Law firm attacks ‘unconstitutional prosecution’ of Cleveland activist—Cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio – The law firm representing a Cleveland activist accused of extortion plans to sue those responsible for what it calls an “egregiously unconstitutional prosecution” as Cuyahoga County prosecutors seek to disqualify the firm from the case.
Defense attorney Peter Pattakos railed against Prosecutor Michael O’Malley’s office this week over the case of Antoine “Fahiem” Tolbert and allegations that his attorney participated in a meeting where Tolbert’s victims were threatened.
Pattakos said the group exercised its First Amendment rights by boycotting the store after staff refused to help the group break up a fight between youths.
The day after Tolbert was arrested, Tolbert’s wife, Austreeia Everson, and attorney, Maryam Assar, met with two of the four people associated with the gas station. Shereen Naser, a professor at Cleveland State University who acted as a mediator, and an outside attorney were also present at the Aug. 15 meeting.
[Everson] was indicted last month on charges of extortion and intimidation in connection with the meeting. A superseding indictment additionally charged Tolbert and New Era member Rameer Askew, 19, with aggravated robbery and kidnapping for an incident in late July. Assar represents the three who have been charged. They have pleaded not guilty. . . .
On March 28, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Tasha Forchione requested that Common Pleas Judge William Vodrey disqualify Assar — and any other of attorney in Pattakos’ firm — from Tolbert’s case over her presence at the meeting. . . .
“Even if no criminal charges are brought against Assar, the appearance of impropriety — that a defense attorney was present when a defendant’s spouse extorted and intimidated witnesses — raises serious concerns,” Forchione wrote.
Prosecutors also argued Assar’s behavior potentially violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs standards and practices for attorneys. They said her presence alongside Everson lent an appearance of authority or legal endorsement to Everson’s threats. . . .
“Our initial reaction when we saw this motion was to laugh,” Pattakos said. “Because it’s so pathetic that they can’t stand when people fight them. They can’t stand when a victim of their abuses actually stands up for their rights.” . . .
Pattakos called the move to disqualify his firm “one of the more desperate and pathetic displays” one will see from a prosecutor.
“They’re implicating us in criminal conduct for doing our jobs,” Pattakos said. “Attorneys go speak with witnesses; we’re allowed to call victims of crimes.” . . .
Pattakos provided a roughly hourlong audio recording of the meeting to cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer. . . . The recording opened with Naser, the Cleveland State professor, proposing a 90-day cooling off period between the parties and dropping the charges against Tolbert. “Then we’ll sit at the table with calm heads and decide what it will take to move forward in a way that will bring us closer together instead of farther apart,” she said. . . .
[Naser] said the meeting lasted between 75 and 80 minutes and ended after the parties realized the gas station owners had no authority to drop the charges.
“I thought it was actually a really powerful conversation where both parties shared their frustrations, not just with each other, but how they’re born of larger systemic inequity. And we left with that camaraderie,” Naser said.
Pattakos, who expressed skepticism over the allegations against Everson, said her words should be considered First Amendment-protected speech if she did, in fact, say them.
“They’re talking about a boycott,” he said. “… community organizers who are trying to spur powerful people to action to help an underserved community.”
With the move to disqualify Assar and Pattakos pending, prosecutors are fighting to keep evidence in Tolbert’s case out of the firm’s hands. Pattakos filed a motion earlier this week that asked Vodrey to compel prosecutors to turn over their evidence.
“The state is apparently displeased with the high quality of representation that their target, Tolbert, is receiving and has therefore concocted a scheme to attempt to disqualify the undersigned attorneys from continuing to represent him,” the motion reads. . . .