| Jen Shah Pled Guilty
and Redacted Sentencing Memo
now Threatens to Withdraw
but Can She?
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Order Vlog
BBC
The
Times (UK)
Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 5 – Five defendants
in a telemarketing scheme were
presented past 8 pm on
November 20, 2019 in the
Magistrates Court of the U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The government
proposed that while they could
be released on their own
signatures that night, but
asked that they get
pre-approval from Pre-Trial
Services for any expenditure
above $10,000.
On April 2,
2021 Jen Shah of Real
Housewives Of Salt Lake City
was arraigned in the same case
- and a $1 million bond, with
$250,000 of it secured by case
or property, required. Inner
City Press live tweeted that,
below.
On
December 16,
2022 Shah's
lawyer in a
heavily
redacted
submission
asked for 36
months, far
below the plea
deal. Exhibit
list
along
with redacted
statement by
Jen
Shah
on Patreon here.
Inner City
Press emailed
opposition
to the
redactions, to
Shah's lawyer
(no response)
and elsewhere - then
filed it.
On January 4,
Judge Stein
ruled: "ORDER
as to Jennifer
Shah. IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED
that defendant
Shah is
directed to
respond to the
application of
Inner City
Press [Doc.
No. 648] to
unseal certain
portions of
Shah's
sentencing
memorandum and
an exhibit to
the
government's
sentencing
memorandum in
writing on or
before 12:00
p.m. on
January 5,
2023.
(Defendant
Responses due
by 1/5/2023)
(Signed by
Judge Sidney
H. Stein on
1/4/2023)."
On
January 5 at
noon, Shah's
lawyer filed
not any unredacted
memo, but
a threat to
withdraw the exhibits
if Judge Stein
rules in favor
of Inner City.
Letter on
Inner City
Press'
DocumentCloud here.
Less
than an hour
later, Inner
City Press
filed a reply:
"This replies
to defense
counsel's
argument that
the sentencing
materials
submitted for
the Court's
consideration
can be
withdrawn. But
they are
judicial
documents. And
citing to
pre-guilty
plea rulings
on motions in
limine is
unavailing.
Most offensive
is the claim
that Exhibit
D, the
defendant's
own statement
asking for a
substantially
below
Guidelines
sentence, has
been redacted
in conformity
to rules and
precedent. It
has
not.
The second
paragraph
starts, "In
2016, my life
hit a serious
crossroad" -
then three
lines are
redacted. The
third
paragraph
begins with a
sentence about
the
defendant's
husband - then
a full page is
redacted.
This is
unheard of.
Contrast it to
the January 4,
2023
resentencing
of Raymond
Quiles, who
cooperated
with the
government
about and was
ready to
testify
against this
defendant. The
courtroom was
not sealed;
his arguments
for mercy,
about his
autistic son
(whose name
was given) and
his
floundering
business were
all
public.
Why should Jen
Shah be given
substantially
more secrecy
than Raymond
Quiles?
This
statement,
intended to
procure a
lighter
sentence,
cannot be
withdrawn and
must be
unredacted."
Watch this
site. 
***
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 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
