13- 5668

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Shane Christopher Buczek, Petitioner, v. Affidavit of Truth


On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit


Dated: July 26, 2013

Shane Christopher Buczek - Pro se PO Box 93 Derby, New York 14047


I, Shane Christopher Buczek states under the penalties of perjury, pursuant title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, as follows: I am the Petitioner in this writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. 1. On or about July 8, 2013 I talked to Deputy Clerk in the Western District of New York Jean

Marie McCarthy regarding now many grand juries were empaneled there from May 4, 2007 to November 5, 2008 and received an answer that there is one that generally stays on for 12 months but can stay for 18 months pursuant to rule 6 (g). If the grand jury panel needs to stay on any longer, it needs an order from Chief Judge to extend. 2. On June 14, 2013, Petitioner went to see the Clerk again and asked her about when the case

comes to the clerk, what happens next? She said that they assign a case number to the case and it is stamp filed into pacers immediately. 3. Petitioner then told her that my indictment did not have a case number assigned to it on the

day of indictment and that the case a case number did not show up until much later in the paperwork when motions are filed by the government. I indicated to her that this was high irregular, wasn’t it? She only gave me a blank look. 4. Petitioner also told her that there was no criminal complaint filed anywhere and the grand

jury concurrence did not appear in the record or in the docket sheet anywhere. 5. The Petitioner explained to the Clerk about the federal rules of criminal procedure, Rule 6

which requires at least 12 jurors concur in the indictment of the Petitioner. The record shows that this had not happened. There was no indication that the record was sealed. I went on to say that the “indictment” issued in this instant case was not signed by the Grand Jury foreperson in violation of rule 6 (c) which states that, “The foreperson…..will sign all indictments.” The local


rules for (WDNY) and the Administrative Procedures Guide states in §§ 2 (c) (1), Appendix G that “Charging instruments in criminal cases shall be filed in the traditional manner rather than electronically.” I told her my alleged indictment had both the grand jury foreperson and the US Attorney signature filed electronically [“/s/” foreperson] wherein the indictment should have had the Foreperson’s cursive signature redacted shown and the US Attorney signature in cursive. I asked her if there was a sealed signed foreperson’s signature with his concurrence. She gave me that blank look again. I6. The Deputy Clerk did not have an answer for that and went on the say that I could call

clerk of the records in the Western District of New York Charlene Shumaker about the grand jury concurrence, grand jury transcripts and the issue of the extension. 7. On or about July 11, 2013 at 4:30 pm Petitioner did in fact contact the clerk of records

Charlene Shumaker and said that she could not release them because she could get fired. 8. At that time I explain in great detail the facts about the draft indictment that the AUSA can

create and upload into the portal of the clerk’s office. I also explained that the foreperson or another juror designated by the foreperson will record the number of jurors concurring in every indictment and will file the record with the clerk, but the record may not be made public unless the court so orders. Then I said while recognizing the Petitioner is not the public, as the Defendant in a draft criminal prosecution, the failure of the indictment to be signed by Grand Jury forepersons opens the door allowing the Petitioner to question the validity of the indictment. What is to stop the AUSA from feigning a True Bill, and electronically signing the foreperson signatures? I explained that there is no record on whether my empaneled grand jury was extended by an order of the Chief Judge of the Circuit. There is no record that my grand jury was still in session at the time of my alleged indictment. This clerk would neither confirm nor deny


that my grand jury was expired or legally extended. She reiterated that she could get fired for telling me. 9. The clerks in the Western District of New York have been completely silent with no answer

to the above statements or questions. The only thing I got out of them was that there was only one grand jury in session back in May 4, 2007, and that was allegedly mine. And if not extended, the one that indicted me was not mine. Any other grand jury empanelled at that time was empanelled with a different stating date that the alleged one I had. 10. Petitioner also told the clerk that 28 USC Section 1868 states “that all records and papers compiled and maintained by the jury commission or clerk before the master wheel was emptied shall be preserved in custody of clerk for four years….” 11. Petitioner has asked the clerks to please produce the above information for my disclosure which is a due process right especially after a case has closed disclosure is wholly proper where the ends of justice require it and it is in the interest of justice and the public good. The veil of secrecy can be lifted to the grand jury minutes after a case is closed. Petitioner stated that maintenance of a dual-docketing system was and will always be unconstitutional infringement. The clerks would make no comment of that. The clerk’s office said once again that none of his documents exist here in their office. 12. Petitioner believes that his empanelled grand jury did not exist at the time of his alleged indictment or if it did, it was an expired one leaving the government and court without subject matter jurisdiction in his case.

Dated: July, 26, 2013

Shane-Christopher : Buczek
Shane Christopher Buczek – Pro Se Derby, New York 14047 716-947-5384


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful