11-3300 cr

United States Court of Appeals

for the

Second Circuit

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee

- v. –

FRITZ GERHARD BLUMENBERG,

Defendant-Appellant, pro se

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York [Case Nr. S1: 01-cr-571]

=========================================

APPENDIX for the Defendant - Appellant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(page number and numbers are the original’s and could not be changed)

A Transcript Plea Colloquia Blumenberg (4-5-2002/ JGK) 41 Pages

B Government Response date June, 30, 2011 (Undocketed - extra ECF) 4 Pages

C Original & Translation Notarized Consular Civil Settlement by Blumenberg 1998 4 Pages

D Co-defendant VIERTEL’s 2-28-2010 “Summary of Objection to Magistrate Judge” 17 Pages

E Appellant’s WRIT for AUDITA QUERELA June 8, 2009 18 Pages

F Co-defendant LEE’s attorney letter to AUSA pre-“guilty” plea 4 Pages

G Appellant’s prison letter to R.Zabel, Esq. requesting Lee’s secret NOLLE PROSSE 1 Page

H LUFTHANSA AIRWAY BILL for the “charged” INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY 1 Page

I Appellant’s ORIGINAL FILING under APPEAL DE 242 in 01: cr 571 (JGK) 14 Pages

J Appellant’s REPLY Brief July 9, under Appeal DE ___ in 01: cr 571 (JGK) 9 Pages

K FBI Document proving FBI Scams on “Victim Identity” & “Harboring” 1 Page

Appendix

A

Appendix

B

Appendix

C

Appendix

D

����������������� ����������������������������� �������������

------------------------------------------------- x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 01cr-0571-003 (JGK) (HBP)

Plaintiff ))

versus ) OBJECTIONS To Docket Entry 211

FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, pro se ) and MOTION to VACATE RESTITUTION) OBLIGATIONS nunc pro tunc for the Court's

CHRISTIAN T. VIERTEL, pro se ) failure to identify a bonafide victim or direct Defendants ) loss causation suffered by a victim and more

------------------------------------------------- x

Via Fax to 2 Chambers : (212) 805 – 7912, -6111

Christian T Viertel hereby supports Blumenberg's OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Pitman's

RECOMMENDATION, and SUPPORTS Blumenberg's SUBMISSIONS to achieve a CONCLUSION

reasonably and entirely CORRECTING the record on RESTITUTION.

The Judicial Scandal

on hand grew out of inconceivable propensity to defy facts, logic and economic

realities, conceal documents whenever convenient for the government, all up to an extent, that

goes far beyond negligence and ignorance but "borders on roguery" when, as is now evident,

many parties knew for quite some years, that Blumenberg paid off all of his restitution

obligations before 2004, most likely before 2003 and much already in 1998, while the

government's „FLU dream team's“ (source: Garcia) „Money Book“ dutiesI were co-shared with

neglective dodgers at this Court's Clerk to maintain a continuous deception with the goal to

cloak transfered „values“ and keep the opprobrium alive.

The prosecution band, and others, were also heavy in cahoots with proctor Feldman's

mob, who set out to take forbidden silk far beyond the termination of the mandate from ex-

client Burda. The collusionists played for each other.

I USM Title 3 Chapter 3-9.000, see : 3-9.230 CCLR, Form USA 207 for severe lack of compliance

1

Thus, this Court's RESTITUTION-Record is long corrupted, and this movant's direct

suffering and grievances were dawdled by a predilective Court supporting a corrupt

prosecutional position, which an ex-prosecutor Judge must have the foresight to spot. The

actors/officers waisted judicial resources and tortuously compromised the truth-finding

process while trampling upon this movant’s right to uncorrupted procedings, fair post-trial

processes and a legitimate claim for eventual vindication.

Defendant's Objections to Errors

in „mis-valuating“ restitutional assets restituted by Blumenberg to HIS EMPLOYER,

Burda GmbH in Offenburg, which have now been RECONFIRMED, such misguided calculations

are no longer available for "nonsense" holdings or unreasonable „strike-off“ from a true

conclusory summary. Only ONE Conclusion the facts permit: „Restitution was Paid“.

Principally, the R&R conclusions are rejected. The concluder took a whole year to think

up some inappropriate evidentiary standards to deliberately short-change Blumenberg's

restitutional properties [consequential to my secondary liability] and thus, cut-out-short

certain material monetary elements validly submitted or in the general case record. These

submissions included an aged detailed JUDICIAL NOTICE filed 25 February 2006 (below

attached to this submission for swift reconstitution of Court records) pursuant to an even

earlier :

Petition For Correction Of RESTITUTION (Dkt #161 II of 11/2005) still pending in the FIFTH year.

II U.S. District Court CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR C ASE #: 1:01−cr−00571−JGK−3Date Filed # Docket Text05/13/2005 160 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Christian T. Viertel from 140 Memorandum

& Opinion. Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record:A.U.S.A. (tp, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)

11/28/2005 161 PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF RESTITUTION. as to Christian T.Viertel. (pr, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

12/30/2005 162 ORDER as to Christian T. Viertel. The Court has received the attached"Judicial Notice" dated 12/16/05 from the defendant. The defendant seeksvarious relief. The defendant also refers to a "Petition for Correction of Restitution. The Government should respond to these papers by 1/13/06. In its response, the Government should explain the proper procedures to be followed by the defendant to assure that he is properlycredited with any amounts paid by Mr. Blumenberg to assure that there isno overpayment of restitution. The defendant may reply by 1/27/06. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/23/05)(kw, ) (Entered: 12/30/2005)

2

This 2006 NOTICE document, hereby resubmitted below, was, according to MJ.

Pitman's R&R, annoyingly „lost“ by the „system“ in breach of rules requiring uncorrupted

record keeping at all U.S.Courts. It demonstrates the disturbing timeline over almost SEVEN

years, during which Viertel's „Judgment Order“ has been defective, then defectively

„amended“, but still remains DEFECTIVE.

Blumenberg's Objections highlight and underscore the gravity of these fundamental

judicial shortcomings and how misguided courts are not to suspect the integrity of those

sitting in front row. His objections raise, de novo, most serious concerns over an

incontrovertibly flawed proceeding and ongoing, behind-the-scenes, nepotistic rackets, cover-

ups and profiteering in abuse of constitutionally protected processes to the detriment of this

innocent movant. Consequently, and based, inter alia, upon BURDA's reissued Satisfaction, the

„clock“ shall be effectively turned back, and the fake litigation shall be exsponged nunc pro

tunc, to seek resurrection of a tiny bit of judicial integrity in a wide ocean unworthy of respect.

MOTION

Movant prays this Court, ad iterum, for an ORDER nunc pro tunc striking any and all

burdens of wrongly adjudicated RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS and striking any and all

references to the counterfeit „victim“ named in the Judgement Order, and to recognize, resolve

and correct grave injustices, including a public record LIEN filing in Florida [see:annex 1], and

to order the relevant instrumentalities of „plaintiff's“ U.S.A., to rectify by exspongement

PUBLIC records, to rectify by exspongement FBI records, to rectify by exspongement the BOP

„custody recordIII data base“ and to exsponge BOP's illegal personal record manipulations, to

rectify by exspongement INS and DHS records to be free of wrong entries, wrong birthdates

and all deceptions, in toto.

Furthermore, this Court shall order the USAO to file FORM 207 or similar as NOTICE to

Close Legal Case File, and to vacate all defective judgment and commitment orders this Court

has produced in favor of the „plaintiff“, his own employer.

Furthermore the Court shall vacate conviction and indictment for the many reasons

III which atrociously list „2 escapes & violence“, inter alia falsum

3

belowIV, if not alone for LACK of Jurisdiction ab initio, a claim that seems to be federally

disfavored, but is a reality as true as alive and strong.

Furthermore, this Court shall issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER which contains elements of

reasonable assurances and neccessary precautions to safeguard the corrected Court/

Grandjury/ FBI and trial/post-trial records from sudden escape, protect Docket items, and

protect the case record from vanishing partially or in totoV.

The movant respectfully requests SANCTIONS to be levied upon all colluding parties

and miscreants. Those sanctions shall be severe enough to reflect the seriousness of the

misconduct, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public and in particular foreigners

from further prosecutorial, bar member and official misconduct.

Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey's common ruse, that „ All Americans are equal before the

Law“ was indicative, but violate public decrement of equal constitutional rights aliens qualify

for, but seldom receive. Haines vs Kerner guides here, and procedural barricades may not be

errected, meaning that whatever writ or rule „number“ LABEL attaches to this MOTION /

Application for CORRECTION of deficient judicial erosions of a substantial right to legitimate

and due PROCESS, it shall vacate the abuse. That abuse must seize and the gutting of National

values, already sqandered by „compliant enablers“ have resulted in huge REPUTATIONAL

LIABILITIES(like the worldchamp INCARCERATION rate), must arrest government trespass.

Introduction

Movant laid gravamen in vain throughout the last decade, to move this Court away

from compliance with legal nihilism standards and accept a logical – not foregone - conclusion,

that, argumendo, when a Court cannot positively identify a „victim“ and when a loss claim

IV inter alia, clear guidence from the USCA in United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19,

2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): "[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct

prohibited by a federal criminal statute.". Opinion at 14.

V http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/18/health/when-court-decisions-vanish-from-the-record.html?

pagewanted=1

4

causation and amount are specifically unsupported [by – not even – a single identifiable

victim], then, RESTITUTION and punishment MAY NOT SOLELY RESULT from a sordid

preponderance scheme -sans- jury verdict. Any preponder, categorically, who enacted grave

reversible error must step up -sua sponte – upon discovery to end the opprobrium and

retrovert by annulment of each and every unlawful judicial act or filing, he might have been

swindled into by those on first row.

Movant was abusively accused, defectively indicted and superseded, wrongly

„convicted“ by a blantantly deceived jury and senselessly punished as a „wrongdoer“, in fact,

„caught up“ as by-kill trickery, and was deliberately exposed to 2 untenable phantom overt

„acts“ resulting in enhanced penal consequences, utterly baseless. Deportation by way of

„removal“ erected shelter for the benefit of an utterly corrupt bunch of greedy proctors

principally acting as oath violators, forgers, bogus Court officers and bad apples. The proctor

group runs on such monumental moral deficiencies, that a lifetime PRESIDER must enrobe the

antennas to detect, or rather move to other duties. Grave constitutional conflicts based upon

due process violations were approvingly sealed, while Jurisdiction was WANTED.

There are few things a justice dislikes more than repudiating a prior opinion.

But now is the time to view these opinions in the light of the CLEAR BURDA

STATEMENT, that Blumenberg paid his debts owed to „victimized“ German employer Burda

GmbH a long time ago, and that this movant was hornswoggled out of a legitimate

RESTITUTION OBLIGATION in favor of a REAL VICTIM. Movant never owed RESTITUTION to

any real actor in this case, who could step up under oath. Now is the time to STATE THIS ON

THE RECORD.

This movant's definite lack of Victim's LOSS causation was heard and recorded by this

Court during the defendant's sentencing statement, and shall be recalled now. This Court

unwisely chose to ignore those true statements in the common face of goverment retribution,

if he palliated a covert, but shady agreement on how to sentence. And it is in PLAIN VIEW. It

might be hard to accept, that – sometimes - those on first row have lower morals, than those

on second, and conspiracy to obstruct justice remains a continuing offense. But this is the hard

lesson any Court must learn : Persons can be targeted and not be guilty, that's not mutually

inconsistent.

5

A. The Dice are always loaded

Harris & Co aided by Feldman & Co used a deceptive indictment event for personal

gain, subsidized talmudic education, and aggrandizement. It was not due justice, nor

honorability to squash the legitimate search for historic court reporter records, which could

prove whether or not an OPEN COURT heard the indictment on that 14th day of June 2001. The

judge, the room, the tape, all vanished to waist for Harris' sake detrimental to just two „lousy“

foreigners and one (cameo) yankee.

But we still procede here until the slate is clean, same as below and above. Thanks to

that Second Circuit, labeled by NY Times A National DisgraceVI, where another panel was

essentially pained by appellant VIERTEL's direct case before them, and felt disturbed that

valid arguments and valid case law raised by Kim Bonstrom, Esq. could potentially derail an

otherwise perfected sham proceeding. Alas, they substituted the facts to give themselves an

opportunity to mis-apply their favored laws, in lieu of those laws, which justly curtail federal

reach of proscriptions, altogether handed down in an all too common summary chicanery to

derail a Supreme review, another low point on their record.

At least since early 2004, when movant mandatorily noticed the covertly „deep-sixed“

Brady Y'96 audit of BMI's financials for [1995 &] 1996 to this Court, he did so from captivity.

The highly inconvenient document demolished the plotters „crime theory“, while coincidentily,

the weight of this audit anihilated the counterfeit ruse, that BMI was „ victimized by third-

party“ in '96 when its own $8'120,10 draft, auto-messengered – unsolicited – arrived at

movant's home uptown.

When this discovery hit, the foundations of the „Federal Case“ vanished, the „FBI's pet

victim“ vaporized, the most repugnant pseudo-theory of „replenishment“ vamoosed.

Regrettably, the clean Grandjury Exhibit transmuted into Government Exhibit 501 by criminal

forgery with ink and pen. This time the Court blocked by denial the discovery of an

„unforged“ FBI electronic EXHIBIT picture file, just to save Cohen und Harris from criminal

forgery charges that uncorrupted file would reveal. The presider shall retroactively evaluate

the motives for this denial, and view the consequences it unjustly caused.

VI http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=national%20disgrace&st=cse

6

B. Discovery at 500 Pearl Street

Good news is, that movant now discovered an even earlier COURT RECORD facsimile,

which Feldman's own team submitted in 1999 to Judge Sweet as Exhibit H. Contained in a fat

binder, which never got „served“ upon this defendant, but is „stand-by“ to be pulled from

archive to proof the government's forgery of 2002. It is unreasonable to assume, that Feldman

could anticipate, that government proctors, 2 years later, would resort to forgery of an historic

document, and that defendant's counsel was of such (IAC) incompetence not to detect and call

the bluff. Thus, Feldman inadvertently filed a true BMI corporate RECORD: The clean Agate

Invoice, which proves, once again, that the government's propensity lays on tamperance with

evidence, and reliance upon Court's propensity to cover up. [ see clean Agate Invoice in Annex

(2), yet un-touched by Cohen, the more likely 2002 forger, based upon her Harvard-bred-flaw:

a propensity to defy morality for the sake of winning]

C. Confederacy to stultify

Blumenberg's apparent inability to receive a FAIR and TRUE R&R CONCLUSION was

part of the confederacy to stultify his stronger position as a fully-paid-up-restitutor, while

also handily cloning the meager result to keep more opprobrium laden upon this movant.

The motto keeps giving: „once unjustly imprisoned, denied and deported, indebtness will keep

them owing and weak“. That's what happened here : this Court took the position, that a) facts

do not count, b) a fooled jury's verdict can well provide for abuse (the jury cannot have „found“

furtherance ? Who are we kidding ?), c) this government's delusions must be protected, and

d) swift prison, denied curfew, denied halfway house, followed by a lengthy removal will asure

to choke the truth and flow of true information, which could tarnish the system.

There was no genuine federal crime Blumenberg, nor this movant, substantively

violated, because corporate and economic realities of the independent (no longer a pre-1992

„branch“ agency ), $6,888 million revenue generating BMI do not permit interstate fraud

charges in this case. Consequently, a conspiracy – willful or coincidental- to breach such

„inapplicable law“ did not exist. Blumenberg was uncharged by NY state, despite Rogers &

7

Wells fruitless attempts at Morgenthau's: turns out, voilà, the „Fed's“ are evidently easier to

inveigle.

The „inveigled“ were White, Canellos, Weddle, Harris, who threw a curve-ball to ex-

officio Pomerantz , then „Esquire“ Feldman snatched it for his and his team's personal

monetary gain to the 100% detriment of local Burda Media Inc.(BMI), the cash-rich business

corporation Blumenberg built from scratch on loan as honorary chief executive.

BMI's agreed modus operandi was to habitually overcharge its almost 3 dozen foreign

customer billings, albeit with corporate consent from his German parent (Blumenberg's only

employer: Burda GmbH). Since such a “billing model” as of 1/1/1992 was grounded upon

BMI's independency VII , it carried German tax advantages and better still, permitted his

employer Burda GmbH to „recoup“ Blumenberg's contractually high maintenance cost through

mark-ups BMI charged all its customers. Including also „bobkes customers“ such as Burda

Holding (GmbH & CoKG). BMI Revenue from services ('96 = $6,888 Millions) streamed

partially onshore to BMI's NY local bank accounts, retained earnings collected in Germany

were left un-repatriated.

In the second half of 1996, post-Blumenberg resignation, Feldman's scofflaw team

billed $600'000+ as „retainers“ to BMI , millions more were plundered later. Then in 2001, 5

years later, AUSA's Canellos/Harris plumped in to fakeVIII an indictment based upon an ex-post-

facto stunner: a „victimized“ BMI, which all of a sudden was not to bob up as „selfsustaining“,

but disguised as a revisionist existance grace to tax free wire donations from some foreign

benefactor: Feldman „selected“ bobkes BMI client: Burda Holding out of the blue sky and

without approval by Holding's GC. The 1996 audit nixed this swindel.

D. WHO done it and WHO fooled the Fed's et al ?

by inventing this scheme, while hourly billing millions to „poor victim “ BMI ?

The answer is : Feldman.

He was either not worth a dime of BMI's treasury funds for never grasping BMI's business

model, or too klutz to grok the Y'96 audit – part of corporate BMI documents – which he so

VII The transition to INDEPENDENT corporation had been caused by an IRS problem at German Publisher

Bauer. All German Media Bureau's in the USA were prudent to transition into separate entities after

1990, and so did Burda Media Inc. In 12-31-1991.

VIII While the U.S. pretenders kept their eagle eyes off Commissioner Kerik of the „greatest police

department in the world“ [BHARARA 2-18-2010], and far off the super busy ponzi meisters all around.

8

costly billed, as if he had reviewed them. The document also disclosed his own Y'96 billing

scheme and showed a 700+% rise in legal fees for Y'96.

However, it is more likely than not, that he embarked on a sneer campaign to fool Judge

Sweet, fake a SUMMONS & Complaint and bluntly deny „autarchic-BMI-life existence“.

Right thereafter, he went on to fool the dupes in Mollo's building.

This Presider should be well aware, who was next in line.

E. New Skullduggery

can be discovered in the [more complete] archives of 97cv7167 (RWS) as Dkt#1. Our

proctor #4705, inept to cinch simple Rule 4 instructions (and template appendices for „les

plus maladroit“),jurisdictionally fatal to Senior Judge Sweet, omitted INSERTION of the „Name“

DESIGNATOR for the District into which he meant to SUMMONS. FRCvP Rule 4 is crystal clear

: (a) (1) (A) name of the court

(a) (2) (b) ....If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must.....

(emphasis added)

a) Feldman's white-shoe-shine gleamed and buddied up the clerical incompetency

band behind the glass windows, where they raffle and re-raffle the „Honorables“ until a

„ match“ is perfected, and then „improperly“ at times, affix Case # stamps on those upscale

summons, defective or not. Fatal proof is right here in the Anex (3)IX.

b) That same proctor #4705-Feldman (jointly with #7097-Stephanz & #5941-

Anderson), submitted ample unverified verbiage in a basically „rogue“ Complaint filed under

97cv7167 [RWS] on September 24, 1997– language and facts that were entirely not

sanctioned by BMI's „stand-in“ director. The German Burda executive, Dr. Bolls, who originally

retained Rogers&Wells, had died in a company plan crash.

c) Points 24) & 25) are utterly contrary to what Rogers & Wells knew or should have

known to be true, and contrary to what Sr. Group Auditors [Maginot/Fluhrer] GAAP certified

for BMI to be factual on page 2 of the June 1997 BMI audit for Y'96 [see in Annex 4 as page

„-2-“ while the complete audit with translation are presumably kept in Court files].

IX Footnote for JGK: this time around, Gendarme Pascal may not rescue the jurisdictional day, CJA Abe

Moskowitz can not botch it up, and C.J. McLaughlin shall be alerted to promptly amend – sua sponte - his

opprobrious (2005) 417 F.3d 292 publication.

9

d) That Y'96 audit, became the „Brady audit“named after the government's deep-

sixing, overtly states on page -2- (B)(1)(a) paragraph 2 the following two-liner: „[Die

Gesellschaft....] The company existed until December 31, 1991 as a branch office (bureau) of

Burda GmbH, Offenburg X . Since January 1, 1992, [the BMI company] operated as an

independent corporate entity . “ (emphasis' added/ page -2- in Annex 4).

e) Feldman, Court officer #4705, a dilettante micro-economist crossdresser, figured out

how to falsify general ledgers and how to conceal the true source of funds all by himself (the

facts be damned-he might by „Madoff“ worthy). Feldman concluded, that a desirable „RICO

breach“ cannot attach without allegations 1341 or 1343 violation, even if just the wonton

type!

f) Thus, he plainly transmogrified corporate reality into never-never land defrauding

the Sweet bench and all the other official actorsXI. 4 years later Feldman set out to „inculcate“

Mollo's bunch (USAO SDNY) during his job-hunting-campaign to profit from as many time-

consuming „subpeonas“ as BMI's opulent treasury could be cozen. Feldman's motivation was

greed: „ Lets get „loaded“ by initiating more „BMI related“ hourly „billings“ pursuant to his

„last inducement“ of a federal criminal referral action“. To help along, he pulled a “ let's fake a

local victim“ ruse bamboozling the FBI's O'Sullivan. Since FBI manuals disfavore „cases“ with

„ multiple jurisdiction-dissociate overseas victims“ who could not /would not initiate a

„referral“, Feldstein went to streamline and simply bent BMI „ facts around“, that he knew

were indubitable falsehoods including EVERY reference to „Burda Holding“.

g) Feldman knew, and set out to scam the world, that „Holding“ as never an actor nor a

payee at any time. He was actually „in the know“ [at BMI's ample pecuniary detriment] of

BMI's financial audit, and knew that „Holdings“ was totally desinvolved, Feldman chose to

forge the transition of „1992“ and concealed the independency modus operandi. Feldman just

re-structured Historical REALITY, like a sex-change procedure.

h) Later, in 2002, when Feldman's cohorts Anderson/Stephanz freaked out suddenly

realizing that, without an immediate release of the „incriminating“ Y'96 BMI audit to the USAO

pre-trial, their paperhanger-hit-and-run whitewash plan was likely to be foiled, the „buck“ was

passed to government's imlicks. From that moment in August 2002, pre-trial, when the Y'96

X Burda GmbH, Offenburg was Blumenberg's exclusive employer and counterparty (BMI was not)

XI Each of the 9 (!) times Feldman states „Burda Holding“ in 24) and 25) he knowingly falsified BMI's

corporate counterparty to fabricate federal acts, that he knew were maliciously counterfeit

10

BMI audit was hand-delivered and „dumped“ upon the AUSO, they grappled, as their case had

crumbled, and had reached non-resurrectibility due to a June 18, 2001 „SOL“ deadline.

i) But, then again, as recent history showed, exculpatory FACTS do not weigh too much

chez „Mollo's star chambers“. Lee was just been nolle prosequit, and those 2 unsuspecting

foreigners (effectively declawed by F.D./C.J.A. kittys) would get a Federal circumbendibus, and

eventually did so. Prosecutorial misconduct par excellence !

[see Annex 5 of Complaint page 8].

j) Ostensibly, deficient Court house staff at hand shall not scavenge white-shoe

proctor's grunge, but rather compliantly authenticate, what the proctors first type up, and

then demand to be certified by signature, like Finneran for Parkinson: Puppets-On-A-String.

[ see 97cv7167 Certificate of Default- page 2: Annex 6]

F. Wrong Victim ! Again !

Movant prays the Court to examine, during its tertial bonafide true victim search, what

the FBI released (after several time consuming FOIA complaints). The Court shall notice, that

on 8/30/2004 FBI's BQMRA refers again in caps to “BURDA MEDIA INC.,-VICTIM;”, while this

Court has done neither. Not in its older nor newer worded „Viertel judgement ORDER“. This

Court randomly chose to coin a fantasy entity, not even a victim. [see Annex 7]

G. BMI was not the 01-cr-571 victim

On seriatim try out, this Court fell again short of correcting this element, and leaves

again an identifiable true economically entitled restitutee out of a “quixotic prepondered”

restitution order in total murkiness. The defendant is still due judicial craftsmanship.

We already have the RECORD incontrovertibly clear that BMI was not victimized by a

third-party during the $8'120,10 Checkdraft it had - self directed - issuedXII io ipso.

a. BMI wanted issuance of this check. The boss ordered a check and got it.

b. BMI did not have a „payment reason“ when BMI drafted the check for $8'120,10

XII Blumenberg refunded this and other amounts 28 days after the check had cleared on 6/18/1996

11

c. BMI cannot be transformed into victim-status, 5 years or 5 minutes after payout

d. BMI was not a §1341 mailer, BMI made itself addressee and records keeper

e. BMI never „mailed“ any internal Cashier reports via a licensed „courrier“

f. BMI subcontracted a BPOXIII firm in Germany to EXCLUSIVELY receive Cash Reports

g. BMI did not transfer any NY documents to a „victim“ or a „client“ or „dupee“

h. BMI held original vouchers for Maginot to carry to Germany, post payout

i. BMI printed the Agate „Invoice“ for it's own „books and records“, self-addressed

j. BMI earned a 150% mark-up on expense vouchers - volutional expenses

k. BMI had 25+ clients, who willingly paid for mark-ups, „overhead“ on great work

l. BMI's audit in 1997 held that all 1996 vouchers were bonafide (incl.$8,120.10)

m. BMI had no line-items for „loss from operations/fraud“ or similarly qualifying

n. Owner Burda ordered BMI to cover up Blumenberg's mess until the end in 7/1996

The Court shall direct the government, to specifically address - in affidavit format- all items

herein and above ( a.- n.), and shall seek insurance that the government is limited to facts only,

and may not add conjecture, or, what it constructs from previous flawed „opinion or dicta“ in

its favor. The law of the case is entirely corrupted.

H. Burda did not „criminally refer“ to the FBI its most embarrassing 5 year old problem

Rogers&Wells auto-„criminally refered“ this matter only to generate income from BMI,

and they sought and received a „sensitive document seal“ from Judge Sweet to keep the lid on

other civil transgressions before him. Burda Germany, however, through its GC Schweizer, sans

Rogers&Wells, tried to dodge a '97 official German criminal investigation to the point of arrest

threats for obstruction.

Blumenberg was charged, pleaded out and convicted in Germany to 2 year probation

term, successfully concluded at his New Jersey home, and a $3000 fine to an orphanage.

Viertel was not even suspect.

Abuse of fiduciary duty is a german type of „honest service“ felony, if against a German

employer, who was owed such duty, despite the fact that Blumenberg was permitted to „self-

dealings“, legal limits were transgressed. Victim was Burda GmbH his employer, not BMI.

XIII BPO= Business Process Outsourcing, third-party subcontracted accounting services

12

Blumenberg was exclusively employed by Burda GmbH, and no contract with BMI was ever

signed.

I. More VICTIMLESS charges ( Count 2)

The BMI '96 financial audit was independently issued, and was CONSEQUENTLY not

subject to Rogers&Wells' manipulation, even though they billed BMI heavily during the period

the audit was perfected. Therefore, this audit stayed totally silent about any, even small,

victimizing losses during 1996 at BMI, nor does this audit reference, account, chronicle any

“incoming wires” (as Count 2 ficticiously stated in total disregard that „Burda Holding“ was

NOT even the counterparty of the „transfer“ Swift) for any sum or a plum sum of $345,000.-.

All fourteen '96 „transfers“ cannot be subject to prominence during a financial snapshot,

because they are NON-EVENTS, a status similar to „ foreign currency transactions“,

countervalued but materially irrelevant.

But this economic reality was concealed from this Court, from defense and from jury to

protect a fake case from growing Brady breaches and discovery of malfeasance by Mollo's

band. These 14 FOREX trades had no impact upon assets, nor did they effect profit & loss,

balance sheet, nor the treasury. THE TRADES WERE PLAINLY economically NOT relevant, nor

did they victimize any party or counterparty, ergo , they cannot substantiate a “misleading or

fraudulent” interstate event with pretense and loss claim.

The proctor-tricksters resorted to illegal structuring. While no defendant nor victim

was effected or benefited from these TRANSFERS, this defendant was sentenced and

oppressively enhanced, as if there was a „crime“ he had consented to, abetted, knew about or

had „control“ over. Now has come the time for this Court to accept responsibilty and to

VACATE this utter absurdity. This movant did not profit, but still sustains a cash/interest loss

of € 120.000+ from the imbroglio which ended 1996, 14 years ago. Movant refers also, in

particular, to his 11-30-2007 SURREPLY filing , which the Court shall review, and take into

consideration.

Quote: „The whole trial is out of order!“XIV

XIV Reply to Judge Rayford in „Justice for all“.

13

Conclusions

Under the current State of your Nation, when Health care reform maybe as vital as justice

reform to re-separate the powers, and when extreme jailterm practices „earned“ a human

rights Trophy for über-incarceration, when Supreme and lower Court stacking effectively

extinguished the beacon America once was, that becomes the rare moment when an

honorable judge should shall use supervisory powers to correct an injustice - sometimes the

only right righteous action - especially when there has been not only DUBIOUS but outright

baseless FALSE charges, cumulative government misconduct, MLAT fraud, forgery, artifice

liens, abusive BOP, INS, ICE and adminstrative chicanery, overall obstruction of the truth-

finding process and now 5 added years of restitutional imbroglio.

The integrity of the trial and subsequent proceedings was long compromised and these

transgressions will not bio degrade.

It is respectfully requested to grant the MOTION in its entirety.

This submission is truthful and made pursuant to 28 USC § 1746 (1)XV .

Respectfully Submitted this 28 day of February 2010

Christian T Viertel, movant pro se

Torre Di Monterrivecchi 9/18 via delle BallodoleItalia 50139 FirenzeT: +1 302 261-5000F: +1 801 346-7954

Annex of Exhibits ( 8 pages), lost Judicial Notice attached below.

Certificate of Service : Fax delivery upon Chambers JGK and HBP Fax delivery upon Preet Bharara, Esq.

Email: Robert Culp, Esq. Certified : /s/ 2/28/2010

XV (1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury

under the laws of the USA that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

14

The „lost“ 25.Feb 2006 JUDICIAL NOTICE :

������������� �� ⇒⇒⇒⇒����������� ����������� ������������� ����������������� ������������������ ���

���������������������� ���������� �� �!��"��#��$$%$%

����������� ����

���� ���� !"#�� ����$��%����� �������������& $%'(����"�)��������! ���!�� �����*�� ��)� ���+�,�-� �.�+-����� ���/�� !� 0����1�

�����&�'���(���!��

Whereas, defendant pro-se, Christian Viertel, hereby submits to this honorable Court a:

Mandatory Judicial Notice

In furtherance and during the pendancy of defendant’s

Petition For Correction Of RESTITUTION

[Dkt# 161] and in addition to other submissions including defendant’s RESPONSE to thegovernment’s averments filed January 27, 2006.

This NOTICE is filed in the interest of justice and to best position this Court to view the depth ofthe scenario and facts underlying the Petition.

Defendant, whose instant case is not yet final, and whose strong claims of [f]actual innocence fromany federally violative conduct remain strong, obtained this week in Germany two letters , both ofwhich are adjoined and part of this NOTICE to the Court:

#1 letter: was issued 10 Nov 2003� by an associate Member of

Standing at HUBERT BURDA Media’s Board of Directors (VORSTAND). In fact,Professor Dr Robert Schweizer, the writer of letter� #1 addressed to a retired senior

� Three days after this defendant was regrettably forced to self-surrender, without benefit of apostponement- found by this Court to be unreasonable, into a putrid prison warehousemachinery run by nefarious miscreants whose goal, initially, was to curtail all communications,and to humiliate new arrivals in violation of 18USC 3553, ff. et.al.

� Translation in FULL : Honorable, dear Mr.Sakowski: Dr.Burda sends his gratitude for your letter of October 12, 2003. Your letter was discussed at the

Board (meeting), and I was chosen to respond to you herewith. Initially: Mr.Markwort and Dr.Todenhöfer did not “sink their teeth into Fritz”. When his fraudulent

activities were discovered, Mr.Bolls and myself were in charge of review and further handling.BURDA group and its employees never made any [U.S.] criminal referral. BURDA group does not

punish Mr. Blumenberg twice. We never exercised any influence whatsoever upon [UnitedStates] criminal proceedings. We [BURDA] attempted throughout the years, within our set

15

executive (Sakowski) in France, pursuant to the executives earlier intervention on behalf ofMr.Blumenberg. Blumenberg is my untried co-defendant and the primary restitutioner in thisjoint case 01-0571(JGK)

From all 4 corners of the #1 letter, it is apparent, and thus for this COURT to take immediate mandatory consideration, that BURDA group was already satisfied with Blumenberg’s restitution byNovember 2003, prior to Blumenberg’s incarceration and most probably prior to this defendant’sugly sentencing day experience in June 2003, the constitutionality of which is currently underappellate review. This honorable court holds Proctor Warren Feldman as his officer-of-the-court,who, highly unethically, moved without due authorization from his ultimate client to mislead thisCourt by obtaining undeserved and untimely “victim” standing�. It is more likely than not thatFeldman & Co. knowingly acted violative of their clients mandate with respect to an earlier referral,and viewed in that light, the Court shall consider the government’s motivation to continue toobstruct� disclosure of AO 257, a required Court form, which was sought by this defendant, andwhich this Court repeatedly ordered to be disclosed, to no avail and thus far, without sanctions.

#2 letter: was issued by the law offices of Professor Dr Schweizer, who then and nowacts as general counsel to the BURDA group, in addition to his board position. The letter�

parameters, to mollify these problems.Dr.Burda must treat a single instance also reasonably within its framework. Everyday, as you

experienced yourself, we have to balance some interests. Such balance, i.e., restrains us fromfinancially supporting Mr.Blumenberg. However, Dr.Burda ruled in favor of Mr.Blumenberg notto seek further restitution of damages. Presumably, you did not even have thoughts aboutfinancial help.

BURDA never wanted the arrest of Mr.Blumenberg. But, as previously stated, we are incapable toprevent such detention.

The problems rest, in my opinion, at more depth. Why did Mr.Blumenberg, while he was highlyremunerated, damage BURDA for so many years and with such intent? As far as we know, wasMr.Blumenberg subject to outside – BURDA unrelated – influences, which caused him to divertmonies and caused further damages to BURDA by diverting BURDA funds to associates. Hefurthermore caused grief to many his BURDA-colleagues.

Due to all these circumstances, Dr.Burda was not willing to give even more support toMr.Blumenberg than what he decided several years ago, as mentioned: No further damageswill be sought. BURDA is contented the restitution obtained in the past. New damages claimswould arise only in case of new circumstances. With friendly greetings, please also forMr.Blumenberg Schweizer

� Which this defendant has substantially disputed as false, fabricated and erroneous

� United States Attorney Acosta (SDFL) just stated, “Attorneys, as officers of the Court, have anethical obligation and a duty to protect and promote our system of justice. When attorneysbreach that duty and actively obstruct justice, it erodes the public confidence in our legalsystem.”

� Translation in FULL: Referenced BLUMENBERG/VIERTEL 2 September 2004Honorable Mr. Rahlf,In reference to your letter dated August 6, 2004, for which we thank you: Your client accepted at

the USDC-SDNY on June 4, 1998 a 38-page settlement, which contained numerousappendices detailing his obligations. Those obligations have substantially been satisfied. His[Capital] Life Insurance with Journalist-Pension Fund (Stuttgart) remains outstanding but thosepension benefits were irrevocably ceded by your client on June 1, 1998 in favor of BURDA. Wedo not know of any other issues. With friendly greetings: Law office Prof.Schweizer, written

16

was issued on September 2, 2004 to a chartered accountant at the BEER, GASTL &PARTNER law firm in Hamburg, which acts as Blumenberg’s CPA in Germany and,apparently in response to a letter dated June 4, 2004 (which has not yet been made availableto me). BURDA’s attorney states therein, that Blumenberg has, in September 2004, satisfactory status vis-à-vis his obligations pursuant to DJ.Sweet’s proceedings. “Those[OBLIGATIONS] have substantially been satisfied”, he writes.

Once more, very clear language from BURDA, which squarely accolades defendant’s PETITIONTO CORRECT RESTITUTION with high merit, for this COURT to grant the reasonable reliefsought, and BURDA-language which also confirms that Blumenberg complied with this Court’sstated Sentencing ORDER:

5) The defendant is to continue to comply withthe terms of his civil agreement with BurdaMedia, the victim in the instant offense; and 6)The defendant shall cooperate with the Internal RevenueService with their efforts to collect any due and owingtaxes.

THEREFORE , the defendant PRAYS this Court to grant his PETITION, inter alia, and such otherrelief� as might be considered just, certainly overdue and reasonable in the interest of justice, andmaybe to go beyond the petitions calling and rectify the wrongs which this Court has supported fortoo long.

Respectfully Submitted

/�� !� 0���.����1 2�2

333333333333333333333333

�� ������������ ���.�"�4��"����5 ����

��6)�/78��7)���*7$9)�7��7��9��&������� �'��)*�++������,����-.-�/�0

)� :�����0�4�;�&1�����'���"���<�������(�)��7��� ��0��

�� ,����&��1�� ����!������2+�����'�����������.+.

=���)���7�" �,��*��>�.�+�,�-� �����0.�+-�����

by Mr.Delhey and signed during his absence by Söder.

� United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi):"[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federalcriminal statute.". Opinion at 14.

17

Appendix

E

Appendix

F

Appendix

G

Appendix

H

Appendix

I

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x

(via fax 212-805-7912 to Chambers May-16-2011 & mail)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 01 Cr 00571 (JGK)

v. MANDATORY COURT NOTICE AND

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, JOHN C. LEE,

CHRISTIAN T VIERTEL, Defendants

---------------------------------------------------------x

Dkt.# 215 “[The] defendant is reminded that the issue is whether the

Magistrate Judge erred in deciding the matters before him. It is unclear how

searching for new documents affects that issue. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/3/2010)

Dkt.# 238 ENDORSEMENT: [Adjourned to Friday, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 P.M.]

So Ordered. “The Court notes that it would be useful to have a

definitive statement from a senior corporate official as to the status of restitution.” (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/31/2011)

NOW COMES, Fritz G. Blumenberg, defendant – partially pro se – to give NOTICE to this honorable

Court that the defendant heeded the Court’s opinion [see: of Dkt.# 238] and as a result, SUBMITS

THREE DEFINITE STATEMENTS in the annex.

My previous AFFIDAVIT filed 2-27-2010 with this Court OBJECTING to MJ. Pitman’s under-

valuations [Dkt.# 211] was CLEARLY JUSTIFIED. My incontrovertible statements are fully adopted;

in particular my objections laid gravamen to the DOJ’s continuing obstruction of justice by refusing

closure of the USAO’s FLU-team’s Restitution “money book” recorded at the SDNY.

2

In fact, at the time of my “guilty plea” in May 2002 and certainly a year later at my sentencing

on 5-22-2003 the judicial levy of the Restitution amount was not only incorrect then and unreflective of

my substantial performance, but apparently used to drive guideline number upwards. As submitted

below, the REAL non-manipulated “Money Count” stood empirically on May-2003 as follows:

I Co-def Lee’s Payment 1998 [see Blumenberg PSA] $ 250.000.00

II German Mark 1996 Refund of DEBT to Burda Holding $ 328,150.00

III Varied undervalued “Disposals” by Rogers & Wells $ 914,659.79

IV Removal of “undervalued” 6-98 Pension Credit from above list ($ 317,870.58)

V Real Future Value Pension ’98 Transfer of € 736K at U$D Rate 2003 $ 861,000.00

VI Credit 2000 Insurance “Wùrtembergische” 50% Value 95 TDM $ 56,000.00

RESTITUTIONAL VALUE TRANSFERRED BEFORE SENTENCING $ 2,091,939.21

Today’s submission of three definite VERIFICATIONS result in an $105,101.00 enlarged

RESTITUTED AMOUNT, partially pursuant to a value-drop of the US-Dollar, the result of which is

additional USD Value realized by BURDA:

VII [see V] Pension ‘98 “Presse” Insurance FINAL VALUE adjustment $74,352.00

VIII Two additional [not foreseen] Insurances transfers per Dec-2008 $30,749.00

RESTITUTIONAL 2008 Grand Total of $2,197,040.21.

This defendant’s historical sentencing was flawed; a judgment is rendered defective once at least

ONE element, here “RESTITUTION” and the “conditions for interest and payment henceforth”, was

plainly in error, since RESTITUTION was no longer due at sentencing. Not only, but the government’s

“FLU” commenced INTEREST calculations, imposed LIENS, issued Affidavits and added serious

opprobrium for the defendants by creating a flawed public record. See Fed.R.Crim.P.52(b). "A plain

3

error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights." U.S. v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1199 (9th

Cir.), Cert. Denied, 444 U.S. 979 (1979). Plain error is invoked to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to

preserve the integrity and the reputation of the judicial process. U.S. v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 935 (9th

Cir. 1992).

Three VERIFICATIONS plus BURDA GC’s cover1 letter are annexed; originals are on hand to

be filed by my CJA attorney, upon directions from the Court.

Therefore, this Court shall take NOTICE, that all RESTITION AMOUNTS were beneficially submitted

to and received by my direct employer, Burda GmbH, or, in lesser part, by its direct parent, [Hubert]

Burda Holding GmbH & Co. KG. on behalf of Burda GmbH, Arabellastrasse 23, in München. The

government’s deleteriously counterfeit a local [SDNY based corporation: Burda Media Inc.] as “Victim”

and presented this wrong status for BMI in AOUSC “charging” certificates, to inveigle upon the trial

Court. Through the entire “FBI file” the false “victim” captioned as: “�������������� �����;”

Government by trickery and deceit

“Burda Media Inc. New York” was NEVER an “authenticated victim”, regardless of coached

[302] hearsay from Burda Inc. staff, none of whom was privy to Burda Group’s corporate modus

operandi. As former President/CEO of Burda Media Inc., I state that the NY Company was a NET

WINNER at all times since its 1992 corporate mutation into a bona fide INDEPENDENT company,

inter alia, just as properly certified by the Burda Group’s YE 1996 AUDIT issued by Mssrs Maginot &

Fluhrer, Burda Group’s top “CPAuditor” team. This AUDIT, which the government willfully and

certainly unlawfully withheld from my defense and from this case, was FATAL to the prosecutions

“theorem”. Violations of Brady obligations are intentional acts of obstructive behavior in violation of

the due process clause. When the government came into possession of such an important

1 TRANSLATION of COVER LETTER May-3-2011 from Law Office Prof. Schweizer: “ Honored Mr.

Blumenberg, we are hereby transmitting – as requested – three Verifications signed by Prof.

Schweizer in his authority as associated member of the [Holding’s] board and permanent general

counsel of HUBERT BURDA MEDIA companies, including subsidiaries, among them Burda GmbH. With

Kind Regards Law Office Prof. Schweizer” ( 2 /s/ signatures)

4

INDEPENDENTLY issued, six year old EXCULPATORY document showing the relevant economic

details of 1996 [inclusive of my last 6 months at Burda until I resigned on July 9, 1996], the government

case, the single mail fraud, the single wire fraud and the single conspiracy died instantly upon arrival of

the AUDIT. [My tax charges were also false, but on other grounds, in as much as my “IRS declared

income” for 1995/96 was correct and not underreported, due to the substantial REAL 1995/96 income

reduction vesting before my IRS declarations were issued. This REFUND is certified now by one of the

VERIFICATIONS Burda issued last week and is proof my taxable income was truthfully declared at the

exact level]

DEFENDANT NOW RESPECTFULLY MOVES THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING

PROSECUTION and FBI TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT:

WHY THEY SHOULD NOT GET SANCTIONED FOR

1) PRESENTING A BOGUS ECONOMIC “VICTIM” AND CLOAKING “BVG2”

2) PRESENTING A FABRICATED INDICTMENT BY ALL COUNTS

3) BRADY VIOLATIONS FOR CLOAKING BMI’s ’96 AUDIT REPORT

4) WONTON F.B.I. “FUGITIVE” CLASSIFICATION UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Two economic details [A & B below] are crucial to fathom the gravity of official misconduct, their zeal

to overstep law enforcement3 limits, and the FATALITY prospects for the government’s fabrications

and deceptions, if they got caught. They arrogantly flaunted accounting facts and standards to obstruct

the Grand Jury’s investigation employing corrupt conduct intended to "influence, obstruct, or impede"

2 Burda Verlagsservices GmbH (BVG), Hauptstrasse 130, D-77654 Offenburg [HRB 20.Dec.1994]

3 United States v. Ford, 03-1774 (2d Cir. 1-19-2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): "[R]estraint must be

exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federal criminal statute."Op. at 14

5

the due administration of justice [18 U.S.C. §1503] inclusive of the June-2001 INDICTMENT & SS-

versions that followed: The defendant pursuant to USC 28 §1746 hereby states as follows:

A) Burda Media Inc. was an INDEPENDENT profit center with more than $6,8+ million

annual [‘95 & ‘96] proceeds from journalistic services activity resulting in “$6,8+ million

SALES TO TWO DOZENS OVERSEAS CLIENTS”. BMI not ever received

“GRANTS/Reimbursements” from Burda Holding to “cover” our operational cost; neither

did BMI get “Wires” from Holding. Purest government treachery.

B) I produced on or after June 20, 1996 inside Burda Media Inc.’s offices on Burda Media’s

computer equipment/laser printer what was to become Grand Jury Exhibit 5074 in its clean,

unaltered form [sans ink altered value] that was to REPLACE an successfully completed

disbursement of a generic PAYMENT ORDER for $8’120.10, that I handwrote to Kiefer

June 17, 1996. Contrary to the prosecution’s fabrication, GJ 507 could not have “triggered”

an “illicit payment”, GJ 507 arrived too late; GJ 507 just sought to cover a 3+day-old

disbursement’s insufficient documentation without changing the “underlying economics”,

namely those of a “General Overhead = 460-23” classification, allowing for Burda Media’s

standard 100+% profit margin, to result in – posterior to my mid-term-resignation – at

least $16,240.20 (double $8,120.10) bundled earnings to Burda Media, Inc. in June 1996.

Audit issued in June 1997, no loss detectable, Federal Mail statute not ever reached.

C) The § 371 charge to “jointly cause mail or wire” was utterly bogus ad initio, and is neither

tenable nor factual, because NO PERSON outside TOP BRASS at BURDA GROUP

[certainly not Mr. Lee or Mr. Viertel] could ever know that BMI retained [at a yearly FEE of

$350K paid by BMI] in early 1995 their crucial subcontractor in Offenburg “BURDA

Verlagsservice GmbH” (“BVG” see FN 2) to handle BMI’s invoicing and “money book”.

4 Agate Invoice for $ 8’120 no cents; see: annexed as page 5, GJ 6/06/02 page 53

6

BVG was the exclusive DESTINATION for our cashier/bookkeeping mailings, which

included all those fake and pro-forma vouchers I submitted as part of my scheme. Only

BVG got BMI’s MAIL, but, was not a victim at any time. BVG did not question suspicious

vouchers, in order not to endanger their highly profitable contract with BMI. Government

disclosure of BVG’s mere existence (founded 1994) or their “overseas” exclusive invoicing

function would have been FATAL to their “SDNY action”, thus they purposefully withheld

this exculpatory knowledge about BVG’s key functions from Grand Jury, Case, Hearings,

and Court. The DOJ shrewdly directed its own FBI agency to cover up the truth.

D) The “wire” charge was likewise bogus, for three reasons, first the wire instructions do not

identify “BURDA Holding” as “PAYOR/sender”, second, DM 534,660 German Mark were

beneficially owned 100% before and after this FOREX TRANSFER to BMI’s NY Dollar

account [no change in economic ownership occurred], and third, the AUDIT does not

reflect TRANSFERS (-records), because of their INTRAMURAL status. [Note to USA:

Topping-Up its own office petty-cash-box is never an economically relevant event]

E) This FBI document “speaks” for itself (Annex Page 6). That the SDNY-D.C. publicly

designated “our new” Case 01-cr-571 as a “Non-Fugitive” [USM] process, is of no import to

the USAO and Harris. Harris coaxed the agency to “apprehend” 3 SDNY defendants outside

in foreign jurisdictions by a “fraudulent ruse”. Harris caused three interstate wire

transmissions to deceive operatives in Newark, New Haven and Miami, to obtain his means

and to humiliate defendants and their families by scamming local police departments in NJ,

CT and FL into wonton assistance to “re-catch Fugitives from law”. The USAO’s intend was

to manipulate federal officers into hoodwinking local police to commit criminal false arrest

acts under color of law violating defendant’s constitutional due process rights. It’s a routine.

7

There was no question ever, that I violated my fiduciary duty obligations as proscribed by

GERMAN law as an executive of Burda GmbH and as “President-On-Loan to BMI NY”. For the

reasons above, United States Federal laws were unwisely “relied upon”. The U.S.C.’s breadth [FN3]

NEVER REACHED any real 1996 facts, any circumstances or any substantive mens rea requisite.

Government5 and Courts have no congressional authority to fabricate, argue and opine away

HISTORICAL CORPORATE FACTS nor ECONOMIC REALITIES under some dubious – albeit

corrupt - goal, in particular, when official acts result in tort and wreak havoc upon the lives and families

of “accused defendants” – certainly, by constitutional law, presumed to be innocent.

Defendant PRAYS this Court to correct the errors of SENTENCING and to vacate and

declare – nunc pro tunc - all OBLIGATIONS to make RESTITION a NULLITY, and to direct the

plaintiff to show cause without further delay. My declarations are made under 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Respectfully AFFIRMED and Submitted, May 15, 2011

___________________________________

Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant 001

Am Hempberg 2, D-21224 Rosengarten-Tòtensen

Copies of this submission were emailed to

USA Preet Bharara, Counsel Alan Nelson, Christian T Viertel & his Counsel Thomas Dunn /s/

Additional hard copy was posted to the Pro Se Clerk Please file on DOCKET

ANNEX Pages:

Page No 1, 2 & 3 are VERIFICATIONS issued by BURDA’s GC on May-3-2011

Page No 4 is the COVER LETTER issued by BURDA’s law firm [translation in FN 1]

Page No 5 is defendant’s GJ transcript of 6-06-2002

Page No 6 FBI FACSIMILE 6/15/2001 “Locate and apprehend” 3 “FUGITIVES”

5 SDNY USA Bharara promised to “pursue and prosecute those who believe they are both above the law

and too smart [and too embedded] to get caught.” Albeit, Bharara’s standard praises for prosecutors,

F.B.I. and FLU are highly inopportune here. Now, the “Sheriff” shall clean out his own bad apples.

8

Annex Page No 6 “Locate and apprehend” THREE “FUGITIVES”

Appendix

J

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x

(via fax 212-805-7912 to Chambers Jul-10-2011 & mail)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 01 Cr 00571 (JGK)

v. MANDATORY COURT NOTICE AND TRAVERSE TO

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE IN FURTHER SUPPORT

OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, JOHN C. LEE,

CHRISTIAN T VIERTEL, Defendants

------- ------------------------------------------x

COMES NOW, Fritz G. Blumenberg, defendant – partially pro se – to give NOTICE to this

honorable Court that the government’s submission dated June-30-2011 is not only without merit, is

deceptive, dilatory and avoids all RESTITUTION issues altogether. Thus, their submission is made in

contempt of at least one prior COURT ORDER dated September 16, 2008 and in violation of 18 USC

§241, 241 et.al and their strict obligation to provide truthful statements, sworn affidavits and

accounting on amounts and beneficiary. Accordingly, the submission should be entirely rejected.

Also, the government violated 18 USC § 3612 (b) Information to be Included in

Judgment; Judgment to be Transmitted to Attorney General. (1) A judgment or order imposing,

modifying, or remitting a fine or restitution order of more than $100 shall include— (G) in the

case of a restitution order, information sufficient to identify each victim to whom restitution is

owed. It shall be the responsibility of each victim to notify the Attorney General, or the

appropriate entity of the court, by means of a form to be provided by the Attorney General or the

court, of any change in the victim’s mailing address while restitution is still owed the victim. And

also violated: 18 USC § 3664(j) (1) If a victim has received compensation from insurance or any

2

other source with respect to a loss, the court shall order that restitution be paid to the person who

provided or is obligated to provide the compensation, but the restitution order shall provide that

all restitution of victims required by the order be paid to the victims before any restitution is paid

to such a provider of compensation.(2) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of restitution

shall be reduced by any amount later recovered as compensatory damages for the same loss by the

victim in—(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and (B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent

provided by the law of the State.

It is outrageous for the DOJ, the largest law firm on this planet, to scoff the law and come

before a federal judge as if to pronounce: “yeah, Judge, you know, we recognized your order, we realized

it and we just haven’t gotten around to complying with it since 2005, and we really don’t have a good faith

reason or any reason for not having complied with it”.

Unsupported government claims are delusional

Since the government’s charges were purely fabricated, they are unsupported by certifiable

financial facts on case record plus, they became a micro-economic absurdity in bad faith. The

prosecutors conduct violated due process as is prohibited pursuant Drake v. Portuondo, 553 F.3d 230,

240 (2d Cir. ‘09) (quoting Wei Su v. Filion, 335 F.3d 119, 126 (2d Cir. ‘03)) since prosecutors are

“officer[s] of the court whose duty is to present a forceful and truthful case to the jury, not to win at

any cost.”.

Plaintiff United States set out to fool the grand jury by obstructing truth and justice and their

new submission is another seriatim attempt to bury or cover prosecutorial malpractice. The COURT

shall reject their claims also because it represent precisely the type of "abuse and sharp practice" the

Second Circuit condemned, inter alia, United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 31 (2d Cir. ‘84).

3

It is important to realize, that AUSA Cohan is a member of a blue-collar sex-crime division and

neither trained nor micro-economically blessed to handle “white collar” complications, and even less

anointed to produce credible economic reason or facts to a Court. Harris and Cohan found it tactically

advantageous to turn a blind eye to the manifest potential for malevolent disinformation that flowed

from coached witnesses like Kiefer working for a proven loss-free company [not for a victimized entity]

or they relied on FBI O°Sullivan’s fear of non-compliance with his “boss”. It is evident in 01-cr-571 here

that prosecutors failed in their "clear duty under our Constitution" to "collect potentially exculpatory

evidence, to prevent fraud upon the court, and to elicit the truth." Northern Mariana Islands v. Bowie,

243 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. ‘01).

75 years of CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT, botched

The Supreme Court declared more than seventy-five years ago that obtaining a conviction

through the "deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be

perjured" is "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice." Mooney, 294 U.S. at 112. Since

Mooney, SCOTUS reaffirmed this bedrock principle in e.g., United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103

(‘76); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (‘72); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (‘59).

The Second Circuit recently summarized these cases: "'Since at least 1935, it has been the

established law of the United States that a conviction obtained through testimony the prosecutor knows to

be false is repugnant to the Constitution. This is so because, in order to reduce the danger of false

convictions, we rely on the prosecutor not to be simply a party in litigation whose sole object is the

conviction of the defendant before him” [see supra Drake, 553 F.3d at 240]. In the “criminal” case here,

this principle extends even farther. The Second Circuit held that the prosecution violates a defendant's

right to due process when it presents testimony "that it knew or should have known was false." United

States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389, 392 (2d Cir. ‘97); see Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103 ("knew or should have

known").

4

It is evident that Harris and Cohen knew and the “reasonable likelihood standard” can easily

be met, because both were imbued into the “know” by Warren Feldman who milked Burda Group for

$1½plus millions for “investigating” BMI finances while he seems to have actually just colored his

“Rico 4 Dummies” booklet each day. Feldman’s “investigation” was a sham.

Ruse to forego sudden defeat

In the claim to excuse its silence here, the government alludes to “work” it is planning to

perform by collaborating with my CJA counsel Alan Nelson, who was assigned to effectively assist this

defendant as counsel in front of the bar. Counsel Nelson has not received a mandate from this

defendant that would permit him to react with the government, other than for scheduling matters or

copies. Permission to “work” with the government will not be forthcoming, unless and until the

government has ceased to obstruct justice, subscribes to lawful conduct and withdraws its shameful

contentions and fabrications by admission and stipulation to a certified audit that established genuine

economic and corporate FACTS. These facts are historic and end the denial the government clings onto

and will finally throw its 2001 prosecution in fatal doubt and demise. So far the government sought to

maintain its fraudulent construction because it fears the consequences, inter alia, and in fear of the

principle of law by which any person who seeks to defraud a foreign customer of a domestic

corporation [he has control over] without creating a loss at the domestic corporation, is not breaking

the mail fraud law, which has no exterritorial reach.

All crime is local.

The defendant, pursuant to USC 28 §1746, hereby states as follows into the record:

I) The government contents to have somehow “established” that a S1 charged bank transfer

originated from an entity it did not: BURDA HOLDING. This claim is an absolute

fallacy and such “establishment” is false and, in fact and document, untenable. It appears

5

opportune for me to seek procurement of a CERTIFICATE from Germany, that

confirms the true beneficial ownership of [then] Dresdner Bank banque account 7238-

595-00, the true order account identity and the signature authority in reference to the

“S1-charged” $350,000 transfer dated 6-20-1996. This CERTIFICATE will serve to fully

impeach the absurd government contention that the “funds came” from “BURDA

HOLDING”, while they knew otherwise and were sitting on an authentic 6-20-1996

intramural banque transfer receipt it espied out of Feldman’s special paper collection

and Harris withheld it from grand jury, from my defense, from Viertel’s petit jury and

Court. It seem opportune to remind the Court, that Viertel provided this Court with a

copy obtained overseas of Roger&Wells’ hand-delivered letter to USA Harris1, in which

Burda discloses in August 2002 several “BMI Balance Sheet books” for years including

1996. None were submitted to either defense counsel, Mssrs.Weinstein nor Moskowitz.

II) On the issue of BURDA MEDIA’s INDEPENDENT STATUS as a “millions of dollars”

INCOME producing domestic entity, the government apparently used its magic bald

eagle elixir to somehow compel this Court to absurdly adopt their perverted view [if

such adoption actually occurred, as they claim]. The simple fact, that I, the alien without

of jurisdictional borders of the US, effectively withdrew my guilty plea and reverted to its

previous uncorrupted “not guilty status”, at least disinherits the government from any

probative value it claims to have obtained from my temporary unintelligent plea. Based

on the know & the how this Court gleaned over these last 10 years should compel it to

do something about it that might not be politic, but it would definitely be fair and just :

1 Experienced prosecutors know that they can almost always get away with Brady violations. The

number of prosecutions or disciplinary actions against prosecutors for Brady violations is

miniscule. Appellate courts are generally loathe to reverse convictions for anything but

egregious Brady violations, generally finding that the withheld information was immaterial.

There are certainly prosecutors who withheld exculpatory information to increase their chances

of achieving what they believe is the just result. And there are others, who would withhold the

information to advance their own careers. (in part thanks to lawprof_blog/goldman)

6

i. To Wit : My decade long executive functions as a director of the New York

domestic business corporation “BURDA PUBLICATIONS INC”

[BPI][initial NYDOS filing date 1-27-1978] was a legal and DTA tax-treaty-

compliant, what is considered a “branch” operation [a status that is often

also classified as [PE] Permanent Establishment of another firm elsewhere]

ii. Extrinsic events in the late Eighties at another news gathering outpost,

combined with a altered view by double taxation experts, led BURDA

GmbH, my employer and parent of BPI, to TRANSFORM our branch on

Jan-1-1992 into a separate independent [german: selbstständige] subsidiary. I

was actively involved in this transformation targeted to complete in 1991with

BPI’s lawfirm Walter, Conston,Alexander & Green P.C.2, who is perfectly

qualified to confirm the legal work to this respect.

iii. The “post-Blumenberg-era” forensic Audit of BMI was issued in Offenburg,

Germany on June 8th, 1997 by 2 certified chartered and squarely qualified

financial audit professionals, Mr. Maginot and Dr. Flatter. It is classic analysis

ordered by my successor Preute as president of BMI on or after August 19th,

1996. The government subpoena covered the audit. The subpoena was

complied with by BMI late in 2002 [as it may have been], but government

proctors had it, and all we know is that they kept it from discovery. It might

be due to the fact that government or Court Probation official in this case,

have either none nor competent enough financial qualifications or legitimate

training, that would permit them to even comprehend simple historical

2 New York-based law firm existed from 1843-2001 when it merged with Atlanta-based Alston &

Bird to launch the New York office of that national firm : www.alston.com

7

micro-economic events, that took place during my directorship. Or, they had

an agenda to keep it secret and violated Brady. [see FN 1 supra]

iv. Maginot and Flatter certified on page 2 : „Die Gesellschaft war bis zum

31.Dezember 1991 eine Betriebsstätte (Büro) der Burda GmbH, Offenburg.

Sie ist ab 1.Januar 1992 eine selbständige Firma.” Translation to English:

The corporation [BURDA MEDIA INC.] was until December 31, 1991 a

permanent establishment (branch office) of Burda GmbH, Offenburg.

The corporation became on January 1, 1992 an independent subsidiary.

[Langenscheidt: “selbständig” = freelance, self-reliant, independent]

v. On page 8 BMI’s “1996 year-end liabilities lenders” are listed as follows:

$1’266’356.83 due in favor of [Parent] Burda GmbH, Offenburg; $17’835.55

due in favor of Elle Verlag GmbH, München; and $ 0.00 due in favor of

Burda Holding GmbH & Co Kommanditgesellschaft, Offenburg for a total

liability of $1’284’192.38. BMI re-paid Burda Holding’s old loan carried from

1995 in the value of $360’000.00 during 1996. Holding’s loan was repaid from

BMI’s INCOME during 1996. The entire scope of 1996 financial interaction

with Burda Holding was this [-$360’000] loan vs. $129’552.93 INCOME for a

net positive cash flow in favor of Burda Holding of $230’447.07. This

simple fact will never go away or can be overruled by any Court. In the 4

years to the indictment this government was too inept or too corrupt to

figure, that BMI was an income producer and domestic services exporter to

clients in Europe. BMI was liquid enough to repay most of its loan balances.

vi. Burda Media Inc had large ordinary INCOME of $ 6’888’204.32 in 1996, a

rate of more than DOUBLE its cost/expense base for its NEWS/Information

8

services/production operations by its NY/LA offices. Our arms length

PAYING CUSTOMERS WERE (in thousands of dollars collected/ on page

11 thru 14): Focus $2’639; Bunte Verlag $2’203; Bunte Senator $627; Burda

GmbH [parent] $472; FMC $380; Elle Verlag[see v. above]$183; Burda

Holding [!]$129; MVB $89; FocusTV $47; BurdaCom $31; BAC Burda $15;

New Media $14; Europe Online $10; Verlag Aenne $8; MIG $7; Health

Online $6; Navigo $5; TZV $5; Burda Ost $4; Burda Verlagkoo $3; Focus

Online $0,6; Globus $0,5 and InternetMag $0 for grand total billing

product of $6,888,204.32 [BMI had miscellaneous extra income in 1996 to

the amount of $48,901.78 not included in above client income]

vii. On page 19 the audit certifies BMI’s largest administrative cost position in

1996 [weighing in at a Championship +720% increase over Y95]: $411,424.40

was expensed – as an initial installment - for financial/legal investigation by

and in favor of Rogers & Wells in just the second half of 1996 [after my

departure July 9, 1996 the real party began]

III) Rogers & Wells conspired almost 5 years to hook the USAO into their malpractice

racket after legendary Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau [justly] turned them down for

a referral. That conspiracy racket is well alive and in continuance to this date.

IV) Why the government appeared 5 years later with false claims from a dark corner

demands bright sunshine into these actors’ inter-connections: res inter alios acta, aliis

nec nocet nec prodest.

V) The defendant submitted three VICTIM VERIFICATIONS issued by BURDA GC

Professor Dr. Schweizer that breathe new life into the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation

clause. The clause gives a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the

9

witnesses against him”. These witnesses must have bona fide nexus and lawfully represent

a real VICTIM. No FBI 302 report or witness was presented who represented Burda

GmbH of Offenburg and other 22 – also foreign - corporate clients probably victimized

by my conduct. Thus, since none of them ever showed up no actionable scheme

occurred inside jurisdictional U.S. borders.

VI) If the COURT has any doubt that this affidavit has flaws – which is does not - the

defendant will seek Mr. Maginot and/or Dr.Flatter to be available for an evidentiary

hearing by video-link as the ghastly competition between the unrelenting truth and

prosecutorial fabrication must end now.

THEREFORE, defendant moved this COURT for JUST CAUSE for an ORDER DIRECTING the

PROSECUTION and the FBI TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT: “WHY THEY SHOULD NOT GET

SANCTIONED FOR 1) PRESENTING A BOGUS ECONOMIC “VICTIM” AND CLOAKING “BVG3”; 2)

PRESENTING A FABRICATED INDICTMENT BY ALL COUNTS; 3) For BRADY VIOLATIONS FOR

CLOAKING BMI’s AUDIT REPORT & FINANCIALS & Wire Info; 4) WONTON F.B.I. “FUGITIVE”

CLASSIFICATION UNDER COLOR OF LAW”; and other government conduct the COURT deems

worthy to uncover while seeking to reestablish dignity to these judicial proceedings .

Respectfully AFFIRMED under penalty of perjury and hereby submitted, July 9, 2011

___________________________________

Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant 001

Am Hempberg 2, D-21224 Rosengarten-Tòtensen

Copies of this submission were emailed to

USAO Preet Bharara, CJA Counsel A.Nelson, Christian T Viertel & CJA Counsel Thomas Dunn /s/

Additional hard copy was mailed to the Pro Se Clerk Please file on DOCKET

3 Burda Verlagsservices GmbH (BVG), Hauptstrasse 130, D-77654 Offenburg [HRB 20.Dec.1994]

Appendix

K