In DC Insurrection Case Oath Keeper Watkins Is Detained By DDC Judge Mehta

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, Feb 26– During closing arguments of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, insurrectionist Thomas Edward Caldwell was ordered detained until trial by District Judge Amit P. Mehta. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below. (US v. Caldwell affidavit on Patreon here).

 Now on February 26 Jessica Watkins, who as a founder of a small Ohio militia was present at the Capitol on January 6, was ordered detained pending trial. Inner City Press live tweeted it here: (Podcast here)

DDC Judge Amit P. Mehta says, we'll get into the detention issues.

Defense lawyer deals with the Davis case (basis of many re-sentencings throughout the Federal system), on what is a crime of violence. 

Judge Mehta: Do you agree on this ten year overlap  referenced in the Bail Reform Act... for destruction of Federal property? Defense lawyer: Judge Nichols deal with this this morning on Gina Bisignano, and released her

 Judge Mehta: Are you saying that, for example, pouring blood on the Lincoln Memorial is a crime of violence? AUSA: We have the 6th Circuit case in Jenkins, about pillaging. Force is applied. There is a Black's Law point that there can be a non-forcible taking

AUSA: Of consider indirect application of force like poison. Pouring a drop of poison into water does not require much application of force, it has an impact. Like graffiti, thousands of dollars of damage. Here, the property damage is over $1000.

Judge Mehta: This is where I come out. I think that the government is correct that the crime charged for destruction of property, with maximum term of 10 years - I'm going off plain text. They overlap at 10 years, as Circuit courts have said... Inner City Press @innercitypress · 1h Judge Mehta: For example US v. Theriault, 555 F2d 460

 Judge Mehta: I do think this qualifies as a qualifying offense. But I don't agree that just because a presumption applies, it obviates the need for a detention hearing. Inner City Press @innercitypress · 1h AUSA: There were 100s of people at the Capitol that day. Her case is not part of the general pattern. She recruited, planned and organized a major part of this insurrection. She tried to intimidate government - it's the Federal crimes of terrorism, as it's defined

 AUSA: Her deals have not abated, her feelings against the government - "nothing wrong with that" - but confined with her actions, she should be detained. Judge Mehta: These Quick Reaction force, the text messages with Mr. Caldwell...

Judge Mehta: Does the government have proof there were people outside of the District ready with weapons? We could do it outside of the public session. AUSA: I would appreciate that. Judge Mehta: OK, we'll go into a break-out closed session.

 Ten minutes and Judge Mehta is still in closed session to hear evidence about there being people waiting outside DC with weapons on January 6. Either there's a lot of evidence, or a lot of questions - or both.... Photo from US v. Jessica Watkins

OK - Judge Mehta is back: You did sent me on Tuesday the recipe you alluded to in your papers. AUSA: The recipe for bomb making was one that appeared in the Anarchist Cookbook, published in the early 1970s. The author went by the name Jolly Roger.

Judge Mehta: Who typed it? AUSA: We don't know. Judge Mehta: Is there any exculpatory evidence? AUSA: We are accessing all the video, we don't have it yet. We don't see her assaulting an officer, per se. But she said in Ohio, We stood our ground and drew the line

 AUSA: We take that to mean she tried to repel police trying to protect the building. So it's physical confrontation... Meanwhile, she proposes to reside with her partner who we understand to also be a militia member.

 AUSA: Person-1, a founder of the Oath Keepers, says not to follow orders of this current president. We are concerned.  Ms. Watkins says, "I don't underestimate the resolve of the Deep State... Then it is our duty to resist." This type of zeal has not dissipated.

 AUSA: She said she is proud of being a member of the Oath Keepers. She has become more strident. So there are no set of conditions to release her. Judge Mehta: What's the date of the Person-1 communication in ECF 30, Page 4?

AUSA: January 12. Defense lawyer: So she said $50 to be a member of the Oath Keepers. But she's really just a consultant. She is not a planner for the Oath Keepers. She did that for militia, it is a small group. She is going to put on the record here she wants to disband the militia

 Defense lawyer: And her bar is not called Jolly Roger because of the Anarchist Cookbook. Jolly Roger is a pirate. Judge Mehta: The cookbook walks about making plastic explosive from bleach. Defense lawyer: She had them just because they are interesting.

Defense lawyer: Jessica Watkins is a trained medic. She served in the army. She was there on January 6 to try to help keep order, they should Antifa and BLM would be there.

 Judge Mehta: What's troubling here is her communication on this closed circuit system. An unknown male says, We have probable cause to make a citizen's arrest for election fraud. Defense lawyer: Ms. Watkins did say that. She wasn't even hearing everything said

Defense lawyer: There's been in this court a woman who used a battering ram. That's not Ms. Watkins. Did she do a little chest thumping? Sure. But that does not support the finding that she destroyed any property. At most, aiding and abetting.

 Defense lawyer: There's been a lot of disparities and inconsistencies in who gets released and who does. That happens when you go before judges all over the country. There was the gentleman who used a flag pole to break the glass where Ashli Babbitt was killed

Defense lawyer: 21-mj-76, he wasn't even detained. A man who used a taser, on multiple occasions. An officer nearby suffered a heart attack after being tased. Another request for a break-out room...

Defense lawyer (female, easier to ID)- still comparing to other cases: Flexi-cuffs, guy pushed officer and had to be pepper sprayed, in these cases the government did not seek detention. This morning Judge Nichols released a woman who was aerosol spraying officers

Defense lawyer: There are a lot of complex aspects to Ms. Watkins. She wants to make a statement in a moment. Ms Watkins: Me and Mr. Montana, we co-founded our militia, to help people in the tornado alley in Ohio. My fellow Oath Keepers have turned my stomach.

 Ms. Watkins: For the record, your Honor, I have disbanded my militia. We're done with that life style. It's time to let all of that go. I don't intend to use social media, even for amusement. I just want to focus on my business. I'm sorry. I'm humiliatated.

 AUSA: She's a regional leader of her militia, hooked up with the Oath Keepers, before January 6. She recruited Parker, who went into the building. 

Judge Mehta: Mr. Caldwell, he was an organizer. Is the government asking that others be held in this conspiracy. Defense lawyer: The Parkers have both been released.  Judge Mehta: I'm going to go off the record and think about some things. I'll be back at 3:50 [in ten minutes.]

Judge Mehta is ruling: She has been referred to as the commanding officer of the militia in Ohio. She is a member of the Oath Keepers. She has participated in planning calls with the Oath Keepers and is in communication with the leader of the Oath Keepers

 Judge Mehta: She was organizing groups to come to the city on January 6. On the nature and circumstances of the offense, candidly, present a danger. This is historic, an incursion on the Capitol. She was an organizer.

Judge Mehta: There's this recipe for making a destructive device. I think it's indicative of things she may have thought about. I do think this favors detention.  I refer to my comments in the closed session.

 Judge Mehta: Whatever the President said, it doesn't justify bringing weapons toward Washington DC. Are there lesser conditions? I've thought about that - but I can't get there.

 Judge Mehta: I'm concerned about your partner, being a member of the Ohio militia. Today you've renounced the Oath Keepers. But I have to balance that against your prior conduct. You might re-affiliate. We cannot monitor all of your communications, encrypted apps

Judge Mehta: I am not prepared to release Ms. Watkins. I grant the government's motion to detain her. Next date is March 12.

We'll have more on this.

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

InnerCityPress · Jeffrey Sabol, insurrection Blues III, by Matthew Russell Lee

  From January 22, song here: Thread here.

InnerCityPress · Insurrection Blues, by Matthew Russell Lee

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

InnerCityPress · John Sullivan Insurrection Blues II by Matthew Russell Lee

***

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.

Wales Government Was Sued For Use of Dylan Thomas Photos Now To Magistrate In SDNY

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 25 – Pablo Star Ltd. owns the American copyrights to photographic works featuring poet Dylan Thomas. It sued the Welsh Government.  

   On February 25 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge J. Paul Oetken held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it. 

   Pablo Star says the devolved government of Wales operates Visit Wales which used the photos.    The question of sovereign immunity has arisen - but Wales is not a country, as such.

Judge Oetken said he'd found that question interesting.

But the continuation of this dispute, which began in 2015, less so.

It has now been referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for settlement.

The case is Pablo Star Ltd. v. The Welsh Government et al., 15-cv-1167 (Oetken)

***

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 DOJ Dropped Nejad Verdicts Judge Grants Inner City Press Unsealing Now Emails Galore

By Matthew Russell Lee, Thread, Patreon Song

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 25 – Iranian banker Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad had been on trial, charged with money laundering and violating US sanctions including through a Venezuelan infrastructure project.

  On March 16, after an unprecedented decision to proceed with ten jurors in the jury room and an eleventh at home, deliberating by video conference or FaceTime, he was found guilty on most charges. Live tweeted thread here.

 Late on Friday, June 5 this news dump: "Re: United States v. Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejadin, 18 Cr. 224 (AJN)  Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits the enclosed application for an order of nolle prosequi of the Indictments filed in this case against Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejadin (“Sadr”) and Bahram Karimi.

 Inner City Press on October 30, 2020 filed to unseal DOJ's sealed submissions, in Docket Number 393.

 On February 17, 2021, this (partial) Order: " The prosecutors have requested that their declarations and the exhibits be maintained under seal. See Dkt. Nos. 383–87, 394–95. Mr. Sadr and two press organizations oppose sealing. See Dkt. Nos. 389, 394, 388, 393. Astonishingly, even in its latest filings, the Government has informed the Court of yet another failure of disclosure in this case related to the FBI’s review of raw state search-warrant returns." Yes, astonishing.

"The Court sets out its reasoning in more detail in an Opinion concurrently filed under temporary seal to allow the prosecutors an opportunity to propose limited redactions. It summarizes its conclusions and orders below.... The Court thus ORDERS as follows: 1. The Court does not find that the prosecutors intentionally withheld documents from the defense or intentionally misled the Court, and thus will not engage in further fact-finding related to attorney misconduct. 2. The Court urges a full investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility. 3. The Court GRANTS the motions of the press organizations to intervene."

 And now, many documents and emails have been unsealed, and reported here and in other media. Meanwhile, some defendants and suspects like in Honduras, including president JOH, are saying that the Nejad case exonerates them as well. As they say in Spanish, No tiene nada que ver. We'll have more on this.

Back on June 7, still without any press release by the SDNY Press Office about this development, this from Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad through his lawyers: "Ali Sadr welcomes the government’s decision to drop this misguided prosecution and wholeheartedly agrees that it is in the interest of justice for the Court to dismiss this case. See Dkt. 348. However, a nolle prosequi—a common-law action superseded by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—is not the proper mechanism to do so. Among other reasons, allowing the government to proceed in this manner might be viewed as permitting the unlawfully obtained guilty verdict to stand, which could conceivably have adverse immigration consequences for Sadr in addition to perpetuating the reputational harm he has already suffered. The government’s nolle prosequi submission, stating it unilaterally will not proceed further, also might not be deemed a dismissal of the case with prejudice. The government has confirmed, in a June 5, 2020 phone call and a June 6, 2020 exchange of emails, that it intended to dismiss the case with prejudice. Accordingly, Sadr is submitting a proposed order confirming that the dismissal is with prejudice, and making explicit that the verdict is vacated and is null and void."

Back in March: Judge Nathan: "The jury has reached a verdict.... The juror on video conference will stay on until he hears from me further." Jury entering! Judge Nathan: "I'll ask the foreperson. Has the jury asked a unanimous verdict?" Yes.

 Judge Nathan: Count 1, how do you find the defendant, with conspiring to defraud the US? Guilty. Count 2: Guilty.

Judge Nathan (after sidebar) "On Count 3, bank fraud, how do you find? Guilty. Under 1344, prong 1, neither (?) Count 4: bank fraud conspiracy:  Under 1344, prong 1, neither (?) Under 1344, prong 2, guilty

Judge Nathan: Count 5: Guilty. Count 6, money laundering conspiracy: Not guilty. Now polling jurors: one? 2? [soon the virtual juror] Let me confirm the verdict with Juror Number 7... I have confirmed it is his verdict. I will dismiss the jury.

  After Judge Nathan had declined to sent Sadr to jail pending sentencing but instead converted him to home detention, Inner City Press rushed out to do a Periscope video live stream (here) and try to ask Sadr a question. His lawyers left in a yellow cab, then he left. Inner City Press asked, Are you going to appeal? He answered softly, Of course. Then he too got in a yellow cab.

  On March 16 amid the Coronavirus COVID-19 crisis, jury deliberations ran into a problem. SDNY Judge Nathan proposed proceeding with ten jurors in the jury room and one connected from outside by video.

 Assistant US Attorney Michael Krause objected. But Judge Nathan said there are extraordinary circumstances and she would proceed thusly. Inner City Press live tweeted it all: thread here. More on Patreon here.

Ali Sadr is represented by lawyer Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson and, on November 25 as reported by Inner City Press by Brian M. Heberlig before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Alison J. Nathan.

  On Sunday, March 8 [alongside this song] the US Attorney Office which closed its case on March 9 past 9 pm submitted a letter, below.

 On March 12 in closing arguments, this happened:  As jury charge continues: Judge Nathan has just deployed the old saw about circumstantial evidence, that if people come into a windowless courtroom with wet umbrella, jurors are free to conclude it is raining outside. 

But what about Iran sanctions?

AUSA Krause: The defendant knew what he was doing violated US sanctions against Iran. The defendant is charged with six felonies. Mohammad Sadr was the beneficiary of the payments. ...

It's good to have money, in essence. This is not how lower income defendants are often treated in the SDNY. The case is USA v. Nejad,  18-cr-00224 (Nathan). More on Patreon here

O

***

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.

IMF Answers on Sudan and Cambodia As Inner City Press Asks of Prices and Human Rights

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Video

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 25 – When the International Monetary Fund held its biweekly embargoed press briefing on February 25, Inner City Press asked for the status of programs and talks with Sudan, Cambodia and Zambia. Spokesperson Gerry Rice answered on each, videos here and here and here.

 On Sudan, Inner City Press asked, "what is the IMF comment on, including confirming its role in, Sudan’s central bank sharp devaluation of  the currency on Sunday, ascribed to trying to 'unify official and black-market exchange rates in an effort to access debt relief'?

   Spokesperson Rice acknowledged there may be "temporary" inflation but praised the move and said there is help or support coming from donors and the international community. We'll see.

  On Cambodia, Inner City Press asked: "state media quote the IMF praising the government and stating that  the IMF will continue to provide technical assistance as well as further capability building in order to strengthen the resilience and development of the Cambodian banking sector. True? Inner City Press added in a question about the crackdown on land protesters, and environmental issues.

  Spokesperson Rice described the IMF's cooperation with Cambodia but alluded to oversight, mentioning real estate. Transcript to follow.

   On Zambia, Inner City Pres aksed please describe the status of the talks, which started on 11 February, are due to end on 3 March, and comment on reports that no program will be possible before the election, spending will balloon and Zambia will, reportedly, increasingly turn to loans from China in exchange for copper concessions?

  Spokesman Rice said, perhaps understandably, that while the talks are ongoing through March 3, not much can be said. There will be a press release after.

Watch this site.

Back on January 8 Inner City Press asked the IMF's Helge Berger, Mission Chief, about China's so-called Belt and Road Initiative: "Your Article IV report cites China's "overseas lending projects" amid "rising geopolitical tensions and economic and trade frictions." How does the IMF think that rising debt levels among African countries, and increased skepticism about the "Belt and Road" will impact or be addressed going forward? -Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press. Video here.

Berger responded about the IMF's work to provide lower income countries "breathing space." He said while the IMF generally welcomes the BRI it stresses the need for transparency, where the money is going.

(An aside: Inner City Press has reported on the CEFC China Energy Fund Committee's activities in Chad and Uganda and in the UN, on which the UN is UNresponsive.)

Other questions included China's digital currency (Inner City Press also reports on crypto-currency cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and elsewhere). Berger said when used overseas an issue is that residents could start using another country's currency, if it is easier.

We'll have more on this.

***

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.

MiMedx Fraud Convict Taylor Gets 1 Year Like More Guilty But Sick Pete Petit

 By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 24 – Parker "Pete" Petit and William Taylor were charged with conspiracy and securities fraud with respect to MiMedx. 

On October 5 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff held a pre-trial proceeding. Inner City Press covered it, below.

 On November 19, on the fourth day of jury deliberations the MiMedx jury came back with guilty verdicts, and not guilty verdicts, for both Petit and Taylor.

 On February 23, seeking a sentence of no jail time, Petit appeared virtually before Judge Rakoff (and got one year).

 On February 24 co-defendant Taylor appeared in person, took off one of two masks to speak -- and got the same sentence, one year. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here:

Judge Rakoff: The guideline range here is 262 to 327 months in prison. Bizarre. Barbaric. Absurd. But just one more reflection of how misguided the guidelines are in this area. 

Judge Rakoff: Even if we used gain instead of loss and didn't add enhancements we'd still have a guidelines of 27 to 33 months. I'm considering a sentence below even that range. The bottom line is, my sentence will be my sentence and it will be mine regardless Inner City Press @innercitypress · 49m Judge Rakoff: On loss amount, we've had the battle of the experts. The drop in MiMedx' stock is due to the accounting fraud. There were at least 739 shareholders... given my view of the loss situation, there were obviously 10 or more victims.

Judge Rakoff: This required sophisticated means, so that adjustment is supported. These are a piling on of numbers derived not through science - they make astrology look good by comparison. The Guidelines seem to be interested in everything but human beings.

 Taylor's lawyer: We listened to your sentencing of Mr. Petit yesterday and Mr. Taylor was very impressed. It was important to Mr. Taylor that he be here today, and be sentenced in person. 

 Judge Rakoff: But for Mr Petit's health, I would have sentenced him to 4 years, and would probably have given Mr. Taylor 2 years. So what do I do? Mr Taylor has positive qualities, which you've ably argued. But I'm thinking of less than 2 [years] but more than 1

AUSA: On First Medical, it was Mr. Taylor who sent these two emails. With CCM, he directed his subordinates to conceal swaps from the company's auditors. So the culpability gap here is not so great.

Taylor's lawyer: Mr. Taylor is not near to Mr. Petit in terms of personal resources. He will likely end up bankrupt. MiMedx has sued him for legal fees they incurred. There are securities law suits against him.

Taylor's lawyer: Can he take one of his two masks off?

Judge Rakoff: Yes, I think he can take one off. Taylor himself: I wrote a detailed letter, so I'll keep this brief. This case has been a catalyst for me to look inward.

Taylor: One of my business matras is, Do the right thing. Clearly the jury did not think I did. I will [sobs] do everything in my power to be a better person. I've reviewed my actions and deeds over the past 30 years to see what I can learn.

Taylor: Once on the other side of sentencing, I hope to help others with my experience. I want to apologize to my friends and family, to my former co-workers at MiMedx, saving tens of thousands of lives and limbs. Some may have been denied the products.

Judge Rakoff: There are downsides to being young, as well as to being old. It's very interesting to read the letters in this case. There were people who tried to whiste-blow and got harmed, even after they left the company. Mr. Petit was more involved in that.

Judge Rakoff: Mr. Taylor's friends and family letter speak to his good deeds. And these should be considered, especially on the day of sentencing. Should Mr Petit's light sentence give Mr Taylor a windfall? The defense says, How is the public going to understand?

Judge Rakoff: Having weighed all this, I am guided by a beautiful thing about 3553(a) - impose the sentencing that is the LEAST that will satisfy the functions of 3553(a).  So, not without some pause, I am going to give Mr. Taylor one year in prison.

Judge Rakoff: I impose a fine of $250,000, with one year to pay it. In terms of surrender date, I'll put it off until the prisons should be back to some semblance of normalcy. So, Sept 21.

[The request was for Montgomery, Alabama]

Here's how the US Attorney's Office, past 2 pm back on November 19, put it: "PARKER H. “PETE” PETIT, the former chief executive officer of MiMedx Group, Inc. (“MiMedx”), a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company, was convicted of securities fraud, and WILLIAM TAYLOR, the former chief operating officer of MiMedx, was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, to make false statements in SEC filings, and to mislead the conduct of audits."

On October 26, the trial began, and Inner City Press live tweeted it. Now here and below.

 On November 16, the US Attorney's Office wrapped up their rebuttal and Judge Rakoff stepped into the witness box to give instructions:

Judge Rakoff just said he'll deliver his instructions from(plexiglass) witness box, so he can take off his mask. A juror is late...

OK - juror has arrived and MiMedx trial final argument by US Attorney's Office has begun: "They lied under oath... Why did they corrupt their positions? Out of greed, for the money. Pete Petit had $38 million in MiMedx stock.

AUSA: "Return versus repurchase, it's all nonsense. Bill Taylor admits this is the right of return email. He used the word repurchase, it's just proof of his guilty conscience. Don't be fooled."

Then after one admonition to wrap it up, the jury instructions began. Watch this site.

  On November 10, an Atlanta-based auditor of MiMedx, then and now working for Cherry Bekaert, under government questions said that a $200,000 payment to Mark Brooks, characterized as a bribe, should have been discounted from the reported earnings, according to GAAP.

 But on November 11 under cross examination, the auditor admitted that John Cranston was his main contact at MiMedx, and was shown that Cranston was on the e-mail chain about the payment to Mark Brooks. So shouldn't Cranston have told the auditor?

  Inner City Press live tweeted the afternoon session on November 11, here:

Gov witness, seemingly the last, is SEC Financial Economist Carina Shambarry. There was another sidebar with Judge Rakoff before she started. AUSA: Did you review MiMedx? A: Yes. AUSA: Who asked you?

A: The US Attorney's Office... I looked at 2015 purchase orders

Shambarry: This is the inflated revenue of MiMedx for the 4th quarter of 2015... inflated by $2,990,675... that is, by 6.12%. They still missed guidance by about $600,000.

Now comes cross examination of Carina Shambarry. Q: So this stock sale by Mr Taylor was before any allegation of wrongdoing, right?

AUSA: Objection! Judge Rakoff: Lay a foundation.

Q: Were you given any info about purchase orders before the end of June 2015? A: No Now counsel says they're about to move on to another topic, suggests breaking for the day. 

Judge Rakoff: I'm disappointed, but I'll bear up. Come to the sidebar. After a time, to jury: The gov will wrap up tomorrow. The defense will put on a couple of witnesses. 

Judge Rakoff: We'll have the government's closing tomorrow afternoon, defense's on Friday. You can start deliberating sometime on Monday. We need to keep the pressure on. See you tomorrow at 9:45. [Jury leaves] Judge Rakoff, to lawyer: Let's make some motions.

Defense: We do have motions to make. Can we take a five minute break? Judge Rakoff: Sure. We'll deem that these motions are being made at the end of the government's case. Thread will continue.

Defense returns with a Second Circuit citation, 971 F.3d 380, about when making further objections would be unavailing - asks Judge Rakoff if that's the case here. It seems so. Talk turns to how the jury should be told about the power to grant immunity.

AUSA arguing that the evidence supports an instruction on conscious avoidance...

Judge Rakoff: Some judges don't like counsel to quote principles of law in summation. I am not one of those. Just make sure you quote my instructions, and not something you make up.

Judge Rakoff: You can says, the Government didn't meet its burden because no evidence of X or Y. What you cannot say is, They didn't call Mr. Jones as a witness... It's been a long day, and I still have to teach at Columbia."

  On the morning of November 12, the defense got Ms. Shambarry to admit she had not reviewed how bonuses were paid to Petit and Taylor in 2013 and 2015 - that is, whether they would have gotten the same bonus whether or not they early-recognized revenue. The cross examinations were punctuated by objections, many of them sustained. But still the point was made. Next up: closing arguments.

  Watch this site.

 On November 9, after the AUSA said now the government might close its case on November 11, Veterans Day, Judge Rakoff said he had noticed - and that he had notice that the jurors did not appear bored by focused. He congratulated both sides' lawyers and told them to keep it up. So will we as the trial winds down.

  On the morning of November 6, Bill Taylor's lawyer cross examined a government witness about why he had not complained internally if he thought the deal with Mark Brooks' company was wrong. It all got reported to Pete [Petit], he answered, adding that MiMedx General Counsel Lexi Hayden did whatever Petit said.

 The government on re-direct tried to rehabilitate him, that he had been afraid of Petit's retaliation and had a family to support. But what about Taylor?

 On the afternoon of November 6, talk turned to an informal application for a loan from Capital One by Jerry Morrison, whose business was said to be the sale of human tissue (for medical purposes). After a cooperator, or witness with a Non Prosecution Agreement, the AUSA said the government may rest its case by the end of next week. Judge Rakoff said he'll draft jury instructions and that the charging conference shouldn't take more than 72 hours, "bring your sleeping bag." We'll continue on this.

  On the morning of November 5, cross examination of a government witness who worked for previous witness Carlton continued, focusing on his role as an "advocate" for Mark Brooks, and his characterization of the $200,000 payment to Brooks as being a bribe.

There were diversions into a text message about pizza -- "I like pizza too much, that's my problem," the witness said, perhaps ingratiating him to the jury. Judge Rakoff told the jurors to take 11 am to 12:05 pm  for lunch, as he gave a Zoom speech to NYU; he told the lawyers to return at 12:01.

Day 5, Oct 30: Witness: Brooks had a lot of complaints, so I don't remember what was per se settled... We got the order afterwards. Defense: Call up Gov Exh 1018. Take a look at this. This is an email from Mr Petit to Mark Brooks, right? Witness: Right.

We're back. Carlton still on the stand. Q: You see Mr. Carlton this email says Mr Brooks had to forego the stock, for the $200,000? Carlton: Yes. Q: And Mr. Petit was on the email, as you were, and said - Judge Rakoff (to jurors) This is for state of mind 

Q: You wrote that the $200,000 to Mr. Brooks was for lost business? Carlton: Not the case. It was for the stock. 

Q: So you sent Bill [Taylor]'s email to Bassam? Carlton: Yeah because he missed the first one.

Q: But Mr Taylor's email said repurchase the product. It does not say returned.

 AUSA: Objection! Asked and answered!

Judge Rakoff: I'll let it go for now... Have a good weekend.

 [On the morning of October 30, Inner City Press formally asked for access to the government exhibits in this US v. Petit case. Watch this site.]

Day 4

The case is US v. Petit et al., 19-cr-850 (Rakoff)

***

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.