Oxy
Doc Cubangbang Rubbed Himself
Against Cooperator But Got
Deal To Convict Receptionist
By Matthew
Russell Lee,
Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 25 –
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?
It
ends not with
a Cubangbang
but with a
whimper: "JURY
VERDICT as to
John F. Gargan
(2) Guilty on
Count 1 and
Loren Piquant
(4) Guilty on
Count 1.
(lnl)."
On
October 21
after one
government
cooperator was
shown to have
rubbed his
genitals
against
another
cooperator,
the US
Attorney's
office fired a
shot across
the bow.
"Dear
Judge
Gardephe:
It is the
Government’s
understanding
that the
defendant,
John Gargan,
intends to
testify. If he
does, the
Government
will seek to
inquire about
the following
acts—all of
which are
probative of
Gargan’s
character for
truthfulness
under Federal
Rule of
Evidence
608(b): From
2013 to 2018,
Gargan never
paid federal
or state
income taxes
on the income
he earned at
EPOH or any
other
job.
From 2006 to
2018, Gargan
received
Social
Security
disability
payments
totaling
approximately
$325,000.
Gargan falsely
told the
Social
Security
Administration
that he was
not earning
any money
during the
years he
received these
payments.
From 2016 to
2018, Gargan
prescribed 130
oxycodone 30mg
pills each
month (for 25
months) to his
significant
other (with
whom he
lived).
On January 20,
2016, one of
Gargan’s
patients
(confirmed
through the
BNE data) was
arrested for
selling GBL
and crystal
methamphetamine.
Gargan was
identified as
“a nurse
practitioner
who trades
methamphetamine
and cash for
prescriptions.”
Between 2014
and 2016,
Gargan was
employed by
another clinic
located at 158
E. 100th
Street. The
sign outside
the location
read “Family
Health PC, Dr.
John Gargan.”
While employed
here, Gargan
ordered
unnecessary
tests that
were billed to
Medicaid. On
April 5, 2016,
a New York
State search
warrant was
executed on
the
clinic.
Respectfully
submitted,
GEOFFREY S.
BERMAN United
States
Attorney
By: Michael
Krouse / Julie
Murray / Sheb
Swett."
On
October 21 in
Courtroom 110
of 40 Foley
Square the
government's
cooperating
witness Ms.
Reyes with a
non
prosecution
agreement
despite
selling over
$80,000 of Oxy
describes a
series of
indignities.
To be found to
be using the
Oxy she
bought, she
brought to the
test her
purchaser's
urine in a
Scope bottle
tucked into
her bra.
In one visit,
the
government's
cooperating
witness for a
5K1 letter
Doctor
Cubangbang
rubbed his
genitals
against her
hand. Then
after arrest
she was wired
up by the
government to
try to set up
the
receptionist,
in
conversation
with whom the
word pill was
never used. We
are requesting
the exbibits.
We'll have
more on this.
Inner City
Press
previously
reported 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
***
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
|