lady justice statue with scales and sword

What the Law Intended vs. What Happened to Us

A Question-by-Question Breakdown of the Mazzei Prosecution

When federal power operates without accountability, everyday citizens lose their rights, their resources, and their families. Our clemency request asks decision-makers and the public to examine not just our sentence, but how the outcome was engineered.

Below is the structured series detailing the legal standards, official guidelines, and the reality of what occurred in our case.

Question 1: The 1-Year Pre-Indictment Delay & Asset Seizure

Why did federal prosecutors seize our accounts and family home nearly a full year before the grand jury even returned an indictment?

What the Law Intends: Under federal civil forfeiture and prompt-prosecution standards (18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)), the government must either file criminal charges, initiate formal civil forfeiture within 90 days of an asset seizure, or return the restrained property to safeguard due process.

What Happened to Us: In May 2021, federal authorities seized our bank accounts, vehicles, and assets, freezing our ability to retain private counsel. The grand jury indictment did not follow until May 2022—12 full months later—leaving us in legal limbo without formal charges or an avenue to defend ourselves.

Question 2: Venue & Jurisdiction

Why was a California small business prosecuted thousands of miles away in the District of Hawaii?

What the Law Intends: Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate that trials take place in the state and district where the alleged offenses were committed, protecting defendants from remote, cost-prohibitive jurisdictions.

What Happened to Us: We lived and operated our catering and production businesses in San Luis Obispo, California. However, because our television project Ohana was set in Hawaii and one loan application went to Bank of Hawaii, venue was anchored in Honolulu—severely compromising our access to local resources, familiar counsel, and our support network

Question 3: Disputed Intent & Exculpatory Evidence

Why was documentation showing good-faith reliance on lender guidance suppressed under threat of added charges?

What the Law Intends: Under Brady v. Maryland and 9th Circuit precedent (United States v. Miller), wire fraud requires proof of specific intent to deceive and cheat. In emergency relief programs with rapidly shifting rules, evidence that a business owner sought and followed professional lender guidance is central to demonstrating good faith. Good-faith reliance on written guidance from loan originators negates fraudulent criminal intent.

What Happened to Us: In March 2020, participating SBA lenders advised us via email that 2020 projected payroll could be placed on 2019 tax forms for upcoming productions. When we sought to introduce these emails to establish our lack of fraudulent intent, prosecutors threatened additional indictments against us and family members, coercing a plea without judicial review of that evidence.

Question 4: Coercive Plea Terms & Downward Departures

Why did our plea agreement include an unprecedented clause banning us from requesting a downward departure under the sentencing guidelines?

What the Law Intends: Federal sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11) is designed to allow judges full discretion to consider mitigating factors—such as first-time offender status, absence of personal enrichment, and familial hardship—to depart downward from standard ranges.

What Happened to Us: Prosecutors conditioned the plea on a complete waiver prohibiting our defense from arguing for standard guideline downward departures. Even defense counsel with decades of federal experience noted this was exceptionally punitive for nonviolent, first-time defendants who had already returned the vast majority of the funds.

Question 5: Factual Misrepresentations at Sentencing

Why did the government present debunked allegations in open court regarding how relief funds were spent?

What the Law Intends: Federal prosecutors are bound by ethical standards and DOJ Justice Manual § 9-27.710 to present only verified, materially accurate facts during sentencing hearings to ensure judicial impartiality.

What Happened to Us: The prosecution claimed in court that COVID relief funds were used to buy a promotional Hollywood billboard, even though financial records proved it was paid for months later by a family friend after all our accounts were already seized. The government also claimed funds paid off our California mortgage, despite records proving the home was simply placed in standard COVID loan forbearance.

Question 6: Untainted Assets & Foreclosure Auction Interference

Why did federal authorities encumber our family home—purchased years prior to COVID-19—and actively attend the foreclosure auction?

What the Law Intends: Under federal forfeiture law (21 U.S.C. § 853), the government may only restrain or forfeit property directly traceable to alleged criminal proceeds or legitimate substitute assets when a final judgment is entered, without interfering with untainted equity. When defendants cooperate to repay funds, legitimate real estate equity is meant to satisfy restitution obligations directly, minimizing damage to dependents and families.

What Happened to Us: Our California family home was purchased in 2017—three years before the pandemic. Federal prosecutors placed a lis pendens on the property, locking up over $1 million in untainted equity that could have satisfied any disputed balance. After forcing the home into foreclosure, evidence confirmed federal agents actively attended and bid at the auction.

Question 7: Sentenced for "Deterrence" Despite Full Cooperation

Why are nonviolent, first-time small-business owners facing consecutive prison terms when over $1.1 million was recovered?

What the Law Intends: Under federal sentencing principles and U.S. Sentencing Commission reforms (§ 4C1.1 Zero-Point Offender adjustment), first-time, nonviolent property offenders with substantial repayment histories regularly receive variances, home confinement, or probation .

What Happened to Us: The court explicitly noted that neither of us had a history of violence or posed a risk of re-offending, and acknowledged our full efforts toward repayment. Yet, we were sentenced to 36 months and 27 months explicitly for "general deterrence"—to make an example of our family. Commutation and executive clemency exist to correct excessive sentences where rehabilitation and full repayment have already been demonstrated.

Question 8: Failure to Credit Recovered Restitution

Why does the government continue to enforce an uncredited restitution order?

What the Law Intends: Federal law defines restitution as actual, unrecovered loss. At our plea hearing, the court confirmed that seized and recovered funds should be credited directly against the total restitution owed.

What Happened to Us: Over $1.1 million was paid, seized, forfeited, or recovered against the $1.418 million restitution figure . Yet, the government continues to enforce a crushing restitution order that fails to properly credit these recovered funds, creating an ongoing financial penalty that prevents our family from rebuilding.

Question 9: Investigative Deception Before Sentencing

Why did an investigator misrepresent their identity when contacting a character reference?

What the Law Intends: Character references submitted to the court are subject to lawful verification by probation or neutral court officials, not deceptive executive-branch tactics.

What Happened to Us: The night before our sentencing hearing, a Department of Justice agent contacted a family friend who had submitted a character letter, claiming to be calling directly from the court. We have documented these investigative practices in a formal complaint submitted to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility.

Justice for the Mazzei Family

An appeal for presidential clemency, family reunification, and a fair review of the documented facts.

Stand With Us

Follow our public series for clemency on X (Twitter), share our story, or reach out for media and advocacy inquiries.

Direct Contact: mazzeijustice@gmail.com

Erin on X: https://x.com/erin_mazzei

Chris on X: https://x.com/realchrismazzei