Case update of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -yes 3rd superseding indictment & change in plea hearing- related to Sept 10th

So help me - those falsely tweeting there are new charges in the 3rd Superseding Indictment either 1) should delete their account, or 2) is your thirst for attention/relevance that dehydrated?

look I’m not going to whine about how much of my Twitter research was flushed down the Twitter toilet but it is frustrating. I spent a lot of time (away from my family and friends to do that research) plus tracking the various cases, cross referencing with ongoing Congressional Investigations and did a decent job of providing my followers with timely updates. And trying to find any semblance of archives of my past Twitter research is an exercise in futility and self emotional cutting. So I’ve come to the conclusion it’s G-O-N-E

Lev Parnas & Andrey Kukushkin 3rd superseding indictment -filed -nothing NEW

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Lev Parnas (1) count(s) 1ss, 2ss, 3ss, 4ss, 5ss, 6ss, Andrey Kukushkin (4) count(s) 1ss, 3ss -see SDNY-ECF - To be clear there are no NEW charges - based in part on the letter from the Government to the Court -and anyone on Twitter falsely claim that there are new charges are uniformed and out of their damn mind. Or they haven’t read the Letter to the Court - which reads in part:

Count One of the S3 Indictment is identical to Count Four of the prior indictment, except that the objects of the alleged conspiracy in paragraph 1 have been reordered.

Count Two of the S3 Indictment charges Parnas with solicitation of a contribution by a foreign national, in violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30121 and 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count Two of the S3 Indictment is identical to Count Five of the prior indictment.

Count Three of the S3 Indictment charges Parnas and Kukushkin with making a contribution by a foreign national, in violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30121 and 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count Three of the S3 Indictment is identical to Count Six of the prior indictment.

Count Four of the S3 Indictment charges Parnas with conspiracy to make contributions in the name of another, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 52 U.S.C. §§ 30122 and 30109(d)(1)(A) and (D). Count Four of the S3 Indictment is identical to Count One of the prior indictment, except that the objects of the alleged conspiracy in paragraph 5 have been reordered and the language describing the overt acts in paragraph 6 has been revised.

Count Five of the S3 Indictment charges Parnas with false statements to the Federal Election Commission, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2) and 2. Count Five of the S3 Indictment is identical to Count Two of the prior indictment.

Count Six of the S3 Indictment charges Parnas with falsification of records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 2. Count Six of the S3 Indictment is identical to Count Three of the prior indictment.

LETTER by USA as to Lev Parnas, Andrey Kukushkin addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Assistant U.S. Attorneys Aline Flodr, Nicolas Roos, and Hagan Scotten dated August 26, 2021 re: S3 Superseding Indictment Document filed by USA. See SDNY-ECF

But there is something rather odd and interesting in the August 26, 2021 letter from the Government to the Court - it can be found on page 2 and it reads in part:

While the S3 Indictment does not contain Count Seven of the prior indictment, which charged Parnas with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, because that charge was previously severed. The Government intends to proceed on that charge against Parnas at a future trial.

To say this is ominous for Parnas might just be an understatement but it’s definitely something you should keep an eye on. The fact is Kukushkin was previously charge and it appears the Government has severed him from that. The rationale might be super simple - Kukushkin ¹did not have control of the account that engaged in wire fraud, it appears only Parnas controlled that account. Also because Fruman’s change in plea hearing has been adjourned until September 10, 2021 —I’d argue that perhaps the “lock” of a plea agreement might have recently hit a road bump. But that’s more conjecture than facts. My best advise is to keep an eye on Igor Fruman’s docket.

The S3 Indictment adds no new charges or allegations, and in no way reflects any change to the conduct that will be the subject of trial. The S3 Indictment will not result in any new discovery or disclosures that were not already previously made or being made.

Also it’s noteworthy that Parnas co-defendant Igor Fruman is currently pleading guilty —during his change in plea hearing - which was recently delayed (via Fruman’s Tuesday evening filing. The change in plea hearing has now officially been delayed until September 10, 2021 -see SDNY-ECF for docket report…

When Defendant Fruman’s Plea Agreement is made public -I’ll update accordingly but I thought you should know that Fruman’s Defense Counsel filed and the Court agreed to adjourn until September…

“change-of-plea proceeding will now take place Sept. 10 at the request of Fruman”

But any person on Twitter tweeting there are new charges in the 3rd Superseding Indictment should not be believed or remotely taken seriously.

Defendants requested a FIFTH delay in October 2021 commencement of Criminal Trial

To be clear some of the delays have been reasonable but the Defendants fifth request could prejudice the Government and the public writ large because the Defendants arguments are…specious at best or dishonest at worst. For Example the Defendants argued that Jurors wearing Masks (in-light of the Delta variant surge, seems like a desperate argument) and the Government responded in kind. See SDNY-ECF for the Government’s August 12th response or you can pull it down from my Scribd Link

The Government writes in opposition to the defendants’ fifth request for an adjournment of the trial in this case, which is scheduled to begin on October 4, 2021. Just three weeks ago, this Court denied the defendants’ fourth application to adjourn the trial to February 2022.

The “constitutional concerns” that the defendants have raised just now for the first time relating to masking are legally meritless. Cf. Petit, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 827 (discussing whether the defendant had waived these arguments by failing to raise them earlier). The fact that a prospective juror is masked will not prevent the defendants and their counsel from assessing the juror’s credibility and demeanor. “language of the entire body.”…

…by being “given an opportunity to submit proposed voir dire questions for the Court to ask prospective jurors.” Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 1225990, at *4. The Government is also confident that the parties and the Court will do their parts to ensure that the empaneled jury is a fair one, and therefore there is no basis to conclude that the defendants will be deprived of meaningful voir dire, let alone an impartial jury, as a result of jurors wearing masks.

Their specious claims with all caps, emojis and breathless dramatic tweets, this actually means those people have no idea what they are falsely tweeting —Qanon-for-the-left is equally dangerous as QANON and I will never understand why so many believe anything they tweet. Given that crew wouldn’t know facts if it slapped them upside their damaged little heads. I told you to stay in your grifting charlatan lane and you should consider laying off the Titos’ & stop abusing your RXs and get a real J-O-B —sorry I’ve been holding that in for a while.

Relevant Court Documents;

• 3rd Superseding Indictment https://www.scribd.com/document/521862529/USA-v-Parnas-Superseding-Indictment-Aug-26th

• Government Letter to the Court concerning the 3rd Superseder - https://www.scribd.com/document/521863301/USA-v-Parnas-Aug-26th-Letter-to-the-Court

• September 2020 U.S. v. Lev Parnas et al. S1 superseding indictment.²

• October 2019 straw donors U.S. v. Lev Parnas et al Indictment ³

• See 2019 Original Indictment U.S. v. Lev Parnas et al Indictment - Department of Justice

-yes I’m extra spicy today because I no longer have any Fs to give - I triple checked my pockets and nope not a one to be found.

Also because I’m aware that I can pump out a lot of information this article was written on August 26th but I scheduled it to be published on August 27th because 3 newsletters in one day kind of seemed a bit of overkill. Notwithstanding I’d rather take accuracy over expediency or actual misinformation or disinformation…

-Filey

1. see CA SCC for Kukushkin’s Pot Business (damn I wish I could just post my old Twitter threads because I went deep with that research) KKMC management under Stanley Kukushkin (it’s the same decent Kukushkin -but it is also his business partner and I’m 99% confident he’s Foreign National # 1 listed in the various indictments

• https://www.scribd.com/document/521885771/KKMC-Management-LLC-Kukushkin

• https://www.scribd.com/document/521885776/Legacy-Botanical-Co-Kukushkin-CA-SCC-Filing

• City of Sacramento Audit of the City’s Medical Marijuana DispensariesmReport # 2017-06|October 2017 -the audit actually singled out the Pot Dispensaries Kukushkin is a partial owner in and the audit unequivocally stares that the dispensaries “might be underreporting revenue” http://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Auditor/Audit-Reports/Audit-of-the-Medical-Marijuana-Dispensaries.pdf

2. See DOJ-OPA October 10, 2020 Press Release https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-charged-conspiring-violate-straw-and-foreign-donor-bans

3. See DOJ-OPA September 17, 2020 Press Release https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-david-correia-charged-conspiring-defraud-investors-their-fraud-insurance