Brennerman v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-v- No. 17-cr-337 (RJS) RAHEEM J. BRENNERMAN,

Defendant.

RAHEEM J. BRENNERMAN,

Plaintiff, No. 23-cv-1624 (RJS) -v- ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge: Defendant Raheem J. Brennerman, proceeding pro se, submitted the attached letter, dated May 11, 2023, seeking “appropriate relief” for purported violations of his human, civil, and constitutional rights in connection with his criminal case. Brennerman is reminded that the Court denied his habeas petition on January 3, 2023 (Doc. No. 289) and his motion for reconsideration on January 25, 2023 (Doc. No. 291), and that there is no motion for relief currently pending before the Court. Brennerman is also advised that successive habeas petitions must be directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to docket this order and the May 11, 2023 submission attached hereto. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motion at Doc. No. 296 and to mail a copy of this order to Raheem J. Brennerman. SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2023 New York, New York

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Sitting by Designation 54001048 - BRENNERMAN, RAHEEM J.- Unit: ALF-U-B SOR Ne 54001048 oe, pai PB SUBMISSION TO COURT (17-cr-0337 (RJS)) 05/11/2023 05:53:40 PM Raheem J. Brennerman Reg. No. 54001-048 FCi Allenwood Low. Federal Correctional institution P, 0. Box 1000 White Deer, Pa. 17887-1000 Richard J. SULLIVAN STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New York Marshall U.S. Courthouse Foley Square York, New York 10007 . .

KRAJICK of Court STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New York Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse Pearl Sireet York, New York 10007 11, 2023 CERTIFIED FIRST CLASS MAIL , United States v. Brennerman, Case no. 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS) RESPONSE TO ORDER AT EFC NOS. 289, 291 AND NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE LAW/DEFENDANT'S HUMAN, CIVIL & CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IN SEEKING APPROPRIATE RELIEF (THE "RELIEF") Judge Sullivan: . Pro Se Raheem J. Brennerman ("Brennerman") respectfully submits this correspondence in response to this order at EFC Nos. 289, 291 and to notify this Court of its violation of the law/Defendant's human, civil and rights, in seeking appropriate relief (the "Relief"). . SCUSSION: June 24, 2018, Brennerman submitted at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), EFC No. 167, copies of Government exhibits - GX1-57; | GX529: GX 1-73 which were adduced at trial to demonstrate that he (Brennerman) interacted with Scott Stout anc Stanley Smith Barney, LLC where he (Brennerman) opened his wealth management brokerage account. ennerman's aforesaid submissions was to bolster his argument for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim. P. 29), arguing that all evidence adduced by the Government at irial and highlighted that his interaction was with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC and that Government witness

54001048 - BRENNERMAN, RAHEEM J - Unit: ALF-U-B □

Gonzalez, the FDIC commissioner testified that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC was not FDIC insured hence there no federal jurisdiction to even indict (charge) him (Brennerman) much less prosecute and conviction him for bank fraud conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The basis for the motion pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rule of Criminal was for this Court to acquit him of the bank fraud charges even where the jury had capriciously convicted him jurors are unfamiliar with the legal standards and the law. copy of the submission at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), EFC No. 167 is appended to this correspondence as "Exhibit C" November 19, 2018, during sentencing at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RUS), EFC No. 206 (Sentencing Tr. 19:12-22), Judge Sullivan

the bank fraud was a scheme or artifice to defraud the private banking arm of Morgan Stanley to enable Mr. Brennerman to get access to the perks which are tangible. They're worth money, free checking, among them. | don't get that. And some other perks. But also to get more intangible perks, which would be access to other arms of the Morgan Stanley family of entities. I'm only really focused on the first category here. It seems to me the first category here, there's been no evidence that I've seen that suggests that was worth more than $6,500 or so.” of the excerpt from the Sentencing Transcript cited above is appended to this correspondence as “Exhibit A" November 19, 2018, Judge Sullivan made such promulgation after denying the motion for judgment of acquittal filed to Rule 29 of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim. P. 29), where argument was that evidence: at trial demonstrated that Brennerman interacted with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC where he maintained a management account. And that trial testimony demonstrated that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC is not □□□□ hence there was no violation of the federal bank fraud statute or jurisdiction to convict him. See 1:17-cr-0337 EFC No. 167. However, Judge Sullivan denied the motion arguing that Brennerman defrauded the private banking ar Morgan Stanley which is FDIC insured. See 1:17-cr-0337 (RUS), EFC No. 206:19, Judge Sullivan then proceeded to Brennerman. :

November 7, 2021, Brennerman signed and submitted a 442 page Omnibus motion including Collateral Attack petition at (RJS), EFC No. 269. Supplemental papers and exhibits in support of the Omnibus motion was submitted at: (RJS), EFC Nos. 270, 272, 274, 288. Among others, the crux of the argument presented was that Brennerman or rather did not interact with the private banking arm of Morgan Stanley which is FDIC insured because all evidence by Government at trial demonstrated that Brennerman interacted with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC which is FDIC insured. Further that to convict Brennerman of bank fraud and its related conspiracy, the institution which he with must be FDIC insured. . January 3, 2023 (in-excess of 4 years after November 19, 2018), in adjudicating Brennerman's Omnibus motion □□□□□□□□□

54001048 - BRENNERMAN, RAHEEM J - Unit: ALF-U-B

(28 U.S.C.S, 2255) at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RIS), EFC Nos. 269, 270, 272, 274, 288. Judge Sullivan promulgated at: 1:17-cr- EFC No. 289:pgs. 6-7 that: " an initial matter, the record reveals that Brennerman’s counsel vigorously pursued the FDIC issue before the jury. For instance, counsel elicited testimony from a government witness that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC was not insured by the FDIC. (Tr. at 1059:9-11.) He further elicited testimony that affiliate entities within a corporate family - like Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC and Morgan Stanley & Company, LLC - must obtain "separate certificate(s] of insurance to be FDIC insured." (Tr. at 1060:24-1061:5). In summation, Brennerman's counsel again argued that “the law absolutely requires that the bank...targeted ina fraud....be insured by the FDIC" (Tr. at 1538:9-10), and that "Brennerman was not looking to take....money" from "wealth management arm of Morgan Stanley.....the only arm of Morgan Stanley [at issue] was FDIC insured" (Tr. at 1539:9-14). In short, Brennerman's allegation that his counsel failed to press the FDIC argument before the jury is plainly contradicted by the record" of the excerpt from Judge Sullivan's January 3, 2023 promulgation cited above is appended to this correspondence < xhibit dge Sullivan's Jan. 3, 2023 promulgation at 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), EFC No. 289:pgs. 6-7 was in significant contradiction his prior promulgation on November 19, 2018 at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), EFC No. 206:19 when he (Judge Sullivan) sentence ennerman, specifically the statement: "....For instance, counsel elicited testimony from a government witness that Stanley Smith Barney, LLC was not insured by the FDIC. (Tr. at 1059:9-1 1)..." demonstrates, first, that the Court Sullivan) lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence Brennerman for conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of States Code Section 1349 (18 U.S.C.S. 1349) and bank fraud in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1344 U.S.C.S. 1344). Second, that Brennerman did not violate the federal bank fraud statute. Third, that Judge Sullivan misrepresented (fabricated) the evidence on November 19, 2018 at 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), EFC No. 2016:19, by rreptitiously supplanting Morgan Stanley Smith Bamey, LLC ("MSSB") which is not FDIC insured (and all evidence adduce trial demonstrated Brennerman interacted with) with the private banking arm of Morgan Stanley ("MSPB"} which is FDIC so as to falsely satisfy the law and federal statute, and finally, that the adjudication of Brennerman's direct appeal the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was erroneous where the Second Circuit panel Court intentionally generalized Stanley as a single entity without considering the trial records which Judge Sullivan now succinctly outline in his Jan 2023 promulgation. dge Sullivan further cites to other erroneous promulgation by the Second Circuit panel Court with respect to the ICBC including the transaction underwriting file, where they falsely stated: "[t]he only indication that such documents extant comes from Brennerman's bare assertion.” Brennerman Il, 818 F. App'x at 30. This was even after Brennerman bmitted the trial records with his Collateral Attack petition which demonstrated that government witness, Julian Madget on record that the ICBC document including the underwriting file which documents the basis for ICBC approving the

ial Tr. 551-554). Brennerman also submitted on record (at EFC No. 274) that ICBC's New York based lawyer Linklaters. LL to him (Brennerman) on March 14, 2022 to confirm that they are in possession of the ICBC document, however that a: firm, they require either an order from the Court or consent from their client to produce the ICBC document to ennerman. Even Judge Sullivan conceded on record at trial that government witness, Julian Madgett testified that the BC documents are extant and with the bank's file in London, U.K. (see 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), Trial Tr. 617) as "Exhibit DB" of excerpt from Julian Madgett's trial testimony testifying that the ICBC documents are extant and with their New based lawyers is appended to this correspondence as “Exhibit E” the above and pursuant to Judge Sullivan's own promuigation on record (see appended "Exhibits A & 8"), this Court Sullivan) exhibited partiality, first, by convicting and sentencing Brennerman for bank fraud and bank fraud nspiracy where the Court lacked jurisdiction; second, by convicting Brennerman for bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy no conduct violated the federal bank fraud statute; third, by this Court (Judge Sullivan} intentionally misrepresenting the evidence during sentencing, on Nov. 19. 2018, by surreptitiously supplanting a non-FDIC insured institution with MSPB, a FDIC insured institution, so as to falsely satisfy the law and the federal bank fraud statute to convict ant prison Brennerman. . Court precedent makes clear that a criminal defendant tried by a partial judge is entitled to have his conviction □ aside no matter how strong the evidence against him. See Edward v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647, 117 S. CE. 1684, 13 L. 2d 906 (1997); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 308, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed 2d 302 (1991). Hence, the entire se and conviction should be set aside. correspondence and the appended exhibits are submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure □□□□□□□□□□□ reliance on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(b)(5).

the reasons cited above, Brennerman respectfully notifies this Court of its violation of the law and Defendant's human, and Constitutional rights in seeking appropriate relief. . May 11, 2023 _ White Deer, Pa. 17887-1000 . Respectfully submitted . /s/ Raheem J. Brennerman RAHEEM JEFFERSON BRENNERMAN

54001048 EXHBIT A 05/11/2023 06:40:56 PM MHI KK KKK III IH IKK, A □

of November 19, 2018 Sentencing Transcript (RJS), EFC No. 206:19 RAMA HOCK HI KIKI OHHH AHHH

Case 171 /-Ccl-UU33 7-RJS ~ Doctinient( 206 “Fited L2/2/7id' Page 19 oF 71 19 IBJQBREs oe 1 are distinct crimes but they all involve the same conduct; in 2 most cases you group them all together and you do an analysis 3 all together. You don't count them separately and add them up. □ 4 You do them together. So the conspiracy to commit bank and

5 wire fraud, the bank fraud and the wire fraud are all treated □ 6 together, and they're all covered by the same guidelines” □ 7 provision, which is Section 2B1.1. That's the general fraud 8 || provision under the guidelines. 9 Now, □□ do think, frankly, that it's worth pointing eut 10 that the bank fraud calculation here I think would be quite . 11 different than the wire fraud, and I guess IT want to hear from 12. the parties on that. But the bank fraud here was a scheme or eg 13 artifice to defraud the private banking arm of Mergan Stanley |

eee 15 tangible. They're worth money, free checking among them. rT et ee 16 don't get that. And some other perks. But also to get some

a □□ ig I'm only really focused on the first category here. - 20 It seems to me the first category here, there's been no. “evidence that I've seen that suggests that was worth move than |.

. Mr. Roos, do you disagree? 24 MR. ROOS: I think that's right, your Honor. a 25 _ THE COURT: You agree, OK. . SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 □

54001048 EXHIBIT B 05/11/2023 06:41:37 PM HAH AHHH XX KX IAA HHHIHOOOK B of Judge Sullivan's January 3, 2023 promulgation (RJS), EFC No. 289

HHH KM IKI HHI KK □□□ KICK

adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. ‘Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. With respect to Strickland’s second prong, a “reasonable probability” that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance is “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” fd. at 694. “[A]n ‘error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.’” Henry v. Poole, 409 F.3d 48, 63 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691). In other words, to find prejudice, a court must conclude.that “counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on having produced a just result.” Jd. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686). Brennerman claims that he received ineffective assistance because his trial counsel failed to argue that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC was not an FDIC-insured institution as required for bank fraud. He also asserts that his counsel should have obtained and introduced at trial ICBC’s underwriting file and his birth certificate to “demonstrate his innocence.” (Petition at 41.) None of these arguments is persuasive. . As an initial matter, the record reveals that Brennerman’s counsel vigorously pursued the FDIC issue before the jury. For instance, counsel elicited testimony from a government witness that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC was not insured by the FDIC. (Tr, at 1059:9-11.) He further elicited testimony that affiliate entities within a corporate family — like Morgan Stanley

Smith Barney, LLC and Morgan Stanley & Company LLC — must obtain “separate certificate[s] of insurance to be FDIC insured.” (Tr. at 1060:24—-1061:5.) In summation, Brennerman’s counsel again argued that “the law absolutely requires that the bank . .. targeted in a fraud . . . be insured by the FDIC” (Tr. at 1538:9-10), and that “Brennerman was not looking to take .. . money” from

.

“the wealth management arm of Morgan Stanley, ... the only arm of Morgan Stanley [at issue] that... was FDIC insured” (Tr. at 1539:9-14), In short, Brennerman’s allegation that his counsel failed to press the FDIC argument before the jury is plainly contradicted by the record. See Slevin □

y. United States, 234 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 2000) (agreeing with the district court that the defendant failed to establish an ineffective-assistance claim because the defendant's allegations were “contradicted in several instances by evidence in the record”); Puglisi v. United States, 586 F.3d 209, 214 (2d Cir, 2009) (collecting cases). | Asa result, Brennerman’s “bald assertion[s]” to the contrary are insufficient to meet either prong of the Strickland standard, United States v, Blau, 159 F.3d 68, 75 (2d Cir. 1998). oe . Brennerman’s remaining allegations of ineffective assistance also fail. F irst, Brennerman argues that his counsel should have requested that the Court “order and compel” the production of ICBC’s “pertinent underwriting file.” (Petition at 39.) But as the Second Circuit ruled on direct appeal, the underwriting file allegedly possessed by ICBC was outside the scope of the government’s disclosure obligations, and “[t]he only indication that such documents are extant comes from Brennerman’s bare assertions.” Brennerman IT, 818 F. App’x at 30. This Court also previously denied Brennerman’s discovery requests of the underwriting file on numerous. □ occasions, finding, among other things, that this Court has no jurisdiction over ICBC — “a foreign bank located approximately 3,500 miles from the courthouse.” (Doc. No. 249 at 2 (quoting United States v. Brennerman, No, 17-cr-155 (LAK), 2017 WL 4513563, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2017)); see also Doc. Nos. 242, 249, 251, 253, 255.) Because it would have been “futile or frivolous” for trial counsel to request that the Court compel production of unspecified documents from an entity that was beyond the Court’s jurisdiction, United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1322 (2d Cir. 1987), the Court cannot say that trial counsel’s failure to make such a request “fell below an

54001048 .

EXHIBIT C 05/11/2023 06:42:31 PM KK KKK KKK HAAN K KKK □□□ KAA AK AKA KAKA KK C Exhibits - GX1-57; Gx1-57A; GX1-73; Gx529 at trial and submitted by Brennerman on record 4:17-cr-0337 (RJS), EFC No. 167, demonstrating that interacted with Morgan Staniey Smith Barney, LLC KAA AKA KAKA KKH IK MMIII,

From: BRENNERMAN, R. ] @The Executive Office 4 To: Stout, Scott . . ca BRENNERMAN R. J@Executive Office Subject: Re: Morgan Stanley (Wealth Management) Date; Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:09:49 AM Attachments: Morgan Stanley (Client Profile).pdF Importance: High Dear Scott, As discussed, attached is the completed forms, as advised the account will be in the corporate name however you wanted me to also complete a form with personal information. As discussed, I will require Debit Card and AMEX card with the account, Please let know what are the next steps. . Best Regards - From: Stout, Scott □□ □ Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: mailto:rbrennerman@blacksandspacific.com Subject: RE: 2013 Preparation Hi RJ, □ Just a reminder to get those forms to me so {can get everything in order prior to our [unch on Friday. , , □

Thanks, □ . Scott Scott Stout F.A. - Wealth Management □ MorganStanley Direct: 310 205 4912 _ 9665 Wilshire Bivd., 6 Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ . . sockh stouli@un onuctoulen cone

a. EXHIBIT: . □□□□□□□ □

VS GET Peedi PTzHA, Wok a eae Th by oy pa “ Kindly provide all personal information. smithbarney , For additional owners, please complete a 2" profiie, Full Name _ tor) vee ord f EIEN ae we baht Pra One Address 245 PARK fybvi, 27 ft ey aT 5 ONL OL City _ au State Adv PRA Zip Code _ 1/63 Home Phone : Business

SS# or Tax. ID azaae: «-USGCitizentyeN |, ’ wi : pl. cuff Marital Status: fiveré #of Dependents i!" Date of Birth CAPRIS E-mail Address YPicancy mort @ blacksoreds Pact fi Gorn Telephone access Prompis Mother’s Maiden Name ee. City of Birth or 1° School Attended _DiwiGHT y as + Fin th woe fh Ba nant Employer £teSAvs Fico -OWKGY GAAP OR . pa, □ Lote , ma ol ae Bec Nature of Business __C?ld_ 3 Gils Occupation (7.5 (ais > ity 1 Ta if: at ah . ee Pp Est. Annuat Compensation $_72G.020 /f°3t Semen) Employed Since tai Primary Source of jncome-Check ail that apply Annual Salary _* investments,“ Retirement Assets_..- Amaunt $ . Est. Total Annual Income (all sources) Est. Liquid Net Worth $_Tor Est. Total Net Worth $_ Tax Bracket (percentife} . Investment Objectives: (Please rank 1 through 4, in order of priority) Growth 1X. Current income 3... Tax Deferral FT _ Liquidity .% 2 investing Since (year) Stocks _/'} Bonds‘! Commodities Ci Options G2 Risk Tolerance (check one) Aggressive ___ Moderate ~ Conservative ____ Speculation Yes No Primary Financial Need: (circle one) (Wealth Accumulation. Major Purchase. Healthcare . Education □ Estate Planning Retirement Charity Income Outside Investments: . Firms Used: Equities S_ Fixed Income §.. Cash$ ss (ss AR Invesimenis_ Time Horizon | _ Liquidity Needs Are you or anyone in your household a major share holder in a publicly taded company? Are you an executive of a publicly traded company? ¥ ND _ , Do you or anyone in your immediate family work for a brokerage house? Y (ty? Is anyone in your immediate family employed by CitiGroup? Y {R; 1 f WA Isle tf Please sign and date above In order to open your account we are required to obtain this information. Thank you for assisting us. THIS INFORMATION WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL 02/2012 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ [ Sovernmenr | . EXHIBIT □□ | BTA ceR7 □□

Suite Of Beverly Hulls. CA ORES ~ an th} ot Kindly provide all persanal information. NN omithBarney . For additional owners, please complete a 2™ profile. a Lone ee TT ri PAs $4 aaa Tern Sheen rere ere Full Name _-RAfASON UL Peete Ue Address J7G& thwece tutes Pct, Su TE Seb rac ifn. Nea . city AAS state NADA ZipCode SUGT Home Phone Business SyLroe iis . . cet“ 6420 Fax SS# or Tax ID US Citizen) n Marital Status__Ar?? #of Dependents Date of Birth E-mail Address : □□ Telephone access Prompts Mother’s Maiden Name . □ City of Birth _ or 1° School Atiended_*"'GHiT. Employer cere ca _ Nature of Business JNYESTMGE*ES Occupation __ Est. Annual Compensation $ ___..__ Employed Since Primary Source of Income-Check alt that apply Annual Salary____ Investmenis._____—s Reliremeni Assets. Amounl $ Est. Total Annual Income (all sources) Est. Liquic Net Worth $__ _Est. Total Net Worth $ ‘Tax Bracket (percentile) investment Objectives: (Please rank 1 through 4, in order of priority) Growth _ d Current income a ‘Tax Deferral 3 Liquidity, . a] . . : oye Cyt). “4 Investing Since (year) Stocks}? Bonds 71 Commodities [1 Options OA Risk Tolerance (check one} Aggressive __ Moderate X Conservative _ Speculation Yes_____No □ Primary Financial Need: (circle one) . Wealth Accumulation. Major Purchase . Healthcare . Education . {Estate Planning > Retirement Charity Income Outside investments: Firms Used: __ ee Equities 5. Fixed Income § _CashS__. Ali Investments Time Horizon __ Liquidity Needs _ _ Are you or anyone in your household a major share holder in a publicly traded company? Y N Are you an executive of @ publicly traded company? Y N Do you or anyone in your immediate tamily work for a brokerage house? Y N Is anyone in your immediate family employed by CitiGroup? Y N ~ BD UG Please sign and date above in order to open your account we are required to obtain this information. Thank you for assisting us. THIS INFORMATION WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL 02/2012

_ (EEE A fs Ei we fee ef Oo Siw PSs ae 8 a8 oe Apu ‘7 □ ao ni ooNAs A LL. 5 OF 1 er be ~ @ S Bot ke og Ere! a 16 fo. oF 8 ne Ss is pe Og Ao sae foommennaedd “SEE = mo □ bag ge oa ae igh Te □

Bry = Bag Ce ALE = a OH OES, a i. he ond 3 5 hots . = fea = 2% GS nee at cn Bee a o of Bets mo Wi o Go sete fs woo Bee 3 6 Bos 3 aE, 5 2 5/58 es 2 6 2/22 Gow Se S$ Bo wlSs g 3 a! BAD © o1o2 g 2 ees z O zig: Bae Fo SISs § 8 aor Lee Oo WwW Os o 0 “atatarehe r 2 OFE ~ □ BURRS

wee ted □□ om fede a“ jw OTSA! \ Q ia □ I 3 □ EYES □ 4} Bek z pe . tet . . . □ i 3 i SL j □ Leas z. ° gags 2 8 2 x 9 J □ 4 ura iW o a a a C | □ Bote. oe os Bo £2 = □ 3 i 2 watt mo □ wow = ES i > L GO se wh rm row iS "i aos : □ fm jth. ek z Do ” am et a E t & Has oO Ww nd Do @ 5 > 23 i □ 2 OO “i> 3a 2 a a 5 3 ! ny Sa 7 a zn B28 i □□ ih ye +2 S 8 § i □ “he ut 4 e428 % Boe 8 F : □ Bonar. AM eM § 8 & \ a □ e&oQe Bom □ <8 . £2660 ES e dP a Se ed g ia oa + mo seeosg =~ BS & □ □□ feo Be wet 5 pen. S22 5 \ B wee = in = 3 > Oo o = ‘ EES Soon i a Bio 2 = 8s 2 2, eo Sea 3 Ame ~» OM GC an < LY be NE: ae la We Bat, Sy OEE. Oo teed: *

SDN'Y_008384

From: BRENNERMAN, 8. J @The Executive Office To: Stout, Scott : Cc: Gevarter, Mona : Subject: Re: Platinum AMEX : : □ Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:24:39 PM , Tmportance: High Dear Mona, Are you able to call me on my cellphone 917 699 6430 regarding the email below

Best Regards From: Stout, Scott Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:45 PM To: mailto:rbrennerman@blacksandspacific.co Cc: Gevarter, Mona Subject: Platinum AMEX RJ, Please give Mona a call to set up your Platinum AMEX card, 310 205 4751, As a Morgan Stanley perk, if you spend $100k annually we deposit $500 into your account to cover your annual fee {$450}. Other MS/Platinum Perks Include: - First Class Lounge Access - $200 annually in airline fee credits (checking bags, etc) - No foreign transaction fees - Premium upgrades for car rentals - Concierge - 20% Travel Bonus Scott Stout F.A. - Wealth Management MorganStanley Direct: $10 20549712 □ 9665 Wilshire Blvd., 8!" Floor . Beverly Hills, CA 90212 http://www. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ : sort stourt@noragauskoals pent

ren @OUERNMENT Important Notice to Recipients: |: EXHIBIT vic “1-73 “§ V7 □□ □□□ (RIS)

Please do nol use e-mail io request, authorize or effect the purchase or sale of any securily or commodity. Unfortunately, we cannot execute such instructions provided in e-mail. Thank you. \\:the sender of this e-mail is an employee of Morgan Stanley Smith Bamey LLC. ("Morgan stanley’) Xt you have received This éaifimunication in error, please desiroy all’electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Erroneous transmission is noi intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Staniey reserves the right, to lhe extent permitted imder applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to ierms available at the following link: hilp Aww. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ if you cannot access this link, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to fhe foregoing.

64001048 □

EXHIBIT D 05/11/2023 06:44:05 PM KKK KIN KKK KK □□□ MAKAAAKKK KKM AA □ D . of Trial transcript at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), Trial Tr. 617 Judge Sullivan acknowledged that government witness, Madgett testified that the ICBC document including the file are extant and with the bank's file in London, Kingdom KAKI KK KKK KKNAKAAKAKKKAKNHK KAKA

Case 1:17-cl-00337-RJS Document 96 Filed 12/13/17 Page 4 of 315 617 ABURBREL 1 MS. BRITA: Your Honor, your Honor, no. We have it 2 here, but _ . 3 THE COURT: You haven't served it yet? 4 MS. FRITZ: We wanted to hear what your Honor said. 5 THE COURT: In any event, the witness has indicated he 6 doesn't possess the documents, so the documents are not with 7 |[ Bim. “He doesn't have then, According to his testimony, 8 ‘they're in London with the bank's files that he turned over ‘once the deal went south. He certainly. said he didn't review 10 them in preparation for his testimony. He doesn't possess them a Re pg tien oe :

12 So, to the extent the bank is subpoenaed with a Rule 13 27 subpoena, then that would be a different issue, but I don't... 14 think serving Mr. —-- who is the lawyer, Mr.? 15 MR. HESSLER: Hessler, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Hessler. I'm sorry. 17 I don't think serving Mr: Hessler is adequate service □ 18 for purposes of the bank. 19 MS. FRITG: Let me explain why we did it that way, 20 because initially last night, we had an. ICBC subpoena drafted, □□ 21 and the reason that we did it this way is, again, I don't 22 necessarily agree with your Honor's definition of possession. 23 ‘I do think that Julian Madgett, I think quite plainly, has . 2& access to these documents. People very rarely walk around with 45. {| the documents that you're asking for from them, but they do .

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. fOTO' onc’ nonn

54001048

EXHIBIT E 05/11/2023 06:45:07 PM

KAKA KKK KAKA KK KKH □□□ □□ KK AKAKKKAKKAKKAKK E of Trial Transcript at: 1:17-cr-0337 (RJS), Trial Tr. 551-554 government witness, Julian Madgett testified that the ICBC including the underwriting file which documents the basis bank, ICBC, approving the finance [at issue] was provided to bank's New York based lawyers Linklaters LLP who then transmitted documents to the United States Attorney office. KARMA KKAKKKKK AMMAR KAKA AKA KAA KK

Case 1:17-ct-00337-RIS Document 94 Filed 12/13/17 Page 201 of 263 551 HBTSbre7 Madgett - cross □ i (Jury present) os 2 THE COURT: Okay. Have a seat. We will now begin the 3 cross—examination of.Mr. Madgett by Mr. Waller. 4 CROSS EXAMINATION 5 || BY MR. WALLER: □□ 6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Madgett ._ . □ 7 A. Good afternoon. . ot 8 Q. When did you say you started working for ICBC? 9 || A. 2009. — 10 0. And you work for ICBC in London, correct? A. Correct . 12 O. And it is a subsidiary of a Chinese bank? 413 A. It subsidiary and a branch of a Chinese bank. 14 Q. ICBC London is not FDIC insured; is that correct? . 15 A. You are referring to the U.S. arrangement? 16 Q. That's, correct. .. vO □ " 17 A. No, it would not be because it's an’ operation in the U.K, || O- When your credit committee makes a decision, a credit 19 decision whether or not to give a loan er not to give a loan, 20 - what sort of documentation does produce? Does it produce a 21 memo that explains its reasons or analysis for giving a toan? 22 A. The credit committee will have a ascies of minutes which eter atrtny Carnet ti tee net cn net gato ttt ener net onan eigtnis ee vee tenn □□□□ 23. reflects a discussion of the case in credit committee and 24 records the decision of the credit committee. . 7 . 25 "QO. Did you ever produce the documents from that credit _ ,

Case 1:17-cr-00337-RJS Document 94 Filed 12/13/17 Page 202 of 263 552 HBTSbre7 Madgett - cross

1 committee, the ones you just’ described, to the government? . re nous. onje ction. . . .

3 | _,THE_COURT: You can answer. 4 A. Toa my knowledge, no. But-I need to state perhaps it's . 5 appropriate to say this: After the loan was defaulted, the 6 internal process of the bank means that the direct relationship 7 Managers who were responsible for that dialogue step away and 8 the defaulted loan is then passed to a different department. 9 So, I'm not fully aware of all aspects of what has happened to 109 the management of the loan after around April 2014. _

11 Q. And when I say produced to the government, I_meant to the 12 prosecutors here in this case. You understood that? ®t understood that and to my knowledge, no, that hes □□□□□ 14 |] been the case. _ 15 Q. But ICBC did produce a lot of documents to the government,

17 A. AlL I can state is that the documents were provided to our 18 |) legal advisors and then our legal advisors have interacted with 19 I} the U.S. Attorney's office. 20 Q. Would it be fair to say that some documents that are in the underwriting file for JeBC were produced to the document and 22 others were not? mo, . □ 23 A. Some documents will have been passed across. I do not know

|) whether or not all or some. not in —~ 1 don't have that _ knowledge. .

Case 1:17-cr-00837-RIS Document 94 Filed 12/13/17 Page 203 of 263 553 HBT Sbre7 Madgett - cross □ i Q. ts there an underwriting file for a loan application such 2 as the one we are dealing with in this case? 3. _By_There would be a credit application docunent which is where 4 ‘the case For making the loan has been summarized, and that is arn etn renters tin OE □□ 5 the credit application document which then goes to credit comictoe for sppvoven or decline. oe 7 Q@. Do you know if that -—~ well who would have prepared that tS pared that — 8 j}_Gocument? 9 A. I would have been one of the main authors of that document. TR re renee tera Sener eee HOCUMENT 10 QO. Do you know-if that document was produced to the . 12 government? , , . 12 A. I do not and I wouldn't see great relevance in it, but I do 13 not know if it has gone to the government. QO. Well, relevance is not really your determination, correct? 15 A. Correct, correct. Yes. 16 QO. -S@ you don't know if it was produced to the government and □ 17 it certainly wasn't produced to. the defense, correct, by ICBC? 18 THE COURT: Well, do you know? ‘ 19 THE WITNESS: I don't know, but I'm assuming from your 20 question that it wasn't. 21 THE COURT: Well, don't assume; 22: - THE WITNESS: Okay, sorry. My apologies. oe 23 THE COURT: The jury knows not to assume anything from 24 a question. So, you just answer as to what you know. 25 THE WITNESS: All right.

Case 1:17-cl-00337-RJS Document 94 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2040f263 □□ □□□ HBT 5bre7 Madgett - cross : i || By MR. WALLER: 2 Q. Was there an answer? 3 A. Could you repeat the question, please? «A Q. Yes. : 5 Do you know if that document that we were talking

7 , THE COURT: | He answered. He said I don't’ know. 37 THE WETWESS: I don't know. 9 THE COURT: And then he started assuming things and 10 that's when I jumped in. 17 BY MR. WALLER: Q. So the answer is you don't know? 13 A. I don't know. oe, 7 14 Q. Now, you first met Mr. Brennerman in 2011, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you meet him in person for a meeting? 17 A. ‘Yes. 18 Jumeirah Carlton Tower Hotel, does that sound right? 19 A. On one occasion I met him in a hotel, yes. 20 Q. At that point when ‘you met him I think you testified that 21 there were no firm deals that he was bringing to you at that 22. point? There were no deals that he was bringing to you, ‘he was 23 just making an introduction? 24 A. When the initial interaction between us started, yes. _ 25 Q. And, do you recall when the first deal was that he brought

gE eg a ee eee □□□ □□□ □□ wa pelle op Dea EROSIVE ee eC 252 8 2 □ aoe OU wed ot Pe EURS eee Bie es, are Re) ee oe □□□ wy a UAE SES nT 2D es ge | EN ACs EN □□□ foe DeLee So ® & ee So □□□□□ □□ be : 0 Ts ig Spee RS ae RE Pe Sg SEE Senor: EE USES Sie Boge ee = a = = Cs Sed SENS □□□ Hees RENEE Geta ter ee Os a 5 ae EEO ae bee □□□ SE ee ee □ □ □□□ . : . SS EG Se SESE Si 8 SE SOEs eae Te a ae ac ERE RE ees age Sena SE ee Apaagerean As od es ey ee, □□ 0 □ as st, . 2 Se aE a eg Es unee □ a spare eta “adel ea mings ge > = ota LS □□ BE ee Seas Eee OSes □□ So □□ . eG ns Ee eee ee Sears Saas okt a □ g 3 Ste cb □□ oe □□□ ge ee PS Mag □□□ ier UE sage EU eae Se soe oe 2 . pe Eta SAE. Pore a ss □□ a . SEA ne LATE ue wt ee □□ Lek Ns pA Bee OR sss CEN 2 RRSoE Ee ERS ee 7 □□ REE, a SERS OE eS FACE See ee fee □ = LAL CEES Eset Bre eee aoe at IN chee aeeHnS! ene pari See eS aes □□ ee ae ea □□□ igh ie a: □□ Teeny Se Eee ee ie Ce a | □ URE MS SEES ee Ce ERS Ls Sees ee a AES EEE GE □□ ORC ge □□ Oe ee ieee 3 Uy eich □□□ oe See wen gy PEE ee ey yent thee See Bee oe LOSS GR □□ □□□ (heel Ph Dae Heres Se □□□ ea se oe See □□ Be es, PeSs ee es of eee whe USE SES PETS Be “PUES “gat es SE ee wai : ee CREATAS Pe ae CELE ES Re Sig oy coe Be Og Aa □□ Bee Ge Ee aie ee . : sox pet en Bore DUESED SIE pope et we OE ween eng DE ee pn ici Ue ES ME i oe I RES es meas Perth Bede oe cS SOM Sy Bee ay ee ee □□ : J APES CUE ERR a mang Pn MES Be oes See Sas HERE ee = ee 4 : ea SUA oe PAR ae a TLDS a Ma Bau FETA Tei ay SURE ei es sites asia Se Eee eos ee 4 □□ Te Bess □□□ “El: vedios BS SEES ALE Ss ne sees Ae spe oh we EULA Sess if ee ee ee oe Ae — CEE Sie BEM ate rp .abaieey □□ ea Ss, es sie Bane □□ SOA ae Le □□□ a Sal) oe) eemasg □□□ JERE Ga □□ Ss CEMA go ace Poe ee Coe ee ms TT eh esd MS enh □□□ □□ La ies Sey EN Toe abe 2 ae (cp ee Ee 7S ees fn EE 4 EVEL IBD sat gs oe Sats RAPE Sg =. PURSES oat Biveoboboea rt ee ae ae Se Cee AA SSR Se oe: Se Sabena peedea apt to: ohn Set PE ENT EUR: noe aa Cee Bane Se OEE OE a eee oS □□ ee ] fa IG SIph RSD Ney Se Ea enh UG SG eee □ pee Ue 8 Pp Rok Ws Eight ee SEA SEUSS Se SAEs PRES | eee ee oO = hos EYES to BD Poe he BBE fees ees Te ee wiGh SEE Cee: □□ ee Bee —— AES nano CORE LESS coe EES oe ose Ea SS Reo □□ ia ee —————— SE ees □□□ PERE Shr Sa ee ee 4 o yee Be es TU eae? demir: SS: TE eee □□□ Sg eae es SESS Soa eR ees oe es 8 EEE . ne lot via cae. BEER Bt Sieh Fake SEES Pere eo as Tous □□ UR SBR Dalen eure ie a gies a es a bk wee Lo a oe Bot WEE: nee Le TURE Ea □□ ES eae ee AP AES □□ Cpe See ae EeEe es Ss ee : ey we □□□ 1 HED gre ake SORA BB neha {aoa ers ORI Sid SEE ‘Stores teeta atic SEIS mann ci aR Nie Coe ee BE: □□□□ : Be BA SES TOS nay □□□ ce CSE eae Beate: Dea Ree ‘peeraae EE Coe a □ : ea a CORE pees □□ SERB aoe xc □□ wot yore need eR LY ig EE VASE SEE (gh Rape 2 EERE seta eee eS: oe a Pad Oe be fLhies TES Be Sous in SUR vii is) Beet a □□ poet ee Vien Ps eS Mpa aa SHES PRES HR er te 2 rere pad pgs BOLE es NETO a Oe ibe =] AG ‘i □□ ae EH ETP Sy et we Be BE cts Shoes va is ee SN Ace EN ea □□ □ PREG EGU TE a bins rahe Ps □□□ CRESS CEES OBS ee 7 Yer SMP sos pd LS Eee ees a Bea SEE EE SESS a SA ‘Se aay) REE □ □□ OL Case Th ys yas irs ir tag hos: AMESS ERAT oo IS a a □ Ne Pope US ge TR whee SEM WSEAS meee Lae ce a ee Na t ; a? a SO □□□ Sere oe) Ne OE A □□□ ES on et : BE PUES es hy nis tnt ae 2 Lege wb □□□ ee ee eS Ne “J a er is Bap So we Ba □□ phe SESS Eos Joel Sats ee ES Me ee ; : ON ars CARs Sy ae a eee ga mn Al □ Ny istive: Duis Eee ae Se og 5 Te yee i | Lz: oe Ee, Dag Gens □□ Sans weds pee Hs ete nos Se EONS 2 ale □ □□ aR Eee nS fe ERs © Be }avazoa |p prod i$ avate a □□□□ oon es wa ete gE HNpeehet □□ a SoS SEES SIN AS □□□□ □□□□□□□□□ os Vea bony os ve Fee es Ot ous SEU □□ . □□ Wie RSS NG A ss □□ es USM RR pba □□□ MESR as i □ VG a □□ 2 : . Me Ts cpt Meal Parr eb apes Noe VEX He □□ □ . : wot EA se Pop Es ee SB Shela LL ===[ Ng h a □□ ye ns Rath sore! Laas ISe0S ae —_—_—— Nines ALS E cn a a, Wl. Se, SAI ACER PEE EES 2NOS ae ob CRSP PS Bees 4 ———— NRG pe! Nae □ □□□ Se ee 3 = ea Le ) AN □□□□ Sot ay wane ee “ESS □□ Bee. □ ce rie CE oe Van SU eg 2a ak een □□□ qa □ □□□ □□ le Bp ERE SE a —_—_—_=_> CNSR WS □□ □□□ cages ee a a j 3 po ge oie tess “Se ee uvrdrd |i pin 24 ayvItd □□ poss [oon ees pee 3.6 SxB5 +E ae ole FD ioe □□ e895 8 pe he & ae ge Oa ma Ca ow) □□□ □□ □ Fee mo ee ok 7 Pe SEE So DA Ny oa □□□ es 2 Baepeemeee’ EP SAF Se □□ = Heeen Bh: Been □□ 4 . ee □ Bae FURR a m Noi Lull «2 AN pion □□ □ So ot i . A Bg es 66S > 2 APs ie □□ 2 | en eer | AS Bb Naf > Ab 3 Oo oe a EEE oe FOARS See oNNSEZS > i . □□□ ee fi ay: ee PSUs ee = 0 goa een | Suen ecerey Bie 3 a 4 q EN Poo HES wand 3 paul SES Co Bagel a PEE ge > uvigiea lz i 34 avasolla □□□□ | , Nee le wh “gyi st