The document requests orders from the court to disclose hidden documents related to the 2001 grand jury proceedings and indictment in this case. It argues that the indictment was improperly backdated to June 14, 2001 rather than the actual filing date of June 19, 2001 in an attempt to make expired charges timely. It also requests an order directing the IRS to cease collection efforts and requests recusal of the presiding judge due to conflicts. The document alleges fraud and misconduct in the grand jury proceedings and indictment process.
The document requests orders from the court to disclose hidden documents related to the 2001 grand jury proceedings and indictment in this case. It argues that the indictment was improperly backdated to June 14, 2001 rather than the actual filing date of June 19, 2001 in an attempt to make expired charges timely. It also requests an order directing the IRS to cease collection efforts and requests recusal of the presiding judge due to conflicts. The document alleges fraud and misconduct in the grand jury proceedings and indictment process.
The document requests orders from the court to disclose hidden documents related to the 2001 grand jury proceedings and indictment in this case. It argues that the indictment was improperly backdated to June 14, 2001 rather than the actual filing date of June 19, 2001 in an attempt to make expired charges timely. It also requests an order directing the IRS to cease collection efforts and requests recusal of the presiding judge due to conflicts. The document alleges fraud and misconduct in the grand jury proceedings and indictment process.
The document requests orders from the court to disclose hidden documents related to the 2001 grand jury proceedings and indictment in this case. It argues that the indictment was improperly backdated to June 14, 2001 rather than the actual filing date of June 19, 2001 in an attempt to make expired charges timely. It also requests an order directing the IRS to cease collection efforts and requests recusal of the presiding judge due to conflicts. The document alleges fraud and misconduct in the grand jury proceedings and indictment process.
The applicant is requesting that the court order the disclosure of hidden documents related to their case, order the IRS to cease collection efforts, and order the production of their alleged arrest warrant or recuse the presiding judge. They are making claims of fraud, maladministration of justice, and irregularities in their indictment and grand jury proceedings.
Previous appellate proceedings are mentioned where the court certified falsified records, rendering those proceedings null and void. A German court also previously ruled that funds received by the applicant were loans, not taxable income.
The applicant provides evidence that the grand jury did not concur on the claimed date of the indictment, no sealed indictment or arrest warrant was presented at their arrest, and they have provided documentation to the IRS and court showing repayment of disputed income amounts.
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For online publication
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 01 Cr. 0571 (JGK)
- Against - [EX-PRISONER PRO SE]APPLICATION FOR DUE ORDERS TO LASTLY DIVULGE COURT-KEPT DARK SECRETS OF A CONTRIVED CRIM CASE LADEN WITH MAMMOTH JOINT GOVERNMENT FRAUD AND OFFICIAL ULTRA VIRES ACTS OF MALADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND FOR AN IRS-DESIST-ORDER, IN LIEU RECUSAL AND REASSIGN OF CASE
FRITZ G BLUMENBERG _______________________________ (NOT A CIV-CASE ERROR SUBMISSION)
Here comes Fritz G. Blumenberg, ex-prisoner since 2006, Applicant pro se, moving for ORDERS to DIVULGE for immediate release certain hidden DOCUMENTS to demonstrate jurisdictional IRREGULARITIES, to wit: June 2001 Grand Jury Records & Juror Forepersons AO 190 Court-Certificate for good CAUSES listed below in the INTEREST OF FAIRNESS IN JUSTICE and, second, for an ORDER directing Plaintiffs agency IRS to SEIZE Collection efforts from Applicant, and, third, to ORDER THE PRODUCTION OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMED AS ARREST WARRANT evidently drafted June 14, 2001, or alternatively, in lieu of grants of the foregoing, RECUSAL from this case for REASSIGNMENT to an uninterested Art.III judicial officer of this District, or of another District Court in further avoidance of conflicted process.
Pro Se Statement
under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, Platsky 2
v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. In re Haines: pro se litigants (Applicant is pro se) are held to less stringent pleading standards than BAR registerees. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se Applicants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
Preliminary on LAW
US V. COTTON (01-687) 535 U.S. 625 (2002): Because subject- matter jurisdiction involves a courts power to hear a case, it can never be forfeited or waived. Thus, defects require correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court. And, Where jurisdiction is challenged it must be proved.(Hagan vs. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)); see also: Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. (Exparte McCardle, 7 Wall.506,514 (1869)).
All evidence of facts below are clear, convincing, undeniable and grievous
A breach of constitutional duties through abusive judicial maneuvering which was crafted to and caused an end run around DUE PROCESS, the RULES OF LAW and Congressional mandates against prejudicial complots by the two lower branches, whereby CORRUPTNESS OF THE INAUGURAL INDICTMENT IMBROGLIOS FALSE CLAIM OF A BOGUS FILED DATE FIVE DAYS EARLIER THAN REAL AND TRUE (on 19 June 2001) and by means of such false DATE claim, SOUGHT TO RE-ANIMATE DEAD, TIME-BARRED OVERT ACTS FOR A BOGUS JUST-IN- 3
TIMELINESS, PREJUDICED the defendants, VOIDED AND RENDERED S1 & S2 equally invalid since both superseders relate back to S.
Part I
4
A. If, hypothetically, the Grand Jury would have, arguendo, concurred on June 14, 2001 to issue a TRUE BILL for Conspiracy and Fraud against Applicant and others, the Grand Jury would have delivered such bill duly signed by the Foreperson accompanied by U.S. Courts Jury- Concurrence-Form AO 190, for the USANYSs FILING of a True Bill and for the FBI for process 1 and execute upon.
The Grand Jury did not concur on June 14, 2001 2 .No such proof has been presented by the government, and this COURT shielded Grand Juror records from inspections, that were duly demanded
B. If, hypothetically, Grand Jury concurrence had take place, arguendo, a duly signed TRUE BILL could have been duly FILED and would have duly been RECORDED on June 14, 2001, U.S.-Flag-Day, in the Open Courtroom of Hon. Dolinger.
A Magistrate FILED record, or reporter transcript DOES NOT exist.
C. If, hypothetically, a sufficient number of Grand Jurors had concurred, arguendo, foreperson B. Rehm could have issued Form AO190 to complete and validate a potential filing on June 14, 2001.
No such AO 190 was COMPLETED, NOR FILED on record June 14, 2001
1 The FBI had no true bill or arrest/W - see Appendix pages 1-5 of the FBIs on internal !essaging that did not in"lude a real #"$o%& but an unsigned& un"on"urred draft indi"t!ent 'page 5( and three false arrest arrant drafts "ontaining phon% "ler) signature sta!ps& of hi"h #r* +iertels false arrest arrant sur,i,ed the -./ "leansing of the files* This $ourt has rele,ant e,iden"e of the fa)e draft on hand& as sub!itted b% #r* +iertel& spe"i!en intra*
0 $ourt and 1rose"utorial allegations to the "ontrar%& are unpro,en thus blatantl% false 5
D. If, hypothetically, the FBI would have stood by their motto claim of INTEGRITY, the FBI broadcast message (Appendices 1-5) to three resident agencies could not have been sent, because of the FALSE CLAIMS CONTENT and false labels for three presumptively innocent persons as FUGITIVES, in itself an unlawful branding causing grave prejudice during a time Grand Jurors were still in session without results.[the government later produced Marshal Services Marshal Intake Form of 6/19/2001 which must be deemed deceptive, defective and incomplete, while in Direct CONFLICT with the FBIs district crossing apprehensions of Applicant and John Lee in Connecticut.
The FBI did not demonstrate INTEGRITY but FRAUD
E. If, hypothetically, a Court believes it could obtain jurisdiction for a charged Conspiracy pursuant to three expired overt acts by a simple District Court Clerks backwards dating [FILED June 14, 2001] rubberstamp manipulation 3 and by a preconceived, albeit mislabeled, mendacious Magistrate ORDER 4 to retro-transport ternary (3) time-barred 371 overt-acts to squeeze these dead acts inside the expired statutory term of 5 years, such Court was dead wrong in this mistaken belief. Fortunately, a quasi-official 2014 discovery, suis-sponte, by patriotic, conscientious American Clerks was red-flagged anonymously to the defendants. These laudable persons despised the
2 3xe"uted in I45 b% $ourt $ler) /i! #olinelli 6 initial / 7 #agistrate 8*1it!an headlined/entitled his false .9-39& see -.$:0& erroneousl% and rather surprisingl% as I4-I$T#34T& as if& arguendo& prose"utors designed the .9-39* 6
amoralities inside this Court house. Thus, it is an rare but open book now, how a famous District Court abused its powers, ink and rubberstamps in a continuing enterprise without constitutional authority to get caught for this willful, sophisticated but unlawful conduct [transcript snapshot below demonstrates the omnipresence of bad faith by a learned judge]:
F. Here, a Court implicates itself over such willful usurpation of jurisdiction, inter alia, beyond reach under 18 USC 371, to act as manufacturer of undue process and producer of a corrupt plea resulting in a bogus conviction that lacked factual basis the Court knew to not 7
exist. During such travesty 5 (above), a plea was unintelligently and involuntarily coerced over withheld exculpatory information. In 2010 Applicant unilaterally withdrew his bogus plea for other good causes.
G. If, hypothetically, Magistrate Pitman had less than bad faith on his mind, the Magistrate would have reviewed the Court RECORDS, FILING and DOCKETS, called upon Hon. Dolinger, and demanded proof from the government that would have included the Application to SEAL, to FILE and the disposition thereof by Hon. Dolinger.
Magistrate Pitman failed his solemn duty.
i) Moreover, Mag. Pitman should have assured the FILED Criminal Case Information Sheet (sampler A below), lack thereof, should have stopped the Magistrate from issuing his falsification FILED as DOC#2:
ii) Moreover, Absence of an APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (sample B below) should have short stopped the Magistrate from issuing a counterfeit
5 -)t ;1-5<1= Filed -ate ;</1>/0;;2 :?0 T9A4@$9I1T of re"ord of [guilty plea] pro"eedings as to FritA B* Blu!enberg for dates of 7/5/0;;0& before /udge /ohn B* 5oeltl * 'ph( '3ntered= >/01/0;;2( 8
ORDER, despite a Magistrates potential BLIND SPOT for prosecutorial misconduct inside his Courtroom.
In fact, Magistrate Pitmans 6-19-2001 INDICTMENT [sic ?] labeled ORDER is impervious to truthfulness, see DOC#2, and in contradiction to this COURTs own internal and public records while the Magistrate participated and knew to a certainty that fraud was occurring. Those records serve as prima facie PROOF and JUDICIAL NOTICE to demonstrate that an impartial & independent judiciary was not on the job here, and consequently endangered public safety, while trampling upon constitutional rights and liberty not only of this Applicant. FORGERY was indelibly stamped upon the never sealed nor unsealed INDICTMENT on June 19, 2001, giving bad faith another obeisance.
H. Fur fabricated ba at the U.S. C physically FI be considered the DOCKETs (supra, clip coversheet, C US vs. BLUMEN Cr._[blank]__ these pivotal 6/19/01 File For all (Signature redact A form which comment on th taken from Co
This annotati Court actions and serves as JUDGE KOELTL
C @igned b% Foreperson Bernhar
9 rthermore, and squarely probati ackdating fraud, one USANYS pro Courthouse in the morning of Ju ILED the first and only SIGNED 6 d the inaugural CASE FILING, c CASE OPENING FILED DATE of J from Docket). The filer utiliz Court Form USA-33s-274 (Ed.9-25 NBERG, LEE, VIERTEL --- INDICTM _ MARY JO WHITE [blank], Forepe l words: Filed Indictment. Case assigned to Judge all purposses [sic]. Signature /S/.
ted, spelling error in Original the USAOs filer duly annotate he bottom of the official cover ourt files: ion puts the dubitable - alle s, antecedent to June 19, 2001, s proof, that the first assigne who, right out of the gates, l rd 9eh! and b% D*@* Attorne% #ar%-/o Wh ive of the osecutor arrived une 19, 2001 and 6 INDICTMENT, to consistent with June 19, 2001 zed an official 5-58), captioned: MENT 01 erson [blank] and dge Koeltl . l, see below) ed by handwritten r: specimen photo
egations of prior , to a full rest, ed Judge was lacked key hite 10
subject matter JURISDICTION over 371 for statutory limitation reasons [18USC3282] that had been falsely anchored upon three time-barred overt acts outside the 5 year limit.
Elsewhere the Court stated [below], albeit to deceive Applicant, during the same guilty-plea phase on record:
I. If, hypothetically, FBI, Harris and Weddle would have been able to obtain a FILED ORDER on 6-14-2001, a SEAL ORDER or 11
a JUDICIAL SIGNATURE on the A/Warrant draft 7 from designated on-duty Judge Hon.Dolinger [who apparently denied Court action for lack of good cause and good paperwork], these three goodfellas [AUSA Harris/Weddle supervised by AUSA George Canellos] might not have drafted a fraudulent ARREST WARRANT a decoy see FN7 - on 6/14/2001 and might not have purloined a NYSD-property COURT CLERK-Signature STAMP for fraudulent use, but the USAO TEAM did the bad act and crossed the bridge, and applied an intrinsically and extrinsically worthless ink- gadget by a fake clerk nick-named Melanie L Lopez. She is not a She, She does not exist but was a non- deputized ghost at 500 Pearl Street, unfit to authorize or certify any document and certainly not an Arrest Warrant. (Design, production and usage of ghost 8 Court signature stamps are felonies, Senates Jud. Committee has unsurprisingly held in similar scenarios)
7
> Appli"ant as assured b% $ourt staffers& that Melanie L. Lopez is not a lone dehu!aniAed alien ghost& unbe)nonst to the $ourts 8u!an 9esour"es depart!ent or $ourt @e"urit%* 12
J. It is all of Congress and, by extension, the American Public paying for a COURT SYSTEM that harbors actors who do not seem to understand the most fundamental concept of separation of powers, due process or morality.
The EVIDENCE is in that these serious charges are true, and therefore the law&order line heads should roll, and people should go to jail seems appropriate here.
Whoever claims ignorance, avoidance or unawareness of the lawless culture that festered within the Court unlikely to have been an exceptional event in this F-Cubed case - allowed torture to the RULE OF LAW and then to lie about it on end, shall no longer remain blinded.
The recklessness extended to the point of causing limitless pain and sufferance to many people and families, particularly Applicants own American family and that is why this very core, and basic culture, needs a thorough overhaul. It bears mentioning that by virtue of this perfidious colorization and fraud these government actors managed to burden their society and the alien defendants with undue opprobrium.
Judicial obstruction to REVEAL must end now as further concealment of Grand Jurors June 2001 records and AO 190 would be without a reasonable basis, or for the unworthy protection of consequences, and is therefore duly demanded.
13
However, in the event that this Court does not make a clear dispositive finding 9 that this impervious, impressive list of clear and convincing facts must cause instant VACATUR nunc pro tunc of [all 3] Indictments and corresponding Convictions for PREJUDICE, UNFAIRNESS, OFFICIAL FRAUD and TORT [CLAIMS that may be brought at any time over LACK of JURISDICTION to convict (371,1341,1343 et al)], then an APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL under 28 USC 455 over more than the appearance of partiality, at best, and over cognitive bias having caused volitional ultra vires judicial acts against Applicant and co-defendants.
Part II
Pursuant to reasoned jurists knowledgeable and familiar with government misconduct at Grand Jury session, the Record and Transcript required to be revealed after 13 years in hiding, serves another very educational purpose to remind the public that concepts of more honor and less deception are not altogether new: Since July 30, 1778 U.S. law stated Resolved that it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors
9 The litany of uncountable prior indignant and merit-free judicial denials was noticeably issued to conceal and divert from the presence of judicial scienter of unfairest prejudice [even before this shameful ongoing process commenced] with pre- and post-punitive consequences by Applicants unfair deportation and was intended to discourage discovery of systemic Federal Court trickery, its comingling racket to shield Bar-Association fellas from due recourse, derail risk of sanctions or disbarment and discovery of the unfairness of judicial process at the Southern District.
14
committed by any persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.
Clear and Convincing Proof of Absence of any valid, recorded OPEN COURT FILING on June 14 th 2001 against Applicant Blumenberg et al. The entire Court Calendar and its Docket Listings for June 14, 2001 leave no doubt, that any shape or form of a United States titled Case vs. Applicant BLUMENBERG [et al] was in certified, clear and convincing absentia until the INDICTMENT was finally FILED with ample proof of a falsified backdater stamp in the morning of June 19, 2001, around 09:30h and an inaugural Assignment for this new case fell 10 upon Hon. JUDGE KOELT. Additional ORDERS TO BE ISSUED
Part II A: Motion for an Order to produce my hidden executed and returned arrest warrant for which the FBI holds proof, was most likely than not invalidly drafted by fraud to cause a false arrest of a few mislabeled FUGITIVES and for unlawful capture, chain and transport of this Applicant at 0700am on June 19, 2001 from the Federal District of New Jersey to Manhattans U.S. Courthouse holding
1; -istri"t /udge 5oeltl& Assignee& has repeatedl% sidestepped appli"ations for independent in,estigator% re,ie under hat "ir"u!stan"e the Eudges on assign!ent o""urred and& ith disturbing i!partialit%& hether the !ethod e!plo%ed as laful* This Appli"ant unsu""essfull% alleged that& upon infor!ation& hints and belief& that the 4F@-s "ri!inal heel as sabotaged during the /une 1? th /udge 5oeltl- Assign!ent& hat& if settled& pla"es the go,ern!ent plaintiff under a !ost unfa,orable 5lieglite of Eudge-pi")ing& so!ething not entirel% unheard of inside the 4F@- $ourthouse& as the @e"ond $ir"uit re"entl% re!ar)ed in a $ri!inal Argu!ent*
15
cell, where Applicant met John Lee, transported from Connecticut, but never saw a SEALED INDICTMENT OR HIS WARRANT 11 .
Part II B: To issue a judicial ORDER to prevent the IRS, a previous case participant, by SEIZE AND DESIST DEMAND from any 12 and all collection efforts for 1995 and 1996, also, because this COURT has possession on file [see Restitution Satisfaction Order Dec 2011 and Soc.Sec.#] of certified documentation by BURDA, that Applicant refunded his employer [BURDA GmbH, Germany] a larger portion of 1995 and 1996 salaries and bonuses which the IRS unlawfully claimed as earned and as undeclared incomes for 1995 and 1996, but, these moneys were in fact neither earned , nor undeclared. Applicants IRS- income declarations made at tax-time 1995/6 under perjury were truthful, crime-free, and even a few dollars higher than factual income, while they were, inadvertently, much more truthful and exact than subsequent government fabrications reiterated during the guilt acceptance colloquia phase false accusation made by the government to appear as aggravating criminal offenses to result in
11 A 0;;C F.IA release b% the -./ "ontained 0>; pages& but o!itted all A993@T WA99A4T@ allegedl% issued b% #agistrate -olinger on /une 17& 0;;1 Ga falsit%H or !andator% Eudi"ial authorit% to assign a rando! FDBITI+3 label to three unindicted defendants*
10 Appli"ant ser,ed upon I9@ Fran)furt $onsulate Beneral bran"h 7-1-0;10 a @3II3 and -3@I@T -3#A4-& hi"h "aused the Fran)furt bran"h to seiAe unlaful& disputed "olle"tion harass!ent& hoe,er & the I9@ !ain-bran"h in 1enns%l,ania stepped in last !onth b% !ailing to in,alid de!and noti"es under false pretense b% international postal !ail in furtheran"e of their intent to defraud Appli"ant* Thus& be"ause D@1@ #AIJ @.9T at /F5-Airport handled the outbound !ail transfer to Ber!an%& this $ourts ex"lusi,e ,ie on !ail fraud ite!s K do!esti" stop-o,ers in another distri"t G4F3-H sLuarel% appl% also to I9@& based on the serendipitous o,er-interpretation of 1> D@$ M1271 Ga troubling view Appellate $ourts K Appli"ant fir!l% reEe"t as a self-ser,ing district trespass to "ongressional illH& the I9@ !ust be stopped*
16
hypothetical tax-underpayments 13 . The 26:7206A Tax charge was clearly bogus, a so-called fall-back charge in the event the untruth of the Conspiracy and fraud charges would exonerate this Applicant, and to further create opportunity for more incarceration time in favor of the BOP. Postscriptum
The fact that th District Court nothing less than ruthlessly certified Applicants 01-571 DOCKET and RECORDS as truthful and correct for transmission to the Second Circuit in each and every Appellate Proceeding, and despite awareness by certain sworn officers of the constitutionally violative FALSIFICATIONS caused by such certifications, an avalanche of prejudicial Appellate proceedings and worthless ORDERS resulted, that are now rendered NULL and VOID for VACATUR. Apparently, unchecked prosecutorial criminal justice powers can bleed into the presumptively noble workings the public must expect from the judiciary, and thus the Southern Districts pond was poisoned for Congress to consider fresh waters.
As a reminder, George Washington wrote to Attorney General Edmund Randolph on September 28, 1789: Impressed with a conviction that the due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good Government, I have considered the first arrangement of the Judicial department as essential to the happiness of our Country, and to the stability of its political system; hence the selection of the fittest characters to expound the laws, and dispense justice, has been an invariable object of my anxious concern.
12 A Ber!an $ourt ruled last !onth in 5-@.-1>C/12 that funds re"ei,ed b% Appli"ant fro! $hristian +iertel sin"e 1??2/7/5/C ere genuine GoutstandingH loans and ere not taxable in"o!e*