1) This website is about how the Ninth Circuit and the Department of Justice employs Unlicensed Civilians to conduct criminal trials and issue judicial judgments so filled with unlawful acts the Licensed Active Attorneys and Judges refuse to touch them.

2) In the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit the Federal Judges have teamed up with the Department of Justice to set up a Conviction for Cash scheme. There they allow the Department of Justice to employ Unlicensed persons to conduct Criminal Trials filled with made up victims and charges the jury ever sees nor do they issued verdicts of convictions on.

3) After convictions are filed and the unsuspecting Defendant is sent to prison and if he appeals, the Ninth Circuit assigns these cases to a person they call a Circuit or Appellate Commissioner.

4) The first Ninth Circuit Appellate Commissioner appointed to this imaginary position in 1994 was Peter Lind Shaw. We say imaginary because there is no congressional statute allowing the creation of such a fictious position. The Ninth Circuit just made it up to hide decisions the real Justices refused to become involved in.

5) Shaw was selected to be the Commissioner because he was not an active member of the California Bar. Not being an active member of the California Bar allowed him to break rules active Attorney Bar Members must follow. In other words, it freed him from the rules which would have interfered with him proving assistance in the Convictions for Cash Scheme referenced above.

6) The Conviction for Cash Scheme required Shaw to violate California Criminal Laws while acting as a Commissioner for the Ninth Circuit. California Business and Professions Code Section 6125 makes the Judgments and decisions Shaw issued a misdemeanor criminal offense.

7) According to Ninth Circuit Records two cases came across the desks of Peter Shaw and later Chief Justice John Roberts and Kimberly Moore. Instead of stopping the Conviction for Cash scheme they condoned the actions by covering them up.

8) The cases are entitled 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).

9) In 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 Sewer 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 one set of charges and the Federal Judge and the Attorneys change the charges to another set of charges the Defendant never knows or sees.

10) Thereafter, the Federal District Judge secretly orders the Federal Clerk to enter verdicts in the charges Indicted by the Grand Jury although those charges were never seen or reviewed by the Jury. In other words, the Defendant never knows about or is served with the Unindicted Non-Grand Jury Charges reviewed by the Jury. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_service#cite_note-3)

11) To accomplish the above, the United States Department of Justice employs Unlicensed Civilians to pretend they are United States Attorneys.

12) These Unlicensed Civilians will do anything that the licensed Attorneys will not. The Department of Justice used an Unlicensed Civilian named Brett A. Sagel. He prosecuted the Cases entitled US vs Bennett and US vs Corona.

13) Both Cases eventually wound up in Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court and Justice Kimberly Moore Federal Circuit Court. There these two notable Justices allowed the Conviction for Cash scheme to continue by becoming coconspirators when they failed to do their jobs to stop them Judicially. In other words, they allowed the Department of Justice to continue to collect Restitution from innocent American Citizens supported by Convictions the Jury never made nor were aware of.

14) To ensure the Scheme is not sidetracked through an appeal, the Ninth Circuit hired their Unlicensed fixer and created a bogus position calling him an Appellate Commissioner.

15) Because we have found no such legal position we call it a bogus position. As a matter of fact the Federal Judiciary acknowledges that Circuit Courts once had authority to appoint a Commissioner: however, the position was restricted to appointing a District Court Commissioner and not a Circuit Court one. Even this appointment was outlawed completely in 1968 when the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, abolished the office of United States Commissioner and substituted for it the office of United States Magistrate. See--https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/court-officers-and-staff-commissioners

16) Even though no further authority allowed the position of a Commissioner this did not deter the Ninth Circuit when it created the position in 1994 and hired Peter Lind Shaw to fill it.

17) Peter Lind Shaw is also an Unlicensed Citizen. A more accurate description of Mr. Shaw’s credentials is he was licensed in California however he was never admitted to practice during his tenure as an Appellate Commissioner. In other words, Mr. Shall has served as an Appellate Commissioner for the Ninth Circuit since 1995 while he was an inactive licensee of the California State Bar (see exhibit 14). He has been practicing law in the Ninth Circuit and pretending to be a Circuit Justice ruling on and deciding judicial issues from 1995-2020. See exhibit 15 and exhibit 16.

18) As proof, exhibit 15 shows a three Justice Panel Ordered Bennetts Appeal to move forward; however, exhibit 16 shows Peter Shaw, pretending to be an Appellate Justice, sua sponte overrules; cancels the Ordered Appeal; and without any authority sends the Issue back to the lower District court.

19) Mind you, this is the same District Court where the Conviction for Cash Scheme is currently being undertaken. This is where the District Judge created the problem by allowing the Department of Justice to hire Unlicensed Brett Alan Sagel. Brett Alan Sagel is another person who the Judge and the Department of Justice allowed to practice law for over six years by holding Criminal Trials without a license.

20) Therefore, Shaw and Sagel were violating criminal California Business and Professions Code Sections 6125 and 6126. The Ninth Circuit held in US v. Clark, 195 F. 3d 446 (9th Cir. 1999) that Sections 6125 and 6126 are Criminal State Legislated Laws.

21) These Judges thereafter ordered Bennett to pay restitution to the Victims the Judges listed on the Conviction Judgments although the jury never reviewed nor issued verdicts therein. After the Conviction Judgments were filed and recorded, the Judges and the Department of Justice forced Bennett and others who would become victims of the Conviction for Cash Scheme 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 was not licensed until August 14, 2006. Therefore, Sagel was pretending to bea 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 Acquittal 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.

--Exhibit 12 is a bio of Federal Judge William Q Hayes. He hired the Unlicensed US Attorney Brett A. Sagel. Hayes was the head of the Southern District of California Criminal Division when he hired, trained, and allowed Sagel to conduct trials without a License. Hayes taught Mr. Sagel and others how to manipulate Grand Jury Indictments when he as Professor at Western State College/Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

--Exhibit 13 shows Chief Judge Cynthia A. Bashant also worked there and taught students the same methods.

--Exhibit 14 shows Peter Shaw has not been an Active Member of the California Bar since 1995.

--Exhibit 15 shows Bennett was granted an Appeal by a Three Judge Appellate Panel.

--Exhibit 16 shows Peter Shaw single handedly while posing as an Appellate Justice reverses the three judge Appellate Panel to send the Flipping of Indictment Issue back to the District where the fraud was created.

--Exhibit 17 shows the Personal Qualifications of James Bennett.

Below are the exhibits that support the above

EXHIBITS

• Exhibit 1--Brett Sagel practice
• Exhibit 2--Sagel Letter of 2006
• Exhibit 3--Trial Indictment
• Exhibit 4-Jury Gets Trial Indictment
• Exhibit 5-Verdict in the Second Superseding Indictment
• Exhibit 6-Judgment
• Exhibit 7-US said Restitution
• Exhibit 8-Kole admits Trial Indictment
• Exhibit 9-Transcripts
• Exhibit 10-LA Times Articles
• Exhibit 11-Rule 29
• Exhibit 12-William Q.Hayes
• Exhibit 13-Bashant Senate Confirmation Letter
• Exhibit 14-Shaw's License Printout
• Exhibit 15-Bennett's Appellate Appeal Approval
• Exhibit 16-Shaw's reveral of Bennett's Appellate Appeal Approval
• Exhibit 17-Personal Qualifications of James Bennett