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. 251 · 2021-10-22 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A transcript of the December 22, 2020 bond revocation hearing in United States of America v. Maurice Fayne, No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL, before Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed October 22, 2021 as Document 251. Fayne appears pro se, and Assistant United States Attorney John Russell Phillips presents the government's petition to revoke his pretrial release. Phillips states that Fayne texted and emailed an alleged victim of the Ponzi scheme charged in the indictment and her lawyer, contrary to the condition under 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(c)(1)(B)(5) to avoid contact with victims and potential witnesses, and marks the email as Government's Exhibit 1. He argues for revocation under 18 U.S.C. Section 3148 and the Section 3142(g) factors. The court orders the defendant detained pending trial.
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,
vs. Docket No.
1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL
Maurice Fayne,
Defendant.
TRANSCRIPT OF BOND REVOCATION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTIN S. ANAND
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT JUDGE
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2020
Appearance of Counsel:
For the Plaintiff: John Russell Phillips, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
For the Defendant: Pro se
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 39
2
(Court was called to order at 12:38 p.m.)
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne is here.
Mr. Fayne, are you still representing yourself in
this matter?
I'm sorry?
THE DEFENDANT: (Indiscernible audio. Not speaking
into microphone.)
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I guess -- are you still
operating as your own attorney in this case as allowed by
Judge Larkins?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We're here for a
hearing on the petition for revocation of bond.
Mr. Phillips, you can proceed.
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, would you like me to come
to the podium, or stay seated here?
THE COURT: Your choice. Either. I think you would
be safe with the screen.
MR. PHILLIPS: If it's okay with the Court, then,
I'll stay here.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, just a tiny bit of
background about this case.
A second superseding indictment was returned which
charges defendant Fayne, also known as Arkansas Mo, as well as
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 39
3
three other people with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. They
were also charged with individual counts of wire fraud, and
Mr. Fayne and one other defendant were charged with bank
fraud.
Mr. Fayne was charged with making a false statement
to a financial institution, and he was charged with
concealment money laundering, transactional money laundering,
and aggravated identity theft.
And the second superseding indictment also includes a
very significant forfeiture provision which seeks to forfeit a
lot of property that was obtained with the illegal proceeds of
the bank fraud.
The indictment alleges that the defendant and his
coconspirators participated in a Ponzi scheme which defrauded
more than 20 people out of more than $5 million.
And the defendant had a lot of personal spending
habits that caused that money to be dissipated, including more
than $5 million that was paid to a casino in Oklahoma.
On May 13 of this year, the defendant had a bond
hearing before this Court on the original indictment. At that
time this Court told the defendant, and I quote, "you're to
avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with anyone who you
have reason to believe would be a victim or potential witness
in this case."
And that's one of the conditions that's set forth in
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 39
4
18 U.S.C. Section 3142(c)(1)(B)(5), avoid all contact with an
alleged victim of the crime and with a potential witness who
may testify concerning the offense.
The Court went on to say And I encourage the
government to give Ms. Miller, who was then the defendant's
attorney, a list of potential witnesses or participants to put
Mr. Fayne on as much notice as possible.
But, the Court said, however, if they fail to do
that, that's not an excuse. If there's someone who is later
proven that you knew or very well should have known was a
potential witness, meaning anyone who has first-hand knowledge
of the facts of this case, you're not to speak to that person
about this case yourself or through any intermediary other
than your lawyer, or investigators working for your lawyer.
And as the Court noted, the defendant has chosen to
represent himself, so he doesn't have a lawyer.
One of the victims in the case as far as the Ponzi
scheme part of it is concerned, the wire fraud, is a woman
named Jimia Cain.
So the petition for revocation of the pretrial
release in this case alleges that on November 9, just a little
bit more than a month ago, Jimia Cain received a text message
from Fayne telling her to dismiss her case against Fayne.
Because she filed a civil lawsuit against him trying to
recover the money that she lost as a victim in the Ponzi
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 39
5
scheme which is part of this indictment.
She is represented by a lawyer named Seth Rosenberg,
and the defendant also emailed Mr. Rosenberg and made
misleading and other statements to him.
So let me start with the communications between
Mr. Fayne and Ms. Cain. So she was interviewed, that is
Ms. Cain was interviewed by the case agents in this case and
she stated that in May of this year, two thugs -- that's her
description -- showed up at her house to scare her and try to
intimidate her with respect to her claim against defendant
Fayne.
She then reached out to the middleman who had
recruited her to participate in this Ponzi scheme and tried to
work out a settlement because she was scared because these
people had approached her and threatened her.
She was never paid any money and, shortly after that,
defendant Fayne was arrested. So she has never gotten back
that money.
That was May of 2020.
Fast forward to November of 2020, sometime during the
week of November 2, the defendant texted Ms. Cain and told her
to leave Carly Red alone. Carly Red is the defendant's
ex-wife, and received a lot of the fraud proceeds in this
case.
The defendant -- I'm sorry, Ms. Cain replied to the
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 39
6
defendant's text, and said I will do everything in my power to
help them put you in jail because what you did was wrong.
The defendant replied Ha-ha I won't spend a day in
jail.
About a week later, on November 9, the defendant
again texted Ms. Cain and made the following comments. First,
he threatened to file a lawsuit against her for harassment and
trespassing and hot checks. And he said, quote, I have warned
you of the trespass you all are doing. You don't scare me.
I'm private trust property.
He went on to say you all will pay very soon. You
can't sue private property. Good luck and trust all courts
with see my IPP status.
And to explain a little bit about what that means, we
can look at the email that the defendant sent later that day
to Seth Rosenberg, and he's the attorney for Jimia Cain.
And the defendant stated: Trust law. As I stated to
you client, Jimia Cain, you all are trying to administrate
against private trust property which is illegal and considered
trespassing. I have attached to you a copy of notice of
surrender achieving IPP status.
My duty is to warn you of status and hope you all do
the proper thing, close and dismiss immediately. With
exclamation points.
This is a 72-hour notice. Please forward all
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 39
7
dismissal documents within 72s hours before the suit of
trespass is given. Trust law. All rights reserved.
And then the defendant attached to that a document
that I probably should just give to the Court, rather than
read the whole thing.
I'm going to mark this as Government's Exhibit 1.
THE COURT: Well, does Mr. Fayne have a copy?
MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to provide him one, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS: Your Honor, the document that I have
marked as Government's Exhibit 1 is that email that I just
read, from the defendant, and then attached to that is this
document that says The Chair of St. Peter foundation, notice
of surrender documents for Maurice Johnson Fayne. And it has
a table of contents.
So the Court can see from looking through that that
this is part of the defendant's litigation strategy in this
case, which has been called by courts the sovereign citizen
litigation strategy.
So the defendant thinks this is -- excuse me -- a
get-out-of-jail free card and this prevents him from being
prosecuted or prevents him from having any legal liability for
the things that are alleged in the indictment.
Ms. Cain told the case agents when she was
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 39
8
interviewed that she felt like she was being threatened by the
defendant, so we have asked the Court to revoke the
defendant's bond.
We think that this is clear and convincing evidence
that the defendant has violated his conditions of pretrial
release. Specifically, the one that I mentioned earlier about
not having contact with an alleged victim or with a potential
witness who may testify concerning the case.
And as stated, the Court directly instructed the
defendant not to have contact with any witnesses or victims.
And I'm going to hand the Court a copy of the transcript of
the bond hearing.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. PHILLIPS: And the part, your Honor, that I read,
the quote from the Court begins at the bottom of page 23, and
continues onto 24.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that it for the government?
MR. PHILLIPS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS: Just briefly, I would like to address
the statute.
18 U.S.C. Section 3148 talks about sanctions for
violation of a condition of release, and states that the
judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation if, after
a hearing, it finds that there is clear and convincing
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 8 of 39
9
evidence that the person has violated any condition of
release.
So we have produced the email from the -- I have the
text messages -- excuse me -- as well. They are front and
back.
I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that
the defendant did communicate with a potential witness
concerning the subject matter of this litigation, this
indictment.
And then it states that if the Court finds, based on
the factors set forth in Section 3142(g), the defendant --
excuse me -- it's hard to talk in this mask -- no condition or
combination of conditions of release that will assure the
person will not pose a danger to the safety of the community
or to any other person, or that the person is unlikely to
abide by any condition or combination of conditions of
release, that that person should be detained.
And the factors that the Court should consider under
3142(g) include the nature and the circumstances of the
offense charged. So I pointed out to the Court the
seriousness of these allegations, including various types of
fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft,
conspiracy.
If convicted on those charges, the defendant would
certainly be facing more than ten years in a federal
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 9 of 39
10
penitentiary.
The weight of the evidence against the defendant is
overwhelming. The bank records, the text messages, the
emails, the other business records, records maintained by
government agencies, including the Department of
Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier's Safety
Administration all show that the defendant committed the acts
alleged in the indictment.
The text messages and emails from the defendant to
coconspirators concerning the Ponzi scheme and the bank fraud
to obtain PPP money under false pretenses, it's going to be
uncontested. There is no doubt that the defendant authored
those communications and obtained the money and obtained the
benefit.
The next factor is the history and characteristics of
the person. And as I said, the defendant has adopted this pro
se sovereign citizen litigation strategy. As the Court knows
firsthand, he has refused to plead not guilty when requested
to do so at his arraignment on the three indictments in this
case.
The defendant has repeatedly badgered this Court
about easing his travel restrictions, allowing him to go to
Arkansas. One of the defendant's unindicted coconspirators
who participated in the Ponzi scheme and other aspects of the
fraud, including the aggravated identity theft, who
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 10 of 39
11
manufactured the fraudulent documents and fraudulent
identifications and filed fraudulent documents for the
defendant with various government agencies is a woman named
Janell Tubbs that the defendant calls Aunt G.
She lives in Arkansas. She was a big part of his
fraudulent business. She has been indicted in Arkansas on her
own PPP fraud, multi-million dollar fraud. And it's my
understanding that she is going to plead guilty to those
charges very soon.
The defendant was recently charged with aggravated
identity theft. He stole the identity of a person named Duran
Porter, and then had a fake I.D., a fake Georgia driver's
license and a fake Social Security card manufactured in the
name of Duran Porter. He used that to obtain credit and to
obtain money.
There are various communications going back and forth
by email and text between the defendant and the person who
manufactured or brokered the manufacture of the fraudulent
documents for him. We have that entire conversation on text.
We have emails going back and forth between the
defendant and Aunt G in Arkansas, directing her to use the
fraudulent I.D. in the name of Duran Porter.
The defendant also posed repeatedly throughout the
Ponzi scheme, which went on from 2014 through the time the
defendant was arrested in 2020, he posed as a person who
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 11 of 39
12
worked for Walmart whose name was Marty Blackstone.
The defendant alleged that Marty Blackstone -- who is
a real person, who actually works for Walmart, who has a
high-level executive job, I want to say director of safety or
compliance or something like that -- the defendant posed as
him in various telephone conversations and texts with victims.
He also pretended to be a person named Terrence
Miller, who was another employee of Walmart. He has filed --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this question. I'm trying
to put the chronology together.
You've been referring to the Ponzi scheme which is in
the second superseding indictment, right?
MR. PHILLIPS: It's in the second superseding
indictment. It's also in the original indictment and the
middle indictment, if you will.
It was alleged as a wire fraud scheme from the very
beginning. The difference is that various other people have
been added to those charges.
Originally, the only person who was charged with wire
fraud was the defendant, Maurice Fayne. Then we added, later
on, Dan Jay, Mike Sargent and Mark Sargent. But they were
referred to by their initials in the original indictment as
various middle men who worked with the defendant and assisted
him in the fraudulent wire scheme, Ponzi scheme.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. We were
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 12 of 39
13
talking about charges in the first superseding indictment.
MR. PHILLIPS: We are, your Honor. We just fleshed
that out. The defendant has always been charged with that.
The most recent indictment added a conspiracy charge,
but there was always a scheme to defraud under the wire fraud
statute, which referred to the same conduct.
So now we have charged it as both conspiracy and
various individual counts of wire fraud.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PHILLIPS: So in addition to those people that
the defendant posed as, Duran Porter, Marty Blackstone, and
Terrence Miller, he has also posed as Princeton Cunningham and
Donovan Wittington in various filings that he fraudulently
caused Aunt G to make to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, the Department of Transportation, and others.
And so the defendant, for example, has tried to cover
his tracks, he tried to absolve himself --
THE COURT: I'm going to let you speak in a minute.
MR. PHILLIPS: -- of any liability with respect to
various trucking companies that he created in Arkansas, for
example, by taking his name off of public records and
replacing his name with these fraudulent identities of Donovan
Wittington and Princeton Cunningham.
So the defendant has a history, a long history of
posing as other people.
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 13 of 39
14
The Court instructed him, clearly, don't have any
contact with witnesses or victims. He ignored that.
So I know one of the questions the Court will have
will be instead of detaining this person, is there some other
condition that we can impose on him that would keep the
victims and the witnesses safe and that would cause him to
abide by the Court's instructions?
And I think the answer to that is no. And the reason
I say that is if the Court were to, for example, impose some
sort of restriction on the defendant's use of electronic
devices, his Smartphone, his tablet, his laptop, the defendant
could easily comply with those conditions on -- it's like
keeping a second set of books.
He would have one set of phones and tablets and
computers that he could show to probation when they come to
check on him, and it's going to show that he complied with the
Court's orders.
But the defendant has lots of money hidden. He lives
a very luxurious lifestyle. He has got plenty of money to go
buy a new iPhone, a new computer, a new laptop, a new
tablet, whatever, and keep a separate set of books, if you
will.
So there is no way that the probation officer can
enforce that restriction, and so the victims and the witnesses
are at their peril.
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 14 of 39
15
And this is a defendant who has a lengthy history of
posing as other people, of trying to intimidate witnesses,
engaging in these shenanigans through this sovereign citizen
litigation strategy.
He is not complying with the instructions of this
Court. He has no respect for this Court or for this Court's
rules and regulations. He won't even plead not guilty when
asked to do so.
So we believe that there is no set of conditions that
could ensure the safety of the community if this defendant is
released, and we ask the Court to detain him.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne.
THE DEFENDANT: First, your Honor, I guess I will
start with the reason why we are supposed to be here in this
situation is because if you go to the court documents, to the
original hearing, you said that the potential witness in this
case, Jimia Cain has a total separate civil case that she is
suing my ex-wife, myself, and a former company that I owned.
All of the text messages are not clear. She actually
reached out to me first.
There was one communication, this is in May, this
happened in November, I believe -- I'm not really sure of the
exact date because I can't even say exactly what it is. It is
familiar, but I can't say exactly what it is.
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 15 of 39
16
And my only conversations with Ms. Cain had nothing
to do with this case, whatsoever. Not one single word,
conversation. It was strictly on a civil case that we have.
THE COURT: Is she not a potential witness in this
case?
THE DEFENDANT: That I knew of, no, sir. No, sir.
We had a separate, total civil matter going on in Washington
prior to this indictment.
And so she reached out to me, mentioned me -- I don't
see it here, I see -- excuse me, I think the government is not
being thorough with its text messages, but her original text
to me I believe -- I don't have it in front of me because I
don't have a cell phone, but her original text to me was she
is willing to work with I believe was Agent Oliver. I'm not
really sure, don't quote me on that, your Honor, because I
don't have it in front of me.
But I know this is not the full texts because she had
reached out to me first, I didn't reach out to her. I didn't
wake up one day and said hey, I'm going to contact Jimia Cain.
She had contacted me.
And then, as far as the other set of communications,
that went to her attorney and that was in reference to the
civil case. Not -- nothing to do with this indictment or in
any form or fashion, but an attorney of hers.
Now, the government has sit here and said many
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 16 of 39
17
things, made false allegations of things that I have done and
supposedly done. I can assure this Court I respect this
Court.
Ever since the original release in May, I have not
violated any bond conditions. I have -- everything they told
me, my probation officer, Mr. Tudor, gave me a list of people
that I do not need to contact and I have followed that list
thoroughly.
I have not contacted one single person on that list
not one single time.
Anything Mr. Tudor asked me to do, call, be present
for court hearings, I have done it. The arrest from
yesterday, he called me last week asking me to come in for my
routine -- monthly routine. I came in, we set a time, at 12
o'clock, I was there at 12 o'clock yesterday.
I have not had one single conversation with anyone
regarding this case, a potential witness or potential that has
anything to do with this case, whatsoever. Not anything.
That's why these text messages, it's about a legal
suit. She is not suing me in this indictment. This is not
her versus me, or anything. It has nothing to do with this
case, whatsoever.
THE COURT: What does it have to do with? What's the
case --
THE DEFENDANT: Two things. She had a crush on me,
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 17 of 39
18
she was wanting to be intimate with me. I was not interested.
At the time I was separated from my wife. She actually helped
me with a few business things while my wife and I were
separated.
Then me and my wife reconciled at that point in time,
earlier this year. I don't know the exact dates. Right
around -- I believe it was maybe January or February of this
year.
And ever since then she has been on a witch hunt.
She has contacted the DOT. She has been all over social media
trying to do different things.
And so my response to her -- the whole thing in my
response to her is telling her to leave my ex-wife out of
this. She has nothing to do with any of the lawsuits she was
trying to claim.
She actually -- it's two $50,000 fraud in this case.
She sent over money that she actually deposited two $50,000 of
bad checks into my bank account at some point last year, in
2019. I don't know the exact date.
Like I said, I'm here. I don't know where my standby
counsel Mr. Jeffrey is. I don't have all the dates and times,
you know what I'm saying. But I can assure this Court I'm not
threatening anyone.
Mentioned something like someone, thugs visiting I
her home or something.
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 18 of 39
19
First and foremost, in her civil suit that she is
doing in Washington, she said that my wife sent them to her
house. Me and my ex-wife were separated at the time.
Like I said, if I had the opportunity to have all of
my information present, I would show that to the Court that
it's been an ongoing thing for about a year, year and a half
now. It has nothing to do with this case whatsoever.
Now I'm sure once everything went out in the media,
she is going to try to jump on board now, you know.
Donovan Wittington is my nephew which he actually had
his own trucking company. She's saying that I had other
people -- that I allegedly asked other people -- I, myself, I
can't disguise my voice. I was on television, so it's not
like I could walk into a room and say hey, I'm Tim Turner and
somebody go no, you know, you're Maurice Johnson Fayne or
you're Arkansas Mo, you know, because they done seen my face
whether on social media or whatever.
But that's the original thing here. The list that
Mr. Tudor gave me, I have not had any communications with.
Now, I understand that the fine print that if you
don't -- if the Court fails to show me, you know, a person
that's not on the list, well, there is not one single thing.
This is a total separate civil matter in the State of
Washington. It has nothing to do with the PPP loans. It has
nothing to do with -- all my response is simply about her
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 19 of 39
20
trying to sue -- I believe she actually had sued myself and my
ex-wife.
THE COURT: I mean, did the allegations of that case
have anything to do with investing in your trucking company?
THE DEFENDANT: Well, that's the thing. She invested
in it. She loaned -- not even loaned. She more so --
THE COURT: And I'm trying to be careful here for
your benefit. Because, don't forget, you have the right to
remain silent and I don't want you is speaking about the facts
of your case.
So I worded it as to the allegations --
THE DEFENDANT: I don't want to get into the merits,
but --
THE COURT: Yes. Are the allegations in her lawsuit
--
THE DEFENDANT: -- she deposited two $50,000
fraudulent checks into my bank account.
THE COURT: And does her allegation in the Washington
case or in any case she has made against you involve her
investing in your trucking --
THE DEFENDANT: Allegedly.
THE COURT: Right. So she alleges that she invested
in your company; you're saying those were with fraudulent
checks?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Fraudulent checks. I don't
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 20 of 39
21
want to go on record saying an exact date because I might say
May when it's actually June. You know.
But I think this whole ordeal deal right now with the
government trying to --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this, though. Why does
that have nothing to do with this case when the indictment --
THE DEFENDANT: The original indictment --
THE COURT: -- the so-called --
THE DEFENDANT: -- has nothing to do --
THE COURT: Well, we're talking about the first
superseding indictment, which was the one that was in place
during these communications.
THE DEFENDANT: The indictment --
THE COURT: And the wire fraud scheme involved
soliciting investors --
THE DEFENDANT: She wasn't --
THE COURT: -- to pay for your trucking company.
Remember, I'm not asking you to tell me facts about the case
--
THE DEFENDANT: -- was not listed --
THE COURT: Was not listed, but --
THE DEFENDANT: But she has done, quote, unquote
allegedly done this. Her name is not listed.
I actually got a new list from Mr. Tudor because
something came up with the bank, I wanted to contact the bank.
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 21 of 39
22
And then we actually -- I can't remember exactly who it was
that I wasn't aware who I can't contact (indiscernible audio).
But I can assure the Court, I'm not harassing
anybody, I have never threatened anybody and I have abided by
every single -- I mean every single circumstance.
My travel. Everything. I communicate properly with
my probation services guy.
I believe -- and this is just my opinion, but I
believe the government is here right now because the
government has been unethical with a lot of the things they
put in discovery.
Regardless of the extension, I can show the emails
about that. You said you don't know anything about the
pretrial motions and stuff, but I believe all of this, again,
they have been unethical. They sent me an email telling me
what they done wrong and how it can be corrected.
So I believe this whole thing is a charade or
retaliation or punishment to keep me from having the proper
defense of myself. As well as Mr. Phillips time after time
pertaining to the same thing to my stand-by counsel that
should actually be sent to me directly because my stand-by
counsel can't make any decisions. (Indiscernible audio.)
I don't have a problem (indiscernible audio) with
Mr. Phillips or anything, but I think this whole revoke bond
and how it is is just a charade. I have not -- there is no --
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 22 of 39
23
nothing in the world that I have threatened anybody about
nothing regarding this case.
And I had I known Ms. Cain was going to be a part of
the government's strategy, I wouldn't have responded to her.
I didn't reach out to her. She reached out to me. So I don't
know if that's something that her and the government got
together and this is another quote, unquote, trap. Just like
the trap they got me with yesterday when there was an arrest
warrant sent out there. (Indiscernible audio) there was an
arrest warrant, I wouldn't have appeared. But it was supposed
to be my pretrial monthly thing, you know, and instead I got
arrested. I don't know who signed off on it.
I was under the impression that the government would
let me know, like I said, when this one here came, I had an
attorney. So I don't know how this all works, but I was under
the impression on my own that if anybody that I wasn't
supposed to talk to, whether the government themselves would
tell me or that's the reason I got a Pretrial Service
(indiscernible audio), if there were any changes in my case,
that it would be brought do my attention.
Unfortunately, Ms. Miller hadn't been the part of
anything since May.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PHILLIPS: May I respond just briefly, your
Honor?
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 23 of 39
24
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PHILLIPS: I talked to Jimia Cain's attorney
yesterday, Mr. Rosenberg. He told me that the actual amount
that Ms. Cain invested in the defendant's trucking business is
approximately $700,000. So --
THE DEFENDANT: Hearsay. Hearsay. No.
Actually, again, your Honor, the government is
badgering me.
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne, I'm going to overrule the
hearsay objection because hearsay doesn't apply in a
proceeding such as this.
You have also proffered out-of-court statements as
well. I'm allowed to consider information proffered by the
parties.
Now what weight I apply to any statement is a
different question, but your objections to hearsay, I'm going
to overrule that.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, your Honor.
So that's the amount that he told me, it was
approximately $700,000.
In addition, having reviewed a lot of the defendant's
bank records and records that Jimia Cain and her attorney
provided to the case agents in the investigation, it's my
recollection that those documents show hundreds of thousands
of dollars that Ms. Cain invested in defendant Fayne's
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 24 of 39
25
trucking business, not limited to the two $50,000 checks that
the defendant says she gave him which bounced. There is a lot
more than that.
And all of the money that she gave to the defendant
was for the purpose of investing in the same trucking company
that's referred to in the indictment, from day one of the
indictment.
That is the wire fraud scheme, sometimes referred to
as a Ponzi scheme that's described in the indictment. She is
one of those victims.
So if the defendant says she's not on the list that
was originally provided to him, that is true because, at the
time, we didn't know about her. But our investigation was
ongoing and we continued to find more victims and more
witnesses.
And we provided discovery, including all of the 302s
and all of the MOIs. We didn't hold any of that back.
We sent the discovery by Federal Express to the
defendant's residence in Dacula. The defendant rejected that
discovery and sent it back to the United States Attorney's
Office by Federal Express.
So he chose not to receive that discovery. And Judge
Larkins warned him, when he was telling him how dangerous it
was to proceed pro se, that he was going to be responsible for
all communications with the Court, all official notices and
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 25 of 39
26
everything else.
The defendant wanted to have us ship all of his
discovery and all official court documents to some post office
box in Oklahoma City. And we objected to that and told the
Court that that would just create more delay and that there
was no reason to do that, that the defendant needed to provide
an address in Georgia. So the defendant did that.
All of the communications that we have with him that
we send out in writing go to that address that the defendant
provided, and we copy Mark Jeffrey who is the defendant's
stand-by counsel.
I think that the things the defendant was referring
to earlier that he says went to Mr. Jeffrey and not him were
communications concerning the ongoing forfeiture claim in this
case.
So Mike Brown's forfeiture section in our office sent
various notices to the defendant and to Mr. Jeffrey concerning
the forfeiture aspect of the case. But the defendant was
copied on that. We haven't left him out of any of that.
And so even though Jimia Cain was not on that
original list, who better than the defendant himself to know
who he took money from? If you took hundreds of thousands of
dollars from a person, including what you claim were two bad
checks for $50,000, you know that person.
I mean, let's face it, they fought. You don't get
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 26 of 39
27
that kind of money from somebody just having met them for 15
seconds. They hand an ongoing relationship. He knows full
well who she is. He knows exactly what her situation is, what
her status is.
And he knew that she was an investor in the same
trucking company and the same alleged fraudulent scheme
described in the indictment. He knew that when he
communicated with her.
And if you look at his communications with her and
her lawyer, it's clear that he is trying to use his status as
a sovereign citizen to get out of paying her money related to
the same claim that's alleged in the indictment.
That's all I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Just briefly, sir.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay. First and foremost
(indiscernible audio) or anything like that.
My stuff with her strictly (indiscernible audio) she
is suing me personally. It's not a company. She is coming
after us as individuals.
And it's my own communication with her. It's civil.
My ex-wife has nothing to do with anything that's going on.
It is nothing about -- nothing else, your Honor. Nothing to
do with -- nothing other than me and my ex-wife, she has
nothing to do with any of this.
I wasn't harassing anybody. I wasn't -- nothing. I
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 27 of 39
28
was -- as far as what I have read and have been told about the
private property, you have to let people know, you have to put
them on notice so they know.
Same thing I did in the courtroom. (Indiscernible
audio.) Yes, I sent back a package because after I had gave
the Court my address where I was receiving my mail. I didn't
know it was from the Court because it was just FedEx. So the
FedEx, I have a note on my door return all packages back, no
matter (indiscernible audio) and that kind of stuff.
So I just wasn't opening any mail at my address. So
I have a third-party receiving all of my mail so it can be
scanned and copied. That way I know I have got every single
document.
So I did get the discovery that he's talking about,
however I hadn't got the bulk of the discovery and this is
something that (indiscernible audio) sorry about that, with
the other judge, because he went on record and said hey, we
need a hard drive. I gave him a hard drive. Now he wants a
USB.
That's not -- if you look at the transcript, in the
transcript it doesn't say a USB. It said a hard drive. And I
provided him with a hard drive and to this day I am waiting
for discovery because he is saying the government don't have
the ability.
Now, the United States government don't have the
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 28 of 39
29
ability to put the discovery on a hard drive that I provided
to him, which is exactly what he's asked for.
Now, now he says he wants a USB, but that's not what
he said. So I got what he said. So as far as some type of
discovery, I see no reason (indiscernible audio) if I had
known just like any of this or anything that he had told me, I
have not had any involvement with any person, not one single
person that I have been told not to contact, to communicate
with. I mean, in any to form or fashion. Not one single
person.
THE COURT: All right.
So I find -- I do find the defendant has violated his
conditions of release. The conditions stated that the
defendant was not to have contact, directly or indirectly,
with anyone who would be a potential witness in the case.
And I was very clear. I was extremely clear.
Mr. Phillips, you read it here this morning -- I didn't need
him to because it's what I say in every case -- but I was very
clear as to what I meant by that.
I encouraged the government to give you a list, but I
was very clear that that list was not the complete list of the
folks you were supposed to avoid. It was to give you, as much
as they could, a list. But I also made very clear it was to
include anyone else, whether listed or not, whether named in
the indictment or listed by the government in this listed or
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 29 of 39
30
not, that you knew were potential victims or participants or
had knowledge, firsthand knowledge about the facts of the
case.
So your focus this morning on it wasn't on the list,
I wasn't told, so if I wasn't told not to talk to them that I
could talk to them.
That's not the order or the condition of release that
was in place. It didn't work that way and I could not have
been clearer.
I know you had a lawyer then, but you chose not to
have a lawyer. And both Judge Larkins and I have gone over
that with you at multiple times that that was a bad choice.
You were there, though, to hear it. And what I said
wasn't legalese. It was crystal clear. You don't speak to
anyone, directly or indirectly, about this case that's a
potential victim or witness. That was not limited to the
people that they give you a list of.
So then the question is is this person, Ms. Cain, a
potential victim or witness? And I believe she is. That has
been established here.
You don't -- that her -- yes, the communications that
have been provided appears to be in the context of a private
case, but the private case, as far as I understand here, are
allegations of a victim in a private civil case that mirror
the claims in this criminal case.
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 30 of 39
31
In other words, what she is alleging in her civil
case is that she was lied to in giving or investing money and
that may be overlap between the civil claim that she's
bringing and the allegations and her role in this criminal
case, but that is the subject matter of the first superseding
indictment which was the indictment that was in place at the
time of the communications.
So the specific wording in the back and forth is
about the civil case. Drop the case, you know, counter
lawsuit. Those are references to a civil process. I
understand that.
But they are also referring to the claims that this
person has been making. She even makes this direct reference
to wanting to be part of an effort to put you away. So she's
clearly referring to this more than just by a civil claim.
But in any event, the statements are broader than
just about the civil case. They are saying you have made
false statements, false claims, you are harassing me.
And all of that to a witness about the subject matter
of the information that she may be a witness in the criminal
case. That is exactly 100 percent what you were ordered not
to do.
And I can't find that you weren't on notice that this
was a potential victim because, from what I'm hearing, the
subject matter of her claim is exactly the subject matter of
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 31 of 39
32
the fraud scheme that's in the complaint.
She is even referencing being a part of the group
that's going to put you away. So she's clearly referencing
that she's involved in criminal matters against you.
But that the government didn't give the name to you,
I could not have been clearer, is not the excuse. It just
makes it where we have a harder burden for the government to
show that you should have been on notice that this person is a
witness.
It puts you in better notice if they give you the
name. It's better if they give you all the names they can.
But I couldn't have been clearer that that wasn't going to be
enough.
In other words, that the provision of the name was
not a requirement for there to be a bond violation. Because
whether you got the name or not, if it was someone who you had
reason to believe was a witness, a potential witness in the
criminal case, and for all the reasons I said before, I
believe that's been established.
Now there are no overt threats of violence,
certainly. And I'm trying not to overstate this here. Talk
about countersuit and trespass and legal terms. But where you
have a criminal defendant who is making threatening
statements, even if they're threatening legal recourse, that
can have a chilling effect on witnesses. And witnesses might
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 32 of 39
33
reasonably not take it as limited to a legal threat.
Here, the language that's used, there are some
ambiguities. "This is a 72-hour notice." Now, the defendant
may have a belief that that means something under the legal
theories that he's operating under, personal property and all
that, but I don't know that an ordinary person wouldn't get
that and be concerned that that's a threat of some action to
be taken within 72 hours.
These are the things that even if not necessarily
intended as a threat of violence or intimidation could be
construed that way, reasonably. And that's one of the reasons
why there is not to be any contact, direct or indirect, with
potential witnesses. So that things even if construed wrong
by the witness don't get turned into a problem.
That's why it's prophylactic to some degree that the
defendant is not to have contact, direct or indirect, with a
potential witness in the case.
So I believe that that has been established here,
that that is what has happened. That there has been a
violation of a bond condition, a very important bond
condition. One of the foundational bond conditions to not be
engaging in conduct that would potentially corrupt the
integrity of the case.
The question then is is revocation and detention
necessary, or are there other conditions to be applied that
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 33 of 39
34
could address this or prevent this from going forward?
And that is hard -- I mean, that's -- I cannot
identify bond conditions here to address the situation like
this. Meaning that no bond conditions I can issue would
prevent the defendant from communicating with individuals.
Nothing I can order can better state what the rules
are, and I can't force the defendant to hear or understand
those.
The defendant likely personally knows many of these
folks, because Mr. Phillips is right, you don't invest this
sum of money without some relationship. So there is very
little I can do to prevent Mr. Fayne from reaching out to
folks through social media, through phone, through email. And
even if I were to restrict electronic devices, electronic
devices are ubiquitous and easily obtained in our economy. So
there is very little I can do to prevent that.
So I really don't see any way for me to avoid
revoking your bond, Mr. Fayne. And this was a hard decision
in the first place. The government moved to detain you -- or,
no. You did not move to detain.
But there was a substantial amount of evidence about
travel and the money. And it was a very difficult -- it was
very unusual case. It was not a cut-and-dried case for
fashioning conditions of release.
I have not taken offense to any request to travel or
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 34 of 39
35
-- Mr. Phillips used the sovereign citizen terminology, and
certainly there are terms that are being used here that are
not -- that are legally frivolous, personal property and the
like. But I don't take any of that to be, in itself,
suggestive of a bond issue. So I disagree that that's the
consideration.
But the lack of verifiable ongoing and concrete
employment, the substantial travel was an issue from the
beginning. This is a concern that I just have very -- a lot
of difficulty with.
The complaint originally involves allegations, I
understand the government's case involves allegations and
evidence of altered or manufactured financial documents. So
there is an allegation in the case already described in the
complaint as to acts of obstruction, manipulating material as
part of the evidence in the case. And that's always been a
concern of mine.
I also recall that this has come up repeatedly. You
asked when you first began representing yourself for
permission to contact witnesses and you explained well, if I'm
representing myself, I have to be able to contact witnesses.
And I said no, that was your choice to represent yourself,
it's a bad choice and it does not get you out of any bond
conditions and certainly not the avoid contacting witnesses.
So we've discussed this repeatedly, over and over
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 35 of 39
36
again, not to have any contact with potential witnesses in the
case.
So I'm going to order revocation here and detention
of the defendant.
I'll let you have a final word.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, your Honor, (indiscernible
audio) when I'm told don't do this, don't do this
(indiscernible audio).
Now when I had Ms. Miller, I was under the impression
that the government was (indiscernible audio). When I had
her, she told me to contact the bank. And I did.
And then I got emails from like I (indiscernible
audio).
THE COURT: Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: So now that I didn't have Ms. Miller
anymore, I was under the impression I would get the list.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Fayne, all I can do is go back
to what I told you.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You were sitting right there. I was
sitting right here.
And I remember this, but it doesn't matter because we
have the transcript. I told you exactly, and in no unclear
language, that the list -- and maybe I should stop saying
anything about a list. I mean that to try to be helpful
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 36 of 39
37
because where the government can give a list, then there is no
question.
But I could not have been clearer when I said not
getting the list -- someone's name on the list will not be an
excuse.
If their name is not on the indictment or you didn't
get it on a list does not mean you can contact them. If it's
someone who you knew was a victim or had something to do with
this case -- and I couldn't have said that more clearly.
And that's part of the problem here because in order
for me to find bond conditions to be effective, I have to
believe you will comply. So here, a basic and clear condition
was not even registered. And that was not ambiguous. That
was not something that I believe had anything to do with
Ms. Miller or anything like that.
I told you clearly myself, looking in your eyes, that
you cannot contact potential victims or witnesses. And it
does not matter whether they are listed, that does not make it
right if they are not.
THE DEFENDANT: I just didn't know she was a
potential witness or it had nothing to do with this case.
THE COURT: Well again, but --
THE DEFENDANT: Nothing to do with it.
THE COURT: -- my understanding, and I asked you
directly, you said --
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 37 of 39
38
THE DEFENDANT: She is saying -- I'm telling you that
she is suing me personally, trying to have a relationship
together. This is --
THE COURT: Right. But she is saying "trucking."
THE DEFENDANT: When? When?
THE COURT: Is that not in the allegation in the case
that she made?
THE DEFENDANT: I don't have that in front of me.
That's what I'm saying. I don't have that in front of me.
THE COURT: Has she not alleged that money that she
gave --
THE DEFENDANT: I haven't seen her lawsuit. Now, my
ex-wife --
THE COURT: You haven't seen her lawsuit?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. I have not.
THE COURT: So how do you know it has nothing to do
with the case?
THE DEFENDANT: Because my ex-wife told me.
THE COURT: All right. I have made my ruling and I'm
going to order the defendant to be detained pending trial in
this matter.
Anything further?
MR. PHILLIPS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We will be in recess.
(Proceedings were adjourned at 1:40 p.m.)
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 38 of 39
39
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, December 22, 2020, in the matter of USA vs.
Maurice Fayne, aka Arkansas Mo, Case No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC;
That "indiscernible audio" designations are the
result of technological limitations beyond my control;
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 to the best of my skill and
ability.
Date: October 18, 2021
s/ JUDITH M. WOLFF, CERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTER
Signature of Transcriber
USA v Fayne December 22, 2020 Bond Revocation Hearing
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 251 Filed 10/22/21 Page 39 of 39File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.278523.251.0.pdf
- Size
- 136,908 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3f49f476b0701667e5307bbe0bde26abc9bcb89a4d0107c2895e5443df62fb26
- Original
- PACER (login required)