Category: Uncategorized

Minute order in Reza #Zarrab case regarding #Atilla attorney conflicts. #Erdogan

~ Tim Hogan ~ Leave a comment

Order Text:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman:Curcio Hearing as to Mehmet Hakan Atilla held on 5/18/2017 as to Mehmet Hakan Atilla( Curcio Hearing set for 6/6/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman.) AUSAs Sid Kamaraju, David Denton and Dean Sovolos present;Defendant Mehmet Hakan Atilla present with defense attorneys Victor Rocco and Thomas Thornhill; Also present is Joshua Dratel, Curcio counsel for defendant Atilla; Turkish interpreters Asiye Kay and Seyhan Sirtalan present; Curcio hearing held; Curcio hearing will continue on 6/6/17 at 10:00 am; speedy trial time is excluded for the reasons set forth on the record until 10/30/17 pursuant to 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). (jw)

Judge Berman resets trial date in NY Reza Zarrab case to Monday, October 30, 2017. Here’s the order.

~ Tim Hogan ~ Leave a comment

ORDER as to Reza Zarrab, Mehmet Hakan Atilla ( Responses due by 9/22/2017, Pretrial Conference set for 10/23/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman.) Upon defense counsels’ request for additional time, the Court is rescheduling the trial of this matter to Monday, October 30, 2017.Joint pretrial submissions, including joint jury charges, joint verdict sheet, names of witnesses, locations and any motions in limine are due September 15, 2017. Responses to motions in limine are due September 22, 2017. A final pretrial conference will be held on October 23, 2017 at 11 :00 am. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/16/17)(jw)

SDNY #Zarrab case, Judge asks about Zarra’s business connections to the both the Govt of #Turkey & Govt. of #US.

~ Tim Hogan ~ Leave a comment

Reza-Zarrab

Text of minute order:

ORDER as to (15-Cr-867-01) Reza Zarrab. Counsel are requested also to include in their pending submissions to the Court the following: 1. Comment (as it pertains to the Curcio hearing) with respect to the following colloquy found in the May 2, 2017 transcript: THE COURT: Then the last question from yesterday’s [May 1, 2017] order, do office holders and/or members or affiliates of the governments of the United States or Turkey do business with Mr. Zarrab and/or any of Mr. Zarrab’s affiliates? If the answer is yes, could you explain. MR. BRAFMAN: I think the answer might be yes and yet might be privileged, given the dynamics of this case in its present posture and some of the charges. THE COURT: I see. MR. BRAFMAN: But they certainly do not impact on what Mr. Giuliani’s firm does or does not do on behalf of Turkey. THE COURT: Okay. So let me take those answers under advisement and proceed with the Curcio proceeding…. (H’rg Tr, dated May 2, 2017, at 13:18-14:5); 2. Supplementation to the submissions made in response to the Court s question: “Whether Messrs. Giuliani and Mukasey and/or their firms—or any other defense counsel in this case—have also been retained by Iran, Halkbank, Turkey (apart from what already has been submitted), or the United States.” (Order, filed May 1, 2017, at 1.) The question was meant to embrace, for example, (i) work performed for President Trump’s Administration, including participation on United States commissions, such as those relating to the so-called “Muslim Ban” Executive Orders; (ii) cybersecurity projects; and (iii) work performed by Greenberg Traurig, and Debevoise & Plimpton (and other defense counsel) for the United States. These topics were not included in the affidavits of Mr. Giuliani (dated Apr. 14, 2017, and May 4, 2017) or Mr. Mukasey (dated Apr. 13, 2017, and May 3, 2017). (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/15/2017)(bw)