1 14-2988 UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ------------------------------------------------- United States of America, Appellee v. John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants, Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant – Appellant. ------------------------------------------------- On Appeal from an evasive order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – 01-cr-00571 (JGK) ------------------------------------------------- Appellant’s OPPOSITON to “Affirmation” in support of Appellee’s “MOTION for Summary Affirmance”, and CROSS-MOTION for Summary Reversal, Vacatur of “Indictments/Convictions”, or, to not expand Appellee’s briefing window farther than 30 days ------------------------------ Fritz G. Blumenberg, Appellant, Pro Se Am Hempberg 2, 21224 Rosengarten – GERMANY +49-4108-590-535 [link ]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
14-2988
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
-------------------------------------------------
United States of America, Appellee
v. John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants,
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant – Appellant.
------------------------------------------------- On Appeal from an evasive order by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York – 01-cr-00571 (JGK)
------------------------------------------------- Appellant’s OPPOSITON to “Affirmation” in support of Appellee’s
“MOTION for Summary Affirmance”, and CROSS-MOTION for
Summary Reversal, Vacatur of “Indictments/Convictions”, or, to not
expand Appellee’s briefing window farther than 30 days
------------------------------
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Appellant, Pro Se Am Hempberg 2, 21224 Rosengarten – GERMANY
�� +49-4108-590-535 [link ]
2
Introduction There is a famous proverb that “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat
it”. This saying has great significance in a case like this which involves a prejudicial
overdose, official fraudulence, and chronic docket doctoring that resulted in massive
discrimination against two aliens who were unconstitutionally prejudiced, deprived of
liberty, branded felons and deported for no reason.
These official acts must be seen in light of unfortunate history of discrimination
against non-citizens and “hyphenated”-Americans (Pres. Roosevelt).
“There is such a thing as due process of law!” Associate Justice A. Scalia
reminded the Federal Judiciary on January 21, 2014. Let’s see Appellee’s BRIEF.
Summary - Background
A first inspection of the “AFFIRMATION” [sic] reveals affirmant’s blaring [this
time] not untruthful avouchment on ¶ 2: “3. Indictment S1 01 cr. 571 (JGK) was
filed on February 14, 2002, in five counts.” [Bolding, underline added].
An overt crack at circumnavigating candor and the true inaugural procedural [bill]
history, which, to date, was willfully, knowingly and consistently misrepresented at each
level and to each Circuit Panel in each of multiple appellate proceedings by Appellant
and by his remaining Co-Defendant Viertel.
The government’s “en-passant” generic sounding, semi-official deceit was foul
and perpetual – in a variety of text-versions - as follows: “The Original Indictment
against Blumenberg, Lee and Viertel was filed on June 14, 2001”.
Absolutely, positively falsified.
3
The sole true FILING of a [signed] INDICTMENT bill occurred June 19, 2001, and was
filed in absence of a “SEAL”. On that day, unsurprisingly, case 01 cr. 571 (JGK) was in
fact “OPEN”. “JUDGE KOELTL” assigned, vel non,1 by a rubberstamp.
The novel “AFFIRMATION” language (supra) is an approach by not echoing
under oath those “calendaring” lies told a few dozen times before it. Proctrix Cohen’s
strategy thus evolved into affirmative damage-control. Proctrix tries to ditch the 600
pound gorilla at bar.
It took a 5 day ruse to maliciously inculpate for expired innocent acts
The novel practice won’t expunge old misrepresentations, but it very well co-
ministers as intrinsic CONFIRMATION of the solid “date-line” position both alien
defendants sustain in that USA’s pre-inaugural “June 14, 2001” delusion was just that, an
artifice. Facts are that Grand Jurors had not voluntarily concurred to play fast and loose
with prosecutors’ supposition neither on June 14, 2001 nor during 4 ensuing days.
Through a blatant backdate-lie, the United States recklessly heaped disgrace upon
Grand Jurors, a clear demonstration of arrogance and disrespect for what is hyped as its
own citizens’ “oversight powers”. Henceforth, Grand Jurors must take notice that the
Federal Government must face Grand Juries they get, not those they wish to get!
This pro se Defendant-Appellant presented, however inartfully, these issues to the
District and the District went into instant denial straying beyond the edges of strict rules,
including Haines v. Kerner2’s playbook judges must follow once a genuine verifiable or
1 In fact, learned clerks pointed out that this Judge was “shopped” by half (a CA2 issue in U.S.
v. Newman), and freely jumped NYSD’s criminal “wheel – cloaked, clutching his gavel”.
2 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam)
(allegations of pro se complaint are held to less stringent standard than formal pleading
drafted by lawyers, when court considers a motion to dismiss).
4
jurisdictional claim appears to have been made, even “out of” procedure, out of order or
time, or recuse once a judge has weighty personal scienter for participating in the
derailment of the Constitution. This Appeal followed.
Highest professional standards are missing
The alteration in procedural history selections for proctrix’ “AFFIRMATION”
demonstrate aggressiveness, a culture of deception to stay a “winner” at all costs, and
reveals how much [undeserved] deference courts ensign for determinations that should be
more blindly analyzed and adjudicated. The DOJ requires “federal prosecutors to
conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the highest professional standards when
they represent the U.S.”: in 01 cr.571 they failed to uphold these standards.
USA after USA pushed the envelope, most likely enabled by Appellant’s non-
combative defender having Appellant cooperate and plead guilty [A.713, more generic
than legally firm] despite what - at least on hindsight - seems to have been serious
questions of legal sufficiency, jurisdictional grounds and over “intentionally fraudulent
professional misconduct”.
Now that “reservoir of respect” hopefully shriveled to under nano-size. An
extraneous Magistrate’s “un-sealing of a hoax” [Br. 16] was less sorcery and more
villainous, till his own “un-seal & lies” collapsed last year [about the time NYSD’s
“Melanie L Lopez”-ink-swindle popped].
Now time has arrived to capitulate, that even an unelected United States’ actor
cannot make proof un-microfilmed, stamps un-inked, “FUGITIVES” un-branded, or,
3 “Br.” Refers to Appellant’s BRIEF on APPEAL; and “A.” refers to Appellant’s Appendix
5
twist phantom “Melanie L Lopez” into “Deputy Real McCoy” sworn to sign Arrest
warrants void of a judicial Order.
Appellant’s Affidavit of Fact follows this OPPOSITION.
Argument
This is a timely4 submitted OPPOSITION5 to a frivolous 8-page
“AFFIRMATION ” in lack of [DOJ mandated] necessity of authorization by the United
States Attorney for the SDNY [P. S. Bharara] for any legal “Motion”.
Appellant’s opposition rests upon three prongs, the first prong over procedural
objections, untimeliness et al; the second prong objecting to “merit” [or rather lack of
merit] the government posits and which must be deemed yet another quintessential
“ foul”6 attempt in furtherance of a continuous cover-up of what official actors planned
and operated as an Enterprise of backdating and docket doctoring; the tertial prong being
a Cross-Motion [upon Appellee’s straight failure to timely file its calendared BRIEF by
04/15/2015, in lieu of a written local rule that would grant a self-reset of a BRIEFING
deadline grounded on [too slick of a] motion practice, and cross-moving for SUMMARY
REVERSAL of ORDER and CONVICTION, EXCULPATION and VACATUR
INDICTMENT[s]” for good cause, or, in case the Panel rules to expand Appellee’s
4 On 04/17/2015 CA2-Case Manager A. Greenidge advised Appellant by email that an
OPPOSITION would be due for filing by 04/23/2015
5 (B) Request for affirmative relief. A response may include a motion for affirmative relief. The
time to respond to the new motion, and to reply to that response, are governed by Rule
27(a)(3)(A) and (a)(4). The title of the response must alert the court to the request for relief.
6 Anno 1935, when Justice Sutherland, in Berger v. U.S., held that prosecutors commit foul
strikes and are not licensed to lie nor promote lies of others
6
expired BRIEF deadline ex-post-facto, any such gifted time be less than 30 extra days, in
the interest of speedy justice vs. more wiggle room.
1. The First Prong.
a) Courts are – prudently - loath to entertain late-filed motions for summary
disposition that abuse the judicial process or waste the court’s resources.
For example, in United States v. Fortner [455 F.3d at 752,53,54], the 7th
Circuit warned litigants against using motions for summary disposition
“We now explain why the government's litigation strategy—filing a
motion for summary affirmance days before its merits brief was due—is
problematic.7 "The strategy is this: instead of filing a brief on the due
date, the appellee files something else, such as a motion to dismiss. The
goal and often the effect is to obtain a self-help extension of time even
though the court would be unlikely to grant an extension if one were
requested openly."United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 980 (CA7
2005); see also Ramos v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 948, 949-50 (CA7 2004). As
we held in Lloyd and Ramos, a last-minute motion, if necessary, should
be filed along with a timely brief, not in place of it.”8
b) With breathtaking audacity, the government sought to arrogate to itself
the right to terminate or to expand an uncomfortable process. Affirmant
Cohen’s pseudo “DIY-Motion” was not simply untimely but contravenes
7 [The practice is widely used; anecdotally, this is the second such motion this motions panel has addressed (and denied) in a single week. (pulled from original for clarity)]
8 The CA7 subsequently clarified its position, limiting Fortner to "last-minute" summary
disposition motions, and not those that were filed "well before the appellant's brief was
due." Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807, 808 (CA7 2007).
7
Circuit law; see U.S. v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13, 14 n. 3(CA2 2010). The
“AFFIRMATION” was jotted down less than 8 days before the due date
of USA’s merits BRIEF [DOC#409, now deemed expired upon no-good
cause]. The 11th-hour maneuver is unlikely to streamline this appeal but
rather to squander Circuit resources. The “Motion” “AFFIRMATION”
was an artifice to short-“circuit” appellate process, was not taken in good
faith and must fail if not because “" lady doth protest too much,
methinks"10.
c) Generally, panels must be satisfied to have thoroughly grasped all pro
se issues on Appeal arisen, inter alia, from the originating District
Motion and weigh [on an unbiased scale, blindly] whether merits existed
for its speedy denial below or suspicion of a second agenda appear
reasonable, like hinting at furtherance of cover up from felony backdate
violations to bogus “non-seals” of an pre-inaugural draft-bill.
d) The law was colored with 2 superseders in pretense of “relating back”
to an originally valid conspiracy charge. Unlawful extra-conviction on a
bogus – expired - §371 charge rigged to enhance, to over-incarcerate and
judicially counterfeit “preponderance” for expired “pseudo conduct”
[despite micro-economic insufficiency that Burda Media – as a net-
winner, not victim, of Appellant’s executive decisions – could not
demonstrate and had no intent to falsely verify to the Court’s Probation
9 40 SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee USA
United States of America Brief due date as 04/15/2015,
Unsealing Indictment (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B.
Pitman); Copies mailed (jm) (Entered 06/20/2001)
vii.) Defendant-Appellant did not enter into a plea-agreement or waiver
[but, as turned out, was coerced into unknowingly, unintelligently
“eat” the (corrupted S2) INDICTMENT, rendered defective
because counts must relate back to a valid timely count and not
one more with a 5-days backdate fiction. A June 14, 2001
INDICTMENT does not exists, and a June 19, 2001 one that does
exit, once cleansed off its Count One irregularities, would by
without “preponderance powers” to overreach and over-
incarcerate on a time-barred Conspiracy charge.
viii.) Facts and argument presented to the District in the substantive
Motion under Appeal dispute much of what the government
falsely posited as DUE PROCESS.
3. The Tertial Prong.
Appellant cross-moves this Court for SUMMARY REVERSAL concurrent to
VACATUR of CONVICTIONS and of all “four” INDICTMENT[s], the ugly fake draft
and three unsealed corrupted ones that followed.
14
Summary Reversal “may also be appropriate in extremely rare cases where
there has been a clear denial of constitutional rights without a reasoned decision from
the court below.” 9th Cir. R. 3-6 (Summary reversal may be granted where “an
intervening court decision or recent legislation requires reversal or vacation of the
judgment or order appealed from or a remand for additional proceedings.”). Q.E.D.
If Domina Iustizia were truly blind, than every trespassing prosecutor must be in
constant fear of getting snagged and shackled or, Justice cannot be done. Anno Domini
MXMXXXV when Judge Sutherland, in Berger v. US, held that prosecutors are neither
licensed to lie nor to cause proxies to swindle on their behalves (see Magistrate HBP on
DOC#2 for a glaring example of such swindle) because such conduct is prohibited,
considered “foul strikes” and, as Appellant suggests, piled up huge societal debt the
United States must take responsibility and repay those who were violated by their actors
malicious conduct.
It is reasonable that GJ minutes shall be ordered opened for transparency (also in
view of another DOJ “Injustice” scandal this week) because letting DOJ/FBI getting
away with grand jury grandstanding and misconduct prejudicial to their targets results in
abuse of judicial process.
Now, the government affirmant request an alternative [¶ 8, FN 4]: “ In the event
that the motion is denied, the Government respectfully requests that it be afforded a full
91-day period to prepare and file its brief on the merits”.
That is a non-sequitur; the government fails to explain why they would need to
double dip and research for another 91 days, if their appellate jurisdiction argument could
have been timely made in a merits brief. FRAP Local Rule 27.1 stands in the way:
(f) Motion to Extend the Time to File a Brief.
15
(1) Extraordinary Circumstance Required. Absent an extraordinary circumstance, such as serious personal illness or death in counsel's immediate family, the court will not grant a motion to extend the time to file a brief. A deadline for a brief remains in effect unless the court orders otherwise.
Appellant profoundly objects that 90 squandered days could be rewarded with 91
more days and submits that the government be held accountable for its conduct and
disarray, and be granted a prolongment of no more than 30 days maximum, on the
condition that candor is forthcoming.
Conclusion
Those who swore the constitutional oath in the Courthouse fabricated evidence they wish to have, tampered with jurors and dockets to ensnare aliens over foreign conduct without a nexus to an identifiable New York victim and without measurable intent to violate United States domestic laws or inflict pain upon the United States. The RULE OF LAW they abated shriveled into an empty slide in America’s Absolute Power Point presentation insulting the public.
The conclusion is that the government Motion was raised on fictitious and bad faith grounds and must fail. No party, including the United States should be allowed to borrow more undeserved time, thus, their proposal should be denied. Preet Bharara recently noted that: “It is unfair: it is offensive; it is unlawful; and it puts a black mark on the entire enterprise.” Let’s coequally apply his words to this matter on Appeal.
Respectfully submitted on this 22 April 2015, Hamburg, Germany by email
Appellant, Cross-Movant, Defendant Fritz G Blumenberg /s/
Affidavit ¶ 16 follows, Service Certificate ¶ 22 Exhibit I ¶ 23 adjoined.
16
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ---------------------------------------------------------
United States of America, Appellee
v. Appellant’s Affidavit in Support of Opposition to
John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants, “Affirmation” for “ Summary Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant – Appellant Affirmance”, or for 91 extra days of underserved time ---------------------------------------------------------
I, Fritz G. Blumenberg swear this Affidavit under Title 28 U.S.C. §1746 under penalty of perjury “without” the United States in Hamburg, Germany and sayeth:
i) Up until about 09:30 A.M. on 06/19/2001, AUSAs and their Supervisors
[reporting to USA White], struggled to deliver “CPR” to what they labeled as
“key conspiratorial overt acts on June 17 &18 1996”. These two pseudo-acts
were fictional, illogically and untenable but somehow could be deemed
probable. These two rapidly expiring pseudo-acts17 were bread & butter for the
government’s illicit prosecution, and required “tolling” at any price, no matter
the Constitutions Due Process Clause.
ii) The tolling could not be stopped. The “acts” of 17/18th June 1996 expired.
iii) A fiction over “timely” Grand Juror consent was created by USA.
iv) Contrary to myriad false government representations, consciously bogus
assertions, fake “FUGITIVE” labeling, tolling did not stop until the
“INDICTMENT” was filed on 06/19/2001.
17 In 03-1364 USA Kelley, AUSAs Cohen and Neiman put it as a clear misrepresentation to
Second Circuit, see at this link http://bit.ly/1yR0FZl
17
v) The United States resorted to bad faith “CPR” delivery on 06/14/2001 as a
result of Grand Jurors not rushing to conclusions – on dicey probability and
because AUSA Mark Harris pushed his FBI witness-1 into a lie about a time
line of what became GX 501. Juror’s instinctive reluctance to readily consent –
Foreman Rehm is said to not recalling an advisory over “two looming acts
expiry” during a debriefing – to a speedy conclusion just to avoid expiry of 5
year old “overt” pseudo-acts18 that the government spun for the jurors.
(“Presider K” steadfastly refused for 14 years to release June 2001 GJ
records, another point raised below and on instant Appeal for judicial bias an
abuse)
vi) The government’s “CPR” procedures also featured an interstate “back-up-
scenario” for 06/15/2001, which, inter alia mensis rea, consisted of unlawfully
branding the 3 targets as “FUGITIVE [s]” (A. ¶ 49, 50, see Cross-Motion
Exhibit I ¶ 4,5 intra, for explanation), and interstate FBI transmission of three
fake arrest warrants plus an unsigned, un-returned, unfiled, unsealed
“INDICTMENT” draft, sent as bogus proof to several FBI residencies that day.
Arrogance has no limits.
vii) The government continues to pretend that the circumstances surrounding
Appellant’s false INDICTMENT backdate were legit. They were not. They
were Grandstanding, malicious dishonesty, lack of candor and not an act “in
the public interest”. Prosecutor after prosecutor gambled and gambled with
loaded dice, until their dice now melted.
viii) The USA misrepresented “factoids” as if a real “INDICTMENT” had been
“returned by Grand Jury” in the SDNY “on 06/14/2001”. In furtherance of their
18 Both fabricated acts (17/18th June 1996) were debunked as pseudo and untenable (A.¶ 41)
18
official – perchance un-American - ruse, three drafts “A/Warrants” were
counterfeit by AUSA Mark Harris, each contaminated with ink from a bogus
signature stamp19 (A. ¶ 42, FN7) [prosecutors had purloined earlier from Chief
Clerk J. Parkison20]. This issue is on instant Appeal under the Constitutions
Confrontation clause providing that a requested “Warrant” must be held for
post-arrest inspection and verification and may not be concealed by an
impartial District Judge who should – according to ethic rules – not have his
own dog in the fight. [Co-def’s Viertel’s fake A/W was recovered from FLSD]
ix) On 06/19/2001 the USA galvanized Judge Pitman to forge their alibi [DOC#2]
x) June 19, 2001 was a straightforward inauguration day of o1 cr. 571.
xi) Furthermore, a legitimate Magistrate “mj” Case was not opened in the SDNY
against Affiant or Lee, Viertel. Case 01-cr-571 was OPENED on June 19,
2001, evidenced by PACER’s uncorrupted Docket Record on undisputable
INDEX entry, facts the government can no longer controvert. Nota bene, that
the government thus far shunned to furnish a shred of stressable documentary
proof from the District’s or Magistrate’s certifiable Calendar, no tape nor
transcription, that they had entered, GJ-Foreman Rehm in tow, an OPEN
COURT room door on 06/14/2001, and fortuitously applied for FILING and
were either granted or not a SEAL in lieu of a duly “SIGNED” indictment
[Foreman’s & USA White’s ], because all they possessed up until 06/19/2001
19 “Melanie L. Lopez” was a phantom, a fiction not deputized to stamp “Arrest Warrants” on
June 15, 2001, see A. 42 FN7 for ink specimen
20 Who, upon information and belief, collected illusory signatures stamps of fictive clerk’s
as novelties for practical jokes.
19
was a blank draft proposal, a copy they had faxed around in vain and bad faith
in lieu of a “real” one. In fact, Appellant refers the Court to Exhibit 1 [intra21].
xii) On 06/19/2001 the firstever CASE v. Blumenberg [Affiant] was
inaugurated, “opened and filed” for its firstever time22 (A.¶ 40) rendering
prosecutorial struggles to re-design “tolling” for not yet time-barred §371
jurisdiction, null and void, and, yes, ultra vires at absolutum.
xiii) On 06/19/2001 the government set up for backwards bogus docket entries
(A.¶ 34) after the USAO elicited certified, albeit patently false judicial grade
testimony (Br.¶ 16” see DOC#2”) in which their “robed witness” prevaricated
about a 5-day earlier – albeit fictitious- “FILE & SEAL” [A.¶34) he had
“witnessed” somehow, despite his absence from the Courthouse. (Affiant’s
Defender Phil Weinstein was ineffective in failing to review of DOC#2’s
significance for my defense. Lee, instead, hired exquisite sharp-shooting
Esquires, Appellant and Viertel were handled ineffectively by what might as
well have been double agents. Weinstein to date refuses to whistle-blow over
this prima facie, more-than-leery judicial document accessible to him as
defender (but not scanned on Pacer), despite a heavily tortured false PACER
entry #2, SDNY clerk (jm) mis-phrased for what he should have known to be
highly dubious “goodfellas”, A.34 screenshot )
xiv) Affiant did not have a copy of DOC#2 until spring of 2014
xv) John Lee (3) was more effectively lawyered-up by [akingump’s] Richard
Zabel and obtained exculpatory nolle on the heels of his open threat to seek
21 In fact, Appellant refers the Panel to an email Exhibit 1 (with permission of author Viertel), in
which Viertel points out and underlines several issues raised.
22 Albeit – purposefully designed to not upset their prior ruse - not in OPEN COURT but by
USA staffer deposit through SDNY’s window to circumnavigate a conflict in the fake record the
government built with sophistication and brazen abuse of judicial process and Constitution.
20
Grand Jury Records in re dubious prosecutorial conduct before it (A.¶ 52-53;
see Ex. I ¶ 3 screenshot from an akingump Benjamin/Zabel Motion).
xvi) Such Grand Juror records were the government’s Achilles’ heel.
xvii) Hitherto, government actors, who sought to keep at least two badly lawyered
aliens on their “crooked hook”, employed atrocious force, boundless deception
and vast misrepresentations to avoid their detection. They arrogantly violated
the United States Constitution, Napue v. Il. (360 U.S. 264), Brady v. Md. (373
U.S: 83) and met the “foulness-standard” of Berger (295 U.S. 78), ad
infinitum.
xviii) Limitless deceptions targeted every Circuit Panel in Appellant’s [and
Viertel’s] long history of prior cases in plain judicative disrespect, regrettably
resulting in re-affirmance over a blunt, undetected, overlooked falsity: “On June
14, 2001, Indictment 01 Cr. 571 was filed charging defendants Blumenberg, Lee
and Viertel with one count of conspiracy…” was the government’s routinized lie,
with disastrous results for both alien defendants, for their families, properties.
xix) The federal government’s gross disdain in 01cr.571 of a publicly “hailed and
hyped” Grand Jury System, a promotional ruse, as if, hypothetically, a Grand Jury
shields some targets from authoritarian overreach, is of mind-blowing dimension.
[but so was this week’s FBI Forensic scandal structured to deceive the bench]
xx) This case is also of “First Impression” and shall serve the Circuit as an
opportunity to issue a stern democracy lesson by warning Jurors to never rush to
conclusions and be prudently suspicious of those who push for a rush and who
fabricate articulable suspicion for virtually every target [Ham-sandwich regime],
conduct, which in U.S. v. Blumenberg regrettably resulted in a decade of
catastrophic consequences, abuse of judicial process and textbook Due Process
violations.
21
xxi) Finally, despite the wide temporal separation, a legitimate opportunity arose
to prove that a strained justice system can work in the end and that “losers can
turn winners”, when stacked cards are revealed.
k) Appellant-Movant submits that the [Court] record is taken as judicial
appellate notice, that “Case-01-cr-571” OPEN DATE was - just as PACER
INDEX shows - June 19, 2001 and that inaugural entries (A.¶ 34, see docket text
DOC#1, DOC#2) were fake, and that they provide no reason to credit government
assertions and every reason to discredit them.
l) The counterfactual scenario the government posits is genuinely baseless,
meritless and must be stricken. Appellant’s unlawful 07:00 A.M. arrest and
shackled transport over the George Washington Bridge from another district (NJ)
was without consent, and without a warrant, because a proper warrant could not lay
at that early hour on 06/19/2001.
Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.
Certified on this 22 April 2015 in Hamburg, Germany
Affiant, Fritz G Blumenberg /s/
22
Certificate of Service
Fritz G Blumenberg deposes and says that on this day he served copy of his Opposition and Cross-Motion, his Affidavit and Exhibit I by PDF file upon:
I received Wednesday's USANYS "Hail Mary Affirmatio n"without a MOTION. Apparently penned to - deja vue -short-circuit (pun intended) due process withprocedural trickery." They" probably yearn to target another favorableex-prosecutor panel which could rubber stampthe bejesus out of the RULE OF LAW and leaving thecards stacked." We" have to hope for at least two honorable panelistsfrom the "Kozinski-School-Of-Justice"who are unafraid of Preet Bharara's scorn.
1) Please remember that the Grand Juror Form AO 190must be on record but has been kept from usand our attorneys eyes. And this completed FORM wil l,if not counterfeit, will demonstrate ourbackdating charge once moreover.
2) During t he last 5 weeks before John Lee was nolleprossed [“Br.” ¶ 52-53] Richard Zabel,
Lee’s AkinGumpStraussHauer counsel (today he isDeputy USA), cornered the prosecution toeither let Lee off the hook, or face moreembarrassment from the GrandJuror minutes of conduct that the gov't could notafford to be more candid about:
3) In 2006, when I filed - for the third time- a seriatim demandin the "OPEN COURT or NOT" issue, which wasintrinsically tied to GrandJuror Foreman, below is the missive thatbesieged due process, checksand balances of justice.Jurisdictional deficiencies are never waived,and never waivedby badly lawyered-up aliens.Here it seems " my fault and conjecture", butCohen failed tosimply submit the record of that "OPEN COURT"