[U] Well. It Seems The Incarcerated Felon Never Filed Any Sworn Financial Affidavit — In Brooklyn — Even Under Seal…

….and so, Messrs. Brafman and the able lawyer-folks at Fox Rothchild may never get any part of the $5 million, purportedly still in an E*Trade brokerage account, ostensibly under Mr. Shkreli’s name. Even if Mr. Brafman has filed his attorneys’ lien — at the appropriate federal office, he will lose unless he can show his firm, via Shkreli’s pending insolvency, will not get paid at all. And the only competent evidence the judge will now accept, of that fact — given Mr. Shkreli’s endless string of prevarications on the subject of his finances — will be a sworn affidavit from the man himself. And it will have to be comprehensive.

In sum… Not a  good look, Ben. You might have mentioned that you at least read and understood the relevant federal statute. Then you might have argued for a departure from its strictures. Not now. You are stuck.

This will all be powerful motivation (i.e., the screws applied by his two law firms) for Marty to swear out a completely truthful written, detailed affidavit of his REAL net worth. WIthout making that sworn filing, it is highly likely that the AUSAs (with the backing of the IRS and NY State taxing authorities) will simply move to forfeit — and the able Judge Matsumoto is broadly hinting (without such an affidavit) she will so order it.  Kiss that E*Trade goodbye, boys.

A hat tip to Billy, by way of Christie Smythe — for alerting me to the entry of the order today. I’ve been pillar to post on several matters over at the Chinese Consulate in Chicago. Here is the order, in full:

ORDER denying [375] Motion to Release Bond Obligation as to Martin Shkreli.

Pursuant to 28 United States Code Section 2044, “[t]he court shall not release any money deposited for bond purposes after…a verdict of the defendant’s guilt has been entered and before sentencing except upon a showing that an assessment, fine, restitution or penalty cannot be imposed for the offense the defendant committed or that the defendant would suffer an undue hardship.” The court has not yet determined whether a fine, restitution, or penalty will be imposed on Mr. Shkreli, but Mr. Shkreli has not established that a fine, restitution, or penalty cannot be imposed for the offenses of which he was convicted. With regard to Mr. Shkreli’s claim that he will suffer an “undue hardship,” the court notes that he has not completed a sworn financial affidavit. Based on Mr. Shkreli’s limited submissions, the court concludes that Mr. Shkreli will not suffer an “undue hardship” by the retention of his bond. 

The parties are respectfully directed to confer, and to file a letter advising the court of how they wish to proceed with regards to a forfeiture hearing, by October 24, 2017.

Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/19/2017….

Lovely. What to say when your defense lawyer doesn’t even address the relevant federal law on the matter? Clearly, the AUSAs did (as we mentioned yesterday) — which is why I presumed the able Judge Matsumoto had already ruled, orally, from the bench — at some point. The matter is essentially free from any colorable doubt.

UPDATE 10.19.2017 @ 5 PM EDT: Another order just entered.

Jury Selection as to Evan Greebel continued on 10/19/2017. Case Called. All parties present. Mr. Greebel present. The Court conducted the Voir Dire and the Jury Panel selected. Jury trial to begin on 10/20/2017 at 9:00a.m. in Courtroom 6C South….

Now… onward to a Friday in Brooklyn of opening statements, at 9 AM jury selection, for Mr. Greebel’s felony trial… hopefully we will see opening statements by Monday, then.




14 thoughts on “[U] Well. It Seems The Incarcerated Felon Never Filed Any Sworn Financial Affidavit — In Brooklyn — Even Under Seal…

  1. billythekid9919 says:

    How does business at Turing (or whatever their new name is I lost track… which is probably the idea) continue to operate. Someone has to at least be cashing checks and producing products right?? Or is that all contracted out and Turing is just a shell company cashing checks because they own the rights to the drug?

    Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        My strong suspicion is that all the “company” is doing is having the acting GC respond to subpoenas on daraprim pricing in California, Vermont and elsewhere…

        My bet is that no one even goes in to the “Vyera” offices any longer.

        Note that the acting GC still lists “Turing” as her employer’s name — whilst at least some of the marketing ppl use the new name on LinkedIn.

        Nutty — but it is a private company; non-US domicile, so the information required is… minimal.

        I’ll see if the company lists any new officers in January 2018, when Vyera will owe a “doing business” in NY franchise tax filing, as a foreign entity (if it is still doing business by then!)…



      • condor says:

        I think they may be using a contract manufacturer in the EU, then just drop shipping to the US.

        So at least as to the NYC HQ, it is just a suite of offices — no API manufacturing; let alone an FDA inspected facility.

        It’s nearly impossible to be certain though, since Vyera is a private, and off shore domiciled company. It would make sense that Turing just hired someone to make their Daraprim stocks, at an FDA approved facility (Teva, Lupin, Mylan — those are pure guesses)…



  2. bmartinmd says:

    Yeah, it’s hard to know if Brafman’s letter was a bone-headed (might we say “JV”?) alley-oop setup to the judge OR an absolutely intentional ploy to get the financial ball rolling.

    Perhaps we’ll see Shkreli representing himself at sentencing! Stay tuned!

    P. S. Condor: What’s the copyright status of this blog vis-a-vis book-writing journalists?

    Liked by 2 people

    • condor says:

      It is all free — to the world: completely public domain. I want all of it shared and shared alike. No matter whether someone else uses it to make money — every bit of it is… what I (and others) call… “Copy-Left”… just leave me a copy.

      That’s all.

      WordPress gets non-exclusive rights, in any event — in return for the free hosting. That’s in their terms of service.

      Great question, Doc!

      Go cubbies!


      • condor says:

        Yes — sorry. That is my intention… I am sick to death of the “over-ownership” of simple… ideas.

        I just ask — as a moral, but not legal, matter — that a reference credit be given in some fashion.


        PS: you can always just link your longer form stuff from your own blog/site — and I’ll always accept the link; and will respect your copyright, if it is claimed at the linked site.

        Make sense?

        Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Indeed… well done! Let us guess (perhaps not improbably) that Mr. Brafman — with the Fox Rothchild firm’s tacit approval — filed a dead loser, on purpose.


      As a lever of sorts, AGAINST Mr. Shkreli, of course. And… Confidential to Ms. Smythe, if you are reading this (and I can see you are!) — please email your buddy Marty to let him know that this may have all been some goofy form of Kabuki theater — to get Marty to pay the two law firms’ bills.

      Now (they will both say) we “need to sell some of your other assets, if you persist in refusing to swear out an affidavit of your holdings….”

      After all, Mr. Brafman in particular need not handle the sentencing phase — nor any subsequent appeals — if he is not getting paid.

      So as a wily “Street Law” criminal defense lawyer (representing a now-convicted criminal), Mr. Brafman is using court leverage (and certainly not the first time he is arguably doing so), to get his (and others’) legal bills paid more immediately — at least in part.

      So… Ms. Smythe — please credit us, when you publish this theory in your forthcoming biography of Marty. Heh. I won’t hold my breath.

      Namaste — R West…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.