aousc asleep at the gavel

8/19/2019 AOUSC asleep at the gavel

1/10

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia

[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

James C. Duff, Director Jill C. Sayenga, Assistant Director [EMBARGOED until Feb-14-2016] Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts One Columbus Circle NE Washington, D.C. 20544 3.Feb.2016/ CsM∞/mail/email

Dear Director Duff, Assistant Director Sayenga,

This communication, pursuant to U.S. Consular consultation, is directed at the AOUSC in

seeking a timely response under its “Tradition of Service 1”, and is, due to an incogitable absence of a

Judicial Branch OIG, justifiable addressed here for simple lack of alternative avenues.

In my function as counsel to Professor Viertel and mandataire of Fritz Blumenberg, both

deemed “aliens”, predicate gravamen is hereby brought to your direct attention and, consequently,

for substantive intervention as ministers for the III. Branch, also in view of Director Duff’s

antecedent AO experience during which some iniquities continued. As Hamilton observed “[The

judiciary] may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment”.

Despite numerous, albeit foiled, attempts to obtain official, judicial and administrative

corrective action, to provide transparency and full accountability for the constitutional as well asstatutory violations, forgeries, scurries and perjured entries at all levels of Court and Circuit, it

became evident, that Heracles, unsurprisingly, had a smoother task to clean 30 years of dung from

Augeias’ stables, than to reboot ethics 2.0 at the administration of the judicial department of the

United States. A wall of silence - behind which so many federal scofflaws hide - is a bulwark reality,

as is the discomforting code of omerta that law professionals as jurist of reason, like ministers of

justice, must find repugnant. Qui male agit odit lucem .

Admittedly, these are strong words for equally strong Courthouse toxicity addressed below.

Point 1: On Feb-20-2014, a Clerk of the CA2 confirmed reception of Prof. Viertel’s §351

Judicial Complaint charging Magistrate Pitman with serious, harmful, unconstitutionalmisconduct, docket 02-14-90011-jm. Months went by until the Court’s silence caused me tostate dubiety over judicial “going concerns”, the Chief Judge responded to the undersigned

1 The Administrative Office is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad range of legislative,

legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to federal courts.


2/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

on Aug-5-2014, that “28 U.S.C. §351 is the appropriate vehicle ” gracefully including a fresh setof forms plus instructions. These 2 CA2 letters arrived de facto - via airmail post - here at the Justice Institute in Firenze. It was the last communications from Manhattan, leaving the“disposition of the Judicial Complaint” outstanding to this date [despite 4 reminder noticesin late 2015], much worse, by apparently allowing an [deemed unfit] “Magistrate” on his

bench, unsuspended, not disbarred, and by withholding “Order” disposition under Rule 11(c),(d) or (e) from complainant, from Public and Press, effectively continues the demolitionof due process and, with it, trashing integrity and what reputation judicial review still cancount upon. It is our presumption that the CA2’s silence was intended to derail timelyrecourse2 and widespread publicizing by a foreign complainant, of what is believed to turnout as an unmeritorious disposition or embarrassment. But, maybe it was an honest mistake.

See: “Under Rule 11, (g) (2) [W]hen chief judge disposes of complaint without appointing special committee. If the

chief judge disposes of a complaint under Rule 11(c), (d), or (e), the chief judge must prepare a supporting memorandum that sets

forth the reasons for the disposition. If the complaint was initiated by identification under Rule 5, the memorandum must so

indicate. Except as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 360, the memorandum must not include the name of the complainant or of the

subject judge. The order and memoranda incorporated by reference in the order must be promptly sent to the

complainant , the subject judge, and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.(3) Right to petition for review. If the

chief judge disposes of a complaint under Rule 11(c), (d), or (e), the complainant and the subject judge must be notified of the

right to petition the judicial council for review of the disposition, as provided in Rule 18.”

Presumptively, the CA2’s “radio-silence” seeks to continue shielding peers and its own

reputational liabilities for failure to supervise the District Court. The Magistrate’s signed

“INDICMENT”, casus belli here, Exhibit B, had viewing “blocked” on Pacer, despite mircofilm,

but is now open source at bit.ly/23BMSBO.

Prior written demands to subject Magistrate for explanantion why and how subject

Magistrate (Pitman) - physically absent on Flag Day 2001 – was shockingly dextorous to glean

3

jurisdictionally weighty “Open Court proceedings” in another [Magistrate Dolinger’s] Open and

busy Courtroom on a floor below. But, the “proceedings in Open Court” were not on Judge

Dolinger’s calender, were not taped by court reporters, were not registered on Pacer4 ecf records

[see all-day events printout http://bit.ly/1nFNE0a ] and are not found in the Courts “Sealed

2 See:

3 Or alternately, Magistrate Pitman bore false witness, a federal and NY State offense

4 A copy of this letter was sent to Robert Lowney @ao.uscourts.gov for PACER review


3/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Records Room Log 5”, simply because Magistrate Dolinger’s Courtroom ( his Deputy and law clerks)

were uninvolved and extrinsic to a “ June 14, 2001 Calender Call for a U.S. v. Blumenberg case, or a U.S. v.

ˁ Sealed Defendants ˀ case ”, and, unsurprising, left unmoved in total absence of USA Mary-Jo White’s

“Application for leave to Seal Indictment”. Judge Dolinger has permanently left the building.

The fact that USANYS operatives Mark Harris, George Canellos, Justin Weddle or MarciaCohn were unable or unwilling to locate a draft or a “word” file at Mollo’s building tells what? At

least that a Grand Jury Filing did not occur on 6-14-2001.

[If this non-event and the falsifications that followed are not Kodak-Moments for AOUSC

and, equally, for Pacer’s Honor to be restored, what could be ?]

Infact, during “review” of Prof.Viertel’s complaint 02-14-90011-jm by the Chief Judge,

impartiality should prevaile by taking judicial notice of the entire Pacer record below [supra], and

despite Pitman’s unusual hear-say tales, the fact that NYS’ staff and Pacer incontrovertibly

confirmed the absence of a “SEALED” case, and absence of a “SEALED” mj-case on the day in

question: “Filed on 6-14-2001”. Overt absence of microfilm or other Pacer record could have

provided a Chief Judge with a scent of incredulity for these outlandish misrepresentations by

Pitman. Furthermore, a Chief Judge would have detected a confirmation that, 5 days later – after

about 0930h on 6-19-2001 - a US attorney staffer (name witheld) factually filed a what could be

taken for a signed TRUE BILL, “INDICTMENT” – albeit not under seal or under request to seal.

The AUSA manually annotated (on cover) Form No. USA – 33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58):

“6/19/01 Filed Indictment. Case assigned to Judge Koeltl. For all purposes. /s/ ”.

This cover “form” was accessible to a Chief Judge on microfilm before it was purged from

microfilm and Pacer. We had more luck, and a little help from Court staff, and were able to retrievespecimen 33s-274 untampered. It is now secure at a custodian’s safe haven abroad 6.

Therefore, immediate publication under the now transparent “Public Access” rules for

Judicial Complaints are demanded, with express air mailing to reach Complainant Prof. Viertel here

in Firenze, inter alia, for evaluation whether timely recourse is taken. This constitutes a reasonable

demand upon the United States Court’s Administration for the enforcement of administrative

compliance with Federal Law by CA staff.

Point 2: It is universally deemed unwise governance when [judicial] institutions act ignobly

by, inter alia, exploiting unauthentic rubberstamps of bogus autograph specimen [mimicking bona fide

deputies’ stamps], these are deviations offensive to criminal statutes, acts which deny and defy both

5

6 see: EUGH/EUCJ ruling on U.S. no longer deemed safe haven for data


4/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405 4

the V. and XIV. Amendment DUE PROCESS rights and heap disgrace upon United States

judicative proceedings, particularly for its perception abroad and ultimately at international jurist

gatherings [i.e. uianet.org] and academic lectures7 or in Court of Law.

Herewith, on behalf of my clients, I respectfully alert this Court Administration to

incontestable facts about counterfeit rubberstamp specimen that were pseudo-officially exploited tocause willful, irreparable harm and constitutional violations; these abuses cannot be mitigated as

“errors” and are neither “harmless defects” in this and more than dozens of unrelated cases [staffers

confirmed], a human rights abuse, moreover, clearly established at the time of the officials conduct.

We submit that bogus rubberstamps of fictitious “Clerks” like Melanie L. Lopez are

Kafkaesque elements adzed into the Nation’s Mother Court’s wall forever. These events

demonstrate administrative failures in supervision of court operations, they were factual, some

hidden but no longer covert and must be preserved and protected from revisionist propaganda

efforts. Henceforth, law schools should watchfully take notice to better prepare students for

[rancid] cultures8

they are at risk to join. “Looking the other way is not leadership”, nordemocratic or honorable governance.

Be that as it may, the ink-color off Melanie L. Lopez’s rubber9 ended up on a at least three

bogus, non-judicially-issued Arrest Warrants10 [ via FIOA release ], which FBI operatives [s/a

O’Sullivan – Squad C-12, BQMRA], under direct control of 4 DOJ attorneys, faxed around the

Nation [see recoveries of specimen dated 6-15-2001, redacted: http://bit.ly/1Q9qDJL ]. While these

wires were fraudulent they contained unfound - ergo – unsigned, unfiled, un-indexed drafts

labeled “INDICTMENT” 01 cr. thus, clearly uncooked, UNTRUE BILLS [see snapshot

7

“Netflix raises awareness: Use of bogus authorities at U.S. Federal Courts”.8 In fact, longtime staffers chronicle at least two equal contraband rubberstamps with bogus autographs of

“Melanie L Lopez”, both, initially deemed, under sole control of Chief Parkison [murmured interstate rubber

importer, post-purchase from a NJ print shop]. Later, one had gone amiss, with AUSAs from USANYS as primary

suspects of the rubber heist. U.S. Marshal Service, in charge of Court security, declined to follow up.

9>>>>>

10 In fact, on June 2, 2014, some Federal Courts posted a “Warning! Arrest Warrant Scam” on the web, which, in

view of this gravamen (intra) sounds more like a cynical joke


5/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

http://bit.ly/1TzaTp1 ]. These damning, bad faith novelties furthered the Federal Court disrepute by

falsely claiming “Court issuance” were caused by registered DOJ attorneys [see: “ draft transmission”

in toto on Pacer FLSD per 6-19-2001 -FN 5, intra ]. Thus, substantive constitutional wrongs, three

false arrests, were complete before the “case” had begun, while it was well known to law

enforcement people that counterfeit warrants adorned with fake rubberstamps and without judicial

authority and approvals violate constitutional rights.

Unsurprisingly, USA, Pitman & Koeltl battled since to not face accountability for their

wrongs and for a perverted Docket-Doctoring-Racket which grounded upon an orchestrated

enterprise of cooking Court books, of backwards dating . To proceed judicially on backwards dated ,

otherwise technically “True Bills” that would have violate statutory limitations for conspiracy if not

for the backwards dating scheme, renders the entire judicial process VOID nunc pro tunc , thus, such

an “INDICTMENT” cannot survive for jurisdictional defects, ab ovo. Jurisdictional defects are

never waived, and preserved to date.

Backdating schemes executed by a Court Clerk [Mollinelli-(jm)] are overt and adverseministerial acts by a Federal Court employee. The acts were done in bad faith to – maybe – curry

favor with an ostensibly corrupt association of DOJ attorneys who scurried to shoe-in expired

“overt conspiracy acts” (only June 17 & 18 1996 allegations are relevant). These were fiction as has

turned out, pseudo-acts which still hit time-bar on 6-18-2001, the date before “Cr-Case 571” was

truly “Filed”11. It helps explains background motives for outlandish joint criminal acts by officials

from the two lower branches of the United States government.

Ostensibly, Grand Jurors – according to foreman Bernhard Rehm – were uneasy and

suspicious12 over a rush the USA applied. Jurors eventually waited out until June 19, 2001. Once the

Grand Juror Transcripts (June 14 to 19-2001) are revealed 15 years too late, matters might clear upas to which registered attorney’s orchestrated misconduct before Grand Jurors, valid questions [USA

Bharara’s Deputy] Richard Zabel posed 2002 in Court and got his –then - client John Lee nolled.

Besides that, AO 190 is still AWOL and Koeltl keeps blocking all attempts to view the date

and place it issued and filed. Strangely, this routine harmless JUROR AO Form is being hidden a

decade+ and later long after GJ foreman Rehm’s death.

But we submit, that Court staffers, government, Pitman, Koeltl [et al]

had mutated into extra-judicial entrepreneurs, acting ultra vires coordinating finagling of ex-post-fictio Dead-

On- A rrival “charges” to cook books and game AOUSC Pacer’s inherent security flaws. These

maneuvers assured unfair justice administration of United States Courts, who’s Administrators were

strikingly oblivious to in-house abuse that was regularly reported by staff, or immune to abuse by

11 Noteworthy, how DOJ attorneys maliciously tinkered with a bogus “FUGITIVE” scheme to “toll” the “2 fictional

overt acts”, in the event Pitman would balk at ruining his career and becoming pallbearer of false witness.

12 Jurors are hardly made aware what damages §371 can cause to justice; Main Justice knows well, and trashes all

§371 “charges” from worldwide MLAT requests


6/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

their Sister Branch. Both got away – for now - with trickery and forgery by having “found” criminal

responsibility in a haystack, enhancing alien’s probation maximums (0-6 months) into mindboggling

jail terms long enough to assure getting rid of the defendant’s before they discover the

unconstitutionalities. Deportation of aliens on bogus legal grounds is not new. Cynical Courthouse

insiders, who materially assisted to uncover this scam, labeled this enterprise a routine

“SOUTHERN DOG & PONY SHOW” . We agree.

John Koeltl’s13 “extra-judicial fakery [sic]” swelled into a racket14, a continuing enterprise;

JGK’s lawyerly dictum in 2015 held that a Movant is not entitled to find out “ whether Melanie L

Lopez was a living clerk ”.

What PACER text purports as “Filed on 6-14-2001” in DOC#1 (miraculously 5 full days

before15 CASE 01-571 was factually “Filed” on 6-19-2001 and entered on 6-20), cannot be identified

or found on microfilm. Consequently, Pacer’s DOC#1 text entry “SEALED INDICTMENT[sic]”

is a overt fraudulent entry and must be prominently struck out forthwithin 30 days of this letter, the

Docket Text Record must be annoted as proposed below, or a substantively equal meaning:

Case title: USA v. Blumenberg, et al

Related Case: 1:08-cv-07512-JGK

Date Filed: 06/19/2001

Date Terminated: 06/23/2003

Date Filed # Docket Text

06/14/2001 1 SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, Sealed Defendant 2 (2)

count(s) 1, 2, 3, Sealed Defendant 3 (3) count(s) 1, 2, 3 (jm) (Entered: 06/20/2001) Text nullified

for acts of forgery, false backdating and fraudulence by the Clerk, the Court and USA (Entered:

__/__/2016)

06/19/2001 2 ORDER as to Sealed Defendant 1, Sealed Defendant 2, Sealed Defendant 3, UnsealingIndictment ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman ); Copies mailed. (jm) (Entered:

06/20/2001) Text nullified for fraudulence by Judge Henry B. Pitman’s unlawful issuance of a

bogus “INDICTMENT” ORDER (Entered: __/__/2016)

A.) DOC#1, Exhibit A, does not match the Docket Text, particularly because “SEALING” did

not occur, less on 6-14-2001. From a 4 corners of the microfilm, several inconsistencies

13>>>>>>

14 Koeltl deep-sixed both, Blumenberg’s and Lee’s, “Arrest Warrants” because JGK knew these were plumb

forgeries and also Rule 20 violations for transporting detainees across State Lines without valid process.

15 Pacer evidently provided digital access for tampering with its intrinsic calendar functions


7/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

point to official fraud: i.) A “Filing” is – per se - an adhoc event, not one that is subject to retro

activation, thus prima facie SDNY “FILED” stamp date (June 14 2001] renders this SDNY

Court Stamp imprint falsified, backdated; ii.) “JUDGE KOELTL” stamp is a routine

assignment stamp, which could not possibly be applied before the date of “assignment16”

ergo, not earlier than 6-19-2001 [see FN 15 entry by (jm)]; iii.) Docket Text #1 omits the

identity of the “Southern District’s Judiciary” member who truly accepted the “Filing on 6-14-2001”, or did not, and who – presumptively – either granted “Seal” or did not, or issued

“A/warrants” or did not. Magistrate Dolinger was apparently uninvolved, despite his name

typed on fake A/warrants [© AUSA Mark Harris prior to decorating three such pamphlets

with “Clerk” Melanie L Lopez’s autograph, intra].

B.) Doc#2’s wordsmith H. Pitman signed and sealed a breathtaking pamphlet he labeled

“INDICTMENT”, Exhibit B. It was fraudulent. Court Clerk Molinelli matched Pitman’s

manifest fraud, but the resulting Docket Text (to be stricken) failed to match pamphlet #2,

which seems short of pride, pretty foolhardy and 100% un-American, but probably par for

the Mother Court. A Magistrate bluffing to blow a fictional “seal” has weighty

criminogenic elements that need to be addressed by authorities. Magistrates and Clerks, like

all public servants, are held to a higher standard, and should not violate the very same laws

they are supposed to follow and uphold.

Two additional same-day Docket entries have since disappeared from Pacer, but the historic

snapshot17 allows for an analysis to what extent Court Clerks falsify public records and how cover

ups are structured to avoid detection, in this case, of a fake-sealing conspiracy.

Therefore, this demand for corrective action falls plainly within the responsibilities of the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts which must “assist” Federal Courts to maintain integrity ofthe Public record, and within that “assistance” must rectify grave, material, deliberate and false

microfilmed Pacer filings [DOC#1] and must coequally nullify unlawful “ex post fictio”, material and

falsified18 text entries on its public-access Pacer Dockets.

16 “Assignment” events usually describe righteous “Criminal Wheel” operations, not in this case, unfortunately

17

18 A document is false if it is untrue when made and was known to be untrue when made by the person making it

or causing it to be made. A document is fraudulent if it is falsely made with intent to deceive. Deceitful half-truths

or the deliberate concealment of material facts also constitute false or fraudulent information.


8/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Because these unlawful falsifications and administrative Pacer entries [ supra ] were results of

clerical, thus non-judicial acts, they fall beyond the pale of Magistrates or Art. III judges, who,

indubitable, are ill positioned and much less motivated to police their own or “in-house” misconduct

[see: Breyer Commission flaws], thus likely to recidivate. There is no evidence in this case that the

subject learned jurists adhere to the principals of legal ethics or to the association rules of the BAR

they were – at all times - registered, nor could these jurists be deemed sufficiently independent andunbiased to not provide material support to prosecutorial underground operations in what truly

mimics a Kafka culture of “reciprocity amidst social decay ”.

Point 3: On 12-12-2015, our legal staffer Wanda W. contacted AOUSC via its public web-

link “/contact-us” in seeking “ AOUSC clarification by year end is requisite whether bogus clerk “pseudo-

authentications” of public Court records are prohibited, or not. If not unlawful, under what federal authority?”

Year 2015 ended without a reply to the subject or an acknowledgment that the matter is

under review. This indicates to a jurist of reason that AO nomenclature was still not ready to

practice transparency or to face a [dark] underbelly of a run-away system they are to manage, or for

fear of the Kangaroo-factor that might appear. In any case, since the December message19 , which

linked to a sample page of bogus signature stamps at the “Nation’s Mother Court”, silence has

spread, and continued the Court’s “Insider Trading” operations and stonewalling. Therefore, a full,

timely and truthful response to Point 3 is reasonably now on demand.

Nothing less than a timely, honorable and lawful resolution of the points above is expected

here, this shall not be viewed as another opportunity to duck away and allow the cooking of Court

books to continue, but to commandeer responsibility, clean up, and initiate paradigm shift by re-

empowering AOUSC’s legacy role and by moving from palliative care into enforcement of

compliant conduct at the Federal Courts, thus, to inspect, to supervise, to correct and to guide these

public institutions back into lawful duty of administering fair justice with integrity fully within the

Rule of Law for all.

Respectfully

Courtesy Copies on expiry of embargo to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley,Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Union Internationale des Avocats,Botschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Rechtsdezernat

19 Email Line Subject: “ Are rubber stamps of fictitious “deputy clerks” lawful game? ”


9/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Exhibit A


10/10


[email protected] +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405 1

Exhibit B

aousc asleep at the gavel

Documents