1

14-2988UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT-------------------------------------------------

United States of America, Appellee

v.John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants,

Fritz G. Blumenberg,Defendant – Appellant.

-------------------------------------------------On Appeal from the U.S. District Court For the

Southern District of New York – 01-cr-00571 (JGK)

-------------------------------------------------BRIEF of Appellant Fritz G. Blumenberg

------------------------------

Fritz G. Blumenberg, Pro SeAm Hempberg 2, 21224 Rosengarten – GERMANY

+49-4108-590-535

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

Table of Contents…………………….………….……………………….. 2

Table of Authorities……………………………………………………… 3

Statutes ……………………………………………………………………… 3

Rules…………………………………………………………………………… 4

Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction….. 6

Statement of Issues Presented for Review………………………. 7

Preamble and Statement of the Case…………………………….… 10

Real Facts beneath the Arguments…………………………………. 14

Indubitable and Incontrovertible ……………………………………. 14

Ex Post Fact Manipulation & Docket Fraud ………………………. 24

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 28

Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………………. 30

Certificate of Service………………………………………………………… 31

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1958)……………………………………………… 8

Douglas Oil v. Petrol, 441 U.S. 211,223, 99 S. Ct. 1667……………………….. 8

Jiob v.Heller, 778 ……………………………………………………………………… passim

Shrader v.CSX, 70 F.3d 255, CA2…………………………………………………….. 10

U.S. v. Cotton (01-687) 535 U.S. 625 (2002)…………………………………….. 11

Hagan vs. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)…………………………………………….. 11

Exparte McCardle, 7 Wall.506,514 (1869)…………………………………….….. 11

Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) ………………………………………………. 28

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a

controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern

impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and

whose interest, therefore . . . is not that [he] shall win a case, but that

justice shall be done . . . . . But, while he may strike hard blows, he is

not at liberty to strike foul ones." (Sutherland, J.).

STATUTES

18 USC §371, §1341, §1343, §1001 ………………………….….…………..… passim

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights……………… 12

Title 18, Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law…. 12

N.Y. JUD. LAW § 487 : NY Code - Section 487: Atty Misconduct .. passim

4

RULES

Rule 6(e)(3)(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter

under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand

jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte—as it may be when the

government is the petitioner—the petitioner must serve the petition on,

and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be

heard to:

(i) an attorney for the government;

(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and

(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.

(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in

another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the

other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine

whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer,

it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed,

if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grand-

jury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified

in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.

Rule 6(e)(6) Sealed Records. Records, orders, and subpoenas

relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent

and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a

matter occurring before a grand jury.

Rule 6(e)(4) (4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom

an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret

until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The

5

clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the

indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant

or summons.

Grand Juror Handbook AOUSC:

¶ 5: “Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether

there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed

and to report accordingly to the court”.

https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/jury/docs/federalgrand.pdf

¶ 8 The United States Attorney will also prepare the formal written

indictments that the grand jury wishes to present. But neither the United

States Attorney nor any Assistant United States Attorney may remain in the

room while the grand jury deliberates and votes on an indictment

¶ 12 The foreperson of the grand jury must keep a record of the

number of jurors concurring in the finding of every indictment and file the

record with the Clerk of the Court. If an indictment is found, the grand jury

will report it to the judge or a magistrate judge in open court1.

1 The applicable condition of an OPEN COURT proceeding is mandatoryand cannot be waived, see also 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)

6

STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate jurisdiction is conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Appellant’s

obligation to enter a timely NOA from a DENIAL ORDER (Appendix ¶ 29-

30)by the District Court “terminating” various IMPROPRIETY and and

resulting JURISDICTIONAL issues was satisfied (Appendix ¶ 31).

See also: Villanova Law Review Vol. 24: ¶157, 160

7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR

APPELLATE REVIEW

1) Jurisdiction is a question of law to be reviewed de novo, here,

whether federal 18 USC §371 jurisdiction was established despite the

facts that the Grand Jury process had not concluded on June 14,

2001, was ongoing - in progress - during the days of June 15, 16, 17,

18, and that a [rather defective] bill was held by the Grand Jurors in

abeyance, was not readied for presentment in OPEN COURT, and was

not presented or filed [whether in OPEN COURT or not] until June

19, 2001, when the DOCKET was OPENED (App ¶3 = 6/19/2001

highlighted, bolded) by a dubious “hind-door” recording made by a

staffer of the USAO (App ¶ 40).

June 19, 2001, however, was beyond a permissable five year

term during which “overt acts” [if bonafide] could2, arguendo, bring a

“real scheme within the purview of sections §1341/1343 and provide

limited federal jurisdiction” over alleged offenses. [Note: 5-days

backdating of a BILL is an unlawful DUE PROCESS offense,

2 If not legally and physically untenable or – as here - unsupported byhistoric fact or by sufficient evidence

8

sentencing aliens after such outlaw corruption in the Court’s

Probation Department, ample proof of unlawful hate xenophobia]

2) Whether the government continuously acted deceiptful and violated

its “affirmative obligation” under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264

(1958) to “correct evidence it knows to be false”, and whether a

Court’s sophisticated confederacy in the joint violations constitute a

punishable extra-judicial racket that caused and inflicted intentional

harm upon two alien targets, inter alia, in violation of civil rights

laws.

3) Given that “A district court may allow the inspection of grand jury

minutes when the defendant makes a particularized showing of need

that outweighs the strong public interest in grand jury secrecy.”

Douglas Oil v. Petrol, 441 U.S. 211,223, 99 S. Ct. 1667, the Courts

DENIAL must be reviewed for known, abusive lack of discretion,

which – in view of the putative vacuity of jurisdiction – would be

considered axiomatic.

9

4) Review whether the government had standing or acted unlawfully

while having direct prosecutorial scienter that “their” Grand Jury had

not been gullible enough to rush to a premeditated conclusion nor

had agreed on a “bill” between June 14 and 18, 2001, and that a fake

proceeding, apprehension and false pretense, rubberstamping the

“bejesus” out of Appellant’s bogus Arrest warrant DRAFT and out of

Due Process, is subject to REVIEW at any time when a hint of

evidence of official malfeasance turns up. [And it did turn up, by

letter, and otherwise from brave Court staffers. Also DOC#2 was

received by international mail in Europe]

5) Review whether the District Court’s RECUSAL-REBUFF or CASE-

TRANSFER to a random but uninterested judicial officer was

ABUSIVE of DISCRETION, given more than overt APPEARANCE of

bias and strong in personam partiality interests with the objective to

shield personal reputational assets from public nullification by aliens

valued less than citizens and much less than robed esquires.

10

PREAMBLE

i) Appellant appeals from the district court's denial [DOC#319, APP ¶

29, 30] requesting UNCOVERAGE of DISCLOSURES of

jurisdictionally pertinent documents. The –omnibus and generic -

Application was based upon earlier presentments of “facts or law

that the Court has overlooked” (Shrader v.CSX, 70 F.3d 255, CA2)

[see DOC#317, Co-Def. Viertel’s submission and Viertel’s

“undocketed, disregarded” JUDICIAL NOTICE, Appendix ¶ 58-70)

in support of the claim that the Court lacked - never obtained –

“inaugural federal jurisdiction to pursue Count 13 and both, the

“Mail and Wire Fraud” Counts”, by swift a DENIAL of the

disclosure request that would, more likely than not, shame the

Court itself along with its best customer on Row One, United

States of America, for joint acts of repugnancy of judicial process

in lack of congressional authority.

3 Conspiracy – is the deceptive “relevant for time-barred conduct” extra-

verdict sentencing enhancement weapon violative of Human Rights and

democratically outlawed, worldwide, MLAT non-compatible.

11

ii) All fact and argument, law and conclusion presented,

inter alia, by the underlying Pro-Se-MOTION (plus Appendix ¶32

and DOC#317) are hereby incorporated in their entirety. US V.

COTTON (01-687) 535 U.S. 625 (2002): “Because subject-matter

jurisdiction involves a court’s power to hear a case, it can never

be forfeited or waived. Thus, defects require correction regardless

of whether the error was raised in district court”. And, “Where

jurisdiction is challenged it must be proved.” Hagan vs. Lavine,

415 U.S. 528 (1974); see also: “Without jurisdiction the court

cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to

declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function

remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and

dismissing the cause.” (Exparte McCardle, 7 Wall.506,514 (1869)).

iii) The current controversy arose because the District Judge was

faced with various brave disclosures by NYSD Court staffers (i.e.,

that Magistrate Dolinger had no “June 14, 2001 Calender call for a

U.S. v. Blumenberg case”) indutably proved impropriatries during

the CASE INITIATION and unlawful FALSIFICATIONS by

identifiable Court officers under oath continuing to violate, inter

12

alia, 18 U.S.C.§ 241 and §242, both Federal Crimes against two

alien defendants4.

These facts seriously challenged, if not nullified – nunc pro tunc

- the Courts original claim to adjudicate, to discretion, which was

annihilated on PRIMA FACIE COURT DOCKET EVIDENCE and

by the incontrovertble lack of verifiable June 14, 2001 Court

action, by lack of an APPLICATION for “sealed” presentment nor a

presentment of AO Form 190 by Grand Jury Forman Rehm on

June 14, 2001 ( nor on 6/15, 6/16, 6/17 or 6/18 and 6/19) as

required by Rule5 and by DUE PROCESS.

4 The American Defendant John Lee was nolle prossed July 3, 2002.

unceremoniously and under secrecy surrounding the flash exculpation after

his Attys. filed a [6/27/2002- DOC#50: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHN C. LEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS

ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS by Richard B. Zabel/James J.

Benjamin, Jr.]“MOTION” challenging validity of the Conspiracy charge, that

was unsurprisingly “kept off the docket” until Lee was nolled, see Appendix

¶ 52. Their MOTION was kept secret, as was DOC#2.5 Rule 6(e)(4) (4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom

an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret

until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The

clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the

13

The District Court chose PRETENSE, unlawfully, as if alien

Appellant through his coerced – badly FD-coached nor effectively

counseled – plea (Appendix ¶71 ff) intelligently “waived” yet

unknown to him, albeit valid jurisdictional challenges over official

criminal conduct hostile and prejudicial to defendants for a

judicial eternity, especially those challenges that directly seem to

endanger a life-time judge’s hopeful “going concern” and that of

his co-contractors as members of a “bar association militia”

supposedly in sequor pro domina iustitia.

indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a

warrant or summons.

14

Real Facts beneath the Arguments

This Appeal’s relevant overt judicial acts, omissions despite docketed

proof which still resulted in a repugnant extra-Judicial Denial of

Appellant’s reasoned applications for OPEN RECORDS or RECUSAL can

safely be labeled under: Qui male agit odit lucem.

What has been establsihed by Defendant’s but also by the official

RECORD beyond a reasonable dispute was unilaterlally waived good.bye by

a District Judge in favor of Branch II by not requiring their “reply”.

Undubitable and Incontrovertible :

a) Grand Jurors6 did not conclude to indict defendants on June 14,

2001,

b) Grand Jury Foreman Rehm did not sign the premaditated draft

of an indictment proposal on June 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and

c) United States Attorney (M-J White) could not and did not sign any

“bill until June 19, 2001 the day it was filed in the morning, and

6 Grand Jury AOUSC Handbook: “The grand jury must determine from this

evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a

person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of

Rights as an “infamous crime.” An infamous crime is one which may be

punished by imprisonment for more than one year.” ¶ 3

15

d) the executed “bill” – was not filed in open Court – no record exists

of such filing by USA and Foreman- but silently back-office filed by a

USAO staffer around 09:30 on June 19, 2001 without presentment,

without AO 190 and without Jury Foreman Rehm in violation of LAW

in furtherance of prejudice to cover up the unlawful apprehension of

Appellant in New Jersey and that of Def. Lee in Connecticut and

Viertel in Florida , whose “false apprehension at 07:00h” was a

FIRST CLASS constitutional violation. One for the law school books.

e) The District Judge’s mis-speak to “instruct” Viertel’s Petit Jury in

September 2002 waived the RULE OF LAW good-bye while

demonstrating worse than bad faith in hind-sight.

16

f) If ever there was a “FEDERAL BOGUS” judicial document,

Magistrate Pitman’s DOC#2, below, was it.

17

Whereby here, above, particular uniqueness strikes – entitled

“INDICTMENT” – to qualify this microfilmed specimen for judicative

craftsmanship as an exhibit in D.C.’s Crime Museum [or in Fordham’s

permanent Alumni Hall of Fame].

g) “Overt acts” – dated June 17 and 18, 2001, portrayed by the

COURT during my “Plea” as “charged” were legally and physically

untenable while not supported by historic fact or by sufficient

evidence, and thus were “unrecognizable” by this Appellant who

demonstrated benightedness to the “COURT’s” proposal below:

That judicial reiteration above drew a blank was not and should

not be surprising to the “outlaw insiders present” simply because

none of these overt acts were factually overt nor real, they were

18

fictitious creations of a run-away government, who disrespectfully

deceives Grand Jurors anytime, and now continued their craft

by “deceiving” (wink-wink) the COURT and Defense, while the

District Court eagerly flunked his duty to establish whether a single

“real federal offense” could be recognized by Appellant, identifiable

and maybe intelligently acceptable. It did not happen.

h) Meanwhile, a few years later the Co-Defendant obtained from

German Police information that not only debunked the charged

“overt acts” as wholesomely fraudulent creations, but also obtained

testimony from Burda auditor-in-chief7 who had personally issued

around June 20-23, 1996 Burda’s “MAIL NO DOCUMENTS TO

GERMANY THIS MONTH OF JUNE 1996”, an embargo to

Burda Media, annihilating – ab ovo - the government’s utterly

falsified, extra-jurisdictional “international freight company” fake

§1341 crime basis for a fictitious fraud that lacked the fourth

element, that of a bonafide “interstate carrier” delivery.

7 Wolfgang Maginot was preparing a trip to New York for July 8, 1996 to audit records, books, $8 million earnings from Export sales to Germany at Burda Media, and audit the Government concealed because it shrunk its criminal theory to a malicious ruse.

19

i) International EXPORT shipments, and Appellant hereby re-

affirms that he was executive officer of a foreign owned

“International Media Export Company”, are exempt by immunity

from domestic “mail fraud”, in particular when the “interstate

carrier” element was untenable for an overseas delivery, was

neither vetted by Grand Jurors for probable cause nor can be

taken for real without presentment of witnesses and carrier

records of the “subject carrier8”.

8 The FBI agent O’Sullivan later stated in private, that he was told “not to spend $20 cab fare to bother, visit & interview APEX AIR FREIGHT in Midtown, and that none of the officers and directors of APEX were under subpoena or have testified is subject of a sworn AFFIDAVIT on record [ any officer testimony would have resulted in immediate, fatal mail fraud termination, since APEX was a – properly - unlicensed international freight

20

j) German Sunshine and happenstance arrived and uncovered,

judicially noticed to a blind Court, that a) the “charged”, albeit

proforma “Agate Invoice for $8120.00” had not yet been designed

by Appellant [’s staff] nor been printed on Burda Media’s own HP-

Laser9 prior to June 22, 2001 and could therefore not entangle

Viertel into conspiratorial acts with me, and could certainly not

have been “submitted by Viertel”, who was unaware of Burda’s

wanton “INVOICING” using “Agate Realty” – a legitimate Viertel

company – as generic payee for Appellant’s loan-down-payment,

and who was in France/Europe on June 17, 2001 – and b) the

government and FBI O’Sullivan knew very well that Appellant

simply issued and singlehandedly submitted a “generic CEO Pay-

Out Directive, stand-alone authority to pay $8,120.10 to Agate

Reality” instructing Burda Media Cashiers, to follow Appellant’s

instructions and issue a check without a “reason” given, because

forwarder, a gypsy van operator as Lufthansa’s international ship-out-agentbut in no shape had nexus with “federally protected” mail transport instrumentalities. 9 That much, at least, the FBI’s Laboratory in DC was able to ascertain

keeping the specimen scan still on file, unaltered and away from AUSA

Cohen’s pen.

21

those were Appellant’s “executive privilege” as CEO. The

accounting “reason” Appellant later instructed for the $8,120.10 to

be debited against “General Office Costs”, not to a particular

overseas client of Burda Media a compliant company that was

suddenly and absurdly branded – 5 years later without a clue – as

the FBI’s local “pet victim” with the object to rig fictitious federal

violations for (presumptively) personal fame and advancement.

But here lies the overt discrepancy in that the amounts in “overt

acts A) and B)” do not match the “Agate Invoice” , because

Appellant’s pay-out orders and Burda Media immediate check was

issued 10 cents higher10 than the mail-wire-rigged “Agate Invoice”

of later genesis (obviously by oversight and neglect for detail).

k) Appellant hereby re-certifies that his plea was legally a worthless

nullity11, thus withdrawn, a fact recognizable by reasoned jurist

10 That fact did not hinder AUSA Marcia COHEN to alter the charged “Agate

Invoice for $8120.00” as Viertel’s Trial Exhibit GX 501 by her ink and her

pen to augment the amount to fit my earlier, innocent pay-out order by 10

cents for the Petit Jury not to question why the two amounts would not

match to complete a crime allegation.11 A Seventh Circuit panel on January 07, 2015 threw out Siamak S. Fard’s blind guilty plea to wire fraud, ruling the presiding judge never ensured the

22

from the four corners of the complete transcript in Appendix ¶ 71,

but Appellant co-equally maintains complete innocence of all

charges due a lack of factual basis or jurisdiction, in fact, for that

reason, Appellant could not and did not make a factual allocution

to the conduct alleged. In detail, a) the Conspiracy was time

barred and not factual, b) the international shipment of the Agate

Invoice was blocked by Burda and Kiefer (a fact known to the FBI

and to government prosecutors, in fact, Rogers & Wells were

handed and in came into possession of some invoices by Kiefer

July 5 to 8, 1996, including the $8.120.00 Agate Invoice and Best

Messenger Invoices to be faxed from Park Avenue to Munich for a

meeting I joined on July 9, 1996. Evidently the Agate Invoice had

not left New York by July 5, 1996), and c) an absurdity that Burda

via German Police debunked when they presented the original wire

document, that did not identify “Burda Holding” as a “wire payor”

the government had falsely claimed (in hope the real wire would

get lost and stay safely hidden under Brady). Indeed the Foreign

exchange transfers were routine and a “re-imbursement scheme”

per se contradicted the business model of profit center Burda

defendant clearly understood the nature of the charges against him but accepted the plea anyway.

23

Media, the International Export Company selling media products

to German customers for revenue, and was not a “branch” of a

foreign entity since 1/1/1992, facts the government was surely

made aware of by Burda’s attorneys Roger & Wells when

responsive to GJ-subpoenas in June 2001.

But, that micro-economic macro-detail was too clean for the

tortured minds of government agents.

Finally, d) Appellant’s 26 USC 7206(1) charges of under-

declaration of foreign earnings has long been debunked as

untenable, since Burda certified that Appellant refunded BONUS

payments (DOC# 261) to his German employer on July 16, 1996

and Appellant herewith certifies that his IRS declarations for 1995

(on extension) and 1996 match, if not exceed his worldwide

taxable earnings, rendering §7206(1)-accusations bogus. It can be

safely assumed that Appellant paid more taxes to the IRS over 25

years than any of the actors present in the Court Room of Judge

Koeltl.

24

l) Appellant has proven PRIMA FACIE PREJUDICE affirmatively,

clear and convincingly under any “standard” and “Strickland’s” ,

because, who else held that duty to inspect DOC#1 and DOC#2 for

EX POST FACTO MANIPULATIONS & DOCKET FRAUD

and, who else had a duty to effectively verify whether MJ. Pitman

truthfully “BLEW A SEAL” or had orchestrated an “infamous crime”

by executing a “SOUTHERN DOG & PONY” show, but Appellant’s -

below PAR - Federal Defender Phil Weinstein ? (Quote: “They lie, we

lie, and better liars win here”)

m) Creative federal prosecutions are not new and higher courts have

been ambivalent, at best, reluctant to favor aliens, to strike

prosecutions that exceed the boundaries of the law. Sometimes,

Courts must remind judges, magistrates and prosecutors of John

Adams words “we are a government of laws, and not of men.”

n) The Grand Jurors acted conscientiously by refusing to concur on a

proposed “BILL” that would have allowed an – obviously still very

25

dubious – litany of accusations (see FBI O’Sullivan’s Grand Jury

wiggle on June 14, 2001 under AUSA Harris’ tortures to elicit and

bamboozle the truth- Judge Koeltl can provide the recording) -12

o) The USANYS could have made a simple request to PostMaster’s

Postal Inspectors to find out that INTERNATIONAL13 Services are

immune to “mail fraud accusations”, because Congress protects

the domestic population from American mail scams delivered via

U.S. Postal Services or Fedex/UPS. Outgoing International Air-

freight is not domestic mail fraud. No FBI-rigging can domesticate

a U.S. Commerce Department licensed export shipment for 12 “Grand juries are not supposed to be instruments of the police or

prosecution. Quite the opposite. Grand juries are instruments of the court.

The juries’ main charge is to protect ordinary citizens from being brought to

trial with flimsy evidence.13 Co Defendant Viertel contacted the US Postal Inspectors Legal Department

26

ultimate destination GERMANY, less for one INVOICE that never

left Burda Media Offices on Sixth Avenue (the Burda auditors hand

carried audit documents on their return flight to Germany around

July 14, 1996) , but was simply embargoed, stopped by the

incoming audit team and pursuant to instruction to “HOLD ALL

PAPERS” were followed in June 1996, nullifying Count 2.

p) The “wire” charge was equally absurd on a post-“fruition” date,

utterly irrelevant to any scheme to defraud, and not originating

from “Burda Holding”, but from Burda Media’s own assets/funds

held in Germany to be forex transferred to Burda Media’s own

assets held in USDollars at their NY Chase account, without a

change of beneficial ownership, an open “change of ownership and

loss” requirement to qualify as an “infamous crime” with “intent”.

Left-pocket to right pocket is not a “loss-proned” economonic

transaction violating sanctity of the United States’ wire regimes.

q) See also:

27

r) When a District Judge continuously stonewalls aged June 2001 GJ

records & transcripts that could “further the RULE OF LAW, the

truth, government accountability and aid the administration of

justice” he must be held unfit to stay on the bench under the

influence of the government, intoxicated with partiality to keep on

shielding what he deems accumulated reputational assets, that

28

could – by the GJ revelations and consequences – assign guilt and

thus be lost or certainly cut down to size.

Conclusions

It was a “railroading”, it was not upfront, it was not transparent, it

was not legitimate nor due process in 01-571 – DATE FILED: 6/19/ 2001-

as its Docket Title certifies (Appendix ¶ 3) but not one minute, or five days

earlier.

The State always wraps itself in the flag. Unfortunately, it wasn't the

American flag. Appellant urges the Court to follow the RULE OF LAW, and

not to allow the Appellee to enjoy the rotten fruits of wrongdoing any

longer by harping fake melodramatic fiction that, regrettably, scored for

them some interim plausibility contests in earlier Appeals, but that cannot

change the true history of what was never a “federal case” of infamous

crimes by defendants, but a “case” rigged with infamy by run-away

government actors overstepping into what J. Sutherland in “BERGER v.

US” named “foul” territory.

Maybe this experienced panel can determine, why the two lower

branches embark on a criminal malpractice spree under color of law,

allegedly to vindicate a bogus “societal debt” Appellant and his two Co-

29

Defendants unknowingly “incurred”, while a quite a few un-American

“Bernards” (the Maddoff, Kerik etc.) roamed scot-free, ransacking finances

of Manhattanites undisturbed by goodfellas at the United States attorney

and their soldiers. Thus, here is finally this great chance for the government

to shut up and to admit their culpability, the “Nüremberg-Defense”, won’t

do.

Appellant abused, admittedly, his employers trust and that

conduct was penalized in the proper venue Germany in 1998,

Appellant’s criminal record expunged in 1999, all unearned funds

repaid by 2000, but to be faced with double jeopardy non-criminal

un-jurisdictional conduct in 2001 that lacked a domestic victim

within America and never hurt society, was a grave travesty.

Appellant respectfully prays for exculpation - nunc pro tunc – that the

Court reverse the convictions with prejudice, order the release of the

requested documents in the interest of justice, and if a remand is ordered,

that an impartial jurist is assigned as is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, 14.Nov.2015 /s/ Fritz G. Blumenberg, Pro SeDefendant- Appellant

30

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Fritz G. Blumenberg, Appellant Pro Se, certify that this brief contains

5,000 words or less.

31

United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit

United States of America, Appellee v.John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEFritz G. Blumenberg, Docket 14-2988Defendant – Appellant.

I, Fritz G Blumenberg, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I have

served a virus free [pdf] copy of each,

this BRIEF and APPENDIX for APPELLANT

By email upon:

Michael Levy, United States Attorney Office USANYS

Michael.levy@usdoj.gov

January 14, 2015

/s/

Fritz G. Blumenberg, Pro Se

Defendant- Appellant