Why Did The FBI Raid The Martin And Seibert Law Firm?

On November 17^th federal agents conducted an extraordinary raid on the prominent Martinsburg law firm of Martin and Seibert.  Because the feds aren't talking, people are asking "why" and the only information released so far has been by Martin and Seibert themselves through an almost laughable press release that claims Martin and Seibert was the victim of a smear campaign by former employees and/or insiders and THAT'S the reason the feds raided them.  Sorry, not buying it.

Because of the potential disruption to dozens of pending cases and even more cases on appeal federal judges do not issue search and seizure warrants for law firms recklessly.  The evidence of criminal behavior normally has to be strong enough to earn a conviction before the FBI is allowed to confiscate client files.

So, what does all of that mean?  It means that that the FBI did not raid Martin and Seibert’s offices because the FBI was trying to protect Martin and Seibert, it means that the FBI almost certainly had incriminating evidence against them.

OK, what KIND of incriminating evidence?  Well, let’s look at which federal agencies attended the FBI’s November 17^th party.  The press reports do not mention the Postal Inspectors.  Often, they are involved if a law firm sends padded (fraudulent) bills (invoices) to their clients in the mail.  Mail fraud - 18 U.S. Code § 1341 - can get you 20 years and, with special circumstances, as much as 30 years.  Sending a padded bill by email is essentially the same crime.  If you are a willing participant in the crime you’re subject to the same penalties.

So, if a lawyer knowingly sent a padded bill they would be in serious trouble, and any administrative employee that knew the bill was fraudulent would be facing the same charges.  Again; however, there has been no reports that the postal inspectors are involved.

OK, what about tax fraud?  If Martin and Seibert were being investigated for tax fraud the IRS should have been part of the raid.  There was no mention of the IRS in the published reports.

So, what’s left?  Terrorism?  I seriously doubt it.  Counterfeiting?  I don’t think so.  That’s the domain of the Secret Service and they’re not reported as being part of the raid.  Drugs?  Martin and Seibert may not have the most luxurious offices in the world but they don’t remind me of a meth lab.

That leaves just the FBI and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is normally the lead investigative agency for public corruption cases.  That covers fixing public contracts and bids, and bribing public officials.  That covers state, county, and city officials and employees, which means anyone holding an elected or appointed office.

Yeah, but if the FBI is after a councilman or judge why did they raid Martin and Seibert?  Well, the FBI probably obtained incriminating evidence that implicated someone like that; however, the FBI (normally) takes pride in being absolutely certain they can convict a public official before they arrest them, and the most common method of getting indictable evidence against a public official is normally to convince a co-conspirator to testify against them.

Which leads us back to Martin and Seibert.  Will the FBI find incriminating files against a public official on Martin and Seibert’s computers or in their filing cabinets?  Probably not; however, if a former Martin and Seibert employee or insider has provided the FBI inside information then the investigation can focus on illegal activity other than public corruption.  Once the investigators have a thread to begin pulling then they might find enough to indict someone on a different matter, which they can use as leverage to convince that person to assist in an investigation of a public official for some consideration on the other charges.  You might remember that Martin and Seibert has admitted that their problems started with former employees.

Another tool the FBI uses to persuade individuals to cooperate is the law - 18 U.S. Code § 1001- that says that lying to a federal investigator during an investigation is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.  Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Dennis Hastert just pled guilty to that.  This means that if anyone being asked a question during an interview that’s part of an investigation lies about what they did, why they did it, or who told them to do it LIES about ANYTHING they are probably going to jail.  The law does not excuse someone for being scared they might lose their job or that someone else ordered them to say what they’re telling the investigator; if someone lies in the course of the investigation they are in serious trouble.  So, if someone at Martin and Seibert lies to a federal agent during the investigation they are facing the choice of incarceration or cooperation.

People can be expected to act in their self-interest so it normally doesn’t take long for the feds to get the evidence they need to move on to the next step.  Where will that be?  Wait for the next raid and don’t be surprised if it’s at a public building.  Then the federal investigators will begin asking new questions and if any of those individuals are foolish enough to lie then they will face the decision of incarceration or cooperation.

Eventually, there will be justice.

Will The FBI Raid On Martin And Seibert Reach Into The Berkeley County Courthouse?

Tuesday’s raid by the FBI on the Martinsburg offices of the Martin and Seibert law firm may be just the beginning of a federal investigation into the legal and judicial community in Berkeley County.

While Martin and Seibert have attempted to put a press release happy face on federal agents swarming through their doors, the reality is a lot of breaths in the Eastern Panhandle are being held to see when and where the other shoe will drop.

Martin and Seibert would like you to believe that this extraordinary action by law enforcement was the direct result of Martin and Seibert being criticized on social media.  REALLY?  Law firm insiders say very disturbing things about Martin and Seibert and that’s all the feds need to “kick down their door”?  I don’t think so.

The United States Department of Justice does not seize computers from law firms casually.  Due to the highly confidential nature of attorney-client privileged information on those computers Federal judges are extremely reluctant to authorize search and seizure warrants on an active law firm without being absolutely certain that substantial evidence of criminal activity exists and that the seizure of the law firm’s files are necessary to preserve evidence.

That’s the long way of saying that the feds already have incriminating evidence and they’re looking for more.  Often, this evidence comes from former employees or insiders, and Martin and Seibert has publicly admitted it has a problem in that area.  Bet on indictments in the near future.

So, does the investigation end with Martin and Seibert?  Probably not.

A reasonable evaluation of the information available points towards the Berkeley County Courthouse.  Law firms need the assistance of judges and court employees to bend the rules in order to give their clients an unfair advantage.  Is that what Martin and Seibert has done?  Time will tell.

For more on the FBI raid on Martin and Seibert read this http://martinsburglawyerreview.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-did-fbi-raid-martin-and-seibert-law.html

Can Martinsburg, West Virginia Lawyer Gregory V. “Greg” Smith Be Trusted?

NOTE: All facts and opinions detailed in this narrative come directly from sworn testimony and court documents.

Embattled Martinsburg lawyer Gregory V. "Greg" Smith is developing a reputation of a lawyer that simply can’t be trusted to protect the rights of his clients.

Recent accusations and questions of incompetence, substance abuse, and selling out his client to the prosecution have been cited in a lawsuit filed against him.  Mr. Smith responded to the suit; however, he did not deny any of the specific allegations.

Additional allegations have been raised that Mr. Smith has been posting positive reviews on the internet about himself.  Frequently, a person does this because their customers or clients aren’t willing to refer or endorse their services.

Trust has now become an issue involving Gregory V. "Greg" Smith’s integrity and competence.  Consumers may want to consider Mr. Smith’s legal problems when choosing an attorney to represent them.

To learn more about Gregory V. "Greg" Smith’s reputation visit http://www.martinsburglawyerreview.com/gregory-v-greg-smith.html

Gregory V. "Greg" Smith’s address

Gregory V. (Greg) Smith

PO Box 2174

Martinsburg, WV  25402

Martinsburg Attorney Gregory V. "Greg" Smith Exercises His Right To Remain Silent

NOTE: All facts and opinions detailed in this narrative come directly from sworn testimony and court documents.

Controversial Martinsburg, West Virginia lawyer Gregory V. "Greg" Smith was recently sued for fraud, incompetence, and intentionally harming his client in a criminal case. 

The complaint details how Mr. Smith betrayed his client by failing to investigate flaws in the prosecution’s case against his client that could have resulted in the charges being dropped, pressuring his client to accept a plea bargain on the wrong charges, and possibly colluding with the prosecutor and others to sell out his client.  The allegations against Mr. Smith are supported by hours of audio recordings including Mr. Smith’s confession.

The complaint also questions whether Mr. Smith’s poor performance was aggravated by alcohol abuse.

Gregory V. "Greg" Smith has now formally admitted to his actions by failing to deny any of the allegations in his answer to the complaint. 

Questions have been raised concerning Mr. Smith’s business ethics because he was recently caught writing and posting positive reviews for himself on the internet.

To learn more about Gregory V. "Greg" Smith’s reputation visit http://www.martinsburglawyerreview.com/gregory-v-greg-smith.html

Gregory V. "Greg" Smith’s address

Gregory V. (Greg) Smith

PO Box 2174

Martinsburg, WV  25402

Will Arnold And Bailey’s Reputation Be Damaged By Embattled Partner Andrew Arnold

NOTE: All facts and opinions detailed in this narrative come directly from sworn testimony and court documents.

Martinsburg, West Virginia lawyer Andrew Arnold of the Arnold and Bailey law firm is currently a defendant in a civil lawsuit for intentionally harming his client in a criminal case. 

The complaint alleges that Mr. Arnold sold out his client by failing to properly prepare a defense, failing to properly prepare for trial, pressuring his client to accept a plea bargain on the wrong charges, and possibly colluding with the prosecutor and others to harm his client.  These charges against Mr. Arnold are supported by hours of audio recordings.

Mr. Arnold has now formally admitted to his actions by failing to deny any of the allegations in his answer to the complaint.  Instead, Mr. Arnold actually claimed he had the same immunity as a prosecutor while representing the client he sold out.

The question is whether Andrew Arnold’s legal problems will affect the Andrew and Bailey law firm in which Mr. Arnold is an attorney and partner.

To learn more about Andrew Arnold’s reputation visit http://www.martinsburglawyerreview.com/andrew-arnold.html

Arnold and Bailey’s address

Arnold and Bailey

208 N George St

Charles Town, WV 25414

Embattled Martinsburg Attorney Andrew Arnold Exercises His Right To Remain Silent

NOTE: All facts and opinions detailed in this narrative come directly from sworn testimony and court documents.

Martinsburg, West Virginia lawyer Andrew Arnold of the Arnold and Bailey law firm was recently sued for intentionally harming his client in a criminal case. 

The complaint details how Mr. Arnold betrayed his client by failing to properly prepare a defense, failing to properly prepare for trial, pressuring his client to accept a plea bargain on the wrong charges, and possibly colluding with the prosecutor and others to sell out his client.  The allegations against Mr. Arnold are supported by hours of audio recordings.

Mr. Arnold has now formally admitted to his actions by failing to deny any of the allegations in his answer to the complaint.  Instead, Mr. Arnold actually claimed he had the same immunity as a prosecutor while representing the client he sold out.

To learn more about Andrew Arnold’s reputation visit http://www.martinsburglawyerreview.com/andrew-arnold.html

Andrew Arnold’s address

Andrew Arnold

Arnold and Bailey 

208 N George St 

Charles Town, WV 25414

Is Matthew Yanni The Worst Lawyer In West Virginia?

NOTE: All facts and opinions detailed in this narrative come directly from sworn testimony and court documents.

MATTHEW YANNI LIED TO HIS CLIENT AND TO THE JUDGE

Martinsburg, West Virginia lawyer Matthew Yanni was appointed by the Court to represent a client in a criminal action that was scheduled to go to trial 12 days later.  Because of previous poor legal representation by Gregory V. (Greg) Smith and Andrew Arnold (CLICK on their names to learn more) no defense had been prepared for the client; however, proper and competent legal efforts by Matthew Yanni could have had all charges permanently dismissed against the client if he was not brought to trial by the end of the month.

When Mr. Yanni was appointed the client informed Mr. Yanni in writing that the client would not wave his speedy trial rights and the client did not believe that Mr. Yanni could develop an effective defense within the few days Mr. Yanni had left before trial.

Within days a hearing was held to determine whether the client was willing to wave his speedy trial rights and Mr. Yanni lied to the judge by saying the client wanted to proceed to trial in 12 days.  Mr. Yanni then lied to the judge, again, and said he “will be ready for trial” in 12 days.  Mr. Yanni committed those lies knowing that he had just taken the case, knew nothing of the facts or technical issues involved, and would have to develop an effective and technically complex defense in less than 12 days. 

Several hours after Mr. Yanni lied to the judge about his ability to be ready for trial Mr. Yanni confessed to the client in a recorded telephone conversation that Mr. Yanni would not be ready for trial.  Mr. Yanni also admitted that he didn’t understand the basic technology involved in the matter and did not intend to retain an expert to assist him.

MATTHEW YANNI REFUSES TO PROPERLY PREPARE FOR TRIAL

The client then supplied Mr. Yanni with over forty pages of technical information to build a defense, but Mr. Yanni admitted he didn’t understand the specifics and would not make any effort to learn them.  Mr. Yanni did not consult or hire an expert witness to explain the complex issues to him.  

Mr. Yanni also refused to consult with the client regarding the development or presentation of his defense. 

Mr. Yanni was completely unprepared for trial.

DID MATTHEW YANNI INTENTIONALLY HARM HIS CLIENT FOR PERSONAL GAIN?

Matthew Yanni’s representation efforts have given the client the impression is that Mr. Yanni is using his appointment as the client’s attorney for personal gain.   By intentionally harm the client Mr. Yanni allows the judge to do less work and as “a member of the team” can earn more court appointments. 

These appointments are necessary to financially support a law practice for an attorney of questionable competence and ethics. 

Matthew Yanni is is a perfect example of the nightmare of a bad lawyer portrayed in movies and television.

MATTHEW YANNI’S INCOMPETENCE FORCES HIS CLIENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR

The client lost all confidence in Mr. Yanni’s integrity and competence and filed a complaint against Mr. Yanni with the West Virginia State Bar.

MATTHEW YANNI’S DISHONESTY FORCES HIS CLIENT TO SUE HIM

When Mr. Yanni ignored the West Virginia State Bar complaint the client was forced to sue him in civil court.

DEFENDANT MATTHEW YANNI ADMITS TO ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM

Matthew Yanni is so incompetent as an attorney that he could answer the law suit filed against him in time.  Under the law, his default is an admission of all of the allegations made in the law suit.

MATTHEW YANNI’S INCOMPETENCE IS DOCUMENTED

In order to accurately document his communications with his attorneys in this matter the client recorded all of his telephone calls and personal meetings with Mr. Yanni.

To review Matthew Yanni's reputation visit http://www.martinsburglawyerreview.com/matthew-yanni.html

Matthew Yanni’s address

Matthew Yanni

211 ½ West Burke Street

Martinsburg, WV 25401

Did Martinsburg Attorney Andrew Arnold Collude With A Prosecutor To Sell Out His Client?

NOTE: All facts and opinions detailed in this blog post come directly from sworn testimony and court documents.

ATTORNEY ANDREW ARNOLD BREAKS HIS PROMISE

Martinsburg, West Virginia attorney Andrew Arnold of Arnold and Bailey was appointed by the court to represent a client who had been indicted on three felony counts.  The next day Mr. Arnold agreed to a trial date about six months later on the client’s behalf and explained to the client in open court that the trial date would not wave the client’s speedy trial rights.  The client had stated on numerous occasions, including in open court, that the client would not wave his speedy trial rights.  The client only agreed to the trial date on Mr. Arnold’s advice as a lawyer.

Within days the client met with Mr. Arnold for the first time and the client immediately raised the issue of the substantial deficiencies in the state’s probable cause for a warrant to search his home and later to arrest him.  The client believed that the state had used a flawed investigation to arrest him on the wrong charges using insufficient evidence.  Mr. Arnold promised the client that he would properly address that issue because a meaningful investigation of probable cause could lead to a dismissal of the charges.

In their second meeting in early April Mr. Arnold and the client discussed the subject of how files were transferred over the internet.  The client attempted to explain to Mr. Arnold the technical complexities involved in the case and how any mistake by the investigators could have led to the client to being improperly charged.  Mr. Arnold admitted he knew nothing about that process, but it sounded important in determining whether the prosecution had been forthcoming in their probable cause and he would review it.

DID ATTORNEY ANDREW ARNOLD INTENTIONALLY HARM HIS CLIENT?

Mr. Arnold admitted at that meeting that his wife, Carmela Cesare, was an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Berkeley County but that Mr. Arnold would not discuss the case with her.  Later developments have shown that he may have broken that promise.

ATTORNEY ANDREW ARNOLD FAILED TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL

Mr. Arnold and the client discussed the probable cause issue on several other occasions and Mr. Arnold agreed that there might be a valid issue in that the prosecution dropped many of the original charges and there were problems with the evidence. 

During the several meetings and telephone conversations the client told Mr. Arnold how the state’s version of events was almost impossible and instructed Mr. Arnold to retain an expert to be able to testify to that at trial.  Mr. Arnold failed to do so.

Whenever the client spoke with Mr. Arnold he impressed the client as being uninformed of the relevant facts in the case and unwilling to proactively investigate them or prepare for trial.

About three weeks before the trial the client spoke with Mr. Arnold on the telephone concerning his progress in investigating the probable cause issue.  Mr. Arnold limited his response to one word answers and would not provide a comprehensive or meaningful explanation of his efforts on the issue.

At that point the almost the entire sum of Mr. Arnold’s efforts on behalf of the client were to pressure the client to accept a plea bargain for the wrong charge that could have been dismissed with a proper investigation of the flaws in the probable cause.

One week later the client met with Mr. Arnold in his office.  Before the meeting the client presented Mr. Arnold a letter dated the same day addressing the deficiencies of Mr. Arnold’s representation efforts and instructing him to investigate the probable cause issue before he began any plea negotiations.

During the meeting the client confronted Mr. Arnold with his failure to make any meaningful effort to investigate the probable cause issue despite his promises to the contrary.  Mr. Arnold could not explain why he had chosen to devote the focus of his representation efforts towards trying to pressure the client to accept a plea offer without any meaningful or substantive effort to investigate and/or attack the due process issue that has the potential to have the charges dropped.

ATTORNEY ANDREW ARNOLD ABANDONED HIS CLIENT

Mr. Arnold became very agitated and informed the client he was withdrawing his representation.  Mr. Arnold claimed there was “a complete breakdown in the attorney client relationship” because the client refused to plead guilty to the wrong charge that should have been dismissed if Mr. Arnold would have done his job properly.

Mr. Arnold abandoned the client just two weeks before the client’s trial and wasted over five months without ever having begun to develop a defense for the client.  During the hearing in which Mr. Arnold asked the judge to allow him to withdraw THE PROSECUTOR admitted that Mr. Arnold had made no effort to properly examine or contest the flawed evidence against the client.

ATTORNEY ANDREW ARNOLD IS ACCUSED BY THE JUDGE OF HARMING THE CLIENT’S RIGHTS

During the same hearing in which Mr. Arnold asked the judge to allow him to withdraw the judge decreed that Mr. Arnold have had actually waived the client’s speedy trial rights when Mr. Arnold agreed to the trial date despite his assurance to the client in open court that Mr. Arnold’s decision would not do so.  Speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and proper usage by Mr. Arnold would have required the charges be permanently dismissed against the client.

Mr. Arnold’s bizarre actions while he was representing the client have caused many people to believe that Mr. Arnold was working with the prosecution where his wife Carmela Cesare was an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Berkeley County to sell out his client instead of using the facts and evidence to have the charges dropped.

To learn more about attorney Andrew Arnold’s (of Arnold and Bailey) reputation as a lawyer visit http://www.martinsburglawyerreview.com/andrew-arnold.html

Andrew Arnold’s address

Andrew Arnold

Arnold and Bailey

208 North George Street

Charles Town, WV 25414