Court filing
Information - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-10-22 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL · Doc. 249 · 2021-10-22 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A transcript of a September 8, 2020 Zoom videoconference hearing on the defendant's motion to modify conditions of release in United States v. Maurice Fayne, No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, before Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand. It was filed October 22, 2021 as Document 249 and runs 50 pages. Fayne, representing himself with Mark R. Jeffrey as standby counsel, asks to be allowed to drive commercial trucks for work and to contact United Community Bank and others to gather records for his defense. Assistant United States Attorney John Russell Phillips opposes a less restrictive bond, stating that the government has never seen the trucking contracts Fayne describes and that he has several driver's licenses, including ones that are fake. The court notes it is proceeding remotely as permitted under the CARES Act of 2020.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
United States of America, ZOOM Videoconference
vs. Docket No.
1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL
Maurice Fayne,
Defendant.
TRANSCRIPT OF ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTIN S. ANAND
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT JUDGE
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
Appearance of Counsel:
For the Plaintiff: John Russell Phillips, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
For the Defendant(standby) Mark R. Jeffrey, Esq.
Jeffrey Law Group, LLC
Judith M. Wolff, CRR
Official Court Reporter
1914 United States Courthouse
75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
judith_wolff@gand.uscourts.gov
Transcribed From Digitally-Recorded Audio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 50
2
(Court was called to order at 2:17 p.m.)
MR. JEFFREY: Please accept my apologies to the
Court. Hopefully I'll be able to get visual on, but I'm ready
to proceed at this moment.
Again, my apologies.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. No problem.
Thank you.
So I'm just waiting for the Judge to chime in.
MR. JEFFREY: Yes, ma'am.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay.
THE COURT: Hi. Good afternoon. This is
Judge Anand. I understand we have everyone here.
This is the United States of America vs. Maurice
Fayne.
We have Mr. Fayne on the line here for himself, and
then Mr. Phillips for the government. And it's my
understanding we also have Mr. Jeffrey on the line as well, as
shadow counsel to Mr. Fayne.
We are here on Mr. Fayne's motion for modification of
conditions of release.
Can you all hear me okay?
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. JEFFREY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne, can you hear me all right?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 50
3
THE COURT: Okay. Good. It's always important to
verify that when we are remote.
So let me begin by noting that we are here remotely.
This conference is being recorded through the Zoom system so
if necessary we could have a court reporter gain access to
that to transcribe it, if we needed to.
But we are not physically present in the courtroom.
We are proceeding remotely as is permitted by statute under
the CARES Act of 2020.
Mr. Fayne, let me just remind you that you have the
right to have court proceedings of this sort occur in court
where you and the others are physically present and myself.
It's my understanding that you consent to proceed in
this fashion and that, as I say, is permissible under the
statute.
But I want to first confirm that that is your desire
and you are consenting to have this hearing occur remotely by
videoconference or teleconference means; is that right, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. So again, we're here on
Mr. Fayne's motion. Mr. Fayne, you are representing yourself,
so I'll let you speak directly, although we do have your
lawyer -- I mean shadow counsel, Mr. Jeffrey, here on the
line.
Let me first hear from you as to the nature of what
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 50
4
you're asking for by way of relief or modification of the
conditions, and then I'll hear from counsel for the
government.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, your Honor, the motion was just
in reference to two things. One, I drive commercial trucks,
as well as I film a couple of television stations. I haven't
been able to film recently because I can't travel.
The main thing for me is so I can be able to work. I
have two children and an elderly grandmother that I take care
of and for the past four months, I really haven't been able to
work.
Most of my employees quit. I got trucks kind of
scattered all across the country from guys that quit once
everything that was put in the media was put out there.
And the second modification was I got a couple of,
like, United Community Bank, my codefendant, there are a
couple of people that I can't contact and I need to be able to
cross-examine them, talk to them.
United Community bank, for one, to get some bank
records for my defense. And then as well as my codefendant
and other people, some people that wrote affidavits, I need to
be able to cross-examine.
But with the guidelines of restrictive communication
between certain parties, I'm unable to do that at this time.
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask about your work
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 50
5
situation. I think when we went over this at your bond
hearing, your original hearing, you had said at least at that
time that you didn't personally drive the trucks, your drivers
do that.
I guess what I'm hearing from you now -- and maybe
I'm miss-remembering, it's been several months, but in any
event, I think what you're telling me now is that you have had
folks quit. So is that a change, you driving personally? Or
is that something that I --
THE DEFENDANT: I don't want to say you
misunderstood. I don't recall stating that.
I have always drove. Now, I haven't always drove on
a permanent basis. I typically drive three to four months out
of the year and I have to do that for insurance purposes
anyway.
But now, given the circumstances with so many
employees that quit, the key thing is going -- I have to --
well, if you allow me, I would like to drive full term.
I still can check in with Mr. Tutor. He's on the
line. I'm sure he can tell you that when it comes to
communication, whenever he calls, I answer my phone.
Last weekend, the system was down. It wouldn't let
me check in. I called him, I emailed him. I keep my
communication very thorough. I never missed a meeting, no
phone call or anything that he has asked of me.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 50
6
And I just -- I really would be honored if you grant
the motion.
THE COURT: What's the nature of -- where are you
going, and how frequently? Like, who are you driving for? Is
this for --
THE DEFENDANT: I --
THE COURT: -- specific customers?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. It would be U.S. Postal,
JB Hunt, USA Truck.
Now, the routes will vary from time to time. With
trucking, it's kind of sporadic, you know, one week I may be
going back and forth from Georgia to the Carolinas, or from
Georgia to Florida, and the next week I may be going to
Alabama or Tennessee or something.
I really don't have like a set, like, okay, I'll be
here this day, this day, this day ahead of time.
Now, a day before, I could always let Mr. Tutor know
hey, I'm going to Tennessee; Hey, I'm going to South Carolina;
Hey, I'm going to -- however it would see fit for the Court.
THE COURT: Do you have contracts for these --
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: In what form? Is it, like, way bills?
Or what's the --
THE DEFENDANT: Independent contractors.
THE COURT: Okay. I asked Mr. Tutor if he had ever
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 50
7
been able to verify this business activity of yours. And he
said that he had not been able to verify that. And that as
far as he understood, you only had a noncommercial driver's
license Class C, which, am I right, would not permit you to be
engaging in --
THE DEFENDANT: No. I have a commercial driver's
license out of the state of Arkansas.
THE COURT: Okay. So it's not out of Georgia. It's
out of Arkansas.
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. It's out of Arkansas.
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEFENDANT: And Mr. Tutor has never asked me
anything with regard to using this or to send him anything
or -- so I'm not sure as far as verification, how that went.
But him and I have never had that conversation.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Phillips, let me hear
what the government's position is.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, your Honor.
We have some concerns about the defendant's bond
being less restrictive than it is at the current time. Some
of the things that the defendant stated, I'm not sure are
true.
For example, he said that he takes care of his
elderly grandmother. It's my understanding that she lives in
Arkansas, and the defendant lives in Dacula, Georgia. I don't
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 50
8
believe he takes care of his elderly grandmother.
And he mentioned that he has two children. To my
knowledge, neither of those children live with him. I know
that he used fraud proceeds from the bank fraud to pay
past-due child support in the amount of $40,000 to a woman who
lives in Arkansas. We have evidence of that.
When the defendant says that he has contracts for
these various routes that he described, including for the U.S.
Postal Service, we have never seen any such contracts and, to
our knowledge, they don't exist.
I have reviewed extensive records relating to the
defendant's business and records that we found on his various
iPhones and his computer, and they do not show any ongoing
contracts.
Instead, what they show is that the defendant --
THE COURT: We're getting a little bit of feedback.
I think, Mr. Jeffrey, if I gather correctly, maybe that looks
like you are appearing now by video, but you have hung up your
phone. I think it was having the two that was the problem.
I think now we're okay.
MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, I apologize for the late --
I had some issues first with my laptop here at home and then I
got that fixed. But I do I apologize to the Court.
And anyway, I'm fully, as you can see, fully in sync
at this point.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 8 of 50
9
THE COURT: Thank you.
I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Phillips.
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, your Honor.
I have not seen any evidence that the defendant has
any ongoing contracts that would require him to provide
services for any set period of time or for any set number of
trucks, any set number of drivers, or anything like that.
I know from reviewing the defendant's records that he
would randomly take loads, from time to time, as he determined
that he wanted to, but they were infrequent and they were
random.
I have never seen a contract between the defendant
and the U.S. Postal Service. If the defendant has a contract
like that, I would certainly like to see it.
The defendant mentioned that he has a commercial
driver's license, a CDL, in Arkansas. The defendant has
several driver's licenses, including ones that are fake. We
have seen evidence of the defendant acquiring fake driver's
license's --
THE DEFENDANT: Judge --
MR. PHILLIPS: -- including the one that he described
-- he has a fake commercial driver's license in the name of
Duran Porter that's a Georgia driver's license. And we have
evidence of it.
So the defendant is not being truthful with the Court
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 9 of 50
10
when he talks about these contracts, when he talks about these
licenses, and when he talks about his obligations to take care
of his elderly grandmother and children.
Those are, in my belief, your Honor, misstatements of
the facts.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fayne, I see you raising
your hand and I'm going to let you respond.
THE DEFENDANT: First and foremost, I will show the
government any paperwork that they want to see regarding the
nature of my business. I have had an ongoing business since
the beginning of this arrest.
Now as far as my driver's license in Georgia, yes, my
grandmother lives in Arkansas. Yes, I take care of her
financially. Yes, my kids live in Arkansas and I take care of
them financially. They don't have to live in Georgia for me
to be responsible for them.
Just like when I left two weeks ago to go take my
grandmom to the hospital so she can have a blood clot removed,
then you call talking about a warrant that I supposed to have
had in Arkansas, which was false, and me and Mr. Tutor were
both able to verify that there was no warrant.
Second and foremost, any documentation as far as my
business that the government would like to see, reserving my
Fifth Amendment right, I have no problem with providing or
showing.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 10 of 50
11
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, the defendant is breaking
up. I can't hear the last minute or so that he said.
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne, I heard what you said, but can
you -- are you able to repeat --
THE DEFENDANT: As far as any documents concerning
the nature of my businesses and stuff, I have no problem
providing it to the government, you know, reserving my fifth
right amendment not to incriminate myself or anything like
that.
But I have had ongoing business for years and still
do to this day. I got a few drivers that actually still
working right now to this day. I had a lot of guys that
quite, like I stated, at first.
As far as taking care of my family, yes, most of my
family lives in Arkansas. Because I'm not physically there, I
still provide financial support for all of them.
And furthermore, like I say, I have no problem with
providing the government any documentations proving any routes
that I would do or any type of work or anything that I plan to
do.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about the second issue,
which is your desire to contact witnesses. What is it
specifically that you wish to be able to do in that regard?
THE DEFENDANT: Well, United Community Bank, for one,
my whole process with this PPP loan as far as instructions,
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 11 of 50
12
directions, what were the parameters of the loan, the
indictment that the government issued me has a date of August
15, as an application date when theoretically I know for a
fact that the application date was April the 4th. And that is
very key to my entire case because the rules of the Care Act
on April 15 were totally different from the rules of April
4th.
The application states at the time of your
application on -- after April 10, you could only -- you
couldn't pay 1099 people as far as your fees, as far as before
that you could.
So getting that understood with the bank, getting
bank records, copies of wire receipts that the government
alleged that I sent that I know I didn't send, but I have to
get the actual certified bank records and that type of stuff
to be able to provide for my defense.
THE COURT: Now is this the bank you have an account
with, or was this --
THE DEFENDANT: This is the bank that I did -- that I
got the PPP loan for and I have been banking with for about a
year prior to receiving the PPP loan. But it's one of my do
not contacts.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that basically something you
are looking to do or looking to contact --
THE DEFENDANT: Them, and then, as far as witnesses,
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 12 of 50
13
like my codefendant, for one. When I became aware that
somebody else got charged, I mean, I don't know what his
defense is, he don't know what my defense is. You know. If
he's, quote, unquote, being from the discovery I have seen,
he's been considered the mastermind of everything, but I don't
know.
It's just a lot of questions that need to be answered
for my defense, and these people are the only people that have
the answers to those questions. I promise I'm not trying to
intimidate anyone or harass anyone. I don't do those type of
things.
It's just simple questions that I need answers to for
my defense.
THE COURT: Mr. Phillips, what's the government's
position on that?
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, we're very much opposed to
the defendant contacting his codefendant. His name is Dan
Jay, by the way. Mr. Jay is on bond issued in the Western
District of Pennsylvania, and one of the conditions of his
bond is that he can't communicate with the codefendants
either.
Mr. Jay is represented by an Atlanta defense counsel
named Kamal Ghali. And I'm sure that Mr. Ghali -- well, I
can't speak for him, but I doubt seriously that he would want
his client talking with Mr. Fayne. So I think that's a bad
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 13 of 50
14
idea for a lot of reasons.
It would certainly violate conditions of Mr. Jay's
bond, even if this Court allowed the defendant in this case,
Mr. Fayne, that is, to do it. That would not relieve Mr. Jay
of his obligations to live up to his bond conditions in the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
As far as talking directly to the people at the bank,
that's one of the reasons, your Honor, that the Court, Judge
Larkins, tried so hard to convince the defendant that it was a
terrible idea for him to represent himself.
Judge Larkins went into detail about why that was a
bad idea, and so did others. And he should not get to rewrite
the rules for his convenience just because he's pro se.
If he were represented by counsel, his attorneys
could talk to the witnesses. But for him to try to reach out
and do that in violation of the rules, we think that's a
terrible idea.
THE COURT: The reaching out to the bank for business
records --
MR. PHILLIPS: That's not really what he's talking
about, your Honor. He said he wants to get the facts
straight.
First of all, we have obtained all of the bank
records. Everything. And we have those available in
discovery that we're willing to provide to the defendant.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 14 of 50
15
And he was supposed to provide us with a hard drive,
an external USB hard drive so that we could copy all of the
records and give them to him.
Instead, the defendant provided a hard drive that has
to be installed into a computer. My I.T. people can't do
that. That's not what we need. We've asked the defendant,
through Mr. Jeffrey, to provide the correct hard drive so that
we can give him all these documents. We have them ready to
go.
We've already provided them to Mr. Ghali for Dan Jay.
And in fact, we've provided them to somebody who is not yet
indicted through his lawyer. Got a hard drive, just like
that, going out to that lawyer today.
And so there's no need for him to do that because we
have already done it. We have everything that he could
possibly get from that bank with respect to his accounts and
with respect to the charges against him in this indictment
that pertain to the PPP loan that he has described.
All of those documents, all of the wire transfers,
the loan application, everything having to do with that, it's
all in those records.
So there's nothing that the defendant would be able
to get for himself by going to the bank directly that we don't
already have and that we are not ready, willing, and able to
provide to him if he will provide us with the appropriate
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 15 of 50
16
external USB connected hard drive.
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne, I see you raising your hand.
THE DEFENDANT: Just in response to Mr. Phillips as
far as changing the rules, if we go back to the court hearing
with Mr. Larkins said -- you said a hard drive. You did not
specify USB or what type of hard drive.
I provided a hard drive like the government asked me
to. And you received it when the government was supposed to
receive it.
Now unfortunately, it wasn't the type of hard drive
that you wanted, but I couldn't read your mind.
And as far as the records, if the government has all
of these records, then eight or nine of my counts or my
charges wouldn't even be standing still because you would know
I did not conduct those transactions.
So again, for my defense, I need those records to
know they are authenticated. The government has lied on the
affidavit. The indictment, it's lied on the indictment as far
as the date of the application.
The arrest warrant that I'm even here for this bond
hearing for was unlawful. It wasn't a test, it was written
under Rule Criminal 4.1, and it states that a judge must
attest in writing, and it was not on the affidavit. And it
was not.
I have stated all of this to the Court several times.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 16 of 50
17
And you have yet to respond to anything. You won't contact me
directly. I can send you an email. I can call you. The
government would not in at any point in time have one single
conversation with me directly.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. You had mentioned
in the beginning about the production work, the TV contracts
in addition -- I asked you about the trucking, but I didn't
ask you about that.
What's the nature of that work that's out of state,
the frequency, where, and the duration?
THE DEFENDANT: Honestly, after the first week or so,
I haven't even dealt with the film production company or
anything because I wasn't able to travel. They took some
trips and I haven't been able to reach out.
I had a TV commercial offer from Adidas a couple
weeks ago. It required me to travel to California. I didn't
even ask the Court to even go.
It's several other offers that have came. I can't
give you specifics at the moment because I wasn't allowed to
travel --
THE COURT: Well, use that one as an example, what
would that --
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: What would that have entailed? How long
would that have been for and --
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 17 of 50
18
THE DEFENDANT: The one in -- for Adidas, that would
have been three to seven days out of L.A. And then it would
have consist of me flying out to L.A. Being out there three
to seven days, depending on COVID. They had different
parameters as far as how long it would take and why it would
take that long. But it would be a typical three to seven day
process.
My ex-wife and I, we got an offer for -- oh, what's
the name -- Marriage Boot Camp. It starts filming I believe
the end of September or early October. Again, I didn't get
the contract or anything like that because I couldn't travel.
That was going to take at least 20 to 25 days to film.
I'm not sure where the location would have been, but
like I say, I didn't get all the information because I wasn't
allowed to travel so I was trying to get the permission to be
able to travel, then I could line up different events and
different things that people asked me to be a part of.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, I need to clarify or
supplement something I said about the hard drive. If you
would give me a chance to do that.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. PHILLIPS: The government produced discovery to
the defendant on DVDs. We shipped them to his residence
address in Dacula, Georgia, by FedEx overnight.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 18 of 50
19
The defendant refused to accept those and instead
shipped them back to the U.S. attorney's office by FedEx.
So the hard drive, the only reason that we needed the
hard drive was because we have large images of the defendant's
phones and computer and for various phones that we got from
other people involved in this scheme. So we needed the hard
drive to be able to copy those.
But the defendant has already been provided with and
chose not to accept the DVDs that have all of the bank records
from United Community Bank that pertain to the bank fraud
charges in the indictment.
So we have additional discovery that we have acquired
since then. I'm happy to put all of that on the appropriate
hard drive for the defendant, but my I.T. people can't install
the internal hard drive into one of our computers just to copy
it for the defendant.
The defendant, all he has to do is to return that to
Amazon and buy the appropriate one and we will fill it up for
him with all of the discovery, the things that he rejected
that we gave him on DVD, as well as all of the stuff that's
too large to go on the DVDs that has to be put on the external
hard drive.
But part of the problem that the defendant took on
when he insisted on representing himself is that he's not
familiar with the rules. If Mr. Jeffrey had been asked what
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 19 of 50
20
kind of a hard drive do you need to give to the U.S.
attorney's office, I'm sure, based on his experience, he would
have been able to say well, that's the kind that plugs in, an
external hard drive.
Or if the defendant had simply asked that question in
court, instead of just assuming that he knew what to do, we
wouldn't be in this predicament.
But the defendant can't just stubbornly insist on us
copying something to a hard drive that has to be installed
into a computer.
My I.T. people have lots of work to do and they don't
have time to take apart a computer and install a hard drive.
We need something that can be plugged in by USB.
That's the way we always do it. We do it for all of
our cases, your Honor, where we have large data dumps and
images of cell phones and computers and so forth. And it's
been that way for a long, long time.
THE COURT: Let me just remind everyone, and
Mr. Fayne specifically, that I'm not the judge who is
presiding over the substantive issues in the case. So I'm not
managing and issuing rulings on things such as discovery or
the manner in which discovery is to be produced or can be
produced or the like.
So the details of the hard drive or this or that is
for Judge Larkins to be dealing with, as is all other disputes
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 20 of 50
21
of substantive legal issues in the case.
I'm just dealing with the bond conditions. The case
is otherwise not referred to me or assigned to me for any
other purpose.
So the discussion is relevant because it relates to
the issues with regard to contacting witnesses, but there's a
limitation as to how much I'm getting into issues of discovery
here which are generally not for me to resolve.
My obligations in fashioning conditions of bond are
to -- by the way, can everyone still hear me? Just nod.
Mr. Fayne? Okay. Great.
MR. JEFFREY: I can hear you fine, your Honor.
THE COURT: Great.
My obligation and the standards that I operate under
are to impose the least restrictive conditions necessary in
order to reasonably assure the Court that the defendant is not
a risk of nonappearance in court and a risk of danger to the
community.
And also not a risk of unduly influence or
obstruction as to witnesses or evidence in the case.
With regard to the travel, let's talk about that
first. It is a standard bond condition that the defendants
who are released on bond are restricted to the district in
which they reside, which in this case is the Northern District
of Georgia. That's the standard bond condition as applies to
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 21 of 50
22
essentially everyone who is arrested and released on bond.
Now that doesn't mean that we can't hear evidence on
and fashion exceptions as necessary in order to meet that
standard of being the least restrictive necessary.
But we start with the idea that that's a standard
condition that applies to everybody at least at the outset,
without a showing of why this is necessary to not have that.
This is a case, if I recall correctly -- and the bond
hearing was back in May, so please correct me if I'm incorrect
here -- but there was a not immaterial amount of evidence
suggesting a risk of flight at arrest.
Now the government never moved to detain Mr. Fayne,
but I think that there was evidence, if I recall correctly,
including evidence of computer internet searches as to
researching countries that did not have extradition treatise
with the United States, which the Court can only infer was in
preparation for being charged in this case.
Now the defendant, since being arrested, to my
understanding and Mr. Tutor confirmed this when I spoke to
him, has behaved appropriately, vis-a-vis, probation and the
conditions of bond. He has come to the Court asking for
permission to travel.
All of that is very appropriate and responsible and I
think is in his favor in terms of the facts that I consider.
But that was a pretty shocking piece of evidence at the outset
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 22 of 50
23
with regard to risk of flight.
Normally defendants that are Googling where they can
flee to without extradition don't get released on bond. But
the defendant did and, to his credit, has behaved
appropriately while on bond as far as I can tell. But that
still concerns me.
As is the sheer amount of money that is at issue and
alleged to have been obtained and spent in this case. At
least as of the time of the initial bond hearing, not all that
money had been accounted for and gathered. And that
independently raises questions of flight.
Now none of this was in the context of any request
for consideration by myself to detain the defendant in jail.
That was never on the table. But the question is whether I
can excuse the defendant from a standard condition of release,
travel restriction, to outside the district in light of some
of this evidence that was presented.
And I have heard more here, which is the government
proffering that they found driver's licenses in other
identities in the search. That's concerning to me. And I
have not heard enough in order to find that there is any real
-- it's warranted to reconsider the restriction as the general
manner to leaving the district without permission.
Now I think there might be a difference with regard
to the television production work. And that's why I asked
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 23 of 50
24
about that.
There is a difference between trucking work, which
there is -- we would have to lift the condition altogether in
order to accommodate that. And that, I don't think is what
I'm prepared to do. I don't find that to be warranted.
But if there is a discrete, limited trip, a specific
trip for a specific project that can be verified by Mr. Tutor
in advance through contracts, paperwork or other things to
verify that there is a specific commercial or show or
whatever, a specific length of time that it would involve and
we can perhaps transfer the electronic monitoring and the
curfew to wherever the defendant is going to be living, if we
can verify where he's going to be, then I have not foreclosed
from approving that.
To me those seem like something we can deal with
under the current bond restrictions. The current bond
restrictions contemplate that we can give permission to a
specific trip that is required, whether for work or for
family. And we have shown that, we have given Mr. Fayne
permission to travel, in other words, he traveled at least
once with the Court's permission to take care of his
grandmother.
And I think, if I'm not mistaken, you're in Arkansas
now to deal with a court appearance which we gave permission
for.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 24 of 50
25
So we have given permission for discrete trips and we
can do that again. And I'm not foreclosed from doing that in
the scenario of let's say a three to seven day commercial
shoot, or even if it's a longer thing, 20 days, or whatever,
for another show.
If there's a specific contract or arrangement that we
can verify and we know where you're going to be and where
you're going to be living and what you're doing and we can
essentially transfer the electronic monitoring over there.
The defendant's good conduct and responsible conduct
vis-a-vis the bond in terms of his request to travel I think
have earned him that.
But being able to lift the restrictions all together
and allow him to just drive the truck here and there, that's
too much for me at this point.
I'm also hearing -- it's unclear to me -- I mean, we
have to do some substantial verification as to the nature of
the trucking business, which I just don't have.
Mr. Phillips, you're representing the search yielded
no verification of business.
It's not helpful, Mr. Fayne, that you don't have a
commercial driver's license here in Georgia. That doesn't
suggest to me that there is any active business here in
Georgia.
An old historical license in Arkansas would not seem
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 25 of 50
26
to be appropriate. Generally speaking, you've got to get a
new license when you move. And I'm not sure Arkansas would
deem it to be appropriate for you to remain under an Arkansas
commercial driver's license long after you've now moved to
Atlanta or to Georgia. Usually you have got to get a license
where you live and where you're operating your business.
So that is not necessarily speaking to me of an
actual verified current operation.
But in any event, I wouldn't be able to agree to
release you from that condition to allow for that sort of
thing.
The TV business, the here and there, sort of discrete
travels, if verified in advance and if Mr. Tutor can get
information where you're going to be living and staying and
what it's about, I would be favorably inclined to approve
those as they come based on the information presented.
I think we can do that under the current conditions
without the modification. Because the current conditions
allow for me, in working with the probation office, to excuse
the restriction for specific trips, as we have already.
So that deals with the travel.
And by the way, Mr. Fayne, I would remind you that
the bond condition does allow for you to work. It doesn't --
and you may have to find work that is more local in nature.
If the work you want to do isn't consistent with the bond
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 26 of 50
27
conditions, then another solution is to get other work,
different jobs that are consistent with the bond conditions.
So that is available to you as well.
With regard to contacting witnesses, that also is a
standard condition and with very, very good reason.
It is a very difficult and concerning prospect to
have defendants themselves contacting witnesses. It raises
significant issues and questions and risks of jeopardizing the
integrity of the case opening, frankly, you, Mr. Fayne, up to
accusations at some point of obstruction.
And there is just very little way for us to verify
that those interactions are occurring in an appropriate way.
There's an inherent risk of undermining the integrity of the
case when you have ordinary witnesses, non-law enforcement
witnesses, ordinary people approached by the defendant in a
criminal case.
There's an inherent risk, whether Mr. Fayne intends
to or not to try to intimidate, there's an inherent risk that
that will be the effect.
And that is something that is just very hard to
manage and regulate and fashion conditions to avoid.
I wasn't there for the hearing with Judge Larkins.
I'm hearing from Mr. Phillips that Judge Larkins mentioned
this, but I'll go over it again.
This is one of the many areas in which representing
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 27 of 50
28
yourself, Mr. Fayne, is a bad idea and is something that will
not be -- that will probably prejudice your ability to defend
yourself. Because I cannot excuse the restrictions that
you're under simply because you've chosen to waive your right
to a lawyer.
Those restrictions exist, again, to protect the
integrity of the case, the safety of the public, and your
presence in court. And I cannot -- I can't withdraw or excuse
you from those simply because you've made the choice to
represent yourself and waive your right to counsel.
You have the right to have a lawyer and
investigators, working under the auspices of your lawyer to,
among many other things, investigate your case, interview
witnesses, gather evidence and do all of those things.
You've waived that and given all of that up. And
your choice to do that does not entitle you to get your bond
conditions lifted so that you can do all of that yourself.
That will remain a restriction.
So I urge you to reconsider the self-representation.
That's one of the reasons I wanted Mr. Jeffrey on the line
here, so that he's up to speed on all this and is aware of
what's happening.
I urge you to let him come back into the case and do
all of the things that you want to do. Get the bank records,
interview witnesses to the extent they agree to be
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 28 of 50
29
interviewed, speak to the codefendant's lawyer and all of
those things that Mr. Jeffrey can do which you will not be
allowed to do generally speaking.
I urge you to let him back in the case to be able to
do that.
If you don't want that, if you continue to make that
choice, you do have to understand that is your choice. And
you're -- as Judge Larkins -- whether he went over this part
of it or not, he went over many of the things, I'm sure, to
tell you that your choice to represent yourself will undermine
and prejudice your ability to represent yourself effectively.
This is just one way.
You will have less ability, probably, to attempt to
interact with witnesses than if Mr. Jeffrey were in the case
and able to do that for you.
So now notwithstanding that -- so I'm going to deny
the restriction -- or the request to modify the bond to allow
you to contact witnesses.
Unless I'm misremembering, because this was back in
May, but the government, as I understand it from the original
complaint, has evidence that -- now I understand, Mr. Fayne,
you may deny this, but the government has proffered evidence
that this is a case that involves actual fabricated bank
records submitted to the lending bank. Is that right,
Mr. Phillips?
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 29 of 50
30
MR. PHILLIPS: That is correct, your Honor. And
there is -- not only that, but there is widespread evidence of
the defendant's fabricating all sorts of records. Records
related to his phony trucking businesses that he submitted to
the Department of Transportation, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration and numerous banks.
He had a woman who allegedly worked for him, he calls
her Aunt G.
THE DEFENDANT: It's --
MR. PHILLIPS: Her name is --
THE COURT: I'll let you speak in a second,
Mr. Fayne. Just let Mr. Phillips finish.
MR. PHILLIPS: She lives in Arkansas. And she -- I
don't know whether she's a family member or not, but he calls
her Aunt G. But she was indicted separately in her own PPP
fraud scheme over in Arkansas.
So she's currently under indictment and she's one of
the people that the defendant wants to meet with when he goes
to Arkansas. And she was assisting him in the fraud here.
The evidence on the defendant's computer and his
phone is just filled, I mean, nonstop conversations by text
and by email where he is directing Ms. Tubbs to create and to
submit to various insurance companies and banks and the
federal government all kinds of fraudulent documents.
We have got evidence where the defendant was
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 30 of 50
31
communicating with somebody about obtaining a fake I.D. Just
numerous texts that document the entire process to get that
fake driver's license.
This is since we indicted and superseded the
indictment that found evidence of the defendant engaged in
aggravated identity theft and numerous other federal crimes
that haven't been charged yet.
So the defendant has a long, long history of
committing fraud. And it's all documented on his computers,
it's all documented in the bank records and the records that
the defendant fabricated himself and submitted to these other
institutions, including insurance companies and the federal
government, including the DOT and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration.
His involvement in manufacturing fake records to
obtain money is lengthy. It's all going to come out at trial.
And it's in the records that I have already described to the
Court that we have that we are making available to all of the
defendants in the discovery.
THE COURT: All right. My one question -- well,
Mr. Fayne, I promised you you could respond.
And I know you deny the allegations, but I don't know
at this point what the evidence will be and what the findings
of the jury will be.
Where there is a proffer, a substantial proffer of
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 31 of 50
32
evidence of past obstruction or fabrication, it gives me a
special amount of concern about allowing a defendant to have
unsupervised, direct contact with lay witnesses. And that's
part of my concern here.
But let me let you respond.
THE DEFENDANT: I just -- well, Mr. Phillips, was
that sworn testimony you were giving just then? I just want
to know for the record so if I ever get to my appellate
process, I can have this information.
Was that -- the statements you just made about them
allegations of this and that, is that sworn testimony?
THE COURT: This is a bond -- a hearing with regard
to a motion to modify bond at which the Eleventh Circuit has
approved attorneys proffering evidence in the case.
So it's a proffer of evidence, as I understand. It
is not sworn testimony.
You can respond in kind or tell -- however you feel
appropriate. But it is appropriate under the Eleventh Circuit
in the context of a bond hearing for the Court to hear proffer
of evidence.
THE DEFENDANT: I was just asking for record purposes
just so, you know, in the future, it's just something that I
can come back to.
THE COURT: All right. So here's my question, and
it's to Mr. Phillips.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 32 of 50
33
For all the reasons I have said, I'm not going to
permit direct contact or an excuse -- any modification of the
bond condition with regard to contacting witnesses.
Could there not be, though, an exception for allowing
Mr. Fayne to request, through correspondence, copies of bank
records from his -- from the bank as anybody would normally be
able to just write a letter and request records and pay
whatever fee may be quoted?
I'm considering allowing him, if it's solely by
correspondence to solicit a request for business records as
opposed to asking or trying to speak to fact witnesses at the
bank about the case or about the records, to at least permit
him to do that.
Would that not be something that would be
appropriate?
MR. PHILLIPS: You're talking about a corporate
entity, like a bank, as opposed to an individual who may have
played some part in one or more of the various crimes --
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. PHILLIPS: -- that are charged against the
defendant?
THE COURT: Correct. The bank, and for the bank
records, the business records that they have, solely by
correspondence, for example.
MR. PHILLIPS: As long as it's just restricted to a
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 33 of 50
34
corporate entity and the defendant is communicating only
through written correspondence, then I wouldn't object to
that.
THE COURT: Okay. So I will permit that, Mr. Fayne.
In other words, if what you're wanting to do is get
copies of bank records from -- directly to the bank itself,
you are permitted to make a request by correspondence to them.
So the context would be by written correspondence
with the bank. And what I'm contemplating is requesting
records, and maybe they quote you back some fee, and then you
send in whatever the check, and you get the records. Just
like anyone might be able to do with their own bank account.
You are permitted to do that. But it's with the bank
and by correspondence only.
Otherwise, I cannot permit you to have contact with
potential witnesses in the case, directly or indirectly, with
the exception of -- well, I mean, here's one other compromise
that I think -- it's not a compromise. That's not the right
word.
But here's something that I think I can agree to and
I did speak to Judge Larkins, who indicated that he would be
agreeable to this under the shadow counsel appointment for
Mr. Jeffrey.
If Mr. Jeffrey finds appropriate, I'll permit --
Judge Larkins will permit Mr. Jeffrey to interview witnesses,
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 34 of 50
35
have contact with witnesses on your behalf, as he would if he
were representing you. But that you're not going to have that
contact.
So it would be allowing him to serve a little bit
more than just shadow counsel role. He can actually speak to
witnesses for you and help -- and for purposes of preparation
of your case.
If there's a particular witness that you would want
to talk to but I'm not allowing you to, Mr. Jeffrey can do
that like he otherwise would be able to.
MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, I would just need to let
the Court know, absent, if you will, a full appointment, I
just think that would be problematic because at that point, in
order to interview witnesses, I'm having to look at discovery
but yet, at the end of the day, I'm not able to make the
determination of how we proceed.
I know these are always unusual questions, but it
would just be very difficult for me to do that knowing -- I
mean, Mr. Fayne has been hard to communicate with just in
general. Nothing against him, but that -- again, I know that
the Court has a very laudable thought in mind, but in
practice, I think that would be very hard to effectively do.
Either you have to have full control or it's just
kind of hard to have control when you don't even have -- to
make those calls, when you don't have the discovery.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 35 of 50
36
And I have notified Mr. Fayne that I'm happy to
represent him. But just to let the Court know -- I don't want
to get too deeply into this because I know that the purpose of
this hearing is a very limited one, but Mr. Fayne has gone pro
se when he discharged his last counsel. I was just brought in
as a stand-by. I have not been brought in, at least as of
today's date, for a full counsel, if you will.
I told him I'm happy to do it. I did mention I'm
going to be on leave for a good bit of -- which of course I
filed with the Court -- for the next week to ten days,
starting on Friday and I probably would need the discovery
extension.
But I don't have a problem with that per se, but --
and again, I know these are not easy questions for the Court.
And I'm sure it would be Judge Larkins's overall call, but I
needed to address the Court and just note that that would be
hard, in my view, for me to interview some witnesses without
really being able to take control of the discovery and take
control of the case.
I just want to throw that out there.
THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. And
maybe I was thinking a little bit too simplistically.
The reality is that we don't have a hybrid system
here of a partial representation/partial self-representation,
and maybe I was thinking too simplistically that if it's just
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 36 of 50
37
a question of interviewing Witness A or Witness B, maybe we
can make a small exception.
But you're right. Maybe that's not so easy. You
don't even have the discovery. I had overlooked that. And I
had forgotten that you were not the prior counsel.
So that may not be, in the end, my brainstorming as
to trying to think of other possible solutions here are just
that, and maybe that's not appropriate.
So for now I'm going to leave it at this: The
restrictions are what they are. They're not modified and you
are not permitted to have contact with witness, directly or
indirectly, with the one exception I just talked about which
is you can make, through correspondence only, requests for
business records from the banks at issue.
Otherwise, I urge you to allow, whether it's
Mr. Jeffrey to come in or your prior lawyer to come back in,
to reconsider the self-representation decision you've made
because it is limiting you in your ability to prepare for
trial and defend yourself in this case.
So that will be -- to sum up, I'm not modifying the
travel restriction, but I have indicated that I wouldn't be
foreclosed from agreeing to a specific trip here and there for
purposes of a TV shoot, hypothetical. But we would have to
verify that and cross that bridge with the facts that are
presented to us when that occurs.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 37 of 50
38
And so, Mr. Fayne, you will have to give us some
notice of that. We can't just be told on a Friday you're
going to leave on a Sunday sort of thing.
And then the witness request is denied except with
the limited exception that you can, through correspondence
only, make contacts to request records from the banks that are
relevant in this case.
All right. That's all I had on my agenda. Anything
else for today? Mr. Fayne, I see you raising your hand.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Your Honor, I had spoke
with Mr. Tutor about this on Friday. I was trying to contact
the Court. How can I get direct communication with the Court?
I have provided an email address I have provided a telephone
number, I have provided mailing. Everything. And I get no
direct communication.
Mr. -- I can't think of his name right now. He's
going to be on vacation for the next 10 days or 11 days, so if
anything comes, I may not have the ability to know because,
like I say, I don't get any emails.
The mail stuff they send, I do get it, but just like
this hearing, I didn't receive anything in the mail. I didn't
-- if it weren't for Mr. Tutor or the attorney, I wouldn't
have even knew about it.
But -- and my second thing, my grandmother is having
another surgery tomorrow. I talked to Mr. Tutor about this on
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 38 of 50
39
Friday. I tried to call the Court on Friday. Again, I didn't
get an answer. I left several voice mails.
But to extend my travel to just come back next
Wednesday.
They removed her blood clot the last time we were
here. This procedure here, she's not getting blood
circulation in her legs, so they don't know if they are going
to amputate it or not, but they removed the blood clot which
was a success but she was not getting circulation, so we don't
know if we have to install a ramp at her house.
We really don't know until she goes go back to the
doctor tomorrow and then figure out the exact plan, if they
can find a way to get circulation to her leg.
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, I would like to respond to
that.
THE COURT: I'll let you respond, but first let me
make sure I know the specifics.
You were otherwise supposed to return when?
THE DEFENDANT: Tomorrow.
THE COURT: And what you are proposing is to return
next Wednesday?
THE DEFENDANT: The following -- yes, sir.
THE COURT: The following Wednesday. Okay.
All right. Mr. Phillips. I'm sorry.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, your Honor.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 39 of 50
40
I just wanted to say that Judge Larkins made it clear
to the defendant at the status conference that we had recently
that any delays in receiving notice because the defendant has
chosen to go pro se and chosen to direct the clerk of the
court to submit mail to an address that the defendant provided
in Oklahoma City is on him.
Judge Larkins said if you want to do that, I'm going
to let you do it, I think it's a bad idea, but I'll let you do
it. But let's be clear, if there is any delay, if you miss
any court appearance because you didn't get notice because of
this system that you insisted on, that's on you.
So here we are, just a few weeks into this and the
defendant is already complaining that it was only fortuitous
that he got notice of this hearing, that if it hadn't been for
Mr. Tutor telling him, he wouldn't have known about it.
So that's a problem that the defendant created for
himself. And we can't guarantee that Mr. Tutor or somebody
else is going to find out about a hearing and then think to
tell the defendant.
That's not Mr. Tutor's responsibility. It's not my
responsibility. It's the defendant's responsibility to get
those notices.
So this is a problem that Judge Larkins already
foresaw and told the defendant that he would have to bear the
consequences of insisting on getting notice in the fashion
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 40 of 50
41
that he has.
MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, if I may just follow up on
that.
First of all, I want to let the Court know and
Mr. Phillips know, I did relay, gladly, the notice I got from
the court regarding this hearing. I certainly don't have a
problem with that.
But Mr. Fayne has told me -- of course we are all
communicating via email, and certainly I understand he wants
the mail to be sent to his post office box. Again, this only
peripherally concerns your Honor because your Honor of course
was just presiding over the bond and pretrial detention issue,
but to the extent the Court, I do believe it's appropriate
that he be able -- he certainly has not been disagreeable to
me from that standpoint.
I do believe he should be permitted -- and I have
notified this to Mr. Phillips, I really can't be responsible
for being a conduit for communications from the government's
office to Mr. Fayne, but I would think since he is acting in a
sense as his own lawyer, I would respectfully submit he is
entitled, and I would ask to make it easier on everyone here,
that he be permitted to email -- of course in a civil,
appropriate fashion with the Court, with the government, and
so forth.
I think that's what he is asking for.
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 41 of 50
42
The problem I have is sometimes I may be so busy, if
Mr. Phillips or even if the Court says hey look, notify him of
this, there may be a little bit of a delay. And then of
course, being the stand-by counsel, I feel hey, look, why is
this on me to do the notification?
But I think he's just asking to have access to email,
which I would request to the extent --
THE COURT: Here's the thing, though. Here's the
thing. We don't, as a general matter in the court, accept
correspondence by email. There may be individual
circumstances where we might invite a particular discussion by
email or for logistical reasons we may use email.
That is not license for email to be a method of
official communication with the Court.
It is not a method of official communication with the
Court. And generally speaking we also only accept phone calls
and speak to individuals or lawyers even in limited
circumstances.
Generally speaking, it's not appropriate and we do
not have ex parte communications, meaning just speaking to one
side that happens to call.
In most cases, we have an obligation to speak to both
sides together.
Now, that is not a hundred percent because it could
just be a logistics -- it could just be a nonsubstantive
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 42 of 50
43
thing, so we do occasionally have conversations.
But that's not a license for informal communication
with the Court, whether by phone or by email as a general
matter.
MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, the --
THE COURT: The communications with the Court are
through filing of official motions and the receipt of orders.
MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor -- I didn't mean to -- when
the Court is finished. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: As it relates to us, because the majority
of -- I mean, you know, most of this case is in front of other
judges -- as it relates to us, I know there has been delays,
Mr. Fayne, in hearing this motion and I apologize for that.
We were on criminal duty for the majority of the
month of August, and so unable to get to this matter earlier.
That wasn't because I wasn't aware of it, but it was because
of my schedule and criminal duty for the majority and much of
August dealing with new arrests and bond hearings.
So it wasn't a question of just emailing or calling
us wouldn't have gotten you a quicker hearing.
But, in any event, I cannot give permission, blanket
permission to have official communications with the Court by
email or phone.
There can be specific conversations where that may be
permitted or even instituted or invited by us. But I don't
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 43 of 50
44
want to say sure, just email us whenever you want.
That's not the official -- that's not the manner of
communication. And generally speaking, the communication with
the Court needs to also be with opposing counsel.
MR. JEFFREY: And your Honor, I just want to assure
the Court -- and I don't mean to interrupt. I'm simply
talking about very perfunctory scheduling notices. That's it.
And I apologize --
THE COURT: Well, I mean, the scheduling notice is
the same thing. If you had a lawyer -- and I think this is
what Mr. Phillips's point was and it sounds like Judge
Larkins's point was, if you have a lawyer, lawyers are
permitted to have access to the electronic filing system of
this court. They would get electronic notice through that
system. Not through email.
We don't email lawyers, generally, as to informal
anything, but through the electronic system.
As a party representing yourself in a case, you would
get a mailing. And as Mr. Phillips pointed out, it sounds
like Judge Larkins pointed out, you would be responsible for
getting that mailing.
If that mailing comes a little slower than the
electronic communication that would have come to your lawyer,
or if there is some imperfection in getting your mail, all of
that is part of the choice you're making by representing
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 44 of 50
45
yourself.
While you are representing yourself, to the extent
there is any communication from us that we would have
otherwise sent to Mr. Jeffrey of a communication matter by
email, we will send that to you by email along with
Mr. Phillips.
But I just want you to understand that is not usually
how we communicate. And we are not committing to sending you
reminders or notifications by email. That's not how we give
you those notices.
If there is something where we're initiating an email
or say are you available for a call on this date or this date,
and that's something we would be sending to Mr. Jeffrey or
Mr. Phillips by email, we'll send that to you since you're
representing yourself and we have your email, by email.
But that's not the sum total of all the notifications
that you are going to get.
You will get orders in the mail. They may include
notices of hearings or deadlines. We're not emailing you any
of that, necessarily. And you're going to be responsible for
what comes in the mail.
That's the best I can do. If it's a Friday, and
we're trying to set something up on the Monday, we know it's a
practical matter and the only way to reach you is by email,
then we will CC you on an email with Mr. Phillips. But that's
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 45 of 50
46
not the majority or the norm of how the Court is going to be
communicating with you.
It will be by you filing motions and us issuing
orders that get mailed to you to whatever address you give us.
MR. JEFFREY: Thank you, your Honor. I think that
answers pretty much my question.
And I would simply ask if the Court does propose a
conference, certainly I'm glad to be a part of that. But if
the Court is emailing, you know, proposing a date, are you
available on such-and-such a date, mailing -- emailing, I'm
sorry -- to Mr. Fayne whatever address he may give the Court.
But just limited to that.
Again, if the Court is comfortable with that.
THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, look, I'm not going to say
something that can be interpreted as altering the Court's
procedures.
Email is not the official way of communication. It
is something that is a tool we sometimes may use, especially
if it's a short-notice thing.
But not every time might it be set by email. The
lack of an email will not necessarily excuse noncompliance.
If there was otherwise an order that got mailed to
wherever it was supposed to get mailed, Mr. Fayne is going to
be responsible for.
So it's hard for me to say anything. I don't want to
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 46 of 50
47
be interpreted -- I want to be very clear that merely checking
your email is not going to be all you got to do here to keep
up with what's going on in the case.
And a failure to receive an email from us on
something, or a failure to respond to an email from you is not
-- I mean, that is what it is. We do not use email as an
official mode of communication. It is an occasional tool that
we may use in specific circumstances.
Last word, Mr. Fayne, because we have been at this
for a while and I have got another hearing.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay. I think we kind of got off
track there.
I wasn't referring to -- for Mr. Phillips's purpose,
I wasn't referring to my orders or anything that I'm not
receiving.
What I was referring to is communication back and
forth for Mr. Jeffrey, like hey, are you available for this
date for this hearing, where that was an email that was sent
that I could have been cc'd on.
There wasn't a mailing. There was no order. I
haven't missed an order or filing or anything due to my
mailing being in Oklahoma, which you're referring to. That's
not the issue that we're speaking of.
We're just speaking of, like, I didn't know the Zoom
login info. That wasn't something that was mailed or
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 47 of 50
48
anything. That's all I was referring to.
And then --
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne --
THE DEFENDANT: I was asking the Court --
THE COURT: That sort of thing, that sort of thing,
we will endeavor to email you on as you are representing
yourself.
That sort of thing, if -- if we're emailing
Mr. Jeffrey as your lawyer, we will include you on if it's
something that's appropriate to include you on. So I
appreciate you letting me know that. And we will do that.
But I got to otherwise -- I have to call an
adjournment here, unless there is anything else specific that
we have missed.
All right. I'll get out a written order on the
motion, but I think what I have said was otherwise clear.
We'll get out a written order of that that formally denies the
motion, but at least modifies the ability to contact the
banks.
All right. Thank you all very much. We'll be in
adjournment.
MR. JEFFREY: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Judge.
(Proceedings were adjourned at 3:35 p.m.)
THE DEFENDANT: What about the return for Wednesday?
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 48 of 50
49
The return for Wednesday?
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yeah. I don't think he addressed
that. Let me reach out to Judge, and then I'll get back with
you on that.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: All right.
Thank you. Bye.
(Proceedings were adjourned at 3:35 p.m.)
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 49 of 50
50
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATION
I, Judith M. Wolff, a Certified Realtime Reporter,
with offices in Atlanta, Georgia, do hereby certify:
That I transcribed the proceedings digitally recorded
on Tuesday, September 8, 2020, in the matter of USA vs.
Maurice Fayne, aka Arkansas Mo, Case No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC;
That said audio recording of the proceedings were
reduced to typewritten form by me;
And that the foregoing transcript is a true and
accurate record of the proceedings.
Date: October 18, 2021
s/ JUDITH M. WOLFF, CERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTER
Signature of Transcriber
USA v Fayne September 8, 2020 Defendant's Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document 249 Filed 10/22/21 Page 50 of 50File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.278523.249.0.pdf
- Size
- 168,318 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2577315feffb3d0da07a91e480d6cd7562fe6b1172bc995c4724d2b449ee3b87
- Original
- PACER (login required)