SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 10 – Ghislaine
Maxwell,
charged with
sex
trafficking
and other
charges, faces
a November 29,
2021 trial.
On
October 29, Maxwell
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.
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.
On November 10,
Judge Nathan presided over a
Daubert hearing, of experts
proposed for trial. Inner City
Press live tweeted here
(podcast here)
Judge
Alison Nathan will be
addressing which experts can
testify - then will seal the
courtroom.
Judge
Nathan: We've had 565
prospective jurors fill out
the questionnaire. Friday
we'll get a hundred or so
more. That will give the
parties additional time to
confer, on a fewer
questionnaires. Alright. We'll
also do Nov 15 at 9:30, pre
voir dire
Judge
Nathan: Then, a [final-final]
final pre-trial conference.
Maxwell's lawyer: When do we
begin voir dire? Judge Nathan:
I believe 9 am. Maxwell
lawyer: One of our team has a
hearing in Colorado and can't
appear at the [final-final]
final
Judge
Nathan: So let's begin with
the Daubert [expert] hearing.
1st witness, Doctor Rocchio.
Witness: I
am Lisa Rocchio. AUSA Lara
Pomerantz: Before your PhD,
any degree? Rocchio: Masters
from URI. PhD too.
AUSA
Pomerantz: How much time did
you spent working with
patients? Rocchio: 500 to 1000
hours while getting my degree,
plus a one year doctor's
fellowship. 100s of patients,
issues related to traumatic
stress, suicidality, violence
AUSA
Pomerantz: How many employees
do you have? Rocchio: Seven at
the present time.
AUSA Pomerantz:
How old were the patients
you've treated for sexual
abuse when the abuse occurred?
Rocchio. 13... I'm on the
voluntarily faculty of Brown U
AUSA
Pomerantz: Is this your C.V.?
Rocchio: Yes. But it doesn't
include my recent promotion.
AUSA Pomerantz: We offer
Exhibit 1. Maxwell's lawyer:
No objection for purposes of
today.
AUSA Pomerantz:
How is most sexual abuse of
children carried out? Rocchio:
In the context of a
relationship. AUSA Pomerantz:
Are you familiar with
grooming? Rocchio: I am.
AUSA Pomerantz:
Describe grooming. Rocchio:
Victim is identified then
isolated. Like in a Boy Scouts
troop. It's akin to what 2
adults might do in a courtship
Rocchio:
They might groom an
institution, like working
their way up through the Boy
Scouts.
AUSA
Pomerantz: Some strategies?
Rocchio: Gift gifting.
Tickling. Massages. Talking
about sex. Normalizing
sexualized behaviors and
gradually moving the line to
abuse
AUSA: What about
substantiated cases of abuse?
Rocchio: It's
where it's admitted or
resulted in conviction. Or
young children with venereal
diseases. AUSA: Gov Ex 2.
Rocchio: It's an article about
coercive control. Defense: No
objection for purposes of
today Inner City Press
@innercitypress · 1h [The
exhibit / article has, as one
of its listed keywords,
"predatory tactics."]
Judge Nathan: You
cited pimp and sex worker -
trauma bonding. What's the
similarity? Rocchio: The pimp
subjugates the sex worker,
like a sex trafficker does.
Judge Nathan: Thank you.
Rocchio: My
patients say, He bought me
sneakers. That impacts the
individuals self-blame and
feelings of shame. AUSA: Is
the concept of grooming
accepted? Rocchio: Yes.
AUSA: Who is more
at risk? Rocchio: Needy,
vulnerable, prior history as a
victim.Rocchio: Those from
single parent homes, "sexual
minority children," the poor.
AUSA: What is this based on?
Rocchio: My education and
training.
Now shown
as Government Exhibit:
statistical table of how child
sex victims are
targeted. [Note: This
direct examination could have
been done in writing, and get
straight to the cross
examination.
AUSA: The defense
has argued that a victim's
prior sexual experience is
relevant to the concept of
groom- that is, whether or not
a person had prior sexual
experience makes them more
vulnerable. Rocchio: Even
theoretically I don't
understand how that could be
true
AUSA: Now let's
turn to grooming for other(s)
Judge Nathan: Let's take a 10
minute comfort break.
The October 29
filing:
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 it;
#CourtCaseCast and song
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
,
