DOJ-OGR-00010169.jpg
476 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
476 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, argues that the government's case against his clients, Pace and Brubaker, incorrectly characterizes actions as 'backdating'. He claims that Deutsche Bank records from February and March were simply marked 'as of' and provided to tax preparers, which is different from the government's portrayal and distinguishes his clients from a government cooperator in the case.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Easterbrook | Judge |
Mentioned by Mr. Shechtman as having an opinion on legal doctrines.
|
| MR. SHECHTMAN | Speaker (likely Attorney) |
The primary speaker on this page, arguing a point to the court.
|
| Mr. Pace | Party to the case |
Mentioned as having been acquitted on most counts and being in a similar situation to Mr. Brubaker.
|
| Mr. Brubaker | Party to the case |
Mentioned as being in a similar situation to Mr. Pace.
|
| Jenkins lawyer | Lawyer |
An unnamed lawyer who dealt with the government cooperator.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judicial body |
Being addressed by Mr. Shechtman.
|
| Kramer Levin | Law Firm |
A law firm that cross-examined the government cooperator.
|
| Deutsche Bank | Company |
The source of bank records central to the 'backdating' argument.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-03-22
Mr. Shechtman presents a legal argument to the court regarding prejudice and the nature of evidence in his clients' case.
Southern District
Deutsche Bank statements for February and March were created and marked with an "as of" date, which is the basis for the government's backdating allegation.
Deutsche Bank
tax preparers
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Appears in the name of the court reporting agency, indicating the location of the court.
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Shechtman states, 'Mr. Pace is not situated that much differently than Mr. Brubaker' and refers to them collectively as 'these two men'.
The document states that 'the Kramer Levin firm got to cross-examine him'.
Key Quotes (2)
"What distinguishes these two men is the, quote, backdate."Source
— MR. SHECHTMAN
(Explaining the central point of contention in the case against his clients, Mr. Pace and Mr. Brubaker.)
DOJ-OGR-00010169.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank records show. They are doing these in February and March and putting them on February and March statements and they're putting "as of.""Source
— MR. SHECHTMAN
(Arguing against the government's characterization of the case as involving 'backdating'.)
DOJ-OGR-00010169.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,634 characters)
Case 3:20-cr-00083-PAE-NM Document 164-3-20 Filed 03/22/22 Page 17 of 17
A-5914
A-5914
CAC3PARC
12
1 where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I
2 think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he
3 said you have to think about each of these doctrines separately
4 and you can probably have every combination of them.
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would
7 just say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these
8 counts. Mr. Pace is not situated that much differently than
9 Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much
10 differently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the
11 government cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was
12 actually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to
13 cross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator
14 was helpful to their side because they established that their
15 client, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told
16 repeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is
17 the, quote, backdate.
18 And what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the
19 government was very good at trial in turning this into a
20 backdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank
21 records show. They are doing these in February and March and
22 putting them on February and March statements and they're
23 putting "as of." They're then going out to what are very
24 accomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March
25 statements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
12
1 where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I
2 think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he
3 said you have to think about each of these doctrines separately
4 and you can probably have every combination of them.
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would
7 just say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these
8 counts. Mr. Pace is not situated that much differently than
9 Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much
10 differently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the
11 government cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was
12 actually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to
13 cross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator
14 was helpful to their side because they established that their
15 client, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told
16 repeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is
17 the, quote, backdate.
18 And what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the
19 government was very good at trial in turning this into a
20 backdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank
21 records show. They are doing these in February and March and
22 putting them on February and March statements and they're
23 putting "as of." They're then going out to what are very
24 accomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March
25 statements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010169
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document