HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011417

id.

ne)

life)

114 H3vlgiu2

and second of all -- so that's a rule of completeness, and

second of all, you were there and you heard it and therefore,

it would go to your state of mind and not for the truth of the

matter asserted.

The next case is United States v. Dupree. That's

another criminal case in this circuit, where a bank fraud defendant was the subject of a temporary restraining order issued to that defendant, okay? So, you know, he has a

temporary restraining order, you can't take any money out of

this bank unless you do X, Y, and Z. Well, he took the money out of the bank without doing X, Y, and Z, and when he came to

trial in his criminal case, the government was allowed to

introduce that restraining order because it was his restraining

order, he knew about it, and it showed his willful intent to

defraud as part of the bank fraud. So that's that case.

Arista Records, LLC v. Lime Group, LLC was another

case they rely on. Again, these are emails that are being

talked about that were written by the defendant's employees and

then the responses to those emails. So clearly the defendants LLC had corporate knowledge of those things. Screenshots of software programs, statements made by an agent of the defendant, those are all the things that we're talking about in

that case, and so there's actual knowledge of the entity of

those statements, which then can go for state of mind.

There are two more cases. Crescenz v. Penguin Group,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011417