Buczek 20101025 Answer To Motion To Revoke Bail

Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 32
Honorable court of record 1:08-CR00054-001

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 1:09-CR00121-001'/
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y 1:09-CR00141-001
1:09-CV01129-001
SHANE C. BUCZEK, a U.S. TRUST
Petitioner, Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER to
Answer governments motion for bail
shane-christopher: buczek, revocation and Petitioner's Motion to
as third-party intervener and Grantor / Beneficiary Dismiss Citing Prima Facie Fact and
Evidence to support claim Lack of Subject
Matter JURISDICTION
V.
(Answer requested within 7 days)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(Answer requested within 7 days because of Sentencing Factors)
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER TO ANSWER GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR BAIL

REVOCATION
Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal
and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv
misleading."US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.*
In the matter of SHANE C BUCZEK, a U.S. Trust and Office of Executor, Petitioner,
shane-christopher: buczek, heretofore and hereafter "Petitioner", notices the court of
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER to Answer governments motion for bail revocation and
1 of 14
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal
misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. *
Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Citing Prima Facie Fact and Evidence to support claim
Lack of Subject Matter JURISDICTION.
Petitioner Buczek, (hereafter Petitioner), files his answer to government's motion for bail
revocation herein with this affidavit.
1. Petitioner has repeatedly asked this Court to sanction or temper AU SA Anthony Bruce's
(hereafter Bruce) recent repeated mailings to Petitioner's house with veiled threats,
intimidation and harassment.
2. To date, this Court has not tempered, nor stopped Bruce's constant mailings to Petitioner.
3. AUSA Bruce is attempting with these constant mailings to entice, bait or irk Petitioner into a
controversy or argument. (See: Exhibit C collecting letters of Bruce to Petitioner from
March 2008 to October 2010)
4. AUSA Bruce and his office is presently, involved in a Civil action filed by Petitioner against
him (December 30, 2009) and Bruce is bent on retaliation against Petitioner. Petitioner has come
to believe that it is in Bruce's nature and ego to do so and he just can't help himself. (Exhibit D)
August, 20, 2009, Page 22, Lines 21-24.
5. Because Bruce is presently involved in a Civil lawsuit filed by Petitioner against him, in the
interest if justice and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest allegations,
Bruce should not be in any communications with Petitioner for any reason. Bruce should have
been barred by this Court to contact Petitioner and Bruce should have volunteered to recuse
himself from this case. Someone from his office other than Bruce should be sending out
20f14
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can onlY be equated with fraud where there is illegal
and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallY
correspondences to Petitioner. The government is starting to get it; at least someone else has filed
this motion for Bruce, instead of Bruce.
6. AUSA Bruce has been the initiator and instigator of these communications to Petitioner for
purposes that could cause harm to his liberties. The government has grossly overacted to
Petitioner's Memo to the Court in an attempt to get even with him for standing up for his rights.
7. Petitioner has a First Amendment Constitutional right to redress government to gain relief in
ways that are important to him. Magistrate Schroeder on August 20,2009, (pages 18, Lines 15-
25, Page 19, Lines 1-25, Page 20, Lines 1-25 Page 21, Linesl-24, Page 22 Lines 1-25) addressed
Petitioners right to redress government and chided Bruce for his constant berating of Petitioner.
Page 20, Lines 19-22. (Exhibit D) This conduct by Bruce was briefly tempered then but as one
can see by the multiple letters sent to Petitioner (Exhibit C), even after Bruce being named in a
Civil Suit, (December 30,2009) he cannot help himself but to continue the unrelenting
harassment.
8. Petitioner sent his filed Memorandum only into the Court and did not mail anything to any
other law agency to initiate Bruce's arrest. Petitioner did not file this Memo to intimidate Bruce,
it was for purposes to alert the Court of Bruce's continued illegal activities, contact, conduct and
mailings against Petitioner. The court can do whatever it wants with Petitioner's Memorandum.
If the Court wants to execute the warrant against Bruce, that is its choice, if it does not, it is
within the discretion of the Court to do that as well.
9. Petitioner finds it ironic that the government is allegedly using Title li, Sections 3148 (b),
3143 (a), to cite him. If the government has learned anything from this case, they should have
3 of 14
and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
learned that all of Title ll., H.R. 3190, 3231, 1344, is invalid due to an insufficient vote held on
May 1ih, 1947, where only 44 members of the House of Representatives voted instead of the
required 218 members or more that was necessary to Constitutionally pass such Law. Therefore,
the whole of Title ll. is invalid and its parts and violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution.
93 Congo Rec. 5048, 93 Congo Rec. 5049 (See Exhibit A) (See: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Evidence to support Claim -
Quorum issue) (See: Exhibit B)
The court obtained its jurisdiction to hear, prosecute crimes and to sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3231. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 is totally interdependent on the validity ofH.R. 3190 and
Public Law 80-772 of the 80th Congress (1947-1948), as it is part of that statute and under the In
Toto rule, if the statute is invalid, its parts are invalid.
10. Petitioner did a quick check into Title ll., Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), and there are no Code
of Federal Regulations attached to the statues to give such statutes force and effect. The
Supreme Court has ruled in California Banker's Assoc. v Schultz, 416 US 21, United States
v. Mersky, 361 US 431, Hotch y. United States, 212 F.2d 280,283 declares that, ... "ifthe rule
itself is not published, it follows that it has not been issued; and if a rule has not been
issued, it has no force as law." It is required by law among other things that a law passed by
Congress must appear in the Federal Registry for 30 days in order for the Public to make
comments about it and or redress any grievances they may have about said law to their
government. In addition, the law after passage thereafter becomes codified with supporting
regulations called the Code of Federal Regulations. "Once promulgated, these regulations, called
40f14
for by the statute itself, have the force of law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions,
just as if all the details had been incorporated into the congressional language." "The result is
that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only
together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily
involves the construction of the other." [Emp. added] 361 US 431 United States Yo:. Mersky,
80 S.Ct. 459, 4 L.Ed.2d 423
Therefore, Title~, Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), are invalid and the government is void of its
subject matter jurisdiction under those sections and the entire of Title ~ and connecting sections
et al.
11. In the first place, not only does the government lack jurisdiction to cite him, they also lack
subject matter jurisdiction for all three case(s) 09-CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S
against him.
12. Petitioner challenges the government to prove otherwise. "Once jurisdiction is challenged,
the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no
authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
"The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven." --Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must
be proven." --Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.
The Court in the Merlo, supra, case above stated "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the
court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no
authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
5 of 14
and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionallv
Petitioner has made a prima facie showing of an evidentiary fact within this motion and
demonstrated by the enclosed Exhibit A that the government and this Court lack subject matter
jurisdiction in these case(s) and authority to sentence Petitioner. As the Merlo court stated "that
the court lacks jurisdiction" ... "should dismiss the action."
Petitioner challenges the government/court to provide valid certified proof that refutes
Petitioners prima facie claims and shows irrefutable evidence that at least 218 or more members
of the House of Representatives who voted on May 1ih 1947, to legally pass Title lli, Public
Law 80-772, specifically, amended sections H.R. 3190, 3231, 1344, et aI, and did not violate the
Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner contends that the government and Court will be
unable to supply such proof because that is not what happened that fateful day. The government
by its silence has acquiesced to Petitioners valid claims. We know that silence creates estoppel
by acquiescence. "Silence can also be equated with fraud, where there is a legal duty to speak, or
where an inequity left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v Tweel, 550 F.2 nd
297,299 (1977). EFFECT FAILURE TO DENY F.R.Cv.P. RULE 8
13. Petitioner by filing his Memorandum into the Court was actually protecting the conditions of
his bail. The government with the continued prosecution of his case with their 'eyes wide open'
to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction that they have, are actually committing several crimes
against said Petitioner liberties, against the Constitution, and their oaths of office, thusly, for
Petitioner not to notice the Court about the governments continued illegal actions, Petitioner
could be guilty of Misprision of Felony for not reporting crimes being committed that he
witnessed and knew were going on.
60f14
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can onlv be equated with fraud where there is illegal
and moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. II US v Tweel (1977>550 F 2d 297.*
14. Petitioner in not a danger to society or to the community. He is only pursuing his
Constitutional protections afforded him to stop government from intimidating, harassing him,
overreaching and encroaching upon his liberties. The Courts have been solid where the
government attempts to punish someone for implementing their Constitutional protections. The
government wants to strip Petitioner of his liberties and incarcerate him now, while he is
pursuing relief and remedies Constitutionally afforded him and start his alleged sentence before
his appointed date. The Courts have stated: "Imposition of a harsher penalty for assertion of
constitutional or statutory rights is a denial of equal protection of the laws and due process
of law because the sentence imposes an unconstitutional condition on the exercise of those
rights." "The fact that a sentence is within the bounds of the punishment prescribed by the
legislature is irrelevant if in fact it is harsher than that of others similarly situated and was
motivated by a desire to punish the accused for assertion of, or to discourage future assertions of,
constitutional rights." United States v. Wiley (7th Cir 1960) 278 F2d 500. See also Van Alstyne,
In Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties and the "Successful" Criminal Appellant, 74 Yale LJ 606
(1965). This bedrock concept of equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution was established in Yick Wo '!!:,.Hopkins (1886) 118 US 356, 373-374:
"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and
administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand ... the denial of equal
justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." Law enforcement authorities in
Louisiana were reminded of this fact only last year. Cox v Louisiana (1965) 379 US 536. See
70f14
and moral duty to sneak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
also Wade v City I??I County o/San Francisco (1947) 82 CA2d 337, 186 P2d 181; People v
Harris (1960) 182 CA2d Supp 837, 5 CR 852.
15. Petitioner would request that all of Bruce's activities against him to cease and desist.
16. Petitioner moves the Court to have the government prove that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over him in his three case(s) by showing forth the production of certified
documentation that Title.lli, Public Law 80-772 was passed Constitutionally on May lih, 1947
with a Constitutionally held Quorum vote of at least 218 members of the House of
Representatives, and that it did not violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution.
17. Should government fail to provide such proof, Petitioner hereby motions this Court to
dismiss all three said actions 1:09-CROOI21-001, 1:09-CROOI41-001, 1:08-CR-054-001 against
him with prejudice.
(Answer requested within 7 days because of Sentencing Factors)
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests dismissal of government's motion for revocation of bail as
without merit in that the citations against him is an overreaction and continues the pattern of
harassment and intimidation against him. (Exhibit C) Petitioner has a First Amendment
Constitutional right to redress government to gain relief in ways that are important to him.
(Exhibit D) The Government is without subject matter jurisdiction even in the pursuing of these
citations. Petitioner was reporting his Constitutional duty to report crimes of Misprision of
Felony. It is a criminal offense for the government to bring a charge, citations or indictment(s)
against someone without a valid law. Title .lli, Public Law 80-772, H.R. 3190, 3231, 1344 and all
connecting sections listed above are invalid because it was voted upon without a Constitutional
8 of 14
misleading."US v Tweel (J977)550 F 2d 297.*
seated Quorum. No Quorum, no Law. Additionally, there are no regulations in the sections
that the government cited Petitioner on, further invalidating said alleged Law. Additionally,
Petitioner moves the government to provide for the production of the CFR regulations for Title
18., Public Law 80-772, H.R.3190, 3231, 1344. Petitioner also moves the Court to have the
government prove that it has subject matter jurisdiction over him in his three case(s) by showing
forth the production of certified documentation that Title 18., Public Law 80-772 was passed
Constitutionally on May 1ih, 1947 with a Constitutionally held Quorum vote of at least 218
members of the House of Representatives, and that it did not violate the Quorum Clause to the
Constitution. Petitioner has submitted in Exhibit A, enclosed, the actual vote of 38 to §. that took
place which was far insufficient of the Quorum requirement of the Constitution. Petitioner also
moves the Court to have the government provide the CFR regulations to Title 18., Sections 3148
(b), 3143 (a), to show forth their Constitutional validity and force and effect. Petitioner hereby
moves Court to have the government prove that they do have the CFR regulations to the cited
sections Title 18., Sections 3148 (b), 3143 (a), by showing forth the production ofthe regulations.
Petitioner also has researched his two plea deals and the cited statutes in those cases are absent
and void the CFR regulations that give those statutes force and effect. Incidentally, in the
passport case, in Petitioner's plea and Sentencing report, it was admitted by the government that
there are no penalties. How do you get an indictment void of the penalties? Easy, when there is
no valid Law or CFR regulations and the system is corrupted. The Court is obligated to protect
Petitioner's Constitutional rights and should even on its own motion, dismiss this case. Petitioner
hereby moves the Court to have the government prove and provide the production and evidence
90f14
of the CFR regulations to his two pleas deals. If they do not and cannot provide such evidence,
these two plea 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S agreements are also further 'void' for a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, for all the reasons listed above hereto, government's
motion should be denied as without merit and that they should prove that they have subject
matter jurisdiction over said Petitioner as described above for Title .lli, Sections 3148 (b), 3143
(a), and for all three case(s) against him, 09-CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S, and for all
the reasons stated above. The Court should rule that absent the government being able to provide
the requested documentation that Petitioner has asserted for all three indictments, 09-CR-121-S,
09-CR-141-S, 08-CR-054-S, the Court should dismiss all three indictment(s) against Petitioner,
with prejudice.
AFFDAVIT OF TRUTH OF THE TRUTH

Executor of the Estate of the Trust
SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK. U.s. Trust
I am a peaceful man and inhabitant of the creation and most often located in the
geographic region known as New York Republic of America: SHANE C. BUCZEK is a vested
interest of the United States of America and/or the United States: I am settlor and co-beneficiary
to SHANE C. BUCZEK for the mutual beneficial use of the United States of America and/or the
United States by and through holders of offices of the public trust. public trustees and myself.
Any attempt to coerce. trick. deceive. induce by fraud or otherwise move me to engage in
disposition of the vested interestCs) of the United States of America shall be considered an act of
war. treason. and sedition against the United States of America and will be reported to the
appropriate public trustees charged with protecting same.
I, shane-christopher: buczek, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of

these United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, is made in good faith and is admitted if not rebutted. I certify that the facts
stated herein are true And correct under the penalty of perjury as provided by 28 USC
Section 1746(1), that I am over The age of 18, and that I have firsthand knowledge first
hand of the facts stated herein are true And correct.
10 of 14
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can onlv be equated with fraud where there is illegal
In Trust,
By: Executor of the Estate SHANE CHRISTOPHER B

shane-christopher: family buczek
UCC 1-308 All Rights Reserved
Nation New York General-Post Office.
Near [14047-0093]
October {1;fl, ,2010
State of New York ) Acknowledgement

) Sworn and Subscribed:
County of Erie ) for verification purposes only
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by shane-christopher the living soul and, Executor
of the Estate known to me or proven to me to be the real man signing this document this ;;< '34-e...
day of October 2010
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
~):PUB~'kC>A'~ DATE
(Seal)
Nancy A. Ferraro #01 FE6007336

Notary Public, Erie County, New York
My Commission Expires May 18, 2.CI '-\
Notice
Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in
any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance
into any foreign jurisdiction.
11 of14
Cc.
Office of Inspector General
Office of Public Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
Room 5541 Cohen Building
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Petition To:
Commandant (G-OPL)
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd St. SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, TORT BRANCH
FEDERAL TORT CLAIM ACT STAFF
BOX 888 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN STATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044
Universal Postal Union

International Bureau
Case postal
3000 BERNE 15
SWITZERLAND
Eric Holder Jr.

United States Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 20530
Washington, D. C. 20530
Pope Benedict XVI

00120 Vatican City State
EUROPE
12 of 14
INTERPOL
General Secretariat
200, quai Charles de Gaulle
69006 Lyon
France
13 of 14
On thisthe'1b~av Df§!l~r~~ ~:ct

PETITIONER TO ANSWER GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR BAIL REVOCATION
ClIDV DfAFFIDAYII ill!:
and Petitioner Files Affidavit and: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Fact and Evidence to support Claim was
personally filed stamped 1:08-CR-0054-001. 1:09-CR00121-001.1:09-CR00141-001 AND
Civil Rights Case 1:09-CV01129-001 delivered to the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk will
serve AUSA by electronic filing and Civil Rights Case will be Mailed By U.S. MAIL
14 of 14
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5049

relating to crimes 'and criminal pro"; , This bili Is a restatement of the 'Ped- they were purely a cod1fl.ca.tion. But
cedure. eral Jaws relating to crimes and Crlminal there are some changes In this bill (H. R.
A bill similar to this passed the House procedure In effect on Aprll 15, 1947. 3198). I mean. for Instance, when we
unanimously In the closing days of the Most of these laws are now set forth In were COnsidering this bill the PhiJlppine
'Seventy-ninth Congress but was not title .18 of the United States Code and Islands were a part of the United States.
acted upon in the other body. I belJeve are based upon the 1909 Crlminal Code- We had many laws applicable to the
that I shoUld make a brief statement which was the last revision of criminal PhiUppine Islands when she was a part
explaining the method of drafting the· Jaws enacted by the Congress-and sub- of the United States that are no longer· in
bill and its scope. . seQUent laws on the subject. Of course, force because the Philippines are no
The work on this revisIon was com- 'tltle 18 ot the United States Code Is only longer a part of the United States.
menced under the supervision of the prlma. facie: evidence of the law which is ' Those laws we cut out. .
former Committee on Revision of the contained in numerous volumes at the We also found going through criminal
Laws in 1944. That committee engaged Statutes at Large. Upon the enactment law with the Department of Justice, the
the services of the West Publishing Co. of this bill It will no longer be necessary bar association, and the representatives
and the Edward Thompson Co., two law- to have recourse to those numerous vol- of the Fedez:al courts that CongreSs has
publishing companies that have assisted umes; . All the laY'lwm be set out In one passed many acts almost Identical. In
in the preparation of the original United place and amendments in the future Will some of them the penalty was fixed at
States Code and every supplement and be faCilitated because of the orderly ar- 5 years and in others, fixed at 6 months.
new edition of that code. These com- rangetnent of the laws ,within one title. We thought it wise to clarify and har-
panies have worked continuously and . Just a year' ago With the adoption of monize these.
closely with the Committee on Revision the Pederal Rules of Criminal Procedure Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker,
of the Laws and, since the beginning of many statutes became obsolete or super- so long as these distinguished gentlemen
this Congress, with the Committee on the seded, but, of course, were Dot spec1f- of the Judiciary Committee are satisfied
Judiciary, and counsel for the commit- lcally repealed. These toge~her with With this procedure and with this bill, I
fees, In turn, the companies supple- otner obsolete, superseded,' redundant, shall not use the time of the House
mented their regUlar editorial stalis by and repetitious statutes are repealed by further.
engaging the. services of a reviser who this bill, and the effect of the rules Is Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Sp'eaker, wUl
was long familiar with the operation and clearly set forth In the ·revislon. the gentleman yield?
administration of these laws. In addi- The law Is restated in simple, clear, Mr. COLE of New York! I yield to the
tion they assembled an outstanding and concise language. Many sections ot gen~eman trom Michigan. ,
groUpo! men !is an advisory commIttee existing statutes areconsolfdated to fa- . Mr.' I«I~. Mr. Speaker, I hold
who labored unselfishly toward achiev- cilitate finding the law. The advantages' 3h.my hai\ch. COPY of the commtttee re-
Ing the best revision of the criminal Jaws. of codes are too weU known 'to rl!Quire "o"tt which. I wish the Members WOUld
· A number of these men-members of the any lengthy exPOsition on my part at lotli' at caretuUv. Where there ls SEW
bench and bar of the country-appeared this time. .*' &ldlca.tiOD of ,cmmge every one ot til
before the Committee on the Judiciary You win find no radical changes in the q\U~ons Is explained In the
and testified that in their opinion this philosophy of ourcr1m1naJ· law In thJs W amend now we are
bill is eminently worthy of favorable bm. There is no attempt made here to Ilavor tbe
action by the Congress. The Depart- coddle crlmInals and' wrongdoers. Nor :emilen1",n from
ment of Justice also designated a rep- is thJs bill a subject of partisanship. Its It Will not be
resentative of the CrimInal Division to predecessor which passed the House it wiD uPS"et. the
cooperate in the preparation of this re- unanimously in the Seventy-ninth· Cono: followed U we
visIon. gress bad been rePorted unanimously by at'fC4~mIlIUsh this purpose.
Several preliminary drafts of the re- the Committee oli the Revision of the COLE ot, New York. Is the
vision were studied most carefully. word Laws and had received the unanimous amendment offered by tbe gentlema.n
for word and line for line, by these var- endorsement of the Committee on the trom Pennsylvania in the report accom-
Ious groups, culminating in the bill now Judiciary; This bfll has also been re- paDJing this b1ll to whicb he has re-
· up for consideration, parted unanimoUSly by the Committee ferred? .'
At the last Congress the Committee on the Judlcl!U'Y." .' . . Mr. MICHENER. No; 11; is not.
on the Revis10n of the LaWs, through its Favorable actiOn by the HOllSe today The SPEAKER. The question Is on
chairman. appeared before a subcom- will constitute a. big step toward an or- the amendment o1fered by the gentleman
mittee of the Judiciary Committee and. . derly and sYStem\tic code of Jaws and Jrom PeDllfYlvan.t~(~. WAL't£aJ.
in a. number of sessions, pointed out and wm prove a boon to'the bench and bar .' The qu\!stion w~ ~ taken. 41md the
explained every change In substantive and thepublfc generany. SPe.aker ~Jng .In aoubt, the,.BoW!e
law made by the bill Which had been Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, d!v{ded. andtl1ere were-Qes 38~ ~ 6.
reported by that committee. After full Ionly' rise in opposition to the amendment $Othe amendinent Was"Qreed to.
· discussion the Conimittee on the Judi- for the purpose of suggesting that The bill was'lk~ered fa,:.be engrossed
cial:Y unanimously endorSed the then to some extent the gentleman's amend-
ment is In violation of the understand- and refUl a tbirclfgm§.. was l'e~the third
pending bill, which Is slmilar to the bllJ ing on which these bills were submitted t.lme, and passed, Baa mottod to recon-.
before us today. and that bill was passed to. the House for PflSSage today. It was
er Was la.1d OD till! table. .
unanimously by the House on July 16, understood that tbey were simply codi-. 2X'l'l!lNSION OF HE1II1ARB'B
1946, in the closing dayS of the session.
The bill had received the endorsement flcatlons of existing law and undertook Mr. STEVENSON asked and was given
of the Department of Justice and the to I make no changes in existing law.
un(ferstand that prqbably the gen-
permissIon to' extend his remarks In the
Section on Criminal Law of the American tleman's Appendix ot the RECORD and Include a
. Bar Association. I believe that I am not merit. andamendment has considerable report to his constituents.
engaging in overstatement when I say Committee Ionsee several members of the
the Judiciary on the fioor.
RI!lVISION OP TITLE 28. ONITED STATES
that no bill of thIs magnitude ever came I certainly am not in a position and have CODE
to the House with such a background .of no desire to raise any criticism of pro- The Clerk called the blll (B. R. 3214)
careful and paInstaking preparation and cedure or objection to It" but it does to revise. codify, and enact into law title
this branch of the Jaw.
to
· critical appraisal by so many leaders In seem be a violation of the 'understand- 28 of the United states Code entitled
"Judicial Code and Judiciary." .
ing under which these bIDs were sub-
.So much for the method of prepara- mitted ' The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
tion-and I want to exPress our appre- Mr.. ROBSION. Mr. Speaker, will the the present consideration of the blJl?
ciation to the learned members of the gentleman yield? Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
bench .and bar who contributed so much Mr. COLE of New York. r yield. the rJ8'ht to ob/ect, this, bfJI H. R. 3214
of theIr' talent and' time toward 'tb,1s Mr. ROSSION. I pOinted out when I deals, with th~' judiciary a.nd Judicial
work. . made my statement with reference to the procedure and I wIsh to call attentlol1
Now as to the scope of the bill. first five bUls that we considered, that merely to one part of it. That Is the part
XCIII-319
HeinOnline -- 93 Congo Rec. 5049 1947

5048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE MAY 12

amount each yea.r for the development quo until the Congress took some addi- that Is bad enough, but, significantly
of farm-to-ma.rket roads. The Commis- tional action. enough, over 50 percent of the criminals .
sioner of Public Roads, Mr. Thomas H. Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I in the Federa1lnstltuttons are repeaters.
MacDonald, spoke in favor of the bill. withdraw my reservation of objection. It seems to me that the least we can do
General Fleming, Commissioner of Pub- Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving is to make it possible or probable for a.
lic Works, favored the bill. No one ap- the right to object, as one of the mem- Board intelligently to pass on applica~
psa.red in opposition to the bill. It was bers of this committee, I had an oppor- tions for parole in order to determine
reported unanimously by the Public tunity to study this bill very carefully. whether or not men should be released
Works Committee. Three identical bills The people in my particular area in the from their incarceration.
have been introduced In the other body Northwest are very, very much in sym- Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Speaker, will the
by three different Stlnators. The Presi- pathy With this bill. I think what the gentleman yield?
dent recommended the passage of such chairman bas said and what the gentle- Mr. WALTER. I yield.
measure in his message to thl! Congress man from Iowa [Mr. CtlNNINGBAM] has Mr. CARROLL. Would the gentle-
on January 3 of this year. This bill will said Is absolutely true, that this bID is man's amendment change existing law?
not require a single dollar of appropria- essential for our road-bUilding program. Mr. WALTER. It does not change
tions from the FederaJ Treasury. Th~ SPEAKER. Is there objection to existing law at all.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. the present consideration of the bill? Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker,
Speaker, will the gentleman yield? There was no objection. will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Mr. WALTER. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Does the Be tt enactect, etc., Tbat paragraph (Ii) of Mr. COLE of New York. If it does not
extension apply to the farm-to-market section 4 at the Fecieral-Ald HIghway Act change existing law. and this bill is de-
roads as well as to the primary system? at 1944, Public Law 521. Seventy-el.gbtb Con- signed to codify existing law, wha.t is the
Mr. CU1\'NlNGHAM. It certainly does, gress, approved December 20, 1944, is hereby necessIty of ofi'erlng the amendment?
as well as the development of the high- amended by strik11lg out the term "one year" Mr. WALTER. It changes eXisting
ways in the urban areas. . where it appears in said paragraph and in- law in that it changes the number of
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The bill serting in lieu thereot tl?-e term "two years." members on the Board. It does not,
is very much in order for two reasons. The bill was ordered to be engrossed however, in any way affect the purpose
One is that the time when the Japanese and read a third time. was read the third of the law establishing the parole sYs-
war expired, creating the resolution time, and passed, and a motion to re- tem: It merely changes the number of
which the gentleman has referred to consider was laid on the table. members of the Board. This is not cllf-
before, came along in the fall. which gave . ferent from what has been done by this
the States s. short year the :first year. TO COQIn '1:1'rLE 18 OF THE tJNlTl!:D committee in this very bill. The periOd
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. No States STATES CODE. cm:a.ms AND cm:MINAL of sentence has been changed in order
sta.rted building highways prior to l?ROCtoORE to make different crimes fit the sentences
October of 1945. They lost 4 months to Tne Clerk called the bIn CR. R. 3190) tha.t have been fixed by Congress from
start with. Then, there was a. lack of to revis~. codify. and enact into positive . time to time. That 1s done throughout
material and shortage of labor and high law. title 1& 01" tbe United States code this entire title 28.
prices, which caused the program to· be entitled' "Orimes and Crlm1ne.1 Proce- Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the
held up. The whole program will be re- dure," gentleman yield?
tarded and the States will lose some ot The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Mr. WALTER. I yield.
this appropriation and there will be the present consideration of the bill? Mr. GRAHAM. As I understand the
tremendous waste if this bill is not en- There was no objection, gentleman's amendment it increases the
acted. Possibly 12 months' grace period The Clerk read -the bill the second number of members from three to five.
Is not sufficient, but if It is not sufiiclent time. Mr. WALTER. That is right.
we can bring up another bill later. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an Mr. GRAHAM. But it does not in-
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. If r amendment. crease the rate of compensation of the
remember corrcctly prior to this authori- The Clerk: read as follows: members.
zation the oid Federal-aid authorization Amendment offered by Mr. WALTZII: On Mr. WAUrER. That Is right. exactly.
gave the states 2 years in which to act. page 434, line 11, a.fter the word "Of", strike Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Speaker, will the
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gen- out "three" Bnd insert "five." gentleman yield?
tleman is right. Mr. WALTER. Iyleld.
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, the Mr. ROBSION. I may say this to the
Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Speak- amendment you have just heard report- gentleman, this matter came up before
er, will the gentleman yield? ed would have tile effect, if adopted, of our Judiciary Committee and former
Mr. CUl';NINGHAM. I yIeld. increasing the membership of the parole Senator George Wharton Pepper, who Is
Mr. H. CaRL ANDERSEN. "I wish to board from three to five. tremendously Interested in this subject,
state at this time that in my opinion this At the last session of the Congress one and others felt thcy had to have addi-
is very necessary legislation. As a ·prevl- of the subcommittees of the Committee tional authorization to increase the
ous member of the Committee on Roads, on the JudiciarY,ln studying the legisla- number from tlu·ee to five. Otherwise
I would like to compliment the genUeman tion which we hoped might have the ef. we are not amending the law. I think
for bringing this bill up at this time. fect of cutting down the Criminal rate there k no objection to it. We have p•
. Mr. CIDlNINGHAiW. r thank: the gen- In this country. found a. perfectly ap- b!1l which can be called up to do this
tleman. palling. situation In the parole board. thing.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker. will the That board of three members actually Mr. WALTER. The gentleman is COr-
gentleman yIeld? Interviews upward of 10,000 prisoners rect, but. we are this far. I do not think
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. r yield to the each year. That Is, personal interviews. there Is any doubt but that the Judiciary
chairman of the committee. In adcUtlon to that, they have to review Committee would unanimously approve
Mr. DONDERO. I think the gentle- the cases acted on after personal Inter- a. separate bm, but we have ·gotten this
man has already covered the ground, but views. far with this legislation and It certainly
is it not a fact that because Of the con- There are 21 criminal Institutions In seems to me the situation is so critical
cUtions enumerated by the gentleman, the United States tha.t must be visited that we ought to act as quickly as we
many of the States have been unable to by this Board at regular intervals. So possibly can. That is the reason I have
comply with the provisions of this act, they have a perfectly Impossible job with offered this amendment at this tlmc.
which makes this bill mandatory in or- the result that men are paroled accord- The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
der to protect the States? Ing to formula. who should be compelled tleman from Pennsylvania has el<pired.
, Nfr. CUNNINGHAM. That Is abso- to serve their ftill ~e.,tence. I am not Mr. RonSION. Mr. Speaker, this bill
lutcly true. In addition. ~here would bi! thinking about those Ulcn who ere eli- differs from the 1ive codificulio,~ bil!5
·,:','m,'ndolls wastc. beca.use the highway gible for parole and In whose cases no which have preceded It on this C!l I,,, •
p,Gr:l"am would be stoPllcd, and highways '!f::,ion can b,~ t.aken because the Boare!. flnr In that, It constitutes a revision, ~;;:
[mnly complet,;c! ·.';Ollld be left In status has not the til;1;; to i·each their cu..scs; ",,,cll as!l. Cf.)(ll:lc:1.L\lln, ot the Federal l".,:.,
HeinOnline .. 93 COIlg. Ree. 5048 1947

_•..J.L_._
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256

~
N
.ffi" of dye QUerk '0

~
N
~. ~.e of ~..tatifae. Q)
~
_ultitlshm, ~GI 20'515-&&01 0..
0>
Sep~r11.2006
Q
0
~
(3
"I'""
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Clerk. "0
..92
u:::
After conducting a thorough examination of the joumals, I found no entry In the journal of the House of any
May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3180 bBl. although pag8l343-344 of the Journal of the House of Represen- ,.....
tatives from the 1st Session of the 80th Congresalndlcate8 that the biD was amended, purportedly passed. ,.....,
"I'""
December 19. 1947 sine die adjoumment. t

and transmitted to the Senate for c:oncurrence. The Senate took no action on the H.R. 3190 bill prior to the N
.....
1:Q)
0'
Page 5049 the Congressional Record, 80th Congress, 1st Ses810n indicates 44 Members voting 38 to 8 E
::3
present. ' '1'

to emend H.R. 3190 on May 12. 1947. Therefore by counting the total yea and nay vote a quorum was not 0
0
C
Filed 10/25/10 Page 18 of 32

:It:
According to House Rules, when less than a majOJity of a quorum votes to pass a bill. the joumal must Show ()
the names of Members present but not voting. I'found no record of any names for the May 12. 1947 vole. I C,
hope this information has answered your questions. l' >
-I
0:::I
!n
Sincerely Yours, . UJ
0
0
~a.IlU.-> r:I( #44L <:C 0

0
'-
I
)(.
-
I
Karen L. Haas 00
Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives .c, 0
~
0-
<:;;L
"1::
Honorable court of record 1: 08-CROOO54-00 1/

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1:09-CR-00121-001
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1:09-CR-00141-001
SHANE C. BlJCZEK, a U.S. TRUST

Petitioner, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subiect Matter
Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie
shane-christopher: buczek, Evidence to support Claim Petitioner
. as third-party intervener and Grantor I Beneficiary demands 10 days to reply
*(Answer Notice within 10 days)*
v. ORlGINAL W~AS
l' - fA I'-WAND FILr'
BY' ,'
....... . ,I
CNITED STATES OF AMERICA , (lji) J\ ' ----
• .Jv f ......
. ' -0
, • 'UNITED STATES D1SrRiCT COUU CI.£KK

WESTER,\ DlS'ffiICf Of NEW '!'ORK
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject MaUer Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie
Evidence to support Claim Petitioner demands 10 days to reply*(Answer Notice within 10
days)*
Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal
misleading. "US v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297.*
In the matter of SHANE C BUCZEK, a U,S. Trust, Petitioner, shane-christopher: buczek,
heretofore and hereafter "Petitioner", notices the court to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subiect MaUer Jurisdiction petitioner submits Prima FacieEvidence to support Claim
Petitioner demands 10 days to reply*(Answer Notice within 10 days)*
*(AnswerNoticewithinlQdays)* under Federal Rules of Eyidence 201 (d) and (0. Petitioner
1 of 13
and moral duty to speak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "US v IWeel (J 977)550 F 2d 297. *
Buczek, (hereafter Petitioner), moves and motions this Court for dismissal for all three cases 09-
CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, OS-CR-054-S, due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner
will presently give forth prima facie evidence of an evidentiary fact, wherein documents (See
Exhibit A) enclosed will show conclusively that the House of Representatives vote taken on May
12lh, 1947 was 38 to §" which caused said vote to be Constitutionally deficient, invalid and illegal
to satisry the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. On May 12th, 1947 to pass Constitutionally
Title 18, Public Law 80-772, specifically H.R. 3190 and its connecting sections, 323] et aI, a
vote to Constitutionally pass such amendment required at least 218 ayes votes to validate such
law' and not violate the Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner declares such vote was
ayes 38, noes §, as Exhibit A shows. This unconstitutional act violated Article 1, Section 5,
Clause 1; Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, and/or Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 - and any of which
rendered Title ~, H.R. 3190, 3231 et al sections Public Law 80-772 unconstitutional and l'oid ab
initio. Petitioner requests the court to take mandatory judicial notice under Federal Rules of
Evidence 201 (e) (f), of93 Congo Rec. 5048, 93 Congo Rec. 5049. Exhibit A
The court obtained its jurisdiction to hear, prosecute crimes and to sentence pursuant to
18 USc. § 3231. 18 U.S.c. § 3231 is totally interdependent on the validity ofH.R. 3190 and
Public Law 80-772 of the 80 th Congress (1947-1948), as it is part of that statute and under the III
Toto rule, if the statute is invalid, its parts are invalid.
First, the court is governed by the rule of Stare Decisis, assuming it is a Constitutional
court, and if it is not a Constitutional court, Petitioner requests the court to so advise
2 of 13
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be Gquated with fraud where there is illegal
and moral duty to smrak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "US y TWeel (1977)550 F 2d 297.'*
Petitioner. Under the rule of stare decisis, district court cases have no precedent value, and cases
cited from other District courts carry no weight, other than advisory, in this district. Also
under the rule of Stare Decisis, the Constitution is the contract between the government and its
citizens. Therefore, the constitution always prevails. Since the issue addressed has never been
adjudicated, i.e., whether a Constitutional seated Quorum was in place to transact business on
May 12, 1947 when the House voted on Public Law 80-772, then the Constitution must prevail.
Article I, Section 5, Clause l. The plain language of the Constitution trumps any other
possibility.
Second, after the Constitution, and its plain language, comes the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), which has never been overturned
has already determined that without a proper quorum to do business, no valid bill can be passed.
No Quorum, no Law.
Petitioner Takes Judicial Notice of the Fair Warning Doctrine
Petitioner requests the court to take mandatory judicial notice under Federal Rules of
Evidence 201 (e) (f), of the Fair Warning Doctrine and Supporting case law, which establishes
that neither the Bureau of Prisons nor any federal court can claim jurisdiction pursuant to the
prior Title 18 statute passed in 1909.
The same day President Truman signed into law Public Law 80-773 enacting into
positive law Title 28, United States Code. Act of June 25, 1948, Ch. 646, § 1,62 Stat. 869, the
President signed an act positively repealing the fonner criminal jurisdiction granted to the district
courts. id., ~ 39 et seq., 62 Stat. 991 et seq. (positive repeal listing former 28 U.S.c. § 4], ~ 2 in
3 of 13
misleading. "US v Iweel (1977)~Q F 2d 297.*
schedule of repealed statutes). Therefore, with a repealed prior statute, no jurisdiction is created
for the court.
Fair warning doctrine invokes due process rights and requires that criminal statute at
issue be sufficiently definite to notify persons of reasonable intelligence that their planned
conduct is criminal. United ~ v.. Nevers, 7 F.3d 59 (5 th Cir. 1993). See United States~.
Rei. Clark v. Anderson, 502 F.2d 1080 (3d Cir. 1974) (The notice requirements of Due Process
would not permit a state, after ruling one of its criminal statutes was overly vague, to apply that
statute's superseding predecessor statute in the very case which ruled the successor statute
unconstitutional ).
In United States g. ReI. Clark v. Anderson, 502 F.2d 1080(3d Cir. 1974),502 F.2d 1080, 1081-
1082, the court found that at the time the offense occurred and the accused was indicted, "the
state of Delaware had published and was holding out the new [statute] as its only proscription of
such misconduct as the indictment charged." The crime was also not a crime at common law.
The court ruled the new statute unconstitutional. And by definition, an unconstitutional statute
is one that fails to give fair notice that particular conduct is proscribed by the state. See
United States v. Harris, 1954,347 U.S. 612,617,98 L.Ed. 989,74 S.Ct. 808; Connally v.
General Construction Co., 1926,269 U.S. 385,391, 70 L.Ed. 322,46 S.Ct. 126. Thus, the
state's own interpretation of the new statute and its rejection of that section as a statutory basis
for Clark's prosecution caused the court to hold that the new statute did not provide
constitutionally adequate notice.
4 of 13
*Failure to answer is sjlence. Silence can only be equated witb fraud wbere tbere is illegal
and mQral duty to speak. or wben inquiry left unanswered would be intentiOnally
mjsleading. "US y TWee1(1977)550 F 2d 297.*
The Clurk court determined that the defendant's conviction could be upheld only if the
old statute, the supersession of which had been legislatively declared and publicly announced,
could continue to serve as notice of the criminality of defendant's conduct. In order to reach that
conclusion the court decided that one would have to reason, first that the new statute on its face
gave adequate notice of its own invalidity, and second, that the public, thus informed, was then
put on further notice that the officially announced statutory repeal or supersession of the old
statute was legally ineffective. Id.
The court concluded that such reasoning was "too tortured and too far removed" from
reality to satisfy the due process requirement that, at the time of the alleged offense, the accused
shall have been on notice that his conduct was proscribed by the criminal law. The court could
not even surmount the first hurdle that the new statute could serve as notice of its own invalidIty.
Without that notice, no occasion was available to consider the old statute as possibly relevant.
As in the Clark case, and its Supreme Court precedents, to meet Due Process, Public Law
80-772 and 18 U.s. c. § 3231 would have had to give adequate public notice on their faces of
their own invalidity and the public would have to have been put on further notice that the
officially announced statutory repeal or supersession of the old statutes was legally effective.
The court cannot even reach the first hurdle, much less the second one. The court obtained its
Jurisdiction to prosecute crimes pursuant to 18 U.S.c. § 3231. Without proper notice of the
Invalidity of the statute, defendant's indictment and conviction can not be upheld and the coun
has only one choice, to order dismissal of defendant's indictment and conviction ab initio.
5 of 13
and moral duty to speak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "US y Twesl (1977)550 F 2d 297.*
According to standing precedent, this court had absolutely no jurisdiction to prosecute
Defendant under either 18 U.S.c. § 3231 or the prior enactment in 1940.
LACK OF JURISDICTION
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction ... Jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is
further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction:'
Insurance Corp. of Ireland Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxite de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694,701
(1982); Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226,234 (1922) (all lower federal courts "derive
[) [their] jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress"); United States v. Hudson &
Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32,33 (1812) (federal courts "possess no jurisdiction but what is given to
them by the power that creates them."). United States v. Ball, 98 U.S. 343,345 (1879) (federal
"courts possess no jurisdiction over crimes and offenses ... except what is given to them by the
power that created them"); Hudson & Goodwin, II U.S. at 33-34. See also, e.g., United States
v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76,95-105 (1820) ("the power of punishment is vested in the legislative,
not the judicial department," criminal statutes are to be construed strictly, "probability" cannot
serve to "enlarge a statute" and an offense not clearly within the terms of a statute precludes
federal court jurisdiction). According to standing precedent, this court had absolutely no
jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant under either 18 U.S.c. § 3231 or even the prior enactments.
The predecessors to the District Court (the House members on May I i \ 1947) with their
unconstitutional vote to the have put this Court in the hot seat. The Petitioner did not screw this
vote up. Our Congress and government have. It is not the fault of this Petitioner to invoke his
Constitutional protections against government intrusion and overreach. All Petitioner is asking is
6 of 13
and moral dutv to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleadipg."IJS y heel <1977)55() F 2d 297.*
for the relief that is Constitutionally afforded to him. To cover up one injustice with another
always leads to manifest more injustice which entangles all the people in between. Petitioner
demands dismissal and a sealing of all the records of this Court case.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Petitioner hereby challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the government
and the Court. Once jurisdiction is challenged by a Petitioner, the burden of proof shifts to the
government/Court to prove that they have it. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not
by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction
1ies with the asserter." See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of la\'I.·
may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v. ~, 4 US 308. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine
its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court
must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." "Once jurisdiction is
challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the
court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505
F2d 1026. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
must be proven." --Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "Once jurisdiction is challenged,
it must be proven." --Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.
Petitioner challenges the government/court to provide valid certified proof that refutes
Petitioners prima facie claims and shows irrefutable evidence that at least 218 or more members
of the House of Representatives who voted on May 12th 1947, to legally pass Title 18, Public
La\v 80-772, specifically, amended sections H.R. 3190,3231, et aI, and did not violate the
7 of 13
misleading."US y Iweel (1277)550 F 2d 297.*
Quorum Clause to the Constitution. Petitioner contends that the government and Court will be
unable to supply such proof because that is not what happened. Therefore, Petitioner demands
and moves this Court for an immediate dismissal of all three of his cases I :09-CR-00121-001,
1:09-CR-14I-001 and 08-CROOO54-001, with prejudice.
AFFDAYIT OF TRUTH OF THE TRUTH
Executor of the Estate of the Trust
SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK. U.S. Trust
I am a peaceful man and inhabitant of the creation and most often located in the
geographic region known as New York Republic of America; SHANE C. BUCZEK is a
vested interest of the United States of America and/or the United States; I am settlor and
co-beneficiary to SHANE C. BUCZEK for the mutual beneficial use ofthe United States of
America and/or the United States by and through holders of offices of the public trust,
public trustees and myself. Any attempt to coerce, trick, deceive, induce by fraud or otherwise
move me to engage in disposition of the vested interest(s) of the United States of America shall
be considered an act of war, treason, and sedition against the United States of America and
will be reported to the appropriate public trustees charged with protecting same.
I, shane-christopher: buczek, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of these
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, is
made in good faith and is admitted if not rebutted. I certify that the facts stated herein are true
And correct under the penalty of perjury as provided by 28 USC Section 1746( I ), that I am over
8 of 13
*Failure to answer is silence, Silence can only be equated nrith fraud where there is illegal
and moral duty to soeak. or wben inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading."US y Tweet (1977)550 F 2d 227.*
The age of 18, and that I have firsthand knowledge first hand of the facts stated herein are true
And correct.
**Demand is hereby made to The JJnjted Slates Attorney's to Answer within *10 days
showing jurisdiction and the iniury party AND FOREIGN AGENT'S show a manifest
Fraud on the Court and fraud against Petitioner the question is WHY?*You take a Oath
to protect the real man and women.
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can Only be eQuated with fraud where there is legal
and moral duty to speak. or when inQuiry left unanswered would be
Intentionally misleadjn2."IJS y Tweel (977)550 F 2d 297,* (10) days to answer and
(3) Days Grace OPPORTUNITY TO CURE *
*The Court acting as Trustee, through this Mandatory Judicial Notice Rule 201 lid) and (e)(O
CONFLICT of INTEREST Fraud on the Court & Fraud against Petitioner Due Process
Violations Demand for immediate Dismissal of an indictments. actions against him Motion
for Dismissal for Fraud Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is instructed by the
Grantor/Settlor to Compensate the Beneficiary Shane-Christopher family Buczek at the rate of
$1,000.00 ner day for every day that the Beneficiary Shane Christopher family Buczek is
financiaUy damaged by the invalid charging instruments mistakenly enforced by this court which
such charging Instruments and accompanying resulting orders have prevented the Beneficiary
Shane from working to earn a living. *
9 of 13
*Failure to answer is silepce. Silepce cap oply be equated with fraud where there is illegal
and moral duty to speak. or when inquiry left upanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "lIS v Tweel (1977)550 F 2d 297. *
govern yourself accordingly

In Trust,
By: Executor of the Estate SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, a U.S. Trust

shane-christopher: of the family ofbuczek
Nation New York General-Post Office.
Near [14047-0093]
October '1. ,~t ,2010
Exhibit "A" 93 Congo Rec. 5048, 93 Congo Rec. 5049 & 5048 and September 11,2006
showing no quorum present of May 12, 1947 by Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives
State of New York ) Acknowledgement

) Sworn and Subscribed:
County of Erie ) for verification purposes only
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by shane-christopher the living soul and, Executor
of the Estate known to me or proven to me to be the real man signing this document this~.
day of October 2010
WITNESS my hand a~
~,
NOTARY PUBLIC
-
DATE
(Seal)
Sarah J. Smolinski
Notary Public, State of Nfl"" \'~f
01MA6192256
Quali1iecl in Erie Cour: . '\t\\1--
M Commission Expires AuQ.:._. ?f cr!'
10 of 13
*failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is illegal
aDd moral duty to sneak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "US y TweeJ (1977)550 F 2d 297. *
Notice
Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in
any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance
into any foreign jurisdiction.
Cc.
Office of Inspector General
Office of Public Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
Room 5541 Cohen Building
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
lli!.-ffalfs{l.l{oi g. hhs. gov
Petition To:
Commandant (G-OPL)
U.S Coast Guard
2100 2nd St. SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, TORT BRANCH
FEDERAL TORT CLAIM ACT STAFF
BOX 888 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN STATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044
Universal Postal Union

International Bureau
Case postal
3000 BERNE 15
SWITZERLAND
Eric Holder Jr.

United States Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 20530
Washington, D. C. 20530
11 of 13
and mora) duty to speak. or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "US y Tweet (1277)550 F 2d 297. *
Pope Benedict XVI

00120 Vatican City State
EUROPE
INTERPOL
General Secretariat
200, quai Charles de Gaulle
69006 Lyon
France
12 of 13
*Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated with fraud where tbere is illegal
misleading."US v TWeet (1977)550 F 2d 297.*
; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this thelt day of October 20)0. a true and correct copy of Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Petitioner submits Prima Facie Evidence to support Claim
(Petitioner demands 10 days to reply)*<Answer Notice within )0 days)* was personally filed
stamped );()8..CR-0054-00). 1:09-CROOJ21-001 and 1:09-CROO141-001 delivered to the
Clerk of the Court and the Clerk will serve AUSA by electronic filing.
13 of 13
and moral duty to speak. or wben inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. "US y Tweel (1277)550 F 2d 297.*
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 39
IBIT "A"
!
Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 39
4-
o
.ffiet of tip QUe~k M
N
~JI.,.. .. of ~adatifJe. ~
<D
,......lI8bm,
o •
,CIt 205.157""6&01 a..
en
September 11. 2005 ~
g
25
..-
Thank you for contacting the 0Iftce of the Cledt.
~
u::
After conducting a thorough examination of the journals. I found no 8tlby In the journal of the House of any
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1
May 12t 1947 vote on the H.R. 3180 bill. although pages 343-344 of the Journal of the House of Represen- r-
......
tatives from the 1st 8eaIan ~ ""10th Congresa IndIcate8 that the bill W88 amended. pwportedty passed. r-•
and tranamItted to the Senate for concummce. The Senate took no action on the HA 3180 bJJI prior to ahe N
December 19. 19471ina die adjournment. ......
iE
PrIe":ciIt~ Rard,'1Oth ~"1."'1'd"44 MemberI·voting 38 to 6
~ F1~R. 31Jt~"., t2, ~7'~Y"eoun_.~tbtaI yea and nay vote aqucwm '1M not
~
~
of I quqmm vatealq.:. II bill. the'J9Umai must shOw t.'>
_..~~ nareaCl'dofq~fot",MaY''l2.194;VOle.1
o I
,r~_ >
.-l
a::: I
,n
t{)
Sincerely Yours.
~t.t./uAl...) ~ #~ <:.
)(.
Karen L. Haas
Clerk. U,S. House of Representatives Ct
2
Ii:>
0-
Q
,..,.-
1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5049

:.-elatlng to crimes ·anc. criminal pr~ . Thill bfii Is a restatement of the ·Ped· they were purely a. codification. But
cedure. era1 Jaws 1'8latiiD8 to crimes and Cl1m1D&l there are some changes in this blll (B. R.
A bill similar to this passed the Bouse procedure in effect on AprU 15. 1947. 3198), I mean. for inst.ance. when we
unanimously in the closing dayS of the Most of these Jaws are now set forth in were considering tbis bill' the Philippine
SeventY-ninth Congress but was not title 18 of the Unlted States Code and Islands were a part of the United States.
acted upon in the other body. I believe are based upon the 1909 Cr1mlDa1 Code- We had many laws applicable to the
that I shoUld make a brief statement wbich was the last revision of crim1Dal Philippine IsJands when she was a part
explaining the method of drafting the· Jaws enacted by tbe Consress-a.nd sub- of the Onlted States tllat are no longer·in
bill anc. its scope. sequent laws on the subject, Of course, force because the PhiUppines are no
The work on this revl.s1on was com- 'tltle 18 of the Unlted States Code Is onl, longer a part of the United States.
menced under the supervision of the prima facie'eVidence of the law which is . Those laws we cut out.
~o!"mer Committee on Revision of the contained In numerous volumes of the We also found going through criminal
:"a;;os ill 1944. That committee ensapd statutes at Large. Upon the enactmmt law with the Department of Justice, the
the services of the West Publisblng Co. of this bW It WUl DO lcmaer be necessary bar assocIation, and the representatives
and the Edward Thompson Co., two law- to bave recourse to those numerous vol- of the Fedez:al courts that CongreSs has
publishing compani~ that have assisted umes. All tbe law WUJ be set out in one passed many acts almost identical. In
in the preparation of the original Unlted place and amendments In the future wf1I some of them the penalty was ru.ed a.t
States Code and every supplement and be facD1tated because of the orderlJ at- 5 years and In others. fixed at 6 months.
new edition of that code. These com- ranrefnent of the laws Within one title. We thought it wise to clarify and har-
pames have worked continuously and . Just a year' arro With the adoption of monlZe these.
closeJy with the Committee on Revision the Federal Rules of CrJDUDal Procedure Mr, COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker.
of the Laws ano. since tbe beginn1J:lg of many statutes became obsolete or super- so long as tbese distinguished gentlemen
this Congress, with the Committee on the seded, but. of course, were not specif- of the Judiciary Committee are satisfied
JudiCiary. and counsel for the commit- 1caJy repealed. These toptber With With this procedure and with this bill. I
tees. In turn, the companies supple- other obsolete, suPerSeded, redUDdant, shaJJ not use the time of the Eouse
mented their regular editorial stafis by and repetitious statutes are repealed by further.
engaging the services of a remer who this b1I1. and the effect of the rules 1& Mr. MrCHENER_ Mr. Sp'eaker. wtll
was long familiar With the operation and clearly set forth in thereV1s1on. tbe gentleman yield?
administration of these laws. In addi- The law is restated in simple, clear. Mr. COLE of New Yorli I yield to the
tion they assembled IUl outstanding and CODC!se laneuare. Many sections of geptleman from Michigan.
group 'of men as an advisory committee existing statutes are consolidated to fa- iiENER. Mr. Spea!:.e:.-_: haiti
\\'ho labored unselfishly toward acbiev- cilitate findfnl the law. The advantases Ii a ClOPl' of the commitJ;ee re-
ing the best revision of the criminal Jaws. of Codes are too well known -to.require I Wish the Membc:-s wo>.!ld
·A number of these men-members of the ~ lenithy exposition on my part at efuUl'. Where t.bere is any
bench and bar of the country-a.ppeared this time. f cbange et'e:j one 0: th2SC
before the Committee on the Judiciary You wW find no radJc&l chaDges in the ODS S5 fany e.'qJI!lined in tile re-
and testified that in their opinion thfl:
bill is eminently worthy of favorable
pbilosopby of our crfm1nal. Jaw. So tlW! I! we start to amenc: now
bID. There is no attemPt made here to liable to get into trouble. I lavo:- the
w"<::-c
action by the Congress. The Depart- coddie cr1m1nals and' wronBdoers. Nor blll suggested by the gentleman from
ment of Justice also designated a rep- is this b1I1 a subject of partlaansb1p. Its Pemu;ylvanle. but ! hope it. will no: !:Ie
resentatIve of the Criminal DiVision to predecessor wbich passed the Bouse l,pterjected here because it will upse: thl::
cooperate in the preparation of this re- unanimOusly In the Seventy-Dlnth· con- ,prcr..edure whict! must be: followed if we
vision. gress bad been reported uuanlmousJy by . ope to accomplish this purpose.
Several preliminary drafts of the re- the Commlttee on the Retislon of the CO!.E of New York. Is the
l'ision were studied most carefUlly. word Laws and had received the unanimous ent, offered by the gent!cm:m
for word and line for line, by these var- endorsement of the CommIttee on the ylvania. in the report :H:com-
lous groups. culminating in the bill now JudlCia.r7. ThIs bill bas also been re- g this bill to which he has r"-
· up for consideration. ported unanlmously by the Committee lerred?
At the last Congress tile Committee on the Judlclary.· . . Mr. MICh"ENER... No; it is Dot.
on the Revision of the Laws, through Its Favorable action by the Ro1\SB today T!le SPEAKER. The quesLion i!' e".
cbalrman, appeared before a subcom- wlU constitute a big step toward an or- the amendment oITe'ed by the gcntlr:t\·. '..:
mittee of the Judiciary Committee and, derly and systematiC code of Jaws and from Pen.ilsylvanJa. [Mr. WALl'EU).
In a number of sesslons. pointed out and wiD prove a boon to the bench and bar The question w:tS taken; 2':'.1 til"
explained every change in substantive md the pubUc generally. Speakec belng 1n dOUbt, Lhc Hom.!.!
Jaw made by the bill which had been Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, divided. Bud there wt:rc-aycs 38. noe~ -J.
reported by that committee. After full I rise In OPPosIt.lon to the amendment So the amendment was a~(!cd t.o.
discussion the Committee on the Judl- only'for the purpose of WResting that Tile bill was ordered to be el1gru:';;!;(~
cillJ;Y unanimously endorsed the then to some extent the gentleman's amend- . ~d read a third time, was l'elld th'" !h:rd
pending bill. which Is SImilar to the bUl ment is in violation of the understand- time, and passed, an'i !\ moiion '." !',,<;ou··
before us today, and that bill was passed Ing on which tllese bllls were submitted sider was laid on the t::ble.
unanimously by the House on July 16, to the Rouse for p~age today. It was
understood that they were simply codi-. EXTENSION 0:-' 11.EMARKS
1946. in the clOSing days of the session.
The bill had received the endorsement fications of existing law and undertook Mr. STEVENSON asked and was given
of the Department of Justice and the to make no changes In existing law. permission to' extend his remarks In the
Section on Criminal Law of the American I UD~entand that prQbably the gen· Appendix of the RECORD and InclUde a.
,Bar Association. I believe that I am not tIeman's amendment has considerable report to his cpnsti&uents,
engaging in overstatement When I say merit. and I see several members of the REVISION OF TITLE 28. t1NITED STATES
Committee on the JudIcfary on the tloor. CODE
that no bUl of this magnitude ever came I certafnJ1 am not In a position and have
to the Bouse with such a background.of no desire to ratse any criticism of pro- The Clerk called Llle bill (B. R. 3214)
carefUl and painstaking preparation and cedure or objection to ft,· but It does to reVise, codify. md enacL into law tiLle
· critical appraisal by so many leaders In
this branch of the law.
to
seem be a violation of the'understand- 28 ot the United States Code entitled
Ing under which these bills were sub- "Judicial Code and Judiciary." .
. So mueh for the method of prepara.- m.ltted. . The SPEAKER. Is there obJectlon t.o
Lh!1-l!nd I want to express our appre- Mr.·ROBSION. Mr. Speaker. wlll the the present consideratIon of the bill?
c'.·.ti·1n to f.;".' lenrned members of the ~':r.Llcman yl"ld? Mr. cun"'TS. Mr. Speaker. reser"i,,::
bCOC:l.and b", v. !lO contributed so muc11 Mr. COLE uf New York. I yield, the right to nhiect. this· bill H. R. 321'.
of their' I.alent u;,,! time toward 'tl1is Mr. ROBSIOl.r. I pointed out when I deals· with L~.': judiciary and judlei"l
\!:01'k. . made my NI.ah-mell'; ,"Ith reference t.o tho procedurc ann r ,'.'i~1} to call aU..,nUon
Now COS t'J thp. scop·, <., tIle bill. llrS& five bills th,\t \.... considered, '.,!~:1.t mert!ly to Cl" p".-L r,~ :L. Thut.l, . ,.. " '.
XCUl--3l9
H.:!ir.Ouline -- '::~ ,'(.11<). Ree. 5049 1~4'1

504S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 1V1;\.1' 12

amount each year for the development quo untll the COIll1'8SS tool: some addl- that Is bad enough, but, significantly
of farm-to-market roads. Tbe Commis- tionaJ action. enough, over 50 percent of tbe criminals
sioner of Public Roads, Mr. Thomas H. Mr. COLE of New Yorlt. Mr.Speaker.I In the FederaJ institutions are repeaters.
MacDonald. spoke in favor of the bill. withdraw my reservation of objectiOl1. It seems to me tha.t the least we can do
General Fleming, Commissioner of Pub- Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserVing is to make it possible or probable for a.
lic Works. favored the bill. No one ap- the right to object, as one of the mem- Board Intelligently to pass on appl,ica-
peared in opposItion to the blll. It was bers of this committee, I had an oppor- tJODS for pa.role in order to determine
reported unanimously by the Public tuDlt:v to study this bID vel')' carefUlly. Whether or not men shoule! be released
Works Commlttee. Three IdenticaJ bUIs 'l'lle people In Dll' particular area In the from their incarceration.
ha ve been Introduced tn the other body Northwest are very, very much In sym- Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Speaker. wlll the
by three different Senators. The PresI- patby witb tb1s bill. I thl.nk what the gentleman yield?
dent recommended the passage of such chairman bas said and what the gentle- Mr. WALTER. I yield.
measure in his message to the Congress man from Iowa [Mr. C1:J'JrJmfOBAx] has Mr. CARROLL. WoUld the gentle-
on Janua.r,r 3 of this year. This bill will laid Is absolutely true. that this bill Is man's amendment change existing law?
not require a single dollar of appropria- essential for our road-building program. Mr. WALTER. It does not change
tions from the Federal Treasury. The- BPEAEER. Is there objection to existing law a.t all.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. the present COnsideration of the bill? Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker,
Speaker. will the gentleman yield? There was DO objection. will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield. The Clerk read the bill. as follows: Mr. WALTER. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota.. Does the Be ft ImlScted. etc., Tbat paragraph (c1) of Mr. COLE of New York. If It does not
extensIon apply to the farm-to-market aectiOl1 4 of the Federal-Aid EDSh-,. Act chanae existing law, and this bill is de-
roads as well as to the primary system? signed to codify existing la.w. what is tbe
Mr. COl\"NINGHAM. It certainly does,
as well as the development of the hish-
Of
If-. PubUc Law &21. seventJ-elBbth Con-
1944,
a.pproved December 20. 1944, Is bereby
ameDCled by s101"l.k1D; out tile term "Ol1e ,ear"
Decessltyof offering the amendment?
Mr. WALTER. It changes existing
ways in the urban areas. . wbere it appears in aid paragraph and in- law in that it changes the number of
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The bill IIe1't1ng in Ueu thereof u;ae term "two ,~." members on the Board. It does not,
is very much in order for two reasons. The bin was ordered to be engrossed however. In any way affect 'the purpose
One is that the time when the Japanese and read .. third time. was read the third of the law establishing the parole sys-
war expired, creating the resolution time, and passed. and a motion to re- tem: It merely chang~ the number of
which the gentleman has referred to CODSlder was laid on table.._, members of the Board. This Is not dif-
before, came along In the fall. which gave . ferent from what bas been c10ne by this
the States a short year the first year. committee In this very bill. The period
Mr.~GHAM. y~. No&a* of sentence has been changed In order
started building highways prior to to ma.lte difrerent crim~ fit the sentences
October of 1945. They lost 4 months to tha.t have been fixed by Congr~s from
start wIth. Then, there was a lack of . time to time. That is done throUghout
material and shortage of labor and high this entire title 28.
prices, which caused the pro~ to· be Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the
held up. The whole program win be re- gentleman. yield?
tarded and the States will lose some of SPEAKER. Is there objection to Mr. WALTER. I yield.
this appropriation and there will be the present consideration of the bill? Mr. GRAHAM. As I underst.and the
tremendous waste if this bill is not en- There was no objection. gentleman's amendment it increases the
acted. Possibly 12 months' grace period The Clerk read -the bID the second number of members from three to five.
15 not suffiCient. but if it is not sufficient time. Mr. WALTER. That Is right.
we can bring up another bill later. Mr. WALTER. Mr.Speaker,Iofreran Mr. GRAHAM. But it does not In-
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. If I &mel1dmel1t. crea.se the rate of compensation of the
remember correctly prior to this authori- The Clerk read as follows: members.
zation the old Federal-aid a.uthorizatlon Amendment o1rere4 by Mr. WALTD: On Mr. WALl'ER, That Is rIght, exactly.
gave the States 2 years in which to act. page 434, line 11. aftar the word "or", strIke Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Speaker. will the
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gen- out ·'three" end Illsert "live." gentleman yield?
tleman Is right. Mr. WALTER. I yield.
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, the Mr. ROBSION. I may say thls to the
Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Speak- amendment you have just heard report-
er, will the gentleman yield? gentleman. this matter came up before
ed would have the efrect. If adopted, of our JUdiciary Committee and former
Mr. C1JlI,"NINGHAM. I yield. increasing the membership of the parole
Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. t wish to Senator George Wharton Pepper. who j,;
board from three to five. tremendously jnter~ted In this subject,
state at this time that in my opinion thIs At the last session oC the Congress one and others felt they had to have addl·
Is very necessary legislation. As a ·prevI- of the subcommittees ot the Commlttee tlonal authorization to Increase the
ous member of the Committee on Roads, on the Judiciary, In studying the legisla- number from thl'ec to five. Otherwise
I would like to c()mpliment the genUeman tion which we hoped might have the ef-
for brInging this bill up at this time. we are not amending the law. I think
fect of cutting down the enmlnal rate there 1.. no objection to it. We have p.
Mr. CIDmTNGHAM. I thank the gen- In this country, found a perfectly ap- but which can be called up to do this
tieman. paWng. situation In the parole board. thing,
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker. will the That board of three members actua.lly Mr. WALTER. The gentleman is cor-
gentleman ;yield? Interviews upward of 10,000 prisoners rect. but we are this far. I do not think
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the each year. That Is. personal IntervIews. there Is a.ny doubt but that the Judiciary
chairman of the commlttee. In addition to that, the, have to revIew Commlttee would unanimously approve
Mr. DONDERO. I think the gentle- the cases acted on after personal inter- a. sepa.rate 0111, but we have ·gotten this
man has already covered the ground, but views. far with this leglslatlon and it certainly
is it not a fact that because or the con- There are 21 criminal institutions In seems to me the situation Is so critical
ditions enumerated by the gentleman. the United States that must be visited that we ought to act as qUickly as lVe
many of the States have been unable to by this Boa.rd at regular intervals. So possibly can. That Is the reason I haYe
comply with the provisions of this act, they have a perrectly Impossible job with ofrered this amendment a.t this timc.
which makes thIs bill mandatory in or- the result that men are paroled accord- The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
der to protect the states? Ing to formula who should be compelled tleman from Pennsylvania has expired.
M:r. CUNNINGHAM. That Is abso- to serve their ftill ~ ~'1 t.ence. I nm not Mr. ROBSIOR Mr. Speakr. r , H1is hill
lutely true. In addItion. \.here would I'll thinking about thosu IRCO who lore eli- differs from the 11ve codificaLir;l1 hili",
,""nlt'ndous waste. because the hlghwa:; !!ible for parole and In whose case~ ,In which have preceded It on thIs en'
;·,,"T:m would !1f! stopped, Rnd highwayS :~ .. ~fon CRn h.: t·aken because the Board ,II" In thr.t It constitutes a revision, ,
p:'!'lly complet,~·.t ·,'Quld be left In status bas not tll.~ \.:'"" to reach their cn.>;c~; ·:.ell as [l, ';'}':i:lr.-,t.lnn, or the F',d~r,d ;"."
HdnOnline _. 93 cong. Ree, SOU 1~47

V.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Western District (~lNev\' York
Federul CCI/lre 716-S-/3-5700

138 Dc/ill\ '(1/"(' A rel/ue F{(x 716-551-3U52
BU//ldo, Nell' York 14202
October 20,2010
Shane C, Buczek
7335 Derby Road
Derby, New York 14047
Re: August 14 Set of Documents

Sent to the Attorney General
Dear Mr. Buczek:
On or about August 14, 2010, you sent the attached documents to the Attorney
General. They were referred to me for my review and for appropriate action.
After reading through these documents, they appear to be frivolous and thus I am
returning them herewith. Two things:
First, at "page 1 of 12," you assert:
Your failure to respond, within 10 days as, stipulated below,

and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which
you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with
and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true,
correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court,
anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that
of those who represent you. Your silence is your
acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co.,
269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is "the
first essential of due process law." Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel,
550 F. 2d. 297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud
where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an
inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."
You have repeatedly asserted this in your innumerable filings. Please note that is not a
correct legal premise and, on behalf of this office, Main Justice, and any other components
of the Department of Justice, we categorically reject this premise as to all of your filings,
past, present and future.
Second, please do not send any further correspondence, documents or any other
matters to any Department of Justice component. They will f!.1l ultimately be forwarded to
me and I will most likely return them to you.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, JR.

-~
BY:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Senior Litigation Counsel
AMBllfs
Enclosures
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10
ES. Departrnent Page 8 of 39
of .histice
t~niteci States Attorney
Western District oj'Ne1;\' York
Federul Cell Ire 7/6-8'-13 -5700

/38 Deloll'ore A)'ellll£, Fox 716-55/-3052
RII(litlo, Nell' York / .:!-202
October 7,2010
Shane C,. Buczek

7335 Derby Road
Re: Enclosed letter/email
Dear Mr. Buczek:
Enclosed you will find a photocopy of what purports to be a July 27, 2009 letter or
email from "Harley G, Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons" to "all Department
Heads."
Investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ha~ determined that this

letter/email is a complete fabrication.
This letter is to provide you with notice that the Lappin letter/email is in fact a
fabrication and that further use of it by you in your filings with the Court is at your own peril.
Very truly yours,

"~,,...-, 11173-
BY:
AMB/lfs
E~closures
pc: Dan Buczek (w/enclosure)

Kathleen Horvatitis
Case
Case1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS
·1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1Filed
Document 187 Filed 10/25/10PClge
09/14/10 Page
9 of912
of 39
FROM LINDR MARIANO PHONE r~O. : 7048'352899 Ma~. 15 2010 07:58PM Pi
Page 1 of 1
Harley G. Lappin
From: "HaI1ey G. Lappin" <harleyJappln@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Monday. July 27, ~ 3:17 PM
•AttentiOn aU Department Heads, there hats been a large V'OkIme of inrrIete Requests for
Admlnl¥tratIv& Remedies q~ the validity of 1h& Bureau's wtbority k> hold or classify them
under 18 U.s.C. §§ 4081, at seq.~ (1948). On the claim that Public Law 80-772 \oIIBS never pas&ed
or sfgned In the preaenoe of a Quiorurn or ~ of both House6 at eons;,ess as requIreQ by
Artk:!el. § 5, Clause 1 of the ConBtitutIon. Although moat COl.IJt$ ha1te. ~ far. reUed on Fidd y.
Clark., 143 U.S. 849(1892) to avoid i\lling on the mMIts of these dUns, hcrtNever, ~ have been
some which have stated that theY were not bound by thu FMd case, but thoIse caMI$ did nat Involve
~ny Quorum Clause ohaJenge. So out of an abul"ldan<:e of caution, I conI:&cted the 0ffI0e at L.egaI
- Counsel. the National Archlves aOd the Clerk cA the House of RepresentatiYe$ to learn that fh~ is
no record of any quorum bMlg present duri1g the May 12, 1947 vole on the H.R. 31~ Bill in the
House (s.,e 93 C.ong.Rec. 5049)•• and the record is not clear as to whehJr"there was any Senate
'*
vote on the H.R. 3190 BIll during 8lT'J ae$$1on r:I the 80th Congre$s. There only one Supreme
Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid the Jou~1s of both Houses must show that it
WID pas$OO In the presence of ill Quorum. See United states v. Ballin, Joseph & Co., 144 U.S. 1. 3
(1892). The Clerk of the House s1ataa that the May 12, 1947 vote was a 'voic$1IOt&.' but the
ParUarrumtarial"l of the House states that 8 VOICe vote Is only valid When thi!I Journal shows that e
quorum Is present and that It'a unlawful fer 1M Speaker of the House to sign any enroiled bHl in the
absence of a quorum. On May 12.1947, a presence of 218 Members in tile haJJ ,.jf the ~ was
reqUired to be entered on the.JoumaJ1 in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 VOice vote to be legal. It
appears that the 1909 version of the Faderal Criminal Co$ has never been l"flP8IIIad. Therefore.
In essenoe, our onlY true authortt.Y Ia derived from the 1948 predQQ8AOl' to Public taW 80-772.
"Although adjudiCation of the constitutiorlallly €!I ~ enactments has generaDy been thought
to be beycmd the juri&diotion of federal admll'lisfratiIIG aganci&s, this r\IIQ iIo not manda&ory," aecordlng
to the Supreme Court in the caae.of Thunder BasIn Coal Co. v. Reich. 510 U.S. 200. 215 (19M).
Therefor9, the Bureau under the advise of the legal CounGel feels that it IS In the best inte1'V6t of public
8Bfety to cont.ir\ue addreseill9 all Of these Admi~e Remedy Requests by stating that only the
Congrest5 or t:OUTt$ can repeal or declare a federal statille unconstitutional.
~~.~
Hadey G. Lappin
DiR.octor, Fc:dcnl :BurQu ofPrisoos
712712009
u.s. Department of Justice
United States Attornev
Western District oiNeH' York
Fee/em/ Celllrl' 7 J6-043 -5700

138 De/aware A \'e/IIII' Fax 7/6-55 J-3052
Bllfj'a/u, Nell' York /4202
October 7,2010
Shane C,. Buczek

7335 Derby Road
Re: Enclosed letter/email
Dear Mr. Buczek:
Enclosed you will find a photocopy of what purports to be a July 27, 2009 letter or
email from "Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons" to "all Department
Heads."
Investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has determined that this

letter/email is a complete fabrication.
This letter is to provide you with notice that the Lappin letter/email is in fact a
fabrication and that further use of it by you in your filings with the Court is at your own peril.
Very truly yours,

,AJV'-, 1/173-
BY:
AMB/lfs
Enclosures
pc: Dan Buczek (w/enclosure)

Kathleen Horvatitis
Case
Case1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document187
1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1Filed
Filed 10/25/10
09/14/10 Page
Page 9 of11
12 of 39
FROM LINDA MARIANO PHONE NO. : 7048952899 Ma~. 15 2010 07:58PM Pi
Page 1 of 1
Harley G. Lappin
From: ......ey G. Lappfn" <harlIEri.lappln@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Monday. Ju1y27, 2009 3:17PM
I
•Attention aU Department Heads, there has been a large VOkIme d inn'Iraee Requesta for
Administrative Remedies q~ the vaIIdlty ~ 11ft eure.ts authority to hold or classify them
under 18 U.s.C. §§ 4081. et seq.~ (1948). On the claim that Public Lew 8O-m
or sVted In the pre. ence d G Qut:wm or M*.RY at bath House6 at Cor9.eU as required by
was M'I8f ~
Attlcte f. § 5, Clause 1 oIlhe ConatiIuIIon. AItbcu$Ih mo.t Ctlt.Jrt5 have, Ihu& far. relied an F.eId v.
Clark, 143 U.S. 849(1892) to avdd ruling on the ITIGIits of these eWms. hoWever, ttKn have been
some whioh haVe stated that thay were not bound by the Ftekl CMe. but those caMS did not Involve
eny Quorum Clause chdenge. So out of an abundance of caution. I canbiIded the Offtce of lAgat
- Counsel. the NationliIII ArchIves and the Clerk d the House of RepIesentafive$ to learn that thera is
no record of art! quorum talsiJ present ctumg the May 12. 1947 vo1e on the H.R. 31E!C) Bill in the
House (Soe 93 Cong.Rec. 5049)•. and the record is not dear as 10 wh&Chw there was SI'W Senate
vote on the H.R. 3190 BIll during fIni aesslon d the 80th Congress. Them. only one Supreme
Court case that says in order for any bit to be valid the Journals Of both ~ must show that it
waa passed In the preeence of .. Quorum. See United states v. Bailin. Joseph & Ca •• 144 U.S. 1. 3
(1892). The Clerk of the House s1at8a that the May 12, 1941 vote was a 'vaic:e vatfIJ,' but the
Parliamentarian of the House slateG that II VOIce vote IS only valid When the Joumal shews that II
quorum Is present and that It'a unlawful for the Speaker of the House 1n sign any enrolled bill in the
absenoe ata qtlcrum. On ' 'Ni'i 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the half OfttlG Hou5ewas
reqUired to be entered on the JoumaI in orderfor lhe 44 Member 38 to 6 VOIce vote to be legal. It
8J)pea1'8 that the 1909 vel'Glon of the Fed«aI Crimina Code has never been 1'8p8IIted. 1berefore.
In essence, our only trueauthortty Iaderivedfrom the '1948 pred~to Public LaW 80-772.
"Although adjudlcatian of the cor1$titutionallty €I ~ enactments has genaraIIy been thought
to be beyond the juriedIotion of federal admlnlalnltiYe aganc:ia8, thia rule is not mandatory," acooniing
to the Supreme Court in the case of Thunder BasIn Coal Co. v. Reich. 510 U.S. 200, 215 (1994).
Therefore, the Bureau under tile advise of the legal Cauneel reM that it IS In the best intsretSt of public
Afety to continue acldreuing .u Of a-.eae AdminlatraUve Remedy Requea1s by stating that eny the
Congress or courts can r8J)e81 or tleclare a ~I statute unconstitutional.
~~.~
Harley G. Lappin
Dimctor, Fcdcnl B\uam ofPrisooa
7127/2.009
l('d{'Ft!! ('{"lIFf 7/t)_8-/3·5 7 ()!;

138 /)ell/I\'(/i, \ \'I'liite 716-55/ -.i1l5:!' I.fl/ \!
8uf/I/I(!, ;\'('\\' liil'i; 1..f2{)2
July 29, 2009
Shane C,. Buczek

7335 Derby Road
Re: United States v. Shane C. Buczek

09-CR-121-S and 09-CR-141-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
On July 27, the Court entered the following Decisions and Orders in the referenced
cases:
09-CR-121-S
Docket No. 22 - Decision and Order ("0&0") denying your "Petition for Work
Release;"
Docket No. 23 - 0&0 denying the motions you previously filed and docketed as
Nos. 11, 12, 14 and 19; and
Docket No. 25 - 0&0 denying your July 17 Motion for an Extension of Time (No.
24).
09-CR-141-S
Docket No. 25 - 0&0 denying your July 17 Motion for an Extension of Time (No.
21);
Docket No. 26 - 0&0 denying the motions you previously filed and docketed as
Nos. 11,12, 13 , 19 and 20; and
Docket No. 27 Decision and Order ("0&0") denying your "Petition for Work
Release."
Copies of each of these six (6) documents are enclosed.
As I said in my July 27 letter to you, the next step is your trial. With the entry of the
D&Os cited above and enclosed, the same is now true in both of these cases, so once
more, I urge you to retain counsel. To reiterate, your continued freedom is at stake, and,
as I said in a previous letter to you, it appears to me that you have no clue about how to
try a case. Conversely, I have been a prosecutor for 30 years and know that, if we go to
trial, I can get all my evidence against you into evidence. And I feel confident that I can
persuade the jury to return "guilty" verdicts against you in all three (3) cases.
Very truly yours,
KATHLEEN M. MEHL TRETTER
~U;;;hs~:teffi6-_y_.....
BY: ~~r~.f~AuCE
AMBllfs
Enclosures
July 27, 2009
Shane C. Buczek
7335 Derby Road
RE: United States v. Shane C. Buczek

08-CR-54-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
On Friday, July 24, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge

Schroeder filed four Decisions and Orders (Docket Nos. 126, 127,
128 and 132) and a Report, Recommendation and Order (Docket No.
134) in effect denying all of your (and Mr. Altman's) pretrial
motions in which you (or Mr. Altman) asked for any type of
"substantive" relief.
In addition, Magistrate Judge Schroeder filed an Order denying

your motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 130) and denied
your "Petition for Work Release" (Docket No. 129).
Copies of each of the above-numbered documents are enclosed.
Now let me be blunt. You have tried to bring all of your

views to the Court in your efforts to have the Court dismiss this
indictment (08-CR-54-S) and as the Court's July 24, 2009 filings
indicated, your efforts have failed completely. You now have to
face the allegations of the indictment in a trial. Thus, if there
were ever a time to retain the services of an attorney, it is now.
Shortly, Judge Skretny will set this case for a "status

conference" and at the court appearance it is likely he will set a
trial date. In short, your continued freedom is at issue, and it
appears to me that your efforts to represent yourself, at least up
Shane C. Buczek
July 27, 2009
Page Two
until now, have not worked. Things just might improve if you were
represented, and to this end, I suggest that you show up at the
anticipated status conference with counsel.
Very truly yours,
KATHLEEN M. MEHLTRETTER
Acting United States Attorney
BY: ANTHONY M BRUCE

6~--'
. /
Asslstant U.S. Attorney
AMB/kab
Encs.
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1
\ > 1)/
Filed 10/25/10 Page 16 of 39
~'- .~~(
...
71()-551-3{J5~ fJU.\ I
HIII/u/". ,\'('\1 )()r~ ! -cu.;

July 23, 2009
Shane G,. Buczek
7335 Derby Road

09-CR-121-S and 09-CR-141-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
At my request, HSBG printed out all of the "screenshots" showing activity on your
Best Buy/HSBG account and prepared a very short recap of your account. I intend to use
both of these against you at your trial (See Fed. R. Grim. P. 12(b)(4)(A)). They are
provided as a part of our discovery obligations (See Fed. R. Grim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)).
Also served herewith are our responses to your pretrial filings in the two referenced
cases.
Once more, do not respond to this letter as to do so would likely be a violation of a

condition of your release.
Also, filing the letter as part of a pleading is an act that is without effect. Thus, doing
so is nothing more than a waste of time and postage. But feel free to file it if you think it's
necessary.
Very truly yours,

Actiflg United States ~~n
BY: ANTHONY . BRU,PE

AMBllfs
Enclosures
pc: Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge
Ij! 1\ '\ il; j') '-. '-, ( I'.
ii )
lil/rlu/o, ,\,(,\1' V"rI, I-I:'.I()

July 16, 2009
Shane C,. Buczek

7335 Derby Road

OB-CR-54-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
Recently you made filings with voluminous attachments in this case which the
Clerk's office sealed, apparently at your request. (See attached docket sheet excerpt,
items 109, 114 and 115).
Because of the voluminous nature of these attachments, the Clerk's Office will
neither scan them or send copies to me. Because I should at least look at them before i
respond to your motions, would you please make copies of these attachments and send
them to me. Note that I do not need copies of the motions themselves.
Please don't do more than send these copies by regular mail. Return receipts,
certified mail, and all that other malarkey is unnecessary and puts you to an unnecessary
expense.
And do not respond to this letter except as requested above as to do would be in

violation of a condition of your release.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
AO~~~~ti«P::-
BY: ~;ZBRUCE
AMBlifs
pc: Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge (wlo enclosure)
_____ ~~ ._ ............. __ '-"_"'''~.L.L.L.I.'''' 1o..J~~VVV LJV\,.I.I.\..\,.IL Page 2 of9
Terminated: none
Case Assigned: Honorable William M Skretny

Case Referred: Honorable H Kenneth Schroeder, Jr
U. S. Attorneys
Anthony M. Bruce
Lead Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
Federal Centre
138 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
USA
Phone: (716)843-5886
Fax: (716)551-3052
Attorney to be Noticed
Email: anthony.m.bruce@usdoj.gov
Date # Proceeding Text

07/14/2009 118 TEXT ORDER as to Shane C. Buczek: The government shall respond to defendant's 116 Petition
for Work Release no later than 7/24/2009 after which time the petition shall be taken under
advisement. SO ORDERED. Issued by the Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 7/14/09.(LMG)
(Entered: 07/14/2009)
07/13/2009 117 NOTICE OF HEARING by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
07/13/2009 116 MOTION for work release by Shane C. Buczek. (DZ) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
07/08/2009 115 SUPPLEMENT AMENDED WRIT OF RECOGNITIIONE ADNULLANDA by Shane C. Buczek
**Attachments to this document are maintained in paper form in the Clerk's office due to
volume of exhibits** (DZ) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/08/2009 114 FINAL PETITION FOR POST SETTLEMENT AND CLOSURE (Attachments: # 1 exhibit Band C)
(DZ)**Exhibit A maintained in paper form due to the way the document is sealed** (Entered:
07/09/2009)
07/07/2009 113 CORRECTED NOTICE as to Shane C. Buczek. Motions having been filed by the deadline of
7/17/2009 as set by the Magistrate Judge, the status conference scheduled for 7/22/2009
before William M. Skretny, U.S.D.J. is CANCELED. (MEAL)(MEAL) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
07/07/2009 112 NOTICE as to Shane C. Buczek. Motions having been filed by the deadline of 7/17/2009 as set
by the Magistrate Judge, the status conference scheduled for 7/11/2009 before William M.
Skretny, U.S.D.J. is CANCELED. (MEAL) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
07/06/2009 111 MOTION/PETITION for post settlement and closure of account by Shane C. Buczek. (DZ)
(Entered: 07/07/2009)
06/30/2009 110 Verified Appointment Of Attorney filed by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
06/26/2009 109 NOTICE of Trustee Appointment, Power of Attorney and Trust Stipulation by Shane C. Buczek
***Attachment to document maintained in paper form in the Clerk's office due to the way the
document was certified and sealed.*** (DZ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
06/26/2009 108 NOTICE/AMENDED WRIT OF RECOGNITIONE ADNULLANDA by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered:
06/30/2009)
06/18/2009 107 BRIEF by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/17/2009 105 SCHEDULING ORDER as to Shane C. Buczek: Discovery completed by 6/30/2009; Motions due
by 7/17/2009; Responses due by 8/14/2009. If no motions are filed, parties directed to appear
before the Hon. William M. Skretny on 7/22/2009 at 09:00 AM. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth
Schroeder, Jr on 6/15/09.(LMG) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/15/2009 106 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by Shane C. Buczek (DZ) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/15/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr: Status Conference as
to Shane C. Buczek held on 6/15/2009. Attorney David Jay, who was present in the courtroom,
advised that defendant has not retained him. Defendant confirmed that he will be proceeding
pro se. Scheduling Order to be entered. Time Excluded as to Shane C. Buczek from 6/15/2009
to 7/17/2009 pursuant to Title 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv). Defendant requested
permission to leave his residence in order to work on his case at the UB Law School Library.
Court directed defendant to make application to the U.S. Probation Office for the sole purpose of
going to the UB Law School Library, the Federal Courthouse Library or the Supreme Court
https:llw3 .courtlink.lexisnexis.com/ControISupport/UserControls/ShowDocket.aspx?Key=... 7116/2009

}(.\;!: $ i..! (.'J ('${
M?fCh 31, 200Q
Shane Christopher Buczek

Federal Medical Center Devens
P,O. Box 879
Ayer, MA 01432
Re: United States v. Shane Buczek

08-CR-54-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
I have your letter (drafted March 18,2009) and, on behalf of the United States (and
each department and agency thereof, inasmuch as the United States Attorney's Office is
charged with representing them), this is the response.
At page 2, you state:
You also agree that if a response that addresses each element

is not provided within the 30 days, you agree that the original
claim in this matter cannot be certified and thus agree to ledger
a zero ($0 no) b8!Rf1C~ (In this ?,':::CU!"1t 3::d 3.~;~~ th~t th:s
case is settled and closed.
By this letter, this office and the United States Treasury (which this office represents)
hereby declines to agree with, and in fact out rejects, each and every point of your letter.
In your letter you make reference to "Corporate Trust Account known as Shane
Christopher Buczek with account number 131685635." Two points:
1. Neither you nor anyone else has such an account; and

2. Should you attempt to write checks, drafts, make withdrawals from this fictitious
account, or otherwise "access it" such would be an act of fraud subjecting you to possible
further prosecution. And this letter will evidence the fact that you are on notice that such
acts constitute fraud
Very truly yours,
1t(5~
BY: ANTHONY M. UCE
AMS/ifs
l \; ".1 I <! (r! \ (', :') i /
May 4/ 2009
Shane Buczek
No. 90656-111
Batavia Federal Detention Facility
4250 Federal Drive
Batavia/ New York 14020
RE: United States v. Shane Buczek
Dear Mr. Buczek:
On April 21/ 2009/ the May 2007 Grand Jury filed an indictment
against you charging you with bank fraud and with committing the bank
fraud offense while you were on bail in the passport fraud case. A
copy of that indictment is enclosed/ and you will be arraigned on
Wednesday, May 6. Once more I urge you to obtain an attorney to
represent you in connection with this new indictment.
With respect to your April 15/ 2009 letter/ the language "must.
show cause why a contempt ** charge should not issue against him/her in
his/her True Character/ or suffer the consequences of said action/ or
lack of action" borders on being a threat against me. If you choose to
use this or similar language in the future/ you are on noti.ce that you
risk being charged.
Also/ I have enclosed copies of Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th

Amendment and I strongly suggest you read them more closely. Neither
section sa.ys what you claim (in your April 15 letter) it says.
The balance of your letter is gibberish.
Very truly yours,
A./1C ing United,~ates Attorney
[~/11[)~
BY: ANTHONY f'I. BRUCE
AMB/lfs
Encs.
Copies of each of these six (6) documents are enclosed.
As I said in my July 27 letter to you, the next step is your trial. With the entry of the
O&Os cited above and enclosed, the same is now true in both of these cases, so once
more, J urge you to retain counsel. To reiterate, your continued freedom is at stake, and,
as J said in a previous letter to you, it appears to me that you have no clue about how to
try a case. Conversely, I have been a prosecutor for 30 years and know that, if we go to
trial, I can get all my evidence against you into evidence. And I feel confident that I can
persuade the jury to return "guilty" verdicts against you in all three (3) cases.
Very truly yours,
ACI!Jlg UnITed States Att5ey
BY: ~/ilL~
AMBllfs
Enclosures
) \
/ {,\, !). /(1 I: (Ii I .\ \ ( il ii(
Ihl/{I/n. \"{I" }i,rI. 1·1.21).'
April 13, 2009
Shane Buczek, 90656-111

FMC Devens
Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 879
Ayer, MA. 01432
RE: United states v. Shane Buczek

08-CR-S4-S
27 CFR 72.11
Dear Mr. Buczek:
At any number of court appearances, you have touted 27 CFR

72.11 as somehow making "all crimes commercial."
I have enclosed a copy of 27 CFR 72.11. You will note that it

defines commercial crimes as follows:
Any of the following types of crimes (Federal

or State): Offenses against the revenue laws;
burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnaping;
larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession
of deadly weapons; prostitution (including
soliciting, procuring, pandering, white
cl&vi~g, keeping house of ill fame; and like
offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence
games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to
commit, or compounding any of the foregoing
crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use
of marihuana will be treated as if such were
commercial crimes.
You continue to assert that since all crimes are made commercial by
this CFR, you are entitled to "settlement and closure of your
account," which will in essence end the case against you.
Even if the "commercial crimes" could be made to go away by

"settlement and closure," your indictment charges you with
violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a) (2), 1542 and 1028(a) (4). None
of these crimes are listed in 27 CFR 72.11. Thus, this section
that you continue to cite, even under its broadest reading, has
nothing to do with your case.
Given what the regulations does not say, I once more point out
that your options are (1) plead guilty, or (2) go to trial.
Very truly yours,
BY:
M-?l1Zr--
ANTHON;~ BRUCE'
AMB/lfs
Enclosure
(,III'if! J
l;r/,ml (,'/Ill'; ;i I (H~,j3,5 ,:'I!I ,I

7 J()-55 i,3(!5~; I
Bl!ilulo VeIl' link !-!},(I,?
April 10, 2009
Shane Buczek, 90656-111

FMC Devens
Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 879
Ayer, MA 01432
RE: United States v. Shane Buczek

08-CR-54-S
IRS Forms 56
Dear Mr. Buczek:
I have received copies of IRS Forms 56 naming both (former)

United States Attorney Terrance P. Flynn and me as acting as
fiduciaries on your behalf.
Be advised that neither Mr. Flynn nor I ever have been, are,
or will every be or act as fiduciaries for you, and that any
further attempts by you to name Mr. Flynn, me, or any other federal
official as your fiduciary could subject you to prosecution for
doing so.
In reading through a few of the many documents you have

created and then filed, it occurs to me that you use legal terms
without any real idea as to what they mean. Put another way, they
sound good, so you use them. A "fiduciary" is a person in whom you
would have "special contidence" and "who would be bound in equity
and good conscience to act in good faith with regard to" your
interests. I am the individual prosecutor, and this office is the
"prosecutors office" with the responsibility for prosecuting you.
And if we are successful, you could be fined and sent to prison and
lose some of your rights as a citizen (e.g., to vote). Thus, this
office and I am acting directly against your interests so, by
definition, neither anyone in this office nor this office as an
institution can act as a "fiduciary" for you. Moreover, just about
everything you do appears to be an effort by you to "confront" one
or more government agencies with your views. This, in turn, puts
you and whatever agency or agencies you try to "confront" in
adversarial positions. However, your "adversary" can never act as
your "fiduciary," no matter how hard you try to make the agency or
the agency head your fiduciary, and no matter how many reams of
paper you send out saying these people/agencies are your
fiduciaries. In several of your voluminous papers, I have seen
references to the "Paperwork Reduction Act." Try applying that
statute to yourself.
Very truly yours,
Act'~g United s~~orney
BY: CE
AMB/lfs
April 7, 2009
Mr. Daniel Buczek

7335 Derby Road
RE: United States v. Shane Buczek, 08-CR-54-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
I have your April I, 2009 letter, and it leads me to believe

that both you and your son are mixing several concepts.
First, were your son a minor, you might have an argument that
you can "represent" him, although not in the sense that an attorney
can. But he is not a minor, so you cannot represent him.
Second, the examination (and related observations) your son is

undergoing is not being done to determine if he is competent or
incompetent in the sense of sanity versus insanity. Rather, it is
being done for two limited purposes: ( 1) to determine if he is
competent to stand trial, i.e., does he understand the nature and
possible consequences of the charges and is he able to assist in
his defense (either through an attorney or by proceeding pro se);
and (2) to determine if (even if he is found "competent" under the
first test) he is competent enough to represent himself. However,
if Shane is found "incompetent" under the first test, the court
must visit the issue of his competency in the larger sanity versus
insanity context.
Third, I fully respect Shane's "right" to proceed pro se.

Moreover, while it is my duty to "prosecute vigorously" those who,
in the view of this office and the grand jury have committed
crimes, it is also my duty "to do justice." In this vein, I view
Shane's idea of and persistence in representing himself as a way
for him "to do injustice" to himself. Put another way, and I think
that deep in your psyche you know this, the legal gobbledygook
Shane persists in filing will not affect the ultimate outcome of
the case. Shane probably has the "right" to shoot himself in the
foot, but I think you will agree that exercising that "right H would
not be in his best interest. The same is true in the case against
him.
Daniel Buczek
Page Two
April 7, 2009
Civil Rule 17(c) has nothing to do with this case for two
reasons. First, this is a criminal case; and second, even if it
did apply and at some point Shane is indeed judged "incompetent,"
the Court must appoint a guardian ad litem for him if he is not
represented by counsel. You cannot simply "appoint" yourself as
his representative.
In this vein, I remain ready to meet and talk with you about
a resolution of the case with the understanding that you are an
intermediary between this office and Shane and nothing more.
Very truly yours,
Ac ' g United
BY:
AMB/lfs
Enclosure
u.s. Ht'partnwnt of Justie('
l flliled SllIll'S A f/omer

\l('.ll('I"1/ /)islricl (!t" NCII' )'rl/"k
March 27, 2008
Shane C,. Buczek

7335 Derby Road

08-CR-54-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
In the interest of moving this case along, and in conformity with Rules 12(b)(4)(A)
and 16(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I am enclosing two CDs.
The first, labeled "Passport Clips," contains two excerpts from the Alex Jones Radio
Show in which you are recorded talking about making application for a passport (i.e.,
submitting the passport application that the indictment accuses you of lying on) and then
about crossing the Peace Bridge on February 3, 2008 using the passport you asserted on
the passport application at issue in this case was "lost at sea." You are hereby notified
that, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)(A), the government intends to use both of these clips
against you at trial.
The second CD, entitled "Shane C. Buczek Discovery" (etc.) contains copies of all
pertinent court documents, as well as copies of all the evidence seized from your parent's
home when it was searched on March 6. Again, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)(A), this
letter is to put you on notice that we intend to use any and all of the documents seized from
your parents' home against you at trial. .
Further (and again pursuant to Rule (b )(4 )(A» in your "Indictment on Counter Claim"
which you filed on March 24, 2008, you made several further statements that the
government intends to use against you at trial. At IX on page 2, you, in essence admit to
making the December 20, 2006 passport application. At "X" on page 3 you make a further
admission about your "lost at sea" passport, At "XI" you, in essence admit that your
"Apostille card" was in your car when it was searched in February 3, 2006. At "XVII" you
once more admit to the possession of your Apostille. At "IV," you once more make
admissions about your "lost at sea" passport. Then, at page 14, you state "I have personal
knowledge of the facts in this matter."
Very truly yours,
TERRANCE P. FLYNN
d States Atto
BY: .BR
AMB/lfs
Enclosure
Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256-1 Filed 10/25/10
u.s. Deparhnent Page 31 of 39
of Justice
United States Attorneys Office
Western District of NeH' York
Federal Centre 7/6-843-5700

/38 Dell/ware AI'Ollfe 7 J6-55 J-3052 (fen)
BlI/iii/o, New York /4202
February 26,2009
Daniel Buczek
7335 Derby Road
Re: United States v. Shane Buczek

08-CR-S4-S
Dear Mr. Buczek:
Your "Objections to Proceedings, No Ratification of Commencement Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus, Petition to Dismiss with Prejudice" is returned herewith.
The only persons who may represent your son, Shane Buczek are (1) Shane,
himself (pro se), or (2) an attorney admitted to practice in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York.
Further, your filing of this document (and any further actions of a legal nature you
may take on behalf of your son) border on the unlawful practice of law, in violation of
Section 485 of the New York Judiciary law, a misdemeanor, and if you continue
"representing" your son, I will have no choice but to refer your actions to the District
Attorney's Office for possible prosecution. Thus, you are warned and cannot take refuge
in any claim that you did not know that in representing your son, you actions amounted to
and were a crime.
Please note that, as I have said to both you and your son, this matter is not going
to go away by any means other than through a plea of guilty by Shane, or through a trial
on the merits. Moreover, I intend to present the Best Buy facts to the grand jury and to ask
the grand jury to charge Shane with bank fraud with respect to has actions vis a vis Best
Buy and HSBC.
My strong suggestions (and it echoes Magistrate Judge Schroeder's suggestion) is

that Shane retain the services of an attorney who practices in federal court to represent
him. The fact that this will cost him or you and you don't want to pay is, to borrow an old
saying, being penny wise and pound foolish. And not having an attorney will only work to
Shane's detriment.
Very truly yours,
BY: A~R:~
AMB/ifs
Enclosure
18
1 incorrect, I'm sure the Court would be more familiar with it than
2 I am, as would Mr. Kawski, but in reviewing the record, I did not
3 see that.
4 The other conditions all fall in reference to the direct
5 orders that were made by the Court. Count 1, you know, dealing
6 with his attempt to file these liens; you know, the second one,
7 again, dealing with 401.3; the third one being the attempted
8 threat or attempted intimidation, which I prefer to phrase it as
9 opposed to actual intimidation; the filing is Count 4; 5 is the
10 subject should not communicate with any government agency unless
11 filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office -- this was not
12 filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office; and 6, the
13 nature of his home confinement, which in this instance does not
14 fall within the purview of the order.
15 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: But all of those were in the
16 context of involving the three indictments. I had no authority
17 I don't think any -- I don't think a district judge would have
18 authority to oin a citizen of the United States from seeking
19 redress from any branch of government so long as it's done in a
20 or a lawful or to communicate with
21 representatives of his government about problems he is having with
22 his taxes or with his personal life.
23 MR. BURGASSER: But the Court i~ a very restrained way
24 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: My orders were all in the
25 context of filings as they related to the three indictments.

19
1 MR. BURGASSER: But the Court in a very restrained way
2 told him how he needed to contact government agencies, and the
3 fact it had to be reviewed by Pretrial Services and that it had to
4 be filed through the District Court's Clerk's Office.
5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: But he did, and then he
6 contacted the Clerk's Office, and the Clerk's Office said you
7 better clear that th Judge Schroeder's chambers, and then he
8 called my chambers.
9 He went through that process, and now the Government's
10 saying he should never have done that.
11 MR. BURGASSER: He did not file with the District Court's
12 Clerk's Office and he did not contact Mr. Kawski.
13 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: No, I said he I'm going
14 to to that one because that's another burr that is under the
15 saddle for the moment.
16 He contacted Jean Marie McCarthy in the Clerk's Office,
17 he called her about what he could do with some of these documents.
18 She told him she could not give him an answer, that he should
19 contact my chambers. He contacted my chambers and talked to my
20 deputy clerk.
21 The message was conveyed to me that Mr. Buczek had
22 requested permission to file certain documents involving his taxes
23 with the Department of the Treasury, and also some documents
24 regarding something I thought it was something to do with
25 business affairs, Department of Commerce.

20
1 I said as far as I'm concerned, he's a citizen of the
2 United States, he has First Amendment rights, if that's what it
3 relates to, he has every right to do that. It has nothing to do
4 with the three indictments.
5 Now, admittedly, as I myself pointed out at the last
6 appearance, some of those documents seem to not be in the format
7 or in the subject matter as I thought they were going to be when I
8 gave that permission; they do seem to reflect or have some bearing
9 or some relationship to the three indictments, and so perhaps in
10 that context Mr. Buczek did cross the line.
11 But other than that, I never said he couldn't contact
12 anybody in the Clerk's Office or that he couldn't contact a
13 government agency about issues that were in no way related to the
14 three indictments. I don't think I had the power to do that, so
15 long as he was doing it in a lawful manner.
16 MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, not to, you know, redress
17 actually what you said as far as whether you had the power to or
18 not, but on page 3 of 4 --
19 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: Well of

,
--------~~~=
20 essentiall the Constitution of the United States guarantees
21 citizens the right to redress their government, as well as the
22 r ss their views under the First Amendment.
23 MR. BURGASSER: And I believe that's why in the amended
24 court order setting conditions of release, which is Exhibit C,
25 double C, it actually did say the defendant not have any

21
1 communication in any form with any government agencies.
2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: In the context of these
3 three indictments. Mr. Bruce was all upset about how he was
4 communicating terrible things as it related to the three
5 indictments.
6 MR. BURGASSER: But also when we go to the order adding a
7 condition of release, again, I didn't think the Court was being
8 very fair both to the Government, as well as to Shane, by setting
9 up a way that he could contact even the Internal Revenue Service
10 or the Treasury Department, but it had to do with a specific
11 format.
12 And in one sense if there was going to be a telephone
13 call or some other form of contact, there needed to be one day
14 notice; if it's going to be something written or something that
15 was going to be filed or mailed to them, there was supposed to be
16 two day notice so it could be reviewed by Pretrial. If Pretrial
17 agreed with it, it could go; if not, it could be brought to the
18 Court and the Court would make a ruling on it.
19 And, obviously, that didn't occur in this case.
20 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: All right. Now, let me
21 address the other issue with respect to Pretrial Services. I,
22 quite frankly, am -- I won't even say somewhat. I, quite frankly,
23 am disturbed about the this whole ted.
24 We have a simple alleged bail violation. If Mr. Bruce
25 really was concerned about the bail violation, as we do in

22
1 practically all cases, the Government merely needs to file a
2 motion with an affidavit saying we believe that the defendant is
3 in violation of terms and conditions of bail and we're moving to
4 have his bail revoked.
5 I have some real serious problems with Mr. Bruce
6 unilaterally communicating with the Pretrial Services Unit of the
7 United States Probation Office, which is there to serve the Court,
8 not the U.S. Attorney's Office, having these conversations.
9 And I'm not sure what it is Mr. Bruce told Mr. Kawski,
10 but I will say to you in all candor that I am of the opinion that
11 Mr. Bruce may have even mislead Mr. Kawski as to the seriousness
12 of this violation or the content of what these documents were that
13 constituted a violation to the point that he got Mr. Kawski to
14 request an arrest warrant.
15 And then Mr. Bruce doesn't go to me, he doesn't go to
16 Judge Skretny, he ends up in front of the chief judge of the
17 district and gets that arrest warrant.
18 In the past, in much more serious cases, including
19 serious drug cases, people have been brought in on a summons when
20 there's a claim of a bail violation.
21 And when I look at the totality of the circumstances in
22 these three indictments, I am to the conclus on
23 without making a formal legal finding that Mr. Bruce is bent on
24 a path of vindictiveness and retaliation against this defendant.
25 He reminds me -- and my memory doesn't serve me well

23
; enough to pull up the name -- but he is the inspector from
3 a loaf of bread because he was starving.
4 Doesn't the United States At 's Office have more
6 kids blowing their heads off every day: the drug scene out there
7 just outrageous, innocent can't even drive down the streets
8 without being shot at, and here we're this time on this
--------------~------~~~
10 MR. BURGASSER: Your Honor, jus'~ one thing as to what you
~~ said. It's my understanding -- and this is hearsay from
12 Mr. Bruce -- he advised me that he did contact your chambers and
13 was told that there were no matters pending before --
14 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: There weren't. All my
5 motions had been decided.
16 MR. BURGASSER: And they were told they should go to the
17 district court. It's my understanding, from Mr. Bruce again, that
8 Judge Skretny was not available -- I don't know if Judge Skretny
19 was available or not available, but that's how it ended up in
20 front of Judge Arcara.
21 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHROEDER: Oh, I know that. My point
22 is why didn't he just file a motion saying it's the Government's
23 position that Mr. Buczek is in violation of bail, we're moving to
24 have his bail revoked, instead of going and getting Mr. Kawski
25 involved, getting the Probation Office involved and getting an

Buczek 20101025 Answer To Motion To Revoke Bail

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Buczek 20101025 Answer To Motion To Revoke Bail

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 32

Honorable court of record 1:08-CR00054-001

(Answer requested within 7 days because of Sentencing Factors)

AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER TO ANSWER GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR BAIL

shane-christopher: buczek, heretofore and hereafter "Petitioner", notices the court of

AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER to Answer governments motion for bail revocation and

Lack of Subject Matter JURISDICTION.

revocation herein with this affidavit.

intimidation and harassment.

controversy or argument. (See: Exhibit C collecting letters of Bruce to Petitioner from

March 2008 to October 2010)

August, 20, 2009, Page 22, Lines 21-24.

this motion for Bruce, instead of Bruce.

within the discretion of the Court to do that as well.

Quorum issue) (See: Exhibit B)

Toto rule, if the statute is invalid, its parts are invalid.

80 S.Ct. 459, 4 L.Ed.2d 423

be proven." --Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

the court lacks jurisdiction" ... "should dismiss the action."

297,299 (1977). EFFECT FAILURE TO DENY F.R.Cv.P. RULE 8

witnessed and knew were going on.

Harris (1960) 182 CA2d Supp 837, 5 CR 852.

dismiss all three said actions 1:09-CROOI21-001, 1:09-CROOI41-001, 1:08-CR-054-001 against

him with prejudice.

(Answer requested within 7 days because of Sentencing Factors)

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests dismissal of government's motion for revocation of bail as

AFFDAVIT OF TRUTH OF THE TRUTH

I, shane-christopher: buczek, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of

By: Executor of the Estate SHANE CHRISTOPHER B

State of New York ) Acknowledgement

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Nancy A. Ferraro #01 FE6007336

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Universal Postal Union

Eric Holder Jr.

Pope Benedict XVI

On thisthe'1b~av Df§!l~r~~ ~:ct

1947 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5049

HeinOnline -- 93 Congo Rec. 5049 1947

5048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE MAY 12

HeinOnline .. 93 COIlg. Ree. 5048 1947

Case 1:09-cr-00121-WMS-HKS Document 256

.ffi" of dye QUerk '0

December 19. 1947 sine die adjoumment. t

present. ' '1'

Filed 10/25/10 Page 18 of 32

~a.IlU.-> r:I( #44L <:C 0

Honorable court of record 1: 08-CROOO54-00 1/

SHANE C. BlJCZEK, a U.S. TRUST

, • 'UNITED STATES D1SrRiCT COUU CI.£KK

In the matter of SHANE C BUCZEK, a U,S. Trust, Petitioner, shane-christopher: buczek,

Subiect MaUer Jurisdiction petitioner submits Prima FacieEvidence to support Claim

Petitioner demands 10 days to reply*(Answer Notice within 10 days)*

CR-121-S, 09-CR-141-S, OS-CR-054-S, due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner

Toto rule, if the statute is invalid, its parts are invalid.

Petitioner Takes Judicial Notice of the Fair Warning Doctrine

prior Title 18 statute passed in 1909.

for the court.

constitutionally adequate notice.

statute was legally ineffective. Id.

According to standing precedent, this court had absolutely no jurisdiction to prosecute

Defendant under either 18 U.S.c. § 3231 or the prior enactment in 1940.

further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction:'

Petitioner demands 10 days to reply(Answer Notice within 10 days)