I was the victim of a crime. When I sought justice, the very system meant to protect me failed.

Instead of a fair and impartial process, I encountered misconduct, selective enforcement, and a troubling lack of transparency within the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.

My case involved Abe Abbate.

What I witnessed firsthand was deeply concerning.

Prosecutors pursued charges based on speech that courts have consistently recognized as protected.
They relied on evidence that was false, misleading, or never properly authenticated.

Although the case was ultimately dismissed, justice was never truly served.

A dismissal does not erase the damage caused by a flawed process. It does not address the misuse of authority, nor does it restore public trust.

At a time when legislation like Georgia House Bill 369 is being advanced amid concerns that some District Attorney offices are failing in their duties, cases like mine highlight exactly why accountability matters.

When a senior official intervenes in a way that appears to protect wrongdoing while pursuing the wrong party, it raises serious questions about priorities, ethics, and oversight. That should concern every citizen.

This petition calls on Adam Abbate to uphold the ethical standards of his office—to prioritize truth over convenience, accountability over silence, and justice over institutional self-interest.

Public officials are entrusted to serve the people—not special interests, not reputations, and not internal politics.

When that trust is broken, it must be confronted.

Sign this petition to demand accountability, transparency, and a commitment to justice for all.

UPDATE: The scope of this issue has expanded significantly.

There have now been admissions in court concerning the fabrication of evidence. The old phrase, “you can only put so much lipstick on a pig,” applies here.

Attorneys have attempted to repackage fabrication by calling the disputed material “samples and excerpts.” Yet the underlying logs show only 10 entries within a timestamp-bounded period, while 12 or more messages were presented to the court. They have made no meaningful attempt to reconcile how that was possible outside of fabrication.

Instead, their position has effectively become that the judge was wrong and that their client never actually swore that the exhibits were not fabricated in the first place. That position is particularly remarkable coming from attorneys whose practice includes fraud and RICO matters.

This becomes even more concerning because the same individual openly vouched for and presented **Manraj Riyat** as a doctor, despite Riyat publicly acknowledging that he had not completed college and did not possess a **medical degree (M.D.)**.

This same person stood by while under-the-table payments were allegedly being made and people without medical degrees were giving medical advice to your loved ones, your friends, and your families. How many people suffered irreversible harm or died prematurely? We may never know.

The Sandy Springs Police Department has also admitted through an open-records response that communications were fabricated or reconstructed, including two different email threads purporting to document the same conversation. See Open Records Request **#PSR-2026-2746**.

Their lawyers have taken the position that they should not be held accountable for their actions. The message this sends is disturbing: if you or a loved one were harmed, their status in society supposedly mattered more than the harm caused to you.

Another troubling issue is whether this same concept of “samples and excerpts”—what the underlying evidence indicates was fabrication—was also applied to federal grants or to representations concerning medical credentials and the issuance of M.D.s associated with Emory University.

These questions require investigation.

I have now alerted both candidates for Governor of Georgia—Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms and Republican nominee Rick Jackson—to this issue.

This presents a true litmus test for both candidates. The people of Georgia deserve to know whether those seeking the state’s highest office intend to preserve the status quo when serious allegations of misconduct, selective enforcement, fabrication of evidence, and institutional protection are placed directly in front of them—or whether they are prepared to openly defend the interests of the people of the State of Georgia.

Campaign promises about accountability and public safety mean very little if candidates remain silent when confronted with an actual case that puts those principles to the test, with an open record that highlights the issues clear as day. Their response to this matter will provide voters with an opportunity to see, before Election Day, whether they intend to challenge a system that protects institutional interests or insist that the same standards of justice apply regardless of a person’s status, connections, or influence.

Of particular concern is federal grant funding and political contributions involving individuals or organizations connected to the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. This raises a serious question regarding Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was directly referenced in connection with these matters: Did Willis, her campaign, or anyone politically connected to her have a financial or political interest in covering up misconduct because of campaign contributions, reelection funding, institutional relationships, or other benefits?

If political donations, federal grant money, institutional relationships, or personal connections played any role in determining who was investigated, who was protected, or whose misconduct was ignored, then this is no longer simply about what happened to me.

It becomes a question of public corruption, equal protection under the law, and whether the people of Georgia actually have one system of justice—or two.