Zeek Rewards: USA Files Motion Regarding Defense Experts

The US Attorney has filed a motion to limit the Defendant (Paul Burks) use of the recently produced “Handwritten Notebooks” marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 700.

The Government requests that Exhibit 700 only be admitted through the Defendant.

 

The Procedural History listed in the motion details begins with the August 2012 Grand Jury issued subpoena to Burks as custodian of records calling for the production of documents and testimony related to the production of those documents.

The subpoena called for:

  • all documents related to daily profit
  • all documents related to the calculation of daily profit share wards
  • all documents related to policies/procedures applicable of Daily Profit Pool

The motions also notes that exhibit 700 was never produced in response to the Subpoena. They list a Q and A portion of Burks testimony before the Grand Jury:

During his testimony, Defendant was asked, and testified in response that:
Q. I’m just going to go through these and forgive me if I end up asking the same question but it’s important. I want to get it on the record here. All documents related to the calculation of the daily profit share awards and profit point redemption for the retail profit pool. Do you see that, sir?
A. I see that.
Q. And same question. The production that you’ve talked about here today, is that responsive in terms of everything you’ve got in your possession to that specification?
A. To the best of my knowledge. There –
Q. Again with the caveat that the receiver has a lot of this material?
A. Yes

During his Grand Jury testimony, the Defendant never mentioned the Handwritten Notebooks, Defendant’s Exhibit 700. They go on to say, “There can be no legitimate dispute that the Handwritten Notebooks – if they actually existed on the dates they purport to have been created – were responsive to the Grand Jury Subpoena, and, thus, Defendant’s failure to produce them was in violation of that Subpoena and his testimony that he had produced all documentation responsive to the subpoena was untrue.”

Defendant’s failure to produce these documents in response to the Grand Jury testimony, his testimony that he had produced all responsive documents, and the production of these Handwritten Notebooks on the eve of trial, without explanation, all raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the Handwritten Notebooks.

Let’s see how Burks tries to explain this “oversight”….. You can find these documents here.