Full Breakdown
Boosie Badazz’s $600,000 Pardon Deal Turns Into Arbitration Dispute
7/15/2026, 12:16:22 PM
Core Event
Rapper Boosie Badazz (legal name Torence Hatch) filed an arbitration claim in March 2025 seeking a $300,000 refund of the $600,000 he paid to lobbyists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman and their firm JM Burkman & Associates. The payment was made to secure a presidential pardon from former President Donald Trump for a federal firearms conviction. No pardon was issued, and the White House later confirmed it had never received a clemency request on Hatch’s behalf.
Background & Context
Hatch’s gun-possession case stemmed from a June 2023 arrest in San Diego. After pleading guilty, he faced sentencing in early 2025. Seeking to avoid prison, he turned to Wohl and Burkman, who marketed themselves as “Trump insiders” with the president “on speed dial.” The pair told Hatch’s attorneys on New Year’s Day 2025 that Trump had already signed the pardon, a claim later disproved by White House officials.
Key Figures & Groups
- Torence Hatch / Boosie Badazz – Baton Rouge rapper, defendant-plaintiff.
- Jacob Wohl – Far-right political operative, co-defendant.
- Jack Burkman – Far-right political operative, co-defendant; former lobbyist with a 2022 conviction for illegal robocalls targeting Black voters.
- JM Burkman & Associates – Lobbying firm hired by Hatch.
- White House clemency office – Stated it had no record of any pardon request from Wohl or Burkman.
- Speaker Mike Johnson’s office – Denied any connection to the alleged pardon effort.
Data & Statistics
- Total fee paid: $600,000 (October 2025 per LawCommentary; September 30 2024 per The C-Beat).
- Refund sought: $300,000, based on a contract clause that would return half the fee if no pardon was secured.
- Sentencing outcome: January 2025 – three years of supervised release, 10 days time served, 300 hours community service, $50,000 fine.
- Subsequent charges: May 2025 – felony assault in Houston; prosecutors later moved to revoke supervised release.
Official Statements & Responses
- A White House official told reporters the administration’s clemency team “had never heard from Wohl or Burkman” regarding Hatch’s case.
- A spokesperson for Speaker Johnson said the speaker’s office “categorically denied any merit to the claims” and “had no connection” to the lobbyists.
- Burkman, in an email to *Billboard*, argued Hatch “had little grounds for complaint” and that the contract provision “was never actually agreed to.”
- Burkman told *TMZ* the same: “The provision in the contract he is referencing was never agreed to at all.”
Criticism & Opposition
Wohl and Burkman have a documented history of legal misconduct. In 2022 they pleaded guilty in Ohio to telecommunications fraud for a robocall scheme that targeted Black neighborhoods, a felony that required them to disclose their lobbying activities. Their claims of direct access to Trump were refuted by both the White House and the speaker’s office, raising questions about the legitimacy of the services they offered Hatch.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Contract clause existence: Hatch’s filing cites a refund provision; Wohl and Burkman maintain no such clause was ever finalized.
- Payment date: LawCommentary cites October 2025, while The C-Beat records a September 30 2024 signing.
- Pardon status: Lobbyists asserted on New Year’s Day 2025 that Trump had signed the pardon; the White House later confirmed no application was received.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The provision in the contract he is referencing was never agreed to at all.” — Jack Burkman, *TMZ*
- “I GAVE U 3 MONTHS TO SEND MY MONEY BACK!!TALKING ABOUT TRUMP SIGNED THE PARDON. GOT ME RUNNING AROUND THE DAM HOUSE JUMPING ??SAYING U JUST TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT !! U PLAYED WITH THE WRONG ONE .IM SUING YALL N FEDERAL COURT NOW.” — Boosie Badazz, X post
- “In 30 years of lobbying, I doubt we have ever done more work and harder work,” Burkman said.” — Jack Burkman, email to *Billboard*
What’s Next
The dispute will be decided by the American Arbitration Association, which will determine whether the contract required a partial refund. The outcome could set a precedent for future lawsuits against “pardon lobbyists” operating in the Trump administration’s clemency process.
