1

1 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : : : :

3 vs. 4 SHANE BUCZEK 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 APPEARANCES: 17 18 19

08 CR 54 09 CR 121 09 CR 141

Continuation of arraignment and detention hearing in the above-captioned matter held on Thursday, May 7, 2009, commencing at 2:12 p.m., before the Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, in the United States Courthouse, 68 Court Street, Buffalo. New York, 14202.

TIMOTHY LYNCH, ESQUIRE, Office of the U.S. Attorney, 138 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, appeared for the Government. SHANE C. BUCZEK, appeared pro se.

20 21 22 23 24 25 RECORDED BY FTR GOLD ELECTRONIC RECORDING TRANSCRIBED BY DEBRA L. POTOCKI, RMR, RDR, CRR 843/723-2208

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE CLERK:

United States versus Shane Buczek. This is the detention

Docket No. 08-CR-54 and 09-CR-121. hearing.

United States Attorney Timothy Lynch on behalf of

the Government, and Shane Buczek appearing pro se. THE COURT: MR. LYNCH: THE COURT: MR. LYNCH: THE COURT: Good morning. Good morning, Judge. Good afternoon, I guess. Oh, yeah. Before we proceed with the detention Good afternoon.

hearing in 08-CR-54 and 09-CR-121, I've also been advised that there is now a third indictment against Mr. Buczek in 09-CR-141. So what I want to do is arraign Mr. Buczek on that

indictment, and then we will address the issue of detention. MR. LYNCH: the new indictment. THE COURT: podium, please? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Sure. Mr. Buczek, do you want to step up to the Judge, I have handed Mr. Buczek a copy of

Mr. Buczek, you have now been indicted by

the federal grand jury sitting in the Western District of New York in the May 2008 term, in the case entitled United States of America versus Shane C. Buczek, Criminal No. 09-CR-141. Have you received a copy of this indictment? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes, I just got it just now. Do you waive the reading of

All right.

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the indictment? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Oh, no, no.

You want me to read it to you? Please.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

The grand jury charges that on or about

September 5th, 2008, as an additional term of his release in United States versus Shane Buczek, 08-CR-54S, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York entered an order setting additional terms of release, which, in pertinent part, read as follows: Ordered that the defendant shall not have any contact with the Internal Revenue Service, parens, to include Revenue Officer Gilbert Reyes, close parens, concerning any matter other than his personal liability to file any return or to pay any tax imposed by the United States. And in the event the defendant has occasion to contact the Internal Revenue Service concerning his personal liability to file a return or pay a tax, he shall not contact the Internal Revenue Service by phone, in person or through a third party, without giving Pretrial Services written notice of said contact at least one business day prior to the contact. And he shall not send any document or correspondence to the Internal Revenue Service without providing Pretrial Services with a copy of that document at least two business days before sending it.

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Thereafter, the defendant met with a probation officer who provided the defendant with a copy of the aforementioned order, and explained it to the defendant, which included an explanation of the possible consequences of disobeying the order. At no time material to this indictment was the

Internal Revenue Service pursuing any matter relating to the defendant's, apostrophe S, Shane C. Buczek's personal liability to file any return or to pay any tax imposed by the United States. Thereafter, on or about the date set forth in each count, in the Western District of New York, the defendant, Shane C. Buczek, unlawfully and knowingly disobeyed the Court's September 5th, 2008 order, the same being a lawful writ, order, decree and command of the Court, by sending correspondence, documents and written materials to the Internal Revenue Service, without providing Pretrial Services with that correspondence, documents and written material. Count one, December 20th, 2008; count two, December 31st, 2008; count three, December 31st, 2008; count four, January 3rd, 2009; count five, January 9, 2009; count six, January 9, 2009; count seven, January 9, 2009; count eight, January 9, 2009; count nine, January 15, 2009. Each sending

being in violation of subsection (3) of Section 401 of Title 18 of the United States Code. That is the charge in the indictment in 09-CR-141. How do

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you plead to that charge, guilty or not guilty? THE DEFENDANT: yesterday. THE COURT: All right. I note your objection. I Judge, I object again, like I did

will enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf to the indictment. Because you are now charged with a crime in this indictment, you have the right to remain silent at all times. You cannot be compelled to answer any questions put to you by anybody. You cannot be compelled to make any statements.

Because anything you might say, can be used against you. You also have a very valuable right, and that is the right to be represented at all stages of this case by an attorney. And under the Constitution of the United States, you have the right to hire an attorney of your choice. But if you cannot

afford to hire an attorney because of your financial circumstances, the Court will assign an attorney to represent you, and the cost for that service will be paid for by the taxpayers of this country. So even though I just finished advising you, you do not have to answer any questions put to you by anybody, the only way that I can reasonably determine that your constitutional rights with respect to counsel are being carried out, is by asking you certain limited questions about counsel representation. And in doing that, I do not want you to say

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

anything about the charge in this indictment or say anything about the case or make any other comments, other than that which is in direct response to my questions to you about attorney representation. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: choice? THE DEFENDANT: think. THE COURT: How are you being pressured? Because every time I don't follow the I'm being pressured into that, I Do you understand? Yes.

Do you plan on hiring an attorney of your

THE DEFENDANT:

system, I get hit with all these indictments. THE COURT: But my question to you is one involving

and relating to your constitutional right to hire an attorney of your choice. And so it's not a question of pressure, it's

a question of my making sure that your constitutional right is being enforced. So let me ask you once again. Do you plan on

hiring an attorney of your choice? THE DEFENDANT: to proceed. THE COURT: We're going to proceed, but I need to Do Judge, like I said before, I'd like

know what your plans are as far as counsel representation.

you plan on hiring an attorney of your choice, which is your constitutional right. THE DEFENDANT: If the -- unless you order it --

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

order me to do that, I would like to proceed by myself. THE COURT: I'm not ordering you to hire an attorney.

If you're telling me you want to exercise your constitutional right to represent yourself, then I will consider that. just merely am going to do it on a step-by-step process. I If

you're telling me that you're going to hire an attorney of your choice, then I don't have to ask any additional questions, other than maybe who that attorney is. If you're

telling me that you cannot afford to hire an attorney of your choice, because of your financial circumstances, then I will have to ask the second question, and that is, are you asking the Court to assign an attorney to represent you? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: No, Judge.

You're not asking the Court -I'm not asking that, no.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

-- to assign you an attorney? No. But --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Now, that leaves the two other scenarios.

You're going to hire an attorney of your choice or you're going to represent yourself. THE DEFENDANT: Is that it?

Well, as authorized representative,

and I think you understand where I'm going with that, of the entity and the name, I again am going to ask -- again, I know it's going to be denied, but I'll ask again for a certified copy of the record, a certified copy of the log from the

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

clerk's office, a certified copy of the grand jury transcripts, if it even took place. THE COURT: And -But first I need to So let's try one

We'll get to that.

know the issue of attorney representation. more time.

Are you planning on hiring an attorney of your

choice, which is your constitutional right? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: No. Are you asking the Court to

All right.

assign an attorney to represent you because of your financial circumstances? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: No.

Are you stating to the Court that you are

going to represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: yes. THE COURT: representing. Well, I don't know who you are So the question is, are you As the authorized representative,

You are you.

asking the Court to allow you to be your own attorney? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: yourself. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Correct, Judge. Once again I point out to Correct. So you are representing

All right.

All right.

you, Mr. Buczek, that you do have a constitutional right to represent yourself. And I am not going to interfere or impede

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

with that right in any way.

However, I do feel compelled to

once again advise you, this being the third indictment returned against you, that in my opinion, because you are not trained in the law, and because you do not have a legal background, I believe you are putting yourself at risk, needlessly, in representing yourself. And as I have told you

in the prior two cases, 08-CR-54 and 09-CR-121, basically in representing yourself it's equivalent, in my opinion, to your walking through a mine field blindfolded. These are serious charges against you. And if you are

convicted, you could face some substantial time in prison. And, therefore, I am merely suggesting to you that you give serious thought as to whether you really are serving your own self interests in the best way possible by representing yourself, even though you have a constitutional right to do so; or whether you would be better off in having an attorney, one who is experienced and trained and skilled in representing defendants in criminal cases in this Court. think about it further? THE DEFENDANT: Well, I do plan on getting assistance Do you want to

of counsel to assist me with this, but -THE COURT: Someone you're going to hire? I'm going to get assistance of

THE DEFENDANT: counsel. THE COURT:

I know, I'm just merely asking you,

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

someone -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I still plan on representing myself.

Well, then I don't understand when you

say you're going to get assistance of counsel. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Back-up counsel.

All right. Okay?

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: going to hire? THE DEFENDANT:

But is that going to be someone you're

Judge, like I said before yesterday,

my parents are out of town and I need to communicate with them. They're under the belief that after 30 days I was going

to be released after -THE COURT: issue. I know, but let's stay on the counsel

If you're asking me for time, in order to be able to

meet with your parents to see if they are going to be in the position to assist you in hiring counsel, I am ready, willing and able to give you that time. And I will adjourn this

matter until such time as you can confer with your parents and a decision made as to whether you are going to be able to hire counsel of your choice. Because you are entitled to be And if

represented at all stages of this case by an attorney.

you need time to make arrangements to hire an attorney, I am going to give you that time. Is that what you wish? Do you

wish an adjournment so that you can confer with your parents

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and make arrangements to hire an attorney? THE DEFENDANT: I was hoping to address bail today.

I mean, this right here, I -- you know, like I said yesterday, I never consented -THE COURT: We're going to address bail. I never --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

We're going to address bail. I never consented to any more

THE DEFENDANT:

presentments, and they just keep on throwing more presentments at me. THE COURT: The Government doesn't need your consent

to make a decision to present a matter to the grand jury. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Okay.

We're going to address the bail issue in

09-CR-121 and in 08-CR-54, and also in this new case, 09-CR-141. But before we do, I'm just trying to finalize what Because you have

your position is on attorney representation.

the right in each one of those cases to be represented at all stages by an attorney. Since you have just been arraigned on this new indictment, 09-CR-141, we do not have a record completed as to what your position is on attorney representation. And as I have advised

you, you have a right to be represented at all stages of this new case by an attorney. So when you speak of having to confer with your parents,

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and you've indicated to me your parents are out of town for about a week, and you plan on seeking assistance of counsel, I am merely telling you that I will then give you time, I will adjourn this matter, 09-CR-141, in order to allow you an opportunity to discuss the matter with your parents, or anyone else you wish to discuss it with, for purposes of determining whether you're going to be able to hire an attorney of your choice, that being your constitutional right. And I point out to you once again that if it turns out that neither your parents nor anyone else is in a position to help you financially to engage the services of an attorney, then the Court will consider assigning an attorney to represent you, and the cost for that legal service will be paid for by the taxpayers of this country. But if you ask to

have an attorney assigned, you will have to agree to fill out a financial affidavit, swear to its contents as being complete and true, and then allow me to place you under oath and question you about your finances, because that is the only way I can reasonably determine whether you would qualify financially to have such an assignment of counsel made. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes.

All right. Judge, I never consented to this

THE DEFENDANT: agreement.

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order.

THE COURT:

Which agreement? This -- concerning the I can't send And furthermore, all these

THE DEFENDANT:

any information to the I.R.S. dates -THE COURT:

Well, what I read to you in the

indictment doesn't say it was an agreement that you entered into. The indictment charges that that was an order issued by

the District Court as part of the terms and conditions of your release on bail. THE DEFENDANT: And I was unaware of that order. I

believe that's why I had Jonathan Altman deny it. THE COURT: I don't know; I was not involved in that

I'm assuming that order was issued by the Honorable

William M. Skretny. THE DEFENDANT: No.

(Brief interruption in proceedings.) MR. LYNCH: THE COURT: That was a bail condition. Did I do it? Well, then if I did it, I

did it while you were here before me in either 08-CR-54 or 09-CR-121. Because I always state the terms and conditions of

bail to a defendant in open court and make it part of the record. And I may have -- I'm sure I did. Also included in

the written conditions that would be supplied to you by the probation office. THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I believe this --

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

And the probation officer is indicating

by nod of his head that I did do so. PROBATION OFFICER: THE COURT: conditions of bail. THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I believe this is one of the I think this might That's correct.

And that you were given a copy of those

reasons of the removal of the attorney.

have happened, and I don't have all the facts -THE COURT: You're referring to Mr. Jonathan Altman,

the man you had hired to represent you. THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, that's correct, yes. And there

was a downfall spindle; he was making decisions on my behalf without even consulting with me. THE COURT: That may be. And that's -And that may be -- that

will be a defense that will be available to you, as well as any other defenses, and your position -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- in defending against these charges. Today we're only

But we're not at that stage of this case. going to consider a few things.

Representation of counsel,

either by your hiring counsel or asking to have assigned counsel, or your representing yourself. And after we get that

resolved, the issue of bail, and whether the Government is moving for detention on this new charge, 09-CR-141. THE DEFENDANT: I don't even know how the Government

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

could even detain me any longer than this. been quite a long time, four months. opinion. THE COURT: I understand.

I mean, this has

And this is only my

THE DEFENDANT: its face. THE COURT:

Both of these indictments are void on

I understand. I think it's called --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Those are rights you will have to make

motions to attack the validity of the indictment. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: And I'm not here to argue.

No, I understand, Mr. Buczek. But I think you know a little bit of I read

THE DEFENDANT:

my psych report, and on page -- you said you read it. it last night. THE COURT: Right. Page six and page seven.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

You're referring to an evaluation report

that was prepared by the Federal Medical Center at Devens. And the reason I'm only repeating this, Mr. Buczek, is each case, 08-CR-54, 09-CR-121 and 09-CR-141, has a separate record, has a separate transcript of proceedings or recording of proceedings. And, therefore, in order for the record to be

complete, we cannot just presume that that record will show what you and I discussed in open court in the other cases. So

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that's why I am repeating things, because each record will be complete, in and of itself, in each individual case, and so you are making reference to a mental evaluation that was ordered in 08-CR-54. The report was received recently and you

were supplied with a copy of it and we discussed that report -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- when you appeared in front of me

yesterday, May 6, 2009, in response to the scheduling of a status report in 08-CR-54, as well as the arraignment on the indictment in 09-CR-121. THE DEFENDANT: Right. And it touched on a little

bit of my background on pages six, seven and eight, in that psych review. And I was surprised it actually told the truth. I didn't know they were

I was impressed with the doctors.

going to give them the truth of the side of the story on how public policy works. And a lot of this public policy has been

carried over to these indictments. And I believe, okay, it's an opinion of mine, I'm not arguing, I believe that the United States Attorney's office is coming after me now, and this is called malicious prosecution. And I think that you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is getting out of hand now. Indictment here, indictment Because I

here, all because I know, I actually studied? understand public policy?

And if it's wrong, or if it's not

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

wrong, that's another debate another time.

But it's my This is

opinion, Judge, that this is getting out of hand now. malicious.

And I don't know when this is going to stop.

Whether I come back next week, there will be another indictment, and another one, and another one, until I finally take the plea? Because my belief system?

You know, we had 19 agents at our house on January 16th. You should have been there, it was incredible. I went out of

my way, I met with the FBI, and I tell them my belief, my truth, and what I believe is true, and I get smacked in the face and thrown in jail for four months and go to a psych review, and it was awful. I was taken 30 days. I had no idea

it was going to be four months. And you know just as well as I know, too, Judge, that the thing with HSBC, I mean, come on, you know exactly. policy. And I'm not going to sit here and explain. Public And now

this IRS thing, I mean, when does it stop? And I understand you want me to get a lawyer, an attorney, I don't know the law like you do and everybody else in here. But it's belief system I have. And I know a lot about public

policy and I know about the bankruptcy and I know how there's no lawful money in this country. And everything can be soft. Everything that I knew

And it's happening outside right now. about five years ago is happening.

All these businesses are This is only the

shutting down, malls are shutting down.

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

beginning.

And that's why I got so infatuated with Ron Paul. All the

And only one candidate even cares about the people. rest of them could care less about us. THE COURT: I understand your position. And I --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

I understand your position. And this is just an opinion. I won't

THE DEFENDANT:

argue, because I really want to come to a full settlement and closure of this account. And I would like to follow public

policy, but it looks like it's not being honored in the courts. And I'm not here to get anybody upset, because I'd

like to take all these cases and be done with it. THE COURT: Let me assure you immediately, You are a very

Mr. Buczek, you are not upsetting me at all.

articulate person, you are obviously trying to advocate what you believe in. And that is your right.

What I am trying to do is to make sure that your rights under the Constitution of the United States are being fully effectuated. I'm not an adversary of yours, I am not an I am here to make sure that your rights

adversary for anyone.

under the Constitution of the United States are being carried out. That's all I'm trying to do. And I'm not trying to I am merely trying to

force you into making any decisions.

make sure you understand the consequences of your decisions, in this context of your representing yourself.

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Um-hum.

And I repeat once again, you do have the

right under the Constitution of the United States to represent yourself, and I am not trying to prevent you from exercising that right. But I am also trying to at least get the message

across to you, in my experience as a practicing attorney of 40 years, and as a sitting judge of nine years, I have seen and experienced situations where people who have attempted to represent themselves did more harm to themselves in their case. And that it is, in my opinion, once again to use that

metaphor, like trying to walk through a mine field blindfolded for an individual who is not trained in the law to represent himself in a criminal case. And all I'm trying to do is get across to you the seriousness of the situation and the risks that are involved, before you finalize your decision as to attorney representation, so that you at least have the benefit of someone else's view as to the consequences of making a decision that might turn out to be the wrong one. And it's in

that context that I'm saying to you, I will give you time so that that you can meet with your parents upon their return from their trip, to discuss the possibility of your being able to hire counsel of your choice, someone who is experienced and trained in the law. Or, if it's decided after such a

conference that because of the financial circumstances you

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

will not be able to hire an attorney, I will then allow you the opportunity to ask the Court to assign an attorney to represent you. And if I find that you qualify financially,

I'm telling you I will assign a competent experienced attorney to represent you in all three of these cases. That's all I'm trying to get from you today is what it is you wish to do. Do you wish to have an adjournment so you

could have the time to await the return of your parents and discuss this issue of attorney hiring? Or are you telling me

that you're not going hire an attorney and that you're not going to ask the Court to assign an attorney, you're going to represent yourself. If you're going to represent yourself and you have made up your mind in that regard, I am not going prevent you from going forward with that decision. If that's the case, then

we're going to be addressing the Government's motions in 08-CR-54, 09-CR-121 and 09-CR-141, their motions, the Government's motions in those three cases to have you detained. THE DEFENDANT: lawfully they can't. THE COURT: And that's all I'm here to consider, what No, they can't, Judge. I mean,

can be done lawfully. THE DEFENDANT: impossible. Lawfully, they can't. It's

I mean, this is -- if anything, I should be

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

indicted -THE COURT: Now listen. Lawfully, the Government,

when it returns an indictment -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- can then, at the time of arraignment,

make a motion under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 as amended, seeking to have you detained pending the resolution of the case. You have a right to have a hearing on that motion, and that hearing is called a detention hearing. And you have the

right to contest the Government's position as to why you should be detained. And you have the right to proffer what

you think should be put forth in your behalf, as to why you should be released on bail. detention hearing. That's what we will do in a

But as I have indicated to you in the

other two cases, and I'm now indicating to you in this case, 09-CR-141, because a detention hearing involves legal issues and legal procedures, in my opinion you would be at a disadvantage to have that hearing in representing yourself. And that you would be better served, in my opinion, to be represented by an attorney to confront the Government's motion and to be able to respond to the legal issues and the legal procedures that will occur in such a hearing. THE DEFENDANT: And, Judge, with my research and

knowledge that I believe is true, is I spent a long time in a

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

law library, as you might be aware, I'm sure, that the communications been going on between Devens and here, I would imagine, and that's why yesterday I brought up the letter of rogatory and beneficiary claim that I had put together. THE COURT: 08-CR-54. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: S. That was in 08-CR-121 -- or 09-CR-121 and

And as I indicated to you yesterday,

May 6, 2009, I don't understand what you mean when you are talking about a trust and a beneficiary and -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- and you recall I said to you, the only

thing we're concerned with as far as a legal document or an instrument, is not a document creating a trust or a res, R-E-S, that being the principal of the trust, when you referred to yourself as a beneficiary, and I said I found it contradictory, because we're dealing with an indictment, and I'm having a hard time logically understanding how a defendant could claim he was a beneficiary of an indictment, since the indictment charged you with a crime, and I wouldn't consider that to be a benefit to be realized. THE DEFENDANT: Correct. But that's why I brought

the points at pages six, seven, and I believe goes into page eight of the psychological report, establishing public policy in HGR 192; you read that, right?

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court.

THE COURT:

Yes, I did. And I'm not here to ask if you The

THE DEFENDANT:

believe that or not or whatever, that's not the issue.

issue is, is I believe public policy does exist, I believe that a lot of people don't follow through on public policy. It is true that all that can be set off, dollar for dollar, pursuant to the Bankruptcy of '33. And getting back to 1933, Okay? And

everything has been locked up in trust accounts.

that's why I put that in the letter of rogatory beneficiary claim together. together. And I spent a long time putting this

Some of the words I had to look up in Black's Law And that's why I was asking yesterday,

to understand myself.

pursuant to the bankruptcy and public policy, if I have standing to speak as beneficiary; that's all. THE COURT: All right. That's all.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

First of all, this is not Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy Court is a separate judicial entity which

has exclusive jurisdiction over the Bankruptcy Act. And we're not here to litigate the bankruptcy law, nor are we here to litigate the law of 1933 as it related to the bankruptcy or the government going off to gold standard. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: All right.

We're here today to address this new

indictment, 09-CR-141, and to address the issue of attorney

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

representation, and to then address the issue of whether you want time to confer with your parents so as to make a decision as to hiring an attorney, or asking for the assignment of an attorney, or representing yourself, or going forward with the detention motions filed by the Government or made by the Government in each case, 08- -- 09-CR-141 and 09-CR-121. Because in 08-CR-54, the bail was revoked in that case, and so it's not a question of a motion for detention hearing, it's a question of the reconsideration of my order of revocation of bail in 08-CR-54. But all three cases relate to whether you're going to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions, or whether the Government's motions to detain are to be granted. THE DEFENDANT: Judge. THE COURT: Well, they were made orally at the time I haven't received any motions,

of the arraignment on the indictment 09-CR-121, and I'm anticipating the Government is making that motion in this case, 09-CR-141. The only reason we haven't gotten there yet

is because I'm still trying to find out what it is you're going to do as far as attorney representation, and whether you want more time in order to meet with your parents. THE DEFENDANT: here, but -THE COURT: I'm not stopping you from saying I really wish I could say something

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

anything. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I need --

I just don't want you to say anything And so I'm not trying to But I

that could be used against you.

inhibit you or prevent you in any way from speaking.

also want to make sure your constitutional right against self-incrimination is not violated. So I want you to

understand anything you might say, even though you are representing yourself, anything you might say in this court can be used against you by the Government in any one of these three cases, or any other case they might decide to present. So weigh your words carefully. THE DEFENDANT: Okay. The notice of appointment of

trustee, I put into the case, I know you're claiming this is not a Bankruptcy Court. THE COURT: No, and as I told, I don't understand

what you mean by notice of appointment of a trustee in a criminal case. We're not dealing with a trust. Right. But that relates back to

THE DEFENDANT: 1933. THE COURT:

Which we're not here to litigate. I'm not litigating, I'm just trying

THE DEFENDANT: to -THE COURT: indictment.

It has nothing to do with this

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT:

I'm just trying to establish if I do

have, you know, standing to speak as beneficiary. THE COURT: You have standing to speak as a defendant

charged in a criminal indictment. THE DEFENDANT: So the answer is no, I don't have

standing to speak as beneficiary. THE COURT: I don't know what that means. You have

standing to speak as a defendant in this case. standing to speak as a defendant in 09-CR-121. standing to speak as a defendant in 08-CR-54.

You have You have You do not have

to concern yourself about whether you have standing as a beneficiary, because I don't understand, quite frankly, what that even means. But you do have the right to speak. And it

doesn't need labels. THE DEFENDANT: So I would imagine at this point that

the -- I wrote a letter to -- a third letter on the first -- the very original indictment back in March, stating the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. THE COURT: That was the letter to Judge Skretny? No. That was a letter directed to

THE DEFENDANT:

the FBI concerning the -THE COURT: Oh. -- the January 16th raid at my

THE DEFENDANT: parents' house.

Not my house, my parents' house. January 16th, 2009, which is the subject

THE COURT:

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

matter of the indictment -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- in 09-CR-121. And from my understanding and my

THE DEFENDANT:

opinion, that you're supposed to issue out an order before you go out and do a warrant, and the warrant has to have a seal on it. And it's numerous elements missing. And when they came

into our house, they never even presented the warrant until later on. THE COURT: Now, these are all things that can be -Can be discussed at another time.

THE DEFENDANT: But -THE COURT:

They can be raised in motions. Right.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

But we're not at that stage. I understand that.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Okay. I understand that. Right now, this

THE DEFENDANT:

is just -- I mean, this is like kind of like unwillfully -you know, being incarcerated for nothing. I mean, they're

going to come up with a motion to try to detain me, which will be unlawful. And I don't know what's going to happen, the

Court's going to grant it or not, but I mean, it was -- again, it was my understanding after the 30 days, I was going to be released. Now it's going on four months.

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

As I explained to you yesterday on May 6,

2009, when we were addressing 08-CR-54 and 09-CR-121, the period for the mental health evaluation was 30 days, as provided by the statute. But that the professional

representatives at the Federal Medical Center at Devens requested additional time within which to complete the evaluation process. And the statute did allow and does allow And I considered the

for extensions of time for that purpose.

application of the representatives at the Federal Medical Center to be one that had merit to it, and I also considered that it would be something that would be beneficial to you, so that you had a complete evaluation, rather than an incomplete one; and, therefore, I granted their application to extend the time period for evaluation, which they did. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I understand.

The delay that you are complaining about

really relates to the amount of time it took for you to be transported back from Devens, from the Federal Medical Center in Devens, to here in the Western District of New York, because you were transported in keeping with the U.S. Marshal Service logistical method of transporting people around. doesn't always take the most direct route, because they usually have a number of -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Stops. It

-- detainees or prisoners that they have

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to either pick up or drop off at different facilities. therefore, it becomes a longer trip. THE DEFENDANT:

And,

But I'm trying -- Judge, I'm trying

to find the link, the contract, the link to hold me in jail. I mean, I'm trying to find out where's the contract at, why am I still in jail? Why? There's no contract. There's no

THE COURT: contract.

I revoked your bail in 08-CR-54 -Because of --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: evaluation.

-- to allow for the psychological

And two, because there had been a presentation

made by the Government, and a motion to have your bail revoked, based on the alleged -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- criminal activity of January 16th,

2009, namely that which is set forth in the indictment in 09-CR-121, that while you were on bail under 08-CR-54, you committed additional crimes, allegedly -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

-- by going out and purchasing vast -- a

number of items of substantial value, a flat screen TV, a washer, a dryer and other items from Best Buy, using, allegedly, a fraudulent or nonexistent account. And that as a

result of that alleged fraudulent activity occurring while you were on bail, the Government also requested that your bail in

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

08-CR-54 be revoked. THE DEFENDANT: I'm sure you saw the negotiable

instrument to discharge the account or pay the account or whatever you want to call it, public policy, you saw the negotiable instrument? THE COURT: I saw what the Government claimed was the

documentation that you utilized in making the purchases at Best Buy. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

Because they were attached as part of the

criminal complaint, I think, that was first filed before the indictment was obtained. THE DEFENDANT: I also sent a negotiable instrument

directly to your chambers. THE COURT: Wait a minute, wait a minute, I don't

want you to say any more -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: All right. Because, once

-- about what you did.

again, anything you start saying about what you did, could be treated as admissions that could be used against you. And,

therefore, it's in your best interest not to be making those kinds of statements. THE DEFENDANT: Right. What I was trying to get to,

back to the indictments real quick, is you have to have criminal intent.

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

Right.

And those are issues you can

raise by way of motion or in defenses. THE DEFENDANT: So how in the world can the U.S.

Attorney's office even have a motion to revoke my bail, if I have no criminal intent? THE COURT: Because the grand jury, by returning

indictment, has established probable cause for these charges to be made against you. And once probable cause of the

commission of a crime has been provided against the defendant, that kicks into play the next step. And that is, whether that

defendant, although presumed innocent under the Constitution of the United States and the Bail Reform Act of 1984 as amended, nevertheless, the Government can then move to have the defendant detained. And the defendant has a right to And then

resist that motion to be detained, and to seek bail. a detention hearing is held.

And that's what I am attempting

to get to, sooner or later, in 09-CR-141 and 09-CR-121. THE DEFENDANT: Okay, Judge. I just can't seem to, I

you know, find out if public policy is going to be met. just don't really know -THE COURT:

Public policy is something for you to

raise in defense of these indictments -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: All right.

-- as part of your defense as to why you

should not even be charged with these crimes.

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Right.

But that comes at the later stage of

making motions, attacking the validity of the indictment, attacking the validity of the charges, and raising your defenses to these charges. All we're trying to get resolved

today is attorney representation. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: that resolved. THE DEFENDANT: It was my understanding that we were Right. It was my understanding --

And whether you need more time to get

going to address bail, because I mean, I thought I was -THE COURT: 08-CR-54. We were. We were, in 09-CR-121 and

Unbeknownst to me, as well as you, I didn't know I

was going to be getting a third indictment today in 09-CR-141. THE DEFENDANT: I kind of had a, you know, sneaking

suspicion it might have happened. THE COURT: You have more knowledge than I did. Where's Mr. Bruce, by the way?

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

He's upstairs in another case. Because he sent me numerous letters I have all those

THE DEFENDANT:

that he intends to indict me on this. letters, by the way, Judge.

And he -- his intentions were -But I looked

he followed through on his intentions.

everything up, it says if he does, it's malicious, but he'll do what he --

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

Which is another motion you can make. Right.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

And which is a defense you can claim. But --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Those are all available to you. But why isn't he here?

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Because he's engaged in another matter

before another judge, and so Mr. Lynch is standing in for him. Which Mr. Lynch is now thinking about addressing with Mr. Bruce. MR. LYNCH: Exactly. I did send -- and I'm not here to Okay?

THE DEFENDANT: upset Mr. Bruce, either. THE COURT:

You're not upsetting anybody, Mr. Buczek. I did -I want to make sure you You have a right

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: understand.

Wait.

You are not upsetting anybody.

to speak, you have a right to be heard.

That is your right And

under the laws and the Constitution of the United States. no one is upset with you exercising those rights. want you to be assured of that. THE DEFENDANT:

Please, I

And I believe I sent them a letter,

not to get them upset, and I believe I sent you a copy, too, concerning, you know, the certified copy of the record, I told them I would plead conditional plea of guilty if he can please

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

produce a certified copy of the record, and see a 1099 OID on the case and a 1099A, the ledgers of the account through the trust. And you understand exactly what I'm talking about.

But -- and that's why I told you before back on January 16 that this all should be held in your chambers. This should be

on the private side of the case, and that's when I got thrown -THE COURT: Wait a minute. In criminal proceedings,

criminal proceedings, the public has a right to know what's going on. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

And because of that, we hold criminal

proceedings in open court, unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances for doing otherwise. it's rare when they would be held in chambers. And even then, It could be a

situation where a proceeding is held in a closed courtroom, such as where it involves the testimony of a minor in a sexual abuse case or -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I understand. But by and

-- those kinds of situations.

large, the rule of law in this country and in the federal system, is that the public has a right to know what's going on in its courtrooms, and that public trials are also the right of the defendant, as well as the public, under the Constitution of the United States. We do not want Star

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Chamber proceedings. THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, but I mean, you'd

have to agree, Judge, this is kind of sensitive material that we're talking about. I mean, you know, negotiable

instruments, you know, set off, you know -- and when talk to some of the people around this town, they think you're crazy, the way you talk about public policy, and you talk about when you get a utility bill they're already withdrawing the funds out of your trust account. prepaid as of 1933. It's already pre -- everything is

And you're well aware of that, I'm sure,

because I know the only one that seems to know what's going on of the federal judges. And I consider you one of the federal

judges, and Skretny will -THE COURT: Well, I am a federal judge. I think you know exactly what's going

THE DEFENDANT: on.

But that's why, again, I point out that this should be This stuff should not be held in the

held in chambers. public.

THE COURT:

Well, for the reasons I've stated, I'm

not going to hold any matter in this case or in the other two cases in my chambers. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

And it's going to be in an open courtroom

with a recording going of all of the proceedings, so that there is a complete record of everything that has transpired.

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT:

Right.

And again, getting back to

the additional indictment here, is that I never consented or agreed to this -- to this order. And I believe that Jonathan

Jonathan -- I don't have the order in front of me.

Altman might have went ahead and communicated with Mr. Bruce and say I'll make sure my client doesn't do that. called me up -THE COURT: The terms of the order were in the -- the And he

terms and conditions of bail, which the probation office supplied to you. But we've discussed that -That was after the fact though.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

We've discussed that fully. Right.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Do you want an adjournment so that you

will have time to wait for the return of your parents to discuss whether you are going to be able to hire an attorney of your choice? Yes or no. Well, before I answer that question,

THE DEFENDANT:

I believe that the attorney's office has to put a motion together? I have to wait for that motion to come in? They can make the motion orally. Oh, verbally?

THE COURT:

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Orally. Orally.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Right here.

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: to do that.

All right. I can do that, if you want me

All right.

Mr. Lynch, what's the Government's position on bail? MR. LYNCH: Judge, on this new indictment, 09-CR-141,

the Government's moving for detention on the basis that the offense was committed while the defendant was on pretrial release pending trial for a federal offense under 3142(e)(2)(B). THE COURT: All right. The Government has just made

a formal motion, Mr. Buczek, which it has a right to do under the Bail Reform Act, claiming that you should not be released on bail in this case because, as the Government alleges, you have committed a crime or crimes while you were previously released on bail in the other cases, 08-CR-54 and 09-CR-121. That's just a motion. You have a right now to contest that motion by way of a hearing called a detention hearing, and you have the right to seek and ask for bail. But because a detention hearing

involves legal issues and legal procedures, and because you do not have an attorney here to represent you, and because you are entitled under the Constitution of the United States to be represented at all stages by an attorney, I merely ask you if you want time within which to explore the possibility of your being able to hire an attorney of your choice, which is also

38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

your constitutional right.

And the time being -- time within

which to confer with your parents, whom you have advised me are presently out of the district, away on a trip, and that they are not expected to return until approximately a week. I am telling you that I am willing to give you that time. I am willing to give you sufficient time to await the return of your parents, and thereafter give you time to confer with your parents or anyone else you wish to confer with for purposes of exploring and determining whether you would be able to hire an attorney of your choice, that being your constitutional right. And if you are not able to do that because of your financial circumstances, I will then give you the opportunity to apply for the assignment of counsel. The cost of that And if you decide

service will be paid for by the taxpayers.

that you do not want to go that route, to then advise me as to whether you wish to represent yourself. constitutional right. The issue now that I'm asking you to tell me, is whether you want to adjourn this matter and have time within which to give serious contemplative thought to these three possibilities; hiring an attorney of your choice, asking the Court to assign counsel, or your invoking your constitutional right to represent yourself. Do you want such time? That also being your

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Act.

THE DEFENDANT:

Well, Judge, I don't really, you

know, understand the law as good as -THE COURT: That's why I think you should get serious

about having an attorney. THE DEFENDANT: Right. Right. But, you know, and I

hate to bring this up again, but getting back to public policy, that's why I did the appointment of trustee, and I filed a Form 56 for Mr. Bruce. that, aren't you, Form 56? THE COURT: No, I'm not, but I wouldn't be aware of And you're already aware of

anything that you sent to Mr. Bruce, because I'm not involved in those communications between you and the Government. THE DEFENDANT: But, you know, I'm at the point now

where, you know, I don't know everything, but I do study a lot, and I do know that we need to have a contract to keep me incarcerated. on contracts. THE COURT: Then I would suggest to you when you do That's all I know. Because everything is based

get back to the facility where you're being housed, that you go to the library and look up Title 18 of the United States Code Section 3161. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: May I have a pen, please? All right.

Section 3161 deals with the Speedy Trial

And in addition to that -THE DEFENDANT: Title 18?

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hearing.

THE COURT:

Title 18 of the United States Code. Okay. Judge, I believe I --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

In addition to that, I suggest you also Do you have

look up the Bail Reform Act of 1984 as amended. the citation there, Mr. Lynch? MR. LYNCH: THE COURT: Judge, 3142.

18 U.S.C. 3142. And that Act sets out

Section 3142, yes.

different provisions relating to bail and detention, and the grounds for the Government moving to have an individual detained, and the rights of the defendant when faced with that motion. MR. LYNCH: And, Judge, just so the record's clear, I

misspoke when I cited the provision of the statute the Government was relying upon. The Government's relying upon

3142(f)(2)(A) and (B), just so it's clear for Mr. Buczek, so when he needs time to review. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: That's 3142(f)?

3142(f), which is entitled detention

And it says, basically, quote, "The judicial

officer -- which would be me -- shall hold a hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of conditions set forth in subsection (c) of this section will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required, and the safety of any other person and the community." And then subsection one says, "Upon motion of the attorney

41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

for the Government in a case that involves," and it lists a number of different types of cases. But that's the part that says the Government has a right to make a motion to have the defendant detained, and then it describes what the detention hearing shall consist of, and then what elements I must consider in making a decision as to that motion. THE DEFENDANT: quick. Is that -THE COURT: That's what we've been talking about. Right, I know, we're in a discussion Judge, getting back to bail real

THE DEFENDANT: right now.

Now, I've never missed any court date, there's no

injured parties, there's no real party -THE COURT: There is an alleged injured party. Who's that?

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

The Government is claiming that Best Buy

was -- and the bank were allegedly injured by your alleged fraudulent act. THE DEFENDANT: And that's why I mailed you that

letter of rogatory before we came into court -THE COURT: I understand. -- to explain that. And I don't want

THE DEFENDANT:

to get too deep into this, but you know how I feel about all that. THE COURT: I understand. All I'm saying is that the

42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Government is claiming that you committed a crime, allegedly -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right. And that's in

-- while you were on bail.

violation of the terms and conditions of your bail, which justifies the Government asking that you now be detained. Now, all I'm looking for from you right now is an answer, yes or no, do you want time to be able to meet with your parents, or anybody else you wish to meet with, for purposes of determining whether you're going to hire an attorney of your choice? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Judge, that's not necessary.

So your answer is no? That's correct, Judge.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

All right. Yeah, I just -- and again, you know,

THE DEFENDANT:

for you to have a -- only way, from my understanding, is that for you to be detained, you have to produce an injured party. THE COURT: Well, we'll hold a detention hearing. The Government is going We

No, we'll hold a detention hearing.

to have to proffer evidence that will support its motion. haven't had that hearing yet. THE DEFENDANT: thing with HSBC. impossible. I know that.

But there's one more It's

HSBC cannot be the injured party.

They're a corporation, they have --

43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

That's all the things you will be able to

argue in the detention hearing. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: at this very moment. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: adjournment -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Well -Okay. Right.

And we're not holding a detention hearing

So you're telling me you do not want an

-- in order to determine whether you're

going to hire counsel of your choice. THE DEFENDANT: but I don't -THE COURT: You don't have to put a motion together. You told me you do I could put my own motion together,

I'm merely asking if you want more time. not want more time. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: time, correct? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

I don't think it's necessary, Judge.

So your answer is you do not want more

I don't think it's necessary.

I'm not interested in whether it's

necessary or not, I want to know whether you want more time or you do not want more time. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I would like to proceed. Then you're telling me you do not

Okay.

44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

want more time. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I don't need more time. Now the question is, are you

All right.

asking the Court to assign an attorney to represent you because you cannot afford to hire an attorney because of your financial circumstances? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: yourself? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes. No, Judge.

Are you asking to be allowed to represent

All right. And again, just for the Court knows,

THE DEFENDANT:

that I do plan on representing myself with back-up counsel. Now, I don't know exactly who that's going to be yet, because I need to speak to -- there's to a couple smart people in here. And one of them is Jim Ostrowski, if you might know Jim

Ostrowski. THE COURT: I'm aware of him. Okay. He's one of the very few And

THE DEFENDANT:

people that understand what's really going on out there. I have -THE COURT: question. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Right.

But now that forces me to ask the next

Do you want to have this so-called back

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

up counsel, Mr. Ostrowski or anybody else -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: I --

-- to represent you or to be with you in

this detention hearing? THE DEFENDANT: be held. Well, I mean, I don't know how I can

I mean, I'm still trying to figure out -- that's why I mean -I'm

I want to proceed with the bail. THE COURT:

That's what I'm asking you though.

ready to proceed with the detention hearing, but if you're telling me you would like to have Mr. Ostrowski as your co-counsel, assistant counsel, back-up counsel, however you want to characterize it, I'm willing to adjourn the matter until you can make arrangements to have that done. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Judge, I'm ready --

Do you want an adjournment so that you

can make arrangements to have your assistant counsel with you? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: How long will the adjournment be for?

How long will it take you to get that

arrangement made and get an attorney over here? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: What's today? Today's Thursday? I'm

Today is Thursday, May 7, 2009.

willing to give you as much time as you reasonably need to make those arrangements. THE DEFENDANT: come back? Okay. When is the soonest we can

46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

Well, I told you yesterday, May 6, 2009, If you told me -- as you indicated And that I'd even have

I would schedule it today.

to me you would be ready to go today.

attorney -- an attorney here from the Public Defender's office that I would assign once I established you qualified to have such an assignment made. And Mr. Comerford has been sitting

here throughout the morning and now into the afternoon, waiting to find out whether he's, in fact, going to be assigned, or his office, or the Federal Public Defender's office is going to be assigned. I have been trying to do

everything I could reasonably accomplish in expediting this matter for you. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Okay, Judge.

Now -I was unaware of that.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Now the question is, you've made

reference to having assistant counsel or co-counsel or a back-up council, and you've indicated the name of an attorney, Mr. James Ostrowski, or perhaps some other attorney. I'm saying to you is that I am willing to give you an adjournment so that you can bring that about, that is, effectuate that arrangement to have that assistant counsel or co-counsel or back-up counsel here with you when we have the detention hearing -THE DEFENDANT: Okay. And all

47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

-- and any other proceeding.

And I'm

willing to give you as much time as is reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose. I am doing everything in my power

that I can legally and justifiably do to make sure that your constitutional rights are protected and enforced. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Okay.

So -And you recommended -- I know it's a

THE DEFENDANT:

recommendation, you're not forcing me into it. THE COURT: suggesting -THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Suggesting. I'm not recommending anything. I'm am

-- and I'm expressing my opinion. Okay.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

I am not in a position to make I'm not in a position to give

recommendations to anybody. legal advice to anybody.

But I can share my views of

experience with you in the context, the very limited context of making sure you fully understand what the consequences of some of your decisions are, in the broader context of the risk that you are running in making some of those decisions, in the even broader context of my making sure your constitutional rights are being carried out. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Okay.

That's all I'm doing.

48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Thank you.

All right. I appreciate that, Judge.

THE DEFENDANT:

And I know I might be a thorn -THE COURT: You're not a thorn. -- sometimes, but --

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

Please, you are not a thorn. I just have a strong belief system.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

You have every right to have belief and

you have every right to express that belief, and you are not in any way a thorn. THE DEFENDANT: Would I be able to consult with On -- concerning the bail?

the -- your opinion of counsel? THE COURT:

You mean whether you should get a

attorney, or whether you should represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yeah. Well, yes.

I'll give you the opportunity.

Mr. Comerford, I'm going to ask you as an officer of the Court to at least render that kind of assistance to Mr. Buczek. That is, answer any questions he might have. You've been

sitting here, you've heard what I've explained to Mr. Buczek now for some substantial period of time. To make sure that we

are all trying our best to make sure Mr. Buczek's constitutional rights are being effectuated. So is it better if Mr. Buczek is taken back downstairs and

49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you meet with him privately, Mr. Comerford?

And I know it's

only for the limited purpose of just addressing what I have raised with Mr. Buczek. I'm not expecting you and I'm not

asking you to give legal advice in the context of now undertaking the representation of Mr. Buczek on the merits. All right? So why don't we have Mr. Buczek returned to the marshal's facilities downstairs, which will enable you to meet with Mr. Comerford in private. But I want to you understand, Mr. Buczek, I'm directing Mr. Comerford as a member of the bar, as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Federal Public Defender's office, to undertake this pro bono type of assignment for the limited purpose of being able to answer any questions you might have as to what you need to do to effectuate your constitutional right in regard to having counsel of your choice or asking for assigned counsel or for having back-up counsel or co-counsel or assistant counsel in this matter. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Judge, and I want to make the

record reflect that I'm here -- I'm here as an authorized representative for the entity. THE COURT: yourself. THE DEFENDANT: Right. And also that I do plan to You are here authorized to speak for

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

come to a very quick conclusions, so we can stop coming here. THE COURT: I understand. Okay?

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

All right. All right.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

So we'll recess then. All right.

THE DEFENDANT:

(Brief interruption in proceedings.) MR. LYNCH: THE COURT: Judge, may I take a break? Yeah, sure.

(A recess was held at this time.) THE CLERK: Shane Buczek. THE COURT: Now, Mr. Buczek, you've had an Back on the record, United States versus

opportunity to have a very lengthy discussion with Mr. Comerford of the Federal Public Defender's office? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes, Judge.

And after having conferred with him, as I

asked Mr. Comerford to do, to discuss with you what you and I had been discussing as far as attorney representation and what your plans were in that regard, have you been able to come to some sort of a decision at this time? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Judge. I went ahead and decided

to ask the Court for an adjournment till possibly next week, either Wednesday or Thursday, whatever is open on your

51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

schedule. THE COURT: And is the purpose of that to discuss

with your parents or with anybody else you wish to discuss the matter, the issue of being able to hire an attorney of your choice? THE DEFENDANT: That's correct. I'm going to keep in

contact with Brian, that I talked to earlier. THE COURT: That's Mr. Comerford of the Federal

Public Defender's office. THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes.

All right, I will grant your request for

an adjournment for purposes of your being able to explore further the opportunity for you to hire an attorney of your choice, that being your constitutional right. And since you

have indicated to me that you would like to also discuss that issue with your parents, who are presently unavailable by reason of the fact they're away on a trip and are not expected to return until next Wednesday, May the 13th, is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: That's correct, Judge.

I'm going to schedule this matter for

Friday, May the 15th at 2:00 p.m., only because you apparently will not be able to meet your parents until at least the earliest date would be either the 13th or perhaps the 14th. And then if a decision is made as to hiring an attorney, obviously you're going to need some time to hire the attorney.

52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE DEFENDANT:

That's fine, Judge.

I just would

like to know for the record, I'm being held by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Western District of New York? THE COU

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful