Earlier today, I wrote about the allegations in the Tom Goldstein indictment. Here, I will compare some of the dates in the indictment with the dates of Tom Goldstein’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Of course, the allegations in an indictment are just that–allegations. Throughout this post, I will assume the government’s claims are correct, but all of these allegations would need to be proven in Court.
The indictment concerns Goldstein’s conduct between 2016 and 2021. During that period, according to Oyez, he argued seven cases before the Supreme Court. This represents a drop-off in the number of oral arguments from earlier in his career. He had consistently argued multiple cases per term: 4 in 2003, 3 in 2004, 2 in 2005, 3 in 2008, 2 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 2 in 2013, 4 in 2014, and 3 in 2015.
In April 2017, Goldstein had two arguments in the span of eight days.
- 4/17/2017 – California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. – Opposing counsel was Paul Clement.
- 4/25/2017 – Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California – Opposing counsel were Neal Katyal and Rachel Kovner.
Leading up to this period, the indictment alleges:
Between late 2016 and early February 2017, GOLDSTEIN engaged in a series of heads-up poker matches in Los Angeles against a California businessman who had made millions in the real estate market (“California Businessman-3”). In those matches, GOLDSTEIN suffered net losses of over $9.5 million dollars. Because no one had staked or bought a piece of him in the matches, GOLDSTEIN was responsible for paying his entire losses to California Businessman-3 after each losing match. . . ,
In early February 2017, GOLDSTEIN engaged in a scheme to divert to his Gambling Account a $250,000 legal fee owed by Law Firm-1 to G&R in connection with G&R’s Supreme Court briefing in a securities class-action case. To divert the fee, GOLDSTEIN exchanged a series of emails on or about February 1, 2017, with a named partner of Law Firm-1, culminating in an agreement that Law Firm-1 would pay $500,000 to G&R over the course of the various phases of the Supreme Court appellate process, including, at GOLDSTEIN’s insistence, an initial $250,000 to be paid by Law Firm-1 “immediately.” . . .
In early March 2017, GOLDSTEIN continued playing the series of heads-up poker matches with California Businessman-3. To help satisfy a $500,000 poker debt stemming from an early March 2017 match against California Businessman-3, GOLDSTEIN contacted Law Firm-2 and asked a named partner at the firm whether he was interested in “investing” in one of GOLDSTEIN’s poker matches against California Businessman-3. In connection with his request, GOLDSTEIN sent an email to the Law Firm-2 partner on or about March 6, 2017, containing a link to an online gambling-related forum, which included a discussion thread in which certain poker aficionados had commented tliat California Businessman-3 was a poor poker player. When sending the email, GOLDSTEIN did not reveal to the Law Firm-2 partner that, over the preceding months, he had already lost approximately $10 million to California Businessman-3.
Even the best Supreme Court advocates, with 100% focus, will struggle arguing against Paul Clement and Neal Katyal. I can’t fathom going to the Court with this sort of stuff going on about a month before the argument.
Goldstein’s next argument was in November 2017.
- 11/28/2017 – Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees’ Retirement Fund – Opposing counsel was Neal Katyal (again) and Allon Kedem
The indictment alleges:
46. To partially satisfy his $500,000 personal debt to Law Firm-2, GOLDSTEIN caused the G&R firm manager to send, via wire transfer from a G&R business bank account, $175,000 of G&R’s funds to Law Firm-2 on or about November 7, 2017. When directing that the $175,000 wire be sent, GOLDSTEIN did not disclose to the G&R firm manager that this transfer-which was between two law firms-was to satisfy GOLDSTEIN’ s personal gambling-related debt and not a legal fee or other G&R business expense. To further satisfy part of his debt, on or about November 14, 2017, GOLDSTEIN caused Professional Gambler-I to send to Law Firm-2 $200,000 that he owed to GOLDSTEIN personally as a result of a poker match that GOLDSTEIN had won. By the end of 2017, GOLDSTEIN still owed $125,000 to Law Firm-2 in connection with the gambling “investment.” 19
These transactions allegedly occurred two weeks before his oral argument in Cyan.
Goldstein’s next argument came in October 2018:
- 10/10/2018 – Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries – Opposing counsel was Shay Dvoretzky
The indictment alleges:
GOLDSTEIN falsely stated.in an October 11, 2018, email to the Accounting Firm that he had “[n]o gambling winnings” in 2017, causing the preparation and filing of a 2017 Form 1040 that falsely omitted over $3.4 million in gambling winnings;
48. GOLDSTEIN caused the G&R2017 Form l 120Sto be filed on or about July 13, 2018. GOLDSTEIN caused his 2017 Form 1040 to be filed with the IRS on or about October 15, 2018, pursuant to an extension filed in April 2018. That return showed an amount due and owing of $1,037,595. . . .
54. In October 2018, GOLDSTEIN traveled to Macau, where he collected approximately $1,000,000 in income from Foreign Gambler-3 or his associate. Soon after, GOLDSTEIN flew from Hong Kong to Dulles International Airport carrying a duffel bag containing approximately $968,000 in United States dollars. During an encounter with a United States Customs and Border Protection officer at the airport, GOLDSTEIN admitted that the cash represented gambling winnings. GOLDSTEIN, however, failed to report the $968,000 as income on his 2018 Form 1040. Moreover, in an interview with representatives of the IRS on or about October 14, 2020, GOLDSTEIN falsely stated that the funds brought back from Hong Kong represented a “loan”-but never produced any record documenting the purported loan or its terms.
The email was allegedly sent to the accounting firm one day after oral argument, and the return was allegedly filed five days after oral argument. And at some point that month (potentially after oral argument), he allegedly brought back nearly $1 million in cash in a duffle bag from Macau to Dulles Airport. I visited Macau in May 2018 during a trip to Hong Kong. It was like Las Vegas, but smaller. I did not bring back a duffle bag.
- 11/5/2019 – CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. – Opposing counsel was Carter Phillips and Erica Ross
The indictment alleges:
During 2019, GOLDSTEIN was involved in a poker match involving a California Movie Producer (“the Producer”). In that match, GOLDSTEIN lost $170,000 to the Producer. To satisfy that poker debt, GOLDSTEIN caused a $170,000 wire transfer to be sent from the G&R bank account to the Producer. . . .
In or about February 2019, GOLDSTEIN represented Foreign Gambler-3 in connection with certain court proceedings in Macau. For that legal work, Foreign Gambler-3 caused approximately $235,000 to be sentto the G&RMontenegrin bank account. GOLDS’IEIN told the G&R firm manager that he was expecting to receive “$235k” from Foreign Gambler-3 at the Montenegrin financial institution and wanted to wire it to a U.S. domestic G&R bank account-but did not tell the firm manager that the money was legal fee income. . . .
These events allegedly happened about nine months before Citgo.
Goldstein’s next case came in October 2020 (during remote oral argument):
- 10/7/2020 – Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.
The indictment alleges:
GOLDSTEIN caused his 2019 Form 1040 to be filed on October 15, 2020. Although GOLDSTEIN owed over $500,000 in taxes for 2019 at the time he filed his return, GOLDSTEIN failed to pay those taxes until April 29, 2021. Rather than paying his taxes on July 15, 2020, when they were due, or on October 15, 2020, when he filed his return, GOLDSTEIN spent over $50,000 on luxury items and other personal payments between July and October 2020. Moreover, GOLDSTEIN paid over $550,000 for gambling debts during 2020.
This form was allegedly filed about eight days after oral argument.
Goldstein’s final argument came in March 2021.
- 3/29/2021 – Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System 0 Opposing counsel was Kannon Shanmugam and Sopan Joshi
The indictment alleges these events occurred around the same time:
In late February and early March 2021, GOLDSTEIN and his wife submitted two joint applications to First Savings Mortgage Corporation (“FSM”), seeking to borrow funds to purchase the Washington, D.C. home. The first application, signed and submitted by GOLDSTEIN to FSM on or about February 24, 2021, sought $2,000,000 to put.toward the purchase of the new hdme. The second application, signed and submitted by GOLDSTEIN on or 32 about March 1, 2021, sought $180,000 as a bridge loan, to cover certain costs in’connection with the new home purchase. In mid-March 2021, after learning of the tax liens, FSM informed GOLDSTEIN that it would not lend to him. . . . . To lift the tax liens on his Chevy Chase residence and to obtain financing for the Washington, D.C., home purchase, GOLDSTEIN contacteda litigation funder (“the Funder”) that had previously provided financing to G&R. Pursuant to a series of communications in mid-March 2021, GOLDSTEIN, actingthrough G&R, entered into two agreements with the Funder. Through these agreements, GOLDSTEIN effectively borrowed $1,600,000 and an additional $4,000,000 from the Funder, allowing him to purchase the new home and to pay off the personal tax liabilities that had resulted in the tax-liens. As part of his agreements with the Funder, which were signed by GOLDSTEIN on or about March 29, 2021, and April 17, 2021, GOLDSTEIN caused G&R to pledge certain receivables potentially due in specified court cases and other legal matters. GOLDSTEIN also provided a personal guaranty to the Funder in connection with both agreements, agreeing to be personally responsible if the security recited in the agreements did not result in full repayment to:the Funder. One of the agreements furtherrequired that GOLDSTEIN, as “the Guarantor,” would, upon “obtaining a mortgage loan on the” new Washington, D.C., residence, “cause the proceeds of such mortgage loan to be .applied to the repayment of” the Funder. 96.
Allegedly, the loans were denied two weeks before oral argument, and Goldstein allegedly signed the agreement with the funder the day after oral argument.
The indictment also makes allegations about Goldstein’s efforts to collect sums from an unnamed Texas Businessman during this period:
On or about December 19, 2019, a Texas-based billionaire (“Texas Businessman”) engaged in a heads-up poker match in Dallas, Texas, against a California-based actor (“the Actor”). The match had been set up by the Producer, who bought a 50% piece of the Actor in the match. In addition to his wagering with the Actor, the Texas Businessman also placed “side bets” with other poker players that he would prevail in his match against the Actor
76. The Actor won over $15.6 million in the December 2019 poker match with the Texas Businessman, but the Texas Businessman failed to timely pay the Actor and the side bettors-to whom the Texas Businessman separately owed hundreds of thousands of dollars on the side bets. The. Texas Businessman’s failure to pay the Actor continued into.2021, although in the interim the Texas Businessman proposed to the Actor and the side.bettors a settlement of his poker debts that involved paying an amount significantly less than what was actually owed.
77. In or about 202l, the Actor, who refused to agree to a reduction of the amount owed to him by the Texas Businessman, retained GOLDSTEIN and G&R to serve as his legal representative in his efforts to secure full payment of the poker debt owed to him by the Texas Businessman. In connection with his retention of GOLDSTEIN, the Actor and GOLDSTEIN exchanged a series of email and text communications regarding how much GOLDSTEIN and G&R would be paid, including a discussion of work that G&R had al.ready spent on the matter. GOLDSTEIN and the Actor ultimately agreed that the Actor would pay GOLDSTEIN a contingency fee based on a percentage of the amount GOLDSTEIN and G&R succeeded in convincing the Texas Businessman to pay to the Actor above the amount previously proposed by the Texas Businessman.
78. As a result of GOLDSTEIN’s legal efforts, including an email GOLDSTEIN sent from his G&R firm email address to the Texas Businessman’s attorney in which GOLDSTEIN stated that the Actor would consider filing a lawsuit to obtain payment, the Texas Businessman agreed in mid-2021 to pay the Actor in full. Accordingly, on June 21,2021, the Texas Businessman caused $7,815,000 to be wire transferred to the Actor-representing payment in full to the Actor, less the 50% piece owed to the Producer.
Who is this mystery actor? And I am not the Texas businessman. As the saying goes, I’m not a businessman, I’m a business, man.
Again, everything in the indictment is just allegation. No facts have been proven yet. I have tried, as carefully as I can, to compare the dates in the indictment with the dates of Goldstein’s arguments.
The post Comparing The Dates of Tom Goldstein’s SCOTUS Oral Arguments And The Dates In His Indictment appeared first on Reason.com.
