Court Clerk Fired in Meek Mill Case, but Rapper Still Pressing for Vindication
The First Judicial District received a bit of a black eye recently in the ongoing dust-up over hip-hop star Meek Mill's parole violation case when it had to fire a court clerk in the wake of revelations that she had asked the rapper to help pay her child's college tuition.
January 31, 2018 at 12:50 PM
7 minute read
Meek Mill. Photo: Shutterstock.com
The First Judicial District received a bit of a black eye recently in the ongoing dust-up over hip-hop star Meek Mill's parole violation case when it had to fire a court clerk in the wake of revelations that she had asked the rapper to help pay her child's college tuition.
But there is still no clear vindication for Meek Mill—whose legal name is Robert Williams—as he presses his claim that the judge who handled his case had inappropriately sought to influence his management team.
On Tuesday, a spokesman for the court confirmed that a court clerk had been fired when it became known that she had asked Williams to help her pay for her son's college tuition. The clerk, Wanda Chavarria, was terminated following a review of the incident, court spokesman Gabriel Roberts said.
“The Philadelphia courts have always prioritized fairness, impartiality and the highest ethical standards. The courts fully expect all employees to conduct themselves in a principled and professional manner so as not to infringe upon the neutrality of the courtroom,” Roberts said in an emailed statement. “Because this is a personnel matter there will be no further comment.”
Chavarria declined to comment for the story.
The termination came soon after Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Genece Brinkley, who is overseeing the case, ordered that a key transcript in the controversial case be unsealed. Williams' legal team has pointed to the transcript as evidence that Brinkley had attempted to pressure Williams into dropping his New York-based management team and hiring Philadelphia-based manager Charlie Mack.
Although the transcript of the Feb. 5, 2016, hearing showed that Mack was the focus of much of the in-chambers discussion, according to the transcript, it appeared to be Williams' probation officer, not Brinkley, who suggested that Williams should hire Mack.
“What I like about Charlie, is he is not invested in Meek Mill,” the probation officer said, according to the transcript. “He is invested in Robert Williams. He is invested in your life as a man.”
Later in the hearing, according to the transcript, the probation officer said, “Working with Charlie Mack, hands down, he is phenomenal. Conah Howard and Phil Smith [who were Williams' managers], they continue to get you back to where you are. Those are the guys that are a problem for you. Because they don't understand. This is what the judge wants. The judge's mission. What she wants. They go outside what the judge asks for.”
For the past few months, Williams has been seeking to overturn the controversial two- to four-year prison sentence that Brinkley handed down after he violated his probation. That sentence came more than nine years after Williams was initially placed on probation, and came after he was charged in two incidents that occurred outside Pennsylvania, neither of which resulted in criminal charges being dropped.
Since the sentence was handed down, Williams' legal team has sought to have Brinkley taken off the case, claiming, among other things, that she was “enamored” with the rap star and that the FBI had been reviewing her conduct—although reports have since suggested that it was Williams who had requested that the FBI review his case and that the inquiry was dropped shortly thereafter.
The case is currently on appeal to the state Superior Court, and, along with arguing that the sentence is excessive, one of Williams' main contentions is that Brinkley repeatedly acted inappropriately throughout the proceedings.
The defendants have pointed to multiple transcripts where Mack was the topic of conversation, but the Feb. 5 hearing seemed to have the potential to shed light on whether Brinkley directed Williams to change managers.
The Feb. 5 hearing, however, occurred in chambers, and had been under seal until recently.
Williams' team initially had requested that the record of the hearing be kept under seal, but later asked that the transcript be released only to them. Brinkley, however, said the record could only either be released to the public, or kept under seal, and the unsealing request had initially been withdrawn.
It was during the dispute about whether the record could be unsealed that Brinkley talked about the Feb. 5, 2016, in-chambers hearing, saying that Mack had been discussed during the hearing.
“There was also some discussion concerning the defendant's management,” Brinkley said, according to court papers. “I don't want this to be taken out of context by anyone down the road either for appeal purposes or whatever, that there was some discussion because the defendant, prior to Roc Nation, had been represented by Mr. Alston whose stage name is 'Charlie Mack,' and that there was some discussion about his involvement in continuing to assist Mr. Williams because it seemed as if while Mr. Mack was representing him there were fewer problems with the probation department and I think I said on the record Mr. Williams chooses who he wants for his management and he's obviously chosen to have whoever he wants as his management, his lawyers, or whatever.”
Her statement had been raised as part of Williams' request to have Brinkley recuse.
However, the recently released transcript shows that the probation officer and the assistant district attorney on the case, Noel DeSantis, led the discussion about Mack.
According to the transcript, toward the end of the hearing Brinkley appeared to attempt to distance herself from any insinuation that she was directing him to change management.
“I don't want the record to suggest who your management is or is not. I am just—I am just trying to decide what I am going—I don't know what I am going to do,” she said, according to the transcript.
Another example that the defense has pointed to regarding Brinkley's allegedly inappropriate conduct was the allegation that Brinkley had asked Williams to record a version of the Boyz II Men song “On Bended Knee” that included a specific reference to her in the song. Court documents, however, said that Brinkley made the request during an off-the-record meeting that occurred with only Brinkley, Williams and Williams' then-girlfriend Nicki Minaj present, and no transcript of that meeting exists.
Matthew Mangino, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, said the court clerk's letter to Williams asking for money is embarrassing for the court, but he said, ultimately, it is unlikely to have any effect on Williams' case.
“It's not as though she said, can you help me with my son's education and I'll lose your file,” Mangino said. “If there was a jury and the clerk slips a note to a juror saying, 'Get this guy, he's terrible,' that could have an impact. But you have a judge presiding over the case, and not a jury. I don't really see how this note is prejudicial.”
Regarding the issue of Mack, Mangino said the court has a lot of latitude about what can be discussed in a violation of parole hearing. He also said it is not, on its face, inappropriate for court officers to discuss the issue if those who the defendant is currently surrounded by are becoming problematic. However, he said, there's a fine line for when those topics could become inappropriate, especially for a judge.
“It's one thing to say your current situation may lead to problems, as opposed to, 'Go with this guy and things might work out better for you.' That's problematic,” he said. ”Who manages your entertainment product doesn't seem to be an appropriate area of inquiry, unless you think that person or entity is causing you to violate your probation. But it's questionable certainly, and it needs to be explored.”
Williams' legal team declined to comment. Brinkley's chambers referred a request for comment to the FJD spokesman, and Roberts said the court was declining to comment about the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readPa. Superior Court's Next Leader Looks Ahead to Looming Challenges in Coming Years
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250