Man from Jamaica Indicted on 8 Counts of Guns and Drugs Sale Pleads to a Single Count in SDNY

Man from Jamaica Indicted on 8 Counts of Guns and Drugs Sale Pleads to a Single Count in SDNY by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 28 –   A man from Jamaica indicted on eight counts of selling guns and drugs appeared without notice to plead guilty to a single count on August 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrates Court. Inner City Press was there, the only media in the SDNY Mag court, and live tweeted: Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses: Are you a citizen of the US?  Defendant: No. Judge: Of what country are you a citizen? Defendant: Jamaica.   Judge: Are you under medical treatment? Defendant. Yes. For epilepsy. I didn't get my meds today because of court. Judge: You're OK? Defendant: Yes  Judge: Count 4, which you are pleading to, involves distribution of marijuana on Sept 16, 2025 with possession of a firearm.  AUSA: It was in The Bronx. He sold marijuana and multiple firearms to law enforcement. Judge: Mandatory minimum of five years. The US Attorney's Office has agreed not to argue for any sentence above five years, do you understand?  Defendant: Yes. I sold sixteen bags of marijuana and three guns on September 16, 2025 in The Bronx New York Judge: AUSA, is this satisfactory? AUSA: Yes.   AUSA: The undercover would testify that the defendant sold him a quarter-pound of marijuana and three firearms for $4550. Judge: I will recommend that Judge Kaplan accept your guilty plea. He has set a sentencing date? AUSA: Not yet. Judge: Control date Nov 30 The case is USA v. Moodie, et al., 1:26-cr-185 (Kaplan / Moses) *** 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 Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

As Bank of Nova Scotia Tries to Buy Bank in US Fair Finance Watch FOIA Now Extension

As Bank of Nova Scotia Tries to Buy Bank in US Fair Finance Watch FOIA Now Extension by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SOUTH BRONX/SDNY, Aug 28  – Bank of Nova Scotia proposes to buy a bank in the United States to obtain an FDIC-insured charter to support its U.S. Mortgage Capital Markets business and warehouse lending strategy. But it has a dodgy compliance record (not unlike TD Bank) and the Fed should deny the application.   Fair Finance Watch, after the Federal Reserve refused to act to ensure public access to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data,  has commented to the Fed on the 2025 HMDA data of MapleMark Bank, the target, and on Scotiabank: Dear Chairman Warsh, Secretary McDonough        This comment is submitted on behalf of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch regarding the application by The Bank of Nova Scotia ("Scotiabank" or "BNS") to acquire Maple Financial Holdings, Inc., parent company of MapleMark Bank ("MapleMark"), of Dallas, Texas.  Scotiabank is not acquiring MapleMark for its existing retail or mortgage lending footprint, which is minimal, but to convert a small commercial charter into a much larger funding vehicle for mortgage-related activity. On July 21 BnS' outside law firm filed an ostensible response which essentially counts on the Fed overlooking or excusing the compliance problems in FFW's initial comment, even while withholding information.  Bank of Nova Scotia's response arrived, nine pages from Sullivan & Cromwell, addressing all eight points in the original comment. It did not dispute a single underlying fact — not the $127.5 million spoofing settlement, not the $22.5 million CFTC/SEC recordkeeping penalty, not the $1 million mutual fund fine, not the $9.8 million FACTOR fraud, not the one-loan-to-an-African-American HMDA figure. What it disputed was relevance, applying the identical formula to each: old, resolved, a different regulator, a different country, therefore beside the point. Assembled rather than atomized, the record BNS itself confirms is not old — four regulatory or litigation resolutions across four different business lines, the most recent from March 2026, four months before this application was even filed.  The response also asked the Board to look to BNS's confidential Business Plan for the "complete" picture of what MapleMark Bank is meant to become — a document Fair Finance Watch has separately been seeking to pry loose through a still-pending FOIA request to the Federal Reserve. Pointing regulators and the public to a document the public cannot see is not an answer to a comment; it is a reason to keep asking for the document. Fair Finance Watch has replied to the Fed, renewing the request for a public hearing and asking the Board to weigh the compliance record in its entirety rather than matter by matter.   On August 3, still without any ruling on the withheld Plan, the Fed sent some of its questions to Bank of Nova Scotia. But an annex was withheld, and a FOIA request was sent. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has sent its first round of written questions to Bank of Nova Scotia in the pending MapleMark Bank application — but only the public portion. The letter itself confirms a "separately attached Confidential Annex" containing additional questions was withheld entirely, the same practice now the subject of Inner City Press's federal lawsuit against the Board over a different application, Enova International's bid for Grasshopper Bank. Inner City Press has filed a FOIA request for the Annex, noting this is now the third pending bank merger application in which the Board has hidden its own questions from public view, not merely an applicant's answers.  Inner City Press has direct, adverse experience with this precise practice. In the pending application by Enova International, Inc. to acquire Grasshopper Bank, the Board redacted its own Additional Information Request letters in their entirety, prompting Inner City Press to file suit, Lee v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 1:26-cv-04556-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), in which the Fed itself has yet to make an appearance. What the public questions do reveal validates Fair Finance Watch's own comments on this application. The Fed is asking BNS to detail "any continuing conditions imposed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice or any foreign regulator related to prior settlements or litigation" — the same compliance history, including a $127.5 million spoofing settlement and a $9.8 million fraud matter from earlier this year, that FFW's comment argued the Board must weigh under the managerial resources factor. The Fed is also pressing BNS to substantiate, with specifics, its promise to "explore new methods and opportunities to expand lending, investment and services" to low- and moderate-income communities — precisely the vague, unsupported convenience-and-needs language FFW's comment flagged as insufficient on its own. On August 25, another Fed question letter, again some withheld - and so, another FOIA request:  The Federal Reserve has sent Bank of Nova Scotia a second round of additional information requests, and once again, one full item — Item 4 — is withheld from the public entirely: "See Confidential Annex." What is public, though, is substantive. The Fed is pressing BNS directly to "discuss in greater detail the remedial efforts" it made following four separate enforcement actions: the August 2020 Deferred Prosecution Agreement with DOJ over the bank's spoofing scheme; the May 2023 SEC order against its Scotia Capital (USA) subsidiary; the CFTC's parallel May 2023 order; and a December 2022 settlement between Scotia Securities and Canada's Mutual Fund Dealers Association. The Fed also wants BNS's most recent Canadian regulatory supervisory letter and any available anti-money-laundering assessment from Canada's financial intelligence unit — precisely the compliance-history documentation Fair Finance Watch's comments have argued the Board must weigh under the managerial-resources factor. Inner City Press has filed another FOIA request for a merger applicant's withheld question set. What do the ex parte rules mean? We aim to ask, including in the FOIA case in SDNY. On August 28 the Fed wrote to BNS: "August 28, 2026  Stephen M. Salley Sullivan and Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Dear Mr. Salley: This letter refers to the application filed by The Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto, Canada, to acquire Maple Financial Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire MapleMark Bank, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pursuant to Section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. Section 225.15(d)(2) of Regulation Y provides that an applicant must be notified when a proposal will not be acted upon within 60 days after the acceptance date. The 60th day for this filing is August 29, 2026. The processing period for the applications has been extended to facilitate further review of the statutory factors. The time extension will not exceed the period provided for in section 225.16(f).  From our first comment: The scale of what MapleMark is today, versus what it is intended to become, should be squarely before the Board. We have reviewed MapleMark's full-year 2025 HMDA Loan/Application Register (LEI 2549006V23YD1XWUR350). It contains only one loan to an African American, and five to whites.  Separately, MapleMark's most recent CRA Public Evaluation found that the bank originated zero small business loans in low-income census tracts in its Oklahoma (Tulsa) assessment area, with moderate-income tract lending also falling 8.5 percentage points below the demographic benchmark. Scotiabank's own compliance record warrants close scrutiny in connection with this application. In August 2020, Scotiabank entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and agreed to three separate orders with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, paying a combined $127.5 million to resolve an eight-year scheme (2008–2016) in which its traders engaged in "spoofing" — placing and cancelling orders to manipulate the price of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium futures. Of that total, $17 million was a record penalty specifically for making false and misleading statements to CFTC investigators during an earlier, related 2018 investigation. Scotiabank was required to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years.  In 2023, Scotiabank and its affiliate Scotia Capital (USA), Inc. paid a combined $22.5 million to the CFTC and SEC for recordkeeping failures related to employees conducting bank business over unmonitored personal messaging channels. In 2022, Scotiabank's mutual fund dealer subsidiary paid $1 million in fines and returned $10.8 million to clients after regulators found 46 employees had misrecorded roughly 750 client transactions to inflate sales credits, resulting in the termination of 34 employees. As recently as March 2026, Scotiabank settled litigation with a Canadian nonprofit, FACTOR, after $9.8 million was fraudulently withdrawn from a FACTOR account at Scotiabank; public reporting indicated Scotiabank was less than fully cooperative with the resulting investigation.   Separately, we note and the FRB should inquire into, including at the requested evidentiary hearing, leaked documents from Peru's Financial Intelligence Unit (Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera), which found that Scotiabank's Peru subsidiary, Banco Wiese (rebranded Scotiabank following its 2006 acquisition), was among the banks that had accepted deposits or maintained accounts later connected to individuals and front companies tied to narcotics trafficking, including a company linked to a major Peruvian drug trafficker that moved suspicious transactions through Banco Wiese, BBVA, and BCP between 2000 and 2004.  The Board's review of this application should include whatever independent supervisory information exists regarding Scotiabank's international AML controls, given the reporting's implications for the adequacy of due diligence at Scotiabank's foreign subsidiaries.  This application asks the Board to entrust a materially larger share of the U.S. mortgage funding system to an institution with a recent and repeated pattern of compliance and internal-control failures across trading, recordkeeping, and retail sales practices.  On the current record, the application should be denied.   Evidentiary hearings are needed on this application. There are consumer complaints, but the FRB has declared that even CFPB database complaints, no matter the volume, are not "substantive." We disagree - and ask for a hearing on these issues as well. 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 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 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 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

After Judge Reconfirms Returning Bragg Trump to NYS Court Immediate Appeal to 2d Circuit

After Judge Reconfirms Returning Bragg Trump to NYS Court Immediate Appeal to 2d Circuit by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 28 – Donald Trump filed a notice of removal to Federal court of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's indictment of him in state court, on May 4, 2023.  The notice was assigned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams, but was quickly reassigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, as Inner City Press reported. On June 27, Judge Hellerstein heard argument - and one witness - and telegraphed a written decision within two weeks sending the case back to state court. Inner City Press live tweeted, thread here and below. On July 19, Judge Hellerstein issued a ruling confirming what he had presaged orally at the end of the June 27 oral argument: "ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND re: [17] MOTION to Remand . filed by People of The State of New York. Trump has failed to show that the conduct charged by the Indictment is for or relating to any act performed by or for the President under color of the official acts of a President. Trump also has failed to show that he has a colorable federal defense to the Indictment. For either or both of these reasons, the People's motion to remand the case is granted. The Clerk shall remand the case file to the New York Supreme Court, New York County. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 7/19/23) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing." Full 25 page order on Patreon here Jump cut to August 28, 2026 when, after remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Hellerstein reaffirmed his decision - without noting how DOJ outmaneuvered Bragg's office, at least for now, in the Luigi Mangione cases. From the Order: "Defendant Donald J. Trump, President of the US, moved for leave to file a second notice of removal. I denied his motion but the Court of Appeals vacated... I reaffirm my former decision. The President's motion is denied. My reasons follow" Full order on Patreon here. Shortly afterward: "NOTICE OF APPEAL from [93] Memorandum & Opinion,,. Document filed by Donald J. Trump. Filing fee $ 605.00, receipt number ANYSDC-33355731. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit" Back from June 27, 2023: OK - now NYS v. Trump hearing on removal of Bragg criminal case to Federal court, before SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein.  All rise! Matthew Colangelo "for the People" Todd Blanche/Susan Necheles "for President Trump" Judge Hellerstein: If there is a core of agreed information, it may be good for me to make a rather long opening statement. Donald Trump, previously president of the US  Judge: The statute allows removal if the case concerns acts for or by them under color of their office. Also, the defense would have to be based on Federal law. On April 4, a grand jury in New York County charged defendant with 34 counts, business falsifications  Judge: Defendant met with Michael Cohen, who then met with the CEO of American Media Inc., who agreed to suppress negative stories and to alert Cohen before they were published. There was a story about Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress... Judge: Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000, with the understanding he would be reimbursed. Cohen took it from his home equity.  On February 14, 2017 - Donald Trump was President - Cohen emailed his first invoice requesting $35,000 for January for his retainer Judge: Cohen pled guilty to his role in paying American Media'... On May 4, 2023, Donald Trump removed the case to Federal court. In the notice of removal, he contends that the indictment charges him while he was president with acts within the color of his office Judge: The notice of removal cites the Take Care clause; the notice argues that the defendant hired Cohen solely because he was President & that the indictment was politically motivated. On May 30, the People filed the instant motion to remand. There are 3 issues  Judge: Is or was he an officer? Were the acts under color of his office? And third, does he have a Federal defense? Mr. Colangelo, the floor is yours. Colangelo: The Supreme Court emphasized removal is extraordinary. This defendant has not met the standard Colangelo: These were personal payments. And he cannot establish a colorable Federal defense. He disclaims any duty to separate his affairs. The white paper - Judge Hellerstein: That is not evidence. Colangelo: It could be admitted. Colangelo: Here is a transcript of defendant's January 11, 2017 press conference. It's about the Morgan Lewis white paper We have not filed it with the court. Judge: But this is an evidentiary hearing. We'll need to take evidentiary facts.  Judge: Let's say that a widow of a soldier sent into battle by the President sues the President - that would have to be removed, right? Colangelo: Yes. But a tort action would continue, under Westfall and Carroll v Trump Judge: Mr. Blanche points out that Congressmen have removed under this statute.  Blanche: It is inconceivable that all other Federal officials including elected could remove but, ah shucks, not the President Judge: I agree, but I don't think I'll need that to rule  Colangelo: Writing personal checks, even if he did it in the Oval Office, is not an official act. Look at Matter of Donovan, the former Labor Secretary.  There's also an Ohio case. Judge Hellerstein: As a Federal judge I can write personal checks for milk delivery Colangelo: See Clinton v Jones -- Judge Hellerstein: That was about conduct before Mr. Clinton was President. Here, Mr. Trump says the hiring Cohen relates to the prescriptions of the Constitution. It sounds a little far-fetched but I think that's the argument. Colangelo: We filed a number of those exhibits under seal and we ask that they remain that way. Judge Hellerstein: They are stipulated facts, we can recite them. Why don't you do that? Colangelo: Let me confer with defense counsel. Judge: I'd like 1 of the checks  Colangelo: We're happy to ask the defense which check they would prefer...  Judge Hellerstein: This is a public hearing, I need to make a public record. Go ahead and read them. Colangelo: Exhibit 3, we proffer as evidence there was a private agreement  Colangelo: I'm sorry if I misunderstood from the colloquy we had yesterday [?] Colangelo: It's an exhibit from October 2016. Judge Hellerstein: Mr Blanche, is your microphone working? Blanche: No. Judge Hellerstein: But it was yesterday [??]  Colangelo: People's Exhibit 8 is from First Republic Bank... Exhibit 9, the 11 invoices... Now, pages 10, 11 and 12. Todd Blanche: We'd like to get in Exhibits A and B to my declaration. B is a series of emails from Mr. Cohen  Now Blanche is reading into the record: "Dear All.. I took my place in Ivanka's old office... drop a note telling me how quiet the 26th floor is now that I am gone. Michael Cohen." Also, portions of "Disloyal" - page 308 to 310. Todd Blanche: The Constitution puts a special responsibility on the President - he alone composes a branch of government. So there's not a clear line between his personal and official affairs. He cannot take funds from a state or a foreign government. Blanche: Mr. Cohen says something different every day-- Judge Hellerstein: It doesn't matter when he'd say. He is not here. You've given no documentary support for anything that you're saying. The only one who knows is the President, and he's not here Todd Blanche: If the court wants to hear from Mr. Cohen, find, we can bring him here.  But I don't think it's necessary. Judge Hellerstein: Is there a retainer agreement? Todd Blanche: We have a witness today who we could call.  Give me two minutes... Todd Blanche: We call Alan Garten. Colangelo: We had no notice. We ask to cross examine tomorrow. Judge Hellerstein: Let's see what he has to say first. Alan Garten: I work at the Trump Organization, as chief legal officer since January 2017  Blanche: Are you familiar with Michael Cohen? Garten: Yes, he was a lawyer with the Trump Organization until January 2017. Blanche: Why did he leave? Garten: To be personal attorney to President Trump. Colangelo: Susan Hoffinger will be taking over, for the cross Judge Hellerstein: Change places then, Mr. Colangelo. Garten: People said Mr. Cohen -- Judge Hellerstein: That's hearsay. What is your personal knowledge? Garten: We sent matters about President Trump and the First Lady to Mr. Cohen. Blanche: Why did Mr. Cohen leave? Hoffinger: Objection! Judge Hellerstein: Sustained. Blanche: Can you say why? Judge Hellerstein: Hearsay.  Blanche: What was the reason for separating President Trump from the Trump Organization? Hoffinger: Objection! Judge Hellerstein: Overruled. Garten: Consistent with the Morgan Lewis white paper, to create distance.  Judge Hellerstein: I think you're finished, Mr. Blanche. Hoffinger: Your Honor, we would renew our request - Judge Hellerstein: Ah, do it now. Hoffinger: When attorneys were retained, what was the process? Was there a retainer agreement? Garten: Typically, yes. Hoffinger: For example, with Vinson & Elkins? Garten: I'm not familiar but -- Judge Hellerstein: I think you've made your point. Hoffinger: Was there a retainer with Michael Cohen? Garten: Not that I've seen. Just summary invoices. Hoffinger: I'm going to hand up pages from the general ledger Judge Hellerstein: Go ahead. Garten: I don't believe the decision to separate was not from Morgan Lewis. Hoffinger: They who made the decision? Garten: I did. And Eric Trump. Hoffinger: Nothing further. Judge Hellerstein: Re-direct? Blanche: Briefly your Honor.  Let me show you the ledger. Judge Hellerstein: That payments were sometimes record and sometimes not, I think I have gotten that interesting point. Can we go to another one?  Hoffinger: Was Mr. Dowd hired and paid? With a retainer? Blanche: Objection! Judge Hellerstein: Sustained. Hoffinger: Well did he? Judge Hellerstein: Sustained! Let's move on.  Colangelo: There is no colorable Federal defense. Mr. Blanche claims there is Federal preemption. But that is not possible, as to our falsification of business records charges.  Judge Hellerstein: Your statute deals with falsification with intent of another crime Judge Hellerstein: You're not prosecuting Mr. Trump for violating the elections law - but what if you're prosecuting him for intending to violation the election law? Colangelo: Or there's the tax crime. Pecuniary loss to the state is not required Colangelo: And we know there are violations of Federal elections law - Michael Cohen's guilty plea was accepted by a judge in this courtroom. Thank you. Todd Blanche: We have the right to have a Federal judge hear and decide whether there was any FECA violation  Blanche: The People [of NYS] want this both ways - they want to use the possible Federal election law violation, then say, maybe we have something else. The People are playing games. The previous DA did not move forward  Blanche: What you really have is a charge of Federal election law violation dressed up as a business records case.  Anyway we've shown with the Garten testimony today that Cohen was paid for actual legal work. It doesn't matter if he did a good job or a bad one. Judge Hellerstein: OK, thank you. I've read the papers. I've taken evidence. I've heard oral argument. I intend to write and issue a decision within two weeks. But my present attitudes are, on if the President is an officer who can remove, I decline that issue  Judge Hellerstein: But it seems the President has to be viewed as an official who can remove.  But I need not involve myself in that. But the act for which he has been indicted does not relate to anything about his office. This is about a hush payment Judge Hellerstein: There's no evidence that Cohen did any work for the money, beyond the hush payment. There is no link to any official act of the President. I find that there is no colorable Federal defense raised in defendant's notice of removal. Judge Hellerstein: These are my present attitudes. The written opinion will be the decision. What I have just said is not necessarily binding. We are adjourned. More on Substack here   Back on May 8, Bragg's office filed an "unopposed motion" for a conference, emphasizing that "Defendant's Notice of Removal does not operate to stay the court action (up to the point of entering a judgement of conviction," citing 28 USC Section 1455(b)(3).     Bragg urged a speedy conference to "minimize disruption to New York's "traditional state authority" to punish 'local criminal activity,'" citing Bond v. US, 572 US 844, 858-9 (2014). On May 9, Judge Hellerstein set a schedule: "Any motion for remand, and supporting papers, shall be filed by May 30, 2023; Opposition papers shall be filed by June 15, 2023; Reply papers shall be filed by June 23, 2023. An evidentiary hearing, to the extent that there are disputed issues of fact, and argument as to the law, shall be held June 27, 2023, 2:30 pm."  On May 30, Bragg's office filed, including "Because none of the requirements for federal-officer removal are satisfied in this case, the Court should reject defendant Donald J. Trump’s effort to remove this prosecution from state court."Full memo on Patreon here.  On June 15, near midnight, Trump's lawyers filed their papers including Michael Cohen's emails praising Trump and becoming his personal lawyer. On Patreon here. On June 22, Bragg's office filed a joint letter that " the parties have stipulated that they will not present live witness testimony at the June 27 hearing. To the extent the Court deems it necessary to hear from factual witnesses after the arguments of the parties on June 27, 2023, the defense respectfully requests that the Court schedule such a hearing at a convenient date after June 27, 2023. Third, to the extent a defendant has the right to be physically present at a 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5) hearing under Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, or other authority, defense counsel requests that the Court waive the defendant’s presence at the June 27 hearing. Todd Blanche has represented, and will do so on the record on June 27, that he has discussed with the defendant any rights he may have to be present at the Section 1455(b)(5) hearing and the defendant has voluntarily waived such rights." Full letter on Patreon here On June 23, Bragg's office filed its opposition to removal, arguing that Trump "has not raised a colorable defense of Supremacy Clause immunity" nor "of federal preemption."  Inner City Press will be reporting on the case, as it has on the Carroll v. Trump trial in SDNY.   This case is People of the State of New York v. Trump, 23-cv-3773 (Hellerstein).  More on Bragg's other recent SDNY case including analysis on Substack 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. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222 NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com