Indicted UAE
Lobbyist Barrack Met Handlers in Morocco
Jury Is Told As Grimes Got Smoothies
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
EDNY Courthouse,
Sept 21 – Thomas Barrack and
Matthew Grimes, indicted for
illegal lobbying for the
United Arab Emirates, were
arraigned on July 26, 2021
before U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New
York Magistrate Judge Sanket
Bulsara. Inner City Press live
tweeted it here
(and podcast here)
On September 21,
2022, Day 1 of the trial,
Inner City Press went to EDNY
in Brooklyn. After
descriptions of Barrack's
meetings with UAE handlers, in
Morocco, Corsica and
elsewhere, counsel for Matthew
Grimes said his client was
just an assistant, getting
coffee and smoothies for his
boss and taking photos of
meeting. Sure, he vacations
with Al Malik Alshahhi. But he
was serving Colony Capital,
his lawyer said.
Next up, as first
witness, was an expert in
Middle East affairs. A map was
proffered as an exhibit, but
it couldn't be seen in the
overflow courtroom. And Inner
City Press couldn't yet live
tweet from there. Watch this
site. For now, this Cadman
Plaza vlog, here.
Back on
August 3, 2021 Grimes asked
the Court for permission to
travel to New York where his
lawyers are based - and then
to take the train to Boston
(the conditions of release
were limited and car and
common air carrier, with
private jet access cited).
Letter on CourtListener here.
On November 2,
Judge Cogan
held another
proceeding in
the case - but
no listen-only
call-in line
was provided,
unlike the
in-person EDNY
guilty plea
the same day
in US v.
Daniel Rendon
Herrera, a
Colombian drug
kingpin
charged with
continuing
criminal
enterprise and
providing
material
support to a
foreign
terrorist
organization
before Judge
Dora L.
Irizarry.
Inner City
Press live
tweeted thread
here.
Why
less
transparency
on Barrack?
And on
the morning of
jury
selection,
this: "Order
Re [225]. The
Court will
reserve the
left half of
the second row
for in-house
accredited
press, as the
first row will
be reserved
for defendants
family and
friends.
In-house
accredited
press will be
permitted to
observe jury
selection from
the gallery
and will have
access to a
transcript.
Additionally,
members of the
in-house
accredited
press will be
permitted to
have their
phones and
laptops in the
overflow
courtroom.
Ordered by
Judge Brian M.
Cogan on
9/19/2022." Will
that continue
into the
trial?
In the same
EDNY
courthouse, Judge
Dearie's September
20 proceeding
on the Donald Trump
/ Mar-a-Lago
documents
will have a
call-in line.
Why not
the Barrack
trial? The
office to apply to
bring
electronics in
to cover it is open
only 10-1 and
2 to 3 - watch
this site.
From
Judge Cogan,
these rulings:
"Defendants’
[162/163]
motion in
limine is
conditionally
denied and
part of the
Government’s
[168/169]
motion in
limine is
conditionally
granted. The
Court defers
ruling on
whether the
Government has
proven the
existence of a
conspiracy to
violate
Section 951
with respect
to the UAE’s
interests in
Qatar and
whether Al
Malik’s notes
were made in
furtherance of
such a
conspiracy
until the end
of the
Government’s
case. See
United States
v. Geaney, 417
F.2d 1116,
1120 (2d Cir.
1969); United
States v. SKW
Metals &
Alloys, Inc.,
195 F.3d 83,
88-89 (2d Cir.
1999). Whether
there will be
any direct
testimony as
to Al Malik’s
purpose in
creating these
notes is not
determinative
for purposes
of determining
whether the
evidence is
admissible,
although
defendants are
free to argue
that the lack
of direct
testimony
should
diminish the
weight of the
evidence. See
United States
v.
Maldonado-Rivera,
922 F.2d 934,
957 (2d Cir.
1990). 2.
Barrack’s
[199] motion
is
conditionally
denied.
Nothing
suggests that
the Government
is “mak[ing] a
false
statement of
fact or law to
a tribunal”
under N.Y. R.
Prof’l Conduct
3.3 by arguing
that Barrack
was involved
in securing
the ADIA
investment.
The Government
will not be
precluded from
offering into
evidence the
“Barrack
Magic”
investment
tracker –
provided that
the Government
can establish
a connection
between
Barrack and
ADIA’s
investment in
DCP I –
because the
Government has
represented
that it
intends to
elicit
testimony from
witnesses who
worked at
Colony and
know the
reference."
Watch this
site.
On March 15, 2022, with the UAE Mission
to the UN under Ambassador
Lana Nusseibeh
refusing to
answer
written
questions from
Inner City
Press and
documents
sealed in
EDNY, this Barrack
argument;
"while the
indictment
alleges that
Mr. Barrack
spoke
positively
about the UAE
in the media,
see Indictment
¶ 24, those
allegations do
not show he
was the UAE’s
agent, see
Mot. 7."
On May 24,
2022, Judge
Cogan held a
proceeding
and Inner City
Press live
tweeted it, here.
On
August 29, in
a nearly
final pre-trial
conference
before
the September
19 trial,
Judge Cogan held a
conference.
Inner City
Press live
tweeted here and
below.
On
September 6,
represented by
until recently
SDNY
prosecutor Emil
Bove,
Barrack's
former staff Alison
Marckstadt
filed as an Interested
Party,
seeking to quash a
Rule 17(C) subpoena.
Previously, as
Barrack's
assistant
Alison
Marckstadt
replied, "Unfortunately,
Mr. Barrack is
unable to
accommodate
your deadline,
as he is
traveling"....
Also on
September
6 from Team Barrack,
this: "MOTION
in Limine to
Exclude
Prejudicial
Evidence and
Argument
Related to
Wealth,
Spending, and
Lifestyle by
Thomas Joseph
Barrack.
(Attachments:
# (1) Exhibit
1-6 (Filed
Under Seal)
(Schachter,
Michael)."
From
August 29,
2022: OK - now
in near final
pre-trial
conference for
US v. Barrack
and Grimes for
UAE spying,
Barrack's
lawyer says
jurors seeing
his ankle
bracelet would
be
prejudicial.
Judge
Cogan: Just don't
wear
shorts.
Defense
says that
proposal to
modify Grimes'
grand jury
testimony to
switch "Tom
Barrack" to
"the other
guy" is like
"something out
of my Cousin
Vinny."
AUSA:
No, it's not
from My Cousin
Vinny, it's
from the
Second Circuit
Court of
Appeals.
Judge
Cogan: We'll
find a war
room for the
defense, as
close to the
courtroom as
possible. The
prosecution,
it's easier
for them,
they're right
across the
street...
I could tell
the jury, you
may be here
until January.
Just tell me
long you'd
need.
Defense:
If we put on a
case, it would
be two or
three weeks.
But we don't
know yet.
Judge:
I like to say,
"The case will
take this
long," without
telling them,
the US versus
the defense's
case. Just
project the
end date. I
think the US
adds 25 to 50%
to estimate
Voice:
Can I cut in?
Judge
Cogan: Who is
that?
2d voice: The
public line.
Judge
Cogan: Silence
that.
[Note:
Inner City
Press believes
there should
be a listen
only call in
line for this
national
security
trial, given
COVID etc.]
Defense:
We don't want
a surprise
co-conspirator
to show in
trial. Judge
Cogan: The US
has been
over-inclusive
in listing
everyone they
might call
(as) a
co-conspirator.
Could the
government be
more specific?
AUSA:
It's not as
much a mystery
as the defense
says.
AUSA:
There is no
requirement
that we name
every
co-conspirator
in a
conspiracy
trial. Judge
(to defense)
That's the
best I can do
for you.
Defense:
They have an
obligation to
ID for us
every
co-conspirators
they are going
to allege
during the
trial.
Abbe
Lowell: There
are motions in
limine
pending. Given
that some of
these, I take
it, are
statements
between people
we didn't know
- that was my
point.
Judge
Cogan: Mr.
Lowell, as a
practical
matter, I'm
including to
take evidence
like that
subject to
connection.
Judge
Cogan: I will
see you all on
September 19.
Adjourned.
Back
on March 22,
2022, Judge
Cogan held a
proceeding and
Inner City Press again covered
it, thread
here:
OK -
now in case of
indicted
United Arab
Emirates
illegal
lobbyist Tom
Barrack, a
proceeding in
EDNY.
Judge
Cogan: When
can you file
your motion -
in 2 weeks?
The answer is
yes. Defense
counsel asks
for right to
reply.
Judge
Cogan: What
about the
Curcio
[possible
conflict of
interest of
counsel]
hearing?
Let's do it
5:30 on April
7.
Judge
Cogan: I'd be
willing to do
the trial by
video... [Why
not? At least
a public
listen-only
call-in line]
Judge
Cogan: Is US
going to
supersede?
AUSA: We are
mindful of
trial timing,
either way we
won't impact
it. Judge:
When will you
know? AUSA: By
mid June.
AUSA:
Your Honor
will see us on
May 19 on the
CIPA issues.
We may know by
then. Judge
Cogan: What
might a
superseding
indictment
look like, do
you know?
AUSA: We know.
Judge Cogan:
Would it mess
up the trial
schedule?
AUSA: We don't
think so. No
new CIPA.
Judge
Cogan: We have
another status
conference,
say, May 24,
11:30 am. It's
been
designated
complex, so
[Speedy Trial
Act] time is
excluded.
The case is USA
V. AL MALIK ALSHAHHI et al.,
21-cr-371 (EDNY, Cogan, J.)
***
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
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|