THE STORY BELOW SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE UNTIL YOU READ EXHIBITS 9 - 11
This website is about how the Department of Justice employs Unlicensed Civilians to conduct trials so filled with unlawful acts the Licensed Attorney refuse to touch
them and how two of these cases came across the desk of Chief Justice John Roberts and Kimberly Moore and how they condoned this action. See: James D. Bennett vs United States,
127 S.Ct. 245 (2006) and Michael S. Carona vs United States of America, 132 S.Ct. 2102 (2012), and James Bennett vs United States,
Federal Circuit Case Number 24-1674. The Department of Justice and the Federal California Courts use a version of what is known as Sewer Service. Although Service is typically
used in Civil Cases the Federal Criminal Courts have found it useful. Sewer Service is a practice where Defendants are Indicted by the Grand Jury on a set of charges and the
Federal Judge and the Attorneys change the charges to a set of charges the Defendant never knows then secretly orders the Federal Clerk to enter verdicts in the charges Indicted by
the Grand Jury although those charges were never seen by the Jury. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_service#cite_note-3)
The United States Department of Justice employs Unlicensed Civilians to act as United States Attorneys. They do what the licensed Attorneys will not. They used such a person named Brett A. Sagel. He prosecuted the Cases entitled US vs Bennett and US vs Corona. Both these Cases eventually wound up in Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court and Justice Kimberly Moore Federal Circuit Court. There Roberts and Moore allowed the behavior by falling to rectify it. We see the behavior described below.
In the Central District of California the Federal Judges have team up with the Department of Justice to set up a Conviction for Cash scheme where they allow the Department of Justice to employ Unlicensed persons to conduct Criminal Trials filled with made up victims and charges that no jury ever seen nor issued verdicts of convictions. These Judges thereafter order the Defendant to pay restitution to the Victims the Judges list on the Conviction Judgments. After the Conviction Judgments are filed and recorded, the Judges and the Department of Justice force the Defendant to pay the Department of Justice the Restitution that the Conviction Judgments ordered to go to the fabricated Crime Victims.
Exhibit 1 shows a person named Brett A. Sagel practiced law at least since 2001.
Exhibit 2 shows in 2006 Mr. Sagel was pretending to be a US Attorney. The letter there shows a date April 21, 2006 but Mr. Sagel Bar printout shows he wasn’t licensed until August 14, 2006. Therefore, Sagel was pretending to be a US Attorney with the consent of the United States Department of Justice.
Exhibit 3 shows on December 15, 2005 Mr. Sagel; Judge Alice Marie Stotler; and Federal District Clerk Ellen Matheson discus replacing the Grand Jury Second Superseding Indictment with what they called the Trial Indictment.
Exhibit 4 shows Federal District Court Judge Alice Marie Stotler tells the Jury she was giving them the Non-Grand Jury Trial Indictment in place of the Grand Jury Second Superseding Indictment for deliberations.
Exhibit 5 shows after deliberations, Judge Stotler orders Federal Clerk Matheson to enter the jury verdicts in the Grand Jury Second Superseding Indictment the jury was never given nor did they ever see.
Exhibit 6 shows Judge Stotler Judgment and Sentence to prison. We see there is no mention of the United States being a victim to be paid Restitution.
Exhibit 7 show a letter from the United States Department of Justice where they attempt to force the Defendant to pay Restitution to them through the District Court claiming the Restitution was theirs.
Exhibit 8 shows excerpts of transcripts where Lawrence Kole, actually licensed as an attorney, admits the Jury did deliberate on the Trial Indictment that Judge Stotler never sentenced the Defendant on.
Exhibit 9 is the Sentencing Transcripts proving after being asked which set of charges the sentence was to rely on the Judge abruptly walks out of court.
Exhibit 10 shows this is a systemic problem in California.
Exhibit 11 is the proof of it all. It is a Pro Se Federal Criminal Rule 29 Acquital issued after Defendant caught the District Judge submitting non illegal Indicted charges to the jury and thereafter listing them in the Record as being true Verdicts in the Grand Jury Indictment she never submitted to the jury.
Below are the exhibits that support the above
EXHIBITS