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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Periscope

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, March 11 – As the the criminal trial involving a scheme to defraud the SEC came back in less than a day from the jury on March 11 in U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, the verdicts for former KPMG partner David Middendorf and former Public Company Accounting Oversight Board official Jeffrey Wada were guilty, of conspiring to steal secret PCAOB schedules to benefit, ultimately, companies like Wells Fargo (and of course KPMG which would get paid.) It was only on Friday March 8 that Judge J. Paul Oetken made just two corrections to his reading of the 50 page jury charge, on pages 7 and 23. The three alternates were released but told to still not research the case; the remaining 12 were told if they send out a note not to indicate where the vote stands. (Across Pearl Street a jury note is US v. Christopher Howard was never made public or read into the record; one wonder would would or will happen here). The jurors had already arranged to leave at 2 pm, so they had only fifteen minutes until Monday at 9:30 am. Back on February 22, witness Brian J. Sweet was subject to re-cross about which companies were on his so-called Wada list pilfered from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and given to KPMG, including Citi and Northern Trust. These names were read out after a lengthy sidebar involving all 12 of the defense lawyers and the government's three, compete with white noise so the jury couldn't hear. Sweet's agreement with the government, including not being prosecuted for mortgage fraud, were put into evidence; some expressed surprise that Sweet wasn't in jail already.  "You broke your agreement with the government," Sweet was told on cross.

  "I think that's up for them to determine, Ma'am," Sweet replied. Yes, but how? And when? SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken canceled his other pre trial conference upstairs scheduled for the morning, to keep the KMPG trial on track.  This is Judge Oetken, who a week before  expressed support for a confidentiality agreement to cover claims that Qatari royals cheat their employees out of overtime, see below. The KPMG case is United States v. David Middendorf, et al., 18 Cr. 36 (JPO); others in the mix include Thomas Whittle 1:18-cr-00036-JPO-3, David Britt 1:18-cr-00036-JPO-4, Cynthia Holder 1:18-cr-00036-JPO-5, and Jeffrey Wada, whose lawyer it was who sought and got into evidence Sweet's bail and bond documents. It is being tried in the same large first floor SDNY courtroom that UN briber Ng Lap Seng was convicted in. Meanwhile in Judge Oetken's smaller courtroom upstairs, the sister of the ruler of Qatar is being sued by at least three employees who say they were made to work six days a week without being paid overtime, and were retaliated against. Inner City Press was the only media present at the initial pre trial conference on the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 14, and was tempted to object when the Qatari royal's lawyer from the Proskauer law firm urged SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken for a confidentiality order.

Royals of a gas-rich emirate that has locked up poets for criticizing them, seeking to cover up their retaliation and refusal to pay overtime? It remains to be seen how much will be covered up in the case. The defendants are Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani and Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al- Thani.

For now we can report: the Proskauer firm on February 14 not only opposed any certification of the claim to include other wronged employees of the family, it also proposed to sever the three plaintiff from each other. The plaintiffs' lawyer argued that many of the Qatari royals' employee are afraid to join the lawsuit, absent a noitce or invitation from the court promising them protection from retaliation, because they are in the United States on special visas which only allow them to work for this family, and they could have to leave the country as two of the plaintiffs have.

From the answer to the Complaint: "Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft began his employment in Doha, Qatar and that he accompanied Defendants when they moved to New York, but otherwise deny the  allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.  40. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.  41. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their European travels in various countries during the summer of 2016, but upon information and belief,  otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.    42. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their trip to Qatar in the summer of 2017, but otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the  Complaint.  43. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft accompanied Defendants on their European travels in various countries during the summer of 2018, but upon information and belief,  otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.    44. Defendants admit that Mr. Bancroft traveled with the family to Miami and Boston."

 This is the life of corrupt royals and diplomats, such like those at the UN up to and including its Secretary General Antonio Guterres who lives alone in a $15 million mansion on Manhattan's Sutton Place. This is the world of immunity and impunity and now, it is urged, confidentiality. Inner City Press, now covering the SDNY daily, will have on on this.

And on this: before Norman Seabrook, former head of the NYC Corrections Officers union, was sentenced on February 8 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to 58 months in prison, a victim's statement to the court cited what it called Seabrook's racist rant on YouTube.

   Afterward on Worth Street Inner City Press asked Seabrook about the YouTube video - actually, an audio file with an array of still photographs.  Seabrook told Inner City Press they doctored it to make him look bad. His (actual) answer on Periscope here - and here now audio file on YouTube, here.

  In the SDNY courtroom it was cognitive dissonance: Norman Seabrook who rose from poverty to head of a union with 10,000 members, who endorsed Michael Bloomberg; Norman Seabrook who asked for tens of thousands of dollars to steer union money into a Cayman Islands hedge fund which failed.

  Prosecutor Martin Bell referred to a Ferragamo bag visible in Seabrook's house for months. When Seabrook spoke he said it was a gift with cigars, taking a cigar out of his suit jacket.

Seabrook's lawyer Paul Shechtman cited Seabrook's work on the so-called feces bill to make throwing excrement at a corrections officer a felony. On the hand Seabrook was accused of threatening his board members with returning to work in a prison as punishment, and of going after anyone who dared run against or otherwise oppose him. Seabrook felt that it was his time to get paid, that he was bigger than the cause he began fighting for, Bell said.

Shechtman also spoke after the sentencing. Inner City Press asked him about Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein's seeming reversal of an initial position that it would be hard to leave Seabrook out on bail pending appeal. Shechtman replied affably that he had to win something, after the 58 month sentence.  Video here.

  An issue on a appeal will be whether Seabrook's second jury should have heard about the $19 million loss.

 Inner City Press asked Shechtman about the restitution, how much would be paid by hedge funders Murray Huberfeld,  Jona Rechnitz and perhaps (Judge Hellerstein indicated) Jeremy Reichberg. Shechtman told Inner City Press, If Norman wins $19 million in the lottery, we'll have about that. For now, $2500 is due in 60 days, through the SDNY Clerk, for the union. We'll have more on this.

   Exiting the courthouse after Seabrook, with a bag of Utz potato chips and a copy of the Daily News was New York Knicks icon Charles Oakley. He said that there are others who need to be locked up as well, and that the Knicks need better players. There was no rebuttal. Periscope video here.

Upcoming in the SDNY is a recently-filed complaint by the Bangladesh Central Bank for the $81 million hacking of its funds, which were then wired through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a case that Inner City Press will cover. Times change. Watch this site.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

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 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for