The lynchpin of the Court’s finding is that on December 8, 2014, I demanded that Martin pay for her transcript, and on December 10, 2014 Martin paid me $3,000 for the transcript. The Court WRONGLY stated:

"... Ucheomumu requested from Martin money to cover the cost of obtaining transcripts, and she paid him $3,000. Ucheomumu, however, never ordered the transcripts or advised Martin to do so." Court's Opinion at 1.

This Court of Appeals’ finding is demonstrably FALSE, and the Court DID NOT and COULD NOT cite any of Martin’s testimony that she paid for any transcripts. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' purported findings, in fact, Martin repeatedly testified under oath that she was NEVER asked to deposit money for transcripts and that SHE DID NOT pay for her transcript. Thus, Martin’s sworn testimony CONTRADICTED the Court’s opinion. For example, on Direct Examination by Assistant Bar Counsel, Thompson, Martin testified under oath as follows:

[THOMPSON]: Did Mr. Ucheomumu ever ask you to, quote, deposit

money to order the transcripts?

[MARTIN]: No, he did not.

See  T-671:24 to T-672:1-5 (January 10, 2018 Trial Transcript at 2-177:24 and 2-178:1-5 (Emphasis supplied)).


[THOMPSON]: So Mr. Ucheomumu's claim that the funds you paid

were specifically for the legal services? Did he ever tell

you that?

[MARTIN]: His legal services that I hired him for was to

write the appeal, yes.

See  T-676:23 - T-677:1-4 (January 10, 2018 Trial Transcript at 2-182:25 and 2-183:1-5 (Emphasis supplied)).


In addition, ALL Martin’s checks shown at the "Bribing A Witness" tab herein were specifically noted for “legal fees” by Martin. 

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals'  finding that I Requested for Martin to deposit money for the transcript on December 8, 2014 and that Martin paid me $3,000 for the transcript on December 10, 2014 is also DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the Bar Counsel’s pleadings and discovery answers. See Bar Counsel's Resp. to Respondent's First Interrogs. at 8, Ans. to Int. No. 15 (“Respondent never communicated with Ms. Martin about ordering the transcripts or requested from her funds so that he could obtain the transcripts”) (emphasis added); See Bar Counsel's Supp. Resp. to Respondent First Interrogs. at 3, Supp. Ans. to Int. No. 16) (Admitting that all of the $6,200 paid by Martin to Respondent was for legal fees to handle her case); See Bar Counsel's Resp. to First Interrogs. at 11, Ans. to Int. No. 23 (Admitting that Martin paid the Respondent $6,200 for the legal fees). Despite these answers, the Bar Counsel manufactured a FALSEHOOD and misled the Court to adopt it. This falsehood was the basis for the Court to find that I misrepresented facts to the Court of Special Appeals, Bar Counsel and even my former client, Martin. I have NEVER misrepresented facts to any court on behalf of any client, and there is no reason why I should ever do that.