Martin Shkreli's Counsel's Views -- On The "D. Franklin" Letter, In FTC Injunction Case We Mentioned Yesterday.

First, I want to be fair. I want to give Martin's team their say.

However, there is zero chance that the counsel for FTC would knowingly offer a faked or falsified document into Judge Cote's courtroom in Manhattan. It is a certainty that the Allenwood FCI BoP mail room received this piece of mail. It is post-marked with a canceled stamp, and a return address. That agency, BoP, rightfully turned it over to the FTC -- as it ought to, in the continued administration of justice. The BoP itself is almost certainly going to question Martin directly about it. If an enemy of Martin's wrote it to "get him in trouble". . . well, that is not impossible. [Martin ought to answer personally, by affidavit, if he in fact knows nothing of this.]

Even so, many of Martin's acolytes have -- on all of the social media feeds run by his surrogates, even to this day -- recited that they are now, or wish to be "holdin' sumthin'" (slang for hiding cash or drugs for him -- but most are likely faux-street people). . . but all of which cannot be completely ignored. It is also true that many of these acolytes. . . are also. . . morons, frankly. So it is possible someone he hung out with virtually, in his YouTube sessions from 2016 or earlier, is holding funds for him.

There is a saying that "in the courtroom. . . Lady Justice is to be blind. But out there on the streets, the grrl gotta' have. . . eyes." Judge Cote should not close her eyes to the possibility that Martin has already violated her orders, and Judge Matsumoto's. [The old bon mot really is meant to say that unfair prejudices ought not to enter the court's decision-making, but the court ought not to ignore common, street-wise sense.] In any event, here's the latest, from Team Martin, this morning:

. . .Counsel is unaware of any associate of Mr. Shkreli known as “D. Franklin,” or anyone who refers to Mr. Shkreli as “brother Marty” -- friends and associates call him “Martin.” Moreover, it defies logic that anyone would expect such a letter to pass through prison security. Thus, the letter appears to be a deliberate set-up. Mr. Shkreli is well known and the details of his incarceration are public knowledge. He cannot control who sends him mail, and as plaintiffs concede, there is no evidence, in the record or otherwise, supporting the conclusion that plaintiffs want this Court to reach, i.e., that Mr. Shkreli is already plotting to evade restrictions the Court may impose.

Second, even if the letter were authentic, the Court cannot consider it in fashioning the injunction because it is not in the record. See SEC v. Muraca, Civil Action No. 17-cv-11400, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210451, at *20 (D. Mass. Dec. 5, 2019) (denying summary judgment for request for injunction because the “Court cannot go outside the record”). This is nothing more than a smear, a transparent attempt by plaintiffs to prejudice and publicly embarrass Mr. Shkreli with sensational and unsupported allegations. . . .

The filing lists other objections, but as I say, I expect most will be unavailing. Judge Cote will broadly enjoin Martin from working in the life sciences industries. Full stop. And she will make him annually report to FTC on his income, and investments. Onward.

नमस्ते