Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/40257979/Buczek-20101025-Answer-to-Motion-to-Revoke-Bail
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 13:17:58
Document Index: 139526389

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3231', '§ 3231', '§ 3231', '§ 3231', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 3231', '§ 3231', '§ 3231', '§ 3231', '§ 4081', '§ 5', '§ 4081', '§ 5', '§ 1001']

Buczek 20101025 Answer to Motion to Revoke Bail | Jurisdiction
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 32Honorable court of record 1:08-CR00054-001 1 :09-CR00121-001'/ 1:09-CR00141-001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y 1 :09-CV01129-001 SHANE C. BUCZEK, a U.S. TRUST Petitioner, Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER to Answer governments motion for bail revocation and Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Citing Prima Facie Fact and shane-christopher: buczek, as third-party intervener and Grantor / Beneficiary V. Evidence to support claim Lack of Subject Matter JURISDICTION (Answer requested within 7 days) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Answer requested within 7 days because of Sentencing Factors) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER TO ANSWER GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR BAIL REVOCATION Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* In the matter of SHANE C BUCZEK, a U.S. Trust and Office of Executor, Petitioner, shane-christopher: buczek, heretofore and hereafter "Petitioner", notices the court of AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER to Answer governments motion for bail revocation and 1 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 32
Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Citing Prima Facie Fact and Evidence to support claim Lack of Subject Matter JURISDICTION. Petitioner Buczek, (hereafter Petitioner), files his answer to government's motion for bail revocation herein with this affidavit. 1. Petitioner has repeatedly asked this Court to sanction or temper AU SA Anthony Bruce's (hereafter Bruce) recent repeated mailings to Petitioner's house with veiled threats, intimidation and harassment. 2. To date, this Court has not tempered, nor stopped Bruce's constant mailings to Petitioner. 3. AUSA Bruce is attempting with these constant mailings to entice, bait or irk Petitioner into a controversy or argument. (See: Exhibit C collecting letters of Bruce to Petitioner from March 2008 to October 2010) 4. AUSA Bruce and his office is presently, involved in a Civil action filed by Petitioner against him (December 30, 2009) and Bruce is bent on retaliation against Petitioner. Petitioner has come to believe that it is in Bruce's nature and ego to do so and he just can't help himself. (Exhibit D) August, 20, 2009, Page 22, Lines 21-24. 5. Because Bruce is presently involved in a Civil lawsuit filed by Petitioner against him, in the interest if justice and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest allegations, Bruce should not be in any communications with Petitioner for any reason. Bruce should have been barred by this Court to contact Petitioner and Bruce should have volunteered to recuse himself from this case. Someone from his office other than Bruce should be sending out 20f14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can onlY be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallY misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 32
correspondences to Petitioner. The government is starting to get it; at least someone else has filed this motion for Bruce, instead of Bruce. 6. AUSA Bruce has been the initiator and instigator of these communications to Petitioner for purposes that could cause harm to his liberties. The government has grossly overacted to Petitioner's Memo to the Court in an attempt to get even with him for standing up for his rights. 7. Petitioner has a First Amendment Constitutional right to redress government to gain relief in ways that are important to him. Magistrate Schroeder on August 20,2009, (pages 18, Lines 15-
25, Page 19, Lines 1-25, Page 20, Lines 1-25 Page 21, Linesl-24, Page 22 Lines 1-25) addressed Petitioners right to redress government and chided Bruce for his constant berating of Petitioner. Page 20, Lines 19-22. (Exhibit D) This conduct by Bruce was briefly tempered then but as one can see by the multiple letters sent to Petitioner (Exhibit C), even after Bruce being named in a Civil Suit, (December 30,2009) he cannot help himself but to continue the unrelenting harassment. 8. Petitioner sent his filed Memorandum only into the Court and did not mail anything to any other law agency to initiate Bruce's arrest. Petitioner did not file this Memo to intimidate Bruce, it was for purposes to alert the Court of Bruce's continued illegal activities, contact, conduct and mailings against Petitioner. The court can do whatever it wants with Petitioner's Memorandum. If the Court wants to execute the warrant against Bruce, that is its choice, if it does not, it is within the discretion of the Court to do that as well. 9. Petitioner finds it ironic that the government is allegedly using Title li, Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), to cite him. If the government has learned anything from this case, they should have 3 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 4 of 32
learned that all of Title ll., H.R. 3190, 3231, 1344, is invalid due to an insufficient vote held on May 1 ih, 1947, where only 44 members of the House of Representatives voted instead of the required 218 members or more that was necessary to Constitutionally pass such Law. Therefore, the whole of Title ll. is invalid and its parts and violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. 93 Congo Rec. 5048, 93 Congo Rec. 5049 (See Exhibit A) (See: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Evidence to support Claim -
Quorum issue) (See: Exhibit B) The court obtained its jurisdiction to hear, prosecute crimes and to sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 is totally interdependent on the validity ofH.R. 3190 and Public Law 80-772 of the 80
th Congress (1947-1948), as it is part of that statute and under the In Toto rule, if the statute is invalid, its parts are invalid. 10. Petitioner did a quick check into Title ll., Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), and there are no Code of Federal Regulations attached to the statues to give such statutes force and effect. The Supreme Court has ruled in California Banker's Assoc. v Schultz, 416 US 21, United States v. Mersky, 361 US 431, Hotch y. United States, 212 F.2d 280,283 declares that, ... "ifthe rule itself is not published, it follows that it has not been issued; and if a rule has not been issued, it has no force as law." It is required by law among other things that a law passed by Congress must appear in the Federal Registry for 30 days in order for the Public to make comments about it and or redress any grievances they may have about said law to their government. In addition, the law after passage thereafter becomes codified with supporting regulations called the Code of Federal Regulations. "Once promulgated, these regulations, called 40f14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 5 of 32
for by the statute itself, have the force of law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions, just as if all the details had been incorporated into the congressional language." "The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other." [Emp. added] 361 US 431 United States Yo:. Mersky, 80 S.Ct. 459, 4 L.Ed.2d 423 Therefore, T i t l e ~ , Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), are invalid and the government is void of its subject matter jurisdiction under those sections and the entire of Title ~ and connecting sections et al. 11. In the first place, not only does the government lack jurisdiction to cite him, they also lack subject matter jurisdiction for all three case(s) 09-CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S against him. 12. Petitioner challenges the government to prove otherwise. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." --Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." --Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533. The Court in the Merlo, supra, case above stated "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. 5 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 6 of 32
Petitioner has made a prima facie showing of an evidentiary fact within this motion and demonstrated by the enclosed Exhibit A that the government and this Court lack subject matter jurisdiction in these case(s) and authority to sentence Petitioner. As the Merlo court stated "that the court lacks jurisdiction" ... "should dismiss the action." Petitioner challenges the government/court to provide valid certified proof that refutes Petitioners prima facie claims and shows irrefutable evidence that at least 218 or more members of the House of Representatives who voted on May 1ih 1947, to legally pass Title lli, Public Law 80-772, specifically, amended sections H.R. 3190, 3231, 1344, et aI, and did not violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner contends that the government and Court will be unable to supply such proof because that is not what happened that fateful day. The government by its silence has acquiesced to Petitioners valid claims. We know that silence creates estoppel by acquiescence. "Silence can also be equated with fraud, where there is a legal duty to speak, or where an inequity left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v Tweel, 550 F.2
nd 297,299 (1977). EFFECT FAILURE TO DENY F.R.Cv.P. RULE 8 13. Petitioner by filing his Memorandum into the Court was actually protecting the conditions of his bail. The government with the continued prosecution of his case with their 'eyes wide open' to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction that they have, are actually committing several crimes against said Petitioner liberties, against the Constitution, and their oaths of office, thusly, for Petitioner not to notice the Court about the governments continued illegal actions, Petitioner could be guilty of Misprision of Felony for not reporting crimes being committed that he witnessed and knew were going on. 60f14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can onlv be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. II US v Tweel (1977>550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 7 of 32
14. Petitioner in not a danger to society or to the community. He is only pursuing his Constitutional protections afforded him to stop government from intimidating, harassing him, overreaching and encroaching upon his liberties. The Courts have been solid where the government attempts to punish someone for implementing their Constitutional protections. The government wants to strip Petitioner of his liberties and incarcerate him now, while he is pursuing relief and remedies Constitutionally afforded him and start his alleged sentence before his appointed date. The Courts have stated: "Imposition of a harsher penalty for assertion of constitutional or statutory rights is a denial of equal protection of the laws and due process of law because the sentence imposes an unconstitutional condition on the exercise of those rights." "The fact that a sentence is within the bounds of the punishment prescribed by the legislature is irrelevant if in fact it is harsher than that of others similarly situated and was motivated by a desire to punish the accused for assertion of, or to discourage future assertions of, constitutional rights." United States v. Wiley (7th Cir 1960) 278 F2d 500. See also Van Alstyne, In Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties and the "Successful" Criminal Appellant, 74 Yale LJ 606 (1965). This bedrock concept of equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was established in Yick Wo '!!:,.Hopkins (1886) 118 US 356, 373-374: "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand ... the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." Law enforcement authorities in Louisiana were reminded of this fact only last year. Cox v Louisiana (1965) 379 US 536. See 70f14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to sneak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 8 of 32
also Wade v City I??I County o/San Francisco (1947) 82 CA2d 337, 186 P2d 181; People v Harris (1960) 182 CA2d Supp 837, 5 CR 852. 15. Petitioner would request that all of Bruce's activities against him to cease and desist. 16. Petitioner moves the Court to have the government prove that it has subject matter jurisdiction over him in his three case(s) by showing forth the production of certified documentation that Title.lli, Public Law 80-772 was passed Constitutionally on May lih, 1947 with a Constitutionally held Quorum vote of at least 218 members of the House of Representatives, and that it did not violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. 17. Should government fail to provide such proof, Petitioner hereby motions this Court to dismiss all three said actions 1:09-CROOI21-001, 1:09-CROOI41-001, 1:08-CR-054-001 against him with prejudice. (Answer requested within 7 days because of Sentencing Factors) WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests dismissal of government's motion for revocation of bail as without merit in that the citations against him is an overreaction and continues the pattern of harassment and intimidation against him. (Exhibit C) Petitioner has a First Amendment Constitutional right to redress government to gain relief in ways that are important to him. (Exhibit D) The Government is without subject matter jurisdiction even in the pursuing of these citations. Petitioner was reporting his Constitutional duty to report crimes of Misprision of Felony. It is a criminal offense for the government to bring a charge, citations or indictment(s) against someone without a valid law. Title .lli, Public Law 80-772, H.R. 3190, 3231, 1344 and all connecting sections listed above are invalid because it was voted upon without a Constitutional 8 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."US v Tweel (J977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 9 of 32
seated Quorum. No Quorum, no Law. Additionally, there are no regulations in the sections that the government cited Petitioner on, further invalidating said alleged Law. Additionally, Petitioner moves the government to provide for the production of the CFR regulations for Title 18., Public Law 80-772, H.R.3190, 3231, 1344. Petitioner also moves the Court to have the government prove that it has subject matter jurisdiction over him in his three case(s) by showing forth the production of certified documentation that Title 18., Public Law 80-772 was passed Constitutionally on May 1 ih, 1947 with a Constitutionally held Quorum vote of at least 218 members of the House of Representatives, and that it did not violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner has submitted in Exhibit A, enclosed, the actual vote of 38 to §. that took place which was far insufficient of the Quorum requirement of the Constitution. Petitioner also moves the Court to have the government provide the CFR regulations to Title 18., Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), to show forth their Constitutional validity and force and effect. Petitioner hereby moves Court to have the government prove that they do have the CFR regulations to the cited sections Title 18., Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), by showing forth the production ofthe regulations. Petitioner also has researched his two plea deals and the cited statutes in those cases are absent and void the CFR regulations that give those statutes force and effect. Incidentally, in the passport case, in Petitioner's plea and Sentencing report, it was admitted by the government that there are no penalties. How do you get an indictment void of the penalties? Easy, when there is no valid Law or CFR regulations and the system is corrupted. The Court is obligated to protect Petitioner's Constitutional rights and should even on its own motion, dismiss this case. Petitioner hereby moves the Court to have the government prove and provide the production and evidence 90f14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 10 of 32
of the CFR regulations to his two pleas deals. If they do not and cannot provide such evidence, these two plea 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S agreements are also further 'void' for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, for all the reasons listed above hereto, government's motion should be denied as without merit and that they should prove that they have subject matter jurisdiction over said Petitioner as described above for Title .lli, Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), and for all three case(s) against him, 09-CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S, and for all the reasons stated above. The Court should rule that absent the government being able to provide the requested documentation that Petitioner has asserted for all three indictments, 09-CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S, the Court should dismiss all three indictment(s) against Petitioner, with prejudice. AFFDAVIT OF TRUTH OF THE TRUTH Executor of the Estate of the Trust SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK. U.s. Trust I am a peaceful man and inhabitant of the creation and most often located in the geographic region known as New York Republic of America: SHANE C. BUCZEK is a vested interest of the United States of America and/or the United States: I am settlor and co-beneficiary to SHANE C. BUCZEK for the mutual beneficial use of the United States of America and/or the United States by and through holders of offices of the public trust. public trustees and myself. Any attempt to coerce. trick. deceive. induce by fraud or otherwise move me to engage in disposition of the vested interestCs) of the United States of America shall be considered an act of war. treason. and sedition against the United States of America and will be reported to the appropriate public trustees charged with protecting same. I, shane-christopher: buczek, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of these United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, is made in good faith and is admitted if not rebutted. I certify that the facts stated herein are true And correct under the penalty of perjury as provided by 28 USC Section 1746(1), that I am over The age of 18, and that I have firsthand knowledge first hand of the facts stated herein are true And correct. 10 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can onlv be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 11 of 32
In Trust, By: Executor of the Estate SHANE CHRISTOPHER B shane-christopher: family buczek UCC 1-308 All Rights Reserved State of New York County of Erie Nation New York General-Post Office. ) ) ) Near [14047-0093] October {1; fl, ,2010 Acknowledgement Sworn and Subscribed: for verification purposes only SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by shane-christopher the living soul and, Executor of the Estate known to me or proven to me to be the real man signing this document this ;;< '34-e... day of October 2010 WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notice DATE Nancy A. Ferraro #01 FE6007336 Notary Public, Erie County, New York My Commission Expires May 18, 2.CI '-\ (Seal) Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction. 11 of14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 12 of 32
Cc. Office of Inspector General Office of Public Affairs Department of Health and Human Services Room 5541 Cohen Building 330 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 Petition To: Commandant (G-OPL) U.S. Coast Guard 2100 2nd St. SW Washington, DC 20593-0001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, TORT BRANCH FEDERAL TORT CLAIM ACT STAFF BOX 888 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 Universal Postal Union International Bureau Case postal 3000 BERNE 15 SWITZERLAND Eric Holder Jr. United States Attorney General Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 20530 Washington, D. C. 20530 Pope Benedict XVI 00120 Vatican City State EUROPE 12 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 13 of 32
INTERPOL General Secretariat 200, quai Charles de Gaulle 69006 Lyon France 13 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 14 of 32
On this ClIDV DfAFFIDAYII ill!: PETITIONER TO ANSWER GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR BAIL REVOCATION and Petitioner Files Affidavit and: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Fact and Evidence to support Claim was personally filed stamped 1:08-CR-0054-001. 1:09-CR00121-001.1:09-CR00141-001 AND Civil Rights Case 1:09-CV01129-001 delivered to the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk will serve AUSA by electronic filing and Civil Rights Case will be Mailed By U.S. MAIL 14 of 14 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 15 of 32
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 16 of 32
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5049 relating to crimes 'and criminal pro"; cedure. A bill similar to this passed the House unanimously In the closing days of the 'Seventy-ninth Congress but was not acted upon in the other body. I belJeve that I shoUld make a brief statement explaining the method of drafting the· bill and its scope. . The work on this revisIon was com-
menced under the supervision of the former Committee on Revision of the Laws in 1944. That committee engaged the services of the West Publishing Co. and the Edward Thompson Co., two law-
publishing companies that have assisted in the preparation of the original United States Code and every supplement and new edition of that code. These com-
panies have worked continuously and closely with the Committee on Revision of the Laws and, since the beginning of this Congress, with the Committee on the Judiciary, and counsel for the commit-
fees, In turn, the companies supple-
mented their regUlar editorial stalis by engaging the. services of a reviser who was long familiar with the operation and administration of these laws. In addi-
tion they assembled an outstanding groUpo! men !is an advisory commIttee who labored unselfishly toward achiev-
Ing the best revision of the criminal Jaws. · A number of these men-members of the bench and bar of the country-appeared before the Committee on the Judiciary and testified that in their opinion this bill is eminently worthy of favorable action by the Congress. The Depart-
ment of Justice also designated a rep-
resentative of the CrimInal Division to cooperate in the preparation of this re-
visIon. Several preliminary drafts of the re-
vision were studied most carefully. word for word and line for line, by these var-
Ious groups, culminating in the bill now · up for consideration, At the last Congress the Committee on the Revis10n of the LaWs, through its chairman. appeared before a subcom-
mittee of the Judiciary Committee and. in a. number of sessions, pointed out and explained every change In substantive law made by the bill Which had been reported by that committee. After full · discussion the Conimittee on the Judi-
cial:Y unanimously endorSed the then pending bill, which Is slmilar to the bllJ before us today. and that bill was passed unanimously by the House on July 16, 1946, in the closing dayS of the session. The bill had received the endorsement of the Department of Justice and the Section on Criminal Law of the American . Bar Association. I believe that I am not engaging in overstatement when I say that no bill of thIs magnitude ever came to the House with such a background .of careful and paInstaking preparation and · critical appraisal by so many leaders In this branch of the Jaw. .So much for the method of prepara-
tion-and I want to exPress our appre-
ciation to the learned members of the bench .and bar who contributed so much of theIr' talent and' time toward 'tb,1s work. Now as to the scope of the bill. XCIII-319 , This bili Is a restatement of the 'Ped-
eral Jaws relating to crimes and Crlminal procedure In effect on Aprll 15, 1947. Most of these laws are now set forth In title .18 of the United States Code and are based upon the 1909 Crlminal Code-
which was the last revision of criminal Jaws enacted by the Congress-and sub-
seQUent laws on the subject. Of course, 'tltle 18 ot the United States Code Is only prlma. facie: evidence of the law which is ' contained in numerous volumes at the Statutes at Large. Upon the enactment of this bill It will no longer be necessary to have recourse to those numerous vol-
umes; .. All the laY'lwm be set out In one place and amendments in the future Will be faCilitated because of the orderly ar-
rangetnent of the laws ,within one title. . Just a year' ago With the adoption of the Pederal Rules of Criminal Procedure many statutes became obsolete or super-
seded, but, of course, were Dot spec1f-
lcally repealed. These with otner obsolete, superseded,' redundant, and repetitious statutes are repealed by this bill, and the effect of the rules Is clearly set forth In the ·revislon. The law Is restated in simple, clear, and concise language. Many sections ot existing statutes areconsolfdated to fa-
cilitate finding the law. The advantages' of codes are too weU known 'to rl!Quire any lengthy exPOsition on my part at this time. .*' You win find no radical changes in the philosophy of ourcr1m1naJ· law In thJs bm. There is no attempt made here to coddle crlmInals and' wrongdoers. Nor is thJs bill a subject of partisanship. Its predecessor which passed the House unanimously in the Seventy-ninth· Cono: gress bad been rePorted unanimously by the Committee oli the Revision of the Laws and had received the unanimous endorsement of the Committee on the Judiciary; This bfll has also been re-
parted unanimoUSly by the Committee on the Judlcl!U'Y." .' . Favorable actiOn by the HOllSe today will constitute a. big step toward an or-
. derly and sYStem\tic code of Jaws and wm prove a boon to'the bench and bar and thepublfc generany. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment only' for the purpose of suggesting that to some extent the gentleman's amend-
ment is In violation of the understand-
ing on which these bills were submitted to. the House for PflSSage today. It was understood that tbey were simply codi-. flcatlons of existing law and undertook to make no changes in existing law. I un(ferstand that prqbably the gen-
tleman's amendment has considerable merit. and I see several members of the Committee on the Judiciary on the fioor. I certainly am not in a position and have no desire to raise any criticism of pro-
cedure or objection to It" but it does seem to be a violation of the 'understand-
ing under which these bIDs were sub-
mitted ' Mr .. ROBSION. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COLE of New York. r yield. Mr. ROSSION. I pOinted out when I . made my statement with reference to the first five bUls that we considered, that HeinOnline -- 93 Congo Rec. 5049 1947 they were purely a cod1fl.ca.tion. But there are some changes In this bill (H. R. 3198). I mean. for Instance, when we were COnsidering this bill the PhiJlppine Islands were a part of the United States. We had many laws applicable to the PhiUppine Islands when she was a part of the United States that are no longer· in force because the Philippines are no longer a part of the United States. Those laws we cut out. . We also found going through criminal law with the Department of Justice, the bar association, and the representatives of the Fedez:al courts that CongreSs has passed many acts almost Identical. In some of them the penalty was fixed at 5 years and in others, fixed at 6 months. We thought it wise to clarify and har-
monize these. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, so long as these distinguished gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee are satisfied With this procedure and with this bill, I shall not use the time of the House further. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Sp'eaker, wUl the gentleman yield? Mr. COLE of New York! I yield to the trom Michigan. , . Mr.' Mr. Speaker, I hold 3h.my hai\ch. COPY of the commtttee re-
"o"tt which. I wish the Members WOUld lotli' at caretuUv. Where there ls SEW &ldlca.tiOD of ,cmmge every one ot til Is explained In the W amend now we are Ilavor tbe :emilen1",n from It Will not be it wiD uPS"et. the followed U we this purpose. COLE ot, New York. Is the amendment offered by tbe gentlema.n trom Pennsylvania in the report accom-
paDJing this b1ll to whicb he has re-
ferred? .' . Mr. MICHENER. No; 11; is not. The SPEAKER. The question Is on the amendment o1fered by the gentleman Jrom WAL't£aJ. .' The qu\!stion taken. 41md the SPe.aker .In aoubt, the,.BoW!e d!v{ded. andtl1ere were-Qes 6. $Othe amendinent Was"Qreed to. The bill fa,:.be engrossed and refUl a tbirclfgm§ .. was the third t.lme, and passed, Baa mottod to recon-. er Was la.1d OD till! table. . 2X'l'l!lNSION OF HE1II1ARB'B Mr. STEVENSON asked and was given permissIon to' extend his remarks In the Appendix ot the RECORD and Include a report to his constituents . RI!lVISION OP TITLE 28. ONITED STATES CODE The Clerk called the blll (B. R. 3214) to revise. codify, and enact into law title 28 of the United states Code entitled "Judicial Code and Judiciary." . The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the blJl? Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the rJ8'ht to ob/ect, this, bfJI H. R. 3214 deals, with judiciary a.nd Judicial procedure and I wIsh to call attentlol1 merely to one part of it. That Is the part Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 17 of 32
5048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE MAY 12 amount each yea.r for the development of farm-to-ma.rket roads. The Commis-
sioner of Public Roads, Mr. Thomas H. MacDonald, spoke in favor of the bill. General Fleming, Commissioner of Pub-
lic Works, favored the bill. No one ap-
psa.red in opposition to the bill. It was reported unanimously by the Public Works Committee. Three identical bills have been introduced In the other body by three different Stlnators. The Presi-
dent recommended the passage of such measure in his message to thl! Congress on January 3 of this year. This bill will not require a single dollar of appropria-
tions from the FederaJ Treasury. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Does the extension apply to the farm-to-market roads as well as to the primary system? Mr. CU1\'NlNGHAM. It certainly does, as well as the development of the high-
ways in the urban areas. . Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The bill is very much in order for two reasons. One is that the time when the Japanese war expired, creating the resolution which the gentleman has referred to before, came along in the fall. which gave the States s. short year the :first year. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. No States sta.rted building highways prior to October of 1945. They lost 4 months to start with. Then, there was a. lack of material and shortage of labor and high prices, which caused the program to· be held up. The whole program will be re-
tarded and the States will lose some ot this appropriation and there will be tremendous waste if this bill is not en-
acted. Possibly 12 months' grace period Is not sufficient, but if It is not sufiiclent we can bring up another bill later. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. If r remember corrcctly prior to this authori-
zation the oid Federal-aid authorization gave the states 2 years in which to act. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gen-
tleman is right. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Speak-
er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CUl';NINGHAM. I yIeld. Mr. H. CaRL ANDERSEN. "I wish to state at this time that in my opinion this is very necessary legislation. As a ·prevl-
ous member of the Committee on Roads, I would like to compliment the genUeman for bringing this bill up at this time. . Mr. CIDlNINGHAiW. r thank: the gen-
tleman. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman yIeld? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. r yield to the chairman of the committee. Mr. DONDERO. I think the gentle-
man has already covered the ground, but is it not a fact that because Of the con-
cUtions enumerated by the gentleman, many of the States have been unable to comply with the provisions of this act, which makes this bill mandatory in or-
der to protect the States? , Nfr. CUNNINGHAM. That Is abso-
lutcly true. In addition. would bi! ·,:','m,'ndolls wastc. beca.use the highway p,Gr:l"am would be stoPllcd, and highways [mnly complet,;c! ·.';Ollld be left In status quo until the Congress took some addi-
tional action. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, as one of the mem-
bers of this committee, I had an oppor-
tunity to study this bill very carefully. The people in my particular area in the Northwest are very, very much in sym-
pathy With this bill. I think what the chairman bas said and what the gentle-
man from Iowa [Mr. CtlNNINGBAM] has said Is absolutely true, that this bID is essential for our road-bUilding program. SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be tt enactect, etc., Tbat paragraph (Ii) of section 4 at the Fecieral-Ald HIghway Act at 1944, Public Law 521. Seventy-el.gbtb Con-
gress, approved December 20, 1944, is hereby amended by strik11lg out the term "one year" where it appears in said paragraph and in-
serting in lieu thereot tl?-e term "two years." The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table. TO COQIn '1:1'rLE 18 OF THE tJNlTl!:D STATES CODE. cm:a.ms AND cm:MINAL l?ROCtoORE Tne Clerk called the bIn CR. R. 3190) to codify. and enact into positive law. title 1& 01" tbe United States code entitled' "Orimes and Crlm1ne.1 Proce-
dure," The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There was no objection, The Clerk read -the bill the second time. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. The Clerk: read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. WALTZII: On page 434, line 11, a.fter the word "Of", strike out "three" Bnd insert "five." Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment you have just heard report-
ed would have tile effect, if adopted, of increasing the membership of the parole board from three to five. At the last session of the Congress one of the subcommittees of the Committee on the JudiciarY,ln studying the legisla-
tion which we hoped might have the ef. fect of cutting down the Criminal rate In this country. found a. perfectly ap-
palling. situation In the parole board. That board of three members actually Interviews upward of 10,000 prisoners each year. That Is, personal interviews. In adcUtlon to that, they have to review the cases acted on after personal Inter-
views. There are 21 criminal Institutions In the United States tha.t must be visited by this Board at regular intervals. So they have a perfectly Impossible job with the result that men are paroled accord-
Ing to formula. who should be compelled to serve their ftill I am not thinking about those Ulcn who ere eli-
gible for parole and In whose cases no '!f::,ion can t.aken because the Boare!. has not the til;1;; to i·each their cu..scs; HeinOnline .. 93 COIlg. Ree. 5048 1947 that Is bad enough, but, significantly enough, over 50 percent of the criminals . in the Federa1lnstltuttons are repeaters. It seems to me that the least we can do is to make it possible or probable for a. Board intelligently to pass on tions for parole in order to determine whether or not men should be released from their incarceration. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. CARROLL. Would the gentle-
man's amendment change existing law? Mr. WALTER. It does not change existing law at all. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. COLE of New York. If it does not change existing law. and this bill is de-
signed to codify existing law, wha.t is the necessIty of ofi'erlng the amendment? Mr. WALTER. It changes eXisting law in that it changes the number of members on the Board. It does not, however, in any way affect the purpose of the law establishing the parole sYs-
tem: It merely changes the number of members of the Board. This is not cllf-
. ferent from what has been done by this committee in this very bill. The periOd of sentence has been changed in order to make different crimes fit the sentences tha.t have been fixed by Congress from . time to time. That 1s done throughout this entire title 28. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. GRAHAM. As I understand the gentleman's amendment it increases the number of members from three to five. Mr. WALTER. That is right. Mr. GRAHAM. But it does not in-
crease the rate of compensation of the members. Mr. W AUrER. That Is right. exactly. Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. Iyleld. Mr. ROBSION. I may say this to the gentleman, this matter came up before our Judiciary Committee and former Senator George Wharton Pepper, who Is tremendously Interested in this subject, and others felt thcy had to have addi-
tional authorization to increase the number from tlu·ee to five. Otherwise we are not amending the law. I think there k no objection to it. We have p • b!1l which can be called up to do this thing. Mr. WALTER. The gentleman is COr-
rect, but. we are this far. I do not think there Is any doubt but that the Judiciary Committee would unanimously approve a. separate bm, but we have ·gotten this far with this legislation and It certainly seems to me the situation is so critical that we ought to act as quickly as we possibly can. That is the reason I have offered this amendment at this tlmc. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania has el<pired. Mr. RonSION. Mr. Speaker, this bill differs from the 1ive bil!5 which have preceded It on this C!l I,,, • flnr In that, It constitutes a revision, ",,,cll as!l. Cf.)(ll:lc:1.L\lln, ot the Federal l".,:., C
_ • ..J.L_._
.ffi" of dye QUerk of _ultitlshm, 20'515-&&01 Thank you for contacting the Office of the Clerk. After conducting a thorough examination of the joumals, I found no entry In the journal of the House of any May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3180 bBl. although pag8l343-344 of the Journal of the House of Represen-
tatives from the 1st Session of the 80th Congresalndlcate8 that the biD was amended, purportedly passed. and transmitted to the Senate for c:oncurrence. The Senate took no action on the H.R. 3190 bill prior to the December 19. 1947 sine die adjoumment. t Page 5049 0' the Congressional Record, 80th Congress, 1st Ses810n indicates 44 Members voting 38 to 8 to emend H.R. 3190 on May 12. 1947. Therefore by counting the total yea and nay vote a quorum was not present. ' '1' According to House Rules, when less than a majOJity of a quorum votes to pass a bill. the joumal must Show the names of Members present but not voting. I'found no record of any names for the May 12. 1947 vole. I hope this information has answered your questions. l' Sincerely Yours, . a.IlU.-> r:I( #44L Karen L. Haas Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives r N '0 N Q) 0.. 0> Q 0 (3 "I'"" "0 ..92 u::: ,..... "I'"" , ,..... N ..... 1: Q) E ::3 0 0 C :It: () C , > -I 0::: I !n UJ 0 0 <:C 0 I '-
0 )(. I -
00 .c, 0 0-
<:;;L "1:: Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 19 of 32
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 20 of 32
Honorable court of record 1 : 08-CROOO54-00 1 / 1 :09-CR-00121-001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 :09-CR-00141-001 SHANE C. BlJCZEK, a U.S. TRUST Petitioner, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subiect Matter Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Evidence to support Claim Petitioner demands 10 days to reply shane-christopher: buczek, . as third-party intervener and Grantor I Beneficiary *(Answer Notice within 10 days)* v. BY' , ' CNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORlGINAL W ~ A S l' - fA I'-WAND FILr' ....... . ,I , (lji) J\ ' ----
.' -0 • .Jv f ......
, • 'UNITED STATES D1SrRiCT COUU CI.£KK WESTER,\ DlS'ffiICf Of NEW '!'ORK Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject MaUer Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Evidence to support Claim Petitioner demands 10 days to reply*(Answer Notice within 10 days)* Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.* In the matter of SHANE C BUCZEK, a U,S. Trust, Petitioner, shane-christopher: buczek, heretofore and hereafter "Petitioner", notices the court to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subiect MaUer Jurisdiction petitioner submits Prima FacieEvidence to support Claim Petitioner demands 10 days to reply*(Answer Notice within 10 days)* *(AnswerNoticewithinlQdays)* under Federal Rules of Eyidence 201 (d) and (0. Petitioner 1 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v IWeel (J 977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 21 of 32
Buczek, (hereafter Petitioner), moves and motions this Court for dismissal for all three cases 09-
CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, OS-CR-054-S, due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner will presently give forth prima facie evidence of an evidentiary fact, wherein documents (See Exhibit A) enclosed will show conclusively that the House of Representatives vote taken on May 12lh, 1947 was 38 to §" which caused said vote to be Constitutionally deficient, invalid and illegal to satisry the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. On May 12th, 1947 to pass Constitutionally Title 18, Public Law 80-772, specifically H.R. 3190 and its connecting sections, 323] et aI, a vote to Constitutionally pass such amendment required at least 218 ayes votes to validate such law' and not violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner declares such vote was ayes 38, noes §, as Exhibit A shows. This unconstitutional act violated Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1; Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, and/or Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 - and any of which rendered Title ~ , H.R. 3190, 3231 et al sections Public Law 80-772 unconstitutional and l'oid ab initio. Petitioner requests the court to take mandatory judicial notice under Federal Rules of Evidence 201 (e) (f), of93 Congo Rec. 5048, 93 Congo Rec. 5049. Exhibit A The court obtained its jurisdiction to hear, prosecute crimes and to sentence pursuant to 18 USc. § 3231. 18 U.S.c. § 3231 is totally interdependent on the validity ofH.R. 3190 and Public Law 80-772 of the 80
th Congress (1947-1948), as it is part of that statute and under the III Toto rule, if the statute is invalid, its parts are invalid. First, the court is governed by the rule of Stare Decisis, assuming it is a Constitutional court, and if it is not a Constitutional court, Petitioner requests the court to so advise 2 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be Gquated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to smrak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US y TWeel (1977)550 F 2d 297.'* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 22 of 32
Petitioner. Under the rule of stare decisis, district court cases have no precedent value, and cases cited from other District courts carry no weight, other than advisory, in this district. Also under the rule of Stare Decisis, the Constitution is the contract between the government and its citizens. Therefore, the constitution always prevails. Since the issue addressed has never been adjudicated, i.e., whether a Constitutional seated Quorum was in place to transact business on May 12, 1947 when the House voted on Public Law 80-772, then the Constitution must prevail. Article I, Section 5, Clause l. The plain language of the Constitution trumps any other possibility. Second, after the Constitution, and its plain language, comes the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), which has never been overturned has already determined that without a proper quorum to do business, no valid bill can be passed. No Quorum, no Law. Petitioner Takes Judicial Notice of the Fair Warning Doctrine Petitioner requests the court to take mandatory judicial notice under Federal Rules of Evidence 201 (e) (f), of the Fair Warning Doctrine and Supporting case law, which establishes that neither the Bureau of Prisons nor any federal court can claim jurisdiction pursuant to the prior Title 18 statute passed in 1909. The same day President Truman signed into law Public Law 80-773 enacting into positive law Title 28, United States Code. Act of June 25, 1948, Ch. 646, § 1,62 Stat. 869, the President signed an act positively repealing the fonner criminal jurisdiction granted to the district courts. id., ~ 39 et seq., 62 Stat. 991 et seq. (positive repeal listing former 28 U.S.c. § 4], ~ 2 in 3 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US v Iweel ( 1 9 7 7 ) ~ Q F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 23 of 32
schedule of repealed statutes). Therefore, with a repealed prior statute, no jurisdiction is created for the court. Fair warning doctrine invokes due process rights and requires that criminal statute at issue be sufficiently definite to notify persons of reasonable intelligence that their planned conduct is criminal. United ~ v .. Nevers, 7 F.3d 59 (5
th Cir. 1993). See United S t a t e s ~ . Rei. Clark v. Anderson, 502 F.2d 1080 (3d Cir. 1974) (The notice requirements of Due Process would not permit a state, after ruling one of its criminal statutes was overly vague, to apply that statute's superseding predecessor statute in the very case which ruled the successor statute unconstitutional ). In United States g. ReI. Clark v. Anderson, 502 F.2d 1080(3d Cir. 1974),502 F.2d 1080, 1081-
1082, the court found that at the time the offense occurred and the accused was indicted, "the state of Delaware had published and was holding out the new [statute] as its only proscription of such misconduct as the indictment charged." The crime was also not a crime at common law. The court ruled the new statute unconstitutional. And by definition, an unconstitutional statute is one that fails to give fair notice that particular conduct is proscribed by the state. See United States v. Harris, 1954,347 U.S. 612,617,98 L.Ed. 989,74 S.Ct. 808; Connally v. General Construction Co., 1926,269 U.S. 385,391, 70 L.Ed. 322,46 S.Ct. 126. Thus, the state's own interpretation of the new statute and its rejection of that section as a statutory basis for Clark's prosecution caused the court to hold that the new statute did not provide constitutionally adequate notice. 4 of 13 *Failure to answer is sjlence. Silence can only be equated witb fraud wbere tbere is illegal and mQral duty to speak. or wben inquiry left unanswered would be intentiOnally mjsleading. "US y TWee1(1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 24 of 32
The Clurk court determined that the defendant's conviction could be upheld only if the old statute, the supersession of which had been legislatively declared and publicly announced, could continue to serve as notice of the criminality of defendant's conduct. In order to reach that conclusion the court decided that one would have to reason, first that the new statute on its face gave adequate notice of its own invalidity, and second, that the public, thus informed, was then put on further notice that the officially announced statutory repeal or supersession of the old statute was legally ineffective. Id. The court concluded that such reasoning was "too tortured and too far removed" from reality to satisfy the due process requirement that, at the time of the alleged offense, the accused shall have been on notice that his conduct was proscribed by the criminal law. The court could not even surmount the first hurdle that the new statute could serve as notice of its own invalidIty. Without that notice, no occasion was available to consider the old statute as possibly relevant. As in the Clark case, and its Supreme Court precedents, to meet Due Process, Public Law 80-772 and 18 U.s. c. § 3231 would have had to give adequate public notice on their faces of their own invalidity and the public would have to have been put on further notice that the officially announced statutory repeal or supersession of the old statutes was legally effective. The court cannot even reach the first hurdle, much less the second one. The court obtained its Jurisdiction to prosecute crimes pursuant to 18 U.S.c. § 3231. Without proper notice of the Invalidity of the statute, defendant's indictment and conviction can not be upheld and the coun has only one choice, to order dismissal of defendant's indictment and conviction ab initio. 5 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US y Twesl (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 25 of 32
According to standing precedent, this court had absolutely no jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant under either 18 U.S.c. § 3231 or the prior enactment in 1940. LACK OF JURISDICTION "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction ... Jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction:' Insurance Corp. of Ireland Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxite de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694,701 (1982); Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226,234 (1922) (all lower federal courts "derive [) [their] jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress"); United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32,33 (1812) (federal courts "possess no jurisdiction but what is given to them by the power that creates them."). United States v. Ball, 98 U.S. 343,345 (1879) (federal "courts possess no jurisdiction over crimes and offenses ... except what is given to them by the power that created them"); Hudson & Goodwin, II U.S. at 33-34. See also, e.g., United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76,95-105 (1820) ("the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not the judicial department," criminal statutes are to be construed strictly, "probability" cannot serve to "enlarge a statute" and an offense not clearly within the terms of a statute precludes federal court jurisdiction). According to standing precedent, this court had absolutely no jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant under either 18 U.S.c. § 3231 or even the prior enactments. The predecessors to the District Court (the House members on May Ii\ 1947) with their unconstitutional vote to the have put this Court in the hot seat. The Petitioner did not screw this vote up. Our Congress and government have. It is not the fault of this Petitioner to invoke his Constitutional protections against government intrusion and overreach. All Petitioner is asking is 6 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral dutv to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleadipg."IJS y heel <1977)55() F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 26 of 32
for the relief that is Constitutionally afforded to him. To cover up one injustice with another always leads to manifest more injustice which entangles all the people in between. Petitioner demands dismissal and a sealing of all the records of this Court case. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Petitioner hereby challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the government and the Court. Once jurisdiction is challenged by a Petitioner, the burden of proof shifts to the government/Court to prove that they have it. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction 1 ies with the asserter." See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of la\'I.· may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v. ~ , 4 US 308. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." --Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." --Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533. Petitioner challenges the government/court to provide valid certified proof that refutes Petitioners prima facie claims and shows irrefutable evidence that at least 218 or more members of the House of Representatives who voted on May 12th 1947, to legally pass Title 18, Public La\v 80-772, specifically, amended sections H.R. 3190,3231, et aI, and did not violate the 7 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."US y Iweel (1277)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 27 of 32
Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner contends that the government and Court will be unable to supply such proof because that is not what happened. Therefore, Petitioner demands and moves this Court for an immediate dismissal of all three of his cases I :09-CR-00121-001, 1 :09-CR-14I-001 and 08-CROOO54-001, with prejudice. AFFDAYIT OF TRUTH OF THE TRUTH Executor of the Estate of the Trust SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK. U.S. Trust I am a peaceful man and inhabitant of the creation and most often located in the geographic region known as New York Republic of America; SHANE C. BUCZEK is a vested interest of the United States of America and/or the United States; I am settlor and co-beneficiary to SHANE C. BUCZEK for the mutual beneficial use ofthe United States of America and/or the United States by and through holders of offices of the public trust, public trustees and myself. Any attempt to coerce, trick, deceive, induce by fraud or otherwise move me to engage in disposition of the vested interest(s) of the United States of America shall be considered an act of war, treason, and sedition against the United States of America and will be reported to the appropriate public trustees charged with protecting same. I, shane-christopher: buczek, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of these United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, is made in good faith and is admitted if not rebutted. I certify that the facts stated herein are true And correct under the penalty of perjury as provided by 28 USC Section 1746( I ), that I am over 8 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence, Silence can only be equated nrith fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to soeak. or wben inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."US y Tweet (1977)550 F 2d 227.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 28 of 32
The age of 18, and that I have firsthand knowledge first hand of the facts stated herein are true And correct. **Demand is hereby made to The JJnjted Slates Attorney's to Answer within *10 days showing jurisdiction and the iniury party AND FOREIGN AGENT'S show a manifest Fraud on the Court and fraud against Petitioner the question is WHY?*You take a Oath to protect the real man and women. *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can Only be eQuated with fraud where there is legal and moral duty to speak. or when inQuiry left unanswered would be Intentionally misleadjn2."IJS y Tweel (977)550 F 2d 297,* (10) days to answer and (3) Days Grace OPPORTUNITY TO CURE * *The Court acting as Trustee, through this Mandatory Judicial Notice Rule 201 lid) and (e)(O CONFLICT of INTEREST Fraud on the Court & Fraud against Petitioner Due Process Violations Demand for immediate Dismissal of an indictments. actions against him Motion for Dismissal for Fraud Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is instructed by the Grantor/Settlor to Compensate the Beneficiary Shane-Christopher family Buczek at the rate of $1,000.00 ner day for every day that the Beneficiary Shane Christopher family Buczek is financiaUy damaged by the invalid charging instruments mistakenly enforced by this court which such charging Instruments and accompanying resulting orders have prevented the Beneficiary Shane from working to earn a living. * 9 of 13 *Failure to answer is silepce. Silepce cap oply be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left upanswered would be intentionally misleading. "lIS v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 29 of 32
govern yourself accordingly In Trust, By: Executor of the Estate SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, a U.S. Trust shane-christopher: of the family ofbuczek Nation New York General-Post Office. Near [14047-0093] October '1. ,2010 Exhibit "A" 93 Congo Rec. 5048, 93 Congo Rec. 5049 & 5048 and September 11,2006 showing no quorum present of May 12, 1947 by Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives State of New York County of Erie ) ) ) Acknowledgement Sworn and Subscribed: for verification purposes only SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by shane-christopher the living soul and, Executor of the Estate known to me or proven to me to be the real man signing this document day of October 2010 WITNESS my hand -
NOTARY PUBLIC DATE 10 of 13 (Seal) Sarah J. Smolinski Notary Public, State of Nfl"" 01MA6192256 Quali1iecl in Erie Cour: . '\t\\1--
M Commission Expires AuQ.:._. ?f cr!' *failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal aDd moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US y TweeJ (1977)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 30 of 32
Notice Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction. Cc. Office of Inspector General Office of Public Affairs Department of Health and Human Services Room 5541 Cohen Building 330 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 lli!.-ffalfs{l.l{oi g. hhs. gov Petition To: Commandant (G-OPL) U.S Coast Guard 2100 2nd St. SW Washington, DC 20593-0001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, TORT BRANCH FEDERAL TORT CLAIM ACT STAFF BOX 888 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 Universal Postal Union International Bureau Case postal 3000 BERNE 15 SWITZERLAND Eric Holder Jr. United States Attorney General Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 20530 Washington, D. C. 20530 11 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and mora) duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US y Tweet (1277)550 F 2d 297. * Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 31 of 32
Pope Benedict XVI 00120 Vatican City State EUROPE INTERPOL General Secretariat 200, quai Charles de Gaulle 69006 Lyon France 12 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where tbere is illegal and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."US v TWeet (1977)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 32 of 32
; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this thelt day of October 20)0. a true and correct copy of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Evidence to support Claim (Petitioner demands 10 days to reply)*<Answer Notice within )0 days)* was personally filed stamped );()8..CR-0054-00). 1:09-CROOJ21-001 and 1:09-CROO141-001 delivered to the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk will serve AUSA by electronic filing. 13 of 13 *Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal and moral duty to speak. or wben inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. "US y Tweel (1277)550 F 2d 297.* Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 39
IBIT "A" C
.ffiet of tip .. of ,. ..... lI8bm, ,CIt 205.157""6&01 o • September 11. 2005 Thank you for contacting the 0Iftce of the Cledt. After conducting a thorough examination of the journals. I found no 8tlby In the journal of the House of any May 12t 1947 vote on the H.R. 3180 bill. although pages 343-344 of the Journal of the House of Represen-
tatives from the 1st 8eaIan ""10th Congresa IndIcate8 that the bill W88 amended. pwportedty passed. and tranamItted to the Senate for concummce. The Senate took no action on the HA 3180 bJJI prior to ahe December 19. 19471ina die adjournment. Rard,'1Oth MemberI·voting 38 to 6 t2, yea and nay vote aqucwm '1M not of I quqmm vatealq.:. II bill. the'J9Umai must shOw _ .. Sincerely Yours. t.t./uAl...) Karen L. Haas Clerk. U,S. House of Representatives ! 4-
o M N <D a.. en g 25 <:. )(. Ct 2 Ii:> 0-
Q ,..,.-
u:: r-
...... • r-
N ...... i E t.'> o I > .-l a::: I ,n t{) Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 39
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5049 :.-elatlng to crimes ·anc. criminal cedure. A bill similar to this passed the Bouse unanimously in the closing dayS of the SeventY-ninth Congress but was not acted upon in the other body. I believe that I shoUld make a brief statement explaining the method of drafting the· bill anc. its scope. The work on this revl.s1on was com-
menced under the supervision of the Committee on Revision of the :"a;;os ill 1944. That committee ensapd the services of the West Publisblng Co. and the Edward Thompson Co., two law-
publishing that have assisted in the preparation of the original Unlted States Code and every supplement and new edition of that code. These com-
pames have worked continuously and closeJy with the Committee on Revision of the Laws ano. since tbe beginn1J:lg of this Congress, with the Committee on the JudiCiary. and counsel for the commit-
tees. In turn, the companies supple-
mented their regular editorial stafis by engaging the services of a remer who was long familiar With the operation and administration of these laws. In addi-
tion they assembled IUl outstanding group 'of men as an advisory committee \\'ho labored unselfishly toward acbiev-
ing the best revision of the criminal Jaws. · A number of these men-members of the bench and bar of the country-a.ppeared before the Committee on the Judiciary and testified that in their opinion thfl: bill is eminently worthy of favorable action by the Congress. The Depart-
l'ision were studied most carefUlly. word for word and line for line, by these var-
lous groups. culminating in the bill now · up for consideration. At the last Congress tile Committee on the Revision of the Laws, through Its cbalrman, appeared before a subcom-
mittee of the Judiciary Committee and, In a number of sesslons. pointed out and explained every change in substantive Jaw made by the bill which had been reported by that committee. After full discussion the Committee on the Judl-
cillJ;Y unanimously endorsed the then pending bill. which Is SImilar to the bUl before us today, and that bill was passed unanimously by the House on July 16, 1946. in the clOSing days of the session. The bill had received the endorsement of the Department of Justice and the Section on Criminal Law of the American ,Bar Association. I believe that I am not engaging in overstatement When I say that no bUl of this magnitude ever came to the Bouse with such a background.of carefUl and painstaking preparation and · critical appraisal by so many leaders In this branch of the law. . So mueh for the method of prepara.-
Lh!1-l!nd I want to express our appre-
c'.·.ti·1n to f.;".' lenrned members of the bCOC:l.and b", v. !lO contributed so muc11 of their' I.alent u;,,! time toward 'tl1is \!:01'k. Now COS t'J thp. scop·, <., tIle bill. XCUl--3l9 . Thill bfii Is a restatement of the ·Ped· era1 Jaws 1'8latiiD8 to crimes and Cl1m1D&l procedure in effect on AprU 15. 1947. Most of these Jaws are now set forth in title 18 of the Unlted States Code and are based upon the 1909 Cr1mlDa1 Code-
wbich was the last revision of crim1Dal Jaws enacted by tbe Consress-a.nd sub-
sequent laws on the subject, Of course, 'tltle 18 of the Unlted States Code Is onl, prima facie'eVidence of the law which is . contained In numerous volumes of the statutes at Large. Upon the enactmmt of this bW It WUl DO lcmaer be necessary to bave recourse to those numerous vol-
umes. All tbe law WUJ be set out in one place and amendments In the future wf1I be facD1tated because of the orderlJ at-
ranrefnent of the laws Within one title. . Just a year' arro With the adoption of the Federal Rules of CrJDUDal Procedure many statutes became obsolete or super-
seded, but. of course, were not specif-
repealed. These toptber With other obsolete, suPerSeded, redUDdant, and repetitious statutes are repealed by this b1I1. and the effect of the rules 1& clearly set forth in thereV1s1on. The law is restated in simple, clear. and CODC!se laneuare. Many sections of existing statutes are consolidated to fa-
cilitate findfnl the law. The advantases of Codes are too well known -to.require lenithy exposition on my part at this time. You wW find no radJc&l chaDges in the pbilosopby of our crfm1nal. Jaw. So tlW! bID. There is no attemPt made here to coddie cr1m1nals and' wronBdoers. Nor is this b1I1 a subject of partlaansb1p. Its predecessor wbich passed the Bouse unanimOusly In the Seventy-Dlnth· con-
gress bad been reported uuanlmousJy by the Commlttee on the Retislon of the Laws and had received the unanimous endorsement of the CommIttee on the JudlCia.r7. ThIs bill bas also been re-
ported unanlmously by the Committee on the Judlclary.· . Favorable action by the Ro1\SB today wlU constitute a big step toward an or-
derly and systematiC code of Jaws and wiD prove a boon to the bench and bar md the pubUc generally. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise In OPPosIt.lon to the amendment only'for the purpose of WResting that to some extent the gentleman's amend- . ment is in violation of the understand-
Ing on which tllese bllls were submitted to the Rouse for today. It was understood that they were simply codi-. fications of existing law and undertook to make no changes In existing law. I that prQbably the gen· tIeman's amendment has considerable merit. and I see several members of the Committee on the JudIcfary on the tloor. I certafnJ1 am not In a position and have no desire to ratse any criticism of pro-
cedure or objection to ft,· but It does seem to be a violation of the'understand-
Ing under which these bills were sub-
m.ltted. . Mr.·ROBSION. Mr. Speaker. wlll the yl"ld? Mr. COLE uf New York. I yield, Mr. ROBSIOl.r. I pointed out when I . made my NI.ah-mell'; ,"Ith reference t.o tho llrS& five bills th,\t \ .... considered, H.:!ir.Ouline -- ,'(.11<). Ree. 5049 they were purely a. codification. But there are some changes in this blll (B. R. 3198), I mean. for inst.ance. when we were considering tbis bill' the Philippine Islands were a part of the United States. We had many laws applicable to the Philippine IsJands when she was a part of the Onlted States tllat are no longer·in force because the PhiUppines are no longer a part of the United States. Those laws we cut out. We also found going through criminal law with the Department of Justice, the bar assocIation, and the representatives of the Fedez:al courts that CongreSs has passed many acts almost identical. In some of them the penalty was ru.ed a.t 5 years and In others. fixed at 6 months. We thought it wise to clarify and har-
monlZe these. Mr, COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker. so long as tbese distinguished gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee are satisfied With this procedure and with this bill. I shaJJ not use the time of the Eouse further. Mr. MrCHENER_ Mr. Sp'eaker. wtll tbe gentleman yield? Mr. COLE of New Yorli I yield to the geptleman from Michigan. iiENER. Mr. Spea!:.e:.- _ : haiti Ii a ClOPl' of the commitJ;ee re-
I Wish the Membc:-s wo>.!ld efuUl'. Where t.bere is any f cbange et'e:j one 0: th2SC ODS S5 fany e.'qJI!lined in tile re-
I! we start to amenc: now w" <::-c liable to get into trouble. I lavo:- the blll suggested by the gentleman from Pemu;ylvanle. but ! hope it. will no: !:Ie l,pterjected here because it will upse: thl:: ,prcr..edure whict! must be: followed if we . ope to accomplish this purpose. CO!.E of New York. Is the ent, offered by the gent!cm:m ylvania. in the report :H:com-
g this bill to which he has r"-
lerred? . Mr. MICh"ENER. .. No; it is Dot. T!le SPEAKER. The quesLion i!' e". the amendment oITe'ed by the gcntlr:t\·. ' .. : from Pen.ilsylvanJa. [Mr. WALl'EU). The question w:tS taken; 2':'.1 til" Speakec belng 1n dOUbt, Lhc Hom.!.! divided. Bud there wt:rc-aycs 38. -J. So the amendment was t.o. Tile bill was ordered to be read a third time, was l'elld th'" !h:rd time, and passed, an'i !\ moiion '." !',,<;ou·· sider was laid on the t::ble. EXTENSION 0:-' 11.EMARKS Mr. STEVENSON asked and was given permission to' extend his remarks In the Appendix of the RECORD and InclUde a. report to his cpnsti&uents, REVISION OF TITLE 28. t1NITED STATES CODE The Clerk called Llle bill (B. R. 3214) to reVise, codify. md enacL into law tiLle 28 ot the United States Code entitled "Judicial Code and Judiciary." . The SPEAKER. Is there obJectlon t.o the present consideratIon of the bill? Mr. cun"'TS. Mr. Speaker. reser"i,,:: the right to nhiect. this· bill H. R. 321'. deals· with judiciary and judlei"l procedurc ann r to call aU . .,nUon mert!ly to Cl" p".-L :L. Thut.l, . , .. " '. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 4 of 39
504S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 1V1;\.1' 12 amount each year for the development of farm-to-market roads. Tbe Commis-
sioner of Public Roads, Mr. Thomas H. MacDonald. spoke in favor of the bill. General Fleming, Commissioner of Pub-
lic Works. favored the bill. No one ap-
peared in opposItion to the blll. It was reported unanimously by the Public Works Commlttee. Three IdenticaJ bUIs ha ve been Introduced tn the other body by three different Senators. The PresI-
dent recommended the passage of such measure in his message to the Congress on Janua.r,r 3 of this year. This bill will not require a single dollar of appropria-
tions from the Federal Treasury. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman yield? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota.. Does the extensIon apply to the farm-to-market roads as well as to the primary system? Mr. COl\"NINGHAM. It certainly does, as well as the development of the hish-
ways in the urban areas. . Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The bill is very much in order for two reasons. One is that the time when the Japanese war expired, creating the resolution which the gentleman has referred to before, came along In the fall. which gave the States a short year the first year. No&a* started building highways prior to October of 1945. They lost 4 months to start wIth. Then, there was a lack of material and shortage of labor and high prices, which caused the to· be held up. The whole program win be re-
tarded and the States will lose some of this appropriation and there will be tremendous waste if this bill is not en-
acted. Possibly 12 months' grace period 15 not suffiCient. but if it is not sufficient we can bring up another bill later. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. If I remember correctly prior to this authori-
zation the old Federal-aid a.uthorizatlon gave the States 2 years in which to act. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gen-
er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. C1JlI,"NINGHAM. I yield. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. t wish to state at this time that in my opinion thIs Is very necessary legislation. As a ·prevI-
ous member of the Committee on Roads, I would like to c()mpliment the genUeman for brInging this bill up at this time. Mr. CIDmTNGHAM. I thank the gen-
tieman. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman ;yield? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the chairman of the commlttee. Mr. DONDERO. I think the gentle-
man has already covered the ground, but is it not a fact that because or the con-
ditions enumerated by the gentleman. many of the States have been unable to comply with the provisions of this act, which makes thIs bill mandatory in or-
der to protect the states? M:r. CUNNINGHAM. That Is abso-
lutely true. In addItion. \.here would I'll ,""nlt'ndous waste. because the hlghwa:; ;·,,"T:m would !1f! stopped, Rnd highwayS p:'!'lly ·,'Quld be left In status quo untll the COIll1'8SS tool: some addl-
tionaJ action. Mr. COLE of New Yorlt. Mr.Speaker.I withdraw my reservation of objectiOl1. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserVing the right to object, as one of the mem-
tuDlt:v to study this bID vel')' carefUlly. 'l'lle people In Dll' particular area In the Northwest are very, very much In sym-
patby witb tb1s bill. I thl.nk what the chairman bas said and what the gentle-
man from Iowa [Mr. C1:J'JrJmfOBAx] has laid Is absolutely true. that this bill Is essential for our road-building program. The- BPEAEER. Is there objection to the present COnsideration of the bill? There was DO objection. The Clerk read the bill. as follows: Be ft ImlScted. etc., Tbat paragraph (c1) of aectiOl1 4 of the Federal-Aid EDSh-,. Act Of 1944, PubUc Law &21. seventJ-elBbth Con-
If-. a.pproved December 20. 1944, Is bereby ameDCled by s101"l.k1D; out tile term "Ol1e ,ear" wbere it appears in aid paragraph and in-
IIe1't1ng in Ueu thereof u;ae term "two The bin was ordered to be engrossed and read .. third time. was read the third time, and passed. and a motion to re-
CODSlder was laid on table.._, SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There was no objection. The Clerk read -the bID the second time. Mr. WALTER. Mr.Speaker,Iofreran &mel1dmel1t. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment o1rere4 by Mr. WALTD: On page 434, line 11. aftar the word "or", strIke out ·'three" end Illsert "live." Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment you have just heard report-
ed would have the efrect. If adopted, of increasing the membership of the parole board from three to five. At the last session oC the Congress one of the subcommittees ot the Commlttee on the Judiciary, In studying the legisla-
tion which we hoped might have the ef-
fect of cutting down the enmlnal rate In this country, found a perfectly ap-
paWng. situation In the parole board. That board of three members actua.lly Interviews upward of 10,000 prisoners each year. That Is. personal IntervIews. In addition to that, the, have to revIew the cases acted on after personal inter-
views. There are 21 criminal institutions In the United States that must be visited by this Boa.rd at regular intervals. So they have a perrectly Impossible job with the result that men are paroled accord-
Ing to formula who should be compelled to serve their ftill t.ence. I n m not thinking about thosu IRCO who lore eli-
!!ible for parole and In whose ,In .. CRn h.: t·aken because the Board bas not \.:'"" to reach their HdnOnline _. 93 cong. Ree, SOU that Is bad enough, but, significantly enough, over 50 percent of tbe criminals In the FederaJ institutions are repeaters. It seems to me tha.t the least we can do is to make it possible or probable for a. Board Intelligently to pass on appl,ica-
tJODS for pa.role in order to determine Whether or not men shoule! be released from their incarceration. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Speaker. wlll the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. CARROLL. WoUld the gentle-
man's amendment change existing law? Mr. WALTER. It does not change existing law a.t all. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. COLE of New York. If It does not chanae existing law, and this bill is de-
signed to codify existing la.w. what is tbe Decessltyof offering the amendment? Mr. WALTER. It changes existing law in that it changes the number of members on the Board. It does not, however. In any way affect 'the purpose of the law establishing the parole sys-
tem: It merely the number of members of the Board. This Is not dif-
. ferent from what bas been c10ne by this committee In this very bill. The period of sentence has been changed In order to ma.lte difrerent fit the sentences tha.t have been fixed by from . time to time. That is done throUghout this entire title 28. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman. yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. GRAHAM. As I underst.and the gentleman's amendment it increases the number of members from three to five. Mr. WALTER. That Is right. Mr. GRAHAM. But it does not In-
crea.se the rate of compensation of the members. Mr. WALl'ER, That Is rIght, exactly. Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. ROBSION. I may say thls to the gentleman. this matter came up before our JUdiciary Committee and former Senator George Wharton Pepper. who j,; tremendously In this subject, and others felt they had to have addl· tlonal authorization to Increase the number from thl'ec to five. Otherwise we are not amending the law. I think there 1 .. no objection to it. We have p. but which can be called up to do this thing, Mr. WALTER. The gentleman is cor-
rect. but we are this far. I do not think there Is a.ny doubt but that the Judiciary Commlttee would unanimously approve a. sepa.rate 0111, but we have ·gotten this far with this leglslatlon and it certainly seems to me the situation Is so critical that we ought to act as qUickly as lVe possibly can. That Is the reason I haYe ofrered this amendment a.t this timc. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania has expired. Mr. ROBSIOR Mr. Speakr. r , H1is hill differs from the 11ve codificaLir;l1 hili", which have preceded It on thIs en' ,II" In thr.t It constitutes a revision, , ·:.ell as [l, ';'}':i:lr.-,t.lnn, or the ;"." Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 5 of 39
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 6 of 39
Shane C, Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 Re: August 14 Set of Documents Sent to the Attorney General Dear Mr. Buczek: V.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Western District York Federul CCI/lre 138 Dc/ill\ '(1/"(' A rel/ue BU//ldo, Nell' York 14202 October 20,2010 716-S-/3-5700 F{(x 716-551-3U52 On or about August 14, 2010, you sent the attached documents to the Attorney General. They were referred to me for my review and for appropriate action. After reading through these documents, they appear to be frivolous and thus I am returning them herewith. Two things: First, at "page 1 of 12," you assert: Your failure to respond, within 10 days as, stipulated below, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process law." Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." You have repeatedly asserted this in your innumerable filings. Please note that is not a correct legal premise and, on behalf of this office, Main Justice, and any other components of the Department of Justice, we categorically reject this premise as to all of your filings, past, present and future. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 7 of 39
Second, please do not send any further correspondence, documents or any other matters to any Department of Justice component. They will f!.1l ultimately be forwarded to me and I will most likely return them to you. AMBllfs Enclosures BY: Very truly yours, WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, JR. United States Attorney - ~ Assistant U.S. Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 8 of 39
Shane C,. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 Re: Enclosed letter/email Dear Mr. Buczek: ES. Departrnent of .histice States Attorney Western District oj'Ne1;\' York Federul Cell Ire /38 Deloll'ore A)'ellll£, RII(litlo, Nell' York / .:!-202 October 7,2010 7/6-8'-13 -5700 Fox 716-55/-3052 Enclosed you will find a photocopy of what purports to be a July 27, 2009 letter or email from "Harley G, Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons" to "all Department Heads." Investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation determined that this letter/email is a complete fabrication. This letter is to provide you with notice that the Lappin letter/email is in fact a fabrication and that further use of it by you in your filings with the Court is at your own peril. AMB/lfs pc: Dan Buczek (w/enclosure) Kathleen Horvatitis BY: Very truly yours, WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, JR. United States Attorney 11173-
Assistant U.S. Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 9 of 39
Case ·1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 187 Filed 09/14/10 PClge 9 of 12 FROM LINDR MARIANO PHONE : 7048'352899 15 2010 07:58PM Pi Page 1 of 1 Harley G. Lappin From: "HaI1ey G. Lappin" <harleyJappln@usdoj.gov> Sent: Monday. July 27, 3:17 PM • AttentiOn aU Department Heads, there hats been a large V'OkIme of inrrIete Requests for Admlnl¥tratIv& Remedies the validity of 1h& Bureau's wtbority k> hold or classify them under 18 U.s.C. §§ 4081, at (1948). On the claim that Public Law 80-772 \oIIBS never pas&ed or sfgned In the preaenoe of a Quiorurn or of both House6 at eons;,ess as requIreQ by Artk:!el. § 5, Clause 1 of the ConBtitutIon. Although moat COl.IJt$ ha1te. far. reUed on Fidd y. Clark., 143 U.S. 849(1892) to avoid i\lling on the mMIts of these dUns, hcrtNever, have been some which have stated that theY were not bound by thu FMd case, but thoIse caMI$ did nat Involve Quorum Clause ohaJenge. So out of an abul"ldan<:e of caution, I conI:&cted the 0ffI0e at L.egaI - Counsel. the National Archlves aOd the Clerk cA the House of RepresentatiYe$ to learn that is no record of any quorum bMlg present duri1g the May 12, 1947 vole on the H.R. Bill in the House (s.,e 93 C.ong.Rec. 5049) •• and the record is not clear as to whehJr"there was any Senate vote on the H.R. 3190 BIll during 8lT'J ae$$1on r:I the 80th Congre$s. There '* only one Supreme Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid the of both Houses must show that it WID pas$OO In the presence of ill Quorum. See United states v. Ballin, Joseph & Co., 144 U.S. 1. 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House s1ataa that the May 12, 1947 vote was a 'voic$1IOt&.' but the ParUarrumtarial"l of the House states that 8 VOICe vote Is only valid When thi!I Journal shows that e quorum Is present and that It'a unlawful fer 1M Speaker of the House to sign any enroiled bHl in the absence of a quorum. On May 12.1947, a presence of 218 Members in tile haJJ ,.jf the was reqUired to be entered on the.JoumaJ1 in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 VOice vote to be legal. It appears that the 1909 version of the Faderal Criminal Co$ has never been l"flP8IIIad. Therefore. In essenoe, our onlY true authortt.Y Ia derived from the 1948 predQQ8AOl' to Public taW 80-772. "Although adjudiCation of the constitutiorlallly €!I enactments has generaDy been thought to be beycmd the juri&diotion of federal admll'lisfratiIIG aganci&s, this r\IIQ iIo not manda&ory," aecordlng to the Supreme Court in the caae.of Thunder BasIn Coal Co. v. Reich. 510 U.S. 200. 215 (19M). Therefor9, the Bureau under the advise of the legal CounGel feels that it IS In the best inte1'V6t of public 8Bfety to cont.ir\ue addreseill9 all Of these Remedy Requests by stating that only the Congrest5 or t:OUTt$ can repeal or declare a federal statille unconstitutional. Hadey G. Lappin DiR.octor, Fc:dcnl :BurQu ofPrisoos 712712009 Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 10 of 39
Shane C,. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 Re: Enclosed letter/email Dear Mr. Buczek: u.s. Department of Justice United States Attornev Western District oiNeH' York Fee/em/ Celllrl' 138 De/aware A \'e/IIII' Bllfj'a/u, Nell' York /4202 October 7,2010 7 J 6-043 -5700 Fax 7/6-55 J -3052 Enclosed you will find a photocopy of what purports to be a July 27, 2009 letter or email from "Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons" to "all Department Heads." Investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has determined that this letter/email is a complete fabrication. This letter is to provide you with notice that the Lappin letter/email is in fact a fabrication and that further use of it by you in your filings with the Court is at your own peril. AMB/lfs Enclosures pc: Dan Buczek (w/enclosure) Kathleen Horvatitis BY: Very truly yours, WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, JR. United States Attorney ,AJV'-, 1/1 73-
Assistant U.S. Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 11 of 39 Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 187 Filed 09/14/10 Page 9 of 12 FROM LINDA MARIANO PHONE NO. : 7048952899 15 2010 07:58PM Pi Page 1 of 1 Harley G. Lappin From: ...... ey G. Lappfn" <harlIEri.lappln@usdoj.gov> Sent: Monday. Ju1y27, 2009 3:17PM I • Attention aU Department Heads, there has been a large VOkIme d inn'Iraee Requesta for Administrative Remedies the vaIIdlty 11ft eure.ts authority to hold or classify them under 18 U.s.C. §§ 4081. et (1948). On the claim that Public Lew 8O-m was M'I8f or sVted In the pre. ence d G Qut:wm or M*.RY at bath House6 at Cor9.eU as required by Attlcte f. § 5, Clause 1 oIlhe ConatiIuIIon. AItbcu$Ih mo.t Ctlt.Jrt5 have, Ihu& far. relied an F.eId v. Clark, 143 U.S. 849(1892) to avdd ruling on the ITIGIits of these eWms. hoWever, ttKn have been some whioh haVe stated that thay were not bound by the Ftekl CMe. but those caMS did not Involve eny Quorum Clause chdenge. So out of an abundance of caution. I canbiIded the Offtce of lAgat - Counsel. the NationliIII ArchIves and the Clerk d the House of RepIesentafive$ to learn that thera is no record of art! quorum talsiJ present ctumg the May 12. 1947 vo1e on the H.R. 31E!C) Bill in the House (Soe 93 Cong.Rec. 5049) •. and the record is not dear as 10 wh&Chw there was SI'W Senate vote on the H.R. 3190 BIll during fIni aesslon d the 80th Congress. Them. only one Supreme Court case that says in order for any bit to be valid the Journals Of both must show that it waa passed In the preeence of .. Quorum. See United states v. Bailin. Joseph & Ca •• 144 U.S. 1. 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House s1at8a that the May 12, 1941 vote was a 'vaic:e vatfIJ,' but the Parliamentarian of the House slateG that II VOIce vote IS only valid When the Joumal shews that II quorum Is present and that It'a unlawful for the Speaker of the House 1n sign any enrolled bill in the absenoe ata qtlcrum. On '''Ni'i 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the half OfttlG Hou5ewas reqUired to be entered on the JoumaI in orderfor lhe 44 Member 38 to 6 VOIce vote to be legal. It 8J)pea1'8 that the 1909 vel'Glon of the Fed«aI Crimina Code has never been 1'8p8IIted. 1berefore. In essence, our only trueauthortty Iaderivedfrom the '1948 Public LaW 80-772. "Although adjudlcatian of the cor1$titutionallty €I enactments has genaraIIy been thought to be beyond the juriedIotion of federal admlnlalnltiYe aganc:ia8, thia rule is not mandatory," acooniing to the Supreme Court in the case of Thunder BasIn Coal Co. v. Reich. 510 U.S. 200, 215 (1994). Therefore, the Bureau under tile advise of the legal Cauneel reM that it IS In the best intsretSt of public Afety to continue acldreuing .u Of a-.eae AdminlatraUve Remedy Requea1s by stating that eny the Congress or courts can r8J)e81 or tleclare a statute unconstitutional. Harley G. Lappin Dimctor, Fcdcnl B\uam ofPrisooa 7127/2.009 Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 12 of 39
l('d{'Ft!! ('{"lIFf 138 /)ell/I\'(/i, \ \'I'liite 8uf/I/I(!, ;\'('\\' liil'i; 1..f2{)2 July 29, 2009 7/t)_8-/3·5
()!; 716-55/ -.i1l5:!' I.fl/ \! Shane C,. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 Re: United States v. Shane C. Buczek 09-CR-121-S and 09-CR-141-S Dear Mr. Buczek: cases: On July 27, the Court entered the following Decisions and Orders in the referenced 09-CR-121-S Docket No. 22 - Decision and Order ("0&0") denying your "Petition for Work Release;" Docket No. 23 - 0&0 denying the motions you previously filed and docketed as Nos. 11, 12, 14 and 19; and Docket No. 25 - 0&0 denying your July 17 Motion for an Extension of Time (No. 24). 09-CR-141-S Docket No. 25 - 0&0 denying your July 17 Motion for an Extension of Time (No. 21); Docket No. 26 - 0&0 denying the motions you previously filed and docketed as Nos. 11,12, 13 , 19 and 20; and Docket No. 27 Decision and Order ("0&0") denying your "Petition for Work Release." Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 13 of 39
Copies of each of these six (6) documents are enclosed. As I said in my July 27 letter to you, the next step is your trial. With the entry of the D&Os cited above and enclosed, the same is now true in both of these cases, so once more, I urge you to retain counsel. To reiterate, your continued freedom is at stake, and, as I said in a previous letter to you, it appears to me that you have no clue about how to try a case. Conversely, I have been a prosecutor for 30 years and know that, if we go to trial, I can get all my evidence against you into evidence. And I feel confident that I can persuade the jury to return "guilty" verdicts against you in all three (3) cases. AMBllfs Enclosures BY: Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHL TRETTER ..... Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 14 of 39
Shane C. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 July 27, 2009 RE: United States v. Shane C. Buczek 08-CR-54-S Dear Mr. Buczek: On Friday, July 24, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Schroeder filed four Decisions and Orders (Docket Nos. 126, 127, 128 and 132) and a Report, Recommendation and Order (Docket No. 134) in effect denying all of your (and Mr. Altman's) pretrial motions in which you (or Mr. Altman) asked for any type of "substantive" relief. In addition, Magistrate Judge Schroeder filed an Order denying your motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 130) and denied your "Petition for Work Release" (Docket No. 129). Copies of each of the above-numbered documents are enclosed. Now let me be blunt. You have tried to bring all of your views to the Court in your efforts to have the Court dismiss this indictment (08-CR-54-S) and as the Court's July 24, 2009 filings indicated, your efforts have failed completely. You now have to face the allegations of the indictment in a trial. Thus, if there were ever a time to retain the services of an attorney, it is now. Shortly, Judge Skretny will set this case for a "status conference" and at the court appearance it is likely he will set a trial date. In short, your continued freedom is at issue, and it appears to me that your efforts to represent yourself, at least up Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 15 of 39
Shane C. Buczek July 27, 2009 Page Two until now, have not worked. Things just might improve if you were represented, and to this end, I suggest that you show up at the anticipated status conference with counsel. AMB/kab Encs. Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER Acting United States Attorney 6 ~ - - ' BY: ANTHONY M BRUCE . / Asslstant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 16 of 39
\ > 1)/ . . . Shane G,. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 HIII/u/". ,\'('\1 ! -cu.; July 23, 2009 Re: United States v. Shane C. Buczek 09-CR-121-S and 09-CR-141-S Dear Mr. Buczek: fJU.\ I At my request, HSBG printed out all of the "screenshots" showing activity on your Best Buy/HSBG account and prepared a very short recap of your account. I intend to use both of these against you at your trial (See Fed. R. Grim. P. 12(b)(4)(A)). They are provided as a part of our discovery obligations (See Fed. R. Grim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)). Also served herewith are our responses to your pretrial filings in the two referenced cases. Once more, do not respond to this letter as to do so would likely be a violation of a condition of your release. Also, filing the letter as part of a pleading is an act that is without effect. Thus, doing so is nothing more than a waste of time and postage. But feel free to file it if you think it's necessary. AMBllfs Enclosures pc: Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHL TRETTER Actiflg United States BY: ANTHONY . BRU,PE Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 17 of 39
Shane C,. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 Ij! 1\ '\ il; j') '-. '-, ( I'. ii ) lil/rlu/o, ,\,(,\1' V"rI, I-I:'.I() July 16, 2009 Re: United States v. Shane C. Buczek OB-CR-54-S Dear Mr. Buczek: Recently you made filings with voluminous attachments in this case which the Clerk's office sealed, apparently at your request. (See attached docket sheet excerpt, items 109, 114 and 115). Because of the voluminous nature of these attachments, the Clerk's Office will neither scan them or send copies to me. Because I should at least look at them before i respond to your motions, would you please make copies of these attachments and send them to me. Note that I do not need copies of the motions themselves. Please don't do more than send these copies by regular mail. Return receipts, certified mail, and all that other malarkey is unnecessary and puts you to an unnecessary expense. And do not respond to this letter except as requested above as to do would be in violation of a condition of your release. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHL TRETTER BY: Assistant U.S. Attorney AMBlifs pc: Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge (wlo enclosure) Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 18 of 39
_____ ._ ............. __ LJV\,.I.I.\..\,.IL Page 2 of9 Terminated: none Case Assigned: Honorable William M Skretny Case Referred: Honorable H Kenneth Schroeder, Jr Anthony M. Bruce Lead Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office Federal Centre 138 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 USA Phone: (716)843-5886 Fax: (716)551-3052 Attorney to be Noticed U. S. Attorneys Email: anthony.m.bruce@usdoj.gov Date 07/14/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/06/2009 06/30/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/18/2009 06/17/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 # Proceeding Text 118 TEXT ORDER as to Shane C. Buczek: The government shall respond to defendant's 116 Petition for Work Release no later than 7/24/2009 after which time the petition shall be taken under advisement. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 7/14/09.(LMG) (Entered: 07/14/2009) 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 105 106 NOTICE OF HEARING by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 07/14/2009) MOTION for work release by Shane C. Buczek. (DZ) (Entered: 07/14/2009) SUPPLEMENT AMENDED WRIT OF RECOGNITIIONE ADNULLANDA by Shane C. Buczek **Attachments to this document are maintained in paper form in the Clerk's office due to volume of exhibits** (DZ) (Entered: 07/09/2009) FINAL PETITION FOR POST SETTLEMENT AND CLOSURE (Attachments: # 1 exhibit Band C) (DZ)**Exhibit A maintained in paper form due to the way the document is sealed** (Entered: 07/09/2009) CORRECTED NOTICE as to Shane C. Buczek. Motions having been filed by the deadline of 7/17/2009 as set by the Magistrate Judge, the status conference scheduled for 7/22/2009 before William M. Skretny, U.S.D.J. is CANCELED. (MEAL)(MEAL) (Entered: 07/07/2009) NOTICE as to Shane C. Buczek. Motions having been filed by the deadline of 7/17/2009 as set by the Magistrate Judge, the status conference scheduled for 7/11/2009 before William M. Skretny, U.S.D.J. is CANCELED. (MEAL) (Entered: 07/07/2009) MOTION/PETITION for post settlement and closure of account by Shane C. Buczek. (DZ) (Entered: 07/07/2009) Verified Appointment Of Attorney filed by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 07/01/2009) NOTICE of Trustee Appointment, Power of Attorney and Trust Stipulation by Shane C. Buczek ***Attachment to document maintained in paper form in the Clerk's office due to the way the document was certified and sealed.*** (DZ) (Entered: 06/30/2009) NOTICE/AMENDED WRIT OF RECOGNITIONE ADNULLANDA by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 06/30/2009) BRIEF by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 06/19/2009) SCHEDULING ORDER as to Shane C. Buczek: Discovery completed by 6/30/2009; Motions due by 7/17/2009; Responses due by 8/14/2009. If no motions are filed, parties directed to appear before the Hon. William M. Skretny on 7/22/2009 at 09:00 AM. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 6/15/09.(LMG) (Entered: 06/17/2009) MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 06/17/2009) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr: Status Conference as to Shane C. Buczek held on 6/15/2009. Attorney David Jay, who was present in the courtroom, advised that defendant has not retained him. Defendant confirmed that he will be proceeding pro se. Scheduling Order to be entered. Time Excluded as to Shane C. Buczek from 6/15/2009 to 7/17/2009 pursuant to Title 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv). Defendant requested permission to leave his residence in order to work on his case at the UB Law School Library. Court directed defendant to make application to the U.S. Probation Office for the sole purpose of going to the UB Law School Library, the Federal Courthouse Library or the Supreme Court https:llw3 .courtlink.lexisnexis.com/ControISupport/U serControls/ShowDocket.aspx?Key=... 7116/2009 Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 19 of 39
Shane Christopher Buczek Federal Medical Center Devens P,O. Box 879 Ayer, MA 01432 Re: United States v. Shane Buczek 08-CR-54-S Dear Mr. Buczek: }(.\;!: \( i..! (.'J ('\){ M?fCh 31, 200Q I have your letter (drafted March 18,2009) and, on behalf of the United States (and each department and agency thereof, inasmuch as the United States Attorney's Office is charged with representing them), this is the response. At page 2, you state: You also agree that if a response that addresses each element is not provided within the 30 days, you agree that the original claim in this matter cannot be certified and thus agree to ledger a zero ($0 no) (In this ?,':::CU!"1t 3::d th:s case is settled and closed. By this letter, this office and the United States Treasury (which this office represents) hereby declines to agree with, and in fact out rejects, each and every point of your letter. In your letter you make reference to "Corporate Trust Account known as Shane Christopher Buczek with account number 131685635." Two points: 1. Neither you nor anyone else has such an account; and Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 20 of 39
2. Should you attempt to write checks, drafts, make withdrawals from this fictitious account, or otherwise "access it" such would be an act of fraud subjecting you to possible further prosecution. And this letter will evidence the fact that you are on notice that such acts constitute fraud AMS/ifs Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER United States Attorney 1 t ( 5 ~ BY: ANTHONY M. UCE Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 21 of 39
Shane Buczek No. 90656-111 Batavia Federal Detention Facility 4250 Federal Drive Batavia/ New York 14020 l \; ".1 I <! (r! \ (', :') i / May 4/ 2009 RE: United States v. Shane Buczek Dear Mr. Buczek: On April 21/ 2009/ the May 2007 Grand Jury filed an indictment against you charging you with bank fraud and with committing the bank fraud offense while you were on bail in the passport fraud case. A copy of that indictment is enclosed/ and you will be arraigned on Wednesday, May 6. Once more I urge you to obtain an attorney to represent you in connection with this new indictment. With respect to your April 15/ 2009 letter/ the language "must. show cause why a contempt ** charge should not issue against him/her in his/her True Character/ or suffer the consequences of said action/ or lack of action" borders on being a threat against me. If you choose to use this or similar language in the future/ you are on noti.ce that you risk being charged. Also/ I have enclosed copies of Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and I strongly suggest you read them more closely. Neither section sa.ys what you claim (in your April 15 letter) it says. The balance of your letter is gibberish. AMB/lfs Encs. BY: Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER A./1C ing Attorney ANTHONY f'I. BRUCE Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 22 of 39
Copies of each of these six (6) documents are enclosed. As I said in my July 27 letter to you, the next step is your trial. With the entry of the O&Os cited above and enclosed, the same is now true in both of these cases, so once more, J urge you to retain counsel. To reiterate, your continued freedom is at stake, and, as J said in a previous letter to you, it appears to me that you have no clue about how to try a case. Conversely, I have been a prosecutor for 30 years and know that, if we go to trial, I can get all my evidence against you into evidence. And I feel confident that I can persuade the jury to return "guilty" verdicts against you in all three (3) cases. AMBllfs Enclosures BY: Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHL TRETTER ACI!Jlg UnITed States Att5ey ~ / i l L ~ Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 23 of 39
Shane Buczek, 90656-111 FMC Devens Federal Medical Center P.O. Box 879 Ayer, MA. 01432 ) \ / {,\, !). /(1 I: (Ii I .\ \ ( il ii( Ihl/{I/n. \"{I" }i,rI. 1·1.21).' April 13, 2009 RE: United states v. Shane Buczek 08-CR-S4-S 27 CFR 72.11 Dear Mr. Buczek: At any number of court appearances, you have touted 27 CFR 72.11 as somehow making "all crimes commercial." I have enclosed a copy of 27 CFR 72.11. You will note that it defines commercial crimes as follows: Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnaping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white keeping house of ill fame; and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crimes. You continue to assert that since all crimes are made commercial by this CFR, you are entitled to "settlement and closure of your account," which will in essence end the case against you. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 24 of 39
Even if the "commercial crimes" could be made to go away by "settlement and closure," your indictment charges you with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a) (2), 1542 and 1028(a) (4). None of these crimes are listed in 27 CFR 72.11. Thus, this section that you continue to cite, even under its broadest reading, has nothing to do with your case. Given what the regulations does not say, I once more point out that your options are (1) plead guilty, or (2) go to trial. AMB/lfs Enclosure BY: Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER Acting United States Attorney M-?l1Zr--
A N T H O N ; ~ BRUCE' Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 25 of 39
Shane Buczek, 90656-111 FMC Devens Federal Medical Center P.O. Box 879 Ayer, MA 01432 (,III'if! J l;r/,ml (,'/Ill'; Bl!ilulo VeIl' link !-!},(I,? April 10, 2009 RE: United States v. Shane Buczek 08-CR-54-S IRS Forms 56 Dear Mr. Buczek: ;i I ,:'I!I ,I
7 J ()-55 I I have received copies of IRS Forms 56 naming both (former) United States Attorney Terrance P. Flynn and me as acting as fiduciaries on your behalf. Be advised that neither Mr. Flynn nor I ever have been, are, or will every be or act as fiduciaries for you, and that any further attempts by you to name Mr. Flynn, me, or any other federal official as your fiduciary could subject you to prosecution for doing so. In reading through a few of the many documents you have created and then filed, it occurs to me that you use legal terms without any real idea as to what they mean. Put another way, they sound good, so you use them. A "fiduciary" is a person in whom you would have "special contidence" and "who would be bound in equity and good conscience to act in good faith with regard to" your interests. I am the individual prosecutor, and this office is the "prosecutors office" with the responsibility for prosecuting you. And if we are successful, you could be fined and sent to prison and lose some of your rights as a citizen (e.g., to vote). Thus, this office and I am acting directly against your interests so, by definition, neither anyone in this office nor this office as an institution can act as a "fiduciary" for you. Moreover, just about everything you do appears to be an effort by you to "confront" one or more government agencies with your views. This, in turn, puts you and whatever agency or agencies you try to "confront" in adversarial positions. However, your "adversary" can never act as Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 26 of 39
your "fiduciary," no matter how hard you try to make the agency or the agency head your fiduciary, and no matter how many reams of paper you send out saying these people/agencies are your fiduciaries. In several of your voluminous papers, I have seen references to the "Paperwork Reduction Act." Try applying that statute to yourself. Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER United BY: CE AMB/lfs Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 27 of 39
Mr. Daniel Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 April 7, 2009 RE: United States v. Shane Buczek, 08-CR-54-S Dear Mr. Buczek: I have your April I, 2009 letter, and it leads me to believe that both you and your son are mixing several concepts. First, were your son a minor, you might have an argument that you can "represent" him, although not in the sense that an attorney can. But he is not a minor, so you cannot represent him. Second, the examination (and related observations) your son is undergoing is not being done to determine if he is competent or incompetent in the sense of sanity versus insanity. Rather, it is being done for two limited purposes: ( 1) to determine if he is competent to stand trial, i.e., does he understand the nature and possible consequences of the charges and is he able to assist in his defense (either through an attorney or by proceeding pro se); and (2) to determine if (even if he is found "competent" under the first test) he is competent enough to represent himself. However, if Shane is found "incompetent" under the first test, the court must visit the issue of his competency in the larger sanity versus insanity context. Third, I fully respect Shane's "right" to proceed pro se. Moreover, while it is my duty to "prosecute vigorously" those who, in the view of this office and the grand jury have committed crimes, it is also my duty "to do justice." In this vein, I view Shane's idea of and persistence in representing himself as a way for him "to do injustice" to himself. Put another way, and I think that deep in your psyche you know this, the legal gobbledygook Shane persists in filing will not affect the ultimate outcome of the case. Shane probably has the "right" to shoot himself in the foot, but I think you will agree that exercising that "right
H would not be in his best interest. The same is true in the case against him. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 28 of 39
Daniel Buczek Page Two April 7, 2009 Civil Rule 17(c) has nothing to do with this case for two reasons. First, this is a criminal case; and second, even if it did apply and at some point Shane is indeed judged "incompetent," the Court must appoint a guardian ad litem for him if he is not represented by counsel. You cannot simply "appoint" yourself as his representative. In this vein, I remain ready to meet and talk with you about a resolution of the case with the understanding that you are an intermediary between this office and Shane and nothing more. AMB/lfs Enclosure BY: Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER Ac 'g United Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 29 of 39
Shane C,. Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 u.s. Ht'partnwnt of Justie(' l flliled SllIll'S A f/omer \l('.ll('I"1/ /)islricl (!t" NCII' )'rl/"k March 27, 2008 Re: United States v. Shane C. Buczek 08-CR-54-S Dear Mr. Buczek: In the interest of moving this case along, and in conformity with Rules 12(b)(4)(A) and 16(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I am enclosing two CDs. The first, labeled "Passport Clips," contains two excerpts from the Alex Jones Radio Show in which you are recorded talking about making application for a passport (i.e., submitting the passport application that the indictment accuses you of lying on) and then about crossing the Peace Bridge on February 3, 2008 using the passport you asserted on the passport application at issue in this case was "lost at sea." You are hereby notified that, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)(A), the government intends to use both of these clips against you at trial. The second CD, entitled "Shane C. Buczek Discovery" (etc.) contains copies of all pertinent court documents, as well as copies of all the evidence seized from your parent's home when it was searched on March 6. Again, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)(A), this letter is to put you on notice that we intend to use any and all of the documents seized from your parents' home against you at trial. . Further (and again pursuant to Rule (b )(4 )(A» in your "Indictment on Counter Claim" which you filed on March 24, 2008, you made several further statements that the government intends to use against you at trial. At IX on page 2, you, in essence admit to making the December 20, 2006 passport application. At "X" on page 3 you make a further admission about your "lost at sea" passport, At "XI" you, in essence admit that your "Apostille card" was in your car when it was searched in February 3, 2006. At "XVII" you Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 30 of 39
once more admit to the possession of your Apostille. At "IV," you once more make admissions about your "lost at sea" passport. Then, at page 14, you state "I have personal knowledge of the facts in this matter." AMB/lfs Enclosure Very truly yours, TERRANCE P. FLYNN d States Atto BY: .BR Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 31 of 39
Daniel Buczek 7335 Derby Road Derby, New York 14047 Re: United States v. Shane Buczek 08-CR-S4-S Dear Mr. Buczek: u.s. Deparhnent of Justice United States Attorneys Office Western District of NeH' York Federal Centre /38 Dell/ware AI'Ollfe BlI/iii/o, New York /4202 February 26,2009 7/6-843-5700 7 J 6-55 J -3052 (fen) Your "Objections to Proceedings, No Ratification of Commencement Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petition to Dismiss with Prejudice" is returned herewith. The only persons who may represent your son, Shane Buczek are (1) Shane, himself (pro se), or (2) an attorney admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Further, your filing of this document (and any further actions of a legal nature you may take on behalf of your son) border on the unlawful practice of law, in violation of Section 485 of the New York Judiciary law, a misdemeanor, and if you continue "representing" your son, I will have no choice but to refer your actions to the District Attorney's Office for possible prosecution. Thus, you are warned and cannot take refuge in any claim that you did not know that in representing your son, you actions amounted to and were a crime. Please note that, as I have said to both you and your son, this matter is not going to go away by any means other than through a plea of guilty by Shane, or through a trial on the merits. Moreover, I intend to present the Best Buy facts to the grand jury and to ask the grand jury to charge Shane with bank fraud with respect to has actions vis a vis Best Buy and HSBC. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 32 of 39
My strong suggestions (and it echoes Magistrate Judge Schroeder's suggestion) is that Shane retain the services of an attorney who practices in federal court to represent him. The fact that this will cost him or you and you don't want to pay is, to borrow an old saying, being penny wise and pound foolish. And not having an attorney will only work to Shane's detriment. AMB/ifs Enclosure BY: Very truly yours, KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER Acting United States Attorney A ~ R : ~ Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 33 of 39
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 34 of 39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 incorrect, I'm sure the Court would be more familiar with it than I am, as would Mr. Kawski, but in reviewing the record, I did not see that. The other conditions all fall in reference to the direct orders that were made by the Court. Count 1, you know, dealing with his attempt to file these liens; you know, the second one, again, dealing with 401.3; the third one being the attempted threat or attempted intimidation, which I prefer to phrase it as opposed to actual intimidation; the filing is Count 4; 5 is the subject should not communicate with any government agency unless filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office -- this was not filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office; and 6, the nature of his home confinement, which in this instance does not fall within the purview of the order. MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: But all of those were in the context of involving the three indictments. I had no authority I don't think any -- I don't think a district judge would have authority to oin a citizen of the United States from seeking redress from any branch of government so long as it's done in a or a lawful or to communicate with representatives of his government about problems he is having with his taxes or with his personal life. MR. BURGASSER: But the Court i ~ a very restrained way MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: My orders were all in the context of filings as they related to the three indictments. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 35 of 39
19 1 MR. BURGASSER: But the Court in a very restrained way 2 told him how he needed to contact government agencies, and the 3 fact it had to be reviewed by Pretrial Services and that it had to 4 be filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office. 5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: But he did, and then he 6 contacted the Clerk's Office, and the Clerk's Office said you 7 better clear that th Judge Schroeder's chambers, and then he 8 called my chambers. 9 He went through that process, and now the Government's 10 saying he should never have done that. 11 MR. BURGASSER: He did not file with the District Court's 12 Clerk's Office and he did not contact Mr. Kawski. 13 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: No, I said he I'm going 14 to to that one because that's another burr that is under the 15 saddle for the moment. 16 He contacted Jean Marie McCarthy in the Clerk's Office, 17 he called her about what he could do with some of these documents. 18 She told him she could not give him an answer, that he should 19 contact my chambers. He contacted my chambers and talked to my 20 deputy clerk. 21 The message was conveyed to me that Mr. Buczek had 22 requested permission to file certain documents involving his taxes 23 with the Department of the Treasury, and also some documents 24 regarding something I thought it was something to do with 25 business affairs, Department of Commerce. Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 36 of 39
20 1 I said as far as I'm concerned, he's a citizen of the 2 United States, he has First Amendment rights, if that's what it 3 relates to, he has every right to do that. It has nothing to do 4 with the three indictments. 5 Now, admittedly, as I myself pointed out at the last 6 appearance, some of those documents seem to not be in the format 7 or in the subject matter as I thought they were going to be when I 8 gave that permission; they do seem to reflect or have some bearing 9 or some relationship to the three indictments, and so perhaps in 10 that context Mr. Buczek did cross the line. 11 But other than that, I never said he couldn't contact 12 anybody in the Clerk's Office or that he couldn't contact a 13 government agency about issues that were in no way related to the 14 three indictments. I don't think I had the power to do that, so 15 long as he was doing it in a lawful manner. 16 MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, not to, you know, redress 17 actually what you said as far as whether you had the power to or 18 not, but on page 3 of 4 --
MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: Well - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ = of , 19 20 essentiall the Constitution of the United States guarantees 21 citizens the right to redress their government, as well as the 22 r ss their views under the First Amendment. 23 MR. BURGASSER: And I believe that's why in the amended 24 court order setting conditions of release, which is Exhibit C, 25 double C, it actually did say the defendant not have any Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 37 of 39
1 communication in any form with any government agencies. 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: In the context of these 3 three indictments. Mr. Bruce was all upset about how he was 4 communicating terrible things as it related to the three 5 indictments. 21 6 MR. BURGASSER: But also when we go to the order adding a 7 condition of release, again, I didn't think the Court was being 8 very fair both to the Government, as well as to Shane, by setting 9 up a way that he could contact even the Internal Revenue Service 10 or the Treasury Department, but it had to do with a specific 11 format. 12 And in one sense if there was going to be a telephone 13 call or some other form of contact, there needed to be one day 14 notice; if it's going to be something written or something that 15 was going to be filed or mailed to them, there was supposed to be 16 two day notice so it could be reviewed by Pretrial. If Pretrial 17 agreed with it, it could go; if not, it could be brought to the 18 Court and the Court would make a ruling on it. 19 And, obviously, that didn't occur in this case. 20 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: All right. Now, let me 21 address the other issue with respect to Pretrial Services. I, 22 quite frankly, am -- I won't even say somewhat. I, quite frankly, 23 am disturbed about the this whole ted. 24 We have a simple alleged bail violation. If Mr. Bruce 25 really was concerned about the bail violation, as we do in Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 38 of 39
1 practically all cases, the Government merely needs to file a 2 motion with an affidavit saying we believe that the defendant is 3 in violation of terms and conditions of bail and we're moving to 4 have his bail revoked. 5 I have some real serious problems with Mr. Bruce 22 6 unilaterally communicating with the Pretrial Services Unit of the 7 United States Probation Office, which is there to serve the Court, 8 not the U.S. Attorney's Office, having these conversations. 9 And I'm not sure what it is Mr. Bruce told Mr. Kawski, 10 but I will say to you in all candor that I am of the opinion that 11 Mr. Bruce may have even mislead Mr. Kawski as to the seriousness 12 of this violation or the content of what these documents were that 13 constituted a violation to the point that he got Mr. Kawski to 14 request an arrest warrant. 15 And then Mr. Bruce doesn't go to me, he doesn't go to 16 Judge Skretny, he ends up in front of the chief judge of the 17 district and gets that arrest warrant. 18 In the past, in much more serious cases, including 19 serious drug cases, people have been brought in on a summons when 20 there's a claim of a bail violation. 21 22 And when I look at the totality of the circumstances these three indictments, I am to the conclus on in 23 without making a formal legal finding that Mr. Bruce is bent on 24 a path of vindictiveness and retaliation against this defendant. 25 He reminds me -- and my memory doesn't serve me well Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 39 of 39
23 ; enough to pull up the name -- but he is the inspector from 3 a loaf of bread because he was starving. 4 Doesn't the United States At 's Office have more 6 kids blowing their heads off every day: the drug scene out there 7 just outrageous, innocent can't even drive down the streets 8 without being shot at, and here we're this time on this - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ 10 MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, j u s ' ~ one thing as to what you ~ ~ said. It's my understanding -- and this is hearsay from 12 Mr. Bruce -- he advised me that he did contact your chambers and 13 was told that there were no matters pending before --
14 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: There weren't. All my 5 motions had been decided. 16 MR. BURGASSER: And they were told they should go to the 17 district court. It's my understanding, from Mr. Bruce again, that 8 Judge Skretny was not available -- I don't know if Judge Skretny 19 was available or not available, but that's how it ended up in 20 front of Judge Arcara. 21 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: Oh, I know that. My point 22 is why didn't he just file a motion saying it's the Government's 23 position that Mr. Buczek is in violation of bail, we're moving to 24 have his bail revoked, instead of going and getting Mr. Kawski 25 involved, getting the Probation Office involved and getting an More From This UserHow to Get the Benefits of A Securitization Audit FREEEthel Nan Ellis Arrest, Investigation, Warrant 10 April 2014Attorney Admits Foreclosure Defense Always FailsReality Check for Florida Attorney Matthew Weidner in AHMSI v Bednarek 2D12-2099Morcom, Focht, And Foreclosure Pretense DefenseForeclosure Hospice - Helping Victims Embrace Early Mortgage DeathHere's the HAMMER You Need to Win a Mortgage DisputeUSA v Harter Docket - US v 121213 at 113 AMUSA v Harter Jurisdictional Challenge 101013 Doc 89 - 047112581767 OcrLaw Strategist Proves Glaski Panel Wrong, Charles Cox tooFind the Vampire in Your Mortgage - Heed MatulkaDoes Your Foreclosure Defender Tilt at WindmillsFocht Opinion Hints at Mortgage Attack StrategySlave Complaint Form Available From CFPBHow to Beat Your Mortgage Like It Owes You MoneyWhy Foreclosures of Crooked Mortgages Are ValidGlaski, Erobobo, Saldivar Brouhaha - Red Herring Foreclosure Defense of PSA FloutersCan You Call It Martial Law?Gospel Discussion 2012Rebutting the UnFair TaxA Reason to Revise the 13th AmendmentFlorida Adverse Possession StrategyPesky Questions About Adverse PossessionBenefits of Adverse PossessionSourdough Bread
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBuczek 20101025 Answer to Motion to Revoke Bail by Bob HurtEmbedDownloadDescriptionBob Hurt presents Shane Buczek's dramatic court ordeal.Bob Hurt presents Shane Buczek's dramatic court ordeal.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedBuczek 20100420 Motion for Enlargement of Time 121by Bob HurtBuczek 20100507 AUSA Moves to Strike Criminal Complaint 1129by Bob HurtBuczek Habeas Corpus Petition 54 121 141by preston_402003Buczek 20070212 Full Settlement & Closure Hockey Game Caseby Bob HurtBuczek 20100315 Docket Report Case 121by Bob HurtBuczek 20100914 Judicial Notice of Harassing Emailsby Bob HurtBuczek 20101109 Docket Report 121by Bob HurtBuczek 20100907 Judicial Notice IRS Letter FRNs Not Dollarsby Bob HurtBuczek 20090527 Indictment 141 Contempt)by Bob HurtBuczek 20100308 Transcript 5 - 121by Bob HurtBuczek 20100316 Docket Report Case 141by Bob HurtBuczek - Vol. I - FASLE ARRESTby shanebuczekBuczek 20101025 Skretny Order Denying Motion to Revoke Bail 121by Bob HurtBuczek - Vol. III - FALSE ARREST by shanebuczekBuczek 20100305 Transcript 4 - 121by Bob HurtBuczek 20080304 Indictment 054 (False ID)by Bob HurtBuczek 20100309 Notice or Writ of Coram Nobis Non Jucice 121by Bob HurtBuczek - Vol. II - FALSE ARRESTby shanebuczekBuczek 20090421 Indictment 121 (Fraud)by Bob HurtEQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWby shanebuczekBuczek 20101012 Judicial Notice Title 18 Not Law, Etc 54 & 121 & 141by Bob HurtBuczek 20070506 Article - The Enemy Downtown - Hockey Game Caseby Bob HurtBuczek 20100311 Docket Report Case 54by Bob HurtBuczek Notice of Criminal Complaint Against AUSA 1129by Bob HurtBuczek 20101017 Docket Report 1129by Bob HurtExhibit.08.054.03.22.Passport by shanebuczek022610.PDF.transcriptsby Shane ChristopherBuczek 20051226 Hockey Game Liberty Dollars Incident - Detailsby Bob HurtSimilar to Buczek 20101025 Answer to Motion to Revoke BailBuczek 20100420 Motion for Enlargement of Time 121Buczek 20100507 AUSA Moves to Strike Criminal Complaint 1129Buczek Habeas Corpus Petition 54 121 141Buczek 20070212 Full Settlement & Closure Hockey Game CaseBuczek 20100315 Docket Report Case 121Buczek 20100914 Judicial Notice of Harassing EmailsBuczek 20101109 Docket Report 121Buczek 20100907 Judicial Notice IRS Letter FRNs Not DollarsBuczek 20090527 Indictment 141 Contempt)Buczek 20100308 Transcript 5 - 121Buczek 20100316 Docket Report Case 141Buczek - Vol. I - FASLE ARRESTBuczek 20101025 Skretny Order Denying Motion to Revoke Bail 121Buczek - Vol. III - FALSE ARREST Buczek 20100305 Transcript 4 - 121Buczek 20080304 Indictment 054 (False ID)Buczek 20100309 Notice or Writ of Coram Nobis Non Jucice 121Buczek - Vol. II - FALSE ARRESTBuczek 20090421 Indictment 121 (Fraud)EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWBuczek 20101012 Judicial Notice Title 18 Not Law, Etc 54 & 121 & 141Buczek 20070506 Article - The Enemy Downtown - Hockey Game CaseBuczek 20100311 Docket Report Case 54Buczek Notice of Criminal Complaint Against AUSA 1129Buczek 20101017 Docket Report 1129Exhibit.08.054.03.22.Passport 022610.PDF.transcriptsBuczek 20051226 Hockey Game Liberty Dollars Incident - DetailsShane C Buczek Transcripts on False Arrest Complaint NO INJURY PARTY!Buczek 20101113 Court Sentences ShaneBuczek 20101025 Answer to Motion to Revoke Bail