Harvey Weinstein is heading to court to be arraigned on a new indictment.

A spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office said that Weinstein's appearance has been scheduled for Monday, August 26, and that the matter is expected to be called at approximately 9.30am.

Weinstein will then return to court two weeks later for his criminal trial, which is set to begin in September 9 and last six weeks.

The 67-year-old mogul is charged with two counts of rape, a count of criminal sex act and two counts of predatory sexual assault for allegedly raping a woman in 2013 and sexually assaulting another in 2006.

'This Monday, Harvey Weinstein will appear in court for what is an unprecedented fourth arraignment in his criminal matter. There has been no case in recent memory where a district attorney has gone back to the Grand Jury on two separate occasions to re-present a case before that body in the hopes of obtaining an indictment that can withstand the scrutiny of a trial jury,' said Weinstein's attorneys Donna Rotunno and Arthur Aidala in a statement.

'This action by the prosecutor bespeaks the desperation that has engulfed their case. We have reached the point where one must be concerned that these desperate measures indicate more of a focus on obtaining a conviction at all costs than on seeking justice.'

Scroll down for video

Court order: Harvey Weinstein (above) will appear in Manhattan Criminal Court on Monday to be arraigned on new charges ahead of his trial, which starts on September 9

Weinstein had attempted to have the charges against him dismissed in a hearing back in December, but that motion was denied by the judge.

Oscar-winner Marisa Tomei, Amber Tamblyn, Michelle Hurd, Jennifer Esposito and Kathy Najimy were just a few of the Hollywood stars sitting in the gallery for the proceedings that day.

The women were all wearing Time's Up shirts.

'The court finds that there is no basis for the defendant's claim of prosecutorial or law enforcement misconduct in the proceedings, or pervasive falsity in and around the Grand Jury presentation,' read the judge's ruling.

'Moreover there is no basis in law that the conduct of law enforcement must be imputed to the prosecutor. '

Weinstein had argued that the Grand Jury was not presented evidence that would have established the nature of the relationship between himself and his accusers.

These included emails he sent with one victim and texts from another thanking him for his help in securing a job.

One of the women was also advised to delete text messages by a member of law enforcement.

The women chose not to speak ahead of the hearing, but Najimy did state: 'I’m here to hear the proceeding and support survivors.'

The judge ultimately ruled that Weinstein would face rape charges, saying that the indictment would not be dismissed in the case.

The actresses who appeared in court all did so in support of the victims and Time's Up movement.

The disgraced mogul was looking to have the five remaining charges that have been filed against him dismissed, and in a letter earlier this month his lawyer lashed out at a comment made by prosecutors.

'The defendant has a misguided and antiquated view of how a rape victim should react after having been assaulted,' wrote prosecutor Kevin Wilson in response to a letter submitted to the court.

Standing strong: Michelle Hurd and Kathy Najimy (above) wearing Time's Up T-shirts during a December court appearance

In the letter, Weinstein's lawyer wrote: 'What is misguided and antiquated is the breathtaking assertion by the prosecution that it was free to present the Grand Jury in this case with a knowingly incomplete, untrue, and distorted picture of the true facts of this case and thereby suppress from the Grand Jury critical exculpatory evidence which went directly to Mr. Weinstein's factual innocence of any criminal wrongdoing.'

The attack did not stop there, going on to accuse witnesses of being untruthful.

'Contrary to what Mr. Wilson would have us believe, the issue before this Court is one of law and not political correctness,' read the letter.

'At the time they made their presentment to the Grand Jury in this case, the prosecution (1) failed to present witness statements which revealed material untruths told by the complaining witnesses and (2) willfully chose not to present documentary evidence which reflected immediate and then continuing contact with the alleged rapist-beginning just hours after the alleged rape and continuing on for several years thereafter.'