Court filing
Bond Revocation Hearing Transcript — U.S. v. Fayne (N.D. Ga.)
Filed January 26, 2021 in U.S. v. Fayne; one of 17 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-01-26 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL · Doc. 145 · 2021-01-26 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff, ) CRIMINAL ACTION FILE
v. ) NO. 1:20-CR-228
)
MAURICE FAYNE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________)
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTIN S. ANAND
TRANSCRIPT OF TAPED PROCEEDINGS
DECEMBER 20, 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
(By: Russell Phillips)
For the Defendant: Pro Se
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography
and computer-aided transcript produced by
JANA B. COLTER, FAPR, RMR, CRR, CRC
Official Court Reporter
1949 U.S. Courthouse
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 215-1456
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 42
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
_ _ _
P R O C E E D I N G S
(Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, December 22, 2020, in
open court.)
(Recording began at 12:37:57)
THE COURT: -- and Mr. Fayne is here for himself.
Mr. Fayne, are you -- are you still representing
yourself in this matter or do you have counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: I still don't have counsel,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you --
THE DEFENDANT: I still don't have counsel.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I guess, are you still
operating as your own attorney in this case --
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- as allowed by Judge Larkins?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We're here for a
hearing on the petition for revocation of bond.
Mr. Phillips, you may 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, is equally
safe, if you will, with the screen, so...
MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. If it's okay with the Court,
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 42
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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 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.
And Defendant 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.
And the indictment alleges that the defendant and his
co-conspirators 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 13th of this year, the defendant had a bond
hearing before this Court on the original indictment. And at
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 3 of 42
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
that -- 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
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 it is later proven that you knew or very
well should have known was a potential witness, meaning anyone
who has firsthand knowledge of the facts of this case, you're
not to speak to that person about this case yourself or through
any intermediaries 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, J-I-M-I-A, last name Cain, C-A-I-N.
And so the petition for revocation of the pretrial
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 4 of 42
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
release in this case alleges that on November the 9th, 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 scheme, which is part of this indictment.
And she's represented by a lawyer named
Seth Rosenberg and the defendant also emailed Mr. Rosenberg and
made misleading and other statements to him. And 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's never gotten back that money. That was May
of 2020.
Fast forward to November of 2020, sometime during the
week of November 2nd, the defendant texted Ms. Cain and told
her to leave Karlie Redd alone. Karlie Redd is the defendant's
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 5 of 42
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ex-wife and received a lot of the fraud proceeds in this case.
The defendant -- I'm sorry, Ms. Cain replied to the
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 the 9th, 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: Y'all will pay very soon. You
can't sue private property, private 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 the 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 6 of 42
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
forward all 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.
Your Honor, the document that I 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 Saint Peter Foundation, notice of surrender
documents for Maurice Johnson Fayne, and it has a table of
contents.
And 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 prevent him -- 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 7 of 42
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
interviewed that she felt like she was being threatened by the
defendant. And 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 offense. And
as stated, the Court directly instructed the defendant not to
have contact with any witnesses or victims.
And I'm willing to hand the Court a copy of the
transcript of the bond hearing. And I'll give a copy to
Mr. Fayne as well.
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 on to 24.
THE COURT: All right. Is that it from the
government?
MR. PHILLIPS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS: Just briefly, I'd just like to address
the statute. 18 U.S.C. Section 3148 talks about sanctions for
violation of a condition of release and states that if -- the
judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and
detention if after a hearing it finds that there is clear and
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 8 of 42
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
convincing evidence that the person has violated any condition
of release, so we've produced the emails and the -- I have the
text messages -- excuse me -- as well.
And I will hand those over to Mr. Fayne and to the
Court. They're front and the back, both sides. Those are the
text messages. So we believe that 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), that there is --
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, and so I pointed out to the Court the seriousness of
these allegations, including various types of fraud, money
laundering and aggravated identity theft and conspiracy.
If convicted on those charges, the defendant would
certainly be facing more than ten years in a federal
penitentiary. The weight against -- the weight of the evidence
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 9 of 42
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
all show that the defendant committed the acts alleged in the
indictment.
The text messages and emails from the defendant to
co-conspirators concerning the Ponzi scheme and the bank fraud
to obtain PPP money under false pretenses, it -- it's going to
be uncontested. There is no doubt that the defendant authored
those communications and obtained the money and obtained the
benefit of the money.
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 defendants, unindicted co-conspirators,
who participated in the Ponzi scheme and other aspects of the
fraud, including the aggregated identity -- identity theft, who
manufactured fraudulent documents and fraudulent
identifications and filed fraudulent documents for the
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 10 of 42
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
defendant with various government agencies is a woman named
Ganell 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, multiple
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, Duron
Porter and then had a fake ID, fake Georgia driver's license
with a fake Social Security card manufactured in the name of
Duron 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 ID in
the name of Duron 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 worked
for Walmart whose name was Marty Blackston. The defendant
alleged that Marty Blackston, who is a real person, who
actually works for Walmart, who has a high-level executive job,
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 11 of 42
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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
fraudulent --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this question, because 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 -- they were referred to by their initials in the
original indictment as various middlemen who worked with the
defendant and assisted him in the fraudulent wire scheme,
Ponzi scheme.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. I wasn't
sure if we were talking about charges that were in the first
superseding indictment.
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 12 of 42
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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. And so now we've charged
it as both conspiracy and various individual counts of wire
fraud.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS: So in addition to those people that
the defendant posed as, Duron Porter, Marty Blackston,
Terrence Miller, he's also posed as Princeton Cunningham and
Donovan Whittington in various filings that he fraudulently
caused Aunt G. to make to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration and the Department of Transportation and others.
And so the defendant, for example, has tried to cover his
tracks and tried to absolve himself of --
THE COURT: I'm going to let you speak in a minute.
MR. PHILLIPS: -- any liability with respect to
various trucking companies that he created in Arkansas, for
example, by taking his name off of the public records and
replacing his name with these fraudulent identities of
Donovan Whittington and Princeton Cunningham, so the defendant
has a history, a long history, of posing as other people.
The Court instructed him clearly, don't have any
contact with witnesses or victims. He ignored that. And so I
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 13 of 42
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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 so 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 restrictions 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 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's got plenty
of money to go buy a new iPhone, a new computer, a new laptop,
a new tablet, whatever, and keep a second set of books, if you
will.
So there's no way that the probation officer can
enforce that restriction, and so the victims and the witnesses
are at their peril. And this is a defendant who has a lengthy
history of posing as other people, of trying to intimidate
witnesses, of 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 14 of 42
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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 I was supposed to be here with the
Jimia Cain situation. If you go to the court document -- which
one is this -- the original hearing, he said that it would be
victims and particular witnesses in this case.
Jimia Cain has a total separate civil case that she's
suing my ex-wife, myself and a former company that I owned.
All of the text messages are not here. She actually reached
out to me first. There was just one day of communication, not
this -- this was in May. This happened in November, I believe.
I'm not really sure of the exact date, because I can't even say
this is exactly what it is that -- it reads familiar, but I
can't say it's exactly what it is. And my only conversations
with Ms. Jimia Cain had nothing to do with this case
whatsoever, not one single word, conversation. It was strictly
on a civil case that we have in the State of Washington.
THE COURT: Is she not a potential witness in this
case, in the Ponzi scheme?
THE DEFENDANT: That -- I didn't -- that I knew of,
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 15 of 42
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
no, sir. No, sir. We had a separate total civil matter going
on in Washington prior to this indictment even happening.
And so when she -- she reached out to me,
mentioning -- I don't see it here, I see stuff has been -- you
know, not -- I see the government is not being thorough with
this full text message thread, but her original text to me, I
believe, I don't have it in front of me because, I don't -- I
don't have my cellphone, but her original text to me was she --
she's -- she's willing to work with I believe it was Agent
Sarah -- Sarah Oliver or something, I'm not -- 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 that this is not the full text string
because she actually reached out to me first. I didn't reach
out to her. I didn't -- I didn't wake up one day and say, hey,
I'm going to contact Ms. Jimia Cain. She actually contacted
me.
And then as far as the other set of communications,
that was to her attorney, and that was in reference to the
civil case, not nothing to do with this indictment in any form
or fashion, but an attorney of hers who she gave me the
information for.
Now, the government has sat here and said numerous
things, false allegations of things that I have done or
supposedly done. I can assure this Court I respect this Court.
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 16 of 42
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Ever since the original release in May, I have not violated any
bond conditions.
I have -- everything they have told me, my probation
officer, Mr. Tudor gave me a list of people that I do not need
to contact, and I have followed their list thoroughly. I have
not contacted not one single person on that list, not one
single time. Anything that Mr. Tudor has asked me to do, to
call, be present, whether it's a court hearing, 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 12:00. I was there at 12:00 yesterday.
And then that's when this arrest happened for this supposed
communication.
I have not had one single conversation with anyone
regarding this case, a potential witness or potential -- that
have anything to do with this case whatsoever, not -- not
anything.
That's why if you -- these text messages, it's about
a legal suit, she's not -- she's not suing me with this
indictment. This is not her versus me or anything. It has
nothing to do with this court case whatsoever.
THE COURT: Well, what does it have to do with,
what's the --
THE DEFENDANT: Two things, Jimia Cain, she had a
crush on me. She was a lady that was trying to be intimate
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 17 of 42
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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, at some point, I don't know the exact date
but during -- right around -- I believe -- maybe January or
February of this year. And ever since then, she's been on a
witch hunt. She's contacted TMZ, she does stuff all on social
media trying to get different attention.
And so all of my responses to her -- the whole thing
with my response to her was just telling her to leave my
ex-wife out of this. She has nothing to do with any of the
lawsuit she's trying to claim.
She actually sent me two 50 -- two $25,000 fraudulent
checks, she actually deposited them in my bank account. And
that's why I mentioned about -- so she's saying I owe her
money, but she actually deposited two 20 -- two $50,000 bad
checks into my bank account at some point last year, in 2019.
I don't know the exact dates.
Like I said, I'm -- I'm here. I don't know where
Mr. -- my standby counsel, Mr. Jeffrey, but I don't have all of
that to go with the exact dates and times and stamps, but I can
assure this Court I'm not threatening anyone.
He mentioned something about some thugs came to her
home or something. First and foremost, in her civil suit that
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 18 of 42
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
she's doing in Washington, she said that my wife sent people to
her house, not me. And me and my ex-wife was separated at that
time, if I could leave the Court -- like I said, if I had the
opportunity to have all of my information present, I could give
that to the Court, that there's been an ongoing thing for about
a year, a year and a half now. It has nothing to do with this
case whatsoever.
Now, I'm sure once everything that went out in the
media happened, she was going to try to jump on board now with
it, you know, that just has been her demeanor throughout this
whole process.
He mentioned Princeton Cunningham
and Donovan Whittington. Donovan Whittington, he is my nephew,
which actually had his own trucking company. Same thing with
Princeton Cunningham. These are not people that I allegedly
acted as other people.
I'm myself. People know my voice. I can't disguise
my voice. I'm on television, or was on television, so it's not
like I could walk into a room and say, Hey, I'm Tim Turner and
somebody will go, like, no, you're -- you know, you're Maurice
Johnson Fayne or you're Arkansas No or you're this, because
they know -- you know, they've done seen my face, they've
done -- with the social media, whatever.
But back to this original thing here, the list that
Mr. Tudor gave me of people to don't contact, I have not had
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 19 of 42
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
any communication with. Now, I understand that -- this fine
print, that if you don't -- if the Court failed to show me, you
know, a person, that's not an excuse. Well, this lady has
nothing to do with this case whatsoever, not one single thing.
This is a total separate civil matter in the State of
Washington. It has nothing to do with the PPP loan, it has
nothing to do with -- all our responses are simply about her
trying to sue -- well, I believe she actually have sued myself
and my ex-wife. I haven't received those physical -- all of
those physical documents, but --
THE COURT: And do 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 me -- she loaned -- well, not even loaned me money, she more
so --
THE COURT: And I'm trying to be careful here for
your benefit, because don't forget -- I mean, you know, you
have the right to remain silent, and I don't want you speaking
about the facts of your case, so I worded it about the
allegations --
(Multiple voices overlapping)
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, I don't want to -- I don't want
to get into the merits, but she gave --
(Multiple voices overlapping)
THE COURT: Are the allegations involved in the
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 20 of 42
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
lawsuit --
THE DEFENDANT: But 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's made against you, involve her
investing in your trucking company?
THE DEFENDANT: Alleging, but with --
THE COURT: Right.
THE DEFENDANT: -- fraudulent checks, allegedly.
THE COURT: So she alleges that she invested in your
company. You're saying those were with fraudulent checks?
THE DEFENDANT: Fraudulent checks, like, a year and
20 -- I can't -- I don't want to go on record saying the exact
date, because then if I say May and it was actually June, then,
you know, that could come back and hurt me. But I think this
whole ordeal right now with the government trying to revoke my
bond --
THE COURT: Well, let me ask this, though, why does
that have nothing to do with this case when the indictment --
THE DEFENDANT: The original indictment --
(Multiple voices overlapping) --
THE COURT: -- this so-called --
THE DEFENDANT: -- had nothing to do with --
THE COURT: We're talking about the first superseding
indictment, which was the one that was in place during these
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 21 of 42
22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
communications.
THE DEFENDANT: The indictment -- I don't have --
THE COURT: And the wire fraud scheme involved
soliciting investors --
THE DEFENDANT: She wasn't --
(Multiple voices overlapping)
THE COURT: -- to pay for your trucking company.
THE DEFENDANT: Her name --
THE COURT: Remember, I'm not asking you to tell me
facts about the case.
THE DEFENDANT: Her name wasn't listed --
(Multiple voices overlapping)
THE COURT: It was not listed, but --
THE DEFENDANT: But it was other people's names that
I issued -- quote/unquote, allegedly done business with that
were listed. Her name was not listed.
I actually got a new list from Mr. Tudor, because if
something came up with the bank, I wanted to contact the bank,
and then he actually sent -- it was a -- I can't remember
exactly who it was that I -- I wasn't aware was one of the
people that I shouldn't contact, and it was brought to my
attention and we immediately corrected it.
But I can assure this Court I'm not harassing
anybody. I have never threatened anybody. I have not -- I
have abided by every single condition that has been given under
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 22 of 42
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
every single circumstance possible.
My travel, whereabouts, everything, I communicate
properly with -- with my probation service guy. I believe --
and this is just my opinion -- but I believe that the
government is here right now because the government has been
unethical with a lot of the things they put in discovery. I
brought it to their attention. I have been sending several
emails to him about that, even when we just had our last
hearing in court with you, you said you don't do anything about
the pretrial motions and stuff.
But I believe all of this is just a form of
retaliation, because he's known they have been unethical. He
sent me an email telling me what they had done wrong and how
they was going to correct it, and so I believe that this whole
thing is a charade or retaliation or punishment to keep me from
being able to properly defend myself in this case.
As well as Mr. Phillips talking about the time he
continues to send things to my standby counsel that should
actually be sent to me directly, because my standby counsel
can't make any decisions or choices. He's constantly sending
him documents or let your client know this or that when he's
not my attorney.
I don't have a problem personally or anything with
Mr. Phillips or anything, but I think this whole revoked bond
and all of this is just a charade. I have not -- there's no --
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 23 of 42
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
nothing in the world that I have threatened any single body
about nothing regarding this case.
And had I known Ms. Cain was going to be a part of
the government's strategy with all of this, I would have -- 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 done and said, okay, send
him a message, let's see if he responds. Another,
quote/unquote, trap, just like the trap that they got me with
yesterday, when there's an arrest warrant been out there, when
all they had to do was tell me, hey, you've got an arrest
warrant, I would have appeared.
But it was supposed to have been my pretrial
weekly -- monthly thing, and they didn't do any of that, but
just, you know, sat there and waited to get an arrest warrant
and I have yet to even see the arrest warrant. 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 form here came, I had an
attorney, so I don't know how all that different stuff works,
but I was under the impression of my own that if anybody that I
wasn't supposed to contact, whether the government themselves
would tell me or that's the reason why I got a pretrial service
officer, so if there are any changes in my case, that it would
be brought to my attention. Unfortunately, Ms. Miller hasn't
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 24 of 42
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
been a part of anything since May.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PHILLIPS: May I respond just briefly,
Your Honor?
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.
THE DEFENDANT: What? Hearsay objection. Hearsay.
Hearsay. No way possible. That is -- that's again -- the
government is exaggerating again. It's -- as well as --
THE COURT: Mr. Fayne, I mean, I'm going to overrule
the hearsay objection, because hearsay doesn't apply in a
proceeding such as this. You've 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 25 of 42
26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
thousands of dollars that Ms. Cain invested in Defendant
Fayne's trucking business, not limited to the two $50,000
checks that the defendant says she gave him which bounced.
There's 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.
And so if the defendant, you know, 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
everything else.
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 26 of 42
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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. The defendant needed to provide an
address in Georgia. And 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
standby 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.
And 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've talked. You don't get
that kind of money from somebody, you know, just having met
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 27 of 42
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
them for 15 seconds. They had 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
with 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. Thank you.
THE COURT: Just -- just briefly, sir.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay. First and foremost, this
sovereign citizen stuff he's speaking of, that's an oxymoron to
me. I'm not sure of what a sovereign citizen is or anything
like that.
My -- myself with her, strictly with her, is trust, I
have a trust, I have a trust set up that has been registered
with the United States, it has been registered in my county, it
has been registered completely everywhere, and I was just
letting her know, because she's suing me personally, as well as
my ex-wife personally. She's suing us, individuals, not
business, she's -- she's coming after us as individuals.
And my whole communication with her was simply my
ex-wife has nothing to do with anything that you and I had
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 28 of 42
29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
going on. That's it. It was nothing about -- nothing else,
Your Honor. And that's the honest to God truth.
It had nothing to do with nothing other than me and
my ex-wife -- she has nothing to do with any of this. I wasn't
trying to -- I wasn't harassing anybody, I wasn't -- nothing.
I was just letting -- I was a part of every -- a part of what I
have read and has been talked about the private trust and
property, you have to let people know, and you have to put them
on notice so they know.
Same thing I did with the courtroom, when he's
speaking of discovery, yes, I sent back a package because after
I had gave the Court an address where I would receive my mail,
I didn't know it came from the Court. It was just FedEx. So
the FedEx, I had a note on my door to return all packages back,
no matter whether it was FedEx, UPS, didn't know who it was,
because at that point in time, everything was so fresh, I was
getting hate mail and that type of stuff.
And so certain -- I just wasn't opening any mail at
my physical address, so I had a third party receiving all my
mail so it could be scanned and copied and that way I know I've
got every single document.
So I did get the discovery that he's talking about,
however, I haven't got the bulk of the discovery, and this is
something that we're going to have to address with Judge Anand
is -- well, you're Judge Anand. Sorry about that.
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 29 of 42
30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
THE COURT: That's all right. I understood.
THE DEFENDANT: With the other Judge, because he went
on record saying, hey, we need a hard drive. I gave him a hard
drive. Now he wants a USB. That's not -- if we go to the
transcript, that's not -- the transcript didn't say I want a
USB, it said a hard drive, and I provided him with a hard
drive.
And to this day, I have yet to receive the discovery,
because he's saying that the government don't have the
ability -- now, the United States government don't have the
ability to put the discovery on the hard drive that I -- I
provided to them, which is exactly what he asked for.
Now, he meant to say he want the USB, two terabyte,
but that's not what he said, so I got what he said.
So as far as some type of discovery that I should
know this and I should know that, this is simple, Your Honor,
if I had've known, just like any other list or anything else he
has told me, I have not had any involvement in any form or
fashion with not one single person that they have told me not
to contact, communicate with or in any form -- I mean, in any
form or fashion, not one single person.
THE COURT: All right. 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 30 of 42
31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
witness in the case. And I was very clear. I was extremely
clear. Mr. Phillips 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 meant -- 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 list or not, that you knew
were potential victims or participants or had knowledge,
firsthand knowledge, about the facts of the case.
So you focused this morning on it wasn't on the list,
I wasn't told, so if I wasn't told not to talk to them, then I
could talk to them. That's not the order that -- 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 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 are not to speak to
anyone directly or indirectly about this case that's a
potential victim or witness, and that was not limited to the
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 31 of 42
32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
people they gave 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 that's
been established here, that you don't -- that her -- yes, the
communications that have been provided are -- appears to be in
the context of the 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.
In other words, what she is alleging in the 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 that
is -- that is the subject matter of the first superseding
indictment, which was the indictment that was in place at the
time of these 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 --
she's clearly referring to this as more than just about a civil
claim.
But in any event, the statements are broader than
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 32 of 42
33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
just about the civil case. They're saying you've 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 about in the criminal case, that is
exactly 100 percent what was -- what you were ordered not to
do.
And I can't find that you weren't on notice that this
was a potential witness, because from what I'm hearing, the
subject matter of her claims is exactly the subject matter of
the fraud scheme that's in the complaint. She's 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
is -- I could not have been clearer -- 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 was a
witness. It puts you on better notice if they gave you the
name. I always -- it's better for them to give all the names
they can.
But I couldn't have been clearer that wasn't going to
be enough or -- in other words, that the provision of the name
was not a requirement of -- 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 33 of 42
34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
the criminal case, and for all of the reasons I've said before,
I believe that that's been established here.
Now, the -- I want to -- there are no overt threats
of violence, certainly, and I'm not -- I'm trying not to
overstate this here, this is talking 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 reasonably not take it as limited
to a legal threat.
And here, the language that's used, there are some
ambiguities, this is a 17 -- 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's not to be any contact, direct or indirect, with
potential witnesses, so that things that 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
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 34 of 42
35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
a potential witness in a case.
So I believe that that's been established here, that
that is what has happened, that there's 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
could address this or prevent this from going forward.
And that is hard for -- I mean, that's -- I cannot
identify bond conditions here to address a situation like this,
meaning that no bond conditions I can issue would prevent the
defendant from communicating with -- with individuals.
I mean, nothing I can order can better state what the
rules are and if -- and I can't force the defendant to hear or
understand those.
The defendant likely personally knows many of these
folks, because I think Mr. Phillips is right, you don't invest
sums of money without some relationship. And so there's 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, that's -- electronic
devices are ubiquitous and easily obtained in our economy, so
there's very little I can do to prevent that.
So I really don't see any way for me to avoid
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 35 of 42
36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
revoking your bond, Mr. Fayne. And this was a hard decision in
the first place. I was -- the government moved to detain you,
or, no, I'm sorry, you did not move to detain but, you know,
there was a substantial amount of evidence about travel and the
money, and it was a very difficult -- it was a very unusual
case that was very -- not a cut-and-dried case for fashioning
conditions of release.
I've not taken offense to any, you know, request to
travel or -- I think Mr. Phillips used the sovereign citizen
terminology and certainly there are terms that are being used
here that -- 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, and so I disagree
that that's a consideration.
But the lack of verifiable, ongoing and concrete
employment, the substantial travel was an issue from the
beginning, but this -- 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,
you know, 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.
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 36 of 42
37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
You know, if -- I also recall that this has come up
repeatedly. You asked when you first became 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 the bond conditions -- any bond conditions and
certainly not the one to not contact witnesses. So we've
discussed this repeatedly over and over again, not to
contact -- have any contacts with potential witnesses in the
case, so I'm going to -- I'm going to order revocation here and
detention of the defendant, but I'll let you have a final word.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, Your Honor, I was just going to
say before you ruled that based on what you just said, when I'm
told don't do this, don't do that, that's exactly what I don't
do.
Now, when I had Ms. Miller, I was under the
impression that the government would give me a list. When I
had her, she told me to contact the bank about something. I
did. Then I got an email from -- well, I got a call from
Mr. Tudor and said, hey, you weren't supposed to contact the
bank. Then Ms. Miller apologized and then that's when I got
the first list of names.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: So after I didn't have Ms. Miller
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 37 of 42
38
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
anymore, I was under the impression that I would get a list.
Now, she's the only person that I --
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Fayne, all I can do is go back
to what I told you.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, and I was --
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 --
THE DEFENDANT: Right.
THE COURT: -- that the list -- and maybe I should
stop saying anything about a list.
THE DEFENDANT: Right.
THE COURT: I -- I mean that to try to be helpful.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Because where the government can give a
list, then it -- then there's no question that you knew.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: But I could not have been clearer when I
said not getting the list, someone's name on a list, will not
be an excuse. If their name is not in the indictment or you
didn't get it on the 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 -- I couldn't have said
that more clearly, and that's part of the problem here, because
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 38 of 42
39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
in order for me to find bond conditions to be effective, I have
to believe you'll comply.
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: So here a basic and clear condition was
not even registered.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And that, I -- 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 this -- you cannot contact potential
victims or witnesses and it does not matter whether they're
listed, that does not make it right.
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor. I
just didn't know she was a potential witness or anything.
THE COURT: Well, again, that --
THE DEFENDANT: Because it had nothing to do with
this case.
THE COURT: But --
(Multiple voices overlapping) --
THE DEFENDANT: Nothing to do with this case,
she's -- she's --
THE COURT: -- my understanding, and I asked you
directly and you said she --
THE DEFENDANT: She's saying trucking. I'm telling
you that she was into me personally in a -- trying to be in a
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 39 of 42
40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
relationship level. It had nothing -- she -- this is --
THE COURT: But she's saying trucking.
THE DEFENDANT: Where? Where? No -- not on the
(indiscernible). Where?
THE COURT: Is that not in the allegation in the case
that she's made?
THE DEFENDANT: In this? No. I don't see that. 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: She has not alleged that --
THE DEFENDANT: I haven't seen it.
THE COURT: -- money that she gave.
(Multiple voices overlapping)
THE DEFENDANT: I haven't seen her lawsuit. Now, my
ex-wife has.
THE COURT: You have not seen her lawsuit?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir, I have not.
THE COURT: Then how do you know that it had nothing
to do with this case?
THE DEFENDANT: Because my ex-wife -- I'm going off
information from my ex-wife, that's why --
(Multiple voices overlapping)
THE COURT: I've made my ruling. I've made my
ruling.
THE DEFENDANT: In a text message.
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 40 of 42
41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
THE COURT: 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'll be in recess.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 1:40
p.m.)
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 41 of 42
42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
REPORTERS CERTIFICATE
I, Jana B. Colter, Official Court Reporter for the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, with offices at Atlanta, do hereby certify:
That I reported on the Stenograph machine the taped
proceedings held in open court on December 22, 2020, in the
matter of United States of America v. Maurice Fayne, Case
Number 1:20-MJ-370; that said proceedings in connection with
the hearing were reduced to typewritten form by me; and that
the foregoing transcript (41 Pages) is a true and accurate
record of the proceedings.
This the 20th day of January, 2020.
_______________________________
/s/ Jana B. Colter, FAPR, RMR, CRR, CRC
Official Court Reporter
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 145 Filed 01/26/21 Page 42 of 42File and source
- File
- 017_ECF_145_gov.uscourts.gand.278524.145.0.pdf
- Size
- 411,817 bytes
- SHA-256
- b575027a942405e63a6b968e27138081fc7f4d9b53d69d759754a426e921bf76
- Original
- PACER (login required)