RICO Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Judge orders Fani Willis to pay attorneys fees — yet again

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 16 Mar 2025 13:10:20 +0000

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis looks on during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March, 1, 2024, in Atlanta (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has lost yet another case and is now being ordered to once again pay attorneys fees for her office’s intentional violations of Peach State open records laws.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the final judgment in the matter ancillary to the district attorney’s failed racketeering (RICO) prosecution of President Donald Trump was a foregone conclusion.

In October 2024, the judge overseeing the matter said Willis would lose and be subject to a monetary penalty. On Friday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause formalized her ruling.

“The law doesn’t apply to you,” the judge sarcastically said during last year’s final hearing in the case — upbraiding a government lawyer.

In the case, attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents co-defendant Michael Roman in the underlying RICO prosecution, proved the district attorney’s office violated the Georgia Open Records Act by failing to quickly provide documents related to the employment and remuneration of Nathan Wade — the former special assistant district attorney forced to resign from the Trump case due to his onetime romantic relationship with Willis — and other documents related to how Willis’ office spent large sums of public funds.

Instead, the DA’s office delayed those requests for months and said the law did not apply to them — with one particular employee responsible for the stonewalling. Only when litigation was filed, and a subpoena was served, did the DA’s office comply with the law.

True sunshine filtered through the bureaucratic haze when Dexter Bond, the deputy of operations for the DA’s office, admitted under oath that he responded unfavorably to the plaintiffs based on the identity of the attorney filing the requests and concomitant lawsuit.

That behavior clearly irked the judge.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Agreed to produce’: Fani Willis tells court she will finally respond to subpoenas for documents and testimony about Trump RICO prosecution

“As noted during the hearing, Defendants — through the Open Records custodian, Dexter Bond — were openly hostile to counsel for Plaintiff, Ms. Merchant, and testified that Ms. Merchant’s requests were handled differently than other requests,” the court order reads.

Krause explains the problem, at length:

Mr. Bond indicated that he refused to communicate by telephone with Ms. Merchant, despite testifying that his usual practice is to call a requestor to get additional information when a request is unclear. While there is no requirement under the [Open Records Act] for Mr. Bond to call any a requestor about a particular request, Mr. Bond’s handling of Ms. Merchant’s requests in this manner indicates a lack of good faith. The evidence at the hearing also demonstrated that Mr. Bond failed to produce (or meaningfully inquire about) numerous non-disclosure agreements based on his unnecessarily limited interpretation of the request as pertaining only to media agreements. After Mr. Bond consulted with Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Bond understood the request to include “confidentiality” agreements and produced 22 such agreements. Later, an office-wide e-mail was sent, and numerous other agreements were identified and produced. Mr. Bond also testified he did not conduct any searches or make other meaningful search efforts in response to Plaintiff’s request for promotional and “re-branding” materials, claiming he did not know what the request sought and there “were no searches to perform.”

In the end, the judge said, Willis and her underlings “acted without substantial justification” under the relevant Georgia law.

“Defendants’ failures were intentional, not done in good faith, and were substantially groundless and vexatious,” Krause summed up.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Ultimately, for their perfidy, the DA’s office was ordered to pay Merchant $54,264 in attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

The plaintiffs also received injunctive relief by way of an order directing Willis to finally provide three types of requested documents.

The DA’s office has 30 days to comply with the court’s order to pay or find itself subject to potential additional fees and expenses.

Source link

The post Judge orders Fani Willis to pay attorneys fees — yet again appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Fani Willis asks court to quash subpoenas about Trump case

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 05:40:49 +0000

Left: Donald Trump speaks at the annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, DC, June 22, 2024 (Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP). Right: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis arrives during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March 1, 2024, in Atlanta (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis recently asked a court in Georgia to put the kibosh on subpoenas issued by state legislators intent on quizzing the prosecutor about her and her office’s efforts to investigate and prosecute President Donald Trump.

Peach State Sen. Bill Cowsert, a Republican who represents the college town of Athens, is the chair of the Senate Special Committee on Investigations. That committee has been looking into Willis for years. Cowsert has been aiming to force Willis to talk on the record about her long-frustrated Trump crusade since last summer.

The locus of the committee’s investigation into the election interference investigation is how, exactly, Willis spent public funds — and whether any earmarked funds were improperly diverted.

The prosecutor was slated to appear and speak under oath at a public hearing in September 2024 — but ultimately she was a no-show.

Around the same time, Cowsert moved to enforce years-old subpoenas for documents and testimony. In turn, Willis and her office filed for a permanent injunction to stop the subpoenas from being enforced. In December, attorneys for the parties argued the general issues in the case as well as for and against the possibility of Willis being held in contempt. The judge overseeing the matter then ruled in the committee’s favor on the basic question of the subpoena power.

Now, the embattled DA says the subpoenas are moot and should be quashed or dismissed entirely. That is, the procedural posture is now different but the hoped-for result is the same: Willis wants the judge to render the subpoenas dead letter.

“[Willis] respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Former Special Committee’s Application as moot and dismiss this case entirely for lack of jurisdiction,” the motion reads.

In her motion to quash filed late last week, Willis notes that the recent general election necessarily resulted in a new General Assembly being sworn in. the state Senate, for their part, quickly made sure to reauthorize Cowert’s committee. But, Willis says, the details of how that reauthorization occurred preclude the subpoenas from having any real staying power.

“This reauthorization plainly contemplates and creates a new committee, not a continuing one,” the motion reads. “First, the Resolution notes that the Special Committee is ‘recreated and reauthorized’ — not that it is the same committee as the prior one. Next, the Committee members are to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Assignments pursuant to its usual procedures — meaning the committee members will not necessarily be the same (and thus at least hypothetically might not take the same actions as the prior committee). At least one member will be different due to the retirement of a former member.”

Willis does not, however, rely on the novel nature of the committee.

The motion also argues that the rules under which subpoenas can be issued in the new iteration of the committee vary substantially from the older version. Key here, Willis argues, is a new restriction that requires a majority vote before a member can issue a subpoena. The old version of Cowsert’s committee had no such provision in its founding charter, the motion says.

Willis goes on to say that the new committee is also somewhat emboldened — because it is allowed to meet more often.

“In other words, the old Special Committee no longer exists — and therefore lacks the power to enforce its Application or its subpoenas,” the motion goes on. “The new Special Committee possesses whatever powers the former one had — and it has new powers, and restrictions on old ones.”

The DA’s filing offers a hypothetical to argue her point:

Imagine that a prior committee was formed to investigate a policy issue, but some of its members were defeated in their reelection campaigns. Plainly the prior committee could not continue to seek to issue and enforce subpoenas, compel testimony, demand documents and so on after a new General Assembly was sworn in, when at least some of its members (and perhaps the policy goals of the prior committee) were rejected by the electorate.

The motion says the new committee can issue new subpoenas if members are intent on getting the long-ago requested testimony and documents about Fulton County’s Trump-focused investigations — but insist the time has passed on the extant subpoenas.

“The prior General Assembly did not issue its subpoenas until late August of 2024,” the motion concludes. “The deadline for compliance with them was September of 2024. This Court heard and resolved the matter in roughly three months. Should the new Special Committee seek to issue and enforce subpoenas as to Petitioner, it has plenty of time to do so before it expires.”

Read the full Willis filing here.

Source link

The post Fani Willis asks court to quash subpoenas about Trump case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell files RICO lawsuit against lenders

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:02:04 +0000

Mike Lindell gives a thumbs-up as he passes by a rally for supporters of former President Donald Trump, Tuesday, April 4, 2023, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee).

The high-dollar economic woes of Mike Lindell and his small-town Minnesota-based company MyPillow continue apace.

So does the litigation.

Last week, the pro-Donald Trump conspiracy theorist and his once-lucrative business sued several lending companies over the eye-popping repayment terms of a $600,000 merchant cash advance.

Under the terms of the agreement signed in September, Lindell and his company must pay back $16,800 each day.

In the 34-page lawsuit filed on Oct. 25 in Carver County District Court and obtained by Law&Crime, the plaintiffs claim the agreement was “usurious, unconscionable and thus unenforceable.”

Stylized as a racketeering (RICO) complaint, the lawsuit accuses various lenders of issuing a loan under the guise of a contract in which the lenders agreed to “purchase My Pillow’s future receivables at a discount” and in which “My Pillow agreed to repay the face value of its receipts through daily payments.”

The agreement was executed in this fashion, the lawsuit alleges, in order to skirt New York State’s statutory maximum interest rate.

The plaintiffs say the effective interest rate on the “loan” equates to 368% — or 441% if origination fees of $36,000 are considered.

Lindell says he and his companies “bore the risk of non-payment of any receivables and remained on the hook for the entire amount at issue,” which left the lenders with “no risk in the transaction.”

On top of that, the lawsuit alleges, Lindell and his companies “always remained liable for the debt” that was taken out.

“As a result, the [defendants] never made a bona fide purchase of My Pillow’s receivables under the [Merchant Cash Advance] Agreement and the transaction is, in reality, a usurious loan,” the lawsuit reads.

But what looks like an alleged double whammy for the beleaguered bedding vendor — once on the verge of becoming a household name until its founder repeatedly dabbled in electoral systems expertise — is, in fact, something not entirely unlike a triple whammy

Lindell also says he was snookered into making the fraught financial contract with promises of a secondary loan that never materialized.

“Plaintiffs also entered into the transaction as the result of a classic bait and switch,” the lawsuit reads.

To hear Lindell tell it, one of the named defendants, a broker, “represented that to get the other loan on the real estate,” the plaintiffs had to agree to the merchant advance loan with a lender who would then “also make a real estate loan on two properties in Minnesota.”

But, the lawsuit alleges, once the $563,000 — the amount inclusive of the aforementioned fees — was lent out, the primary lender “refused to make the real estate loan that was Plaintiffs’ reason and consideration for entering into” the merchant advance transaction.

The lawsuit also launches a shot across the bow at the entire industry, and business model, of merchant cash advance companies.

From the filing, at length:

The MCA industry specializes in providing struggling businesses with highrisk loans at exorbitant interest rates, disguising those loans as the alleged purchase of future receivables. The MCA industry typically seeks to hide within the gray areas of the law, attempting to take advantage of procedural remedies and loopholes in distant state courts to disguise its predatory lending practices.

…

This is what the MCA companies do. Among other things, they generally require unaffordable daily payments that they know the debtor is unlikely to be able to repay given the extraordinary interests rates and fees the MCA companies demand. They further leverage various legal and contractual processes to guarantee full repayment, thus assuming virtually no risk in the transaction.

With the lawsuit, Lindell aims to obtain a court order declaring his agreement with the lenders “unconscionable and unlawful,” usurious under New York law, “and therefore void and unenforceable.” The filing also seeks various damages — compensatory, direct, and consequential — as well as interest and attorney’s fees.

Law&Crime reached out to the primary lender named in the lawsuit as well as the company that allegedly “induced” the transaction, according to the filing, but no responses were immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.

The interest rates at issue is, of course, one of many economic maladies Chaska, Minnesota-based MyPillow and its founder face.

Lindell and his company have been accused of welching on their debts — an apparent knock-on effect of Lindell personally and loudly maintaining that certain conspiracies cost Trump the 2020 election.

In a long-running lawsuit, Lindell Management LLC has been repeatedly rebuked by the courts for its refusal to pay the winner of a “Prove Mike Wrong” challenge.

In that disastrous contest, engineer Robert Zeidman — himself a supporter of Trump — picked up the poly-foam gauntlet thrown down by the one-time QVC star. Despite severe doubts about his own abilities, Zeidman bested Lindell over false claims about election data.

In March, a Minnesota county judge ruled against MyPillow in an eviction hearing — finding that the company owed over $200,000 in unpaid rent for a warehouse in Shakopee.

In October 2023, Lindell confirmed that MyPillow had been “decimated” by defamation lawsuits Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic filed against several pro-Trump figures who insisted the voting machine companies orchestrated a plot to hand the 2020 election to President Joe Biden. As a result of being one such voice, Lindell said, his company had “lost hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell files RICO lawsuit against lenders appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Diddy’s gag order proposal to crack down on ‘leaks’ revealed

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:51:16 +0000

Sean P. Diddy Combs at the 2017 Costume Institute Benefit Gala celebrating the opening of the exhibition Rei Kawakubo/Comme des Garcons: Art Of The In-Between held on May 1, 2017 at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City (zz/ESBP/STAR MAX/IPx).

Now that Sean “Diddy” Combs has persuaded a federal judge that “a gag order is appropriate,” in the words of the defense, the high-profile RICO and sex trafficking defendant’s lawyers and federal prosecutors are fighting over just how far an order should go and to whom it can and should apply.

In recent days, Combs asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to put a stop to “extrajudicial statements from prospective witnesses and their lawyers” and to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial amid an avalanche of civil lawsuits that Combs claims are “opportunistic.” At the same time, the defense has claimed that “unauthorized and prejudicial leaks of grand jury information” have taken place.

For instance, defense attorney Marc Agnifilo asserted two weeks ago that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was “most likely” the “source” that handed CNN a 2016 video of him abusing his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura at the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles.

While prosecutors swiftly disputed the claim, the defense went so far as to speculate that the “leak” to CNN was timed for May 17 former President Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in Manhattan was on pause for that day as he attended son Barron Trump’s high school graduation — making it “a slow news day” and a “perfect time” for the abuse video to come out and “mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself against these allegations.”

Over the last couple of days, the defense and prosecution have submitted their own proposals about a gag order-to-be and separately offered explanations for the proposed language therein.

Combs’ proposed gag order

Prosecutors’ proposed gag order

The differences between the two stances

Combs’ lawyers told the judge that “unfortunately” the defense and prosecution could not agree on proposed language despite an “extensive back and forth since” Oct. 10, but added that the two sides are not as far apart as they could be. The defense urged Subramanian to act quickly because government “agents” allegedly haven’t stopped leaking (a recent Deadline article that quoted a “law enforcement source with knowledge of the case” was cited as one example, and a CNN story from May — predating the indictment by months — was another).

“At this juncture, the Court’s intervention is critical because agents involved in the investigation have continued their leaks, and their damaging and false information to the press in the wake of the October 10 status conference, only heightening the need for the gag order to be issued as soon as possible,” the defense said, noting that the “principal disagreement between the parties stems from the fact that the government continues to resist language that will ensure that the order covers all the agents who may be exposed to grand jury materials and other confidential information related to the investigation and prosecution of this case.”

“The government wanted the order only to cover agents ‘assigned to’ the investigation, rather than any agents who acquire confidential information about the investigation and objected to the specific reference to the Department of Homeland Security,” Combs’ lawyers continued. “These objections would defeat the purpose of the order. Whether an agent is officially ‘assigned’ to the investigation or not should not matter.”

In response, prosecutors clarified that the primary lingering disagreement boils down to “the definition of the government” and who in law enforcement can be restrained from leaking.

“Accordingly, the only remaining disagreement between the parties is the language concerning who would be bound by the order. The Government’s proposed order reflects the reality that the Government has two separate obligations—maintaining the secrecy of grand jury material in accordance with Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and complying with the directives set forth in Local Criminal Rule 23.1,” prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said. “The parties agree that the Government attorneys assigned to the matter and staff members working under their supervision or at their direction are bound by both obligations. However, the parties disagree about the extent to which law enforcement agents and/or officers may be bound by those obligations.”

Slamming Combs’ proposal as “plainly overbroad,” prosecutors said there’s “simply” no way to enforce it and noted that the “purported leaks […] have not been of grand jury material and—as the defendant concedes—are not alleged to be from the agents and officers assigned to this case”:

By contrast, the defendants—citing no authority—have insisted that such an order bind any “local and federal law enforcement agents assisting any aspect of the investigation or prosecution of the above-referenced case, and any related grand jury proceedings, including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security.” Defendant’s proposal is plainly overbroad as it would require the Government to be held accountable for potentially thousands of agents in an independent law enforcement agency over whom the Government has no authority or oversight. Indeed, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) employs over 200,000 individuals and includes the investigating agency here, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), in addition to multiple other law enforcement agencies (such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, and others) with no role in this case whatsoever. Such an order would simply be unenforceable.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Diddy’s gag order proposal to crack down on ‘leaks’ revealed appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Diddy says sex civil trafficking lawsuit should be dismissed

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:45:04 +0000

FILE -Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs participates in “The Four” panel during the FOX Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour in Pasadena, Calif., Jan. 4, 2018 (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP, File).

Defense attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs on Friday moved to dismiss a civil racketeering (RICO) lawsuit filed against him and other high-profile defendants by one of his former sound engineers.

In February, Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones Jr. sued Combs for sex trafficking, drug distribution, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Also named in the lawsuit is Combs’ son, Justin Dior Combs, actor Cuba Gooding Jr., an unnamed “Rapper,” and an unnamed “R&B Singer.”

Since then, an amended complaint was filed in March and a second amended complaint was filed in April — in order to correct various deficiencies and abide by mandatory pleading standards.

Now, Combs’ lawyers say Jones anticipates filing yet another iteration of his lawsuit — and are imploring the judge overseeing the case to shut things down by dismissing the complaint entirely.

“Apparently recognizing the [second amended complaint’s] insufficiency, Jones repeatedly asks for permission to replead after the Combs Defendants’ motion is inevitably granted,” the latest Combs filing reads. “Leave to replead — in what would be his fourth complaint — should be denied as futile. Despite his efforts to supplement his pleading with new allegations in his Opposition, nothing in the Opposition suggests that Jones has additional facts to allege that would remedy the essential deficiencies of his claims.”

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed in August. Weeks later, after a steady drip of bad news, Combs was indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of New York on charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution.

In late September, in a hard-charging motion in opposition, Jones’ attorneys took note of the nearly-year-worth of bad press and the allegations contained in the federal indictment.

From the plaintiff’s motion [emphasis in original]:

The [court] must deny the RICO Enterprise Defendants Hail Mary Motion to Dismiss. Sean Combs (“SC”), Love Records (“LR”), Kristina Khorram (“KK”), and Combs Global Enterprises (“CGE”) (collectively, “the Combs RICO Enterprise”), the Court needs only to Google, and it would be abundantly clear that SC has zero credibility, and to quote United State President Joe Biden, he “has the morals of an alley cat.” SC is a criminally indicted, racketeering sex trafficking, illegal prostitution facilitating, accused drugs and guns dealer, accused Mexican cartel drug runner, accused murderer, and confirmed woman beater.

Attorneys for the fallen-from-grace hip-hop mogul did not appreciate the verbiage employed by his one-time record producer.

“Because Jones is unable to refute any of the Combs Defendants’ arguments for dismissal of the incoherent Second Amended Complaint, his Opposition focuses heavily on ad hominem attacks,” the defense reply memorandum reads. “For the most part, Jones does not even attempt to argue that he has pled the elements of his purported claims.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Serious threats to his rights’: Diddy demands to know accusers’ identities, claims ‘many pretend victims’ are trying to cash in on ‘false to outright absurd’ allegations

The Jones filing also sought formal judicial notice for the indictment — essentially asking the court to formally acknowledge the allegations leveled by law enforcement. Specifically, the judge was asked to “notice that the indictment closely mimics Plaintiff Jones’s Second Amended Complaint.”

Combs’ attorneys aim to rubbish this effort.

“Jones impermissibly attempts to piggy-back off the Indictment to make up for the [second amended complaint’s] failure to plead any of the elements of a RICO claim,” the memo reads.

To hear the defense tell it, in each instance, Jones’ claims in the lawsuit against Combs fail on a basic, procedural level.

From the memo, at length:

His centerpiece RICO claim still fails off the bat for lack of standing because he has not pled any economic injury to himself; nor can he rely on the Indictment to make up for his failure to allege predicate acts or the numerous other requirements for this claim. His TVPA claim still fails because of his admitted inability to plead a causal link between any threat or promise and any commercial sex act. His vague assault claim against Mr. Combs fails because Jones has still not identified when, where, or how these purported acts occurred. His premises liability claims against Mr. Combs fail because he still has not alleged that any claimed assault by third parties was foreseeable or that he suffered any injury. His emotional distress claims fail because they are duplicative, because Jones does not allege the requisite negligence and “outrageous” conduct necessary to support them, and because he fails to plead any injury. And his breach of oral contract claim still fails as barred by the Statute of Frauds because it involves a royalty claim that cannot be performed within a year.

Combs, by way of his attorneys, purports to have more or less put the kibosh on Jones’ claims in his prior filings. And, the reply memorandum argues, the plaintiff should not get another chance to shore up his serially-deficient legal arguments and factual allegations.

“Jones has already amended his complaint twice and the operative pleading is 98 pages long — if he had any facts to allege against the Combs Defendants that made out a valid claim, he would (and should) have alleged them by now,” the memo concludes. “His request to file another amended pleading should be denied as futile.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Diddy says sex civil trafficking lawsuit should be dismissed appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Fani Willis and top lieutenant mocked for motion in YSL case

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 17:02:04 +0000

Left: FILE – Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis appears during a hearing regarding defendant Harrison Floyd, a leader in the organization Black Voices for Trump, as part of the Georgia election indictments, Nov. 21, 2023, in Atlanta (Dennis Byron/Hip Hop Enquirer via AP, File). Right: Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams (Law&Crime).

With equal parts derision and seriousness, a Georgia attorney representing one of the defendants in the YSL racketeering (RICO) trial filed a motion on Tuesday castigating the latest tactic employed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her top lieutenant.

The title of the defense motion sums up the current dispute:

Opposition To State’s Motion In Limine To Allow The State To Present All Relevant Evidence To The Jury And To Deny Defendant Objections To The Presentation Of Relevant Evidence On The Basis That Said Evidence Is A “Waste Of Time”

A footnote in the filing by defense attorney Doug Weinstein concedes: “Wow. That is really a mouthful.”

But whatever might be considered unnecessarily loquacious about the title of the defense motion is entirely due to an earlier motion filed by the state, the responding lawyer says.

The prosecution’s motion is titled:

Motion In Limine To Allow The State To Present All Relevant Evidence To The Jury And To Deny Defendant Objections To The Presentation Of Relevant Evidence On The Basis That Said Evidence Is A “Waste Of Time”

While the yearlong-plus trial against Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams and others has mostly been in hiatus this month due to hurricane season and several missing police reports, the state and the defense have continued motions practice.

In the state’s motion, Willis and Fulton Count Chief Deputy District Attorney Adriane Love moved to “present all relevant evidence to the jury and to deny objections to the presentation of relevant evidence on the basis that said evidence is a ‘waste of time.””

In response, Weinstein accused the state of filing a “frivolous” motion that “genuinely merits no response” but said he felt “compelled” to do so because it appeared prosecutors were planning “some form of carpet bombing of additional, pointless, cumulative evidence.”

Such evidence, the defense attorney argued, was “clearly excludable” under the relevant rule of evidence. He also accused prosecutors of “laying down some type of suppression fire” with their motion.

The defense mocks Willis and Love, at length, for the conclusory and unsourced nature of their latest motion:

In a surprisingly succinct and efficient bit of lawyering from the State, the State requests that this Honorable Court deny all future defense 403 Objections regarding the State presenting relevant evidence that is a waste of time. The State cites neither statute, case law, nor the highest law of the land according to the State, Carlson on Evidence, to support its position that the Court take up the challenge of overriding the edicts of the Georgia Legislature, along with virtually every other legislative and judicial body in our nation, by ignoring O.C.G.A. 24-4-403.

The merciless mocking continues.

“Ironically, the State’s motion is a perfect example of the need for this Honorable Court to weigh in on the State wasting the time of all involved in the present case by barring otherwise relevant evidence that is a waste of time under Rule 403,” the defense motion goes on. “In a sense, the motion needs no opposition as the motion itself serves as its own evident opposition.”

Last week, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Paige Reese Whitaker, who assumed control over the long and winding trial after Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural D. Glanville was recused, criticized Love for “poor lawyering.”

“I can’t figure out what it is,” the judge told the prosecutor. “But it is baffling to me that somebody with your years of experience, time after time, seems to purposefully hide the ball as long as you possibly can.”

Young Thug and five other codefendants — Shannon “SB” Stillwell, Marquavius “Qua” Huey, Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick, Quamarvious “Qua” Nichols, and Rodalius “Lil Rod” Ryan — face a long trial after an 86-page RICO indictment was filed against 28 total defendants in 2022. Since then, nine defendants have taken plea deals, including Antonio “Mounk Tounk” Sledge and Williams’ brother Quantavious “Unfoonk” Grier. Others have had their cases separated.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Fani Willis and top lieutenant mocked for motion in YSL case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Hearing related to Trump RICO case goes off the rails

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 19 Sep 2024 23:19:51 +0000

Left to right: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis arrives before she speaks after winning the Democratic primary on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, in Buckhead, Ga. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson), Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause (Fulton County Superior Court), Attorney Ashleigh Merchant speaks in court Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, Pool).

During a marathon Thursday hearing related to the Georgia election interference and racketeering (RICO) case against Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the case lost her patience with both sides.

“Okay. Listen. Everybody. We need to dial all of this back,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause said, interspersing a series of briefly pregnant pauses, her annoyance palpable, as the open records-focused hearing stretched well past hour four.

In the case, attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents co-defendant Michael Roman in the underlying RICO matter, has accused Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office of violating the Georgia Open Records Act by failing to provide documents related to the employment and remuneration of Nathan Wade – the former special assistant district attorney forced to resign from the RICO prosecution due to his onetime romantic relationship with Willis.

Earlier on Thursday, Krause gave Merchant a qualified win – allowing her to question a member of the DA’s office, in detail and at length, about the ways those public records requests were handled.

On the stand was Dexter Bond, the deputy of operations for the DA’s office. In his role, he serves as the agency’s records custodian.

After several minutes of preliminary questions about the county’s open records portal, Merchant brought a series of documents up on a public viewing screen. Starting with the DA’s employee handbook entries on public records compliance, the attorney meticulously guided her witness through each document – and throughout his testimony, Bond played the role of a combative witness.

The back-and-forth came to a standstill when Merchant asked Bond if “it was possible” she “believed” the DA’s had complied with a certain public records request. The clear upshot of this question was that Merchant now thinks she was intentionally misled into believing the DA’s office had complied with the request when it had not done so.

An attorney for the DA’s employees objected on grounds of speculation. Though terming the question “pretty argumentative,” Krause overruled and directed the witness to answer.

Bond replied, raising his voice, said: “When it comes to you and what I think you believe, it can be anything, Ashleigh Merchant.”

A few beats passed before the judge laid into the witness and the questioning attorney about their apparently shared lack of respect – and the general tenor of the late afternoon session.

“I feel like instead of being educated, I’m listening to an argument,” Krause said. “And I’m tired of listening to an argument. I would like to be educated about the processes that Mr. Bond follows to perform his duties. And about what you believe, Mrs. Merchant, to be the shortcomings of what those processes are.”

The judge felt obligated to make this intervention after roughly an hour of questioning over various documents. And, to that end, the judge said, the process had been a bit too laborious.

“I would also remind everybody that I can read quite well,” Krause sarcastically intoned. “And that most of what we’re arguing about is reflected in written documents – that are part of the record – that I can review. Now, to the extent that the parties wish to understand what was meant by those words, those are fair questions. But half of our time has been spent with people trying to agree that the document says this or the document says that.”

The judge then essayed a metaphor but cut herself off mid-sentence.

“Let’s just, everybody, take a deep breath, and try not to argue with each other,” Krause went on. “And that applies to Mrs. Merchant and Mr. Bond – in terms of trying to answer the questions so that the court can understand what processes are followed and whether they were followed, or should have been, in this case. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Hearing related to Trump RICO case goes off the rails appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Fani Willis slams disqualification appeal in Trump RICO case

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 04:14:55 +0000

Main image: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis testifies during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Feb. 15, 2024, in Atlanta. (Alyssa Pointer/Pool Photo via AP); Inset right: Former President Donald Trump waits for the start of a UFC 299 mixed martial arts bout, March 10, 2024, in Miami. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked an appeals court not to consider former President Donald Trump’s latest effort to have her removed from his racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case.

On Monday, the district attorney filed a 19-page reply brief asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to turn down a defense effort seeking a review of the trial court judge’s recent decision to keep her in charge.

“There being no error by the trial court, the present application merely reflects the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts,” the state’s filing reads. “Because the applicants have wholly failed to carry their burden of persuasion, this Court should decline interlocutory review.”

The defense has been angling to have Willis and her office removed from the case since January — initially over allegations that her romantic relationship with now-former lead prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest due to pecuniary motives.

On March 15, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee partially granted the defense motion to disqualify but gave the prosecution the choice of which prosecutor had to go. The court’s order was based on a finding that the one-time romance between Willis and Wade resulted in “a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team.” Wade resigned hours later.

Now, the defendants insist the trial court’s method of separating the legal issues was “plain legal error requiring reversal” — while basing their interlocutory appeal on the factual record McAfee established.

Willis, however, argues the factual record is actually on her side.

“[T]here was a factual basis for the trial court’s well-explained rulings, and the applicants’ insistence that error occurred amounts to no more than disagreement with the trial court’s assessment of those facts,” the state filing reads. “Dissatisfaction with factual findings is not a basis for the grant of an appeal or the reversal of a trial court’s order, and the application should be denied.”

In the end, McAfee said the defense had not met its burden to show Willis obtained “a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire” Wade — or that the “financial gain flowing from her relationship” motivated Willis to prosecute and prolong the case.

The appeal application itself is premised on “forensic misconduct” allegations against Willis over her Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech at Big Bethel A.M.E. Church in Atlanta — a speech that, the defense argued, was a direct public response to the nepotism allegations.

Willis notes that the defense does not take issue with McAfee’s factual findings — just how he applied those facts to relevant law.

“[T]he trial court found that the District Attorney’s public comments concerned either the office’s conviction rates; the charges in the indictment; the procedural posture of the case; the need for or importance of the investigation; or personal anecdotes,” the state’s brief reads. “Insofar as the District Attorney delivered a speech at a local church, the trial court concluded the speech did not ‘cross the line’ because it failed to name any defendant; it did not disclose sensitive or confidential evidence; it did not address the merits of the indicted offenses to move the trial to the court of public opinion; and further, the case is too far removed from jury selection for any actual prejudice or improper effect on the jury pool to actualize.”

The defense, however, claims the district attorney’s church speech contained “inflammatory extrajudicial racial comments” about the defendants and improperly stoked “racial animus” to influence would-be jurors in retaliation for, and in order to deflect from, the allegations raised in the motion to disqualify. Their appeal cites McAfee’s own withering estimation of the speech in which the trial court criticizes Willis for using the speech “to cast racial aspersions at an indicted defendant’s decision” over the disqualification motion.

Willis shrugs away those concerns in a footnote:

The trial court noted the District Attorney’s comment that individuals were “playing the race card” and her references to the different races of three special prosecutors. Although the trial court found that “the effect” was to “cast racial aspersions” at the decision to file the motion to disqualify, it is no surprise the court still found no basis to disqualify the District Attorney. Factual passing references to the various races of members of a prosecuting team are hardly the type of egregious commentary contemplated by [case law] to warrant disqualification. And a comment suggesting individuals were “playing the race card” is too vague, brief, and limited in scope to imply any defendant harbored racial prejudice, particularly to the point of requiring disqualification.

In declining to toss the district attorney, the trial court said the case was simply too far away from trial for a potential jury pool to have been tainted by the church speech — but did suggest the defense would be well within their rights, and likely to succeed, should the defendants base a gag order request on the speech.

The defense claims the trial court erred in a big way — a constitutional due process violation — when McAfee made the “erroneous failure” not to disqualify Willis, and her office, from the case.

Willis, again, argues the lower court got it right — and that there is just no need for the appellate court to even consider the case.

“There is simply no trial court error to be found in the decision to deny disqualification,” the state’s brief continues. “Days of evidence and testimony failed to disclose anything like a calculated pre-trial plan designed to prejudice the defendants or secure their convictions. The applicants have not identified any public statement injecting the District Attorney’s personal belief as to the defendants’ guilt or appealing to the public weighing of evidence.”

Additionally, the defense claims Willis made a “false statement” in a court document and later lied under oath about her relationship. That was also forensic misconduct, the defendants say, and the judge — who strongly intimated that Willis was not truthful when forced to account for her eventually acknowledged relationship with Wade — again failed by not using those alleged lies as the basis to disqualify.

“[A]n odor of mendacity remains,” the judge opined. “[R]easonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.”

Willis elides the trial court’s criticism by noting that McAfee did not, in fact, outright accuse her of lying to cover up the affair.

“The trial court’s order evinces that the judge carefully considered the District Attorney’s and Wade’s testimony, but the court made no factual finding of false testimony or a false affidavit,” the state’s brief goes on. “In requesting a contrary finding on this issue, the applicants would have this Court invade the province of the trial court and make additional factual findings. This it cannot do. Because interlocutory review is clearly not permissible on this ground, this argument should be rejected.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Fani Willis slams disqualification appeal in Trump RICO case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

David Shafer loses motion to dismiss some RICO case charges

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 08 Apr 2024 19:53:24 +0000

Left: Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool, File); Right: Former Georgia GOP chair David Shafer (Fulton County Sheriff’s Office)

The judge overseeing the Georgia racketeering (RICO) and election interference case against Donald Trump denied a motion by the former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party to dismiss election subversion charges based around the fake electors scheme.

David Shafer, the erstwhile Peach State GOP head, was charged in the August 2023 indictment with eight counts including impersonating a public officer, forgery in the first degree, false statements and writings, and criminal attempt to commit filing false documents.

In motions, and during a late March hearing in Fulton County, Shafer’s attorney, Craig Gillen, argued the indictment was defective because of the way prosecutors referred to the legally-suspect effort to have alternate, “contingent,” or fake electors deliver Electoral College votes to the 45th president instead of Joe Biden in several swing states.

“While special demurrers typically contend the charging instrument contains insufficient detail, here, the Defendant does not complain that the indictment is defective because it lacks necessary information,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee explained in the April 4 denial order. “Instead, he suggests certain charges must be dismissed because they contain too much, and that what they contain is legally inaccurate.”

Shafer’s defense argued that three phrases should be struck from the indictment: (1) “duly elected and qualified presidential electors”; (2) “false Electoral College votes”; and (3) “lawful electoral votes.”

To hear the defense tell it, those phrases are conclusory and “improper legal conclusions” that, essentially, prove the allegation being asserted and should only be advanced during a trial.

Under Georgia law, McAfee explains in the order, a court has “the inherent power — indeed the obligation — to redact an indictment that contains prejudicial surplusage or extraneous material.”

The kind of information that should be stricken from an indictment includes a co-defendant’s guilty plea, a defendant’s criminal record, or a reference to the defendant’s fingerprint, the judge explains.

Shafer did not identify anything like that, McAfee ruled.

“[T[he challenged language is not prejudicial because it accurately describes the alleged offenses and makes the charges more easily understood by provided a basis to differentiate the allegedly lawful and unlawful acts of presidential electors (as theorized by the State),” the three-page denial order notes.

More Law&Crime coverage: Trump RICO co-defendant wants less-democratic jury, district attorney thrown off case

McAfee goes on to explain that an indictment itself is not evidence and, in his courtroom, procedure requires reminding jurors on at least three separate occasions that an indictment is not evidence.

“An indictment is not subject to a demurrer or redaction simply because it contains unproven allegations or the State’s legal conclusions,” the judge’s order reads. “The very purpose of an indictment is to join issue on these issues.”

Ultimately, the court determined, Shafer’s motion did not single out any kind of defect or extraneous material but rather an explanation “that accurately describes the offenses and makes the charges more easily understood by the defendants and the jury.”

The judge said the proper place to contest how the state described the charges is during a trial — and denied an accompanying motion to dismiss because it relied on failed the motion to strike.

“A defendant retains the opportunity to challenge the entire indictment at trial,” the court’s order continues. “Because the Court finds no legal basis to strike this language, the Defendant’s claim that certain counts must be dismissed also fails, and the motion is denied.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post David Shafer loses motion to dismiss some RICO case charges appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Fani Willis and Trump RICO defense argue over new witnesses

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:26:10 +0000

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March 1, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool)

Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and a defense attorney argued over the introduction of new evidence in the ongoing disqualification drama, threatening to derail the racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, the district attorney’s office filed a five-page response with the Fulton County Superior Court arguing that two new proposed witnesses should not be allowed to testify about their knowledge of Willis’ admitted relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

On Friday, attorney Craig Gillen, in a four-page reply, took Willis to task for her office’s opposition to one would-be witness in particular.

“The irony of the staff of one district attorney’s office objecting to a member of another district attorney’s office prepared to come forward and testify regarding the disqualification of a district attorney should not be lost on the Court,” the filing reads.

Gillen represents co-defendant David Shafer, the onetime Georgia GOP chair who prosecutors say was integral to the fake electors plot.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Shafer’s request proposes the testimony of Cindi Lee Yeager, a prosecutor in nearby Cobb County.

Yeager’s testimony was offered to substantiate claims made by Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former divorce lawyer and law partner, regarding the timeline of the DA’s relationship with the man she put in charge of the most consequential criminal case in Peach State history.

Bradley said the two prosecutors “absolutely” began dating before Willis hired Wade — but those claims were made out of court. When testifying under oath, Bradley said he could “not recall” or was only “speculating” about various details regarding the Willis-Wade relationship — including when the since-admitted tryst began.

The timeline of the affair is widely considered to be crucial.

Wade was hired on Nov. 1, 2021. The crux of the defense’s argument for removing Willis and Wade is that the district attorney hired her then-boyfriend for the job and reaped something akin to a financial windfall. Testimony that could establish the relationship began years before November 2021 would be highly damaging to the state.

Yeager says when Bradley testified, he made several statements “directly contrary” to what he told her during “numerous” conversations between August 2023 and January 2024, the earlier filing from Shafer offering the prosecutor’s testimony claims.

“Mr. Wade had definitely begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020,” the March 4 filing claims Bradley told Yeager. “Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis.”

Later the same day, a markedly similar filing was made offering testimony from Atlanta-based defense attorney Manny Arora.

“Between September through October 2023, Mr. Arora had several conversations with attorney Terrence Bradley regarding the relationship between District Attorney Wills and Nathan Wade,” the motion on behalf of co-defendant Cathy Latham reads.

Arora says Bradley told him Wade and Willis “had definitely begun a romantic relationship” when the district attorney was first campaigning for her job between 2019 and 2020.

The next day, the district attorney’s office objected to either Yeager or Arora being allowed to testify in the disqualification case.

“The law fundamentally favors finality,” the state’s response reads. “It does not allow for endless re-hearings and reopening of evidence based simply upon regret about prior strategy, consistently unsubstantiated positions or political incentive.”

Calling the offers of proposed testimony a “last minute, self-serving barrage,” Willis and her lieutenant Adam Abbate argue the Yeager and Arora testimony would be repetitive and “impermissible hearsay.”

The state also suggests that Yeager’s testimony is intended to help her boss fend off a challenger in an upcoming election.

“Attorney Yeager is employed as second-in-command to Cobb County District Attorney Flynn Brody, whose reelection is currently being challenged by a Deputy District Attorney of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office,” the response says. “The timing of Attorney Yeager’s proposed testimony is not coincidental.”

Closing arguments in the disqualification hearing were held last week — but that is not much of a barrier should Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee decide the Yeager-Arora evidence is worth hearing under oath. Trial court judges in Georgia have wide latitude to reopen the evidentiary record — they can do so more or less at will.

“In the interest of the ascertainment of the truth relating to the serious issues of prosecutorial misconduct raised by the defense, the Court should decline to strike the proposed testimony of Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney Yeager and Mr. Arora, and should reopen the evidence to hear and consider their testimony,” Shafer’s latest motion concludes.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Fani Willis and Trump RICO defense argue over new witnesses appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.