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

By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Song Video Ruling
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Radio - Podcast Letter

SDNY COURTHOUSE, March 2 – Ghislaine Maxwell, charged with six counts of sex trafficking and other charges, was on December 29 found guilty on five of the six counts. Inner City Press, which asked Judge Alison J. Nathan for a public call-in line and unsealing of exhibits throughout, live tweeted it here.

After juror "Scotty David" gave interviews, social media accounts went down, but Inner City Press kept digging, first publishing the information here, now below.

There's day for questioning of Scotty David: March 8. But will his statement that he only spoke out after getting the OK from his employer, the Carlyle Group, be inquired into? And docketed March 2, this: "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: By letter dated March 1, 2022, counsel for Juror 50 informed the Court that Juror 50 will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022. The Government writes to notify the Court that it is in the process of seeking internal approval to seek an order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003, compelling Juror 50’s testimony at the hearing. The Government will, subject to internal approval, submit a proposed order to the Court in advance of the hearing. Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney."

So, immunity? The Order: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety"namely, a false statement during jury selectionhas occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored. In contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery. The Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the Court will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022. The hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror 50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions." Watch this site

 At 11:30 pm on January 19, Maxwell's lawyers filed a one-paragraph letter stating that her motion for a new trial was entirely under seal: "Dear Judge Nathan: Today, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell filed her Motion for a New Trial (the “Motion”) and  accompanying exhibits under seal. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, we request that all  submissions pertaining to Juror No. 50 remain under seal until the Court rules on the Motion. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ BOBBI C. STERNHEIM."

  On January 19-20, Inner City Press filed a formal request to unseal the motion for a new trial, specifically referencing the Alex Acosta era of this controversy and scandal. Here.

On February 11, Judge Nathan allowed much but not all to remain sealed, and also docketed a request by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to join as amici on the issue of jury questionnaires and, well, chattiness. The sealing order: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters addressing the Defendant's request to temporarily seal her motion for a new trial and accompanying exhibits, and the Governments response in opposition and accompanying exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 590, 594, 595. Several media organizations have also filed letters seeking unsealing. The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50's motion to intervene. Both the Government and the Defendant oppose intervention. The Defendant seeks to strike or, in the alternative, seal Juror 50's motion. For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court rules as follows. First, the Defendant's motion to temporarily seal in their entirety all documents related to the motion for a new trial is DENIED. Any sealing of judicial documents must be narrowly tailored to serve competing interests."

  On February 1 Maxwell's lawyers submitted a belated argument for keeping her motion entirely sealed, citing her "higher value" and their desire to keep from Juror 50 his and others' answers to the questionnaire and "the details of the investigative steps the defense has taken." Full letter on Patreon here.

The rationale is not sufficient under Lugosch, Inner City Press wrote on February 1, but the process has already been dragged out.

A full week later on February 8 Maxwell's lawyer Bobbi Sternheim repeated the argument that all should remain sealed, including "Ms. Maxwell's reply (to be filed on February 9)... Giving Juror 50 a preview of information he does not have and should not have at this juncture would permit him to craft testimony, destroy critical evidence and explain away facts to protect himself." Watch this site.

A full week later, Judge Nathan issued this: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's motion for a new trial and accompanying exhibits, which she requests to file under seal. See Dkt. No. 580. The Court has also received requests from media organizations to unseal the motion. The Court is aware there is substantial public interest in this matter and will ensure that the First Amendment right to public access is fully safeguarded. At the same time, the Court must act deliberately and hear from the parties in considering these sealing issues in order to ensure the integrity of any potential inquiry process going forward, should one be ordered. That too is in the public, as well as the Defendant's and the Government's, interest. Accordingly, to the extent the Defense requests that arguments in favor of sealing should themselves be sealed, that request is DENIED. Arguments in favor of sealing can be made in such a way so as not to undermine the grounds for seeking sealing or redaction in the first instance. The Defense is therefore ORDERED to file a letter on the public docket on or before February 1, 2022, that justifies the proposed sealing by reference to the three-part test in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Government may file on ECF a response to the Defenses justification letter on or before February 4, 2022. The Government's opposition to the Defenses new trial motion is due February 2, 2022. Dkt. No. 571. Per the established practice in this case, the Government must provide a copy via email to the Defense to allow the Defense the opportunity to propose narrowly tailored redactions and/or sealing. If either party proposes redactions to or sealing of the Government's anticipated opposition, a letter justifying such redactions or sealing must be filed on the public docket. The Defense letter must be filed on or before February 8, 2022, and the Government letter must be filed by February 11, 2022. The same process will apply for any Defense reply in support, which is due February 9, 2022. Dkt. No. 571. If redactions or sealing are proposed, the Defense letter justifying such requests would be due February 15, 2022, and the Government letter would be due February 18, 2022." We'll have more on this.

On January 12 Judge Nathan issued an order: "Counsel for Juror Number 50 has submitted a motion to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror’s completed questionnaire and voir dire. The motion has been submitted via email to allow the parties the opportunity to propose and the Court to consider any necessary redactions. The parties are ORDERED to submit via email any proposed redactions on or before January 13, 2022, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). If any redactions are proposed, the Court will determine whether any are appropriate and then docket the motion. The parties shall respond to Juror 50’s motion on or before January 20, 2022. Upon further reflection, unless and until Juror No. 50 is permitted to intervene, he may have no standing to be heard on the question of whether an inquiry should be conducted. Accordingly, the Court withdraws the aspect of its prior order setting January 26, 2022, as the date by which counsel for Juror 50 should file a submission on the issue of the appropriateness of an inquiry. Dkt. No. 571. The Court will hear from the parties first regarding Juror 50’s pending motion. Depending on the resolution of that motion, the Court will provide further guidance to counsel  for Juror 50 regarding any permitted submission. If a further submission is permitted, the Court will provide ECF docketing access to counsel for Juror 50 at that time." So everything is kept out of the docket, like Inner City Press' filings to unseal. But isn't secrecy what caused this problem? Order here.

  Full two days later, past 5 pm on January 14, Judge Nathan put in the case docket NOT Juror 50's motion but an order saying she will continue to keep it up. It is obviously now a judicial documents, having triggered reflection by the judge. But the concept of judicial document is being gamed: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court required the parties to indicate whether Juror 50's motion to intervene and to be provided a copy of the jurors completed questionnaire and voir dire should be redacted. Dkt. No. 575. In response, the parties have submitted letters to the Court indicating their differing views on whether Juror 50s motion should be docketed at all. Upon further reflection, the Courtconcludes that it must first address the threshold question of whether an inquiry is permittedand/or required before considering Juror 50s requests. Accordingly, the Court will not consider or act on Juror 50's request to intervene and to be provided a copy of the jurors completed questionnaire and voir dire until the Court receives the parties briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry and the nature of any such inquiry. The Court will maintain Juror 50's motion temporarily under seal until the Court considers the parties arguments and determines the appropriate next steps. Consistent with this and to (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/14/22)."

Four minutes later: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter regarding a schedule for sentencing and resolution of the severed perjury counts. Dkt. No. 574. The Court hereby schedules the sentencing in this matter for June 28, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. The Court will delay ordering the preparation of a presentence investigation report until April 2022. The Court previously set the schedule for briefing on the new trial motion as well as all other post-verdict motions. Dkt. No. 571. That schedule remains in place. The Court adopts the parties proposal that the scheduling of any proceedings related to the severed perjury counts be deferred until the post-verdict motions are resolved. By January 18, 2022, the Government shall indicate in a joint letter whether it is seeking an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act for the perjury counts and the basis for any requested exclusion. In the joint letter, the defense shall indicate whether it consents to the proposed exclusion of time (Sentencing set for 6/28/2022 at 11:00 AM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/14/22)."

  Less than an hour after the above was filed (instead of Juror 50's motion), Inner City Press submitted to Judge Nathan's Chambers, and the parties, this:

"Re: US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN), Press request that Juror 50's motion be acknowledged as a judicial document and docketed, as this request should be Dear Judge Nathan:    On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case, including repeatedly asking that sealing and redactions be reduced and that a public call-in line be provided (it wasn't).   Juror 50's motion was withheld, it was said, to allow the US and defense to propose redactions. Now in a second "upon further reflection" Juror 50's motion is still being withheld, apparently under the theory or argument that it is not a judicial document even though it seems obvious that it has been and is being considered by the court. In plain language, it is a judicial document and withholding it, with all due respect, ill-serves the public interest in this trial.   Juror 50's motion, and this request, should be docketed. If necessary: The Southern District of New York has also approvingly noted that the Ninth Circuit has found "no principled basis for affording greater confidentiality to post-trial documents and proceedings than is given to pretrial matters."  United States v. Milken, 780 F. Supp. 123, 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (quoting CBS, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 765 F.2d 823, 825 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also United States v. Simone, 14 F.3d 833, 838 (3d Cir.1994) (finding a public right of access to a post-trial examination of juror misconduct even though no cited history predated 1980).    There are other unaddressed public access issues" Full Inner City Press filing / letter here.

Watch this site.

 On the evening of January 10 the US submitted a joint letter: "The Government believes that the Court should order preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) and schedule a sentencing proceeding approximately three to four months from today’s date. That schedule permits sufficient time for the preparation of the PSR and resolution of post-trial motions. In the event the defendant’s post-trial motions are denied, the Government is prepared to dismiss the severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing, in light of the victims’ significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again. If any of the defendant’s post-trial motions are granted, the Government proposes that the parties be directed to promptly confer and propose a schedule for further proceedings. That schedule may depend on the manner in which the Court resolves such motions.

Defense Position The defense requests that the Court delay setting a schedule for sentencing because there is a compelling basis for the Court to overturn Ms. Maxwell’s conviction and grant her a new trial based on the disclosures of Juror #50 during deliberations. The parties are currently briefing that issue. The defense therefore objects to setting a schedule for sentencing until this motion is resolved. For the same reason, the defense intends to set forth in its moving papers the reasons why Ms. Maxwell should not be forced to expend resources to brief other post-trial motions until after the Court decides this motion. Furthermore, requiring Ms. Maxwell to participate in the preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report, while she is awaiting a decision on her motion for a new trial, will adversely impact her Fifth Amendment rights." Letter here.

  On January 10, without comment on who it is, from Juror 50's lawyer Inner City Press received this:

From: Todd A. Spodek
Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:39 AM
Subject: Danforth With Guideline of 57 Months Has Maxwell Juror's Temporary CJA Gets 34 Months
To: innercitypress.com

   FYI - Juror 50 was appointed CJA and in lieu of CJA hired my firm. Thanks.   http://www.innercitypress.com/sdny58torresdanforthicp010622.html 

Todd A. Spodek  Spodek Law Group P.C. 85 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004

  Duly noted - and responded to. There's this:

But previously, the same Scott(y) - Office Coordinator +1 (212) 338-9614 Office Address: 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: +1 (212) 661-4060 E-... Jun 26, 2012 babinc.org - with Prince Andrew connection.

The US on January 5 wrote in: "Dear Judge Nathan: The Government has become aware that a juror has given several interviews to press outlets regarding his jury service in this case." Full US letter on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here. Inner City Press immediate filing to unredact, still not docketed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, here.

   Again through the UK press, Team Maxwell has announced they have identified a third juror who may have lied on the juror questionnaire, with a fourth juror "in question." There is nothing in the docket.

  As noted during the trial by Inner City Press, for example with regard to Team Maxwell's Leah Saffian having and sharing her smart phone in the courtroom, there was something very wrong and untransparent about this trial. It was the secrecy, starting with the denial of the public call-in line and continuing through juror selection with press banned from significant parts, that allowed it. Now what?

   "Scotty David" (see above) fled photographers outside his midtown Manhattan apartment, shielding his face with a family-sized box of Cheez-Its. The private equity firm the Carlyle Group confirms he works for them. How then did Judge Alison J. Nathan appoint him a publicly-paid lawyer? And how that Scotty David has fired the free lawyer and says he has his own, who's paying for that? Who's paying? Podcast here.

The US asked that Juror 50 be appointed a lawyer. And redacted part of its letter.

  Judge Alison J. Nathan appointed CJA lawyer Todd Spodek. But then on January 6, this: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. A notice of appearance has been filed by retained counsel on behalf of Juror Number 50. See Dkt. No. 572. Retained counsel has communicated to the Court that the juror does not wish to have counsel appointed."

On January 5 the defense, by Christian Everdell, sent in an even more heavily redacted letter, that "presents incontrovertible  grounds for a new trial under Rule 33." Then lengthy redactions.

Inner City Press quickly opposed these redactions, writing to Judge Nathan: "Re: US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN), Press request that redactions to US and defense letters about juror controversy be removed and other relevant documents unsealed; request should be docketed and ruled on Dear Judge Nathan:    On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case, including repeatedly asking that sealing and redactions be reduced and that a public call-in line be provided (it wasn't).   Now on January 5 the government and the defense have submitted significantly redacted letters about juror "Scotty David" and his print and video interviews, requesting an inquiry or a new trial.  But the public and press have a right to know what the US and defense are arguing to the Court. Accordingly, the redactions should be removed forthwith, and all other relevant still-sealed or redacted documents be placed in the public docket    While appreciating that the Court docketed before denying Inner City Press' November 12 request for a call-in line, Dkt. 451, this is a request that this opposition to sealing be docketed as took place in US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF), Dkt 85, here."

 Inner City Press letter here.

 Judge Nathan issued an order, not addressing the redactions, setting a schedule: "ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters. Dkt. Nos. 568, 569, 570. The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule for the Defense to move for a new trial in light of the issues raised in the parties' letters: Defense motion: January 19, 2022; Government response: February 2, 2022; Defense reply: February 9, 2022."

 Then CJA lawyer Todd Spodek filed a notice of appearance for Juror 50, whom Inner City Press had already linked to Scotty David: 35 and in finance. And knew of Ghislaine Maxwell before the trial. See above.

Inner City Press filed an earlier letter for docketing and ruling on -- see here.

Full Inner City Press Dec. 28 filing here.

 Inner City Press opposed and opposes the continued secrecy. And see DC op-ed here

Inner City Press covered the trial, and all the comes before and after it; #CourtCaseCast and song I, Song 2, Song 3, fifth song, Nov 27 song Dec 4 song and Dec 11 song (YouTube demonetized it) and Dec 18 song (no ads) and Dec 24 song (also no ads - demonetized by YouTube) and now Jan 8 on chatty juror from the Carlyle Group, not monetized, here (support 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 - and UNSC President Norway. 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 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for