PACER; courts are public places. If there is some new information, some update, I'd be happy to work on it. Or to publish a letter to the editor."   But rather than a letter, Ms. Ottoson replied with "I able able to delete the same public information from the other websites (docketbird, etc...). All deleted their pages as per my request & only 1 requested a court order from the Judge, which I am in the process of doing.  Please delete my public information too because it is preventing me from getting a job.  In addition, Brandy from Patreon support desk stated below that these pages can be deleted by the creator.  Please delete my public information."

  Inner City Press replied, " I am a journalist who covered your public court case and wrote a story about it.  I didn't think they'd be more to it, but if there is, let me know."

    Instead of explaining what might be more to the case, Ms. Ottoson tried to strongarm the Patreon platform. So Inner City Press again replied: "I'm sorry to repeat, but while I'm sure any newspaper *could* take down an article, that definitely doesn't mean that they would. If they/we did, we'd take any many many articles. Someone is always upset, or says second thoughts. As I said, if you want to send a letter to the editor, please do. But articles don't just come down because someone wants them to, especially about court proceedings."

    Ms. Ottoson, perhaps emboldened by new European rules about the right to be forgotten - which in any event cannot apply to cases and jury trial - continued, " I'm sorry but to repeat, several other websites deleted the pages regarding my lawsuit (Docketbird, etc...) & you can too. There is only 1 of 7 websites that will not & I am in the process of getting a court order to have them delete their pages, as the other did freely upon my request.  As mentioned below, Brandy at Patreon stated that you are the creator & can delete those 2 pages/web-links.   If it is easier, I can request the Judge to issue another court order for you to delete your pages. The other 7 did freely except for 1, but I can always request another one from the Judge next month. Please let me know now before I see him in December." 

Then Ottoson wrote to Patreon: "Hello Brandy,  You reached out to me & told me to go to the creator to delete the 2 pages from public view. I did as you requested & as per below, I reached out to Matthew Russell Lee, the creator of those 2 pages. He refused to help me.  I will be going to meet the Judge in December & as per below, I will be asking him to issue a court order to Inner City Press & Patron to have him delete his pages. I am also doing so with 1 other web-site. His law clerk stated that he often does this for Pro-Se's & other defendants/plaintiffs,  Please let me know if you can do anything else before I go to the Judge.  Thank You, Maureen Ottoson "

    Well, Inner City Press has put it directly in front of Patreon, whether it will entertain this type of frivolous complaint, and stand ready for any appearance before Judge Oetken. Watch this site.

  Previously, now repeated: An on again off again Wall Street employee who sued Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation for discrimination and retaliation had a day in court on April 22, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York courtroom of Judge J. Paul Oetken. Opposing her, as for Qatari royals in the same courtroom, was the Proskauer Rose law firm, which has moved for her to have to pay attorneys fees. The pro se plaintiff Maureen Ottoson said her prior lawyer sold her out, only wanted to settle on the cheap after Proskauer asked for $160,000 in fees before now deceased Judge Robert Sweet.

   Judge Oetken who now has the case said he would consider a motion for attorneys fees occasioned by Ottoson dropping and then reinstating a discrimination claim. He set a final pre-trial conference for June 19 and a trial, jury or bench, for July 8. The conference, apparently not captured by any official SDNY court reporter and with only Inner City Press as media present, ended with Proskauer again saying they would drop the attorney's fees request only if Ottoson dismisses the discrimination complaint "with prejudice." The index number and more and on Patreon, here. We said we'd continue to follow that case, and we have.

  In July Ms. Ottoson was awarded payback, apparently of $21,250, by the jury. As one observer said, God bless the jury system. We'll have more on this - and this: the Qatar ruling family's abuse of employees and laws was exposed in an off the record initial conference at in the SDNY 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.

  By contrast, we credit and link to this potentially relatedly story that "Mahamoud Ahmed, 79, was found to have been racially abused by medical attache Abdullah Al Ansari while working at the Mayfair embassy as a night security officer.  Somalian-born Mr Ahmed was called a “black slave”, “donkey” and “dog”, and was pushed by the Qatari diplomat during an incident in 2013.  An employment tribunal in London last month found Mr Ahmed had then been dismissed by Mr Al Ansari on the basis of his race and he was awarded £8,000 in damages. Mr Ahmed’s local member in parliament, Greg Hands, requested that the government consider stripping diplomats of their immunity or expelling them from the country if they breach employment laws.  Mr Ahmed was originally unable to have his case heard until 2019 because the Qatari embassy tried to claim diplomatic immunity against his complaint.  But a 2017 Supreme Court ruled that claiming immunity from employment laws was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, allowing the case to go ahead.  Mr Hands wrote to Jeremy Hunt, the UK Foreign Secretary, to look again at the Supreme Court ruling and whether legal action could be taken to punish diplomats in such cases.  As it stands, embassies in the UK are protected from claims of unfair dismissal through the State Immunity Act." 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."

 This is the life of corrupt royals and diplomats, such like those at the UN up to and including its Secretary General Antonio Guterres who lives alone in a $15 million mansion on Manhattan's Sutton Place (where he favors Qatar state media Al Jazeera, using it to oust the independent Press which questions him.) This is the world of immunity and impunity and now, it is urged, confidentiality. Inner City Press, now covering the SDNY daily, will have more on this.

***

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