In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 20 – A year ago Doctor Dante A. Cubangang and three others including his receptionist Loren Piquant a/k/a Loren Luna and John Gargan were indicted for illegally selling some six million Oxycodone pills, or 180 kilos of Oxy.

    On October 9, a week before receptionist Loren Piquant / Luna went on trial before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul G. Gardephe, her boss Dante Cubangbang pled guilty without a sentencing date.

    The plea letter partially read out in the SDNY Magistrates Court by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang said that the government might ask for a reduced sentence based on Cubangbang's cooperation against his receptionist and John Gargan.

    After the short and murky proceeding, Inner City Press asked Cubangbang's lawyer if the plea deal specified a sentencing guideline that the government will recommend. No, he answered.

    Inner City Press asked him, "Does the letter mention Section 5K1?"

     "No comment," he said and got on the elevator.

   5K1 is the section of the sentencing guidelines which can erase "mandatory" minimum sentences for cooperates like, in the last month, Daniel Hernandez a/k/a Tekashi 6ix9ine and, in the trial against Honduras' president's brother Juan Antonio Hernandez, former mayor Alex Ardon who confessed to killing 56 people.

   How many people did Cubangbang's six million Oxy pills kill? And who is more responsible, this doctor or his receptionist?

  Now this from the Federal Defenders for John Gargan, on Cubangbang and sexual abuse of a patient and, it seems to us, further unaccountable abuse of the 5K1 process: "We write in response to the Government's letter of October 18, 2019. The letter sets out a chronology of events regarding Dr. Cubangbang and the time the government first learned from one of its witnesses that Dr. Cubangbang had committed a criminal sexual act during a medical examination of that witness. We have just been told by Dr. Cubangbang's lawyer that it his present intention to advise his client to testify if called by the defense. Counsel also stated that he would speak to his client tomorrow morning and advise if there was any change in this position. The government has told us that Dr. Cubangbang's cooperation agreement is still operative. Assuming that Dr. Cubangbang does testify, we do not have any other application. If he becomes unavailable for any reason, we will address the issue. We are troubled that the government's letter seriously misstates the facts regarding the government's intentions to call Dr. Cubangbang as a witness in its case in chief. The government's letter states that when it first produced Dr. Cubangbang's 3500 material to the defense on October 9, 2019, "the Government was not planning at that point, to call Cubangbang as a witness in its case in chief at trial in this matter." Gov't Letter (GL) of October 18, 2019, page 1. The government further asserts that after it met with Cubangbang on October 13, the Government "continued to believe that it would not call Cubangbang as a witness in its direct case." Finally, the government states that on October 15th, the first day of trial, the "Government informed the defense and the Court that it did not intend to call Cubangbang." But, that is not at all what the government told the defense and the Court. At the close of business on October 15th, the Court asked "what's the government's intentions with respect to Dr. Cubangbang and Mr. Kellerman?" Trial Transcript (TT) at 51. Mr. Krouse responded: Your Honor, the government continues to assess whether to call either of Case 1:18-cr-00723-PGG Document 111 Filed 10/20/19 Page 1 of 2 those two witnesses. I believe my colleague informed defense counsel of that fact, that we haven't made a final decision as to either of them. TT 51-52. The Court then asked the government whether it had a sense of when it would decide whether Mr. Kellerman or Dr. Cubangbang would be called as a witness. The government responded that "I think we would know by some point tomorrow whether we intend to call them." TT 52-53. The government's letter also states that after the trial day on October 15th, the government met with Dr. Cubangbang and "continued to prepare for the possibility of calling Cubangbang in a rebuttal case." GL at 2. The government, however, had actually decided that it would be calling Cubangbang as a witness in its case in chief. On October 16, 2019, the Court asked the government "Have you made a decision about whether you are going to be calling Dr. Cubangbang?" TT 315. Mr. Krouse responded: Provisionally, your Honor, we have. We have decided we are not going to call Michael Kellerman, and we expect to call Dante Cubangbang. Both he and Mr. Kellerman will be produced on Friday. We anticipate calling Dr. Cubangbang on Friday as part of our case in chief." TT 315-316 We further note that on October 17th, the government did not retract the representation that Cubangbang would testify in the government's direct case, even though Cubangbang had told them about other sexual misconduct he had committed during an interview on the evening of October 16th. We are concerned that the government's misrepresentations about their intentions as calling Cubangbang as a witness in their case in chief raises doubts about the accuracy of the other representations in the October 19th letter. The facts as to when the government first learned about Dr. Cubangbang's sexual misconduct and how it responded to that knowledge may be important in the event Dr. Cubangbang becomes unavailable as a witness." Inner City Press will continue to cover this case. It is US v. Cubangbang, 18-cr-00723 (Gardephe).

SW