USA v Harris Doc 326 Filed 19 Nov 13

8/13/2019 USA v Harris Doc 326 Filed 19 Nov 13

1/21

BenjaminF. StanleyPetitioner.

FILEDIN L E RK SO F R^^^-C. Atla

IN THEUNTIEDSTATESGOURTOFAPPEALSFor the EleventhCirctrj.tAtlantaDivisionI5 SI3

Ve

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,Respondent:.

By;JAME

C i v i lCaseNo.

)

RelatedCase1:09-CR-00406-TCB--JFK--2JURIS T TKmLFUrlNGS;OC^JSmTTTIOflSLp s i YI and xiv V I O I A T I O SAPPEALFRdVP60(b);APPEALFFCMMAGISTRATEOTJDGEANDJUDGEREPC5?TAND RSmyMETJDATION:ANDRELIEFIWM FIRALJUDOIEKT,

Thisinotionisf i l e dforrecxirdingby both the Appellate Courtandthe d i s t r i c tcourtdue to thei^ppellateCburt havingjurisdictionover theAppealofPetitioner'scomd-ction;Petitionerhavingf i l e da Federal Rule ofC i v i l Procedure 60(b)becausePetitioner'sattomev f a i l e dto incorporate thetnjefactsand true evidence of thecaseintotheArpellateBriefand thedisagresnentbetweenPetitionerand hi sCounse land theself-imposed.Remandby thed i s t r i c tcourt to respond t o the FederalRule ofC i v i lProcedure 60(b) intothecrimincil f i l e i n anatt^iptto thwart theeffectiven^sof sciid f i l i n g . Since both the Appellate Court and the d i s t r i c tcoiirtsimoltaneouBly adjudicatePetitioner'sproceedings, i t i salso correctforPetitionertof i l e thisrecordintoboth proceedings. Dualjurisdictionisappropriateso pro se f i l i n g scan be included n both court in accordance withAmendmentsI.,V,-V and XIV of theConstitutionof the United Statesbai^useofnew evidence in the form c fconfessionsto the crimes f orvrfiichPetitioner wascharged. The confessions to the crimes byGovernmentmtnessesandenplcyeesanomttoReversib-leErrorbece.usethey eliminate a manifestinjusticetoPetitioner. 28 USC1291 states:"The courts of appeals (other than theIftiitedStatesCourt of Appeals f or the FederalCircuit)shallhavejurisdi.ctionof appealsfrom a l l f i n a ldecisionsof thed i s t r i c tcourts of the United States,, the United

1

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 21


2/21

statesD i s t r i c tCourt f or tbeD i s t r i c tofthe CanalZone,theD i s t r i c tCourtofGuam,andthe D i s t r i c tCourtoftheVirginIslands,ex c ^ t vAiereadirectreviewmay be hadi n theSupre^ ie Court, lhejurisdictionoftheIgnitedStates CourtofAppealsfo r the FederalCircuit shallbeliiaitedtothe jurisdicticsndescribed i nsections1292(c)and(d)and 1295 ofthis t i t l e [28USCS1292(c)and(d)and12951.fJune25,1948,ch646,62stat929;Oct31,1951,ch655, 48,65Stat.726; July1 1958,P.L.85-508,12(e),72Stat.348;April2, 1982,P.L.97-164, T i t l eI, PartA,124,96Stat.36,)$hecourts createdthisdual j u r i s dictionbecausethenewevidence i ssoextra-ordijiaryfhat i t renders the B i l lofIndictn^tas anon-adjudicableb i l lagainstPetitioner.

PetitionerbasesthisjurisdictionalchallengetolackofresponsebytheprosecutingattomeytomatterssuhmittedbytheIfegistrateJudgeandlackofresponsetoPetitioner'sMotionssubn^ittedtotheD i s t r i c tCourtunderpenaltyof perjuryandthefailureofthe courttotimelymeetestablished deadlinescausing theSummaryJudgitenttoissue i n favorofPetitioner.

This i s submittedas aprof se fiJixigbecauseinspiteoftheoverwhelmingevidenceofPetitioner's ActualInnocense,,counselofrecord,:EbnSamuels- stil],has notaddedthetmefactsand newevidencetothecase.

Under AraendmentVI tothe ConstitutionoftheU6nitedStates, Petitionermustberepresentedbycompetentcounsel. Petitioner's counselor, to date,hasdisplayeda "standby"attitudev*iichequatestoPetitioner havingno one toprotect hisinterestorproper representation. Further,underthesame Amendment.. PetitionerhasaSubstantive Rightto knowtheTmeNatureandCauseoftheChcirgesagainsthimsothataneffectivedefensecanbepresented- Amendment VI

UnderAmendment VtctlieConstitutionoftheIMitedStates, Petitionerhas asubstantiverightto dueprocess^ i c h includes challenging the evidence- Ttiet r i a lproducedextraordinarilyexculpatory evidence v*iichthejudgeandprosecutor

2



3/21

f a i l e dto oonsider during the t r i a landviienaddressing thejurytooororincethento renderaguilty '^rerdict. Prosecutormustprovidea l l exculpatorye^/identiarymaterialsbecause"thatreqpireienti simposedbyConstitution^andi siraplenentedby Local RulesofD i s t r i c t . ..andoftenbycase-specificorders. U.S. v.Jones(2009,,DCMass)520 F.Supp2d163. Moreover,,butfor lack ofociff)atentrepresentationpre-trieilandt r i a l ,counsel oouldhaveproperly questionedgovernmentvfLtnessestoe l i c i t the confessionsp r e t r i a l^v^choouldhaveprevented the actualt r i a lands a v ^millionsoftax-payerdollars. Asaforestatedi n theIneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel,AttomeyKing lacked SecurityandExchangeCatmissionknow^ledge. AttomeyAthenia Kingmadenoticeofthislackofknowledgebut couldnot properly preparebyt r i a l . Knowledgein thesecuritiesarenacannotbeleamedovernightorwithinoneyearaspractical ajiplicaticHiofthelawsandrulesareessential. Havingprovidedthisdata for dualjurisdictiontothecoxirtsbasedondiscovery i nPetitioner'sprosef i l i n g ,Qran'sDictionaryofthelaw,2ded.,page131defines discovery:

"1. Theformalaraiinforrocilexchangeofinformationbetweensidesi nalawsuit. Twotypesofdiscovery areinterrogatoriesanddepositions.2. Finding outscmethingpreviouslyunknown. Forexarcplei npaten law,adiscovery isfindingout scmethingnewrather thaninventingadeviceorprocess. Also, the discoveryof afraudor ofmediccilmalpractice occurs \ ieathe personharmedfindsout theproblon(or shouldhavefound out i fcareful).

PetitionerfurtheraddsthatbaseduponFRCivP37(b):"vAiereapartyf a i l stoccxnplywithadiscovery order, the courthas the authorityto"[direct]that the matters onbracedi n theorderorother designatedfactsbetakenasestablishedforpurposesof theaction,...FedR.CivP 37(b) (2) (A) (i)(2)

Here,the MagistrateJudgeissuedtwoorders: onefor the prosecutor to respondandonefor thePetitionertorespond. TheProsecutor ignored response. Petitionertiraelyresponded. TheparticipatingjudgedeniedPetitioner'stimely response.The participatingjudgedeniedPetitioner's tactual andaourt c e r t i f i e dwitnesses' confessionstothecrijnesanddeniedPetitioner'sclaimsbasedupon

3



4/21

proceduralduties of the MagistrateJudge. Here,the Courtmadeanother ReversibleErrorby approving the MagistrateJudge'sOrder andReccsnroendationbasedupon U.S.V.Khoury. U. S. v.Khouryhas noapplicabilityto the U.S. v.BenjaminF.Stanley,et. a l . case (thiscase). Here,Petitioneri s theprevailingparty.

1, J^pellateCourtmustentertaindualjuridsictionwith d i s t r i c tcourt.

2. The Appellate Court order theD i s t r i c tCourt to vacate thejury'sguiltyverdictandranovePetitionerfrominprisomrentimmediately.

3. D i s t r i c tcourtmustincludea l l ofFetd.tioner'spro se f i l i n g si nthe f i l eof the Appellate Court forthiscaseIto.1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK-2.

4, Thei^pellateBrief f i l e dby Attorney DonSamuelsmustbeamendedtoincludePetitioner'spro sef i l i n g si n thed i s t r i c tcourt, should the U. S.Court of ppeals fo r the EleventhCircuitdecide tonoveforward onNovember19,2013,thecurrentlyscheduled hearing date.

4



5/21

JURISDICTICmLISSUE(s)By l e t t e rofJune1 2013, John Ley, Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeal"

for the EleventhCircuitstates REHKIRNUNFILED: "Motion to Vacate..." f i l e dby Donald F.SamuelsforBenjaminF.Stanley isretumedunfiledbecause Ap^ll anti srepresented by counsel. See11thCircuitRifLe25-1. A copy of yourdocumenti sbeing forwarded t o yourattomeyof record for review."

The clerkresponds toPetitioner'sM3TIONT VACATE,SET-ASIDE,CORRECTORREI aNDFCmDISMISSALAJURY(SJILTYVEEDICTUNDERF.R.Civ.P. 60(b),IftiitedStatesof America, Appellee versusRufusPaulHarris,BenjaminStanley, AppellantsforwardedbyCertificateof Service onffey23, 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals,EleventhCircuit;Clerk of Court, U. S.D i s t r i c tCourt,AtlantaDivision;AttomeyNathanKitchens andJustinS.Anandand DefenseAttomeyDonSamuelsverifyingpropjerserviceto theinterestedpjarties.

The d i s t r i c tcourt,upxannoticeof appeal fromPetitionerforwarded the courtcase to the EleventhCircuitCourt ofAppeeils. Petitioner'sattomeyf i l e d anAppellateBrief Briefinconsistentwith theobjectivesofPetitionerand withoutPetitioner's f u l lconsent. Theattomey'sAppellateBriefdi d notaccuratelyaddress theissues,events, and fraudulenta c t i v i t ybyprosecutorialstaffand i twas theintentofPetitioner'sattomeyto proceed withoutPetitioner'sinput andrecordscausingPetitionerto f i l eFRCiv 60(b) as aresultofprosecutorialmisconduct\*d.chdisclosed extra-ordinarilyexculpatorygovemmentwitnesses confessionsto the crimesPetitionerwas accused of. The FRCivP 60(b) was

acknowledgedby theAppellateCourt on May 28,2013andretumedascLforementionedby l e t t e rdatedJme7,2013. Here,the11thCircuitCourt of^^pealshadjurisdiction.

5



6/21

The DistirictCourt,AtlantaDivisioni s one of thefouraddresses on theCertificateofService. On i t s own, thed i s t r i c tcourtielf-iirpDsedjijrisdictionfromthe Appellate Court toaddr;sstheERClvP60(b) as amotionf i l e d intothecrimira.1proceedings. IbeDistirictCoLurt.u t i l i z e d severaJ.proceduresinvolvingthei n i t i a lmagistrate judge, and the i n i t i a ljudge.. Here,had the FRCTDJP60(b)beena truef i l i n g , adifferentjudge and magistrate judgewouldhavebeenassignedtothe case s anindividual caniiotinvestigatehiraselforherself Nonetheless,a magistratejudgeprocedure was conductedvvhichresultedi n no responses frcmthe prosecutor andobjectionfrcxa Petitionerbecause the O.S. v. Khaary case i sirrelevantto the U.S. v. Stanley case. U.S. v.Khoury doesnot address thesameor similarissuesas U.S. v. Stanley.

Bv theD i s t r i c tCourt'sresumotionofi i i r i s d i c t i o n . Petitioner respondednoticingtbefailureto properlyr aordFEiCivP60(b). PetitioneraJ.sonoticedthatthe.AppellateCourt continued it smandateforNovarber19,2013andthat sincethef i l ewasretumedtoPetitioner, Petitioner s t i l l m i lnot beappropriatelyrepre^sented hy the evidence and thee ^ r a ordinarilyexc^p)&torygovernmentwitnessescxjnf^sionsunder OathofOfficeorperjuryi n the Appellatef i l e .

Therefore^Petitionerresubmitsthis f i l e isi i t s entiretyto the AppellateCourt, %^erejurisdiction l i e s ,undertheConstitutionof theLfrtitedStatesArrsndmentsI, V, VI, and XIV. The Appellate ClerkfollwcLngl o c a lRule tc ret umthe 60(b) f i l i n gviolatedAtf^ndmentI because althoughPetitionerhas counsel, noone can express theconcsmsof thePetitionerthen himselfandespeciallywheredJ.fferencesof opinionexistas inthiscase. AmendEientI givesPetitionerauthority/-to addres-s thecourtfo r grievances and i nthisinstance,both the Appellateand d i s t r i c tcourtssiinultaneously e r eonecourtrefuses to view thetmthandfacsof the proceedings and the othercouarthides thet m t handfactstherebyresultingi n dualjurisdicti on.

6



7/21

"I t i s the dutyofa l l o f f i c i a l s ,v*iether l e g i s l a t i v e , j u d i c i a l ,executive,administrative;,orministerictl,to soperform everyo f f i c i a l a ctasnot toviolateConstitutionalprovisions."Montgoaaeri'v. State,55Fla97,45So,.879

Theclerkccamittedreversibleerror%fienheretumedthe f i l etoPetitionerinsteadofmakingi tapartoftheAppellate f i l ebecause'

"ths provis-ionsoftheConstitutioniraj^tbegiveneffecteveni findoingso astatute i s heldtr>beincperative."Stateexr e l .Westv.Butler,70Fla102,69So.771

Petitioner'sr3.ghtto dueprocessof Lawi s severlyhamperedviienanyo f f i c i a lof the courtf a i l s touphold theGonstit5]tion- Here,Petitioneraddress^Admend-mentV--dueprocessoflaw. Further,\vfienthe courtf a i l stoinclude extraordinarilyexculpatory evidence i n theformofconfessionstothecrinKasforwhichPetitionerwascharged, they aidandabetamanifestinjusticebecausethey allowedthe d i s t r i c tcourttodisposeofthe exculpatory evidence.

"Courts should nott^^lerateorcondonedisregardof law andarbitraryusurpationofpo^^ronthe partof anyo f f i c e r . . [ANDN ^ E RSBCX3U) THEPEOPLE]ExparteOwen10Okla Crim 284,136P197,MlCas1916A522

MienaPetitionerarad his attorney disagreestowhatevi.dejiceshouldbepresented in his appeal, i t i sPetiticaier's r i c ^ t stooverstep the representativetoset-forthtruefacts,true evidence,andtrue confessionsofth^Dseresponsibleand whohaveacceptedresponsibilityaxdaccountabilityfo r the crimesthereinrevealingtha true natureandcauseofthecharges.

"The officersoftheI iWi,ixithe exeaationofprocess,arecfoligedtoknowtheraquir^nentsofthe Law, andi fthey mistakethem,Aetherthrougjiignorance cr design,andanyonei sharmedhytheirerror,,theymustresporsli ndamages. Roster v. Marshall (IftiitedStatesusei nRogers)

7



8/21

U.S.versusKhoury901F.2d975 977 ( l l t hCir. 1990)The d i s t r i c tcourtu t i l i z e dU.S. v.Khouryas the precedence todenyPetitioner's

claimsofexcifLpatoryevidence in the form ofconfessionsbygovemmentetiploy^sw actuallyccimdtted the crimes. Specifically,-UT,S.v. oury,i d . discusses

wherethere i s a discrepancybetweentheorallyimposedsentenceand the written order ofjijK3gn^tand conniitmsnt, theoralS3itencecontrols"and " i f theoralsentence isanfloigious,the reviewing Courtmay csansiderextrinsicevidence toilluminatetheintentof thed i s t r i c tcourt at thetiraeofseJitencing..."Khoury901 F.2d at 977 (11tbCir)

The second case quoted by thed i s t r i c tcourtstates:"Absent extraordinary circumstances^ a defendant may notseekcollateral r e l i e fwhile hisd i s t r i c tappeal i s pending.U.S.vCasaran-Rivas 311 F.App'r269,272 (11thCir.2009),

I ti s both a miracle and extra-ordinary circumstancesthat a l lof thegovernmentwitnesses except Alana Black and BrianHarveyactuallyconfessed to the crimesPeti.t ioner was accusedof. Besidest h i s ,i n amorerecentrulingaforestated,prosecutorialmisconduct i s a C i v i l f i l i n gand can be f i l e dforcollateral r e l i e f

anytimedoing anyphaseof the proceeding v4ien discovered, and thed i s t r i c tcourthas amandatetoadjudicate. Evenfor the sake ofargument,thefactsfronKhouryandCasaran-Rivas areirrelevantt othiscase, and theoojirt'sargumentcannot stand againstPetitioner'sargumentsand thed i s t r i c tcourtmustdismissas i t i si t sduty to sodo. The admissions by thegovemnentwitnesses arec l a s s i f i e das exculpatory evidence by voluntaryconfession. Sucha oonfession.under OathofOffice,Article6, paragraph 3 anda.perjury charge fo r thosenonegovemment o f f i c i a l s .

"CourtsofAppeals fo r EleventhCircuitrejectsany notionthathabeasproceedings arejust another category of c i v i lcases fo rp.irposesofFRCivP60(b)becauseCongress, i n enactingAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenalty Act, PubL.No104-132,110Stat.1214(1996)^rejectedany such notion; to put i t intermsof



9/21

FederalRules ofC i v i lProcedurethonselves-court concludestbatinsofaras reopeningf i n a ljudgmentsinhabeascases i sccHicemed,practicein such proceedings is setforthi nstatutes ofU.S.FederalRules ofC i v i lProcedure81(a)(2)and s p e c i f i c a l l y28 USC2244(b). Gonzalez v. Sec'y for theDepartmentofCbrr(2004,CA11Fla) 366F.3d1253,17FEW FedC 465 (criUcizedinAbdiir'Rahmanv.B e l l (In reAbdur'Rahman)(2004.,CA6 TeJin)392 F.3d 174,60 FR Serv. 3d 242,2004Fed Ajp428P)andcertden.(2005)543 US1091, 125S.Ct. 965, 160 L.Ed 2d 902 andaffd.(2005)545 US 524125S. Ct. 2641,162LB32d 480, 18 FLW Fed S 449"

However,Petitictonerhasshownthatthe duty of thed i s t r i c tcx>art i sinconsistentwithSupraneCourtrulingsas aPetitionerdoesrK)thaveto wait forvariousprocedures and events to befinalizedt o f i l e prosecutorial misconduct asi nthis instantcase. Petitioner'sattomeysare the one schooled in law. They,ascOTpetentattomeys,havedutiestoprotect petitioner,not attom Petitioner.Suchattornment i sSixfbAnendtoentviolationand excessiveFeder?jlian previouslyexplainedi n otherf i l i n g s . Here,theSupreneCourt hasshownthatthedi.strictcourtd id notdivest i t sduty toestablishedmandates. I t i s unfortunate themagistratejudge did notfexm-overPetitioner'soonpletedReport and f i l i n g stothe judge or i t i s unfortunate thejtidgef a i l e dto review theextra-ordinarilyexculpatoryevidence i n the form of confessions i n thet r i a l transcripts.

9



10/21

FEDERALRULE OFCIVILPROCEDURE60(b)Groundsfo r Reli ef fronaFinalJudgirsnt,Order,orProceeding. OnItotionand

justterms,the courtmayrelieveaparty of i t slegalrepresentativefixm f i n a ljudgn^t,order,orproceeding for the followingreasons:

(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise,orexcusableneglect;(2) newlydiscoveredevidencethat, with reasonable diligence,could

nothaveteendiscovered in time tomovef o ra newt r i a lunderRule 59(b)

(6) anyotherreasonthat j u s t i f i e s r e l i e f . "The rule i s very clearandspecific. OnMotionand justt e r m s t h ecourt

mayrelieve perty of i t slegal,representative frcm af i n a ljudgment,order,or proceeding ..." TheFederalRuleofCi^TilProcediure60(b) i s the correctf i l i n g forr e l i e fvAienproperlyrecordedbythe Clerk ofCciurt.

FederalRuleofC i v i lProcedure59(e) i saMotiontoalteroramendthejudgnentmustalsobef i l e dvrLthin10days. Rule59(e)maynotbeusedto reexamineissuesdecidelby ajury. Robinson v WattsEfetectiveAgency,685F.2d729,,74z Ost Cir. 1982) cert,denized459U.b\1105(1983)buti t i sappropriateforaddras- jing errors ofLaw bythe court. Finchv,Ci.tyofVernon845F,2d25525859(7th Cir. 1988)orinadvertent errorssuchascsrn.ssionofirattarsthatthecourt obviously intended toinclude,. Petit ioner hasbeanadarsantinhJ.s attemptstodi.ssuadeths courtofi t sf a t a lerrors in i t sad\d.dpersuate ofaconfirmationof ccn\d.ction^vfiich aii juntstoerrorsoflawbytheccnrrt,. Theerrorsof lawamountto prosecutorialinisocjidactbeginrJngwith theSETattomey madefalsestatsiEantsandraisrepresentaticns tc includeoti.erinvestigative personnel(BrianHarvey)andCourt o f f i c i a l s . Therecurrently Is noneed f o r Petitionertor ^ s h t h i sevidencebecause.itvTassii^rdttedunder Gath andAffidaviti nresponse

10



11/21


12/21

Rule25. Filingand Service(a) F i l ing .

(1)Filing with theClerk.A paper required or permitted to be filedia a court of appeals mustbe filedwiththe clerk.(2)Filing: Method and Timeliness.

A)Ingeneral. Filingmay beaccomplishedbymailaddressed to the clerk, but filingis nottimelyunless the clerk receives the papers witliinthe time fixedforfiling.(B) brief or appendix. Abrieforappendix is timelyfiled,however, ifonor before thelast day for filing,it is:

(i) mailedto the clerk byFirst-ClassMai l ,or other classo fmai lthatis at least asexpeditious,postage prepaid; orii)dispatched to a third-partycommercialcarrier fordeliveryto the clerkwithin3

days.(C)Inmate filing. A paper filedby an inmateconfinedin an institution istimelyifdeposited inthe institution'siatemalmailingsystem on or before the last dayforfiling.Ifaninstitutionhas a system designed forlegalmail,the inmate must usethatsystem toreceivethe benefit of this rule.TimelyfiUngmay be shown by a declaration in compliancewith28U .S .C . 1746 or by a notarizedstatement,either o fwhichmust set forth thedateofdeposit andstatethatfirst-class postage has been prepaid.(D)Electronic filing. A court of appeals may bylocalrale permit or require papers to befiled, signed,orverifiedby electronic meansthatare consistentwithtechnicalstandards, ifany,thattheJudicialConferenceo ftheUnitedStatesestablishes. Alocalrale may requirefilingbyelectronic meansonlyi freasonable exceptions areallowed.A paper filedbyelectronicmeans in compliancewithalocalrale constitutes a written paper for thepurpose ofapplyingtheserales.

(3)Filing aMotion withaJudge. Ifamotionrequestsreliefthatmay be granted by a singlejudge, the judge may permit the motion to be filedwiththe judge; the judge must note thefihngdateon the motion and give it to the clerk.(4) Clerk s Refusal of Documents. The clerk must notrefiiseto accept forfilingany paperpresented forthatpurpose solelybecause it is not presented inproperformas required bytheserales or by anylocalrale or practice.(5)Privacy Protection. A n appeal in a case whoseprivacyprotection was governed byFederalRuleo fBankruptcyProcedure 9037, FederalRuleofCivilProcedure 5.2, or FederalRuleofCriminalProcedure49.1is governed by the same rale on appeal. Ina llotherproceedings,privacyprotection is governed byFederalRuleofCivilProcedure 5.2, exceptthatFederalRuleofCriminalProcedure49.1governs when an extraordinarywritis sought inacriminalcase.

USCSRULE 122013 Matthew Bender Company, Inc., a member of theLexisNexisGroup.AUrights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions

and terms and conditionsoftheMatthew Bender Master Agreement.



13/21

summYAPPELLATECDUEO-ROLE25(a)4: Clerk's RefusalofDoojrrients

"The clerkmustnotrefusetoacceptfor f i l i n ganypaperpresentedforthatpurposesolelybecausei t is not presentedinproperformasrequiredbytheserulesor by anyl o c a lruleorpractice,"The.App?llateClerkmade aPlain errorbyrefnsir^toaco^tPetitioner'sFRCiv.P60(b)f i l i n g , (seepage12)

Throughoiitthis courtproceeding.Petitionerh^socxifessedhisabsoluteinnocence supportedbythe lackofevj.denoeut.ilizedtowrongfullyconvicthim.Petitionerhas furthersho iv throughoutth is court proceedingextra-ordinary areoverv^eliningevJ,dence ifeLchsupportshisinnocence,, Andsupportingthe evidence,proseoatorialwitnesseshaveconfessedto the crimes chargedagainst Petiticsier.

Petitioner f i l e dmotionsandaffidavitsunderpenalty of perjuryandOathwi.thextrinsicevidencepro\'ingteycsidareasonablecbubthis inirocerKje,yetthe courtscontinuetoimpleientcontortedanddevious methcdologiestot r i c kPetitioner intoanmjust conviction.

Petitionerhasdisclosed to the courts in thi sf i l i n gthat the courtshaveoonmtttednumerousPlain errors, reversible errorsandf a t a lerrorsthroughi.tsw i l l f u landraaliciousrrodiisoperanditodeceivePetitioner intoaconviction.In addition to the ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates supportingPetitionerincocence,,theLa5?sandstatutesquotedwithin thi sf i l i n g furthersupportPetitioner'sinnocence. There Kerenowitnessesagainst thJsPetiticKierexcepttheword"they"whichviasutilii^ed to miracialouslyatteiipttoattach Petitionertoacriminalelesnent;that resulted i nOverbreadth,anAmendctentI totheConstitutionoftheTtoitedStates protection fo rcorporateoffic ers.

13



14/21

The. d i s t r i c t court f i r s t altered the c i v i l fil.ingand thendirected thecvX f.i3-iiiginto acriminalcase;setting to control theoutconeof thecriminalproceedingthroughproceduraldefaults.

Finallyf the goverrsnent*s keywitnesses: Michaej 7^1exarK3erDonMaddelonAnneNelkinEricDenaultyet^ a l ,

a l l confessedto the crimesforv^iichPetitioner fasaccused. The confessionsare al lrecordedandunder Oathi n the T r i a lTrejiscriptswhichPetitiorierprovidedto the court.,whereaSurmjaryJudgmenthavingissued (fcetx3defaulttw-the d i s t r i c tcourt. PetitionermovesforMotionby the courtto relievePetitionerfronithe f i n a ljur^rgiailtyverdict;fVacatetheoon^d.ct.ion andrsnandfor release of hispersonfrcsnireprisonrrent. Iheaboveactions arejust r e l i e ffor thisPetitionerjpresentedthisJZ ^^day of IJiSoveiiber,2013..

P.O.- Box 999ISCI VBButner..w:27509

STATEOFMIRTHCATOLJNA ))

GranvilleCounty )I am aNotaryPublic for theaboveStateand Countyo Icertifythat Benj-rsrainF,Stanleyshowingpropergovernmentidssitificationsignedhissignature

14



15/21

30303 , ^ l M d tton


16/21

CASEIO.

[METEDSTATESOOOSTOF APPEAL

ELEvS^EHdRCDIT

UKITSD STATES OFAMESiICA,Appsllee RespcMidentversus

BEtOAMINF.STAMLEY...Appellant,Petiticjner

^ p e a l frcra th United StatesDistricCourtAtlantaDi^tflsion

ProSeAfpellateBriefPreparedBy

Benjamin F.StanleyP. 0. Box 999,LSCI-VBButner,ISforthCarolina27509

CounselofItecord: AttomeyDonSarauels

i



17/21

rsfcontentsTable ^

^- : : : ^ - . .

Michael ^

^' T-racscriP^"**

D. l a ^ - " ^ * . e l = a e - ' ^ - . - - ^ - ^ ^ ^ : ^ . . * - - - ' ^

-jgcSoDwleag



18/21

TableofContents14. Don I4addalon'sTestunony .... 87 - 97

A. CrossSxaiaination ofMaddalon 98B. TT1067:11lyiaddalon sold 1/2 nsillionShares .... 98C. LetterTterminating-IntegrityStockTransfer9/15/06 116 - 117D. IntegrityStocktoConversionSolutions Letter10/17/06.. 120

15. ExaminationofEtonIfa^ddalonby HoaxHasrfcer.... 121A. Ifedd--E-00Q07;JKS00053MaddalonAdmitserrors

Iflieretbeprobleiaioccurred 123

16. CrossExaEitnation of Ben Maddalon by Paul Harris.... 124A. DaveParleycausedissue of shares.... .... 125

17. TestiaiDnyofEricDeneault- Stanley familyir^bersdid not i l e g a l l ygain Tr799:16-25 .... 126 -127

IS. LocalRule72-J5agistrateJiK3geDuties - 128A. Failures of Don ifeddalon~leading to i l l e g a ltrading 129 - 130B. JfenifestInjustice .... 131

19. BrianHarvey- FBI 132A. Governmenterroro^usly c l a s s i f i e dExhibits02/03as legal. 132B. BrianHarveratGrandJury 134 -- 137

20 . Don jyiaddaion-GonfessedTT1110 -1111:18 132-- 14921. Faulty Investigation 150- 16322. AmendmentI,OverbreadthandFreeSpeechDoctrine. 164-16523. AnendojentV and VI.... .... 16524. IneffectiveAssistance ofCounsel 166 - 17025. Federalism .... 171 - 178

i i i



19/21

, r fcontents

^ .ofMloV '

30. S ^ ^ * ^ " -



20/21

KEasoiiFm o S E A P P E J X A I C E B R I E FCanesnow PetitionerBenjaminP. Stanley f i l i n g thisPro Se Appellate

Briefbecaiasehe and h isattomeyof record are i ndisagreCTenttoMiatargumentsaridextra-ordinarilyexculjstoryevidence, i n theformofunder Oathconfessionstothe criiiesfor t ^ c h Petitioner was charged,to present. Petitioner beingunschooledinlawf i l e d niffierousf i l i n g si n aneffortto include theunder Oathconfessions with the AppellateBrief f i l e dby hi sattomeyof record, DonSamuels. TJpon suhiaissionof the f i l i n gtothisAppellate Court, the Clerk ofT.Court refused the f i l i n g andretumedi t to Petitioner but the disi:rictcourt.JudgeBatten and MagistrateJudgeJametKing self-impasedjurisdictiontoexecutea LocalSule72ProcedurewSrLchaddressespre-t r i a lmattersand U.S. v.Khoxaryviiichaddressesthe discrepancies in the written order of theJudgnentanGaasTiitnent i f they d i f f e rfrcxnthe verbal order. BetitioneraddressedunderOathcorifessions by thegovernmentmtnessesto thecrimesforv,fiichhewasaccusedand convicted.

UndferAnendment I V V Iand X Vto theConstitutionof the United States,I ti s Petitioner's rights to f i l enatters ofgrie'vonce,due process, legalmisrepresentation and the true nature and causeof thechargesagainst him andthe due process relatingthereto- Eventhei f)pellateRule25(2)(c)advises theAppellate Clerk of Court to accept a l l f i l i n g s . Anything contrary i s aviolat ionof theCcaistitutionof theCtoitedStates,Article V I paragraph3. For thesereasons.PetitionersuianitsthisPro Sei^pellateBrieffor the court'susagei nacceptanceof the pro se f i l i n gto adjudicate a favorabledecisicsitoRenandfc rVacation of Jury Gui ltyverdict,dismissal of a l lchargesand iimtediatereleaseof Petitionerfromiii5>risonment.

The Pro SeAfpellateBriefattached consist of195+pages. ThisdooamentV



21/21

waspareviouslyf i l e das aFederalRule ofC i v i lProcedure 60(b) entitled28 USC636Responseto J-fegistrateJudge"Cpiiiionar^Recosnsndation"r^ardi ngFRCivP 60(b);Cfojectionto fegistrateJudgeReport and14DaysResp3nse. Petitioner r e l i e son the breadlattitudegi^;enPro Se f i l e r sby Haines v.Keamer.

v i
