From Coast to Coast: The Trial of Kevin Spacey Day 1
From coast to coast, from country to country, Kevin Spacey leaves a trail of young boys and men who say he touched them without their consent
Known Epstein, Clinton and Maxwell conspirator Kevin Spacey (represented in court documents by his full legal name “Kevin Spacey Fowler” in efforts to avoid gathering further attention) entered SDNY Courthouse on the 9th of December to face multiple accusations of child sex abuse.
Prior to this case, Spacey has been accused of perpetrating child sex abuse and inappropriate sexual behavior within his workplace on several occasions. Free Press Reports readers should be aware of Spacey’s extended history of child sex abuse accusations, taking specific note of strange pretrial deaths of three unrelated individuals who accused him of sexual assault; one specifically high-profile accuser was Ari Behn, the ex-husband of a Norwegian princess who allegedly took his own life on Christmas Day.
Actor Anthony Rapp has accused Spacey of luring him to his California home and sexually assaulting him without consent in 1986. Rapp is one of two accusers alleging abuse from Spacey in this case. Another individual (who identified themselves as “C.D”) intended to keep their identity confidential but has been ordered by the judge to reveal themselves. This is especially worrisome due to the strange circumstances that resulted in the deaths of Spacey’s other victims (prosecution has just cause to request witness protection measures).
Scrutiny of Judge Kaplan’s denial of this accuser’s request for anonymity is evident, the courts failure to protect victims of Spacey’s previously, and several instances of the defense exposing anonymous witnesses in Maxwell’s trial. The U.S legal system is demonstrating they do not value victim or accuser safety in the slightest. A federal judge ruled last week that the man identified in court documents as C.D. who alleged Spacey sexually assaulted him in 1986 (when he was 14) must reveal his identity publicly. Spacey’s lawyers argued “He shouldn’t be permitted to proceed anonymously.”
Spacey claimed that his actions constituted "deeply inappropriate drunken behavior" but denied accusations of sexual abuse. After Rapp made these allegations, Spacey responded stating "I honestly do not remember the encounter."
Court proceedings would commence as the session would act to establish grounds for further discovery. Spacey’s defense team made no comment as to the claim that their client had raped a 14-year-old child, instead focusing on establishing conditions of relevant discovery. Spacey’s defense team argued that there should be absolutely no inquiry into the past relationships of Spacey or his sex life, claiming these details were unrelated. Rapp’s defense stated firmly that if testimony related to a relevant instance of illegal behavior is entered into the court room; it should be discussed.
Proceedings would continue with Spacey’s defense lawyer attempting to mis-characterize his clients alleged crimes, yet not denying them, stating, “He's only alleging that Mr. Fowler [Kevin Spacey] picked him up and dropped him. It's essentially child abuse, not sexual assault.” Spacey’s defense team failed to address Rapp’s claim that Spacey proceeded to climb on top of him without consent in any capacity (which implies an inappropriate sexual act took place).
Rapp's lawyer made a statement that provided insight into the established patterns of abuse present in Spacey’s history “From coast to coast, from country to country, Kevin Spacey leaves a trail of young boys and men who say he touched them without their consent.”
Spacey's lawyer responded to Spacey’s defense arguing it made little sense to claim that “Spacey throwing a 14-year-old boy on a bed and getting on top of him is not sexual, it's just child abuse. It's absurd. We want to depose Evan Lowenstein. He became Mr. Spacey's traveling companion.” This suggests Rapp’s lawyer think Lowenstein may have critical testimony pertaining to Spacey’s history of child sex abuse.
Rapp’s lawyers continued “Evan Lowenstein's wife got an order of protection against Mr. Spacey being with her children as I understand it.” Judge Kaplan questioned the relevance of this to the current case, although one would think that a parent feeling the need to establish an order of protection against Spacey suggest she perceived him as a threat; but Kaplan seems too oblivious to realize this.
Following Judge Kaplan’s denial of witness C.D’s anonymity request court proceedings adjourned for the day.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Spacey was also recently ordered to pay $31 million to Netflix as a result of a lost arbitration case related to House of Cards.
Tomorrow the Maxwell Trial will continue; the defense will attempt to explain Maxwell’s readily apparent guilt and implication in the largest high profile sex trafficking ring in history. Full coverage will be available from Free Press Report following SDNY Courthouse proceedings also.
The Free Press Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Disclaimer: The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. All statements and expressions herein are the sole opinion of the author or paid advertiser.
The Free Press Report is a publisher of financial information, not an investment advisor. We do not provide personalized or individualized investment advice or information that is tailored to the needs of any particular recipient.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS WEBSITE IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS INVESTMENT ADVICE, AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE AND DOES NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION AS TO THE PRICE AT WHICH THE SECURITIES OF ANY COMPANY MAY TRADE AT ANY TIME. THE INFORMATION AND OPINIONS PROVIDED HEREIN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SPECIFIC ADVICE ON THE MERITS OF ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. INVESTORS SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION AND DECISIONS REGARDING THE PROSPECTS OF ANY COMPANY DISCUSSED HEREIN BASED ON SUCH INVESTORS’ OWN REVIEW OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
No statement or expression of opinion, or any other matter herein, directly or indirectly, is an offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities or financial instruments mentioned.
Any projections, market outlooks or estimates herein are forward looking statements and are inherently unreliable. They are based upon certain assumptions and should not be construed to be indicative of the actual events that will occur. Other events that were not taken into account may occur and may significantly affect the returns or performance of the securities discussed herein. The information provided herein is based on matters as they exist as of the date of preparation and not as of any future date, and the publisher undertakes no obligation to correct, update or revise the information in this document or to otherwise provide any additional material.
The publisher, its affiliates, and clients of the a publisher or its affiliates may currently have long or short positions in the securities of the companies mentioned herein, or may have such a position in the future (and therefore may profit from fluctuations in the trading price of the securities). To the extent such persons do have such positions, there is no guarantee that such persons will maintain such positions.
Neither the publisher nor any of its affiliates accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss howsoever arising, directly or indirectly, from any use of the information contained herein.