Sunday, February 7, 2021

After Professor Arrested For UN Linked Lobbying For Iran He Wants To Rep Himself

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, Jan 29 – A professor is charged with violation US law by lobbying for Iran and its Mission to the UN, including a US Congress members, without registering under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act.   

The US Attorney for the EDNY has charged Kaveh Lotfolah Afrasiabi, also known as “Lotfolah Kaveh Afrasiabi,” with acting and conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in violation of FARA.  Full complaint on Patreon, here.

Afrasiabi was arrested on January 18 at his home in Watertown, Massachusetts, and appeared on January 19 in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts, before United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal.  Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

Now on January 29, it emerges that lobbyist Afrasiabi wants to represent himself: "ORDER as to Kaveh Lotfolah Afrasiabi *** At the request of Mr. Keefe, who has been advising the defendant, the case is set down for arraignment before me at February 10 at 10 AM. I will then address the defendant's pro se request to represent himself. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 1/29/2021." Accompanying this are some emails, now on Patreon here. Watch this site.

  Inner City Press will stay on this case.

 On the morning of January 19, given the multiple references in the complaint to the UN, Inner City Press in writing asked UN Sec-Gen Antonio Guterres and his spokespeople Stephane Dujarric and Melissa Fleming, "What are comments and actions if any of SG Guterres on today's EDNY indictment of Kaveh Lotfolah Afrasiabi, a/k/a “Lotfolah Kaveh Afrasiabi,” with acting and conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in violation of US FARA?"  

Hours later, no answer, on that, or the UN Federal Credit Union's role.  Inner City Press was by Guterres banned from attending the UN noon briefing to ask - this while the UN gives multiple taxpayer funded office to Iran state media.  No one else allowed in asked about the case.

In fact in the UN noon briefing Inner City Press was banned from, this from Iranian state media:

UN Spokesman Dujarric: Mohsen?     

Question:  Thank you, Stéphane. My question is about the Iran’s voting rights over unpaid dues. The Iranian officials say they have been in talks with the Secretariat for now to resolve this issue. Also, they believe the main problem is US [audio gap, inaudible] unilateral sanctions. Can you explain the latest developments and efforts that have been made to solve this problem? 

    Spokesman Dujarric:  There are two... thank you for the question. There are two separate issues. As you state, it is... we have, in fact, been in close touch with the Permanent Mission of Iran, as well as other relevant Iranian authorities. It's clear from our side that Iran is keen to find a way to pay into the UN budget. But, as you know, I think there... specific circumstances are making such payments difficult to transfer. But we have been in discussions; we will continue to be in discussions and we fully recognise the goodwill of the Iranian authorities to try to find a solution. We're all trying to find a solution.

  Today's UN is corrupt - Guterres only cares about getting money, not complying with any law.

 From the complaint:  

AFRASIABI received more than $265,000 from the IMUN in checks payable to him and drawn on official bank accounts held in the name of the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations. The memo lines of many of the most recently issued checks have explicitly described the payments as “salary.” 78. Many of the payments made to AFRASIABI by officials of the GOI assigned to the IMUN since 2012 have been drawn on the IMUN’s bank account at a financial institution in Long Island City in Queens, New York." 

Would that be the UN Federal Credit Union, about which Inner City Press has previously reported, before being banned by Guterres, now seeking a second term as UNSG? Watch this site.


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.

In Larry Ray Sex Cult Case Now Isabella Pollok Also Indicted and Released on Bond in SDNY

By Matthew Russell Lee, ThreadPatreon
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 21 – When Larry Ray was arraigned on charges of sexual exploitation, prostitution, forced labor and money laundering on February 12, he was wearing prison blues and still had a Federal Defender, but no financial affidavit to have FD appointed. Twitter theadette; More on Patreon here. 

 On May 29 SDNY Judge Lewis J. Liman held a telephone conference, which Inner City Press live tweeted (below) and at which it was said, no legal visits in the MCC until June 30 at earliest.

  Now on January 29, there is a co-defendant who has been indicted and then released on bond: Isabella Pollak. The next indicted was unsealed and Pollak was presented before SDNY Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. She was released on $100,000 bond and told, no contact with victims. Inner City Press will have more on this.

 On November 20, 2020 Judge Liman held aproceeding in the case. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below.

On January 8, the US Attorney's Office opposed Ray's motion to suppress. They say he was read his Miranda rights, was taken to the bathroom, and did not lose his balance. He said he took Adderall; "the law enforcement officers declined to provide Ray with another person's prescription medication."

Now, the hearing on the suppression motion which was set to be virtual is adjourned, at the defense's request, until in-person proceedings are possible: " MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Lawrence Ray (1) granting [121] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Marne Lynn Lenox dated January 21, 2021 re: Suppression Hearing. ENDORSEMENT: GRANTED. The Motion Hearing scheduled for February 12, 2021 is canceled. The court will hold an in-person hearing when the Covid-19 protocols permit the Court to do so. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 1/21/2021)."

In a separate filing, the US Attorney's Office opposes Ray's fourth application for release on bail. Another filing justifies the search warrant on 40 Holly Lane. Inner City Press will have more on this.

From November 20: Judge Liman begins with the Due Process Protections Act script - not including what seems to be for some judges a new paragraph about the government's right to ask for an exception for national security, etc. The 5(f) script is in evolution - District by District?

Judge Liman to his credit says he thinks he made a mistake with the phrasing of the subpoenas - but his preliminary view is that he will not cure it in the way the US Attorney as asking

Judge Liman says he is considering quashing some subpoenas he has issued for the defense and re-issue them. He says as to Jane Doe 1, only New York Presbyterian has records.   Note: At issue are medical and mental health records of Ray's victims.

AUSA Danielle Sassoon: There are several bases to quash these subpoenas. They don't comply with Rule 17; they are transparent attempts to get impeachment material, not permissible at this point at of the case. We don't even know if these victims would be witnesses

AUSA Sassoon: We have evidence that Mr. Ray took advantage of victims' weaknesses, that several attempted suicide and he then interfered in their mental care.... Our grand jury subpoenas are not subject to the "Nixon" test

AUSA Sassoon: In some cases, victims cut their parents out of their medical care and let Mr. Ray to speak with their doctors. Judge Liman: But then doesn't the defense have a right to information about whether the medical care was interfered with?

Judge Liman: Make me a proffer as to how the government would prove up interference with medical care without using the medical records. AUSA Sassoon: We distinguish what the victims said to their treatment providers.

Judge Liman: Is the victim going to say Mr. Ray told them to cut the parents out? AUSA: Yes, I anticipate testimony about guidance Mr. Ray gave... Meanwhile, the defense's subpoenas are too broad, including time periods after the victim's relationship with Mr. Ray FD Lenox: I think Mr. LaVerne [for Jane Doe] covered the argument, but I'm happy to take questions.

Judge Liman: Why shouldn't subpoena returns come to me for in camera review. I'm the one who's going to try the case and there's a value to seeing them in advance

FD Lenox: I want to be careful here, but one of the Jane Does told the treatment provider she was not there due to actions of Mr. Ray -- Jane Doe's lawyer objects. Judge Liman: Let's go hypothetical. [He has another criminal proceeding at noon]

Larry Ray himself speaks up: "I have a question." FD Lenox: I think it's better you speak to me... I don't know if there's time... Could we address your question privately? Ray: OK.

AUSA Sassoon: If your Honor finds that the Nixon standard has not been satisfied, the records should not be produced to anyone. Doe's lawyer LaVerne wants already produced records to be sequestered - by both sides. It is so ordered.

Afterward Ray stayed on the call, saying, Hello? Hello? Inner City Press hung up.

   On September 4 the US Attorney's Office said in person legal visits in the MCC would re-start on September 21. This came in a proceeding that Inner City Press live tweeted, with notes on the (lack of) press and public access, the troubling creation of a "no-dissemination" category on which the press and public is not heard. See below.

On November 13, a Jane Doe filed this: "Re: United States v. Lawrence Ray, 20-CR-110 (LJL) Dear Judge Liman: I represent Jane Doe, a non-party granted leave to intervene in this matter. (See ECF Dkt. No. 70). On November 5, 2020, we received from the government copies of records it has obtained by grand jury subpoena from certain of Jane Doe’s medical providers. We had not previously been provided with these documents. Having reviewed them, it is apparent that they contain information that is privileged pursuant to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, a privilege that Jane Doe has not waived (see October 20, 2020 Reply Ltr. at 7-8) and which she continues to assert. Accordingly, we have asked the government and the defense (which apparently received these records in discovery) to sequester the records until the Court has heard argument on the pending motions to quash and had an opportunity to address this issue. We are also working to provide to the parties by early next week a version of the records indicating which portions we believe should be redacted as privileged. We would be happy to provide the same to the Court should it wish to receive them."  We'll have more on this.

 On October 22, the trial was pushed back, and the domain names will be sold by the US Marshals: "Reschedule Briefing as to Lawrence Ray.  The Court grants parties request for an adjournment of motion deadlines as follows: Defense motions due 12/7/2020; Government response due 1/8/2021; and Defense reply due 1/22/2021. The Jury Trial previously set for May 10, 2021 is RESCHEDULED to July 12, 2021 at 10:00AM. The Court excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) from October 22, 2020 to July 12, 2021 upon the findings that the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial in that the time between now and July 12, 2021 is necessary for the parties to produce and review discovery and for the preparation of motions and for the preparation for trial (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 10/22/20) (jw)" and "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Lawrence Ray on re: [49] MOTION for an Order for the Interlocutory Sale of Property filed by USA. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT The United States Marshals Service (the "USMS") or its designee, is authorized to conduct an interlocutory sale of the Domain Names. In furtherance of the interlocutory sale of the Domain Names, the Domain Names may be seized by the USMS pending the interlocutory sale, by service of this order on GoDaddy. RAY and any others, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy, shall fully cooperate with the USMS or its designee in relation to the seizure and interlocutory sale of the Domain Names."

On October 5, the US Attorney's office asked to quash Ray's Federal Defenders' subpoenas for victims' medical records, including therapy records, claiming "a potential violation of FRCP 17 and FRE 501."

 Federal Defenders disagreed, writing to Judge Liman that he has approved these subpoenas.

 On October 13, Judge Liman ruled: "in order to preserve the status quo pending receipt of the defense's papers in opposition, the Court ORDERS that compliance with the subpoenas identified at Dkt. No. 78-1 as well as all other subpoenas authorized for issuance by the Court's orders of September 18, 2020, be stayed. See United States v. Crutchfield, 2014 WL 2569058 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014). Defense counsel is ORDERED to inform the recipients of such orders that compliance with the Court's orders has been stayed. Because trial is not scheduled until May 10, 2021, the defense also will suffer no prejudice by a brief stay so the Court can consider the competing arguments. The Court denies without prejudice the Government's application to the extent that it seeks orders requiring the defense to inform it of the subpoena responses it has already received and to advise the Government of any other subpoenas it has served. The application is also denied insofar as it requires the defense to turn over any records it has received from any subpoenas of medical records. The Court will consider those applications after it has received a response from defense counsel. The Court does ORDER, however, that the subpoenaed materials be treated as sensitive under the protective order in this case pending a determination by the Court whether they were properly subpoenaed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 10/13/2020)."

  On September 11 the US Attorney's Office argued again that discovery is private, not for public review or transparency: "the defense has not proffered any basis to disregard the presumption that “discovery is a private process between the parties to an action,” and is “not presumptively accessible” to others. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 519." Inner City Press will continue to report on this case, and not just what the US Attorney's Office, which held a press conference announcing the indictment, wants the public to know about it.

 On September 14, Judge Liman ruled, including "Neither the Government proposal nor the defense proposal sufficiently captures the Court’s intention. The Government proposal would limit the protection of the protective order to information that could subject a person to intimidation or obstruction or risk of harm without protecting from broad disclosure information that substantially affects the privacy of an individual. It also provides no criteria for the Court to determine whether Disclosure Material is Sensitive or Confidential. The defense proposal addresses the flaws of the Government proposal but has two flaws of its own: the definition of Confidential Disclosure Material accords protection without the need for the Government to show a threat of intimidation or obstruction or risk of harm, but it limits the definition to information “that substantially affects witnesses’ privacy”. It does not address information that substantially affects the privacy of an individual who may not be a witness. The definition of Sensitive Disclosure Material would leave it entirely to the Government to determine whether disclosure would create a risk of intimidation or obstruction or harm without any requirement that the Government’s belief be well founded. It thus could defeat the objective of subjecting the designations to challenge and judicial review. In other respects the definition of Sensitive Disclosure Material provided by both sides is too narrow. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the defense proposal with the following edits: (1) the definition of “Sensitive Disclosure Material” should be amended to reach “information that affects the privacy of individuals, and identifies, or could lead to the identification of, witnesses who the Government has a well-founded belief may be subject to intimidation or obstruction, or whose lives, persons, and property, as well as the lives, persons and property of loved ones, the Government has a well-founded belief will be subject to risk of harm absent the protective considerations set forth herein.” and (3) the language “contains information that exposes personal information that substantially affects witnesses’ privacy” should be replaced with the language “contains information that exposes personal information that substantially affects the privacy of an individual.” 1 The Government proposal is also explicit in stating that the Government has the burden of establishing good cause for its designation of disclosure material as sensitive, but it is implicit always that the party who designates disclosure or discovery material under a protective order has the burden of establishing that the material was properly designated if the designation is challenged. Dkt. No. 55-2 ¶ 8.

The differences between paragraph 8 of the Government proposal and paragraph 9 of the defense proposal are minor: the Court always has the power to set a deadline for a response. The Court finds it easier to have a default date of seven days for a Government response absent a Court order for both types of challenges but will accord the Government more than seven days for a response upon application by the Government. 3. Finally, paragraph 6 of the Government’s proposed protective order should be revised to replace the language “Disclosure material” at the beginning of the first sentence with “Sensitive or confidential disclosure material.” The Government is ordered to submit a proposed amended protective order consistent with this Order by no later than September 18, 2020."

The September 4 thread:

Judge Liman says due to COVID pandemic and difficulties of Federal Defenders meeting with Ray, he's prepared to postpone trial past January 19. Also today: A request to release Ray on bail, to help prepare his defense.

 Judge Liman: The defense has raised serious concerns about Mr. Ray having access to discovery. For that reason, I'm going to defer ruling on release request until I hear and perhaps rule on issues of early disclosure of Brady and witness list and the like.

 Federal Defender Lenox: Our request as to the sensitive materials, we're not asking the court to rule piece by piece. There's only a small percentage in dispute. We are proposing a mechanism to rule on those so Mr Ray can see it if he stays in custody

FD: We agree that nude videos are sensitive. But we would ask the court to review handwritten confessions. These things are exculpatory.

 [Note: FD wants to use sealing of evidence as way to get Ray out of jail. Press has asked to UNseal the evidence - which would also take this "Free Larry Ray" argument off the table.]

The case is US v. Ray, 20-cr-110 (Liman).


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.

Man Who Punched Capitol Police Jan 6 Says Has Bad Memory Now Barred For State Capitals

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, Jan 29 –  Two days after in the US Capitol among other things Mark Leffingwell stuck a Capitol Police officer repeatedly with a closed fist, he was released to fly back to him home in Seattle, no GPS monitor, no bond. 

Inner City Press covered the case.   U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey held the detention, or really non-detention, proceeding. Inner City Press live tweeted it here:  (then, song here)

   Now on January 29, Leffingwell appeared by video from Washington State before DDC Judge Amy B. Jackson. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:

Judge Jackson: The arraignment in this case cannot be further delayed.... Defense, do you have concerns about his competence?

Defense lawyer: He does have memory issues, from an IED in Iraq.

 Clerk: Mr. Leffingwell, how do you plead? Defense lawyer: He plead not guilty. And he is not demanding a speedy trial. There will be extensive discovery.

Judge Jackson: We'll have to exclude time each time. Has he read the

conditions of release? Defense: Yes. Judge Jackson: I want to make sure the firearm was returned to the friend. Defense: It has been.

Judge Jackson: What is his employment? Defense: He works in a factory. I believe it is packaging. Judge Jackson: Is that full time? Leffingwell: 20 to 30 hour a week.

 Judge Jackson: Is the government seeking any additional conditions of release? US: No.

Judge Jackson: I was struck by the no return to DC condition. At the time of the attack, there was info of activities planned at state capitals. Should they be included?

Defense: We're not opposed to that. He's a disabled veteran. Judge Jackson: I'm going to add that as a condition. Stay away from a state capitals, since you don't live in one. What's the status of the case? Does the government have all the video?

Defense: I'd like 60 days. The government will have to get the video from cameras most people don't know about. AUSA: There's surveillance video, we'll be seeking a protective order. It captures Mr. Leffingwell's conduct. We may be moving for complex case status

Judge Jackson: I turn protective orders around very quickly. Everyone knows my point of view about it.  Defense: I'm supposed to start a trial before Judge Kelly, a client incarcerated two years now. But I don't know if [Chief] Judge Howell's order will be expanded...  Judge Jackson: I'd make our next one by video. Noon on March 31. Defense: In count 1 and count 2, there's no cross reference to sentencing guidelines. Could the court direct Probation to do a calculation so I can advise Mr. Leffingwell.

Judge Jackson: I'll ask... OK, I'll see you on March 31 if not before. We are adjourned.

 Inner City Press will continue to cover this case.

From January 8: in Federal Court in DC, hearing of detained  Mark Jefferson LEFFINGWELL who "attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist."

Assistant US Attorney is *not* asking for detention . He'll be allowed to travel back home to Seattle.

 AUSA: We'll be requesting strict conditions... A stay-away from DC... A curfew.  Judge: You say he works. What is it? Lawyer: A packaging plant called Panacea in Everett, Washington. 30 to 40 hours a week.

 From the complaint: "I was struck in the helmet that I was wearing and in the chest. Working with other officers, I was able to gain control over LEFFINGWELL, who attempted to struggle while being detained. I transported LEFFINGWELL to US Capitol Police HQ."

Judge Harvey: Believe it or not, I have a lot of these case. Pre-Trial should find out about GPS in the Districts where these folks come from. I released someone else yesterday. Defense: GPS is not necessary. He has 2 children.

Defense: He wants to go to church on the weekend. No need to be on a GPS. We'll take a stay away. He's never been to DC before.

Mrs. Leffingwell: I'm an insurance agent. We have a son, Noah, and Nicholas. Judge: I am going to release Mr. Leffingwell.

Judge: You can turn in your guns to a police station. You must call pre-trial once a week and keep working [at the packaging plant.] Stay away from DC except for court. Our proceedings will be remote, you probably won't have to come.

 Judge Harvey: I don't see the point of putting him on a curfew if we're not going to do GPS. Defense: He needs his ID to fly back to Seattle.

AUSA: We have nothing.

 Defense: He passed his phone to one of his friends. I think they have his license.

AUSA: A third party? I can look for it. Which agency.

Defense: He was brought to 1-D-1, next to the baseball field, then the cell block.

Judge Harvey: I am going to release Mr Leffingwell. He must stay away from Washington DC. [That seems to be the main focus]

Judge Harvey: You'll have to Zoom in to the preliminary hearing... We've got the phone number, no worries, Mr. Leffingwell.

Song on SoundCloud here.


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.

Ari Teman Said His Lawyer May Have Spied For SDNY Now Letter Briefing Schedule

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 28 – Ari Teman, raising prosecutorial misconduct up to the day of his scheduled sentencing on December 1, learned on that day that his defense lawyer is married to a prosecutor. Now he has formally requested the return of his retainer and restitution, see below.

 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held the December 1 proceeding. Inner City Press covered and tweeted it.

   From the first moment, Judge Engelmayer said he would not be imposing sentence in the proceeding. He expressed amazement that the conflict wasn't disclosed to him, particularly by the prosecutors usually so fast to request so-calls Curcio hearings. He discovered it as he prepared remarks about having known the lawyer.

  But a simple Internet search finds that defense lawyer Noam Korati Biale of Sher Tremonte LLP is married to Margaret Graham, who appears working an SDNY prosecutor in press releases.   

  Teman added that Biale and Sher Tremonte were specifically retained to work on Brady disclosure issues, citing US v. Nejad, US v. Ahuja and other cases covered by Inner City Press.

He also noted that since people are working at home, it is more possible for spouses to overhear each other's work.

So sentencing was adjourned, as were the Bank of America issues Inner City Press covered earlier in the day, here.

Now on January 28, this: "ORDER as to Ari Teman: The sentencing hearing for defendant Ari Teman was scheduled for December 1, 2020, but was terminated shortly after it began after the Court identified the need for a Curcio hearing in order to permit Sher Tremonte LLP, which had recently appeared on Mr. Teman's behalf, torepresent him alongside trial counsel. The Court has since granted a series of adjournments to enable Mr. Teman to secure alternative post-trial counsel. Yesterday, notices of appearance for Mr. Teman were filed by Susan G. Kellman, Esq., and Andrew J. Frisch, Esq. See Dkts. 199, 200. The Court welcomes new counsel, for whom the Court has great esteem. Although the sentencing record otherwise appears complete, the Court, before setting a new sentencing date, would benefit from receiving letter submissions from counsel addressing the following discrete points: 1. Bail pending appeal: The Court wishes to reach a determination, before imposing sentence, on whether it will grant bail pending appeal. That is because the Court regards it as relevant to the reasonable and proper sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) whether Mr. Teman is likely to be incarcerated at a time when the restrictive and difficult conditions attendant to the COVID-19 pandemic remain in place. In numerous cases involving defendants who either have been in custody since March 2020 and/or who have been about to enter custody, the Court has imposed a shorter sentence than it otherwise would have, in recognition of the heightened rigors of custody during the pandemic. That factor would be present were Mr. Teman to commence serving his sentence not long after the upcoming sentencing, but would not clearly be so were the Court to grant bail pending appeal. The Court therefore solicits counsels' views on whether Mr. Teman qualifies for bail pending appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b); United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122 (1985).2. Restitution and forfeiture: On the eve of the December 1, 2020 sentencing, the Government submitted evidentiary materials in support of a proposed forfeiture order that, had Mr. Teman's representation issue not arisen, independently would have required an adjournment. The Court wishes to resolve, in an orderly fashion, what the appropriate restitution order is, and whetherand if so, on what termsa forfeiture order is also warranted, as the Government has urged. The Court therefore solicits counsels' views as to whether and on what terms restitution and/or forfeiture orders are merited. The Court accordingly sets the following schedule: By Friday, February 12, 2021, the defense is to submit a memorandum setting out its views on bail pending appeal, and the Government is to submit a memorandum setting out its views on restitution and forfeiture, attaching proposed such orders and evidentiary material supporting the monetary calculations in those orders. By Friday, February 26, 2021, the Government is to respond to the defense's memorandum as to bail pending appeal, and the defense is to respond to the Government's memorandum as to forfeiture and restitution. The Court does not invite replies to these submissions. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/28/2021)"

  If a defendant with retained counsel runs into a conflict like this, and can't get retainer returned, how to secure substitute counsel? Watch this site.

The case is US v. Teman, 19-cr-696 (Engelmayer)


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.

In DC Insurrection Cases A Doctor Who Travels and Car Repairman With Two Cabins with YouTube

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, Jan 28 – Several Capitol insurrection cases on January 28, which Inner City Press live tweeted, here:

Nolan Cooke. US quotes: "I opened my snapchat and I noticed a guy I once knew participated in the riots around the capital on January 6th. The guys name in Nolan Cooke, he is 22 and from Savoy, Texas."

Judge Harvey says he doesn't understand why the US Attorney's Office is asking for different conditions. He asks for a sealed "Break-out room." 

Why is this sealed?

Now up, Chad Jones. US says "W-1 identified the man in the red jacket and gray cap as his family member CHAD JONES of Mount Washington, KY.  JONES later told W-1 that JONES had been using a rolled up “Trump flag.”

Chad Jones is permitted to visit two cabins he rents out, in order to maintain them. Judge Harvey (understandable) errs and calls it Western District of Texas. [These cases are all over. It's Kentucky.]

Jones has no passport. "Not at the moment."  Judge Harvey: I do approve, beyond YouTube for your vehicle repair business, you to use the MyCase app to communicate with your lawyer.

Now up, defendant Terry Brown, with retained counsel who's applying for admission to the DDC bar. There is an Information in this case, so Brown will be arraigned. He pleads not guilty. AUSA: We are not seeking detention. Stay away from DC.

 Next up, Dr. Simone Gold (with retained counsel) and Jonathan Strand (with publicly-funded lawyer). Pre-trial wants employment verification for Doctor Gold, saying it requires her to travel. Her counsel is texting her to ask. Strand can't find his passport.

 Dr. Gold is part of "America's Frontline Doctors" and travels all over. Judge Harvey: Must notify before traveling.

Inner City Press live tweeted Riley June Williams on January 25, here. 

  From January 22, song here: Thread here.

 Inner City Press' John Earle Sullivan song on SoundCloud here. 


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.