Many Americans consider the United States Supreme Court to be a hallowed ground of goodness; an all-knowing collection of fatherly and motherly wise men and women who protect the lives and freedoms of citizens. We see the Supreme Court’s decisions as the rule of law that cannot be challenged in terms of intelligence or virtue. Americans could not be any more mistaken. Like many Courts in general the United States Supreme Court is not only partisan and beholden to wealthy interests – it was put in place by politicians – but the Supreme Court is also often times EVIL. If you doubt this let’s look at some of what the Supreme Court has done to American Citizens. We’ll do this by looking at the decisions of the Court itself. That’s the best evidence. Let’s see if some of you might want to defend the Court’s actions.

In Buck v. Bell the Supreme Court found that it was legal for states to sterilize citizens – even teenagers. As a result some 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century. The victims of this state-sponsored sterilization included people who had been labeled "mentally deficient;" as well as the deaf, blind or diseased. Minorities and poor people were frequently the target of these – scalpels cutting into genitals – forced sterilizations. Women that were accused of being "promiscuous" were also a favorite focus of the butchery. With regard to Carrie Buck contrary to the Court there were three generations but no imbeciles except the Court.



In Dred Scott v. Sandford the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not human but, rather, property. Of course as property these African Americans could be sterilized, bred, raped, murdered, worked to death and otherwise subjected to horrors. This decision was never reversed by the Court. It took the Civil War to reverse the decision. Lately we’ve seen that there are a number of Americans who would love to return to the Dred Scott days.



In Lochner v. New York the Supreme Court reversed a New York law that limited the amount of hours a person could work in bakeries. At the time the conditions in bakeries were excessively hot and harsh. The Court said that law meant to protect workers violated the Fourteenth Amendment. It is ironic that the Fourteenth Amendment was a post-Civil War amendment designed to make slavery in each of the individual states illegal. The decision marked the beginning of what is known as the Lochner Era – a period of time where laws designed to protect workers were ruled to be unconstitutional. This was a time where workers literally died by the dozen or more in fires, coal mine disasters, etc. as well as work related poisoning. Many Americans want to see the return of the Lochner Era.




In Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court decided that it was perfectly okay for a corporation to get a city to forcibly eject citizens from their rightfully owned property – and tear down their houses – in order to build a shopping mall. The reasoning behind the decision was the argument that the mall was for the public’s benefit. Undoubtedly the folks that would get the most benefit were the owners of the corporation who would make tons of money off the mall. The politicians who probably took bribes also benefited. Many Americans have enormous love for corporations and their right to do whatever they want to other people.




Gun advocates are fond of claiming that gun ownership “is part of my rights.” When pressed many don’t know where these rights come from but most cite to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the gun advocates the Second Amendment guarantees them “the right to bear arms” or the “the right to have guns” or something similar. Almost no gun advocates have even bothered to read the Second Amendment that they cite to as the justification for all the killing of children and worshippers that happens in this country because of guns – weapons to be exact. High capacity rapid firing death machines. Well I am going to give them the opportunity to read the Second Amendment. Here it is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Weapon advocates are quick to seize on the following language:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But that is not all of the language. That is not even the most important language. What starts it all? Here is the most important language:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …

The above language – “A well regulated Militia …” – serves as the premise and the preface for what follows. In other words the reason that people have “the right … to keep and bear arms” is because “A well regulated Militia, [is] necessary to the security of a free State …” Here it all is again. Don’t just skip to the end. Read the whole thing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to “keep and bear arms” is for “a well regulated Militia” so that the “Militia” can maintain “the security of a free state.” It’s not for crazy bastards who shoot people up and it’s also not for the heck of it.

Back when the Second Amendment was written militias were common place. These militias were made up of citizens who volunteered. They would practice on off hours such as evenings and weekends. They were not provided with any weapons. They had to bring their own. Hence the right to “bear arms” for a “well regulated Militia.”

The militia was a line of defense against the British in the revolutionary war. Hence the language: “the security of a free State.” Remember back then the United States was a loosely connected series of States where most of the power resided – in the individualized states.

What is the equivalent of the Militia today? The National Guard is a perfect answer. The police and their equivalent – sheriff, highway patrol, FBI, etc. – if you stretch it. What are all of these people doing with weapons? Why are they all saying it’s their Constitutional right? For goodness sake read the Second Amendment. The false portrayal of the Constitution and the phony connection between guns and patriotism is annoying.

But wait. Speaking of “false” and “phony” there is the deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The father of intellectual dishonesty. Scalia has rewritten the Second Amendment. He’s given the whack job, Russian infiltrated White Nationalists and NRA a Second Amendment that simply says:

… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Instead of

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The man besides deleting the main part of the Second Amendment written by our so called “founding fathers” also added a bunch of stuff to the Second Amendment that was never there.

Let us talk about this for a little bit with the help of Professor Denis Brown who I will quote in places.As we have discussed for most of its history the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. Again this is clear from the text. And it was actually the law of the land for many many years.

But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, a right that has nothing to do with military service.

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that we must understand the Constitution’s words exactly as the framers understood them, disconnected the right to keep and bear arms from the need for a well-regulated Militia, in part because he concluded that the phrase “bear arms” did not refer to military contexts in the founding era. By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion:

Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

Scalia was lying. He had a penchant for lying. That has been proven. As reported by Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.
A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.
But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. Writing about the Second Amendment in 1995, historian Garry Wills put it succinctly: “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”
And in 1840, in an early right- ­to-bear-arms case, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge Nathan Green wrote: “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Then there’s this exchange during oral arguments in Heller. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said that “bear arms” meant to carry them outside the home. Justice David Souter asked him: “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?”
Clement replied, “I would say that and so would [James] Madison and so would [Thomas] Jefferson.”
But Souter wasn’t convinced: “In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?”
Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.”
Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

Barron also notes the following about Scalia's opinion:

Still, the Supreme Court based its interpretation of the Second Amendment on more than an incorrect definition of “bear arms.” According to Scalia, the framers “undoubtedly thought” the amendment protected the universal right of self-defense, even though nowhere does the Constitution mention self-defense. It doesn’t mention hunting, either.

A dissenting opinions best summarize Scalia’s decision. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".

So this man … this Scalia … who professes to give us the original meaning of the Constitution fed us nothing more than lies. He decided not based upon the law, but upon the politics and money of the NRA and the right wing. He used bullshit to justify his decision and made a mockery out of the Constitution and the Court.

Scalia was reportedly found dead in bed with a pillow shoved partially down his throat. Perhaps this fraud of a perverse man was killed in some sort of sadomasochistic romp. Whatever the case … Scalia – the prince of Catholicism – is burning in hell. The Court; the NRA; and all the gun nuts have dipped their hands deeply into the blood of children.

And what of the children of Sandy Hook. Imagine that you are the father or mother of one of those poor children. You look down on your precious child’s mangled body torn ragged by bullets. What would you feel?

If I were the father or mother of a Sandy Hook child I would feel an uncontrollable rage. That rage would explode ... sometime ... someplace ... in a very purposeful fashion. With good cause. And I wouldn't need a gun.

We cannot talk about this anymore. We need to do something. In intelligent States press your law makers for the toughest gun laws that can be written. Then let the Supreme Court strike them down. Ignore the Supreme Court’s decision and enforce those laws anyway. When federal authorities are called in to stop the enforcement of the gun laws fight the federal authorities on the streets.

You are fighting for your children’s lives.






This is just a sample of despicable actions taken by the Supreme Court. Let this be our guide as we explore court proceedings in future installments in all Courts

0 views0 comments

Updated: Nov 16

PART I: Oh Suffolk County ... HOW Fucked Up Are You


This is part one in a series covering the degeneracy of Suffolk County – not just law enforcement and politics – but the county itself … all of it. This first part contains necessary background. Most of the material in this first part is all public knowledge appearing in Court filings and multiple news stories. But some of the material below has never seen the light of day. That material is heavy. All of it is heavy. In the coming installments there will be nothing but factual material. All of it disturbing. Much of it revealed for the very first time.


So let us start.


There is really not much good you can say about a county where the Chief of Police does four years in Federal Prison for torturing and beating a young man who is addicted to drugs – one of the many in “affluent” Smithtown. The beating and torture took place in a Smithtown/Hauppauge precinct house and was viewed by droves of police officers and detectives. As it turned out the addicted young man – Christopher Loeb – swiped the Chief of Police’s duffel bag from the Chief’s unlocked SUV. The bag contained sex toys and unspeakably heinous porn. The Chief of Police – the infamous James Burke who also resides in Smithtown – had a long history of rough kinky sex with drug addicted prostitutes. Burke actually engaged in drug trafficking while on duty with one of the prostitutes. These prostitutes also swiped things from him too, like his service revolvers – all of which was known by higher ups. Yet his career sky rocketed.


As Burke bashed his fist into Loeb’s face Burke screamed death threats at Loeb, promising to give him a “hot shot.” A “hot shot” is a fatally powerful dose of heroin. The use of the term by Burke implies that a "hot shot" is something that Burke has either done before or seen done before. When Loeb shot back that Burke was a pervert because Burke kept heinous porn and sex toys in his vehicle, the police chief’s attack became insane. Another detective had to pull Burke off.


“Boss that’s enough, that’s enough,” the officer said.


Loeb settled his civil rights case with Suffolk County for 1.5 million tax payer dollars. Meanwhile Suffolk taxpayers fork over $145,485.00 a year to Burke to pay Burke’s pension. Suffolk County law enforcement is the gift that always keeps taking from Suffolk County tax payers.


If the above isn’t bad enough the County’s District Attorney is standing trial – as I write this – in Federal Court for covering up the torture/beating and covering up the cover up; in a case that he should have prosecuted. Suffolk voters gave this man four bipartisan terms – he was cross endorsed by Republicans and Democrats.


To make matters worse the Chief of Police – Burke – is a suspect in a string of serial sex killings of sex workers. These killings have strewn a section of prime Suffolk County beach land with rotting bodies and body parts literally hanging from bushes and low lying trees.


Meanwhile the former Police Commissioner and District Attorney squabbled about whether there even was a serial killer. So far at least 17 victims have been identified: 15 female sex workers; A male sex worker dressed as a female; And a toddler – a slain female sex worker's child.


Despite all of the above District Attorney Thomas Spota had this to say:


"It is clear that the area in and around Gilgo Beach has been used to discard human remains for some period of time," As distasteful and disturbing as that is, there is no evidence that all of these remains are the work of a single killer."


It has now been admitted by all relevant law enforcement that it is the work of a single serial killer.


District Attorney Spota has done much to protect the identity of the killer. Spota and Burke literally kicked the federal government – the FBI and its profilers and first rate forensic teams – as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office, off the investigation of the murders just as progress was being made. The progress included a theory that the killings were probably committed by someone who worked in law enforcement. Yet Suffolk County law enforcement simply stopped working with the “Feds” – this included the sharing of information. The infiltration of federal law enforcement in Suffolk – the Eastern District of New York – by Suffolk County politics is going to be discussed in this series. The point is that the so called “feds” were probably easy to get rid of.


Right now the Gilgo Beach serial killer case is one of the worst unsolved crimes in the nation. No one is really investigating it. The killings did suddenly seem to stop when Burke went to prison. Well he’s out now. And one can almost see the sex killer prancing around the beaches and manicured lawns of Suffolk County dumping body parts.


District Attorney Spota and Chief Burke also eliminated the Eastern District – a.k.a. – “Feds” from the active gang task force because they did not want them near the corruption; beatings; illegal wiretaps; politically motivated false arrests and malicious prosecutions; mayhem and murder that we are going to cover. As a result MS-13 exploded in Suffolk County and the bodies of Hispanic and African American teens were spread across the less “affluent” parts of Suffolk County. All of the victims were good kids working to have a future. No one really cared except their loved ones.


This is the same District Attorney – Spota – that was friends with a horror show of a man that owned a nursing home service. In March 2007, Spota indicted ten nurses and their immigration attorney after the nurses quit their jobs at Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center in Smithtown – again Smithtown; it seems that my town is the very epicenter of shit. The nurses, Filipino immigrants recruited by the nursing home company SentosaCare of Woodmere, resigned together in April of 2006, because of bad working conditions and disputes over pay and benefits.


SentosaCare officials met with Spota – their friend – the next month. The nurses right to quit – can you imagine “quitting a job” has to be declared a right – had earlier been approved by the State Education Department. That is the agency tasked with regulating health care providers. Nevertheless the nurses were arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of the nursing home’s clients. The immigration attorney, who advised the nurses of their right to resign, was also charged with criminal solicitation. These were the first such charges in the state, and they sparked an outcry from groups in the Philippines and in New York.


After lengthy proceedings the case reached the state's Appellate Division. The Appellate Division declared that the criminal proceedings were unconstitutional because they violated the nurses' rights to be free from slavery.


Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost proving the same point over a century earlier and we have a Constitutional Amendment that is over a century old that says that slavery is illegal.


But according to DA Spota and the voters who supported him slavery was legal in Suffolk County.


Suffolk is a county that draws lines on maps to designate where blacks can live; where Hispanics can live; where Asians can live; and areas that are off limits to all people except whites. It is a truly unique place that should be transported to rural Kentucky during Reconstruction.


There are many who say that Spota and Burke are “just the tip of the iceberg.” They are wrong. Spota and Burke are but a crystal of ice on the continent of Antarctica.


In this series we are going to go deep into what is going on in Suffolk. Over the next installments we are going to concentrate on two actual cases that I worked on. First these two cases are a good vehicle for exposing Suffolk County’s perverse culture of degeneracy because they demonstrate that such depraved debasement is but common place. Secondly the cases opened up a window into acts of grotesque inhumanity in high profile cases.


For example in one of the cases that I worked on I had the opportunity to interview a witness that had much to tell about a totally unrelated case that made headlines. The case was even featured on true crime television shows and news shows. That is the case of Martin Tankleff.


I spoke with a man named Joseph “Joey” “Guns” Creedon.


Before I spoke to Creedon the man had made numerous admissions to witnesses in the 440 hearing seeking to exonerate Martin Tankleff for the murder of his parents Seymour and Arlene Tankleff. The murders occurred when Mr. Tankleff was a teenager decades ago. In fact Creedon had boasted for decades to many people – including some I talked to – about being the actual killer. In fact, Creedon admitted to the killings even as he burned his blood stained clothes in the first couple of hours after the murders.


Creedon’s accomplices also admitted to their roles in the murders and fingered Creedon and another accomplice as the actual killers. There were look outs and a get away driver, etc.


Meanwhile a young man languished in prison for 17 years for a crime that he did not commit. He was framed by Suffolk Law Enforcement for money. He was kept in prison by District Attorney Spota because Spota had represented the Suffolk County detective, K. James McCready, that framed Martin Tankleff. Spota had also represented the drug dealing father and son duo that hired Creedon and his accomplices to kill Seymour and Arlene Tankleff – that would be Jerry Steuerman and his son Todd Steuerman. Jerry and Todd also hired their friend and fellow Spota client, Suffolk Police Det. K. James McCready to frame Martin Tankleff – much more of this sordid nearly four decade conspiracy of sleaze to come. In fact there are trusted sources that recount that Spota’s law partner – a former Suffolk County prosecutor – received his fatal dose of cocaine from the Steuermans. I guess that would be a "hot snort." That does not say much about Spota’s private law practice and what the Steuermans might have had on Spota who is a well known substance abuser.


But when I spoke with Selden’s own Joey Guns Creedon it was about another case. But the ghosts of Tankleff lingered like an 800 pound gorilla. Joey Guns despite warnings from his attorney had to talk. With regard to his many admissions that he murdered the Tankleffs, Joey Guns Creedon discussed a visit by a high profile Suffolk County Detective who is now an elected government official – let us call him “Cowboy” because that was the nick name our legal team gave him.


Creedon told me that Detective Cowboy and other members of the Suffolk County Police Force apprehended Creedon and beat him. Creedon was told by Cowboy and the cops to keep his mouth shut about the Tankleff killings – to stop claiming that he killed the Tankleffs for the Steuermans – or Creedon would face a far more violent consequence ... his death.


Creedon stated in part: "with that thing they threw in the big guns right away to come talk to me ... you know what I mean ... I want to keep a low profile. I am almost 50 now."


Creedon then once again admitted to the killing. With regard to the detective Cowboy that visited him, Creedon finished by stating: "I can give you a lot on [the detective]. That guy did a lot of bad things. He kicked down a lot of doors without a warrant and searched through things. I don't want to talk too much in the open.” I corroborated all of the above as we will see.


District Attorney Spota and Police Chief Burke are probably two of the most disgusting evil humans on earth. But what can you say about the County that put them in power. Not just the political machines and the police unions. But the rank and file citizens of this county called Suffolk. Many of these people – far from all but very many – lack the mental capacity to handle the responsibilities of living in a democracy. They are a people in search of a trailer park; a cousin to fornicate with; and some skoal to spit in a jar. Then there are the rest of us that are forced to sit with them in the stands at our children's sporting events as they scream obscenities and criticize everyone from the officials to the coaches -- to your own child.


For the most part names will be changed to protect the innocent from retaliation. The fear is palpable to this day. The same machine controls Suffolk. The new District Attorney Timothy Sini was the former Police Commissioner before he became District Attorney. Before being Police Commissioner Sini was an Assistant US Attorney from the Eastern District. Sinni was made District Attorney by the same corrupt party boss and police unions.


In any event the names of most of the high profile officials will be divulged. Somewhere down the road every public official will be named.


Stay tuned …




84 views0 comments

Updated: Jun 29


I had a mentor. My legal ethics professor – the late great Monroe Freedman. I got an A in his class because I understood two things: “zealous advocacy” and being “a client’s champion against a hostile world.” This is what a lawyer should aspire to. These are supposed to be not only the best traits of the profession but our oath as lawyers. I was a very good student.


Some of you true believers that wanted more out of law than money – there are not many of us – may have found that the greatest attributes of a lawyer are also the downfall of a lawyer. Try vigorously defending a client against the Government in federal court. Don’t try too hard though or you will be hounded and threatened. Plead out no matter how innocent your client is. Or if you must go to trial – try your client a good conviction – in other words show up and give a non-opening-opening. An easy going cross. Don’t worry about Brady, Giglio and Roviaro – good God what’s that. Whatever you do -- don’t fight back or powerful people will get upset. And don’t forget the killer summation where you remind the jury that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury wants red meat – not burdens of proof.

It’s worse if you dare vigorously represent a small company and its middle class owner against an Insurance Industry RICO. You’ll be threatened with sanctions for asking for permission – when it’s a right – to make a motion to dismiss. You may find the Court giving the insurance company’s lawyers case law and citations to cases that you as an attorney lost – just so the Insurance Company can attack you personally for being a lawyer.

We will get into that at some future point in time. I promise it will be infuriating.


For now remember when industry brings a RICO the pleading standard doesn’t exist. When a regular citizen brings a RICO against industry the pleading standard is insurmountable.

And forget Bivens civil rights cases against the federal government or 1983 cases. The so called “plausibility standard” so unevenly applied – the Pandora’s Box of judicial bias – has taken care of that -- they are dismissed in droves and your are threatened with sanctions if you bring them. (To be discussed and it will be unnerving)


It brings me to Elizabeth Warren – she may be President one day. But forget politics. Listen to what she had to say. Senator Warren stated in a Speech to the American Constitution Society on June 13, 2013 entitled: The Corporate Capture of the Federal Courts


I wanted to come here today because I had a message I wanted to bring personally. And here it is: there is an intense fight going on, right now, over what our federal courts will look like. It is a fight over whether those courts will remain a neutral forum, faithfully interpreting the law and dispensing fair and impartial justice – or whether we will see the corporate capture of the federal courts, with the courts transformed into one more rigged game. And right now, we are losing that fight.
The reasons are many.
Consider the composition of the federal bench. Look at the federal bench and you will see a striking lack of professional diversity among the lawyers who currently serve as federal judges. According to a study published by ACS earlier this year, as of 2008, the federal appellate bench was "dominated by judges whose previous professional experience is generally corporate or prosecutorial." [Really both -- former AUSAs abound] The study examined the biographies of 162 judges listed in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. It found that 85% of the judges had worked in private practice, and also noted that it was "clear from the judges’ biographies that a sizable number of them worked for large, well-known firms that tend to represent corporations." Meanwhile, only 3% - five judges total out of 162 - had substantial legal experience working for non-profit organizations. And none of those five judges had worked for such an organization more recently than 1981! Similarly, only 3% of the judges had worked for organizations or government agencies that enforce civil rights. Only three judges TOTAL appeared to have worked for organizations representing low income Americans, and only one judge—one out of 162!—appeared to have substantial experience litigating consumer protection cases.

This is not politics. This is fact. Please I didn’t say the above. Senator Warren did. Go after her.


Welcome to the District Courts in the Second Circuit. Welcome to the Second Circuit.


Enough background.


A Tough Case with the Average Rogue Prosecution


Recently I had a case where I represented a client. As the case progressed the Government began to harass some of my client’s former employees in order to turn them against my client. The employees were scared. They asked for a recommendation as to who they should retain. The client -- let's call him Lawrence -- suggested me. They retained me but not before being informed of any potential conflict and signing a waiver. I made sure to tell them that if they were a target of an investigation they might be able to escape criminal liability – or face lesser criminal liability – if they had information that could be used by the Government to attempt to obtain a conviction of Lawrence. I did this with Lawrence's permission. I also informed them that the Government may not have enough information to charge them with anything. But that could change if they talked to the Government and gave them information.


In all cases the former employee/potential witness/potential defendant told me that they did nothing wrong – nor did Lawrence.


Of course when they refused to cooperate with the Government the Government’s allegations flew wildly in a motion to disqualify me from representing everybody including my original client Lawrence. I fought. I informed the Court of the following (the names have been changed to protect the innocent):


Once again the specter of a strategic conflict of interest motion has reared its tactical head. But this matter is really about protecting citizens against a runaway prosecution riddled with misconduct. We are going to get into the above shortly.
But first the Government neglected to mention that my correspondence to the Government stated that my client Jane Doe (obviously I have substituted a fictitious name) would testify before the grand jury in exchange for immunity. The Government’s failure to respond to that offer means that they view Ms. Doe as a potential defendant.
Ms. Doe has a prima facie right to counsel of her choice. United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 151 (2d. Cir 2008) To that end the undersigned has vigorously protected Ms. Doe’s rights with no fear of the consequences to my other client Lawrence and in the face of rogue Government tactics. [Correspondence to Government at Exhibit 1][1] [See attached] Indeed a quick reading of the annexed correspondence will demonstrate zealous advocacy on the part of the undersigned on behalf of Ms. Doe.

The correspondence to the Court continued:

Finally it is time to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Since 1932 and the decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 57-58 (1932) there is no species known as a Government witness.[2] [The Government maintained that I could not talk to let alone represent certain individuals because they were "Government Witnesses"] All witnesses belong to themselves and may talk to whom they want to talk to and be represented by whom they want to be represented. The Government can label someone a “cooperating witness” as they have done here to Ms. Doe, but the facts tell us different or else Ms. Doe would not have sought out my representation.

And this is what I had to say to the Court about the Government’s actions:


THE ROGUE PROSECUTION
I am going to let the facts speak for themselves.
I. The Grand Jury Subpoena
As stated to the Government in the above referenced correspondence annexed at Exhibit 1:
I am informing you that what appears to be the U.S. Attorney’s Office standard rider is misrepresentative. [I am providing the reader with a copy of the subpoena and rider] Specifically wherein it states:
1. You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you.
This is surprising since the law could not be any clearer on this point:
The Fifth Amendment provides that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. As the Supreme Court of Ohio acknowledged, this privilege extends not only "to answers that would in themselves support a conviction . . . but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486. … [W]e have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men [and women] . . . 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421, 1 L. Ed. 2d 931, 77 S. Ct. 963 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U.S. 551, 557-558, 100 L. Ed. 692, 76 S. Ct. 637 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U.S. at 421-422.
Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20-21 (2001) See, also United States v. Greenfield, 831 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2016) (Emphasis added)
The Supreme Court has recognized that the [5th Amendment] privilege "has consistently been accorded a liberal construction," Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 461, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and, in accordance with this principle, the Fifth Amendment privilege has been found to extend not only to answers that are directly incriminatory but also to those that, while not themselves inculpatory, "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant," Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20, 121 S. Ct. 1252, 149 L. Ed. 2d 158 (2001) (per curiam) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 95 L. Ed. 1118 (1951)).
Id. at 114.
In addition the addendum is misrepresentative at number “3” where it states:
If you have a lawyer, the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with your attorney if you so desire.
(Emphasis added)
Given the state of the law the grand jury or the persons we are really talking about – government attorneys – have no ability to deem what is “reasonable” as to the witness’ “opportunity to step outside the grand jury room.” To wit no one can tell, intimate or even signal to a witness that she cannot step outside the grand jury room to consult with [her] attorney if [she] so desires.”
As it stands the addendum chills a citizen layperson’s rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. I will take these issues up with the DOJ directly but the second issue – “consult with your attorney” – could be an obvious problem should you desire to still proceed. Perhaps we need to get a preliminary ruling on this.
The addendum is an outright misrepresentation meant to ensnare the average citizen into believing their rights are severely limited. Unbelievably the Government has violated Miranda on paper no less

I was not done yet:

II. The Prosecution Picks a Citizen’s Lawyer
I know the following has occurred at least three times in this case.
Annexed at Exhibit 2 is the following screen shot of a text received by and sent by a witness. Two separate pages – I did my best printing it from my email. [I am providing this to the readers]
The Government’s lead investigator on this case – Agent Jones [fictitious name] – sent the following text to a witness whose name has been redacted out of decorum. In the text Jones stated:
Hi [Ms. Smith -- (fictitious name)] – this is Jones. I stopped by your house yesterday. Can you meet me this Friday or Monday (10/2) so we can get you private attorney assigned free of charge to you. You would need to meet me near 26 Federal Plaza, NY (my office). Thanks.
“Ms. Smith” responded:
I am finding my own lawyer. Please do not contact me or attempt to contact me again. Please do not have anyone from the Government contact me. I am upset. I told you that was getting my own lawyer and you continue to question me loudly and threaten me loudly so that my neighbors could hear. It’s improper for you to offer me your lawyer when I told you I am getting my own.
The above is unctuous which comports with much of my knowledge of the investigation in this matter. This is economic blackmail at best. Further I assume that the Government is referring to some form of CJA – but perhaps given the Government’s underhandedness it is wrong to assume. In any event CJA cannot just represent someone without financial qualification unless directed to by a Judge.
As such the Government’s request for standby CJA counsel in this matter must be met with suspicion which is beyond skepticism. I have no idea how deep these waters run but none of the above sounds even slightly above board.

Through insiders I know that in District Courts in this Circuit the Government is very close to CJA counsel. Government lawyers and agents attend holiday parties that are attended by both CJA counsel and Judges. It is very easy for the Government to arrange to have CJA counsel of their choice available to talk a citizen into cooperation. The quid pro quo for CJA is the assignment which pays them money. Citizen tax payer money. Although I will add that I have worked alongside CJA counsel in the past and they were quite good.


But back to the story. I further informed the Court of the following:


THE CROSS MOTION
We have previous argued that our investigation has found that Special Agents Moe, Larry, and Curly [names changed to fit their best characteristics] have all been investigated and disciplined to varying degrees for various misconduct involving witnesses. This misconduct created an improper influence upon the witnesses that impaired the witnesses’ credibility. Obviously this misconduct would also impair the credibility of the agents. This has nothing to do with the above mentioned lies to, and rough handling of, witnesses.
The Government should turn over the personnel/disciplinary files for each of the above agents to the Court for in camera inspection
The Government has responded through boiler plate assertion that there is no Brady material.
In the past the assertion of misconduct was based upon knowledge that the agents in this matter helped facilitate the provision and misuse of medications by witnesses. Now we have yet more abusive misconduct on the part of at least one agent and her associate: one FBI Special Agent Stan Laurel – who continually accompanies Agent Moe through her abusive sojourns into the rights of witnesses.
Based upon this new evidence and totality of the evidence the Government should turn over the personnel/disciplinary files for each of the following agents to the Court for in camera inspection: Moe, Larry, and Curly.
With Much Respect,
/s/Raymond Zuppa
Raymond J. Zuppa

It is tough to follow the strictures and edicts imposed upon us by the legal ethics that govern us all.


You might find yourself hated. You might even find yourself in deep trouble. You might love every moment of it.


Good Night and Good Luck.

[1] The correspondence also notified the Government of what I obviously knew would be considered a conflict by them just in case they were not attentive.


[2] Powell sits in a library somewhere like a cure for cancer sits in a lab never once having its promise fulfilled. It is no wonder an article by Adam Liptak published in the New York Times on April 23, 2008 entitled “U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations” cited to the findings of a number of studies. This included the finding that:

the United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners. Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment … The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A400af42f-5a8a-43fc-873e-59f1d430e5dc










67 views0 comments