On OneCoin Scott Extends Filing Time Citing 10.1 GB Konstantin Jail Calls Inner City Press Unsealed

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Filing
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Vlog - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29  -- For money laundering for scam crypto currency OneCoin, lawyer Mark Scott was convicted by a jury after testimony by Konstantin Ignatov and others but was allowed to remain free on bail pending sentencing. Sebastian Greenwood, meanwhile, is in detention in the MDC and will wait (at least) a year for a trial. David Pike got a lenient six to 12 month plea deal accepted on October 19, below.

 On September 21, 2021 there was a proceeding on and with Greenwood and Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below (and podcast here)

On October 16, Scott's lawyers told Judge Ramos, "the Government conceded that Konstantin had committed perjury with respect to one matter (his disposal of a OneCoin laptop), while arguing that there was no evidence that Konstantin had testified falsely on a second matter raised in Mr. Scott's motion: a supposed meeting involving Mark Scott and Irina Dilkinska at OneCoin's Sofia, Bulgaria offices on July 20, 2016. As previewed in our letter of October 1, 2021 (Dkt. 413), counsel for Mr. Scott received documentary evidence that Ms. Dilkinska was in fact in India at the time of the alleged Sofia meeting, which it has shared with the Government. The Government has advised that it is in the process of obtaining records from foreign authorities with respect to Ms. Dilkinska’s travels. The Government also disclosed on October 12, 2021 that Konstantin obtained and used a contraband cellphone while incarcerated at the MCC, that it was seized in late February 2020, and that the case team was informed of this a year ago, in October 2020. Mr. Scott seeks, with the Government's consent, a two week extension, until October 29, 2021, for the filing of his Reply Brief. The parties also request that the Court adjourn sentencing, currently set for November 9, 2021, until a date convenient for the Court in early December." Full letter on Patreon here.

On October 19, Judge Ramos extended things: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Mark S. Scott re: [417] Letter on extension... ENDORSEMENT: Mr. Scott's reply is now due October 29, 2021. Sentencing is adjourned to December 8, 2021 at 2pm."

But on October 29 Scott's lawyer asked for and got an extension to November 8, stating among other things that "last Thursday, the Government provided 10.1 GB from the contraband cellphone seized in February 2020 that Konstantin used while incarcerated" and saying, again, that Irina Dilkinska on July 20, 2016 was not in Sofia - but rather India.

On October 19, after many postponements, co-defendant David Pike finally pleaded guilty, albeit only to Count 1 of a superseding information. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.

 During the change of plea proceeding, Judge Ramos did not read out what the plea deal was, only that Pike had signed it, on August 21, 2021. But the deal is for (only) six to twelve months, and forfeiture of $2,099,330. It states name checks the Fenero Funds, not OneCoin.

Nor does this.

On October 6, the prosecutors asked for yet another delay on Gilbert Armenta, who as Inner City Press has exclusively reported continued his businesses during this time: "The parties write jointly to respectfully request an adjournment of the sentencing proceeding currently scheduled in the above-captioned case at 3:30 p.m. on October 13, 2021. The parties remain in continuing discussions regarding various forfeiture issues, among other sentencing-related issues. To permit the parties to continue engaging in those discussions, the parties respectfully request an adjournment of the sentencing proceeding until sometime during the week of December 13, 2021." Watch this site.

 On August 25, 2021 Inner City Press filed a letter with Judge Ramos, cc-ing the prosecutors and Scott's counsel, formally asking that the motion be unsealed - still not docketed as of Aug 30, unlike the practice of other SDNY judges.
(Now on DocumentCloud, here; podcast here).

Vlog here.

 On September 13, counsel for Mark Scott and for the US Attorney's Office were told by Judge Ramos' chambers (to its credit), "Judge Ramos directs the parties to respond to this request."

The August 25 letter: Dear Judge Ramos:    This concerns, in the above-captioned criminal case that concerns money laundering for the OneCoin scheme, the request to entirely seal a judicial document requesting a new trial for the defendant. The filing(s) should be unsealed in full, or if the Court sees fit, in part.    I have been covering the case for Inner City Press, see also, e.g., The Guardian (UK), November 25, 2019, "In testimony live-tweeted by the investigative journalism website Inner City Press, Ignatov reportedly referred to Abdulaziz as 'one of the main money launderers' involved in the scheme."

 Yesterday, Scott's counsel filed a letter (Dkt 390) requesting a sentencing adjournment based on "the need for the Court to consider and address the Supplemental Rule 22 Motion (including the request for an evidentiary hearing) filed under seal on August 23, 2021." That motion is a judicial document, within the meaning of United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81-83 (2d Cir. 2008) and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) - it should be made available. 

 It is not entirely clear to me if the letter has been docketed. There is an August 13 notation of a SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. This is a request to unseal that as well, and to review the redaction in Dkt 390. Judge Richard Sullivan, only today, ruled that a discussion of a defendant's COVID status was not entitled to sealing. See US v. Ernest Murphy, 18-cr-373 (Sullivan), dkt 857.  This is a case of public import, and these are judicial documents. 

  Inner City Press routinely files requests to unseal in this District, and other Districts - including as cited in its March 31 request, here  And Judge Broderick's docketing of Inner City Press' request to unseal in US v. Ashe / Piao, 15-cr-706, Dkt No 999 (Inner City Press letter) & Dkt 998 (ordering that sealing be justified or removed by April 9). 

And see, regarding public access to allegedly confidential information, Judge Furman's recent grant of Inner City Press request to unseal in US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF), Docket No. 134. See also, July 27, 2021, NYLJ, "Judge Orders Release of Michael Avenatti's Financial Affidavits In Stormy Daniels Theft Case," "Journalist Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press had intervened, advocating for the affidavits' release."

(Now on DocumentCloud, here; podcast here).Watch this site.

 Inner City Press back on March 13 asked the US Attorney's Office Press Office for its filings not yet in the public docket.  Here is Inner City Press' Periscope video upon leaving the courthouse. The case is US v. Scott, 17-cr-630 (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.

After Avenatti Finances Unsealed By Inner City Press DOJ Wants Him In Prison By Nov 12

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Radio
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Order Affidavit

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 – Michael Avenatti's financial affidavit to get a publicly paid lawyer, which Inner City Press has formally sought to have unsealed for eleven months, were on July 27 been ordered unsealed. Order.
Podcast here. Aug 13 podcast here.

On August 27 Avenatti's Federal Defenders wrote to Judge Furman to arguing that, now that Avenatti's iPad has been accessed by DOJ, they do not want the DOJ taint-team involved. They asked for Judge Furman himself to get involved in the review.

On September 9, Avenatti's motions have been denied. Full order here.

On October 12, it emerged that the January 10 trial date is in doubt: "ORDER as to Michael Avenatti: The Court having conferred with the Jury Department, it is unclear whether it would be feasible to hold trial in this case on or about January 10, 2022, as currently planned, in the event that (as the Court anticipates will be the case) the District is still operating with strict COVID-19 protocols."

On October 14 Judge Furman held a proceeding on this and Inner City Press live tweeted it here
and podcast here

On October 29 the US Attorney's Office filed a letter asking to move up Avenatti's surrender date for his Nike case sentence from December 15 to November 12, since his California re-trial has been postponed without date certain (sine die) due to his interlocutory appeal.

  Avenatti's lawyers have fired back that if anything, the surrender should be pushed back to February 28. What will Judge Gardephe do?

From October 14:  Judge Furman said he is disinclined to require a jury questionnaire, it would result in multi-day or -week jury selection. He notes Judge Oetken picked jury in one day [in Parnas] and that Avenatti's case is no longer that high profile.

 Assistant US Attorney: We're ready to go forward. Federal Defender Dalack (recently had US v. Hossain Taliban support trial) - We'd like to adjourn. This case is different from Parnas. Avenatti still garners media attention (?)

 Federal Defender: Jurors will arrive with strong feelings about Mr. Avenatti. We'd prefer a questionnaire. Judge Furman: Do you think it's legally required?

FD: It's not required per se... But we agreed. Judge Furman: That was in 2020, this will be 2 years later

 Federal Defender: When Mr. Avenatti's financial affidavit was unseal, that generated significant media attention.  (NYLJ and National Law Journal covered Inner City Press unsealing win)

Judge Furman: The Judge Oetkan case may implicant Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump... Judge Furman: The deadline for requesting Q1 trial dates is November 15. So if you're going to file something...

FD Dalack: What about a March 2022 trial? Judge Furman: I have a backlog of trials. But file a letter by next Friday. Whether we proceed with Jan 10

Judge Furman: Or you could propose a March 2022 trial, perhaps in front of another judge if I have a time conflict. [Would Avenatti prefer to spin the wheel again, seeking a judge who wouldn't correctly unseal judicial documents and still viewed him a high profile?]

Note: It's not just snark - whether a jury questionnaire will be used turns on how "high profile" etc the defendant is viewed. Lev Parnas, for example, did NOT get a questionnaire, and jury was picked in one day. Adjourned

[Meanwhile, Judge Furman has written to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules to urge or suggest that CJA Form 23s "may be judicial documents subject to a right of public access" under common law, the First Amendment or both. Hear, hear.]

On August 26, after Avenatti's mistrial in California due to DOJ missteps as in US v. Nejad (and now US v. Virgil Griffith), this consent motion: "CONSENT LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Scott Srebnick and Danya Perry dated August 26, 2021 re: [339] Judgment,,, re: Extend Surrender Date to December 15, 2021 . Document filed by Michael Avenatti. (Srebnick, Scott)."

And on August 27, it was granted: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT [350] CONSENT LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Scott Srebnick and Danya Perry dated August 26, 2021 re: [339] Judgment re: Extend Surrender Date to December 15, 2021... ENDORSEMENT...The application is granted. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 8/27/21) (jw)." Watch this site.

On August 10 Avenatti's Federal Defenders filed a copy of the affidavit with multiple redactions. The form refers on nearly every question to an attachment, which is blacked out in absurd ways. It reads, for example, "I own stock in two closely held companies that may have value: (a) [REDACTED] located in [REDACTED] and (b) [REDACTED] located in [REDACTED]... I technically still have an interest in a private aircraft (model: HondaJet 420) that was seized by the IRS and is still in their possession. This interest is held through a single-purpose entity named [REDACTED]," and so forth.

Inner City Press  published the redacted affidavit on its DocumentCloud here and asked, Will the Court be accepting this?

On August 11, the correct answer was: No. "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Michael Avenatti (1) on [139] LETTER MOTION re: [139] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Robert Baum, Tamara Giwa & Andrew Dalack dated August 10, 2021 re: Letter Motion In Response to Court's Order to File Financial Affidavit. ENDORSEMENT: The Court is unpersuaded that privacy interests justify redacting the names and locations of the corporate entities in Paragraphs 14, 15, and 17 of ECF No. 139-1."

  After hours on August 12, some redactions were removed: Avenatti's owned a plane through Passport 420 LLC; an unnamed "non-family-member acquaintance" paid a NY-based attorney in the Nike case, whose name is redacted. Unredacted: Avenatti owns stock in Tyrian Systems (aka Seek Thermal) of Santa Barbara, CA and Centurion Holdings I, LLC of St. Louis Missouri."

 Not to fast. Inner City Press research in the hours after the removal of the improper redactions found that Centurion Holdings I, LLC is based in Arnold, Missouri - and "received a PPP loan of $60,477 in May, 2020." That's the Paycheck Protection Program; the funds came through the Central Bank of St. Louis.

Bigger, the aka: "Seek Thermal, Inc of  6300 Hollister Ave in Goleta, California received a Coronavirus-related PPP loan from the SBA of $1,365,062.00 in April, 2020." We'll have more on this.

 Watch this site.

  When after three days of jury selection the trial of Michael Avenatti for extorting Nike began on January 29, 2020 Assistant US Attorney Robert Sobelman told the selected jurors that Avenatti was supposed to look out for the interests of his client, but he did not - he had a weapon, social media.  More on Patreon here.

 On August 7, 2020 in the Stormy Daniels case, Avenatti had motions heard by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jesse M. Furman. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

 On August 27, Inner City Press filed a formal request that documents in the case not be sealed, full filing on Patreon here.

  On November 12, Inner City Press made a third filing with Judge Furman, on a decision to unseal issued earlier in the day by SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken after Inner City Press filed to similarly unseal Lev Parnas' co-defendant David Correia's financial infor: "we again ask, why should lower income and less high profile defendants in the SDNY -- and now David Correia -- have their financial information so disclosed while Avenatti's information is sealed in its entirety? The documents at issue should not be sealed and should be made available."

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

  Now on July 27, 2021, Judge Furman four times citing Inner City Press has ordered Avenatti's affidavits unsealed: "Avenatti filed a letter brief arguing that the Initial Financial Affidavit should remain under seal. ECF No. 80 (“Def.’s Mem.”). Thereafter, the Court received submissions from Inner City Press, a media outlet that intervened to seek disclosure of the Financial Affidavits, ECF Nos. 85, 90, 99... The Defendant initially argued that the Government lacked standing “to assert any right on behalf of the public to access Mr. Avenatti’s sworn financial statements.” Def.’s Mem. 7 n.1 (citing United States v. Hickey, 185 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999)). Subsequently, however, the Court granted leave to Inner City Press to be heard on the Defendant’s motion, ECF No. 85, which indisputably does have standing to assert such rights." Full order here, filings due August 10. Watch this site.

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

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

In Delayed 2001 Attacks Case Fawcett Claim of 5th Amendment After Leak Rejected by District Judge

 

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

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 – In ongoing lawsuit "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001," originally filed in 2003, the COVID 19 pandemic of 2020 continues to cause a pause, one being used by the Saudi defendants, it emerged at a telephone conference with some 300 attendees on May 21, 2020. Inner City Press covered it, below.

 Jump cut forward to September 29, 2021 when
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn held a telephone conference with Dubai Islamic Bank and others, about experts. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here.

On Thursday October 28, before a Monday hearing, John Fawcett's right to now invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid questions about his leak of information from the case was taken up, and disposed of, by Judge Netburn. Inner City Press live tweeted here.

Now on October 29, District Judge George B. Daniels heard argument then upheld Magistrate Judge Netburn and rejected the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Inner City Press live tweeted here:

OK - in the 9/11 case  @SDNYLIVE , now 2d proceeding in 2 day about 5th Amendment claim by Kreindler & Kreindler's John Fawcett for allegedly having leaked a copy of a deposition from the case against Saudi Arabia.

 Yesterday Magistrate Judge Netburn shot down Fawcett's use of Fifth Amendment at Monday's hearing, here. 

But they've gotten a quick re-hearing before District Judge George B. Daniels. He asks about the Klein test.

Fawcett's lawyer: Now that the Court is considering a criminal referral, there are new grounds for apprehension.

Judge Daniels: If there were no new grounds, would he have any basis to not testify? Fawcett's lawyer: Yes, the first - Judge: I read the transcript.

 Judge Daniels: Didn't he already understand that if he violated the court order and admitted to it, he might face criminal contempt?

Fawcett's lawyer: He's a non-lawyer. Judge Daniels: I'm supposed to assume that when he submitted the 2d affidavit he didn't know?

 Judge Daniels: It's like a Perry Mason moment - he breaks down and confesses, then says, Perry Mason can't ask me any more question while I'm on the stand.

 Judge Daniels says again and again Fawcett can't invoke the Fifth. Annoying beeping on the line.

Judge Daniels: I believe Magistrate Judge Netburn was right in denying the invocation of the Fifth Amendment by Mr. Fawcett

From May 21, 2020: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn initially had some technical issues with her computer, which she described as from the era computers were first invented. But then things got going.

lawyer is telling SDNY Mag Judge Netburn that some Saudi diplomats' immunity was revoked. Judge says it's not fair to ask State to review immunity given 20 years ago.

Next a defense lawyer described a case where a person associated with the Morocco mission to the UN was granted diplomatic immunity by the U.S. State Department in an email, he says that's enough.

 Turns out that a man named Awad who on 9/11 worked in "Islamic Affairs" at the Saudi mission has suddenly retired the day after he was listed as a witness.

Next Saudi Arabia said they can't make him testify, he's retired.

   It reached 1:26 pm and the 9/11 case hearing was still going, with the lawyer for Saudi Arabia saying his - or his client's? - integrity is being besmirched by allegations they "early retired" people on the plaintiffs' witness list.

 Judge Netburn said, I don't think the question is whether the witnesses are aligned with Kingdom or adverse to it.

 A plaintiffs' lawyer said, The case I cited says "or with adversary."

  Judge Netburn: I think we've exhausted questions about former officials. Let's take a break. And they did. Inner City Press will continue on the case.

As Inner City Press has reported, the SDNY has moved to video sentencings, and defense attorney laptop links to their clients in the MCC from the Attorneys Lounge of 500 Pearl Street.   

Of such criminal cases, Judge Netburn remarked, something called CourtConnect is being used. I'm inclined to use it, since I think the earliest we could get together would be mid June and quite possibly later. Next week Ramadan begins which would have delayed depositions anyway.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers Steve Pounian said, The families are willing to have a delay because of this exception circumstance, in order to get the depositions they need, in person. There's language, demeanor...

      Another plaintiffs' lawyers, Sean Carter, said We have doubts about Saudi Arabia's allegations, that they have diplomatic immunity, that some people are senior officials.

     Pounian followed up: We took a deposition in March under the written question procedure. Now we're going to file a motion.

     Carter resumed, We were told last week the FBI is looking for some additional documents. I don't want to put Sarah Normand on the spot--

   Ms. Norman confirmed, The FBI is also slowed. We'd hoped to have all of the records, but because of tele-working, and the documents being on classified systems, that work has stopped during the pandemic.  

  Judge Netburn asked, Does the Kingdom want to be heard?    The Saudis' lawyer offered, We're willing to use CourtConnect. 

 Judge Netburn opined, The reviews are not great. 

  We'll see: there may be a video conference in May, presumptively public. Inner City Press notes that in this case, Docket Item 6122, Motion for Conference dated April 14, 2020, says "You do not have permission to view this document." The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-md-1570 (Daniels / Netburn).

***

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.

Senator Burr Relative Fauth May Be Questioned By SEC 90 Minutes a Week Doctor Note Nov 3

 

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

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 29 –  Gerald Fauth sold stock just after a call from his brother in law Senator Richard Burr, in advance of COVID-trigger price declines. Now the Security and Exchange Commission wants to question Fauth, in person. 

 Fauth says he is too sick. The SEC said it will only take three hours.       

       On October 29 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Andrew L. Carter held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it. Podcast here.

   Fauth's lawyers mentioned cardiologists and oncologist, with the medical records sealed.

But Judge Carter after inquiry suggested that Fauth be questioned for thirty minutes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

   Fauth's lawyers said they'd have to ask his doctors and that might take a few day. Judge Carter ordered a response by Wednesday, November 3.

Inner City Press will continue to cover the case. It is SEC v. Fauth, 21-mc-787 (Carter) 

***

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.