To Whom It May Concern,
This blog details fraud and abuse occurring at the U.S. Dept. of Justice. It appears and there is ample evidence to support the fact that prosecutors employed by the U.S. Dept. of Justice are habitually feigning alleged (emphasis) grand jury approved indictments against unsuspecting Black, Brown, White people and certain others. These civil right violations which contravene the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is occurring under an illicit regime of alleged crime prevention, where DOJ prosecutors are acting as "judge and jury" and returning unapproved draft indictments to federal dockets, prosecuting these matters, then sending these underrepresented and uninformed "Americans" to federal prison.
(Donations Respectfully Requested)
Click On: http://fundly.com/Justice-Demanded
How They Do It:
1. They craft a draft indictment alleging criminal acts committed by the target, which is, more times than not a Black or Brown person (an American citizen).
2. They affix an electronic signature (typed signature) to the signature page of the indictment (the last page) in lieu of an actual John Hancock ink signature. This act of affixing an electronic signature onto the indictment for the prosecutor and the grand jury foreperson (by the DOJ prosecutor) undermines the authenticity of this charging instrument and demonstrates "irregularity" to the say the least, and fraud as Rules 6(c) and 6(f) Fed. R. Crim. P. requires the grand jury foreperson to approve the indictment by signing his or her name to it. To return the Indictment to a Judge in open Court (generating a transcript of the return), and lastly but most importantly to file their record of concurrence (at least 12 members approving the Indictment) with the Clerk of the Court (evincing a notation on the docket).
3. Cognizant of the fact that a matter can be started with the U.S. District Court by simply uploading a document via PACER to the federal docket, these prosecutors simply upload their draft indictment onto the District Court's docket, acquiring a case number in the process.
4. Missing from the criminal docket for these bogus indictments will be any sign that any grand jury voted to approve the indictment as no grand jury voting record will appear on the docket as a sealed or otherwise notation. Notably, Rule 55 Fed. R. Crim. P. and Rule 79 Fed. R. Civ. P. (applicable in criminal matters) requires the Clerk of Courts to keep a record of all Court filings and to make a notation on the docket of the nature of such filings.
5. These prosecutors will be unable to produce a transcript of the return of the indictment to a judge in open court as there was no actual return to a judge in open court. Thereby, they contravene the provisions of the Court Reporter Act which require all court proceedings, particularly those in federal criminal proceedings to be recorded.
6. In addition to electronic signatures, these prosecutors will either upload a charging instrument carrying no signatures at all, demonstrative of their overconfidence in their illicit conduct, or affix REDACTED to the placeholder for the grand jury foreperson in lieu of an actual grand jury foreperson signature. This procedure overrun the strictures of Rule 49.1 Fed. R. Crim. P., which does not provide for redaction of a charging instrument. There are instances where these rogue federal prosecutors will affix a non existent grand jury foreperson's John Hancock to a feigned indictment, when no such person exist on any voting role in that state or district.
7. These federal prosecutors will undoubtedly require the federal judge to either overlook the patent invalidity of their charging instrument or simply collude with them in putting the unsuspecting defendant away.
Discussion:
In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a case entitled: Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160 (1895) that the oversight (unknowing omission) of a federal prosecutor to affix their John Hancock to an indictment was not fatal or go to proving or disproving its validity. Years later, in 1984, at Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339, 345 (1984), the Court ruled that "the foreperson's failure to endorse the indictment is not fatal unless it reflects the absence of a concurrence of twelve grand jurors in the indictment." However, the Supreme Court qualified their decision by stating that there could be other indicia of invalidity as shown in the record. Indeed, the Frisbie decision was decided over 100 years ago and was addressed to oversight, as well, the Hobby decision was premised on oversight, not to the fraud being perpetrated by these rogue (best description) prosecutors.
Second, in 2000, the U.S. Congress signed into law the Electronic Signature Act of 2000, which provided for electronic signatures on Court Documents (typed signature), in lieu of actual John Hancock ink signatures. This coincided with the Paper Reduction legislation they also put into law to reduce the volume of paper records. So, in or about 2002-2004 many federal courts started to accept electronic filings from the computer terminal of counsel. However, to participate in this method of court filing, the attorney (or pro se filer) had to preregister with the Court. They will utilize a username and password to access the court docket. Grand Jurors, for example, are not registered document filers with the Court and therefore cannot affixed an electronic signature to an indictment. Consequently, these federal prosecutors are committing fraud upon the court (felonies) by uploading bogus (unapproved) charging instruments (draft indictment) to the District Court's docket and more importantly using these instruments to violate the civil rights of American citizens.
My Story: (More Details)
The undersign has been subjected to two such sham prosecutions and has forwarded document evidence to the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee (Attn: Ranking Member Congressman Elijah Cummings), tasked with investigation of fraud and abuse by government employees. Prior to these submissions, the undersign as early as 2010 and again in 2015 and 2016 forwarded evidence to the U.S. Justice Dept. but was humored (for the most part) in their response. High level officials, such as the then Attorney General Holder never receives notification of the fraud and abuse complained about. Rather, low level officials, including one Deputy Attorney General quash the substance of these correspondences so as to hide this illicit conduct. Indeed, in 2015, when the Justice Seeker sent a meticulous correspondence detailing fraud and abuse at the DOJ, addressed to Deputy AG Caldwell, he received back a response suggesting that if he desired Freedom of Information material he needed to follow DOJ protocol. This is wrong, this is corrupt and this is dealing from the bottom of the deck. The undersign has uncovered multiple cases, in multiple federal districts, of this brand of fraud and abuse and has to play the waiting game hoping and praying the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee does its job and get to the bottom of this anarchy. God Help Us!
Important Case Details
One of the central issues in the undersign's criminal matter involved his discovery of the forged nature of a search and seizure warrant used by government agents to conduct an unlawful search and seizure of his residence at Staten Island, NY. The undersign utilized the services of a forensic document examiner to prove this point. Pictured below are the substance of two forensic document examinations utilizing handwriting exemplars of the Magistrate Judge alleged to have approved the search warrant. Despite having appended these two professional opinions to a Motion To Suppress, the undersign was unsuccessful nevertheless, as the Judge handling the matter issued a 12 page Ruling (Dkt. # 57) denying suppression (and all other pending pretrial motions), however, willfully neglected to docket the 12 page Ruling. In other words, the Court never issued an actual decision having never docketed the ruling into official record. Then, the Court having recused itself in response to The Justice Seeker's Motion address to judicial misconduct regarding the faked 12 page ruling, re-entered the case some 11 days after recusal and his Order of Transfer to another federal judge, to further obstruct reconsideration of (the Court's) initial blunder. This obstructed the Justice Seeker's due process right in defense of the government's allegations and gave the government a decided advantage. Indeed, the search of the residence yielded nothing to the extent government agents found it necessary to enhance their inventory by adding inculpatory (damaging) finds to the inventory to make a case. More about this later...
1.
2.
Even if someone (anyone) questioned the authenticity or correctness of the Forensic Document Examiner's conclusion, a look back at the (un)lawfulness of the arrest (preceding the later search and seizure) is proven without a shadow of any doubt by the government's response to the Justice Seeker's Motion To Suppress addressed to the lack of Judicial Approval of the Complaint and underlying Affidavit of the arresting officers, which as you know form the basis for the issuance of a federal arrest warrant. Shown below is the Gov't's Exhibit A concurring with the conclusion that the Complaint and Underlying Affidavit went (un)approved. Therefore, no arrest warrant can issue and no search and seizure can lawfully follow. The case is a complete shame and demonstrate what has to assist a feigned indictment!
1. The Complaint And Underlying Affidavit
Regarding The Indictment
Pictured below is the signature pages of the undersigns first and second feigned indictments. Take notice that both contain the electronic docket information at the top of the page, meaning this is the official docket. In the First there is no signatures for any government attorney or more importantly the grand jury, and in the Second the Deputy Clerk attest to the true copy nature of the document as the one on file before it is served upon me by the U.S. Marshals. Notice the electronic signatures on the Second, meaning it wasn't approved by any grand jury.
What follows is the first REDACTED indictment the government came forward with to try to defeat my argument that the indictment containing electronic (typed) signatures was not valid. This REDACTED indictment was not in record or on the docket. Because of the government's rogue effort and an Act of God, I was able, through diligent investigation and effort to acquire an unredacted copy of this "replacement" indictment, which was not in record. My investigation revealed that the grand jury foreperson's signature and the U.S. Attorney signature was performed by the U.S. Attorney. See for yourself! I had employed a forensic document examiner earlier in the case to prove that the search and seizure warrant in my case was a forgery, so having acquired this knowledge and having thoroughly researched the circumstances of my alleged indictment, I knew that the government attorney had forged a fictitious grand jury foreperson's John Hancock to this "replacement" indictment. Indeed, no such named person existed or appeared on any voter roll in the state of Connecticut.
With respect to the record to be filed with the Clerk of the Court by the grand jury foreperson, please find a generic copy of a grand jury concurrence form and second, the partial docket sheet of Criminal Defendant, Rashod Coston (Northern District of New York), demonstrating an entry at #2 stating:
"The Grand Jury Makes a partial return of an Indictment. The Tally Sheet is ordered sealed."
Despite the fact that grand jurors are required to use this Tally Sheet, dubbed:
"RECORD OF THE NUMBER OF GRAND JURORS CONCURRING IN THE FINDING OF AN INDICTMENT"
by the District Court and that these forms are readily available for use by the grand jury by downloading it from the U.S. District Court's web portal, these federal prosecutors will forgo filing it with the Clerk of the Court, further and incriminating evidence of their fraud. Because again, the form is to be endorsed by the grand jury foreperson and filed by him or her with the Clerk of the Court thereby generating a notation on the docket, e.q. "the tally sheet is ordered sealed."
Evidence A Grand Jury Voted
In addition to this record of the number of grand jurors concurring in the return of an Indictment, the return before a judge in open court should generate a transcript consistent with the provisions of the Court Reporter Act. An actual transcript of an actual return is depicted below (notwithstanding a missing endorsement by the Court Reporter).
In addition to this record of the number of grand jurors concurring in the return of an Indictment, the return before a judge in open court should generate a transcript consistent with the provisions of the Court Reporter Act. An actual transcript of an actual return is depicted below (notwithstanding a missing endorsement by the Court Reporter).
The overarching point the Justice Seeker seeks to make here, without the use of the voluminous record generated in his case, is that in order for the government to make a case, having feigned an indictment against someone, is to rely on the Court to either intervene at key times in the prosecution and obstruct a fair determination of certain matters; e.g. the Court knowing failure to make a ruling on the record in compliance with Rule 12(d) Fed. R. Crim. P. or the defendant crumpling in the face of the allegations.
Other (Actual) Cases Of Feigned Indictments:
1. Southern District of Virginia: Pictured below is a feigned Indictment from the Southern District of Virginia. Please take notice that the signature page (page 5) does not have a placeholder for the grand jury foreperson to affix his or her signature. In addition, the docket for this case demonstrates that no grand jury vote was taken or "tally sheet" filed with the Clerk of the Court as required and notation of that filing made. Whats most interesting about this case is that the Federal Judge handling the case, in the normal course, must determine first if he or she has jurisdiction to take up the case. Such is the case in all matters pending on a federal docket, and despite the invalid nature of the Indictment the Judge proceeds nonetheless. You can't make this stuff up!
2. District of Connecticut: Pictured below are the signature pages from the official dockets for two Defendants, Jerry Brown and Marcio Mansur, who were charged via feigned Indictments. If you will recall, the Bush Administration enlisted the help of District of Connecticut U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy to investigate the scandal involving the firing of 12 U.S. Attorneys by Mr. Bush who would not cooperate with the Administrations claims of voter fraud. At a time when Dannehy was Acting U.S. Attorney (replacing former U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Conner) for the District of Connecticut, in 2008, Dannehy feigned these two Indictments and later, as I post more cases, you will see that she feigned one against the Justice Seeker with the assistance of AUSA David Sheldon, who prosecuted the matter thereafter, as well other unsuspecting persons in the District. Interestingly enough, at the time of Dannehy's appointment to investigate the U.S. Attorney scandal, she was also involved with a criminal appeal, which while on appeal, was overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals finding her and her compatriots withheld a significant amount of potentially exculpatory evidence from the defendant in that case. Despite the Justice Seeker having sounded an alarm to the Justice Dept. about Dannehy in January 2010, she remained until on or about October 2010 when she resigned and took a position as a Deputy Attorney General in Connecticut. Then, recently left that post to take a high level position with United Technologies. Simply "google" Nora Dannehy for more information.
4. Northern District of Indiana: Pictured below is the first page and signature (last) page of a feigned Indictment for the ND Indiana. As I stated earlier, perhaps inartfully, this brand of fraud is sweeping our nation. Despite the Court Stamp shown on the first page of Karst's alleged Indictment, attempting to evince some semblance of what the Court deems "regularity," we know the Indictment is a phony because a grand jury does not register with the District Court to become an electronic filer so they can endorse their Indictments /s/foreperson. This is the work of the AUSA and his or her counterparts. It constitute not only "Fraud upon the Court," but abridge the provisions of the Electronic Signature Act. Where is the tally sheet for the grand jury demonstrating that 12 or more concurred?
5. Northern District of Oklahoma: Below is a feigned Indictment from the Northern Dist. of Oklahoma. If you would take notice of the games engaged in by the government attorneys. Three prosecutors affix their John Hancocks to this alleged Indictment, then affix an electronic signature for the grand jury foreperson, shown as /s/GJforeperson. Totally Absurd! The Justice Seeker has observed various dockets for the ND OKLA and note that there are other instances where this type of fraud is being perpetrated. Where no "tally sheet" is filed with the Clerk of the Court or enter onto the criminal docket there is no conclusive evidence a grand jury indicted the person!
7. Southern District Of New York (NYC): Pictured below is a 63 page Indictment naming 8 Defendants and 2011 Indictment with one Defendant, or Gilmartin. The 63 page (alleged) Indictment, on its signature pages (62) and (63) does not provide a placeholder for the grand jury foreperson to affix his or her signature. A check of the docket sheet will show that no grand jury voting record (tally sheet) entered onto the criminal docket. This Gilmartin Indictment is improperly REDACTED. Having observed a number of dockets and Indictments for the Southern District of New York, the Justice Seeker is aware that the SDNY typically comply with a rule of law with respect to its indictment procedures. However, in all fairness, these two (alleged) Indictments stand out as overly suspicious and invalid.
Short Story: The Justice Seeker, in 2011, had a car he owned illegally auctioned off by the City of New York as a result of an infraction about a "stupid" plastic cover over his rear license plate. True Story! To date, the Justice Seeker has not either been compensated for the value of the automobile or the car returned, as it appeared during the "two" federal suits he filed, the Federal Judge took sides. Well, that Judge's name appears at the top of the 63 page Indictment. Go figure!
8. Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia): Below is a feigned Indictment alleging a financial crime. The Justice Seeker is aware of the protections afforded by the Right To Financial Privacy Act, which call for the government to either receive the assistance of a financial institution or the use of subpoenas to acquire financial records. This process does not come together easily. In that the Indictment pictured below does not show that any government attorney took responsibility for the Indictment by signing off on it, or that any grand jury foreperson affixed his or her signature, it appeared to signal fraud upon the Court. A check of the docket reveals that no grand jury voting record was filed with the Clerk of the Court as a sealed or otherwise filing or entered onto the criminal docket. The undersign has noticed several other cases of this brand of deception in record with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and more times than not, the same U.S. Attorneys name will appear.
9. Eastern District of California: Shown below is a 2008 Indictment alleging white collar crimes. Again, I need not express to you the need for subpoenas or the financial institutions cooperation to bring such an allegation, given the provisions of the Right To Financial Privacy Act (RFPA). The RFPA proclaiming amongst other disclaimers that a defendant must be notified before financial dealings related to his account can be disclosed. Subpoenas can also be challenged. Nonetheless, the alleged Indictment shown below show that the AUSA has stepped completely over the line in suggesting that the grand juries endorsement of his charging instrument is in his possession and his possession only. The (third) page of this "ruse" show that the AUSA engages in fraud by alleging that the grand jury electronically endorsed this page of the Indictment, by affixing /S/. A check of the docket sheet does not demonstrate that any grand jury voting record (Record of Concurrence) was filed with the Clerk of the Court consistent with Rule 6(c) Fed. R. Crim. P. or that it entered onto the criminal docket as a sealed or otherwise filing. This is a feigned indictment, plain and simply! You can rest assured that no transcript of any return of the indictment to a federal judge in open court exist. Where is that transcript and who is the Court Reporter who transcribed it?
10. Southern District of Mississippi: Shown below is a feigned indictment for the So. Dist. of Mississippi. If you will observe the signature page, which demonstrates that the Indictment was not returned to a judge in open court, meaning when court is open for business. The government attorney improper redact the (alleged) endorsement of the grand jury foreperson in violation of Rule 49.1 Fed. R. Crim. P., which does not provide for redaction of a charging instrument. If this redaction happened for example after the grand jury returned the Indictment to a Judge in open court, this redaction would amount to altering (defacing) a court document, which is a felony. However, because the docket does not reflect that any grand jury voting record (tally sheet) or record of concurrence entered onto the criminal docket, e.q. "the tally sheet is ordered sealed," this redaction and failure to return the (alleged) Indictment to a Judge in open court evinces fraud upon the court. In other words, the government crafted a draft indictment, sidestepped the grand jury, and simply filed it with an accommodating Clerk of the Court.
11. Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis): Pictured below is a feigned indictment for the Eastern District of Missouri. The face of the (alleged) Indictment speaks for itself. Rather than incriminate any particular government attorney and invite scrutiny, the U.S. Attorneys Office simply fashion a draft indictment and upload it to the District Court's docket. No grand jury vote (tally sheet) enter onto the docket evincing grand jury participation or oversight. At this juncture, the charged defendant will have to go into overdrive to hire an attorney and defend against government allegations, of which the government will commit whatever civil rights violation necessary to secure a guilty plea. Indeed, 91% of all federal indictments end in a guilty plea for a host of reasons. Plain and Simply!
12. Eastern District Of Michigan (Detroit): What follows is a sad commentary about the state of the U.S. Attorneys' Office for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2010. If you will recall that office Indicted Former Mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick and thereafter superseded (amended) that Indictment 4 times adding other Defendants. Lets take a look at the work product of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2010. Some will be chagrined and repulsed by what they see and do nothing. Others will do like the Justice Seeker, who alerted the Detroit Free Press about his findings, and alert their Congressman or Congresswoman about this scourge.Pictured below under number 1 is the original charging instrument, dated 6/23/10, charging Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick as a sole Defendant. The First page of the Indictment shows a Court Stamp depicting not only the District Judge, but his/her underlying Magistrate Judge. One of the two Judges are alleged to have accepted the Indictment and that acceptance is demonstrated by their Courtroom Deputy (Chamber Clerk) affixing the stamp to the Indictment that you see.
At number 2 you will observe the Docket sheet for Mr. Kilpatrick and notice under entry #1 on the docket that this Indictment is docketed. However, you will also notice that entry #2, on the docket sheet, does not show that any grand jury voting record (tally sheet) is present on the docket, sealed or otherwise. Therefore, the grand jury foreperson did not filed the record of concurrence with the Clerk of the Court as required under Rule 6(c) Fed. R. Crim. P. For example, if this was an election, it means the voting numbers were never certified to the Secretary of State as official and authentic. As such, the question as to who won the race is still up in the air.
At number 3 you can take notice of the Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures for the Eastern District of Michigan which does not allow one party to electronically sign for another party unless they have been given permission and that permission noted on the document. (visit court website for complete policy). If one party does sign for another without permission this is deemed "forgery by electronic signature." (simply google the terminology) Obviously, the government (Executive Branch) cannot speak for the Grand Jury (a Third Branch) operating independently from the Executive branch, the Judicial Branch being the second. Unfortunately, this is what the prosecutors have done, spoken for the grand jury.
1.
2.
3.
The government superseded Kilpatrick's original Indictment 4 times, supplanting the previous version with the new one alleged to have been presented to a duly constituted (sworn) and empaneled grand jury. If you will observe the 4th Superseding Indictment, you will see that the government omitted to make any presentation of the matter to any grand jury for oversight and a vote of at least 12 concurring in any decision to indict. The face of the Indictment (page 1) depicts a stamp from the Clerk of the Court as appose to the Chamber Stamp of the Judge who received the grand jury returned Indictment (via his/her Courtroom Deputy). A further check of the signature page demonstrate the fraud being perpetrated by the government, signing /S/Grand Jury Foreperson. There is no such grand jury foreperson named Grand Jury Foreperson in the Eastern District of Michigan. This is forgery by electronic signature and it demonstrates that the grand jury foreperson never endorsed the allegations.
Irregardless of ones impressions of how the government should or shouldn't operate, this is fraud and in order to convict Kilpatrick, now that the cats out of the bag about their feigned indictment, the government must resort to overstepping basic due process by hiding or suppressing exculpatory evidence from Kilpatrick, which would tend to support his defense. I'll demonstrate this shortly.
The Justice Seeker's conclusion: The Former Mayor is illegally convicted and illegally held because he was never indicted by a grand jury in conformity with the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The nature of the 4th Superseding Indictment, with all of its intricate allegations, calls for an all encompassing presentation to any grand jury. The government can't just say to the grand jury "we have evidence of this and that," they must have something tangible to present. Hearsay is allowable before a grand jury, but would hardly fly with such a notable Defendant, in his "backyard." So, it appears the government side-stepped making that presentation and took the law and Constitution into its own hands. Where are the transcripts for the grand jury sessions and the transcript for the return of the Indictment to a Judge in open Court? Lets be clear, a conviction does not override the fact that neither the Judge or the prosecutor had jurisdiction to take up the case.
4.
5.
13. Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division (Chicago): Exhibited below is a feigned Indictment for the ND ILL. The Justice Seeker had to perform extensive searches of court records to acquire the below (alleged) Indictment. It appears the U.S. Attorneys Office for Chicago, in particular its media spokesperson does a tremendous job in restricting what information reaches the media and in what form. Most Indictments released to the media are in draft form, removing the public's ability to judge the work product of the Chicago office. However, if you will observe the first page of this Indictment you will notice that it demonstrates that a particular Magistrate Judge (appears to have) accepted the return the Indictment. What you will also observe is that the signature page retains no endorsements for either the government or the grand jury. This is the official docket. Nonetheless, owing to the fact that no grand jury vote or record of concurrence entered onto the docket evincing the will of any grand jury, this Indictment is clearly not valid. Telling is the fact that this Indictment was lodged against the Defendant named in March of 2017, meaning the prosecutor(s) at this office are currently violating the civil rights of Americans and overrunning the provisions of the Fifth Amendment. Make no mistake, this is a felony being committed and the result is that some unsuspecting person's civil rights are being trampled so the government can pad its prosecution numbers.
14. Central District of California (Los Angeles): Pictured below are three feigned Indictments from the LA Division of the Central District of California. If you will observe, the same Assistant U.S. Attorney's name appears on all three, demonstrative of his propensity for violating the civil rights of Americans without concern for being caught or exposed. Indeed, the cover-up for this illicit regime is vast. No grand jury vote (tally sheet) appears on the docket and undoubtedly no transcript will exist of any return of the Indictment to a Judge in open Court.
1.
2.
3.
More Discussion: In an article entitled: GRAND JURIES GONE WRONG, published in the not so distant past, Scholar Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D an Asst. Professor of Behavioral Science of the New York Institute of Technology wrote with respect to the current state of grand juries:
"Suspicions that the grand jury process provides no real protections for criminal defendants are borne out by rates of agreement between grand juries and prosecutors. Federal indictment rates greater then ninety-nine percent have been reported in some years. (citing Fouts, supra note 3, at 329-30.) [Reporting that] in 1984 federal grand juries issued 17,419 indictments, and only 68 no-bills, an indictment rate of 99.6%. In 2001, federal grand juries declined to indict in only 21 cases nationwide."
Ofcourse, as the Justice seeker sees it, these stats submitted by Prof. Roots speak for themselves. For example, if this were baseball and some batter was batting .650 or .700 they would be the greatest batter in the history of the sport. But, as the Justice Seeker knows, in business 10% of anything will go south, its highly unlikely the government is "batting" .996, except they resort to fraud and abuse. The Justice Seeker, like all other law abiding Americans does not stand in the way of justice being done. What he stands in the way of is "the pot calling the kettle black."
15. Northern District of Oklahoma: Before I pivot toward demonstrating that this illicit practice is sweeping our nation, by showing the actions of the Dept. of Justice in other districts, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight certain Districts who are overtly corrupted in repeatedly violating the civil rights of Americans. I don't mince words! The American people need, in my estimation, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Shown below is another example of fraud upon the court by the No. Dist. Okla. The (alleged) Indictment demonstrate fraud by electronic signature. Again, there is no such grand jury foreperson in the No. Dist. Okla named /S/GJforeperson.
The docket sheet does not show that any grand jury voting record or record of concurrence entered onto the docket evincing a vote of at least 12 grand jurors approving this indictment. Shame!
16. Southern District of Texas (Brownsville): Pictured below is a feigned (faked) Indictment from the No. Dist. of Texas. Allegedly, an Indictment is returned by a grand jury on May 22, 2013 (sealed), and unsealed on December 2, 2013. The signature page depicts the Deputy Clerk's attestation of the true copy nature of the document. However, as you can clearly see, no grand jury foreperson's John Hancock is affixed to the Indictment. A check of the docket sheet does not reveal that any grand jury voting record or tally sheet entered onto the criminal docket. Why the federal prosecutor saw fit to seal the "Indictment" for about seven months is unclear, but the end result is fraud upon the court.
The Grand Jury Charge
In the process of empaneling a federal grand jury, the federal judge who has sworn them in will charge them (give them instructions) as to how they are to perform their duties. Included in the judges oversight is her appointing a grand jury foreperson (and alternate), and instructions about their role and the procedures they are to follow in determining whether probable cause exist that a federal crime has been committed and by the named target. This charge, the transcripts generated by the Court Reporter present during the grand jury session, the Indictment endorsed and the grand jury voting record filed with the Clerk of the Court are essential to the defendant's due process rights and the public ability to judge the work product of the grand jury.
However, this same "charging of the grand jury", the transcripts generated and grand jury foreperson's execution of his/her duties are the same tangibles that prove or disprove the authenticity of an indictment. Indeed, the process puts a federal judge at the center of this validation process. In other words, did you Judge (whoever) charge this grand jury and did the grand jury foreperson return an indictment to you in open court and was a Court Reporter present during this return? And, of course, Ms. Clerk of the Court was a grand jury voting record filed with you and did you make notation of the filing on the record, considering the filing is a sealed record. The Justice Seeker believes that this backtracking (investigation) will reinforce and expose what he has been asserting on this blog and in no way besmirch the integrity of the Court itself. Shown below is a (5) page charging model used by federal judges to charge (instruct) a federal grand jury.
Pictured below, from the official docket is the first page and signature page of Mr. Hastert's Indictment, dated May 28, 2015. You will observe the preferred practice (evidently) in the ND Ill (Chicago) of returning a draft Indictment which neither identifies a government prosecutor or demonstrate that he/she endorsed the the "charging instrument." The signature page does not show that the grand jury foreperson affixed his/her John Hancock to the Indictment. For all intensive purposes, despite the various judicial and clerk stamps, this is a draft indictment that has not been grand jury approved but forwarded to the same Clerk of the Court appearing in entry #13. In other words, in order for the prosecutors to continually repeat this fraud upon the court, to be safe, they need to utilize the same cast of characters. The documents show Clerk of the Court, Thomas G. Bruton.
1.
Second, shown below is the first 5 pages of Mr. Hastert's docket summary, which evidences the fact that no grand jury voting record was filed with the Clerk of the Court or noticed on the docket as required. Rule 79 Fed. R. Civ. P. (also applicable in criminal matters) provides that the Clerk of the Court make a notation on the docket of all documents filed. There are no exceptions and the Rule 79 is not ambiguous.
2.
Third, if you will take notice of the following document #3 from Mr. Hastert's docket you will observe that it attempts to demonstrate that there was a quorum of grand jurors present (at least 16-23) and they returned an indictment to a named Magistrate Judge "in open court" on May 28, 2015. It purport to be a minute entry. Meanwhile, if you will go back and observe the Clerk of the Court's notation for the event, shown on the docket summary at #3, the Clerk represent that the entry (event) is regarding Mr. Hastert's arraignment and that his bond is set at $4500. What's strange about the Clerk's notation is that bonds are set at the arraignment, not in advance in anticipation of an arraignment. Owing to the Justice Seeker's (own) experience and judgment it appears there is collusion going on to add credence to the government's bogus charging instrument (Indictment), but the parties can't keep their "story" (lie) straight. Document #3 is purported to represent one thing, but actually represent two dissimilar transactions. Where is the transcript of the return of this Indictment "to a judge in open court?" Be informed that the District Court and the prosecutor's jurisdiction to hear a matter is not waived because the Defendant didn't bring it up. An argument can be forfeited, but not a lack of jurisdiction. No Indictment in federal criminal matter, no jurisdiction to take up the matter.
3.
The Justice Seeker's conclusion: Mr. Hastert was rused out of his due process rights. The text of his Indictment utilizes "uncharged misconduct" to make out a case of structuring of financial transactions and alleged untrue statements to the FBI. ( a la Barry Bonds). Indeed, newspaper stories about Mr. Hastert's case describe the ambiguity associated with these acts and when they occurred. Mr. Hastert's case demonstrates the rogue nature of the office that prosecuted him. Because Constitutional protections afforded all Americans under the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were thrown out the window, what remains is the rewards of the Chicago office's lawlessness.
1.
Prior to dismissing the Criminal Complaint against Mr. Blagojevich, the government allege to have returned a superseding Indictment against him on 4/2/2009. This alleged return of a superseding Indictment the Justice Seeker found strange because no Indictment preceded this one. The first page and the signature page are depicted below.
As you can plainly see, the signature page, taken from the official docket does not identify a government attorney endorsing or authorizing the Indictment, nor a grand jury foreperson's John Hancock evincing grand jury participation in Mr. Blagojevich's Indictment process. Beyond the failed endorsements, the government appears to execute a Motion addressed to the District Court asking the Court to ORDER the Clerk of the Court to accept his superseding Indictment, which rearranges the order of the Defendants Indicted. The Court obliges by granting the government's request.
3.
Althewhile, the several dockets do not show that any grand jury foreperson filed any record of concurrence (voting tally) with the Clerk of the Court evidencing any will of the grand jury to Indict Mr. Blagojevich. The first five pages of the Docket Summary associated with a criminal complaint against Mr. Blagojevich neither show any first Indictment returned by the grand jury, enabling a superseding to be returned onto the second docket sheet. Nor does the government's deceptive railing about the Court Ordering the Clerk of the Court to accept the rearranged superseding Indictment detract from you and I knowing that the Indictment should be returned to the Judge in open Court and thereby generate a transcript. The Clerk of the Court has no authority to refuse to docket a government filing. This action by the government is "staged" as the Justice Seeker sees it to simply load the docket evincing government attention to the charges against Mr. Blagojevich. Akin to "hiding in plain sight" the invalid Indictment the government has returned having sidestepped the grand jury. The Justice seeker shall have more to say about the despicable state of the Justice Dept's. office at Chicago. For now, its rather clear that hubris and lawlessness reigns in this office.
4.
5.
19. District of Maryland (Baltimore): This case is current and on-going as the Justice Seeker writes about it. Depicted below is an alleged Indictment returned by the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland against Maryland State Legislator Nathaniel T. Oaks. On or about April 7, 2017 a Criminal Complaint was lodged against Mr. Oaks with the District of Maryland Court at Baltimore, which as you may or may not know, is an "informal charge" providing only for his arrest and arraignment. In federal matters a grand jury approved indictment is required in order to actually charge a person. See: Grand Jury Clause to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Without such neither the District Court or the Dept. of Justice have jurisdiction to take up the matter.
However, having lodged only the Complaint and underlying Affidavit with the District Court, and while having yet to officially charge Mr. Oaks, the U.S. Attorney nonetheless release a Press Release publicly proclaiming that Mr. Oaks has been officially charged and that he faces up to 20 years in federal prison. The Justice Seeker had never seen such a press release anywhere in the United States.
1.
After having Motion(ed) the Court for an extension of time within which to return an indictment against Mr Oaks, Oaks via his counsel having acquiesced, on May 31, 2017 the grand jury is alleged to have returned an Indictment against Mr. Oaks alleging honest services fraud amongst other allegations.
2.
A check of the official docket and observation of Mr. Oaks alleged grand jury approved Indictment demonstrate quite the opposite. Despite the fact that Rule 49.1 Fed. R. Crim. P. does not provide for the redaction of a charging instrument, the government does exactly that. Removing from public view and scrutiny the will of the grand jury. The Justice Seeker has observed a number of criminal dockets for the District of Maryland and is well familiar with the illicit activity taking place there. A further review of Mr. Oaks' Docket Summary will show that not grand jury "record of concurrence" (tally sheet) entered onto the criminal docket in compliance with the Clerk's obligation under Rule 79 Fed. R. Civ. P. (applicable in criminal matters) and Rule 6(c) Fed. R. Crim. P. As such Mr. Oaks' First Amendment right to observe his criminal docket is eviscerated. Yes, the tally sheet is a sealed filing, but it must enter onto the docket as a notation; recall Rashon Coston case (Northern District of New York): "the tally sheet is ordered sealed."
3.
Even given the benefit of the doubt, it appears rather clear that the government, overconfident in its ability to ruse Defendants in federal criminal matters, simply affixed the Acting U.S. Attorney's John Hancock to a Draft Indictment, never returned it to a judge in open Court as a Deputy Clerk's stamp on the face of the draft indictment sustains this point. And, lastly a transcript of the return of the indictment before a judge in open court and a signature of a Court Reporter onto that transcript would go a long way toward enforcing Mr. Oaks due process right. see Court Reporter Act.
20. District of Columbia (Washington D.C.): This case demonstrates the extent to which a Dept. of Justice prosecutor will depart from a rule of law and go rogue to secure a conviction with absolutely no concern for the civil rights of the persons (American citizens) being effected. Shown below is the substance of a Dept. of Justice Press Release about having indicted 17 D.C. residence with regards to an alleged drug conspiracy amongst other alleged charges.
1.
Allegedly, on 8/4/20111 a sealed Indictment is returned by a grand jury naming 17 persons, (two women among those charged). The first (4) pages of the government's alleged Indictment (from the official docket) is depicted below. You will notice that the signature page, which evidences the will of the grand jury retains no "John Hancocks" (ink signatures) for either the grand jury or the federal prosecutor. Indeed, no government attorney is identified by name. A fortiori, (to a lesser extent) none take responsibility for initiating the charge. As such, under the same applicable framework previously described by the Justice Seeker this alleged Indictment is bogus. The docket, to be revealed shortly, does not show that any grand jury voting record was filed with the Clerk of the Court.
2.
The Justice Seeker's investigation, even as a private citizen retaining a First Amendment right to inspect criminal dockets, reveals no record of concurrence or grand jury tally sheet (voting record) was filed with the Clerk of the Court as a sealed or otherwise filing. Rule 79 Fed. R. Civ. P. (applicable in criminal matters) requires the Clerk of the Court to docket all filings and make a notation of the nature of the filing.
3.
The docket report shows the following: 1. that on 8/10/11 Espey Brown, Jr. made an oral motion for appointment of counsel; 2. on 8/12/11 the Court appoint counsel under the CJA (Criminal Justice Act) for Brown; 3. on 8/10/11 when Brown make an oral motion for appointment of CJA counsel, he also enter a plea to the alleged indictment of not guilty; 4. on 8/12/11 the government Motion (orally) to Court to remand Brown and one of his co-defendants to custody, which the Court grants and both defendants are held without bond. However, some 6 months later, the government, cognizant of the invalid (faked) nature of its Indictment against Brown and 16 others, craft a (criminal) Information intending to have Brown waive Indictment this time, so that the government can then prosecute him without charge by a grand jury, and take a plea from Brown to some lesser set of charges.
4.
Brown, with his "Court Appointed Counsel" riding shotgun (looking out for the government), then waives prosecution by Indictment and this on the record as required. Obviously, somewhat relieved that the feigned Indictment has been reduced to a more palatable set of charges.
5.
And, as you would surmise, Brown pleads guilty to the alleged lesser set of charges shown in the government's Information and is sentence to 110 months on the drug charges and 60 months on the gun related charges, the sentences to run consecutive. A 34 year old man (African American) has just thrown his life away via a government ruse.... The Justice Seeker need not lecture those tasked with prosecuting these matters and those incarcerating persons like Brown (and the 16 others) about the malicious and predatory nature of this process. The final analysis is left to the American people. That being said, the prosecutor charged Brown and 16 others with executing a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in the District of Columbia, althewhile the government executed a conspiracy inside a Courtroom; moreover perpetrated fraud upon the court. Plain and Simple!
6.
Finally, in a now infamous speech delivered in February of 2009, then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed, that in so many ways (paraphrasing) "we are a nation of cowards," when it comes to having a frank discussion about racial matters in America. I agree with the former AG. However, I hope that we are more courageous when it comes to holding our Dept. of Justices' feet to the fire with respect to adhering to the provisions of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Your freedom, future and hopes are counting on it!
Updating (more coming very shortly)
The Justice Seeker,
TheTruthTold1@aol.com
July 2017
For Donations Click on this link:
http://fundly.com/Justice-Demanded
My hope is that everyone take notice of this blog and alert some public official or attorney about its content.
ReplyDelete