| Calk Got
Year and a Day For Manafort Loans But Bail
Pending Appeal Now Wants to Cruise
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast 2 3 5
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
March 7 – After months of preliminaries,
the trial of Stephen Calk for
conspiracy to trade his bank's
loans to Paul Manafort for the
Secretary of the Army position
began on June 23. Inner City
Press live tweeted, here,
previous coverage here,
podcast here
On July 13,
after mere hours, the jury
found him guilty. Inner City
Press verdict tweet here; in
front of 40 Foley Square, Calk
refused questions (including
on his bank and desire of UN
Ambassador position) and was
whisked off in a black car.
Video here.
Sentencing set for January 10,
2022. Podcast here.
On February
7, 2022 Calk was sentenced to
a year and a day - but asked
for bail pending appeal. Now
on March 7 he has asked Judge
Schofield for a "modification
to the conditions of his
release" because he "seeks to
take his three children on a
one-week cruise with ports of
call outside the US." Photo
here. Watch this site.
Inner City
Press live tweeted the
sentencing, here:
now sentencing of
Manafort's lending Stephen
Calk, by @SDNYLIVE
Judge Schofield. Government
has asked for 51-63 months.
Judge Schofield:
I denied Defense's post-trial
motions. In the pre-sentencing
report, Mr. Calk objects to
the characterization of harm
to the bank. I will modify it,
I will add Mr. Calk's
counsel's language almost
verbatim
Judge
Schofield: The value of the
bribe triggers the sentencing
guideline. The government
proposed 51 to 63 months,
based on a value of more than
$550,000. They have the
burden. AUSA: Mr.
Calk claims we have to use
alternate loan terms from the
same institution.
Calk's
lawyer: A hard money lender is
an entirely different kind of
lender than The Federal Saving
Bank. It's apple and
oranges. Judge
Schofield: I decline to apply
the 14 level increase.
Judge
Schofield: The government has
withdrawn its request for an
increase for obstruction of
justice, asking instead that
it be considered under Section
3553. I will do so. Defense'
opposition to enhancement for
abuse of trust I do not find
persuasive.
Judge Schofield:
There will be no restitution,
and there is no request for
forfeiture. Let me hear from
the government on sentencing.
AUSA: FDIC insurance benefits
society, & the banks and
bankers. Defendant doesn't get
to benefit from it then
corrupt it by bribes
AUSA: We often
see politicians wanting to be
rich. This is the opposite.
Being a banker made the
defendant rich, but he wanted
power, in a government
position. Defense: We believe
a non-carceratory sentence is
appropriate. He is a good and
decent man.
Defense: Why did
Mr. Calk want to be
under-secretary of the Army?
He wanted to help people in
the military. [But the
evidence showed he had a list
of positions to buy, including
US Ambassador to the UN -
double corruption]
Defense: He
dreamed of public service. And
there is no harm - he did not
get within 50 miles of a US
post. He got a courtesy
interview at Trump Tower. Mr.
Calk is a banker.
Defense:
The US Marshals let vagrants
into Manaford's Brooklyn
brownstone. This was bribery
from a publicly-minded motive.
Send a message? To who? Who
else would risk his life's
work for what Mr. Calk got in
this case.
Defense: He
can never run a bank again. He
will have his dignity
destroyed. There is no need
for further punishment.
Judge Schofield: I'm not sure
I heard anything new in there.
Mr. Calk? Calk: May I remain
seated? Thanks for reading my
letters (voice cracking)
Calk: I am grateful for the
many in the armed forces who
have reached out to me, both
enlisted and enlisted. My
credit cards were taken away.
My bank was my life's work. It
was my legacy. It has helped
thousands of people to reach
the American Dream.
Calk: There
are so many great people who
work there who have been
impacted. (Sob). It's also
brought me profound sorry the
government questioned my
devotion to the military.
Service to the country has
been at the core of who I am
as an American.
Calk: I
hope your honor will consider
it in passing judgment. I
disagree with the jury's
verdict. But I have searched
myself deeply. Thanks you for
listening to me. Judge
Schofield: The guideline now
is six to 12 months. You are
57 years old, you have an MBA
Judge Schofield:
You went to Harvard Business
School. You took advantage of
your opportunities. Your
income is from the bank; the
other shareholders are your
brother and your ex-wife. You
were in the Reserves, not in
activity duty. You are
divorced.
Judge Schofield:
You turned yourself in and
were released on bond the same
day [Inner City Press covered
that, in SDNY Mag Court]. The
probation department
recommends three years. I have
concluded to impose a sentence
of incarceration.
Judge
Schofield: Mr. Calk, it is the
judgment of the court that you
are remanded to the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons for a
year and a day. [That allows
calculation of "good time" -
so, less than a year]
Judge
Schofield: Do you intend to
reside in Florida? A: Yes,
Your Honor. Judge Schofield:
The sentence is imposed.
Defense: We request bail
pending appeal.
Schofield:
I grant bail pending appeal.
The conditions of bail will
continue. Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Defense: fwiw We
are for designation at the
minimum security camp at
Oxford, Wisconsin. Judge
Schofield: Granted. We are
adjourned
Ealier comment
from Calk's lawyer: "We are
very disappointed by the
verdict and will be pursuing
all available legal remedies,
including an appeal," said
Paul H. Schoeman, Co-Managing
Partner at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
On December
6, Calk's lawyer Schoeman
filed a sentencing memo asking
for no incarceration, calling
this "case truly unique in the
annals of bank bribery
prosecutions." So too would be
a non incarceratory sentence
for this crime.
On December 22
the US Attorney's Office put
in its sentencing memo,
calling the 51 to 63 month
guideline "appropriate" and
annexing information about a
JAMS arbitration and Calk's
divorce. Watch this site.
On August 20,
Kramer Levin filed a letter
seeking acquittal, arguing
among other things that
Manafort's help wasn't worth
the requisite $1000,"
amounting to no more that "one
email to Jared Kushner and
communications with
Scaramucci."
On October 8,
Kramer Levin went further,
saying the government's focus
on the value of Calk's plane
ticket to New York to be
interviewed by the "Tiger
Team" and stay at the Four
Seasons Hotel in that
connection met the $1000
threshold. On the loans, the
argument is that "lacking
actual evidence of corrupt
intent, the government
attempts to shoe horn a
narrative into the otherwise
innocuous facts that are in
evidence." Watch this site.
The trial: the
defense opening statement and
first witness, here,
and Inner City Press question
to Calk on Scaramucci, here
(& Alamy photo here)
On June 29 came
the cross examination of
Anthony Scaramucci, which
Inner City Press live tweeted
here and below, (podcast
here)
Song I here.
On July 12 the
jury got the case late in the
afternoon, and will be
deliberating on July 13. Inner
City Press live
tweeted, here from the
defense summation and US
rebuttal:
Calk's lawyer:
The question is, Would Mr.
Calk think that getting foot
in the door for a Tiger Team
interview, which some got for
free, would constitute a
bribe? No. Let's turn to
bank bribery. They have to
prove corrupt intent.
Calk's lawyer: Mr. Calk had to
sit through this trial behind
a mask. But there is a face
behind that mask. He has a
life outside this courtroom.
My time is almost up. I could
on you to think, when the
government rebuts, what would
the defense say? Say, Not
guilty
US rebuttal
summation, AUSA: I don't have
time to respond to everything
the defense said. But I don't
have to - you know what
happened here. Look at how the
loans were stalled until the
election - then they moved
forward.
AUSA
Rothman: The defense showed
you a spaghetti chart. Did you
see Steve Bannon on it? Calk
sent one email to Steve Bannon
- but did Mr. Bannon do
anything? I can sent an email
to Santa Claus. What does it
mean?
AUSA: This
is a case about a corrupt CEO,
a bank chairman, who took
advantage of his power to try
to buy more more. The idea
that he didn't value
Manafort's help is
disingenuous. You saw how
greedy he was, in his texts
with Mr. Scaramucci
AUSA: He
valued this, he wanted this.
And one person got him in the
door: Mr. Manafort. The case
person he was giving $16
million in loans to.
Judge Schofield:
You are about to go into the
jury room. You are not to
consider the reaction of the
parties or public Judge
Schofield: The three alternate
jurors will not be in the jury
room, until they are asked to
replace a juror. Then
deliberations would re-start.
First, elect a foreperson...If
you have questions, please be
specific.
And the jurors
left for the day, to resume
with deliberation on July 13 -
when he was found guilty.
The case is US v. Calk, 19-cr-366
(Schofield)
***
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
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: 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 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
