ALMOST IMMEDIATELY UPDATED: PathoPhilia weighs in with this, which apparently quotes from Mr. Shkreli's own keyboard:
"...Just checking in, and in the process, I traveled over to Shkreli’s Facebook page. Here’s this recent message to his acolytes:
. . . .“Well, my lawyers filed a 174 page bombshell explaining how the government obtained illegal evidence in my case. Evidence which doesn’t prove anything, but illegal in their procurement and receipt. Good luck, you guys will need it. . . .”
And in other news, a convicted hedge-fund trader, Michael Kimelman, thinks Shkreli will get 10 years.
To be sure, I will cover the far less interesting motion to strike, filed by Reed Brodsky (for Mr. Greebel) in some future post -- but for now, the scene stealer is the (25 page PDF file of a) motion from Mr. Brafman (for Mr. Shkreli) which, from page 11 onward, discusses Dr. Koestler's consulting role, and arbitration win (that's a link to a September 2016 post, here -- as background, BTW). And -- of course -- how it means (hilariously!) that Mr. Shkreli didn't. . . (wait for it!) commit any crime.
As I have earlier repeatedly explained [Just search "Milken" on the Shkreli blog for all the posts], showing that Dr. Koestler actually did work will not cure the securities law violations, of (alleged, but indicted) parking shares in his hands, or assigning a friendly nominee to hold the Koestler payment shares, for Mr. Shkreli. The Williams Act has prohibited that, for four decades.
And it is no defense, at law, that Dr. Koestler never got the promised shares, here.
Not a defense to a felony criminal indictment which alleges a broad-ranging "scheme" to evade the Williams Act. In fact, it suggests that Mr. Shkreli welshed on the deal, precisely because someone (likely Mr. Greebel) told him of the criminal difficulties parking presents (just ask Mike Milken). A felonious criminal enterprise, that (all as alleged by the faithful US Attorney in Brooklyn).
To be fair, Mr. Brafman goes on to claim the government hasn't shown the defense team all the other allegedly "sham" consulting arrangements it holds, which -- the theory goes -- would be exculpatory "Brady" materials, under long-standing existing US Supreme Court precedent.
More when I have more time -- maybe later this week, on the Greebel motions.
Namaste -- the fire is plainly rising up the building called Shkreli, now -- toward a late June 2017 eight-alarm affair.