A damsel in distress. Plural of Mongoose Update.

[bentech]

don't see no chicken on their menu...

[smokebreaks]

Looks as though they do offer follie grax

[AlwaysBlue]

any news on PoM?

[Jesús Malverde]

Anyone else knew that VJ apparently ran multiple bars in Thailand? That's what Aaron Higgs, who named his restaurant in Dublin Variety Jones claims-

And the name? It throws up some interesting Google results. Variety Jones was the alias of a man who helped run a dark net drugs operation called the Silk Road. Aaron worked in one of his bars in Thailand.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-sty ... -1.3754868" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does Clark strike you as someone with the organizational competence to own and run multiple public establishments? Yeah, me either.

[Munchy]

well if money were not an issue... you probably wouldn't need to run them yourself... just buy them, hire some managers and a supervisor. then all you really need to run, would be that guy.

[bentech]

ive noticed that owners fail to manage their managers often

I can see pom as valuable in an organization.

if your smart you set things up so your people can steal a little
its prevents them from stealing alot

i dont see pom as a man to have blown the horde the state claims he made

as him dont being able to afford a good attorney would indicate if hes who they say he is...

[AGD]

Here is another piece about the name of the 'Variety Jones' restaurant.
https://www.independent.ie/life/review- ... 40597.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Variety Jones, by the by, is the pseudonym of a nice chap that Higgs' father met in Thailand, who later turned out to be a key figure associated with the dark web.

[Jesús Malverde]

Case 1:15-cr-00866-WHP Document 22 Filed 03/19/19

LAW OFFICE OF
STEPHANIE M. CARVLIN, ESQ.
140 Broadway, Suite 4610
New York, New York 10005
STEPHANIE M. CARVLIN, ESQ. telephone: 212-748-1636
fax: 212-858-7750
e-mail: carvlin@hotmail.com

March 19,2019

Honorable William H. Pauley
United State District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Roger Thomas Clark
15-cr-866(WHP)

Dear Judge Pauley:
As was discussed during the January 25, 2019 status conference, Mr Clark would like the Court to be aware of certain facts in considering when motions must be filed in this case and when trial will begin. Durinq the
conference I sought permission to file an ex parte letter, incorporating Mr Clark's concerns.
The Court ordered that the submission be filed no later than March 19 2019. Mr. Clark has detailed the issues he believes are important for the Court to consider in a letter to Your Honor, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A 1 I ask
that the Court consider Mr. Clark's submission.
Mr. Clark makes several points in favor of being given additional time to
review the discovery in his case. I briefly summarize below a few of the issues he
addresses in his letter:
• The quantity of discovery is massive. More than eight terabytes of material
have been turned over to date.
• The great bulk of discovery consists of material that Mr. Clark can access
only by using a laptop (and accompanying hard drives) that is available to
him in a specific area in the East Visiting Room at the MDC Mr Clark is housed in the West Building. A staff member has to take him from the
West Building to the East Visiting Room. Staff is not always available to do
so. During the thirty-five day government shut down, he was not permitted
access to the discovery. For approximately ten days after the shut down
the MDC had problems with a generator in the West Building leading to a
disruption in heat and electricity. As a result, staff time was devoted to
maintaining order in the facility, and Mr. Clark was not able to qo over to
the East Visiting Room.

• While Mr. Clark was incarcerated in Thailand for more than two years
before he was extradited to the United States, he did not have the images
of the servers. He was not assigned counsel to represent him in this case
until he was brought into this District on June 15, 2018. He did not receive
the laptop and hard drives that contain the images of the server (although
I provided him with hard copies and CDs containing other discovery and
case-related materials on a rolling basis from the date of my appointment
as his counsel forward), until mid-November.

I concur with these points, and I add an additional consideration to those
mentioned by Mr. Clark: All of the material on the servers is potentially relevant
According to the government, the images of the servers contain "shots" of the
entirety of what was on the Silk Road site at a particular point in time In other
words, all of the information on the servers arguably proves the existence of Silk
Road and demonstrates how it operated. As Mr. Clark notes in his letter it likely
will not be possible to view each image individually. However, I have just recently
been able to provide to Mr. Clark a type of index of the material that permits for
targeted searches and therefore makes accessing the material faster and easier
He is committed to reviewing as much of the material as is possible.

All the facts Mr. Clark identifies in his letter weigh strongly in favor of
providing him (and defense counsel) with additional time to review the discovery
and Mr. Clark is willing to waive his right to a speedy trial. Of course "the public
has an interest in quickly bringing defendants to trial to prevent a' backlog of
cases that might permit dangerous criminals to linger unsupervised for extended
periods of time while on bail, delay rehabilitation, and otherwise hinder the
criminal justice system." United States v. Ghailani. 733 F.3d 29, 41 (2d Cir
2013). However, as the Second Circuit noted in Ghailani. the public and private
interests at stake in a speedy trial may be accounted for by considering inter
aha, the four factors the United States Supreme Court developed in Barker v
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972): (1) the length of the delay; (2) the rea^onslor
the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial and (4)
whether the defendant was prejudiced by the failure to bring the case to trial
more quickly. Ghailani, 733 F.3d at 46-47. As Mr. Clark discusses in detail in his
letter those factors favor granting him additional time to review the discovery.

It appears that the government's proof at trial will consist largely of
material that time will not degrade: "chat" logs of conversations between Ross
Ulbricht and an individual the government claims was Mr. Clark- posts on a
website the government asserts show that Mr. Clark was Variety Jones Ross
Ulbricht's purported mentor, and records of a law suit filed in England Mr' Clark
is and will remain incarcerated. Thus, the majority of the disadvantages that may
come with delaying trial (loss of evidence, continued incarceration) will fall on Mr.
Clark.

Finally, the penalty Mr. Clark faces if he is convicted is severe- He is
subject to a maximum term of incarceration of life. Indeed, Mr Ulbricht was
convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, Mr. Clark's interest in
being able to fully prepare for trial could not be stronger.
In the unusual circumstances of this case, I believe that Mr Clark's
request for a 2020 trial date is not unreasonable and should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, [signature of Carvlin]
cc: AUSA Michael Neff (via ECF)
AUSA Timothy Howard (via ECF)

[Jesús Malverde]

I've provided below a rough and lightly edited typically buggy OCR transcript the first portion of RTCs letter to the judge. Please use the attached PDF file to access and read the full version if interested. It's a lot of work to make the OCR-generated mess into readable text. Maybe someone else will want to finish the job.

Case 1:15-cr-00866-WHP Document 22-1 Filed 03/19/19

Roger Thomas Clark
Inmate #85815-054
Metropolitan Detention Center
100 29th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11232
March 19,2019

The Honorable William H. Pauley, III
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Roger Thomas Clark
S2 15 Cr. 866 (WHP)

Your Honor,
As was discussed during the status conference on January 25 2019 I
write this letter in support of a request for an adjustment of the motion schedule
and trial date. I understand that the Government has apparently agreed to take
no position in this regard, and I appreciate Your Honor taking the time to consider
this matter.
As the Second Circuit noted in its decision in the appeal of the related
case of Ross Ulbricht, "a district court has a great deal of latitude in scheduling
trials- United States v. Ulbricht 858 F.3d 71, 109; 2017 U S App LEXIS 9517
(2d Cir. 2017) quoting United States V Griffiths. 750 F 3d 237 241- 2014 U S
App. LEXIS 7863 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) Thus "trial
enjoy broad discretion in granting or denying trial continuances" Ulbricht_ 858 F.3d at 109, quoting United States v. Strinqer 730 F 3d 120- 127
*?Jt'Sn APP- LEX,S 19159 (2d c"^2ul3TTbeTi^^I believe there are several reasons that this Court should exercise that discretion in favor of providing me with more time to review the discovery.

As courts have often noted, complex cases require additional time to
prepare, and this case is complex in large part because it involves voluminous
discovery. See United States v. Astra Motor Cars, 352 F. Supp 367 369- 2005
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 577 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 14, 2005) (holding that a complex case
designation was justified by the "extraordinary volume of discovery")- Minute
Entry, Veliu No. 17-CR-404 (designating case as complex noting the
voluminous discovery"); Minute Entry, United States v Webb No 15-CR-252
(PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2015) (Dkt. 61) (designating FIFA racketeering case as
complex and noting that "discovery is voluminous").

Your Honor relied on the extreme guantity of discovery in analyzing the
propriety of excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act in United States v
Chichakli, S3 09 cr. 1002; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154016 (SDNY Oct 16, 2014)

Exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act
Legal Standard
The Speedy Trial Act generally requires that a trial commence
within 70 days of the filing of an indictment or the defendant's
initial appearance. 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1). Recognizing that every
criminal case is distinct, that Act contains many specific
exclusions from the 70-day period. The Act also includes a more
flexible ends-of-justice exclusion, which permits a court to grant a
continuance and exclude that time if, after considering certain
factors, it makes an on-the-record finding that "the ends of justice
served by [granting the continuance] outweigh the best interest
of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C.
3161(h)(7)(A). Among that factors courts consider in determining
whether to grant an ends-of-justice continuance are avoiding "a
miscarriage of justice," allowing "adequate preparation in
complex cases" and ensuring "effective preparation of counsel
generally." 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(i)-(ii), (iv); see also United
States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 357-8 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[A court
is vested with broad discretion to grant [an] exclusion when in its
view, the case's complexity makes it necessary to grant counsel
further time to prepare in order to ensure a fair trial ")(Citations
omitted).

This Court in the Chichakli decision went on to note that "Approximately 1 5
terabytes of data were contained in the ... discovery tranche. Conservatively
that amounts to more than 90 million pages." Jd. A couple of years later the
Second Circuit compared the capacity of one terabyte of data to that of 12
academic library floors worth of books. See United States v Ganias 824 F 3d
199, 217; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9706, (2~C\r^20~j. ''

By the two metrics above the 8.5+ terabytes (when uncompressed)
discovery on the two hard drives supplied to the defense consists of at a
minimum, in excess of 500 million pages, or over 100 library floors worth of books.

In addition to the 8.5 terabytes of government-provided discovery I
received on the laptop and two hard drives, which can only be viewed by special
access to an office in the East Visiting Room of MDC, I also am in receipt of tens of thousands of pages of printed discovery and research, as well as tens of thousands of pages on optical (CD/DVD) disks provided by my counsel The
former can be studied anytime, and the latter pretty much any time during the
afternoon or evening on a discovery computer located on the housing unit and
which allows viewing of (only) optical disks.

F.3d at 102 (citing United States v. Hill, 462 F. App'x 125 127 (2d Cir
2012)(summary order)). See a_lso United States v. Wey, 15-cr-611 (AJNV 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6991 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) (the court recognized that
reviewing and analyzing voluminous discovery is a laborious and time-consuming
process, and as a result the trial was set to begin more than two years after Wey
was indicted.) In an observation that is stunningly apposite here "[the Barker
Court] wrote that 'the delay that can be tolerated for an ordinary street crimels
considerably less than for a complex conspiracy charge'." United States v
Uounis, 12 CR 350 (ILG); U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147476 (E.D N Y Oct 10 2013)
g u o t i n g B a r k e r , 4 0 7 U . S . a t 5 3 1 . ' ' ' '

The amount of discovery in this case is truly extraordinary, and I have not
£adLa significant amount of time to review it. At my arraignment on June 19 2018, the government indicated that it had made arrangements for a laptop
loaded with "voluminous discovery" to be made available to me at the MDC It
was another five months (mid-November, 2018) before a laptop with two external
hard drives arrived at the MDC, the equipment was cleared for my use by MDC
staff, and the required passwords for the hard drives were received As a result
when the current trial schedule was discussed in September of 2018 I had yet to
receive the massive amount of material - some 8.5 terabytes (the majority being
discovery from the Government) - of material, and as result, I was not in a
position to comment on the appropriateness of the trial date at that time.

Between the time I received the laptop and drives in November 2018 and
the beginning of March 2019, my access to the material was erratic' and
unpredictable at the MDC. This occurred for a number of reasons, including the
35-day government shutdown, which was followed by an almost ten-day period
during which the facility was locked down as a result of issues with the MDC's
fphysical plant. Those Problems seem solved now, and since the beginninq of March 2019, daily access from 0830hrs to 1500hrs seems to be consistently
possible, with the possibility to stay past 1600hrs in-room count until 1900hrs bv
special arrangement, if reguired, allowing 6.5 to 10.5 hours a day access That all
said to date I have been able to study approximately 3% of the discovery
provided.

I now have a system to prioritize and then carefully sift through selected
portions of the supplied discovery. I am aware that there is no way it is humanly
possible for even a few people to collectively view and analyze all the data
available. However, I am taking a highly active role in my own defense and I
believe it is my right to attempt to glean all the information I can from the
discovery in a reasonable amount of time, and I believe that reasonable amount
of time is reflected in the schedule I am requesting.

In the January 25 2019 conference Your Honor noted as support for a 2019 trial date the fact that my detention has already exceeded three years counting my time in custody in Thailand. I don't believe that is a fair metric to use in deciding when to set the trial date. From December 3, 2015 to June 15 2018
I was in custody in Bangkok prison in Thailand. No indictment had yet been
unsealed, nor was I arraigned until after I had arrived in New York City in the
custody of U.S. Marshalls on June 15, 2018. Any clock concerning my detention
by any arm of the American justice system, or any calculation of when is a fair
date to set the trial, must be started no earlier than my arrival on American soil It
was only after my arraignment that I had any access to discovery or legal
assistance concerning the charges I am facing. While in Thailand I had no
access to American legal services-in fact it would have been illegal for an
American lawyer to offer his or her services in Thailand, the practice of law there
is restricted to Thai nationals born in Thailand.

Only the time I have spent in detention while in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons should be considered. I believe a request for additional time is
reasonable in the light of the voluminous amount of discovery and the extensive
amount of trial preparation that lies ahead.

The Government in this case has referred to the Ulbricht case as a
touchstone for determining deadlines, as is to be expected as the vast majority of
discovery in this matter stems from the Ulbricht prosecution. During the course of
the Ulbricht trial, the defense posited that Ulbricht had created and run the Silk
Road website initially, and then sold it, only to return to operating it shortly before
it was seized by law enforcement, concurrent with his arrest. As well a larqe
amount of discovery material was from Ulbricht's laptop. Thus, Mr Ulbricht could
be assumed to be familiar with much of the discovery material Ulbricht's prior
knowledge of the discovery allowed that case to proceed to trial in just under 16
months after Mr. Ulbricht's arraignment; far less time was required for discovery
than would have been the case if he was not already familiar with a large amount
of the discovery.

[text continues on attached pdf copy]

[smokebreaks]

For all that and a bag of chips, PoM wants additional time to sort 8.5 terrabytes of discovery.

Funny he found that they can’t do basic math in the SDNY