Mr. Brafman’s “Last Gasp” — At Avoiding A 15 Plus Year Sentence, For Martin Shkreli.

Or, we could style this one “Letters… we get… letters“.

Mr. Brafman just filed another five page letter brief arguing that the sentences in the cases the government cited just yesterday — as instructive for Marty’s case… um… aren’t.

Putting to the side that several of the defendants in the cases ADMITTED guilt, and plead guilty — and still got over a decade (unmentioned by Mr. Brafman as differing from Marty — but of course that matters, immensely)…

We note that Mr. Brafman STILL makes no honest, forthright accounting for Mr. Shkreli’s post conviction criminal conduct (all of it admitted) — which well settled law deems quite relevant, to the sentence to be imposed.

He simply deflects, as to it — saying (as we all say) — “how could he…?!”

AND, SO — this changes nothing (in my experienced view) — except that Mr. Brafman may not get any oral advocacy time on Friday. We may simply see the able Judge read the sentence and opinion into the record.

See ya’ Friday

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “Mr. Brafman’s “Last Gasp” — At Avoiding A 15 Plus Year Sentence, For Martin Shkreli.

    • condor says:

      Come to riotblockchainreviewed! The “next Marty” is being profile there!

      Same WordPress.com ending — just “riotblockchainreviewed [dot] in front of it…

      Namaste!

      Like

  1. R West says:

    Things I learned from Martin Shkreli case:

    • Be extremely careful what you put in email.
    • Ditto for social media.
    • Attorney-client privilege is pretty illusory – not that hard for Gov’t to pierce it.
    • Just because other potential criminals can wiggle off the hook (like some of the hedge fund managers look clearly guilty of securities violations but somehow they wiggle out of it), it doesn’t mean you can do it too.
    • Never meet with the Gov’t. without your attorney.
    • Gov’t is a lot smarter than you think.
    • If you are ever a criminal defendant, you really need to testify. If you don’t think you can testify, you might as well plead guilty.
    • Hire the best defense attorney possible – one thing he did right.
    • Longest brief isn’t always the best – Brafman is really good at zeroing in on the key points.
    • A criminal defendant has a lot of 5th and 6th amendment protections. However, once convicted, those protections go out the window – you are at the mercy of the Judge.
    • Law can be tricky; never know when you might be completely missing something – see Martin’s analysis of the sentencing guidelines.
    • Once you get convicted you are pretty much screwed. If you have a long apology, you’re making excuses. If you have a short apology, you’re insincere.
    • If ever out on bond, that’s another time to be extremely careful what you do.
    • Always remember jail communications are monitored.
    • If you think you are about to be arrested, don’t sleep at home. Gov’t. always shows up at 6:30 am!

    Liked by 2 people

      • condor says:

        Indeed! And the Atty-Client firewall was blown by the fact that his attorney was clearly aiding the crimes… a real securities lawyer — acts as a beat cop, as much as a consigliere — to the CEO.

        Namaste, all — crazy day in the office ahead. May be scarce until lunch hour…

        Like

  2. R West says:

    My guess is the redacted part of Brafman’s letter has something to do with the press. Theory would be they were leading Martin into being wacko and defiant. Well … one has to admit they were sort of trolling him back. And, person (possibly a journalist) that may have communicated via email with Martin in prison may have led him in the wrong direction … that’s the argument!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. R West says:

    So Thursday night are you going to post a summary of the predictions? Some people are going to be way wrong! Pretty scary how much power a Federal Judge has!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. aldt440 says:

    I’m absolutely amazed that, after at least a year of posting here, you and Billy haven’t changed your authoritarian positions one bit. A sentence of 15 years is absolutely insane. 15 years will violate every legislative objective of the guidelines.

    When enacted, the purpose of The Sentencing Reform Act was to:

    1.) Promote respect for the law;

    2.) Offer a clear statement of the purposes of punishment as well as the available kinds and lengths of sentences;

    3.) Ensure that the offender, federal officials, and the public “are certain about the sentence and the reasons for it”;

    4.) Meet the sometimes conflicting demands of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation;

    5.) Provide trial judges with “a full range of sentencing options from which to select the most appropriate sentence in a particular case”;

    6.) Eliminate “unwarranted sentence disparities” between otherwise similarly situated criminals.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      I did. It is a valiant effort. But his client’s conduct has made anything like a “win”… impossible. 48 hours… and we will know, for sure. Namaste…

      Like

      • R West says:

        This could be the biggest decision the Judge has ever rendered … it would be funny if she listens to the arguments, says I want to think about it over the weekend … and sends everyone home (except Marty) until next week!

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        I think she decided last week. But man, it’s like Game Seven — in any World Series; NBA Final or the NCAA B-Ball Final… a great and entirely… unscripted drama… to unfold in about 44 hours…

        Like

      • CagingMartens says:

        It’s the USAO-EDNY vs Pharma Bro BOP Incarceration Challenge Final Match. From here on it’s only the refs for the second circuit and supreme court who can overturn penalties with their instant replays of transcripts!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. R West says:

    Prosecutors are bringing up a lot of conduct, but it’s questionable whether it’s “relevant.” Relevant conduct should be something the Judge heard some evidence on or it’s somehow related to the trial .. if it’s a total accusation and the Judge doesn’t have any way to know about it or verify it, it may not be “relevant”!

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Agreed — but where the judge made findings — to revoke his bail… as here… it seems pretty darn relevant, to dangerousness.

      Namaste! [We are previewing Friday’s arguments!]

      Like

  6. R West says:

    “— except that Mr. Brafman may not get any oral advocacy time on Friday. We may simply see the able Judge read the sentence and opinion into the record.”
    __________

    I don’t understand … I thought he was already granted three hours?

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      No — he’s asked to address the court — but I haven’t (yet) seen any order GRANTING him any time.

      I suspect this is the only thing on her docket Friday — so we will see…

      Namaste!

      Like

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.