Tweet

February 21, 2024

Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate has prepared an outline of possible broad areas of corruption allegations uncovered and subject to further investigation in recent testimony of Fani Willis in her ethics hearing in Atlanta, Georgia.

"Trump prosecutor Fani Willis seems to have admitted mixing campaign monies and taxpayer dollars on a grand scale for her various escapades including vacations abroad and long running affair with a staff member she supervised. Getting dismissed from the Trump case is the least of her worries and Fani Willis has gone way past the amount of $10,000 in monies that the resigned mayor Megan Barry of Nashville, Tennessee admitted to a few years ago as condemned by Public Advocate at the time," says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States.

Public Advocate of the United States Citizen Memorandum on Georgia Fani Willis Scandal and Possible Public Corruption

Memorandum to: Governor, Attorney General, Members of the Georgia Legislature

From: Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate

Re: Allegations for possible further investigation

Did Fani Willis "farm out" her office to Nathan Wade?

Did Nathan Wade promise or agree to divide the profits, fees, or emoluments of Fani Willis' office?

Public Advocate of the United States provided authorities and the press in Tennessee with the correct legal framework with which to investigate former corrupt Tennessee Mayor Megan Barry, who subsequently pled guilty to a public corruption felony in 2018.

Public Advocate believes that Georgia has analogous state and federal laws which govern the possible misconduct of Georgia attorney Fani Willis as well as her "boyfriend" subordinate prosecutor.

We believe that the principles of the Tennessee matter with Megan Barry, who pled guilty to public corruption in 2018 may also apply to O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2 to the possible misconduct of Fani Willis and Nathan Wade as we outline in this Citizen Memorandum.

O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2 states:

If any person who has been elected to any office shall sell or farm out said office; or if any person shall purchase or agree to give any money or other thing of value to a person elected for the privilege of exercising the duties of said office; or if any person shall promise or agree to divide the profits, fees, or emoluments of said office with the person so elected, he shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement and labor in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than three years.

Download for free:

OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE GEORGIA LAWS VIOLATED BY FANI WILLIS - Abridged Georgia Public Corruption Lexicon

*COPY OF TENN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION ON CORRUPT PRACTICES (DOWNLOAD HERE)*

Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 85-036 (February 14, 1985), quoting 1959 Minnesota Governor's Committee on Ethics and Government Report 17, quoted in Note; Conflict of Interests: State Government Employees, 47 Va. L. Rev. 1034 (1961) (footnote 1) states in part:

...conflicts of interest exist whenever a legislator or other public official has placed himself in a position where, for some advantage gained or to be gained for himself, he finds it difficult if not impossible to devote himself with complete energy, loyalty and singleness of purpose to the general public interest. The advantage that he seeks is something over and above the salary, the experience, the chance to serve the people, and the public esteem that he gains from public office.

Georgia legislators should request that Attorney General Christopher M. Carr to resolve this possible interpretation of O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2 as it could apply to state prosecutor Fani Willis and her financial transactions and possible "farm out" to her boyfriend and subordinate Nathan Wade.

O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2 carries a mandatory minimum of one (1) year by "confinement and labor in the penitentiary" and a mandatory maximum of three (3) years and represents a clear prohibition against corrupt practices that could compromise the integrity and impartial execution of a public official's duties. The language of the statute is explicit in criminalizing such actions, emphasizing the seriousness with which Georgia law treats the integrity of public office and violations represent a significant breach of the public trust and the fiduciary duties owed by public officials to the citizens they serve, and the classification of the offense(s) as a felony highlights the gravity of such possible misconduct.

Under O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2, a possible finding of fact that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade engaged not only in acts such as selling the influence or outcomes of their official offices for personal benefit (be it financial, material, or otherwise) but also non-financial benefits (such as unmarried extravagant cash-reimbursable sex trips on the taxpayer dime) could fall under the principle that any abuse of public office for personal gain, whether financial or non-financial, could be construed as equivalent to selling or purchasing the duties of said office.

PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY VS. PUBLIC MISCONDUCT/CORRUPTION

While prosecutorial immunity likely provides protection to both Fani Willis and Nathan Wade from civil liability in bringing charges against others, it does not shield any prosecutor from possible criminal liability for actions which constitute a breach of criminal code, such as in O.C.G.A PARAGRAPH 45-11-2 and applicable federal criminal prohibitions.

O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2 is not the only statute which Georgia lawmakers may be requesting an investigation by Attorney General Christopher M. Carr. Georgia lawmakers are also expected to request Attorney General Christopher M. Carr both to make applicable attorney general opinions and investigate (including but not limited to) possible violations of:

18 U.S.C.S. Section 666

18 U.S.C.S. Section 666 as applies to agents of local governments, see United States v. Montemayor, 668 Fed. Appx. 96, 96, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15137

See also United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314, 318, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15098, "&prohibits, inter alia, "an agent" of a local government agency that receives more than $ 10,000 in federal funds from stealing from that agency property valued at more than $ 5,000. The term 'agent' is defined as a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative&"

See also United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314, 318, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15098 "&The 18 U.S.C.S. PARAGRAPH666(d)(1) list that 'includes' the terms 'servant,' 'employee,' 'partner, director, officer, manager, and representative' is, by its own plain language, not exhaustive."

18 U.S.C. Section 201 (b)(2)(A)

being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: being influenced in the performance of any official act;

18 USC Section 1346 (1988)

Honest Service Fraud - "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services

Could the unmarried sex trips and cash payments and possible emoluments and possible farming out in violation of O.C.G.A PARAGRAPH 45-11-2 be construed as conspiracy to deprive Donald Trump and/or his co-defendants of any rights as defendants?

18 USC Section 1001 (1948)

Has either Fani Willis or Nathan Wade made fraud or false entries in general to government officials?

18 U.S.C. Section 1341; 1346, 1956(h)

Could the cash payments to which Fani Willis and Nathan Wade appeared to admit to under oath be considered money laundering?

Does the return of cash constitute possible money laundering to cover up possible violations of O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2? And is what appears to be styled as a defense of their actions, i.e. the "reimbursement" of cash" a defense for that action which could be a violation of O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2, or is it rather money laundering in possible violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341; 1346, 1956(h)?

CONCLUSION

In addition to the possible state and federal violations, Fani Willis and Nathan Wade should also be investigated for violating Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, Rule 1.8, Rule 8.4, especially if it is found that actions by either Fani Willis or Nathan Wade involved dishonesty, fraud, or deceit.

O.C.G.A Section 45-11-2 and applicable federal statutes provide a clear legal remedy for possible public corruption on the part of state attorneys who are not themselves immune from criminal prosecution for criminal acts done in the process of performance of their duties, and Fani Willis and Nathan Wade should be investigated accordingly.

STREAMING TESTIMONY FROM THE COURT HEARING IN ATLANTA GEORGIA