….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  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.