In Epstein Case JPM Chase Argues against Class Certification Amid Jamie Dimon Deposition

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 26 – J.P. Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank were sued for their enabling of Jeffrey Epstein, in lawsuits filed on Thanksgiving 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Inner City Press found them in the docket.

  Late on May 17, 2023, plaintiffs' lawyer David Boies selectively announced a $75 million settlement with Deutsche Bank. Nothing was filed in the docket. But the pressure on JPM Chase, and its CEO Dimon, grew.

More including class analysis on Substack here

On May 26, Judge Rakoff held oral arguments on class certification. Inner City Press was there, thread here:

All rise!

Judge Rakoff: We're here on the question of class certification... I just got off the phone about a deposition taking place in the same case. You're missing all the fun, folks. (Laughs). Let's first consider Jane Doe's expert...

 Judge Rakoff: The expert writes, "Class certification is appropriate here" - but isn't that a legal conclusion?

Counsel to Jane Doe: Maybe it's a matter of drafting...

Judge Rakoff: I strike that first opinion.

 Counsel to Jane Doe: She is saying that Epstein could only run his sex trafficking conspiracy by having access to influential people. Judge: Duh. What's her expertise? Counsel to Jane Doe: She was at DOJ and interviewed a number of victims

Counsel to Jane Doe: Her experience does not have to be into JPMorgan Chase Bank -- Judge Rakoff: So what is it were Signature Bank?  Counsel to Jane Doe: She looked into banks while at DOJ. [Note: the expert at issue is Jane Khodarkovsky formerly of DOJ]

 JPMC's lawyer: She was 3 1/2 years at DOJ, not in sex trafficking, only money laundering. So she's not an expert.

Judge Rakoff: After 3 1/2 years at DOJ, maybe an expert in bureaucracy... JPMC's lawyer: We say, the issue of sex trafficking is not for class action

Judge Rakoff: The allegations is that Jeffrey Epstein enticed them into sexual acts by getting massages... I don't see why you need to be an expert to see that if the allegations are true, they may will violate the sex trafficking statute

Judge Rakoff: And that if the money to carry it out came from or through a bank that should have known, it may be liable - why is an expert needed on this?

JPM Chase lawyer: The question is, what are the indices of sex trafficking?

Judge: This is not a clean slate

 Judge Rakoff: The grand jury that issued the 2019 indictment found Jeffrey Epstein sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his various homes. I don't know what the expert's opinion adds to this. Chase lawyer: It's not susceptible to class treatment

 Judge Rakoff: We could have used a psychological expert, as was included in the case before Judge Nathan

JPMC lawyer: Their expert just parrots others' info.  Judge: To your adversary: If you had a frozen pipe, a plumber could opine... But aren't money laundering regulations laws, & the Court the expert? Doe's lawyer: She is an expert on how trafficking is financed

 Doe's lawyer: She example, she has expertise in the filing or not filing of Suspicious Activities Reports. Judge Rakoff: Are you saying an expert is needed because I have been asleep for the 99 cases on the topic of SARs? Let's turn to class certification...

Judge Rakoff: JPM Chase does not dispute that Mr. Epstein was involved in a longstanding sex trafficking venture that impacted dozens that required money to make it work.  JPMC's lawyer: We're not sure it's dozens- Judge Rakoff: Dozens is what the indictment says

 Doe's lawyer: This class should be certified - it was sexual exploitation and the commonality here is the bank. Epstein needed these obscene amounts of money from JPM Chase to continue with this. I may need a sidebar on this. Judge: About the SARs?

 [Sidebar is held; transcript to be sealed, Judge says]

Judge Rakoff: I have taught the class action seminar at NYU Law School, so I think I know the elements. Thank you, I will get you an order afterword. I'll get called at 5 on the Dimon deposition...

More on Substack here.

On May 19, Jes Staley's lawyer argued before Judge Jed S. Rakoff to dismiss JPM Chase's claim against him; Chase opposed. Inner City Press was there, live tweeted thread here and below.

On May 24, Judge Rakoff denied Staley's motions: "ORDER denying [90] Motion to Dismiss. On April 24, 2023, third-party defendant James ("Jes") Staley moved to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by defendant/third-party plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against him in each of the above-captioned cases. After full consideration of the parties' written submissions and oral arguments, the Court hereby denies Mr. Staley's motion in full. An opinion explaining the reasoning behind this ruling will follow in due course. The Clerk is respectfully directed to close entry number 90 on the docket of Jane Doe v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 22-cv-10019, and entry number 125 on the docket of Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 22-cv-10904. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/24/2023)."

From May 19: Staley's lawyer: It's striking that JPM Chase is saying, We're not reponsible but if we are. It's Staley. Indemnification does not apply here - JPMC did things beyond what Staley did.

Staley's lawyer: This alleged vouching by Mr Staley would have been to JPMC's employees. The doesn't identify the harm supposedly caused by Mr Staley to Jane Doe, much less the USVI. Judge Rakoff: I have to limit you to 20 minute, I have a 4 pm [criminal] matter

JPM's lawyer: Doe alleges sexual assault by Staley. But if Staley had done his job, Epstein would not have been a JPM Chase client. We cannot indemnify Staley for criminal acts.

JPM's lawyer: The Madoff case supports us. And it is Congress' purpose to punish traffickers. The question at bar must be answered in our favor.

Staley's lawyer: Bylaws are contractual in nature, the Delaware courts have found, contrary to JPMorgan's argument. Judge Rakoff: They argue they weren't contractually giving up their right to sue you for indemnification.

Staley's lawyer:  Cases don't say that

 Staley's lawyer: If they have to re-plead, they should make things clear.

Judge Rakoff: So you know what you're facing. JPM Chase's lawyer Leonard Gail: Let's spend real time on Madoff. Madoff says contribution can be implied. Its language was shorthand- and dicta

JPM's lawyer: The TVPA should not be read to help traffickers. Restatement of Torts, Section 23 - Congress was legislating against it.

 Judge Rakoff: I agree Congressional silence is not a basis for reaching a definitive conclusion. They are talkative.. I am joking

 JPM's lawyer: Even if there was no contribution, supplemental jurisdiction, they can stay in - they have already been present at depositions. It's judicial economy. Judge Rakoff: I've heard what I need.

Judge Rakoff: I'll get you at least a bottom line opinion by the end of this month. Mr Staley should know by May 31. Anything else? No? If you would clear out, I have a 4 pm matter.

More on Substack here.

   The JPM Chase complaint is on Patreon, here.

On March 20, 2023 Judge Jed S. Rakoff in a bottom line order dismissed some but not all claims, in the Epstein-related cases against JPMC and Deutsche Bank.

Inner City Press put the order on its DocumentCloud here.

On April 28, a motion seeking class certification of Epstein-related claims against JPMC was filed; filing on Patreon here.

On May 8, the US Virgin Islands filed with Judge Rakoff to strike JPM Chase's equitable defenses, including tis "fault-shifting" defense, arguing that "it is well established within the Second Circuit and elsewhere that government plaintiffs suing to vindicate public rights are not subject to equitable defenses that may be invoked against private plaintiffs." Full filing on Patreon here.

***

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

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Trevor Milton Pushes Sentencing to September 22, Appealed Citing Inner City Press Interviews

Review, Patreon Maxwell Book Schulte Book

w/ Exclusive Interviews by Matthew Russell Lee

SDNY Courthouse, May 26  – In September and October 2022 Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Motor was put on trial for fraudulent claims about NKLA's hydrogen trucks.

On Friday, October 14, Milton was found guilty on three of four counts.

  Published hours after the verdict was a book by Matthew Russell Lee, who live tweeted and reported on the trial daily, and put questions to Milton and his lawyers in Foley Square outside.

On December 14, Milton filed requesting a new trial - citing InnerCityPress.com "Book Interviews" published on October 16 and 17, 2022, see Milton's filing on DocumentCloud here.

On January 11, 2023, the US Attorney's Office wrote in, proposing that sentencing be in early May. Photo of letter here. Milton's Mukasey, citing a February 25 wedding, wants late spring or early summer.

On May 24 Mukasey wrote in again: "This letter is respectfully submitted to request a second adjournment of Trevor Milton’s sentencing, which is currently set for June 22, 2023. The sentencing issues to be hashed out in this matter are complex and the stakes are breathtakingly high. In order to permit Mr. Milton sufficient time to draft a comprehensive sentencing brief, we ask the Court to re-schedule the sentencing for early September 2023. To date, the government has not provided" - full letter on Patreon here.

On May 26, "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Trevor Milton on [282] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Marc L. Mukasey dated May 24, 2023 re: requesting second adjournment of sentencing date. ENDORSEMENT: Sentencing is adjourned to September 22, 2023, at 11 a.m. SO ORDERED. (Sentencing set for 9/22/2023 at 11:00 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/25/2023)."

After Milton's December 14 filing, Inner City Press reached out to the juror about Milton's team's claims. She scoffed, "It’s an old Facebook post from 2017 like when Bernie ran And it was a repost from AOC not even my words Trevor wasn’t even on the radar then. And I liked Elon until he bought Twitter Taxing the rich isn’t the same as fraud Which I think makes sense anyways The funny thing is. I really don’t use social media. Like yeah my Facebook is active and Twitter and instagram but I don’t actively use them. I’ll never delete my Facebook because if my family needs me that’s how they reach me."

And on February 2, 2023, Milton's team filed a reply, quoting the above and equating skepticism about corporate fraud with racism, demanding a hearing or a new trial. They write: "her post-trial interviews - including one given recently about Mr. Milton's motions - demonstrate she understands perfectly well that the 'news' is not just YouTube and that "social media" includes Facebook and Twitter." Filing(s) are pending before Judge Ramos.

On January 23, Judge Ramos pushed Milton's sentencing back to June 21: "ORDER granting [261] LETTER MOTION request a revised post-trial briefing schedule and adjournment of sentencing. The revised post-trial briefing schedule is approved. Sentencing is adjourned to June 21, 2023 at 10 a.m. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions, docs. 262 and 263. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/23/2023)."

So how much change does Milton's appeal on this have?

  The Monday after the Friday verdict, Inner City Press conducted a second interview, after a first, screen shots on Patreon here - and full version of 2d interview here and below.

On November 3, Milton's lawyer wrote to Judge Ramos asking for an extra month to file post-trial motions, saying he wants to review and analyze post-trial interviews of jurors: "
Dear Judge Ramos: This letter is respectfully submitted on behalf of defendant Trevor Milton to request a 30 day extension of time to file post-trial motions under Fed. R. Cr. P. 29 and Rule 33. At present, the motions are due on November 14, 2022. The additional 30 days would make the new submission date December 14, 2022. The extra time sought is necessary for two primary reasons. First, as the Court is aware, the trial record in this matter is extensive. Second, it has come to our attention that after the verdict, several jurors made comments and statements to the media and/or online concerning the trial and the deliberations. The defense believes these comments must be carefully reviewed and analyzed in connection with the post-trial motions. The government consents to this requested extension of time, although the abovementioned reasons for the request are solely those of the defense."

On November 4, without commenting of the relevance of jury interviews to the post-trial motions, Judge Ramos granted the 30 day extension: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT [250] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Marc L. Mukasey dated November 3, 2022 re: extension of time to file Rules 29 and 33 motions...ENDORSEMENT...The request for an initial, 30 day, extension of time to file post-trial motions under Fed.R.Crim.P.29 and 33 is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/4/22)."

On December 14, three new lawyers filed notices of appearance for Milton. They filed a Motion for a New Trial and for acquittal on Count 3." The claims include that the jury instructions were unclear, that Juror 6 has "animosity toward corporate executives, and that the US failed to prove the "obtaining money or property" element of Count Three. Documents to follow. Watch this site.

Interviews: Juror #9, "V" - "Sure, Overall the entire trial was very dense in terms of information I myself I estimate took at least 50 pages of notes front and back. While Mr. Milton may not have liked the result he should know that he did in fact receive a completely fair trial in my opinion. Personally in my notes I did have to write "credibility?" and ultimately did not use two witnesses testimony in my deliberation reasoning due to the fact I just couldn't find them credible....

... Roughly for the first hour and a half absolutely no decision was made at all on any counts. Personally it began to feel like we may have been a hung jury.

"This is when we began to request a few pieces of evidence we did not take any notes on that we needed to break the ice. Once we received those aids deliberations became smoother albeit there were moments of silence here and there as we contemplated what a juror may have said or looked for a piece of evidence that contradicted or further supported what was said.

"That being said on Count 2 that I've seen many questions on after looking up to see what the public thought was he was close to being convicted he reached 2/3 requirements and we began discussing the third it was then that I re-read the charge and noticed that while similar to count 1 count 2 had to meet ALL requirements.

"When asking if anyone noticed any evidence to suggest the government had met this criteria we found they fell short.   In regards to count four I just wanted to mention we in fact did not even like Mr. Hicks and personally I believe he is greedy, but examining the law Trevor was still in fact guilty." Full interview on Patreon here.

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

  Watch this site.

    Lee was each day in the courtroom of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Edgardo Ramos, and venturing farther afield to investigate leads exclusively give to him and Inner City Press and by Nikola whistleblowers.

   As the trial wound down, Inner City Press published descriptions of documented destroyed within Nikola, and guilty knowledge by officials still at the company.

   Material from those whistleblowers, the trial and even some more speculative and literary excursions featuring recurring characters Kurt Wheelock and Michael Randall Long, featured in the Ghislaine Maxwell book "Maximum Maxwell" as noted by New York Magazine, here, made its way at the speed of the Internet into the new book

"Hydrogen Heist: The Trial of Nikola's Trevor Milton: On Fraud, Guilty of 3 of 4 Counts; From Musk and Tesla Wannabe to Convict in SDNY, by Matthew Russell Lee

  E-book here; paperbook here

    This review will leave it to others to find over-reaches and typos. For his reporting, Lee was banned from the United Nations in 2018 by SG Antonio Guterres, whose Media Accrediation chief Melissa Fleming has ignored appeals from a UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and, pro bono, the law firm of Quinn Emanuel.

   One might surmise that history leads to some of the book's (over?) identification with the defendant.  

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

    A full scope instantaneous view of and taking off from trials like US v. Trevor Milton seems to be Inner City Press' project here.

And here it is.

 ***

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 Verdict in Carroll II Trump Says Jury Found No Rape So CNN Add On Claim Fails

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 26 – During the "Carroll II" trial of E. Jean Carroll versus Donald Trump, both sides put in exhibits, but no defense exhibits were made available to the public or press, see Inner City Press filing and below.

On May 11, Trump filed a notice of appeal to the 2d Circuit "from [178] Judgment,,. Document filed by Donald J. Trump. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number ANYSDC-27729258. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit."

On May 22, Carroll's lawyer filed a proposed schedule for the earlier, Carroll I case, with briefing through July 31. Letter on Patreon here.

On May 24, Judge Kaplan set a schedule: "ORDER, 1.Any response to plaintiff's letter of May 22, 2023 shall be filed on or before May 26, 2023."

On May 26, Trump's lawyer Alina Habba wrote that "by filing the Motion to Amend the Complaint (“Motion to Amend”), Plaintiff is seeking to “retrofit” the jury verdict for Carroll II into the Complaint for Carroll I, in order to alter the entire nature of Carroll I at the eleventh hour, following the completion of discovery, pre-trial motion practice, and a fully briefed Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, inter alia. Plainly stated, the jury in Carroll II found that the alleged rape did not occur. However, the entire Complaint in Carroll I contains allegations of purported defamatory statements arising from this precise allegation – not a purported sexual assault." Full letter on Patreon here.

 On May 9, after less than three hours of deliberation, the jury awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million damages. Inner City Press live tweeted it, thread here

  Hours later, Inner City Press published the first book about the trial, "Trump Trial I: Press Access Hollywood in the SDNY Court," by Matthew Russell Lee, e-book here, paperback soon here

  On May 4, Inner City Press filed a written request to Judge Louis A. Kaplan, copied to each party, requesting that the exhibit be released, and several motions be unsealed. 

  On Friday May 5, Carroll's counsel made some but not all exhibits available to the press on DropBox, including portions of her deposition of Donald Trump.

Inner City Press published that on YouTube, it was reported for example here.

   On Sunday, May 7 before 5 pm, Inner City Press filed this

Carroll I is Carroll v. Trump, 20-cv-7311 (Kaplan)

More on Substack here.

***

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

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Felon Charged With Gun Near Yankee Stadium OK To Go Pro Per Now Refuses Court & Email

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 26 –   James Garlick faces trial on June 5 as a felon in possession of a firearm, found with a gun on 162nd Street and Jerome Avenue by Yankee Stadium in The Bronx on August 27, 2022. 

 In 2013 after a trial, Garlick was convicted of manslaughter.s   Now Garlick wants to represent himself.

 On May 17, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Valerie E. Caproni held a Faretta hearing and determined that Garlick can represent himself. But there is no movement in the date of the trial, which Inner City Press aims to cover.

On May 19, Federal Defenders wrote it wanting out even as standby counsel, their relationship having "irreparable broken down." Judge Caproni on May 19 ordered: "the parties must appear for a status conference on Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:00 A.M."

Inner City Press, after an 11 am Magistrates Court proceeding, ran to the courtroom and was helpfully told that Garlick will proceed pro per.

On May 26, Inner City Press went to the courtroom for Garlick's bail hearing. But the door was locked. Then this: "ORDER as to James Garlick. WHEREAS on May 23, 2023, Mr. Garlick requested a bond hearing, see Letter, Dkt. 74; WHEREAS the Court scheduled a bond hearing for May 26, 2023 at 10:45 A.M., see Order, Dkt. 75; WHEREAS in the early morning of May 26, 2023, the Court was notified that Mr. Garlick refused to come to Court because of a "religious holiday" and because of a heart condition; and WHEREAS Mr. Garlick was medically evaluated and deemed fit for Court; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the bail hearing scheduled for May 26, 2023 at 10:45 A.M. is hereby CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Garlick must be prepared at the Final Pre-Trial Conference, scheduled for Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:30 A.M., (a) to state whether he is withdrawing his bail motion, and (b) to provide the Court with a list of the names and dates of all religious holidays he wishes to celebrate between May 31, 2023, and December 31, 2023. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pre-Trial Conference will take place as scheduled on Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:30 A.M. in Courtroom 318 of the Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007. Please note that the conference will therefore not take place in the Undersigned's regular courtroom. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Garlick is hereby notified that if he refuses to attend the proceeding on Wednesday, May 31, 2023, or any future proceeding without a valid medical excuse, the Court will find that he has withdrawn his request to represent himself, will direct the Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. immediately to resume representation of him, and will consider whether his refusal to come to Court constitutes a waiver of his right to be present at his trial or whether he should be forced to come to Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attached to this Order are draft voir dire questions for the parties to review ahead of the Final Pre-Trial Conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that standby counsel for Mr. Garlick will be provided a copy of this Order and the Court's draft voir dire questions in Word format that they must cut and paste into an email to be sent to Mr. Garlick via Corrlinks not later than 5:00 P.M. on May 26, 2023. SO ORDERED."

After that, Federal Defenders wrote it that CorrLinks says "The above-named inmate has chosen to remove your email address from his/her approved contact list and, therefore, cannot receive or sent messages to your email address."

 The case is US v. Garlick, 22-cr-540 (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.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Colello Found Guilty and Jailed for Defrauding Texas Oil Co Italian Passport & Key West Cited

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 26 – Michael Colello is on trial, charged with a scheme to defraud a Texas oil and gas company out of nearly $2 million.

  On May 22, 2023, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff began Colello's trial. Inner City Press was there.   On the witness stand was Mr. Smith, who had wired money at Colello's directly.

The Assistant US Attorney sought to introduce an email with a hyperlink. Colello's lawyer objected, saying the hyperlink or its underlying document was in evidence. 

Judge Rakoff called for a sidebar, without white noise. (The document, when admitted and published, was not put on the TV monitor facing the gallery).

Smith testified that now the link does not work, but that it had in 2015.

On May 23 Smith was still on the stand, with the jury out of the room, when counsel argued about the admissibility of a document about the SEC for cross examining Smith. The AUSA suggested that Smith leave the courtroom; he did, to the witness room. After a recounting of the argument that a SEC filing couldn't be made due to the absence of an auditor, the document was excluded, at least for the moment.

On May 25, a government paralegal witness introduced and was cross-examined about a number of documents, including one claiming that Colello was the COO of Barclays. Then the US put on Verdun Edgtton of Barclays, who testified that Colello was never the COO of Barclays, to his knowledge. Colello's lawyer put in proposed jury amendments, including that they be told that "Colello's alleged use of the name 'Stan Greeme' or 'Mike Greene' is not a conspiracy."

On May 26, Inner City Press was in the courtroom for the verdict - and remand. Thread:

OK - now at jury verdict in US v Colello... Verdict: Guilty on both counts

AUSA: We request remand to jail. Defendant has been shown to have used multiple aliases since the 1990s. He was convicted in Los Angeles. He tried to flee the US from the Florida Keys by sea plane. [US Marshals are here in back of the courtroom]

 AUSA: You can live a fine life in the Malay Peninsula on $100,000. He previously used a fake Hungarian passport, then said, I'm not going back to jail. 

Defense: Colello cooperated with the US in LA and put a lawyer there in jail. He lives in Westchester County

AUSA: His children told the FBI they were to meet up with him in the Netherlands Antilles. He and his wife have copies of Italian passports. We'll be asking for at least six years.

Judge Rakoff: Based on the statute, I order you remanded to jail. US Marshals move forward

The case is US v. Colello, 20-cr-613 (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.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Luca Trippitelli Pled Guilty to Extorting an Ex Prominent Health Provider In & Passport July 10

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book

SDNY MAG COURT EXCLUSIVE, May 25 -  In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 28, 2022 a guilty plea was taken by Magistrate Judge Kathleen H. Parker from a man charged with blackmailing a "prominent health care provider whose practice is located in Manhattan and Chicago."

  Luca Trippitelli, the defendant, had a romantic relationship with the health care provider until November 2019.

When it ended, the blackmail began. According to the complaint, Trippitelli demanded payment for his new apartment, his cell phone service and utilities or he would ruin the health care provider's business and marriage. In July 2021 he added the demand for $5000 a month.

All told, Trippitelli extorted at least $130,000 from the health care provider.

Inner City Press was present in the morning as the only media in the Mag Court. Related Mag Court live-tweeted thread (more on Patreon here) vlog here

  Now on the guilty plea - to a reduced / stripped down charge in a new Information, threatening to portray the health care provider as wrongfully disclosing individually identifiable health care information in violation of 42 USC 1320d-6 - Trippitelli has a sentencing submission due on May 5, for a May 9 sentencing not before a District Judge, but Magistrate Judge Parker.

On May 3, Trippitelli's Federal Defender wrote to Judge Parker asking for a non custodial sentencing, quoting Trippitelli that "[REDACTED] and I were once very much in love and I am truly story for the harm I caused him."

On May 5, the US Attorney's Office wrote to Judge Parker asking for a sentence of three months.

On May 9, Magistrate Judge Parker sentenced Trippitelli to 60 days in prison: "Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker: Sentencing held on 5/9/2023 for Luca Trippitelli (1) Count 1. Defendant appeared in courtroom 17D...Victim Impact Statement by Daniel Alonso. Sentencing for guilty plea to Count One of the Misdemeanor Information that was taken by Judge Parker on 12/28/2022. Defendant sentenced to 60 days imprisonment /one year supervised release /75 hours community service / $25.00 special assessment/ $131,049 restitution paid to the victim through the court. Defendant shall report to the prison to which he his assigned within 60 days - 07/10/2023 Probation will notify the Defendant of the facility to which he is to report."

On May 25, Judge Parker issued a detailed decision on Trippitelli's bid to get his passport back before he surrenders: "ORDER as to Luca Trippitelli. Defendant Luca Trippitelli requests the return of his passport from the United States Pretrial Services. For the reasons set forth below, Trippitelli's motion is granted in part and denied in part. On December 28, 2022, Trippitelli pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of blackmail. On May 9, 2023, the Court sentenced him to 60 days of imprisonment recommended in a minimum security camp, followed by one year of supervised release and restitution of $131,049. The Court also ordered Trippitelli surrender by July 10, 2023. The Government opposes the application on the basis that the Probation Department informed the Government that it is not in its practice to return passports for defendants sentenced to a term of incarceration prior to the defendant's surrender date. (Letter from AUSA Matthew R. Shahabian, ECF No. 41). Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a person aggrieved "by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return." Where "no criminal proceedings against the movant are pending or have transpired, a motion for the return of property is treated as [a] civil equitable proceeding[ ]." Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). Courts consider the Government's interest in retaining property when deciding whether property should be returned to a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Beras, 2003 WL 21136727 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2003) (finding the Government may retain seized a passport when it has possible evidentiary value or where the defendant was undergoing exclusion proceedings); United States v. Sarna, 2009 WL 2633153, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2009) (denying return of passport where defendant was under supervised release and terms of supervised release required prior approval from the Probation department to travel out of the country). Additionally, passports may be returned after sentencing. United States v. Dominguez, 2009 WL 2245064, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2009) (passport allegedly returned after sentencing). Here, the Government objects to returning Trippitelli's passport because it is not Probation's practice to return passports until after a surrender date. The Government's interest in holding his passport until Trippitelli's surrender date is reasonable to ensure surrender. Therefore, Tripitelli's motion is granted, but not as to timing of the return. Probation is ordered to return Tripitelli's passport to him immediately after Trippitelli surrenders on July 10, 2023. By July 12, 2023, Probation shall file a letter with the Court informing it that it has complied with this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/25/2023)."

More on this case, & Trippitelli, on Patreon here

The case is US v. Trippitelli, 22-cr-707 (Parker)

***

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.