11-3300 cr United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee - v. – FRITZ GERHARD BLUMENBERG, Defendant-Appellant, pro se ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case Nr. S1: 01-cr-571] ========================================= APPENDIX for the Defendant - Appellant
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
11-3300 cr
United States Court of Appeals
for the
Second Circuit
° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
- v. –
FRITZ GERHARD BLUMENBERG,
Defendant-Appellant, pro se
° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York [Case Nr. S1: 01-cr-571]
=========================================
APPENDIX for the Defendant - Appellant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(page number and numbers are the original’s and could not be changed)
A Transcript Plea Colloquia Blumenberg (4-5-2002/ JGK) 41 Pages
B Government Response date June, 30, 2011 (Undocketed - extra ECF) 4 Pages
C Original & Translation Notarized Consular Civil Settlement by Blumenberg 1998 4 Pages
D Co-defendant VIERTEL’s 2-28-2010 “Summary of Objection to Magistrate Judge” 17 Pages
E Appellant’s WRIT for AUDITA QUERELA June 8, 2009 18 Pages
F Co-defendant LEE’s attorney letter to AUSA pre-“guilty” plea 4 Pages
G Appellant’s prison letter to R.Zabel, Esq. requesting Lee’s secret NOLLE PROSSE 1 Page
H LUFTHANSA AIRWAY BILL for the “charged” INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY 1 Page
I Appellant’s ORIGINAL FILING under APPEAL DE 242 in 01: cr 571 (JGK) 14 Pages
J Appellant’s REPLY Brief July 9, under Appeal DE ___ in 01: cr 571 (JGK) 9 Pages
K FBI Document proving FBI Scams on “Victim Identity” & “Harboring” 1 Page
------------------------------------------------- x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 01cr-0571-003 (JGK) (HBP)
Plaintiff ))
versus ) OBJECTIONS To Docket Entry 211
FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, pro se ) and MOTION to VACATE RESTITUTION) OBLIGATIONS nunc pro tunc for the Court's
CHRISTIAN T. VIERTEL, pro se ) failure to identify a bonafide victim or direct Defendants ) loss causation suffered by a victim and more
------------------------------------------------- x
Via Fax to 2 Chambers : (212) 805 – 7912, -6111
Christian T Viertel hereby supports Blumenberg's OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Pitman's
RECOMMENDATION, and SUPPORTS Blumenberg's SUBMISSIONS to achieve a CONCLUSION
reasonably and entirely CORRECTING the record on RESTITUTION.
The Judicial Scandal
on hand grew out of inconceivable propensity to defy facts, logic and economic
realities, conceal documents whenever convenient for the government, all up to an extent, that
goes far beyond negligence and ignorance but "borders on roguery" when, as is now evident,
many parties knew for quite some years, that Blumenberg paid off all of his restitution
obligations before 2004, most likely before 2003 and much already in 1998, while the
government's „FLU dream team's“ (source: Garcia) „Money Book“ dutiesI were co-shared with
neglective dodgers at this Court's Clerk to maintain a continuous deception with the goal to
cloak transfered „values“ and keep the opprobrium alive.
The prosecution band, and others, were also heavy in cahoots with proctor Feldman's
mob, who set out to take forbidden silk far beyond the termination of the mandate from ex-
client Burda. The collusionists played for each other.
I USM Title 3 Chapter 3-9.000, see : 3-9.230 CCLR, Form USA 207 for severe lack of compliance
1
Thus, this Court's RESTITUTION-Record is long corrupted, and this movant's direct
suffering and grievances were dawdled by a predilective Court supporting a corrupt
prosecutional position, which an ex-prosecutor Judge must have the foresight to spot. The
actors/officers waisted judicial resources and tortuously compromised the truth-finding
process while trampling upon this movant’s right to uncorrupted procedings, fair post-trial
processes and a legitimate claim for eventual vindication.
Defendant's Objections to Errors
in „mis-valuating“ restitutional assets restituted by Blumenberg to HIS EMPLOYER,
Burda GmbH in Offenburg, which have now been RECONFIRMED, such misguided calculations
are no longer available for "nonsense" holdings or unreasonable „strike-off“ from a true
conclusory summary. Only ONE Conclusion the facts permit: „Restitution was Paid“.
Principally, the R&R conclusions are rejected. The concluder took a whole year to think
up some inappropriate evidentiary standards to deliberately short-change Blumenberg's
restitutional properties [consequential to my secondary liability] and thus, cut-out-short
certain material monetary elements validly submitted or in the general case record. These
submissions included an aged detailed JUDICIAL NOTICE filed 25 February 2006 (below
attached to this submission for swift reconstitution of Court records) pursuant to an even
earlier :
Petition For Correction Of RESTITUTION (Dkt #161 II of 11/2005) still pending in the FIFTH year.
II U.S. District Court CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR C ASE #: 1:01−cr−00571−JGK−3Date Filed # Docket Text05/13/2005 160 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Christian T. Viertel from 140 Memorandum
& Opinion. Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record:A.U.S.A. (tp, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
11/28/2005 161 PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF RESTITUTION. as to Christian T.Viertel. (pr, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
12/30/2005 162 ORDER as to Christian T. Viertel. The Court has received the attached"Judicial Notice" dated 12/16/05 from the defendant. The defendant seeksvarious relief. The defendant also refers to a "Petition for Correction of Restitution. The Government should respond to these papers by 1/13/06. In its response, the Government should explain the proper procedures to be followed by the defendant to assure that he is properlycredited with any amounts paid by Mr. Blumenberg to assure that there isno overpayment of restitution. The defendant may reply by 1/27/06. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/23/05)(kw, ) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
2
This 2006 NOTICE document, hereby resubmitted below, was, according to MJ.
Pitman's R&R, annoyingly „lost“ by the „system“ in breach of rules requiring uncorrupted
record keeping at all U.S.Courts. It demonstrates the disturbing timeline over almost SEVEN
years, during which Viertel's „Judgment Order“ has been defective, then defectively
„amended“, but still remains DEFECTIVE.
Blumenberg's Objections highlight and underscore the gravity of these fundamental
judicial shortcomings and how misguided courts are not to suspect the integrity of those
sitting in front row. His objections raise, de novo, most serious concerns over an
incontrovertibly flawed proceeding and ongoing, behind-the-scenes, nepotistic rackets, cover-
ups and profiteering in abuse of constitutionally protected processes to the detriment of this
innocent movant. Consequently, and based, inter alia, upon BURDA's reissued Satisfaction, the
„clock“ shall be effectively turned back, and the fake litigation shall be exsponged nunc pro
tunc, to seek resurrection of a tiny bit of judicial integrity in a wide ocean unworthy of respect.
MOTION
Movant prays this Court, ad iterum, for an ORDER nunc pro tunc striking any and all
burdens of wrongly adjudicated RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS and striking any and all
references to the counterfeit „victim“ named in the Judgement Order, and to recognize, resolve
and correct grave injustices, including a public record LIEN filing in Florida [see:annex 1], and
to order the relevant instrumentalities of „plaintiff's“ U.S.A., to rectify by exspongement
PUBLIC records, to rectify by exspongement FBI records, to rectify by exspongement the BOP
„custody recordIII data base“ and to exsponge BOP's illegal personal record manipulations, to
rectify by exspongement INS and DHS records to be free of wrong entries, wrong birthdates
and all deceptions, in toto.
Furthermore, this Court shall order the USAO to file FORM 207 or similar as NOTICE to
Close Legal Case File, and to vacate all defective judgment and commitment orders this Court
has produced in favor of the „plaintiff“, his own employer.
Furthermore the Court shall vacate conviction and indictment for the many reasons
III which atrociously list „2 escapes & violence“, inter alia falsum
3
belowIV, if not alone for LACK of Jurisdiction ab initio, a claim that seems to be federally
disfavored, but is a reality as true as alive and strong.
Furthermore, this Court shall issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER which contains elements of
reasonable assurances and neccessary precautions to safeguard the corrected Court/
Grandjury/ FBI and trial/post-trial records from sudden escape, protect Docket items, and
protect the case record from vanishing partially or in totoV.
The movant respectfully requests SANCTIONS to be levied upon all colluding parties
and miscreants. Those sanctions shall be severe enough to reflect the seriousness of the
misconduct, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public and in particular foreigners
from further prosecutorial, bar member and official misconduct.
Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey's common ruse, that „ All Americans are equal before the
Law“ was indicative, but violate public decrement of equal constitutional rights aliens qualify
for, but seldom receive. Haines vs Kerner guides here, and procedural barricades may not be
errected, meaning that whatever writ or rule „number“ LABEL attaches to this MOTION /
Application for CORRECTION of deficient judicial erosions of a substantial right to legitimate
and due PROCESS, it shall vacate the abuse. That abuse must seize and the gutting of National
values, already sqandered by „compliant enablers“ have resulted in huge REPUTATIONAL
LIABILITIES(like the worldchamp INCARCERATION rate), must arrest government trespass.
Introduction
Movant laid gravamen in vain throughout the last decade, to move this Court away
from compliance with legal nihilism standards and accept a logical – not foregone - conclusion,
that, argumendo, when a Court cannot positively identify a „victim“ and when a loss claim
IV inter alia, clear guidence from the USCA in United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19,
2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): "[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct
prohibited by a federal criminal statute.". Opinion at 14.
V http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/18/health/when-court-decisions-vanish-from-the-record.html?
pagewanted=1
4
causation and amount are specifically unsupported [by – not even – a single identifiable
victim], then, RESTITUTION and punishment MAY NOT SOLELY RESULT from a sordid
preponderance scheme -sans- jury verdict. Any preponder, categorically, who enacted grave
reversible error must step up -sua sponte – upon discovery to end the opprobrium and
retrovert by annulment of each and every unlawful judicial act or filing, he might have been
swindled into by those on first row.
Movant was abusively accused, defectively indicted and superseded, wrongly
„convicted“ by a blantantly deceived jury and senselessly punished as a „wrongdoer“, in fact,
„caught up“ as by-kill trickery, and was deliberately exposed to 2 untenable phantom overt
„acts“ resulting in enhanced penal consequences, utterly baseless. Deportation by way of
„removal“ erected shelter for the benefit of an utterly corrupt bunch of greedy proctors
principally acting as oath violators, forgers, bogus Court officers and bad apples. The proctor
group runs on such monumental moral deficiencies, that a lifetime PRESIDER must enrobe the
antennas to detect, or rather move to other duties. Grave constitutional conflicts based upon
due process violations were approvingly sealed, while Jurisdiction was WANTED.
There are few things a justice dislikes more than repudiating a prior opinion.
But now is the time to view these opinions in the light of the CLEAR BURDA
STATEMENT, that Blumenberg paid his debts owed to „victimized“ German employer Burda
GmbH a long time ago, and that this movant was hornswoggled out of a legitimate
RESTITUTION OBLIGATION in favor of a REAL VICTIM. Movant never owed RESTITUTION to
any real actor in this case, who could step up under oath. Now is the time to STATE THIS ON
THE RECORD.
This movant's definite lack of Victim's LOSS causation was heard and recorded by this
Court during the defendant's sentencing statement, and shall be recalled now. This Court
unwisely chose to ignore those true statements in the common face of goverment retribution,
if he palliated a covert, but shady agreement on how to sentence. And it is in PLAIN VIEW. It
might be hard to accept, that – sometimes - those on first row have lower morals, than those
on second, and conspiracy to obstruct justice remains a continuing offense. But this is the hard
lesson any Court must learn : Persons can be targeted and not be guilty, that's not mutually
inconsistent.
5
A. The Dice are always loaded
Harris & Co aided by Feldman & Co used a deceptive indictment event for personal
gain, subsidized talmudic education, and aggrandizement. It was not due justice, nor
honorability to squash the legitimate search for historic court reporter records, which could
prove whether or not an OPEN COURT heard the indictment on that 14th day of June 2001. The
judge, the room, the tape, all vanished to waist for Harris' sake detrimental to just two „lousy“
foreigners and one (cameo) yankee.
But we still procede here until the slate is clean, same as below and above. Thanks to
that Second Circuit, labeled by NY Times A National DisgraceVI, where another panel was
essentially pained by appellant VIERTEL's direct case before them, and felt disturbed that
valid arguments and valid case law raised by Kim Bonstrom, Esq. could potentially derail an
otherwise perfected sham proceeding. Alas, they substituted the facts to give themselves an
opportunity to mis-apply their favored laws, in lieu of those laws, which justly curtail federal
reach of proscriptions, altogether handed down in an all too common summary chicanery to
derail a Supreme review, another low point on their record.
At least since early 2004, when movant mandatorily noticed the covertly „deep-sixed“
Brady Y'96 audit of BMI's financials for [1995 &] 1996 to this Court, he did so from captivity.
The highly inconvenient document demolished the plotters „crime theory“, while coincidentily,
the weight of this audit anihilated the counterfeit ruse, that BMI was „ victimized by third-
party“ in '96 when its own $8'120,10 draft, auto-messengered – unsolicited – arrived at
movant's home uptown.
When this discovery hit, the foundations of the „Federal Case“ vanished, the „FBI's pet
victim“ vaporized, the most repugnant pseudo-theory of „replenishment“ vamoosed.
Regrettably, the clean Grandjury Exhibit transmuted into Government Exhibit 501 by criminal
forgery with ink and pen. This time the Court blocked by denial the discovery of an
„unforged“ FBI electronic EXHIBIT picture file, just to save Cohen und Harris from criminal
forgery charges that uncorrupted file would reveal. The presider shall retroactively evaluate
the motives for this denial, and view the consequences it unjustly caused.
VI http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=national%20disgrace&st=cse
6
B. Discovery at 500 Pearl Street
Good news is, that movant now discovered an even earlier COURT RECORD facsimile,
which Feldman's own team submitted in 1999 to Judge Sweet as Exhibit H. Contained in a fat
binder, which never got „served“ upon this defendant, but is „stand-by“ to be pulled from
archive to proof the government's forgery of 2002. It is unreasonable to assume, that Feldman
could anticipate, that government proctors, 2 years later, would resort to forgery of an historic
document, and that defendant's counsel was of such (IAC) incompetence not to detect and call
the bluff. Thus, Feldman inadvertently filed a true BMI corporate RECORD: The clean Agate
Invoice, which proves, once again, that the government's propensity lays on tamperance with
evidence, and reliance upon Court's propensity to cover up. [ see clean Agate Invoice in Annex
(2), yet un-touched by Cohen, the more likely 2002 forger, based upon her Harvard-bred-flaw:
a propensity to defy morality for the sake of winning]
C. Confederacy to stultify
Blumenberg's apparent inability to receive a FAIR and TRUE R&R CONCLUSION was
part of the confederacy to stultify his stronger position as a fully-paid-up-restitutor, while
also handily cloning the meager result to keep more opprobrium laden upon this movant.
The motto keeps giving: „once unjustly imprisoned, denied and deported, indebtness will keep
them owing and weak“. That's what happened here : this Court took the position, that a) facts
do not count, b) a fooled jury's verdict can well provide for abuse (the jury cannot have „found“
furtherance ? Who are we kidding ?), c) this government's delusions must be protected, and
d) swift prison, denied curfew, denied halfway house, followed by a lengthy removal will asure
to choke the truth and flow of true information, which could tarnish the system.
There was no genuine federal crime Blumenberg, nor this movant, substantively
violated, because corporate and economic realities of the independent (no longer a pre-1992
„branch“ agency ), $6,888 million revenue generating BMI do not permit interstate fraud
charges in this case. Consequently, a conspiracy – willful or coincidental- to breach such
„inapplicable law“ did not exist. Blumenberg was uncharged by NY state, despite Rogers &
7
Wells fruitless attempts at Morgenthau's: turns out, voilà, the „Fed's“ are evidently easier to
inveigle.
The „inveigled“ were White, Canellos, Weddle, Harris, who threw a curve-ball to ex-
officio Pomerantz , then „Esquire“ Feldman snatched it for his and his team's personal
monetary gain to the 100% detriment of local Burda Media Inc.(BMI), the cash-rich business
corporation Blumenberg built from scratch on loan as honorary chief executive.
BMI's agreed modus operandi was to habitually overcharge its almost 3 dozen foreign
customer billings, albeit with corporate consent from his German parent (Blumenberg's only
employer: Burda GmbH). Since such a “billing model” as of 1/1/1992 was grounded upon
BMI's independency VII , it carried German tax advantages and better still, permitted his
employer Burda GmbH to „recoup“ Blumenberg's contractually high maintenance cost through
mark-ups BMI charged all its customers. Including also „bobkes customers“ such as Burda
Whereas, defendant pro-se, Christian Viertel, hereby submits to this honorable Court a:
Mandatory Judicial Notice
In furtherance and during the pendancy of defendant’s
Petition For Correction Of RESTITUTION
[Dkt# 161] and in addition to other submissions including defendant’s RESPONSE to thegovernment’s averments filed January 27, 2006.
This NOTICE is filed in the interest of justice and to best position this Court to view the depth ofthe scenario and facts underlying the Petition.
Defendant, whose instant case is not yet final, and whose strong claims of [f]actual innocence fromany federally violative conduct remain strong, obtained this week in Germany two letters , both ofwhich are adjoined and part of this NOTICE to the Court:
#1 letter: was issued 10 Nov 2003� by an associate Member of
Standing at HUBERT BURDA Media’s Board of Directors (VORSTAND). In fact,Professor Dr Robert Schweizer, the writer of letter� #1 addressed to a retired senior
� Three days after this defendant was regrettably forced to self-surrender, without benefit of apostponement- found by this Court to be unreasonable, into a putrid prison warehousemachinery run by nefarious miscreants whose goal, initially, was to curtail all communications,and to humiliate new arrivals in violation of 18USC 3553, ff. et.al.
� Translation in FULL : Honorable, dear Mr.Sakowski: Dr.Burda sends his gratitude for your letter of October 12, 2003. Your letter was discussed at the
Board (meeting), and I was chosen to respond to you herewith. Initially: Mr.Markwort and Dr.Todenhöfer did not “sink their teeth into Fritz”. When his fraudulent
activities were discovered, Mr.Bolls and myself were in charge of review and further handling.BURDA group and its employees never made any [U.S.] criminal referral. BURDA group does not
punish Mr. Blumenberg twice. We never exercised any influence whatsoever upon [UnitedStates] criminal proceedings. We [BURDA] attempted throughout the years, within our set
15
executive (Sakowski) in France, pursuant to the executives earlier intervention on behalf ofMr.Blumenberg. Blumenberg is my untried co-defendant and the primary restitutioner in thisjoint case 01-0571(JGK)
From all 4 corners of the #1 letter, it is apparent, and thus for this COURT to take immediate mandatory consideration, that BURDA group was already satisfied with Blumenberg’s restitution byNovember 2003, prior to Blumenberg’s incarceration and most probably prior to this defendant’sugly sentencing day experience in June 2003, the constitutionality of which is currently underappellate review. This honorable court holds Proctor Warren Feldman as his officer-of-the-court,who, highly unethically, moved without due authorization from his ultimate client to mislead thisCourt by obtaining undeserved and untimely “victim” standing�. It is more likely than not thatFeldman & Co. knowingly acted violative of their clients mandate with respect to an earlier referral,and viewed in that light, the Court shall consider the government’s motivation to continue toobstruct� disclosure of AO 257, a required Court form, which was sought by this defendant, andwhich this Court repeatedly ordered to be disclosed, to no avail and thus far, without sanctions.
#2 letter: was issued by the law offices of Professor Dr Schweizer, who then and nowacts as general counsel to the BURDA group, in addition to his board position. The letter�
parameters, to mollify these problems.Dr.Burda must treat a single instance also reasonably within its framework. Everyday, as you
experienced yourself, we have to balance some interests. Such balance, i.e., restrains us fromfinancially supporting Mr.Blumenberg. However, Dr.Burda ruled in favor of Mr.Blumenberg notto seek further restitution of damages. Presumably, you did not even have thoughts aboutfinancial help.
BURDA never wanted the arrest of Mr.Blumenberg. But, as previously stated, we are incapable toprevent such detention.
The problems rest, in my opinion, at more depth. Why did Mr.Blumenberg, while he was highlyremunerated, damage BURDA for so many years and with such intent? As far as we know, wasMr.Blumenberg subject to outside – BURDA unrelated – influences, which caused him to divertmonies and caused further damages to BURDA by diverting BURDA funds to associates. Hefurthermore caused grief to many his BURDA-colleagues.
Due to all these circumstances, Dr.Burda was not willing to give even more support toMr.Blumenberg than what he decided several years ago, as mentioned: No further damageswill be sought. BURDA is contented the restitution obtained in the past. New damages claimswould arise only in case of new circumstances. With friendly greetings, please also forMr.Blumenberg Schweizer
� Which this defendant has substantially disputed as false, fabricated and erroneous
� United States Attorney Acosta (SDFL) just stated, “Attorneys, as officers of the Court, have anethical obligation and a duty to protect and promote our system of justice. When attorneysbreach that duty and actively obstruct justice, it erodes the public confidence in our legalsystem.”
� Translation in FULL: Referenced BLUMENBERG/VIERTEL 2 September 2004Honorable Mr. Rahlf,In reference to your letter dated August 6, 2004, for which we thank you: Your client accepted at
the USDC-SDNY on June 4, 1998 a 38-page settlement, which contained numerousappendices detailing his obligations. Those obligations have substantially been satisfied. His[Capital] Life Insurance with Journalist-Pension Fund (Stuttgart) remains outstanding but thosepension benefits were irrevocably ceded by your client on June 1, 1998 in favor of BURDA. Wedo not know of any other issues. With friendly greetings: Law office Prof.Schweizer, written
16
was issued on September 2, 2004 to a chartered accountant at the BEER, GASTL &PARTNER law firm in Hamburg, which acts as Blumenberg’s CPA in Germany and,apparently in response to a letter dated June 4, 2004 (which has not yet been made availableto me). BURDA’s attorney states therein, that Blumenberg has, in September 2004, satisfactory status vis-à-vis his obligations pursuant to DJ.Sweet’s proceedings. “Those[OBLIGATIONS] have substantially been satisfied”, he writes.
Once more, very clear language from BURDA, which squarely accolades defendant’s PETITIONTO CORRECT RESTITUTION with high merit, for this COURT to grant the reasonable reliefsought, and BURDA-language which also confirms that Blumenberg complied with this Court’sstated Sentencing ORDER:
5) The defendant is to continue to comply withthe terms of his civil agreement with BurdaMedia, the victim in the instant offense; and 6)The defendant shall cooperate with the Internal RevenueService with their efforts to collect any due and owingtaxes.
THEREFORE , the defendant PRAYS this Court to grant his PETITION, inter alia, and such otherrelief� as might be considered just, certainly overdue and reasonable in the interest of justice, andmaybe to go beyond the petitions calling and rectify the wrongs which this Court has supported fortoo long.
by Mr.Delhey and signed during his absence by Söder.
� United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi):"[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federalcriminal statute.". Opinion at 14.
17
Appendix
E
Appendix
F
Appendix
G
Appendix
H
Appendix
I
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x
(via fax 212-805-7912 to Chambers May-16-2011 & mail)