A “WAKE-UP CALL” FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENS

Entrepreneurs who seek “legal advice and instruction” from lawyers for the purposes of conducting “legal business” can find themselves in the position of not being able to rely on or utilize the “legal advice and instruction” they received if charged with a crime. 

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, such “legal advice and instruction” is irrelevant as a “MATTER OF LAW.” Federal prosecutors have the authority to bar and forbid one from utilizing such “legal advice and instruction,” even though having paid for and precisely followed those instructions. (see Doc 217)

Most importantly, the federal government has the rights to use that “legal advice and instruction”  to prosecute whomever they choose.  (see Governments use of my evidence to prosecute my co-defendant)

MISSING EVIDENCE

I spared no expense in operating my internet business under supervision of many prominent law firms from start to finish. The lawyers consistently provided me unique “contracts” that detailed each functioning element required for the “dispensing and distributing” of the “controlled substances” obtained through my business. I closed the business in December 2003 when advised that the DEA was starting to interpret existing laws in a manner which made the business unlawful. 

Federal prosecutors indicted me in 2006 for conspiracy, drug distribution, and money laundering. Federal prosecutors have been able to manipulate the system to such a degree that not only do they have no evidence, there is a vast amount of concealed evidence that prove otherwise (legal invoices: that prove no conspiracy existed & independent financial investigation: performed by former IRS criminal investigator who found no wrongdoing) 
Federal prosecutors began this case “exerting leverage to induce guilty pleas” by declaring “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” That allowed them the ability to “not have to prove I intended to commit a crime”.  

Ten days before trial, federal prosecutors filed a motion, declaring the legal advice I received was “irrelevant.” In doing so, they barred me from my only defense, “advice of counsel.”  They boldly professed this “AS A MATTER OF LAW” (see Doc 217) 

Knowing I refused to plead guilty for 19 months, federal prosecutors coupled this newfound position with a 72 hour deadline to plead guilty.  Going to trial with no defense subjected me to 24 to 30 years incarceration……..so I was railroaded into pleading guilty. 

Three days after I plead guilty, the Judge corrected the government’s motion, allowing the “advice-of-counsel” defense. When I inquired about this, my lawyers told me that the judge wouldn’t rule on this motion. 

The most outrageous issue in my case is that the prosecutors utilized these “contracts,” my evidence, in the prosecution of my co-defendant. The very evidence they forbid me to use, they used and entered into the case record as Governments EXHIBITS 2, 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C, during the trial of my co-defendant, Dr. Andre Smith. 

I recently became aware of these EXHIBITS while doing research on my case. I requested copies of these EXHIBITS from the Clerk of Court’s Office and was informed on May 26, 2010, they were removed from the system. Trial transcripts show they were admitted into evidence with no objections…………

This is a prime example of how Federal prosecutors have gone to great lengths to keep the
truthful facts from the Court.

VIEW EVIDENCE NOW MISSING HERE OR BELOW:

Sign the online petition for a full investigation here

CASE UPDATE

This case seems to become more remarkable with each passing day, not because of any evidence of my misconduct, “the accused,” but because of the mounting evidence of misconduct by my “accusers.”

It is most clear that the government could not meet its burden to demonstrate crimes were committed without cutting corners and distorting the facts. As a result, my rights have been trampled upon, and the integrity of these proceedings has been irreparably compromised.

The Supreme Court has observed that “[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Sadly, in this case, the government has failed to observe its own laws and shown utter disregard for its charter, the Constitution, through a pattern of misconduct that began from the onset and continues today. 

PARTICIPANT'S "FACTUALLY INTERTWINED" IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION

OMISSIONS OF KEY PARTICIPANTS: LAWYERS AND PHARMACY’S
To facilitate the alleged crimes, specific “acts” which form an integral part of the alleged crimes were performed by “lawyers” and “pharmacy’s” (“persons/agents“) that have been omitted from the case record.

SENTENCING RESCHEDULED

Sentencing rescheduled to June 28, 2010.

NEGATING THE CONSPIRACY

DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE

The legal invoices reveal the lawyers’ involvement exceeded the “rendering of legal advice" by engaging in transactional work, structuring the alleged illegal transactions. The invoices provide a detailed accounting of every minute the lawyers were engaged, thereby profiting from the acts  the government has deemed "illegal,” demonstrating unequivocally, a conspiracy never existed.

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT | COMPLAINT FILED

VIEW THE COMPLAINT HERE:
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT | COMPLAINT FILED

February 9, 2010

Dear Ms. Yates,

On April 8, 2008, the new Attorney General, the Honorable Eric Holder delivered the following message to all state department U.S. Attorneys:

"Your job as U.S. Attorneys is not to convict people, your job is not to win cases. Your job is to do justice. Your job is in every case, every decision that you make, to do the right thing. Anybody who asks you to do something other than that is to be ignored. Any policy that is at tension with that is to be questioned and brought to my attention."

Evidently, Assistant United States Attorney's (AUSA) Lawrence Sommerfeld and Randy Chartash have elected to ignore this instruction. For that reason, it is necessary I contact you to initiate a formal investigation into the allegation of this in which you have supervisory authority. [1]