Indicted UAE Agent Barrack Trial Debates Align Or Go With Trump, Pompeo Mattis Stip

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

EDNY Courthouse, Sept 28 – Thomas Barrack and Matthew Grimes, indicted for illegal lobbying for the United Arab Emirates, were arraigned on July 26, 2021 before U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara. Inner City Press live tweeted it here (and podcast here)

On September 21, 2022, Day 1 of the trial, Inner City Press went to EDNY in Brooklyn. After descriptions of Barrack's meetings with UAE handlers, in Morocco, Corsica and elsewhere, counsel for Matthew Grimes said his client was just an assistant, getting coffee and smoothies for his boss and taking photos of meeting. Sure, he vacations with Al Malik Alshahhi. But he was serving Colony Capital, his lawyer said.

Next up, as first witness, was an expert in Middle East affairs. A map was proffered as an exhibit, but it couldn't be seen in the overflow courtroom. And Inner City Press couldn't yet live tweet from there. Sept 21 Cadman Plaza vlog, here.

On September 22 the expert Chris Davidson was cross examined, about UAE foreign policy on Libya (pro Haftar), Yemen (bombing) and Egypt (overthrow Morsi). The defense tried to trip him up on the "ADQ," which he heard as "EDQ."

Then the US State Department's Matthew McGuire, about visas given to the UAE officials, and how even Iran gets visas to come to the UN.

At the end Judge Cogan told the jury, during the break, not to use Twitter or "My Space, do we still have it?" And still no action by EDNY D.E. on getting similar access as others. Sept 22 Cadman Plaza vlog here.

On September 28 when the trial resumed, Tom Barrack was again standing imperious at the defense table, as for example his lawyer cross examined a US linguist on whether it was to ALIGN a plan of 100 days / 4 months / 1 year / 4 years with Trump, or to "go with." The linguist said the latter didn't make sense, even in English much less Arabic.
 
  Grimes' lawyer established that the witness knew nothing of Matthew Grimes. Earlier, the cross had been about metadata of iPhone photos from Rabat, not Marrakesh in Morocco. The trial day concluded with a lengthy stipulation about the roles of Mike Pompeo, General Mattis and others. Judge Cogan told the jurors not to Google. On the way down, Barrack was told there was a "press conference" outside, and to wait. It was about a church robbery in Brooklyn (which Inner City Press also covered). And STILL no approval from EDNY District Executive Eugene E. Corcoran. His Office said to put in another letter, the third, despite approval previously having been given to bring phone in for US v. Roger Ng in EDNY. What gives? Watch this site. And Sept 28 EDNY vlog

 Back on August 3, 2021 Grimes asked the Court for permission to travel to New York where his lawyers are based - and then to take the train to Boston (the conditions of release were limited and car and common air carrier, with private jet access cited). Letter on CourtListener here.

On November 2, Judge Cogan held another proceeding in the case - but no listen-only call-in line was provided, unlike the in-person EDNY guilty plea the same day in US v. Daniel Rendon Herrera, a Colombian drug kingpin charged with continuing criminal enterprise and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization before Judge Dora L. Irizarry. Inner City Press live tweeted thread here.

Why less transparency on Barrack?

And on the morning of jury selection, this: "Order Re [225]. The Court will reserve the left half of the second row for in-house accredited press, as the first row will be reserved for defendants family and friends. In-house accredited press will be permitted to observe jury selection from the gallery and will have access to a transcript. Additionally, members of the in-house accredited press will be permitted to have their phones and laptops in the overflow courtroom. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 9/19/2022." Will that continue into the trial?

  In the same EDNY courthouse, Judge Dearie's September 20 proceeding on the Donald Trump / Mar-a-Lago documents will have a call-in line. Why not the Barrack trial? The office to apply to bring electronics in to cover it is open only 10-1 and 2 to 3 - watch this site.

From Judge Cogan, these rulings: "Defendants’ [162/163] motion in limine is conditionally denied and part of the Government’s [168/169] motion in limine is conditionally granted. The Court defers ruling on whether the Government has proven the existence of a conspiracy to violate Section 951 with respect to the UAE’s interests in Qatar and whether Al Malik’s notes were made in furtherance of such a conspiracy until the end of the Government’s case. See United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., 195 F.3d 83, 88-89 (2d Cir. 1999). Whether there will be any direct testimony as to Al Malik’s purpose in creating these notes is not determinative for purposes of determining whether the evidence is admissible, although defendants are free to argue that the lack of direct testimony should diminish the weight of the evidence. See United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 957 (2d Cir. 1990). 2. Barrack’s [199] motion is conditionally denied. Nothing suggests that the Government is “mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal” under N.Y. R. Prof’l Conduct 3.3 by arguing that Barrack was involved in securing the ADIA investment. The Government will not be precluded from offering into evidence the “Barrack Magic” investment tracker – provided that the Government can establish a connection between Barrack and ADIA’s investment in DCP I – because the Government has represented that it intends to elicit testimony from witnesses who worked at Colony and know the reference." Watch this site.

On March 15, 2022, with the UAE Mission to the UN under Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh refusing to answer written questions from Inner City Press and documents sealed in EDNY, this Barrack argument; "while the indictment alleges that Mr. Barrack spoke positively about the UAE in the media, see Indictment ¶ 24, those allegations do not show he was the UAE’s agent, see Mot. 7."

On May 24, 2022, Judge Cogan held a proceeding and Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

On August 29, in a nearly final pre-trial conference before the September 19 trial, Judge Cogan held a conference. Inner City Press live tweeted here and below.

On September 6, represented by until recently SDNY prosecutor Emil Bove, Barrack's former staff Alison Marckstadt filed as an Interested Party, seeking to quash a Rule 17(C) subpoena. Previously, as Barrack's assistant Alison Marckstadt replied, "Unfortunately, Mr. Barrack is unable to accommodate your deadline, as he is traveling"....

Also on September 6 from Team Barrack, this: "MOTION in Limine to Exclude Prejudicial Evidence and Argument Related to Wealth, Spending, and Lifestyle by Thomas Joseph Barrack. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1-6 (Filed Under Seal) (Schachter, Michael)."

From August 29, 2022: OK - now in near final pre-trial conference for US v. Barrack and Grimes for UAE spying, Barrack's lawyer says jurors seeing his ankle bracelet would be prejudicial.

Judge Cogan: Just don't wear shorts. 

Defense says that proposal to modify Grimes' grand jury testimony to switch "Tom Barrack" to "the other guy" is like "something out of my Cousin Vinny."

AUSA: No, it's not from My Cousin Vinny, it's from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

 Judge Cogan: We'll find a war room for the defense, as close to the courtroom as possible. The prosecution, it's easier for them, they're right across the street...  I could tell the jury, you may be here until January. Just tell me long you'd need.

Defense: If we put on a case, it would be two or three weeks. But we don't know yet.

Judge: I like to say, "The case will take this long," without telling them, the US versus the defense's case. Just project the end date. I think the US adds 25 to 50% to estimate

Voice: Can I cut in?

Judge Cogan: Who is that?
2d voice: The public line.

Judge Cogan: Silence that.

[Note: Inner City Press believes there should be a listen only call in line for this national security trial, given COVID etc.]

 Defense: We don't want a surprise co-conspirator to show in trial. Judge Cogan: The US has been over-inclusive in listing everyone they might call (as) a co-conspirator. Could the government be more specific?

AUSA: It's not as much a mystery as the defense says.

AUSA: There is no requirement that we name every co-conspirator in a conspiracy trial. Judge (to defense) That's the best I can do for you.

Defense: They have an obligation to ID for us every co-conspirators they are going to allege during the trial.

Abbe Lowell: There are motions in limine pending. Given that some of these, I take it, are statements between people we didn't know - that was my point.

Judge Cogan: Mr. Lowell, as a practical matter, I'm including to take evidence like that subject to connection. 

Judge Cogan: I will see you all on September 19. Adjourned.

Back on March 22, 2022, Judge Cogan held a proceeding and Inner City Press again covered it, thread here:

OK - now in case of indicted United Arab Emirates illegal lobbyist Tom Barrack, a proceeding in EDNY.

Judge  Cogan: When can you file your motion - in 2 weeks? The answer is yes. Defense counsel asks for right to reply.

Judge Cogan: What about the Curcio [possible conflict of interest of counsel] hearing?  Let's do it 5:30 on April 7.

 Judge Cogan: I'd be willing to do the trial by video... [Why not? At least a public listen-only call-in line]

Judge Cogan: Is US going to supersede?  AUSA: We are mindful of trial timing, either way we won't impact it. Judge: When will you know? AUSA: By mid June.

AUSA: Your Honor will see us on May 19 on the CIPA issues. We may know by then. Judge Cogan: What might a superseding indictment look like, do you know? AUSA: We know.

  Judge Cogan: Would it mess up the trial schedule? AUSA: We don't think so. No new CIPA.

Judge Cogan: We have another status conference, say, May 24, 11:30 am. It's been designated complex, so [Speedy Trial Act] time is excluded. 

The case is USA V. AL MALIK ALSHAHHI et al., 21-cr-371 (EDNY, Cogan, J.)

***

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

Gillier Found Guilty of Fraud on Plane Part Companies After Extradition and SDNY Trial

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 28 – Stefan Gillier, a Belgian citizen, was charged with defrauding airplane parts manufacturers out of millions of dollars. Now he has health problems in detention.       

 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Richard M. Berman held an initial proceeding. Inner City Press covered it.  

  Gillier's lawyer said his client was recently moved from the MCC to the MDC in Brooklyn (unlike, say, accusing CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, as Inner City Press first reported).

 In the MDC, his lawyer said, Gillier cannot be a salt free diet. He washed the salt off food when he can, and foregoes some meat that is too salty.

   Judge Berman said defense motions were due by November 10.

On October 6, 2021, the case was reassigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. He scheduled trial for July 5, 2022 - then, September 2022.

Inner City Press covered it, see below. And on September 28, "STEFAN GILLIER, a/k/a “Stephan Gillier,” a/k/a “Stefan R.R. Gillier,” a/k/a “Roland Gillier,” a/k/a “Roland Van Gorp,” a Belgian citizen, for engaging in a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain over $6 million dollars’ worth of aircraft parts through the use of stopped check payments.  The jury convicted GILLIER today following a one-week trial before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. GILLIER, 49, a citizen of Belgium, was convicted of eight counts: (1) one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, interstate transportation of stolen property, and money laundering, which carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison; (2) one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison; (3) one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison; (4) one count of interstate transportation of stolen property, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 10 years in prison; and (5) four counts of money laundering, each of which carries a maximum potential penalty of 10 years in prison."

On September 6, Gilliers lawyer wrote to Judge Engelmayer that "this morning, I received a CORRLINKS message from Mr. Gillier relaying that he had been tested on Friday and was moved to the 'Maras Unit (83), highest security unit here'" - with no laptop. A delay was requested.

On September 7, after a telephone conference that Inner City Press covered, counsel wrote in again, that they scheduled a legal call through "the Skedda online booking system." But it hasn't been working and Judge Engelmayer's intervention with the Legal Department of MDC Brooklyn was sought.

The intervention will be coming: "Updates regarding setting up a legal call with Stefan Gillier. ENDORSEMENT: The Court will contact the MDC directly to underscore its order that a substantially longer call with Mr. Gillier and his counsel be arranged for Friday. The Court directs the government to convey this message to the MDC in no uncertain terms. SO ORDERED."

On September 15, with Gillier on trial wearing headphones for interpretation and two US Marshals guarding him, Inner City Press was in the courtroom when his payment through Bank of Montreal for a virtual office in Manhattan was detailed, apparently for venue. His counsel did not cross examine, then with the jury out on break asked to speak with the judge on a point of personal privilege. After the discussion, it turned out no more public read-out was required. The trial continues.

On September 17, the prosecutors asked Judge Engelmayer to allow them to present "Evidence of Flight and Continued Absence." This include an order of attachment executed at Gillier's warehouse in Kansas, and a flight on Air Canada on June 15, 2006.

Gillier was arrested in Italy on May 26, 2019, and he was extradited to the US on June 26, 2022. The defense says he had no reason to return to the US, so it does not reflect consciousness of guilt. 

On September 23, the the trial adjourned until September 27, the defense asked Judge Engelmayer to preclude the US from using "the numerous mailings in GX106 in its summation" - included on the list are wires to HCBC, and mailing of air turbine starter from NY to Iowa.

Docketed on September 26, when the trial didn't meet in deference to the Jewish holiday, Judge Engelmayer ruled: "OPINION & ORDER as to Stefan Gillier. The Court has received the defense's letter of September 23, 2022, Dkt. 130, which argued that the Government had not satisfactorily isolated the mailings on which it proposed to rely in closing argument with respect to Count Two, which charges the offense of mail fraud. The Governments email identifying mailings it contended were in furtherance of the alleged mail fraud scheme had specified one mailing of documentation (on April 4, 2006), two mailings of air turbine starters (on April 12 and May 17, 2006), and mailings of the invoices listed within GX 106. Because GX 106 contained, by the defense's count, 828 such invoices, the defense contended that the Government had not meaningfully narrowed the universe of mailings-in-furtherance on which it might rely. The Government's letter of September 24, 2022, Dkt. 131, clarifies that, it will argue with specificity as to seven mailings within GX 106 (those on pages 934, 953, 954, 957, 959, 961, and 962), while reserving the right to make the broader factual point that, per the testimony of Paul Hadzell is, all such invoices were mailed. The Court's assessment is that the Governments proposed approach provides satisfactory notice to the defense as to the mailings on which it will rely in arguing that the fraud scheme in which the defendant allegedly participated was furthered by mailing(s). See United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 144 n.14 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court thus regards the defenses motion claiming a violation of due process and seeking a preclusionary remedy as moot. The Court strongly encourages the Government, however, to assure that its jury arguments do not invite the jury to find the element of a mailing-in-furtherance to have been met by mailings, including of invoices, that the Government has not specified. An argument that did so would inject a needless issue, whose resolution could delay the forward progress of this trial. It could, in particular, require the Court and counsel to discuss before the Court charged the jury whether a modification of the currently drafted charge was necessary to assure that the jury's deliberations as to the mailing-in-furtherance element of Count Two were limited to the mailings of which the defense had been given pre-argument notice (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/25/22)." Watch this site.

The case is  US v. Gillier, 11-cr-409 (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.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Duo Charged With Robbing Bishop on Live Stream Plead Not Guilty, One Still Detained

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag

EDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 28 – On July 24, Brooklyn Bishop Lamor Whitehead was robbed, mid-service and on live stream, of two $75,000 watches and $25,000 diamond ring.

 On September 28, two defendants were arraigned before Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes and pleaded not guilty to the crime. Inner City Press was there. 

Also there, in the cramped Arraignments Court, were relatives of the defendants. One said he is an aspiring rapper; another is into R&B but declined to speak to the press.

 Juwan Anderson was released on $50,000 bond, with his mother, an aunt and a family friend as suretors.  

  Co-defendant Say-Quan Pollack, assigned a Criminal Justice Act lawyer, did not have a bail package ready, and remains detained.  Their cases are assigned to EDNY District Judge William F. Kuntz.

  The Bishop himself was in the courtroom, and appeared in court art and outside on Cadman Plaza.

Inside the EDNY, while Inner City Press retrieved its cell phone from the Court Security Officer, billionaire defendant Thomas Barrack, charged with being an agent of the United Arab Emirates, delayed his exit from the courthouse to avoid the church robbery "press conference."

World collide in the EDNY. We'll have more on this.

This case is US v. Say-Quan Pollack, 22-cr-428 (Kuntz / Reyes). Hours after the presentment, it was still listed in PACER as Sealed v. Sealed.

***

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

In Trevor Milton Trial Nikola CFO Brady Says Avoid Retail Investors, Land Deal Call Recorded

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 28 – The trial of Nikola founder Trevor Milton for wire and securities fraud moved, on September 28, through the cross examination of CFO Kim Brady to Utah land seller Peter Hicks. Inner City Press was there, and live tweeted. Thread:

Cross examination:

Milton's lawyer Marc Mukasey: Let me show you the VectoIQ - Nikola document. Are these the board of directors?

Brady: Yes.

Mukasey: This was intended to educate about the SPAC process, a relatively new thing, right? Brady: Yes.

Mukasey: And here an example is given, of Virgin Galactic, a space travel company (chuckles), some form of space travel, right?

Brady: It's tourist flights. Mukasey: It's owned by a guy named Richard Branson, right? Brady: He was the majority shareholder, not involved in the day to day management.

Mukasey: And this is "Cowen's thoughts on proper strategy" for SPACs, right? Brady: Yes. Mukasey: And in this document, Nikola wrote that "Behind the Meter" option is available at certain locations, right? Brady: That's what it says.

Mukasey: Let's turn to publicity. You and your colleagues discussed using Virgin Galactic as a model, for publicity of a SPAC, right? Brady: I don't remember that. Mukasey: Let me show you this email from Jeff Ubben [from valueact dot com], saying that Trevor should follow the example of Richard Branson. Do you see it?

Brady: I do. Mukasey: And here is a list of Branson's promotion activities from July to October 2019, right? It weaves them through with SEC filings... Brady: Is that a question? Mukasey: Am I reading it correctly? Brady: Yes. [sidebar] Mukasey: And here in an email with Vince Caramella, Mr. Milton wrote, We need a good SEC attorney to help with tweets, right? Brady: That's what is says. Mukasey: Then Nikola reached out to Rystad Energy, right? Brady: Who?

Mukasey: Let me refresh your recollection. There was a time Mr. Milton asked for a researcher, to fact check, right? Let me show only you, not the jury, this spreadsheet...

Brady: I see Rystad. But the rest, I don't remember.

Mukasey: Later, but before Nikola went public, Jeff Ubben bought stock from Trevor Milton, right? Brady: Yes. Mukasey: And it was arms-length, in a stock purchase agreement that you signed, correct? Brady: Yes. Mukasey: So effectively, Jeff Ubben paid $10 a share for the Nikola shares, right?

Brady: Correct. Mukasey: There's been a lot of talk in the courtroom about the Badger. You understood it would not be built without an OEM partner, right? Brady: Yes. Mukasey (proffering a document) Your Honor, I'm going to move to admit this under FRE 803(6). AUSA: Hearsay! Judge Ramos: Let's have a sidebar.

[Whispering, with white noise turned up]

Mukasey shows a Nikola purchase order, to Robert Bosch LLC, approved by Kim Brady CFO.

Brady: My name went on everything.

Mukasey: But I am assuming you would not allow your name on something you were not approving, right?

Brady: I don't know what you are suggesting.

 Mukasey: Let's talk about SEC filings... Here on Nikola's website as it existed in 2020 you are listed as a contract, for "Sell-Side and Buy-Side Analysts," right?

Brady: Yes.

Mukasey: But you didn't want retail investors reaching out to you, correct?

Brady: Correct. I did not.

Mukasey: But this guy (pointing at Milton) he wanted to engage with the average Joe, right?

Brady: It's highly unusual for anyone to be in contact with retail investors. 

Mukasey: But unusual can be OK --

AUSA: Objection!

 Mukasey: You've made clear how you and Mr. Milton differed, in who you wanted to speak to --

AUSA: Objection!

Brady: Retail investors tend to believe--

Mukasey: Move to strike.... There is nothing wrong with communicating with retail investors, right?

Brady: As I said, you have to be careful...

Mukasey: It's not legal, correct?

Brady: It's not illegal, but it's highly usual.

Mukasey: Nothing improper, yes or no? A: Yes

Mukasey: Let's be clear - high frequency traders are mostly not individuals, yes?

Brady: They trade frequently. Mukasey: As to retail investors, you don't know what they read, because you don't talk to them, right? Judge Ramos: That question is compound. Try again

Mukasey: You think retail investors are too lazy or stupid to read SEC filings? You make filings to educate them -

Brady: It's required by law.

Mukasey: You don't know what the average retail investors reads. Brady: I know, based on the ones I've spoken with

Mukasey: Here, you called the Hindenburg report a hit job and character assassination against Trevor Milton, correct?

Brady: If you say so. Mukasey: It's right here.... Nikola got a grand jury subpoena on Sept 19, correct? Brady: If you say that's the date

 Mukasey: And Nikola provided many documents and cooperated and your testimony here today is part of that... Nothing further.

Judge Ramos: Re-direct. AUSA: May we approach? [Another whispered sidebar]

AUSA: Mr. Brady, you were asked for the basis of your conclusion about retail investors, and said it was based on your experience, right?

Brady: Yes. AUSA: Did you convey your concerns to Mr. Milton in 2020? Brady: Many times.

AUSA: Were Mr. Milton's representations that Nikola's reservations were binding contracts true or false? Brady: False.

Re-cross: Mukasey: In the summer of 2020, Mr. Brady, you knew that Trevor Milton was tweeting, right?

Brady: Yes. Mukasey: You knew that before the Hindenburg / short report, right? Brady: I knew some. But more from the report.

Mukasey: You got paid more, if more institutional investors invested in Nikola, right? Brady: In the private round.

Mukasey: But you didn't get the $250,000 bonus for every $10 million put in - but not from retail investors, right? Nothing further.

They've back from the break. On the stand, Utah land-seller Peter Hicks. AUSA: When did you sell land to Trevor Milton?

A: It went into contract in June 2020, and closed in August, including for Nikola stock options. AUSA: How big was the land? A: 1/3 the size of Manhattan.

 AUSA: What price was suggested to you? Peter Hicks: Mr. Anderson said Mr. Milton was thinking of $5 million. I was not interested in taking a loss. I wanted cash, not stock options.

AUSA: Was there a recorded call? Peter Hicks: Yes. My son recorded it. AUSA: How old was he? Hicks: 23. He was home for COVID and I had him on the call with Trevor Milton, in April 2020. AUSA: Did you know he was recording? Hicks: No.

AUSA: Did you know that it can be a crime in some circumstances to record without consent in Massachusetts, where you were?

Hicks: Yes. AUSA: And did your son get a commitment he will not be prosecuted, for turning this recording over? Hicks: Yes, he did.

Tape is played: Trevor Milton talking about hydrogen stations, on LA to Phoenix route.

AUSA: Did you tell you they were already gobbling up the land for this?

Hicks: Yes.

  It continues...

The case is US v. Milton, 21-cr-478 (Ramos)

***

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

In EDNY Trial of Tom Barrack MBZ Selfies Including Citi & Blackrock As Well As DJT

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag

LITERARY EDNY, Sept 27 – The second day of the US v. Barrack and Grimes trial it was raining. On Cadman Plaza they were selling umbrellas. But Kurt jogged from Jorolemon Street past the empty free COVID test tents and into the EDNY courthouse.  

 On the stand was the US' Middle East expert, a man named Chris Davidson. He rattled off the diplomatic positions of the UAE, which the jurors would later be shown that Barrack had advanced, in Fortune Magazine or website, TV interviews and when possible, the speeches of DJT. 

 The picture painted was of an angry Emirate, mad at Obama for favoring Qatar (and relatedly natural gas) over it and even Big Brother Saudi Arabia. MBZ, with $1.3 trillion at his disposal, would not let it happen again. With DJT, he would buy in on the ground floor. And the doorman, it seemed, had been Tom Barrack. What did it make Grimes? The luggage carrier?

  On cross examination, Davidson stumbled. Of course you know what ADQ is, he was asked, the acronym said fast, with ill intentions.   Can you say that again? Davidson asked.   You know even know ADQ?   I through you said something else, Davidson said glumly.

 Also on cross Davidson was shown photos of MBZ with other big wigs, by implication as sleazy or sleazier than Barrack. The head of Citigroup - a retail squid with which Kurt had also tangled - the heads of Blackrock, Raytheon.

Kurt found himself wondering, if only to himself since he didn't have his phone to tweet it out, what about Eric Prince of Blackwater, or whatever new new name they were using?

   Down in the EDNY Clerk of Court office, Kurt waited in line to again ask about getting permission to bring his phone and laptop in. For the Roger Ng / Jho Low trial about 1MDB, he'd gotten a paper pass on an EDNY yellow and blue ribbon.  

 From behind the counter, after some inquiry was made, or not made, came the response: They are still checking your paperwork. They will call you.  

What was there to check? Kurt nodded and went up to the Arraignment Court, where everyone still had to wear COVID masks. Perhaps this would be his way in, or at least his way through.

A woman defendant got bond for selling meth, her mother and daughter calling in as suretors. It was a family affair, much like the UAE. More (II) on Patreon here 

More (I) 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