ORAL ARGUMENTS THIS MONDAY MARCH 10TH IN LAS VEGAS

Michele Fiore’s Fraud Case & Allegations of Cointelpro Tactics

Michele Fiore, seen here during her tenure as a Las Vegas City Council member, has been a high-profile figure in Nevada politics.

Fiore served on the Las Vegas City Council and even ran for statewide office, gaining a reputation as an outspoken conservative. In 2022 she was appointed as judge in rural Nye County when she was endorsed by President Trump – a position from which she was later suspended due to the charges against her. Now, Fiore’s career faces its greatest test: a federal fraud conviction she is fiercely fighting to overturn, amid claims that the prosecution was politically motivated and marred by misconduct.

Background: Fraud Conviction and Charges

In October 2024, a federal jury convicted 54-year-old Michele Fiore on six counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Prosecutors alleged that while serving as a councilwoman, Fiore solicited over $70,000 in donations to build memorial statues for two slain Las Vegas police officers – promising donors that “100% of the contributions” would go toward the memorials. Instead, according to prosecutors at trial, Fiore funneled the money into her own accounts and spent it on personal and political expenses, including living expenses, personal rent, plastic surgery, and even her daughter’s wedding. According to prosecutors, this defrauded charitable donors who believed they were honoring fallen officers, and it left no funds for the promised memorials. Fiore was found guilty on all counts, each carrying a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

Fiore maintained her innocence throughout the trial, insisting that any financial mishandling was a mistake rather than a crime. Her then-defense attorney argued that Fiore’s accounting may have been “sloppy, but not criminal”. Nevertheless, the jury was convinced by the prosecution’s case. Fiore was immediately suspended without pay from her Nye County judgeship after the verdict, and a sentencing date was initially set for January 6, 2025. Given the gravity of the conviction and Fiore’s prominence (the trial even saw Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo testify as a witness), the case drew significant public attention. Fiore vowed to continue fighting, telling reporters that “the case is not complete yet” and signaling plans to appeal.

Post-Trial Motions and Latest Court Order

After the trial, Fiore made major changes to her legal team and strategy. Her trial counsel withdrew from the case, and attorney Paola Armeni stepped in as new defense counsel. Armeni immediately moved to delay Fiore’s sentencing and prepare post-trial motions, citing the need to obtain and review the full trial transcript and extensive evidence to identify errors in the proceedings. Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey granted a continuance: Fiore’s sentencing was postponed by about 60 days and rescheduled for March 10, 2025, to allow time for these post-trial motions to be filed and heard. Fiore’s attorneys filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal (arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict her) and a motion for a new trial (arguing that trial errors and misconduct denied her a fair trial) in late 2024. The government opposed both motions, maintaining that the jury’s verdict was supported by ample evidence and that Fiore received a fair trial.

Crucially, Judge Dorsey has signaled that she will not simply rule on the motions on paper – she intends to scrutinize the arguments in open court. In the latest court order, Judge Dorsey set an in-person hearing to address Fiore’s motions, aligning it with the March 10 date. This means the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys must appear in person to argue against Fiore’s motions instead of relying solely on written briefs. In other words, the DOJ is obligated to stand before the judge and justify the conviction given Fiore’s allegations of serious misconduct. This development indicates that the court sees enough substance in Fiore’s claims to warrant oral argument, an uncommon step for post-trial motions. As of now, Fiore remains un-sentenced and in a holding pattern – if her motions are granted, she could see her conviction overturned or get a new trial; if they are denied, she will proceed to sentencing (with an appeal to follow). The March 10 hearing is poised to be a pivotal moment in determining Fiore’s fate.

Allegations of Misconduct and Unfair Trial

Fiore’s post-trial motions paint her prosecution as a politically motivated “witch hunt” and detail numerous irregularities in how the investigation and trial were conducted. Her defense argues that prosecutorial misconduct and undue political influence tainted the case. Below are some of the key allegations Fiore raises in her motions (and supporting exhibits):

Vendetta by Prosecutor Steven Myhre: Fiore claims that former Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre had a personal vendetta against her, stemming from her outspoken support of rancher Cliven Bundy and her criticism of the FBI. Fiore was an outspoken defender of the Bundy family during their 2014 protest which escalated into a standoff, a case that Myhre prosecuted – a prosecution which infamously ended in a mistrial due to Myhre’s own “egregious” misconduct. Fiore’s motion argues that Myhre’s animosity led him to target her for years. In fact, Myhre’s name appears repeatedly throughout the Fiore case files, and he personally signed the last page of Fiore’s indictment – a detail her team cites as evidence of his vendetta. Emails from 2022 show Myhre encouraging the DOJ and FBI to pursue an investigation of Fiore, and an initial indictment filing even listed Myhre as one of the attorneys on the case. (His name was later removed when a superseding indictment was filed, raising questions about why his involvement was concealed.) Fiore argues that the entire case “was brought solely out of animus” toward her because of her politics and past clashes with Myhre.

Overzealous Investigation and Withheld Evidence:

According to Fiore, federal authorities went to extreme lengths over several years to build a case against her. The defense contends that the FBI, DOJ, and IRS opened multiple overlapping investigations into Fiore – at least four separate probes – in an effort to find wrongdoing. When one grand jury reportedly refused to indict her, prosecutors simply convened another, impaneling “jury after jury until they finally got one to do their bidding in 2024,” Fiore alleges. The motion describes an 11-year campaign of surveillance and harassment, with Fiore even being labeled a potential “domestic terrorist” at one point without cause. In the course of this zealous investigation, Fiore maintains that exculpatory evidence was deliberately withheld or ignored. For example, financial records (like receipts from her daughter’s wedding) that fully accounted for how funds were used were in the government’s possession, yet prosecutors “falsely suggested wrongdoing” as if money was unaccounted-for. Her team argues that such evidence, which might have swayed the jury, was never presented – a potential Brady violation (failure to disclose exculpatory evidence) that undermines the verdict. Perhaps most startling, Fiore points to documents indicating the FBI had plans to arrest her in an exceptionally aggressive manner – allegedly including a “public arrest” scenario with a shoot-to-kill order in place if she resisted. While that dire plan was never executed, its existence is cited as proof of the extreme and biased approach authorities took in her case. All of this, Fiore contends, shows that the prosecution was driven by political payback and not an impartial pursuit of justice.

Immunity Ordeal of Fiore’s Daughter: One of the most dramatic moments of Fiore’s trial involved her daughter, Sheena Siegel, who was called as a crucial defense witness. Unbeknownst to the judge (and even Fiore’s trial attorney at the time), Sheena had a Testimonial Use Immunity Agreement with federal prosecutors related to this case – meaning she should have been able to testify without fear of self-incrimination. However, during cross-examination, prosecutors questioned Sheena about checks from Fiore’s political PAC that ended up in Sheena’s personal account, pointedly asking if she was effectively admitting to a federal crime. This line of questioning stunned the courtroom and led Sheena to hesitate, fearing she might incriminate herself. The prosecution then revealed – for the first time – that Sheena’s immunity deal had been withdrawn, meaning she no longer had protection. Caught by surprise, Sheena invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the stand. Fiore’s attorney immediately objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that the government’s tactics were improper and had ambushed the defense. Judge Dorsey ultimately stopped Sheena’s testimony and ordered it stricken from the record to cure the prejudice. But Fiore’s new motion argues this remedy was wholly inadequate and “extremely prejudicial” to her defense, as Sheena was an integral witness who could no longer be heard. The motion asserts that the immunity was “erroneously withdrawn” by the government specifically to silence Sheena and cripple Fiore’s case. In short, Fiore alleges the prosecution sandbagged her – either by mishandling the immunity agreement or by strategically revoking it – and thus deprived her of key exonerating testimony from her own daughter.

Governor Lombardo’s Conflicting Testimony: Among the prosecution’s witnesses was Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, formerly the Sheriff of Las Vegas and one of the public figures who had donated to Fiore’s police memorial project. Lombardo’s appearance was notable – a sitting governor testifying in a fraud trial – and Fiore’s team now argues that his testimony was inconsistent and possibly influenced by political motives. On the stand, Lombardo recounted that Fiore had told him she would attempt to raise money for the Alyn Beck statue (honoring one of the fallen officers). However, Fiore’s motion highlights that Lombardo had given a different story to the FBI in a prior interview. According to an FBI report (a “302” document), Lombardo originally stated that it was someone else – a mutual acquaintance, not Fiore – who approached him about donating to the statue fund. In other words, Fiore contends that Lombardo changed his story, testifying in court in a manner that better fit the prosecution’s narrative. The motion pointedly notes that **Lombardo “gave the FBI one story in his 302, then testified to something completely different on the stand” **. This discrepancy calls into question the reliability of Lombardo’s testimony. Fiore’s allies have gone so far as to accuse Lombardo of being a political opportunist: they say he “willingly participated in this political persecution” of Fiore when it suited him, yet now, as a Republican governor, Lombardo seeks support from the same political base that Fiore and former President Trump represent. (Fiore was once a close Trump ally, and she suggests Lombardo was never truly on Trump’s team until he needed the endorsement.) The implication is that Lombardo’s involvement in the case may have had more to do with political payback or self-interest than truth-finding.

Emotional Testimony and Jury Persuasion: Fiore’s motion also criticizes how some witnesses and evidence were used at trial, suggesting the government sought to prejudice the jury emotionally. For instance, Nicole Beck – the widow of Officer Alyn Beck, one of the officers for whom the statue was planned – was called to testify about the impact of the memorial project. Fiore’s attorneys argue that Beck had no new or unique information about the fundraising beyond what other witnesses provided, and that her testimony was intended mainly to “provoke an emotional response” from jurors. Hearing from a grieving widow could sway the jury to dislike Fiore, even if her statements didn’t prove any additional facts of wrongdoing. The defense suggests this was a tactical play by prosecutors to tug at heartstrings and paint Fiore in a negative light, beyond the strict facts of the case. While such victim impact testimony is not illegal, Fiore’s team questions its relevance and fairness in the guilt phase of the trial, implying it did more harm than probative good.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: In addition to pointing fingers at the prosecution, Fiore’s filings take aim at her own trial lawyer’s performance. She alleges that her original attorney, Michael Sanft, was ineffective and failed to take basic steps that could have altered the trial’s outcome. Notably, Fiore says Sanft “failed to file various pretrial motions”, including a motion to dismiss the indictment and a motion to suppress certain evidence. Such motions, had they been filed, might have challenged the foundation of the case or restricted key evidence, potentially changing the course of the trial. Fiore’s current counsel argues that the lack of these pretrial challenges left critical issues unaddressed and allowed the prosecution a freer hand. (Sanft, for his part, withdrew from representing Fiore soon after the verdict, and has not publicly responded to the ineffective-counsel allegations.) Ineffective assistance claims are common in post-conviction motions, but they add one more layer to Fiore’s argument that she did not get a fair trial.

Taken together, these allegations portray Fiore as the victim of a politically driven prosecution rife with misconduct, rather than a scheming fraudster. She asserts that her “Lady Trump” persona and conservative activism made her a target for vindictive officials. From Steven Myhre’s involvement to Governor Lombardo’s testimony, from the handling of her daughter’s immunity to the evidence presented (or not presented) in court, Fiore’s motion for a new trial and acquittal attempt to cast doubt on the integrity of the conviction. It is now up to Judge Dorsey to assess these claims and decide if any of them warrant tossing out the jury’s verdict. The fact that the judge has ordered a hearing suggests these issues are being taken seriously.

What’s Next in the Legal Process?

As of the latest court update, Michele Fiore’s case is in a tense holding pattern. Judge Dorsey will convene a hearing on this Monday March 10, 2025 to hear oral arguments on the post-trial motions. At this hearing, Fiore’s defense team will press their arguments for acquittal or a new trial, and DOJ prosecutors must argue in person against those motions. This is a critical juncture: if Judge Dorsey finds that even one of the substantial issues raised has merit enough to affect the verdict, she could overturn Fiore’s conviction (via the Rule 29 acquittal motion) or order a fresh trial (via the Rule 33 new trial motion). Such outcomes are rare, but not unheard of in cases where significant legal errors or rights violations occurred.

From the DOJ’s perspective, the prosecutors (from the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section) will likely contend that Fiore’s trial was fair and that the evidence of her guilt was overwhelming, rendering any missteps harmless. They have already responded in writing, opposing delays and insisting that Fiore simply wants to drag out the process. At the hearing, they will need to convince the judge that none of the alleged misconduct – whether about immunity deals, witness statements, or withheld evidence – changes the simple fact that Fiore raised charitable funds and spent them on herself. Essentially, the government’s stance is that Fiore’s rights were not violated in any way that affected the jury’s verdict, and thus the verdict should stand.

For Fiore, the March 10 hearing is essentially her last real chance at relief in the trial court. If Judge Dorsey denies her motions, Fiore will proceed to sentencing (facing potentially years in prison) and then presumably appeal the conviction to the Ninth Circuit. If the judge grants either motion, Fiore could go free (if acquitted) or at least get another chance to fight the charges in a new trial. It’s an all-or-nothing moment born of the multitude of issues she has raised.

Notably, the requirement that DOJ attorneys show up and argue before the judge underscores the seriousness of Fiore’s claims. The Justice Department cannot simply file papers and move on; they must defend this conviction under scrutiny. That puts a spotlight on the case beyond the usual post-trial routine, and it opens the door for the court to ask tough questions. The outcome of this hearing will determine the next chapter: whether Michele Fiore becomes a cautionary tale of public corruption punished or a vindicated figure who successfully fought off a wrongful prosecution.

Call to Action: A Push for Pardon and DOJ Intervention

Michele Fiore and her supporters maintain that she has been the target of a politically motivated “malicious prosecution”. They view her as a champion of conservative causes who was persecuted for standing up to establishment forces. Given the stakes and the allegations of misconduct, they are now turning to the court of public opinion – and the highest levels of power – for help.

Fiore herself has made a direct plea to the President for clemency. In a letter addressed to former President Donald Trump, she wrote: “Mr. President, I am asking for your pardon because this case was manufactured from the very beginning.” She implored that the “corruption of these federal agencies must be exposed” and likened her ordeal to the political attacks Trump faced. Now, her advocates echo that plea publicly. We end this article with a call to action for those who believe in Fiore’s cause:

Contact the White House to Request a Pardon: If you agree that Michele Fiore’s conviction is a product of political vendetta or unfair tactics, consider reaching out to the White House to voice your concern. A presidential pardon is a constitutionally granted act of clemency that can forgive a federal offense. In this case, a pardon would nullify Fiore’s conviction and immediately free her from the threat of prison. Supporters can call the White House to respectfully urge President Trump to grant Michele Fiore a full pardon. Let them know that you believe her case represents an injustice and that clemency is warranted. Public pressure and messages from concerned citizens can help bring attention to her plight. (When contacting the White House, be concise, polite, and clear about why you think Fiore deserves executive clemency.)

PLEASE CALL THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD

202-456-1414

Urge the DOJ to Drop Its Opposition: With a change in administration in 2025, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi has the opportunity to right past wrongs. We encourage readers to call on AG Pam Bondi’s DOJ to drop its opposition to Fiore’s motion for acquittal and to reconsider the prosecution altogether. The Justice Department has the discretion to concede when a case no longer serves the public interest or when misconduct has come to light. By withdrawing opposition to Fiore’s Rule 29 motion, the DOJ could effectively allow the court to overturn the conviction. Likewise, the DOJ could choose to dismiss the charges or not re-prosecute if a new trial is ordered. Contact the Department of Justice or publicly voice (through social media, letters to editors, etc.) that you expect the DOJ to pursue justice, not vindictiveness. Remind them that prosecutorial integrity and fairness should trump any win-at-all-costs mentality.

Michele Fiore’s case raises broader questions about the fairness of our justice system when politics come into play. It highlights the importance of vigilance by citizens to hold authorities accountable. By speaking up – to the White House and to the DOJ – you can help ensure that justice is served in this case. Fiore’s fight is not just about one former councilwoman: in her view, it’s about exposing corruption and political bias in federal law enforcement. Whether or not one agrees with Fiore’s politics, every American has a stake in a justice system that is impartial and not weaponized against individuals for their beliefs.

In summary, Michele Fiore has gone from being a rising political figure to a convicted felon, but she contends that her conviction was achieved through unfair means. As she awaits the court’s decision on her post-trial motions, she also seeks relief from the executive branch in the form of a pardon. We encourage readers to consider her story and, if compelled, to take action. A simple message to our leaders can make a difference: urge President Trump to pardon Michele Fiore and urge the Justice Department to stand down if this prosecution indeed stemmed from misconduct. By doing so, you lend your voice to the principle that justice should be blind, and no citizen should be prosecuted out of political animus. Together, let’s ensure that the scales of justice are balanced fairly for Michele Fiore – and for all of us.