You are on page 1of 10

James C.

Duff, Director
Jill C. Sayenga, Assistant Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, D.C. 20544

[EMBARGOED until Feb-14-2016]

3.Feb.2016/ CsM/mail/email

Dear Director Duff, Assistant Director Sayenga,

This communication, pursuant to U.S. Consular consultation, is directed at the AOUSC in

seeking a timely response under its Tradition of Service1, and is, due to an incogitable absence of a
Judicial Branch OIG, justifiable addressed here for simple lack of alternative avenues.

In my function as counsel to Professor Viertel and mandataire of Fritz Blumenberg, both

deemed aliens, predicate gravamen is hereby brought to your direct attention and, consequently,
for substantive intervention as ministers for the III. Branch, also in view of Director Duffs
antecedent AO experience during which some iniquities continued. As Hamilton observed [The
judiciary] may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

Despite numerous, albeit foiled, attempts to obtain official, judicial and administrative
corrective action, to provide transparency and full accountability for the constitutional as well as
statutory violations, forgeries, scurries and perjured entries at all levels of Court and Circuit, it
became evident, that Heracles, unsurprisingly, had a smoother task to clean 30 years of dung from
Augeias stables, than to reboot ethics 2.0 at the administration of the judicial department of the
United States. A wall of silence - behind which so many federal scofflaws hide - is a bulwark reality,
as is the discomforting code of omerta that law professionals as jurist of reason, like ministers of
justice, must find repugnant. Qui male agit odit lucem.
Admittedly, these are strong words for equally strong Courthouse toxicity addressed below.

Point 1: On Feb-20-2014, a Clerk of the CA2 confirmed reception of Prof. Viertels 351
Judicial Complaint charging Magistrate Pitman with serious, harmful, unconstitutional
misconduct, docket 02-14-90011-jm. Months went by until the Courts silence caused me to
state dubiety over judicial going concerns, the Chief Judge responded to the undersigned
The Administrative Office is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad range of legislative,
legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to federal courts.

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

on Aug-5-2014, that 28 U.S.C. 351 is the appropriate vehicle gracefully including a fresh set
of forms plus instructions. These 2 CA2 letters arrived de facto - via airmail post - here at the
Justice Institute in Firenze. It was the last communications from Manhattan, leaving the
disposition of the Judicial Complaint outstanding to this date [despite 4 reminder notices
in late 2015], much worse, by apparently allowing an [deemed unfit] Magistrate on his
bench, unsuspended, not disbarred, and by withholding Order disposition under Rule 11
(c),(d) or (e) from complainant, from Public and Press, effectively continues the demolition
of due process and, with it, trashing integrity and what reputation judicial review still can
count upon. It is our presumption that the CA2s silence was intended to derail timely
recourse2 and widespread publicizing by a foreign complainant, of what is believed to turn
out as an unmeritorious disposition or embarrassment. But, maybe it was an honest mistake.

See: Under Rule 11, (g) (2) [W]hen chief judge disposes of complaint without appointing special committee. If the
chief judge disposes of a complaint under Rule 11(c), (d), or (e), the chief judge must prepare a supporting memorandum that sets
forth the reasons for the disposition. If the complaint was initiated by identification under Rule 5, the memorandum must so
indicate. Except as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 360, the memorandum must not include the name of the complainant or of the
subject judge. The order and memoranda incorporated by reference in the order must be promptly sent to the
complainant, the subject judge, and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.(3) Right to petition for review. If the
chief judge disposes of a complaint under Rule 11(c), (d), or (e), the complainant and the subject judge must be notified of the
right to petition the judicial council for review of the disposition, as provided in Rule 18.
Presumptively, the CA2s radio-silence seeks to continue shielding peers and its own
reputational liabilities for failure to supervise the District Court. The Magistrates signed
INDICMENT, casus belli here, Exhibit B, had viewing blocked on Pacer, despite mircofilm,
but is now open source at
Prior written demands to subject Magistrate for explanantion why and how subject
Magistrate (Pitman) - physically absent on Flag Day 2001 was shockingly dextorous to glean 3
jurisdictionally weighty Open Court proceedings in another [Magistrate Dolingers] Open and
busy Courtroom on a floor below. But, the proceedings in Open Court were not on Judge
Dolingers calender, were not taped by court reporters, were not registered on Pacer 4 ecf records
[see all-day events printout ] and are not found in the Courts Sealed


Or alternately, Magistrate Pitman bore false witness, a federal and NY State offense

A copy of this letter was sent to Robert Lowney for PACER review

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Records Room Log5, simply because Magistrate Dolingers Courtroom ( his Deputy and law clerks)
were uninvolved and extrinsic to a June 14, 2001 Calender Call for a U.S. v. Blumenberg case, or a U.S. v.
Sealed Defendants case, and, unsurprising, left unmoved in total absence of USA Mary-Jo Whites
Application for leave to Seal Indictment. Judge Dolinger has permanently left the building.
The fact that USANYS operatives Mark Harris, George Canellos, Justin Weddle or Marcia
Cohn were unable or unwilling to locate a draft or a word file at Mollos building tells what? At
least that a Grand Jury Filing did not occur on 6-14-2001.

[If this non-event and the falsifications that followed are not Kodak-Moments for AOUSC
and, equally, for Pacers Honor to be restored, what could be ?]

Infact, during review of Prof.Viertels complaint 02-14-90011-jm by the Chief Judge,

impartiality should prevaile by taking judicial notice of the entire Pacer record below [supra], and
despite Pitmans unusual hear-say tales, the fact that NYS staff and Pacer incontrovertibly
confirmed the absence of a SEALED case, and absence of a SEALED mj-case on the day in
question: Filed on 6-14-2001. Overt absence of microfilm or other Pacer record could have
provided a Chief Judge with a scent of incredulity for these outlandish misrepresentations by
Pitman. Furthermore, a Chief Judge would have detected a confirmation that, 5 days later after
about 0930h on 6-19-2001 - a US attorney staffer (name witheld) factually filed a what could be
taken for a signed TRUE BILL, INDICTMENT albeit not under seal or under request to seal.
The AUSA manually annotated (on cover) Form No. USA 33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58):
6/19/01 Filed Indictment. Case assigned to Judge Koeltl. For all purposes. /s/ .

This cover form was accessible to a Chief Judge on microfilm before it was purged from
microfilm and Pacer. We had more luck, and a little help from Court staff, and were able to retrieve
specimen 33s-274 untampered. It is now secure at a custodians safe haven abroad 6.
Therefore, immediate publication under the now transparent Public Access rules for
Judicial Complaints are demanded, with express air mailing to reach Complainant Prof. Viertel here
in Firenze, inter alia, for evaluation whether timely recourse is taken. This constitutes a reasonable
demand upon the United States Courts Administration for the enforcement of administrative
compliance with Federal Law by CA staff.

Point 2: It is universally deemed unwise governance when [judicial] institutions act ignobly
by, inter alia, exploiting unauthentic rubberstamps of bogus autograph specimen [mimicking bona fide
deputies stamps], these are deviations offensive to criminal statutes, acts which deny and defy both


see: EUGH/EUCJ ruling on U.S. no longer deemed safe haven for data

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

the V. and XIV. Amendment DUE PROCESS rights and heap disgrace upon United States
judicative proceedings, particularly for its perception abroad and ultimately at international jurist
gatherings [i.e.] and academic lectures7 or in Court of Law.

Herewith, on behalf of my clients, I respectfully alert this Court Administration to

incontestable facts about counterfeit rubberstamp specimen that were pseudo-officially exploited to
cause willful, irreparable harm and constitutional violations; these abuses cannot be mitigated as
errors and are neither harmless defects in this and more than dozens of unrelated cases [staffers
confirmed], a human rights abuse, moreover, clearly established at the time of the officials conduct.
We submit that bogus rubberstamps of fictitious Clerks like Melanie L. Lopez are
Kafkaesque elements adzed into the Nations Mother Courts wall forever. These events
demonstrate administrative failures in supervision of court operations, they were factual, some
hidden but no longer covert and must be preserved and protected from revisionist propaganda
efforts. Henceforth, law schools should watchfully take notice to better prepare students for
[rancid] cultures8 they are at risk to join. Looking the other way is not leadership, nor
democratic or honorable governance.

Be that as it may, the ink-color off Melanie L. Lopezs rubber9 ended up on a at least three
bogus, non-judicially-issued Arrest Warrants10 [via FIOA release], which FBI operatives [s/a
OSullivan Squad C-12, BQMRA], under direct control of 4 DOJ attorneys, faxed around the
Nation [see recoveries of specimen dated 6-15-2001, redacted: ]. While these
wires were fraudulent they contained unfound<blank> - ergo unsigned, unfiled, un-indexed drafts
labeled INDICTMENT 01 cr.<blank> thus, clearly uncooked, UNTRUE BILLS [see snapshot
Netflix raises awareness: Use of bogus authorities at U.S. Federal Courts.
In fact, longtime staffers chronicle at least two equal contraband rubberstamps with bogus autographs of
Melanie L Lopez, both, initially deemed, under sole control of Chief Parkison [murmured interstate rubber
importer, post-purchase from a NJ print shop]. Later, one had gone amiss, with AUSAs from USANYS as primary
suspects of the rubber heist. U.S. Marshal Service, in charge of Court security, declined to follow up.


In fact, on June 2, 2014, some Federal Courts posted a Warning! Arrest Warrant Scam on the web, which, in
view of this gravamen (intra) sounds more like a cynical joke

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405 ]. These damning, bad faith novelties furthered the Federal Court disrepute by
falsely claiming Court issuance were caused by registered DOJ attorneys [see: draft transmission
in toto on Pacer FLSD per 6-19-2001 -FN 5, intra]. Thus, substantive constitutional wrongs, three
false arrests, were complete before the case had begun, while it was well known to law
enforcement people that counterfeit warrants adorned with fake rubberstamps and without judicial
authority and approvals violate constitutional rights.

Unsurprisingly, USA, Pitman & Koeltl battled since to not face accountability for their
wrongs and for a perverted Docket-Doctoring-Racket which grounded upon an orchestrated
enterprise of cooking Court books, of backwards dating. To proceed judicially on backwards dated,
otherwise technically True Bills that would have violate statutory limitations for conspiracy if not
for the backwards dating scheme, renders the entire judicial process VOID nunc pro tunc, thus, such
an INDICTMENT cannot survive for jurisdictional defects, ab ovo. Jurisdictional defects are
never waived, and preserved to date.
Backdating schemes executed by a Court Clerk [Mollinelli-(jm)] are overt and adverse
ministerial acts by a Federal Court employee. The acts were done in bad faith to maybe curry
favor with an ostensibly corrupt association of DOJ attorneys who scurried to shoe-in expired
overt conspiracy acts (only June 17 & 18 1996 allegations are relevant). These were fiction as has
turned out, pseudo-acts which still hit time-bar on 6-18-2001, the date before Cr-Case 571 was
truly Filed11. It helps explains background motives for outlandish joint criminal acts by officials
from the two lower branches of the United States government.

Ostensibly, Grand Jurors according to foreman Bernhard Rehm were uneasy and
suspicious12 over a rush the USA applied. Jurors eventually waited out until June 19, 2001. Once the
Grand Juror Transcripts (June 14 to 19-2001) are revealed 15 years too late, matters might clear up
as to which registered attorneys orchestrated misconduct before Grand Jurors, valid questions [USA
Bhararas Deputy] Richard Zabel posed 2002 in Court and got his then - client John Lee nolled.
Besides that, AO 190 is still AWOL and Koeltl keeps blocking all attempts to view the date
and place it issued and filed. Strangely, this routine harmless JUROR AO Form is being hidden a
decade+ and later long after GJ foreman Rehms death.

But we submit, that Court staffers, government, <registered attorneys> Pitman, Koeltl [et al]
had mutated into extra-judicial entrepreneurs, acting ultra vires coordinating finagling of ex-post-fictio DeadOn-Arrival charges to cook books and game AOUSC Pacers inherent security flaws. These
maneuvers assured unfair justice administration of United States Courts, whos Administrators were
strikingly oblivious to in-house abuse that was regularly reported by staff, or immune to abuse by
Noteworthy, how DOJ attorneys maliciously tinkered with a bogus FUGITIVE scheme to toll the 2 fictional
overt acts, in the event Pitman would balk at ruining his career and becoming pallbearer of false witness.

Jurors are hardly made aware what damages 371 can cause to justice; Main Justice knows well, and trashes all
371 charges from worldwide MLAT requests

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

their Sister Branch. Both got away for now - with trickery and forgery by having found criminal
responsibility in a haystack, enhancing aliens probation maximums (0-6 months) into mindboggling
jail terms long enough to assure getting rid of the defendants before they discover the
unconstitutionalities. Deportation of aliens on bogus legal grounds is not new. Cynical Courthouse
insiders, who materially assisted to uncover this scam, labeled this enterprise a routine
John Koeltls13 extra-judicial fakery [sic] swelled into a racket14, a continuing enterprise;
JGKs lawyerly dictum in 2015 held that a Movant is not entitled to find out whether Melanie L
Lopez was a living clerk.

What PACER text purports as Filed on 6-14-2001 in DOC#1 (miraculously 5 full days
before CASE 01-571 was factually Filed on 6-19-2001 and entered on 6-20), cannot be identified
or found on microfilm. Consequently, Pacers DOC#1 text entry SEALED INDICTMENT[sic]
is a overt fraudulent entry and must be prominently struck out forthwithin 30 days of this letter, the
Docket Text Record must be annoted as proposed below, or a substantively equal meaning:

Case title: USA v. Blumenberg, et al

Related Case: 1:08-cv-07512-JGK
Date Filed

Date Filed: 06/19/2001

Date Terminated: 06/23/2003

# Docket Text



SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, Sealed Defendant 2 (2)

count(s) 1, 2, 3, Sealed Defendant 3 (3) count(s) 1, 2, 3 (jm) (Entered: 06/20/2001) Text nullified
for acts of forgery, false backdating and fraudulence by the Clerk, the Court and USA (Entered:
ORDER as to Sealed Defendant 1, Sealed Defendant 2, Sealed Defendant 3, Unsealing
Indictment ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman ); Copies mailed. (jm) (Entered:
06/20/2001) Text nullified for fraudulence by Judge Henry B. Pitmans unlawful issuance of a
bogus INDICTMENT ORDER (Entered: __/__/2016)

A.) DOC#1, Exhibit A, does not match the Docket Text, particularly because SEALING did
not occur, less on 6-14-2001. From a 4 corners of the microfilm, several inconsistencies


Koeltl deep-sixed both, Blumenbergs and Lees, Arrest Warrants because JGK knew these were plumb
forgeries and also Rule 20 violations for transporting detainees across State Lines without valid process.


Pacer evidently provided digital access for tampering with its intrinsic calendar functions

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

point to official fraud: i.) A Filing is per se- an adhoc event, not one that is subject to retro
activation, thus prima facie SDNY FILED stamp date (June 14 2001] renders this SDNY
Court Stamp imprint falsified, backdated; ii.) JUDGE KOELTL stamp is a routine
assignment stamp, which could not possibly be applied before the date of assignment 16
ergo, not earlier than 6-19-2001 [see FN 15 entry by (jm)]; iii.) Docket Text #1 omits the
identity of the Southern Districts Judiciary member who truly accepted the Filing on 614-2001, or did not, and who presumptively either granted Seal or did not, or issued
A/warrants or did not. Magistrate Dolinger was apparently uninvolved, despite his name
typed on fake A/warrants [ AUSA Mark Harris prior to decorating three such pamphlets
with Clerk Melanie L Lopezs autograph, intra].
B.) Doc#2s wordsmith H. Pitman signed and sealed a breathtaking pamphlet he labeled
INDICTMENT, Exhibit B. It was fraudulent. Court Clerk Molinelli matched Pitmans
manifest fraud, but the resulting Docket Text (to be stricken) failed to match pamphlet #2,
which seems short of pride, pretty foolhardy and 100% un-American, but probably par for
the Mother Court. A Magistrate bluffing to blow a fictional seal has weighty
criminogenic elements that need to be addressed by authorities. Magistrates and Clerks, like
all public servants, are held to a higher standard, and should not violate the very same laws
they are supposed to follow and uphold.

Two additional same-day Docket entries have since disappeared from Pacer, but the historic
snapshot17 allows for an analysis to what extent Court Clerks falsify public records and how cover
ups are structured to avoid detection, in this case, of a fake-sealing conspiracy.

Therefore, this demand for corrective action falls plainly within the responsibilities of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts which must assist Federal Courts to maintain integrity of
the Public record, and within that assistance must rectify grave, material, deliberate and false
microfilmed Pacer filings [DOC#1] and must coequally nullify unlawful ex post fictio, material and
falsified18 text entries on its public-access Pacer Dockets.

Assignment events usually describe righteous Criminal Wheel operations, not in this case, unfortunately


A document is false if it is untrue when made and was known to be untrue when made by the person making it
or causing it to be made. A document is fraudulent if it is falsely made with intent to deceive. Deceitful half-truths
or the deliberate concealment of material facts also constitute false or fraudulent information.

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Because these unlawful falsifications and administrative Pacer entries [supra] were results of
clerical, thus non-judicial acts, they fall beyond the pale of Magistrates or Art. III judges, who,
indubitable, are ill positioned and much less motivated to police their own or in-house misconduct
[see: Breyer Commission flaws], thus likely to recidivate. There is no evidence in this case that the
subject learned jurists adhere to the principals of legal ethics or to the association rules of the BAR
they were at all times - registered, nor could these jurists be deemed sufficiently independent and
unbiased to not provide material support to prosecutorial underground operations in what truly
mimics a Kafka culture of reciprocity amidst social decay.
Point 3: On 12-12-2015, our legal staffer Wanda W. contacted AOUSC via its public web-

link /contact-us in seeking AOUSC clarification by year end is requisite whether bogus clerk pseudoauthentications of public Court records are prohibited, or not. If not unlawful, under what federal authority?

Year 2015 ended without a reply to the subject or an acknowledgment that the matter is

under review. This indicates to a jurist of reason that AO nomenclature was still not ready to

practice transparency or to face a [dark] underbelly of a run-away system they are to manage, or for
fear of the Kangaroo-factor that might appear. In any case, since the December message 19, which
linked to a sample page of bogus signature stamps at the Nations Mother Court, silence has

spread, and continued the Courts Insider Trading operations and stonewalling. Therefore, a full,
timely and truthful response to Point 3 is reasonably now on demand.

Nothing less than a timely, honorable and lawful resolution of the points above is expected
here, this shall not be viewed as another opportunity to duck away and allow the cooking of Court
books to continue, but to commandeer responsibility, clean up, and initiate paradigm shift by reempowering AOUSCs legacy role and by moving from palliative care into enforcement of
compliant conduct at the Federal Courts, thus, to inspect, to supervise, to correct and to guide these
public institutions back into lawful duty of administering fair justice with integrity fully within the
Rule of Law for all.

Courtesy Copies on expiry of embargo to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley,

Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Union Internationale des Avocats,
Botschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Rechtsdezernat

Email Line Subject: Are rubber stamps of fictitious deputy clerks lawful game?

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Exhibit A

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405

Exhibit B

Istituto Di Torre Della Giustizia, 9/18 v. Delle Ballodole, 50139 Firenze, Italia +883.51000.1191.479 1197.405