Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Government Misconduct, Lack of Probable Cause, and Constitutional Violations — No. 1:21-cr-00470 (Dkt. 192, D. Md.)
Summary
A Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Government Misconduct, Lack of Probable Cause, and Constitutional Violations, Document 192 filed February 27, 2025 in the District of Maryland (Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM), United States v. Nichelle Henson, filed by the defendant pro se under Rule 12(b)(3)(B). She is charged with bank fraud and making false statements in connection with COVID-19 relief funds. She argues that the investigation, which she says began with a bank Suspicious Activity Report about a $5,000 withdrawal, violated the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments through warrantless record requests, improper ex parte applications and misleading the grand jury, and renews earlier arguments on newly discovered evidence. She asks for dismissal with prejudice and suppression, and the exhibits are to be filed under seal separately.
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
“Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Government Misconduct, Lack of Probable Cause, and Constitutional Violations — No. 1:21-cr-00470 (Dkt. 192, D. Md.).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-to-dismiss-indictment-for-government-misconduct-lack-of-probabl-d303ba798d/
, SHA-256 0e35772e4615d5135a098719f1918d0c6c034088e2d9e0974a67b4dae928cde3.Full text
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
UNITED STATES *
*
*
*
VS. *
NICHELLE HENSON
*
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * 400,000,000* * * * * * * *
MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT,
LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Nichelle Henson, appearing pro se, and respectfully
moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the indictment in this matter with prejudice pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Defendant submits that the
government’s investigative conduct violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the
United States Constitution, rendering the indictment fatally defective and depriving this Court of
jurisdiction. The prosecution’s reliance on unconstitutional searches and seizures, improper ex
parte communications, and a lack of probable cause constitutes an abuse of government
discretion that mandates dismissal of all charges.
Additionally, the Defendant renews prior arguments raised in the initial motion to dismiss
in light of newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at the time of the previous hearing.
This newly acquired evidence—government letters, ex parte applications, and reports from the
FBI and law enforcement—demonstrates that the government abused its authority, violated
1
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 2 of 12
due process, and circumvented judicial oversight to unlawfully obtain records related to the
Defendant’s business dealings. [THESE EXHIBITS WILL BE FILED UNDER SEAL IN A
SEPARATE FILING, AS THEY ARE ARGUABLY COVERED BY THE COURT’S
PROTECTIVE ORDER]
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL:
1. Violation of the Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Search and Seizure
2. Fishing Expedition – Lack of Probable Cause for Investigation
3. Improper Ex Parte Requests – Deprivation of Due Process
4. Misleading the Grand Jury – Presentation of Illegally Obtained Evidence
5. Renewal of Prior Arguments in Light of Newly Discovered Evidence
6. Defective Indictment – Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Unconstitutional Investigative
Tactics
7. False Statements and Fraudulent Conduct by the Government
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
The Defendant has been charged with bank fraud and making false statements under
federal statutes in connection with the receipt of COVID-19 relief funds. The investigation into
the Defendant’s conduct was triggered solely by a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filed by
the Defendant’s bank regarding a $5,000 withdrawal from her business account.
Despite the SAR’s lack of specific allegations of fraud, the government launched an
expansive probe into the Defendant’s businesses, without probable cause or a warrant,
2
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 3 of 12
seeking financial records and business loan applications without judicial oversight. This
unlawful conduct demonstrates a blatant disregard for the constitutional protections afforded
under the Fourth Amendment.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENTS
A. The Government’s Actions Violated the Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Search
and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The government’s
conduct in this case is unconstitutional for several reasons:
1. Lack of a Warrant or Probable Cause:
o The SAR alone does not establish probable cause for an investigation. The
government lacked any substantive evidence to justify its intrusive probe into
the Defendant’s finances.
o The government’s actions are inconsistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),
which establishes that mere suspicion is insufficient to justify government
intrusion into a citizen’s private affairs.
2. Improper Requests to the SBA:
o Without a warrant or legitimate justification, the government requested the
Defendant’s entire SBA loan history, effectively conducting a warrantless
search.
3
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 4 of 12
o The Defendant contends that loan application records are protected business
documents, and accessing them without proper authorization constitutes an
unconstitutional seizure of records.
B. The Government’s Investigation Was an Improper Fishing Expedition
The Defendant asserts that the investigation constitutes an unlawful fishing expedition,
meaning the government conducted a broad, speculative inquiry without any specific evidence
of wrongdoing:
• The SAR flagged a lawful transaction with no indication of criminality, yet the
government expanded its probe into all of the Defendant’s financial dealings.
• The government’s conduct mirrors cases where courts have found “general rummaging”
through financial records unconstitutional.
• The lack of specific, articulable suspicion supporting the probe renders the indictment
unconstitutional.
C. False Statements and Fraud Committed by the Government
The government has not only accused the Defendant of making false statements but has
itself engaged in false and misleading statements to further its investigation and seize the
Defendant’s assets. The following actions constitute government fraud and misconduct:
• The government misrepresented its case to financial institutions, falsely suggesting
that the Defendant had already been found guilty, which resulted in the bank unlawfully
seizing her assets.
4
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 5 of 12
• The government provided false and misleading information to the grand jury,
improperly influencing the decision to indict by presenting speculative and
unconstitutional evidence.
• The government falsely claimed that there was probable cause for a broad
investigation, despite basing the entirety of their inquiry on a routine SAR that contained
no evidence of fraud.
• The government improperly characterized legally authorized financial transactions
as fraudulent, misleading financial institutions and misrepresenting facts to the court.
• Law enforcement reports and ex parte applications contradict each other,
demonstrating an attempt to build a case around speculation rather than concrete
evidence.
• The prosecution falsely implied that the Defendant knowingly provided fraudulent
information on loan applications, despite evidence showing that she followed
ambiguous guidelines in good faith.
These false statements not only undermine the credibility of the prosecution but also
amount to the same fraudulent conduct they are accusing the Defendant of committing. This
conduct is in direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and further
justifies dismissal of the indictment.
D. The Indictment is Defective and the Court Lacks Jurisdiction
A valid indictment cannot be based on unconstitutional investigative tactics. Here, the
prosecution’s failure to adhere to constitutional protections invalidates the charges. Courts have
5
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 6 of 12
consistently ruled that indictments based on evidence obtained in violation of constitutional
rights are subject to dismissal.
Thus, the indictment against the Defendant is defective, and this Court lacks jurisdiction
to proceed.
III. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO ADD ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS AND
EVIDENCE
The Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement this motion with additional
legal arguments and supporting evidence as they become available. Due to the government’s
ongoing misconduct and lack of transparency, new evidence may surface that further establishes
the unconstitutional nature of the investigation and prosecution. If additional material supporting
dismissal arises, the Defendant will submit further filings to ensure that all violations of
constitutional rights are fully addressed before this Honorable Court.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. Dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to the unconstitutional search, due process
violations, and improper investigative conduct;
2. Suppress any evidence obtained through these unlawful actions, including evidence
presented to the grand jury;
3. Find that the government’s actions violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Amendments, depriving the Defendant of fundamental rights;
6
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 7 of 12
4. Declare the indictment defective, thereby removing the Court’s jurisdiction over the
charges;
5. Find that the government’s failure to obtain a warrant, establish probable cause, or
follow constitutional requirements invalidates the entire investigation;
6. Find that the government engaged in false statements and fraud by misrepresenting
facts to the court, grand jury, and financial institutions;
7. Provide any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Nichelle Henson, Pro Se
7
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 8 of 12
AFFIDAVIT OF NICHELLE HENSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
I, Nichelle Henson, being duly sworn, state under penalty of perjury as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. I am the Defendant in the above-captioned matter, appearing pro se in this proceeding.
2. I submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion to Dismiss the Indictment against me,
based on numerous constitutional violations, government misconduct, and improper
investigative actions that have irreparably tainted the prosecution’s case.
3. The statements contained herein are based on my personal knowledge, information, and
belief.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4. The government’s investigation against me began after my bank filed a Suspicious
Activity Report (SAR) related to a $5,000 withdrawal from my business account.
5. The SAR contained no evidence of criminal conduct, fraud, or illegality. It was a standard
financial report that banks file routinely and does not constitute probable cause for an
investigation.
6. Despite the lack of probable cause, the government initiated a broad and intrusive
investigation into all of my financial and business dealings, which included:
8
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 9 of 12
o Submitting ex parte applications to seize my tax and financial records without
judicial oversight or probable cause.
o Contacting the Small Business Administration (SBA) and unlawfully requesting
my loan applications and business records.
o Misrepresenting my financial transactions as fraudulent, despite no evidence of
deceit or misrepresentation in my loan applications.
o Pressuring witnesses and business associates to cooperate with their theory,
despite there being no independent evidence of wrongdoing.
III. GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
A. Fourth Amendment Violations – Unreasonable Search and Seizure
7. The government’s request for my entire loan application history and business tax
records was executed without a warrant, violating my Fourth Amendment rights.
8. The government failed to provide any evidence to justify a probable cause finding, yet
they proceeded to access and review my personal and business records.
9. Courts have held that broad, warrantless searches of private financial records are
unconstitutional and impermissible.
B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Violations
10. The government’s ex parte communications with financial institutions and tax
authorities deprived me of my right to challenge the subpoenas issued against my
records.
9
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 10 of 12
11. Due process requires that a person be notified of government actions that affect their
fundamental rights, yet the government failed to do so.
12. The government’s failure to adhere to constitutional protections has tainted the
indictment, making it unlawful.
C. Sixth Amendment Violations – Deprivation of the Right to a Fair Trial
13. The government engaged in misleading and coercive tactics to convince witnesses to
testify against me.
14. They intentionally misrepresented facts before the grand jury, leading to an indictment
based on false premises.
15. The government has failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, depriving me of my right
to present a full and fair defense.
IV. FALSE STATEMENTS AND FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
16. The government has falsely characterized my lawful financial transactions as
fraudulent.
17. The government falsely represented to the grand jury that I had engaged in fraudulent
conduct, despite clear evidence that my loan applications were filed in good faith.
18. The government falsely led financial institutions to believe that I had already been
convicted, which resulted in my business funds being seized without due process.
19. The government engaged in reckless disregard for the truth, submitting incomplete
and misleading reports in an effort to secure an indictment against me.
10
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 11 of 12
V. RENEWAL OF PRIOR ARGUMENTS BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE
20. I previously filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied based on the court’s finding
that I had insufficient evidence to prove my constitutional claims at the time.
21. Since that ruling, I have obtained new evidence demonstrating that the government acted
improperly and conducted a biased investigation against me.
22. This new evidence includes:
• Government letters and reports confirming that my financial records were obtained
without proper legal authorization.
• Ex parte applications showing the government’s intent to circumvent judicial review.
• Statements from law enforcement officials acknowledging that their case was built on
speculation rather than concrete evidence.
23. This new evidence fundamentally alters the basis for dismissal and provides conclusive
proof that the government’s investigation was unconstitutional and improperly
conducted.
VI. REQUESTED RELIEF
24. Based on the foregoing facts, I respectfully request that this Court:
• Dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to the unconstitutional investigation and
prosecutorial misconduct.
11
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 192 Filed 02/27/25 Page 12 of 12
• Suppress any evidence obtained through unconstitutional means, including evidence
presented to the grand jury.
• Declare the government’s investigation unlawful due to its violation of my Fourth,
Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.
• Provide any other relief deemed just and proper under the circumstances.
VII. AFFIRMATION
25. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Nichelle Henson, Pro Se
12
File and source
- File
- 192.pdf
- Size
- 254,275 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0e35772e4615d5135a098719f1918d0c6c034088e2d9e0974a67b4dae928cde3
- Our copy
- 192.pdf
- Original
- archive.org