Document 6168/20

Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 6168/20 Filed 08/24/22 Page 73 of 117 A-5920 18 CAC3PARC 1 which I think is very significant. And it is significant in 2 part because I think if we can say anything, that we all know 3 based on the Brune & Richard's defense of Mr. Parse, that if 4 they had any actual and real concern about a suspended attorney 5 being on this jury, if they really thought that was not in 6 their client's interest, you know, we all know that they would 7 have brought it to the Court's attention during voir dire. And 8 if not at voir dire, then after the results of the Theresa 9 Trzskoma investigation. 10 This is absolutely a situation where the Brune & 11 Richard lawyers, on May 12, after the investigation that they 12 had, they looked at all the alternatives. We know because 13 Laurie Edelstein testified at the hearing, they considered the 14 three possible alternatives. They considered whether or not 15 they should do more investigation, and Susan Brune said no. 16 They considered whether or not they should bring it to the 17 Court's attention, and they said no. So they decided to do 18 nothing. And it is that conscious and deliberate choice that 19 we believe means that they made a strategic choice that cannot 20 form the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. 21 How do we know in the government's view that this 22 indeed was a tactical choice? As this Court just pointed out 23 with regard to the questioning of Mr. Shechtman, they did not 24 bring that knowledge to the attention of the Court either in 25 the brief, where they made it appear as if they first learned the brief, where they made it appear as if they first learned SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 6168/20 Filed 08/24/22 Page 78 of 117 A-5921 19 CAC3PARC 1 of this after the receipt of the jury -- of Ms. Conrad's letter 2 to the government in May after the verdict. And worse, even in 3 the conference calls with the Court, they continued to make it 4 appear and resist the Court and the government learning that 5 knowledge. 6 Mr. Shechtman seems to want to characterize this as 7 them wanting to hide their mistakes. But it's quite clear, and 8 Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein testified, we would not have 9 told this Court but for the Court pressing. That to me speaks 10 of a decision made early on and continuing through the briefing 11 that they wanted the juror on the panel, but they wanted the 12 Court not to know exactly what they knew because they 13 understood, and, as was acknowledged at the hearing, that that 14 was damaging to their client. 15 THE COURT: Would you address the prejudice prong. 16 MS. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe 17 that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming 18 evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the 19 corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud 20 count. The defense conceded in its papers that Mr. Parse was 21 involved in the backdated transactions. We think backdated 22 transactions is a perfectly adequate description of them. 23 We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's 24 background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case 25 law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009497 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 6168/20 Filed 08/24/22 Page 79 of 117 A-5922 20 CAC3PARC 1 incident. We know he was instrumental and indeed Carrie Yackee 2 cited to more than a dozen instances during her testimony where 3 she made clear that she was acting at the instructions of and 4 with the knowledge of David Parse in implementing all of these 5 complex and varied transactions that had to be effectuated in 6 order to change the results of the three sets of transactions. 7 It's actually four because Coleman and Blair were two separate 8 taxpayers. She understood that this was being done for tax 9 purposes. This is Carrie Yackee the sales assistant. Nice 10 woman, but not nearly as sophisticated as Mr. Parse. To 11 suggest that the jury could not find or infer that he knew 12 exactly why these transactions were being effectuated, not for 13 any real investment reason, not because they had figured out 14 that in February and March, the year after the transactions had 15 been done, that somehow it would have been a better investment 16 to have not invested in Cisco stock, but instead to have 17 invested in foreign currency. To suggest that the jury could 18 not have found that Mr. Parse knew that the reason that these 19 were being done was to effectuate tax losses for the prior year 20 is simply ludicrous. 21 Your Honor, the defendant was faxed information 22 relating to the tax returns themselves. This wasn't just a 23 one-way street between David Parse's office and Jenkins & 24 Gilchrist, but it was at least a two-way street between 25 Deutsche Bank and Jenkins & Gilchrist and also the accountants. Deutsche Bank SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009498