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

By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 20 – 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 23, see below.

 Now on April 20, Judge Nathan has issued an order asking for submission on whether the trial will go forward on July 12, or later: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: the Court hereby ORDERS counsel for the Defendant to file written answers to the following specific questions by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2021: 1. Does defense counsel continue to seek an adjournment of the July 12th start date for trial on the non-perjury counts? 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, what is the specific request being made as to length of adjournment? In particular, is the request for a 90-day adjournment? An adjournment until January 2022? Or something else? The Court requires a specific request be made and justified or it will not be considered. If Maxwell continues to seek an adjournment, the Government may submit any response by 5:00 pm on April 22, 2021. The Court will consider the submissions and resolve expeditiously. As noted, however, unless and until an adjournment is specifically requested and granted, the parties shall assume that the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July 12th as possible and shall plan accordingly. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/20/2021)."

 Meanwhile, in the run-up to April 23's arraignment, there are questions about Maxwell's 5:15 am entries into the courthouse to review discovery, and Press arraignments for April 23.

On April 19, this: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: An arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment is scheduled to take place on April 23, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. The proceeding will take place in Courtroom 24B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Given significant public interest, a video feed of the proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room and Courtroom 9C at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in either the Courtroom or the overflow rooms is strictly prohibited. SO ORDERED. (Arraignment set for 4/23/2021 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 24B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Alison J. Nathan) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/19/2021)."

 In the Order: "In order to ensure additional public access, the Court will also open a public teleconference line so that members of the public may listen to the audio of the proceeding. Members of the public may call into the public teleconference line by dialing 844-291-6362 and entering access code 2921822. This phone line can accommodate approximately 4,000 callers on a first come, first serve basis. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including being held in contempt of court, removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court."

Back April 16, perjury was severed: "OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor victims from around 1994 to 1997. The Government filed a first (S1) superseding indictment shortly thereafter, which contained only small, ministerial corrections. The S1 superseding indictment included two counts of enticement or transportation of minors to engage in illegal sex acts in violation of the Mann Act and two counts of conspiracy to commit those offenses. It also included two counts of perjury in connection with Maxwell's testimony in a civil deposition. Trial is set to begin on July 12, 2021. Maxwell filed twelve pretrial motions seeking to dismiss portions of the S1 superseding indictment, suppress evidence, and compel discovery. After the parties fully briefed those motions, a grand jury returned a second (S2) superseding indictment adding a sex trafficking count and another related conspiracy count. This Opinion resolves all of Maxwell's currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues related to the newly added sex trafficking charges. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Maxwell's motions to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment in whole or in part. It grants her motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial. It denies her motion to further expedite discovery.... The Court DENIES Maxwell's motions to dismiss the indictment as barred by Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (Dkt. No. 141), to dismiss the Mann Act counts as barred by the statute of limitations (Dkt. No. 143), to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay (Dkt. No. 137), to dismiss the Mann Act counts for lack of specificity (Dkt. No. 123), to dismiss the perjury counts as legally untenable (Dkt. No. 135), to strike surplusage (Dkt. No. 145), to dismiss count one or count three as multiplicitous (Dkt. No. 121), and to expedite pretrial disclosures (Dkt. No. 147). The Court GRANTS Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts for a separate trial (Dkt. No. 119). The Court ORDERS the Government to confirm within one week whether it considers any evidence related to negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement to constitute Brady or Rule 16 material and, if so, to confirm that it has or will disclose such evidence. The Court further ORDERS the parties to negotiate a final schedule for all pretrial disclosures that remain outstanding, including: Brady, Giglio, and Jenks Act materials, including co-conspirator statements; non-testifying witness statements; testifying witness statements; the identity of victims alleged in the indictment; 404(b) material; and the Government's witness list. The Court also requires the parties to negotiate a schedule for any additional or supplemental motions briefing in light of the S2 indictment. The Court ORDERS a joint proposal to be submitted by April 21, 2021. If agreement is not reached, the parties shall submit their respective proposals. The Court further ORDERS Maxwell to show cause by April 21, 2021 why her motion to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment under the Sixth Amendment (Dkt. No. 125) should not be denied as moot. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/16/2021)."

 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