By Support Group
A Forensic Review of Judicial Abuse in U.S. v. Henry Abdo
In the federal judiciary, “discretion” is the power granted to a judge to make decisions based on the specific
circumstances of a case. It is intended to be a tool for equity, not a shield for procedural bypass. However, an
exhaustive review of the record in United States v. Henry Abdo (Case No. 23-CR-80209; Appeal No. 26-11767-
H) suggests a series of rulings that may have crossed the line from firm management into a documented abuse of
judicial discretion.
The Scope of the Investigation
To understand the gravity of these situations, one must look at the cumulative weight of the court’s rulings. In the
pursuit of a “speedy” resolution, the fundamental right to a “fair” resolution appears to have been compromised.
The instances of discretion currently being challenged involve:
• The Denial of Defense Infrastructure: A systematic rejection of motions that would have allowed the
defense to process evidence.
• The Weaponization of the Trial Calendar: Using scheduling to force the withdrawal of competent
counsel and the appointment of novices.
• The Evidentiary Vacuum: Presiding over a case where vital accounting and witness testimony were
effectively suppressed by logistical hurdles.
The following cites the specific, known instances of abuse that have occurred thus far in the matter of Dr. Henry
Abdo, a case now under the intense microscope of the appellate court.
1-Judge denied all Defendant-initiated Motions that could help him prove his innocence (including extension of
time by 4 different lawyers):
Where Dr. Abdo’s Attorneys openly stated that they lacked necessary Discovery data, preparation time for trial,
and available witnesses, at numerous times Judge William P. Dimitrouleas denied reasonable extensions of time
to prepare for trial, including but not limited to:
-Document 91 (continuance of Trial; C. Higgins, 07/25/2024);
-Document 116 (Joint Motion, 11/13/2024)
-Document 120 @page 4(Permitting only 1-week Extension to Brand New Counsel)
-Document 133 (E.Reagan, openly admitting lack of trial preparedness; 12/30/24)
-Document 174 (J. DeJesus-Felicier; Openly stated IAC applicable; 04/04/2025)
-Document 176 (Hearing for same Extension Motion; Dr Abdo remanded into Custody)
2- Judge forced Dr Abdo to dismiss Counsel, or proceed to trial immediately without Discovery Evidence being
disclosed by the government:
When challenging the unavailability of Discovery Evidence, Where Counsel sited nearly 12,000 pieces of missing
evidence/exhibits, the unfair judge required Dr. Abdo’s counsel to immediately proceed to trial, or replaced with another attorney. After requiring same counsel to withdraw from the case, the judge told both Miss C. Higgins
and all other counsels to “do the best you can”! The Government eventually disgorged all known Discovery in
Thirteen separate disclosures, the last of which occurred on 01/07/2025 while the Government’s deadline for
submission of all discovery evidence was on 04/30/2024! – SEE Documents 101, 104
Summary: the judge forced motivated defense counsel to either go to trial without crucial evidence, or quit the
case. After the fact of same counsel’s withdrawal, no other attorney could overcome the lack of available
Discovery evidence, where the judge carelessly denied the extension Motions of at least three separate counsels
after admitting the first competent attorney through forceful means. – SEE “Moore v. Maryland”, regarding Brady
issues and F.R.Cr.P. 5(f) requirements.
3- The judge/Court failed to provide reasonable time for defense witnesses to travel for the purpose of testifying
on Dr. Abdo’s behalf. in a court-only document, International Subpoenas were issued to less than half of Defense
witnesses on 12/20/2024 (over a year late since Dr Abdo asked for them In December 2023). Ordinarily, acquiring
any US visa for some purposes will require at least three months’ processing time. These Subpoenas were issued
on New Year’s Eve two weeks prior to trial, defeating the purpose, and denying Dr Abdo’s all defense witnesses
Subpoenaed in the process
4- The Judge/Court appointed new and inexperienced counsel Three days prior to trial. same counsel never
represented a federal criminal case previously, nor since Dr. Abdo. Same attorney was permitted to represent Dr.
Abdo, where the court’s appointed lawyer openly failed to prepare for trial in any meaningful way, as represented
in the attorneys’ Extension Motions, When the inexperienced counsel represented Extension to prepare for trial
(even one week) the Judge/Court denied the motion. -SEE Document 154, Hearing, dated 01/10/2025 (R.
Miaolino III.)
5- In Combination, the lack of necessary preparation time, lack of necessary Discovery evidence, as withheld by
the government; lack of adequately experienced or available counsel; and a complete failure to allow the defense
to reasonably secure witnesses, Dr. Abdo’s inexperienced counsel erroneously led Dr. Abdo to enter a last-minute
plea, under the pretense of buying time to prepare to mount trial defense strategies. -SEE Document 161-162.
Summary: This created cumulative prejudice against Dr. Abdo, preventing his attorneys from effectively
representing him; intentionally forcing the speedy trial outcome without preparation, resulting in Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel (IAC).
6- As a related issue, two months before the trial, the judge ordered that Dr. Abdo receive 10 years’ worth of
complex accounting books -Vital Defense Exhibits- on but NOT BEFORE THE DAY OF TRIAL! This was again
in DIRECT Violation of the court’s earlier Discovery disclosure Orders and Deadline. SEE Doc. No. 120-121:
7- During Dr. Abdo’s change of plea hearing, Dr Abdo’s specifically stated ” it was never the intention, i never
planned to take anybody’s money.” Doc. 162, @12. The judge stated that the tendered Plea agreement was bareboned in nature, commenting, ” It’s not much of an agreement.” – SEE “United States v. McDowell” (5th Circuit;
speaks to sufficiency).
Summary: The judge accepted a boilerplate plea agreement. Likewise, the government made no concessions of
any kind for same plea agreement; but same agreement did not permit Dr. Abdo to accept one portion of liability,
while refusing another portion of the same factual under pending used to convict him of fraud
8- Also, during the plea hearing, when the judge was inquiring where Dr. Abdo was in fact pleading guilt to the
charged conduct, Dr. Abdo specifically asked him, “The TWO counts, you mean?”(mounting to 15,000 USD
only) when the judge confirmed this, Dr. Abdo answered in the affirmative. Dr. Abdo at several occasions during
the same hearing, expressed that he did not understand questions being asked of him, requesting that several be
explained or repeated to him. however, when at probation services for later interviewing, Dr. Abdo refuted the
Factual Basis itself, which led to 134-month upward being imposed upon him (illegally).
9- Of significant importance, the Judge did not ask Dr. Abdo about the Factual Basis, which alleged that Dr. Abdo
was guilty of defrauding clients of over 6 million Dollars. when the judge reviewed this portion of the plea
agreement, he consulted with the prosecutor, who orally read the factual basis. then the Judge asked Dr. Abdo’s
lawyer, whom had no federal case experience, and had only been representing Dr. Abdo for 72 hours, the
Lawyer(counsel) -NOT Dr. Abdo- stated that Abdo understood the Factual Basis, (Which up to that moment Dr.
Abdo never seen or heard about it)
10- After the fact of the Change of Plea Hearing, Dr. Abdo became aware of the factual content of the factual
basis which his counsel had him sign(allegedly). Dr.Abdo refuted his responsibility when being interviewed by
probation officer, when Probation generated Abdo’s pre sentence investigation Report (PSR), which the judge had
to adopt in order to sentence Dr. Abdo. Dr. Abdo’s Plea counsel was never seen or heard from again, but the firm
which Dr.Abdo hired sent him another attorney to substitute for the defective Plea Counsel. At several occasions
Dr. Abdo openly refuted that he did not see, understand, nor did his counsel, discuss, review, or explain the
importance of the Factual Basis prior to his entering a Plea. Requesting that the judge allow Dr. Abdo to withdraw
his plea, Dr. Abdo stated that his prior counsel was ineffective, advising him to enter into a Plea deal under false
pretenses, The Judged again denied those motions as filed by the counsel replacing the Plea Counsel, WITHOUT
CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING first.
Summary, When the judge was confronted by Dr. Abdo’s complaint of ineffective counsel, and Dr. Abdo requested
to withdraw his plea, the judge denied those motions WITHOUT first conducting an evidentiary hearing, to
determine the merit of Abdo’s arguments; This constitutes REVERSIBLE ERROR, requiring Dr. Abdo’s
conviction to be VACATED. -SEE Doc. 166 @Page 37; SEE also “United states v. Palmer” (5th Circuit 2006)
11- When Dr Abdo’s Plea counsel was substituted with his sentencing counsel, Both of whom worked for the
same law firm, the Judge DID NOT conduct a federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c) Hearing, to rule out the
possibility of conflict of interest by the Joint representation created by the two attorneys. This created an unwaived
basis for Abod to appeal his conviction, because the Judge FAILED to vet the new counsel as required by the
court’s own rules, this was appropriate, and necessary, where Dr. Abdo’s sentencing Counsel had requested that
Dr. Abdo’s Plea to be withdrawn, but also failed to request that the same evidentiary hearing to actually achieve
relief for her client: against constituting ineffective assistance of counsel to Dr. Abdo
Summary: The Judge FAILURE to conduct a Rule 44(c) Hearing was a PLAIN ERROR, constituting Reversible
Error and additional grounds to VACATE Dr. Abdo’s conviction.
12- when at sentencing, the Judge DENIED Abdo’s renewed Motion to withdraw plea, stating that the court had
determined that same issue without an evidentiary hearing. This created what is known as ESTOPPEL by judicial
admission, where the Judge admitted to making an erroneous Decision, but would not correct it on the record.
13- At sentencing, Dr. Abdo’s counsel presented significant evidence of Abdo’s humanitarian works, and
legitimate business operations, which openly contradicted the Factual Basis which the court relied upon to impose
a 168-month sentence on Dr. Abdo, in the end.
The government never challenged this evidence; the court/judge did NOT admit same evidence into the record,
and still did not permit Dr. Abdo to withdraw his earlier plea, despite the plain, admitted contradictions by both
counsels and the judge himself. this is also consistent with the findings of “United States v. Palmer”; SEE also
United States v. Reggie, 650 Fed Appx. 245 (5th Circuit 2016) (finding that defendants wire fraud convictions
should be reversed, where conditions existed that challenged the validity of his conviction. Plea agreements must
be made in intelligibly, voluntarily, and knowingly. When a court accepts such a plea in error, it MUST BE
REVERSED.) The Judge’s additional Estoppel by Judicial admission IS grounds for Dr. Abdo’s case to be
VACATED.
14- At sentencing, when Dr Abdo Challenged the underlying elements of count one of the indictments (15000$
transfer), arguing that he had NEVER represented to the client not any other potential client about investing,
(never solicited), the government could not argue why it should apply to Dr. Abdo at all. the Judge accepted
Abdo’s argument and objection, which UNDERMINED the required element of criminal intent or scheme to
sustain his conviction. The prosecutor created Estoppel by Acquiescence; or essentially agreeing that Dr. Abdo did
not act to induce People to be defrauded. – SEE Sentencing Vol.2 @ pages 58060; also SEE PSR, paragraph 23.
15- Finally, at sentencing, the prosecutor presented for the first time the Government’s “exhibit 1”: a LOOSE
ACCOUNTING of the supposed losses in Dr. Abdo’s case, which was represented by two FBI Agents as authentic.
This Exhibit was itself labelled as an “Incomplete Work Product”, and listed Abdo’s supposed 157 Victims, this
list was NOT presented at Abdo’s Plea Hearing, where Abdo could immediately see the “Exhibit” was
fundamentally flawed, beyond repair. Abdo repeatedly informed the Judge that the Prosecutor was lying to the
court, and that that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and be allowed to go to Trial. The court ignored all
of this, and instead imposed Dr. Abdo’s sentence of 168 months.
16- Dr. Abdo continued to challenge the validity of his conviction by filing pro se motions with the court, where
his sentencing Counsel filed to withdraw from Dr. Abdo’s case, stating that Dr. Abdo had requested some
unspecified, unethical action on his own behalf. In Reality, Abdo’s sentencing counsel had no further contact with
him and failed to even file the motions suggested by the Judge/Court at sentencing (rule 33 for a new Trial; or a
petition pursuant to 28.U.S.C.S 2255, for known ineffective assistance of counsel).
Abdo Filed on his own behalf, because his second conflicted and ineffective counsel failed to follow the court’s
own instructions, when failing to file for post-conviction relief on Dr. Abdo’s behalf. The Court once AGAIN
DENIED Dr. Abdo’s pro se Motions, without having conducted a single Evidentiary hearing to determine Their
validity!
17- Having acquired the government’s “Exhibit 1”, the “INCOMPLETE WORK PRODUCT”(after 17 months of
unlawfully arresting Dr. Abdo), Dr. Abdo has determined that the two testifying FBI Agents had FALSIFIED their
full testimonies; that they lied under oath to the court in order to secure Dr. Abdo’s endicment, arrest, and later
conviction: all on the basis of false evidence. Of the 157 Alleged victims that Dr. Abdo supposedly defrauded the
exhibit listed 143 only (while 14 were duplicates) of which DOZENS of persons who had received funds from
Dr. Abdo and never invested any money or made any contribution to his investment fund (even according to the
Exhibit) (this alone refuted the concept of a Ponzi scheme, where no investment were made). Separately there
were numerous entries of people who were in fact Dr. Abdo’s employees Or people who actually earned the forecasted profits alleged by prospectus information, receiving significant
capital gains on investments made, also investors who already withdrew their capital and profit and added by the
accountant to increase the alleged losses. several more were not even investors, to include 5 bills paid and listed
as victims among them one entry for a bodega in a Turkish Airport: Dr. Abdo bought himself a bottle of water for
2.85$, which the FBI accountant swore testifying that the airport was one defrauded “investor”. in short, the FBI
own accountant could not perform simple math, under oath nor the FBI agent who initiated the fabricated case.
The Judge failed to even review the evidence (that contained 96 FALSIFIED entries out of 184); Dr Abdo’s claims
of IAC; Dr Abdo’s plain contradicting evidence in opposition of the factual basis that the judged agreed on but
still perverted justice anyway; And Dr. Abdo’s own counsel’s Motion alleging ineffective representation in
entering the plea agreement, all created a cumulative prejudice which could not be supported by an appellate
court.
To conclude, where the judge failed to first examine the legitimacy of the evidence alleged, Dr. Abdo is entitled
to a REVERSAL of his conviction, for disputes of Genuine material fact which show he is not actually of factually
guilty of defrauding any person. -SEE Sentencing, Volume 2, pages 16-24.
18- At sentencing, the judge denied the prosecutor’s request for imposition of victim restitution against Dr. Abdo,
where the Judge/Court stated that the government could not prove more than 15,000 of liability. This was
contradictory to finding Dr. Abdo guilty or sentencing him about 6 million dollars (that never existed except in
the imagination of the FBI corrupted agents), where it plainly clashed with the Factual Basis used to enhance Dr.
Abdo’s sentence range from 37 to a18 months.
Moreover, the Prosecutor had already conceded at sentencing that Abdo’s objection regarding Criminal Conduct
was valid, where Dr. Abdo did NOT meet required elements of wire fraud (did not induce anyone to make any
investment with his financial fund); so even maintaining the conviction-with no supporting fact, and no victim
loss- was an abuse of the Judge’s discretion. Especially in light of Dr. Abdo’s multiple filings and arguments to
withdraw the Plea Agreement, and proceed to a trial. -SEE Sentencing, Volume 2, @page 47
19- The Court own transcribed record is in question, where the Judge/Court had stated that it would grant Dr.
Abdo’s Motion to Withdraw the Plea, Had Dr. Abdo shown ineffective assistance of counsel. but the court
DENIED the motion, without holding an evidentiary hearing. This means that the Judge admitted to his Abuse of
Discretion of Plain Error on the record, unless there are missing portions of the original records which have not
been faithfully transcribed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 753(b), the court Reporter Act. In this case either the judge
admitted to his Abuse of Discretion, or the record on appeal is INCORRECT (unfaithful) and incomplete.
requiring further review of the originals. –
