SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Feb 23 – When Larry Ray was
arraigned on charges of sexual
exploitation, prostitution,
forced labor and money
laundering on February 12, he
was wearing prison blues and
still had a Federal Defender,
but no financial affidavit to
have FD appointed. Twitter theadette;
More on Patreon here.
On May 29
SDNY Judge Lewis J. Liman held
a telephone conference, which
Inner City Press live tweeted
(below) and at which it was
said, no legal visits in the
MCC until June 30 at earliest.
On January
29, there was a co-defendant
who was indicted and then
released on bond: Isabella
Pollak. The next indicted was
unsealed and Pollak was
presented before SDNY
Magistrate Judge Debra C.
Freeman. She was released on
$100,000 bond and told, no
contact with victims.
On February 9
Judge Liman held Pollak's
arraignment and was told, at
the end, that she may not be
competent to stand trial.
Inner City Press live tweeted
it, here
and below.
On February
15 - President's Day -
Pollak's lawyers Peter M.
Skinner and Valecia J. Battle
of Boies Schiller Flexner
asked for a one-week extension
to pick a candidate to perform
a competency evaluation of
Pollack. I
Now on February
23, the parties have proposed
Dr. James L. Knoll, M.D., to
be paid with DOJ funds under
18 USC 4272(b), to report in
45 days. Inner City Press will
continue to follow this.
On February 10,
Judge Liman held a proceeding
with Ray and his Federal
Defender who asked until April
for filings, to key them to
the deadline for co-defendant
Pollock. September 20 was
mentioned for trial. But there
is a long way to go.
From February 9:
AUSA: Discovery is ready, with
one caveat - we need a
protective order. There are
warrants, warrant
applications, a tax order,
email header info, cell site
returns....
AUSA: We
are extracted dozens of
devices, we are trying to find
out which ones are Ms.
Pollak's. Judge Liman:
These were in plain view?
AUSA: Correct. With the caveat
that the FBI agent, using a
particular platform - I'm not
sure if it is a file by file
review.
Judge Liman:
We're going to have to adjourn
the trial. I don't think a
July trial is feasible.
But wait
there's more: Pollak's lawyer
just called her "Ms. Ray" -
then said she may be
incompetent to stand trial.
Next date: April 15 (since
Pollak's works - where? -
Sunday to Wednesday). Case
gets weirder all the time...
Inner City Press
will have more on this.
On November
20, 2020 Judge Liman held a
proceeding in the case. Inner
City Press live tweeted it, here
and below.
On January 8, the
US Attorney's Office opposed
Ray's motion to suppress. They
say he was read his Miranda
rights, was taken to the
bathroom, and did not lose his
balance. He said he took
Adderall; "the law enforcement
officers declined to provide
Ray with another person's
prescription medication."
Now, the hearing
on the suppression motion
which was set to be virtual is
adjourned, at the defense's
request, until in-person
proceedings are possible: "
MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to
Lawrence Ray (1) granting
[121] LETTER MOTION addressed
to Judge Lewis J. Liman from
Marne Lynn Lenox dated January
21, 2021 re: Suppression
Hearing. ENDORSEMENT: GRANTED.
The Motion Hearing scheduled
for February 12, 2021 is
canceled. The court will hold
an in-person hearing when the
Covid-19 protocols permit the
Court to do so. (Signed by
Judge Lewis J. Liman on
1/21/2021)."
In a separate
filing, the US Attorney's
Office opposes Ray's fourth
application for release on
bail. Another filing justifies
the search warrant on 40 Holly
Lane. Inner City Press will
have more on this.
From November 20:
Judge Liman begins with the
Due Process Protections Act
script - not including what
seems to be for some judges a
new paragraph about the
government's right to ask for
an exception for national
security, etc. The 5(f) script
is in evolution - District by
District?
Judge Liman to
his credit says he thinks he
made a mistake with the
phrasing of the subpoenas -
but his preliminary view is
that he will not cure it in
the way the US Attorney as
asking
Judge Liman says
he is considering quashing
some subpoenas he has issued
for the defense and re-issue
them. He says as to Jane Doe
1, only New York Presbyterian
has records. Note:
At issue are medical and
mental health records of Ray's
victims.
AUSA Danielle
Sassoon: There are several
bases to quash these
subpoenas. They don't comply
with Rule 17; they are
transparent attempts to get
impeachment material, not
permissible at this point at
of the case. We don't even
know if these victims would be
witnesses
AUSA Sassoon: We
have evidence that Mr. Ray
took advantage of victims'
weaknesses, that several
attempted suicide and he then
interfered in their mental
care.... Our grand jury
subpoenas are not subject to
the "Nixon" test
AUSA Sassoon: In
some cases, victims cut their
parents out of their medical
care and let Mr. Ray to speak
with their doctors. Judge
Liman: But then doesn't the
defense have a right to
information about whether the
medical care was interfered
with?
Judge Liman: Make
me a proffer as to how the
government would prove up
interference with medical care
without using the medical
records. AUSA Sassoon: We
distinguish what the victims
said to their treatment
providers.
Judge Liman: Is
the victim going to say Mr.
Ray told them to cut the
parents out? AUSA: Yes, I
anticipate testimony about
guidance Mr. Ray gave...
Meanwhile, the defense's
subpoenas are too broad,
including time periods after
the victim's relationship with
Mr. Ray FD Lenox: I think Mr.
LaVerne [for Jane Doe] covered
the argument, but I'm happy to
take questions.
Judge Liman: Why
shouldn't subpoena returns
come to me for in camera
review. I'm the one who's
going to try the case and
there's a value to seeing them
in advance
FD Lenox: I want
to be careful here, but one of
the Jane Does told the
treatment provider she was not
there due to actions of Mr.
Ray -- Jane Doe's lawyer
objects. Judge Liman: Let's go
hypothetical. [He has another
criminal proceeding at noon]
Larry Ray himself
speaks up: "I have a
question." FD Lenox: I think
it's better you speak to me...
I don't know if there's
time... Could we address your
question privately? Ray: OK.
AUSA Sassoon: If
your Honor finds that the
Nixon standard has not been
satisfied, the records should
not be produced to anyone.
Doe's lawyer LaVerne wants
already produced records to be
sequestered - by both sides.
It is so ordered.
Afterward Ray
stayed on the call, saying,
Hello? Hello? Inner City Press
hung up.
On
September 4 the US Attorney's
Office said in person legal
visits in the MCC would
re-start on September 21. This
came in a proceeding that
Inner City Press live tweeted,
with notes on the (lack of)
press and public access, the
troubling creation of a
"no-dissemination" category on
which the press and public is
not heard. See below.
On November 13, a
Jane Doe filed this: "Re:
United States v. Lawrence Ray,
20-CR-110 (LJL) Dear Judge
Liman: I represent Jane Doe, a
non-party granted leave to
intervene in this matter. (See
ECF Dkt. No. 70). On November
5, 2020, we received from the
government copies of records
it has obtained by grand jury
subpoena from certain of Jane
Doe’s medical providers. We
had not previously been
provided with these documents.
Having reviewed them, it is
apparent that they contain
information that is privileged
pursuant to the
psychotherapist-patient
privilege, a privilege that
Jane Doe has not waived (see
October 20, 2020 Reply Ltr. at
7-8) and which she continues
to assert. Accordingly, we
have asked the government and
the defense (which apparently
received these records in
discovery) to sequester the
records until the Court has
heard argument on the pending
motions to quash and had an
opportunity to address this
issue. We are also working to
provide to the parties by
early next week a version of
the records indicating which
portions we believe should be
redacted as privileged. We
would be happy to provide the
same to the Court should it
wish to receive them."
We'll have more on this.
On October
22, the trial was pushed back,
and the domain names will be
sold by the US Marshals:
"Reschedule Briefing as to
Lawrence Ray. The Court
grants parties request for an
adjournment of motion
deadlines as follows: Defense
motions due 12/7/2020;
Government response due
1/8/2021; and Defense reply
due 1/22/2021. The Jury Trial
previously set for May 10,
2021 is RESCHEDULED to July
12, 2021 at 10:00AM. The Court
excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act, 18 USC
3161(h)(7)(A) from October 22,
2020 to July 12, 2021 upon the
findings that the ends of
justice outweigh the interests
of the defendant and the
public in a speedy trial in
that the time between now and
July 12, 2021 is necessary for
the parties to produce and
review discovery and for the
preparation of motions and for
the preparation for trial
(Signed by Judge Lewis J.
Liman on 10/22/20) (jw)" and
"MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to
Lawrence Ray on re: [49]
MOTION for an Order for the
Interlocutory Sale of Property
filed by USA. NOW, THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED THAT The United States
Marshals Service (the "USMS")
or its designee, is authorized
to conduct an interlocutory
sale of the Domain Names. In
furtherance of the
interlocutory sale of the
Domain Names, the Domain Names
may be seized by the USMS
pending the interlocutory
sale, by service of this order
on GoDaddy. RAY and any
others, including, but not
limited to, GoDaddy, shall
fully cooperate with the USMS
or its designee in relation to
the seizure and interlocutory
sale of the Domain Names."
On October 5, the
US Attorney's office asked to
quash Ray's Federal Defenders'
subpoenas for victims' medical
records, including therapy
records, claiming "a potential
violation of FRCP 17 and FRE
501."
Federal
Defenders disagreed, writing
to Judge Liman that he has
approved these subpoenas.
On October
13, Judge Liman ruled: "in
order to preserve the status
quo pending receipt of the
defense's papers in
opposition, the Court ORDERS
that compliance with the
subpoenas identified at Dkt.
No. 78-1 as well as all other
subpoenas authorized for
issuance by the Court's orders
of September 18, 2020, be
stayed. See United States v.
Crutchfield, 2014 WL 2569058
(N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014).
Defense counsel is ORDERED to
inform the recipients of such
orders that compliance with
the Court's orders has been
stayed. Because trial is not
scheduled until May 10, 2021,
the defense also will suffer
no prejudice by a brief stay
so the Court can consider the
competing arguments. The Court
denies without prejudice the
Government's application to
the extent that it seeks
orders requiring the defense
to inform it of the subpoena
responses it has already
received and to advise the
Government of any other
subpoenas it has served. The
application is also denied
insofar as it requires the
defense to turn over any
records it has received from
any subpoenas of medical
records. The Court will
consider those applications
after it has received a
response from defense counsel.
The Court does ORDER, however,
that the subpoenaed materials
be treated as sensitive under
the protective order in this
case pending a determination
by the Court whether they were
properly subpoenaed. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
Lewis J. Liman on
10/13/2020)."
On
September 11 the US Attorney's
Office argued again that
discovery is private, not for
public review or transparency:
"the defense has not proffered
any basis to disregard the
presumption that “discovery is
a private process between the
parties to an action,” and is
“not presumptively accessible”
to others. Smith, 985 F. Supp.
2d at 519." Inner City Press
will continue to report on
this case, and not just what
the US Attorney's Office,
which held a press conference
announcing the indictment,
wants the public to know about
it.
On
September 14, Judge Liman
ruled, including "Neither the
Government proposal nor the
defense proposal sufficiently
captures the Court’s
intention. The Government
proposal would limit the
protection of the protective
order to information that
could subject a person to
intimidation or obstruction or
risk of harm without
protecting from broad
disclosure information that
substantially affects the
privacy of an individual. It
also provides no criteria for
the Court to determine whether
Disclosure Material is
Sensitive or Confidential. The
defense proposal addresses the
flaws of the Government
proposal but has two flaws of
its own: the definition of
Confidential Disclosure
Material accords protection
without the need for the
Government to show a threat of
intimidation or obstruction or
risk of harm, but it limits
the definition to information
“that substantially affects
witnesses’ privacy”. It does
not address information that
substantially affects the
privacy of an individual who
may not be a witness. The
definition of Sensitive
Disclosure Material would
leave it entirely to the
Government to determine
whether disclosure would
create a risk of intimidation
or obstruction or harm without
any requirement that the
Government’s belief be well
founded. It thus could defeat
the objective of subjecting
the designations to challenge
and judicial review. In other
respects the definition of
Sensitive Disclosure Material
provided by both sides is too
narrow. Accordingly, the Court
will adopt the defense
proposal with the following
edits: (1) the definition of
“Sensitive Disclosure
Material” should be amended to
reach “information that
affects the privacy of
individuals, and identifies,
or could lead to the
identification of, witnesses
who the Government has a
well-founded belief may be
subject to intimidation or
obstruction, or whose lives,
persons, and property, as well
as the lives, persons and
property of loved ones, the
Government has a well-founded
belief will be subject to risk
of harm absent the protective
considerations set forth
herein.” and (3) the language
“contains information that
exposes personal information
that substantially affects
witnesses’ privacy” should be
replaced with the language
“contains information that
exposes personal information
that substantially affects the
privacy of an individual.” 1
The Government proposal is
also explicit in stating that
the Government has the burden
of establishing good cause for
its designation of disclosure
material as sensitive, but it
is implicit always that the
party who designates
disclosure or discovery
material under a protective
order has the burden of
establishing that the material
was properly designated if the
designation is challenged.
Dkt. No. 55-2 ¶ 8.
The differences
between paragraph 8 of the
Government proposal and
paragraph 9 of the defense
proposal are minor: the Court
always has the power to set a
deadline for a response. The
Court finds it easier to have
a default date of seven days
for a Government response
absent a Court order for both
types of challenges but will
accord the Government more
than seven days for a response
upon application by the
Government. 3. Finally,
paragraph 6 of the
Government’s proposed
protective order should be
revised to replace the
language “Disclosure material”
at the beginning of the first
sentence with “Sensitive or
confidential disclosure
material.” The Government is
ordered to submit a proposed
amended protective order
consistent with this Order by
no later than September 18,
2020."
The September 4
thread:
Judge Liman says
due to COVID pandemic and
difficulties of Federal
Defenders meeting with Ray,
he's prepared to postpone
trial past January 19. Also
today: A request to release
Ray on bail, to help prepare
his defense.
Judge
Liman: The defense has raised
serious concerns about Mr. Ray
having access to discovery.
For that reason, I'm going to
defer ruling on release
request until I hear and
perhaps rule on issues of
early disclosure of Brady and
witness list and the like.
Federal
Defender Lenox: Our request as
to the sensitive materials,
we're not asking the court to
rule piece by piece. There's
only a small percentage in
dispute. We are proposing a
mechanism to rule on those so
Mr Ray can see it if he stays
in custody
FD: We agree that
nude videos are sensitive. But
we would ask the court to
review handwritten
confessions. These things are
exculpatory.
[Note: FD
wants to use sealing of
evidence as way to get Ray out
of jail. Press has asked to
UNseal the evidence - which
would also take this "Free
Larry Ray" argument off the
table.]
The case is US v.
Ray, 20-cr-110 (Liman).
***
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
,
