Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

International incident under U.P.U.

Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland


RC 013 154 751 US

I am: me, Authorized Representative for


SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK or any derivative thereof
In care of 7335 Derby Road
Derby, New York, America Non Domestic without the US

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BUFFALO DIVISION

Case No.1:08-cr-054-WMS-HKS
09-cr-121-WMS-HKS
09-cr-141-WMS-HKS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff

Vs.

SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, Shane Christopher Buczek, or any derivative thereof,


(fictions)
Defendant

SPECIAL RESTRICTED APPEARANCE by me: Shane, hereinafter: I, me, my, mine and
myself:

Within the Admiralty

GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR MALICIOUS, SELECTIVE, VINDICTIVE


PROSECUTION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF AUSA ANTHONY BRUCE

By AFFIDAVIT

I am: me, a living, breathing man, created in the image and likeness of almighty God;
appearance with his global demand to dismiss for reasons of vindictive prosecution as follows;

HISTORICAL FACTS AND HISTORY

Page 1 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

On or about March 4th, 2008 the living man known as shane was indicted for an alleged

violation of 18 USC Sec.1001, 18 USC Sec.1542 and 18 USC Sec.1028. After pretrial

proceedings AUSA BRUCE offered Shane a plea bargain of probation in exchange for a guilty

plea by Shane, which shane rejected. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENNETH

SCHROEDER, JR. had shane committed for a psychological evaluation. (See Exhibit A) Upon

compellation of said evaluation AUSA BRUCE again continued his vindictive prosecution with

no real party of interest. (See Exhibit B Rule 17 Real Party in interest). Thereafter said AUSA

BRUCE had two additional indictments issued against shane, with no real party and in addition

to having shane remanded into custody again for the (4th) forth time! a purported bail violation.

(See Exhibit C Bail Violation) & (See Exhibit F Story of August 13-21, 2009)

During this period said AUSA BRUCE wrote more than twenty(20) letters to shane demanding

shane accept said plea barging as follows;(See Exhibit D Emails & Letters)

On August 20, 2009 Magistrate Schroeder made a statement that the prosecution was

vindictive and retaliatory. (See Exhibit E Transcripts August 17&20, 2009)

August 20, 2009 at page 14;

I know how the initial charges were laid was due to the time
that's being taken up by the Internal Revenue Service dealing with
certain individuals, not just perhaps this defendant, but other

individuals that are part of the sovereign citizen movement.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: In the context of these


three indictments. Mr. Bruce was all upset about how he was
communicating terrible things as it related to the three
indictments.

Page 2 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

MR. BURGASSER: But also when we go to the order adding a


condition of release, again, I didn't think the Court was being
very fair both to the Government, as well as to Shane, by setting
up a way that he could contact even the Internal Revenue Service
or the Treasury Department, but it had to do with a specific
format. And in one sense if there was going to be a telephone
call or some other form of contact, there needed to be one day
notice; if it's going to be something written or something that
was going to be filed or mailed to them, there was supposed to be
two day notice so it could be reviewed by Pretrial. If Pretrial
agreed with it, it could go; if not, it could be brought to the
Court and the Court would make a ruling on it.
And, obviously, that didn't occur in this case.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: All right. Now, let me


address the other issue with respect to Pretrial Services. I,
quite frankly, am –– I won't even say somewhat. I, quite frankly,
am disturbed about the way this whole thing generated.
We have a simple alleged bail violation. If Mr. Bruce
really was concerned about the bail violation, as we do in
practically all cases, the Government merely needs to file a
motion with an affidavit saying we believe that the defendant is
in violation of terms and conditions of bail and we're moving to
have his bail revoked.
I have some real serious problems with Mr. Bruce
unilaterally communicating with the Pretrial Services Unit of the
United States Probation Office, which is there to serve the Court,
not the U.S. Attorney's Office, having these conversations.
And I'm not sure what it is Mr. Bruce told Mr. Kawski,
but I will say to you in all candor that I am of the opinion that
Mr. Bruce may have even mislead Mr. Kawski as to the seriousness
of this violation or the content of what these documents were that
constituted a violation to the point that he got Mr. Kawski to
request an arrest warrant.
And then Mr. Bruce doesn't go to me, he doesn't go to
Judge Skretny, he ends up in front of the chief judge of the
district and gets that arrest warrant.
In the past, in much more serious cases, including

serious drug cases, people have been brought in on a summons when

Page 3 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

there's a claim of a bail violation.


And when I look at the totality of the circumstances in
these three indictments, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion ––
without making a formal legal finding –– that Mr. Bruce is bent on
a path of vindictiveness and retaliation against this defendant.
He reminds me –– and my memory doesn't serve me well
enough to pull up the name –– but he is the inspector from
Les Miserables who would spend 20 years chasing the man who stole
a loaf of bread because he was starving.
Doesn't the United States Attorney's Office have more
important things to do? Crime running rampant out there, young
kids blowing their heads off every day, the drug scene out there
just outrageous, innocent people can't even drive down the streets
without being shot at, and here we're spending this time on this
ridiculous nonsense.

MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, just one thing as to what you


said. It's my understanding –– and this is hearsay from
Mr. Bruce –– he advised me that he did contact your chambers and
was told that there were no matters pending before –

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: There weren't. All my


motions had been decided.
MR. BURGASSER: And they were told they should go to the
district court. It's my understanding, from Mr. Bruce again, that
Judge Skretny was not available –– I don't know if Judge Skretny
was available or not available, but that's how it ended up in
front of Judge Arcara.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: Oh, I know that. My point


is why didn't he just file a motion saying it's the Government's
position that Mr. Buczek is in violation of bail, we're moving to
have his bail revoked, instead of going and getting Mr. Kawski
involved, getting the Probation Office involved and getting an
arrest warrant? We could have brought this all here on the
motion.

MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, obviously, I don't have an


answer for that. I wasn't involved there –

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: I know you weren't.

Page 4 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

MR. BURGASSER: –– I was asked by Ms. Mehltretter and


Mr. Bruce to come and handle the revocation. Again, I'll carry
that concern back.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: I am afraid it won't do any


good.

MR. BURGASSER: Well, I'll still carry that concern back.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: No, I understand because


what happened after the last alleged bail violation is Mr. Bruce

ran to a grand jury and we have one of the indictments charging ––


which is another unheard of thing in this district, going to a
grand jury on a bail violation of this nature.

MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, as I said at the beginning,


you know, we're looking at one defendant. I think, again, on
behalf of the Internal Revenue Service that are our office is
representing, that this has been an ongoing problem.
I believe that I have the agent here who, if you would
like to speak to her, put her under oath, she would be willing to
address the reasons behind Mr. Buczek, the amounts of paperwork
and liens and other documents –

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: If that same effort would be


utilized to go after the millionaires in this country who dodge
our taxes, who have hidden accounts in Switzerland, who have all
kinds of underground income, we wouldn't have the deficits we
have.
MR. BURGASSER: Well, I believe they're attempting to do
the Swiss bank accounts.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: Well, they seem to be taking


an awful long time to even get the ball rolling. So don't tell me
about them spending a lot of time and hours on this kind of a
case.

MR. BURGASSER: Well, the amount of documents that are


filed by this group, sovereign citizens –

Page 5 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: That's something different.


We're dealing with an individual, Mr. Buczek.
This is an organization that's in existence throughout
the United States. If the IRS has concerns about a national
organization, they certainly have the tools and the manpower and
the muscle in Washington, D.C. to do what needs to be done, but
not picking on one individual in Buffalo, New York is going to
resolve the problems with this national organization, and to say
otherwise would be an insult to my intelligence.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

AUSA BRUCE has engaged in malicious, selective, vindictive and retaliatory prosecution of

shane, for exercising his First Article of Amendment right of association and freedom of

expression.

When shane rejected the offered plea barging AUSA BRUCE had shane indicted on two

additional cases and help inspired a psychiatrist examination of five months. AUSA BRUCE

filed additional indictments in an attempt to coerce shane into a plea barging in violation of the

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING

TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.

Article I; Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by
or at the instigation of or with the consent of acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in
an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions.

Page 6 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

AUSA BRUCE has violated shane’s First Article of Amendment to the National
constitution by prosecuting shane for allegedly being a part of the sovereign citizen
movement. (See Exhibit E Transcripts)
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In addition AUSA BRUCE is violating THE COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL


RIGHTS;
Article 22
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to
form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed
by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or
public safety, public order (order public), the protection of public health or morals or the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of
lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this
right.

MALICIOUS SELECTIVE VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION

The Supreme Court has stated the very purpose of instituting criminal proceedings against an

individual is to punish; therefore, the mere presence of a punitive motivation behind

prosecutorial action does not render such action constitutionally volatile. United States v. Goodwin,
457 U.S. 368, 372, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2488, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982). However, "[t]o punish a person because he has

done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation 'of the most basic sort.' “Id. (quoting

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 668, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)).

While a prosecutor may penalize a defendant for violating the law, a prosecutor may not punish a

defendant for "exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right." Goodwin, 457 U.S. at

372, 102 S.Ct. at 2488. Therefore, the focus in analyzing a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness

Page 7 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

must be whether " 'as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of

prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or punitive animus toward

the defendant because he exercised his specific legal right.' “United States v. Raymer, 941 F.2d 1031,
1042 (10th Cir.1991) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1169 (9th

Cir.1982)).

Since vindictive prosecution claims often turn on the facts of the case, to review a district court's

factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, while to review the legal principles guiding

the district court de novo. Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1039 (citing United States v. Schoolcraft, 879 F.2d 64,
67 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 995, 110 S.Ct. 546, 107 L.Ed.2d 543 (1989)). To establish a claim of vindictive

prosecution, the defendant must show either: (1) actual vindictiveness or (2) a reasonable likelihood of

vindictiveness, which then raises a presumption of vindictiveness. Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1040. Once the defendant

successfully establishes either, the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify its decision with "legitimate,

articulable, objective reasons." Id.If the defendant is unable to prove actual vindictiveness or a realistic likelihood of

vindictiveness, a trial court need not reach the issue of government justification. Id.

The presumption of vindictiveness has already been established at the August 20, 2009 hearing by Magistrate Judge

KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR., and is unrebuttable.

In the present case, shane asserts actual malicious, selective vindictiveness, which is confirmed

by the statements of Magistrate Judge Schroeder at the August 20, 2009 hearing.

Generally, where, as here, a modification in a charging decision follows a mistrial occurring for

neutral reasons, such as a hung jury, and without objection from the government, no presumption

of vindictiveness is raised because there is no reason why the prosecutor would consider the

defendant responsible for the need for a new trial. United States v. Doran, 882 F.2d 1511 (10th Cir.1989).
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has refused to adopt per se rules in the prosecutorial vindictiveness context. Id. at
Page 8 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

1521. Consequently, to determine whether a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists, we must look to the

totality of the objective circumstances surrounding the prosecutorial decision. Id.

Because the government added the new charges against shane after the assertion of his right

to a trial, the "totality of the circumstances" test must be applied to conclude there is

prosecutorial misconduct present.

Jeffers v. Lewis, 38 F.3d 411, 418 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) ("Nor does the prosecutorial practice of threatening a
defendant with increased charges if he does not plead guilty, and following through on that threat if the defendant
insists on his right to stand trial, create a presumption of vindictive prosecution." (internal quotation and citation
omitted)); cf. Garza-Juarez, 992 F.2d at 907 (presumption arose, but was rebutted).

U.S. v. Andrews, 612 F.2d 235 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 1980)

18 Federal circuit courts have not conclusively decided whether a presumption of vindictiveness

can even occur in a pretrial setting, as was the case here. See, e.g., Paradise v. CCI Warden, 136

F.3d 331, 335 (2d Cir.1998) ("this court has consistently adhered to the principle that the

`presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness does not exist in a pretrial setting.'" (quoting United

States v. White, 972 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); United...

However, in the present case the presumption of malicious, selective, vindictive prosecution is

unrebuttable, leaving no need to continue to trial to determine malicious, selective, vindictive

prosecution. It has already been established by Magistrate Judge Schroeder on August 20,

2009.(See Exhibit E)

U.S. v. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1976)

Pearce and Black ledge therefore establish, beyond doubt, that when the prosecution has

occasion to reindict the accused because the accused has exercised some procedural right, the

Page 9 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

prosecution bears a heavy burden of proving that any increase in the severity of the alleged

charges was not motivated by a vindictive motive. 1 We do not question the prosecutor's

authority to bring the felony charges in the first instance (see United States v. Brown, 482 F.2d

1359, 1360 (9th Cir. 1973)), nor

U.S. v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167 (Fed. 9th Cir. 2002)

A prosecutor violates due process when he seeks additional charges solely to punish a defendant

for exercising a constitutional or statutory right. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363,

98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978); Hernandez-Herrera, 273 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2001).

To establish a claim of vindictive prosecution, the defendant must make an initial showing that

charges were added because the accused exercised a statutory, procedural, or constitutional

right. Magistrate Judge Schroeder Jr. on August 20, 2009 established the unrebuttable

presumption of malicious, selective vindictive prosecution.

CONCLUSION

Thus, for the above reasons, shane moves to dismiss the government's

cases against him and to dismiss the indictments in this matter which should not and

cannot be prosecuted because Mr. BRUCE is filled with malice and vindictiveness toward him.

AUSA Bruce has a personal animosity towards shane for his purported political beliefs of a

sovereign citizen. AUSA BRUCE must be disqualified from prosecuting the present cases

against shane.

Page 10 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

Wherefore: shane respectfully requests the present indictments be dismissed with prejudice

and AUSA BRUCE be disqualified.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

Respectfully presented,

BY: __________________________________________
Without prejudice UCC 1-308
All rights Reserved
I am: me
C/o 7335 Derby Road
Derby, New York, America
Non Domestic without the US

Exhibit A. PSYCHIATRIC REPORT By: Nubia J. Swain, M.D. & Shawn E. Channell, Ph.D,

ABPP Forensic Psychologist and Stephanie Byrd, M.S.Psychology FMC Devens

Exhibit B. Rule 17 Real Parties

Exhibit C. False Arrest & Bail Violation

Exhibit D. ANTHONY BRUCE Letters & Emails

Exhibit E. Transcripts from August 17 & 20, 2009

Exhibit F. JURISDICTION

Exhibit G. The Story

Exhibit H. Case 648 F2d 1264 Beard v. G Udall: Summary judgment in civil rights brought

under 42 USC Sec. 1983 affirm

Page 11 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
International incident under U.P.U.
Universal Postal Union-Berne, Switzerland
RC 013 154 751 US

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE____________________________
On this the 8th day of January , 2010, a true and correct copy was personally delivered to the
Clerk of the Court and opposing counsel by hand delivery by MICHAEL ROEMER

All rights Reserved

Page 12 of 12
GLOBAL DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION