Those “Sham” Consulting Agreements Will Certainly Be An Issue In Mr. Greebel’s Trial…

5 Comments

The usual flurry of pre-trial motions is in full effect, in Brooklyn — the dozen or so defense motions filed while the eclipse was kissing my forehead ran the gamut — from well-taken, to largely ridiculous. [As an example of the latter, one of them argues that Shkreli cannot be held personally financially and criminally responsible for the MSMB Capital losses in his personal capacity, because…  his PPM said he wouldn’t be. Uh-huh. Well, in securities trading, outright fraud always results in personal liability, folks. The PPM is simply a “disclosure” document — if it contains fraudulent misstatements, as this one did — it can’t be of much help (not at least — in exonerating the Felony-Convict-Bro). It may help the lawyer, Mr. Greebel, argue that he expected that MSMB Capital was (at least initially) being run… appropriately. I dunno.] In candor, I have very little interest in Mr. Greebel’s part in all this.

We do learn, more substantively (as to matters now germane the convict), that Mr. Greebel intends to take the jury through the Rosenfeld and Koestler consulting agreements saga, from negotiation of the original agreements (purportedly with Retrophin), and the default under both, by Mr. Shkreli, personally, in some great detail. I think the goal there will be to again paint Mr. Shkreli as being well off the lawful bounds of the reservation — and thus Mr. Greebel shouldn’t be held to account — so long as he was actively trying to rein him in — and not further the alleged conspiracy (alleged, as to Mr. Greebel’s involvement, at this pre-trial point).

I’ll have more on this, once the able Judge Matsumoto rules that this defense line may be at least argued to the jury. So consider this a place-holder. But we do know that it will be additional “relevant conduct” — in Mr. Shkreli’s sentencing.

Geometrically more-so than in Mr. Shkreli’s trial, we will need to be careful not to taint the prospective juror pool, as unlike Shkreli, Mr. Greebel enjoyed a generally good reputation in New York City. As such, we will be circumspect in not making it harder to impanel a fair and unbiased jury.

Now you know. Onward — still exhausted, but elated — with the fruits of the eclipse voyaging adventure.

Most Of The Lies Mr. Shkreli Told To Government Agents, In One Handy Place…

1 Comment

I do not intend to cover Mr. Greebel’s now-looming trial — at all, really.

But when and where bits of it promise to add to the long-as-your-arm Shkreli pre-sentencing report (as yet more “relevant conduct“), I will drop those bits in here. Today is one of those times.

[Here are two sets of such material, a 15 pager, and a six pager — both as PDFs. Yes, Blob these are most of the ones I held back on, before — to preserve his presumption of innocence, and the government’s thunder — in dramatically shattering any hint of his actual innocence.] Note how the statements (all effectively under oath) conflict, and contradict one another, over time.

As I head out for the various Nashville and Kentucky eclipse parties… do enjoy. To be clear, Mr. Greebel is seeking to admit these in his own trial, as a way to say he wasn’t responsible for Mr. Shkreli’s lies. And Mr. Shkreli’s felonious financial frauds.

Here is the five page defense motion to admit  — and it should be said that the AUSAs oppose admission, as against Mr. Greebel. More on the “whys” — about that some other day.

Namaste!

The 12’s Names Are Likely Now Known To Bloomberg, Etc….

2 Comments

Now the question is whether any will agree to talk to the press — they have the absolute right to just say no. We shall see. Here is the overnight order, from the wise Judge Matsumoto:

…ORDER as to Martin Shkreli re [308] Letter from Katherine M. Bolger, Esq.

For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court grants the request of press organizations Bloomberg L.P., Daily News, L.P., Reuters, The Associated Press, The New York Times Co., and NYP Holdings, Inc., for the names of jurors in this case. The Clerk of Court shall compile the names of Jurors 1-12 in this case, and provide a list of those names to members of press organizations who request the names and present proper press credentials in the clerk’s office. The clerk shall maintain a list of press members to whom the list of juror names is disclosed. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/18/2017….

Now you know — better graphics shortly — and I do believe in the overall virtues, to our democracy — of a free and unfettered press. Quoting now, from the nine page PDF of the opinion (check it out, R. West):

…Now that the jury has returned a verdict, the defendant’s concerns about his right to a fair trial are moot, but the court must nonetheless take into account the privacy interests of the jury. Of the nine jurors successfully contacted by the court, seven jurors expressed a preference that their names not be disclosed; only two jurors expressed indifference to the disclosure of their names. Multiple jurors mentioned that they would prefer that their names not be associated with a high-profile case…

All jurors are entitled to refuse press interviews if contacted….

As the First Circuit has concluded, although “privacy concerns following a publicized trial are real – and may understandably include some nervousness about personal security — those unfocused fears must be balanced against the loss of public confidence in our justice system that could arise if criminal juries very often consisted of anonymous persons,” which would “not comport with democratic values of accountability and openness.…”

Namaste, one and all — now go get kissed, by the full eclipse! I know I will….

Dr Thomas P. Koestler’s $2.6 Million Federal Judgment May Now Attach Mr. Shkreli’s Assets

4 Comments

In a short affirming order, in the federal District courthouse in Manhattan yesterday, the court affirmed yesterday that Dr. Koestler may now proceed to attach Mr. Shkreli’s assets. Now that his criminal conviction is set, there is no reason to delay — and if it comes to that, Dr. Koestler may sell the assets he seizes at auction, in order to obtain the over $2.6 million the convict has long owed Dr. Koestler — from an arbitration of the latter’s consulting contract.

That is a personal — not Retrophin — obligation, the able court has ruled:

…ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT: in favor of Dr. Thomas P. Koestler against Martin Shkreli in the amount of $2,614,930.00, issued on August 17, 2017….

Now you know. I will be off-grid, traveling to, and being goofy at, the eclipse parties — until at least Tuesday.

Namaste

I. Can’t. Even. Nah. Brah… The CONVICT Just Called Merck’s Black CEO “Self-Indulgent” — On FOX Tee-Vee?!

19 Comments

I realize this is trivial — and I might rightly wonder why the opinion of a convicted felon is offered as a talking head, on a Fox business “ethics“ report — but whatever. That’s Fox for you.

I write to commemorate (for the record) that Marty just called Merck’s black Chairman & CEO… wait for it: “self indulgent“. [This from a guy who stole “tha’ Carter V” pre-release, and bought for $2 million, the only pressing of Wu-Tang’s album… and bought… an Engima machine… wow. But standing up for civil rights is… self indulgent?!]

Me? I don’t recall Marty saying he’s the grandson of a man born into slavery in the South.

Additionally, I don’t recall Marty going to law school at Havard (on a merit scholarship), after being raised in very modest circumstances, in a tough North Philly ‘hood by his janitor father… big ups on that. [And given that noble but thankless line of work was the profession of Mr. Shkreli’s own father — and the source of Shkreli’s own decidedly modest means — I might have hoped for more self-reflection. Nope. I gather that, in Marty-World, Dr. King too would have been labeled self-indulgent for taking that bridge in Selma, or marching with poor garbage pickers in Memphis — where he was then assassinated. But now I am clearly rambling, because it makes me so… profoundly angry — at Fox, that they traffic in such feckless… nonsense.] Back to the main narrative, then:
Nope… I don’t recall hearing that Marty spent many, many weekends about 22 years ago (inside a max security prison in Alabama) working pro bono, and ultimately winning the release of an innocent man from death row, in Alabama… while at least some of his fellow public company GCs in the life-sciences were flying their miniature doggies on a corporate sponsored private jet, for the weekend, unaccompanied — to meet the wife and the GC at their Carolina retreat spot.

I don’t recall Marty being named the 2014 Black Executive of the Year by Black Enterprise… in fact, I don’t recall any magazine naming him… anything. [Other than a convicted felon, of course.]

I could go on… but most of all, Marty apparently thinks a black man engaging in constructive dialogue about civil rights is… self indulgent… primarily it seems… because that man is… black?!

Wow. Just… wow. If Marty could be more ironically myopic — I’d be hard pressed to suggest how.

Here is the quote:

“…In his first television interview since being convicted of two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy, Shkreli said Mr. Frazier is “self-indulgent” and is “politicizing the moment.”

“I think that he is supposed to be advising the President on manufacturing, let him advise him on manufacturing. He is not here to talk about anything political or anything about race relations or anything about what happen in Charlottesville. He’s here to be the President’s ecoomic advisor,” Shkreli exclusively told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo of Mornings with Maria….”

In sum — Marty thinks Mr. Frazier is supposed to appear as a mute, smiling black face in all needed photo ops, and keep his mouth shut when 45’s alt-right supporters — explicitly IN 45’s NAME — maim and kill civil rights marchers?! Marty — you will need to be very careful in prison. There is going to be a target painted on your narrow lil’ shoulders. Trust that.

Mr. Brafman’s Letter Plainly Reflects A Misunderstanding Of How First Amendment Law Works.

8 Comments

In fairness, he is to be forgiven — as he is used to operating under the criminal law rubric — where if the law doesn’t explicitly require (or prohibit) a series of events, his clients would likely be acquitted.

And with all due deference to R West here, I do not think the arguments advanced will carry the day (though they are generally spot on with the ones you offered over the weekend, in comments).

Boiled down, he simply says (in a two page PDF) that First Amendment jurisprudence does not require the release of the names.

But that isn’t how the amendment works. It says unless a specific danger or harm is outlined, by competent evidence (which per force would require suggesting that Mr. Shkreli would be dangerous, in possession of the names)… the press is presumed to have the right to report on matters of public concern, in the criminal justice system, without restraint of any kind. “Congress shall make no law…” in the preamble  to the amendment means what it says.  And the same applies… to judges.

So Judge Matsumoto is likely to grant the access to the list of names. If nothing else, the world should know whether any jurors felt bullied by other jurors to acquit  (on some charges) — and if so, by which ones.

Same way as to convicting — but I think that unlikely given the way the verdict was handed down.

I also wonder whether — when the jurors are named — Mr. Brafman may be a little worried that some miscreant Shkreli acolyte will harm one of them. But he cannot say so, by letter — and he cannot admit that many of the rest of these posts and comments here reflect that his followers may be a continuing danger to lawful, orderly liberty, in our society.

Should (God forbid) something happen — it will be relevant to sentencing of Mr. Shkreli — unless Brafman can distance this convict from all his prior postings in public.