Public Interest Concern: PUBLIC CORPORATION having a corporate name: The State Bar of California (SBC) has illegally investigated, charged and prosecuted Trump Adviser John Eastman. (SBC) proceedings against Eastman have been done before an unconstitutional illegal Court.
Eastman has been Illegally investigated, charged (administratively) and prosecuted by “CORPORATION,” State Bar of California, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO) “Public Corporation?”
The proceedings before (SBC) are illegal and administrative proceedings only against Eastman, because (SBC) is NOT a real court of law. The administrative proceedings are done by (SBC), which does NOT have to uphold State or Federal Constitutional laws that protect Eastman and other California Lawyer’s.
The California Constitution admits that the State Bar of California is only a public corporation. See California Constitution Article 6 Section 9, which reads in pertinent part: “[t]he State Bar of California is a Public Corporation.” …
Do 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.”
“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.”
There have NOT been ANY amendments to the California Constitution to allow the public corporation State Bar of California (SBC) to receive prosecutorial or court powers to be recognized as an official “Court of Record,” or a prosecutorial agency similar to a District Attorney’s Office.
Shame on the State Supreme Court of California for going rogue in delegating your court powers to CORPORATION: The State Bar of California (SBC) .
It’s time to take back your wrongfully delegated regulatory powers to CORPORATION (SBC) and retain both jurisdiction and regulatory powers over California Lawyer’s. Failure by the State Supreme Court of California to take back wrongfully delegating powers outside of the California Constitution will continue to cause imminent public safety dangers to both consumers and California Lawyer’s.
PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION
WHETHER the State Bar of California, has committed Prosecutorial Misconduct, against Eastman?
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.”
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.”
“[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.
Eastman’s own attorneys will NOT challenge the abhorrent constitutional conflict of interest in violation with Separation of Powers, between the Supreme Court and State Bar of California, are they too will find themselves DISBARRED!
To this end, the State Supreme Court of California, was the only licensing government body that issued Eastman lawyer’s license to practice law and hang his lawyer’s license on his wall of fame for public viewing.
Sidebar:
The power of history is in telling the truth: California 2020 admits spent $134mil Voting Machines outdated beyond repair.
Note areas highlighted in “purple” click on to read: supportive documents or sources of references.
###
Prosecutor Dirty COP “Unclean Hands” Weaponizes Indictment schemes against Mark Ridley Thomas and other American Citizens.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Prosecutor (Dirty COP) Tracy Wilkison had “Unclean Hands” when she impaneled Grand Juries, filed (FAKE) criminal Indictments and targeted American Citizens:
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes “Life In Prison.” Sentencing August 28, 2023.
INDICTMENT: JEFF FORTENBERRY NEBRASA CONGRESSMAN GJ JUNE 2021
$30,000.00 alleged Foreign Campaign donation received in California. – Three counts of alleged False Statements to FBI agents. Federal Mandatory Minimum Statutes- Sentencing 15 years in prison. Convicted and Sentenced only two years probation with a $25,000 Fine. Fortenberry filed an Appeal, October 29, 2022.
9/3/2021 False and Illegal Arrest against Moffatt. Criminal Docket # cr 2:21-cr-00335-JAK-1
INDICTMENT: GRAND JURY CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AGAINST JEFF MOFFATT JUNE 2021
$30,000.00 SSA Disabled Attorney Fees Awarded, alleged Five Counts Wire Fraud and one Count False Statement to SSA. Series 1 Episode 1: Stay Tuned
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes – 105 years in prison. Trial Scheduled October 24, 2023.
Moffatt Media has conducted Case Studies on several purported Indictments filed against American Citizens.
Our Findings reveal that Tracy Wilkison, Prosecutor Dirty COP with “Unclean Hands” Weaponized Indictment schemes against American Citizens.
Unless one is legally trained in Constitutional Law applicable to: (Appointment Clauses and Separation of Powers …), such (FAKE) Indictment schemes induced by Wilkison, Prosecutor-Dirty COP, would have gone unnoticed.
(FAKE) Indictments against: Thomas, Fortenberry and Moffatt:
1). Wilkison was NOT constitutionally seated as a United States Attorney for the Central District of California, at the time when Wilkison filed the Indictments against all (3) American Citizens: Thomas, Fortenberry and Moffatt;
2). Wilkison did NOT even affix her own signature onto ANY of the (3) (FAKE) Indictments, to make the Indictments as legally binding criminal charging documents, against all (3) American Citizens listed above;
3). According to the United States Department of Justice, (DOJ), even admitted in a Freedom of Information Act Request response, that Wilkison, had NOT been Appointed as a United States Attorney for the Central District of California;
4). Wilkison when Impaneled Grand Juries and submitted the (FAKE) Indictments before the Court, against all (3) American Citizens listed above, Wilkison, had not received ANY Presidential inherent power “Nomination,” from Former President Trump or President Biden, as a United States Attorney and Wilkison had NOT been Senate Confirmed.
5). November 16, 2021, Merrick Garland, United States Attorney General, for DOJ, Appointed Tracy Wilkison as the Interim (Acting Officer) United States Attorney for the Central District of California.
Wilkison filled the vacant seat that was previously held by Nicola Hanna, United States Attorney – Central District. Hanna did receive a Presidential Nomination by Former President Trump and was Senate Confirmed, as a United States Attorney.
6). Wilkison even failed to indicate on the (FAKE) Indictments against all three (3) American Citizens: Thomas, Fortenberry and Moffatt, what Federal agency was her employer, having jurisdiction on the alleged Indictments; and
7). July 2022, Wilkison (RESIGNED) from the US DOJ and entirely from the Federal government sector. It is suspected that Wilkison’s resignation was prompted due to violating the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1988 (Vacancies Act). 5 U.S. Code Section 3348. …
Tracy Wilkison, Prosecutor who became a Dirty COP and committed acts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, developed schemes to undermine our criminal justice system.
Wilkison conspired and targeted American Citizens by filing (FAKE) fraudulent Indictments into the United States District Court – Central District of California.
Keeping in mind, not one of the above listed three (3) American Citizens have committed ANY violent offenses against the United States of America or violent offenses against ANY persons defined as victims.
Consequently, the Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes of One-Size-Fits-All, lopsided Federal laws, all three (3) American Citizens, are facing a two-tiered unequal justice system, that will significantly adversely impact their lives, with the loss of livelihoods, costly college degrees down the toilets, loss of life, liberty and freedoms on alleged non-violent offenses and (FAKE) Indictments, how UnAmerican.
Even all three (3) American Citizens, their families, friends and supporters’ lives they too will be shattered unless the (FAKE) INDICTMENTS are promptly investigated and summarily dismissed by the United States District Court – Central District of California, because Wilkison was NOT constitutionally seated, and committed illegal Indictment schemes not in accordance with Federal laws.
PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION
Did you know Federal District Court Judge’s hands are usually tied when Sentencing under Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes?
To this end, unless United We Stand against the Unconstitutional (FAKE) Fraudulent Indictments against all three (3) American Citizens, listed above, they will face unjust Court Lynchings, by the United States of America, based on Wilkison Prosecutor- Dirty COP, (FAKE) Indictments and Grand Jury Schemes.
Alert: You could be next facing a (FAKE) Indictment, because Weaponization against American Citizens does not discriminate!
Share this Real Talk- Real Fact Story, in front of three (3) persuadable people that you know, because it’s NOT about whether one is Republican or Democrat, it is about doing the right thing to expose unjust and lopsided Federal laws in America.
It is also about exposing Tracy Wilkison, United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Dirty COP, who has stained the fabric of good COP’s!
###
(Short Press Release)
Did you know that purported Judge Lee F. Jantzen is NOT constitutionally seated? Jantzen TERMED OUT 2019.
Decisions and Orders issued by Judge Jantzen in the matter of Abe Hamadeh’s Election Contest are INVALID.
Moffatt Media’s Findings reveal Jan Brewer, Governor in 2009 was the first and last governor to Appoint Jantzen.
Jantzen did win his judicial seat unopposed in years: 2010 and 2014.
But Decisions and Orders issued now by Jantzen in Abe Hamadeh’s Election Contest are NOT VALID. For these reasons should grant Hamadeh with a New Trial as requested and reassignment with a judge that is constitutionally seated.
Jantzen TERMED OUT means Jantzen is also operating from the bench on an expired “Loyalty Oath of Office.” TERMED OUT and without a valid Loyalty Oath Decisions and orders are completely void.
MAJOR PROBLEM
Attorney’s for Hamadeh more than likely will NOT raise the issue that purported Judge Jantzen is not constitutionally seated on the Mohave County Superior Court.
Even decisions and orders issued by Jantzen will probably NOT be constitutionally challenged as Void Ab Initio, because Attorney’s for Hamadeh, they too are defined as Court Officers.
Attorney’s also known as Court Officers especially in Arizona have lost their First Amendment Freedom of Speech Constitutional Protective Rights and if they advocate too much for their clients, will find themselves being disbarred, loss of their livelihoods and criminally charged sui generis by Union NGO Non-profit Corporation, that has been wrongfully delegated state prosecutorial and investigatory law enforcement powers.
SOLUTION
Arizonians supporting Hamadeh “Take Action Now” by submitting Demand Letters to the Arizona House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, to remove purported Judge Jantzen.
Along with Demand intervention by the Judiciary Committee to implement a New Trial for Hamadeh, since purported Judge Jantzen is illegally seated since 2019.
###
United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation Ordered before the Court on Freedom of Information Act request
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CLEVELAND, OHIO – FreeTonyViola.com announced that The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered oral arguments on Thursday, July 13 at 10 AM, following the submission of a legal brief by the Yale Law School Appellate Clinic in litigation concerning missing evidence, voice recordings made by Dawn Pasela.
Documents shifted from the US Attorney’s Office in Cleveland to a multi-jurisdictional Task Force location before criminal trials, Viola v. Department of Justice, et. al., case # 22-2186. The Court will live-stream these oral arguments on its YouTube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLSXp4JMYiFc7BHD_ln3d-w.
After the arguments, the audio will be posted at: https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings.
Tony Viola was tried twice on identical charges by a federally funded Mortgage Fraud Task Force on allegations he duped banks, including JP Morgan Chase, into making ‘no money down’ mortgage loans.
Following a conviction in federal court, Tony proved his innocence at a second trial in state court, on identical charges, prosecuted by the same prosecution team, using evidence prosecutors said didn’t exist, but that was given to Viola by the Task Force’s Office Manager, Dawn Pasela.
Ms. Pasela offered to testify about prosecutorial misconduct, but was found dead in her apartment shortly after her scheduled testimony, but no investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death has ever taken place.
This public records litigation was initiated in 2015 to obtain proof that federal prosecutors possessed exculpatory evidence before Viola’s first trial, shifted those materials to a federally funded and staffed Task Force location, then claimed that the government was not obligated to search for records it placed there.
During this litigation, both the Justice Department and the FBI each admitted making false statements about evidence and records, then asked the lower court to vacate earlier rulings in the government’s failure.
In 2022, Task Force Chairman Donald Cleland stated under oath that he directed Ms. Pasela to remove hard drives from the Task Force that contained evidence in over 1,000 criminal cases and later went missing.
Also, in 2022, the Justice Department blamed former federal prosecutor Mark Bennett for false statements about evidence. Bennett was fired by the Justice Department and is currently undergoing disbarment proceedings, Disciplinary Counsel v, Bennett, case number 2022-034; DOJ Inspector General Report Number 21-005.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, kindly contact: Attorney David Roth, 203.498.4394 | [email protected] www.law.yale.edu or Tony Viola, 330-998-3290 [email protected]
###
FreeTonyViola.com announced that, on the eve of Ohio Supreme Court disbarment proceedings against former federal Prosecutor Mark Bennett, a Rally for Justice will be held outside the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 27, 5-7 PM, 65 S Front St, Columbus, OH 43215.
In 2020, Mark Bennett was fired by the Justice Department for serious misconduct and criminal activities and is currently undergoing disbarment proceedings, Disciplinary Counsel v, Bennett, case number 2022-034; Department of Justice Inspector General Report Number 21-005, Ohio Supreme Court Case Number 2023-0471. A hearing about Bennett’s pending disbarment will be held the morning of June 28 and will be live streamed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Ohio Channel. …
In addition to the Inspector General Investigation, The FBI and Justice Department also blamed Mark Bennett for making material misrepresentations about evidence in the criminal case of Anthony Viola, Viola v. U.S. Department of Justice, et. al., 15-cv-242, WD Pa, document numbers 99 and 164. Viola was exonerated at a subsequent criminal trial but spent a decade in prison. Yale University Law School represents Anthony Viola in a case where Bennett concealed an affair between Assistant Ohio Attorney General Dan Kasaris and government witness Kathryn Clover, used Clover’s perjured testimony in criminal cases, and shifted exculpatory evidence before Viola’s first trial from the US Attorney’s Office to a multi-jurisdictional task force location, Viola v. Department of Justice, et. al., case number 22-2186, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. …
Tony Viola says what he hopes that others will learn from his website FreeTonyViola.com, is to shine a bright spotlight on the win at all costs’ tactics, prosecutorial overreach and misconduct the United States Department of Justice employs when prosecuting American citizens.
###
Connie Reguli has been exonerated in the alleged Felony Aggravated Perjury case, Docket#W-CR-220457, that was originally filed August 12, 2022, by Kim Helper, (Deceased) District Attorney General 19th Judicial District, State of Tennessee.
Stephens, Assistant District Attorney (Prosecutor) on June 14, 2023, did the right thing and has determined lack of evidence on the state’s part. The State of Tennessee moved for what is called: “Order of Nolle Prosequi” to mean – “the prosecutor will drop the criminal indictment,” against Reguli.
According to Reguli, the second arrest, as well as the first arrest has been an assault on my First Amendment Constitutional Protections … The second arrest criminal charge, “Aggravated Perjury,” was without providing a copy of the Grand Jury Indictment filed against me, says Reguli.
After the Motion for a New Trial was denied, Judge Woodruff was ready for his next offensive tactical move.
Judge Woodruff turned himself into an investigator after a public records hearing in April 2022, and secretly wrote a letter to an executive director of CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) at the time. Judge Woodruff said in the letter that Reguli had testified that she had paid an attorney fee sanction from a decade past, and he wanted to know if she was telling the truth.
Findings reveal the secret letter was not sent to Reguli nor was it filed with the Court Clerk. A few weeks later, CASA director Layton would sign an affidavit that she had reviewed the “regularly maintained business records” of CASA and there was no record of payment by Reguli. This affidavit, although written with the caption of the public records case, was not sent to Reguli, nor was it filed with the clerk.
August 8, 2022, just five days after the newly assigned judge in the criminal court case failed to incarcerate Reguli after a motion hearing, Judge Woodruff and District Attorney Kim Helper presented a brand new felony to the Williamson County Grand Jury. This time Reguli was charged with Aggravated Perjury, a new felony charge claiming that she falsely stated she had satisfied the prior sanction. The Grand Jury indicted Reguli on the affidavit of CASA director Layton.
Another new judge was appointed to hear this case. Reguli had the District Attorney Kim Helper disqualified and the Montgomery County (Clarksville) District Attorney’s office took the case.
This time Reguli issued a subpoena for CASA to produce all the regularly maintained business records reviewed by E. Layton along with records showing a request for payment, accounts receivable ledgers showing an outstanding balance, and policies on receiving mail. CASA hired an attorney to oppose the motion claiming that if there was record of that payment, Reguli would be in a better place to produce the record.
However, criminal defendants, such as Reguli, don’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is always on the State prosecutor to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The element that the State of Tennessee must prove is not, did Reguli make the payment, but did Reguli lie about making a payment. The State must prove a negative and cannot require Reguli to do anything.
Judge Morgan agreed with Reguli and explained that as he saw it, the affidavit of E. Layton made all of the business records that she reviewed relevant and met all of the other criteria of a discovery subpoena in a criminal case. The CASA attorney, Mike Stephens, said that he would have to locate Layton, who no longer works for CASA to find out what she reviewed. The State’s attorney, John Stephens, said that he was not limited to the witnesses listed on the indictment and may try to obtain other witnesses.
District Attorney John Stephens has struggled to make sense of his trial strategy being left with this impractical and impossible prosecution. In January of this year, he told Judge Morgan that he was going to subpoena ten years of Reguli’s bank records. That didn’t happen. In February, he then told Judge Morgan he was going to subpoena ten years of CASA’s bank records. His deadline for discovery disclosure is May 31, 2023. Reguli had not received any notice of a subpoena for bank records, nor has the district attorney produced them for review. His insurmountable task is to prove a negative.
The judge’s order directing CASA to produce the regularly maintained business records of CASA is a big win for Reguli as a criminal defendant and may shine a light on the ridiculousness of this indictment.
Now Reguli’s final big win on June 14, 2023, was to have the State fold due to lack of evidence and Stephens, Assistant District Attorney who did the right thing by dismissing the Indictment against Reguli, for lack of evidence.
Maybe it’s time for “Moffatt Media” to create a “Prosecutor Wall of Fame,” for those prosecutors who do the right thing!
###
Tribute and honor to Jerry Bryant O’Neil on this special day (May 10, 2023), of his 80th birthday.
In pop culture, cartoons and movies, superheroes do impossible things. Superman is an extra-terrestrial humanoid who has x-ray vision, can fly and crush steel. Batman is a human millionaire who uses his wealth and scientific expertise with technology to create phenomenal instruments, vehicles, and gadgets which permit him to do most of what Superman can do.
Hero, Jerry Bryant O’Neil, who turns 80 today is a man who has used the mechanics of the legal and political system to do things that are possible, but almost no one ever does them. Jerry is a superhero of the possible, in the greatest American tradition. As an advocate and counselor, Jerry’s independent, individualistic, middle-class American heroism embodies the aurea mediocritas, the golden mean. As a politician, Jerry served like the ancient Roman Senators Cicero and Cincinnatus, of the people and for the people.
During Jerry’s first divorce, and child custody struggle, Jerry was frustrated by lying, thieving, incompetent lawyers. So, without any legal education or training, without ever having worked for a lawyer, Jerry represented himself, prepared his own trial briefs and notebooks, called his own witnesses, some 40 years ago Jerry took on the attorneys for his estranged wife and the Roman Catholic Church in Idaho.
Jerry alleged that they had fractured his family and stolen his children by pretext of religious education and alienation of affections. Jerry won for himself and his children a million-dollar jury verdict on his own, and provided for his children’s education, not to mention gave them the invaluable gift of disciplined minds and intellectual freedom.
Ever since that first astounding victory, Jerry has worked to liberate law from the lawyers. The state-bar monopoly, known as “the integrated bar,” is the most anti-American, un-Republican, and anti-Democratic institutions regulating every aspect of first, fifth, and ninth amendment freedoms to speck, associate, and petition for due process and the reservation of rights and powers of the people.
Jerry O’Neil, although a blonde-haired blue-eyed mixed Germanic Irishman by blood and birth, had grown up with and among the Native American people, the Indians of Montana and first the Blackfeet and then the Salish and Kootenai tribes made him a tribal advocate and counselor. This is close to unheard of, and Jerry remains a member of the Black Feet Tribal Attorney Bar to this day.
And with this platform of accomplishments, in Y2K, the year 2000, Jerry was elected to the Montana Senate, where he served until 2008, after which time Jerry was “timed out” (the greatest argument against term limits I have ever known) and then served in the Montana House. Jerry won four elections and served the people of Montana, tirelessly fighting the Bar Monopoly and advocating for free competition of ideas and talent in the Courts.
Perhaps Jerry’s most significant and crowning achievement came in 2010 when the State of Montana Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (“COUPL”) attempted to prosecute him for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices by engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
The United States Federal Trade Commission intervened in 2009 on Jerry’s behalf and objected to the enforcement of illegal monopolistic laws against him, by attempting to restrict his advertising and involvement on behalf of ordinary people who couldn’t afford or didn’t want state-bar lawyers.
Then on April 20, 2010, the Supreme Court of Montana, in Case No. AF 09-0068, entered an order DISSOLVE THE COMMISSION ON THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW, on the exact grounds that Jerry had advocated and the FTC supported, namely that it was impossible constitutionally to define the practice of law and that it was beyond the power of the Supreme Court to forbid the unauthorized practice of that which it could not define.
The practice of law encompasses little less than ever aspect and the full range of modern human social and political life. Every event and transformation in our existence from birth to death today requires legal definition and has legal implications.
Within the context of the American Democratic-Republic, law is life. Jerry has dedicated his life to the concept that an elite profession should control the application, construction, and interpretation of law to every aspect of human experience.
We invite family members, friends and everyone who reads this to share Jerry’s 80 years of extraordinary societal achievements and celebrate his extraordinary mind with Moffatt Media today.
In Honor of Jerry Bryant O’Neil, let’s work together in tearing down attorney bars to freedom of association, freedom to petition, freedom to speak out, and above all to preserve all rights, without monopoly or exclusion, to the people. ~ Charles Edward Lincoln, III
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.
###
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
###
