In 2016 Raheem Jefferson Brennerman ("Brennerman") was establishing and personally funding his non-profit, Raheem J. Brennerman Foundation which was created to sponsor non-privileged people to achieve Education; advocate for the Wrongfully convicted; and join the financing for Advanced medical research for cancer and diabetes.
This story commenced in 2013, when ICBC (London) plc ("ICBC London") and The Blacksands Pacific Group, Inc., ("Blacksands"), negotiated US$1.35 Billion finance facility intended for the acquisition of oil and gas assets. Specifically US$600 million was to be used to acquire the Cat Canyon oilfield in California while the remaining, US$750 million was to be used to acquire 30% of a ConocoPhillips Nigeria asset jointly with another Nigeria based oil and gas corporation. After nine months of negotiations and having incurred and disbursed approximately US$11.25 million to satisfy the finance conditions stipulated by ICBC London, the finance failed to materialize and Blacksands decided to proceed with another financial institution. A Hong Kong based financial institution procured both the senior debt finance jointly with a secured second lien high-yield finance and Blacksands was ready to terminate its relationship with ICBC London.
The then Deputy CEO of ICBC London, Mr. Bo Jiang and one of its employee, Mr. Julian Madgett invited Mr. Brennerman to their office in London, U.K. and persuaded Blacksands to retain ICBC London on the transaction. ICBC London offered Blacksands a US$20 million bridge finance which would roll into a US$70 million revolver credit facility to rank alongside the overall finance procured by the Hong Kong based financial institution (hence the bridge finance transaction which became the subject of the prosecution was not intended to be immediately repaid by Blacksands). The US$20 million bridge finance was intended for Blacksands to finance costs it had incurred in satisfying the finance conditions stipulated by ICBC London mainly because ICBC London had reneged on providing the larger finance. Of the US$20 million bridge finance. Blacksands drew-down US$5 million to replace part of the funds which it had already disbursed. ICBC London deducted US$600,000 from the US$5 million to pay its fees and legal costs and Blacksands received the net amount of US$4.4 million.
By 2014, when ICBC London was required to roll the bridge finance into the revolver credit facility, ICBC London once again reneged on the arrangement and Blacksands, while continuing to pay the interest on the bridge finance, decided to withhold repayment of the principal amount of US$5 million until it had completed all its financing. ICBC London then sued Blacksands in New York Supreme Court and counsel for Blacksands removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption, ICBC (London) PLC v. The Blacksands Pacific Group, Inc., and the case (No. 15-cv-0070-LAK) was assigned to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ("Judge Kaplan")
In September 2015, Judge Kaplan, based on the plain text of the guarantee signed by Blacksands and without consideration of the larger arrangement, awarded judgment to ICBC London. ICBC London then filed request for discovery to locate the company's assets in order to recover the judgment amount. Shortly thereafter, ICBC London engaged in settlement discussion with Blacksands which ultimately resulted in a draft settlement agreement and arrangement for US$6.5 million to be placed in escrow account to satisfy the settlement arrangement. However, that did not happen because Judge Kaplan stated that he was not interested in any settlement discussion or arrangement because Brennerman had to be prosecuted criminally. During the settlement negotiations, representatives of ICBC London continually represented to Blacksands that they were more interested in settlement than any discovery ordered on their behalf by the court orders which were directed at the company, however Judge Kaplan was solely focused on prosecuting Brennerman, who was not a named party in the civil case but the majority shareholder and Chairman and CEO of the company at the time.
Thereafter, Judge Kaplan of the Manhattan Federal Court ignored the Federal rule and law when he Googled Brennerman and ignored a promulgated law directed to Judge Kaplan. In 2006, the Manhattan Federal Appeals Court vacated a civil contempt order which Judge Kaplan imposed stating (in "OSRecovery, Inc., v. One Groupe Int'l, Inc., 462 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) in relevant parts ("[T]he District Court abused its discretion by issuing a contempt order to a non-party for failing to respond to discovery request propounded to him as a party without providing sufficient legal authority or explanation for treating him as a party solely for the purpose of discovery"). Ten years later in this case, Judge Kaplan ignored that promulgation concluding that he would not afford the protection of the law to Brennerman, then illegally pierced the corporate veil of Blacksands and held Brennerman, who was not involved in the case (a non-party), in civil contempt without providing any sufficient legal authority or explanation for treating Brennerman as a party (to a civil case between ICBC London and Blacksands) solely for the purpose of discovery while at the same time not providing Brennerman any legal standing in the civil case to challenge the issuance of the discovery orders.
Judge Kaplan was not satisfied with just holding Brennerman in civil contempt; he (Judge Kaplan) went a step further and persuaded Manhattan Federal prosecutors (Assistant United States Attorneys Nicholas Tyler Landsman-Roos and Robert Benjamin Sobelman) to prosecute Brennerman criminally. The Manhattan Federal prosecutors themselves concluded that Brennerman should not be afforded the protection of the law (the prosecutors could have highlighted to Judge Kaplan that the law from 2006 already prohibited the Judge from holding a non-party in contempt) and instead they initiated a Petition against Brennerman to hold him in criminal contempt of court.
Following the initiation of the Petition for criminal contempt against Brennerman who was the Chairman and CEO of Blacksands, Judge Kaplan never directed any order or subpoena to Brennerman personally. The Court (Judge Kaplan) never asked him to do anything yet the Court (Judge Kaplan) on March 7, 2017 persuaded the prosecutors to devote Government resources to arrest Brennerman even as the prosecutors pleaded with Judge Kaplan not to do so.
On April 19, 2017, Brennerman was arrested and the Government seized his computers and documents. On May 4, 2017 after hearing arguments from the prosecutors, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon of the Manhattan Federal Court granted bail highlighting two facts: First, Brennerman did not attempt to abscond even though he had been aware of the prosecutions Petition to initiate criminal contempt charges against him. Second, Brennerman actually contacted the prosecution and provided them with his cell phone number so they may be able to contact him. However, within three weeks of being granted bail, the prosecution hurriedly and without any investigation (the FBI who would normally investigate such financial crimes were never involved with this case, the case was purportedly investigated by Criminal Investigator Justin Ellard, who had recently joined the Manhattan prosecutor's office four months earlier without any prior financial crimes investigative background) indicted Brennerman for fraud based on the bridge loan transaction between ICBC London and Blacksands.
Brennerman's situation became worse when the case was assigned to Judge Richard J. Sullivan ("Judge Sullivan"). From the outset Judge Sullivan's position was that because of Brennerman's ties to Nigeria (Brennerman's step-father is an American businessman of Nigerian descent and who introduced Brennerman to oil and gas trading on the African continent. Brennerman also previously adopted his step-father's name between 1994 and 2002, legally reverting back to his birth name Raheem Jefferson Brennerman in 2002) he had to be imprisoned and detained arguing that "his ties to Nigeria, a country from which extradition is difficult if not impossible" among other statements.
Courts should only adjudicate based on facts however that did not occur here. The prosecution seized Brennerman's passports when he was arrested. Brennerman had a Nigerian business visa in his passport at the time of his arrest which was issued in 2016 a few weeks prior to his travel to Nigeria following invitation by the Government of Nigeria to discuss oil and gas business transactions. A reasonable person can conclude that a Nigerian business visa within a U. S. or U. K. passport will be indicative that the passport holder was not a citizen of Nigeria and thus would not be able to abscond to that country [Nigeria] however the intent here was to promote Nigerian xenophobic prejudice. So even though Brennerman was on bail at the time of his arraignment, with no complaints about his compliance with the bail conditions, he was detained and imprisoned prior to trial by Judge Sullivan.
Even though Brennerman was criminally charged and imprisoned for the transaction between ICBC London, a British subsidiary of the Chinese Bank - Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and Blacksands which was negotiated exclusively in London, United Kingdom, the prosecutors argued that they could prosecute the case. Prior to trial, Brennerman requested from the prosecution the complete ICBC files including the underwriting file and the records of discussions and negotiations regarding settlement between ICBC London and Blacksands. The prosecution advised Brennerman that they were not obligated to collect the complete ICBC files beyond what was selectively provided to them since the remaining files were located in London, United Kingdom. The prosecution was for a transaction which occurred exclusively in London, United Kingdom with a non U.S. Institution. In-fact, there was no U.S. Interest since ICBC London is a British subsidiary of a Chinese bank headquartered in Beijing, China. Moreover, the United States Constitution and law mandates that any criminal defendant be able to compel for evidence and witness in their favor so that they [the defendant] may confront their accuser and be able to present a complete defense. Such rights afforded to criminal defendants are enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This prosecution demonstrates that those Constitutional Rights and Law were not extended to Brennerman. Prior to trial the prosecution denied Brennerman's request for the evidence (the complete ICBC files); requests made directly to ICBC London were denied; and Brennerman's request to compel for the evidence (the complete ICBC files) made directly to the Court (Judge Kaplan) was denied with Judge Kaplan stating that "ICBC London, a foreign bank 3,500 miles away from the Courthouse could not be subpoenaed for the evidence (complete ICBC files)" even though the prosecution was for a transaction which was negotiated 3,500 miles from the courthouse exclusively in London, United Kingdom.
During trial for the criminal contempt of court case, because Brennerman had been denied access to the evidence (complete ICBC files) which he required to present his defense to the jury in highlighting to them that even though the court orders at issue were never directed at him personally. He [Brennerman] on behalf of Blacksands engaged in discussions and negotiations with representatives of ICBC London to negotiate settlement (as specifically stated in the second court order at issue) and that representatives of ICBC London continually advised him [Brennerman] that they were more interested in negotiating settlement than receiving any discovery materials as stipulated by the court orders. However Brennerman was deprived of the evidence which he required to do so. The situation was made even worse when Judge Kaplan permitted the prosecution to present the civil contempt order which was erroneously adjudged (when Judge Kaplan ignored the law) against Brennerman, a non-party, to the jury. The jury concluded that Brennerman had to be guilty of criminal contempt since the Judge (Judge Kaplan) presiding over the trial had previously held him in contempt without understanding the circumstance for such civil contempt order adjudication. The jury found Brennerman guilty of criminal contempt. After trial, a juror named Gordon told the reporter from Law 360 that "the civil contempt order adjudged against Brennerman which was presented by the prosecution swayed their decision to find Brennerman guilty of criminal contempt." This was really unfortunate because a non-party who was not involved with the underlying civil case (when the court orders were issued to the company) and who had no legal standing to argue against the issuance of the court orders at issue was now found guilty and imprisoned even when the law (which was previously directed to the same Judge - Judge Kaplan) clearly stated that he (Judge Kaplan) could not hold a non-party in civil contempt. The laws and Constitution of the United States of American are intended to protect all people irrespective of their race.
Two months later Brennerman was heading to another trial, this time before Judge Sullivan to answer the fraud indictment. Again, Brennerman sought to obtain the complete ICBC files including the underwriting files to demonstrate that there was no fraud. He was denied. Brennerman sought to exclude the testimony of any witness from ICBC London arguing that it would be patently unfair for the prosecution to be able to elicit testimony from any witness from ICBC London while Brennerman would be deprived of the ability to engage in any meaningful cross-examination of a witness as to substance and credibility on the issues, a right which is conferred to all criminal defendants through the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, Brennerman argued that he would be unable to present a complete defense without the complete ICBC files, another right conferred to criminal defendants by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Judge Sullivan denied his motion request and the trial proceeded.
During trial, Government sole witness from ICBC London, Julian Madgett, testified to the existence of the underwriting file and testified that he was one of the authors of the file and that the file contained reasons why the bank, ICBC London, approved the bridge loan and the basis for such approval. Because Julian Madgett was being permitted to testify as to the contents of the ICBC underwriting file, Brennerman argued that he should be allowed access to the file so that he could challenge the testimony and present that there was no fraud. However during trial, when Brennerman filed motion with the Court (Judge Sullivan) to request for the ICBC files following testimony by Julian Madgett confirming its existence, Judge Sullivan stated in relevant part: "In any event, the witness has indicated he doesn't possess the documents (ICBC files), so the documents are not with him. He doesn't have them. According to his testimony, they're in London with the bank's files that he turned over once the deal went south. He certainly said he didn't review them in preparation for his testimony. He doesn't possess them now."
Judge Sullivan denied Brennerman's request for the ICBC file while permitting the witness, Julian Madgett to continue to testify to the contents of the file. This was a fundamental violation of any criminal defendant's Constitutional rights. First, the Court (Judge Sullivan) had an obligation to protect Brennerman's Constitutional rights at trial, the Court (Judge Sullivan) did not. Second, the Court (Judge Sullivan) himself confirmed that the witness had not reviewed the evidence (ICBC underwriting file) in preparation for his testimony, yet in 2017 the Court (Judge Sullivan) permitted Julian Madgett to testify as to the contents of the ICBC files (including the underwriting file) based on his memory from four years earlier in 2013 when the file was prepared. Julian Madgett embellished the facts beyond belief. In a normal trial, Brennerman would have been able to challenge such embellishment however in this case Brennerman had been denied access to the evidence (ICBC files) which he required to do so. Third, the Court permitted Julian Madgett to testify knowing that Brennerman would be unable to exercise his Sixth Amendment rights to challenge Julian Madgett's testimony and be unable to engage in any meaningful cross-examination of the witness as to substance and credibility on the issues. Prior to trial, Brennerman had already informed the Court (Judge Sullivan) that he would be substantially prejudiced if Julian Madgett was permitted to testify while he would be unable to challenge such testimony because Julian Madgett could just say anything, and he did, hence the entire trial rested on Julian Madgett's sole unchallenged testimony. Fourth, the Court (Judge Sullivan) was fully aware of the importance of the ICBC files (including the underwriting file) to Brennerman's defense theory, since the witness testified and informed the Court that the ICBC file including the underwriting file contained the basis for approving the bridge loan finance. Brennerman's argument was that there was no misrepresentation which ICBC London PLC relied upon in granting the bridge loan since the bank agreed to the bridge finance based on the company, The Blacksands Pacific Group, Inc., negotiation for financing with another financial institution and the bridge loan was a temporary arrangement pending the conclusion of the other main financing. In fact ICBC presented and accepted the financing with a higher interest rate reflecting their agreed arrangement.
Indeed, there really was no basis for the trial since Brennerman was deprived of the evidence which he required to present a complete defense. Furthermore, it is inexplicable how the prosecution could arrange and fly the witness, Julian Madgett, from London, United Kingdom to testify at trial in Manhattan, New York, yet be unable to obtain the pertinent evidence (the complete ICBC files including the underwriting files) from ICBC London in United Kingdom. In today's world the files could be emailed, couriered or faxed to the prosecution within minutes. Additionally, Julian Madgett could have been asked to bring the files with him when he flew from London, U.K. to testify in Manhattan, New York, U.S. Yet for three years (since 2017) both the Court (Judge Sullivan) and the prosecution have made various excuses and arguments why Brennerman has not been provided the complete ICBC files.
Recently (in October 2019) the Manhattan Federal Appeals Court highlighted the law which stated that the lower Courts were not categorically barred from allowing discovery of evidence located abroad. Yet that was precisely what happened to Brennerman when he tried to obtain the complete ICBC files. His requests were categorically denied. The Manhattan Federal Appeals Court also recently (in 2019) highlighted the law in another criminal case where it directed the lower Court to vacate a conviction and sentence in "Scrimo v. Lee, 935 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2019)" quoting a United States Supreme Court law in "Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986)" stating "It is clearly established federal law that a criminal defendant has a Constitutional right to present a complete defense." In that case, the Manhattan Federal Appeals Court declared that the Constitutional rights of the defendant had been prejudiced when at trial he requested for evidence to present a complete defense and was denied, similar to Brennerman's situation where at trial, he [Brennerman] requested for evidence (ICBC files) to present a complete defense following the testimony of Government sole witness who confirmed the existence of those evidence. In Brennerman's case, the Court failed to apply the same law and Constitutional rights to Brennerman, notwithstanding the Constitutional rights conferred by the United States Constitution intended to be applied to all persons irrespective of race, gender or heritage. That has not happened in this case.
At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, it became apparent that the prosecution could not sustain the Bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy charged against Brennerman for conduct related to ICBC London since the bank is a foreign bank and not federally insured in the United States. The federal bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy statute requires that the financial institution be federally insured for the prosecution to charge any defendant for their interaction with the financial institution. So when the prosecution realized that ICBC London was not federally insured, they pivoted to Brennerman's interaction with Morgan Stanley.
From the outset, the prosecution's errors were apparent. They initially argued that Brennerman was guilty of bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy based on wealth management perks (such as fancy credit card, lower interest rate and sky miles etc) which he received through his wealth management account at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC where Scott Stout worked. However the argument was flawed from the beginning because Brennerman opened the wealth management account with an initial deposit of his own money and the credit card was issued based on this deposit. Brennerman never used the credit card which was closed with a zero balance; likewise Brennerman never utilized any of the perks and closed the wealth management account with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC based in Beverly Hills, California in 2013 after being opened just one month. Brennerman closed the account because he expected a level of service from the wealth management relationship however when that level could not be provided he decided to close the account. The critical issue with the conviction is that Brennerman was charged criminally for "obtaining or attempting to obtain financing through fraud for purported business ventures" not with obtaining wealth management perks.
Moreover, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC where Brennerman opened his wealth management account is not federally insured. The Court and prosecution then pivoted to telephone conversation Brennerman had with Kevin Bonebrake in 2013 where they discussed financing for oil assets. However that argument is equally nonsensical because at trial Kevin Bonebrake confirmed that the conversation was "very preliminary discussion" and that "he was still confused as to what the company wanted". "That Morgan Stanley itself would not be providing any financing as it would normally raise financing from third party investors." Finally that he [Kevin Bonebrake] "worked for the institutional securities division subsidiary of Morgan Stanley" which is not federally insured. Notwithstanding all this, the Court (Judge Sullivan) allowed Brennerman to be convicted. Brennerman never requested for nor did he receive any financing from Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC. His discussion with Kevin Bonebrake at the Institutional Securities division subsidiary of Morgan Stanley was a single phone call to decide whether Blacksands would engage the subsidiary of Morgan Stanley to act as mandated lead arranger in assisting the company to raise financing from investors, as confirmed by Kevin Bonebrake, that conversation did not develop beyond the initial call.
After trial, Brennerman requested for the ICBC files from the Court (Judge Sullivan) approximately eight times to prepare his post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal or a new trial and to present clear and convincing evidence for bail pending appeal however each time Brennerman's request was denied with the Court (Judge Sullivan) at one point stating that Brennerman was no longer entitled to the ICBC files after trial even though the law still affords Brennerman access to the ICBC files to present clear and convincing evidence for bail pending appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. 3143(b); to present mitigating evidence pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding, the Court (Judge Sullivan) denied Brennerman's request each time it was presented. Similarly, after trial Brennerman submitted evidence (Government trial exhibit) relating to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC to the Court to demonstrate that the institution was not federally insured, however the Court (Judge Sullivan) simply ignored Brennerman's submission and motion.
This prosecution was commenced with the prosecutors announcing globally that they had uncovered a "$300 Million International Fraud" however the trial ended up focusing on the perks which Brennerman received through his wealth management account at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC and the $5 million drawn from a $20 million bridge loan finance provided by ICBC London to partly finance US$11.25 million cost which Blacksands had incurred and disbursed in satisfying the conditions for the larger promised financing from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. The prosecution could not have uncovered any fraud because as they admitted they had never requested or obtained the pertinent underwriting files from ICBC London to confirm if any fraud occurred. The New York Bar Professional Code of Conduct which governs the prosecutors states that prosecutors should endeavor to obtain exculpatory evidence which demonstrates innocence of a criminal defendant even after conviction however in this case Brennerman has continually requested for the exculpatory evidence (complete ICBC files including the underwriting files) however the prosecutors have continually ignored him.
Rather than obtain the evidence or comply with the law and constitution, the prosecution relied on media organization such as Law 360 and The Sunday Times of London to aid their systemic oppression and racial injustice in causing maximum reputational damage to Brennerman by disseminating falsehoods. The prosecution engaged in a campaign to cause reputational damage to Brennerman, they even contacted Blacksands' then business associates including BP Oil International and Exotix Partners to suggest they disengage from the company and Brennerman. While there was no meaningful investigation undertaken by the prosecution they disseminated globally seeking to entice anyone or any organization to complain about Brennerman however even with such efforts there was no fraud reported.
Brennerman was primarily raised by his mother creating a strong relationship between them and at twenty-four became responsible for his two younger sisters, sponsoring their education at elite colleges (universities). In early 2017, his mother became sick and Brennerman was a match kidney donor for her. He was preparing to donate his organs to her at the time of his arrest. Throughout the prosecution, Brennerman pleaded with Judge Sullivan to allow him access to the evidence (ICBC files) so that he may clear his name and return to care for his mother however Judge Sullivan ignored him. His mother passed away on May 18, 2019 while waiting for Brennerman to clear his name and return to care for her. Such is the perils of a black man in the United States under the systemic oppression of black people based on the prejudicial desires of the oppressors. This situation demonstrates that even the most educated, hard working minorities are still affected by systemic oppression and racial injustice.
We must all stand up against systemic oppression and racial injustice wherever and whenever it confronts us. As Thomas Paine warned: "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty" because "it leads a nation to stretch, to misinterpret and to misapply even the best of laws". To counter that tendency, he reminds us: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself".
This prosecution was commenced with Brennerman being erroneously charged with criminal contempt of court then within three weeks of being granted bail the prosecution pivoted to fraud without ever obtaining or reviewing the pertinent ICBC files where any fraud investigation should have commenced, then in order to satisfy the bank fraud and bank fraud statute, the prosecution again pivoted to an account which Brennerman opened at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (an institution which is not FDIC insured) for a month and to the single phone call which Brennerman made to Kevin Bonebrake to discuss engaging him to assist Blacksands with raising financing, even though Kevin Bonebrake worked for the institutional securities division subsidiary of Morgan Stanley which is not federally insured.
This situation has only reinforced Brennerman's motivation to proceed and continue with his non-profit endeavor with Raheem J. Brennerman Foundation, to educate the less privileged and advocate on behalf of the wrongfully convicted. Education is key to success.
Brennerman was prosecuted by:
Assistant United States Attorneys Nicolas Tyler Landsman-Roos; Robert Benjamin Sobelman; Danielle Reene Sassoon; Emil Bovil III; Matthew Podolsky; and Criminal Investigator Justin Ellard.
The criminal cases were presided over by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (for the criminal contempt of court) and Judge Richard J. Sullivan (for the fraud case) both of the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals respectively.
The content of this story was published based on:
Discussion with the defendant, Raheem Jefferson Brennerman
The Court records at United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at docket nos. 1:17-CR-155-LAK and 1:17-CR-337-RJS
The Court records at United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit at docket nos. 18-1033; 18-1618; 18-3546; 19-497
The Court records at United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at docket no. 15-cv-0070-LAK
THE CAMPAIGN
WWW.freeraheem.org
[email protected]