february23,2010 false arrest and with no injury

8/9/2019 February23,2010 FALSE ARREST AND WITH NO INJURY

1/27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Docket No. 08-cr-054,

09-cr-121, and 09-cr-141

** Buffalo, New York

v. * February 23, 2010

* 10:14 a.m.

*

SHANE C. BUCZEK, * STATUS CONFERENCE

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM M. SKRETNY

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Government: MARY C. BAUMGARTEN

Assistant United States AttorneyAppearing for the United States

For the Defendant: SHANE C. BUCZEK, pro se

BRIAN P. COMERFORD,

Attorney Advisor

Court Reporter: Patricia A. Galas, Notary Public,

Notary Public

Jack W. Hunt & Associates, Inc.

1420 Liberty BuildingBuffalo, New York 14202

(716) 853-5600

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,

transcript produced by computer.


2/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

THE CLERK: Criminal Case 2009-121, USA versus Shane

Buczek.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Baumgarten. How are

you?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: I'm well, thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Mr. Comerford, good morning.

MR. COMERFORD: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Shane Buczek.

THE DEFENDANT: I just want to start off that I'm

reserving all my rights today by crossing into the Bar. As you

are quite aware, I had a couple filings that I filed yesterday.

THE COURT: Well, the only one I know about is the

motion for recusal.

THE DEFENDANT: There's something much more important

than that, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, that's all I have so I'm going to

proceed and whatever it is, it will surface, I'm sure.

THE DEFENDANT: I do want to make the Court aware that

I did file -- as a third-party plaintiff in this case, I did

file a counterclaim on Case Number 09-cr-121. It's seven pages

long. I made it very short and brief and cut all the clutter

and riffraff out and got right to the point.

Also, I put a petition in for a complete dismissal

based on the ratification and commencement and no controversy


3/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

present in front of the Court, pursuant to the Constitution, th

New York Constitution and also the Seventh Amendment that we

talked about last time dating back to the transcripts on

January 14th of 2010. And I have that as an exhibit.

And I also typed up an order granting petition for

lack of ratification, commencement, and no controversy,

dismissing all charges in Case Number 09-cr-121. I think it's

121, right?

THE COURT: It is the trial case and that's the one

that you should be concentrating on because that's the one set

for trial on Tuesday. There will be a final pretrial conferenc

on Monday at 10:00 -- or final status conference.

I'm going to go through a checklist because you need

to be ready.

Did you receive all those filings, Ms. Baumgarten?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: I did not, Your Honor. I was aware

that a motion for recusal had been filed. I did not actually

receive a copy of it, Your Honor. Of course we would object to

that and oppose it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: As what? Untimely or other grounds or

both?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: All of that, Your Honor. I'm

anticipating. I don't know, not having reviewed all of the

documentation, and that in part it's based on a recusal not

personally directed to Assistant Attorney Generals, but the


4/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

entirety of the office.

THE COURT: All right. So probably what you should do

is take a look at those motions. You're going to be trying thi

case. Mr. Bruce can respond to those motions and I'll wait for

his response but we will proceed in terms of getting prepared

for trial.

I just want to go through my checklist here,

Mr. Buczek. I do have the Government's questions with respect

to voir dire. You know what that is. That's jury selection.

And I don't know if you're going to present any

questions. It's really late now, but whatever you might give t

me, I'll take a look at it as long as I get it by that final

status conference at 10:00 on Monday.

I take it the Government submitted everything it

intends to submit on voir dire?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: As far as the jury instructions, we appear

to be set, both sides on that. As far as the witness list is

concerned, I think you have four live witnesses, Ms. Baumgarten

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, there may be an

additional witness. That would be Scott Kawski from the United

States Probation Office.

I have forwarded over a stipulation to defense counsel

for review to determine whether or not he could also agree to

that stipulation and the fact that the Defendant was actually o


5/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

release at the time the alleged offense occurred, Your Honor.

I am trying to avoid calling that witness if possible.

THE COURT: Okay. We will wait on that. But you are

on notice that that may be the case.

I'm going to go through this checklist and then you

can make your comments at the appropriate time, Mr. Buczek. If

you have information on what you are going to submit, then let

me know.

As far as a witness list, are you going to submit a

witness list?

THE DEFENDANT: That's the whole thing. I really want

to get to that issue, but my main issue right now is, not even

the controversy at this point, with the representation of the

Western District of New York. Because the rule clearly shows

that they can't even represent -- anybody from that office and

you are aware of the conflict of interest. But that's not my

issue right now.

My main issue is finding out where in the world is the

controversy at? Where is the ratification and commencement at?

Where is the -- I believe it's call a charging, accusatory

instrument for my inspection? And let the record reflect there

is none.

THE COURT: No, there is. We talked about that.

THE DEFENDANT: It's just like the mortgages. They

sell the mortgages on the market, they're gone. Just like this


6/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

case too. So I need to see that so I can proceed, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Buczek, we've talked about that.

You don't agree and probably you can raise those on appeal,

those issues, I don't know. But you are the subject, as you

know, of an indictment.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I don't consent to that.

THE COURT: No, you don't have to. And I understand.

Your position is you're not consenting to the instrument, to th

charge. You've signed certain documents as, I am me, I think.

I understand all of that but --

THE DEFENDANT: I know you do. And I don't mean to

get you, I don't want to say upset, ticked off, whatever.

I'm just here as a living, breathing man. I'm not a

corporate entity. I never will be, not in this lifetime anyway

And I'm here to close all matters. And I believe the backgroun

of this case has been closed and settled and it has been closed

and settled for a very long time.

THE COURT: Yeah, but unfortunately the system works

differently. In your mind, it's closed and settled. It's

really not as far as the system is concerned. So that's maybe

where your opening is.

And I'm not upset, and I'm not ticked off or anything

like that, but we do have to proceed in a fashion that's

consistent with the rules. And that's what I explained to you

the last time you were in Court. And they are the Rules of the


7/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

Court, not your rules. But nevertheless, you are bound by them

even though you take the position you are not subject to the

jurisdiction.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, you know, the thing is I'm not

in the military. I'm definitely not a United States employee.

I'm a civilian. I'm a live man on the land. I know it sounds

kind of crazy because a lot of people here don't understand wha

I'm talking about.

I'm definitely not a corporate entity and I made that

perfectly clear with all my recordings that I've recorded. And

Judge Schroeder is very aware of that too. Last I checked, I

had blood in my body.

I don't know how you feel as a live man, not the

Court. I'm talking to you as man to man, that we have blood in

our body. And I'm a living, breathing man and the Defendant is

actually -- in reality is dead.

THE COURT: Whatever -- how that relates to what we're

doing right now, that remains to be seen. But what I'm going t

do is after we get through this checklist, I'm going to issue a

decision that relates to some of the motions that you have made

That will give you a little bit more of a roadmap as

to what will be permissible at trial. So try to focus on that

and you can do your other thing in supplement. But you need to

at least have the framework, a starting point, a basis. And

that's what I think the decision will give you. Some motions


8/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

you prevail on, some you don't. So we will go through all of

that.

All right. So right now, we don't have an exhibit

list. We don't have any expert witnesses that will be

testifying as far as I know.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. You've made available 36, 3500

exhibits?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Right, Judge.

THE COURT: They've been given to Mr. Comerford and

Mr. Buczek?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Just Mr. Comerford, Your Honor. I

have been providing things to him. It is my understanding he

has been providing them to Mr. Buczek.

THE COURT: And that's correct, Mr. Comerford?

MR. COMERFORD: Judge, I provided Mr. Buczek with a

copy of the discovery in this case, 09-CR-121, which I think it

included the 3500 material, the exhibits we are talking about.

THE CLERK: He should have for trial, though, a copy

of the marked exhibits.

MR. COMERFORD: We don't have that, Judge.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: We will get them the correct ones,

Judge.

THE COURT: You should get those forthwith so

Mr. Buczek has time to review them. And put them in a binder


9/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

and get them set up.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: I will, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I have your pretrial memo with respect to

the case. And I've read that and I've gone through it. And

there is a response to it, so for all practical purposes, we're

together.

Statement of the case, I will make the presentation

with respect to the statement of the case for purposes of jury

selection. The verdict form? I don't have a special verdict

form. I think the Government's position is that a special

verdict form is not necessary.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: It may be, Judge, if we are unable to

resolve the issue with respect to the Defendant being on

supervised release, Your Honor. I think it may be appropriate

to have a special verdict on that issue. But as I said earlier

we are attempting to resolve that.

THE COURT: Okay. We're holding that in abeyance

right now.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, Your Honor. I do not expect it

will be difficult.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I do have one more thing that I

probably --

THE COURT: Give me a chance to get through two more

points, that will take care of my list. And then we will issue

a statement on what the decisions are as far as the motions and


10/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

then I'll let you make your points, Mr. Buczek.

There are no stipulations that have been entered into

up to this point in time, is that right?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: That is correct.

THE COURT: You know what stipulations are, they're

agreements.

THE DEFENDANT: I have a rough idea. Can you do a

little bit of a clarification on that?

THE COURT: Well, it boils down to you agreeing with

the Government as to an established fact or what may be

competent evidence. You can talk with Mr. Comerford a little

bit about whether or not that can be entered into. That may

help both sides in this case, I don't know.

THE DEFENDANT: I have no problems with agreeing with

everything. I've been very accommodating for going on two

years. I'll consent to anything, but I can't do that until I

see the original charging instrument, the ratification and

commencement.

Judge, what would you do if you were in my shoes right

now? Wouldn't you want to know? Who did I injure? Where's th

ratification? I mean, this is in their own rules. I'm not

blind, I can read it. I now understand the difference between

solvent and insolvent, in 1933, and the silver and the gold, an

getting back to the controversy, and you know and I know, there

is none.


11/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

THE COURT: No, that's mischaracterizing what I've

said because I have said that the accusatory instrument in this

case, the indictment, does establish a controversy for purposes

of proceeding in a criminal case.

I know you don't agree with that, but again, we must

proceed on the basis of the Rules of Court. And those are

specific. Again, they may not be your rules, but the way I'm

looking at this, Mr. Buczek, at this point preserving your

rights to appeal, you must abide by the Rules of Court, the

Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure.

That's what we talked about the other day. We have

talked about it countless times. So we have to work in that

fashion.

I'm going to get to the Motions in Limine, which are

your series of motions. But I'm going to give you a chance

before I give you my opinion. That's what I said, on some

issues, you win. On some issues, you lose. Some are a little

bit of both, but before I get to do them, I know you had some

matters to say as far as the items that I go on to.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, there is. I just want to put on

the record, that's all, on for the record, in my opinion, there

seems to be no valid accusatory instrument. I've been here,

Judge, under threat and duress going on two and a half years

now. There is no contract present in front of the Court,

there's no meeting of the minds of anything.


12/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

And I really want to be done with this issue. And I

just can't find a valid claim in front of me. I think I

mentioned this before --

THE COURT: Let me just interrupt. You have a copy of

the indictment. That is the valid claim for purposes of this

trial, the first of three cases.

THE DEFENDANT: Aren't copies just hearsay?

THE COURT: This is not a hearsay document. This is

the product of a Grand Jury action and that is the charge that

you face in connection with your case here.

I'm not going to get into any more discussion than

that. But just so you know, that's the way that the proceeding

must go forward on the basis of the charge brought -- after

return of the Federal Grand Jury.

THE DEFENDANT: One more thing. You probably already

know about this from Judge Schroeder, but Registered Mail numbe

RR 353687187 US, I indemnified the entire case way back in

August and I got a warrant issued out for me for doing this.

And I was incarcerated for seven days. And I believe it's the

notice of international -- I believe it was an indemnity bond

for 500 million.

You're aware of that, right? I just want it on the

record. That way there's some kind of insurance policy out for

me. And I took a look at Fidelity and I seen three of these

cases floating around.


13/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

THE COURT: Is that the bonded note that you're

talking about or is that something else?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am. I'm sure you're aware of

that, right?

THE COURT: I am.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay. And also, I did some research

on three of these cases that are being traded on the market

right now with Fidelity. And I just want to let you know on th

record, I'm not for sale, Judge. I'll make that clear.

THE COURT: Fair enough. And again, as you know, I

can't give you legal advice. I really am a neutral person that

has to decide the proper issues that come before me or at least

decide the issues in a proper fashion.

In your best interest, because the Rules of Court and

Procedure and Evidence will apply, you need to get yourself

ready for trial starting next week. That means you have to

prepare your defense or prepare to counter the Government's

case.

Now, here's the decision that I will issue that are

controlling for purposes of the trial and it's with respect to

the Government's Motions in Limine and yours.

The Government charges you with, in this case,

09-criminal-121, with committing bank fraud in violation of

Section 1344 of the Criminal Code, between September 18, 2008

and January 16th, 2009.


14/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

And that's in connection with, as you know, the

allegations related to purchases through HSBC of electronic

equipment from Best Buy. And I'm going to get right to the

rulings because you are all familiar with the issues raised in

the motions.

The Government moves to preclude you from presenting

any evidence of reference to, and I quote, "tax protestor" or,

and I quote again, "redemption theories" related to the Federal

Government's taxing power or the existence of secret bank

accounts held by the Federal Government for each citizen of the

United States. You have filed documents consistent with these

theories in these and other proceedings, and I'm going to grant

the Government's motion for the most part.

First, I note that Mr. Comerford has indicated in his

responding papers that you do not intend to introduce a defense

based on these theories. And I am unsure whether that is still

the case but, in any event, I will preclude the introduction of

evidence or references to these particular theories.

First, the theories largely purport to be statements

of law. Instructing the jury on the correct law is my task. I

doesn't become a task of the parties or the lawyers.

Second, those theories are incorrect and I will not

permit the jury to be mislead.

And third, I find that the introduction of those

theories would confuse the jury and distract them from the


15/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

issues at hand, which is whether the Government can prove your

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the proof standard.

The burden is on the Government, not on you.

So any evidence, testimony, and witnesses offered

solely for the purpose of relying on the theories I mentioned,

to the jury, my decision is that that evidence will be preclude

as will the theories.

That being said, Mr. Buczek, you will be permitted to

offer evidence and testimony concerning willfulness. And liste

to this. You're permitted to do this because willfulness is an

essential element of the crime charged. That is, you are

entitled to present evidence or argue that you had a good faith

misunderstanding of what the law required.

To that extent, the tax protestor or redemption

theories are relevant on that issue. And I will allow such

evidence or argument, but I will monitor that very, very

carefully. And the opportunity for introducing the theories on

the basis is narrow and it's limited.

But Mr. Buczek, you cannot introduce evidence or argue

that you disagree with the law, that the law is wrong or

invalid, that it is unconstitutional, or that there is some

other flaw in the law based on the tax protestor or redemption

theories that you have raised in the past.

Should you make any attempt to introduce these

theories, I will instruct the jury to disregard the testimony o


16/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

statement. And if it persists, I will have to admonish you in

front of the jury, which I don't think is in your best interest

or anybody's best interest.

Further, the Government requests that I preclude

documents that may be offered by you, including documents and

materials that you may have created. I don't have those

documents before me, nor do I know what you intend to introduce

because I don't have an exhibit list or the exhibits similar to

the ones that the Government describes. So I will handle any

objections to documents at the time that they may be proffered.

You are on notice, however, that documents relating to

tax protestor or redemption theories will not be accepted into

evidence unless it is demonstrated that they bear directly on

the issue of willfulness or another material issue in this

trial. This ruling also applies to the Government's request to

preclude the introduction of Court opinions, statutes, and

Government regulations. I will handle the Government's

objection if and when such testaments are proffered.

Finally, the Government requests that I preclude you

from asking examination questions that would require a fact

witness to give a legal opinion. Eliciting a legal opinion

would be improper. But again, in the absence here of an

articulated question or line of questioning, it is difficult fo

me to rule. So you are advised I will instruct the jury on the

law and will not permit witnesses to testify about the state of


17/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

the law or what they think the law should be. That's dealing

with the Government's Motion in Limine.

Let me move on to yours. Because you filed a Motion

in Limine on January 4th of this year, at that time, you were

represented by Mr. Comerford. He's now your standby counsel.

don't have a response from the Government to that. But you

moved to preclude the Government from referring to you as a tax

protestor or introducing evidence concerning your tax protestor

or redemption beliefs. Because this is not a tax case and tax

protestor-type statements will be introduced into the trial onl

on a limited bases, if at all, I'm going to grant your motion.

At this time, I see no reason why the Government would

need to refer to you as a tax protestor. Moreover, for the

reasons I've already articulated, evidence concerning tax

protestor or redemption beliefs will be precluded.

And finally, Mr. Buczek, you asked me that the

Government be precluded from referring to the fact that you hav

two other criminal cases pending in this court. Those cases, a

I see it, are unrelated to the present bank fraud prosecution,

so I'm going to grant your motion in that regard.

So as to both requests I just granted, you,

Mr. Buczek, are on notice that I will provide the Government an

opportunity to introduce evidence if you open the door. For

example, if you argue or attempt to elicit testimony concerning

pending cases against you, you will have opened the door for th


18/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

Government introducing evidence on that subject.

So you have to be cautious in that regard. Know what

you are doing, consult with Mr. Comerford, work on your

preparations because you will be held accountable for your

conduct at trial based on the Rules of Evidence and Procedure

that apply to Court proceedings in the normal course. And thos

are my rulings.

Do you understand them?

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, may I make a comment first?

THE COURT: Do you understand that? As far as what

I've said, do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: I heard what you said.

THE COURT: You may not disagree (sic) with it, but

you understand it, right?

THE DEFENDANT: I don't want to understand it because

I don't comprehend it, I guess, because there's a lot of things

that you said -- and I'm not a licensed attorney and I know the

U.S. Attorney's Office has some issues with me based on my

personal belief system. And I strongly feel that -- I'm trying

to see how this case can go forward. I don't know how it is,

but it is.

And the reason why I bring that up is there's been a

huge mistake. And there's been no proper notice. And

there's been -- I see no controversy present in front of the

Court and I made that perfectly clear in a very short one and a


19/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 1

half page petition that I filed yesterday.

THE COURT: The fact of the matter is, that's old

news, that's history. I've already discussed that with you.

THE DEFENDANT: I know.

THE COURT: So it's done. It's fait accompli. It's

over. Can we move forward?

As far as the bench decision, Mr. Comerford, at least

in your backup role capacity, you understand what I did

articulated?

MR. COMERFORD: Yes, Judge.

Judge, I apologize for interrupting. I have one

scheduling matter I wanted to ask the Court about.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. COMERFORD: The morning of Wednesday, March 3rd,

which would be the day after we're scheduled to pick a jury, I

have a personal commitment that morning that I have been unable

to the move.

I asked the Government if they would object to going

down for that morning and they have no problem with it. If

that's still the case, I just want to know if that's possible.

I would appreciate it.

THE COURT: Yes, I think we can work that out, start

at 2:00 maybe?

MR. COMERFORD: That would be great, Judge. Thank

you.


20/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, when we do jury selection

on Tuesday, should we be prepared to have opening statements?

THE COURT: Yes, and proof, if we have time.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: The other thing, You Honor, it would

be required for the Government, as I stated earlier, as part of

the stipulation to establish that the Defendant was on release

as part of it. It's an enhancement, Your Honor.

If we can't reach a stipulation with respect to it, I

think I would have to in some way not refer to the specifics of

why he was on release but that he was under supervision. That'

why the Government would have to call Mr. Kawski as a witness i

we can't come to an agreement and read the stipulation on that.

THE COURT: Why don't you work on that with, first,

Mr. Buczek and, in connection with Mr. Buczek, Mr. Comerford an

then we will finally discuss it on Monday at 10:00.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, Judge.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I know you are referring to me

by calling me Buczek. And I want to make a record. I don't

consent to the last name. Just a record of it, okay? Because

I'm a living, breathing man and I don't like to be putting

titles on me.

There are more things I want to say but the things I

want to say should be held in Chambers.

THE COURT: And you know I can't do that, right?

THE DEFENDANT: I know that, but I do want to make a


21/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

record of it. Because there are so many things I would like to

talk about because I found, you know, with the case, you know,

the Fidelity and being sold and the bid bond, performance bond,

that's something I can talk about here, because I do know about

it.

And that stuff, if it ever gets to it, it would be

done in Chambers. And I will not bring it up. I tried to do

that once before and I went to a psych center.

THE COURT I think what you've done is made your

record. And I think the record's also clear that I cannot have

conversations with just one party.

THE DEFENDANT: I clearly know that and the

U.S. Attorney is welcome to be there, but fictitious allegation

and all those things, you don't talk about? Title 18. And it'

not really kind of a good thing to do.

THE COURT: Well, as you knowfrom my decisions,

certain things are relevant, certain things are not. But with

respect to issues that relate to your intent, that's where you

have a little bit of license. But you're going to need some

guidance, I think, from Mr. Comerford so you can know how you

can channel your proof.

You have no burden, remember that. You have no burden

to do anything. You're presumed innocent. And by the

Government, I mean the United States represented here by

Ms. Baumgarten and backed up by Mr. Bruce, I don't know exactly


22/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

what he does. In any event, Ms. Baumgarten will be handling th

main trial load and she'll be representing the United States.

And that will be the party that has the full burden of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each essential element of th

crime charged. And you are innocent until proven guilty.

You understand that, right?

THE DEFENDANT: The thing is I also want to make it

clear to the Court, I am the third-party plaintiff in this case

And I did file a counterclaim, which I thought you would take a

look at. And I rushed down here as quick as I could yesterday

because the door just opened, so for -- remember the door has

been shut for me from August all the way until Friday. The

door's been closed for me to file things. But for a brief

moment, we were allowed to file one document.

THE COURT: No, no, that's not exactly right. But in

any event, there is no counterclaim opportunity in a criminal

case. This is not a civil action. This is a criminal action s

whatever you have in mind by way of filing countercharges or

claims, that's not proper by way of Criminal Procedure.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not here to debate it. I just

want you to hopefully make a ruling on that because, in my

opinion, we are still on the civil side because the criminal

side hasn't been crossed over. Because what? There's no

injured party.

And you know how I feel is that how in the world can


23/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

you be charged for bank fraud when there's no banks? You know

banks don't loan money. Gold and silver is lawful money under

Article 1, Section 10. And you can only go to a jury trial or

trial by jury for a controversy exceeding $20. We have no

dollars.

THE COURT: This is a criminal case. You have filed

things or have attempted to. I don't have them all. But I

guess Mr. Bruce is going to make a submission for the Governmen

on those.

So I think that puts us in a position where we will

see everybody here on Monday at 10:00.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Judge, if I just may update the Court

briefly on the status. I have been engaging in discussions

with Mr. Comerford and we have made some progress, but obviousl

not fully. So should that change, Your Honor, I suggest

Mr. Comerford and I could notify your Chambers?

THE COURT: Certainly.

THE DEFENDANT: That's concerning the plea, right?

THE COURT: I assume that's what we're talking about?

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, it would not just be only with

respect to this case, but all three, Your Honor.

THE DEFENDANT: I have no issues with that, Judge.

The only issue I have was the felony.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Judge, we can talk about this

privately if that might be more suitable. I will take the


24/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

opportunity to meet with -- if we may, out of the Court's

presence?

THE COURT: I think that's a good idea and you can

address the full panoply of issues, including reservations of

rights and everything else that you might have to factor in

here.

Keep me updated because there's a great expense,

there's a lot of time that's involved in this. And very

honestly, just think about what's in the absolute best interest

Principle is recognizable. I acknowledge what principle is all

about. But remember that when you look to resolve the matter,

sometimes the compromise is maybe not the principle itself, but

the exposure that you make. And that's really what we are

talking about. So principle is principle, I believe that.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I come in peace. The last

thing I want to do is argue with Mr. Bruce and jump up and down

screaming and say, your warrant's invalid and I believe in this

and that. That's the last thing I want to do.

THE COURT: You would never convince him in a million

years.

THE DEFENDANT: I know. And I unfortunately have met

with him in his office and we've talked and he doesn't agree

with me, but that's fine. I just want to let you know, I'm

coming here in peace. And I did not want to file that case, by

the way. And I had to. I didn't want to do that.


25/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

THE COURT: I've never viewed it any other way. You

come here in peace, but you've got your own "piece" to say,

right? So continue on, work -- you know, work with

Mr. Comerford and Ms. Baumgarten. And then whatever we have to

do, we'll start on Monday.

THE DEFENDANT: If it does go to trial and it gets to

that point, I do want to put my mom and dad on the stand. But,

unfortunately, they're not going to be here, so I don't know ho

we're going to work that out because we did talk about that a

couple weeks ago in court. And to me, that's vitally important

for the Defendant.

THE COURT: Well, I guess we'll address that when the

time comes, Mr. Buczek. But they have been on notice, as you

have, for a long time when this trial is set to go.

There are so many flexibilities that I have in

connection with this trial. I know, Mrs. Buczek, you asked the

other day because you have a vacation or something scheduled.

MRS. BUCZEK: We're out for business, Judge.

THE COURT: Let's see how the case progresses and if

it becomes necessary, we will talk about things once again. An

we will be as flexible as we possibly can to make sure that bot

sides are treated fairly.

Right now, we'll see you at 10:00 on March 1st.

THE DEFENDANT: One more thing, Judge? As you know,

these are all my documents.


26/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 2

THE COURT: I don't know that, Mr. Buczek.

THE DEFENDANT: I got them all authenticated.

Remember I talked about a certified copy? This is a certified

copy here, the red seal.

THE COURT: Is that the same thing as a bonded copy,

in your mind?

THE DEFENDANT: This is the original with the raised

seal. I just want to make a record of it, that's all. By the

way, I did surrender the Defendant back in the summertime, the

birth certificate. You know all about that, right?

THE COURT: I don't know if I know about everything,

but I know about a lot.

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Judge.

MS. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Work hard.

(Proceedings concluded at 10:49 a.m.)


27/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

"I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter."

Patricia A. Galas June 10, 2010Signature Date

february23,2010 false arrest and with no injury

Documents