The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is prosecuting Brittany Hudson for charges that include conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, and forgery. Hudson’s alleged schemes include fraudulent activities against Amazon and a hookah lounge franchise, and her pro se defense has drawn attention for invoking sovereign citizen-style arguments.
Case Facts: Multi-Million Dollar Fraud Schemes
Brittany Hudson, alongside her partner Kayricka Wortham, orchestrated a massive fraud against Amazon. Wortham, an Operations Manager at Amazon, exploited her position to create fake vendors in the company’s system. Together, the pair submitted over $10 million in fraudulent invoices, causing Amazon to pay $9.4 million to accounts controlled by them and their co-conspirators. The fraudulent proceeds were used to fund an extravagant lifestyle, including purchases of luxury vehicles and real estate.
While on bond for the Amazon-related charges, Hudson and Wortham allegedly engaged in a second scheme targeting CRU Franchising Company, a hookah lounge franchise. They provided forged financial documents and fabricated court records falsely indicating that their federal fraud charges had been dismissed. The falsified documents included the forged signatures of Chief Judge Timothy Batten, Sr., and a federal prosecutor, along with a counterfeit court seal.
Brittany Hudson’s defense, particularly after she chose to represent herself pro se, reflects hallmarks of sovereign citizen ideology. Hudson’s discovery motions included demands for the names, classifications, and oaths of federal agents and attorneys involved in her case. She also requested records of “all bonds” associated with her case, tying into a belief that court cases are linked to financial instruments that individuals can reclaim to avoid prosecution. While not explicitly stated, Hudson’s motions implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the court’s authority—a hallmark of sovereign citizen ideology.
By filing an extensive list of discovery demands, many of which were irrelevant or inapplicable, Hudson’s motions appear aimed at overwhelming the court and delaying proceedings. These included requests for records of hearings that never occurred, demands for internal memoranda and handwritten notes, and other items not subject to discovery under federal law. Prosecutors described her demands as “sovereign-citizen-type requests,” dismissing them as baseless and unsupported by any legal precedent.
Government and Court Response
The prosecution has methodically countered Hudson’s claims, adhering to legal discovery obligations while dismissing sovereign citizen-style demands as baseless. Prosecutors provided extensive discovery, including electronic records, printed documents, and indices to assist Hudson in navigating the material. They argued that her complaints about missing or inaccessible materials were unfounded.
Requests tied to sovereign citizen beliefs, such as agent oaths or bond records, were dismissed as irrelevant and unsupported by legal precedent. The court and prosecutors worked to ensure Hudson had access to legitimate discovery materials, despite the disruptive nature of her motions.
Thus far, the court’s firm rejection of these tactics underscores the resilience of the legal system in the face of such challenges.