| In
SDNY Slip and Fall Fraud Locust Gets 48
Months Restitution Affirmed Under Lagos
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon,
Periscope
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 14 – The U.S. government
began a trial against three
men on May 7, 2019 for staged
slip and fall accidents and
fraudulent lawsuits. But from
its first day the trial raised
issues about Bloods gang
culture, the prosecutors'
propensity to use conflicted
criminals as witness to go
after low hanging fruit, and
the potential of having
witnessed the 9/11/01 attacks
to sway a jury.
The jury
late on Thursday, May 23 came
out and said they didn't have
enough evidence on Counts 2
and 3, but that they had
reached an undisclosed
decision on Counts 1, 4, 5 and
6.
As Inner
City Press published on May
23, this makes the prosecution
nervous. If those findings are
"guilty," what if just one of
the jurors changes their mind
between May 23 and Tuesday,
May 28 when they will continue
to deliberate, under the new
or reiterated instruction that
Judge Stein gave them?
On May 28,
amid Michael Avenatti hype
elsewhere in the SDNY,
this: "Verdict reached as
follows: as to Count One, all
defendants found guilty; as to
Counts Four, Five, and Six,
defendant Duncan found guilty.
The Court finds a mistrial as
to Counts 2 and 3 for all
defendants. Sentencing is set
for September 10, 2019, at
2:30 p.m. for Duncan, 3:00
p.m. for Locust, and 3:30 p.m.
for Rainford."
These all got pushed back
to January 7, and Inner City Press which alone
covered the trial will report on Rainford
here. On December 8, his lawyer Calvin Scholar
wrote that "while Kalkanis and the leaders of
the scheme made millions of dollars, Mr.
Rainford was paid a few thousand dolalrs for
his roel as driver during a five-year period."
On January 7 Judge Stein scoffed at the
idea of a time served sentence, and admonished
Rainford for recruiting desperate people and
getting them to have unneeded surgeries.
Rainford spoke for himself, citing his three
children. Stein said, in essence, you should
have thought of them at the time of the crime.
He sentenced Rainford to 68 months in prison.
And now in December,
this: "ORDER denying [329] Motion as to
Ryan Rainford (5). Defendant Ryan Rainford
moves for release on bail pending appeals
of his conviction and this Court's
subsequent denial of his renewed motion
for compassionate release. (ECF No. 329.)
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), the
statute governing release pending appeal,
"a person who has been found guilty of an
offense and sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal
[shall] be detained" unless two criteria
are met. Id. § 3143(b)(1). First, a court
must find "by clear and convincing
evidence that the person is not likely to
flee or pose a danger to the safety of any
other person or the community if
released...." Id. § 3143(b)(1)(A). Next, a
court must find that "the appeal is not
for the purpose of delay and raises a
substantial question of law or fact likely
to result in (i) reversal, (ii) an order
for a new trial, (iii) a sentence that
does not include a term of imprisonment,
or (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of
imprisonment less than the total of the
time already served plus the expected
duration of the appeal process." Id. §
3143(b)(1)(B). Defendant fails to meet
either of these criteria. As this Court
cannot find that Rainford does not pose a
danger to the safety of any other person
or the community, and because defendant
fails to show that his appeal "raises a
substantial question of law or fact" and
is not "for the purpose of delay," IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Rainford's motion for
release on bail pending appeal is denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a
copy of this Order to Mr. Rainford,
FCI Fort Dix, Federal Correctional
Institution, P.O. Box 2000, Joint Base
MDL, NJ 08640, and note the mailing on
ECF. SO ORDERED."
Now in July, 2021, this: "as to Robert
Locust (4). The defendant was found guilty
on Count(s) 1s after a plea of not guilty.
All open counts are dismissed;
IMPRISONMENT: 48 months. SUPERVISED
RELEASE: 3 years. The court makes the
following recommendations to the Bureau of
Prisons: That defendant be incarcerated in
the tri state area in order to facilitate
visits with his family. The defendant
shall surrender for service of sentence at
the institution designated by the Bureau
of Prisons: before 2pm on 8/20/21.
Assessment: $100.00 due immediately.
Restitution: $3,928,133.60. The defendant
shall forfeit the defendant's interest in
the following property to the United
States: $66,400."
Judge Stein issued a detailed order
on his decision on Locust's restitution:
"Defendant Robert Locust has moved to
amend the July 9 judgment in this action
to remove his restitution obligation...
Defense counsel continues to argue that
that subdivision-(b)(4)-provides the only
type of restitution that is mandatory
under the MYRA. This argument contravenes
the plain language of the statute,
which makes clear that that final, general
provision only supplements the
offense-specific restitution mandates that
precede it. Indeed, the principal case
defense counsel cites in support of his
argument-Lagos v. United States, 138 S.
Ct. 1684 (2018)-in fact stands for the
exact opposite proposition from that for
which it is cited. In Lagos, the U.S.
Supreme Court resolved a narrow dispute
over which "expenses incurred during
participation in the investigation or
prosecution of the offense" are covered by
the catch-all provision. But the defendant
in Lagos-who, like Locust, was convicted
of a federal wire-fraud offense-did not
even challenge the portion of his MYRA
order requiring him to pay more than $11
million for the value of the property lost
or destroyed. See Brief for the
Petitioner, Lagos, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (No.
16-1519), 2018 WL 1110042, at *11 n.5. Nor
could that petitioner have challenged it,
considering both the clear terms of the
statute and the uniform wall of precedent
applying the MYRA to fraud crimes as a
matter of course....Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to remove
Locust's restitution obligation is denied.
Back on the
afternoon of May 22, 2019 the
jury had sent out two notes.
The first said that Juror
Number Eight had been elected
the foreperson. The second
made requests: for Bryan
Duncan's WhatsApp and text
messages, for definitions
including aiding and abetting,
and for the witness list.
The
prosecutors said they would
prepare the list. Duncan's
lawyer Ikiesha
T. Al-Shabazz
said, There is
no list -
which is true,
as a follower
of the docket
on PACER - and
that the
government
should not be
permitted to
send back a
list with all
the witnesses
they might
have called,
only those
that were in
fact called.
But wouldn't
the jury have
remembered who
testified?
We'll have
more on this.
Back on May
21, Assistant US Attorney
Alexandra Rothman in her
summation to the jury relied
on the testimony of (Bloods
member) Reginald Dewitt, and
to jotting by the slip and
fall fraud doctor Kalkanis.
She emphasized that Clarence
Tucker knew that Robert Locust
fixed computers. Doesn't this
undermine the argument that
Locust is a big enough fish to
justify this Federal
prosecution, using the
witnesses it has? We'll have
more on this.
On May 20
the U.S. Attorney's office put
on the witness stand one of
its paralegals and message
extracters, Ariella Fetman, to
read Bryan Duncan's parts from
his text exchanges with
Patient Walker, who said he
was homeless and needed money
for a room after his surgery.
The Assistant U.S. Attorney
was reading Walker's text
messages, with lines like "Are
you serious, my N-word?" There
were objections before the
reading, and during. Judge
Stein asked the government,
are you closing today? Things
are coming to a close. Watch
this site.
Back on
May 16 after a three day
break, Doctor Peter Kalkanis,
more responsible for the
scheme than the drivers, was
being walked though his
testimony by Assistant U.S.
Attorney Alexandra Rothman. He
explained how the unneeded
surgeries cost $18,000.
This money was
lent by finance companies at
terms he called predatory -
but he too took his fee. Those
getting the unneeded surgeries
were paid $1000. Kalkanis
estimated he made some $2
million from the scheme.
On May 17
under cross examination by
Duncan's lawyer Ikiesha T.
Al-Shabazz, Kankanis starting
naming finance companies: Fast
Track, Golden Pair, Sunset
Management Funding." Ms.
Al-Shabazz asked him to
distinguish patients, which
Duncan was in 2012, from
drivers which he became, from
what Kalkanis called
"runners." Kalkanis said that
Raymond Christmas was a
patient who was later paid $50
to $100 for referrals, on a
matrix. Christmas referred his
cases to Rasul a/k/a Reginald
Dewitt, the government's
witness. Kalkanis remembered
the name Victor Faison and
even how to spell it - but not
if his case was fake or not.
He offered to start naming
"troublemakers."
May 17
ended with the cross
examination of government
witness Martin, who
pre-programmed his iPhone to
drop the "c" from faxt and
fuxk and refused to way the
N-word although he wrote it in
his WhatsApp text messages
with Bryan Duncan. The latter
came up because Martin got
into dramatic readings of the
texts, first with prosecutor
Alexandra Rothman (they had
rehearsed, he said, on Monday
or Tuesday when the jury did
not sit) then with Duncan's
attorney Ms. Al-Shabazz.
Things got
testy, with Martin saying
"Next question" and coughing
loudly to show he was sick.
How the jury will take this is
not clear. Summations are set
for Tuesday, May 21. We'll
have more on this, and on
this: why is it the drivers
being prosecuted? Inner City
Press will continue to follow
this trial.
In open
arguments before U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge
Sidney H. Stein the lawyer for
defendant Robert Locust, Mitchell
Dinnerstein, told
the jury to
expect to see on
the stand a
well dressed doctor
who had led the
scheme,
Peter Kalkanis.
(Judge Stein retorted
that Dinnerstein
himself was
well dressed.)
On May
9 there was a
dapper
gentleman out
in the hall
outside
Courtroom 23A.
Inner City
Press was told
he was none other
than Kalkanis,
but that he
will only go on the
stand late on
Friday, with the jury
then not
sitting early
next week by
the judge's
decision. Some
joked, it is a
try-out of
Kalkanis as a
witness? Will
he appear
dressed down
in a sweat
suit?
At day's end
Inner City
Press spoke
with defendant
Locust, who
shaking his
head said the
government had
just made sh*t
up about him,
and tried to
entrap him
into committing some violence.
A lawyer in
the case told
Inner City
Press it was
unclear if "Bloods
witness"
Reginald Dewitt
is in fact in
custody;
two government
agents
appears to be
assigned to
him. More and
more questions
were arising.
Another witness
with mental issues relates
those back to what he saw on
September 11, 2001. The
defense says this will sway
the jury to the witness' side.
On these and other questions,
Judge Stein said the scope of
cross examination will be
decided as the trial goes
forward.
Judge Stein told
the jury not to read press
coverage about the case, while
predicting there would be no
press coverage of it. But why
then are there three separate
Assistant U.S. Attorneys on
the case, two marshals
shepherding Duncan in and out
of the courtroom even during
breaks, and rulings to keep
out information about the
lawyers and funding companies
behind this slip and fall
fraud scheme? Inner City Press
will continue to cover this
trial. More on Patreon, here.
The
case is U.S.
v. Bryan
Duncan, et al.,
18-cr-00289
(Stein).
***
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
Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold
Station NY NY 10017
SDNY: Press Room 20,
40 Foley Square, NY NY 10007
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 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
