Conflict of Interest in Brannon Case?
Judge Bryan Collins
A jury verdict on February 18, 2014 found US Senate Candidate Greg Brannon liable for giving “misleading or false information in 2010 to investors regarding a mobile application being developed by Neogence Enterprises, a now-defunct tech company he helped start.”
As a result, Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins, who presided over the case, found Brannon must reimburse the two investors who were plaintiffs in the case over $450,000.
There is controversy sounding the merits of the case, and Brannon is appealing the ruling.
But who is Judge Bryan Collins?
According to Judgepedia.com, “Collins is a superior court judge for the 10th Judicial District of the Third Division of the Superior Court, serving Wake County in North Carolina. Collins began his legal career as an attorney in private practice from 1985 to 2005. In 2005, he became the Public Defender for Wake County. He was then elected a superior court judge in 2012 and his current term expires in 2020.”
According to a November 6, 2012 article in the Raleigh News and Observer, “Collins, 52, said he was approached last year by Don Stephens, Wake County’s senior resident Superior Court judge, about running for judge. So, late last year, he moved from his condominium in downtown Raleigh to an apartment in North Raleigh just so he could run in the newly created District 10E.”
Collins is a registered Democrat.
By conducting an FEC search for political campaign contributions, we see that a Bryan Collins in Raleigh who listed his occupation as Public Defender contributed the sum of $500 to the Hagan Senate Committee in 2008.
I’m no lawyer, and I can’t possibly pretend to understand all the technicalities of impartiality. That said, does anyone think it smells a little funny that a Judge known to support one candidate for office would be allowed to try a case involving that candidate’s potential future opposition?
Wow. Good stuff! Journalism 101!!!
Christian: Enjoyed your investigation. This is the problem we have in our system. This may not be criminal but Def unethical. If we cannot trust judges then the system is in default. As a former Police officer nothing worse than a bad judge! Blessings friend
Thanks AJ.
From the name, to the occupation listed, to the address used, I have full faith that the same Bryan Collins who donated to Hagan in 2008 is the same Judge who was over this case.
That said, I don’t see how there can be impartiality in this case when the Judge has given financial support to the defendants possible future opponent. Seems like a red flag goes up here.
I agree, it does seem unethical.
It more than smells a little funny – it stinks. I’m glad Brannon is appealing. May the TRUTH come to light!
I’m no attorney, but this seems like the basis of a mistrial
Christian, I think you were right in the first sentence of the last paragraph…. “I can’t possibly pretend to understand…” Is having a democrat judge grounds for appeal? Ponzi Brannon has until the close of business on Thursday to either post bond in the amount of the judgement $450,000 +- and file an appeal, or settle the judgement and pay the plaintiffs. Brannon has to pay up or he is going to jail- unless he want to file bankruptcy?
It isn’t just that the Judge is a democrat…although more to come on this…but that he materially contributed money and as such in my opinion has an “ownership stake” in the candidate that Greg Brannon wants to run against. Anybody can simply register as anything. It’s the financial contribution to this particular candidate that should disqualify him from this case.
the judge donated to Hagan in 2008. Ponzi Brannon is not running against Hagan, he is running against other GOPers for the right to run against Hagan. Christian you say Ponzi “is appealing”. He has yet to do so. Why doesn’t Ponzi do the right thing, drain his 401k and pay off the judgement?
Channeling my inner Inigo Montoya…
You keep using the word “ponzi” but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Don’t get me wrong – in terms of political branding, I get what you’re doing.
Here is the interview with Brannon’s co-defendant, Robert Rice:
http://www.wwnc.com/media/podcast-the-pete-kaliner-show-ThePeteKalinerShow/february-21-2014-hour-2-24375634/
Here is the blog post I did on it:
http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/
And here’s Brant Clifton’s write-up:
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2014-02-24-271391.112112-Breaking-down-the-Brannon-trial.html
So, not a ponzi scheme.
As to “draining his 401k” – Brannon offered to do that very thing, but Piazza refused. Because Rice said this was about taking over the company and its patents. And when that didn’t work out for Piazza, he threatened to “ruin” Rice, Brannon and Kirkbride.
He did NOT threaten to ruin John Cummings – who was the guy that met with Verizon and came back with the allegedly misleading promise that the Mirascape app would be part of all VZ hardware.
Odd, no?
The case against Kirkbride was dismissed, yet he allegedly said the same things as Cummings, Brannon & Rice.
Odd?
Rice was found not liable, yet he allegedly said the same thing Cummings, Brannon and Kirkbride.
Odd?
The plaintiffs and defendants all agreed that the 4 men relayed the same info (originating from Cummings). Yet only one man was held liable.
Odd?
Cummings had a meeting with Piazza AFTER the Brannon e-mail to discuss the company and the VZ deal. Piazza said he had all his questions answered. Yet Cummings wasn’t sued.
Odd.
But…
Yeah, yeah… PONZI!
Pete- I did not mean to imply that he was running a ponzi scheme. But people need to know that a jury found Brannon to be dishonest and untrustworthy, Like you said it is a political brand- Slick Willie Clinton, Lil Dumplin Purdue, Sleazy Easley and now we have Ponzi Brannon . Pete are missed in Charlotte Pete- Those night when you had Lynn Wheeler on were RADIO GOLD!
Indeed. LIke I said – I see what you’re doing on the branding.
And just a point of clarification – the jury found Brannon “liable.” It didn’t find him “dishonest” or “untrustworthy.”
And the ruling against Brannon was completely illogical, as the co-defendant was found not liable for supposedly saying the exact same thing Brannon did. Everyone agreed they said the same thing.
But, this is politics! Who cares about logic? Amiright?
And far be it for me to suggest that jurors in business court don’t have the faintest idea about business, let alone business laws….
:/
Jurors – business law – WHAT??? Jurors seem to be regularly convinced by the whiner’s attorneys that any business(man) is so rich he should pay the whole world off. So, having a socialist/autocratic mindset, they take from the supposed rich to give to the poor whiner.
[…] Well, it appears Christian Hine over at Pundit House has found some more disturbing information about the judge in the case: […]
Indirectly, Christian is pointing out the problems with the political system. Judges run for office and are usually D’s or R’s. Them having picked a team it is difficult to imagine them being impartial as much as we would like to believe they should be. It is these same judges who become elevated to higher judicial levels who then become justices on the Supreme Court. Partisan to the core. Thus we find ourselves concerned with the partisan leanings of the SCOTUS instead of how the law applies in a case.
Which tells us one and all that the Supreme Court is not about following the law, but about twisting words to try to convince the people that they are following the law.
The Constitution is a straightforward document. It is not difficult to follow. What is difficult to follow is the twisted rationalizations of the court.
Clarence Thomas is one of the few who tries to follow the constitution.
Anyone, to follow Christian’s lead, it begins locally. So whether or not the judge is partisan, it stinks.
I have no faith in the judicial system. Too many judges with agendas.
Has this information been provided via both phone and email to Rick Thames, Jim Morrill, John Drescher, and John Frank, as well as to all WBT hosts/news anchors/reporters, and the same at all other media outlets across the state?
Let me guess, not a lot of lawyers in the “House”. Had Kay Hagan been a plaintiff in the case, that would be conflict of interest. Judges are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights just like the rest of us.
Besides, Greg Brannon is running for Senate in North Carolina. Not South Carolina, which is where Christian lives. Shouldn’t you be more concerned about Lyndsey Graham’s (the Senate’s resident lesbian) primary opponent?
If you materially participate in a campaign by donating money to a candidate, you can’t be expected to be unbiased when it comes to presiding over a case involving a challenger to that candidate. You just can’t.
I plan to vote against Lindsey Graham in the SC primary. I can be as involved as much as I want in any race that I want, just like you. Lord, you sound like a Tillis supporter… *facepalm*
Brannon is not a challenger to Kay Hagan, nor will he be. At least not this November.
So the folks coming in from out of state for Moral Monday protests are ‘outside agitators’, but you’re not? Thom Tillis is a slimy, underhanded crook. And I would sooner vote for Vladimir Putin. I plan to vote for Brannon in the primaries.
That is where you are wrong Christian. Ponzi Brannon is not in a race against Hagan.
Zon, are you also concerned with the out of state donors to Hagan’s campaign?
Zon like so many Trolls is pretending to be a Republican.
A serious conflict. Should be referred to the Judicial Standards Commission.
[…] article was posted on the Pundit House (http://pundithouse.com/2014/03/conflict-of-interest-in-brannon-case/#.UyipN85M9ws.facebook) on March 18th […]
Hopefully Greg can get a new trial and this time stand in front of the jury and tell them of his innocence. I cannot understand why he did not do that the first time. Confronting the jury with honesty is a sure way to get the jury on your side.
As I understand it Dr. Brannon was denied his Constitutional right to address the jury. Had Dr. Brannon been afforded the right to address the jury and tell the truth then this travesty of justice would have never occurred. Each person should be given the right to address the jury and hear the truth!
Jimmy-Ponzi’s choice to not testify (defend himself) was made by Ponzi and his lawyers. He was free to testify and chose not to. Perhaps he knew that he would not be able to withstand cross examination by the opposing lawyers.
Brannon & his lawyer decided not to take the stand because they believed the case was so weak he didn’t have to. Because Robert Rice (and Kirkbride & Cummings) all said the same thing as Brannon, they figured there was no need to have Brannon say the same thing.
Also, they were concerned that coverage of Brannon on the stand would be used in political attack ads against him. They figured the case was already won and so why give ammo to political opponents.
So, they opted not to testify (a decision I am told they now regret – because the jury seemed confused about whether “omission = guilt” and his “omission” of testifying = guilt).
But yes – the decision was Brannon’s.
Seriously, I urge people listen to the audio I posted and read the blog posts.
Pete have you invited the plaintiffs in this case to come on your show>
Did you learn all that at the University of Maryland – College Park or at something like the University of Phoenix?
There seems to be confusion about where Mr. Tillis received a college degree. Rather it seems Mr. Tillis had the confusion until it was noted by others. A person desirous of leading our nation in the Senate is confused about here he went to school. What name shall you “brand” him with Mr. Barton?
Dee, or whatever your name is, I am not as cowardly as you and post under my name… I’ll let you brand whomever you want how ever your want. Did Ponzi post his bond and file his appeal today? Today was the deadline. You folks coming up to hear Rhodes tomorrow? Get their early, as parking will at a premium. I think he lost 1800 to 1100 or so when he ran agains Tillis in 06. The reason he lost is most folks in NC98 woke up to the fact that Rhodes was a douchebag. It is what it is.
Mr. Barton,
I will answer your questions plus a response to one statement you made, even though you did not answer my one question. (1) “I’ll let you brand whomever you want how ever your want.” You are the person of record for “name-calling/branding”. People by their actions tell me who they are and thus brand themself. (2) “Did Ponzi post his bond and file his appeal today?” Having spent most of the day, as I do each day to better myself and therefore better those around me, I have no idea what Dr. Brannon did or did not do. Even at this hour, I have not made an attempt to find out. (3) “You folks coming up to hear Rhodes tomorrow?” “You folks…”? Really? I have no idea who Mr. Rhodes happens to be other than your indication of him from the year 2006 and where “up” is. No, I will not be traveling wherever he may be speaking tomorrow. Why the denigration of Dr. Brannon? Is Mr. Tillis your candidate? Should your candidate proceed to face Ms. Hagan in the fall, you may need the voters of candidates in the primary who lost. They may decide not to vote against Mr. Tillis, yet they may decide to not vote for Mr. Tillis.
Our discourse will end pending the civility the response you may choose to make. Thank you.
I had to explain to a jury once why it was impossible for a man to borrow his twin brothers fingerprints. That’s the kind of IQ most juries have. I’ve been called to serve on a jury 4 times in my life and have never been chosen. Having worked in law enforcement for 8 years I am dismissed from criminal trials and having been a medical underwiter for an insurance company for awhile, I get dismissed from civil trials. The attorneys want a jury full of easily manipulated people who can’t think logically for themselves.
Christian,
You are making a serious accusation against a sitting Superior Court Judge. Have you sought a statement from Judge Collins or his office on this matter? Are you aware of any recent contributions to Hagan, or any contributions Judge Collins has made at all since being sworn in as a judge in 2012? As you pointed out, his contribution to Hagan was in 2008, some four years before being elected judge – and years before the Complaint against Brannon was filed.
Brannon’s case was tried before a jury, it was not a bench trial. Have you also run similar background checks on the jurors who sat through the lengthy trial, weighed all of the evidence, and then found against Brannon? Do you have any evidence of impartial evidentiary rulings or other rulings the judge made throughout the trial that improperly influenced the jury?
Mr. Rowell, you are one of the few posters on this blog with the courage to post under your real name. It is a small group. Wonder if Brannon had filed for his Senate run prior to the conclusion of this trial? If not he was not a candidate in any election.
[…] Brannon was found guilty of misleading investors in a startup company he was part of. He said publicly he could have settled two years ago, and it would have gone away. […]
Hmmm. Except any GOP fearing Democrat would prefer Brannon over Tillis so this makes no sense. As far as I can tell, Brannon has not filed a notice of appeal. Hmm.