Cardiff’s lawyers ask to withdraw 6 weeks from trial
Jason Cardiff’s lawyers have filed a Motion to Withdraw six weeks out from trial.
As detailed in their July 17th motion, Cardiff’s lawyers claim;
Cardiff has materially breached his engagement agreement despite warnings that Counsel would seek to withdraw unless he performed his obligations under the contract.
At this juncture, there now exists an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, making continuing representation unreasonably difficult.
The obligations Cardiff has failed to perform aren’t specified but are believed to be payment of legal fees.
If allowed to withdraw, Cardiff’s attorneys state the withdrawal will not “cause any unnecessary delay”. Pending court approval, a hearing on the motion has been proposed for July 29th.
Why Cardiff hasn’t met his contractual obligations with his attorneys is unclear. Either way it’s looking like Cardiff will have to obtain a new legal team to prepare for trial, currently scheduled for September 3rd.
As part of his 2022 indictment and November 2023 arrest, Cardiff has been charged with public corruption, aggravated ID theft and mail and wire fraud.
The charges relate to Cardiff’s conduct through Redwood Scientific Technologies, attached to which was the short-lived RengaLife MLM opportunity.
Update 25th July 2024 – Cardiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw was denied on July 24th.
In denying the motion, the court noted Local Criminal Rule 44-1;
Local Criminal Rule 44-1 requires counsel to provide written notice of their intent to withdraw—reasonably in advance of the filing the motion to withdraw—to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the action.
The court found that Cardiff’s counsel failed to provide him with written notice of their plan to withdraw.
Courts in this District deny motions to withdraw based on counsel’s failure to indicate that their client was provided advanced written notice of their intent to withdraw.
This Court likewise finds that Counsel have failed to comply with Local Criminal Rule 44-1. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
With Cardiff’s trial just over a month away, with respect to legal representation it’s unclear what happens next.
In the meantime, Cardiff has applied for permission to travel to Ireland.
Did you see Cardiff is now asking for permission to go to Ireland? If that is granted, I really wonder what the likelihood is that he would “miss” his return flight.
I didn’t but six weeks out from trial and with no representing attorney I can’t see any such motion being granted. The bar for extenuating circumstances would be sky-high.
From Cardiff’s request;
I’m really trying not to just default to the obvious here… but otherwise what on Earth was Eunjung doing in Slovakia?.
I really don’t see this getting through given Cardiff’s history of disobeying court orders. But stranger things have happened.
I’m going to hold off reporting till the DOJ files its opposition and the Judge has ruled.
edit: Oh it’s an ex parte application, meaning we might just go straight to an order. Guess we’ll find out by the end of the week.
This is an excerpt from a recent filing. Cardiff is wild, man.
If you followed the FTC’s civil case Cardiff’s shenanigans will not come as a surprise. This time around however the stakes are higher.
I’d be very surprised if Cardiff is given permission to leave the US.
edit: I see we’ve gotten a DOJ opposition. And for some reason Cardiff’s attorney was refused withdrawal. I’ll go through the filings and probably have an article out later today.
An attorney can be refused withdrawal?
It must suck to be represented by someone you know doesn’t want to be doing it.
Cardiff likes to weigh in on this site. Where is he?
Jason, tell us again that this all doesn’t matter, statute of limitations, etc
Article updated noting Cardiff’s attorney’s withdrawal motion has been denied.