the truth about Nathan Reardon

The Story the Federal Government Never Told About My Case

By Nathan Reardon

For years, people have been able to read the federal government's version of what happened to me.

They issued press releases. They called it bank fraud. They described me as someone who took advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program during a national emergency. They prosecuted me, imprisoned me, restricted my ability to operate my businesses, and put their version of events into the public record.

What most people have never heard is mine.

I have remained relatively quiet about the underlying facts because I believed that courts were the proper place to address them. I believed evidence would eventually matter more than headlines.

After years of litigation, appeals, motions, complaints and requests for records, I no longer believe silence serves the truth.

So this is my side.

The $59,145 PPP Loan

The federal case centered on a $59,145 Paycheck Protection Program loan issued to Global Disruptive Technologies Inc., or GDT.

The government's public characterization was straightforward: it claimed false employee and payroll information was used to obtain the loan and that money was later spent improperly.

There is another side to that story.

GDT was not an imaginary company invented to steal PPP money.

My position, supported by records that have since been reconstructed and reviewed, is that GDT had actual workers, actual payroll-related expenses and actual business activity.

Records we have assembled identify approximately $55,059 in gross payroll and at least $28,332 in employee payments. The $59,145 loan amount itself corresponds mathematically with the PPP formula when calculated using approximately $70,974 in annualized payroll-related compensation.

There was also a fundamental problem created by the timing of the PPP program.

GDT had not been fully operating throughout 2019. My position has consistently been that TD Bank was told this and permitted the company to use 2020 information in determining eligibility.

That matters.

There is an enormous difference between secretly inventing numbers to deceive a bank and providing information to a bank after discussing how a new or newly operating business should calculate payroll under a hastily created federal emergency program.

I contend that I communicated repeatedly with TD Bank about compliance.

Those communications are one of the reasons I have fought so hard to obtain the complete bank records, telephone recordings, internal notes and communications surrounding the loan.

If this was the simple fraud the government portrayed publicly, why shouldn't every one of those communications be examined?

The Government Also Talked About Money I Never Received

Another part of the government's case involved other PPP applications.

Most of the money associated with those applications was never funded.

The government nevertheless relied heavily upon what it characterized as intended losses - the amount it claimed I was attempting to obtain - rather than simply the amount of money actually disbursed.

That distinction became enormously important.

The public hears the word "fraud" and understandably imagines someone walking away with piles of stolen money.

But an application that is rejected and produces zero dollars in loss is fundamentally different from money actually obtained and stolen.

That distinction was largely lost in the public narrative surrounding my prosecution.

I Offered to Fix the Problem

One fact that has bothered me from the beginning is that I was willing to repay the approximately $59,000 loan.

Before this became the years-long federal nightmare that followed, I wanted to resolve the dispute.

I asked whether paying the loan back would end the case.

It would not.

By then this apparently was no longer simply about recovering money.

The government wanted a prosecution.

Then Came April 20, 2022

I was taken into federal custody on April 20, 2022 and detained without bail.

I was a businessman, a father and someone with businesses, employees and deep ties to Maine.

This was a financial case.

There was no allegation that I had physically harmed anyone.

Yet I found myself sitting in jail awaiting trial while facing the enormous machinery of the United States government.

Anyone who has never experienced federal pretrial detention should understand something about a guilty plea obtained under those circumstances.

It does not occur in a vacuum.

Every day in custody places pressure on a defendant.

Your family is outside.

Your businesses are outside.

Your employees are outside.

Your life is outside.

And the government controls whether you go home.

The Plea Agreement

As trial approached in July 2022, a plea agreement was presented.

The documents contain handwritten language concerning "12 months and a day."

That number mattered enormously to me.

I understood that I was resolving the case based upon an anticipated sentence of approximately 12 months and one day.

I signed the agreement.

Then sentencing arrived.

Instead of asking for approximately 12 months and a day, Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Lizotte argued for substantially more time.

I ultimately received 20 months in federal prison.

I have since formally complained about what occurred in connection with that plea process. I have alleged that the government's conduct surrounding the plea and sentencing was fundamentally unfair.

Those are allegations I have placed before the appropriate authorities and courts. They deserve to be evaluated on the evidence.

TD Bank Somehow Became the SBA

There is another issue that, in my view, strikes at the heart of the conviction itself.

The criminal charge was bank fraud.

The financial institution at the center of that charge was TD Bank.

Yet during the sentencing and restitution process, the government's theory increasingly treated the United States Small Business Administration as the party suffering the loss.

The SBA is not TD Bank.

More importantly, it is not a bank.

That distinction is not wordplay.

Bank fraud under federal law contains specific statutory elements. A person has a constitutional right to be prosecuted for the offense actually charged by a grand jury - not a materially different theory that develops later.

I have therefore argued in federal court that substituting the SBA for TD Bank amounts to an unconstitutional constructive amendment of the indictment.

The government disputes my legal conclusions.

But the underlying question is extraordinarily simple:

If I was charged with defrauding TD Bank, how did the federal government ultimately identify a different entity as the financial victim?

That question deserves an answer.

The Government Had No Trouble Talking When It Was Accusing Me

On November 2, 2022, the U.S. Attorney's Office issued a public press release about me.

The government publicly announced that I had been sentenced to 20 months and described its allegations concerning GDT, payroll records, PPP applications and spending.

It was willing to tell newspapers exactly what it believed I had done.

It was willing to use extraordinarily damaging language against me.

That press release is still publicly available today.

The federal government had a megaphone.

I had a prison number.

That imbalance matters.

Because years later, when I began asking harder questions about what occurred inside the prosecution and the judicial process itself, the enthusiasm for public discussion seemed to disappear.

I Started Asking Questions They Apparently Didn't Expect

I began challenging more than my sentence.

I began challenging the conduct behind the case.

I questioned the TD Bank/SBA discrepancy.

I challenged the government's intended-loss theory.

I sought the TD Bank communications.

I raised concerns about what happened during plea negotiations.

I filed complaints concerning prosecutorial conduct.

I raised allegations of judicial misconduct.

I challenged restrictions that effectively prevented me from earning my living through self-employment.

And on that last issue, I ultimately obtained significant appellate relief: the First Circuit vacated the self-employment restriction and sent the matter back for further proceedings.

That alone should tell the public something important.

The government's system is not infallible.

Judges are not infallible.

Prosecutors are not infallible.

And appealing government action is not an attack on the justice system.

It is part of the justice system.

Allegations of Misconduct Must Be Investigated, Not Silenced

I have accused government attorneys and judicial officers of serious misconduct.

I understand the seriousness of those allegations.

That is exactly why I want the evidence examined rather than the allegations simply dismissed because they are uncomfortable.

I have alleged that representations were made during my case that were false or materially misleading.

I have filed complaints concerning prosecutor Andrew Lizotte.

I have pursued recusal issues involving members of the federal judiciary.

I have sought records relating to decisions that affected my liberty.

I have challenged proceedings through appeals, §2255 litigation and other filings.

I am not asking anyone to accept every allegation merely because I make it.

I am asking for something much simpler:

Apply the same level of scrutiny to the government that the government applied to me.

If my allegations are wrong, produce the records and prove them wrong.

If a prosecutor's statements were accurate, produce the evidence supporting them.

If the government believes TD Bank was defrauded, explain why restitution and victim arguments focused upon the SBA.

If the plea process was fair, put the complete record under a microscope.

If the government's characterization of GDT's payroll was correct, examine all of the payroll evidence - not merely the evidence favorable to prosecution.

That is what transparency looks like.

Apparently the Government Has Unlimited Resources - Until You Fight Back

There is another contradiction that has become impossible for me to ignore.

When the federal government wanted to investigate me, prosecute me, detain me, litigate against me, supervise me and defend the conviction, resources never seemed to be the problem.

The United States has prosecutors, investigators, federal agencies, probation officers, government lawyers, experts, administrative staff and an enormous taxpayer-funded litigation apparatus. When the government decides to pursue an individual, the imbalance of power is breathtaking.

But once I began aggressively fighting back - filing appeals, civil actions, misconduct complaints, public-records requests and constitutional challenges - the tone changed.

Suddenly the response began to revolve around docket management, repetitive litigation, judicial resources and the burden created by my filings.

From my perspective, that is an extraordinary double standard.

The government cannot reasonably demand unlimited room to investigate and prosecute a citizen and then complain that the citizen's efforts to defend himself and seek accountability consume too many resources.

If the government chooses to bring the full weight of the United States against a person, it should be prepared for that person to use every lawful avenue available to defend himself.

You do not get to attack someone with virtually unlimited institutional power and then characterize his resistance as the problem.

That is especially troubling when the person maintains that the original prosecution itself involved false allegations, disputed evidence and constitutional violations.

The answer to inconvenient litigation should be to address the merits. Produce the records. Defend the statements. Explain the contradictions. Let an impartial court decide.

The answer should not be to say, in effect, that the system has enough resources to prosecute you but not enough resources to hear you when you fight back.

That is not balanced justice. It is a one-sided system of accountability.

Then the Court Restricted My Ability to File Against the Government

As I continued fighting back through civil litigation, another development occurred that I believe the public should know about.

The United States District Court imposed a pre-filing restriction under Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island. In practical terms, the restriction requires me to seek permission before I can bring certain additional federal filings.

Think about what that means from my perspective.

For years, the federal government was free to investigate me, prosecute me, imprison me, publicly accuse me, restrict my employment and defend its own conduct with virtually unlimited resources.

But after I began filing lawsuits and complaints alleging misconduct by federal officials and challenging what I believed were unconstitutional actions, I was subjected to a filing restriction that makes me obtain leave of court before proceeding with additional actions.

I appealed that restriction. My position has been that it was imposed too broadly and that it relied heavily on my history of bringing actions against federal officials and entities rather than individualized findings that every action was frivolous or abusive.

The government and the courts may describe such an order as a mechanism for controlling repetitive litigation. From where I stand, however, the practical effect is extraordinary: before I can pursue certain claims against the federal government, I first have to obtain permission from the very federal judicial system whose conduct I may be challenging.

That does not prove that every lawsuit I filed was correct. It does not mean every allegation I have made must be accepted as true.

But it raises a serious question about access to justice.

If ordinary citizens are told that they may challenge government misconduct only until they challenge it too often, then the constitutional right to petition the government for redress begins to depend on whether the government approves of how persistently that right is exercised.

I believe accountability cannot work that way.

The federal government should be able to defend itself in court. I should also be able to bring legitimate claims against it. A system that requires one side to obtain advance permission merely to attempt to hold the other side accountable deserves public scrutiny.

People Have Left Office - but Facts Still Matter

There have also been major personnel changes inside the U.S. Attorney's Office since my prosecution.

Darcie N. McElwee, the United States Attorney whose office prosecuted my case and publicly announced my conviction and sentence, was terminated by the incoming presidential administration in February 2025.

About a year later, Andrew K. Lizotte - the prosecutor whose conduct I have repeatedly challenged - left the U.S. Attorney's Office after Governor Janet Mills nominated him to the Maine District Court. The Maine Senate confirmed him in March 2026, and he is now a Maine District Court judge. Mills is a Democratic governor whose politics I consider extremely liberal, which makes the appointment especially noteworthy to me given my long-running criticism of Lizotte's conduct.

I also believe the public should look closely at the broader political and media environment surrounding these institutions. Public reporting based on Maine procurement records has found that companies tied to Bangor Publishing Company - the parent company of the Bangor Daily News - received more than $2.4 million in state payments during the Mills administration for marketing and public-affairs work. Reporting has also raised questions about the procurement process for at least one of those contracts.

I am not asserting that those payments prove that Bangor Daily News coverage was purchased or that favorable coverage was exchanged for government money. I have not seen evidence that establishes such a quid pro quo. But in my view, when a government administration is paying millions of dollars to companies affiliated with a major news organization that reports on that same administration, the relationship deserves disclosure, scrutiny and skepticism - particularly when that administration is also making judicial appointments involving people whose conduct has been publicly challenged.

I am not claiming that McElwee's termination or Lizotte's departure from federal service was caused by my case. I do not have evidence establishing that.

But I do think the chronology matters because government titles and government employment do not make past conduct immune from scrutiny. People can leave office. They can change jobs. The underlying record does not disappear.

If prosecutors made materially false statements, if constitutional rights were violated, or if a prosecution was conducted unfairly, a later personnel change does not erase those questions.

Accountability should follow the conduct, not the job title.

I Pleaded Guilty. That Does Not End the Inquiry.

The government's easiest response is obvious:

Nathan Reardon pleaded guilty.

I did.

I am not hiding that fact.

The question is what surrounded that plea.

What evidence existed?

What evidence did my attorneys possess?

What representations were made to me?

What sentence did I believe I was accepting?

What pressure existed while I was incarcerated?

What evidence was presented at sentencing?

What entity was supposedly defrauded?

And did the offense described after the plea remain the same offense presented before it?

A guilty plea does not transform every government action preceding and following it into constitutional conduct.

Courts exist precisely because government actions can be challenged.

The Part Nobody Saw

There is also a human side to this that government press releases never include.

A federal prosecution does not punish a single individual.

It tears through families.

It damages businesses.

Employees lose stability.

Children lose a parent.

Reputations built over decades can be reduced to a headline written from a prosecutor's press release.

When the government speaks, people assume it must be true.

I learned how dangerous that assumption can be.

A prosecutor gets to describe a defendant in a press release.

The defendant rarely gets an equivalent platform to explain the evidence the government omitted, the legal disputes that occurred afterward or the mistakes that appellate courts later identify.

That is why I am finally speaking publicly.

I Am Not Asking Anyone to Take My Word for It

I don't expect anyone reading this article to simply believe me.

They shouldn't.

I am asking people to look.

Look at the original indictment.

Look at the plea agreement.

Look at the handwritten sentencing language.

Look at the sentencing transcript.

Look at TD Bank's role.

Look at the SBA's role.

Look at the payroll records.

Look at the actual employee payments.

Look at the applications that never resulted in loans.

Look at the appellate decisions.

Look at the complaints I filed.

Look at the government's responses.

Then make your own decision.

Because justice cannot mean believing the government when it makes an accusation and ignoring the accused when he produces evidence challenging that accusation.

Accountability Has to Work Both Ways

The United States government prosecuted me relentlessly.

It used its investigators.

It used prosecutors.

It used grand juries.

It used detention.

It used sentencing guidelines.

It used press releases.

It used every enormous resource available to the federal government.

I have no objection to government investigating legitimate wrongdoing.

But there must be another side to that principle.

When credible allegations are made against government officials, those allegations deserve the same seriousness.

When records contradict a public narrative, they deserve examination.

When prosecutors make statements affecting someone's liberty, they should be accountable for their accuracy.

When judges are accused of misconduct or constitutional error, judicial titles should not place those allegations beyond meaningful review.

And when the government gets something wrong, the government's job should not be to protect the conviction.

Its job should be to protect justice.

For four years, people have heard what the United States government said about Nathan Reardon.

This is only the beginning of what I intend to say about what actually happened.

I have the records.

I have the court filings.

I have the transcripts.

And after years of being defined by the government's version of this case, I intend to put the rest of the story before the public.

Then people can decide for themselves.

Nathan Reardon