"He’s on probation for a felony involving drugs. We have a dead young person as a result of actions related to this case. It’s very clear that Mr. Remington is a poor member of the community."

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Volume II of II BEFORE THE HONORABLE TRAVIS REEDS

Wednesday, October 16, 2019 – at 2:29 p.m. Novi, Michigan

MS. HAND:  Good afternoon, your Honor, Beth Hand appearing on behalf of the People.

MR. ROCKIND:  Neil Rockind for Nicholas Remington, your Honor.

THE COURT:  All right, so we’re here today for the bind over decision. Is there any more argument that either of you would like to make?

MR. ROCKIND:   There – there is one issue that we need to address, I think, before the Court – the Court will take up.  We – the Court ordered the disclosure of I think 30-days’ worth of cell phone extraction of Denis Preka’s personal cell phone.

THE COURT:  With the protective order, yes.

MR. ROCKIND:  With the protective order.  We had– we had, generally speaking, agreed that a protective order would be appropriate, and we did exchange versions. Ms. Hand and I did exchange versions of the protective order.  We have not been able to agree on some – some of

the language.  I have a proposed order; she has a proposed stipulation and protective order. The – I don’t want to speak for her. The – I – I – she drafted one. I thought it was – it was limiting. I objected to that. She said to make some proposed changes. I then did, I sent one over myself that I thought was appropriate. I think the sticking point really is, from my view, there is a – a portion of my proposed order which I am happy to tender to the Court that Ms. Hand objects to because she believes it allows me to provide my client with a copy, either printed or otherwise, of the – the contents. I had a concern about being able to limit my client from being able to – to have the phone or to have – have the contents, since it’s discovery related to his case. And the second issue – and we got that – one of the provisions in my – in my proposed order actually says that the information will be – that our use of the information will be limited to what the People believe will be the reasonable use in the defense of the case and I think Ms. Hand had an objection, with that thinking that that allowed me somehow to --

MS. HAND: Judge --

THE COURT: May I – may I have a copy of each of your orders before you give your argument, Ms. HAND?   MS. HAND: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: So that I can follow along?

MS. HAND:  Sure.

MR. ROCKIND:  I have a – I have a copy of mine that has an actual caption on it.

THE COURT:  Okay, thank you.

MR. ROCKIND:  And both Mr. Lewis and I signed it–both Mr. Lewis and I signed ours.

MS. HAND:  There’s some crossing off, Judge, because I - I was willing to concede a couple of my paragraphs, but I --

THE COURT:  Okay.

MS. HAND: Did you want – you wanted me first, did you say?

THE COURT:  No, go ahead and I’m going to take a moment to look them over carefully after you’re done. Go ahead.

MS. HAND:  Okay.  All right, Judge, there were just a couple things with defense counsel’s proposed order.  One was it didn’t include the dates, which I included the dates, so 30 days prior to the date of the offense through the most recent communication inside the phone.  Again, I don’t have a problem – I actually brought it with me to tender to defense counsel.

THE COURT:  Okay.

MS. HAND:  I do have a problem with him being able to provide a physical copy either digital or – or a hard copy to his client for his client’s own possession. Judge, the defendant is not an officer of the Court. He is facing a life offense, so any penalty that the Court could impose should the defendant decide not to obey a court order, which we know from his past history that he does have inclination not to obey court orders. I don’t think there’s any reason he needs a physical copy. Counsel is free to, you know, share it with him either hard copy or digitally while he’s present with him. But to actually hand him the material, I don’t believe that there’s a sanction appropriate for the defendant should he violate the Court’s order. I don’t – I’ve never had a situation where a protective order allowed the materials to actually go into the hands of the defendant as opposed to the defense team. My – my proposed order limited it to Mr. Rockind and Mr. Lewis to have possession of it and to review it. Of course, use it for the defense. I have no objection to -defense counsel indicates he would want his staff and maybe a defense investigator also to be able to look at that. I think that’s reasonable. The other part that I believe actually is on page one of defense counsel’s order, he indicates that the parties understand the protected information as contained in the discovery should be protected from use and disclosure beyond what is reasonably necessary for the effective defense of this matter. To me, that’s putting, you know, the fox in charge of the hen house. The – the Court is the one which deems what is necessary. Defense counsel doesn’t get to deem what disclosure is necessary. The whole purpose of the protective order is that there is no disclosure beyond that of Mr. Rockind, Mr. Lewis and perhaps the defense investigator. For him to say, “I get to know sua sponte or determine what disclosure beyond what you order is necessary for his defense,” then – then why even have a protective order?

MR. ROCKIND: Okay, so let me respond to that.

THE COURT: Sure. MR. ROCKIND: The first order that we have from the prosecutor’s office limited disclosure to Mr. Lewis and I only. It did not include - define defense counsel in the most limited way possible. It did not include references to – it didn’t include references to even my staff, to investigators, to anybody else. I – when I read that I – I objected to that. When I went further I read it didn’t even permit the original order that the prosecutor gave me, the way we read it, didn’t permit us to even show it to our client, which I think was – was problematic And so some of those issues, I think, have been ironed out. So that – that prompted my – my proposed order to be sent to – which we prepared, which we’ve used and –and have received from the government and some other federal cases, which we actually have used in some cases where there’s been a need for a protective order. My concern, quite candidly, is that the prosecutor objects, the State objects apparently and called somehow the fox guarding the henhouse. I – I don’t view myself as a fox. I don’t view this as hens. I don’t view this as anything that’s worth those sorts of – of analogies or metaphors because that suggests that somehow we’re more  apt to do something inappropriate than the prosecutor is and I’m – I – and I – and I take exception to that.Let me say this: I don’t think it’s ever appropriate in any circumstance for a defense lawyer who’s preparing a case for defense to have to seek either the – the prosecutor’s consent or to have to go to the Court to seek what we believe is reasonable use of the material in the defense of our case. That would mean that – and – and just to kind of play that out, were the case ultimately to be decided by you or were you the – the trial court, that would mean that I would have to either file something ex parte seeking permission to use it for particular purpose and reveal that. And if the Court wasn’t comfortable hearing an ex parte motion from me in that regard I’d have to then share with the prosecutor what my desires were and how I intend to defend my client and I don’t think that any – anything including the Sixth Amendment would require us to have to pierce that veil. I’m an officer of the court. Mr. Lewis is an officer of the court. I wasn’t comfortable signing an order that didn’t allow us to show our client the material. I wasn’t  comfortable with the definition of defense counsel on the original proposed orders and those things have been ironed out. But in terms of our desire to use the material as –as reasonably necessary as we determine it to defend our client, we are limited. We’re officers of the court and I – I don’t think neither Mr. Lewis nor myself have any interest in putting ourselves in a position to engage in unreasonable use of this material. And the protective order, I think that we propose is appropriate in the case. I’d ask the Court – to – to enter it and to sign it.

THE COURT: I think one of the issues is oftentimes in the case of a protective order if there is an issue about content the Court can review it in camera and then excise some of the things that may not be relevant. In this case, for example --

MR. ROCKIND: I think we should have gotten the entire – I think we shouldn’t even had to go this route, as your Honor knows from my original --

THE COURT:  I remember your argument.

MR. ROCKIND:  Yeah, and I don’t – I don’t – I think it was well-placed and made in good faith and but here we are. So --

THE COURT:  Right.

MR. ROCKIND:  I just – I mean this is an extraction –

THE COURT:  So what I’m going to do is I’m going to look at these over – these over and I’ll come up with an order.  Before we leave today, you’ll have one.

MR. ROCKIND:  So I – and then because I don’t –my proposal was, I – I know that we’re here for a proposed bind over, and any additional arguments. I don’t know what material is on the phone and I’m not going to sacrifice my ability to – to – I don’t know if there’s any need to --

MS. HAND:  Go sit down, please.

THE COURT:  I’m sorry, say it again?

DEPUTY HIX:  Ma’am, we need you to go to the back or out.  I’m sorry.

MS. HAND:  Sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT:  That’s okay.  Thank you, Ms. Hand. Go ahead, Mr. Rockind.

MR. ROCKIND:  So I - I’m of the – I don’t know what relation the contents have to the defense of the case.  I don’t --

DEPUTY HIX:  Ma’am --

THE COURT:  Larry, why don’t you call me down a couple deputies.

DEPUTY HIX:  I already did.

THE COURT:  Go ahead, Mr. Rockind.

MR. ROCKIND:  So I was gonna propose that the Court enter that we receive disclosure of the – the contents that the Court directs to be disclosed and that we be given additional time to look at the material to decide if it, in any way, requires us to seek any additional arguments or it impacts our arguments in the case.  So, I was going to seek the Court to give us that opportunity before the proofs are closed.

THE COURT:  Can you both approach for one moment? (At 2:39 p.m., off the record) (At 2:42 p.m., back on the record)

THE COURT:  Thank you both very much.  I appreciate that.  I’m going to take all of your arguments. Into account and look at this order.  We will have an order today so that the records can be given to Mr. Rockind today.  Thank you for bringing them, Ms. Hand. So, my question at the bench was do you think you would prefer me to make that decision first and then we’ll  move on to the next --

MS. HAND: Either way, Judge. It makes no difference to me.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROCKIND: I told you what I thought. I – I was of the opinion that there should be disclosure. We should have the evidence. We should be able to look at it and decide how it plays into our presentation of evidence here in district court and then – and then be given time to process that and include it before we – the Court rules on, you know, the decision to bind over.

THE COURT: All right, what I’m going to do then is I’m going to take a short recess. I’m going to look these orders over and we’ll come up with – I’ll come up with a final draft and then I’ll be back in --

MR. ROCKIND: I was going to add that I – I – the last – I told Ms. Hand, the last paragraph of the – of her proposed order --

MS. HAND: I agreed to strike it, Judge. I --

MR. ROCKIND: Okay, I know, but --

MS. HAND: I agreed to strike a lot of things.

MR. ROCKIND: You did, I understand. I’m not suggesting that Ms. Hand --

MS. HAND: All right, well, you’re arguing about it.

MR. ROCKIND: - was stepping on my neck with a heel, I’m just saying that we – we reached agreement on those things but we had a couple of --

THE COURT: Yeah, I’m looking at it right now. There’s cross marks all through it and I think that the --

MR. ROCKIND: We have a couple of --

THE COURT: The Court’s inherent authority to enforce its orders is clear anyway. I don’t think we need it in there.

MR. ROCKIND: Okay.

MS. HAND: Thank you.

MR. ROCKIND: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Short recess.

MR. ROCKIND: Thank you.

THE COURT: Well, actually hold on everyone. Please have a seat. I have a summary thing. I’m going to stay on the record.

MR. ROCKIND:  With us or you want us to --

THE COURT:  No, no.  Not with you.  Actually, I’ll wait on this one. I’m going to take a short recess. (At 2:44 p.m., off the record) (At 3:30 p.m., back on the record)

THE COURT:  All right, recalling the Remington matter, 2019-2619.

MS. HAND:  Beth Hand on behalf of the People.

MR. ROCKIND:  Neil Rockind for Nicholas Remington.

THE COURT:  Have you had an opportunity to review the order?  I combined some of your various terms.

MS. HAND:  Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Okay, that’s the order I’m going to enter if there is a stipulation to it, Mr. Rockind?

MR. ROCKIND:  I’m sorry, your Honor, can I have a second?

THE COURT:  Yeah, of course, please do.

MS. HAND:  Judge, I would just note there is – I think there is one typographical error.  It’s not the – it says contests instead of content in under paragraph B for advice of counsel.

THE COURT:  It – B you said?

MS. HAND:  B, advice of counsel, it says contests instead of contents, I think it’s supposed to be?

THE COURT:  Sure, one moment.

MR. ROCKIND:  I’m sorry, your Honor, I’m trying to talk to my client.

THE COURT:  That’s okay.  Go ahead and talk to him.  This is not a – I was retyping it myself, so that’s probably – contents, for sure.  That’s exactly right.  Any others?

MS. HAND: That was it, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay, I’ll get it reprinted. (At 3:31 p.m., off the record) (At 3:39 p.m., back on the record) THE COURT: All right, we’re recalling Remington. Note both of your appearances, 2019-2619. MS. HAND: I thought you said noting both of your appearances.

THE COURT:  I did note your appearances.  Okay. Any – any issue with the – with the order?

MS. HAND:  No, your Honor.  I think --

MR. ROCKIND:  No.

THE COURT:  Excellent.

MR. ROCKIND:  Just – just so I’m clear, though, defense counsel – it says defense investigators and defense counsel and support staff. I presume that that includes our associate attorneys in our office and --

THE COURT: That’s part of your support staff, isn’t it? MR. ROCKIND: I just want to make sure, because the order that we had prepared, and I think Ms. Hand’s correction ultimately includes – included associate attorneys, but as long as we’re all on the same page it’s fine. MS. HAND:  Yes.

THE COURT: Okay, we’ll make the correction of the typographical error and then you can sign it and --

MR. ROCKIND:  Mr. Lewis isn’t here.  Would it be okay if I sign it for him or do you want a separate signature. for Mr. Lewis?

THE COURT:  If you have his permission, you can sign it

MR. ROCKIND:  I’ll sign it.

THE COURT: Okay, great. All right, next let’s deal with the issue with regard to bind over and I’ll note, Mr. Rockind, that you’ve already objected, saying that you want to access and review this added discovery information before I make my decision, correct?

MR. ROCKIND: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay, anything else besides that with regard to that particular --

MR. ROCKIND: Actually, I want to make one additional argument, if I could.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. ROCKIND: Regarding the issue of bind over. It – I know that the – we litigates, I think, pretty extensively the issue of the admissibility of these Snapchat conversations and the snaps. And I believe that at least in the case presented by the State at the preliminary examination I think it’s fair to say that the – that the Snapchat conversations really formed the bulk  if not the – the entirety of the evidence that the State is relying on to bind Mr. Remington over. And after going through the Snapchats themselves, and I know the Court was given a – a large volume of them to review and not just review in writing or printed, but also given – I think was given a thumb drive that may have had some of the actual digital media on them that you could do the click and link to.

THE COURT: It did.

MR. ROCKIND: I – there was a lot of material for the Court to go through. I think that it’s important for the Court to, at least as you contemplate relying on the Snapchats, to at least consider that there are – when you go through them that there are messages at the beginning that reveal some conversations that there isn’t a – a predicate to and that there are – appears to be no – they almost are standalone, there are parts of conversations that are missing and I think I can give the Court some – if the Court is interested I can give the Court some specific references to portions of the Snapchats where – up from essentially the beginning all the way through April, specific conversations where there are – there’s communication that there’s no – that the communication appears to be in response to something, but there’s no predicate, there is nothing prefacing it, there’s no preparatory remarks or, for example, if there was – just a couple for the Court’s edification, there’s one from March 24th at 21:29, a message incoming from Connor that says, “That’s definitely your dad versus my dad.” And that’s just a standalone comment. There’s no – nothing that appears to be responding to, there’s no references to Dad before that, there’s no references to Dad after that and I think that that – there are otherexamples that I can go through where there’s an incoming on March 24th  at 23:31, which is some comment that says, “Ha ha, you’re right” with nothing else before it or after it. And I think what these – if I went through and I –And I actually pointed out each of these specific examples, and I have a list of about – look to be about 15 to 18 examples here. What your Honor would see is that there are references, there are these conversations contained not just what I referred to last time as – as omissions, but I can point to specific parts of these Snap conversations that are – are missing and they are –they’re missing a part of the conversation, which goes back to this – the point that Snapchat’s own internal – it’s a – well, it’s a public documentation. It’s law enforcement guide and its own proficiency rating, which we presented to the Court in support of our – our petition – our position that the Snapchats should not be admissible as either business records or as self-authenticating records pursuant to the certification. These are not reliable enough to be – to be sufficiently acceptable and not trustworthy enough to be accepted as business records and self-authenticating. And I’m certainly prepared to go before the Court makes what is a very important decision in the lives of all the people who are interested about this – this – this – this case and this decision to go through each and every one of these and – and to point them out. I think that they’re important and I hope that if I do that that the Court will reconsider in a way since the proofs are still open and the reliability of these Snapchats as admissible evidence under the two court rules that – and the two rules of evidence that the prosecution attempted to rely on and if the Court did, at least initially agree to admit and consider the evidence based upon. And so, I mean, I’m prepared to do that for the Court and

THE COURT: First of all, I don’t think the proofs are still open.

MR. ROCKIND: Well, I – then I would move to reopen the proofs and allow me to re-examine these and go through each individual specific – we litigated this issue.

THE COURT: Right, so I don’t know why we need to do it again. MR. ROCKIND: Well, because I’m trying to – I’m – there was a lot that was addressed with the Court when – the – when the State moved to admit the Snapchats they moved to admit it – based on a certification and then on two specific rules of evidence. And I presented a lot of different information to the Court to attempt to reveal to the Court that the predicate for the admissibility of business records and the predicate for the admissibility of self-authenticating records is that they are sufficiently trustworthy. Records can’t be sufficiently trustworthy to be relied upon as other business records or as – as self- authenticating records worthy of admission without a live witness if there are gaps and omissions and missing messages and – and inaccurate content. It doesn’t go to weight, it literally goes to admissibility. To admit – for you and I to have a text conversation back and forth and then someone were to admit just as a business record one text message that I sent to you or that you sent to me, and we know that there are other messages before and after, there’s a – I think a – it’s not a weight issues,  it’s an admissibility – it – it’s an admissibility issue. It reveals that the records that contain – that are purported to contain and to be sufficiently trustworthy to rely on are not, in fact, trustworthy. They’re not, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to rely on for business records. So, to the extent that I can, I do want to reopen the proofs and I do want to go through each of these individual Snaps and point out the omissions if the Court will – will – will entertain that - that motion, if it will --

THE COURT: Okay, response, Ms. Hand?

MS. HAND: Well, Judge, he doesn’t have to reopen the proofs to do that. The Snaps are in evidence. The Court has already admitted them. He wants to sit here and argue to the Court each of them, there’s no – there is no need to reopen proofs. And I would indicate, Judge, that it does go to the weight, not the admissibility and the – the records are complete. There is a certification indicating that they are. Sometimes, Judge, you might text somebody and in the middle of the text decide to pick up the phone and call them. That doesn’t mean that the text portion of it is not reliable, it just means that maybe there was another conversation by virtue of another form of media, whether it’s verbal or otherwise that may have occurred in the interim. It doesn’t make your records not reliable.

THE COURT: Okay, the motion to reopen the proofs is denied. You can certainly argue anything you want to by way of – of objection to the bind over. So, Ms. Hand, at this point I assume you’re moving to bind over?

MS. HAND: Well, I thought I – I am, your Honor, if I didn’t.

THE COURT: All right. Okay, now your response, Mr. Rockind?

MR. ROCKIND: Judge, I object to the bind over The – the entirety of the – the case is – are these Snapchats. We presented the Court with, I think, sufficient information to warrant the Court to – to -to disregard and to refuse to admit the Snapchats, and when I moved to reopen the proofs I don’t – I don’t think it was lost on the Court that my purpose in doing that was for us to address again the issue of admissibility of these Snapchats. This – the contention is is that these Snapchats are as reliable as business records for – for foundational purposes as medical records, as weather records, as  records that we rely on – that business rely on every day. Snapchat is not relying on and no one at Snapchat is relying on the actual content of these Snapchats. There are gaps and holes and omissions in the Snapchats that reveal – there are lines in that – in those graphs that are just blank. There – I mean, I’m talking about a message from this account to another sender, or the sender of this account which is blank. There’s no content, there’s no attachment. So what – how do we explain that? Is the explanation that somehow this empty – this empty cell in this – this Excel spreadsheet, that somehow that represents error? That it represented nothing? That there was nothing there? Look, I would suggest to your Honor that there are business records that are admissible and records that are admissible as business records are admitted for a specific purpose, because the individuals that make the notations  in those records rely upon them. Like the nurse that does the vitals at the hospital, that person is making entries into – into medical records and into files each and every time someone comes in for a checkup or a treatment and  they’re making those because they – that individual knows  that one, he or she did the activity. They actually did  the vitals and took them, two they noted them and three they entered them in the – the – the records for purposes of the hospital and others relying on that content. There’s nothing about the – the content of these messages that indicates that anybody at Snapchat is relying on the content.  And second, there are gaps and omissions.  These are just not nearly as – it seems hard to believe we’re attempting to take Snapchat conversations by a corporation, by an entity, by a website --

MRS. THOM:  Honestly.  You’re –

DEPUTY TOURNEAU:  Ma’am, you’re out.

MR. ROCKIND:  Maybe there comes a point where the Court should hold this woman in contempt, as difficult as that might be.

THE COURT:  Well, we’re not – we’re not there.

MR. ROCKIND:  I understand that it’s a difficult – I understand that this is a difficult issue.

THE COURT:  It is.

MR. ROCKIND:  And I said it last time, Judge.  I– I have children and I am sympathetic.  Believe me, I am.

THE COURT:  I understand.

MR. ROCKIND:  And if it were appropriate for me to say something to – to the family, I would do that.

THE COURT:  Let’s – I’m not going to hold her in contempt.

MR. ROCKIND:  I doubt that they want me to, but I would. I – I have children.

THE COURT:  I understand, Mr. Rockind.

MR. ROCKIND:  The idea that I’m sitting here and mocking or making fun of anybody, is --

THE COURT: Okay, you’ve made your point, Mr. Rockind. Let’s move on with the issue at hand. I’m not gonna hold her in contempt at this point, so let’s keep going.

MR. ROCKIND: Judge, I think that there is a Snapchat - itself, the information you presented to the Court, Snapchat’s default is deletion. It is erasure. Snapchat says that it is – it’s default is to erase. It says its default is not to preserve information on its servers. Snapchat itself says that its proficiency rating  and producing information in response to a subpoena or a court order is not 100 percent, it is less. And I raise those issues with the Court because if  you compare that to medical records, imagine if in response to medical records the hospital said to you, they – they started with, “We don’t keep all of our records. We don’t keep all of the data that we present. We don’t keep everything that’s presented. We keep some and our default is not to preserve medical information.” But then someone tries to admit some medical information and say,  “This is a certified record.” What – and your Honor, I think, would rightly say, “But how? These are not trustworthy. These are not all of the records.” Because you indicated as part of the very foundation for your business that all of the – you don’t preserve all of the data, that you erase data, that data is terminated or removed or erased. But we’re treating Snapchat records because someone who we don’t know and we can’t identify from another state  and another country or another part of the – the country who didn’t actually take an oath for treating these records as – and putting them in the same category, giving them the same treatment of admissible business records and the capability of being self-authenticated as records from a trusted institution like a hospital where individuals are relying on the entries that are made. And the individuals that are making the entries in those records are making them because they have a basis of knowledge to do so. So, be that as it may, the other additional concern I have is that there are I don’t believe that the – the State has sufficiently satisfied or proven that Mr. Remington was the one that sent some of those messages. They wish the Court to rely entirely upon the Snapchats. So their argument is this, I believe, that the account is registered to him. The content of their messages on that account and those messages on the account registered to him must be from him. And I would question that that’s not the standard. They have to prove that those statements are admissions by a party opponent. And they cannot prove and haven’t proven absent any other evidence that Mr. Remington made those admissions or made the statements that the State is attempting to rely on. So, we would object to the bind over, your Honor, and move to dismiss the case.

THE COURT: All right, thank you. Any response, Ms. Hand? MS. HAND: Judge, the only thing I would indicate is that it’s clear from the videos that are taken where the defendant is identified as the person taking the videos and the timing of the Snapchat messages, that it is the defendant who was the holder of the device sending these messages. And I think that was proven well beyond a probable cause standard.

THE COURT: Okay. So, there has been a lot of arguments made. I’m sure that those arguments are not done. However, there is a couple of things that were raised. First of all is the incompleteness of the process of  Snapchat. And in the digital age that we live in if we were to accept the defense’s argument that it wouldn’t qualify as a business record to have some digital media that’s retrieved from that application then how would anything ever be admissible? In other words, isn’t it –isn’t it prima fascia evidence that the account that’s got your name and other things is your account unless there’s some evidence to the contrary? Is it possible that someone could hack your account and make messages? Yes. That’s true. That’s always true. But to assume that, I don’t think that’s rational. Was this account registered to him, were the messages made by him, that’s the – another objection by the defense. I looked through every single one of these Snaps. Circumstantially, they clearly identify the username Hulkolas as Mr. Remington. There are references to the time frame of incarceration as being in jail. As what clearly appears to be a pattern of – of drug dealing at various different points there are requests for what appear to be Venmo payments, where Hulkolas is responding with Nicholas_Remington_1.  There are Snaps where there is an address where Hulkolas is saying, “My addy is in Northville.” That’s where the defendant’s address is. At one point I think the defendant – let me find it, at one point the defendant actually gives the street address in Northville of – of the house, so yes. All of those circumstantial facts could be made up by someone, but I think the more rational interpretation of all the context of these is that the Hulkolas is Mr. Remington. 1 I think it would be a defiance of reason to think otherwise. They’re incomplete; you’re absolutely right they’re incomplete. But that doesn’t mean that what’s in there is wrong, it just means it’s not complete. If you got a medical record and four pages of the medical records were not there that wouldn’t mean that none of the medical records were admissible, but only that there were holes in that and that would go, in my opinion, to weight. Obviously higher and better minds will look at it, but I just don’t see any legitimate argument that this is not Mr. Remington’s account and that the statements made there are somehow inherently untrustworthy just because they’re not totally complete. With regard to whether or not he actually gave the drugs to the decedent, that’s a little tougher. There are many different responses that appear from the – a Snap that must have been posted on the 19th asking basically what is – what was he on, what was the kid on, what – various different versions of that where Hulkolas responds methylone, some Mol or Mol and some methylone at various – to various different people. And there is also some – there is also one pretty relevant Snap from a person that appears to be named on this application as Connor Gibaratz. I looked at the information, Connor Gibaratz is endorsed as a witness. Frankly, I would have liked to have heard from him.

MR. ROCKIND: Me too.

THE COURT: The statements are, “You gave him methylone and Mol? That’s retarded. You fucking killed him. He’s a dumbass, but you killed him.” I think that’s the most clear Snap that Mr. Remington actually provided the drugs, but for probable cause standard I think the People have met their burden that he did in fact provide the drugs and I’m going to bind this matter over to the Oakland County Circuit Court as charged.

MR. ROCKIND: Judge, would the Court consider reopening the proofs in order – and compelling Mr. Gibaratz to appear? THE COURT: No, because I don’t need that for probable cause purposes.

MR. ROCKIND: Judge, we would – before you take Mr. Remington -- do first.

THE COURT:  Hold on a second.

MR. ROCKIND:  We would ask --

THE COURT:  We have a couple things we need to

MR. ROCKIND:  For that --

THE COURT:  Bear with me for one moment.

MR. ROCKIND:  Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Larry, can you go into my computer –that’s the password. Change that typographical error and – and reprint three copies of that, please. That should be contents and not contests. Okay, I’m sorry, Mr. Rockind. I interrupted you. Would you please continue?

MR. ROCKIND:  I’m sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: That’s okay.

MR. ROCKIND:  I have – I know it’s late in the day.

THE COURT:  It’s okay.

MR. ROCKIND: I have pushed multiple times, as your Honor knows, either individually or collectively with Mr. Lewis to seek the Court’s indulgence in and/or approval in modifying the bond. 

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROCKIND: And I do so again. I’m not going to go through all the arguments that I raised previously. I would just rely on those again. I would humbly ask the Court to reduce Mr. Remington’s bond in the case to $100,000 cash or surety, 10 percent with appropriate conditions of restraint.

THE COURT: Okay, so I’ve listened to all - very carefully to both of your arguments with regard to bond. And I’ve already put my position on the record about understanding the – the forum on bond that’s sweeping this country. The problems that I have with this case with the reduction in bond are as follows. He’s on probation for a felony involving drugs. We have a dead young person as a result of actions related to this case. It’s very clear that Mr. Remington is a poor member of the community. He’s a drug dealer. That’s very clear from these Snaps. And the – and continuing behavior after this horrific event in dealing drugs, which could impact other people in the community, including potentially the death of other people. While I understand that a million dollars is an awful lot of money, I think that my – my concern for the community is so high that I’m not going to lower the bond at this point. I don’t know how I could possibly control him. If someone dying from something like this didn’t stop him from dealing drugs no piece of paper that I sign is going to do that.

MS. HAND: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Would you please come up and get your exhibit five so that it’s not part of the court record as well as the flash drive – or the thumb drive and the disk?

MR. ROCKIND: Do you have an order for us – do you have the order for us to sign?

THE COURT:  We’re reprinting it and it will be here momentarily. MR. ROCKIND:  Can I approach when we’re done with --

THE COURT:  Of course. (At 4:01 p.m., proceeding concluded)