The above evidence is on Court record at U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) at case no. 1:17 CR. 337 (RJS), at doc. nos. 254, 256.

The above evidence is on court records at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at docket no. 20-4164 (L), doc. no. 62.

The above evidence is on Court record at U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) at Case No. 1:17 CR 337 (RJS), at doc. no. 266.

Judge Richard J. Sullivan caused significant prejudice and Constitutional violation to Raheem when he (Judge Sullivan) under-handedly replaced evidence of a non-FDIC insured institution (no bank) with a FDIC insured institution (a bank) where there was/is no other supporting evidence for such replacement. The reason Judge Sullivan did so was so as to falsely satisfy the law to convict and imprison Raheem. No bank no fraud.

In the endeavor to falsely convict and imprison Raheem, Judge Sullivan also intentionally denied Raheem's request for the ICBC underwriting file while allowing the government witness to testify that the file exists and about its contents. Judge Sullivan knew that by denying Raheem access to the file, Raheem would be unable to exercise his Constitutional right to challenge the testimony of government witness or defend himself.

Raheem has requested Judge Sullivan for the ICBC underwriting file which he believes will prove his innocence twelve (12) times to-date, including during trial, see 17 CR. 337 (RJS), at doc. no. 71 and after-trial, see 17 CR. 337 (RJS), at doc. nos. 153, 161, 187, 200, 236, 240, 241, 248, 250, 254, 256. Each time Judge Sullivan has either ignored Raheem's request or simply just denied him.

In response to Raheem's latest request (dated March 6, 2021 and presented above), where Raheem also accused Judge Sullivan of fabricating evidence to convict him, the response from the Judge was just one word "Denied". Nothing else.

Why is Judge Sullivan not explaining his decision. We say he cannot. No bank no fraud. No file no trial. As a result Raheem's Constitutional rights have been violated. Raheem should be exonerated and set free......

This story is not merely about miscarriage of justice or injustice which Brennerman suffered. It is much more significant than that. It is whether these federal prosecutors (Robert Benjamin Sobelmen; Nicolas Tyler Landsman-Roos; Danielle Renee Sassoon; Emil J. Bove III and Justin McCabe Ellard) and two federal judges: Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and Judge Richard J. Sullivan COMMITTED CRIMES to wrongly convict and falsely imprison Brennerman. And if yes, then how many MORE SIMILAR CRIMES have been committed that the public does not know about?

1.) MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE CONCERNS IN THE FRAUD CASE:

(a.) MR. BRENNERMAN WAS DEPRIVED OF THE PERTINENT ECIDENCE [ICBC UNDERWRITING FILE] WHICH HE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT HIS DEFENSE AND ALSO CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST HIM.

Following referral of Mr. Brennerman for criminal prosecution by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, the prosecution commenced their investigation by making requests of ICBC's New York based counsel, Linklaters LLP through Attorney Paul S. Hessler for the pertinent ICBC documents. Mr. Hessler provided the prosecution with communications between Blacksands Pacific and ICBC on the one part and Mr. Brennerman and ICBC on the other part. However, glaringly obvious from the document production were the missing pertinent ICBC documents - there was no transaction underwriting file, no ICBC internal documents or minutes and no settlement discussion notes, meeting minutes or emails.

The prosecutors then proceeded to obtain search warrant, upon Judge Kaplan insisting on them enforcing his arrest warrant, to obtain Mr. Brennerman's electronic devices so they may prove that those communications provided by Attorney Hesseler were from Mr. Brennerman.

Prior to trial, Mr. Brennerman notified the prosecution of the missing ICBC document which he required for his defense. The prosecution refused to obtain or review those missing ICBC files and the Courts - Judges Kaplan and Sullivan denied Mr. Brennerman's request to compel for the missing ICBC files.

During trial of the fraud case, the prosecution's sole witness from ICBC, Mr. Julian Madgett testified in open Court before the Court, prosecution and jury that the missing ICBC files including the underwriting file were provided by ICBC to their counsel, Linklaters LLP and that their counsel had communicated with the U.S. Attorney office. He also testified that the missing ICBC underwriting file, documents the basis for the bank, ICBC, approving the bridge finance thus would highlight which representation or alleged misrepresentation were MATERIAL to the bank in approving the bridge finance. See Trial Tr. No. 17 CR. 337 (RJS), ECF No. 94 at 201-204 (Trial tr. 551-554)

During trial following Mr. Madgett's testimony, Mr. Brennerman again requested that Judge Sullivan compel the prosecution to obtain the missing ICBC files and present it to him for his complete defense or in the alternative for ICBC to provide the missing ICBC file to him for his complete defense. See 17 CR. 337 (RJS), ECF No. 71, however, Judge Sullivan denied Mr. Brennerman's request while permitting Mr. Madgett to testify as to the contents of the missing ICBC underwriting file knowing that Mr. Brennerman was already deprived of the evidence (ICBC underwriting file) and would be unable to meaningfully cross-examine Mr. Madgett as to substance and credibility on the issue. Mr. Madgett made misleading statement to the jury, however, Mr. Brennerman was deprived of the ability to rebut his statement. That violated Mr. Brennerman's right to a fair trial by depriving him of his right to present his complete defense and to confront witnesses against him. See Trial Tr. No. 17 CR. 337 (RJS), ECF No. 96 (trial tr. 617-623)

During Mr. Brennerman's direct appeal, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals incorrectly stated that""[t]he only indication that the document (ICBC file) is extant comes from Brennerman's bare assertion" in contrast with the trial records.

(b.) MR. BRENNERMAN WAS CONVICTED BASED UPON A THEORY WHICH BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE THEORY PROPOUNDED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT AND THE COURT (JUDGE RICHARD J. SULLIVAN) MADE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY FLAWED RULING TO WRONGLY CONVICT AND IMPRISON HIM.

Mr. Brennerman was charged with "obtaining financing through fraud for purported business venture" however during trial when the evidence and testimony did not support that theory, the prosecution pivoted to argue that Mr. Brennerman became entitled to banking perks including sky miles (frequent flier miles), free checking account and lower interest rate worth $6,500, which was never charged in the charging document.

However to convict Mr. Brennerman for bank fraud, the institution were he received the alleged banking perks had to be federally insured (FDIC insured). Judge Sullivan then supplanted a non-FDIC insured (not federally insured) institution, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (MSSB) where Mr. Brennerman opened his wealth management account based on all evidence adduced at trial with a FDIC insured (federally insured) institution, Morgan Stanley Private Bank (MSPB) even though there was no evidence presented tp support such ruling. The factually and legally flawed ruling by Judge Sullivan falsely satisfied the law and statute, which requires that the institution be FDIC insured (federally insured) to wrongly convict and imprison Mr. Brennerman. (See Sentencing Tr. No. 17 CR. 337 (RJS), ECF No. 206 at 19). This deprived Mr. Brennerman of his human and Constitutional rights to a fair trial and liberty.

Judge Sullivan has been advised numerous times of his factually and legally flawed ruling to wrongly convict and imprison Mr. Brennerman, however, he has chosen to ignore them.

2.) MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE CONCERNS IN THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE

(a.) DENIAL OF MR. BRENNERMAN'S EFFORT TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY - THE MISSING ICBC (LONDON) PLC ("ICBC") FILES INCLUDING THE [UNDERWRITING FILE] AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION [MEETING MINUTES], [NOTES], AND [E-MAILS]

Prior to trial, the prosecution made request to ICBC's New York based counsel, Linklaters LLP through Attorney Paul S. Hessler, to obtain in-excess of 5,000 pages of discovery, however, missing from the discovery production were the pertinent ICBC files including the transaction [underwriting file] and settlement discussion [meeting minutes], [notes], [e-mails] which Mr. Brennerman required to present his complete defense and confront witnesses against him at trial.

To prepare for trial, Mr. Brennerman made requests to the prosecution for the missing ICBC files, however they refused to obtain or review those files from ICBC. ICBC also refused Mr. Brennerman's direct request for the files and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Mr. Brennerman's request for subpoena to compel for the missing ICBC files. Thus at trial, Mr. Brennerman was deprived of the very evidence, missing ICBC files, which he required to present his complete defense and confront witnesses against him, thereby depriving him of his right to a fair trial.

Mr. Brennerman posits that the missing evidence, ICBC files, would have cast significant reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors, particularly given that the second court order in September 2016, specifically stipulated for the "parties to either settle or produce for discovery" and agents of ICBC, recipient of the discovery, repeatedly and continually advised Mr. Brennerman and Blacksands Pacific that they did not want more discovery but rather preferred to negotiate settlement.

Agents of ICBC and Blacksands Pacific negotiated settlement resulting in the draft settlement agreement at 17 CR. 155 (LAK), ECF No. 12 Ex. 10. The missing ICBC files would have shown that neither Blacksands Pacific nor Mr. Brennerman willfully or defiantly disobeyed the Court order(s) directed at the company, Blacksands Pacific.

(b.) MR. BRENNERMAN WAS SIGNIFICANTLY PREJUDICED THROUGH THE PRESENTMENT OF THE ERRONEOUSLY ADJUDGED CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER TO THE JURY DURING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT TRIAL

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan erroneously adjudged the civil contempt order against Mr. Brennerman by ignoring the finding in "OSRecovery, Inc., v. One Groupe Int'l, Inc., 462 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006)" and the rules and law for compelling non-parties to produce for discovery. So after Judge Kaplan improperly held Mr. Brennerman in civil contempt in the antecedent civil case at 15 CV. 70 (LAK), ECF Nos. 139-140, he referred him for criminal prosecution.

During trial for the criminal contempt of court case, having prevented the jury from considering the missing ICBC files, Judge Kaplan then permitted the prosecution to present the erroneously adjudged civil contempt order to the jury. See Trial Tr. 17 CR. 155 (LAK), Trial Tr. 3-7

In OSRecovery, the Second Circuit Court promulgated: "Moreover, we think it is fundamentally unfair to hold a [non-party] in contempt as if he were a party without sufficient legal support for treating him, a non-party, as a party but only for the purpose of discovery. " OSRecovery, Inc., 462 F.3d at 90. In OSRecovery, the Second Circuit Court had found that the district court abused its discretion by holding a person "in contempt as a party without sufficient explanation or citation to legal authority supporting the basis upon which the court relief in treating [him] as a party --- for discovery purposes only --- despite the fact the [he] was not actually a party." Id at 93.

Here Judge Kaplan (the same judge whose contempt order the Second Circuit Court found inappropriate in OSRecovery) held Mr. Brennerman in civil contempt as a non-party and failed to provide any legal authority or present any particular theory for treating him as a party solely for the purpose of discovery. See ICBC (London) PLC v. The Blacksands Pacific Group, Inc., 15-CV-70 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. 2016) at ECF Nos. 139-140. No court order, subpoena or motion to compel were ever directed at Mr. Brennerman personally nor was he present during the civil case's various proceedings.

The presentment of the erroneously adjudged civil contempt order swayed the jury to find Mr. Brennerman guilty of criminal contempt of court according to an interview given by one of the jurors (named Gordon) to the media. (See Law 360 article at 17 CR. 337 (RJS), ECF No. 236 Ex. 3 at 17). The question of whether the civil contempt order was improperly adjudged against Mr. Brennerman goes beyond a simple analysis of Rule 403 and 404(b) of the Federal Rule of Evidence. Mr. Brennerman was a non-party in the civil case lawsuit at the time of the civil order. Because the order was erroneously adjudged against him, its erroneous admission had more serious legal implications above and beyond an abuse of discretion analysis.

The erroneous admission of the civil contempt order was more than an evidentiary error, it violated the Court's instructions concerning contempt orders against non-parties. This violated Mr. Brennerman's right to an equal protection of the law.