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, Oct 12 – 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. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

On August 27, when the SDNY confirmed its fourth quarter schedule, the November 29 trial date was confirmed as firm: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Clerk's Office has now confirmed that a jury trial in this case has been scheduled to commence on November 29, 2021. This is a firm trial date."

Now on October 12 the US Attorney's Office has asked that its joint jury questionnaire be sealed: "he defense respectfully requests that the joint proposed juror questionnaire and joint proposed voir dire be filed under seal to avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The Government consents to the defense’s request." Watch this site.

On October 5 Judge Nathan asked: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is currently in the process of planning logistics for trial in this matter and requires the parties' best and current estimate of length of trial. The Court plans to have the jury sit 5 days a week from 9am until 5pm. Given that jury selection will be complete by November 19 and opening statements will occur on November 29, the Court requests that the parties provide their best estimate as to when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. This will allow the Court to assess the likelihood that trial may continue after the Christmas holiday and therefore whether the jury may be required to sit some days during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. Accordingly, on or before October 12, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to confer and submit a joint letter with their best and current estimate as to when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/5/2021)."

On October 12, the estimate is a six week trial.

On August 30, Maxwell through counsel  argued that in order to file her "motions in limine" by October 18, she needs disclosure by the prosecution of "the specific co-conspirator statements it intends to admit at trial... The government says that, at least as of August 18, it intends to seek admission of co-conspirator statements by only two individuals: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein's referenced in Paragraph 25(d) of the S2 indictment."

  Here's what Paragraph 25(d) says: "On multiple occasions between in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein, MAXWELL, or one of Epstein's other employees called Minor Victim-4 to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-4 to massage Epstein. For example, in or about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's called Minor Victim-4 to schedule such appointments."

On September 3, Judge Nathan granted it nothing that the US has not alleged danger to co-conspirators: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court ORDERS that at the same time that the Government discloses Jencks Act material, the Government shall also disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the Government will refer at trial. The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court's scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/3/2021)." Full order here. Watch this site.

  On August 18 Maxwell's lawyers complained about the MDC switching her legal video calls from WebEx to Zoom and, they accuse, recording the calls. They named an MDC staffer by only one name, Leon, and quoted from MDC Legal's response.

On August 23, AUSA Maurene Comey replied, acknowledging that "due to an oversight by MDC IT staff, however, that same virtual room had also been assigned for a different group's use at the same time as the defendant's VTC appointment... MDC and BOP staff spent several days working to set up a unique VTC virtual room for the defendant's exclusive use on the BOP's system."

Now on August 25 Judge Nathan has ruled: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant submitted a letter on August 18 informing the Court about disruptions of attorney-client video teleconferences. Dkt. No. 319. After conferring with MDC Legal, the Government responded on August 23. Dkt. No. 326. According to the Government and MDC Legal, the Defendant's difficulties in communicating with her counsel via video teleconference have been resolved, and the Government's letter sufficiently addresses her other requests. The Court finds MDC Legal's assurance that Defendant's communications have not been interfered with, recorded, or listened to sufficient. No further application for relief was made in Defendant's August 24 reply. Dkt. No. 327. The Court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell is fully able to communicate with her defense counsel and to prepare for trial. If Defendant experiences further issues in communicating with her counsel, she should promptly notify the Court after conferring in good faith with the Government and MDC Legal. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/21)."

  When Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motions for a bill of particulars, she put in a footnote that she "presumes the Government intends to disclose this information [a list of unnamed co-conspirators] at the same times that... it discloses Jencks Act material."  On August 18, the US said it has no such intent.
 
  Now Judge Nathan has ordered the parties to meet and confer about disclosure, and if not agreed by August 26, for Maxwell to file a response to DOJ position by August 30. Watch this site.

On August 18 Maxwell's lawyers complained about the MDC switching her legal video calls from WebEx to Zoom and, they accuse, recording the calls. They name an MDC staffer by only one name, Leon, and quote from MDC Legal's response. What will Judge Nathan do? Watch this site.

On July 30, acting on filings about an op-ed concerning the applicability of Bill Cosby's release to Maxwell, Judge Nathan issued a three page warning: "The Government has moved for an order requiring David Markus to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 following an op-ed that he authored opining on the merits of this pending case. Dkt. No. 309. Mr. Markus is plainly a lawyer associated with the defense in this case. His formal representation has involved handling at least one pre-trial issue for Ms. Maxwell—in particular, appeals to the Second Circuit of this Court’s bail-denial determinations.  Nevertheless Mr. Markus argues that he is not subject to Rule 23.1...  Nothing in the rule limits its application to lawyers who have formally noticed an appearance. To the contrary, as the text throughout the rule makes clear, it applies to statements made by lawyers (and others) “associated” with “pending or imminent criminal litigation.” S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a) (last updated Oct. 29, 2018); see also Rule 23.1(b) (“a lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation”); Rule 23.1(c) (“lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense”). An attorney need not be of record in order to be sufficiently “associated” with a case as to justify application of disciplinary rules regarding extrajudicial statements. Such is the case with Mr. Markus’s role in the pending matter. As noted, Mr. Markus has attended a proceeding in this Court, after which he spoke to the press on Ms. Maxwell’s behalf. He has represented Ms. Maxwell on appeals of this Court’s pre-trial bail determinations. Moreover, Mr. Markus has identified himself as Ms. Maxwell’s appellate lawyer in a published op-ed discussing his opinion of the merits of this case. These facts mean that the public, which includes potential jurors, may perceive Mr. Markus as an authoritative source of information regarding the pending matter and may readily consider his remarks to be accurate and reliable. Mr. Markus is therefore ORDERED to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1. The Government does not ask the Court to discipline Mr. Markus based on his op-ed... All those associated with this case must act to ensure the case is tried solely in court or else they risk being deemed responsible for any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the upcoming trial. See S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h). In addition to the impact it could have on this matter, failure to comply could also result in attorney discipline. Id. Rule 23.1(i)." Order on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.

Back on June 15, Maxwell through her lawyers complained that in the MDC jail "last week, raw sewage permeated Ms. Maxwell's isolation cell, necessitating her removal to another cell... vermin droppings fell from air vents." Full letter on Patreon here.

Now on June 16, the US Attorney's Office has fired back: "The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate  at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per  day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant still has access to both a  desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government on  which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the  MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys. This discovery review  takes place in a day room that is separate from the defendant’s assigned cell. Accordingly, the  defendant continues to be permitted out of her cell from 7am to 8pm every day. While in the day  room, the defendant continues to have exclusive access to the MDC desktop computer, the laptop,  a television, a phone on which to place social or attorney calls, and a shower." Full letter on Patreon here.

On June 4, Maxwell's requests to get Victim-2's journal, and original photographs, were denied: "The Court  requested the Government’s views as to three of those requests: Request 9, which sought  production of Minor Victim-2’s entire diary from her teenage years; Request 10, which targeted  a pair of boots that Minor Victim-2 allegedly received as a gift from Jeffrey Epstein and  Maxwell; and Request 11, which sought original versions of certain photographs. Id. The  Government submitted its views on May 4, 2021. Dkt. No. 269. It supplemented its letter on  May 6, 2021. Dkt. No. 271. The Defendant filed a response on May 12, 2021. Having  considered the parties’ views, the Defendant’s request is denied in full. As noted, Request 9 seeks the original copy of a journal from an alleged victim from  when she was a teenager. Maxwell received copies of some of the pages in the journal from the  Government pursuant to Rule 16, but the Government represents that it does not have access to  the entire journal. In those pages, Minor Victim-2 describes a trip to New York in which she  spent time with Epstein and, among other things, visited his residence. Minor Victim-2 also  describes her impression of Epstein at the time." Full order on Patreon here.

 After Maxwell asked to get the names of alleged victims before September 21, on June 2 Judge Nathan ruled that the names are to be given on October 11, as part of this schedule: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Having considered the parties' respective proposals, Dkt. No. 291, the Court hereby sets the following disclosure schedule: September 13, 2021: Disclosure of alleged victims' identities (Government's proposal) October 11, 2021: Government's disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence and notice, co-conspirator statements, and Government witness list (Government's proposal) October 11, 2021: Government's disclosure of its proposed exhibit list (Defendant's proposal) October 18, 2021: Simultaneous filing of motions in limine (agreement of the parties) October 25, 2021: Simultaneous filing of proposed jury questionnaire and voir dire (agreement of the parties) November 1, 2021: Defense expert disclosures (Defendant's proposal) November 1, 2021: Responses to motions in limine (agreement of the parties) November 8, 2021: Simultaneous filing of requests to charge and verdict sheet (agreement of the parties) - November 8, 2021: Defense disclosures pursuant to Rules 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) materials (The Government proposed November 1, 2021; the Defendant proposed the close of the Government's case-in-chief) Close of the Government's case-in-chief: Defense witness list and 26.2 statements (Defendant's proposal) These dates establish a baseline for when the parties must disclose certain materials. Each of the parties has a continuing obligation to update all disclosures if they become aware of additional responsive materials. In addition, and as requested by the parties, the parties may bring issues to the Court's attention that arise after the deadline for motions in limine if the issues could not have been raised within the deadline set for in limine motions. (Motions due by 10/18/2021. Responses due by 11/1/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/2/2021)." Watch this site.

On May 10, the US Attorney's Office wrote to Judge Nathan to proposed starting the trial on November 29, noting the Thanksgiving week before and the importance of having AUSA Maurene Comey involved.

And on May 11, Judge Nathan issued an order confirming she will request that date, with jury selection to begin November 15: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has considered the parties' proposals regarding the commencement of trial. Dkt. Nos. 275, 276. For the reasons stated in the Government's letter, the Court will request November 29, 2021 from the Clerk's Office as the trial start datethat is the date (pending approval from the Clerk's Office consistent with the SDNY COVID protocols) that opening statements will be made to the jury. However, the Court will also request from the Clerk's Office that jury selection occur during the week of November 15."

 On May 6, the US Attorney's Office wrote in that "The Government has now determined that, for a subset of the photographs requested by the defendant, the Government previously provided the defense with scanned images of this subset of photographs from the FBI Florida file. The original photographs are currently in the FBI’s possession. Accordingly, because some of the original photographs are currently in the Prosecution Team’s possession, the Government will make them available to the defendant for inspection upon request." Full submission on Patreon here.

  After Maxwell's complaint about flashlight checks and eye coverings, the US Attorney's Office on May 5 wrote in, full letter on Patreon here

Back on April 23, Maxwell asked to delay her sex trafficking trial to November 8, or late January 2022: "Defense counsel Bobbi Sternheim and AUSA Lara Pomerantz are scheduled to begin the trial of on October 4, 2021. The trial involves three defendants, two of whom are currently serving federal sentence, six charged and two dozen uncharged murders. The government has estimated 6-8 weeks of trial, but because the trial is subject to special protocols for jury selection during COVID, and the defendants and most of the witnesses are Spanish speakers and require the assistance of interpreters, counsel believes that the trial may extend beyond eight (8) weeks and, if not moved, could extend until January 2022. All defense counsel but one in are amenable to a postponement; the remaining cocounsel cannot commit due to a late January trial date also before Judge Furman, which may resolve pre-trial. If Judge Furman is amenable to pushing the October 4 trial to follow this trial, Ms. Maxwell’s trial could begin November 8, 2021." Full letter on Patreon here.

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