Parlato believes in full transparency; That includes on the prosecution side

Fromer AUSA Anthony Bruce had an unsigned contract that he may have pretended before the grand jury was an executed contract. This may be prosecutorial misconduct. Frank Parlato was indicted with the Bronfmans being named as victims apparently based on a bogus contract which AUSA Bruce knew was bogus.

Share with:

FacebookTwitterGoogleTumblrLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail this pagePrint this page


 

The Niagara Falls Reporter has taken a lot of space this week to examine the case against Frank Parlato.

We believe it is warranted not only because Parlato is the publisher and editor in chief of this newspaper and his credibility reflects on the credibility of this publication, but because it should be of interest to readers on more generic terms: This is a rare chance to get an insight into how the US Attorney’s office, in coordination with the FBI, conducts an investigation, presents to the grand jury and indicts and prosecutes a citizen in America.

Very few defendants are as transparent as Parlato and fewer still have media outlets ready to reveal in gripping detail what happens to an individual after the US government tells the world in a written indictment what crimes he is allegedly guilty of.

Most defendants are advised by their attorneys to say nothing and the government’s version of events, as laid out in the indictment, are the only version on the public record.

Parlato is different. He believes in the First Amendment as the safeguard of our liberty, and that it is of vital importance that the public get both sides of the story.

Equally important, the entire staff wants readers to get an inside look at what goes on behind the scenes when federal prosecutors indict an American.

It is vital to freedom that all aspects of government, even prosecutors, get an extensive dose of sunshine. If they are honest they should surely be able to stand the light.

As the staff at the Niagara Falls Reporter, Artvoice, the Front Page and the South Buffalo News investigates the Parlato case, we have uncovered a wealth of information which pulls back the curtains of how prosecutors worked in this case.

We believe that as it is revealed, our readers will be fascinated by it.

Could what was done in the Parlato case also be occurring in other cases where the defendants are less willing and less able to fight back?

We hope to examine many such cases in coming weeks.

For this week, we would like to leave our readers with a taste – a rather fascinating example of what on the surface appears to a textbook example of prosecutorial misconduct.

If what is alleged is true, it seems clear that (now retired) AUSA Anthony Bruce may have fabricated evidence or is guilty of suborning perjury.

We understand Bruce has been accused of suborning perjury in the past and we will be getting into that case in future issues. In fact, we learned AUSA Bruce was almost disbarred, according to sources in the legal community.

In this case, which may in fact lead to former AUSA Bruce being disbarred, Parlato’s lawyers point to a certain and mysterious “Letter of Intent” which appears to be dated Jan. 8, 2008.

 

bruceweb2
Former AUSA Anthony Bruce had an unsigned contract that he may have pretended before the grand jury was an executed contract. This may be prosecutorial misconduct. Frank Parlato was indicted with the Bronfmans being named as victims apparently based on a bogus contract which AUSA Bruce knew was bogus.

 

The government’s theory – as emails from the government clearly indicate –was that Parlato’s criminal liability with alleged victims Clare and Sara Bronfman –- is based solely on this curious “Letter of Intent” and its being a valid, enforceable, “fully executed” (i.e signed by both parties) contract.

Without going into all the details of the Letter of Intent at this time, the facts on record show that AUSA Bruce knew the Letter of Intent was not a valid contract, yet evidently misled the grand jury into believing it was.

The government admitted, through a somewhat bizarre email written by AUSA Elizabeth Moellering, on Sept. 18, 2015, that they believed at one time that they had an actual contract – a fully signed Letter of Intent – which they simply couldn’t find.

AUSA Moellering wrote to Parlato’s defense lawyer Brian Feldman, “We are still looking for the fully executed version of the Letter of Intent.”

Feldman wrote back, “Thanks, Elizabeth. If you conclude that there is no executed version of the Letter of Intent, we would appreciate knowing that.”

The government never produced an “executed version” and indicted Parlato based on the terms of a bogus Letter of Intent.

Even after the Indictment, the government, in voluntary discovery, never produced an “executed version” of the letter of intent.

According to written documents made available to this publication, AUSA Bruce was told by Parlato’s lawyers that there never was a signed letter of intent and that even the Bronfmans themselves swore under oath they never signed a Letter of Intent.

Clare Bronfman also denied, in courtroom testimony, that the Letter of Intent, which she never signed, was binding.

Documents the government produced reveal that the Letter of Intent was the sole source of any alleged fraud by Parlato against the Bronfmans.

Documents also reveal that witnesses were called into the grand jury and examined by AUSA Bruce as if the Letter of Intent was a fully executed contract.

The allegation stands – within a motion Parlato recently filed – that the US Attorney has indicted Parlato based on there being an “executed version” of the Letter of Intent, when none existed.
That ASUA Bruce knew this and misled the grand jury was not alleged in the motion.

It was reported to us by an eyewitness that AUSA Bruce admitted he was in frequent contact with the Bronfman’s attorney, William Savino of Woods Oviatt of Rochester, prior to the indictment and Savino pressed AUSA Bruce to include the Bronfmans in the indictment.
It is also known that the Bronfmans offer fees for indictments of their enemies.
Savino and Bruce are known to have related outside interests. Nothing has been alleged that Bruce received any compensation for including the Bronfmans in the indictment. It is unknown at this time whether Savino received any compensation for ASUA Bruce including the Bronfmans in the indictment.
We do know that the Letter of Intent – which – had it been valid – was the only way to include the Bronfmans in the indictment – was never signed and that the Bronfman portion of the indictment is as false as perjury.

Much more will be revealed later on this matter.

Share with:

FacebookTwitterGoogleTumblrLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail this pagePrint this page


7 comments

  1. Shane Christopher Buczek

    MY CASE WAS NEVER PRESENT TO ANY GRAND JURY AND WENT TO JAIL FOR 2 HALF YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINT!!! NICE JOB AUSA Bruce

    Petitioner has now had Conversion of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL into a PRIVILEGE and or CRIME is A FRAUD and is in clear and direct conflict with the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. See Attachment (1)
    Furthermore, Petitioner’s right to have a real grand jury and real indictment & real extension by William M. Skretny is a right that has never been waived which never happened.
    If the grand jury panel needs to stay on any longer, it needs an order from Chief Judge to extend. The purpose of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure providing 18-month limitation on life of grand jury is attach.
    See Exhibit (A) United State District Court Western District Court of New York Page 7 of 15 line 10-13 Sign by William M. Skretny
    I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct See 28 USC Sec. 1746 (1)
    Executed on September 29, 2016
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Shane-Christopher: BUCZEK ESTATE

  2. Shane Christopher Buczek

    SHANE C. BUCZEK
    Sole Property of the United States Case No. 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS-1
    Property and Ward of the government

    Shane-Christopher: BUCZEK ESTATE Hon. William M. Skretny
    NY DOS UCC TRUST 2013-279-3773-8
    Third party of interest Shane-Christopher:
    RULE 17A- Sui Juris
    Petitioner,
    -v-

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    ENTITY UNDISCLOSED
    NO KNOWN ADDRESS
    Fictitious-Foreign Plaintiff
    Respondent,
    _______________________________________________

    REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE RULE 201 (d), (e) and (f) AND RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE II

    This Court is hereby placed on notice under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United States,223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000) relying on Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 135 (1992), “United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 856 (1996), quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,842 (1991) (Souter, J., concurring).Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647, American Red Cross v. Community Blood Center of the Ozarks, 257 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 07/25/2001).
    In re Haines: pro se litigants (Plaintiff is a pro se litigant) are held to less stringent pleading standards than BAR registered attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant (Plaintiff is a pro se litigant) without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
    In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. All litigants have a constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according the rule of precedent. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000). Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
    “The attorney’s first duty is to the courts…not to the client.” U.S.v Franks D.C.N.J. 53F.2d 128). Here again people have been repeatedly told the attorney is for their benefit to insure a fair and impartial hearing; this is clear fraud.
    “Clients are also called “wards of the court” in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.”Spilker v. Hankin, 158 F.2d 35, 58U.S.App.D.C. 206. This ruling clearly shows the attorney’s presence does not guarantee a fair and impartial hearing but rather secures/guarantees defendants or plaintiffs are at the mercy of the Magistrate. The preponderance of fraud will only grow as you will see. (Wards of court are Infants and persons of unsound mind). Davis Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189, 190.
    QUESTION TO THE COURT?
    Attorney first duty is not to the people they are supposedly representing, & when you have an Attorney you are either considered insane or an infant. True or False?
    The adage that ‘an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client’ is the product of years of experience by seasoned litigators… Id. at 437-438 True or False?
    An appearance may be in “Propia persona”, and need not be by attorney. ‘In his own person.’ It is a rule in pleading those pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pleaded in propia persona, because, if pleaded by attorney, they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction).

  3. Shane Christopher Buczek

    1.) The UNITED STATES went bankrupt in 1933
    2.) All of the STATES are corporations
    3.) Our courts became maritime courts [not Constitutional or Common Law]
    4.) Birth Certificates are bonds with CUSIP numbers
    5.) We pay taxes to the [private] FEDERAL RESERVE
    6.) Lawyers have lost the right to license lawyers
    7.) The American Bar Association should apologize to the American people and should disband
    8.) The original 13th amendment needs to be restored
    9.) We do not currently have “rule of law”

  4. Shane Christopher Buczek

    As previously mentioned, these registration programs were instituted so that the Federal Reserve Banks and the Corporate Military Courts of Justice could securitize and monetize the public Trust Accounts. Each Birth Certificate and Social Security Card was eventually converted into a Trust Account and became a government security (like company stocks and bonds) and is marketed as a Mutual Fund. If you own a piece of a Mutual Fund Investment you are actually hedging your money against human collateral.
    Every Bond or International Security is assigned a “CUSIP” number and if you know how to use their formula or have a close friend who is a stock broker, you or he can convert the numbers and letters found on your Social Security Card into its CUSIP number. Armed with those CUSIP numbers, anyone can look up their Mutual Funds that your life is being collectively marketed under. Your Birth Certificate number is handled the same way.
    Our forced registration birth actually made us the personal property of the State. Each of us unknowingly gave our children away to the Government of the State where they were born when we registered them for a government issued Birth Certificate, which is how the State Government controls child custody.
    NOTE: All tradable Securities must be assigned a CUSIP NUMBER before it can be offered to investors. Birth Certificates and Social Security Applications are converted into Government Securities; assigned a CUSIP NUMBER; grouped into lots and then are marketed as a Mutual Fund Investment. Upon maturity, the profits are moved into a GOVERNMENT CESTA QUE TRUST and if you are still alive, the certified documents are reinvested. It is the funds contained in this CESTA QUE TRUST that the Judge, Clerk and United States Attorneys are really after or interested in. This Trust actually pays all of your debts but nobody tells you that because the Elite consider those assets to be their property and the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the management of those Investments.

  5. Shane Christopher Buczek

    Social Security; SSI; SSD; Medicare and Medicaid are all financed by the Trust. The government makes you pay TAXES and a portion of your wages supposedly to pay for these services, which they can borrow at any time for any reason since they cannot access the CESTA QUE TRUST to finance their Wars or to bail out Wall Street and their patron Corporations.
    The Complaint and Warrant will reflect your BIRTH NAME or identify you as a JOHN DOE, if your name is unknown, which is typed out in all capital letters. This is not a mistake on their part because it is your Birth Certificate that is under arrest and not your living, flesh and blood person. The hope of these pseudo Courts is that the flesh and blood person will be intimidated enough to accept responsibility for the Birth Certificate.
    The word ‘license’ is defined in all modern law dictionaries as “A permit to do something unlawful.” Now think about that and consider all the Licenses you currently hold?
    Those licenses are civil contracts that have been issued to you by the government only so that you may do something lawful but rather unlawful.
    (e.g.) When two people apply for a marriage license, the two of you enter into a binding contract and by applying for a license to marry; you now have voluntarily included the State as a third party to your marriage. If things don’t work out in that marriage, the State is first to be satisfied.

  6. Shane Christopher Buczek

    Prior to 1933, we all were proud and peaceful Sovereign inhabitants of America. The Trading with the Enemy Act, the Confiscation Act and the Lieber Code obligated the military government to, ‘peacefully interact with American citizens’ and prohibited them from ‘provoking us or to act belligerently toward us’ or they forfeit their ability to profit and loot or to securitize our property, equity and credit being held in a Public Trust.
    The all-caps name can be researched in every State Code under ‘corporations:’ [e.g.] see the Texas Administrative Code for example under ‘corporations’, Chapter 79.31, subtitled: entities; [also] the all-caps name is specified in the United States Government- Style Manual under the section titled [identifying corporations].
    These Public Trusts are not a new concept. The concept and strategy was copied from the Ancient Roman Empire and their use of Roman Trusts. The Ancient Roman Trusts declared that everyone had died after Rome was burned (which was a staged event) and until those Roman Citizens served notice upon the Roman Senate that they were in fact alive and capable of managing their own Estates, all were presumed dead and the Roman Senate became the Trustee over every Estate and used them as they deemed appropriate. As true as of currently today.

  7. Shane Christopher Buczek

    Thank God Trump Won!

    What is destroying America today is the ideological collectivism taught in our schools for the past 100 years, and its push to a New World Order. This push has resulted in the formation of powerful globalist groups such as the 5,000-member Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the 400-member Trilateral Commission in Washington. CFR elites have comprised the bulk of every presidential administration for the past 85 years, along with Trilateral elites since 1973
    Patriots of America are rejoicing. Leftists of America are shaking in their boots. Their despicable power-trip of treason and anti-Americanism is going to end. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of tyrants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *