• Moffatt Media America's Taxpayer Watchdog News

Author: Admin

Disbar Alvin Bragg New York District Attorney Prosecutor for Targeting Former President

  By , , ,

Alvin Bragg Jr., District Attorney (Prosecutor), on the job one-year, targets Former President Donald Trump, is so un-American.  Should Bragg  be DISBARRED? 

One has to ask, why would anyone allow Rookie Bragg to pursue former President Trump?  Because he (Bragg) is indispensable and other smart tenured staff in the Manhattan DA’s Office do not wish to jeopardize their own Retirement Plans and livelihoods. 

But did you know that between 2018 & 2020 the Federal government under the Trump administration fed the State of New York with $41.4 Million?  

 And did you know that the Federal government then fed the State of New York with another $3.2 Million in the year 2022?   

The Federal government fed the State of New York, multiple millions of dollars ($45 Mil) in years 2018-2022 for Voting Cyber Security enhancements and “Remediation.”  Does the State of New York not realize the saying:  “Never bite the hand that feeds you.” 

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION

Is the State of New York suffering from memory lapse, that from 2018 through 2020 Former President Trump and his Administration, has fed New York with multiple millions of dollars for Voting Cyber Security enhancements (improvements)?  

Public Interest Parting Question: Should the Federal government request a refund of the ($45 Mil), Sanction and investigate Voting Irregularities, in the 2021 Manhattan District Attorney General Election?  

Bragg won his DA (Prosecutor) seat on November 2 2021 at: 83.2% and took office January 1, 2022.  During the General Election, one opponent only garnered 16.7%.   Something seems suspicious with this District Attorney Election on its surface. 

Maybe The Project 65 should look at filing a lawyer licensing complaint against Bragg, to have him DISBARRED, for maybe exceeding his scope of employment, job duties and job functions by targeting Former President Trump, on a subject matter of 2016, past the statute of limitations. 

Shameful justice State of New York, in condoning  Alvin Bragg’s illegal targeting Former President Trump.   The same man, former President Trump and his administration, who has helped feed your state.   

“Moffatt Media,” waits for the unsealed purported Indictment against former President Trump! 

###

Dismantle the State Bar of Arizona – “Suspend” Supreme Court Rule 32

  By , ,

“Moffatt Media,” supports in part to Dismantle the State Bar of Arizona under Senate Bill 1435 (SB 1435).   “Moffatt Media,” also recommends that (SB 1435), be in Tribute to Lisa Aubuchon, Rachel Alexander & Andrew Thomas … because they have been constitutionally impacted by the Supreme Court of Arizona and private nonprofit corporation Arizona Bar.   

Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas were retaliated against for doing the right thing to investigate Maricopa County Arizona (Phoenix), $340 Mil (South Court Tower), Courthouse, that should have not escaped Voter Approval.  

“Moffatt Media,” supports (SB1435) in pertinent part at: Section 7, 12-119.06 “Attorney Licensing Requirements  … The supreme court may not require an attorney to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in this state.”  Bold for emphasis. 

Conflicts:  The Supreme Court mandates that attorneys become Members within the State Bar of Arizona, conflicts because:   (1) Arizona is a “Right to Work State.” See Arizona Constitution Article XXV (25) Section 0 and (2) In Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), landmark case of the  United States Supreme Court, recognized mandatory union dues violated constitutional First Amendment right to free speech.   

Supreme Court Rule 32(1): “Practice of law. Every person licensed by this Court to engage in the practice of law must be a member of the State Bar of Arizona in accordance with these rules.”

Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1) mandatory membership is unconstitutional and illegal and must be Suspended inclusive in (SB 1435). 

Yet to this present date, the ​Supreme Court of Arizona continues to give in Don Bongino fashion, a “double barrel middle finger” towards the Arizona Legislatures, by refusing to reform, restore and implement First Amendment Protections.  

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Any continued refusal by the Supreme Court of Arizona,  NOT to reform, restore, implement and uphold State and Federal First Amendment constitutional laws, that apply to all people, including Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas and other Arizona Lawyers, then it’s time to call upon the Federal Government for intervention.  

Any continued refusal by the Supreme Court of Arizona,  NOT to Suspend Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1) Mandatory Membership, then legislatures must move for Articles of Impeachment against Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona for: public corruption, incompetency, neglect of duty while in their capacity as Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona.  Remember no one is above the law including Judges-Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court. 

Any continued failure to remove Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1), Mandatory Membership, in light of the Supreme Court case in  Janus v. AFSCME, is a “systemic structural implosion,” regulating attorneys. Continued failures by the Arizona Supreme Court not to uphold constitutional protections, the Federal Funds issued to the State of Arizona, should be Sanctioned for constitutional violations, along with disgorging Supreme Court Justices salaries.  

Since turning a blind eye to constitutional violations have adversely impacted ALL THREE: Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas … is illegal,  unconstitutional and needs immediate ratification into (SB 1435).  Extending legislative language into (SB 1435), would not be a difficult process to supplement.  

(SB 1435) should also be amended to state that Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas’ convictions were illegal, unconstitutional and subsequently null and void, under  Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1), mandatory membership.

Conclusive findings do exist with good cause to Reinstate All Three:  Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas …  it’s time! 

For all the foregoing reasons stated above “Moffatt Media,” supports (SB1435) in pertinent  part, that: “The supreme court may not require an attorney to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in this state.”  …

###

 

Arizona Supreme Court make your Wrong a Right

  By ,

Arizona Supreme Court: Your Wrong, time to make Right.  Remove the Excessive Sanction against Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon, Andrew Thomas and Reinstate their Arizona Attorneys license it’s time!

Findings reveal the Arizona Supreme Court has weaponized and imposed a $101,292.75 sanctioned against Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon and Andrew Thomas. The sanction was imposed under Supreme Court Rule 60(b).  

Moffatt Media urges reversal of the $101k+ sanction (fine), because it violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution related to “excessive fines,” among other issues.

Surprisingly the Supreme Court’s weaponization began by abusing its power with creating and also imposing administrative Supreme Court Rule 51, de facto law.  

Rule 51 intentionally created another Supreme Court Judge-Justice Seat in conflict with Arizona’s Constitution for Judicial Appointments.  Remember Courts don’t create laws, they interpret and decide laws!

More importantly, Supreme Court Rule 51,  has NEVER  been approved by ANY Arizona Governor, Arizona Legislators nor adopted into law.  Rule 51 continues to be weaponized against Alexander, Aubuchon, Thomas, Arizona Lawyers and other persons.

Essentially the Supreme Court of  Arizona has committed Prosecutorial Misconduct, by inducing Rule 51 weaponization schemes in the form of  “Canceling Out,” First Amendment Protections against All3: (Alexander, Aubuchon & Thomas).  …

Keeping in mind, no state including Arizona, can modify the Bill of Rights First Amendment Constitutional Protections without Two-Thirds Members of Congress or Two-Thirds Arizona Legislatures.  

But the Arizona Judiciary Legislatures did attempt to do the right thing and recommended that the A​rizona Supreme Court ​implement First Amendment Protections.   

However, the ​Supreme Court of Arizona continues to give a “double barrel middle finger” to the Arizona Judiciary Legislatures, by refusing to implement (restore)  First Amendment Protections. 

The failure by the Supreme Court of Arizona not to uphold and (restore) First Amendment Protections does in fact have a chilling adverse impact on Free Speech.

Consequently, maybe it’s time the Federal Government intervenes and impose Sanctions on the State of ​Arizona and ​the State Supreme Court of Arizona, for intentionally removing First Amendment Protections against All3: Alexander, Aubuchon & Thomas … 

“No matter what defense motions we submitted, no matter what evidence we submitted each and every single piece of defense evidence and discovery offered, were all “DENIED” by the Court.” ~ Rachel Alexander 

Moffatt Media’s Recommendation: 

The Supreme Court’s excessive Sanctions against Alexander Aubuchon Thomas masked as: Costs and Expenses should be removed, because they did the right thing to investigate Maricopa County Arizona (Phoenix), $340 Mil (South Court Tower), Courthouse, that should have not escaped Voter Approval. 

###

JUDGE MARCELO ADRIAN D’ASERO NOT REAL JUDGE

  By ,

The attached document speaks for itself that Marcelo Adrian D’Asero is “NOT” a Real Judge. 

Additionally, D’Asero was not licensed with the State Bar of California, at the time of filing attached document.  

Objection and Removal of D’Asero granted:  SUPERIOR CT LOS ANGELES COUNTY DASERO NOT A REAL JUDGE OBJECTION AND REMOVAL

Unauthorized Practice of Law by Public Corporation State Bar of California against John Eastman Attorney

  By ,

Did you know the State Bar of California is a non-governmental organization (NGO) “Public Corporation?”

Pursuant to the California Constitution Article 6 Section 9, which  reads in pertinent part: “[t]he State Bar of California is a Public Corporation,” enacted (57 years ago), 1966.  (Sec. 9 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess.).

California Bar Seeks to Revoke Trump Adviser John Eastman’s Law License by Jan Wolfe – Licensing body says former law professor’s efforts to overturn 2020 election make him unfit to practice law says The Wall Street Journal

Yes, The Wall Street Journal sometimes gets it wrong, such as stating the California Bar is a “Licensing body.” But nowhere in the California Constitution does it mention that the California Bar is an attorney licensing agency.

California Attorney Licenses are only issued by the State Supreme Court of California.

True California Attorneys are mandated to become Members of the private union Public Corporation State Bar of California and required to pay annual “Membership Dues:” $515.00 (2022-2023).

Did you know the State Bar of California has NOT been delegated STATE POLICE PROSECUTORIAL POWERS?  Only the County District Attorney’s Office usually conducts investigations to criminally charge people.  Not a “Public Corporation.” 

Therefore the State Bar of California is committing an act of Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), against Eastman.  “This Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.”

“The State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona announced … the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) against attorney John Eastman (State Bar No. 193726). The 11 charges arise from allegations that Eastman engaged in a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states.   The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) intends to seek Eastman’s disbarment before the State Bar Court.”  Why two years later?

When in fact, the “State Bar of California has taken no action against Ganong.” … “In fact, he bragged about his good standing with the bar as a defense to the media.”…

$22 Million Health Care Fraud: The Superior Court of California County of Orange District Attorney’s Office Indicted Philip Ganong on 94 Felony Count Criminal Complaint, Case #17CF1243.  Ganong, Bar #88414, alleged $22 Million Health Care Fraud against multiple insurance companies.

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION 

WHETHER  the State Bar of California,  has committed  Prosecutorial Misconduct, against Eastman?

Consequently, California Bar you’re now exposed and no longer permitted to conceal from the public your legendary myth inferring to be a licensing body when in fact only a mere “Public Corporation.”

Given that, the State Supreme Court of California nor the State of California can delegate prosecutorial or judicial powers to ANY “Public Corporation,” because “judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.”

State Bar you’re not even a Court of Record, but claiming another legendary myth to be a Court, State Bar Court.  Furthermore, “[t]his Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.   See  Department of Transportation v Association of American Railroads 575 U.S 43 2015 Amtrak

Thus, an abhorrent appearance of “Conflict of Interest” exists between the State Supreme Court of California and the State Bar of California.   The “Conflict of Interest” is problematic because it violates Constitutional Separation of Powers. 

A conflict of interest scheme causes the Supreme Court to run afoul of the Separation of Powers, with (NGO), Public Corporation State Bar of California against Eastman.

Reminder, the State Supreme Court of California, was the only licensing agency that issued  Eastman his license to practice law on 12/15/1997.

###

Reinstate ALL3​ Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon – Andrew Thomas

  By ,
​“David Stringer arrested in 1983 paying teens for sex.” …  says KTAR NEWS.
     Since Baltimore ​Child Pedophile (David Stringer) is able to  retain​​ his Arizona Lawyer’s license, surely there is no reason NOT to REINSTATE ALL3:  Rachel Alexander, Lisa  Aubuchon & Andrew Thomas​, just to name a few.
​

    Arizona remove the excessive cruel and unusual $101,000.00 illegal Sanction (Fine) imposed against All3 and REINSTATE All3: Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon and Andrew Thomas Lawyer’s License. Recommendation by Moffatt Media.

###

Prosecutor Switched Sides

  By , ,

A United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Prosecutor felt so guilty about how Defendant was treated, that the Prosecutor decided to switch sides, to represent Defendant instead of the Government

Have you ever heard of a Prosecutor switching sides to then defend an alleged Defendant just before Trial?

“Moffatt Media,” has expanded its investigative skills into an Innocence project case.

First time ever, for Moffatt Media’s Eyes to have Witnessed a Prosecutor switch sides to defend an alleged Defendant.

_____

In my 20 years as an attorney I have NEVER seen a situation where the Prosecutor (Plaintiff’s Attorney) for the United States of America government now becomes Defendants Counsel.

Defense counsel then becomes Plaintiff’s Counsel for the United States of America, said alleged Defendant.

“Since the Prosecutor is now my Counsel, can you have my new counsel call me?”

If my new attorney aka former Prosecutor does not proceed with a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, will you put forth an effort for dismissal?”

The Transcript declares in part “True and Correct Transcript,” of the reported proceedings held, 9/1/2022.  Defendant argues it is impossible that the Transcript is: “True and Correct.” because the Prosecutor’s Appearance indicates to have switched sides.   The Prosecutor is now my defense counsel, says Defendant.

Above is not done in satire.   Moffatt Media’s eyes did witness where the Court Reporter flipped Prosecutor to represent Defendant, in a Transcript.

In a separate unrelated issue, an Amicus Brief filed by The Onion, actually made its way into the United States Supreme Court, was based on Satire.   Click on highlighted area above for Source Link.

The Onion’s Satire Amicus Brief, and errors found in an actual Federal U.S. District Court Central District Transcript covered by “Moffatt Media,” makes you see comedy at work in Federal criminal cases.

###

2022 Federal Funding issued to States for Election Securities Enhancements

  By ,

 

Short Article

(2022) State-by-State Federal Funds awarded in (2022) to States $75,000,000.00 (seventy-five-million dollars).

“Purpose and Use of Funds. The purpose of the narrative statement and corresponding budget is to provide U.S. citizens, Congress, the EAC and other election stakeholders with information about how your state will use these funds to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements.” …”upgrade election-related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through [Department of Homeland Security],” …  says EAC.

To view the complete list of States that received (2022) Election Security Enhancement Funds, to prevent cyber vulnerabilities … click on the highlighted areas above for Source Links.   

###

 

Katie Hobbs Arizona Secretary of State Concealed 2020 Election Document

  By ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OPINION – “ARIZONA  ELECTION NEWS” 

Moffatt Media, Palmdale, California

By Star Moffatt, CEO and Gordon Wiborg, Chief of Police (Ret.) Captain, Armor, US Army (Ret.) – Disabled Veteran

Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary’s concealed document dated Jan 30 2020 AZ Funding Request Letter AND Received $8.3 Mil from Fed EAC-1 .  This document speaks for itself of (2020) Arizona Election Security Irregularities.

Did you know that in January 2020, just two months prior to the Arizona 2020 Primary Election, Hobbs requested $8.3 Million from the Federal government, for the benefit of 2020 Arizona “Election Securities?”

Hobbs herself could have prevented the massive physical election audits by disclosing, that she identified Election Security problems.   Because Hobbs requested $8.3 Million from the Federal government and specifically the Federal Funding agency: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, (EAC).

(2020) “Program Narrative by: Katie Hobbs Secretary of State – Grant Funding Information – Amount of Award $8,362,741;  Matching Funds Commitment $1,672,548 … Cyber Vulnerabilities.” …  HAVA to mean: “Help America Vote Act  (HAVA) of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress to make sweeping reforms to the nation’s voting process.” …

Hobbs also justified $8.3 Million for Voter Registration System Upgrades,” and “security fortification at state and local levels.” …

But Hobbs said that the actual physical audit was a “political stunt,” according to the Washington Examiner.

(2020) Public Election Deception schemes was Hobbs own concealment by requesting (2020) $8.3 Million from the Federal Government.

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION:

How many 2020 Arizona Voters have been disenfranchised because Hobbs concealed actual Election Security problems? 

Hobbs herself could have prevented the prior massive physical election audits by disclosing that she identified Election Security issues. See also FED FINANCIAL REPORT FROM 2018 THROUGH 2023 ON $7M

Contrary to her claims of transparency, now being revealed to the Arizonians and public, is Katie Hobbs, Secretary of State’s own January 30, 2020, election document, which she had intentionally concealed from the public.

Voting Security Election Irregularities, if didn’t exist within Arizona, then there would have NOT  been a need for Hobbs to request $8.3 Mil in (2020), from the Federal Government Election Assistance Commission!

 

###

Jeff Fortenberry’s Criminal Conviction scheduled to be overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals California

  By ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(“Prosecutor News”)

Moffatt Media, Palmdale, California

Indictment was filed on October 19, 2021, against Fortenberry, Former Nebraska Congressman.  The Indictment filed by Tracy Wilkison, United States Acting Attorney General (“Prosecutor”), was invalid.  Because Wilkison’s  TERM EXPIRED, under the Vacancy Reform Act of 1998.

There also existed an impossibility in Wilkison filling the shoes within the United States Attorney General’s position because she had NOT received a Presidential Nomination from President Biden,  pursuant to 5 U.S. Code §3345.   Wilkison was also not Senate confirmed.

Wilkison did NOT even receive ANY Nomination by Donald Trump, Former President to fulfill the United States Attorney General shoes for Central District.

Recent 10 28 2022 9TH CIR CT APPEAL FILED BY FORTENBERRY  within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is likely to be granted for improper Venue and problems with Jury Instructions.    

Along with granting Fortenberry’s appeal following an “unprecedented prosecution in which the Department of Justice hauled a sitting member of Congress across the country to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction on charges of making false statements more than a thousand miles away.”

The appeal cites two key reasons for the conviction to be overturned: improper venue for the case, with the allegedly false statements being made in Nebraska and Washington, D.C.,  Charges filed in California and inadequate jury instructions that failed to appropriately define a key element of the charge; and the materiality of Fortenberry’s statements.

The case against  Fortenberry never should have been brought in the first place.   Criminal charges should have not resulted in California or a conviction, said Glen Summers.   Summers, a leading member of Fortenberry’s legal team and partner with Bartlit Beck LLP.  “This appeal calls on the Ninth Circuit to vacate these convictions to protect Fortenberry and other Americans from having their Constitutional rights trampled.”

FBI agents knew Jeff Fortenberry had no knowledge of illegal contributions to his campaign from a 2016 fundraiser. So, they directed an informant to call him years later and make a few comments in a roughly 10-minute phone call suggesting that people might have made improper contributions at the event.

Nine months later, the very same FBI agent who orchestrated the setup call went to the Congressman’s home in Nebraska and used a “ruse” that he was conducting a background check with a national security aspect to convince the Congressman to speak with him.

Even though the Congressman told the FBI agent about the comments from the informant, both at the first conversation and again in a subsequent interview in Washington, D.C., prosecutors indicted the Congressman for allegedly making false statements to them when he failed to recall some details of the nearly year-old conversation and explained that he was not “aware” of any illegal contributions to his campaign.

Prosecutors with the Department of Justice (DOJ) charged Congressman Fortenberry in Los Angeles. 

(DOJ) Prosecutors required Fortenerry to stand trial in Los Angeles, California Central District United States Federal Court.  Even though the alleged false statements were made at interviews conducted in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Washington, D.C.  Fortenberry asserts on appeal that subjecting him to prosecution in Los Angeles was contrary to law.  Subjecting Fortenberry within the wrong Venue (Jurisdiction) and requires that the conviction be set aside.

In Fortenberry’s appeal brief, the conviction should also be set aside.  Because the trial judge gave the jury instructions that inadequately defined critical elements of materiality.  Lacking elements then allowed the jury to convict Fortenberry.   Even though the alleged false statements could not possibly have had any impact or injury on the government.

For a statement to be material, eligible for a false statements charge,  such law requires it to influence governmental decision.

Fortenberry’s statements were not material to the government’s investigation.  Since prosecutors already knew from their own investigation, that Fortenberry had no knowledge of the illegal contributions to his campaign.

Jury Instructions Why Important “Voice Removed” Lawyer Connie Reguli, Listen

###