High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
June
10th,
2009Senator Patrick J. LeahyChairman Senate Judiciary CommitteeUS Senate Martin
A.
ArmstrongWashington,
DC
20510
rci
Fort Dix
CaiC[
P
#12518-050
PO
Box
2000-
Fort Dix,
NJ
08640
Dear Senator;
Re:
Conf rmation
^Y
3
Sotomayor
I am writing to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the
confirmation
ofJudge
Sonya
Sotomayor sinceI am one of her topmost famous casesand themediaseems
to be
focusing
on my
case
as
well.
I am the
longest person ever held
in
civil contempt
in the
history
of
thisnation
by any
federal judge
-
about
7-J
years.
The
government
was
lied
to by a
major
New York Bank, Republic National Bank, to stop a lawsuit that Princeton
Economics,
Int'l,
Ltd. gave notice it would file if missing funds were not returned
as
a
result
of
their
own
staff illegally trading
in
accounts placed with them. Theyran to the Government telling
them
I conspired with their own staff to hide losses
from
Japanese
investors
.
I was charged criminally within less than
1
days and onceI self
surrendered,
then the SEC and
CFTC
filed civil actions against myself andtheforeign
corporations,
refusingtoserve them, installingaequity receiver with
no
personal jurisdiction,
who
denied
all
counsel,
and
then pled
the
corporationswithin
30
days
to the SEC
injunction, despite
the
fact that they employed more than200 employees all outside the US and were regulated by Japan, China, London andAustralia.
When
they realized that Republic lied
and
that
the
accounts
did not
belong
to
Japanese investors
and any
trading
in the
United STates
was
proprietary
and did notflow to
investors since
(
1
)
we
merely borrowed
yen at fixed
rates
and
that
is all
that
was
owed,
and (2) we
purchased pre-existing portfolios
of
Japanese stocks
as
part
of the
bailout going
on in
Japan with each note approved
by the
Japanese
Ministiof
Finance,
the Government attorneys did not want to go to trial yet would not admit
the
truth
and
drop
the
charges.
I was
offered
a
§5K1
and
told
by
AUSA
Richard Owens
they
"knew" I stole nothing, but informed me they would not drop the charges, wanted
me
to plead guilty and testify against Republic.
I
declined because I did not in any
way
conspire with
Edmond
Safra.
The
Government abused
the
courts, created
a
civil contempt,
and
proceeded
to
arbitrarily imprison
me for
more than
7
years
to
torture
me
under
the
pretense
of
gettingthe SEC andCFTCtoseekacivil contempt. ArticleIIIsubordinates equity
to
law and
never
at
common
law
could chancery ever haul
an
indicted defendant
out
of
a
criminal case
and
prevent
a
trial
by
using contempt denied counsel because
it
is
pretending it is not criminal. This was a structural
error
under Article III
and
the
Judiciary will
not
address anything because they
are
embarrassed
by
whattook place.I am informing you because the pretense was that I have no rightspost-indictme
simply
because
I
was a corporate officer of a foreign corporation. Never mind that
18
USC
§3481
states that post-indictment rights apply
to
"all persons"
and
that
Iwas
summoned twice
to
depositions post-indictment that were also forbidden
by
FRCrm
Procedure
15(e).
Never
has any
judge ever defended
the
constitution
no
less myself
and
the
Judicial process
has
become
a
joke
no
different than
a
banana republic
for
judges do not rule in favor of citizens in criminal cases, only the
Government.
This
would be
considered "liberal"
to
rule against
the
government.
Judge
Sotomayor
has
disappointed
me in
that while
she
wrote
a
concurring opinion
in
ArmstrongvGuccione,470
F3d
89 (2d Cir2006) stating thatIshouldnot beheld"indefinitely"
and
most likely resulted
in my
favor,
she
overlooked
a
very criticalstructural
error
that now stands for the proposition that merely being a officer
of
a
corporation,
you
have forfeited
all
your rights
and can be
held
no
differentthan
a
terrorist
in
Cuba, denied access
to the
courts
for
even Judge
Sotomayor
held
I
had no
right to appeal in civil contempt when Congress expressly provided for sucha right, 28 USC
§1826.
Sir William
Blackstone
made it clear that
always
equitabledecrees were immediately appealable,
and
only matters
at law
required finality,
3
Blackstone,
chp 4, p55. Judge
Posner,
of the 7th Circuit made it clear that the
final
judgment
rule under
28 USC
§1291
was not
constitutionally required,
and
that whateverpretense that existed
holding
civil contempt was not appealable, was
legislatively
overruled
by 28 USC §1826,
Matter
of
Witness Before Special Get
1981
Grand Jury,
722
F2d
349,
351
(7th
Cir
1983).
~ "
"
'
There
is no
check
and
balance against judges
or the
executive. They
can do
what-
ever
they want
and in
practical reality,
the
Constitution
is now
just
a
scrap
of
paper. Once Rule
10
was
adopted
by the
Supreme Court, they unconstitutionally withdrew
the
third branch
from
ourtripartite design.Theconstitution, statutes,andhuman
rights
cannot
and do not
exist
and the
Senate
is
reduced
to
being irrelevant,
for
if
theSupreme Courthaspure
discretion
toenforcethelaw, then thereis nolaw!Article III does not even mention the word
discretion.Congress
enacted
18
USC
§4001(a)
stating
a
citizen shall
not be
detained except under statute
of
Congress.
You
will
see the
Second Circuit ignored
the
civil
contempt statute
28 USC §1826
that
prohibited
civil
contempt
to be
used beyond
18
months
and
cited instead
the
criminal
contempt
statute
18 USC
§401
to
circumvent
§4001(a).
The
problem there,
is
this
is
a
misdemeanor USSG
§4Al.2(c) that
the
Second Circuit previously
admitted,
US v
Galanta,
298 F2d 22 (2d Cir
1962) that Congress limits
to 1
year
18 USC
§3559(a) (6),
yet the
judges do
whatever they want.
The
Supreme Court held that
the
same statute cannot
be
used
differently
civilly
and
criminally "because
we
must
interpret
the
statute consist-
ently
whether
we
encounter
its
application
in a
criminal
or
noncriminal
context,"
Clark
v
Martinez,
543 US
371,
160
Led2d
734,
746
(2005). Whatever laws
you
pass meanabsolutely nothingforjudges assume discretiontodispense withthe law tosupport
whatever
prosecutors want. This
is not the way a
free democratic society
is to
function.
It
is not an
excuse that resources
are low so we
will dispense with
the
law. Rule
10
at the
Supreme Court
is
unconstitutional.
I
have
an
absolute right
to be
released
for
there
is
no
statutory authority,
yet no
judge
will
embarrass another. There
is
no
rule
of law if
citizens cannot petition
and
that petition
is
honored.
Article III
affords
no
discretion
to opt-out of the
Constitutional structure.
This
Senate
is to
supervise
the
Judiciary,
but if a
citizen tried
to
write
as I did
both
to Mr.
Leahy
and
Spector, they never even reply. Contact your local senator
and
you
get the
same cold shoulder.
Proskauer
Rose,
LLP
informed me that a major European bank came to them to review
the
law for
they
were going
to
open
in New
York. When they were informed
of my
case
that
corporate officers have no rights, they cancelled their
intensions.
A
major study
of 72
nations conducted
by
William Easterly, Institute
for
Internat-
ional
Economics
and
Ross
Levine of the
University
of
Minnesota, asked what makes
onenation
wealthier than another?
The
answer
was the
Rule
of
Lawl
There
is no
such thing
as
long
as
judges claim discretion.
Cur
economy
is
being also destroyed because
of
the
Judiciary.
The
appellate courts know
they
can use
"policy"
to
deny
the
Rule
of Law and
that
"policy"
has
become only
a
code word
for
personal "will" rather than
the law set by
Add a Comment