In
SDNY Ari Teman Motion on
GateGuard Defendant Is Opposed
In Shadow of Nejad
By Matthew
Russell Lee,
Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 10 – While
many even most
cases in the
Magistrates
Court of the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York are
sealed or have
case numbers
given only
later, on September
6, 2019
Magistrate
Judge Sarah Netburn
arraigned four
defendants in
a case that
even long
after the fact
was still
listed as
sealed:
19-cr-627.
It has since
been unsealed.in
A case
back on k on September
6 that wasn't
sealed
involved Ari
Teman who
allegedly
deposited
counterfeit
checks into a
bank account
in Florida,
then
transferred
and withdrew
$4000 of the
funds from the
same bank at a
branch in
Manhattan.
Back on June
20, 2019, by
coincidence
before the
same
Magistrate
Judge who
eight weeks
later released
Teman on a
$25,000
personal
recognisance
bond, NYPD
Detective
Daniel
Alessandrino
swore out that
Teman for the
scheme used
his company
GateGuard Inc,
based in New
York, NY..
Why
Teman thought
he could
deposit over
$200,000 in
funds from
companies
which exist
but had not
authorized the
payment is not
known. His
lawyer is
Joseph A.
DiRuzzo of
Fort
Lauderdale,
Florida, with
a notice of
appearance
first
digitally
signed, then
re-filed
upside down.
Inner City
Press will
continue to
follow this
case and has.
On July
24, 2020 a
civil case
involved
GateGuard v.
Goldmont
Realty Corp.
But at the end
the issue was
whether the
defendant(s)
targeted Ari
Teman to the
SDNY
prosecutors,
who are under
fire in this
and many other
cases
including US
v. Ahuja which
Inner City
Press also
covered on
July 24. So we
saidsaid,
We will
continue on
all these
cases. And we
have.
On
November 10,
the US
Attorney's
Office wrote
to Judge Paul
A. Engelmayer
opposing
Teman's motion
for post-trial
disclosures
regarding
statements by
witness Joseph
Seleimani. The
US Attorney's
Office said,
among other
things, that
"notwithstanding
the
Government's Brady,
Giglio and
Jencks Act
obligations...
the contents
of any
'internal
memoranda,
correspondence
or
communications"
sought by
Teman would be
protected by
the
deliberative
process
privilege."
But is
that the
standard for
the Office's
production to
Judge Nathan
in US v. Nejad
US v. Nejad,
18-cr-224, in
which Inner
City Press has
sought
unsealing, in
Docket Number
393? The
sentencing of
Teman is set
for December
1. The case is
US v. Teman,
19-cr-696
(Engelmayer)
***
Feedback: Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
Box
20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY
NY 10017
Other, earlier Inner
City Press are listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner
City Press, Inc. To request reprint or
other permission, e-contact Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com for
|