Full text
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID 130
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 6:25-mj-1031-RMN
CAROLINA AMESTY
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME BY WHICH INDICTMENT/INFORMATION MUST
BE FILED
Carolina Amesty, through her undersigned counsel, files this response to the
government’s Motion for an Order extending the time for the return of an indictment
or information pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) through and including August 22,
2025. Doc. 25. Ms. Amesty joins in the government’s request to this Court for an
extension of the deadline to indict and believes that a continuance would serve the
ends of justice for the reasons set forth below.
INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 2025, the government filed a motion to extend time for the return
of an indictment. Doc. 25. In an example of the government’s overzealousness in
this case, the government filed its July 11 motion during the parties’ meet and confer
process, despite defense counsel advising the government that they had edits to the
proposed motion.
The following describes the circumstances of this case and Ms. Amesty’s
position concerning the basis for extension of the speedy indictment deadline.
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID 131
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2025, a mere four days before the change in administration,
the government bypassed standard process of indictment by grand jury and charged
Ms. Amesty by criminal Complaint for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of
government property). Doc. 1. On January 30, 2025, Ms. Amesty executed a
waiver of the speedy indictment or information period. Doc. 11-1. On February 3,
2025, the parties filed a joint motion to extend time to file an indictment or
information, which the Court granted on February 5, 2025. Doc. 11; Doc. 12. The
Court found that the time from January 21, 2025, through April 21, 2025, was tolled
under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) and (h)(7). Doc. 12.
Ms. Amesty’s initial appearance was held on February 18, 2025. Doc. 13. At
that hearing, the Court acknowledged the peculiar sequencing of the government’s
election to proceed by criminal Complaint without an indictment. Ms. Amesty’s
counsel reserved the right to receive a probable cause hearing. On April 15, 2025,
the parties executed a second waiver of the speedy indictment or information period,
through June 20, 2025. Doc. 21-1. In connection with that waiver, the parties filed a
second joint motion for an extension of time by which an indictment or information
must be filed, which the Court granted on April 17, 2025. Doc. 21; Doc. 22. The
Court found that the time from April 21, 2025, through June 20, 2025, was
excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). As set forth further below, during this
time, counsel for Ms. Amesty presented information to the government regarding
2
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID 132
material inaccuracies and defects in the government’s hastily-filed and politically
motivated Complaint.
On June 3, 2025, Ms. Amesty executed a third waiver of the speedy
indictment or information period through August 22, 2025. Doc. 23-1. In
connection with that waiver, the parties filed a third joint motion for an extension of
time by which an indictment or information must be filed. Doc. 23. The Court
partially granted that motion, granting an extension through July 23, 2025, and
finding that the additional time was excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). Doc.
24. The Court ruled that any further extension was not warranted based on the
information before it and informed the parties that a detailed factual proffer would be
necessary if they sought any further continuances. Id.
DISCUSSION
Counsel for the government and Ms. Amesty currently are engaged in
discussions about the disposition of this case, and it is defense counsel’s position that
the charges are baseless and the case should be dismissed. On January 13, 2025,
counsel for Ms. Amesty sent the government a letter advising that there were
numerous factual and legal errors in its investigation. Further, counsel requested the
opportunity to make a presentation of exculpatory evidence to the government before
the government brought any charges.
On January 16, 2025, without providing defense counsel an opportunity to
present exculpatory evidence, then United States Attorney Roger Handberg (who
strangely filed a personal appearance in this case) authorized the filing of the
3
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID 133
operative criminal Complaint. Despite U.S. Attorney Handberg’s hasty charges
made just days before the inauguration, the government continues to investigate
whether a crime has even occurred, and the parties have continued to engage in the
discussions that began—and should have been allowed to reach completion—before
the Complaint was filed.
Ms. Amesty is innocent. The Economic Injury Disaster Loans in question—
primarily to Christian organizations—were obtained appropriately in good faith and
with no misrepresentations. Indeed, underscoring the utter lack of any criminal
intent, Ms. Amesty spent over two hours on the phone with the Small Business
Administration to ensure complete compliance with the law. These are not the
actions of a criminal but a person who tried to—and did—get it right. Five of the
loans already have been repaid in full, and there has not been a single missed
payment on any of the remaining loans. Fatal to the government’s flawed
prosecution is the undeniable fact that the government has not lost a cent, and the
collateral on each loan exceeds the amount of the loan. Thus, there has been no loss
to the government. While scores of other cases with far worse allegations have been
handled with declined prosecutions or civil resolutions, this prosecution, which was
initiated days before the inauguration, is the quintessential example of the last
Department of Justice’s weaponization to settle political scores.
Over the course of the past few months, Ms. Amesty’s counsel has provided
extensive exculpatory information to the government including dozens of pages of
detailed summaries and letters. Most recently, on June 13, 2025, defense counsel
4
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID 134
provided a 22-page letter and 141 pages of exculpatory documents setting forth in
detail additional reasons why no crime has occurred. The government is
undertaking a review of this exculpatory information but represented that it requires
additional time to carry out its obligations to fully review and consider these
materials in its decision on how to proceed. Justice Manual § 9-27.300.
It is incumbent upon the government to review these materials fully prior to it
making a final decision as to the disposition of this matter. Undersigned counsel
firmly believes—as set forth in the Justice Manual—“that, as a result of a change in
the evidence or for another reason, a charge is no longer readily provable or
appropriate.” Id.
5
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID 135
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Ms. Amesty joins in the government’s request to this Court
for an extension of the deadline to indict and believes that a continuance would serve
the ends of justice by providing the government with additional time for full
consideration of the exculpatory materials provided by Ms. Amesty and for
additional discussions. If the Court denies the requested extension, Ms. Amesty
anticipates moving to dismiss the criminal complaint, or, in the alternative, for a
probable cause hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Bradley J. Bondi
Bradley Bondi, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 162396
Paul Hastings LLP
2050 M St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 551-1701
Facsimile: (212) 318-6601
Email: Bradbondi@paulhastings.com
6
Case 6:25-mj-01031-RMN Document 31 Filed 07/15/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID 136
U.S. v. CAROLINA AMESTY Case No. 6:25-mj-1031-RMN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 15, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of
electronic filing to the following:
Diane Hu
Megan Testerman
Attorneys for government
By: /s/ Bradley J. Bondi
Bradley Bondi, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 162396
Paul Hastings LLP
2050 M St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 551-1701
Facsimile: (212) 318-6601
Email: Bradbondi@paulhastings.com
7