Friday, September 4, 2020

As Avenatti Gets Free Lawyer in Stormy Case Seeks To Seal Info As Inner City Press Opposes


By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Radio
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 27 – When after three days of jury selection the trial of Michael Avenatti for allegedly extorting Nike began on January 29, Assistant US Attorney Robert Sobelman told the selected jurors that Avenatti was supposed to look out for the interests of his client, but he did not - he had a weapon, social media.  More on 1st day on Patreon here.

 On August 7 in the Stormy Daniels case, Avenatti had motions heard by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jesse M. Furman. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

 Now on August 27, Inner City Press has filed a formal request that documents in the case not be sealed, full filing on Patreon here: "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Inner City Press and its undersigned reporter, in personal capacity, will move this Court before Honorable Jesse M. Furman, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at a date and time directed by the Court, for entry of an order granting permission to the heard on/and the unsealing of the CJA Form 23 and associated documents including but not limited to affidavit in US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF) pursuant to Docket No. 86 in that case and the Court's inherent power, and such other and further relief as the Court deem just and proper. 

   As the Court is aware, the public and the press have a presumptive First Amendment and common law right of access to criminal proceedings and records. See Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984). The presumption of openness can only be overcome if “specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986) Non-parties such as Inner City Press and myself have standing to intervene in criminal proceedings to assert the public’s right of access. United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008).  

    Only this month in SDNY Magistrates Court the content of CJA Form 23s have been read out in the public record, including for the appointment of Federal Defenders. See, e.g., US v. Castro, et al., 20-mj-8994 (Freeman) & here.

 Those and other defendants whose CJA Form 23 and financial information have been disclosed including in Magistrates Court this month had the same arguments as made by Federal Defenders in their August 21, 2020 letter, that the information might be used against them. And yet the other defendants' information was disclosed.

   While Inner City Press' interests are journalistic, since Federal Defenders states that "there is no dispute over Mr. Avenatti's eligibility to be represented by Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., " for the record consider this letter as disputing that, including in light of the sums of money discussed and proved in the Nike trial before Judge Gardephe. If despite this defendant still claims there is no dispute about eligibility, consider this a request for a hearing (or additional, focused letter briefing) on that issue.     As stated in US v. Harris, 707 F.2d at 663 (which Federal Defenders asserts is distinguishable but we contend is not), facts should be determined through adversarial proceedings.    While beyond the scope of this letter, the Court could limit the use in this case by the prosecution of the unsealed information, without unnecessarily overriding the presumption of public access. Here, the sealing(s) and withholding of the CJA Form 23 and affidavit in their entirety go beyond those requested even in the CIA trial before Judge Crotty, US v. Schulte, 17 Cr. 548.    

 In that case, Inner City Press vindicated the public's right to know, in the docket, see here and here.  Inner City Press recently got even more sensitive filings unsealed in a North Korea sanctions case before Judge Castel, US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15 (PKC), Docket No. 33 (LETTER by EMAIL as to Virgil Griffith addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, dated 5/18/2020, re: Press Access to documents in US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15), 40 (order to unseal) and 41 unsealed filings). See also Inner City Press' May 9, 2020, filing to this Court for openness in US v. Randall, 19-cr-131,  No. 343.  

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that reporting by the news media allows members of the public to monitor the criminal justice system without attending proceedings in person. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 U.S. at 572-73  (1980). By attending and reporting on court proceedings, members of the press "function[] as surrogates for the public." Id. at 573.   Inner City Press has covered the case(s) against Mr. Avenatti for some time, see e.g., May 13, 2020, ESPN Louisville Sports Live, "On this episode of LSL, the guys speak with court reporter, Matthew Russell Lee about the lack of fallout from the evidence exposed about Nike in the Michael Avenatti trial," for example on radio here.

    Inner City Press and I are submitting this a day early in part because we are unsure if the US Attorney's Office will be pushing for openness to the public. In another pending case, US v. Edwards, 19-cr-64 (GHW), the Office had initially said that documents submitted by the defendant (described as the leaker of Paul Manafort's Suspicious Activity Reports) should be put in the public docket. Then, while Inner City Press is pursuing that, the US Attorney's Office has stopped pushing. So, just to preview, we may seek leave to sur-reply depending on what not only the defendants / Federal Defenders but also the US Attorney's Office have to say.   

Federal Defenders say that the US Attorney's Office lacks third-party standing to assert any right on behalf of the public to access the defendant's sworn financial statements, cited US v. Hickey, 185 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). But here, Inner City Press is timely asserting the public and press' right of access.    The documents at issue should not be sealed and should be made available. Please confirm receipt & docket this timely responsive filing. Thank you.  Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press." We'll have more on this.

This case is US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (Furman).

 

***

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

US Attorney Seeks Blanket Protective Orders Before SDNY Judges Gardephe After Nathan

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Patreon

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 28 – The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York has begun systematically requesting or demanding blanket protective orders, in case from false complaints to felon in possession of a firearm and, as Inner City Press will soon oppose, sex trafficking.

  In the first case, Cortez Fowlkes is charged with making false 911 calls claiming that people were drowning in the Hudson and Harlem rivers.

Then the U.S. Attorney's Office sought a protective order for the discovery it would produce, reported saying it did not want to "see the information on Twitter."   

 On August 19, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Alison Nathan held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it.  

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mitzi S. Steiner told Judge Nathan that the discovery would show law enforcement techniques - nearly always the case - and arguing that "finally, the defendant files to articule why public access to pre-trial discovery is warranted in this case."  

But this reverses the presumption of public and press access, as this U.S. Attorney's Office is doing or colluding through silence in doing more and more.

Judge Nathan  rejected the proposed protective order.

That case is US v. Fowlkes, 20-cr-309 (Nathan)

 On August 28 Judge Paul G. Gardephe rejected a similar blanket protective order in the felon in possession prosecution US v. Hoskins, 20-cr-399 (Gardephe). Judge Gardephe said that redaction of such information as Tax IDs would be preferable. The case was put back on for October 2.

He also noted that he faces a similar request for a blanket protective order in US v. Dejesus, et al., 20-cr-397 (Gardephe).

And Inner City Press is aware of, and will be opposing, a similar attempt to go further and submit discovery material into the record before a judge in a sex trafficking case while withholding it in full from the Press and public. 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.

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

As Avenatti Seeks To Seal Info in SDNY Stormy Case Inner City Press Gets Leave To Be Heard

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Radio

BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 29 – When after three days of jury selection the trial of Michael Avenatti for allegedly extorting Nike began on January 29, Assistant US Attorney Robert Sobelman told the selected jurors that Avenatti was supposed to look out for the interests of his client, but he did not - he had a weapon, social media.  More on 1st day on Patreon here.

 On August 7 in the Stormy Daniels case, Avenatti had motions heard by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jesse M. Furman. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

 On August 27, Inner City Press filed a formal request that documents in the case not be sealed, full filing on Patreon here: "Only this month in SDNY Magistrates Court the content of CJA Form 23s have been read out in the public record, including for the appointment of Federal Defenders. See, e.g., US v. Castro, et al., 20-mj-8994 (Freeman) & here.

 Those and other defendants whose CJA Form 23 and financial information have been disclosed including in Magistrates Court this month had the same arguments as made by Federal Defenders in their August 21, 2020 letter, that the information might be used against them. And yet the other defendants' information was disclosed.

  Here, the sealing(s) and withholding of the CJA Form 23 and affidavit in their entirety go beyond those requested even in the CIA trial before Judge Crotty, US v. Schulte, 17 Cr. 548.    

 In that case, Inner City Press vindicated the public's right to know, in the docket, see here and here.  Inner City Press recently got even more sensitive filings unsealed in a North Korea sanctions case before Judge Castel, US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15 (PKC), Docket No. 33 (LETTER by EMAIL as to Virgil Griffith addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, dated 5/18/2020, re: Press Access to documents in US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15), 40 (order to unseal) and 41 unsealed filings). See also Inner City Press' May 9, 2020, filing to this Court for openness in US v. Randall, 19-cr-131,  No. 343.  

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that reporting by the news media allows members of the public to monitor the criminal justice system without attending proceedings in person. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 U.S. at 572-73  (1980). By attending and reporting on court proceedings, members of the press "function[] as surrogates for the public." Id. at 573.   Inner City Press has covered the case(s) against Mr. Avenatti for some time, see e.g., May 13, 2020, ESPN Louisville Sports Live, "On this episode of LSL, the guys speak with court reporter, Matthew Russell Lee about the lack of fallout from the evidence exposed about Nike in the Michael Avenatti trial," for example on radio here.

    Inner City Press and I are submitting this a day early in part because we are unsure if the US Attorney's Office will be pushing for openness to the public. In another pending case, US v. Edwards, 19-cr-64 (GHW), the Office had initially said that documents submitted by the defendant (described as the leaker of Paul Manafort's Suspicious Activity Reports) should be put in the public docket. Then, while Inner City Press is pursuing that, the US Attorney's Office has stopped pushing. So, just to preview, we may seek leave to sur-reply depending on what not only the defendants / Federal Defenders but also the US Attorney's Office have to say.   

 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press."

  On August 28 Judge Furman entered an order: "The Court received the attached communication from Matthew Lee of Inner City Press “seeking leave to be heard and for the unsealing of the CJA Form 23, affidavit, and all associated documents” relating to this litigation. To the extent that Mr. Lee (who is admitted to the bar of the Southern District of New York) seeks leave to be heard, his application is GRANTED. The Court reserves judgment on the question of whether Defendant’s CJA Form 23 and related documents should be unsealed. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2020 New York, New York JESSE M. FURMAN." Docket No. 85, on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud, here.

And later the US Attorney's Office said, " in light of the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings and the approach favored by the Second Circuit, the defendant has failed to provide a legally sufficient basis for wholesale and indefinite sealing of the CJA 23 Form and supporting affidavit." Full letter on Patreon here. Now we await Avenatti's / his Federal Defenders' reply. Watch this site.

This case is US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (Furman).

***

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

From Coinbase Brooks Into OCC Says Will Not Regulate Entities Or Obey SDNY or CRA

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - CJR PFT

UN GATE / SDNY COURT, Sept 1 – Acting U.S. Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks, as Coinbase’s chief legal officer,  was paid $1.4 million in salary -- separate from the stock options -- in the year and a half he spent with company, which had weighed seeking a charter through the OCC before making other moves to access the banking system."

  Now Brooks says, "I'm increasingly thinking of this agency as an activities regulator, not an entity regulator." But since the Community Reinvestment Act is enforced with regard to entities, this is an even more egregious attach on CRA than Otting engaged in. Combined with Brooks open contempt for rulings of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, it shows why he should be removed as Comptroller.

 On his conflicts of interest, Inner City Press asked - and then requested under FOIA - what are the "other tech firms" as to which Brooks is acknowledging a conflict.

   The OCC wrote to Inner City Press, faux apologizing for withholding information it has requested about Otting until after he had left the agency. Inner City Press immediately wrote back requesting a copy of Brooks' ethics letter and list of companies as to which even he acknowledges a conflict of interest.

  On June 18, that simple request was denied and so a FOIA request was filed, see below.

  And now more than a month later on July 22 the OCC has provide to Inner City Press under FOIA a copy of the ethics memo that Brooks is recused on: Amazon (minus AWS), Avant, Aventas, Merrill Lynch, CoinBase, EarnUp, Spring Labs, TextIQ - and Citibank N.A. residential mortgage business." We'll have more on this.

  From Inner City Press' FOIA request: "This is a request under FOIA on behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity for all records concerning conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest by Acting Comptroller Brian Brooks, including but not limited to the Ethics letter Inner City Press requested from the OCC, below, and Coinbase, Avant, OneWest and any other firm.  Inner City Press in responding to a request by OCC to "close out" a FOIA request still not completed asked "I do have an OCC public information / transparency question - for the Acting Comptroller's ethics filing - can it be sent to me at Matthew.Lee@innercitypress.com? To identify it: "Brooks has submitted a letter through the agency's ethics office outlining companies he'll steer clear of because of potential conflicts of interest, including Amazon.com Inc., Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch unit, Coinbase and a number of other tech firms he's worked with." What are those companies? Thanks, -Matthew Lee, Inner City Press"  Days later and minutes ago Inner City Press received this: Good Morning Mr. Lee....  I don't know the answer to the question you asked.  You should file a FOIA request for the records you seek regarding the Acting Comptroller. " This is that request, on which expedited treatment should be granted - such disclosures are among the very purposes of FOIA."  Watch this site.

   Amid all this, Fair Finance Watch and Inner City Press / Community on the Move have launched a new project. And so far, Brooks' national banks have been among the worst. 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.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Past & future at UN: Room S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

After OneCoin Tweets Named Amer Abdulaziz Now He Is In Scott Forfeiture Memo

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Patreon

BBC - The Times UK - Honduras - The Source 

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 1 –  As Inner City Press covered the OneCoin trial last Fall, a number of names of indicted co-conspirators emerged on which we continue following up.

  One of them was Amer Abdulaziz Salman.

As Inner City Press exclusively reported on November 6, surprise cooperating witness Konstantin Ignatov brought up Amer Abdulaziz and Phoenix Thoroughbreds during his testimony, live-tweeted @InnerCityPress, and see here.

  Then The Guardian, crediting Inner City Press, quotes the British Horseracing Association somewhat Casablanca-like: "In testimony live-tweeted by the investigative journalism website Inner City Press, Ignatov reportedly referred to Abdulaziz as “one of the main money launderers” involved in the scheme.  Ignatov went on: “After he stole €100m from OneCoin, he started buying racehorses for, like, €25m.”  The BHA said it was 'aware of the allegations which are emanating from a criminal case in the United States. We are in contact with the appropriate authorities.'" 

 These appropriate authorities presumably would include or even center on the Office of the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose spokesperson has while providing the Press with exhibits in Honduras and gang / 6ix9ine trial with its exhibits has continued to decline in this case.

 But now, deep in the US' Mark Scott forfeiture memo dated August 31 but filed on September 1 is this: Scott "transferred tens of millions of Euros back to Bulgaria from the Fenero Funds, disguised as fake loans. (See, e.g., GX 1388). Scott subsequently transferred approximately €185,000,000 from the Bank of Ireland to the accounts of another one of Ruja’s money launderer’s, named Aamer Abdulaziz." See full filing on Patreon, here.

Why was this withheld until now? And why hasn't Abdulaziz been arrested? We will have more on this.

On August 11, 2020, The Guardian: "According to testimony live-tweeted by the investigative journalism website Inner City Press, Abdulaziz was called “one of the main money launderers." 

 For now we have reported that Phoenix Thoroughbreds has been banned from racing horses in France. Adbulaziz quickly put out a statement - in Australiato 'reaffirm our-long term commitment to the racing and bloodstock industries in AustraliaFor any ownership group like ours, especially with breeding ambitions, having horses in Australia is a mustWith its world-leading facilities, top-class trainers and levels of prize money, the market is a cornerstone of our business.  The likes of Loving Gaby, Prague, homebred Farnan and others have given us plenty of reasons to smile over the past few years and we can’t wait to see how they progress this season. We also have some exciting youngsters that we hope can follow in their hoof prints.  This coming breeding season we will be welcoming a record number of Phoenix Thoroughbreds-bred foals, all by top stallions such as I Am Invincible, Zoustar, Invader and The Autumn Sun, to name just a few. Couple this with the fact we still retain shares in Coolmore (Stud Stakes) winner and new stallion Exceedance, the future looks very bright as we look to build a legacy of success on the farm, in the sales ring and on the track.  "We enjoy strong relations with our partners, who hold similar ambitions to ourselves, while the whole industry has been very supportive. We look forward to a long and prosperous future in Australia." 

  How is this possible, given what was shown in the OneCoin / Mark Scott trial and since? It is another impact of the doubly delayed docketing of information in that case and that of Gilbert Armenta, which Inner City Press got belatedly docketed last week. It is another reason why the blatant rip off of scoops by publications which don't follow up in the SDNY (now including Racing.com) allows those they are supposedly exposing to continue their frauds. We'll have more on this.

  On November 24, 2019 Inner City Press
 tweets were used without any credit in a derivative article by the Racing Post's Peter Scargill - apparently dodginess pervades this part of the industry.

  Inner City Press has been contacted from Dubai of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, from Amer Abdulaziz's native Bahrain and elsewhere by whistleblowers in the horse racing industry, with extensive information about Amer Abdulaziz's previous schemes and sudden windfall with OneCoin money. See below.

  Now Phoenix Thoroughbreds has tweeted a legal threat, as if media reporting based on sworn testimony a public trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York could be sued or silences or censored.

The tweet: "“Phoenix Fund Investments LLC categorically denies all allegations made against it, and its owner, Mr. Amer Abdulaziz, in legal proceedings against OneCoin and its conspirators in the US.  “Phoenix Fund Investments LLC believes that the firm and Mr. Amer Abdulaziz have acted according to the law at all times, and will vigorously contest all allegations of wrongdoing. Phoenix Fund Investments LLC will fully cooperate with relevant authorities should they require any assistance.  “Phoenix Fund Investments LLC is currently seeking legal advice and will take appropriate action against those involved in the publication of false and defamatory statements.”

  Amer Abdulaziz was named by a sworn witness, Konstantin Ignatov, as being one of OneCoin's money launderers. And the defendant, Mark Scott, said this during his post-arrest statement:

SCOTT: "All the money that was not invested, umm, was at the direction of the investors, sent to, umm, another, umm, another financial advisor in Dubai. We have nothing to do anymore   

Agent Fata: And who is that financial advisor?   

 Scott  They’re called, we signed an agreement, the first agreement at the behest of the investors is called Phoenix something Investment Fund, I think just Phoenix. And then, umm, and I have the name of the guy that I dealt with, that I was directed to in my emails and what. I’m going to say, Amar [phonetic] something. You know…   

Agent Eckel: So your, the, the Fenero funds were, were closed and transferred to Phoenix Investment Fund?

Scott: Yeah."

   We'll have more on this.

  Abdulaziz for example was outed as not paying for three horses, with it being for now still uncredited reported that Fasig-Tipton had not received payment for grade I winner Crisp and the broodmares Little Bonnet and Sky Mom, who were sold for more than $1.9 million combined... More on Patreon here.

  Phoenix Thoroughbred's horses have included "Advertise," the son of Showcasing, set to begin a stallion career projected to be lucrative at the National Stud in New Market in 2020.

  But is it all based on money laundering for OneCoin? And what of the royals who have been linked in, not only Queen Elizabeth through the Jockey Club but also the al Thani family of Qatar, the Saudi royals and the the Maktoum family of Dubai, whom some sources tell Inner City Press have harbored Ruja Ignatova herself . We'll have more on this. More on Patreon here.

 "It's the perfect front for money laundering," one horse-breeding industry participant told Inner City Press on condition of anonymity.

     During the trial, Inner City Press tweeted its surprise the Amer Abdulaziz was, unlike Ruja Ignatova, living in plain sight. It has continued: he has re-tweeted as recently as November 20.

   While some say he is going into hiding, it would seem that the US FBI or its overseas partners could easily bring him in.   So why haven't they? This is the fourth in an Inner City Press series. More on Patreon 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
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017