
June 11, 2019: Swear to Judge Richardson Transcript Detective Balog: The autopsy revealed that Mr. Preka had died of drug intoxication and later found toxicology reports that the drugs that caused the death were MDMA and MDA. Through the investigation it was determined that he was provided those drugs MDMA and the MDA methylone, methylene by Nicholas Remington and we are seeking delivery of controlled substance causing death charges.
Judge Richardson: I do find you to be a danger to our society and to safety of the the bond is $1,000,000 cash surety no 10 percent.
Judge Reeds: this is a very very serious case. At this point I am not convinced that there was any abuse of discretion by the magistrate. I’m going to continue the bond.
Judge Reeds: You mentioned the videos and how heinous they were, and I then took that into account thinking one of the things I’m supposed to look at in the court rule is the likelihood of conviction. So, at this point I’m going to continue the bond.
September 27, 2019: Preliminary Examination: Judge Reeds Transcript Judge Reeds: You’re not frustrating me, I’m just–I don’t think your argument carries water. MR. Rockind: Well, let me – let me – well, let Judge Reeds: So far, any way. [Pg 72] Judge Reeds: Okay. I want to take a look at all of these. I did skim through some of them and I did see what appears to be conversations about continuing drug sales after the fact. I remember very clearly all of Mr.Rockind’s arguments and your responses. I understand that the modern trend nationally is for bail reform and bond modification. I understand our Constitutional prohibitions, our court rule that talks about bond very well. But, at this point, until I see you next I’m going to continue his bond. It is of concern that he’s on probation for a drug felony. It is of concern that it is it appears at least, on some – on cursory review that he’s continuing the narcotics trade. The protection of the community is one of the factors I am to consider under the current case law. So, for right now I am going to continue his bond.
Judge Reeds: 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. 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. 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: 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. 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. Judge Reeds: 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." [Pg 31-32] October 16, 2019: Stipulation and Protective Order: Judge Reeds
June 18 2020: Status Conference: Judge Alexander Transcript June 18 2020: Order in Person hearing: Judge Alexander
This matter having come on in open Court for a status conference, the Court having heard the positions of counsel, and the Court being advised in the premises; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: That the motions filed in the case will be heard in person at the 6th Circuit Court for the County of Oakland on July 31, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. It is acknowledged by the Defendant and the Court orders that all delay in this case is attributable to the Defendant given the Defendant's request to have the motions heard in person rather than by video.
September 1 2020: Stipulation to Adjourn Motion Hearing Judge Alexander ORDER: At a session of said Court, held in the Courthouse, City of Pontiac, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, on this September 1 2020. Upon reading and filing the Stipulation entered into by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, and the Court being fully advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motions scheduled to be heard on September 15, 2020 will be heard on November 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any delay is attributed to the Defendant and his request that the motions be heard in person rather than via Zoom conferencing.
October 2020 $7,150.00 Defense Neil Rockind contributes at McDonalds campaign
October 17 2020: Defense attorney promote McDonald on Facebook & Instagram
Defense attorney Neil Rockind Support McDonald on her Social Media for Prosecutor
November 2 2020: Status Conference: Judge Alexander Transcript
November 2 2020: ORDER: Judge Alexander
At a session of Court held in Oakland County, Michigan on 11/02/2020.
The parties having appeared for a pre-trial on November 2, 2020, via Zoom, the Court hereby orders the following: The parties are to file briefs on the issue of whether the defendant is entitled to alive hearing for a criminal motion. Briefs are to be filed with the Court on or before the close of business on November 9, 2020
November 17, 2020: Request in person hearing DENID: Judge Alexander
Defendant's Motion for a live hearing is DENIED. The Court shall schedule the Motions for hearing on December 4, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. The Court will provide Zoom instructions prior to the hearing.
December 4 2020: Motion Hearing Judge Alexander Transcript
I mean I think Ms. Hand was doing - -was doing an - - was doing her job as a prosecutor, she was talking to a witness who was going to testify at trial.
Judge Alexander: Deny the motion [PG 22-23]
January 2021: Karen McDonald was elected Prosecutor
After she became Prosecutor McDonalds appointed Neil Rockind to committee of defense lawyers that meets with her and advice her.
January 4, 2021: Undersigned Assistant Prosecuting Attorney was assigned this file.
A phone call was placed to defense counsel sometime between that date and January 6, 2021. Defense counsel followed up with the email attached to his motion as Exhibit A.
January 6, 2021 - January 27, 2021: In response to concerns expressed by defense counsel in his letter, undersigned A.P.A. contacted Detective Balog, the officer in charge of the investigation, to obtain a complete copy of all police reports so all parties could be assured discovery was complete.
January 28, 2021: A complete copy of the Novi Police Department report was obtained.
February 3, 2021: A packet of discovery, including supplemental reports #9 and #10 were mailed to defense counsel.
February 11, 2021: PRETRIAL Before New Judge Victoria Valentine
A pretrial conference was held before this Court. Defense counsel stated that he would be filing a motion regarding information learned through the discovery tendered.
MR. KEAST: Judge, I think at this point what we need is a motion date. Mr. Rockind has let me know much of what he just disclosed to the Court --I think what we just need is a motion date. I don't know if Mr. Rockind would rather address his motions that were filed in 2020 first, or the motions that he's referring to right now. I leave that up to Mr. Rockind, they're his motions to praecipe. So whatever schedule the Court would like to give us, that's fine with me, Judge. I would appreciate if Mr. Rockind would praecipe it two weeks after receipt of the prosecutor's office, so I'd have adequate time to research whatever issue he's referring to. Perhaps the best way to address it right now, Judge, is a pretrial five weeks from today's date, that way we could have all motions praeciped prior to that pretrial date and we know where we're going. Judge, I'm sorry. Mr Rockind maybe we can argue the motion on the motion date.
MR. ROCKIND: Well, the Judge just asked me what the basis was, so --
MR. KEAST: It's very complicated. [Pg 9]
March 2, 2021: Phone conversation occurred between undersigned A.P.A. and defense counsel. Defense counsel stated that he had never received supplemental reports #9 and #10, nor did former A.P.A. Hand disclose the contents of those reports to him.
March 3, 2021: Undersigned A.P.A. confirmed defense counsel's assertion that those reports were not included in any proof of service filed with either the District or the Circuit Court.
March 5, 2021: Undersigned A.P.A. had a phone conversation with defense counsel. Undersigned A.P.A. stipulated to the bond order signed by this Court on March 9, 2021, and suggested a remand to the District Court to cure any defect/violation incurred by nondisclosure of evidence referenced in supplemental reports #9 and #10.
March 8 2021: Bond change on Remington case, and update status, PO# 19-65104 (Email from Nicole Kennedy. Victim Advocate)
"Marc Keast just found out over the weekend some information/evidence defendant did not have over the examination. It may required a remand back to the district court, or may defense may file a motion to dismiss. Remand would be more appropriate"
Please call Marc so he can explain what the evidence issue is. However, with this information, the defendant's bond must be modified "
MR. KEAST: Yes, Judge. As the Court knows, I was assigned the case in January of this year. I spoke with Mr. Rockind a number of times regarding some issues regarding discovery I did discover from the beginning, in January, obtained a copy of the police report from beginning to end, and sent it to defense counsel. I think January the 28th of 2021, are what my notes reflect. Counsel and co-counsel, Randy Lewis, went through the discovery. They made me aware last Tuesday night that there were two reports in particular that were not turned over to defense. It appears that those two reports were in the prosecutor's office possession in September or October of 2019. In my opinion, those two reports are exculpatory in nature and should have been turned over in a timely fashion. They were not. I believe Mr. Rockind and his office may be filing a motion regarding that. I have suggested my own remedy to Mr. Rockind. That is included in the stipulated order, Judge. In my opinion, a remand, at a minimum, is necessary in this case. That will cause further delay to this case being adjudicated. Defendant has been in custody; I believe since the beginning of this case. In my opinion, the delay, at this point moving forward, is attributable to the State. So because of that, I do believe that a stipulated order to the effect that was submitted to this Court is appropriate in this case.
I have informed the officer in charge, as well as the victim's mother, of the decision that we have made. They both understand the situation that we're in, Judge.
April 9 2021: Brief on response defendant's Supplement Motion "Supplemental report #10 details a conversation between Ms. Linda Preka (decedent's mother), former A.P.A. Hand (married name of Wiegand) and the officer in charge of the investigation. See Exhibit 1. That report reflects that Ms. Preka was shown a snapchat message sent on the Defendant's account "Hulkolas," while the Defendant was incarcerated in the Oakland County Jail. As stated, it does not appear that the supplemental report, or information included in that supplemental report, was turned over to defense until undersigned A.P.A. obtained a copy from the Novi Police Department and mailed it in February of this year."
Keast Motion about report # 10 its all fabricated. VS Police Report #10 details
CR No: 190015581-010 Written By: NOBALOGS (00214) Date: 10/03/2019 08:08 AM INFORMATION: On 09/27/2019 The preliminary exam was held on this matter at 52-1 District Court. After the hearing, the Oakland County Prosecutor, Beth Wiegand was shown a new SNAP Chat on Nick Remington’s (HULKOLAS) SNAP CHAT account by the victim Preka's stepfather Jamie Thom. Thom advised Wiegand that he was sent this SNAP CHAT by one of Denis Preka's friends named Avery Eckert on 09/26/2019. LAW AND ARGUMENT
" The People must emphasize that this responsive pleading does not attempt to excuse or explain the nondisclosure of evidence favorable to the defense. The People acknowledge that the prior A.P.A. did not disclose the evidence referenced. The timeline referenced supra is not in dispute That is precisely why the People have stipulated to a remand to District Court, acknowledged that this remand will delay trial, acknowledged that the delay is attributable to the People, and stipulated to a bond modification. The dispute lies in the remedy. It is the People's position that neither dismissal nor a quash is warranted when an alternative remedy exists."
JUDGE VALENTINE: And Prosecutor McDonald, did you want to put an appearance on?
MS. MCDONALD: Karen McDonald on behalf of the People. MR. KEAST: Thank you, Judge. The first line to my response makes clear that I, neither myself nor Prosecutor McDonald, condones anything that happened prior to January 1 of 2021, and let me just reemphasize that, Judge. My first line: The People must emphasize that this responsive pleading does not attempt to excuse or explain the non-disclosure of evidence favorable to defense. I absolutely agree with Mr. Rockind that this evidence should have been turned over in 2019. There is no argument there. [Pg 25-28] I included a list of communications between myself and Mr. Rockind. I generally do not do that, but I wanted the Court to make clear the timeline from when I took over this case and when Prosecutor McDonald took over the office in general. I turned over everything as soon as I was made aware of Mr. Rockind's concerns. And I'm not saying that to be self-serving, Judge, I just want the record to be clear. Now, my sole argument rests with the remedy that the defense is requesting. Not that a violation occurred, but the remedy. And the remedy I have suggested wasn't picked out of thin air. It's based upon the law. When the Court reads Brady v Maryland, and every case that's come down since then, when the Court reads the cases regarding prosecutorial, judicial, police misconduct, the Court will find that a remedy is specifically and narrowly tailored to the violation. And again, these aren't remedies that I'm just suggesting or throwing out there. I'm not suggesting it's a do-over, no harm, no foul. My remedy is consistent with the law. Now, there's a few cases I want to point out to the Court. The most specific case is from the Michigan Court of Appeals. It's in my brief. It's regarding blanket judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. It's a case from Wayne County where the assistant prosecuting attorney --
JUDGE VALENTINE: What's the name of the case?
MR. KEAST: I'll spell it for you, Judge. A-C-E-V-E-L. It's on page 8 of my brief. In that case the Wayne County assistant prosecuting attorney conspired to commit perjury with witnesses, as well as the judge on that case. That prosecutor, and that judge I believe, were both prosecuted for those crimes. Now, that violation I use as the benchmark for the worst that a prosecutor and a judge can do. They conspired with each other to commit a crime, as well as with a police officer who was assigned to the case. In that case the Court of Appeals ruled that there was no bar to a retrial. In effect, there was no dismissal with prejudice because the remedy tailored was specific to the violation. When we talk about a due process violation -- and when favorable evidence to the defense is suppressed, it is a due process violation, make no bones about that, Judge. But when there is a due process violation the cure to that violation is a fair trial. What I have suggested would be, in effect, a fair trial. Now, this evidence appears to have been disclosed to assistant prosecuting attorney Beth Hand and the detective on September the 27th, 2019, as they were leaving the courthouse of the 52-1 District Court after the first date of preliminary examination. That should have been turned over immediately, but it wasn't. Judge Reeds continued the examination October the 16th, 2019. At that examination, Mr. Rockind did not have the benefit of learning this exculpatory information so he couldn't make a motion to reopen proofs. I believe he should. That is why I'm suggesting that this case go back to the district court and the district court judge now have the opportunity to hear the defense arguments in this matter, Judge. And Mr. Rockind has made a lot of statements about I can't say what was in Detective Balog's mind, I can't say what was in Ms. Hand's mind. That's correct. I can only tell you how I handled the case and how I would have handled the case. I can't argue that there was a violation, Judge, because there was. There's no doubt about that. But the situation we're faced with now is the remedy. And I do acknowledge in my responsive pleadings that this Court does enjoy broad discretion when fashioning a remedy. My brief simply is pointing out to this Court that the remedies typically given by courts in these situations are exactly the remedy that I have suggested. Thank you, Judge. JUDGE VALENTINE: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Keast?
MR. KEAST: Judge, I did my best to brief the issue in my responsive pleading. You know, a few things I do want to address is that counsel brought up 6.201(J). It's not either one of the parties' responsibility, duty, or even our jobs, to suggest what's willful; it's the court, respectively. So it's not my position to suggest what is willful or what's not willful, for one reason, and one reason alone; it's the court that must fashion the remedy in this case. But also, Judge, as a practical matter, as I stated, the very first sentence in my brief, the first thing I put on this record is that I cannot get in the heads of the individuals who were on this case, Judge. I can only talk -- deal with what I have done, and, you know, make analogy to the law and what the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have determined to be the appropriate remedy. I included that in my brief. I'm happy to answer any questions, Judge.
JUDGE VALENTINE: Prosecutor McDonald, anything you want to state for the record?
MS. MCDONALD: No, Your Honor. I have confidence in Mr. Keast that he articulated our position accurately. [Pg 36]
April 15 2021: Motion to Dismiss Judge Valentine Transcript MR. KEAST: Yes, Judge. Once I receive the order, I'll send it to the 52-1 District Court as well. It's been my experience that when a case is remanded the circuit court sends that order, but I'll follow up with the 52-1 District Court and then I'll coordinate with counsel on that as well. [Pg 4-5] THE COURT: So Mr. Keast, one of the issues that I'd like to address, is that I would like to have it go to a new judge. MR. KEAST: That would just need to be spelled out in the Court's order, I believe. MR. KEAST: Judge, it's hard to answer any of those questions at the moment. I think, if I may suggest a course of action, I think once we obtain the Court's order, then we'll have a better idea as to which direction to take with any affidavits regarding discovery. But this case would be remanded to the 52-1 District Court, at that time I'm sure counsel and I can agree upon a date for preliminary examination to continue. And then from there we'll have the opportunity for my own diligent search of the file, speaking with the witnesses, as well as counsels', regarding any discovery owed to the People. So I think if -- I don't want to get too ahead of ourselves, is basically what I'm saying, Judge. MR. KEAST: If I may interrupt. Are you saying you'd rather the case stay in circuit court for the next 45 days before it's remanded? JUDGE VALENTINE: Mr. Keast, that you weren't able to honestly answer questions, which
I sincerely appreciate from your office, that you've been completely, you know, transparent. And, you know, I see a very bright road ahead with regard to how things are going to change and be done differently. And your honesty with regard to not having requested certain information from witnesses, etc., is refreshing, but I need to make sure that both of our functions, all of our functions in the judicial system are upheld for the entire public. So I want to make sure that there is enough sufficient time for you, sir, to satisfy yourself and to present an affidavit that everything has been searched for and that there has been -- anything that's in your custody or control has been turned over.
MR. KEAST: I appreciate that, Judge. If I may suggest that if the Court were to order remand as part of the written order, it could have a date, perhaps 30 or 45 days out, for the actual date of remand. That way we could be in front of Your Honor until we go through independently this file to make sure that discovery is complete. And that way, Judge, we can address it with you, since you know, you know, the underlying facts of this case and you're aware of the recent motions, you just ruled on the motions. (Pg 10-11)
May 18 2021: Status Conference Judge Valentine Transcript MR. KEAST: Judge, we were here, well probably about a month ago now, for a motion argument and a ruling from the Court. It's my understanding that the Court was going to issue a written opinion regarding the remand. In the meantime, the Court had set this status conference about 30 days out so I could ensure that I have all discovery tendered to defense counsel. I did meet with the officer in charge, I believe last week or the week prior. I filed a pleading with the Court indicating that I met with the officer in charge. I reviewed his file, compared it with my file, and tendered all discovery to defense counsel. All discovery at that point was complete. There was one document, I believe, that had not been turned over. It was a screenshot of a Snapchat. I could not -- MR. KEAST: I couldn't confirm from my own file if that had been sent to defense, so I sent it to Mr. Rockind. I sent him an email, as well as Mr. Lewis. And then I filed what I titled as People's statement of complete discovery, as of May the 4th, 2021. So that is where we are today.
MR. KEAST: I had, looking at the document I filed, Judge, I met with the officer in charge at my office, May the 4th. Upon request, Detective Balog brought his entire file with him to the meeting. I had already requested Novi Fire Department, and they're called run sheets, the EMS report, and any fire department report, so I obtained that on that date as well. That was also tendered. I also found in his file a two-page screenshot of a Snapchat conversation between witness Matt Harrington and the defendant. That screenshot was referenced in the report, but the actual screenshot had not been turned over to the prosecutor's office, so I obtained that and turned it over to counsel. MR. KEAST: Judge, that's something that counsel and I discussed, and I had honestly been waiting for the Court's order regarding that. When I tendered my pleading to the Court I also, you know, informed Mr. Rockind and Mr. Lewis that that's what I was going to be doing. He indicated to me that it was his belief that the Court ordered an affidavit, that I meet with Ms. Hand. I did not -- I guess I either didn't understand that to be the Court's order or I misheard the Court. So I was seeking some clarification from the Court today. And if that is part of the order, I certainly will do that, Judge. And I did want to point out that Mr. Rockind did also state that to me, but when we spoke last week I said, well, let's speak with Judge Valentine just to make sure that that was the course of action the Court prefers.
THE COURT: The only person who has the information of everything that's out there, I think would possibly be Ms. Hand, and the person with the obligation would be Ms. Hand. So that's why I requested the affidavit, Mr. Keast, with Ms. Hand. And I think I mentioned at the last hearing that I thought that would be a precarious position to put you in, and I apologized because you have no idea whether or not the information she's providing is accurate or not because you weren't involved. So if it's not in your file, I don't know how you would determine it, but that's why I wanted the affidavit from Ms. Hand. Also, your opinion is completed. I'm going to hold it for another day. I wanted to go through the preliminary exam transcript. I have, I think, both parts now. I only had one previously. I will tell you that the Snapchat information will be excluded . As far as anything from the (indiscernible) account, that's going to be excluded. I just can't find any - I can't find anywhere where it would be reliable at this point. MR. ROCKIND: Thank you, Judge.
MR. KEAST: Judge, I'm sorry, just so I'm clear -- well, I suppose we could wait for the opinion too, but just the question I had for the Court; counsel had requested exclusion of the Snapchat account as a remedy for Brady violations. We had yet to argue the reliability of, and foundation of the Snapchat argument. Is that, I guess asking the Court to show the Court's hand at this point, is that the ruling, that it's based upon the Brady violation, or is it on the reliability of the records themselves? THE COURT: I understand, and it's cited as the fact that it is a remedy with regard to the Brady violation, I'm more -- I would say in my mind it was more the thought process of it just can't be reliable based upon the arguments that Ms. Hand was making to the court at the exact same time that she had information otherwise. It's just not reliable, in my opinion.
MR. KEAST: Just so I'm clear, I want to make sure that when the Court issues the order, we're talking about two different things. And that's why -- I'm not trying to split hairs here, but there was an argument counsel made in the motion filed and response by Ms. Hand, that the Snapchat, by nature of the fact that they are deletion by default, I think that's the line counsel used, were not reliable. And because of the certification of authenticity that was filed by Snapchat complied with the Federal Rules of Evidence as opposed to Michigan Rules of Evidence. But we haven't addressed that on the record, so I just want to -- I hate to just keep coming back on the same argument, that's why I'm bringing it up, Judge. [Pg 12]
THE COURT: No, I didn't get into whether or not the Snapchat is a business record, whether or not -- in other cases. I mean, if you look at all of them -- and I do a lot of research with regard to the issues in this case because of the fact that they are, I guess probably people don't see them very much. And, you know, I just want to be fair to both parties. I think you're both in a bad position. And Mr. Keast, I think I'm a little bit more sympathetic to your position because you didn't put yourself where you are.
MR. KEAST: I appreciate that.
THE COURT: With regard to, you know, Snapchat, it's not that they're always unreliable. You can, you know, have someone testify as to the issues with regard to if it's their account, etc., and that they had control over it. That's not what happened here. That's just absolutely what flies in the face of deceit to the Court, is that it was not in the control of the defendant at the time that the arguments were being made. And that was the majority of the basis for the argument that Ms. Hand was making. And you'll see the citations in the opinion. (Indiscernible) Mr. Rockind to reopen anything, that all of the -- that the record was complete with regard to the Snapchat, etc. So, you know, yes, I can use it as a sanction, but I don't find it reliable to begin with. If I did find it reliable, would I use it as a sanction; I don't know. I cited both, but I don't find it reliable. [Pg 12-13]
May 21 2021: Opinion and Order to Dismiss with Prejudice: Judge Valentine In 2021, after recognizing the discovery violations by the former prosecutor, the current Oakland County Prosecutor stipulated to the reduction of Defendant's bond to $10,000. At the center of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is the former Assistant Prosecutor's violation of legal and ethical duties to produce evidence, including exculpatory information. Current Assistant Prosecutor, Mr. Keast, immediately addressed the issues set forth in the letter.? His response confirmed that Ms. Hand intentionally failed to produce a significant amount of discoverable evidence. As conceded by the current prosecutor's office, much of the evidence withheld by Ms. Hand is exculpatory.
September 26, 2019 "Snapchat" from a"Hulkolas" account, which was allegedly the name of Defendant's snapchat account. The Snapchat account and its messages are at the center of the issues in this case. Ms. Hand's failure to produce the discovery and blatant misrepresentation to the Court at the preliminary exam, is nothing short of intolerable due process violations.
There is no question that Brady violations and numerous discovery violations knowingly occurred in this case. Intentionally denying defendant a fair trial undermines the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and has a rippling effect on the community's trust in the legal process. Al Snapchat evidence relating to the "Hulkolas" account is excluded as it is unreliable.
May 26 2021: Remington Snapchat after Judge Valentine Opinion & Order.
NEW COURT ORDER- Prosecutor hid evidence September 2019. Took u long enough. Nice job tryna pin me CORRUPTASS Oakland county. Dis case boutta get dismissed boyyyy!!! Remyboyz be bak in dis bitch soon my fellow fools. Jussrunit A?
June 9 2021: Motion for Relief From Order Judge Valentine Transcript MR. KEAST: Thank you, Judge. I was just going to reiterate what the order said, in that the Court -- I'm reading the order right now, the Court does order Ms. Hand to file an affidavit. In my own pleadings I indicated that this file is the property of the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office. As the assistant prosecuting attorney on the matter, I have that file. I have everything that this office has ever had. As I indicated in a prior pleading on May the 5th of this year, I met with the officer in charge and I reviewed his police file. Everything that the police file showed was turned over to me, and in fact turned over to defense counsel, and I outline that, Judge. I do believe that Mr. Lavigne's motion is correct. I believe that it is legally correct and factually correct, for nothing more than the fact that I'm not going to give Ms. Hand this file to review. I can't do that, Judge, she's no longer a prosecutor at the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office. I think that -- I don't know what she would be able to write as far as what evidence there would be to admit. And, you know, Mr. Rockind can interpret it one way, and he's certainly entitled to do that, but as I look at this order, it does appear to me that this Court did in fact order Ms. Hand to detail a list of all evidence in the case. And as I stated, Judge, I don't think that she's in a position to do that, and I believe Mr. Lavigne amply laid that out in his motion. MR. ROCKIND: But isn't the Court directing that-- I mean, aren't we just sort of quarreling or quibbling over, I guess a dot on a page, which is on page 8. I know the Court's order is directed to the State.
July 22, 2021: Opinion and Order Regarding Former Judge Valentine Based upon the record and the prior court hearing transcripts, there appears to be at least one res gestae witness, Mr. Weidemeyer, who was part of an undocumented interview with former Assistant Prosecutor Hand and who allegedly indicated to Ms. Hand that he did not see Mr. Remington deliver drugs to Mr. Prika (the victim). Of concern is that discovery information was not documented nor disclosed despite Ms. Hand's acknowledgment that the witness' testimony was favorable to Defendant. The failure to provide discovery has become even more frustrated due to the departure of the previous Oakland County Prosecutor as well as the Assistant Prosecutor, Beth Hand. In March of 2021, the current Prosecutor presented this Court with a Stipulated Order modifying the Defendants Bond which stated: " Evidence disclosed to the defense by the undersigned Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, which was not disclosed by the previously assigned Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, may necessitate a remand to the District Court and/ or further litigation that must commence prior to a trial. As such the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel stipulated to reduce the Defendant's bond from One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars Cash/Surety to $10,000.00 cash/ surety.
Consequently, as set forth in more detail in the Court's May 21, 2021, Opinion, the Court ordered all discoverable information be turned over to the Defendant. The purpose was to satisfy Defendant he had received all discoverable information, even if it was not documented by the previous Prosecutor in current Prosecutor's file.
Applied here, the Prosecution, who alone knows what is undisclosed, is complicated by the departure of the prior assistant prosecutor, Ms. Hand. This court however did not enter a dismissal. A "dismissal, however with prejudice is a severe remedy which can put a defendant in a "better position than he would have enjoyed had disclosure been timely made," and while such a remedy is within the trial court's discretion, it should not be granted lightly.
This Court sets aside the portion of its May 21, 2021, order requiring Ms. Hand to file and serve an affidavit. This Court remands this matter to the District Court, as previously provided. At that time, either party may determine the need to call Ms. Hand as a witness. excuse any discovery violation. This ruling does not excuse any discovery violation.
August 26 2021: Keast removes the bond completely
Bond in the amount of $1,000,000 IS NOT on file in the Oakland County Clerk's Office.
MR. KEAST: Really, the month of January I'm scheduled to be in trial in front of Judge Anderson. Any time in February I'm open. [Pg 4]
February 2 2022: Interview Eyewitness and Remington best friend Connor Gibaratz
"What is even more disturbing than Keast withholding inculpatory evidence from the Court, he interviewed Connor Gibaratz knowing he obstructed justice. This lead directly to a murderer being released from jail, and the interview happened before he dismissed the case."
February 10 2022: Preliminary Examination New Date
"Judge Valentine prohibited evidence obtained from Nicholas Remington's Snapchat account due to the lack of reliability of that evidence. That ruling was based on the ease of access to the Snapchat account, as evidenced by the posts made while the Defendant was in the Oakland County Jail. As you also know, I have discovered inconsistencies in various posts made on that account with the records received from Snapchat. We cannot verify how or why that has occurred."
March 1 2022: Request FOIA March 22 2022 received
There are 1632 pages of records on I CD, an additional CD, and 8 DVDs meeting the criteria of your request.1632 pages of records from Oakland County Prosecutor's office.
Marc Keast and Karen McDonald got busted the first 45 pages of FOIA records shows Eyewitness and Remington best friend Connor Gibaratz have used Remington account while he was in jail including on September 26 2019. On base of transcripts, Gibaratz images, Gibaratz videos and GEO location shows Connor Gibaratz home address.
January 23 2023: Detective Penzak Phone call Novi Police [NEW FOIA Request]
" I did not know about that snap prior to the preliminary examination and once I knew about the snap I told you to tell Balog and asked Balog to investigate the origin of the snap and if it was real etc. I did not receive the report from Balog following that request and if I would have I would have turned it over to the Defendant's attorney."
February 10 2023: Linda called King.sapphire asking who logged on Remington account while he was in jail "Connor Gibaratz" he replied
August 9 2023: Meeting with David Williams Chief APA at Oakland County
After so many attempts since May 12 2023 finally we meet with David Williams.
" What I said is that defendant Remington posted the story to his account, and then sent an identical response to multiple inquiries. Those identical responses to multiple inquiries undermines the evidentiary value of the one specific question that refers to “u”.
Comments