SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 1 – Ghislaine
Maxwell,
charged with
sex
trafficking
and other
charges, faces
a November 29,
2021 trial.
On
October 29,
she and the US
Attorney's
Office for the
Southern
District of
New York filed
a flurry of
motions in
limine,
heavily
redacted; the
Government
argued that
trial exhibits
are not public
and will be
withheld.
Inner City
Press on April 2 wrote to the
Court regarding access the
arraignment on April 23. Inner
City Press live tweeted it here
and below. Nov 1 podcast here.
On November 1,
Judge Alison J. Nathan held a
length hearing on the motions
in limine. Inner City Press
live tweeted the 11 am to 1 pm
session here
(podcast here)
and now the 1:10 pm to 2:45 pm
finale with Maxwell's saying
"I have not committed any
crime" and her conditions of
confinement, here
(podcast here)
2d part of
pre-trial conference before
Judge Alison Nathan Judge
Alison J. Nathan: Let's turn
to defense motion in limine 4,
& let me hear from the US.
Is it the US' position that
this individual could be
deemed a victim for
restitution purposes?
AUSA Moe: I
haven't thought it through
& I'd want to confer with
my Office.
AUSA Moe:
The charge is conspiracy.
Judge Nathan: But there has to
be an intention to commit an
illegal act. You have 403
questions and the like... I
need to know the US' position,
including for Defendant's 4.
AUSA Moe: At
trial the issue will be
Jeffrey Epstein's interest in
underaged girls. But the
defendant's conduct with those
over 17 could be relevant.
Judge
Nathan: In some cases well
over the age of consent. I've
excluded that. What's the
difference here? AUSA Moe: She
introduced sexual topics in a
slow & gradual way. Judge
Nathan: One might have moral
judgment- but are you using
the legal definition of
victim?
Defense: At best
the government is taking about
pattern. That should be
excluded. It is not probative
of knowledge or intent. The
conduct was not illegal
[setting up dates with
non-minors]. It was polite
conversation.
AUSA Moe: We
framed it as preference for
girls under 18, we should have
been more specific. When Minor
Victim 4 was being trafficked,
the defendant knew about
Epstein's preferences from the
conduct with Minor Victims 2
and 3.
AUSA Moe:
It's like buying a ski mask
before robbery - it's legal
conduct that's relevant to a
crime. Judge Nathan: But if
the ski mask was bought three
years before the robbery?
That's 404b, evidence of
methods and M.O.
Judge
Nathan: I want to see a
proposed limiting instruction
and briefing. Gov't by the
5th, Defense response by the
10th. Mr. Everdell?
Defense lawyer
Everdell: Fine. Judge Nathan:
The US has agreed to exclude
and redact evidence of
defendant's false statements;
I've severed the perjury
charges.
Maxwell's
defense lawyer: We have a
problem that the US says it
can establish a foundation but
I'm skeptical about the
foundation. It's an exhibit
from 2009. We assume it was
stolen and sold by the non
deceased Rodriguez. So who
authenticates it?
Judge
Nathan: It's like the motion
to exclude the search of
Epstein's Palm Beach home. Who
do I decide this at this
stage? AUSA: We'll have law
enforcement testimony.
Defense: This is piecemeal,
years after the fact. The
seized item and try to relate
them back
Judge Nathan: On
the defense's motion to
exclude the ID from photo
array, I'm going to deny
it. We begin our
questionnaire process on
Thursday. I'll video record
the preliminary instructions
tomorrow. Do you want to see
it before Thursday? It's just
a robe.
Judge
Nathan: I won't ask jurors
about vaccination in voir
dire. But there will be
differences in seating. For
the non struck jurors, we'll
ask Yes, No or I don't want to
say
Judge
Nathan: I think we'll do the
peremptories on the
29th. AUSA Moe: Let me
speak to plea offers. The
government has not issued any,
and they have not requested
any. Defense: That is
correct.
Judge Nathan: Ms.
Maxwell is that correct?
Maxwell: I have
not committed any crime.
Sternheim: What
about the legal mail? It's
been a week. AUSA Moe: Give me
a moment.
Sternheim: If we
hand-deliver material, she
does not get it. If the US
would do it, she'd get it.
AUSA: It's too
time consuming. Sternheim: She
was woken up at 3:45 am and
brought here after five. It
was cold. She is given food
without utensils. She is
shackled.
Judge
Nathan: What's the
application? Sternheim: That
she be bought later. I'd like
her released but I'll do that
in writing. But she was woken
up in the cell.
Judge Nathan: Is
this different treatment in
transport? Sternheim: I know
no one who's arrived that
early
Maxwell's lawyer
Sternheim: She was brought
here at 5:38 am. I've never
seen this
Judge Nathan:
I'll expect your filings in
writing. We're adjourned.
On October 29,
after the flurry of redacted
motions, Inner City Press
filed formal requests with
SDNY District Judge Alison J.
Nathan, now on DocumentCloud here:
Re: US v.
Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN),
timely opposition to blanket
requests to seal portions of
motions in limine, trial
exhibits, public access
Dear Judge
Nathan: On
behalf of Inner City Press and
in my personal capacity, I
have been covering the
above-captioned case. This
concerns in the first instance
the flurry of motions in
limine filed earlier this
evening, replete with
redactions justified by a
conclusory reference to Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.
2006).
The
Government's Justifications
for redaction (Docket No. 399,
docketed at 10:06 pm on Friday
Oct 29) cites Lugosch then
says "The Government also
seeks sealing of trial
exhibits, which are not
public." Inner City Press
immediately opposes
this.
As one
example within this motions of
limine, the Government has
redacted the entirety of its
Argument X, even the title and
the page number. And as to
trial exhibits, see for
example Judge Jed S. Rakoff's
order in US v. Weigand,
20-cr-188 (JSR), here.
There,
Judge Rakoff ordered the US
Attorney's Office to make
trial exhibit available to the
public at large. While this
was done, belatedly, in US v.
Parnas, it was refused in the
current US v. Cole. It cannot
be refused in this
case. Also,
Inner City Press understands
that the listen-only call-in
telephone lines available so
far in the case, there may be
an attempt to discontinue
them. The Court should take
judicial notice of continuing
COVID-19 issues, including
people's understandable
concerns about congregating
even in so-called overflow
rooms. Be aware that the
District for the District of
Columbia still allows public
phone access to all criminal
proceedings, even those held
in-person. That should happen
here. The loss of First
Amendment freedoms, even for a
short period of time,
unquestionably constitutes
irreparable injury. Elrod
v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,
373
(1976).
For further example, in Docket
No. 387, all exhibits are
withheld and the expected
testimony of already
anonymized Minor Victim-3 is
redacted. In Docket No.
382, Exhibits A through D, F,
H and I are all withheld in
full, and large portions of
even the table of contests are
redacted. How is the public to
access the basis for
withholding, when even the
titles / subjects are
withheld?
Inner City Press
will cover the trial, and all
the comes before and after;
#CourtCaseCast and song
I
and song
II:
Maxwell
wanted to keep prospective
juror questioning - voir dire
- and selection even more
sealed from the public and
Press.
On October 18 the
US Attorney's Office opposed
the request, saying the the
voir dire questions should be
asked by Judge Nathan, and
that there should only be
sidebars on "sensitive
questions such as those that
relate to sexual abuse and
media exposure." Full letter
on Patreon here.
RCFP
rightly submitted opposition,
and Inner City Press and
others in SDNY joined the
opposition. And in a
conference on October 21 on
that as scheduling issues,
Judge Nathan denied the
request to seal. Inner City
Press live tweeted it
here (podcast here)
On October 22 the
draft jury questionnaire was
unsealed and Inner City Press
has immediately published it
on its DocumentCloud here,
including "Have you or a
family member ever supported,
lobbied, petitioned,
protested, or worked in
any other manner for or
against any laws, regulations,
or organizations relating to
sex trafficking, sex crimes
against minors, sex abuse or
sexual harassment?" Photo 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
,
