John Strand & Simone Gold Case with the “defense fund” grift <— massive haul of cash pouring in
Things I trust more than Dr Simone Gold’s medical opinion; 45 day old gas station sushi, 21 day old expired milk, a 10 year old Twinkie, or drinking water from a SuperFund site...
For reference- earlier this month I walked you through the Criminal Complaint and subsequent Feb 5th Indictment of John Strand and Dr Simone Gold. As a primer (or refresher) you may want to read the previous article
Legal Defense Fund -grifters gotta grift
On or about January 29, 2021 Dr Simone Gold tweeted out to her nearly quarter million followers a link to her newly created legal defense fund. At the time I noted that it had raised just over $95,000.00 (February 7 2021 archive found here) I suppose one could argue that, certainly insurrection is an expensive endeavor, especially if it leads to an indictment. If there are “Gold-Believers” who buy the pseudo-medical junk-science she’s espousing, it’s not my place to judge. I do find her tawdry and dare I say dangerous.
However her Legal Defense Fund is a completely different topic. As of publication, her “defense fund” has now raised over $205,000.00 - The February 20, 2021 archive found here. I realized that text of her legal defense grift hasn’t changed but nonetheless it is entirely misleading. I would actually go a step further and say her defense fund and solicitation of donations is flirting with fraudulent. How is Gold’s six count indictment, participating in the deadly insurrection “go directly to our life-saving efforts” between her PPPloans and the ongoing grift. I genuinely do not understand why the medical board hasn’t empaneled an ethics committee to review her license to practice medicine.
As previously detailed my preliminary research was unable to confirm that she has any “admitting” rights to any California Hospital. The question remains does she even practice medicine and if so why did she obtain numerous PPPLoans? However parsing her donation solicitation - the following narrative that the “FBI in an extremely aggressive” manner, actually strains credulity. The FBI and their agents are nothing but professional. And saying they acted “in an extremely aggressive manner” is entirely subjective. One could reasonably argue
One week ago, Dr. Gold and her Communications Director were arrested by the FBI in an extremely aggressive manner. They need your support. This fight is not just for them, but for you.
Clearly this political persecution of a law-abiding emergency physician is designed to threaten and intimidate any American who dares to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. The legal pressures mounting against Dr. Gold require your urgent and generous donations to withstand such aggressive assaults from the ruthless enemies of free speech.
The fact Twitter account is still not suspended is hard to comprehend how Gold’s prolific disinformation tweets comport with Twitter’s own guidelines or their recent May 11, 2020 blog/policy post about COVID-19 - however what’s more offensive is both Strand and Gold are using Twitter’s platform to solicit donations to their “legal defense fund”. Yet after scrolling through Gold’s timeline I stumbled upon her February 11, 2021 Tweet, she appeared on the Michelle Malkin “show” -archived here
If you are a Defendant facing a six count indictment;
Silence is the refuge of the wise so zip it
No really typically in my industry there’s a complete lockdown of social media - especially in the midst of litigation. Or in the case of both Strand and Gold, a six count indictment. And yes we say (albeit in a joking manner) “prior statements yo”- Meaning if you scroll through (especially Strand’s timeline) he is going to potentially regret at least seven tweets he has tweeted since being charged via criminal complaint and then subsequently indicted. Also if you’re a Prosector - the notion that this kind of “in your face, I regret nothing” leaning into to public sentiment could be argued that it could taint the jury pool.
-_
Tainting a Jury Pool?
That question is not euphemistic. It is a direct question about how both Strand and Gold are still on social media spewing this kind of misinformation and disinformation - Strand’s Feb 20th tweet archived here Gold’s Feb 20th tweet also archived here. But there’s another datapoint I’d like to point out - Gold sent her misleading tweet soliciting donations, (cough fraud by using “wires” to conduct the commerce, and also using interstate commerce- the internet to solicit donations arguably using false pretenses) at 2:48PM DC local time. Within seconds Stand then retweets Gold’s tweet. Thereby creating an amplification loop and confirming the two are still very much tied at the hip.
The broader point is, defendants typically listen to their attorneys and I don’t know a single attorney that would want a client that continues to make public statements that could be used against them.
February 19, 2021: MINUTE ORDER
… as to JOHN HERBERT STRAND (1) and SIMONE MELISSA GOLD (2): The parties are to appear for an Arraignment set for 2/25/2021* at 2:00 PM by VTC before Judge Christopher R. Cooper. The hearing will proceed by videoconferencing for the parties and by telephone for members of the public. Pursuant to Standing Order 20-20 (BAH), the Court will provide public access to the hearing. It is hereby ORDERED that the participants using the public access telephone line shall adhere to the rules set forth in Standing Order 20-20 (BAH)
Toll Free Number: 888-204-5984 and Access Code: 8981531
*the arraignment is for the February 5, 2021 Indictment - Indictment ECF/PACER or via my Public Drive - if interested below are a few other relevant court filings.
And my closing thought on Gold and Strand - guess who was mentioned by the newly indicted Kelly Meggs Motion Modification of Release? I now refer you to pages 10, 12 and 15 Defendant Meggs explicitly points to the Court releasing Strand and Gold as an argument of why he should be released on bail and conditions. I am sure no one had that on their Insurrection Judicial bingo card, well maybe a few of us did because that’s typically what happens in a massive dragnet. Defendants look at how other courts have ruled in relation to other defendant in a wide ranging law enforcement roll up.
And lastly please do not get me started on the Judge in the Jenny Cudd case. I was and I still am at a complete loss for words. How on earth the Judge allowed her to take her Mexico vacation. Compounded by the Government not seeking remand or raising a robust opposition to Cudd’s request is just frustrating. In fact both pretrial services and the DOJ-Prosectors did not object to Cudd’s Vacation Travel-request. Which is especially problematic because less than two days before Cudd and Rosa were indicted on five counts. (or you can pull down the Feb 3rd five count indictment from my public drive, found here) The brutal truth is there really are different judicial systems if you’re a well off white man or woman.
Again if you have questions please feel free to click the comment button👇🏻
From PACER 2/25/21: Defendants arraigned and formally waives the formal reading of the Indictment and enters a Plea of Not Guilty as to all counts (1-5). The Court finds it in the interest of justice to toll the speedy trial clock from 2/25/21 through 4/28/21 11:00 AM by VTC before Judge Christopher R. Cooper. Does this mean the trial will be 4/28/21 at 11 am?
From PACER 2/25/21: Defendants arraigned and formally waives the formal reading of the Indictment and enters a Plea of Not Guilty as to all counts (1-5). The Court finds it in the interest of justice to toll the speedy trial clock from 2/25/21 through 4/28/21 11:00 AM by VTC before Judge Christopher R. Cooper. Does this mean the trial will be 4/28/21 at 11 am?
Have you seen anymore indictments from South Carolina ?