Todd and Julie Chrisley brand his alleged gay lover liar in never-seen-before appeal documents

Todd and Julie Chrisley have furiously slammed the reality star dad’s so-called ‘scorned gay lover’ as a ‘liar’ in explosive appeal documents – insisting via their lawyer that he fabricated ‘everything’, including tales of their affair, in order to hide his own crimes. 

The disgraced couple – who are currently serving a combined 19-year prison sentence after being found guilty of a $30 million tax fraud scheme – are also accusing one of the investigators in the case against them of having a ‘dartboard in his office’ with a picture of Todd’s face on it. 

The astounding allegations were made in a 124-page appeal – obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com, which was filed by the couple in an attempt to overturn their financial crimes conviction. 

Todd, 54, and Julie, 50, have hired famed defense attorney Alex Little of legal firm Burr & Forman, to handle their appeal which seeks to overturn the respective 12- and seven-year prison sentences handed down to the former reality TV stars in November of last year. 

In the legal documents, the couple attacks Todd’s former business partner and alleged gay lover Mark Braddock, accusing him of lying under oath by saying that he helped them to defraud banks in order to get immunity for himself.

The appeal accuses Todd’s former business partner Mark Braddock (pictured with his wife in 2019) – who alleged that they had a gay love affair in 2005 – of ‘lying’ in return for immunity 

DailyMail.com has obtained the exclusive appeal documents, in which the couple also accuses an investigator in the case of having a ‘picture of Todd on a dartboard in his office’

Interestingly, the appeal does not mention the most shocking aspect of Braddock’s bombshell testimony: his claims that he and Todd had a secret love affair in 2005, which neither of their wives knew about until he took to the stand. 

However, speaking to DailyMail.com, the Chrisleys’ lawyer insisted that there was no need to include a reference to the affair claims in the documents because the couple’s appeal makes clear that ‘Braddock lied about everything [so] it was not necessary’. 

Todd has vehemently denied the affair in the past and said that Braddock is a ‘toad’ who looks like a ‘thumb.’ 

Their appeal also says that the prosecutors violated their fourth amendment rights, which protects citizens from unlawful search and seizures -when an investigator with the Department of Justice, Josh Waites – who had an ‘unusual’ interest in Todd that caused him to have a ‘dartboard’ with Todd’s face on it – ‘led a warrantless search of a locked warehouse that contained the Chrisleys’ personal items.’

The Chrisleys were found guilty or bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion and numerous counts of conspiracy after a trial that went on for one month – from May until June 2022. 

Todd is serving 12 years in a Florida jail, while Julie is serving seven years behind bars in Kentucky. They were also ordered to pay $17,270,741.57 in restitution. 

In an exclusive statement to DailyMail.com, Little said: ‘The Chrisleys have an unusually strong case on appeal, and we are optimistic about our chances.’ 

In most criminal conviction cases, there is a 50/50 chance that the ruling will be overturned, but Little says that his clients have a much greater chance based on several litigating factors. 

Mark said he was threatened by blackmailers who claimed to know about their previous affair. He and Todd ended up paying $38,000 to keep them quiet. He is seen with his family in 2018

The appeal says evidence against Julie (seen here with Todd after their conviction) was ‘sparse’ and that  ‘Braddock only discussed with her whether certain documents looked real or not’ 

The first charge that the Chrisleys are appealing is bank fraud. The appeal states that there were ‘insufficient evidence of the bank fraud counts’ and ‘procedural errors.’

‘Count 1 charged Todd and Julie Chrisley with conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The government alleged that the Chrisleys conspired with Co-conspirator A, who was Todd’s former business partner named Mark Braddock, to defraud multiple financial institutions from about 2007 to 2012,’ the docs allege. 

Aside from claiming that the government had ‘no witnesses’ any of the banks that they were convicted of defrauding, they also allege that the ‘government relied exclusively on the testimony of Mark Braddock’ which they say was ‘sparse’. 

‘Braddock’s testimony about Julie was sparse. He testified only that he had discussed with her whether certain documents looked real or not and the need to keep projecting a positive financial picture so Todd could keep getting loans,’ the Chrisleys allege. 

The documents further note that Braddock’s testimony was made in return for an immunity deal – while calling attention to the fact that Todd and his former business partner were no longer on good terms when the latter took to the stand. 

‘Braddock, who had a falling out with the Chrisleys years before the charges were brought, testified that he helped the Chrisleys defraud banks,’ the appeal says. ‘He provided this testimony pursuant to an immunity deal.’

DailyMail.com has contacted Braddock for comment.  

While Braddock was indeed granted immunity in return for testifying against the Chrisleys, he also had to put his marriage of 34 years on the line when he told the court that he and Todd engaged in a consensual homosexual affair in 2005. 

Braddock is the former Vice President of real estate software company called Executive Asset Management, LLC. – which is where he worked with Todd under the Chrisley Asset Management umbrella. He started working in the role 2005 and stayed there until 2012.

While working at Executive Asset Management, Braddock said in court that he was threatened by blackmailers who claimed to know about his previous affair with Todd.

‘Pay cash and we’ll shut up,’ he claimed the blackmailer threatened over text. 

According to Braddock, he and Todd ended up paying the blackmailer $38,000 to stay quiet.

In 2012, Braddock said Todd threw him out of his office and called the police on him, which caused him to feel vengeful – and led to him eventually tipping off the FBI about Todd and his wife’s criminal activity.   

In January, Todd responded to Braddock’s claims on an episode of his now non-existent podcast Chrisley Confessions.

‘What’s insulted me the most is that, out of all these 54 years, for me to finally be accused of being with a man, it would be someone who looked like Mark Braddock,’ Todd said. 

‘That is the one thing that is the most insulting. To say that I couldn’t pull something better than that… there’s better to be had by Todd Chrisley than that,’ Todd added.  

Todd and Julie (with their family in a promo shoot) are appealing their tax evasion charge by claiming that they were ordered to pay taxes on money that was not only their income 

He went on to say he was, ‘A toad. Someone that looks like a thumb. Someone who says he’s only had sex with his wife and me.’

Braddock – a father and grandfather of two – has been married to his wife Leslie since 1987. After admitting to his gay love affair for the first time during the trial, she ultimately decided to stay with him. 

The Chrisleys also appeal their convictions by alleging that their fourth amendment rights were violated – accusing one of the investigators in the case, Josh Waites, of taking an ‘unusual’ interest in Todd and even posting a picture of the former reality star on a dartboard in his office. 

The appeal document states: ‘The second issue on appeal relates to the admission of Waites, who had a picture of Todd on a dartboard in his office initiated and led a warrantless search of a locked warehouse where the Chrisleys stored personal items.’

‘Waites arrived at the warehouse with his police lights flashing, although he later told fellow DOR officers to lie by “telling people he had not been there.”’

‘With no warrant, the rogue group displayed a piece of paper to the manager at the warehouse and demanded entry. When the manager initially refused, they threated the manager with arrest.’ the appeal says. 

The items, they allege, ‘derived from documents the Georgia Department of Revenue (DOR) unlawfully seized and turned over to federal investigators.’ 

‘The district court admitted substantial volumes of evidence at trial that were fruits of an unlawful search, despite its prior order suppressing such evidence, without requiring the government to show that the evidence was obtained from a source independent of the unconstitutional search.’

The appeal also takes aim at IRS Revenue Officer Betty Carter. The Chrisleys allege that she ‘lied about the Defendants owing taxes for years when she knew no taxes were due and that ‘the government knowingly used Officer Carter’s false testimony and failed to correct it.’

In the Chrisleys’ indictment, the government says that the couple committed tax evasion, and conspired to evade taxes, by receiving income through the family’s loan-out company, 7C’s Productions, Inc.

Todd and Julie were accused of using 7C to hide their income in an effort to keep the IRS from collecting $2 million in unpaid taxes that Todd owed the federal government.  However, the Chrisleys state in the appeal that their were wrongly convicted because 7C’s money is not solely their own and, thus, they were not required to pay taxes on all of it.   

‘The Chrisleys did not produce the idea to create a loan-out company to evade taxes; they did not come up with the idea to create the company at all,’ their appeal states.

‘The attorney who formed 7C’s, Leron Rogers, testified that the studio required the Chrisleys to create the loan-out company.’

They continue, ‘In addition, the government presented no evidence that the Defendants provided false information to the IRS sufficient to constitute actual or attempted evasion of tax payments.’

The indictment also included an order that the Chrisleys pay ‘an order of restitution in the amount of $17,270,741.57’ – a figure that the Chrisleys believe is not based on any factual evidence presented during the trial.

The appeal docs allege, that ‘the court committed further procedural error related to sentencing by ordering restitution and forfeiture without explaining the basis for its decisions’ and say that Todd and Julie were not given ‘an opportunity to be heard.’

‘Because the court failed to explain the legal and factual basis for its decisions on these issues, there is no way to know whether the court made legal and factual errors when arriving at the numbers that it did.’

Together, Todd and Julie want their convictions to be overturned and acquittal entered. The appeal documents also include that the court vacate the Defendant’s sentence, including the awards of restitution – and order of forfeiture, and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

Prosecutors claimed during the trial that the couple submitted fake documents to banks when taking out $30 million in bank loans, and that Julie also submitted a fraudulent credit report and false bank statements when trying to rent a house in California.