14-2988

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

-------------------------------------------------

United States of America, Appellee

v.
John Lee, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants,
Fritz G. Blumenberg,
Defendant Appellant.

------------------------------------------------On Appeal from the U.S. District Court For the

Southern District of New York 01-cr-00571 (JGK)

------------------------------------------------BRIEF of Appellant Fritz G. Blumenberg

-----------------------------Fritz G. Blumenberg, Pro Se

Am Hempberg 2, 21224 Rosengarten GERMANY

+49-4108-590-535

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
Table of Contents....

Table of Authorities

Statutes

Rules

Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction..

Statement of Issues Presented for Review.

Preamble and Statement of the Case.

10

Real Facts beneath the Arguments.

14

Indubitable and Incontrovertible .

14

Ex Post Fact Manipulation & Docket Fraud .

24

Conclusion

28

Certificate of Compliance.

30

Certificate of Service

31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1958) 8
Douglas Oil v. Petrol, 441 U.S. 211,223, 99 S. Ct. 1667.. 8
Jiob v.Heller, 778 passim
Shrader v.CSX, 70 F.3d 255, CA2.. 10
U.S. v. Cotton (01-687) 535 U.S. 625 (2002).. 11
Hagan vs. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974).. 11
Exparte McCardle, 7 Wall.506,514 (1869)... 11
Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) . 28
"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern
impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
whose interest, therefore . . . is not that [he] shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done . . . . . But, while he may strike hard blows, he is
not at liberty to strike foul ones." (Sutherland, J.).

STATUTES
18 USC 371, 1341, 1343, 1001 .... passim
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

12

Title 18, Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

12

N.Y. JUD. LAW 487 : NY Code - Section 487: Atty Misconduct .. passim

RULES
Rule 6(e)(3)(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter
under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand
jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parteas it may be when the
government is the petitionerthe petitioner must serve the petition on,
and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be
heard to:
(i) an attorney for the government;
(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and
(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.
(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in
another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the
other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine
whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer,
it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed,
if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grandjury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified
in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.
Rule 6(e)(6) Sealed Records. Records, orders, and subpoenas
relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent
and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a
matter occurring before a grand jury.
Rule 6(e)(4) (4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom
an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret
until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The
4

clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the
indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant
or summons.
Grand Juror Handbook AOUSC:
5: Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether
there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed
and to report accordingly to the court.
https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/jury/docs/federalgrand.pdf
8 The United States Attorney will also prepare the formal written
indictments that the grand jury wishes to present. But neither the United
States Attorney nor any Assistant United States Attorney may remain in the
room while the grand jury deliberates and votes on an indictment
12 The foreperson of the grand jury must keep a record of the
number of jurors concurring in the finding of every indictment and file the
record with the Clerk of the Court. If an indictment is found, the grand jury
will report it to the judge or a magistrate judge in open court1.

The applicable condition of an OPEN COURT proceeding is mandatory

and cannot be waived, see also 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)
5

STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate jurisdiction is conferred under 28 U.S.C. 1291, Appellants

obligation to enter a timely NOA from a DENIAL ORDER (Appendix 2930)by the District Court terminating various IMPROPRIETY and and
resulting JURISDICTIONAL issues was satisfied (Appendix 31).

See also: Villanova Law Review Vol. 24: 157, 160

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR

APPELLATE REVIEW

1) Jurisdiction is a question of law to be reviewed de novo, here,

whether federal 18 USC 371 jurisdiction was established despite the
facts that the Grand Jury process had not concluded on June 14,
2001, was ongoing - in progress - during the days of June 15, 16, 17,
18, and that a [rather defective] bill was held by the Grand Jurors in
abeyance, was not readied for presentment in OPEN COURT, and was
not presented or filed [whether in OPEN COURT or not] until June
19, 2001, when the DOCKET was OPENED (App 3 = 6/19/2001
highlighted, bolded) by a dubious hind-door recording made by a
staffer of the USAO (App 40).
June 19, 2001, however, was beyond a permissable five year
term during which overt acts [if bonafide] could2, arguendo, bring a
real scheme within the purview of sections 1341/1343 and provide
limited federal jurisdiction over alleged offenses. [Note: 5-days
backdating of a BILL is an unlawful DUE PROCESS offense,

If not legally and physically untenable or as here - unsupported by

historic fact or by sufficient evidence
7

sentencing aliens after such outlaw corruption in the Courts

Probation Department, ample proof of unlawful hate xenophobia]

2) Whether the government continuously acted deceiptful and violated

its affirmative obligation under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264
(1958) to correct evidence it knows to be false, and whether a
Courts sophisticated confederacy in the joint violations constitute a
punishable extra-judicial racket that caused and inflicted intentional
harm upon two alien targets, inter alia, in violation of civil rights
laws.

3) Given that A district court may allow the inspection of grand jury
minutes when the defendant makes a particularized showing of need
that outweighs the strong public interest in grand jury secrecy.
Douglas Oil v. Petrol, 441 U.S. 211,223, 99 S. Ct. 1667, the Courts
DENIAL must be reviewed for known, abusive lack of discretion,
which in view of the putative vacuity of jurisdiction would be
considered axiomatic.

4) Review whether the government had standing or acted unlawfully

while having direct prosecutorial scienter that their Grand Jury had
not been gullible enough to rush to a premeditated conclusion nor
had agreed on a bill between June 14 and 18, 2001, and that a fake
proceeding, apprehension and false pretense, rubberstamping the
bejesus out of Appellants bogus Arrest warrant DRAFT and out of
Due Process, is subject to REVIEW at any time when a hint of
evidence of official malfeasance turns up. [And it did turn up, by
letter, and otherwise from brave Court staffers. Also DOC#2 was
received by international mail in Europe]

5) Review whether the District Courts RECUSAL-REBUFF or CASETRANSFER to a random but uninterested judicial officer was
ABUSIVE of DISCRETION, given more than overt APPEARANCE of
bias and strong in personam partiality interests with the objective to
shield personal reputational assets from public nullification by aliens
valued less than citizens and much less than robed esquires.

PREAMBLE

i)

Appellant appeals from the district court's denial [DOC#319, APP

29, 30] requesting UNCOVERAGE of DISCLOSURES of
jurisdictionally pertinent documents. The omnibus and generic Application was based upon earlier presentments of facts or law
that the Court has overlooked (Shrader v.CSX, 70 F.3d 255, CA2)
[see DOC#317, Co-Def. Viertels submission and Viertels
undocketed, disregarded JUDICIAL NOTICE, Appendix 58-70)
in support of the claim that the Court lacked - never obtained
inaugural federal jurisdiction to pursue Count 13 and both, the
Mail and Wire Fraud Counts, by swift a DENIAL of the
disclosure request that would, more likely than not, shame the
Court itself along with its best customer on Row One, United
States of America, for joint acts of repugnancy of judicial process
in lack of congressional authority.

Conspiracy is the deceptive relevant for time-barred conduct extra-

verdict sentencing enhancement weapon violative of Human Rights and

democratically outlawed, worldwide, MLAT non-compatible.

10

ii) All fact and argument, law and conclusion presented,

inter alia, by the underlying Pro-Se-MOTION (plus Appendix 32
and DOC#317) are hereby incorporated in their entirety. US V.
COTTON (01-687) 535 U.S. 625 (2002): Because subject-matter
jurisdiction involves a courts power to hear a case, it can never
be forfeited or waived. Thus, defects require correction regardless
of whether the error was raised in district court. And, Where
jurisdiction is challenged it must be proved. Hagan vs. Lavine,
415 U.S. 528 (1974); see also: Without jurisdiction the court
cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to
declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function
remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and
dismissing the cause. (Exparte McCardle, 7 Wall.506,514 (1869)).

iii)

The current controversy arose because the District Judge was

faced with various brave disclosures by NYSD Court staffers (i.e.,
that Magistrate Dolinger had no June 14, 2001 Calender call for a
U.S. v. Blumenberg case) indutably proved impropriatries during
the CASE INITIATION and unlawful FALSIFICATIONS by
identifiable Court officers under oath continuing to violate, inter

11

alia, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, both Federal Crimes against two
alien defendants4.
These facts seriously challenged, if not nullified nunc pro tunc
- the Courts original claim to adjudicate, to discretion, which was
annihilated on PRIMA FACIE COURT DOCKET EVIDENCE and
by the incontrovertble lack of verifiable June 14, 2001 Court
action, by lack of an APPLICATION for sealed presentment nor a
presentment of AO Form 190 by Grand Jury Forman Rehm on
June 14, 2001 ( nor on 6/15, 6/16, 6/17 or 6/18 and 6/19) as
required by Rule5 and by DUE PROCESS.

The American Defendant John Lee was nolle prossed July 3, 2002.

unceremoniously and under secrecy surrounding the flash exculpation after

his Attys. filed a [6/27/2002- DOC#50: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHN C. LEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS by Richard B. Zabel/James J.
Benjamin, Jr.]MOTION challenging validity of the Conspiracy charge, that
was unsurprisingly kept off the docket until Lee was nolled, see Appendix
52. Their MOTION was kept secret, as was DOC#2.
5

Rule 6(e)(4) (4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom

an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret

until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The
clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the

12

The District Court chose PRETENSE, unlawfully, as if alien

Appellant through his coerced badly FD-coached nor effectively
counseled plea (Appendix 71 ff) intelligently waived yet
unknown to him, albeit valid jurisdictional challenges over official
criminal conduct hostile and prejudicial to defendants for a
judicial eternity, especially those challenges that directly seem to
endanger a life-time judges hopeful going concern and that of
his co-contractors as members of a bar association militia
supposedly in sequor pro domina iustitia.

indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a

warrant or summons.

13

Real Facts beneath the Arguments

This Appeals relevant overt judicial acts, omissions despite docketed
proof which still resulted in a repugnant extra-Judicial Denial of
Appellants reasoned applications for OPEN RECORDS or RECUSAL can
safely be labeled under: Qui male agit odit lucem.
What has been establsihed by Defendants but also by the official
RECORD beyond a reasonable dispute was unilaterlally waived good.bye by
a District Judge in favor of Branch II by not requiring their reply.

Undubitable and Incontrovertible :

a) Grand Jurors6 did not conclude to indict defendants on June 14,
2001,
b) Grand Jury Foreman Rehm did not sign the premaditated draft
of an indictment proposal on June 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and
c) United States Attorney (M-J White) could not and did not sign any
bill until June 19, 2001 the day it was filed in the morning, and
6

Grand Jury AOUSC Handbook: The grand jury must determine from this

evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a
person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of
Rights as an infamous crime. An infamous crime is one which may be
punished by imprisonment for more than one year. 3

14

d) the executed bill was not filed in open Court no record exists
of such filing by USA and Foreman- but silently back-office filed by a
USAO staffer around 09:30 on June 19, 2001 without presentment,
without AO 190 and without Jury Foreman Rehm in violation of LAW
in furtherance of prejudice to cover up the unlawful apprehension of
Appellant in New Jersey and that of Def. Lee in Connecticut and
Viertel in Florida , whose false apprehension at 07:00h was a
FIRST CLASS constitutional violation. One for the law school books.

e) The District Judges mis-speak to instruct Viertels Petit Jury in

September 2002 waived the RULE OF LAW good-bye while
demonstrating worse than bad faith in hind-sight.

15

f) If ever there was a FEDERAL BOGUS judicial document,

Magistrate Pitmans DOC#2, below, was it.

16

Whereby here, above, particular uniqueness strikes entitled

INDICTMENT to qualify this microfilmed specimen for judicative
craftsmanship as an exhibit in D.C.s Crime Museum [or in Fordhams
permanent Alumni Hall of Fame].

g) Overt acts dated June 17 and 18, 2001, portrayed by the

COURT during my Plea as charged were legally and physically
untenable while not supported by historic fact or by sufficient
evidence, and thus were unrecognizable by this Appellant who
demonstrated benightedness to the COURTs proposal below:

That judicial reiteration above drew a blank was not and should
not be surprising to the outlaw insiders present simply because
none of these overt acts were factually overt nor real, they were
17

fictitious creations of a run-away government, who disrespectfully

deceives Grand Jurors anytime, and now continued their craft
by deceiving (wink-wink) the COURT and Defense, while the
District Court eagerly flunked his duty to establish whether a single
real federal offense could be recognized by Appellant, identifiable
and maybe intelligently acceptable. It did not happen.

h) Meanwhile, a few years later the Co-Defendant obtained from

German Police information that not only debunked the charged
overt acts as wholesomely fraudulent creations, but also obtained
testimony from Burda auditor-in-chief7 who had personally issued
around June 20-23, 1996 Burdas MAIL NO DOCUMENTS TO
GERMANY THIS MONTH OF JUNE 1996, an embargo to
Burda Media, annihilating ab ovo - the governments utterly
falsified, extra-jurisdictional international freight company fake
1341 crime basis for a fictitious fraud that lacked the fourth
element, that of a bonafide interstate carrier delivery.

Wolfgang Maginot was preparing a trip to New York for July 8, 1996 to
audit records, books, $8 million earnings from Export sales to Germany at
Burda Media, and audit the Government concealed because it shrunk its
criminal theory to a malicious ruse.

18

i)

International EXPORT shipments, and Appellant hereby reaffirms that he was executive officer of a foreign owned
International Media Export Company, are exempt by immunity
from domestic mail fraud, in particular when the interstate
carrier element was untenable for an overseas delivery, was
neither vetted by Grand Jurors for probable cause nor can be
taken for real without presentment of witnesses and carrier
records of the subject carrier8.

The FBI agent OSullivan later stated in private, that he was told not to
spend $20 cab fare to bother, visit & interview APEX AIR FREIGHT in
Midtown, and that none of the officers and directors of APEX were under
subpoena or have testified is subject of a sworn AFFIDAVIT on record [ any
officer testimony would have resulted in immediate, fatal mail fraud
termination, since APEX was a properly - unlicensed international freight
19

j) German Sunshine and happenstance arrived and uncovered,

judicially noticed to a blind Court, that a) the charged, albeit
proforma Agate Invoice for $8120.00 had not yet been designed
by Appellant [s staff] nor been printed on Burda Medias own HPLaser9 prior to June 22, 2001 and could therefore not entangle
Viertel into conspiratorial acts with me, and could certainly not
have been submitted by Viertel, who was unaware of Burdas
wanton INVOICING using Agate Realty a legitimate Viertel
company as generic payee for Appellants loan-down-payment,
and who was in France/Europe on June 17, 2001 and b) the
government and FBI OSullivan knew very well that Appellant
simply issued and singlehandedly submitted a generic CEO PayOut Directive, stand-alone authority to pay $8,120.10 to Agate
Reality instructing Burda Media Cashiers, to follow Appellants
instructions and issue a check without a reason given, because
forwarder, a gypsy van operator as Lufthansas international ship-out-agent
but in no shape had nexus with federally protected mail transport
instrumentalities.
9
That much, at least, the FBIs Laboratory in DC was able to ascertain
keeping the specimen scan still on file, unaltered and away from AUSA
Cohens pen.

20

those were Appellants executive privilege as CEO. The

accounting reason Appellant later instructed for the $8,120.10 to
be debited against General Office Costs, not to a particular
overseas client of Burda Media a compliant company that was
suddenly and absurdly branded 5 years later without a clue as
the FBIs local pet victim with the object to rig fictitious federal
violations for (presumptively) personal fame and advancement.
But here lies the overt discrepancy in that the amounts in overt
acts A) and B) do not match the Agate Invoice , because
Appellants pay-out orders and Burda Media immediate check was
issued 10 cents higher10 than the mail-wire-rigged Agate Invoice
of later genesis (obviously by oversight and neglect for detail).

k) Appellant hereby re-certifies that his plea was legally a worthless

nullity11, thus withdrawn, a fact recognizable by reasoned jurist
10

That fact did not hinder AUSA Marcia COHEN to alter the charged Agate

Invoice for $8120.00 as Viertels Trial Exhibit GX 501 by her ink and her
pen to augment the amount to fit my earlier, innocent pay-out order by 10
cents for the Petit Jury not to question why the two amounts would not
match to complete a crime allegation.
11

A Seventh Circuit panel on January 07, 2015 threw out Siamak S. Fards
blind guilty plea to wire fraud, ruling the presiding judge never ensured the
21

from the four corners of the complete transcript in Appendix 71,

but Appellant co-equally maintains complete innocence of all
charges due a lack of factual basis or jurisdiction, in fact, for that
reason, Appellant could not and did not make a factual allocution
to the conduct alleged. In detail, a) the Conspiracy was time
barred and not factual, b) the international shipment of the Agate
Invoice was blocked by Burda and Kiefer (a fact known to the FBI
and to government prosecutors, in fact, Rogers & Wells were
handed and in came into possession of some invoices by Kiefer
July 5 to 8, 1996, including the $8.120.00 Agate Invoice and Best
Messenger Invoices to be faxed from Park Avenue to Munich for a
meeting I joined on July 9, 1996. Evidently the Agate Invoice had
not left New York by July 5, 1996), and c) an absurdity that Burda
via German Police debunked when they presented the original wire
document, that did not identify Burda Holding as a wire payor
the government had falsely claimed (in hope the real wire would
get lost and stay safely hidden under Brady). Indeed the Foreign
exchange transfers were routine and a re-imbursement scheme
per se contradicted the business model of profit center Burda
defendant clearly understood the nature of the charges against him but
accepted the plea anyway.
22

Media, the International Export Company selling media products

to German customers for revenue, and was not a branch of a
foreign entity since 1/1/1992, facts the government was surely
made aware of by Burdas attorneys Roger & Wells when
responsive to GJ-subpoenas in June 2001.
But, that micro-economic macro-detail was too clean for the
tortured minds of government agents.
Finally, d) Appellants 26 USC 7206(1) charges of underdeclaration of foreign earnings has long been debunked as
untenable, since Burda certified that Appellant refunded BONUS
payments (DOC# 261) to his German employer on July 16, 1996
and Appellant herewith certifies that his IRS declarations for 1995
(on extension) and 1996 match, if not exceed his worldwide
taxable earnings, rendering 7206(1)-accusations bogus. It can be
safely assumed that Appellant paid more taxes to the IRS over 25
years than any of the actors present in the Court Room of Judge
Koeltl.

23

l) Appellant has proven PRIMA FACIE PREJUDICE affirmatively,

clear and convincingly under any standard and Stricklands ,
because, who else held that duty to inspect DOC#1 and DOC#2 for

EX POST FACTO MANIPULATIONS & DOCKET FRAUD

and, who else had a duty to effectively verify whether MJ. Pitman
truthfully BLEW A SEAL or had orchestrated an infamous crime
by executing a SOUTHERN DOG & PONY show, but Appellants below PAR - Federal Defender Phil Weinstein ? (Quote: They lie, we
lie, and better liars win here)

m) Creative federal prosecutions are not new and higher courts have
been ambivalent, at best, reluctant to favor aliens, to strike
prosecutions that exceed the boundaries of the law. Sometimes,
Courts must remind judges, magistrates and prosecutors of John
Adams words we are a government of laws, and not of men.

n) The Grand Jurors acted conscientiously by refusing to concur on a

proposed BILL that would have allowed an obviously still very

24

dubious litany of accusations (see FBI OSullivans Grand Jury

wiggle on June 14, 2001 under AUSA Harris tortures to elicit and
bamboozle the truth- Judge Koeltl can provide the recording) -12

o) The USANYS could have made a simple request to PostMasters

Postal Inspectors to find out that INTERNATIONAL13 Services are
immune to mail fraud accusations, because Congress protects
the domestic population from American mail scams delivered via
U.S. Postal Services or Fedex/UPS. Outgoing International Airfreight is not domestic mail fraud. No FBI-rigging can domesticate
a U.S. Commerce Department licensed export shipment for
12

Grand juries are not supposed to be instruments of the police or

prosecution. Quite the opposite. Grand juries are instruments of the court.
The juries main charge is to protect ordinary citizens from being brought to
trial with flimsy evidence.
13

Co Defendant Viertel contacted the US Postal Inspectors Legal

Department

25

ultimate destination GERMANY, less for one INVOICE that never

left Burda Media Offices on Sixth Avenue (the Burda auditors hand
carried audit documents on their return flight to Germany around
July 14, 1996) , but was simply embargoed, stopped by the
incoming audit team and pursuant to instruction to HOLD ALL
PAPERS were followed in June 1996, nullifying Count 2.

p) The wire charge was equally absurd on a post-fruition date,

utterly irrelevant to any scheme to defraud, and not originating
from Burda Holding, but from Burda Medias own assets/funds
held in Germany to be forex transferred to Burda Medias own
assets held in USDollars at their NY Chase account, without a
change of beneficial ownership, an open change of ownership and
loss requirement to qualify as an infamous crime with intent.
Left-pocket to right pocket is not a loss-proned economonic
transaction violating sanctity of the United States wire regimes.

q) See also:

26

r) When a District Judge continuously stonewalls aged June 2001 GJ

records & transcripts that could further the RULE OF LAW, the
truth, government accountability and aid the administration of
justice he must be held unfit to stay on the bench under the
influence of the government, intoxicated with partiality to keep on
shielding what he deems accumulated reputational assets, that

27

could by the GJ revelations and consequences assign guilt and

thus be lost or certainly cut down to size.
Conclusions
It was a railroading, it was not upfront, it was not transparent, it
was not legitimate nor due process in 01-571 DATE FILED: 6/19/ 2001as its Docket Title certifies (Appendix 3) but not one minute, or five days
earlier.
The State always wraps itself in the flag. Unfortunately, it wasn't the
American flag. Appellant urges the Court to follow the RULE OF LAW, and
not to allow the Appellee to enjoy the rotten fruits of wrongdoing any
longer by harping fake melodramatic fiction that, regrettably, scored for
them some interim plausibility contests in earlier Appeals, but that cannot
change the true history of what was never a federal case of infamous
crimes by defendants, but a case rigged with infamy by run-away
government actors overstepping into what J. Sutherland in BERGER v.
US named foul territory.
Maybe this experienced panel can determine, why the two lower
branches embark on a criminal malpractice spree under color of law,
allegedly to vindicate a bogus societal debt Appellant and his two Co-

28

Defendants unknowingly incurred, while a quite a few un-American

Bernards (the Maddoff, Kerik etc.) roamed scot-free, ransacking finances
of Manhattanites undisturbed by goodfellas at the United States attorney
and their soldiers. Thus, here is finally this great chance for the government
to shut up and to admit their culpability, the Nremberg-Defense, wont
do.
Appellant abused, admittedly, his employers trust and that
conduct was penalized in the proper venue Germany in 1998,
Appellants criminal record expunged in 1999, all unearned funds
repaid by 2000, but to be faced with double jeopardy non-criminal
un-jurisdictional conduct in 2001 that lacked a domestic victim
within America and never hurt society, was a grave travesty.

Appellant respectfully prays for exculpation - nunc pro tunc that the
Court reverse the convictions with prejudice, order the release of the
requested documents in the interest of justice, and if a remand is ordered,
that an impartial jurist is assigned as is just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, 14.Nov.2015

/s/
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Pro Se
Defendant- Appellant

29

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Fritz G. Blumenberg, Appellant Pro Se, certify that this brief contains
5,000 words or less.

30

United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit

United States of America, Appellee

v.
John Lee,
Christian T. Viertel, Defendants,
Fritz G. Blumenberg,
Defendant Appellant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Docket 14-2988

I, Fritz G Blumenberg, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I have

served a virus free [pdf] copy of each,
this BRIEF and APPENDIX for APPELLANT
By email upon:
Michael Levy, United States Attorney Office USANYS
Michael.levy@usdoj.gov

January 14, 2015

/s/
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Pro Se
Defendant- Appellant

31