Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 82 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. TDC-18-0012
)
MARK T. LAMBERT, )
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFENDANT MARK LAMBERT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR A SECOND CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL
BASED ON THE GOVERNMENT’S 11TH HOUR FILING OF
A SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

Defendant Mark Lambert, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this

supplemental memorandum of law in support of his motion for a second continuance of trial

(ECF No. 71) based on the government’s filing of a second superseding indictment at the eve of

trial.

BACKGROUND

After a nine year investigation, including a failed attempt to secure a criminal complaint,

the government finally indicted Mr. Lambert on January 10, 2018. See Indictment (ECF No. 1).

According to the indictment, Rodney Fisk, the former president of Transport Logistics

International, Inc. – now also known to have been a covert FBI operative – allegedly entered into

a bribery conspiracy with Vadim Mikerin, the purported bribe recipient, in 2004. See Indictment

at 6, ¶17. The indictment further alleged that Mr. Lambert joined the preexisting conspiracy

between Mr. Fisk and Mr. Mikerin in 2009. See id. at 4, ¶12.

Over a year later, in April 2019, the government filed with the Court a superseding

indictment. See Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 58). The superseding indictment was filed
 Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 82 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 6

shortly after Mr. Lambert’s unopposed first request for a trial continuance, and less than three

months from the current trial date of June 18. In the superseding indictment, the government

amended the start date of the alleged preexisting conspiracy between Mr. Fisk and Mr. Mikerin

from 2004 to 2009. See Redlined Superseding Indictment at 7, ¶17 (ECF No. 60). The

superseding indictment continued to allege that Mr. Lambert joined the conspiracy in 2009. See

Superseding Indictment at 4, ¶12.

Finally, yesterday, less than a month before trial is scheduled to begin and, once again,

three days after Mr. Lambert sought a second continuance of trial, the government provided Mr.

Lambert with the redline of a second superseding indictment which was filed just minutes ago.

See May 22, 2019 Email of the U.S. Department of Justice (attached as Exhibit 1). In this

second superseding indictment, the government made significant changes to its allegations, by

amending both the start date of the alleged preexisting conspiracy between Mr. Fisk and Mr.

Mikerin, from 2009 back to 2007, as well as the critical date that Mr. Lambert is alleged to have

joined such conspiracy, from 2009 back to 2007. See Redlined Second Superseding Indictment

at 4, ¶12 and 6, ¶17 (ECF No. 81). This chart summarizes the government’s changes:

Start Date of Alleged

Date Mr. Lambert is Alleged
Preexisting Conspiracy
to Have Joined the Preexisting
Between Mr. Fisk and Mr.
Conspiracy
Mikerin

Indictment
(filed January 10, 2018) 2004 2009

Superseding Indictment
(filed April 3, 2019) 2009 2009

Second Superseding
Indictment
(filed May 23, 2019)
2007 2007

2
 Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 82 Filed 05/23/19 Page 3 of 6

ARGUMENT

The Court should grant Mr. Lambert’s request for continuance based solely on the

government’s delayed production of hundreds of thousands of pages, as laid out in Mr.

Lambert’s May 20 motion for a second continuance of trial, and as discussed with the Court

during the May 21 hearing.

Furthermore, the second superseding indictment, previewed to Mr. Lambert’s counsel

late yesterday, May 22, now significantly changes the government’s theory of the case,

specifically as regards to the critical and disputed facts surrounding Mr. Fisk’s alleged recruiting

of Mr. Lambert into Mr. Fisk’s purported preexisting conspiracy with Mr. Mikerin. Mr.

Lambert, of course, denies ever joining a conspiracy with Mr. Fisk or others, and the ultimate

factual question of how, when and by what means the government claims that he joined the

conspiracy is critical to Mr. Lambert’s defense. Thus, because the government significantly

changed its allegations against Mr. Lambert on the very eve of trial, without a continuance Mr.

Lambert would be prevented from making any effective use of the voluminous discovery

materials that he has received to prepare for trial and challenge the government’s new theory of

the case. In fact, now less than a month from trial, Mr. Lambert will have no meaningful

opportunity to properly review, again, the millions of pages produced by the government, to

prepare a new defense to oppose the government’s last-minute allegations that he somehow in

some undisclosed way joined the conspiracy two years earlier that had ever been previously

alleged. Accordingly, the court should continue trial so that Mr. Lambert may have sufficient

time to analyze, again, the government’s discovery materials in light of the government’s 11th

hour changes to the allegations against Mr. Lambert.

3
 Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 82 Filed 05/23/19 Page 4 of 6

Indeed, for over a year and a half, the government has consistently argued that Mr.

Lambert allegedly joined the preexisting conspiracy between Mr. Fisk and Mr. Mikerin in 2009.

Now, however, the government is alleging for the very first time that Mr. Fisk actually recruited

Mr. Lambert into the alleged conspiracy in 2007, over two years earlier. According to the

government, this significant new allegation purports to merely “clarify” the conspiracy period.

May 22, 2019 DOJ Email. That is simply not true. In fact, the government is effectively

changing its theory of the case regarding one of the most critical and disputed facts at issue in

this case: whether, when and under what circumstances, Mr. Lambert allegedly joined the

conspiracy. And the government is doing so at the very eve of trial and without prior notice to

either the Court at the recent hearing or to Mr. Lambert. 1

Therefore, to refute the government’s new allegations, Mr. Lambert will now be required

to revisit both his case and trial preparation, which has been ongoing for many months. In fact,

Mr. Lambert’s counsel has worked tirelessly over the past year and half to prepare a case that

will challenge the government’s allegations based on the government’s representations that it

believed that Mr. Lambert joined the alleged conspiracy in 2009. But since the government has

now changed its theory of the case, Mr. Lambert’s counsel must analyze, again, the over two

million records that the government previously produced to him to determine whether these

records include documents that may be material or exculpatory to Mr. Lambert in light of the

government’s new theory of the case. Of course, as the Court knows, this massive endeavor will

1
While the government informed Mr. Lambert on May 16 that it intended to change the
“timeframe” of the preexisting conspiracy between Mr. Fisk and Mr. Mikerin, it failed to note
the absolutely critical fact that it would also amend its theory of the case by changing the time it
alleges Mr. Lambert joined the purported conspiracy. See May 16, 2019 Email of the U.S.
Department of Justice (attached as Exhibit 2).

4
 Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 82 Filed 05/23/19 Page 5 of 6

be in addition to the necessary review of the approximately one million pages that the

government has just very recently produced to Mr. Lambert.

Accordingly, because today’s second superseding indictment significantly changes the

government’s theory of the case as to critical allegations, and because the government

significantly changed its allegations against Mr. Lambert at the very eve of trial, the court should

continue trial not only because the government delayed production of discovery material, but

also so that Mr. Lambert may have sufficient time to analyze, again, the government’s discovery

materials to prepare a defense to the government’s new claims against Mr. Lambert.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Lambert respectfully requests that the Court grant his

motion for a second continuance of trial.

Dated: May 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William M. Sullivan, Jr.

William M. Sullivan, Jr. (No. 17082)
Thomas C. Hill (No. 05703)
Fabio Leonardi (No. 07206)
1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 663-8027
Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
wsullivan@pillsburylaw.com
thomas.hill@pillsburylaw.com
fabio.leonardi@pillsburylaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Mark Lambert

5
 Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 82 Filed 05/23/19 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on this 23rd date of May 2019, I caused

the foregoing supplemental memorandum of law in support of motion for a second continuance

of trial based on the government’s 11th hour filing of a second superseding indictment to be

filed electronically using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which automatically sent a notice of

electronic filing to all counsel of record.

Dated: May 23, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Fabio Leonardi

Fabio Leonardi, Esq.
1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 663-8713
Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
fabio.leonardi@pillsburylaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Mark Lambert