The Department of INjustice
No good deed seems to go unpunished in today's America.
If you are concerned about the Federal government’s never-ending quest for control over your health and its ongoing destruction of the relationship between you and your chosen health care provider, then please take the time to comprehend what the Department of Justice has done in their attempt to destroy the career of one of America’s top surgeons: Dr. Sanjeev Kumar.
“For physicians, hospital administrators, and compliance professionals nationwide, the case raises an unsettling question: whether medical care will continue to be judged by established standards, regulatory guidance, and real patient outcomes, or by hypothetical harms imagined after prosecutors have already decided whom to charge.”
“Medical necessity should not be such a nebulous concept that it exists in the brain of a government charge reviewer, only.”
“No patient contracted an infection. No disease outbreak occurred. No evidence showed that any device was reused on a patient.”
“If a physician is receiving a criminal punishment for accepting the will of a patient, then we have real big problems in this country. We have a very serious problem with the criminalization of health care in this country and this case absolutely proves it.”
Please watch the video interview below:
Part I: Background
Part II: Court case (begins at 53 minutes)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZ9bX3MaDQ
Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7af8pc-interview-with-dr.-sanjeev-kumar.html
Important Questions:
1. Were medically unnecessary procedures performed at the clinic?
No. The medical board found no medically unnecessary procedures. Multiple insurance audits including medicaid found care to be medically necessary. Jury disputed 12 procedure out of more than 10,000. Even these 12 procedures have well documented medical indications in the chart (see table of indications documented in the medical chart). Anywhere in the world, these indications qualify for hysteroscopy. All 12 procedures disputed by the jury belonged to covid-19 pandemic (11 in 2021 and 1 in 2020). Most likely, the jury did not understand the case and the complex care received by the very sick patients.
2. Were medical devices reused at the clinic?
Yes. Multiuse devices were reused at the clinic after proper disinfection or sterilization. The clinic had numerous types of multiuse devices and single use devices. Even the single use devices had multiuse components. The allegations for reuse of single use devices stem from the misunderstanding between the single use and multiuse devices. If a witness did not have comprehensive knowledge of the devices, they can easily misunderstand the difference between single use vs multiuse devices. The medical board found no evidence of reuse of single use devices in their investigation. The clinic had one of the largest collections of the multiuse devices in the country.
3. Was ANY single use device proven to be reused on ANY single patient for ANY specific procedure?
No. No single use device was proven to be reused on any specific patient for any specific procedure. Defense team asked repeatedly and were not provided any specific information.
4. Were devices presented at the trial functional?
No. Devices presented at the trial were not functional-they did not work and could not be used or reused on any patients. They were broken, retrieved from biohazard trash cans and remained in the FBI possession for several months under unsanitary conditions.
5. Did any clinic employees testify on Dr. Kumar’s support?
Multiple clinic employees testified that no unnecessary procedures were performed and they never saw any reuse of any single use devices. Several brought their family members to be treated by Dr. Kumar and many were themselves receiving care by Dr. Kumar with the same devices.
6. Why are there so many counts (46)?
The government seized many devices from the clinic. Each device was broken down into two charges, one count for adulteration and one count on misbranding. A doctors office can literally have 100s of devices. So 16 devices seized by the government were the basis for 32 counts. Additional 4 counts were added for the multiuse devices just based on pictures without any actual testing of the device. All these devices were non functional, broken and several were seized from clearly labelled biohazard trash cans. None of these devices were connected to any specific patient. The government was not required to prove use or reuse of any of the specific device. In Addition, there were 10 counts of medical necessity labelled as healthcare fraud, all of which had well documented necessity indications in the chart.
7. Was any patient hurt?
No. Quite the opposite. Patients received excellent care and appreciated the convenience of weekend hours at the clinic. No evidence of any patient harm was presented at the trial. Numerous patients testified that they liked their care at the clinic. One said-I loved it. Another said Dr. Kumar was kind. Still another said -I stopped going to the clinic due to traffic. Main government witness testified that she learned a lot from Dr. Kumar and his patients loved him. No patient’s had any infections per the trial data.
8. Did Dr. Kumar sexually assault patients?
No. Government engaged in creative prosecution and called hysteroscopy as sexual assault as its a gynecologic procedure. These charges had no basis and were eventually dismissed by the court. They charged Dr. Kumar for sexual assault when when the procedure was actually performed by his physician assistant (a female) and he was physically not present in the clinic. Dr. Kumar enjoyed excellent reputation as a top surgeon in the region and had no sexual misconduct allegations before the government malicious prosecution leveled false charges.
9. Did Dr. Kumar receive a fair trail?
No. Pretrial propaganda with baseless sexual assault charges. During the trial, there were multiple Brady and Jenks violations. Lead FDA reviewer mislead the court under oath and now no longer with the FDA. Post trial Remmer hearing is ongoing and remains under seal.
10. How does this trial impact the practice of medicine?
Medical care can be charged as sexual assault by twisted application of the statue by a totally immunized prosecutor with no accountability. Government can call care dispensed by a clinic unnecessary based on a spurious chart review. This case demonstrated severe form of government overreach to restrict medical care by scaring the physician community.
January 12, 2026
The mixed verdict returned in United States v. Sanjeev Kumar bore little resemblance to the case that the public was first told it was witnessing. What began as a sensational prosecution framed around false, exaggerated and ultimately dismissed allegations of sexual misconduct and human trafficking ultimately narrowed into a dispute over medical judgment, regulatory enforcement, and the expanding criminalization of healthcare under statutes that were never designed for that purpose.
Please watch the video below:
Prosecutors selected 26 patients with the highest number of biopsies—a slanted, non-random sample— and had an expert review those cases. The expert agreed with many of Dr. Kumarʼs clinical findings. The government then narrowed the group to eight patients. Only then did the expert testify that repeating a biopsy within six months was inappropriate and that an insufficient biopsy sample should be repeated in a hospital setting at a cost exceeding $20,000.
Under oath, the expert could not identify a single medical standard, peer-reviewed study, or professional guideline supporting those opinions. No literature from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – ACOG – articulated such a rule, nor did any published standard require that insufficient biopsy samples be repeated exclusively in hospital settings. The standards applied at trial reflected one expert’s subjective views, imposed retrospectively on a selectively chosen patient group.
Perhaps most consequential was what the prosecution did not dispute. Dr. Kumarʼs cleaning protocols and standards of care had been reviewed and approved by the Tennessee Medical Board, which inspected his practice and found it appropriate. That approval was unrebutted. Nevertheless, a government expert was permitted to substitute personal judgment for CDC guidance, Medical Board oversight, and widely accepted medical practice.
One referring physician testified that he had sent hundreds of patients to Dr. Kumar and that those patients consistently received exceptional care. That physician was prevented from discussing the extent of free and reduced-cost care Dr. Kumar provided to underserved members of the community, limiting the juryʼs understanding of the practice as a whole. Patient witnesses faced similar constraints. Several were barred from fully describing their treatment experiences, including why procedures were recommended and how decisions were made, resulting in testimony that critics say presented an incomplete picture of the clinicʼs operations.
As the trial progressed, concerns also emerged about witness handling. Defense filings alleged that witnesses whose early statements conflicted with the Department of Justice’s theory were re-interviewed repeatedly by investigators. In several instances, those witnesses later offered testimony that differed materially from their earlier accounts, raising questions about whether investigative pressure contributed to evolving narratives rather than newly discovered facts.
The FDAʼs core theory—that Dr. Kumar reused “adulteratedˮ devices—also weakened under scrutiny. Evidence at trial showed that actual reuse of many seized devices was physically impossible. Certain cannulas were designed with safety mechanisms that prevent reuse altogether. One device highlighted by investigators was found in a cupboard without a battery and could not function. Forceps and graspers cited by the FDA did not fit the scopes they were allegedly associated with. Many items had been staged for disposal, not use.
Dr. Kumar conducted a live demonstration in court, showing that the devices collected by investigators were inoperable and could not be “held for saleˮ or used on patients. Other devices were shown to be sitting in CDC-approved high-level disinfectant solutions, consistent with federal guidance on medical device reprocessing and sterilization. Investigators, however, collected select items set for disposal while ignoring hundreds of sterile, packaged devices, documented cleaning logs, and protocols consistent with published Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sterilization guidance.
While prosecutors argued that Dr. Kumar violated complex FDA protocols, the defense documented that the lead FDA agent, Special Agent Brian Kriplean, violated basic evidence-preservation standards. According to motions filed during trial, Kriplean deleted the contents of his phone and failed to disclose key investigative materials until after witnesses had testified. Those actions formed the basis of motions alleging violations of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, the Jencks Act -18 U.S.C. § 3500-, and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 and 26.2.
The contrast was striking. A physician was prosecuted criminally for alleged regulatory violations, while the investigating agency failed to preserve evidence and disclose exculpatory material in a timely manner. Observers noted that this dynamic sits at the heart of growing concerns about the overcriminalization of healthcare.
No patient contracted an infection. No disease outbreak occurred. No evidence showed that any device was reused on a patient.
Yet under the jury instructions permitted by the court, prosecutors were not required to prove actual use on a patient.
Under this interpretation of FDA adulteration statutes, criminal liability can attach if a device is merely present in a medical office, even if it is inoperable, never reused, and never touches a patient.
Taken together, the case illustrates a broader shift in federal enforcement strategy: the transformation of regulatory disputes into criminal prosecutions, the reliance on subjective expert opinion untethered from published standards, and the expanding criminal prosecution of physicians for compliance issues traditionally addressed through professional discipline or administrative review.
For hospitals and clinics that rely on trained staff to clean, stage, and dispose of equipment in accordance with CDC guidance, the implications are far-reaching and place unprecedented pressure on compliance operations.
A Remmer hearing is currently underway in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar’s case.
A Remmer hearing is a court proceeding used to investigate allegations of jury misconduct or improper outside influence during a trial. Stemming from the landmark Supreme Court case Remmer v. United States, it requires the judge to hold a hearing with all parties present to determine if the jury was exposed to prejudicial information and if a new trial is warranted.
If an unauthorized “private communication, contact, or tampering” occurs with a juror, or if a juror is exposed to external information (like social media or outside research) there may be reason to convene a Remmer hearing. Attempts by third parties to influence a juror’s decision, inappropriate remarks made to jurors by court staff, bailiffs, or witnesses, or jurors doing their own research, looking up defendants online, or discussing the case on social networks are possible reasons to convene a Remmer hearing.
“What actually transpired” and whether the contact was harmful or harmless to the defendant is investigated. Both the defense and prosecution are allowed to participate, present evidence, and examine the jurors involved.
Once improper contact is proven, the law presumes the jury was prejudiced. The burden then shifts “heavily” to the prosecution to prove the contact was entirely harmless and did not affect the verdict.
If the judge finds that the outside influence likely impacted the jury’s verdict, the court must declare a mistrial or order a new trial.
Who is Dr. Sanjeev Kumar?
Dr. Kumar removes a large tumor at surgery during a life saving operation.
The above information is from the 2017 Baptist Cancer Center Annual Report
Sanjeev Kumar Found Right Place to Put Laparoscopy, Robotics into Practice
When Dr. Sanjeev Kumar came to Memphis in 2013 after a fellowship in gynecology/oncology at the Mayo Clinic, he found a patient population of heavyweights.
With Dr. Kumar’s expertise in robotic and laparoscopic surgery, the Baptist Medical Group Gynecology Surgical Center soon became ground zero for obese patients, a group that poses a greater degree of difficulty in surgical procedures.
“When I came to Memphis, we started getting these challenging patients and it was like ‘Let the new guy in town have these difficult cases that nobody else wants,’” Dr. Kumar recalled.
“Gradually we started developing methods and I started training my staff and operating team, and we started getting excellent results in very obese patients.
“Now in my practice, 80 to 90 percent of my patient population is obese. A lot of other physicians do not feel comfortable dealing with very obese patients, but with the surgery we’re offering we have seen the dramatic impact this makes in the patients’ lives.”
https://memphismedicalnews.com/article/762/taking-on-tough-task-of-obesity-surgery
https://www.actionnews5.com/2019/02/07/breakthrough-medical-procedure-can-help-prevent-miscarriage/
Visit Dr. Sanjeev’s website to learn more: DrSanjeevKumarSurgeon.com
In Dr. Sanjeev Kumar’s trial, the FDA claimed that they had “never cleared any hysteroscopes for high-level disinfection” and stated that hysteroscopes entering the uterus required sterilization.
Dr. Poulomi Nandy claimed: “It’s important to make sure that I communicate that FDA has not cleared any hysteroscopes with high-level disinfection.
However, the FDA’s claims are in direct conflict with the official instructions provided by the manufacturer.
A hysteroscopy is a minimally invasive procedure that allows a doctor to examine the inside of the cervix and uterus. It uses a hysteroscope—a thin, lighted telescope with a camera—inserted through the vagina, avoiding any skin incisions. It is used for both diagnosing and treating gynecological conditions.
Common Reasons for the Procedure:
Diagnosing abnormal bleeding: Investigating unusually heavy, long, or irregular periods, bleeding between periods, or postmenopausal bleeding.
Removing growths: Safely excising benign growths like uterine fibroids, polyps, or adhesions (scar tissue).
Fertility and pregnancy: Evaluating the uterine cavity to determine the cause of recurrent miscarriages or difficulty getting pregnant.
Device removal: Locating and removing displaced intrauterine devices (IUDs) or other foreign objects.
Tissue sampling: Performing a biopsy or a dilation and curettage (D&C) to check for precancerous or cancerous cells.
Below is a picture of Uro-V cannulas:
https://uroviu.com/products/uro-v-cystoscope/
The Feds seized cystoscope’s and treated them as hysteroscopes.
One is a hysteroscope and one is a cystoscope. Can you tell the difference?
A supplemental motion for a new trial filed last month in federal court raises questions about testimony presented during the criminal trial of Memphis gynecologic surgeon Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, with the defense arguing that Olympus physician reprocessing documentation conflicts with statements made to the court regarding accepted hysteroscope reprocessing methods.
The motion, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, focuses on testimony from FDA employee Dr. Poulomi Nandy regarding the Olympus HYF-XP hysteroscope and whether the device could be reprocessed using high-level disinfection methods in outpatient clinical settings.
According to the filing, Dr. Nandy testified that the FDA had “never cleared any hysteroscopes for high-level disinfection” and stated that hysteroscopes entering the uterus required sterilization.
The defense filing cites testimony from Dr. Nandy stating:
“It’s important to make sure that I communicate that FDA has not cleared any hysteroscopes with high-level disinfection. All hysteroscopes, including this very old device from Olympus, was cleared with sterilization.”
However, the defense argues that FDA guidance directs physicians to follow manufacturer Instructions for Use (IFU) and reprocessing guidance for medical devices.
Olympus physician reprocessing documentation for the HYF-XP hysteroscope repeatedly references devices being “high-level disinfected or sterilized” during reprocessing cycles.
“The issue is whether the court received a complete and accurate explanation of hysteroscope reprocessing guidance and accepted outpatient medical practice,” said Dr. Kumar.
“These procedures are commonly performed in physician offices throughout the United States because they can improve access to care, reduce costs, and allow women to receive minimally invasive treatment outside hospital settings.
Inaccurate interpretations of accepted outpatient hysteroscopy practices could ultimately have broader implications for healthcare access and costs nationwide.”
When you learn what has been done to Dr. Kumar, you will wonder why the Department of Justice has failed to seek to recover some of the trillions of dollars received by those who caused so much harm during COVID-19:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1347
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was NOT permitted to enter the following CDC guidelines as evidence.
The government was able to argue that since the device was in the clinic, “it was potentially available to be used on a patient.”
Regulated medical waste disposal describes how devices need to be decontaminated before being discarded. The devices were in Cidex in the clinic.
Screenshot from page 81:
https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/media/pdfs/Guideline-Disinfection-H.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/reuse-single-use-devices.html
https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/environmental-control/regulated-medical-waste.html
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was NOT permitted to enter as evidence the following documentation that the complaint was investigated by the Tennessee medical board and was dismissed by them.
October 27, 2019
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was NOT permitted to enter the following document as evidence.
My instruction to the office manager--lays out clearly at the beginning of the clinic-”clinic housekeeping”. I had dictated that on my iphone so it has all the original typos but it instructs the staff to use flexible scopes, to disinfect them and to sterlize them, AND then to “elegently remove them from the room at the finish of the procedure”
this is a key email coz if you read the DOJ release, they say that I told staff to reuse equipment; the fact is quite the opposite-see this clear written email
Again, I was not allowed to introduce it to the trial evidence
Documents from Dr. Sanjeev Kumar’s Court Case:
February 27, 2025
February 28, 2025
The FBI greatly inflamed public sentiment against Dr. Kumar by posting the following on the FBI.gov website:
Seeking Patient Information in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Investigation
March 10, 2025
DOJ Manipulates Malpractice Allegations to Fit Human Trafficking Narrative Against Mayo-Trained Gynecologic Oncologist
Despite Pam Bondi's explicit policy against "careerism," and “overcharging” Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, Reagan Taylor Fondren, appears to have done exactly that. Transforming what is essentially a malpractice allegation into a sensationalized sex trafficking indictment, AAG Fondren pursued gynecologist Dr. Sanjeev Kumar through an extensive multi-year investigation. Instead of bringing concrete allegations in a factually accurate indictment, she elected to use it as an instrument to inflame the passions of a vulnerable patient population.
Dr. Kumar faces an indictment primarily related to allegations of improperly sterilized instruments and billing disputes with insurance companies. However, the statements made by AAG Fondren to the media—intentionally portraying a respected physician as a predator—do not align with the actual charges outlined in the indictment. The allegations are also rebutted squarely by the Tennessee Medical board that cleared Dr. Kumar of wrongdoing in a September 17, 2024 letter. They are also rebutted by a Medicaid pre-payment audit that reviewed claims submissions prior to reimbursement.
The press release issued by the DOJ, laden with vague yet inflammatory allegation was deliberately designed to instill fear and distress in Dr. Kumar’s patient community. Dr. Kumar’s legal team, comprising Ronald W. Chapman II, former Assistant United States Attorney Maritsa Flahrety, and former United States Attorney Lawrence Laurenzi, issued a formal letter notifying the Department of Justice and AAG Fondren of the false nature of the allegations. In response, AAG Fondren removed all comments and quotations from the original press release but did not notify media outlets.
The DOJ employs such tactics because they are effective. Merely implying that a male gynecologist may be predatory is enough to traumatize and anger nearly all of his patients. AAG Fondren exploited this fear, issuing a press release in violation of DOJ ethical standards, labeling Dr. Kumar as “a predator in a white coat” and accusing him of abusing women. These allegations immediately captured widespread media attention, including coverage by the New York Times and virtually all Memphis news outlets.
The consequences of AAG Fondren’s actions were profound, causing unnecessary emotional trauma among vulnerable women by suggesting—without supporting evidence—that routine medical treatmentsconstituted abuse by a predatory physician. The provocative press release encouraged patients to come forward, leading over 200 women within 48 hours to contact a law firm advertising compensation for victims, thus creating an environment of panic and suspicion.
Notably, Dr. Kumar’s professional record remains impeccable. In fact, the Tennessee Department of Health (“TDOH”) launched a state investigation following the government’s execution of a search warrant at Dr. Kumar’s clinic in which the TDOH found insufficient evidence to support any allegations that Dr. Kumar was adulterating or misbranding hysteroscopes.
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar is one of only 300 specialists nationwide in gynecologic oncology and pelvic surgery. His clinical expertise covers critical conditions such as cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, pelvic masses and tumors, and vulvar and vaginal cancers. A highly regarded surgeon at the local hospitals, prior associate professor at the University of Tennessee and a Mayo Clinic-trained surgeon, Dr. Kumar has co-authored over 40 peer-reviewed publications and received numerous awards.
Despite his distinguished career and strong professional endorsements, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has alleged that Dr. Kumar sexually assaulted women through supposedly unnecessary medical tests. Such claims regarding medical necessity typically require expert medical opinion, which the prosecution notably lacks. The indictment does not cite any expert medical testimony backing the DOJ’s claims.
The specific procedures in question, such as hysteroscopy, are commonly performed for numerous medically justified reasons, including fertility issues, abnormal pap smears, uterine bleeding, endometriosis, miscarriages, removal of scar tissue, fibroids, polyps, and biopsies. Dr. Kumar’s treatments were consistently supported by appropriate medical diagnostics and referrals from respected primary care physicians nationwide.
Crucially, the indictment itself contains no allegations of sexual assault. Instead, it amounts to a payment disagreement between Dr. Kumar’s billing practices and what Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance providers agreed to reimburse.
June 26, 2025
October 17, 2025
The Ruling in Plain English
Prosecutors charged Dr. Kumar under a federal “Travel Act” theory that accused him of enticing patients to travel for “illegal sexual activity.” The Court held that “sexual activity” in this context means conduct done for sexual gratification—and the indictment didn’t even allege that. In the Court’s words, prosecutors cannot “stretch the law to fit the evil.”
Result: Counts 1–4 dismissed.
The government failed to specifically allege a date. The Court said that’s not allowed. On multiple FDA counts, prosecutors tried to roll thousands of patient procedures—into single counts. That’s called duplicity, and it risks a non‑unanimous verdict because different jurors might convict for different underlying acts.
Result: Counts 5–9, 12–13, 16–18, 21–22, and 25 dismissed as duplicitous.
About that pre‑trial publicity
From day one, the government’s press messaging put the focus on lurid allegations. In its February 28, 2025 press release, the DOJ announced salacious charges; later, DOJ retracted the comments and quotations it originally published on that page—without the splashy do‑over that accompanied the first round of publicity.
The FBI simultaneously published a “Seeking Victim Information” page—an investigative tool, yes, but also a public signal that can amplify fear and encourage pile‑on litigation. Federal Bureau of Investigation
On March 10, 2025, Dr. Kumar’s defense team put it in writing: the case had been “sensationalized,” transforming alleged sterilization/billing disputes into a sex‑trafficking narrative designed to inflame a vulnerable patient population.
Three weeks later, national reporting confirmed that Acting U.S. Attorney Reagan Taylor Fondren was fired by the White House, an unusual move for a career DOJ lawyer. The timing is noteworthy; the reason was never officially tied to this case. Correlation isn’t causation—but the sequence can’t be ignored. AP News
Today’s ruling strips away the most incendiary narrative. The Court’s analysis is careful, methodical, and rooted in strict construction of criminal statutes—not in press releases.
Bottom line: The Court agreed that prosecutors pushed the law too far on the most sensational charges and on the “mega‑count” FDA theories.
https://whitecollarcriminaldefense.com/insight/kumar-memphis-obgyn-federal-dismissal/
October 30, 2025
November 3, 2025
December 29, 2025
12 procedures disputed by jury well documented indications in medical chart
January 12, 2026
When the Department of Justice first announced charges against Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, a Mayo Clinic–trained gynecologic oncologist, government press releases implied predatory behavior, sexual abuse, and human trafficking. Those allegations dominated headlines and generated widespread fear among patients. Yet none of those accusations ever reached the jury. Months before trial, the court dismissed the Travel Act charges brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1952, finding them legally deficient. Still, the narrative they created endured long after the charges themselves disappeared.
By the time jurors were seated, the case had transformed into something far more technical and far more consequential for the medical community. The prosecution centered on allegations of healthcare fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and criminal enforcement of FDA adulteration and misbranding provisions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, specifically 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 351, and 352. These statutes are historically enforced through civil or administrative processes, not felony prosecutions carrying the weight of prison sentences. The case thus became a defining example of an FDA adulteration criminal case pursued in the absence of patient injury.
January 28, 2026
March 9, 2026
March 26, 2026
Sanjeev Kumar granted Remmer Hearing
Sanjeev Kumar Granted Remmer Hearing
Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman granted the Remmer Hearing — a hearing to determine whether a jury, or juror, was influenced by external sources — following a post-trial evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant one. ABC24 is working to determine the context under which the Remmer Hearing was granted.
According to a motion to continue sentencing submitted on March 9 in a U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, “On Thursday, March 5, 2026, pursuant to the court’s order, the parties interviewed a juror concerning outside contacts with the jury during their deliberations. Based on the interview of the juror, Defendant intends to file a motion requesting a ‘Reemer’ hearing.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/sanjeev-kumar-granted-remmer-hearing-225755734.html
April 21, 2026
May 1, 2026
https://rumble.com/v797k88-top-cancer-surgeon-targeted-by-feds-with-dr.-sanjeev-kumar.html
May 13, 2026
TIME STAMPED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jmmC_oGx6U&t=3879s
May 21, 2026
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1qGoNeldbEvKv
James Roguski
310-619-3055
My Story
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
All support is deeply appreciated.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
Great job as always on a truly horrific case.... like mines
...and the real criminals still haven't been arrested!
You missed your calling, JR. You should've been a lawyer - his lawyer...