Humanigen Inc (HGENQ)

[shajandr]

I am not aware of any mandatory legal authority that requires Shkreli to request the court grant him leave to travel to DC to testify.

Cummings letter simply states that "it is his responsibility to take reasonable steps to comply".

Really? Then have the executive branch, through the US Attorney in the pending criminal case make the motion to the court to allow Shkreli to travel to DC. Shkreli can oppose the motion if he wishes - he can offer a variety of assertions in opposition.

For example, he can state that travel to DC to appear at a highly partisan adversarial hearing in which he believes he would be humiliated - resulting in uncontrollable mental distress that he believes may cause him to violate provisions of his bail - such as an emotion-induced action to flee the country or go underground and avoid appearing for his NY trial. This is an extreme example, butt it would put the court in an odd position of granting leave to travel in the face of opposition from the defendant.

I'm nott aware of any statutory or caselaw authority requiring Shkreli to affirmatively request a leave to travel. Perhaps there is such caselaw - I'm nott a criminal lawyer, so maybe there is such authority. If so, it's odd that Cummings didn't cite that in his letter.

I suppose we'll find ~OUTT in the next week or so.

I'd absolutely stick to my Fifth Amendment protections - especially if it is an open hearing. Offers of immunity be damned. The Congress cannot grant immunity from state court actions - so there is that aspect of testimony which can be relevant to state court prosecution(s) that CONgress cannot grant immunity for.

Further, there is a serious Constitutional question about Congressional grants of immunity in general, even as to Federal prosecution - to say nothing of tainting the juror pool by such appearance in Congress.

http://volokh.com/posts/1177539284.shtml