Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 21



IN THE UNTIED STATES GOURT OF APPEALS For the Eleventh Circtrj.t Atlanta Division

I 5 2SI3
JAME By; C f e r f c

Benjamin F. Stanley Petitioner.




This inotion i s f i l e d for recxirding by both the Appellate Court and the district court due to the i^ppellate Cburt having jurisdiction over the Appeal of Petitioner's comd-ction; Petitioner having f i l e d a Federal Rule of C i v i l Procedure 60(b) because Petitioner's attomev failed to incorporate the tnje facts and true evidence of the case into the Arpellate Brief and the disagresnent between Petitioner and his Counsel and the self -imposed. Remand by the district court to respond to the Federal Rule of C i v i l Procedure 60(b) into the crimincil f i l e i n an att^ipt to thwart the effectiven^s of sciid f i l i n g . Since both the Appellate Court and the d i s t r i c t

coiirt simoltaneouBly adjudicate Petitioner's proceedings, i t i s also correct for Petitioner to f i l e this record into both proceedings. Dual jurisdiction i s

appropriate so pro se f i l i n g s can be included In both court i n accordance with Amendments I., V , - VI and XIV of the Constitution of the United States bai^use of new evidence i n the form c f confessions to the crimes for vrfiich Petitioner was charged. The confessions to the crimes by Government mtnesses and enplcyees anomt to Reversib-le Error bece.use they eliminate a manifest injustice to Petitioner. 28 USC 1291 states: "The courts of appeals (other than the Iftiited

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdi.ction of appeals from a l l f i n a l decisions of the d i s t r i c t courts of the United States,, the United 1

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 2 of 21

states District Court for tbe District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, e x c ^ t vAiere a direct review may be had i n the Supre^^ie Court, lhe jurisdiction of the Ignited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be liiaited to the jurisdicticsn described i n sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this t i t l e [28 USCS 1292(c) and (d) and 12951. fJune 25, 1948, ch 646, 62 stat 929; Oct 31, 1951, ch 655, 48, 65 Stat. 7 ^ 726; July 1, 1958, P.L. 85-508, 12(e), 72 Stat. 348; A p r i l 2, 1982, P.L. 9 164, T i t l e I, Part A, 124, 96 Stat. 36,) $he courts created this dual jurisdiction because the new evidence i s so extra-ordijiary fhat i t renders the B i l l of Indictn^t as a non-adjudicable b i l l against Petitioner. Petitioner bases this jurisdictional challenge to lack of response by the prosecuting attomey to matters suhmitted by the Ifegistrate Judge and lack of response to Petitioner's Motions subn^itted to the District Court under penalty of perjury and the failure of the court to timely meet established deadlines causing the Summary Judgitent to issue i n favor of Petitioner. This i s submitted as a prof se fiJixig because i n spite of the overwhelming evidence of Petitioner's Actual Innocense,, counsel of record, : Ebn Samuels- stil], has not added the tme facts and new evidence to the case. Under Araendment VI to the Constitution of the U6nited States, Petitioner must be represented by competent counsel. Petitioner's counselor, to date, has displayed

a "standby" attitude v*iich equates to Petitioner having no one to protect his interest or proper representation. Further, under the same Amendment.. Petitioner has a Substantive Right to know the Tme Nature and Cause of the Chcirges against him so that an effective defense can be presentedAmendment VI

Under Amendment V t c tlie Constitution of the IMited States, Petitioner has a substantive right to due process ^ i c h includes challenging the evidenceTtie

t r i a l produced extraordinarily exculpatory evidence v*iich the judge and prosecutor 2

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 3 of 21

failed to oonsider during the t r i a l and viien addressing the jury to oororince then to render a guilty '^rerdict. Prosecutor must provide a l l exculpatory e^/identiary materials because "that reqpireient i s imposed by Constitution^ and i s iraplenented by Local Rules of District.. .and often by case-specific orders. U.S. v. Jones (2009,, DC Mass) 520 F. Supp 2d 163. Moreover,, but for lack of ociff)atent representation pre-trieil and t r i a l , counsel oould have properly questioned government vfLtnesses to e l i c i t the confessions pretrial ^v^ch oould have prevented the actual t r i a l and s a v ^ millions of tax-payer dollars. As aforestated i n the Ineffective

Assistance of Counsel, Attomey King lacked Security and Exchange Catmission know^ ledge. Attomey Athenia King made notice of this lack of knowledge but could Knowledge in the securities arena cannot be

not properly prepare by t r i a l .

leamed overnight or within one year as practical ajiplicaticHi of the laws and rules are essential. Having provided this data for dual jurisdiction to the coxirts

based on discovery i n Petitioner's pro se f i l i n g , Qran's Dictionary of the law, 2d ed., page 131 defines discovery: "1. The formal arai inforrocil exchange of information between sides i n a lawsuit. Two types of discovery are interrogatories and depositions.2. Finding out scmething previously unknown. For exarcple i n paten law, a discovery i s finding out scmething new rather than inventing a device or process. Also, the discovery of a fraud or of mediccil malpractice occurs \Aiea the person harmed finds out the problon (or should have found out i f careful). Petitioner further adds that based upon FRCivP 37(b): "vAiere a party f a i l s to ccxnply with a discovery order, the court has the authority to "[direct] that the matters onbraced i n the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,.. .Fed R. Civ P 37 (b) (2) (A) (i) (2) Here, the Magistrate Judge issued two orders: and one for the Petitioner to respond. one for the prosecutor to respond Petitioner

The Prosecutor ignored response.

tiraely responded. The participating judge denied Petitioner's timely response. The participating judge denied Petitioner's tactual and aourt certified

witnesses' confessions to the crijnes and denied Petitioner's claims based upon 3

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 4 of 21

procedural duties of the Magistrate Judge. Here, the Court made another Reversible Error by approving the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reccsnroendation based upon U.S. V. Khoury. U. S. v. Khoury has no applicability to the U.S. v. Benjamin F. Stanley, et. a l . case (this case). Here, Petitioner i s the prevailing party. 1, court. 2. The Appellate Court order the District Court to vacate the J^pellate Court must entertain dual juridsiction with d i s t r i c t

jury's guilty verdict and ranove Petitioner from inprisomrent immediately. 3. District court must include a l l of Fetd.tioner's pro se filings i n

the f i l e of the Appellate Court for this case Ito. 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK-2. 4, The i^pellate Brief f i l e d by Attorney Don Samuels must be amended

to include Petitioner's pro se filings i n the d i s t r i c t court, should the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decide to nove forward on November 19,

2013, the currently scheduled hearing date.

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 5 of 21

JURISDICTICmL ISSUE(s) By letter of June 1, 2013, John Ley, Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeal" for the Eleventh Circuit states " R E H K I R N UNFILED: "Motion to Vacate..." f i l e d by Donald F. Samuels for Benjamin F. Stanley i s retumed unfiled because A p ^ l l a n t i s represented by counsel. See 11th Circuit RifLe 25-1. A copy of your document

i s being forwarded to your attomey of record for review." The clerk responds to Petitioner's M3TION TO VACATE, SET-ASIDE, CORRECT OR REI^aND FCm DISMISSAL A JURY (SJILTY VEEDICT UNDER F.R.Civ.P. 60(b), Iftiited States of America, Appellee versus Rufus Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley, Appellants forwarded by Certificate of Service on ffey 23, 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; Clerk of Court, U. S. District Court, Atlanta Division; Attomey Nathan Kitchens and Justin S. Anand and Defense Attomey Don Samuels verifying propjer service to the interested pjarties. The d i s t r i c t court, upxan notice of appeal from Petitioner forwarded the court case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeeils. Petitioner's attomey f i l e d an Appellate Brief Brief inconsistent with the objectives of Petitioner and without Petitioner's f u l l consent. The attomey's Appellate Brief did not accurately

address the issues, events, and fraudulent activity by prosecutorial staff and i t was the intent of Petitioner's attomey to proceed without Petitioner's input and records causing Petitioner to f i l e FRCiv 60(b) as a result of prosecutorial misconduct \* disclosed extra-ordinarily exculpatory govemment witnesses confessions to the crimes Petitioner was accused of. The FRCivP 60(b) was acknowledged by the Appellate Court on May 28, 2013 and retumed as cLforementioned by letter dated Jme 7, 2013. Here, the 11th Circuit Court of ^^peals had jurisdiction.

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 6 of 21

The Distirict Court, Atlanta Division i s one of the four addresses on the Certificate of Service. On i t s own, the district court ielf-iirpDsed jijrisdiction from

the Appellate Court to addr;ss the ERClvP 60(b) as a motion f i l e d into the crimira.1 proceedings. Ibe Distirict CoLurt. utilized severaJ. procedures involving the i n i t i a l magistrate judge, and the i n i t i a l judge.. Here, had the FRCTDJP 60(b) been a true f i l i n g , a different judge and magistrate judge would have been assigned to the case as an individual caniiot investigate hiraself or herself Nonetheless,

a magistrate judge procedure was conducted vvhich resulted i n no responses frcm the prosecutor and objection frcxa Petitioner because the O.S. v. Khaary case i s irrelevant to the U.S. v. Stanley case. U.S. v. Khoury does not address the same or similar issues as U.S. v. Stanley. Bv the District Court's resumotion of iiirisdiction. Petitioner responded noticing tbe failure to properly r&aord FEiCivP 60(b). Petitioner noticed

that the .Appellate Court continued its mandate for Novarber 19, 2013 and that since the f i l e was retumed to Petitioner, Petitioner s t i l l m i l not be appropriately repre^sented hy the evidence and the e ^ r a ordinarily exc^p)&tory government witnesses cxjnf^sions under Oath of Office or perjury i n the Appellate f i l e . Therefore^ Petitioner resubmits this f i l e isi i t s entirety to the Appellate Court, %^ere jurisdiction l i e s , under the Constitution of the Lfrtited States Arrsndments I, V, VI, and XIV. The Appellate Clerk follwcLng local Rule tc retum

the 60(b) f i l i n g violated Atf^ndment I because although Petitioner has counsel, no one can express the concsms of the Petitioner then himself and especially where dJ.fferences of opinion exist as i n this case. AmendEient I gives Petitioner authority/- to addres-s the court for grievances and i n this instance, both the Appellate and district courts siinultaneously ^ e r e one court refuses to view the tmth and facs of the proceedings and the other couart hides the t m t h and facts thereby resulting i n dual jurisdiction. 6

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 7 of 21

"It i s the duty of a l l o f f i c i a l s , v*iether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative;, or ministerictl, to so perform every o f f i c i a l a^ct as not to violate Constitutional provisions." Montgoaaeri' v. State, 55 Fla 97, 45 So,. 879 The clerk ccamitted reversible error %fien he retumed the f i l e to Petitioner instead of making i t a part of the Appellate f i l e because ' "ths provis-ions of the Constitution iraj^t be given effect even i f in doing so a statute i s held tr> be incperative." State ex r e l . West v. Butler, 70 Fla 102, 69 So. 771 Petitioner's r3.ght to due process of Law i s severly hampered viien any o f f i c i a l of the court f a i l s to uphold the Gonstit5]tionHere, Petitioner address^ Admend-

ment V - due process of law. Further, \vfien the court f a i l s to include extraordinarily exculpatory evidence i n the form of confessions to the crinKas for which Petitioner was charged, they aid and abet a manifest injustice because they allowed the d i s t r i c t court to dispose of the exculpatory evidence. "Courts should not t^^lerate or condone disregard of law and arbitrary usurpation of po^^r on the part of any officer.. "[AND N E I ^ E R SBCX3U) THE PEOPLE] Ex parte Owen 10 Okla Crim 284, 136 P 197, Ml Cas 1916A522 Mien a Petitioner arad his attorney disagrees to what evi.dejice should be presented in his appeal, i t i s Petiticaier's ric^ts to overstep the representative to set-forth true facts, true evidence, and true confessions of th^Dse responsible and -who have accepted responsibility axd accountability for the crimes therein revealing tha true nature and cause of the charges. "The officers of the I^iWi, ixi the exeaation of process, are cfoliged to know the raquir^nents of the Law, and i f they mistake them, Aether througji ignorance cr design , and anyone i s harmed hy their error,, they must resporsl i n damages." Roster v. Marshall (Iftiited States use in Rogers)

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 8 of 21

U.S. versus Khoury 901 F.2d 975 977 ( l l t h Cir. 1990) The d i s t r i c t court utilized U.S. v. Khoury as the precedence to deny Petitioner's claims of excifLpatory evidence i n the form of confessions by govemment etiploy^s who actually ccimdtted the crimes. Specifically,- UT,S. v. ^oury, i d . discusses

"where there i s a discrepancy between the orally imposed sentence and the written order of jijK3gn^t and conniitmsnt, the oral S3itence controls" and " i f the oral sentence i s anfloigious, the reviewing Court may csansider extrinsic evidence to illuminate the intent of the d i s t r i c t court at the tirae of seJitencing..." Khoury 901 F.2d at 977 (11 tb Cir) The second case quoted by the d i s t r i c t court states: "Absent extraordinary circumstances^ a defendant may not seek collateral r e l i e f while his d i s t r i c t appeal i s pending. U.S. v Casaran-Rivas 311 F. App'r 269, 272 (11th Cir. 2009), It i s both a miracle and extra-ordinary circumstances that a l l of the government witnesses except Alana Black and Brian Harvey actually confessed to the crimes Peti. t i oner was accused of. Besides this, i n a more recent ruling aforestated,

prosecutorial misconduct i s a C i v i l f i l i n g and can be f i l e d for collateral r e l i e f anytime doing any phase of the proceeding v4ien discovered, and the d i s t r i c t court has a mandate to adjudicate. Even for the sake of argument, the facts fron Khoury and Casaran-Rivas are irrelevant to this case, and the oojirt's argument cannot stand against Petitioner's arguments and the d i s t r i c t court must dismiss as i t i s i t s duty to so do. The admissions by the govemnent witnesses are Such a oonfession .

classified as exculpatory evidence by voluntary confession.

under Oath of Office, Article 6, paragraph 3 and a. perjury charge for those none govemment o f f i c i a l s . "Courts of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit rejects any notion that habeas proceedings are just another category of c i v i l cases for p.irposes of FRCivP 60(b) because Congress, i n enacting Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996)^ rejected any such notion; to put i t in terms of

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 9 of 21

Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure thonselves- court concludes tbat insofar as reopening final judgments i n habeas cases i s ccHicemed, practice i n such proceedings i s set forth i n statutes of U.S. Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure 81(a)(2) and specifically 28 USC 2244(b). Gonzalez v. Sec'y for the Department of Cbrr (2004, CA 11 Fla) 366 F.3d 1253, 17 FEW Fed C 465 (criUcized i n Abdiir' Rahman v. Bell (In re Abdur'Rahman) (2004., CA6 TeJin) 392 F.3d 174, 60 FR Serv. 3d 242, 2004 Fed Ajp 428P) and cert den. (2005) 543 US 1091, 125 S. Ct. 965, 160 L.Ed 2d 902 and affd. (2005) 545 US 524 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L B3 2d 480, 18 FLW Fed S 449" However, Petitictoner has shown that the duty of the d i s t r i c t cx>art i s inconsistent with Suprane Court rulings as a Petitioner does rK)t have to wait for various procedures and events to be finalized to f i l e prosecutorial misconduct as in this instant case. Petitioner's attomeys are the one schooled i n law. They,

as cOTpetent attomeys, have duties to protect petitioner, not attom Petitioner. Such attornment i s Sixfb Anendtoent violation and excessive Feder?jlian previously explained i n other f i l i n g s . Here, the Suprene Court has shown that the di.strict

court did not divest i t s duty to established mandates. I t i s unfortunate the magistrate judge did not fexm-over Petitioner's oonpleted Report and filings to the judge or i t i s unfortunate the jtidge failed to review the extra-ordinarily exculpatory evidence i n the form of confessions i n the t r i a l transcripts.

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 10 of 21

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b) "Grounds for Relief fron a Final Judgirsnt, Order, or Proceeding. On Itotion and

just terms, the court may relieve a party of i t s legal representative fixm a f i n a l judgn^t, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) (2) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have teen discovered in time to move f o r a new t r i a l under Rule 59(b) (6) any other reason that justifies r e l i e f . " "On Motion and just t e r m s t h e court

The rule i s very clear and specific.

may relieve a perty of i t s legal, representative frcm a f i n a l judgment, order, or proceeding ..." The Federal Rule of Ci ^Til Procediure 60(b) i s the correct

f i l i n g for r e l i e f vAien properly recorded by the Clerk of Cciurt. Federal Rule of C i v i l Procedure 59 (e) i s a Motion to alter or amend the judgnent must also be f i l e d vrLthin 10 days. Rule 59(e) may not be used to reexamine issues decidel by a jury. Robinson v. Watts Efetective Agency, 685 F.2d 729,, 74z Ost C i r . 1982) cert, denized 459 U.b\ 1105 (1983) but i t i s appropriate Finch v, Ci.ty of Vernon 845 F,2d 255

for addras-^jing errors of Law by the court.

258 59 (7th C i r . 1988) or inadvertent errors such as csrn.ssion of irattars that the court obviously intended to include,. Petitioner has bean adarsant in hJ.s attempts to di.ssuade ths court of i t s fatal errors i n i t s ad\d.d persuate of a confirmation of ccn\d.ction ^vfiich aiiKjunts to errors of law by the ccnrrt,. The errors of law amount to prosecutorial inisocjidact beginrJng with the SET attomey made f.alse

statsiEants and raisrepresentaticns t c include investigative personnel (Brian Harvey) and Court o f f i c i a l s . There currently Is no need f o r Petitioner t o

r ^ s h t h i s evidence because .it vTas sii^rdtted under Gath and Affidavit i n response 10

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 11 of 21

tr> the Orders of ffagistrate Judge Xing by -^lay of 28 USC 536 Response to tfegistrate Judge "Ctoinion and Rscomraerdatlon" regisrding ERCivP 60(b) - Objection to Magistrate Judge Report and 14 days Response {pages 1-183; Affidavit Petitioner Benjamin F. Stanley Analysis of Michael D. Alexander's Deposition of 10/18/2007 Case: SKC v. Ccnv<srsicn Solution and Rufus Paul Harris 1:06-CV2568-CC (pages 1-77) and Motion for Srjnsiiary Judgfnent based, on 28 USC 636 Response to Magistrate Judge Opini.on and RecarrKendation; FRCivP 60(b). Affidavit of Benjaifdn StarJ.ey; Confessions to Criroes, Qonstitutional violations and plain error (pagas 1-8). "Defendant's claim" thiat nevly discovered evidence sheared that

govermrient vfithheld exculpatory evidence at triail was properly treatal as second-or-successive 28 USC 2255 cl3.m; ho?^ver, claim that prosecution laade false statCTtents regarding evidence during 2255 proceeding vias ccgrazable under FRCivP 60(b) In re Pickard (2012, CalO Kan) 681 F.3d 1201 Ihe circumstances

culminating the t r i a l by the district court i s no different then TNtiat occurred in the above 2255 session. Basically, tha gcverrraent had a duty to perform at t r i a l ^ihich i t broached. Furtfierrnore;^ "In inKPtes' c i v i l rights siiit...[FRCivP 60(b) 1. ..district court had jurisdiction to i.ssu.e i t s order of disHdssal, not with^ appellate Goiirt's later p)li cation of i t s rertand order , because d i s t r i c t cotjrt had duty to obey terras of mandate,, and appellate court's subsequent publication of order did not retroactively divest di.strict court of jurisdicti.on" Gdhsn v. Corr. Corp of Am. (2011, CA5 Ohio) 2011 FED App 6 8 7 N , ,


Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 12 of 21

Rule 25.

Filing and Service

(a) Filing. (1) Filing with the Clerk. A paper required or permitted to be filed ia a court of appeals must be filed with the clerk. (2) Filing: Method and Timeliness. (A) In general. Filing may be accomplished by mail addressed to the clerk, but filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers witliin the time fixed for filing. (B) A brief or appendix. A brief or appendix is timely filed, however, if on or before the last day for filing, it is: (i) mailed to the clerk by First-Class Mail, or other class of mail that is at least as expeditious, postage prepaid; or (ii) dispatched to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within 3 days. (C) Inmate filing. A paper filed by an inmate confined in an institution is timely if deposited in the institution's iatemal mailing system on or before the last day for filing. If an institution has a system designed for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the benefit of this rule. Timely fiUng may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1746 or by a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. (D) Electronic filing. A court of appeals may by local rale permit or require papers to be filed, signed, or verified by electronic means that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United States establishes. A local rale may require filing by electronic means only if reasonable exceptions are allowed. A paper filed by electronic means in compliance with a local rale constitutes a written paper for the purpose of applying these rales. (3) Filing a Motion with a Judge. If a motion requests relief that may be granted by a single judge, the judge may permit the motion to be filed with the judge; the judge must note the fihng date on the motion and give it to the clerk. (4) Clerk's Refusal of Documents. The clerk must not refiise to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rales or by any local rale or practice. (5) Privacy Protection. A n appeal in a case whose privacy protection was governed by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 is governed by the same rale on appeal. In all other proceedings, privacy protection is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, except that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 governs when an extraordinary writ is sought in a criminal case. USCSRULE
and terms and conditions ofthe Matthew Bender Master Agreement.


2013 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. AU rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 13 of 21

APPELLATE C D U E O - ROLE 25(a) 4: Clerk's Refusal of Doojrrients "The clerk must not refuse to accept for f i l i n g any paper presented for that purpose solely because i t i s not presented i n proper form as required by these rules or by any local rule or practice," The. App?llate Clerk made a Plain error by refnsir^ to a c o ^ t Petitioner's FR Civ. P 60 (b) f i l i n g , (see page 12) Throughoiit this court proceeding. Petitioner h^s ocxifessed his absolute innocence supported by the lack of evj.denoe ut.ilized to wrongfully convict him. Petitioner has further sho^iv^ throughout this court proceeding extra-ordinary are! overv^elining evJ,dence ^ifeLch supports his innocence,, And supporting the evidence, proseoatorial witnesses have confessed to the crimes charged against Petiticsier. Petitioner f i l e d motions and affidavits under penalty of perjury and Oath extrinsic evidence pro\'ing teycsid a reasonable cbubt his inirocerKje, yet the courts continue to impleient contorted and devious methcdologies to trick Petitioner into an mjust conviction. Petitioner has disclosed to the courts i n this f i l i n g that the courts have oonmttted numerous Plain errors, reversible errors and fatal errors through i.ts w i l l f u l and raalicious rrodiis operandi to deceive Petitioner into a conviction. In addition to the Constitution of the United States supporting Petitioner incocence,, the La5?s and statutes quoted within this f i l i n g further support Petitioner's innocence. There Kere no witnesses against thJs PetiticKier except the word "they" which vias utilii^ed to miracialously atteiipt to attach Petitioner to a criminal elesnent; that resulted in Overbreadth, an Amendctent I to the Constitution of the Ttoited States protection for corporate officers.


Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 14 of 21

The. d i s t r i c t court f i r s t altered the c i v i l and then directed the cvX f.i3-iiig into a criminal case; setting to control the outcone of the criminal proceeding through procedural defaults. Finallyf the goverrsnent* s key witnesses: Michaej 7^1exarK3er Don Maddelon Anne Nelkin Eric Denaulty et^ a l , a l l confessed to the crimes for v^iich Petitioner ^ f a s accused. The confessions

are a l l recorded and under Oath i n the T r i a l Trejiscripts which Petitiorier provided to the court., where a Surmjary Judgment having issued (fce tx3 default t w the d i s t r i c t court. Petitioner moves for Motion by the court to relieve

Petitioner froni the final jur^r giailty verdict;f Vacate the oon^d.ct.ion and rsnand for release of his person frcsn ireprisonrrent. Ihe above actions are just relief for this Petitionerj presented this JZ,^^ day of IJiSoveiiber, 2013..

P. O . - Box


Butner.. w: 27509

Granville County

) )

I am a Notary Public for the above State and Countyo I certify that Benj-rsrain F, Stanley showing proper government idssitification signed his signature


Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 15 of 21



tton <53 ,

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 16 of 21






BEtOAMIN F. STAMLEY.. .Appellant, Petiticjner

^ p e a l frcra the United States Distric Court Atlanta Di^tflsion

Pro Se Afpellate Brief Prepared By Benjamin F. Stanley P. 0. Box 999, LSCI-VB Butner, ISforth Carolina 27509 Counsel of Itecord: Attomey Don Sarauels

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 17 of 21

, rsf contents Table ^


" : : : ^ - . .




D. l .




- - ^ - ^ ^ " ^ " : ^ . . * - - - ' ^ -jgc SoDwleag

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 18 of 21

Table of Contents 14. Don I4addalon's Testunony A. B. Cross Sxaiaination of Maddalon TT 1067:11 lyiaddalon sold 1/2 nsillion Shares .... .... 87 - 97 98 98 116 - 117 120 121

C. Letter Tterminating - Integrity Stock Transfer 9/15/06 D. 15. Integrity Stock to Conversion Solutions Letter 10/17/06..

Examination of Eton Ifa^ddalon by Hoax Hasrfcer.... A. Ifedd --E-00Q07; JKS 00053 Maddalon Admits errors Ifliere tbe probleiai occurred

123 124 .... 125


Cross ExaEitnation of Ben Maddalon. by Paul Harris.... A. Dave Parley caused issue of shares....


TestiaiDny of Eric Deneault - Stanley family ir^bers did not i llegally gain Tr799:16-25 .... 126 -127 128 129 - 130 .... 131 132 132 134 -- 137 132 -- 149 150 - 163 164 - 165 .... 165 166 - 170 .... iii 171 - 178

IS. Local Rule 72 - J5agistrate JiK3ge Duties A. B. 19. Failures of Don ifeddalon ~ leading to i l l e g a l trading Jfenifest Injustice

Brian Harvey - FBI A. Government erroro^usly classified Exhibits 02/03 as legal.

B. Brian Harver at Grand Jury 20 . 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Don jyiaddaion-Gonfessed TT1110 -1111:18 Faulty Investigation Amendment I, Overbreadth and Free Speech Doctrine. Anendojent V and VI.... Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Federalism

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 19 of 21

r^f contents

. of M l o V '


S ^ ^ * ^ " -

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 20 of 21


Fm. mo


Canes now Petitioner Benjamin P. Stanley f i l i n g this Pro Se Appellate Brief becaiase he and his attomey of record are i n disagreCTent to Miat arguments arid extra-ordinarily exculjstory evidence, i n the form of under Oath confessions to the criiies for t ^ c h Petitioner was charged, to present. Petitioner being

unschooled i n law f i l e d niffierous filings i n an effort to include the under Oath confessions with the Appellate Brief f i l e d by his attomey of record, Don Samuels. TJpon. suhiaission of the f i l i n g to this Appellate Court, the Clerk of T . Court refused the f i l i n g and retumed i t to Petitioner but the disi:rict court. Judge Batten and Magistrate Judge Jamet King self-impased jurisdiction to execute a Local Sule 72 Procedure wSrLch addresses pre- t r i a l matters and U.S. v. Khoxary viiich addresses the discrepancies i n the written order of the Judgnent an GaasTiitnent i f they differ frcxn the verbal order. Betitioner addressed under

Oath corifessions by the government mtnesses to the crimes for v,fiich he was accused and convicted. Undfer Anendment I , V , V I and X I V to the Constitution of the United States, It i s Petitioner's rights to f i l e natters of grie'vonce, due process, legal misrepresentation and the true nature and cause of the charges against him and the due process relating theretoEven the i!f)pellate Rule 25(2) (c) advises the Anything contrary i s a violation For these

Appellate Clerk of Court to accept a l l f i l i n g s .

of the Ccaistitution of the Ctoited States, Article V I , paragraph 3.

reasons. Petitioner suianits this Pro Se i^pellate Brief for the court's usage i n acceptance of the pro se f i l i n g to adjudicate a favorable decisicsi to Renand f c r Vacation of Jury Guilty verdict, dismissal of a l l charges and iimtediate release of Petitioner from iii5>risonment. The Pro Se Afpellate Brief attached consist of 195 + pages. This dooament

Case 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK Document 326 Filed 11/15/13 Page 21 of 21

was pareviously f i l e d as a Federal Rule of C i v i l Procedure 60(b) entitled 28 USC 636 Response to J-fegistrate Judge "Cpiiiion ar^ Recosnsndation" r ^ a r d i n g FRCivP 60(b); Cfoj ection to fegistrate Judge Report and 14 Days Resp3nse. Peti-

tioner relies on the bread lattitude gi^;en Pro Se f i l e r s by Haines v. Keamer.