Saturday, December 31, 2022

Window Into Bodega Robbing Trio Opened By SDNY Restitution Payment, Grounded Pilot

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 29 – A restitution payment of $1.651 from a defendant named Quinteria Daniels was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 29, 2022.

 Inner City Press, in the nearly empty SDNY courthouse, decided to read back into the case. 

The lead defendant in this three-person Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy case, Kamel Osborne, had written to the second judge in the case, District Judge Valerie E. Caproni, on January 10, 2022 saying that in ten days he would be transferred to the Connecticut State prison and to please intervene and show mercy. 

 His letter, with address redacted, said "I have never been in trouble with the law before, until that dark day in 2019 that I decided to follow my friends to commit a crime, just trying to be accepted in a crowd of friends that I was trying to impress."

   But, digging further back into the docket, it was more than that. 

 Living in The Bronx in 2015 and attending Vaughn College in Queens in its aviation program, part time, he met Quinteria Daniels, his first serious girlfriend and soon to be co-defendant (and restitution payer).

 In 2016 Osborne moved out of his mother's apartment and with Daniels and her one-year-old daughter into a homeless shelter in The Bronx. 

 They had their own daughter in 2018, and Kamel fully dropped out of school to try to make money. He was promised a delivery job at $20 an hour, but it turned out to be as a package handler, three hours a day. Co-workers told him to steal cell phone from the warehouse and he did. 

 A man named Lywan Reed moved in with them. He didn't have a job, but Daniels referred to him as the "man of the house," according to Osborne's sentencing memo which unsuccessfully requested a non-custodial sentence.

From the memo: 

"The first time they traveled to a bodega with the intention of committing a robbery, Kamel's mind and body rebelled against their plans... He took on the role of taking money from the cash register, while Mr. Reed took on the more menacing role of displaying the BB gun and stating their demands."  

  They were charged in November 2019 for 11 days of robberies in September 2019. 

  On February 4, 2021, amid COVID, Osborne was sentenced by video to 24 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release.

He was re-referred to his Federal Defender after his pro se letter, but after repeated calls informed her, she wrote on February 28, 2022 that "Mr. Osborne is currently incarcerated at FCI Danbury. At this time he does not wish to file any motion for relief."

The case is US v. Osborne, et al., 19-cr-931 (Caproni)

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

ArsTechnica Peter Bright Got 144 Months Now On Pro Se Petition Asks For Appointed Counsel

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive, Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 29 – Former ArsTechnica writer Peter Bright's re-trial for attempted enticement to sex of a minor resulted late March 16 in a guilty verdict from the jury. Photo here.

  The verdict came as other trials in the SDNY courthouse had been stayed, and another criminal trial with one juror deliberating remotely from his apartment, in Coronavirus COVID-19 self-quarantine.

   Bright's conviction was upheld by Judge Castel on September 16, 2020. Before sentencing, Federal Defenders submitted a memo - but the exhibit consisting of the argument that Bright is NOT a pedophile is withheld in full. Photo here. Inner City Press on November 2 filed an application to unseal, photo here, which Judge Castel on November 4 directed the parties to respond to be November 6 at noon.

On November 4, 2020 Judge Castel sentenced Bright to 144 months. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below.

On March 17, 2022 into the docket, notice of denial of Bright's appeal: "MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Peter Bright re: [102] Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3792. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 03/17/2022."

In November 2022 Peter Bright filed a pro se typewritten petition, recounting that while in the MCC he did not use Lexis Nexis; "the nature of my charge meant that I could not safety use this facility. Inmates routinely read over the shoulders of those using the computers, and are constantly on the lookout for those accused of sex crimes."

Judge Castel gave time: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Peter Bright (1) on [112] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel re: Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. ENDORSEMENT: Time to respond extended to February 10, 2023 and time to reply to the Government's submission will be March 10, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 11/29/2022)."

Docketed on December 29, 2022, a succinct letter from Bright to Judge Castel, noting that the US Attorney's Office waiting until day 40 of its 60 days to ask, and must have known that the AUSA had a death penalty trial (US v. Saipov, which Inner City Press is also covering).

So Bright asked for appoint of counsel at this time. We'll have more on this.

From November 4, 2020: Peter Bright is speaking: "I did not identify myself as a pedophile because I am not one. I did not lie to my therapist." [But Doctor Kaplan's report is withheld in full, at least for now, as are Bright's lawyer's arguments based on it.]

Bright's lawyer: My client cannot pay the required fine. You'd have to make a finding of indigency. Sure he has two pensions in the UK, and a 401(k) with Conde Nast

Bright's lawyer: But he can't access those funds until he is 55. So he is indigent.

AUSA: I have confidence Bright's doctors evaluated him in good faith. But the jury found that the defendant was not truthful when he said he did not intend to have sex with the children in this case. His testimony was inconsistent with the finding of the jury.

Judge Castel: As to Mr. Bright, I decline to impose the obstruction of justice enhancement. But the trial testimony of Mr. Bright was utterly inconsistent with the finding of the jury. He thought she was a real person with real children being offered up for sex

Judge Castel: Or really, the jury found that he wanted to take it as far as he could, to engage in sex with these two young children. This is of the utmost seriousness. Mr. Bright, it is the judgment of the court that you are to be imprisoned for 144 months.

Judge Castel: Mr. Bright, after the 144 months, you are to be under supervised release for seven years. You must cooperate in the collection of DNA and register as a sex offender. Your computer can be searched anytime there is reasonable suspicion...

 Judge Castel: Mr. Bright, you must allow installation of software and applications on your devises to monitor you. To ensure compliance, there will be unannounced examinations.

 Judge Castel: Mr. Bright, you must not loiter in school yards or messaging boards or platforms that allow for real time interaction with other uses. 

Judge Castel: You will inform Probation before accessing any websites dealing with, among others, teens and kids, xxx, gambling, hacking, etc.  AUSA: We are not seeking monetary forfeiture, just the two phones.

Judge Castel: You will soon find in the ECF Docket a request of November 2 by Inner City Press, Mr. Lee, asking for unsealing. You are to address it [cites decision by Judge Koeltl - we'll have more on this.]

  On June 15, with still no trial resumed, the US Attorney's Office filed its opposition to Bright's Rule 29 motion for acquittal. Full filing on Patreon here; it says among other things that "Bright called Dr. James Cantor, a clinical psychologist, and also testified in his own defense. Dr. Cantor testified that “age play” is a type of sexual kink in which “participants are pretending that they’re a different age than what they are.” (Tr. 310). Building on Dr. Cantor’s testimony, Bright testified that when he first met the mother on KinkD, he believed she was an “age player” and that her children were “littles,” i.e., adults pretending to be children." We'll have more on this.

  Three days after the verdict with Inner City Press which alone covered the trials being asked many questions, including about the ArsTechnica editor who testified, we offered this:

 Conde Nast / ArsTechnica official Ken Fisher (formally, Kenneth Robert Fisher III) said that Bright never proposed to write any article about child sex exploitation, on ArsTechnica's Slack or otherwise.

  In fact, Fisher said, to the degree ArsTechnica cover the intersection of sex crimes and the Internet, they had a deputy editor who wrote their stories.

 On cross examination by Bright's Federal Defender, Fisher was asked, "You are familiar with his online persona, right?" Fisher replied yes. We'll have more on this.

   Back on February 19 in Bright's first trial a mistrial was declared, the day after the jury sent out a note that it could not reach consensus. The judge pushed for a fast second trial, which has now begun on March 10. The US Attorney's Office has sent Michael D. Maimin to second-chair.  On March 12 with Bright again on the witness stand, bragging how he makes "littles order off the kids' menu," Inner City Press live tweeted, here:

Bright: I live in Bushwick... With anal, you have to know what you're doing. Real people are not porn stars.  

He says "girl" in the Bronx was 30, Alicia.

Bright: I'm pretty sure vibrators are not used in classrooms. But we were fantasizing. ... It's called after-care in the kink world.

Bright: I know someone who tweets out her STDs test results every time. In the polyamorous world we are responsible

 Peter Bright: One of the joys of working at home is I can walk around naked. #Coronavirus

Bright (looking at jurors, some mouth agape) "A lot of Americans have never seen, at least first hand, an uncircumsized pen*s"

Peter Bright: When in photos I'm holding two Starbucks cups, I'm double fisting, it's a double entendre

 We'll have more on this.

Inner City Press covered the opening arguments, here:

AUSA Alexander Li: Peter Bright tried to have sex with a 7 and 9 year old. He was arrested carrying condoms, on his way to meet them.

AUSA Li: You may find the evidence disturbing. They met on Kink'd, then WhatsApp. Bright sent a picture of his [member]. But he created a cover story, that he was a journalist for a technology web site.

AUSA Li: We will call as a witness the editor of the technology website. He will tell you the defendant never wrote about child exploitation, and wasn't authorized to.\

Federal Defender: Peter Bright likes kinky sex with consenting adults. He likes role playing. On Kink'd, he was a dominant Daddy, an age player. We have an expert.

 FD: Age play is legal. Princess Mom set him up. She used the language of age play, on Kink'd. She sent him photos of children. So he went to gather evidence. He set his phone to record

 FD: The FBI got it wrong. He told Princess Mom where he worked. He is not guilty.

For these arguments, at which Inner City Press was the only media, there were many lawyers from each side.

Back on February 27, in a proceeding at which Inner City Press was the only media present, the only person in the gallery, a re-trail date has been selected: March 10. Federal Defenders confirmed that their expert will be available, on March 13. Judge Castel said that all of his previous evidentiary rulings apply, and that he will add to the jury charge language from his response to previous jury question 4, about intention. So it's on. Inner City Press will cover it, again. Threadette here. More including why and what at second trial on Patreon here.

 Bright took the witness stand on February 13 and called himself an "age player" and a Daddy. He said he prefers full bodied women with a lot of body hair - but denied that he actually likes children.

Inner City Press, which first reported Bright's presentment on the charges on May 23, here, started a Twitter thread about Peter Bright's matter of the fact statements about himself, here. More on Patreon here.

  By the end of February 18, the jury still had the case. They passed out a note, "unable to reach a consensus." Bright's Federal Defender Amy Gallicchio asked for a mistrial, but Judge P. Kevin Castel instead read the jury to so-called Allen charge, to see if that could break the deadlock.

"Legal Definition of Allen charge : a charge to a deadlocked jury to make a further effort to reach a verdict especially by each juror considering the others' opinions with deference — called also dynamite charge."

  Inner City Press remained in the courtroom. An hour went by. Then two. By they, Inner City Press chatted with that appeared to be Bright's parents, with British accents and on their way to Balthazar. They asked if this was normal. Well, none of it was.

  Around 6 pm, the jury passed out a nother note, that they would come in on February 19 and continue deliberating. Judge Castel told the lawyers that he would have another case at that time - another one Inner City Press is covering, as it happens - but that he would direct the lawyers in that civil case to decamp when the Bright jury has a note, or verdict.

 But when a note came out, Bright was led up to the bench and white noise turned on. It was impossible for Inner City Press, in the gallery, to hear what was said. By 2 o'clock, it was mistrial and Judge Castel was frustrated by defense counsel not committing to a March 23 trial date. He said in his day practicing, judges just declared days. A letter is due, when the defense and their expert witness canNOT do it. Watch this site.

 Earlier on February 18, the jurors passed out a note asking questions, including to see able the video of Bright's Q&A with FBI agents. This was played in the courtroom, in whose gallery were only Inner City Press and two older adults.

 But the FBI Q&A concerned girls of 17 years old - who told Bright she was "turning tricks" and a 14 year old who Bright said emailed him photos in panties.

  Bright was asked by the FBI, why did you respond? Bright said it was flattering to be flirted with. But he insisted he prefers or preferred adults *playing* young teenagers to young teenagers themselves. He was also asked by the FBI why he was telling an interlocutor about his foreskin, if he did not intend to show it to the young children she described.  What will the jury think? Inner City Press has asks for notice when a verdict comes, but continues to pass by the courtroom again and again, to check. Watch this site.

  Back on February 13 Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York let the jury go to lunch from 12:30 to 1:30 pm, then told the lawyers to return to discuss the jury charged at 1:15 pm. Inner City Press reported, It's coming to endgame, and it has.

  Assistant US Attorney Alexander Li in his closing statement emphasized to the jury the Peter Bright went to Duane Park with condoms to meet what he thought would be children. Li said Bright is not an age-playing vigilante trying to catch the FBI agent but rather a man attempted to have sex with children, with a lesson plan to teach about his foreskin.

   Many Federal Defenders were in the gallery for the closing arguments. Amy Gallicchio had argued, in writing, that "Mr. Bright actively engages in role-playing involving bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadomasochism, commonly referred to as BDSM. He is particularly interested in ageplay."  But what will the jury think of it? Watch this site.
  Yet more on Patreon here, including on the case's reference to... Justin Bieber.

The case is US v. Bright, 19-cr-521 (Castel). 

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

On Insider Trading Former FBI Trainee Markin Asks to Suppress Statements to FBI, Cut Counts

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 29 – Seth Markin was the subject of an insider trading press conference on July 25, 2022. Then for his presentment he got a taxpayer-funded lawyer, declaring himself eligible in a still-sealed CJA 23 financial affidavit.

  On July 25, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Sarah Netburn approved and sealed his Criminal Justice Act 23 affidavit. Inner City Press has previously gotten unsealed the CJA 23's of Michael Avenatti, and Honduras alleged narco trafficker Tigre Bonilla. But others' keep getting sealed.

On August 10, Markin ponied up and retained Maurice Sercarz, who previously represented among others horse drugging defendant Seth Fishman: "NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Maurice H. Sercarz appearing for Seth Markin. Appearance Type: Retained. (Sercarz, Maurice)."

On December 12, Judge Ramos extended the time for co-defendant Wong's sentencing: "RESCHEDULING ORDER as to Brian Wong: The sentencing previously scheduled for February 16, 2023, is hereby rescheduled for March 10, 2023 at 10:00 p.m. SO ORDERED. Sentencing set for 3/10/2023 at 10:00 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 12/12/2022)."

On October 20, Judge Ramos held a proceeding and ruled, "Markin shall submit a letter advising the court whether or not he intends to file pretrial motions."

He did. On December Markin filed a motion to suppress his statements to the FBI, and asking Judge Ramos to order prosecutors to "elect among the charges brought under (a) Counts Two through Nine, (b) Counts 17 through 24, or Count 16 of the indictment and dismiss the remaining counts on the basis of multiplicity."

  Markin is free on a $200,000 bond, with a taxpayer funded lawyer. The prosecutors said:

  What kind of insider trader big enough for an SDNY press conference is, on the same day, declared eligible for publicly-paid counsel?

A first proceeding before Judge Ramos was set: "NOTICE OF HEARING as to Seth Markin, Brandon Wong. An initial conference will be held on August 3, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. before the Hon. Edgardo Ramos."

SDNY Mag Court Art Seth
                                            Markin 

 In early 2021, SETH MARKIN and BRANDON WONG together made more than $1.4 million dollars in illegal profits by trading in stock based on inside information that MARKIN misappropriated from his then-girlfriend, who was then an attorney at a major law firm in Washington D.C. assigned to work on the acquisition of Pandion Therapeutics (“Pandion”) by Merck & Co. (“Merck”).

The case is US v. Markin, et al., 22-cr-395 (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.

Columbia Dirty Doc Hadden After Superseding Indictment Has More Motions Denied for Trial

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Video Photo

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 29 – Columbia University doctor Robert A. Hadden was hit on September 9, 2020 with a Federal indictment charging that "sexually abused dozens of female patients, including multiple minors, under the guise of conducting purported gynecological and obstetric examinations."

The case was assigned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Richard M. Berman, who handled the case of Jeffrey Epstein until he died in the Metropolitan Correctional Center.   Epstein came up during the bail argument, which Hadden won. Inner City Press live tweeted it, below.

 On July 14, 2021 Judge Berman docketed a letter the US had filed, with a full paragraph redacted, that it will seek a superseding indictment on another count of enticement, regarding an adult Victim-6. Letter on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.

  On August 2, 2021 Hadden's publicly funded (for now) counsel filed a series of motions, with redactions, citing Evelyn Yang and request dismissal of the case. It mentioned Evelyn Yang's interview then redacts a two line sentence. Then, "Andrew Yang public a statement, this media attention led to outrage regarding the 'lenient' sentence Mr. Hadden had received in the DANY Prosecution." Yes.

On December 15, 2021, Judge Berman held a proceeding and Inner City Press live tweeted it here (podcast here)

Jump cut forward a year to December 14, 2022, the pre-trial conference before the January 4, 2023 (one day?) jury selection - Inner City Press was in the courtroom, threadette:

Hadden's lawyer says they commit that in front of the jury they will not question the motives of the prosecution.

Hadden plans to call a Dr Berg as his OB-GYN expert. Jury will not get the "speaking" portion of the indictment.

Asst US Attorney: We may want some victim to testify not under their full names [like in US v Ghislaine Maxwell trial a year ago]

On December 22, Judge Berman held another conference and ruled: "1- defense motion to preclude generalized expert testimony of Dr. Eddleman is denied; 2- defense motion to preclude testimony and evidence re: fibroid procedure Victim-1 is denied in part and granted in part; 3- defense motion to strike all surplusage from S2 Indictment is denied as moot; 4- defense motion to preclude impact evidence/testimony is denied; 5- defense motion to preclude introduction of prior consistent statements is denied; 6- defense motion to preclude the 911 call from 3rd party is denied; 7- defense motion to preclude patient witnesses from being referred to as victims, minor victims or survivors is denied in part and granted in part; The Court will schedule a conference for next week to address other outstanding motions."

On December 29, 2022 Judge Berman held a final final pre-trial conference, Inner City Press live tweeted here:

Judge Berman: The government names in its motions some 20 non-statutory victims not listed in the indictment, including the defendant touching Victim 8's [private parts], licked [same] rubbed Victim 10. US says under Rule 404b, such evidence is admissible here

Judge Berman: The defense wants to exclude this bad-act evidence. They say Mister Hadden is not charged with sexual assault in the indictment, so they cannot bring in this evidence... The defense wants a pre-trial admissibility hearing on four witnesses

Judge Berman: Minor Victim 3, Victim 27, Witness 1 and Witness 2 - the US motion to admit these is granted under Rule 413 and 414 (minors), citing US v. Vickers, the 2d Circuit. The Court denies the request for a pre-trial hearing on this After a pause, the US v. dirty doc Hadden hearing continues.

 Judge Berman: The 9-1-1 call is admissible, as an excited utterance. Witness 3 left his work to go to Dr Hadden's office, to meet Victim 15 who said Hadden [xxx-ed my xxxx].

 Judge Berman: So I'll see you all for jury selection, we'll be up in Judge Stein's courtroom.

 AUSA Pomerantz: Our motion to seal witnesses names? Judge Berman: I'm inclined to grant it, it's the same as in Judge Nathan's Maxwell trial, yes? A: Yes.

There followed a discussion of if notes prospective jurors jot on questionnaires are voir dire records, then this from Judge Berman: "rulings on the following motions in limine: 1- government motion to admit defendant's February 2016 guilty plea is granted; 2- government motion to admit evidence of defendant's other sexual assault and abuse crimes, etc. is granted and defense application for pre-trial admissibility hearing is denied; 3- government motion to admit June 29, 2012 text messages is denied as moot and government motion to admit testimony about the text messages and to admit 911 call is granted; 4- government motion to admit prior consistent statements is denied in part as moot and granted in part; 5- government motion to preclude challenges to credibility of non-witnesses will be ruled upon following receipt of more information on non-witnesses, due 12/30/22 at 12:00 pm; 6- government motion to preclude defendant's prior statements in medical records, notes, etc. will be ruled upon following receipt of medical records, notes, etc., due 12/30/22 at 12:00 pm; 7- government motion to preclude evidence of defendant's failure to commit other bad acts is granted; 8- government motion to preclude evidence tending to support jury nullification is granted; 9- government motion to preclude evidence of the government's motives for the prosecution is denied as moot; 10- government motion to preclude evidence of the "#MeToo" movement is granted; 11- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Dr. Berg is denied as moot; 12- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Ms. Unger is granted; 13- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Dr. Goodsell is denied in part and granted in part. 14- 12/22/22 ruling denying defense motion to preclude introduction of prior consistent statements is confirmed and defense request for clarification regarding the governments opening statement is denied as moot and defense request for confirmation that the government should request permission before eliciting prior consistent statement testimony is denied; 15- 12/22/22 ruling denying defense motion to preclude 911 call is confirmed; 16- defendant motion to preclude certain witness testimony is denied in part and granted in part. "

Inner City Press will be similarly covering this Hadden trial. Watch this site.

Back on June 13, 2022, when Hadden was arraigned on a superseding indictment, in preparation of the September 12, 2022 trial. Inner City Press live tweeted it here, and below.

On July 28, Judge Berman moved the trial to November 30: "it does not appear feasible to conduct jury selection in this matter as currently scheduled for September 12, 2022. The Court has taken into consideration several factors including, but not limited to, the total number of jurors that reasonably will be required for jury selection; the length of the trial; the rights of victims; SDNY trial schedule relating to COVID; and incarcerated defendants awaiting trial. The Court also considered that the Defendant is out on bail. The Court proposes that jury selection commence on November 30, 2022. The Court will hold a (remote) pretrial conference on August 10, 2022 at 11:00 am to discuss the timing of jury selection and requests that counsel meet and confer prior to the conference. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/28/2022)."

On August 4, the trial was pushed into 2023: "ORDER as to Robert Hadden: it is hereby ORDERED that the time between June 13, 2022, and January 9, 2023, the trial date in this matter, is hereby excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U'.3S1.6C1.( h)(7)(A), in the interests of justice." Some say justice delayed is justice denied. Watch this site.

From June 13, 2022: OK - now Doc Hadden is being arraigned on superseding indictment 

Judge Berman: The superseding indictment includes an additional victim and says Dr. Hadden coerced the individual to travel to engage in sexual conduct [etc] Hadden's Federal Defender [yes, he has counsel that's taxpayer funded at least for now] "Not guilty"

Federal Defender: We need a CARES Act finding.

Judge Berman: It can be done this way if you consent.

FD: We consent. 

Judge Berman: Great. We will also exclude time under the Speedy Trial on S2. Motions in limine are due July 18 at noon. Voir dire due August 15 and all disclosures including Giglio to be exchanged by Aug 26. Trial on Sep 12. Adjourned.

On January 20, 2022, another conference (actually, an oral argument) which Inner City Press live tweeted here and below.

Motions to suppress were denied in early May 2022: "ORDER denying [133] Motion as to Robert Hadden (1). Defendant's motion, dated November 22, 2021, seeks the suppression of evidence obtained from the Defendant's home in Englewood, New Jersey. In the alternative, Defendant seeks a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The Court incorporates by reference the arguments counsel have raised in their motion papers and at oral argument which was held on January 20, 2022. Based upon the written and oral record in this case, the Court denies the motion to suppress and finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted... II. Conclusion and Order. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his home (Dkt. 133) is denied. Additionally, there is no basis to hold a Franks hearing as the Court does not find there were intentional and/or material misrepresentations or omissions in the wairnnt affidavits. "A Franks hearing is warranted if the defendant can make a preliminary showing that (a) the warrant affidavit contains a false statement, (b) the false statement was included intentionally or recklessly, and (c) the false statement was integral to the probable cause finding." United States v. Caraher, 973 F.3d 57, 62 (2d Cir. 2020). No such showing has been made. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/4/2022)."

The [first] motions to suppress were denied on January 25: "DECISION & ORDER denying [134] Motion as to Robert Hadden (1). Defendant Robert Hadden's motion, dated November 22, 2021, seeks the suppression of evidence obtained from a laptop (the "Apple iBook") belonging to Hadden's deceased father that was seized on August 12, 2020, from his father's residence in Glen Cove, New York. The Court incorporates by reference the arguments counsel have raised in their motion papers and at oral argument, which was held on January 20, 2022. Based upon the written and oral record in this case, the Court denies the motion to suppress and finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.... Defendant Robert Hadden's motion to suppress evidence seized from his deceased father's home (ECF No. 134) is denied. There is no basis to hold a hearing."

On February 2, a trial date was set: "ORDER as to Robert Hadden. Based upon the record herein, including counsels' joint February 1, 2022 letter and the conference held on February 2, 2022; the trial schedule is as follows: 1- Trial will commence with jury selection on Monday, September 12, 2022; 2- A final pretrial conference will be held on Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 10:00 am; 3- Motions in limine are due July 18, 2022 (noon); 4- Responses to motions in limine are due August 1, 2022 (noon); 5- Joint proposed jury charges, joint proposed voir dire, joint proposed verdict sheet, joint list of names and places, are due August 15, 2022 (noon); 6- All disclosures between and among counsel, including, Rule 404(b) notice; 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Giglio; and Rule 26.2 materials; and exhibit and witness lists should be exchanged as agreed to among counsel, but in no event later than August 26, 2022."

  Back on September 9, 2020 close to 10 pm, Hadden emerged from Pre-Trial then the courthouse. Inner City Press and three others sought to ask him questions, about the victims' statements and double jeopardy. He did not answer. A man in an FBI t-shirt led him first up Mulberry Street, then past the NYC criminal court at 100 Centre Street and finally out to Broadway and Reade Street where a taxi was waiting for Hadden. Periscope video here.

 SDNY Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss held a press conference about the case on September 9.

  Inner City Press asked her if the indictment had been returned by a fully in-person grand jury, or if it had included a virtual component of the type being questioned in the CIA / Joshua Schulte, Melzer, Balde and other cases.

   US Attorney Strauss said the indictment was returned in the normal course, by a sitting grand jury. Periscope video here. Alamy photo here. She declined to say whether her office would be seeking detention pending trial, or agreeing to a bail package as they did in the recent case of indicted UN rapist Karim Elkorany.

There was no mention at the press conference for the charges against Hadden made publicly by Evelyn Yang, the wife of Andrew Yang, and not much mention of Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance.

Hours later, a bail proceeding before SDNY Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger (and not the Magistrate on duty on September 8, Barbara Moses). Inner City Press live tweeted it:

Speaking for the US is AUSA Maurene Comey...

 Judge Lehrburger: We are proceeding under the CARES Act. This is open to the press and public. Any recording is  prohibited. Hadden's lawyer: We are only representing him for this proceeding

 Judge Lehrburger: You have the right to remain silent... You have a right to be released unless I find danger to the community or risk of non-appearance for future court proceedings.  [Note: Ghislaine Maxwell was found a risk of flight]

Judge Lehrburger: You are charged with six counts of Enticement and Inducement to Travel To Engage In Illegal Sex Acts. Hadden's lawyer enters not guilty plea. AUSA Maurene Comey: The government seeks detention as risk of flight.

AUSA Comey: Today, the government has communicated with 20 victims. They all say he should be detained. He has the financial means to flee. Because of the minor victim, there is a statutory presumption of detention that cannot be overcome.

 AUSA Comey: He abused dozens of victims, including multiple minors, as prominent institution's [Columbia U] OB-GYN. He would sent nurses out of the room. [Did they ever report it?]

AUSA Comey: He conducted unneeded breast exams. He touched genitals without any medical purpose. He attempted to stimulate them, to gratify himself. For two decades. One victim, he had delivered as a baby

AUSA Comey: The women traveled to see him because he worked at a prominent institution. [What about Columbia?]

 The case is US v. Hadden, 20-cr-468 (Berman).

sdny 

***

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.

After SBF Case Reassigned Hype of Same Jan 3 Arraignment Triggers Guilty Plea Speculation

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
 
NY Mag
 Song 1

LITERARY SDNY, Dec 28 – While after the hand-off of the FTX case the new judge had not been seen, he issued an order reaffirming the January 3 court date, the arraignment and initial pre-trial conference.

Kurt Wheelock tweeted it out, with a photo of the docket entry; he didn't think it was worth a story, even on his blog. 

 But a wire service felt different, and headlined its piece that SBF "to enter plea in FTX fraud case." That made it sound like he was going to plead guilty, at least to Kurt. That he would plead not-guilty, like everyone did reflexively at their first appearance, could hardly merit a story. But that's how they wrote it. 

   And many in the crypto press, and even Politico Pro, followed this lede. One echoed, "Bankman-Fried may enter plea in NY federal court next week."  

But of COURSE he would enter some plea - that had already been scheduled before Judge Abrams, before she recused herself. And defendants always were arraigned, a simple "not guilty," in their first appearance before the assigned District Judge. Here, the hunger for news, any news, led to mis-reporting, it seemed to Kurt. 

 He rarely made predictions about the court, but the odds of Bankman-Fried negotiating and signing a plea agreement to 20 years in prison, in the past week, the first week, seems to him to be zero. But that's how people, or at least this person, read the headline. Was Kurt getting himself back into trouble by noting it?

   This has happened when Kurt was at the UN. The small, still dwindling press corpses there would put out stories about "Emergency meeting about North Korea!" when it was clear that nothing would change, North Korea never obeyed these warnings, quite the contrary. But the UN press corpses needed to make the carcass they covered seemed relevant, to make themselves seem relevant (inaccurately), and so it went.

  Kurt had been the party pooper, and got thrown out. Now this.

  Meanwhile out in Palo Alto Michael "Money Ball" Lewis was said to be meeting with Bankman-Fried. Those who had tried to flak for Elizabeth Holmes, or Trevor Milton, were widely dissed. How was this different? It was a zeitgeist case, people kept saying.  

  Crypto fraud was in the news, beyond SBF. Kurt covered the unsealed indictment of one Avraham Eisenberg, manipulating his own token on Mango Market in Puerto Rico, then fleeing to Israel.

The prosecutors did not put out any press release about that one. Maybe it was the Christmas to New Years lull. A lull that Kurt Wheelock would try to use, while he still could.  To be continued- song 1 here; more on Patreon here 1 and here 2 and here 3 and here 4 and here 5 and here 6

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com