Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Redact the Indictment and Prohibit Use of the Word “kickback” During Trial — No. 0:22-cr-60028 (Dkt. 50, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
A defendant's motion in limine to redact the indictment and prohibit use of the word kickback during trial, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in United States v. Luke Joselin, Case No. 22-60028-CR, docketed as 0:22-cr-60028, as Document 50 of 4 pages. In it, Joselin asks that the word kickbacks be redacted from the indictment and that the Government be barred from using it at trial. He states that the indictment uses the word for the monies that PPP loan applicants paid to the people who processed their applications and to those who referred them, cites the indictment at pages 5 and 7, and quotes the Merriam-Webster definition of a kickback as a return of part of a sum received, often because of confidential agreement or coercion, with its examples of payments to city officials and company executives.
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
Cite this document
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Redact the Indictment and Prohibit Use of the Word ‘kickback’ During Trial — No. 0:22-cr-60028 (Dkt. 50, S.D. Fla.).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/defendant-s-motion-in-limine-to-redact-the-indictment-and-prohibit-use-e3df0c3c1e/
, SHA-256 2c749140a9d394533ddafcdcde31623025df13692ddaa2942303aa534f12fb59.Full text
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.:22-60028-CR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LUKE JOSELIN,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO REDACT THE INDICTMENT AND
PROHIBIT USE OF THE WORD “KICKBACK” DURING TRIAL
DEFENDANT, LUKE JOSELIN, through counsel, respectfully moves the Court
to order that the word “kickbacks” be redacted from the indictment and the Government
be prohibited from using that word at trial, and in support states:
1) The word “kickbacks” is used for times in Joselin’s indictment, to reference the monies
that were paid by PPP loan applicants to the people that processed their applications and
to those who referred them. See Indictment, at [D.E. 1] P. 5, ¶3 and P. 7, ¶3.
2) Webster’s defines “kickbacks” as “a return of a part of a sum received often because of
confidential agreement or coercion.” Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/kickbacks?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_sour
ce=jsonldonline
3) The examples that Webster’s provide for how the word would be used are: “every city
contract had been let with ten percent kickback to city officials”; and “[s]everal
company executives were accused of accepting kickbacks”. Id.
4) Google defines the word as “a payment made to someone who has facilitated a
transaction or appointment, especially illicitly”, and for its example of how the word
DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
1
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 2 of 4
would be used offers “the ruling party depends on contributions and kickbacks”. Google
Dictionary
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+dictionary&oq=Google+dictionary&aqs=c
hrome.0.0i131i433i512j0i433i512l2j0i131i433i512j0i512l3j69i60.5058j0j7&sourceid=
chrome&ie= UTF-8#dobs=kickbacks
5) The definitions from both sources include conduct that is neither illicit nor improper,
but both also emphasize impropriety as being germane to the common understanding
of the word’s meaning.
6) The Government uses the word with reference to the payments described in Joselins’
indictment for the very purpose of connoting impropriety, if not illegality.
7) But in the world of professional services and commercial dealings, there is nothing
inherently corrupt or illegal about charging processing fees, referral fees, finder's fees,
bird dog fees and the like.
8) Nor is it inherently illegal to charge fees for professional service on a percentage basis,
as plaintiff lawyers do with their contingency fees.
9) The Anti-Kickback Act targets public corruption and refers to kickbacks as improper
remunerations paid to public officials as bribes. See 41 U.S.C. § 8701.
10) And there is an Anti-Kickback Statute which regulates payments made by those who
may benefit financially from prescriptions for such services provided through federal
health care programs, 42 U.S.C. § 1320(a)(7b).
11) Both statutes define the word “kickbacks” for purposes of their respective applications,
and neither definition describes the payments referenced in Joselin’s indictment.
12) The Government has cited no law that prohibits the payment of processing and/or
referral fees in regard to the PPP program and defines such payments as kickbacks.
13) The Government has simply designated such payments illegal by implication and
labeled them kickbacks as a conveniently prejudicial term of art.
14) The crux of the Government’s fraud claims is that false information was submitted for
loan approvals.
DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
2
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 3 of 4
15) Referring to the payments as kickbacks is therefore unnecessary for the Government
to present and prove its case and permitting such superfluous and prejudicial references
will violate Joselin’s right to a fair trial.
WHEREFORE, Joselin respectfully moves the Court to order that all references to
“kickbacks” be redacted from the indictment, and further, that the Government is
prohibited from using that word at trial.
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that the movant has conferred with all parties or non-parties who may be
affected by the relief sought in this motion in good faith to resolve the issues raised in the
motion and states that the following issues have been resolved: The Assistant United
States’ Attorney Kiran Bhat objects to said Motion.
Date: August 10, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
/s/ Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0110587
2719 Hollywood Boulevard, A-1187
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Telephone: 954-256-5958
Fax No.: 954-272-7665
Email: ddavis@thedavislawfirm.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of August 2022, I served a copy of the
foregoing via electronic mail on all counsel of record as set forth in the service list.
DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
3
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2022 Page 4 of 4
SERVICE LIST
THE DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
/s/ Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0110587
2719 Hollywood Boulevard, A-1187
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Telephone: 954-256-5958
Fax No.: 954-272-7665
Email: ddavis@thedavislawfirm.com
Counsel for Defendant,
Luke Joselin
Served via electronic mail
The United States Attorney’s Office
Southern District of Florida
500 S. Australian Ave.
West Palm Beach, FL 33041
Service sent Electronically via Email
DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
4
File and source
- File
- 50.pdf
- Size
- 195,980 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2c749140a9d394533ddafcdcde31623025df13692ddaa2942303aa534f12fb59
- Our copy
- 50.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.