with apologies to Oprah. You're being sued. And You're being sued. And You're being sued.

The volume of correspondence being prepared this week is daunting. Their injustice clock runs on billable hours. Time slows when every hope becomes a further injustice and corruption. Where isolated from family and the milestones which build into a life, time stops.

Those who offer the Facebook meme versions of Let It Go, Get Over It, Move On, This Too Shall Pass... have failed to recognize I am surviving, nothing more. THIS TOO SHALL PASS was wrong in 2007. You did not believe me, trust my judgement, the logical fail, my rationale... they played you against me. Friendships waned.

No one wants to live a life void of joy where other people's smiles make you wonder if you will ever have cause to smile again. Somehow, I persevere.

---

I have never done anything where the sole intent was to demonstrate that failure of a system or the person involved. That was always a consequence within their own control. I had no ability to cause people to do the right thing. At best, I could provide them the opportunity. Every response provided the chance for explanations which were not provided, or were deliberately concealed.

A stranger lies. The lie is contrary to reason and lacking any necessity or motivation. When asked to explain, they panic acting fearful and threatened - - You made no threat, but someone else has. When asking for an explanation, the answer "I need my job" demonstrates the intimidation involved. Their supervisors never responded. Everything - ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING - and EVERYONE at the courthouse was 'affected' by the corruption and injustice... and fearful of exposing it further. They knew the retaliatory realities of judges and lawyers. I was learning that reality.

Every proceeding and action in the divorce from 2007 forward had been affected - manipulated by secrecy, failure to apply the law, no explanations, no resolutions. Every injustice was a FARCE which when exposed resulted in the recusal of the judge and another judfge assigned. Twenty Judges have been directly involved in the matter with each sacrificing their integrity for the failure of the prior judges - mandated by Rule 1.6.

Farce is not an overly broad generalization. It is fact. Evidence is the court record, the hundred of documents filed.

I was being prosecuted/terrorized to the fullest extent of every law and court order and defending against every false allegation held accountable to know and follow every procedure and law. Any, every and All failures by my wife, and her attorneys, to follow the law, procedures, due process, court orders, courtroom protocol were excused without consequence or warning for continued failures. Their deliberate failures lead to the situation which is undeniable. The judge to issued an order in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, a defective and void order which is void ab initio, evidence is clearly demonstrated in 'the court record'. BUT the lawyers still present the defective order for enforcement... successfully... even on appeal, successfully... leveraging the exposure of the corruption of the court for further injustice while preventing any resolution. Rule 1.6 Injustice. FOREVER.

Everything was undermined by the necessity to NOT REVEAL the secret, or prevent discovery. EVER. No law. No rights. No justice. None. EVER. FOREVER. No kidding. FOREVER. Another reality to learn because no one would believe it. Myself included.

The Rule 1.6 mandate of non-disclosure and confidentiality survives the death of the attorney. Forever.

Believe it. No justice. No escape. Ever. Forever.

---

Those who continue to undermine the US Constitution have been (and will be) compelled to public actions which they will not be able to deny or ignore or conceal or obfuscate. "Through their own words, they will be exposed." If one person had done the right thing at anytime, the situation would not have been able to continue. No one helped. So many people working against me in violation of the law and procedures. What could possibly cause so many people to fail without explanation or reason... It's their fault I found RULE 1.6 which undermined everyone and everything and every law including the US Constitution.

The law is clear about who may be held responsible for their failures to perform the responsibilities of their government office and whether they may be litigated professionally and PERSONALLY.

I have no other alternative but to present the illegal actions to persons who are in government positions where they recognize the corruption of the judiciary and DO NOTHING to address the wrongdoing. The lawyers and non-lawyers have no long term protection by and through an unconstitutional law and the corruption concealed by it.... except that the entire government has participated and concealed the corruption of the undermined judiciary under the false impression that it is better than addressing the problem.... which is HUGE.

Americans must set pride aside, acknowledge the past injustice and rectify the government for the future.

Every. Person. Matters.

"The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless." - Sen. John McCain

By its terms, US Section 1983 imposes liability without defense on state and local officials who, acting under color of law in their individual capacity, deprive plaintiffs of rights created by the Constitution and federal law.

The Problem arises where Rule 1.6 being unconstitutional is No Law. A nullity.
IT WAS, UNTIL IT ISN'T. AND THEN, it never was.

Unconstitutional secret secrecy is Rule 1.6 INJUSTICE.

While Rule 1.6 is mandating a conspiracy to deprive a person of rights and requiring the participation (or inaction or disinformation) of everyone required to follow it, there is no excuse in the 'Liability Game' for the actions which clearly deprive a person of their rights by a person who is sworn to protect their rights and who knows that their own actions are unconstitutional and repugnant.

PROFESSIONALLY - certain immunities apply to the organizations and officials involved in government, PERSONAL LIABILITY is another issue where a person knows better and has the responsibility to effect a change. The LAW has allowances built into the construction of the law which addresses the purpose and explains the reasoning and the proper application for the judiciary. No law violates the US Constitution.

The government is constitutional where allowing for review of constitutional questions by the judiciary. The Public Trusts the Judiciary. A necessity so essential that they trusted it would not be violated. Corrupt judges were hung because we trusted them.

A problem exists where there is no way to tell the judiciary that A LAW THE JUDICIARY ENACTED is unconstitutional. Done outside the normal legislative construction of a law, there was no construct, no explanation, no review, no reasoning, ... and no legislative immunity for the authors. The law mandating non-disclosure and confidentiality did not permit ANY lawyer to address the unconstitutional aspect or effects, and concealed fraud in the furtherance to prevent the situation from being rectified or exposed.

Injustice has thrived based on disinformation which distracts from the problem law. A perceived prideful judicial arrogance is leveraged while interference with the administration of justice conceals the violation of the public trust and the loss of judicial independence. Two essential elements have been surreptitiously removed from the US Justice system - the known point of failure was always the judiciary. The judiciary had been undermined and held hostage by the American Bar Association by a law which required that information be concealed... that the violation of the public trust be concealed... the loss of judicial independence was concealed... everything they were doing to conceal it was also concealed. Everything leveraged to the benefit of their membership - who had no idea how it broke, but knew something was not right. Everyone noticed the government was 'ignoring' the US Constitution.

When an individual person is participating in actions which they know to be wrong, and quite UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the law expects and requires them to do the right thing. They can be held professionally and personally responsible for their actions, or the failure to act, even where an unconstitutional law had them violate a person's rights.

The US Constitution does not provide any allowance for the denial of rights protected by the US Constitution. Any law which attempts to deny rights is No Law, a nullity, and provides no protection for participation in unconstitutional acts.

But, you must bring the case to the Judiciary. The judiciary who enacted the unconstitutional law, the nullity, in violation of the US Constitution AND THE CONSTITUTION OF EVERY STATE. You must bring the humiliatingly embarrassing case of AMERICAN INJUSTICE to those responsible for the INJUSTICE.

ONE OTHER THING, that unconstitutional law, Rule 1.6, mandates that they do nothing to expose that unconstitutional aspect. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure by judges, lawyers or legal professionals. Rule 1.6 permits/requires further acts of fraud to prevent exposure, or where disclosure would rectify the matter.

Rule 1.6 permits/requires the failure to indicate that Rule 1.6 is the reason that you cannot have justice pursuant to Rule 1.6. Rule 1.6 will undermine the law and the courts while any attempt is made to address the unconstitutional results.

PENNSYLVANIA - The judiciary shut down the Attorney General in defiance of law, procedures, separation of powers, etc... They clearly realized that it was not just about the inappropriate relationships which delayed the prosecution of Jerry Sandusky, Kathleen Kane was about to blow the lid off of the INJUSTICE game - NATIONALLY! Two cases which by law required the Attorney General's attention as an unconstitutional state law would be demonstrated in the appeals. In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller.

For example. You own a house. That house is illegally sold. The law is clear. If you have possession, you file QUIET TITLE. If you do not have possession, you file EJECTMENT. You file Ejectment and it is dismissed because you do not have possession. An error in application of law. On Appeal, it is affirmed. No Reconsideration. The judiciary neglects to address the proper law, neglects to apply that law to the situation, and neglects to address the issue. The 'elephant in the room', INJUSTICE, is being concealed pursuant to Rule 1.6. The court is mandated to conceal that Rule 1.6 is causing further Rule 1.6 injustice. It defies logic. It defies common sense. They write pages, yet miss the mark. BECAUSE, the unconstitutional law requires that the unconstitutional law not be disclosed. To conceal the judicial quagmire, the court staff intercepts and intervenes handling the matter without the involvement of the judiciary. Are the staff protecting the judges from the liability for unconstitutional actions? ... or holding the judiciary hostage by preventing the judge from the decision? The criminal, and unconstitutional, interception and interference with the administration of justice and the forgery and fraud by the court staff are in the furtherance of a fraud, Non-Disclosure is mandated pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. The court staff are professional lawyers who know their actions are violating the state and federal law and the US Constitution. Where the court may not have believed when you indicated that the case would expose a constitutional issue, their own unconstitutional actions quickly convinces them. (CONSIDER: Secret Order/Unidentified Court which prevents investigation and responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General. Where an unconstitutional law is a nullity, a court order must be followed while appealed even when improper, unlawful and unconstitutional. The 'secret' court order creates a liability, professionally and personally, for the Attorney General who is being required by court order to participate in a conspiracy to deny constitutionally protected rights. Multiple actions to silence Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are carefully exposed to the media. Without any allowance for explanation, the Attorney General must be silent or risk a contempt action for violating the court order. Two court orders - one for each appeal in Superior Court. GRAND JURY SECRECY becomes an issue where allegations are 'leaked' suggesting violations by Kathleen Kane, personally and professionally as Attorney General. No explanations or details. Speculation is widespread misdirection, it is no coincidence that my cases are in Montgomery County. CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT: A call is made to the Legislature to impeach Kathleen Kane for non-enforcement of an unconstitutional law - the Marriage issue - and the 'speculation' of the Grand Jury leaks. EVERYTHING IS ABOUT THE SILENCING OF KATHLEEN KANE - under whom the 'monkeywrench' was thrown which undermined a Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 in the federal courts after every state attorney general intentionally defaulted. A very similar situation where everything was handled by the court staff without any evidence of judicial involvement. Reported to the US Marshalls and the DOJ, US Attorney general Eric Hodler and US Attorney Zane Memeger. SILENCE.) Prosecution of the court staff would expose the unconstitutional effect of Rule 1.6 which has resulted in YOUR loss of any protection under the law AND loss of rights protected by the US Constitution. No PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. NO KIDDING. The Crimes and Constitutional offenses were reported. I am still awaiting the investigation by 1) Zane Memeger, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2) Seth Williams, District Attorney for Philadelphia 3) David Heckler, District Attorney for Bucks County 4) Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General 5) USPS, United States Postal Inspectors - Mail Fraud 6) the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Their silence is unexplained. AG Kathleen Kane couldn't even say WHY she is being silent.

The Silence of Lawyers regarding an unconstitutional law which results in INJUSTICE, leaving people with no protection under the law while denying and ignoring rights protected and secured by the US Constitution with no opportunity for relief or resolution.

The Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to report this to the Judiciary. It is the law. If they did, it was not disclosed at any level. Rule 1,6 non-disclosure trumps that requirement. Rule 1.6 trumps every law, every constitution, every reform and mandates that it be concealed and any explanation prevented.



THAT IS WRONG. Ask a lawyer... but, they probably won't tell you. (At best you may hear 'attorney-client privilege' blah blah. It's not called attorney-client privilege. It is called Confidentiality of Information.)

AS FOR THE NEWS MEDIA??? Draw your own conclusions about the control of the news media in the US.

THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE HAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND A LAW WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA. While they not acting on the 'worst kept secret in Pennsylvania' people are suffering an incomprehensible injustice which is difficult to explain and they are killing themselves. Suicide is logical where there is no hope.

Where there may seem to be no hope, there is still a Constitution of the United States of America. Somewhere along the way, the Judiciary neglected the trust placed in them by the People. The Public Trust - The lawyers ripped of it's head. shit down it's throat and raped it leaving it for dead. Big mistake. HUGE. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.

The list of available immunities is considerably longer than one might believe. Judicial Immunity, Absolute Immunity, Absolute Judicial Immunity, Prosecutorial Immunity, Witness Immunity, Legislative Immunity, Qualified Immunity (Executive Officials), Established Law, Reason and Discretion. One thing which they all have in common... THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.

What has been happening is that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has prevented disclosure of the constitutional violations and prevented resolution of the crimes where it would expose that they are keeping a secret pursuant to their secret Rule 1.6 - which hides in plain site buried by cross references throughout the Rules of Professional Conduct - a minimum ethical standard which lacks ethics, morality and lawfulness - presented to every state Supreme Court and enacted into law at the behest of the American Bar Association.

The American Bar Association knew what they were doing when they deliberately removed the fraud provisions from Rule 1.6 in 1983. INJUSTICE IS A GOLDMINE - the ABA membership is the beneficiary to their unconstitutional law which holds a judiciary hostage - removing judicial independence from the judge and requiring injustice continue unexplained without resolution.

To the ABA,
Close your doors now. Shut Down your corrupt and seditious organization... including the affiliates in every jurisdiction of state and federal judiciary. You tried to save the integrity of your profession by writing a code of ethical conduct, and you deliberately failed - at a considerable profit for some members but sacrificing any integrity, respect or honor for the remainder.

Rule 1.6 Peek-A-Boo Injustice cannot be concealed by an apathetic population who does not want to believe or accept that 48 million people lost their homes, thousands of children were jailed in Luzerne County, and people were murdered in Ferguson and New York without anyu opportunity for JUSTICE, or any relief from further injustice.

To the government officials who, once notified, are personally and professionally liable for their participation in the conspiracy to deny Americans of constitutionally protected rights.

Do you really want me to bring you all into a courtroom to demonstrate Rule 1.6 INJUSTICE again. I have the confirmations of receipt by every state attorney general, every state governor, every senator in every state, the US Congress, the entire Pennsylvania Legislature, every sheriff in Pennsylvania, every judge in every court in Bucks and Montgomery Counties... It's not called the 'worst kept secret in Pennsylvania' for nothing.


Is it your preference that Rule 1.6 be demonstrated in a courtroom before your very eyes... To see no protection under the law? To see denial of constitutional rights?

"They can't do that" going over and over in your head. "The judges are NOT supposed to do that." "They are ignoring the law, the constitution, civil rights, human rights, ... They can't do that. BUT, THEY DID. He was correct. He has no protection under the law and every constitutional right is being ignored. Why? The judge just threw his case out of court but didn't indicate a reason, and explanation or any support in applicable law. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality does not permit the judge to indicate that the current injustice was necessitated to conceal prior injustice pursuant to Rule 1.6 - - to conceal prior injustice before that... and before that... Rule 1.6 has broken and undermined the entire judiciary and JUSTICE. Improper law? enacted by Judiciary without authority? no review for constitutionality? not constructed as law? no legislature? no governor signed it? enacted in every state? included in federal district courts (Local Rules)? included in federal Court of Appeals (Local Rules)? mandated to every federal government lawyer (McDade-Murtha Amendment)? Did no one realize that the ABA Rule - the ethical standard for lawyers - lack ethics? morality? legality? or was every lawyer mandated to non-disclosure by Rule 1.6 and prevented from explaining what they meant to Congress when they indicated that McDade Murtha would have a disastrous result for the country. Did Rule 1.6 prevent the lawyers testifying before Congress from indicating that the state ethics laws lacked any ethics? ... and permitted, endorse and required lawyers to participate in fraud in the furtherance of fraud? ... even where it would rectify a prior fraud? ... preventing every federal government lawyer from any action which exposes, investigates or prosecutes judicial corruption and injustice within the state courts... in every state ... even where constitutional rights are concerned. Your lawyer just congratulated you on the 'BIG WIN' ...but you are not permitted to discuss the issue ... or the case pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality ... if you do, you would be prosecuted for your part in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of an American ... your hearing would not be publicized ... your accidental suicide will be on the front pages - 'Defender of the Constitution' (This ironic award title is a standard practice by the American bar Association.... sometimes there's cash too.) It's just not even funny when it is true.

By neglect you encourage endorse and conceal an egregious violation of the Public Trust which harms Americans.
There is no valid excuse for unconstitutional acts. That is treason.

The non-lawyer Legislators have an obligation to every American which cannot be ignored by an unconstitutional law.
The non-lawyer legislators cannot ask their lawyers to advise them while their lawyers are obligated to commit fraud to conceal the injustice.

It is so wrong... affecting so many people... there is no argument offered ... no explanation... no justification,... no apology.

Surprise America!! - Your country was overthrown by lawyers 30 years ago. About fucking time you noticed. eh?

Americans must set pride aside, acknowledge the past injustice and rectify the government for the future.
Every. Person. Matters.

SHUT RULE 1.6 DOWN NOW. Suspend this unconstitutional law and vaccinate the entire country... so this never happens again.

I will "GO FULL OPRAH" commencing litigation against every government official that ignored this matter for the last 9 years. Silence and Non-response will not provide any defense or immunity when you are on the wrong side of the US Constitution.

Where the courts sacrifice integrity to conceal the injustice, everyone loses.

The only person getting paid will be your lawyer who is relying on his non-disclosure and license for fraud in the furtherance to conceal the constitutional violation of his client.

As a person without any protection of the law and experiencing the denial of rights protected by the constitution, I have no choice but to persevere. I have demonstrated my ability to persevere through injustice since 2007.

County Court documents and transcripts were not available or presented for the recent appeal. The 'court' ignored without explanation.

A mountain of evidence seems to have been concealed by Montgomery County, a grand jury investigation may have been misdirected by a special prosecutor with a potential conflict of interest (being married to a judge and President of the Montgomery County Bar Association resulting in the unavailability of the evidence.

The failure of a prolonged investigation designed and determined to destroy a man which prevented any protections under the law while excessive and improper informants, handlers, private investigators, and detective shared surveillance products throughout the courts and every level of law enforcement contributed the inability of law enforcement to correct the errors and wrongdoing.

Secrecy is the thing that makes every evil far worse than it would have been.

The damage continues while I am denied any life, protection of the law and constitutional rights.

A JUDGE COVERED FOR A LAWYER WHO TOLD HER CLIENT TO COMMIT A FEDERAL CRIME.
The efforts to conceal their injustice (court order found in 2010 after 3 years) has been an evil far worse than the initial injustice.

Twenty (20) judges, multiple courts. multiple appeals, federal constitutional challenges, every level of state and federal law enforcement, state and federal government, all prevented from any effort to help by a secrecy which overwhelmed and intimidated.

Only a sociopath, who was a lawyer, could have calculated and manipulated every situation and liability into one unconstitutional law - which mandates silence and permits continued terror.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane:

I am coming to pry open your secret court orders. We have not spoken a single word to each other, yet I believe in you still.

My belief in people is the source of my perseverance, and my challenge to trust again.

Americans must set pride aside, acknowledge the past injustice and rectify the government for the future.
Every. Person. Matters.

All about the Cover-Up...

WHEN A YOUNG COLLEGE STUDENT GOES MISSING AND THE ENTIRE COUNTY BEGINS TO SEARCH, YOU HAVE TO WONDER...

Is it that the county is responsible for placing the person in jeopardy?

Because the county leveraged the young man into being a confidential informant based on a minor infraction?

Because when somehow exposed the boy disappeared? Informants slip up all the time - often ALCOHOL is involved.

Only to turn up 6 weeks later dead in the River?

Accidental death. BULLSHIT. He was NOT swimming after midnight in November in the river in Philadelphia.

And I can't recall anyone ever falling out of a bar in Manyunk into the river. Tumbling all that way???

Their extensive informant program is involved in just about every prosecution. Candidates are selected because of their relationship to lawyers and police - who know the abuse of power, corruption and destruction of the county officers.

EVERYTHING MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS INVOLVED IN IS ABOUT THE COVER UP.

Non-Disclosure under Rule 1.6.

Every lawyer in the county knows the corruption of the District Attorneys Office and the Judiciary.
“a person who spends his/her professional life figuring how to [screw] others…”- Bruce Castor.

When the county has you under surveillance - authorized by the Superior Court - and you mention to anyone on your phone that the informant confessed and told you about it. The informant disappears. The County Drug Task Force uses their intrusion AND surveillance tools top undermine the target's life. Compels them to murder (Bradley Stone) and suicide. Disrupts their life with judicial corruption and INJUSTICE. You won;t find justice when appealing to the Superior Court where they have ap[proved years of surveillance and terrorized tyour life - and their effort resulted in NO PROSECUTION. You did nothing wrong. Their embarassment must be concealed. And their emails must be concealed as well. INJUSTICE RESULTS - otherwise they are exposed. HIDE THE EMAIL! Even where they continued to involve a Supreme Court Justice. Where they are caught, there is no exit without destruction. Because they must lie cheat and steal to maintain confidentiality. Those who know are under constant threat. They violate the law, civil and human rights and have no respect for anyone. Montgomery County is all about the coverup.

Imagine how peaceful life would be if the County was not so pre-occupied with concealing the corruption and damage they cause. The only ones profiting from their corruption and injustice are the lawyers. INJUSTICE IS A GOLDMINE to the membership of the American Bar Association. The ABA authored and promoted Rule 1.6 - that is no coincidence.

Mail Fraud

MAIL FRAUD AND WIRE FRAUD


Prosecution Policy Relating to Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud

Prosecutions of fraud ordinarily should not be undertaken if the scheme employed consists of some isolated transactions between individuals, involving minor loss to the victims, in which case the parties should be left to settle their differences by civil or criminal litigation in the state courts. Serious consideration, however, should be given to the prosecution of any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.
See also USAM 9-85.210 (requires prior consultation with the Public Integrity Section to use the mail or wire fraud statutes in the prosecution of election fraud cases).

Further guidance and legal analysis of issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of frauds involving use of the mail or wire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343 can be found in the Criminal Resource Manual:


Investigative Authority

Primary investigative jurisdiction of possible violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes is vested in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In some cases, complaints involving securities may be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Postal Inspection Service of the United States Postal Service may initiate mail or wire fraud investigations. In both situations, the investigations are usually continued by the agency initiating the investigation. Reports of investigation are disseminated directly to the appropriate United States Attorney.


18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud

"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).


The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

The wire fraud statute was patterned after the mail fraud statutes. United States v. Lemon, 941 F.2d 309, 316 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1198 (1st Cir. 1987). Thus, the same principles apply in defining "scheme to defraud" for mail and wire fraud prosecutions. See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 n. 6 (1987) ("The mail and wire fraud statutes share the same language in relevant part, and accordingly we apply the same analysis to both sets of offenses here."); United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1334-35 n. 6 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("The requisite elements of 'scheme to defraud' under the wire fraud statute [§ 1343] and the mail fraud statute [§ 1341], are identical. Thus, cases construing mail fraud apply to the wire fraud statute as well."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984).

The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes do not define the terms "scheme" or "artifice" and the courts have traditionally been reluctant to offer definitions of either term except in the broadest and most general terms. Lemire, 720 F.2d at 1335 ("Congress did not define 'scheme or artifice to defraud' when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since. Instead that expression has taken on its present meaning from 111 years of case law.").

The fraudulent aspect of the scheme to defraud is to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. "[T]he words 'to defraud' in the mail fraud statute have the 'common understanding' of '"wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes," and "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."'" Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))). "The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is '"the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another."'" Id. (quoting Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902)).


No Loss or Gullible Victims

"It is the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

"No particular type of victim is required . . . nor need the scheme have succeeded." United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302-03 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

No actual loss to the victims is required. See United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir.)

"The fraud statutes speak alternatively of devising or intending to devise a scheme to defraud and do not require that the deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the intended victim as a prerequisite to successful prosecution. [S]uccess of the scheme and loss by a defrauded person are not essential elements of the crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 . . . .", cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 (1976); see also United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

"The amount of money realized as a result of the scheme is not an essential element of mail fraud. It was not even necessary to prove that the scheme succeeded."

For a discussion of fraud loss computation in sentencing see Guidelines Sentencing (Federal Judicial Center, 1997), Section II.D.2. Offense Involving Fraud and Deceit.

"[I]t makes no difference whether the persons the scheme is intended to defraud are gullible or skeptical, dull or bright . . . . " United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 311 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 (1980)).

"[T]he monumental credulity of the victim is no shield for the accused . . ." Id. (quoting Deaver v. United States, 155 F.2d 740, 744-45 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 766 (1946)); cf. Pollack, 534 F.2d at 971 (To hold that actual loss to victim is required "would lead to the illogical result that the legality of a defendant's conduct would depend on his fortuitous choice of a gullible victim.") (quoted in Maxwell, 920 F.2d at 1036).


Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all details or all instances of allegedly illicit conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 442 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1984) ("It is well established that proof of every allegation is not required in order to convict; the government need only prove that the scheme to defraud existed."), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1062 (1985); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he Government need not prove every misrepresentation charged conjunctively in the indictment."); United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("The Government is not required to prove the details of a scheme; it is, however, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant . . . willfully and knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud . . . .") (quoting with approval the trial court's instruction on § 1341); United States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F.2d 539, 546 (2d Cir. 1977)

("A scheme to defraud may consist of numerous elements, no particular one of which need be proved if there is sufficient overall proof that the scheme exists."), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978); Anderson v. United States, 369 F.2d 11, 15 (8th Cir. 1966) (all instances of illicit conduct need not be proved to sustain a conviction), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 976 (1967).

"All that is required is that [the defendant has] knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme; she need not have performed every key act herself." United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The "evidence need only show that defendant was a 'knowing and active participant' in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire communications." Id. (quoting United States v. Wiehoff, 748 F.2d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 1984)).


McNally and Intangible Rights

In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the mail fraud statute does not reach "schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government" . . . and that the statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights." See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987) (quoting McNally and extending it to wire fraud statute); see also Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 292 (1992) ("[I]n McNally . . . we rejected the Government's contention that the federal mail fraud statute . . . protected the citizenry's 'intangible right' to good government . . . . ") (Thomas, J., dissenting).

In response to McNally, Congress passed Section 1346 of Title 18, United States Code, which provides that "For the purposes of this Chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Section 1346, which became effective November 18, 1988, seemed to resolve the intangible rights issue. See Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("McNally has been overruled by legislation."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 and 498 U.S. 1110 (1991); cf. United States v. Bush, 888 F.2d 1145, 1145-46 (7th Cir. 1989) (ex post facto concerns bar the application of section 1346 to pre-1988 conduct). In United States v. Brumley, 79 F.3d 1430, 1440 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for rehearing en banc pending, however, the court concluded that the wording of § 1346, "simply does not effect a change in the portion of the McNally opinion which held that the mail fraud statute does not reach 'schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.'"


Tangible Versus Intangible Property Rights

In Carpenter, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987), the Court confirmed that "McNally did not limit the scope of § 1341 to tangible as distinguished from intangible property rights." The Court held that the intangible nature of "confidential business information" does not make it any less "property" protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes. Id. Carpenter accordingly distinguished intangible property rights, which were still protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes, and intangible non-property rights, which were not protected. Cf. United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[A]lthough the scheme to defraud must threaten some cognizable harm to its target, that harm need not be a deprivation of tangible property or money; criminal fraud encompasses schemes to defraud persons of significant intangibles as well."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984).

QUERY: Whether interests such as contract rights, licenses, permits, trade secrets, franchises, government grants, goodwill, market share, etc., are intangible or tangible property rights that can be the subject of a mail or wire fraud violation. See, e.g., Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 25 (suggesting that contractual right to honest and faithful services is too ethereal in itself to fall within the protection of the mail fraud statute); United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707, 709-11 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (union ballots are tangible property); United States v. Henry, 29 F.3d 112, 114-15 (3d Cir. 1994) (fair bidding opportunity is not a property right); United States v. F.J. Vollmer & Co., 1 F.3d 1511, 1521 (7th Cir. 1993) ("It is well established that the government's regulatory interests are not protected by the mail fraud statute.") (citing cases concerning licenses and permits), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 688 (1994); United States v. Loney, 959 F.2d 1332, 1336 (5th Cir. 1992) (flight award coupons are property); United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (a FHA insurance commitment, by which the Government promises to pay the lender if the borrower defaults on the loan, is a "property interest," not an "intangible right" because it involves the Government's "control over how its money [is] spent."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 and 498 U.S. 1110 (1991). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's decision in DeFries provides a brief survey of cases finding property interests in permits, city liquor licenses, medical licenses and other items. See generally, 43 F.3d at 709-10 and n. 2; see also Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 706-11 (1994) (discussing "traditional frauds" and "frauds involving intangible rights").

QUERY: How to determine whether an interest is property? See, e.g., United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249, 1258 (2d Cir. 1994) (shareholder's property rights to information are defined by state law and the law of fraud); cf. Henry, 29 F.3d at 115 ("[T]o determine whether a particular interest is property for purposes of the fraud statutes, we look to whether the law traditionally has recognized and enforced it as a property right."); see also Eilers & Silikovitz, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. at 706 n. 19 (case cited).


Fiduciary Duty

QUERY: Whether a fiduciary duty or relationship is a necessary ingredient to frauds relating to intangible property rights. See generally Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 706 n. 19 (1994) ("Unlike traditional frauds which may arise regardless of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, frauds related to intangible rights stem from a fiduciary relationship between the defendant and the defrauded party or entity."). "At the core of the judicially defined 'scheme to defraud' is the notion of a trust owed to another and a subsequent breach of that trust." United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("But '[n]ot every breach of a fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud.'") (quoting United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 827 (1973)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984). But cf. United States v. Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. 279, 288-90 (D. Mass. 1995) (mail fraud statutes do not require that a public fiduciary be a participant in the scheme). It may follow that to defraud one of the "right to honest services" would generally require a fiduciary relationship that creates the right to provide or protect honest services. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the existence or protection of an intangible property right must depend upon the existence of a fiduciary relationship or duty. Nonfiduciaries can steal, embezzle and defraud others of property interests, regardless of whether the property interest is tangible or intangible. Cf. United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 410 (10th Cir.) ("While the existence of a fiduciary duty is relevant and an ingredient in some mail fraud prosecutions, . . . it is not an essential in all such cases.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 (1977); Eilers & Silikovitz, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. at 711 ("There is some debate in the Circuit Courts about whether intangible rights can be violated if they are not premised upon fiduciary duty.").

Courts have held nonfiduciaries criminally liable for frauds related to intangible rights when a co-schemer or co-conspirator was a fiduciary. See United States v. Alexander, 741 F.2d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 1984) (an intangible rights scheme is cognizable when at least one of the schemers has a fiduciary relationship with the defrauded person or entity), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1011 (1986); see also Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. at 289 (describing situation of nonfiduciary) (citing United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 121-23 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983), and Alexander, 741 F.2d at 964).


Intent to Defraud

The government must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Because only 'a scheme to defraud' and not actual fraud is required, proof of fraudulent intent is critical."), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); see also United States v. Costanzo, 4 F.3d 658, 664 (8th Cir. 1993) (intent is an essential element, inquiry is whether defendants intended to defraud); United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352, 1358 (2d Cir.) (specific intent requires intent to defraud, not intent to violate the statute), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810 (1989); cf. United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("Proof that someone was actually defrauded is unnecessary simply because the critical element in a 'scheme to defraud' is 'fraudulent intent,' Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 . . . (1896), and therefore the accused need not have succeeded in his scheme to be guilty of the crime."); United States v. Bailey, 859 F.2d 1265, 1273 (7th Cir. 1988) (court held that there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with intent to defraud, that is, "willful participation in [the] scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with intent that these illicit objectives be achieved." (quoting United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. DeBright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1984)), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1010 (1989).


Proof of Fraudulent Intent

"The requisite intent under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence." United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980). Thus, intent can be inferred from statements and conduct. United States v. Cusino, 694 F.2d 185, 187 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 1979)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 932 (1983). Impression testimony, that is, testimony of victims as to how they had been misled by defendants, is admissible to show an intent to defraud. See Phillips v. United States, 356 F.2d 297, 307 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 952 (1966). Also consider complaint letters received by defendants as relevant to the issue of intent to defraud. The inference might be drawn that, since the defendant knew victims were being misled by solicitation literature and other representations, the continued operation of the business despite this knowledge showed the existence of a scheme to defraud.

Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity. Cusino, 694 F.2d at 187. In addition, "[f]raudulent intent may be inferred from the modus operandi of the scheme." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("[T]he purpose of the scheme 'must be to injure, which doubtless may be inferred when the scheme has such effect as a necessary result of carrying it out.") (quoting United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174, 1180-81 (2d Cir. 1970) (quoting Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350, 352 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 187 U.S. 641 (1902))). "Of course proof that someone was actually victimized by the fraud is good evidence of the schemer's intent." Id. (quoting Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d at 1180-81). In United States v. D'Amato, the court explained the government's burden of proving fraudulent intent as follows:

The scheme to defraud need not have been successful or complete. Therefore, the victims of the scheme need not have been injured. However, the government must show "that some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer." Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution." "Instead, the deceit must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim." In many cases, this requirement poses no additional obstacle for the government. When the "necessary result" of the actor's scheme is to injure others, fraudulent intent may be inferred from the scheme itself. Where the scheme does not cause injury to the alleged victim as its necessary result, the government must produce evidence independent of the alleged scheme to show the defendant's fraudulent intent.
39 F.3d 1249, 1257 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations and footnote omitted) (holding that the government failed to produce legally sufficient evidence of criminal intent).



Use of Mailings and Wires in Furtherance of the Execution of the Scheme

"The federal mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law." United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705, 710 (1989) (quoting Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 95 (1944)); accord United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The offense of mail fraud demands proof of a scheme to defraud which, at some point, is intentionally furthered by use of the mails.").

"It is not necessary that the scheme contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element." Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954); Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 313 (1896) (proof of specific intent to use the mails on the part of defendants need not be proven). "It is sufficient for the mailing to be 'incident to an essential part of the scheme,' . . . or 'a step in [the] plot' . . . . " Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 710-11 (citations omitted); cf. United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 998 (D.C. Cir.) ("[A]lthough the schemer need not 'contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element,' the mailings must be sufficiently closely related to [the] scheme to bring his conduct within the statute.") (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("For conviction under the mail fraud statute, the mails must be used 'for the purpose of executing' the fraudulent scheme, and not merely 'as a result of' such scheme.") (quoting Kann, 323 U.S. 88), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980).

As in the case of mail fraud, a wire transmission may be considered to be for the purpose of furthering a scheme to defraud if the transmission is incident to the accomplishment of an essential part of the scheme. United States v. Mann, 884 F.2d 532, 536 (10th Cir. 1984). Moreover, it is not necessary to show that the defendant directly participated in the transmission, where it is established that the defendant caused the transmission, and that such use was the foreseeable result of his acts. United States v. Gill, 909 F.2d 274, 277-78 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Jones, 554 F.2d 251, 253 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 (1977) (cases cited); United States v. Wise, 553 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1977).

The gist of the offenses is not the scheme to defraud, but the use of the mails or interstate wire communication. See United States v. Garland, 337 F. Supp. 1, 3 (N.D. Ill. 1971); see also United States v. Gardner, 65 F.3d 82, 85 (8th Cir. 1995) ("The use of the post office establishment in the execution of the alleged scheme to obtain money by false pretenses is the gist of the offense which the statute denounces, and not the scheme to defraud.") (quoting Cochran v. United States, 41 F.2d 193, 197 (8th Cir. 1930)), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 748 and 116 S.Ct. 1044 (1996); United States v. Lebovitz, 669 F.2d 894, 898 (3d Cir.) ("The gist of the offense of mail fraud is the use of mails by someone to carry out some essential element of the fraudulent scheme or artifice."), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 929 (1982). Accordingly, each use of the mails (in the case of mail fraud) and each separate wire communication (in the case of wire fraud) constitutes a separate offense, i.e., each mailing and/or wire transmission can constitute a separate count in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994) (mail fraud); United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1514 (10th Cir.) (each use of mails is separate offense), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 (1992); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1199 (1st Cir. 1987) (wire fraud).


Proof of Mailings and Transmissions

The mailing or wire communication may be proven by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Griffith, 17 F.3d 865, 874 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 149 (1994); United States v. Bowman, 783 F.2d 1192, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986) (mailings performed in the course of the bank's customary practices) (citing United States v. Ledesma, 632 F.2d 670, 675 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 998 (1980)); United States v. Brooks, 748 F.2d 1199, 1202-03 (7th Cir. 1984) (introduction of envelope). But see United States v. Hannigan, 27 F.3d 890, 895 (3d Cir. 1994) (defendant's statement that he received check was insufficient to prove check was sent through the mails).

"To constitute a violation of [§ 1341] . . ., it is not necessary to show that [defendants] actually mailed . . . anything themselves; it is sufficient if they caused it to be done. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) (citing 18 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 2(b)); United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 443 (1917) ("Cause" is used "in its well-known sense of bringing about . . . ."); accord United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 998 (D.C. Cir.) ("One must 'cause' the mails to be used" to satisfy the element of "use of the United States mails 'for the purpose of executing the scheme.'") (quoting United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 400 (1974) (quoting Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 94 (1944), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980). The government need show only that the defendant "caused" the mailing by acting "with knowledge that the use of the mails follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended." Pereira, 347 U.S. at 8-9.


"'[I]nnocent' mailings - ones that contain no false information - may supply the mailing element." United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705, 715 (1989) (citing Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 390 (1960)). Moreover, the elements of mail fraud may be satisfied where the mailings have been routine. Mailings that may lead to the uncovering of the fraudulent scheme may also supply the mailing element of the mail fraud offense. Id. ("The relevant question at all times is whether the mailing is part of the execution of the scheme as conceived by the perpetrator at the time, regardless of whether the mailing later, through hindsight, may prove to have been counterproductive and return to haunt the perpetrator of the fraud.").


Conspiracy to Violate the Mail Fraud or Wire Fraud Statutes

Where a scheme and artifice to defraud is shared by two or more, it becomes a conspiracy to defraud. The essential elements of conspiracy to commit mail fraud or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, are (1) an agreement between two or more persons; (2) to commit mail fraud or wire fraud; and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Brumley, 79 F.3d 1430, 1442 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Hatch, 926 F.2d 387, 393 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 943 (1991)); United States v. Massey, 827 F.2d 995, 1001 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1170 (5th Cir. 1986)). "Conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense." Massey, 827 F.2d at 1001 (quoting Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678 (1959)).

As in any conspiracy, it is sufficient that the defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy in which wire fraud or mail fraud was a foreseeable act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 997 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that once a defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy has been established, "the defendant is deemed guilty of substantive acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any of his criminal partners")).


Venue in Mail Fraud

Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) provides that in cases where the offense was begun in one district and completed in another, venue may be laid in any district through which the offense was continued.

Section 1341, however, has its own "built-in" venue provisions. The locus of the offense under section 1341 has been carefully specified; and only the acts of "placing", "taking" and "causing to be delivered" at a specified place have been penalized. Venue should therefore be placed according to the specific prohibitions of section 1341, irrespective of section 3237(a). See Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 636-37 (1961) ("[V]enue should not be made to depend upon the chance use of the mails, when Congress has so carefully indicated the locus of the crimes."). The locus for mail fraud prosecutions is specifically set forth in section 1341; since Congress has "otherwise expressly provided," section 3237 is inapplicable to mail fraud.

Accordingly, venue must be charged in either (1) the district in which the letter was placed in the mail by the defendant; (2) the district in which the defendant took or received the letter from the mails; or (3) the district in which the defendant knowingly caused a letter to be delivered according to the direction thereon. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932)); see also United States v. Turley, 891 F.2d 57, 60 (3d Cir. 1989) (government conceded that section 3237 is not applicable to mail fraud).

Several decisions, citing as authority the provisions of section 3237(a), have held that venue for mail fraud prosecutions also lies in any district through which the count letter passed. Section 3237(a) must, however, be read in light of the constitutional requirements and the explicit provisions of section 1341.


Defenses—Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for mail fraud and wire fraud prosecutions is five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282), except for mail and wire fraud schemes that affect a financial institution, in which case the statute is ten years (18 U.S.C. § 3293).

COMMENT: Consider that a scheme may extend back beyond the limitations period; the gist of the offense is the use of the mails, and if the prohibited use of the mails was within the period, the prosecution is timely. See O. Obermaier and R. Morvillo, White Collar Crime: Business and Regulatory Offenses, § 9.04[5], at 9-67 (Rel. 2, 1991) (citing cases); cf. United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259 (8th Cir. 1994) (mail fraud scheme may continue after mailing). That a scheme may extend back beyond the limitation period does not preclude prosecution of an offense committed in furtherance of the scheme within the period.


Defenses—Good Faith

Good faith is recognized as a defense to a charge of mail or wire fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216, 223 (8th Cir. 1985). For a discussion of the defense of good faith and the entitlement of jury instructions on this issue, see Green v. United States, 474 U.S. 925 (1985); see also Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 719 (1994) (and cases cited).

---

Drafting a Mail Fraud and/or Wire Fraud Indictment

The Criminal Division has published a collection of indictment forms, Drafting Indictments most recently updated in March, 1995. These forms can be conveniently accessed and saved as word processing documents using USABook:
Mail Fraud
Mail Fraud Scheme/Artifice


Sufficiency of Indictment—Generally

Generally, Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires an indictment to provide "a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885, 893 (1st Cir. 1993) ("The Supreme Court has instructed that an indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and enables him to enter a plea without fear of double jeopardy.") (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also Collins v. Markley, 346 F.2d 230, 232 (7th Cir.) (en banc) ("The sufficiency of an indictment is to be measured by certain guide lines. First, the indictment standing alone must contain the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and it must be sufficient to apprise the accused of the nature of the offense. Second, after conviction, the record of the case must be sufficient so that the accused can plead the judgment in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offense."), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 (1965).

Accordingly, a mail fraud or wire fraud indictment should contain a reasonably detailed description of the particular scheme the defendant is charged with devising to ensure that the defendant has sufficient notice of the nature of the offense. See Yefsky, 994 F.2d at 893 ("The indictment may incorporate the words of the statute to set forth the offense, but the statutory language '"must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged."'") (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117-18 (quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888))); cf. United States v. Nance, 533 F.2d 699, 702 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (noting with approval mail fraud count that specifies misrepresentations); United States v. Curtis, 506 F.2d 985, 990 (10th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted) (dismissing mail fraud indictment that excludes false pretenses).

In Yefsky, the court held that the indictment was defective in that it did not provide the defendant with adequate notice of the charge (conspiracy to commit mail fraud) against him. 994 F.2d at 993 ("Where guilt depends so crucially upon . . . a specific identification of fact, . . . cases have uniformly held that an indictment must do more than simply repeat the language of the criminal statute.") (citing Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118).

In Curtis, the court stated the following in considering the sufficiency of the allegations contained in an indictment charging mail fraud:

Mere evidential matters or detail more appropriate in bills of particular need not be pleaded in an indictment based upon 1341. [citations omitted] But as these cases demonstrate, some substantial indication of the nature or character of any scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises is requisite. And it is not sufficient in this regard to merely plead the statutory language. [citations omitted] A reference to the cases cited first above will disclose that in each instance the nature of the schemes or artifices is identified or described, including the particular pretenses, representations or promises claimed to have been false.

506 F.2d at 989-90 (holding that the indictment, which pleaded little more than the statutory language without any fair indication of the nature or character of the scheme or artifice relied upon, or the false pretenses, misrepresentations or promises forming a part of it, was fatally defective); see also United States v. Crummer, 151 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1945) ("While the particulars of the scheme are matters of substance and therefore must be described with a degree of certainty sufficient to show its existence of character, and fairly to acquaint the defendant with the particular fraudulent scheme charged against him, still the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.") (allegations of the scheme held to be sufficient), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 785 (1946); cf. United States v. Azad, 809 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 1986) ("What distinguishes this indictment from the indictment found defective in [Curtis], . . . is the clear and specific description of the fraudulent scheme found in the present indictment. The indictment before us does provide some 'substantial indication of the nature or character' of the scheme involved, and 'the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.'" ) (quoting Curtis, 506 F.2d at 990), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1004 (1987); United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 35 (3d Cir.) ("The Curtis indictment was so vague that trial might have proceeded upon an entirely different concept of the scheme than that contemplated by the grand jury when it returned the indictment. By contrast, the indictment in this case explicitly outlines the elements of the fraudulent plan."), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 841 (1976).


Sufficiency of Indictment—Victims and Loss

Victims of the fraud do not have to be identified by name in the indictment. United States v. Mizyed, 927 F.2d 979 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 937 (1991). Moreover, actual monetary loss need not be alleged. United States v. Barber, 881 F.2d 345, 348-49 (7th Cir. 1989) ("It is true that the indictment does not allege an actual monetary or economic loss to any insurance company. However, it is not necessary that an indictment charging mail fraud contain such an allegation."), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 922 (1990); see also United States v. Ginsburg, 909 F.2d 982, 988 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1990) ("McNally does not require that actual loss of money or property be alleged in the indictment."); United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1311 (7th Cir.) ("[S]ince the mail fraud statute punishes the scheme to defraud, this court has reiterated on numerous occasions that the ultimate success of the fraud and the actual defrauding of a victim are not necessary prerequisites to a successful mail fraud prosecution."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989).


Sufficiency of Indictment—Mailings or Transmissions in Furtherance of Scheme

"The Government need not allege the subordinate evidentiary facts by which it intends to prove the 'in furtherance' element of the crime charged, and an indictment setting out the mailings charged and alleging that they were in furtherance of the scheme should not be dismissed as insufficient on its face unless there is no conceivable evidence that the Government could produce at trial to substantiate its 'in furtherance' allegation." United States v. Castor, 558 F.2d 379, 385 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010 (1978). In Castor, the court observed the following concerning the requirement of alleging that the mailings were in furtherance of the scheme:

The question is not whether the indictment particularly alleges sufficient facts from which a jury could find that the mailings charged were in furtherance of the scheme, but rather whether the Government conceivably could produce evidence at trial showing that the designated mailings were for the purposes of executing the scheme. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 76, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962). The resolution of the question of whether the mailings alleged were in furtherance of the scheme must await trial "unless it so convincingly appears on the face of the indictment that as a matter of law there need be no necessity for such delay." United States v. Feinberg, 50 F. Supp. 976, 977 (E.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'd, 140 F.2d 592 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 726, 64 S.Ct. 943, 88 L.Ed. 1562 (1944).
Id. at 384-85.


Sufficiency of Indictment—Separate Offenses

Each mailing or transmission in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud is a separate offense. See, e.g., United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994)(mail fraud); United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1514 (10th Cir.)(each use of mails is separate offense), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 (1992); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1199 (1st Cir. 1987)(wire fraud). Accordingly, proper draftsmanship requires that only one mailing or transmission should be alleged in each count. Otherwise, the count may be duplicitous.

Because descriptions of the scheme are frequently quite lengthy, it is suggested that those descriptive paragraphs set out in full in one count be adopted and incorporated into another count by suitable reference pursuant to the provision of Rule 7(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.


Sufficiency of the Indictment—Special Considerations

Take care to charge the proper method of violation of the statute! For example, if the letter is mailed to the district of indictment from another district, be sure to charge a taking from the mails, or delivery according to the direction thereon, rather than a placing in the mail. Conversely, charge a placing in the mail in the district of indictment of a letter addressed to someone outside that district. See Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932) (indictment loosely and inartfully drawn).


Statement of Policy concerning Venue in Mail Fraud Prosecutions

Department of Justice policy opposes mail fraud venue based solely on the mail matter passing through a jurisdiction.


18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud

"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).



Knowingly and Willfully

The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 requires that the false statement, concealment or cover up be "knowingly and willfully" done, which means that "The statement must have been made with an intent to deceive, a design to induce belief in the falsity or to mislead, but § 1001 does not require an intent to defraud -- that is, the intent to deprive someone of something by means of deceit." United States v. Lichenstein, 610 F.2d 1272, 1276-77 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907 (1980). The government may prove that a false statement was made "knowingly and willfully" by offering evidence that defendants acted deliberately and with knowledge that the representation was false. See United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1990). The jury may conclude from a plan of elaborate lies and half-truths that defendants deliberately conveyed information they knew to be false to the government. Id. at 214-15.

As used in the statute, the term "knowingly" requires only that the defendant acted with knowledge of the falsity. See United States v. Lange, 528 F.2d 1280, 1287-89 (5th Cir. 1976). As in other situations, to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, § 1.35 (1990). Knowledge of the criminal statute governing the conduct is not required.

The false statement need not be made with an intent to defraud if there is an intent to mislead or to induce belief in its falsity. Reckless disregard of whether a statement is true, or a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth, can be construed as acting "knowingly." United States v. Evans, 559 F.2d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978).

A defendant is not relieved of the consequences of a material misrepresentation by lack of knowledge when the means of ascertaining truthfulness are available. In appropriate circumstances, the government may establish the defendant's knowledge of falsity by proving that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. See United States v. West, 666 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981); Lange, 528 F.2d at 1288; United States v. Clearfield, 358 F. Supp. 564, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. See United States v. Schaffer, 600 F.2d 1120, 1122 (5th Cir. 1979).

The term "willfully" means no more than that the forbidden act was done deliberately and with knowledge, and does not require proof of evil intent. McClanahan v. United States, 230 F.2d 919, 924 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 824 (1956); McBride v. United States, 225 F.2d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 934 (1956). An act is done "willfully" if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids. There is no requirement that the government show evil intent on the part of a defendant in order to prove that the act was done "willfully." See generally United States v. Gregg, 612 F.2d 43, 50-51 (2d Cir. 1979); American Surety Company v. Sullivan, 7 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1925)(Hand, J.); United States v. Peltz, 433 F.2d 48, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1970),cert. denied, 401 U.S. 955 (1971) (involving 15 U.S.C. § 32(a). See also 1 E. Devitt, C. Blackmar, M. Wolff & K. O'Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.05 (1992).


Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Government Activity

Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any of several forms:

Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion of money or favors by government employees, misrepresentations of financial capability, alteration or falsification of official records, submission of false documents; and

Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.


18 U.S. Code § 1342 - Fictitious name or address

Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The Terror of a Constant Threat

The recipient of Rule 1.6 injustice has no protection of the law. Their constitutional rights are ignored by the courts and law enforcement. All legal professionals are prevented from helping or doing anything to resolve ANY situation. Triggered by an act of judicial misconduct, Rule 1.6 secretly and silently undermines a litigant while attempting to conceal the injustice of a judge and protect the integrity of the judiciary.

There is no opportunity to succeed in a court. Without the rule of law and while constitutional rights are being ignored, survival is the best possible outcome - - BUT the victim does not know that and arrives in court... Prepared. Researched. Documented. Properly executed. Procedures followed. Yet, the victim leaves court battered and further threatened and terrified by the experience of the inexplicable actions of a corrupted court. The court provides no explanations for their injustice. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality applies.

The ONLY person in the courtroom who believes in 'the justice system' is the unwitting target who trusts it. Everyone else knows that there will be no justice. The lawyers, the judges, the court staff, the deputies observe the corruption and injustice. They witness justice. Intimidated by corruption, THEY RECOGNIZE WHEN A PROCEEDING IS A FARCE.

A FARCE. Every proceeding. For years.

In hindsight, it is clear and undeniable. Procedures are not followed. Protocol is abandoned. The law is ignored. Rights protected by the US Constitution are unavailable. Court Orders are not enforced. Only their victim is swiftly held to a stringent adherence to every procedure, protocol, law, and order. The victim must respond to and address and disprove each and every false allegation against them to survive it.

Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, the lawyers with education and a staff are excused from every failure. Their failures are deliberate. They serve to create an undercurrent of deliberate chaos. An ever increasing volume of issues to be presented. A cacophony of injustice which will 'annoy the living shit' out of the judge who knows that the entire thing is a complete farce. Angst & Angst made certain that they were protected from any backlash by a judge who ignored their every failure.

In the end, it is the document filed by Robert Angst to prevent any divorce decree from being issued 'pre-maturely' which exacerbates the procedural defect and a law deliberately constructed and enacted to assure litigants had the opportunity to be heard. Where neither party requested the entry of the divorce decree the court lacks authority and jurisdiction to enter an order. Robert Angst had filed a document indicating that a divorce decree should NOT be entered. Where neither party requested the entry of the Divorce Decree, and the Plaintiff through her lawyers indicated they did NOT want the entry of a divorce decree, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio acted in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

The calculated actions of Angst & Angst neglected due process, procedure and law with intent. Those actions would appear to create a form of leverage whereby the judge might be lenient on their next failure. While every proceeding was pre-determined to deny any success to the hopeful victim, they were daring the judge to follow procedure and law. Sociopaths throwing the judge under the bus. By creating a 'clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction' for the judiciary, Angst & Angst were able to leverage judicial immunity for further injustice.

Absolute Judicial Immunity is provided to the judiciary even where the judicial actions of the judge…
… exceed their jurisdiction,
… are done maliciously or corruptly, or
… are flawed by grave procedural error.

THERE IS A SINGLE EXCEPTION. In order to lose immunity, there must be a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

Where any judge strikes the defective and void order, they would be expose the liability of their benchmates. Angst & Angst again leverage the corruption of the judiciary and attempt to enforce a defective and void order. The Court complies with their extortion by COMPLETELY IGNORING THAT THE ORDER IS VOID AND COMPLETELY NEGLECTING THE CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION. The terror of an 'unappealable order' which defies the attention of the court and threatens the life and liberty of the victim.

Why would there be twenty (20) judges involved in the matter of Healy v Healy? Imagine the shame and self-loathing which would occur when you are participating in a deliberate injustice, violating the trust of a litigant, a rouse to harass and terrify. Angst & Angst were doing everything possible to ensure that the judge excused and ignored enough of their wrong-doing to be identified as an active and involved participant. Those actions were being subsequently documented on the court record and were building a considerable volume of evidence.

Evidence of the procedural failures and the breach of protocol and violation of law are being presented in proceedings to enforce compliance with court orders - yet, the judge dismisses every matter without explanation. The judge can't tell the litigant that THE ENTIRE THING IS JUST A SHAM TO TERRORIZE A MAN. The judge is disgusted and just wants out. The judge's integrity is being sacrificed while Rule 1.6 prevents explanation or resolution or escape.

Where every judicial proceeding and action has been a complete sham. A performance whereby the victim is attacked again and again... because the victim survives, there will be further actions. NO ONE WILL STOP THEIR DESTRUCTIVE FARCE... Rule 1.6 allows fraud in the furtherance of fraud. Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure to rectify the fraud. Rule 1.6 prevents every legal professional from helping.

Their 'FARCE' has denied life and liberty. Destroyed Financially. Isolated and divided family. Prevented custody and visitation. Left you unemployed, homeless and threatened with jail. Attached supporters bank accounts. Infiltrated all technology - your friends tech also. False friendships by Investigators and Informants. Required additional litigation, additional parties. Undermined an entire judiciary. Nine (9) years of my life. Prevented and denied any future relief or escape. THIS IS A DIVORCE. This is not a criminal case.

Only in the family courts can someone who has committed no crime lose everything.

WTF? I asked that in a letter to the Montgomery County Judiciary two months before I realized Rule 1.6 was the problem. There was no response.

The available resources, actions and efforts to terrorize their victim to being 1) homeless/destitute 2) incarcerated or 3) suicide are not as arbitrary as you might think. A review of documents which relate to good mental health practices when going through a stressful period demonstrates a disturbing strategy. Their litigation has been designed to undermine the target psychologically by removing or obstructing support and coping methods while isolating the victim. They are undermining emotional and mental health by directly inhibiting efforts which provide resilience.

Acting above the law without any sense of moral responsibility or social conscience they wrote a law which permitted every act against the target and prevented any escape. As long as the target is not going to be murdered, Rule 1.6 confidentiality mandates non-disclosure. Driving a target to suicide is an acceptable 'loophole'. Only a sociopath would design a system by which criminals were not permitted to kill, but permitted to bring about a suicide. Kutek would be horrified.

Lawyers rejected the 'fraud provisions' of Rule 1.6 against the prolonged debate and strong lobbying efforts of Robert Kutek while writing the code of ethical conduct for lawyers. Weeks after Kutek's sudden death in 1983, the fraud provisions were removed from Rule 1.6 and promoted by the American Bar Association to each state as an ethical standard while it's lack of ethics was inconsequential. In a clear contradiction to his legacy, the ABA refers to the committee responsible for the Rules of Professional Conduct as The Kutek Commission.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality undermines the judiciary and every proceeding. The injustice grows while Rule 1.6 prevents resolution or escape from further actions. I would hope that my case is an extreme. My case demonstrates the broad affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which prevents any remedy. It is the volume of information and experiences which lead to the discovery of the needle in the haystack of injustice. Where no explanation was offered... and no question answered... EVER. Rule 1.6 could be applied to 'justify' the silence.

Rule 1.6 non-disclosure is permitted to conceal Rule 1.6 non-disclosure. They won't say anything and won't tell you why... Rule 1.6 is permitted to be invoked without invoking it. Rule 1.6 makes it possible to break the law, commit acts in the furtherance of that fraud, undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary, prevent exposure through further fraud AND NOT EVER INDICATE THAT RULE 1.6 is involved. Ex parte communications, letters and meetings which arrange the injustice and corruption are also Rule 1.6 Confidential.

Prevented from information and denied rights and the protection of the law, my experience may be extreme but it is not isolated or unique... Rule 1.6 is law in every state. A violation of the public trust by the Judicial branch. The judiciary are accorded respect and honor BY LAW because it is necessary for the People to trust in JUSTICE.

The American Bar Association's Rule 1.6 has leveraged the public trust to undermine the judiciary. The only folks who profit from injustice are the members of the ABA and its affiliated organizations.

THE SCANDAL OF RULE 1.6 IS BIG. VERY BIG. HUGE.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

The Penalty for Treason is Death

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has acted with deliberate intent and malice in clear absence of jurisdiction. An act of treason which causes all those who enforce her corrupted orders to be guilty of the same crime and the obstruction and denial of constitutionally protected rights.

All those who act to conceal her corruption are active participants in a conspiracy to deny constitutionally protected rights. Even where it is her husband acting under the improper authority of a former Supreme Court Justice.

Ignoring her crimes any further is an injustice which no individual should have to endure and survive.

Even where the Attorney General has been improperly ordered to ignore the law and the criminal corruption of the judiciary.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio deserves to die.
She said so herself when campaigning for the position of judge.
Philadelphia Inquirer Judicial Campaign Questionnaire

UPDATE: On January 23, 2015 at approx. 3PM two detectives stopped by my mother's home. Their approach was confirming, non-confrontational, non-aggressive, and they were cognizant that the post above was not a threat and was not intended to be a threat. They acknowledged the selection of the words used being deliberate and non-threatening. They did not indicate who contacted them with concerns about the post. They indicated they were in the area and thought they would 'check-in' and confirm my perseverance and continuing lawful efforts and approach. I found them to be sincere and invited them to witness the volume of paperwork involved. The paperwork continues. One of the detectives had identified himself as the detective introduced a few years ago by Nancy Becker, Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds, with her recommendation that the fraudulent conveyance of my home and property be investigated and prosecuted. The detective contacted me about a week later indicating that the District Attorney had instructed him to take no action in the crime.

Liability - Professional and Personal

Officials who act to enforce an invalid court order are exposed to professional and personal liability.

Denying a person of Constitutionally protected rights is a federal offense. Participating in a conspiracy to deny a person of their rights is a federal crime. Even when the official has been 'setup' or prompted deliberately by a judge using defective and void orders.

Often the availability of absolute judicial immunity permits the judiciary to avoid the responsibility and liability. Subsequently, the judges protect the officials who acted to enforce or support the invalid orders - undermining justice and the integrty of the entire judiciary.

Where Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio exposed the 20 members of the Montgomery County Judiciary to professional and personal liability without availability of absolute judicial immunity due to the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, those who enforced her orders are additionally exposed professionally and personally.

This goes much further and wider than the judges involved in both the Montgomery County Court and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. It extends to the staff who participated in their conspiracy and the efforts to prevent, deny and obstruct justice.

The liability extends to the County departments and personnel who acted pursuant to the judge's invalid orders. Their liability is professional and personal and affects most every department at the county courthouse and county offices. Their liability is not ignored simply because they were following orders. THIS is a big part of how the judges can cause the denial of any support and protection of the law.

It is not just about someone 'helping' another person to avoid their liability. Where it becomes necessary to avoid their own professional and personal liability, the 'corruption team' grows exponentially. The victim is ignored... and further terrorized. by every department and agency to whom they go to for help.

An intentional and deliberate invalid action by a judge immediately causes these effects. A corrupt judge can upset the balance completely and absolutely and irreparably.

As the liability grows, every avenue for resolution is affected AND PREVENTED. Every opportunity for justice is prevented, obstructed and denied. Every false allegation against the target is pursued and investigated. A terror and harassment scheme which consumes, isolates and annihilates the target. Pushing the target to hopelessness... AND SUICIDE.

Most every county department becomes affected, undermined and subject to liability for participation:
Domestic Relations
Custody Masters
Child Support Enforcement
Court Administration
Family Court Administration
Equitable Distribution Masters
Judge's staff
Prothonotary
Sheriff's Department
District Attorney
County Detectives
Commissioners
Montgomery County Emergency Services

The number of defendants in a federal criminal case, or a civil case, would clear the entire courthouse... instead, they work towards the simplest method to make the case go away. The suicide of the target.



In a twisted manifestation of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, non-disclosure by the legal professionals is mandated unless the target is to be murdered. Leading the target to suicide is a Rule 1.6 loophole.

There is evidence which indicates that lawyers can promptly determine if a prospective client is a target. At that point, the attorney can decide to represent the doomed client. This is basically a transfer of assets. The disdain and constant arrogance of all involved demonstrated towards a self-represented non-lawyer seeks to undermine any effort to survive while their losses were predetermined without any basis in truth or law.

This 'list' will also undermine and discourage/prevent any assistance, support or representation by any pro bono organization or individual lawyers.

There comes a point in time where every effort is made to promptly get you to your suicide. Your children, family and finances will be leveraged to expedite your downfall. It is truly twisted where these actions may appear to be 'merciful'.

Those involved are all working towards avoiding their MASSIVE ESCALATING PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF. There is no mercy.

The Superior Court Farce - Unconstitutional. Unprosecuted. Injustice Ignored.

Imagine three appeals to the Superior Court. Each attempting to address the same single basic point.

A judge has acted without jurisdiction. It was deliberate - she wanted your suicide and you have repeatedly failed to deliver. Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio knew EXACTLY what she was doing. She ignored EVERY procedure. She ignored every law. I notified. She failed to correct. She retaliated.

Where subject matter jurisdiction is the single element required for absolute immunity, one of the twenty judges to hear the case, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio exposed the entire Montgomery County Bench to liability. All circuits interpret Stump and Bradley to require a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction in order to lose immunity. The neglect and failure to correct demonstrates deliberate informed actions with clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

Carluccio called it her "Unappealable Order" because any judge who addresses it would bring down an entire bench. As there can be no retroactive correction for lack of jurisdiction, the order is designed to destroy a litigant. There can NEVER be relief where this order which defies being addressed can be used to undermine any and every court. CIA torture tactics ended, Carluccio's judicial tactic was 'to the death'.

I AM NOT BRADLEY STONE. You will not provoke me to the point of self-destruction. AND GOD KNOWS THE JUDICIARY HAS TRIED SINCE 2007 TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. (** See Footnote **)

I have faced their unending EVIL and CRUELTY and have defiantly not ended up dead in a ditch.

I have lost EVERYTHING and not been gunned down in a hail of bullets.

I have brought the issue of their lawlessness to EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY and have been ignored without explanation.

Currently, the Superior Court Farce is documented with 5 different departments. They have the evidence which demonstrates that the Central Legal Staff intercepted and intervened - providing unsigned unsubstantiated orders which ignored any issue and dismissed every issue. The has been no review of any motion or brief by the judiciary of the Superior Court. No proceeding. Everything done on paper without signatures. Everything violated the Judicial Canons.

The Superior Court has been 'involved' for years... but done nothing. I am homeless, destitute, unemployed, under constant litigation requirements and deadlines... Because I have not crumbled, they have continued to delay to the point where three concurrent appeals were occurring with constant paperwork demands.

AND THEN IT WAS CLEAR... there is no judge behind these actions. They are fake. Forgery. Different paperwork. Different captions. Different letterhead. There is no applicable law. Everything which has occurred within the Superior Court has been a complete farce. Discourtesy and disrespect - all attempts to provoke an outburst. Raising all of their farce to their attention. Of course, they ignored their own farce.

Hiding behind the corrupt actions of the Central Legal Staff. BUT, their actions CLEARY violate Pennsylvania law. Their actions are unconstitutional - inter alia interfering with the administration of the courts. Where they might hide behind Rule 1.6 confidentiality, they prove the Rule is unconstitutional - a nullity - no law - and the PA Supreme Court has no authority to enaxct a law which affects substantive rights.

While I have been struggling alone to survive, EVERYTHING THE SUPERIOR COURT HAS DONE HAS BEEN FAKE. INCOMPREHENSIBLE. UNDENIABLE. CRIMINAL.

... and UNCONSTITUTIONAL

US Attorney Zane Memeger has had the information about the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF crimes for over a month... (October 30, 2014)

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has had the information about the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF crimes for over a month... (November 15, 2014)

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams has had the information about the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF crimes for over a month... (November 15, 2014)

Bucks District Attorney David Heckler has had the information about the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF crimes for over a month... (November 15, 2014)

Montgomery District Attorney Risa Ferman - LOL! There is no point when she has cancelled EVERY investigation by Montgomery County Detectives for the last 9 years.

The US Postal Inspection Service has had the information about the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF crimes for over a month... Mail Fraud. (Inspectors are non-lawyers, not corrupted by Rule 1.6, who have not been undermined like the County Sheriffs.)

I AM NOT BRADLEY STONE. I WILL NOT PERMIT DISTRICT ATTORNEY RISA FERMAN TO APPEAR ON TELEVISION AND IN EVERY NEWSPAPER SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY TALKING ABOUT A MAN WHO WAS PUSHED TO THE BRINK BY THE CORRUPTION OF THE COURTS AND THE FAILURES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT... and then blamed for breaking.

The list of Family Court Suicides is extensive and heartbreaking... and ignored by everyone. People fear what will happen to them if they care enough to get involved... and they should. These people know how to annihilate a person. They have had plenty of experience.

I am Terance Healy. This is the story of A Terroristic Divorce. This is the story of concealing injustice and the actions which eventually involved an entire county judiciary - where their actions to conceal an initial injustice became broader and more involved because their own actions had to then be concealed.

This is the story of A LIFE WITHOUT PROTECTION OF THE LAW... without Constitutional Rights... and an experience which lead to the realization of the needle in the haystack of injustice and those responsible. The sedition and corruption and perversion of justice brought to you by the American Bar Association - controlling judges and lawyers and undermining the judiciary and law enforcement at every level of the state and federally.

The American Bar Association has failed to comply or respond to the CEASE & DESIST letter sent to every national, state and affiliated organization - which included EVERY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

We have presented the issue of the ABA's Rule 1.6 to thousands of legislators, law enforcement, lawyers and the judiciary. While INJUSTICE is in the national consciousness, they fail to act. They fear each other far more than an angry American population.

Proclaim JUSTICE throughout All the Land
Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.

America is waking up to the injustice. The family and friends of the largest prison population in the world is recognizing the ABA's response to the advance of civil rights in the 60's was the injustice and incarceration concealed by Rule 1.6 since the 80's.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, how about addressing those two court orders from unidentified judges and unidentified courts... or introducing someone who can.

"We are not investigating. I cannot investigate."

"I am being stopped from performing my duties as Attorney General."

"My office is being stopped from certain investigations."

"And we are being stopped even from telling why."

"My hands are tied and this will be frustrating for you because it is just as frustrating for me."

"My hands are tied because there are court orders which don’t allow us to say certain things which I believe the public needs to know."

"I knew that I was walking into public corruption. Which again is why I ran."

"But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption."
I am shocked at how deep it goes.
I am shocked at how powerful it is.
I have never seen anything like this. It’s breathtaking.
It has been described by the people familiar with what is happening as shameful."

"But, if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, i am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don;t have the resources that I have to challenge it."

I would tell my story to the media... but, their lawyers won't allow it.

** Carluccio's defective and void order was issued May 9, 2011, BUT it was not the first order which lacked jurisdiction, notice and correction. The Secret Order of Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele had been issued in August 2007, never distributed, never docketed, without any proceeding, concealed in a separate court file, used to undermine EVERY proceeding, and FOUND IN AUGUST 2010. The terror of the Montgomery County Court continued with the additional threat to courthouse staffers who revealed the corruption. Since 2007, the entire court case, every petition and proceeding, had been a complete farce to terrorize me. THEY JUST WON"T STOP.