1

14-2988
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

------------------------------------------------United States of America, Appellee

v.

John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants,

Fritz G. Blumenberg,
Defendant Appellant.

------------------------------------------------On Appeal from an evasive order by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York 01-cr-00571 (JGK)

------------------------------------------------Appellants OPPOSITON to Affirmation in support of Appellees

MOTION for Summary Affirmance, and CROSS-MOTION for
Summary Reversal, Vacatur of Indictments/Convictions, or, to not
expand Appellees briefing window farther than 30 days

-----------------------------Fritz G. Blumenberg, Appellant, Pro Se

Am Hempberg 2, 21224 Rosengarten GERMANY
+49-4108-590-535
[link ]

2
Introduction
There is a famous proverb that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat
it. This saying has great significance in a case like this which involves a prejudicial
overdose, official fraudulence, and chronic docket doctoring that resulted in massive
discrimination against two aliens who were unconstitutionally prejudiced, deprived of
liberty, branded felons and deported for no reason.
These official acts must be seen in light of unfortunate history of discrimination
against non-citizens and hyphenated-Americans (Pres. Roosevelt).
There is such a thing as due process of law! Associate Justice A. Scalia
reminded the Federal Judiciary on January 21, 2014. Lets see Appellees BRIEF.
Summary - Background
A first inspection of the AFFIRMATION [sic] reveals affirmants blaring [this
time] not untruthful avouchment on 2: 3. Indictment S1 01 cr. 571 (JGK) was
filed on February 14, 2002, in five counts. [Bolding, underline added].
An overt crack at circumnavigating candor and the true inaugural procedural [bill]
history, which, to date, was willfully, knowingly and consistently misrepresented at each
level and to each Circuit Panel in each of multiple appellate proceedings by Appellant
and by his remaining Co-Defendant Viertel.
The governments en-passant generic sounding, semi-official deceit was foul
and perpetual in a variety of text-versions - as follows: The Original Indictment
against Blumenberg, Lee and Viertel was filed on June 14, 2001.
Absolutely, positively falsified.

3
The sole true FILING of a [signed] INDICTMENT bill occurred June 19, 2001, and was
filed in absence of a SEAL. On that day, unsurprisingly, case 01 cr. 571 (JGK) was in
fact OPEN. JUDGE KOELTL assigned, vel non,1 by a rubberstamp.
The novel AFFIRMATION language (supra) is an approach by not echoing
under oath those calendaring lies told a few dozen times before it. Proctrix Cohens
strategy thus evolved into affirmative damage-control. Proctrix tries to ditch the 600
pound gorilla at bar.
It took a 5 day ruse to maliciously inculpate for expired innocent acts
The novel practice wont expunge old misrepresentations, but it very well coministers as intrinsic CONFIRMATION of the solid date-line position both alien
defendants sustain in that USAs pre-inaugural June 14, 2001 delusion was just that, an
artifice. Facts are that Grand Jurors had not voluntarily concurred to play fast and loose
with prosecutors supposition neither on June 14, 2001 nor during 4 ensuing days.
Through a blatant backdate-lie, the United States recklessly heaped disgrace upon
Grand Jurors, a clear demonstration of arrogance and disrespect for what is hyped as its
own citizens oversight powers. Henceforth, Grand Jurors must take notice that the
Federal Government must face Grand Juries they get, not those they wish to get!
This pro se Defendant-Appellant presented, however inartfully, these issues to the
District and the District went into instant denial straying beyond the edges of strict rules,
including Haines v. Kerner2s playbook judges must follow once a genuine verifiable or
1

In fact, learned clerks pointed out that this Judge was shopped by half (a CA2 issue in U.S.
v. Newman), and freely jumped NYSDs criminal wheel cloaked, clutching his gavel.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam)
(allegations of pro se complaint are held to less stringent standard than formal pleading
drafted by lawyers, when court considers a motion to dismiss).
2

4
jurisdictional claim appears to have been made, even out of procedure, out of order or
time, or recuse once a judge has weighty personal scienter for participating in the
derailment of the Constitution. This Appeal followed.
Highest professional standards are missing
The alteration in procedural history selections for proctrix AFFIRMATION
demonstrate aggressiveness, a culture of deception to stay a winner at all costs, and
reveals how much [undeserved] deference courts ensign for determinations that should be
more blindly analyzed and adjudicated. The DOJ requires federal prosecutors to
conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the highest professional standards when
they represent the U.S.: in 01 cr.571 they failed to uphold these standards.
USA after USA pushed the envelope, most likely enabled by Appellants noncombative defender having Appellant cooperate and plead guilty [A.713, more generic
than legally firm] despite what - at least on hindsight - seems to have been serious
questions of legal sufficiency, jurisdictional grounds and over intentionally fraudulent
professional misconduct.
Now that reservoir of respect hopefully shriveled to under nano-size. An
extraneous Magistrates un-sealing of a hoax [Br. 16] was less sorcery and more
villainous, till his own un-seal & lies collapsed last year [about the time NYSDs
Melanie L Lopez-ink-swindle popped].
Now time has arrived to capitulate, that even an unelected United States actor
cannot make proof un-microfilmed, stamps un-inked, FUGITIVES un-branded, or,

Br. Refers to Appellants BRIEF on APPEAL; and A. refers to Appellants Appendix

5
twist phantom Melanie L Lopez into Deputy Real McCoy sworn to sign Arrest
warrants void of a judicial Order.
Appellants Affidavit of Fact follows this OPPOSITION.
Argument
This is a timely4 submitted OPPOSITION5 to a frivolous 8-page
AFFIRMATION in lack of [DOJ mandated] necessity of authorization by the United
States Attorney for the SDNY [P. S. Bharara] for any legal Motion.
Appellants opposition rests upon three prongs, the first prong over procedural
objections, untimeliness et al; the second prong objecting to merit [or rather lack of
merit] the government posits and which must be deemed yet another quintessential
foul6 attempt in furtherance of a continuous cover-up of what official actors planned
and operated as an Enterprise of backdating and docket doctoring; the tertial prong being
a Cross-Motion [upon Appellees straight failure to timely file its calendared BRIEF by
04/15/2015, in lieu of a written local rule that would grant a self-reset of a BRIEFING
deadline grounded on [too slick of a] motion practice, and cross-moving for SUMMARY
REVERSAL of ORDER and CONVICTION, EXCULPATION and VACATUR
INDICTMENT[s] for good cause, or, in case the Panel rules to expand Appellees

On 04/17/2015 CA2-Case Manager A. Greenidge advised Appellant by email that an

OPPOSITION would be due for filing by 04/23/2015
4

(B) Request for affirmative relief. A response may include a motion for affirmative relief. The
time to respond to the new motion, and to reply to that response, are governed by Rule
27(a)(3)(A) and (a)(4). The title of the response must alert the court to the request for relief.
Anno 1935, when Justice Sutherland, in Berger v. U.S., held that prosecutors commit foul
strikes and are not licensed to lie nor promote lies of others
6

6
expired BRIEF deadline ex-post-facto, any such gifted time be less than 30 extra days, in
the interest of speedy justice vs. more wiggle room.
1. The First Prong.
a) Courts are prudently - loath to entertain late-filed motions for summary
disposition that abuse the judicial process or waste the courts resources.
For example, in United States v. Fortner [455 F.3d at 752,53,54], the 7th
Circuit warned litigants against using motions for summary disposition
We now explain why the government's litigation strategyfiling a
motion for summary affirmance days before its merits brief was dueis
problematic.7 "The strategy is this: instead of filing a brief on the due
date, the appellee files something else, such as a motion to dismiss. The
goal and often the effect is to obtain a self-help extension of time even
though the court would be unlikely to grant an extension if one were
requested openly."United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 980 (CA7
2005); see also Ramos v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 948, 949-50 (CA7 2004). As
we held in Lloyd and Ramos, a last-minute motion, if necessary, should
be filed along with a timely brief, not in place of it.8

b) With breathtaking audacity, the government sought to arrogate to itself

the right to terminate or to expand an uncomfortable process. Affirmant
Cohens pseudo DIY-Motion was not simply untimely but contravenes
[The practice is widely used; anecdotally, this is the second such motion this motions
panel has addressed (and denied) in a single week. (pulled from original for clarity)]
7

The CA7 subsequently clarified its position, limiting Fortner to "last-minute" summary

disposition motions, and not those that were filed "well before the appellant's brief was
due." Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807, 808 (CA7 2007).

7
Circuit law; see U.S. v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13, 14 n. 3(CA2 2010). The
AFFIRMATION was jotted down less than 8 days before the due date
of USAs merits BRIEF [DOC#409, now deemed expired upon no-good
cause]. The 11th-hour maneuver is unlikely to streamline this appeal but
rather to squander Circuit resources. The Motion AFFIRMATION
was an artifice to short-circuit appellate process, was not taken in good
faith and must fail if not because "lady doth protest too much,
methinks"10.
c)

Generally, panels must be satisfied to have thoroughly grasped all pro

se issues on Appeal arisen, inter alia, from the originating District
Motion and weigh [on an unbiased scale, blindly] whether merits existed
for its speedy denial below or suspicion of a second agenda appear
reasonable, like hinting at furtherance of cover up from felony backdate
violations to bogus non-seals of an pre-inaugural draft-bill.

d)

The law was colored with 2 superseders in pretense of relating back

to an originally valid conspiracy charge. Unlawful extra-conviction on a
bogus expired - 371 charge rigged to enhance, to over-incarcerate and
judicially counterfeit preponderance for expired pseudo conduct
[despite micro-economic insufficiency that Burda Media as a netwinner, not victim, of Appellants executive decisions could not
demonstrate and had no intent to falsely verify to the Courts Probation

10

40

SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee USA

United States of America Brief due date as 04/15/2015,
FILED.[1421728] [14-2988] [Entered: 01/22/2015 04:07 PM]

William Shakespeare 1602, Hamlet

8
PSR authors]. In lieu of that verifiable, bona-fide victim declaration
[there is none] the District sought reliance upon an extrinsic pseudo
RICO proceeding [97-7167 RWS now CA2 14-2815]. All that maybe
PAR for a District Court, but in a fair supervisory REVIEW and for the
public interest, it must dissolve.
e)

Appellant briefed timely by 01/14/2015 and, inter alia, submitted

questions of LAW, of FACT and of FIRST IMPRESSION, that require
full Appellee briefing, and an opportunity for Appellants REPLY. See,
Cascade Broad. Group, Ltd. v. FCC, 822 F.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. Cir.
1987) (summary disposition is appropriate only where the moving party
has carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that the record and the
motion papers comprise a basis adequate to allow the fullest
consideration necessary to a just determination).

f)

It has been established that a frivolous motion for summary

disposition, or one that is brought merely to cause delay or for another
improper purpose, will be looked upon with great disfavor and will do
nothing to serve the interests of justice, which should be of major
concern for the like-named Justice department moving on behalf of the
United States of America. [Fortner, supra at 754 denying the
governments motion for summary affirmance and chastising the
government for wast[ing] the resources of [the] court.]

g) Contrary to Appellees AFFIRMATION, Appellants instant APPEAL

is certainly not abandoned or frivolous, and this Court should not
deviate from its ordinary procedures for allowing full merits briefing.

9
U.S. v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13, 14 n.3 (CA2 2010) is on target in stating
"[T]he unique importance of criminal appeals makes the decision to
characterize one as frivolous particularly perilous," requiring "extreme
care" before "short-circuit[ing]" the appellate process.
h) Appellant submits, that the government failed on unclean hands and
must face consequences for its misconduct while its own affirmant is bar
of standing to move this Court in such manner.
2. The Second Prong.
A suitable, duly authorized USANYS MOTION for Summary affirmance
was not filed; DOC#50 [below] simply labels an 8-page AFFIRMATION
authored by a known revisionist [if not an ethically11 challenged] AUSA in
support of an [AWOL] motion we cant find. Snail-mail to Germany is not
considered HONEST SERVICE, and has not yet arrived.
From the entry12 below, it appears that a real MOTION was filed, but is not
available online. Hyperlink 50 is simply an AFFIRMATION in which the
government posits that Appellant lacks jurisdiction to reach out to the Second
Circuit because the bulk of defendant-appellant Fritz Blumenbergs claims is

It is unquestionable, however, that constitutional protections in the criminal context serve a

fundamentally different purpose than disciplinary proceedings in the ethical context. See, e.g.,
US v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110 (1976) (noting a distinction between the character of the evidence
and the character of the prosecutor).
11

12

04/08/2015

50

MOTION, for summary affirmance, for full 91-day period to prepare

and file brief on the merits if motion is denied, on behalf of Appellee
USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 04/08/2015 by 3rd
party, CM/ECF. [1480461] [14-2988]--[Edited 04/09/2015 by AG]
[Entered: 04/08/2015 05:09 PM]

10
arrogantly classified by the government as incongruent to unrelated issues denied
by the District Order dated 08/06/2015.
However, such incongruence between the Districts instant DENIAL and
Appellants issues raised below on 08/05/2015 in his pro-se-MOTION does not
exist13, and does not impugn appellate jurisdiction.
The governments effort to rig confusion is superficial since Appellant
also filed an Appendix; the original District Motion is on A.32. Appeal was taken
from an unsigned ORDER dated August 6, 2014 (A. 29, 30] and shuns many
duly presented and weighty and jurisdictional claims, also for the release of
pertinent [June 2001] Grand Jury records to fold open hidden cards14 covered by
the Confrontation clause.
A party has permission to raise jurisdiction at any time15, see (Br.11, ii))
Where jurisdiction is challenged it must be proved. Hagan vs. Lavine, 415 U.S.
528 (1974). If a District defaults thus moon-walks out with willful blindness to
steer clear of jurisdictional hurdles [presumed a protective move to hold onto his
own reputation and shield his accomplices at branch II and III] issues are not

13

Except for the IRS demand below: However, IRS Frankfurt is now in compliance with
Appellants SEIZE and DESIST demand dated 04/01/2012 after the issue was raised August
2014 below, and collection issues are currently moot, also since IRS failed to substantiate its
calculations and claim vs. BURDAs facts and my net income truthfully declared for 95/96.
14
15

The publics business ought to be public (Chief Judge DCCA)

US V. COTTON (01-687) 535 U.S. 625 (2002): Because subject-matter jurisdiction involves
a courts power to hear a case, it can never be forfeited or waived. Thus, defects require
correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court. See also: Without
jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the
law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing
the fact and dismissing the cause. (Exparte McCardle, 7 Wall.506,514 (1869)).

11
discharged, nor are they barred. The AUSA AFFIRMATION misses all points
and fails.

To wit:
i.)

Title of and NOA itself establish JURISISDICTION under 28

U.S.C. 1291 [Br. 6, A. 31] indicating principal causes on
Appeal, namely the evidentiary deceptiveness of a Districts
[Final] Denial Order appealed from (the date, whether 6th or 7th
August is of no import, the Order is in A.29-30). Thus, not only,
but DECEPTIVE ORDERS in a criminal case are, while subject to
reversal, often abuse of judicial discretion and thus a priori
appealable to a Circuit under FRAP, in particular over a question
if discretion can even exist without jurisdiction. The gist of this
Appeal is well grounded upon my original MOTION (A. 32)
denied in the District, but a Districts denial dicta is of no
consequence to appeal-ability, even if dicta missed or
unconscionable avoided targeted issues.

ii.)

Appellant maintains that the District had no 371 jurisdiction for

the only two overt acts it abusively convicted on twice, first the
Appellant and then co-defendant Viertel, Lee was exculpated.

Which are these genuine jurisdictional issues the District strives to avoid?

iii.)

Bagley materiality attributable to unlawful backdating of an

pseudo-sealed - INDICTMENT can no longer be in dispute, but,
to the contrary, weighs in as I.E.D. which would have, if duly
disclosed at once or prior to conviction would have resulted in full
dismissal of Count One, the Conspiracy charge and would/should

12
have unhinged the INDICTMENTs altogether, to fairly match
Lees nolle prosequi.[A.52-53]
iv.)

Government proctors cannot dispute that section 3282 governs

all counts. With respect to catch-all conspiracy offenses, the
government must allege and proof at least one overt act that
occurred within the statute of limitations, see United States
v.Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 72 (CA2 2005) (citing U.S. v. Ben Zvi,
242 F.3d 89,

97 (CA2 2001) statute of limitations depends on

timely overt act by either defendant or a co-conspirator. [Logic

might rarely find its way into cases, however, logically, culturally
and historically, [resident] alien Nationals of the EU16 cannot be
said to develop propinquity mens rea to willfully commit an
offense against the United States domestic mail delivery or wire
fraud regimes nor, under any conceivable scenario, would they
be physically positioned to join another alien overseas (Viertel
was in France) into common agreement to hurt domestic mail laws
with air-freight export activities. In the meantime it resolved that
all BURDA accounting transport to Germany was embargoed at
NY nullifying any version of a mail count.
Appellant was CEO of a profitable MEDIA CONTENT EXPORT business with 25+ EU clients
but no construable nexus to U.S. interstate domestic mail functionalities. This domestic
nexus was bogus and untenable for Appellant and safely unknown to Lee and Viertel and, as
the Indictments mail charge (A.65) demonstrates was deliberately falsified by USA Comey in
that air-freight shipments to Germany are never a domestic offense, and, as Burda certified, all
bookkeeper mail for June 1996 was embargoed to remain in the New York office for audit.
Jurors were not appraised that a gypsy livery van (APEX) has no status as an Interstate
Carrier to intelligently weigh the probability of the fourth criminal element in 1341. No
corporate (APEX) proof could be presented to the GJ, as Professor Henning stated in The
Changing Nature of the Mail Fraud Statute, 36 B.C.L. Rev. 435, 473-77(1995), see USAM/CRM
952, requiring proof of a gypsy messenger vans eligibility for interstate carrier status.
16

13
v.)

Fortunately now for Appellant (as for Mr. Viertel) both overt acts
charged for 17 June and 18 June 1996 were not only bogus and
innocent, they expired by the time the INDICTMENT was filed on
06/19/2001 see PACER headliner. Unfortunately for both that it
took 13 years to cut through malfeasance at the Courthouse.

vi.)

The 06/19/2001 #2 Docket Entry (A.34) text is strikingly bogus:

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)

vii.) Defendant-Appellant did not enter into a plea-agreement or waiver

[but, as turned out, was coerced into unknowingly, unintelligently
eat the (corrupted S2) INDICTMENT, rendered defective
because counts must relate back to a valid timely count and not
one more with a 5-days backdate fiction. A June 14, 2001
INDICTMENT does not exists, and a June 19, 2001 one that does
exit, once cleansed off its Count One irregularities, would by
without preponderance powers to overreach and overincarcerate on a time-barred Conspiracy charge.
viii.) Facts and argument presented to the District in the substantive
Motion under Appeal dispute much of what the government
falsely posited as DUE PROCESS.
3. The Tertial Prong.
Appellant cross-moves this Court for SUMMARY REVERSAL concurrent to
VACATUR of CONVICTIONS and of all four INDICTMENT[s], the ugly fake draft
and three unsealed corrupted ones that followed.

14
Summary Reversal may also be appropriate in extremely rare cases where
there has been a clear denial of constitutional rights without a reasoned decision from
the court below. 9th Cir. R. 3-6 (Summary reversal may be granted where an
intervening court decision or recent legislation requires reversal or vacation of the
judgment or order appealed from or a remand for additional proceedings.). Q.E.D.
If Domina Iustizia were truly blind, than every trespassing prosecutor must be in
constant fear of getting snagged and shackled or, Justice cannot be done. Anno Domini
MXMXXXV when Judge Sutherland, in Berger v. US, held that prosecutors are neither
licensed to lie nor to cause proxies to swindle on their behalves (see Magistrate HBP on
DOC#2 for a glaring example of such swindle) because such conduct is prohibited,
considered foul strikes and, as Appellant suggests, piled up huge societal debt the
United States must take responsibility and repay those who were violated by their actors
malicious conduct.
It is reasonable that GJ minutes shall be ordered opened for transparency (also in
view of another DOJ Injustice scandal this week) because letting DOJ/FBI getting
away with grand jury grandstanding and misconduct prejudicial to their targets results in
abuse of judicial process.
Now, the government affirmant request an alternative [ 8, FN 4]: In the event
that the motion is denied, the Government respectfully requests that it be afforded a full
91-day period to prepare and file its brief on the merits.
That is a non-sequitur; the government fails to explain why they would need to
double dip and research for another 91 days, if their appellate jurisdiction argument could
have been timely made in a merits brief. FRAP Local Rule 27.1 stands in the way:
(f) Motion to Extend the Time to File a Brief.

15
(1) Extraordinary Circumstance Required. Absent an extraordinary
circumstance, such as serious personal illness or death in counsel's immediate
family, the court will not grant a motion to extend the time to file a brief. A deadline
for a brief remains in effect unless the court orders otherwise.

Appellant profoundly objects that 90 squandered days could be rewarded with 91

more days and submits that the government be held accountable for its conduct and
disarray, and be granted a prolongment of no more than 30 days maximum, on the
condition that candor is forthcoming.
Conclusion
Those who swore the constitutional oath in the Courthouse fabricated evidence
they wish to have, tampered with jurors and dockets to ensnare aliens over foreign
conduct without a nexus to an identifiable New York victim and without measurable
intent to violate United States domestic laws or inflict pain upon the United States. The
RULE OF LAW they abated shriveled into an empty slide in Americas Absolute Power
Point presentation insulting the public.
The conclusion is that the government Motion was raised on fictitious and bad faith
grounds and must fail. No party, including the United States should be allowed to borrow
more undeserved time, thus, their proposal should be denied. Preet Bharara recently
noted that: It is unfair: it is offensive; it is unlawful; and it puts a black mark on the
entire enterprise. Lets coequally apply his words to this matter on Appeal.
Respectfully submitted on this 22 April 2015, Hamburg, Germany by email

Appellant, Cross-Movant, Defendant Fritz G Blumenberg /s/

Affidavit 16 follows, Service Certificate 22 Exhibit I 23 adjoined.

16

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
--------------------------------------------------------United States of America, Appellee
v.
John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants,
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant Appellant

Appellants Affidavit in
Support of Opposition to
Affirmation for Summary
Affirmance, or for 91 extra
days of underserved time

--------------------------------------------------------I, Fritz G. Blumenberg swear this Affidavit under Title 28 U.S.C. 1746 under
penalty of perjury without the United States in Hamburg, Germany and sayeth:
i) Up until about 09:30 A.M. on 06/19/2001, AUSAs and their Supervisors
[reporting to USA White], struggled to deliver CPR to what they labeled as
key conspiratorial overt acts on June 17 &18 1996. These two pseudo-acts
were fictional, illogically and untenable but somehow could be deemed
probable. These two rapidly expiring pseudo-acts17 were bread & butter for the
governments illicit prosecution, and required tolling at any price, no matter
the Constitutions Due Process Clause.
ii) The tolling could not be stopped. The acts of 17/18th June 1996 expired.
iii) A fiction over timely Grand Juror consent was created by USA.
iv) Contrary to myriad false government representations, consciously bogus
assertions, fake FUGITIVE labeling, tolling did not stop until the
INDICTMENT was filed on 06/19/2001.
17

In 03-1364 USA Kelley, AUSAs Cohen and Neiman put it as a clear misrepresentation to
Second Circuit, see at this link http://bit.ly/1yR0FZl

17
v) The United States resorted to bad faith CPR delivery on 06/14/2001 as a
result of Grand Jurors not rushing to conclusions on dicey probability and
because AUSA Mark Harris pushed his FBI witness-1 into a lie about a time
line of what became GX 501. Jurors instinctive reluctance to readily consent
Foreman Rehm is said to not recalling an advisory over two looming acts
expiry during a debriefing to a speedy conclusion just to avoid expiry of 5
year old overt pseudo-acts18 that the government spun for the jurors.
(Presider K steadfastly refused for 14 years to release June 2001 GJ
records, another point raised below and on instant Appeal for judicial bias an
abuse)
vi) The governments CPR procedures also featured an interstate back-upscenario for 06/15/2001, which, inter alia mensis rea, consisted of unlawfully
branding the 3 targets as FUGITIVE[s] (A. 49, 50, see Cross-Motion
Exhibit I 4,5 intra, for explanation), and interstate FBI transmission of three
fake arrest warrants plus an unsigned, un-returned, unfiled, unsealed
INDICTMENT draft, sent as bogus proof to several FBI residencies that day.
Arrogance has no limits.
vii) The government continues to pretend that the circumstances surrounding
Appellants false INDICTMENT backdate were legit. They were not. They
were Grandstanding, malicious dishonesty, lack of candor and not an act in
the public interest. Prosecutor after prosecutor gambled and gambled with
loaded dice, until their dice now melted.
viii) The USA misrepresented factoids as if a real INDICTMENT had been
returned by Grand Jury in the SDNY on 06/14/2001. In furtherance of their
18

Both fabricated acts (17/18th June 1996) were debunked as pseudo and untenable (A. 41)

18
official perchance un-American - ruse, three drafts A/Warrants were
counterfeit by AUSA Mark Harris, each contaminated with ink from a bogus
signature stamp19 (A. 42, FN7) [prosecutors had purloined earlier from Chief
Clerk J. Parkison20]. This issue is on instant Appeal under the Constitutions
Confrontation clause providing that a requested Warrant must be held for
post-arrest inspection and verification and may not be concealed by an
impartial District Judge who should according to ethic rules not have his
own dog in the fight. [Co-defs Viertels fake A/W was recovered from FLSD]
ix) On 06/19/2001 the USA galvanized Judge Pitman to forge their alibi [DOC#2]
x) June 19, 2001 was a straightforward inauguration day of o1 cr. 571.
xi) Furthermore, a legitimate Magistrate mj Case was not opened in the SDNY
against Affiant or Lee, Viertel. Case 01-cr-571 was OPENED on June 19,
2001, evidenced by PACERs uncorrupted Docket Record on undisputable
INDEX entry, facts the government can no longer controvert. Nota bene, that
the government thus far shunned to furnish a shred of stressable documentary
proof from the Districts or Magistrates certifiable Calendar, no tape nor
transcription, that they had entered, GJ-Foreman Rehm in tow, an OPEN
COURT room door on 06/14/2001, and fortuitously applied for FILING and
were either granted or not a SEAL in lieu of a duly SIGNED indictment
[Foremans & USA Whites ], because all they possessed up until 06/19/2001
19

Melanie L. Lopez was a phantom, a fiction not deputized to stamp Arrest Warrants on

June 15, 2001, see A. 42 FN7 for ink specimen

20

Who, upon information and belief, collected illusory signatures stamps of fictive clerks

as novelties for practical jokes.

19
was a blank draft proposal, a copy they had faxed around in vain and bad faith
in lieu of a real one. In fact, Appellant refers the Court to Exhibit 1 [intra21].
xii) On 06/19/2001 the firstever CASE v. Blumenberg [Affiant] was
inaugurated, opened and filed for its firstever time22 (A. 40) rendering
prosecutorial struggles to re-design tolling for not yet time-barred 371
jurisdiction, null and void, and, yes, ultra vires at absolutum.
xiii) On 06/19/2001 the government set up for backwards bogus docket entries
(A. 34) after the USAO elicited certified, albeit patently false judicial grade
testimony (Br. 16 see DOC#2) in which their robed witness prevaricated
about a 5-day earlier albeit fictitious- FILE & SEAL [A.34) he had
witnessed somehow, despite his absence from the Courthouse. (Affiants
Defender Phil Weinstein was ineffective in failing to review of DOC#2s
significance for my defense. Lee, instead, hired exquisite sharp-shooting
Esquires, Appellant and Viertel were handled ineffectively by what might as
well have been double agents. Weinstein to date refuses to whistle-blow over
this prima facie, more-than-leery judicial document accessible to him as
defender (but not scanned on Pacer), despite a heavily tortured false PACER
entry #2, SDNY clerk (jm) mis-phrased for what he should have known to be
highly dubious goodfellas, A.34 screenshot )
xiv) Affiant did not have a copy of DOC#2 until spring of 2014
xv)

John Lee (3) was more effectively lawyered-up by [akingumps] Richard

Zabel and obtained exculpatory nolle on the heels of his open threat to seek
21

In fact, Appellant refers the Panel to an email Exhibit 1 (with permission of author Viertel), in
which Viertel points out and underlines several issues raised.
22

Albeit purposefully designed to not upset their prior ruse - not in OPEN COURT but by
USA staffer deposit through SDNYs window to circumnavigate a conflict in the fake record the
government built with sophistication and brazen abuse of judicial process and Constitution.

20
Grand Jury Records in re dubious prosecutorial conduct before it (A. 52-53;
see Ex. I 3 screenshot from an akingump Benjamin/Zabel Motion).
xvi) Such Grand Juror records were the governments Achilles heel.
xvii) Hitherto, government actors, who sought to keep at least two badly lawyered
aliens on their crooked hook, employed atrocious force, boundless deception
and vast misrepresentations to avoid their detection. They arrogantly violated
the United States Constitution, Napue v. Il. (360 U.S. 264), Brady v. Md. (373
U.S: 83) and met the foulness-standard of Berger (295 U.S. 78), ad
infinitum.
xviii)

Limitless deceptions targeted every Circuit Panel in Appellants [and

Viertels] long history of prior cases in plain judicative disrespect, regrettably

resulting in re-affirmance over a blunt, undetected, overlooked falsity: On June
14, 2001, Indictment 01 Cr. 571 was filed charging defendants Blumenberg, Lee
and Viertel with one count of conspiracy was the governments routinized lie,
with disastrous results for both alien defendants, for their families, properties.
xix)

The federal governments gross disdain in 01cr.571 of a publicly hailed and

hyped Grand Jury System, a promotional ruse, as if, hypothetically, a Grand Jury
shields some targets from authoritarian overreach, is of mind-blowing dimension.
[but so was this weeks FBI Forensic scandal structured to deceive the bench]
xx)

This case is also of First Impression and shall serve the Circuit as an

opportunity to issue a stern democracy lesson by warning Jurors to never rush to

conclusions and be prudently suspicious of those who push for a rush and who
fabricate articulable suspicion for virtually every target [Ham-sandwich regime],
conduct, which in U.S. v. Blumenberg regrettably resulted in a decade of
catastrophic consequences, abuse of judicial process and textbook Due Process
violations.

21
xxi)

Finally, despite the wide temporal separation, a legitimate opportunity arose

to prove that a strained justice system can work in the end and that losers can
turn winners, when stacked cards are revealed.
k)

Appellant-Movant submits that the [Court] record is taken as judicial

appellate notice, that Case-01-cr-571 OPEN DATE was - just as PACER

INDEX shows - June 19, 2001 and that inaugural entries (A. 34, see docket text
DOC#1, DOC#2) were fake, and that they provide no reason to credit government
assertions and every reason to discredit them.
l)

The counterfactual scenario the government posits is genuinely baseless,

meritless and must be stricken. Appellants unlawful 07:00 A.M. arrest and
shackled transport over the George Washington Bridge from another district (NJ)
was without consent, and without a warrant, because a proper warrant could not lay
at that early hour on 06/19/2001.
Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.
Certified on this 22 April 2015 in Hamburg, Germany

Affiant, Fritz G Blumenberg /s/

22

Certificate of Service

Fritz G Blumenberg deposes and says that on this day he served copy of his Opposition
and Cross-Motion, his Affidavit and Exhibit I by PDF file upon:
Preetinder Sahib Bharara by email preet.bharara@usdoj.gov
Michael Levy by email michael.levy@usdoj.gov
Case Manager Anna Greenridge by email anna_greenidge@ca2.uscourts.gov
Movant Christian Viertel by email viertel2020@aol.com
And prosecases@ca2.uscourts.gov

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is correct.

April 22, 2015 Hamburg Germany

Appellant, Cross-Movant, Defendant Fritz G Blumenberg /s/

EXHIBIT I follows unnumbered (5 pages total)

Crying Wolf once too often, WHERE IS THE REAL MOTION ? I only ...

1 of 4

Subject: Crying Wolf once too o en, WHERE IS THE REAL MOTION ? I only have her arma"on.
From: "Prof.C Viertel" <viertel2020@aol.com>
Date: 22.04.2015 18:59
To: "Fritz G. Blumenberg" <fritzblu@aol.de>, funaro.juris@fondapio.org

Fritz,
I received Wednesday's USANYS "Hail Mary Affirmation"
without a MOTION. Apparently penned to - deja vue short-circuit (pun intended) due process with
procedural trickery.
"They" probably yearn to target another favorable
ex-prosecutor panel which could rubber stamp
the bejesus out of the RULE OF LAW and leaving the
cards stacked.
"We" have to hope for at least two honorable panelists
from the "Kozinski-School-Of-Justice"
who are unafraid of Preet Bharara's scorn.
1) Please remember that the Grand Juror Form AO 190
must be on record but has been kept from us
and our attorneys eyes. And this completed FORM will,
if not counterfeit, will demonstrate our
backdating charge once moreover.

22.04.2015 18:59

Crying Wolf once too often, WHERE IS THE REAL MOTION ? I only ...

2 of 4

2) During the last 5 weeks before John Lee was nolle

prossed [Br. 52-53] Richard Zabel,

Lees AkinGumpStraussHauer counsel (today he is
Deputy USA), cornered the prosecution to
either let Lee off the hook, or face more
embarrassment from the Grand
Juror minutes of conduct that the gov't could not
afford to be more candid about:

3) In 2006, when I filed - for the third time

- a seriatim demand
in the "OPEN COURT or NOT" issue, which was
intrinsically tied to Grand
Juror Foreman, below is the missive that
besieged due process, checks
and balances of justice.
Jurisdictional deficiencies are never waived,
and never waived
by badly lawyered-up aliens.
Here it seems " my fault and conjecture", but
Cohen failed to
simply submit the record of that "OPEN COURT"
22.04.2015 18:59

Crying Wolf once too often, WHERE IS THE REAL MOTION ? I only ...

3 of 4

claim and lets

see if it was factual, instead of smoke and
mirrors and lack
of candor and ethical conduct.

4) Promptly resulting in judicial evasiveness

DOC#174

5) and so much for the FUGITIVE RUSE.

Prejudice at its
BEST, alien-discrimination under color of
law.

22.04.2015 18:59

Crying Wolf once too often, WHERE IS THE REAL MOTION ? I only ...

4 of 4

Contact me if you have questions, you may use this

email & material
for your Opposition.
Best Christian
-----------------------Furchtlos verfat auf dem ERIKA-Feldpost-Tipper "Treuer
Pioneer"
- mein Apfel unter die Kartoffeln: Cryptology
EnigMa+Piu4*OKW

22.04.2015 18:59