Fraud Upon The Court

[Ankhaton]

I'm in PA - where the recent "Cash for Kids" scandal took place. Anyway, I do have confidential complaints with the appropriate authorities so I wont mention any names. My case:

While I was in jail for an alleged simple assault and before the preliminary hearing for this allegation, I was charged with Witness Intimidation (W.I.) - This in and of itself lacked probable cause, because there wasn't a preliminary hearing to determine if a crime was committed.

The prelim for the simple assault comes and all charges are dismissed - the state thus asserting that there was no crime. 2 Days later, the prelim for the W.I. comes and is held over for court. The state is now asserting that there was no crime, but this person was a witness.

They then reinstate the simple assault charges, using the Fraudulent W.I. as an excuse - the W.I. didn't constitute new evidence because I was charge with it before the 1st preliminary hearing. The simple assault charges are dismissed again.

I am subsequently held in jail for 7 months based solely on the W.I. charges. I file a civil lawsuit claiming malicious prosecution etc. Right before trial, the state then amends the information charging me with 2 additional felony counts of witness intimidation.

The 1st count was my brother turning off the water to his residence while I was in jail, the other 2 counts was the lights and gas being turned off - while I was in jail. Since, my "x" stayed there they considered this witness intimidation.

I go to trial. At the end of the states case-in-chief, I fire my attorney for ineffective assistance of counsel, and submit a written motion for acquittal proving that they don't have W.I. because there wasn't a crime and the alleged "victim" confessed during trial to stealing over $1,000 from my Bank Acct while I was in jail.

The judge then declares a mistrial, mind you this is a year later. They then destroy my motion for acquittal, remove it from the dockets, and amend the information to terroristic threats - removing all the original charges and adding a new and different charge (PA rule 564 violation). Being financially depleted, I plead to the Terroristic Threats - Now the allegation was changed to a threat to throw a brick through my own window - which is not even a crime, let alone a crime a violence. (Like stated a year after the fact and after I went to trial - The T.T. charge was never at a prelim or anything)

Meanwhile, the motion for acquittal is never submitted to the Federal Courts and the Suit I had going on and this was done to get my Federal Suit dismissed - which it was.

While filing a complaint with the appropriate agencies, they jumped on this like white on rice. What are my chances of proving FRAUD UPON THE COURT and reinstating my federal suit???

While malicious prosecution represents a high hurdle to jump, FRAUD UPON THE COURT represents a steep cliff to climb.

 

[tranquility]

In your detailed synopsis of events, you have alleged nothing which is a fraud upon the court. You will not be able to file in federal court unless you are found not guilty or the equivalent.

You can certainly be charged for events which you cause to happen. If you hire someone to commit murder, and they do so, you're guilty of murder. If you caused brother to do the things he allegedly did, you are as responsible as he.

 

[Ankhaton]

why not

In your detailed synopsis of events, you have alleged nothing which is a fraud upon the court. You will not be able to file in federal court unless you are found not guilty or the equivalent.

You can certainly be charged for events which you cause to happen. If you hire someone to commit murder, and they do so, you're guilty of murder. If you caused brother to do the things he allegedly did, you are as responsible as he.

Perhaps I should clarify. I was in jail, my brother went with the police to turn off the water to his own house, which my "x" stayed in. I was then charge by the police with witness intimidation for this (not him) - How did I cause it to happen, and what he did was totally legal. And I mentioned, there was NEVER even an underlying crime in the 1st place for her to be a witness (dismissed at the prelim - no prima facie case).

Furthermore, If destroying a motion, removing it from the dockets, and not submitting this subpoeona'd information is not fraud on the court, then what is? These were extrinsic acts by officers of the court (my attorney) and the Judges in order to defraud the federal courts and at the least is tampering with public records. However, since this tampering was in order to defraud the federal courts - I thought that it was fraud on the courts - and so does the ACLU, but they wont pursue any cases that dont have a ubiquitous change in law.

Even amending the information after trial, adding new and different charges is a very serious violation of due process - and it was amended without even motioning the court.


Why do you say it is NOT fraud on the court?

 

[Ankhaton]

Also

While the said "entity" was being investigated by authorities - this is 4 years after the case was closed and the fraudulent information was submitted, this is when they started changing the dockets - while they were being watched. The motion was removed then from the dockets and the files.

I ruffled some feathers because the FBI came buy questioning me about this particular "entity" trying to pursue criminal charges against me for filing complaints with the appropriate authorities???

 

[tranquility]

And I mentioned, there was NEVER even an underlying crime in the 1st place for her to be a witness (dismissed at the prelim - no prima facie case).

I believe this is the usual goal of intimidating a witness, isn't it?

As to the rest, huh?

I mean really. Read it again and pretend you don't have any idea what happened.

 

[Ankhaton]

Perhaps the statute will help

§ 4952. Intimidation of witnesses or victims.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if, with
the intent to or with the knowledge that his conduct will
obstruct, impede, impair, prevent or interfere with the
administration of criminal justice, he intimidates or attempts
to intimidate any witness or victim to:
(3) Withhold any testimony, information, document or
thing relating to the "commission of a crime" from any law
enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge.

I Bolded "Commission of a crime". To give legal advise, I'm sure you know what this means - The state can NOT assert that a crime was committed until after the prelim.

There is a section a(5) that can be charged before the prelim, but I wasn't charged with this, and the state must demonstrated that it made an effort for the person to be at the prelim - which at trial it was proven that she, the state, nor anyone made any attempts to be at the prelim. I was in jail, how could I stop her from going to court? For your info 5 and 6 reads as follows:
(5) Elude, evade or ignore any request to appear or
legal process summoning him to appear to testify or supply
evidence.
(6) Absent himself from any proceeding or investigation
to which he has been legally summoned.


However, this as well didn't stop them, they testified at a bond reduction hearing that I wasn't in jail when these things occured - when all records clearly indicate that I was.

Bottom line, the state can NOT assert that a crime was committed by the accused until he has a preliminary hearing...

 

[Ankhaton]

As for the rest..

When I made a motion for acquittal, this was all entered into the record and file but not submitted to the Federal Case. 4 years later, when I notified the Feds and another disciplinary organization of this motion, it was removed from the files and the docket itself - while being watched by these investigative agencies.

As for the amendment of information, this is the applicable standard/rule:

Rule 564. Amendment of Information.

The court may allow an information to be amended when there is a defect in form, the description of the offense(s), the description of any person or any property, or the date charged, provided the information as amended does not charge an additional or different offense. Upon amendment, the court may grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in the interests of justice.

Case Law stipulates that if the amendment offers a different set of circumstances, or the elements of defense are different, then such amendments are not permitted - this prevents a WITCH HUNT.

I know that something is going on, i'm not illiterate. Since it is 4 years past the S.O.L.s Fraud Upon the Court is my only avenue or recourse. I didn't know any of these wrongs - UNTIL a particular organization, whoms investigations are strictly confidential took a very keen interest in this case.

That's when I started re-investigating the laws... And FUTC is what I came up with.

 

[Ankhaton]

Additional Information

I wont give the precedence for a prima facie case here but will go into other details. The Brother, was my older bigger brother, whom I worked for and leased the house off of. He has a degree from CMU in mathematics and I, physics and computer science. I was a computer programmer.

The same woman, for which they had charged me with simple assault against, had no physical injuries and it was in retaliation for me filing complaints with the NAACP and FBI for brutalities and being on the news.

Everyone involved in this case knew that this woman was schizophrenic and falsely accused me of rape and murder (about 1 year prior). She didn't say that I raped her, she said that I raped someone else, my wife, whom denied this and told the cops that this woman was NUTS. The murders occurred in California, while I was in PA in college - yet County detectives told everyone where I lived that I was 'WANTED FOR MURDER" that is everone but me. Then I was being assaulted by officers and charged with a crime for "walking down the street in a dangerous manner" - this is why I filed complaints with the NAACP and FBI.

At trial for the W.I., the officers and judges allowed all this testimony about this woman being brutally assaulted by me and showed pictures of them kicking in and destroying my bedroom door.

So, I say: these officers had a camera, claiming that I brutally assaulted this woman, and all they took pictures of was my door that they kicked in? This is how bad the framing was. The judge let all these dismissed charges in and the DA vouched for the veracity of a person whom he knew lied about rape and murder...

It gets worse...

 

[tranquility]

Imagine this. The police are called about how a person was robbed. On their arrival, they ask the purported victim, were you robbed? As they are about to answer you say, "if you say anything I'll kill you". Do you think that would not be intimidating a witness until after there is a successful prelim and there is a case made for robbery? Do you have a case cite saying there must be proven there was a crime at a preliminary hearing before something can be related to the commission of a crime? While I understand you want it to be that way, that is not the way it is. In a quick search, I don't even find someone who made that argument in court.

The rest is arguing facts and is not related to a fraud on the court.

 

[Ankhaton]

Yes

Imagine this. The police are called about how a person was robbed. On their arrival, they ask the purported victim, were you robbed? As they are about to answer you say, "if you say anything I'll kill you". Do you think that would not be intimidating a witness until after there is a successful prelim and there is a case made for robbery? Do you have a case cite saying there must be proven there was a crime at a preliminary hearing before something can be related to the commission of a crime? While I understand you want it to be that way, that is not the way it is. In a quick search, I don't even find someone who made that argument in court.

NOW you have, and they withdrew all Witness intimidation charges, and charged me with "Terroristic Threats" - AFTER TRIAL. In your scenario, a T.T. charge will apply but NOT W.I. until AFTER the PRELIM because the police don't determine if a crime was committed or not a JUDGE does. Imagine your same scenario, but the person was lying about being robbed and this comes out at the preliminary hearing - Will you say that this was still W.I. - The T.T. charge will still apply because it doesn't need an underlying "CRIME".

HOWEVER, If the person were to say "DON'T TALK TO THE COPS" and a robbery were proven to exist - this would be W.I. but NOT T.T. and if it were proven that a robbery never occurred - then no crime was committed in the statement.

This is the Case Law, Place in my motion for acquittal and it is indisputable.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Lagana v. Commonwealth Office of Attorney General, 443 Pa.Super. 609, 613, 662 A.2d 1127, 1129 (1995), citing Commonwealth v. Lacey, 344 Pa.Super. 576, 496 A.2d 1256 (1985), discussed the purpose of a preliminary hearing and the concept of a “prima facie case”:

A creature of statute, the preliminary hearing is intended to protect the accused from unlawful detention. To that end, the prosecution must establish at least a prima facie case that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the one who committed it. The Commonwealth’s burden at this stage falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof need only be such that, if the evidence were presented at trial and accepted as true, the trial judge would be warranted in allowing the case to go to the jury. Case law provides a mechanical standard of review. Our function is to take the facts proven by the Commonwealth at the preliminary hearing and to determine whether the sum of those facts fits within the statutory definition of the types of conduct declared by the Pennsylvania legislature in the Crimes Code to be illegal conduct. If the proven facts fit the definition of the offenses with which the [defendant is] charged, then a prima facie case was made out as to such… offenses. If the facts do not fit the statutory definitions of the offenses charged against [the defendant] the [the defendant] is entitled to be discharged.

 

[tranquility]

No. Not a case describing the purpose of a preliminary hearing, a case where a successful preliminary hearing must be had before a person meets the elements of witness intimidation.

Something along the lines opposite of:

Com. v. Brachbill, 527 A. 2d 113 - Pa: Supreme Court 1987

Note the timings involved. No prelim on the underlying crimes as the witness was intimidated.

 

[Ankhaton]

The reasoning

No. Not a case describing the purpose of a preliminary hearing, a case where a successful preliminary hearing must be had before a person meets the elements of witness intimidation.

Something along the lines opposite of:

Com. v. Brachbill, 527 A. 2d 113 - Pa: Supreme Court 1987

Note the timings involved. No prelim on the underlying crimes as the witness was intimidated.

You misinterpret, I'm not a lawyer, that's why I'm on this forum. Suppose a person says "Dont tell cops your story" and a prelim determined that no crime was committed. This person has a valid argument that he was trying to prevent the person from committing a crime - giving false information to law enforcement.

Then read the elements of W.I. and the fact that a "crime must have been committed". The burdon of proof is small, all the alleged victim had to do was show up and say - he assaulted me and it becomes a matter for trial. Anytime after the prelim I could have been charged with W.I.

But here, we have a JUDGE saying that a "CRIME WAS NOT COMMITTED" forbidding the state from asserting that a "CRIME WAS COMMITTED" at trial. In other words, There was a prelim and the charges were dismissed - TWICE. The W.I. didn't prevent the prelim from occuring, I was in jail and a subsequent prelim was reinstated and dismissed again.

Certain felonious acts, like robbery, murder etc. need no prelim to determine that a crime was committed by the very nature of the act, but simple assault does. I must read the case for further comment

 

[Ankhaton]

O.K. I read it.

Here is the critical info:

In the early morning hours of May 13, 1995, Barbara Boggs heard a noise at her window and was afraid someone was trying to break into her apartment (Notes of Testimony, Proceedings of August 29, 1995, hereinafter referred to as AN.T.P.,@ at 13-14.)�

She called the police, and after they had arrived, she told them that she suspected it had been Jerry Ott (N.T.P. at 18.)� Jerry Ott had been out on bail at that time with the condition that he not contact Barbara Boggs (Notes of Trial Testimony, hereinafter referred to as AN.T.,@ at 7.)�

Later that same day, on May 13, 1995, Barbara Boggs went to the police station to write a statement about the incident (N.T.P. at 18.)� The police officer asked her whether she thought she had seen Defendant Jerry Ott (N.T.P. at 18.)� Barbara answered that she did not know who else it could have been (N.T.P. at 18.)�

Barbara testified that the police officer then told her to write down that she had seen him (N.T.P. at 18.)� Barbara also wrote in her statement that Jerry Ott had contacted her twice that morning by telephone and attempted to convince her not to tell the police that she had seen him so that he would not go to jail for violating his bail condition (N.T. at 33.)�

Defendant was subsequently charged with intimidation of witnesses and harassment by communication.

A preliminary hearing was held in front of District Justice Donald W. Daihl (Notes of Testimony, Pre-trial Hearing of March 13, 1996, hereinafter referred to as AN.T.H.,@ at 5.)� Barbara Boggs refused to testify at the hearing, and District Justice Daihl dismissed all charges. The Commonwealth refiled the charges, and a hearing was held in front of the Honorable Harold E. Sheely, P.J. (N.T.H. at 5.)� Here Barbara Boggs testified that she did not see Defendant the night of May 13th (N.T.P. at 18.)� She also testified that Defendant did contact her by telephone, but only to apologize to her for causing her trouble over the turkey (N.T.P. at 16, 20.)� During that telephone conversation, Barbara Boggs told Defendant that she had not seen him that night, and he asked her to tell this to the police (N.T.P. at 21.)

FIRST - the defendant was out on bail - thus there may not have been a prelim that found guilt of a crime but there was a protection order, which he violated as a condition of his bail. The person was obviously a witness in this case. ALSO, the charges were refiled and afterward, there was a pretrial conference thus one must assume that they were held over for court.

In my instance, I was still in jail for the underlying charges and there were no determination of any crime as of yet - a BIG DIFFERENCE...

 

[Ankhaton]

I see your point now, but its hard to see whether the charges were dismissed at the prelim and only W.I. held OR were the charges held over for court at the prelim and then withdrawn or not pursued - what happened to the underlying charges is not clear.

If they were dismissed, my argument is the most valid. If there is NO CRIME, then there IS NO WITNESS plain and simple. Otherwise me telling anyone "DONT TALK TO POLICE" can be considered witness intimidation because the element of proving that a crime was committed doesn't have to be proven.

It seems that the W.I. charges were dismissed, but the underlying charges were already "Held for Court". Otherwise the law becomes void for vagueness...IT WAS THE PROTECTION ORDER that made her a WITNESS/VICTIM - before the prelim.

Whenever a PROTECTION ORDER is ISSUED BY A JUDGE, he is declaring the person to be a victim/witness - no such order was in effect in my case. Thus regardless of a prelim, the JUDGE's protection order made the person a witness/victim in the case you presented...

 

[Ankhaton]

My case for Malicious Prosecution

Upon presenting my case to the ACLU, they stated that my case had merits and to pursue it and Although they only represent cases in which a large CLASS is affected by the decision - such as prayers in school, they would aid any attorney that took my case if the attorney requested it. This is a sound endorsement of the accusations that I made.

And knowing the S.O.L.s bar such actions, I can only presume that a valid case for FRAUD UPON THE COURT can be made.

Upon reading your comments, I see why the bail-bondsman perjured himself saying: "<defendant> was under Bond Supervision at the time of the alleged W.I. However, I have no records to indicate that at this time". This was his Job, and I never bailed out of jail, but they needed a PROTECTION ORDER to substantiate the W.I. charges.

At the plea to the T.T. charge - which changed all the information, even what the alleged victim testified to AT TRIAL as me saying - The Judge, DA were all laughing and joking saying the racist comments "We see you know how to read".

OH! I forgot to mention, after firing my attorney and a mistrial was declared, I was called to a "Call of the List" hearing because I was representing myself and My Attorney for the civil matter showed up there and said "Unless I plea to the T.T. charge he will not represent me civilly or criminally and I would go back to jail". The charges were change without a motion or anything, they were just changed!!!

See, me proving the W.I. charges lacked probable cause is pretty much a given, they withdrew all the charges for which I was arrested, imprisoned, and tried upon and then came up with totally new charges after I went to trial - I believe this is double jeopardy.

However, Double Jeopardy is not the issue, this is:

Commonwealth v. Duda, 831 A.2d 728, 732 (Explanation or RULE 564)

(Pa.Super. 2003). The test to be applied is:
[W]hether the crimes specified in the original
indictment or information involve the same basic
elements and evolved out of the same factual situation as
the crimes specified in the amended indictment or
information. If so, then the defendant is deemed to have
been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal
conduct. If, however, the amended provision alleges a
different set of events, or the elements or defenses to the
amended crime are materially different from the elements
or defenses to the crime originally charged, such that the
defendant would be prejudiced by the change, then the
amendment is not permitted.

This doesn't require the defendant to make a motion as in rule 600 - speedy trial. Nor does it say the defendant must object or appeal. Such changes are simply NOT PERMITTED. This prevents a WITCH HUNT. To violate this rule, while a federal case of Malicious Prosecution for the violations of DUE PROCESS is underway, is clearly FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

And not only was my defense of there NOT being a CRIME eliminated by this illegal alteration, but they change everything but the date and they change it to another crime T.T. for which was never at the prelim and they didn't have probable cause either. A T.T. requires a "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" so they changed the accusation to me "threatening to throw a brick throw a window, or have someone else do it, because I was in jail and obviously couldn't. It was my window by the way.

But what gets me is that instead of making this act criminal mischief or vandalism, they alluded to it being done to place the person in immanent fear for their safety - so that it would be a simple assault, thus the threat was now of a simple assault, making it a CRIME OF VIOLENCE to sustain the T.T. charge.

By stretching the law to such an extent, they could have said my intent was to have a piece of glass severe her jugular vein and charged me with attempted murder if someone was to throw a brick through her window. This is the ludicrous behavior and charges I had to face...

Furthermore, if someone were to throw a brick through my window, while I was in jail, would they have come to the jail and charged me with simple assault like they did with W.I.

As a follow-up, she was charged with child endangerment and I was given custody of our 3 minor children - after an infant death and 2 of my children overdosed while in her custody. I filed for custody when this started, and A detective went to the Judge or Master telling them that I was wanted for MURDER and will be in jail for the rest of my life - It gets deeper...