Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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,
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
Petitioner Buczek, (hereafter Petitioner), files his answer to government's motion for bail
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,
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
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)
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
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
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 1ih, 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 -
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 80th Congress (1947-1948), as it is part of that statute and under the In
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,
Therefore, Title~, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 1ih, 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.
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.
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,
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
~):PUB~'kC>A'~ DATE
(Seal)
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.
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
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
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
~
_ultitlshm, ~GI 20'515-&&01 0..
0>
Sep~r11.2006
Q
0
~
(3
"I'""
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Clerk. "0
..92
u:::
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. ,.....,
"I'""
0'
Page 5049 the Congressional Record, 80th Congress, 1st Ses810n indicates 44 Members voting 38 to 8 E
::3
)(.
-
I
Karen L. Haas 00
Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives .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
v. ORlGINAL W~AS
l' - fA I'-WAND FILr'
BY' ,'
....... . ,I
CNITED STATES OF AMERICA , (lji) J\ ' ----
• .Jv f ......
. ' -0
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.*
heretofore and hereafter "Petitioner", notices the court to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
*(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-
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
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 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
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 (1977)~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
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 States~.
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
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
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
LACK OF JURISDICTION
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction ... Jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is
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 I i \ 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
1ies 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,
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,
I am a peaceful man and inhabitant of the creation and most often located in the
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
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
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~.
day of October 2010
WITNESS my hand a~
~,
NOTARY PUBLIC
-
DATE
(Seal)
Sarah J. Smolinski
Notary Public, State of Nfl"" \'~f
01MA6192256
Quali1iecl in Erie Cour: . '\t\\1--
M Commission Expires AuQ.:._. ?f cr!'
10 of 13
*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
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
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"
!
Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 39
4-
o
.ffiet of tip QUe~k M
N
~JI.,.. .. of ~adatifJe. ~
<D
,......lI8bm,
o •
,CIt 205.157""6&01 a..
en
September 11. 2005 ~
g
25
..-
Thank you for contacting the 0Iftce of the Cledt.
~
u::
After conducting a thorough examination of the journals. I found no 8tlby In the journal of the House of any
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1
May 12t 1947 vote on the H.R. 3180 bill. although pages 343-344 of the Journal of the House of Represen- r-
......
tatives from the 1st 8eaIan ~ ""10th Congresa IndIcate8 that the bill W88 amended. pwportedty passed. r-•
and tranamItted to the Senate for concummce. The Senate took no action on the HA 3180 bJJI prior to ahe N
December 19. 19471ina die adjournment. ......
iE
PrIe":ciIt~ Rard,'1Oth ~"1."'1'd"44 MemberI·voting 38 to 6
~ F1~R. 31Jt~"., t2, ~7'~Y"eoun_.~tbtaI yea and nay vote aqucwm '1M not
~
~
of I quqmm vatealq.:. II bill. the'J9Umai must shOw t.'>
_..~~ nareaCl'dofq~fot",MaY''l2.194;VOle.1
o I
,r~_ >
.-l
a::: I
,n
t{)
Sincerely Yours.
~t.t./uAl...) ~ #~ <:.
)(.
Karen L. Haas
Clerk. U,S. House of Representatives Ct
2
Ii:>
0-
Q
,..,.-
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 39
October 20,2010
Shane C, Buczek
7335 Derby Road
Derby, New York 14047
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:
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.
-~
BY:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Senior Litigation Counsel
AMBllfs
Enclosures
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10
ES. Departrnent Page 8 of 39
of .histice
October 7,2010
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."
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.
"~,,...-, 11173-
BY:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Senior Litigation Counsel
AMB/lfs
E~closures
Harley G. Lappin
•AttentiOn aU Department Heads, there hats been a large V'OkIme of inrrIete Requests for
Admlnl¥tratIv& Remedies q~ the validity of 1h& Bureau's wtbority k> hold or classify them
under 18 U.s.C. §§ 4081, at seq.~ (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
~ny 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 fh~ is
no record of any quorum bMlg present duri1g the May 12, 1947 vole on the H.R. 31~ 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$s. There only one Supreme
Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid the Jou~1s of both Houses must show that it
WID pas$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 Admi~e 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
u.s. Department of Justice
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 10 of 39
United States Attornev
October 7,2010
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."
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.
,AJV'-, 1/173-
BY:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Senior Litigation Counsel
AMB/lfs
Enclosures
Harley G. Lappin
•Attention aU Department Heads, there has been a large VOkIme d inn'Iraee Requesta for
Administrative Remedies q~ the vaIIdlty ~ 11ft eure.ts authority to hold or classify them
under 18 U.s.C. §§ 4081. et seq.~ (1948). On the claim that Public Lew 8O-m
or sVted In the pre. ence d G Qut:wm or M*.RY at bath House6 at Cor9.eU as required by
was M'I8f ~
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 pred~to 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 ~I 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
On July 27, the Court entered the following Decisions and Orders in the referenced
cases:
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
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.
~U;;;hs~:teffi6-_y_.....
BY: ~~r~.f~AuCE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMBllfs
Enclosures
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
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.
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
Acting United States Attorney
AMB/kab
Encs.
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1
\ > 1)/
Filed 10/25/10 Page 16 of 39
~'- .~~(
...
71()-551-3{J5~ 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.
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
ii )
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.
AO~~~~ti«P::-
BY: ~;ZBRUCE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMBlifs
Terminated: none
U. S. Attorneys
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
Email: anthony.m.bruce@usdoj.gov
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.
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:
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
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
United States Attorney
1t(5~
BY: ANTHONY M. UCE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMS/ifs
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 21 of 39
May 4/ 2009
Shane Buczek
No. 90656-111
Batavia Federal Detention Facility
4250 Federal Drive
Batavia/ New York 14020
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.
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
A./1C ing United,~ates Attorney
[~/11[)~
BY: ANTHONY f'I. BRUCE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMB/lfs
Encs.
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 22 of 39
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.
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
ACI!Jlg UnITed States Att5ey
BY: ~/ilL~
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMBllfs
Enclosures
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 23 of 39
) \
27 CFR 72.11
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
Given what the regulations does not say, I once more point out
that your options are (1) plead guilty, or (2) go to trial.
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
Acting United States Attorney
BY:
M-?l1Zr--
ANTHON;~ BRUCE'
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMB/lfs
Enclosure
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 25 of 39
(,III'if! J
IRS Forms 56
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.
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.
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
Act'~g United s~~orney
BY: CE
AMB/lfs
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 27 of 39
April 7, 2009
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.
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.
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
Ac ' g United
BY:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMB/lfs
Enclosure
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 29 of 39
u.s. Ht'partnwnt of Justie('
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."
TERRANCE P. FLYNN
d States Atto
BY: .BR
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMB/lfs
Enclosure
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10
u.s. Deparhnent Page 31 of 39
of Justice
February 26,2009
Daniel Buczek
7335 Derby Road
Derby, New York 14047
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
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
Acting United States Attorney
BY: A~R:~
Assistant U.S. Attorney
AMB/ifs
Enclosure
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
18
1 incorrect, I'm sure the Court would be more familiar with it than
2 I am, as would Mr. Kawski, but in reviewing the record, I did not
3 see that.
5 orders that were made by the Court. Count 1, you know, dealing
6 with his attempt to file these liens; you know, the second one,
7 again, dealing with 401.3; the third one being the attempted
11 filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office -- this was not
19
6 contacted the Clerk's Office, and the Clerk's Office said you
8 called my chambers.
18 She told him she could not give him an answer, that he should
20 deputy clerk.
20
17 actually what you said as far as whether you had the power to or
21
3 three indictments. Mr. Bruce was all upset about how he was
5 indictments.
11 format.
22
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
23
6 kids blowing their heads off every day: the drug scene out there
8 without being shot at, and here we're this time on this
--------------~------~~~
10 MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, jus'~ one thing as to what you
24 have his bail revoked, instead of going and getting Mr. Kawski