Home - Breaking News, Events, Things-To-Do, Dining, Nightlife


Fairley’s motion to continue reveals issues with defense and a window into the prosecution (Part 1)

A recent motion to continue court filing by Televangelist Kenny Fairley and his attorney not only reveal significant issues with the defense in his fraud trial, but they also reveal new information about the government’s dual investigations, involving the FBI and HUD, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s related prosecution.

This information came from the department of Justice website https://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin
This information came from the department of Justice website https://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin

The most significant aspect of this case is the Public Integrity Division of the FBI is prosecuting this case. The division specializes in prosecuting both corrupt elected and corrupt appointed officials.  Fairley is not appointed or elected.

Who else is a possible target? Keep reading.

Also of significant relevance is the Federal Government appears to have this trial on a fast track.  The indictment was served on March 23rd, 2016, and trial was set for April 18th, 2016.

Within six days of the indictment being unsealed, Fairley received 17 Cds containing, over 6000 pages of documents via FedEx Overnight.

On April 5th, 2016 all parties had a telephone conference, when Fairley’s attorney, Sanford Knott, asked for a continuance beyond August, 2016. The court granted a continuance until July 25th, 2016, but just twenty four hours later, the court changed it’s ruling and moved the trial date up to June 13th, 2016.

On May 25th Fairley filed a motion to continue. In his motion under Item #1 of their argument, defense stated that given the timeline, and the amount of evidence, Fairley had not had enough time to assimilate the evidence and find competent council and experts, in order to build a defense.

Shouldering that burden, according to item #6 of the filing, is Fairley. And according to the defense, the process it is affecting his health. Item #6 Reads,

“Fairley has been diligent in preparing his defense in a way that no other client of undersigned council has. Fairley has traveled to various venues seeking experts and competent council from Mississippi to Michigan.” The filing goes on to say, “All of this has taken a toll on his health, the topic of which follows.

Item #7 states,

“Recently the Court was informed of significant health issues that Fairley has and the need for continued treatment out of state. The rush of a trial of this magnitude is simply unfair, given that stress, without question,compounds and contributes to the deterioration”

However, nineteen days after the date of this filing, Failey’s son commented on social media that his father was “in good health.” This contradicts defense council assertions that he is ill. Is he ill, or is he in good health? The defense asserts it can provide medical documents if necessary, but none were filed with the court.

fairley21 Under #2 EXISTENCE OF NOVEL QUESTIONS a window into the government’s investigations and prosecution is revealed for the very first time. It reads,

“The defense would point out that there does exist a novel question of law that must be answered and that council has been researching as follows: to what extent can the government prosecute Fairley for theft, laundering, or otherwise misappropriating HUD funds when HUD itself, after its audit of Pinebelt, decided not to initiate a criminal prosecution of Fairley? Fairley believes that this question may be an issue of first impression given that HUD closed its investigation of Pinebelt, even while the prosecution was continuing its investigation.”

This statement is extremely revealing information.[s2If !is_user_logged_in()]  The remaining content is for logged in users. To read the remainder and view the court documetn please login.  Registration is free by clicking here and signing up.  All that is needed is a valid email address[/s2If]
[s2If is_user_logged_in()]

For the first time we know there was an investigation by HUD, and a simultaneous investigation by the Public Integrity Division and the FBI. HUD opted not to prosecute Fairley, and Fairley’s questioning can he be prosecuted by the Public Integrity Dicvision if HUD opted not to prosecute. The distinguishing difference between the two is that the FBI Public Integrity Division was investigating, and that legal mings to wonder who is the other target(s).

Are possible targets in City Hall? Are they in Washington, DC? Was there some political pressure from higher up, perhaps at the DC level to kill the HUD investigation?

To be Continued Monday.


Local Dining Stream

Things To Do

Related articles