The lawyers representing the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a new court document late on Aug. 29 arguing that Sam Bankman-Fried should provide additional disclosures to his planned defense.
The document called the current proposed argument, which claims his lawyers approved of fraud allegations while he was still at FTX, “irrelevant.” The filing requests that the court order the defendant to procure “additional notice” and “pretrial discovery.”
“If the defendant does not provide additional disclosures, the court should preclude irrelevant, confusing, and prejudicial questioning, evidence, and arguments about the involvement of attorneys.”
Previously, the lawyers representing SBF argued that the legal team leading FTX led him to act “in good faith” and that “reliance on counsel is relevant to the question of intent.”
The former legal team behind FTX was hit with a lawsuit on Aug. 7 alleging that it had set up “shadowy entities” which set the executives up to implement “creative but illegal strategies” to perpetuate fraud.
Attorney Damian Williams, who penned the recent letter to the court argued that Bankman-Fried needs to specify the legal advice he was given or else rethink his defense.
The DOJ said the defendant has not provided an “exhaustive” list of the topics there is claimed to be attorney involvement. Additionally, SBF has yet to identify “the contours of the attorney involvement” nor the bases and details of the defense. He also noted the lack of documents in support of, impeaching or undermining his defense.
The morning after the filing, on Aug. 30, SBF’s lawyer Mark Cohen responded to the DOJ’s filing countering that “sufficient” disclosures had already been made regarding the defense and commented on his client’s conditions in jail violating the U.S. Constitution.
“At the present time, the defense is unable to adequately prepare for trial and prepare the defense, which is a violation of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s Sixth Amendment rights.”
He also called the available internet connection “woefully inadequate.” On Aug. 23 the court ruled that SBF could meet with his lawyers outside of jail with a notice of 48 hours.
Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield has resigned from the Labour Party.
The 53-year-old MP is the first to jump ship since the general election and in her resignation letter criticised the prime minister for accepting thousands of pounds worth of gifts.
She told Sir Keir Starmer the reason for leaving now is “the programme of policies you seem determined to stick to”, despite their unpopularity with the electorate and MPs.
In her letter she accused the prime minister and his top team of “sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice” which are “off the scale”.
“I’m so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party,” she said.
Since December 2019, the prime minister received £107,145 in gifts, benefits, and hospitality – a specific category in parliament’s register of MPs’ interests.
More from Politics
Ms Duffield, who has previously clashed with the prime minister on gender issues, attacked the government for pursuing “cruel and unnecessary” policies as she resigned the Labour whip.
She criticised the decision to keep the two-child benefit cap and means-test the winter fuel payment, and accused the prime minister of “hypocrisy” over his acceptance of free gifts from donors.
“Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous,” she said.
“I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.”
Ms Duffield also mentioned the recent “treatment of Diane Abbott”, who said she thought she had been barred from standing by Labour ahead of the general election, before Sir Keir said she would be allowed to defend her Hackney North and Stoke Newington seat for the party.
Her relationship with the Labour leadership has long been strained and her decision to quit the party comes after seven other Labour MPs were suspended for rebelling by voting for a motion calling for the two-child benefit cap to be abolished.
“Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives’ two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp – this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour prime minister,” she said.
Ms Duffield said she will continue to represent her constituents as an independent MP, “guided by my core Labour values”.