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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Scoop Patreon, thread

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 8  – The possible release of the names in Jeffrey Epstein's little black books, at least those made part of judicial or "negligibly judicial" document, was argued again on March 31, this time by telephone amid the Coronavirus pandemic, before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Loretta A. Preska. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

  Now on June 8 from the SDNY US Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman, this: "Today, Prince Andrew yet again sought to falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to cooperate with an ongoing federal criminal investigation into sex trafficking and related offenses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, even though the Prince has not given an interview to federal authorities, has repeatedly declined our request to schedule such an interview, and nearly four months ago informed us unequivocally – through the very same counsel who issued today’s release – that he would not come in for such an interview.  If Prince Andrew is, in fact, serious about cooperating with the ongoing federal investigation, our doors remain open, and we await word of when we should expect him." Watch this site.

  Back on March 31, Coronavirus COVID-19 made its way into the arguments, into an attempt to extend the 14 days that non-parties will be given to request the extract with their name in it. Judge Preska denied any overall extension, but noted that extensions could be sought on a case by case basis and would probably be granted.

 Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell wanted to add language emphasizing how released into the court database - that is, PACER - might result in wider publication. Sigrid McCauley for plaintiff Ms. Giuffre said that the proposed added language is intended to scare a (non) party.

   Judge Preska agreed that the additional language is not necessary and said that the proposed addition to the language was denied.

 And with that, after 17 minutes, it was over. Inner City Press will continue to cover this case.

  The lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell, who had a United Nations press conference that UN now refuses to answer Inner City Press questions about, have argued for a more extensive protocol since some of the people in the documents do not have counsel or are overseas.

 Back on March 17 Maxwell through counsel filed a letter, with withheld attachments: "  Counsel for Ms. Maxwell has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and believes our respective lists contain identical information disclosed in slightly different ways, with one exception. As outlined in her letter to this Court on November 12, 2019 (DE # 1007), Ms. Maxwell submits that DE # 468 and 567 were motions never resolved by Judge Sweet and thus has omitted those motions and associated pleadings from her list. Ms. Maxwell seeks leave of the Court to submit this list under seal because much of its contents contain references to sealed or redacted materials. Very truly yours, Laura A. Menninger." The secrets of sexual abuse continue - just like at the UN of Antonio Guterres where Ghislaine Maxwell held forth, and whose UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric and Melissa Fleming refuse to answer about it.

  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.