| For Ghislaine Maxwell's Arraignment
Inner City Press Requested A/V Access Now
Call-in Line
By Matthew
Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC
- Decrypt
- LightRead - Honduras
-
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 8 – Ghislaine Maxwell,
charged with sex trafficking
and false statements in a
second superseding indictment,
has requested an in-person
arraignment citing previous
press coverage and
debacles(s).
Inner City
Press on April 2 requested
audio and video access for the
arraignment on April 16, see
below.
On April 5,
Maxwell asked to move it to
April 23 - so that that family
members can travel to the
in-person proceeding. While
awaiting docketing and ruling
of Inner City Press'
application for audio and
visual access, these family
members could, of course, call
in.
And now on April
8, Judge Nathan has issued an
order, making it clear that
there WILL be an audio call-in
line: "ORDER as to Ghislaine
Maxwell: The Defendant's
request to adjourn the
arraignment on the S2
Superseding Indictment is
GRANTED. Dkt. No. 194. The
arraignment is RE-SCHEDULED to
occur on April 23, 2021 at
2:30 p.m. It will take place
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
Courtroom 24B, New York, NY
10007. It is ORDERED that the
parties ensure that all
participants comply with the
Southern District of New Yorks
COVID-19-related orders that
govern entry into and behavior
within SDNY courthouses. Court
staff are working on the
logistical arrangements
related to public access
(including a public dial-in
number), and as soon as that
information is available it
will be provided in a public
order. SO ORDERED."
Maxwell's counsel
wrote: "At present, counsel
for Ms. Maxwell has a conflict
on April 16, 2021 in Colorado
due to a
currently-scheduled hearing
that day. Additionally, other
members of Ms. Maxwell’s
defense team have previously
scheduled a review of the
physical evidence the weeks of
April 12 and 19th in the
courthouse and would prefer to
complete that review prior to
the arraignment.
Counsel appreciates that an
in-person arraignment requires
some logistical arrangements
which may be accommodated by
the requested date. Further,
the extra time will
permit Ms. Maxwell’s family
members to adjust their
schedules and make travel
arrangements to attend the
court proceedings. Ms.
Maxwell respectfully requests
that the Court hold the
arraignment on the S2
Indictment on April 23, 2021."
Now on April 6
the prosecutors have filed
their update on conditions at
the MDC, including stating
that Maxwell herself deleted
some of her emails, and now
weighs 137.5 pounds. Six page
letter on Patreon, here.
The formal
request for press and public
access to the arraignment has
yet to be docketed, much less
responded to. Watch this site.
On March
29 Maxwell was named in a
superseding indictment adding
new counts, more time, and
Minor Victim-4. The US
Attorney's Office pointed out
that while Maxwell complained
the that White Plains grand
jury previously used might be
legally suspect, this was
returned by a grand jury in
Manhattan, 40 Foley Square.
On March 31,
Maxwell's lawyers wrote to
Judge Nathan to call the new
indictment "gamesmanship,"
saying that "adding charges
that were never launched
against Jeffrey Epstein based
on evidence that was in the
government's possession for
years is shocking, unfair and
an abuse of power."
Maxwell
wants an in-person
arraignment, "in light of
media coverage." Full letter
on Patreon here.
On April 2, near
5 pm, Judge Nathan issued
this: "ORDER as to Ghislaine
Maxwell. An arraignment on the
S2 Superseding Indictment and
a status conference is hereby
tentatively scheduled for
April 16, 2021. As requested
by the Defendant, the
proceeding will take place in
person. The Court is making
logistical arrangements and
will provide more information
when it is available. The
Government is ORDERED to
respond to the issues raised
in the Defendants March 31,
2021 letter, Dkt. No. 192, by
April 9, 2021."
Before 6
pm on April 2, Inner City
Press filed this: "Dear Judge
Nathan:
On behalf of Inner City Press
and in my personal capacity, I
have been covering the
above-captioned case. This
concerns press and public
access to the arraignment on
the second superseding
indictment, tentatively
scheduled for April 16,
2021.
Defense counsel requested an
in-person arraignment "most
especially in light of media
coverage." (Docket No. 192).
Inner City Press is concerned
that, despite the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic and
court-entry and social
distancing rules in place,
access to this criminal
proceeding will be
limited. This is an
application that the
arraignment include not only a
video feed to an overflow
courtroom in the SDNY complex
and its Press Room, but also a
listen-only call in line such
as exists for those in person
criminal proceedings which are
resumed in SDNY, for example
Judge Rakoff's trial in US v.
Weigand, 20-cr-188 (JSR)
-- regarding which, see Judge
Rakoff's transparency order:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20536946-rakofforderonmrlicp
The First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution guarantees
to the public a right of
access to court proceedings.
U.S. CONST. AMEND. I; Globe
Newspaper Co. v. Superior
Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603
(1982). The public’s right of
access is strongest when it
comes to criminal proceedings
such as these, which are
matters of the “high[est]
concern and importance to the
people.” Richmond Newspapers,
Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S.
555, 575 (1980) (plurality
opinion).
Clearly, this long-standing
right has to be affirmed
differently in this time of
COVID-19, in which recent
in-person proceedings such as
US v. Weigard case issues of
jurors' COVID tests and status
were issues, and listen-only
audio lines were provided. In
this context, even an
additional overflow room in
the courthouse is not enough.
In NYC, even with vaccine
eligibility offered to those
30 years old and up, "no first
shot appointments" remains the
most common message on the
City's
website.
To address the defendant's
counsel allusion to a
"debacle" (left undefined) in
the related civil case before
Judge Preska: that some
individual, of the many
interested this case may have
recorded and republished
online some of the audio
should not eviscerate the
right of access of all. Beyond
being akin to collective
punishment, it may be
important to consider the
possibility that a supporter
of the defendant could just as
easily participate in a
debacle in order to help the
defendant try to take the
criminal proceeding
private. By analogy,
what if the Proud Boys or Oath
Keepers uploaded audio of the
detention proceedings now in
the District for the District
of Columbia, so that fewer
(including Inner City Press)
could call in and learn and
report on what is said in
these judicial proceedings?
Those proceeding are all
available by listen-only audio
call in line, and so should be
all proceeding in this
case.
This is a formal application
that a call-in line for these
proceedings be provided, as
well as a video feed." Watch
this site.
On March 22,
Maxwell's third application to
be freed on bail was denied:
"the Court concludes that none
of the Defendant’s new
arguments and proposals
disturb its conclusion that
the Defendant poses a risk of
flight and that there are no
combination of conditions that
can reasonably assure her
appearance. Thus, for
substantially the same reasons
that the Court denied the
Defendant’s first and second
motions for release, the Court
DENIES the Defendant’s third
motion for release on bail."
Full order on Inner City
Press' DocumentCloud, here.
From
the March 1,
2018 UN
transcript, four
months before
Guterres has
Inner City Press
physically ousted
from the UN:
Inner City
Press: I also
wanted to ask
you about UNEP
(United Nations
Environment
Programme).
Whistleblowers
there have
alleged a number
of
irregularities,
but the one that
caught my eye
and I've
published has to
do with the
allegation is
that UNEP, which
claims under Mr.
[Erik] Solheim
to have a number
of corporate
partnerships is,
in fact, in some
cases paying the
corporation for
the
partnership.
I.e., it's not a
partnership
like, you know,
Barcelona
Football Club
with UNICEF,
where they
pay. In
this case,
they're alleged
that, under Mr.
Solheim, the UN
Environment, as
it's now called,
is paying
$500,000 to
Volvo Ocean
Races. And
I wanted to know
is it… one, I
don't know if
it's true, but
they work there
and they have a
lot of names and
a lot of
information.
Spokesman:
I think you can
ask those
questions
directly of
UNEP. I
have no doubt
that Mr. Solheim
is operating and
running the
agency in
accordance to
all relevant
rules and
regulations."
Right.
Here's
from the letter:
"Dear Mr.
Solheim...
a D1, Lisa
Svensson can
work from
Europe, because
for personal
reasons she does
not wish to work
in
Nairobi.
Her big office
in Nairobi
remains vacant
with her name
and
organisational
equipment while
the same has to
be provided
again by another
office in
Europe.
She leads the
marine team
remotely as the
rest of the
staff under her
responsibility
are in Nairobi.
As
Inner City Press first
reported, long time UN
operative Amir Dossal, UNSG
Antonio Guterres' chief
Partnerships official who was
also his link to UN bribers
like Ng Lap Seng and Patrick
Ho of CEFC China Energy, was
on the board of directors of
Maxwell's shadowy Terramar.
Inner City Press first made
this link & published the
990. And here
is Dossal introducing Maxwell
as one of her nine visits to
the UN, here.
After the death of Jeffrey
Epstein in the MCC prison, on
July 2 Acting US Attorney for
the SDNY Audrey Strauss
announced and unsealed in
indictment of Maxwell on
charges including sex
trafficking and perjury.
Inner City Press went to her
press conference at the US
Attorney's Office and asked,
Doesn't charging Maxwell with
perjury undercut any ability
to use testimony from her
against other, bigger
wrong-doers? Periscope here
at 23:07.
Strauss
replied that it is not
impossible to use a perjurer's
testimony. But how often does
it work?
At 3:30 pm
on July 2 Maxwell appeared in
the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampsire,
before Magistriate Judge Andrea
K. Johnstone.
Inner City
Press live
tweeted it
here.
(Also
live tweeted
bail denial of
July 14, here.)
In
the July 3 media coverage of
Maxwell, media all of the
world used a video and stills
from it of Maxwell speaking in
front of a blue curtain, like
here.
What they
did not mention is something
Inner City Press has been
asking the UN about, as under
UNSG Antonio Guterres with his
own sexual exploitation issues
(exclusive video
and audio)
it got roughed up and banned
from the UN: Ghislaine Maxwell
had a ghoulish United Nations
press conference, under the
banner of the "Terramar
Project," here.
On July 5,
after some crowd-sourcing,
Inner City Press reported on
another Ghislaine Maxwell use
of the United Nations,
facilitated by Italy's
Permanent Representative to
the UN, UN official Nikhil
Seth and Amir Dossal,
who also let into the UN and
in one case took money from
convicted UN briber Ng Lap
Seng, and Patrick Ho of CEFC
China Energy, also linked to
UN Secretary General Antonio
Guterres.
At the
Ghislaine Maxwell UN event,
the UN Deputy Secretary
General was directly involved.
List of (some of)
the participants on Patreon here.
Inner City
Press has published a phone of
Maxwell in the UN with Dossal,
here. But the connection runs
deeper: Dossal with "25 years
of UN involvement" was on
Terrarmar's board of
directors, one of only five
directors, only three not
related to Maxwell by blood
and name.
The directors:
Ghislaine Maxwell, Christine
Malina-Maxwell, Steven Haft,
Christine Dennison and... Amir
Dossal. Inner City Press is
publishing this full 990 on
Patreon here.
Dossal has
operated through the UN Office
of Partnership, with Antonio
Guterres and his deputy Amina
J. Mohammed, here.
And the links to
the world of UN bribery,
including Antonio Guterres
through the Gulbenkian
Foundation, runs deeper. More
to follow.
Antonio Guterres
claims he has zero tolerance
for sexual exploitation, but
covers it up and even
participate in it. He should
be forced to resign - and/or
have immunity waived.
Terramar
has been dissolved, even
though Maxwell's former
fundraiser / director of
development Brian Yurasits
still lists the URL on his
(protected) Twitter profile,
also here.
But now
Inner City Press has begun to
inquire into Ghislaine
Maxwell's other United Nations
connections, starting with
this photograph of another
day's (or at least another
outfit's) presentation in the
UN, here.
While co-conspirator Antonio
Guterres has had Inner City
Press banned from any entry
into the UN for two years and
a day, this appears to be in
the UN Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) chamber.
We'll have more on this, and
on Epstein and the UN. Watch
this site.
The case
is US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330
(Nathan).
***
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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
