Aaron Schaffer
@aaronschaffer.com
6.5K followers 471 following 292 posts
news researcher doing OSINT things and more at @washingtonpost.com. signal: aaronschaffer.01 www.washingtonpost.com/people/aaron…
news researcher doing OSINT things and more at @washingtonpost.com. signal: aaronschaffer.01 www.washingtonpost.com/people/aaron…
![This memorandum respectfully is submitted on behalf of Reza Zarrab, who will stand before this Court for sentencing on July 14, 2026. The primary charges against Reza arise from his participation while living in Turkey in a business that transmitted proceeds of Iranian oil to bypass U.S. sanctions against Iran. Reza accepts responsibility and is sorry for his role in the business that violated U.S. law. In addition to pleading guilty, for over eight years Reza has engaged in extraordinary and unprecedented cooperation with the U.S. government that has cost him his family, his name, his country, hundreds of millions of dollars of his assets, and hundreds of millions of dollars of his extended family's assets, and that nearly cost him his life.
Defense counsel believes that the Turkish government has viewed and continues to view Reza's cooperation with the U.S. government as treason because it has exposed corruption at the highest levels of Turkish government and thwarted Turkey's ability to fraudulently inflate its economy by helping Iran bypass U.S. sanctions [REDACTED]
Reza's decision nevertheless to cooperate with the U.S. government has had a devastating impact on every aspect of his life [REDACTED] Because of Reza's cooperation, Reza [REDACTED] suffered unthinkable personal and financial retaliation from the Turkish government that has ruined their lives:](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z5n7qfautgri3dgvd5222pig/bafkreih6akpuam5qf222wy733x4ak6qseoqwg23ymlmbvicijs26ck32xm)
![A White House official, asked whether Trump or others in the White House or Justice Department had met with either of the lobbyists, responded in a statement: “No one from White House Counsel nor [White House pardon czar] Alice Johnson met with the individuals named. Either way, the President is the final decision-maker on all pardons, and any one spending money to lobby for pardons is foolishly wasting funds.” The Justice Department, which has an office that handles pardon requests, referred questions to the White House.
The White House defended the rationale for the pardon in a separate statement. It said Schwartz relied on a third party for the payments at issue. “Mr. Schwartz failed to properly oversee that some funding was used for company operations instead of taxes. No funds were used for personal enrichment and Mr. Schwartz immediately paid $5 million dollars in restitution. Prosecutors initially recommended probation, but the Judge insisted on a sentence of three years — a sentence that is exceptionally harmful to a 65-year-old man already in deteriorating health.”
The statement did not address the fact that it was a prosecutor from Habba’s office who at an April hearing recommended a sentence of a year and a day, or at least something in a range of six to 18 months, according to a court transcript.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z5n7qfautgri3dgvd5222pig/bafkreibmgznk4dmhboa2zzongzgqhkardmycowjb3shzcv7ywg755dug5e)
![A screenshot from the story that says the following:
Reached by phone Thursday, Plaskett declined to answer questions about the text messages and directed all inquiries to her congressional staff. Plaskett’s chief of staff, Angeline Jabbar, said Thursday she was “not in a position to confirm or not” whether the congresswoman was texting with Epstein at the hearing. She did not respond to follow-up questions Friday afternoon.
After the story published Friday evening, Plaskett’s office issued a statement.
“During the hearing, Congresswoman Plasket[t] received texts from staff, constituents and the public at large offering advice, support and in some cases partisan vitriol, including from Epstein,” the statement read. “As a former prosecutor she welcomes information that helps her get at the truth and took on the GOP that was trying to bury the truth. The congresswoman has previously made clear her long record combating sexual assault and human trafficking, her disgust over Epstein’s deviant behavior and her support for his victims.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z5n7qfautgri3dgvd5222pig/bafkreib6ulmkf64ts2pcyaqimh3tob23rmfkmv463vnmy2nrgvrguny5ka)
![UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Before Ho, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners' opposed motion for a temporary administrative stay and an injunction pending appeal is DENIED as premature.
"A court of appeals sits as a court of review, not of first view." Zaragoza v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 112 F.4th 313, 322 (5th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). That principle dictates our ruling today.
Just yesterday, the district court entered an order indicating that "[t]he government states that authorities will not remove the petitioners during this litigation, and it will alert the Court if that changes." If Petitioners are concerned that Respondents' position has changed, they should have litigated these concerns before the district court in the first instance. We do not doubt the diligence and ability of the respected district judge in this case to act expeditiously when circumstances warrant.
Petitioners insist that they tried to proceed before the district court in the first instance, and that the district court simply "refus[ed] to act." But the district court's order today indicates that Petitioners gave the court only 42 minutes to act-and did not give Respondents an opportunity to respond.
The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1), for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Ramirez's concurrence.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z5n7qfautgri3dgvd5222pig/bafkreieo5a6jvpfdb6vbvs33lzlyb43xu63c5yeezcgrdc7egrf2zvgjmm)
![IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, Circuit Judge, concurring:
This court has jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders, including interlocutory orders that refuse or dissolve injunctions, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), as well as orders that do not expressly refuse an injunction but have the "practical effect of doing so," Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83 (1981) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430, 433 (1932)). A litigant appealing an effective denial of an injunction must "show that [the order or inaction] might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence." Carson, 450 U.S. at 84. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To be sufficiently serious, the consequences must be "greater than the harm suffered by any litigant forced to wait until the termination of the [proceedings] before challenging interlocutory orders it considers erroneous." Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193, 204 n.15 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 378-79 n.13
(1981)). Petitioners have identified sufficiently serious consequences - removal of individuals detained under the Alien Enemies Act to a foreign country without "notice... within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs." See Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. _ 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (Apr. 7, 2025).
[ALT TEXT CUT OFF, MORE IN NEXT IMAGE]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z5n7qfautgri3dgvd5222pig/bafkreifwyvqxk22urm6frk6r5jne2vl72pfgfmcbsfxuhmh4o6rk6psgai)
![[ALT TEXT CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE]
Nevertheless, "what counts as an effective denial is contextual-different cases require rulings on different timetables." In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, 100 F.4th 528, 535 (5th Cir. 2024). "District courts have wide discretion in managing their docket, and they do not necessarily deny a motion by failing to rule on a parties' requested timeline." Id. Here, the petitioners filed a motion for a temporary restraining order just after midnight on April 18, 2025. Around noon the next day, they filed a motion seeking a status conference and informing the district court that they would construe its failure to act within 42 minutes as a constructive denial of their
[ALT TEXT FROM THIS PAGE]
motion. The ensuing appeal, after the district court failed to meet this unreasonable deadline, divested the district court of jurisdiction. It was therefore unable to complete its review of the filings, after affording the government an opportunity to respond, and issue rulings by noon on April 19, 2025, as it had planned. Although the declarations fully reflect the need for urgency, we cannot find an effective denial of injunctive relief based on the district court's failure to issue the requested ruling within 42 minutes. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a) (1).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z5n7qfautgri3dgvd5222pig/bafkreih2vqtst3rffnp5ddfcoslrswgip3yuvp4sprbf6bwb7avo27lfgi)
