| In SDNY Iranian Banker Sadr
Will Have Motions Heard Nov 25 On Venezuela
Project
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 8 – Iranian banker Ali
Sadr Hashemi Nejad, charged
with money laundering and
violating US sanctions
including through a Venezuelan
infrastructure project, has
his case being pushed forward
by lawyer Reid Weingarten of
Steptoe & Johnson, after a
scripted "Curcio hearing" on
September 9 before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Now in November, this: "ORDER
as to Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad:
As stated-on the record at the
proceeding on November 7,
2019, the Court will hear oral
argument on pretrial motions 8
and 9, as well as Defendant's
motion to exclude, on November
25, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. On or
before November 14, 2019, the
parties shall meet and confer
to discuss narrowing the
issues raised in Defendant's
motion to strike surplusage.
By that date, they shall
submit a joint letter
informing the Court of the
outcome of that meet and
confer. (Motion Hearing set
for 11/25/2019 at 03:30 PM
before Judge Alison J.
Nathan)." We'll have more on
this.
While adding prior Steptoe
clients Citibank, UBS and
Commerzbank to Steptoe's
script, Nathan found the Sadr
knowingly waived all conflicts
of interest.
Then a
surprise: Assistant US
Attorney Michael K. Krouse
acknowledged that yet to be
turned over are e-mails from
seven custodian other than
Sadr, somehow lost in the
cracks of the case. Judge
Nathan gave Krouse a week to
provide a status update, with
full production to be
completed in two weeks and a
response by Steptoe a week
after that. They will be
seeking to exclude these
e-mails.
On the
bracelet removal request,
Judge Nathan said she saw no
reason to do it. Weingarten
replied that Pre-Trial favors
it, and that he wants to meet
with Sadr until midnight. The
government's position will be
known in a week and more from
Steptoe if the government
opposes either. It's good to
have money, in essence. This
is not how lower income
defendants are often treated
in the SDNY. The case is USA v.
Nejad, 18-cr-00224
(Nathan). More on Patreon here.
The most recent
arguments were in a conference
on August 15 before U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York
courtroom of
Judge Alison
J. Nathan.
Hasheminejad's
lawyer Brian
M. Heberlig
said he can't
begin a trial
for months since
he also
represents
Huawei. His fellow
Steptoe &
Johnson lawyer
Reid
Weingarten
made a point
of saying that
he too had a
trial, now
tragically
canceled. He
was referring
to Jeffrey
Epstein - although minutes
later when
asked a question
about Epstein
by the elevators
he said, I
can't believe
you're asking
me that. Who
raised it?
You can't have
it both ways -
except in the
SDNY.
The
case was
re-assigned to
Judge Nathan
because Judge
Andrew Carter
recused
himself due to
JPMorgan
Chase connections. That
should
disqualify
Steptoe as
well, as
they may have to
cross examine
JPMC which is
also their
client.
A
so-called Curcio
hearing is scheduled
on the issue
for September
9 at 10 am.
The trial is tentatively
scheduled for
January 2020
but that, of course,
depends on
Huawei if no
longer on Jeffrey
Epstein. Who else
might they
represent? More
on Patreon, here. Watch
this site.
Also in front of
Judge Nathan on July 30,
before Robert Pizarro was
given his pre-ordained
sentence of life plus 14 years
after being convicted by a
jury of kidnapping and killing
a Federal informant, he turned
to friends and family of the
victim to told then, I didn't
do it.
Judge Nathan. She told
Pizarro to turn and face
her, and said she
understand that he will
appeal. And why not? Life
plus 14 years is a long
time.
The
government's sentencing
submission recited how
Pizarro and his
co-defendant Juan Rivera
staked out the Bronx auto
body shop of Robert
Bishun, intent on robbing
the narcotics proceeds
they were convinced he
had. (In fact, the
government says, "by the
time of his murder, Bishun
had not only ceased
dealing drugs, but he had
become a cooperating
witness with federal
authorities."
After
losing at trial, Pizarro
fired his lawyers and was
assigned a new one, Mark
DeMarco. On July 30
DeMarco asked, given the
mandatory minimums of life
and seven years, what he
was supposed to say. Just
prepare the appeal is the
answer. The case is US v.
Pizarro, 17-cr-151 (AJN).
O
***
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
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
|
,
