Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Final Reply to Governments Sentencing Memorandum for Viktor Bout by Albert Y. Dayan

Final Reply to Governments Sentencing Memorandum for Viktor Bout by Albert Y. Dayan

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by George Mapp

More info:

Published by: George Mapp on Apr 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/13/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK_____________________________________:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ::Plaintiff, ::v. :: 08-CR-365 (SAS)VIKTOR BOUT, ::Defendant, :______________________________________DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’SSENTENCING MEMORANDUMAlbert Y. DayanAttorney at Law forDefendant Viktor Bout
 
2
ALBERT Y. DAYAN
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 902, Kew Gardens, N.Y. 11415
 Attorney at Law
Tel. (718) 268-9400: Fax: (718) 268-9404
April 4, 2012
By ECF
The Honorable Shira A. ScheindlinUnited States District JudgeSouthern District of New York United States Courthouse500 Pearl StreetNew York. New York 10007Re: United States v. Viktor Bout08-Cr-365 (SAS)Dear Judge Scheindlin:This letter is in response to the Government’s Sentencing Memorandum.We have called the prosecution of Viktor Bout “outrageous governmental conduct.” Thatdoes not go nearly far enough - it’s a disgrace. When in all of the history of the United States has anindividual who has never committed a crime against this country or against its citizens or even beensuspected of committing such a crime been targeted as has Viktor Bout by the highest levels of theUnited States government? Targeted not for investigation, for this was not an investigation - it was aforegone conclusion. As the DEA bragged on television, “once he was in our cross-hairs,” he “wasgoing down.” He wasn’t “going down”
if 
he committed a crime, he was “going down” no matterwhat.The sanctimonious and factually unsupported claims made by the prosecutors in theirsentencing memo that,
“ Prior to his arrest, Bout was among the world’s most successful and sophisticated arms traffickers, whose ability to transport all manner of weapons to conflict zones in Africa was so destructive and destabilizing that he was sanctioned by the United Nations and United States;”
that he was a threat to the security of the United States and that he is such a horrible personthat he deserves life imprisonment are nonsense. After combing the world with unlimited resourcesfor evidence in support of the above claim, the DEA agents and their paid operatives were able tolocate only two witnesses that testified they witnessed Bout owned and/or operated freightcompanies transport military grade equipment - with governmental supervision - and not in the coverof night in the late 1990s. They found no evidence of transportation of arms by Bout owned oroperated companies after the year 2000. Operation Relentless, to get Viktor Bout, was initiated in2007.
 
3Moreover, the United States didn’t think Bout was such a threat to the security of the U.S.when the Defense Department, the U.S. Military, paid his companies millions of dollars to assistAmerican military operations in Iraq. They didn’t think he was such a threat when, despite the U. N.sanctions and OFAC sanctions, this country did business with him during that war. Even DEA AgentBrown testified during the trial that he “wasn’t aware” of “any evidence that Viktor Bout, ever, in hislife, intended to kill an American.”
 
The prosecution claims now in their sentencing memo that
“Undeterred by the world’sreproach, Bout remained ready, willing, and able to provide a breathtaking arsenal of weapons—including hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, machine-guns, and sniper rifles—10 million rounds of ammunition and five tons of plastic explosives…”
Other than Bout saying it at the Thailandmeeting to the fake FARC to facilitate his plan to have them buy his airplanes, the prosecution has noevidentiary support for their proposition. It was all just talk with no action whatsoever on Bout’spart, both sides spewing empty phrases and playing their respective roles. Did Viktor Bout doanything, did he provide a single bullet, a single missile, a single weapon? Is there a document, anysort of hard evidence, not simply talk that shows Viktor Bout took even the most preliminary steptowards carrying out his supposed evil purposes? When Bout met with the bogus FARC membersdid he come prepared with specifications for any of the arms that they had requested months prior tothe Thailand meeting or even prices for weaponry? Of course he did not. He came prepared withspecifications and prices for the two items he actually intended to sell- the two airplanes.During the trial the prosecution heavily relied on lies of Smulian, a desperate witness wholike most other men in his position would say anything on the witness stand to save his own lifefrom permanent deprivation of freedom. He admitted on the witness stand that his in-courttestimony was the product of at least twenty proffer sessions with agents and prosecutors where theyhad hashed out what his in court testimony should be and that he was not going to deviate from thetrained testimony so as not to jeopardize his co-operation agreement. His testimony was procuredby the prosecution with expectations by all parties to his co-operation agreement for immediaterelease upon the sentencing of Viktor Bout. If the prosecutors really believed that Smulian andBout conspired to kill Americans - that they each, with the other, shared a real and specific intent toprovide weapons for that vile purpose - how could they suggest to this Court that Bout get life andSmulian get time served? Time served for someone the government attorneys really believeconspired to murder American servicemen? As much as anything else, this demonstrates that thetrue purpose of this whole charade was not to properly punish those who had conspired against theU.S. for villainous purposes, it was to get Viktor Bout, no more and no less.And, as the government lawyers well know, Smulian’s own documented words unmistakablyshow that Bout expressed a total lack of interest in an arms deal and that Smulian’s trial testimony thatBout had immediately agreed to the illegal arms deal at a meeting between the two inMoscow was completely untrue. For, as the first Smulian-sent e-mail after the meeting with Boutmakes absolutely clear, rather than enthusiastically agreeing with Smulian’s hopeful efforts to bringBout into what Smulian believed was a multi-million dollar arms transaction, Bout uttered his totaldisdain for the venture and that there “is a glut in the market” and he would rather deal in “cashewnuts”. Moreover, just five days after the Bout/Smulian meeting in Moscow, Smulian, who claimed at

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->