11-3300 cr

United States Court of Appeals

for the
Second Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
- v.

FRITZ GERHARD BLUMENBERG,
Defendant-Appellant, pro se


Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York [Case Nr. S1: 01-cr-571]
=========================================
APPENDIX for the Defendant - Appellant


TABLE OF CONTENTS
(page number and numbers are the originals and could not be changed)

A Transcript Plea Colloquia Blumenberg (4-5-2002/ JGK) 41 Pages
B Government Response date June, 30, 2011 (Undocketed - extra ECF) 4 Pages
C Original & Translation Notarized Consular Civil Settlement by Blumenberg 1998 4 Pages
D Co-defendant VIERTELs 2-28-2010 Summary of Objection to Magistrate Judge 17 Pages
E Appellants WRIT for AUDITA QUERELA June 8, 2009 18 Pages
F Co-defendant LEEs attorney letter to AUSA pre-guilty plea 4 Pages
G Appellants prison letter to R.Zabel, Esq. requesting Lees secret NOLLE PROSSE 1 Page
H LUFTHANSA AIRWAY BILL for the charged INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY 1 Page
I Appellants ORIGINAL FILING under APPEAL DE 242 in 01: cr 571 (JGK) 14 Pages
J Appellants REPLY Brief July 9, under Appeal DE ___ in 01: cr 571 (JGK) 9 Pages
K FBI Document proving FBI Scams on Victim Identity & Harboring 1 Page






Appendix

A






Appendix

B






Appendix

C






Appendix

D
Onitre etatrs Distritt Cenrt
er Thr eenthrrn Distritt O| (r ]erk
------------------------------------------------- x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 01cr-0571-003 (JGK) (HBP)
Plaintiff )
)
versus ) OBJECTIONS To Docket Entry 211
FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, pro se ) and MOTION to VACATE RESTITUTION
) OBLIGATIONS nunc pro tunc for the Court's
CHRISTIAN T. VIERTEL, pro se ) failure to identify a bonafide victim or direct
Defendants ) loss causation suffered by a victim and more

------------------------------------------------- x
Via Fax to 2 Chambers : (212) 805 7912, -6111
Christian T Viertel hereby supports Blumenberg's OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Pitman's
RECOMMENDATION, and SUPPORTS Blumenberg's SUBMISSIONS to achieve a CONCLUSION
reasonably and entirely CORRECTING the record on RESTITUTION.
The Judicial Scandal
on hand grew out of inconceivable propensity to defy facts, logic and economic
realities, conceal documents whenever convenient for the government, all up to an extent, that
goes far beyond negligence and ignorance but "borders on roguery" when, as is now evident,
many parties knew for quite some years, that Blumenberg paid off all of his restitution
obligations before 2004, most likely before 2003 and much already in 1998, while the
government's FLU dream team's (source: Garcia) Money Book duties
I
were co-shared with
neglective dodgers at this Court's Clerk to maintain a continuous deception with the goal to
cloak transfered values and keep the opprobrium alive.
The prosecution band, and others, were also heavy in cahoots with proctor Feldman's
mob, who set out to take forbidden silk far beyond the termination of the mandate from ex-
client Burda. The collusionists played for each other.
I USM Title 3 Chapter 3-9.000, see : 3-9.230 CCLR, Form USA 207 for severe lack of compliance
1
Thus, this Court's RESTITUTION-Record is long corrupted, and this movant's direct
suffering and grievances were dawdled by a predilective Court supporting a corrupt
prosecutional position, which an ex-prosecutor Judge must have the foresight to spot. The
actors/officers waisted judicial resources and tortuously compromised the truth-finding
process while trampling upon this movants right to uncorrupted procedings, fair post-trial
processes and a legitimate claim for eventual vindication.
Defendant's Objections to Errors
in mis-valuating restitutional assets restituted by Blumenberg to HIS EMPLOYER,
Burda GmbH in Offenburg, which have now been RECONFIRMED, such misguided calculations
are no longer available for "nonsense" holdings or unreasonable strike-off from a true
conclusory summary. Only ONE Conclusion the facts permit: Restitution was Paid.

Principally, the R&R conclusions are rejected. The concluder took a whole year to think
up some inappropriate evidentiary standards to deliberately short-change Blumenberg's
restitutional properties [consequential to my secondary liability] and thus, cut-out-short
certain material monetary elements validly submitted or in the general case record. These
submissions included an aged detailed JUDICIAL NOTICE filed 25 February 2006 (below
attached to this submission for swift reconstitution of Court records) pursuant to an even
earlier :
Petition For Correction Of RESTITUTION (Dkt #161
II
of 11/2005)
still pending in the FIFTH year.
II U.S. District Court CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01cr00571JGK3
Date Filed # Docket Text
05/13/2005 160 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Christian T. Viertel from 140 Memorandum
& Opinion. Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record:
A.U.S.A. (tp, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
11/28/2005 161 PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF RESTITUTION. as to Christian T.
Viertel. (pr, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
12/30/2005 162 ORDER as to Christian T. Viertel. The Court has received the attached
"Judicial Notice" dated 12/16/05 from the defendant. The defendant seeks
various relief. The defendant also refers to a "Petition for Correction
of Restitution. The Government should respond to these papers by
1/13/06. In its response, the Government should explain the proper
procedures to be followed by the defendant to assure that he is properly
credited with any amounts paid by Mr. Blumenberg to assure that there is
no overpayment of restitution. The defendant may reply by 1/27/06.
(Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/23/05)(kw, ) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
2
This 2006 NOTICE document, hereby resubmitted below, was, according to MJ.
Pitman's R&R, annoyingly lost by the system in breach of rules requiring uncorrupted
record keeping at all U.S.Courts. It demonstrates the disturbing timeline over almost SEVEN
years, during which Viertel's Judgment Order has been defective, then defectively
amended, but still remains DEFECTIVE.
Blumenberg's Objections highlight and underscore the gravity of these fundamental
judicial shortcomings and how misguided courts are not to suspect the integrity of those
sitting in front row. His objections raise, de novo, most serious concerns over an
incontrovertibly flawed proceeding and ongoing, behind-the-scenes, nepotistic rackets, cover-
ups and profiteering in abuse of constitutionally protected processes to the detriment of this
innocent movant. Consequently, and based, inter alia, upon BURDA's reissued Satisfaction, the
clock shall be effectively turned back, and the fake litigation shall be exsponged nunc pro
tunc, to seek resurrection of a tiny bit of judicial integrity in a wide ocean unworthy of respect.
MOTION
Movant prays this Court, ad iterum, for an ORDER nunc pro tunc striking any and all
burdens of wrongly adjudicated RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS and striking any and all
references to the counterfeit victim named in the Judgement Order, and to recognize, resolve
and correct grave injustices, including a public record LIEN filing in Florida [see:annex 1], and
to order the relevant instrumentalities of plaintiff's U.S.A., to rectify by exspongement
PUBLIC records, to rectify by exspongement FBI records, to rectify by exspongement the BOP
custody record
III
data base and to exsponge BOP's illegal personal record manipulations, to
rectify by exspongement INS and DHS records to be free of wrong entries, wrong birthdates
and all deceptions, in toto.
Furthermore, this Court shall order the USAO to file FORM 207 or similar as NOTICE to
Close Legal Case File, and to vacate all defective judgment and commitment orders this Court
has produced in favor of the plaintiff, his own employer.
Furthermore the Court shall vacate conviction and indictment for the many reasons
III which atrociously list 2 escapes & violence, inter alia falsum
3
below
IV
, if not alone for LACK of Jurisdiction ab initio, a claim that seems to be federally
disfavored, but is a reality as true as alive and strong.

Furthermore, this Court shall issue a PROTECTIVE ORDER which contains elements of
reasonable assurances and neccessary precautions to safeguard the corrected Court/
Grandjury/ FBI and trial/post-trial records from sudden escape, protect Docket items, and
protect the case record from vanishing partially or in toto
V
.
The movant respectfully requests SANCTIONS to be levied upon all colluding parties
and miscreants. Those sanctions shall be severe enough to reflect the seriousness of the
misconduct, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public and in particular foreigners
from further prosecutorial, bar member and official misconduct.
Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey's common ruse, that All Americans are equal before the
Law was indicative, but violate public decrement of equal constitutional rights aliens qualify
for, but seldom receive. Haines vs Kerner guides here, and procedural barricades may not be
errected, meaning that whatever writ or rule number LABEL attaches to this MOTION /
Application for CORRECTION of deficient judicial erosions of a substantial right to legitimate
and due PROCESS, it shall vacate the abuse. That abuse must seize and the gutting of National
values, already sqandered by compliant enablers have resulted in huge REPUTATIONAL
LIABILITIES(like the worldchamp INCARCERATION rate), must arrest government trespass.

Introduction
Movant laid gravamen in vain throughout the last decade, to move this Court away
from compliance with legal nihilism standards and accept a logical not foregone - conclusion,
that, argumendo, when a Court cannot positively identify a victim and when a loss claim
IV inter alia, clear guidence from the USCA in United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19,
2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): "[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct
prohibited by a federal criminal statute.". Opinion at 14.
V http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/18/health/when-court-decisions-vanish-from-the-record.html?
pagewanted=1
4
causation and amount are specifically unsupported [by not even a single identifiable
victim], then, RESTITUTION and punishment MAY NOT SOLELY RESULT from a sordid
preponderance scheme -sans- jury verdict. Any preponder, categorically, who enacted grave
reversible error must step up -sua sponte upon discovery to end the opprobrium and
retrovert by annulment of each and every unlawful judicial act or filing, he might have been
swindled into by those on first row.
Movant was abusively accused, defectively indicted and superseded, wrongly
convicted by a blantantly deceived jury and senselessly punished as a wrongdoer, in fact,
caught up as by-kill trickery, and was deliberately exposed to 2 untenable phantom overt
acts resulting in enhanced penal consequences, utterly baseless. Deportation by way of
removal erected shelter for the benefit of an utterly corrupt bunch of greedy proctors
principally acting as oath violators, forgers, bogus Court officers and bad apples. The proctor
group runs on such monumental moral deficiencies, that a lifetime PRESIDER must enrobe the
antennas to detect, or rather move to other duties. Grave constitutional conflicts based upon
due process violations were approvingly sealed, while Jurisdiction was WANTED.
There are few things a justice dislikes more than repudiating a prior opinion.
But now is the time to view these opinions in the light of the CLEAR BURDA
STATEMENT, that Blumenberg paid his debts owed to victimized German employer Burda
GmbH a long time ago, and that this movant was hornswoggled out of a legitimate
RESTITUTION OBLIGATION in favor of a REAL VICTIM. Movant never owed RESTITUTION to
any real actor in this case, who could step up under oath. Now is the time to STATE THIS ON
THE RECORD.
This movant's definite lack of Victim's LOSS causation was heard and recorded by this
Court during the defendant's sentencing statement, and shall be recalled now. This Court
unwisely chose to ignore those true statements in the common face of goverment retribution,
if he palliated a covert, but shady agreement on how to sentence. And it is in PLAIN VIEW. It
might be hard to accept, that sometimes - those on first row have lower morals, than those
on second, and conspiracy to obstruct justice remains a continuing offense. But this is the hard
lesson any Court must learn : Persons can be targeted and not be guilty, that's not mutually
inconsistent.
5
A. The Dice are always loaded
Harris & Co aided by Feldman & Co used a deceptive indictment event for personal
gain, subsidized talmudic education, and aggrandizement. It was not due justice, nor
honorability to squash the legitimate search for historic court reporter records, which could
prove whether or not an OPEN COURT heard the indictment on that 14
th
day of June 2001. The
judge, the room, the tape, all vanished to waist for Harris' sake detrimental to just two lousy
foreigners and one (cameo) yankee.
But we still procede here until the slate is clean, same as below and above. Thanks to
that Second Circuit, labeled by NY Times A National Disgrace
VI
, where another panel was
essentially pained by appellant VIERTEL's direct case before them, and felt disturbed that
valid arguments and valid case law raised by Kim Bonstrom, Esq. could potentially derail an
otherwise perfected sham proceeding. Alas, they substituted the facts to give themselves an
opportunity to mis-apply their favored laws, in lieu of those laws, which justly curtail federal
reach of proscriptions, altogether handed down in an all too common summary chicanery to
derail a Supreme review, another low point on their record.
At least since early 2004, when movant mandatorily noticed the covertly deep-sixed
Brady Y'96 audit of BMI's financials for [1995 &] 1996 to this Court, he did so from captivity.
The highly inconvenient document demolished the plotters crime theory, while coincidentily,
the weight of this audit anihilated the counterfeit ruse, that BMI was victimized by third-
party in '96 when its own $8'120,10 draft, auto-messengered unsolicited arrived at
movant's home uptown.
When this discovery hit, the foundations of the Federal Case vanished, the FBI's pet
victim vaporized, the most repugnant pseudo-theory of replenishment vamoosed.
Regrettably, the clean Grandjury Exhibit transmuted into Government Exhibit 501 by criminal
forgery with ink and pen. This time the Court blocked by denial the discovery of an
unforged FBI electronic EXHIBIT picture file, just to save Cohen und Harris from criminal
forgery charges that uncorrupted file would reveal. The presider shall retroactively evaluate
the motives for this denial, and view the consequences it unjustly caused.
VI http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=national%20disgrace&st=cse
6
B. Discovery at 500 Pearl Street
Good news is, that movant now discovered an even earlier COURT RECORD facsimile,
which Feldman's own team submitted in 1999 to Judge Sweet as Exhibit H. Contained in a fat
binder, which never got served upon this defendant, but is stand-by to be pulled from
archive to proof the government's forgery of 2002. It is unreasonable to assume, that Feldman
could anticipate, that government proctors, 2 years later, would resort to forgery of an historic
document, and that defendant's counsel was of such (IAC) incompetence not to detect and call
the bluff. Thus, Feldman inadvertently filed a true BMI corporate RECORD: The clean Agate
Invoice, which proves, once again, that the government's propensity lays on tamperance with
evidence, and reliance upon Court's propensity to cover up. [ see clean Agate Invoice in Annex
(2), yet un-touched by Cohen, the more likely 2002 forger, based upon her Harvard-bred-flaw:
a propensity to defy morality for the sake of winning]
C. Confederacy to stultify
Blumenberg's apparent inability to receive a FAIR and TRUE R&R CONCLUSION was
part of the confederacy to stultify his stronger position as a fully-paid-up-restitutor, while
also handily cloning the meager result to keep more opprobrium laden upon this movant.
The motto keeps giving: once unjustly imprisoned, denied and deported, indebtness will keep
them owing and weak. That's what happened here : this Court took the position, that a) facts
do not count, b) a fooled jury's verdict can well provide for abuse (the jury cannot have found
furtherance ? Who are we kidding ?), c) this government's delusions must be protected, and
d) swift prison, denied curfew, denied halfway house, followed by a lengthy removal will asure
to choke the truth and flow of true information, which could tarnish the system.
There was no genuine federal crime Blumenberg, nor this movant, substantively
violated, because corporate and economic realities of the independent (no longer a pre-1992
branch agency ), $6,888 million revenue generating BMI do not permit interstate fraud
charges in this case. Consequently, a conspiracy willful or coincidental- to breach such
inapplicable law did not exist. Blumenberg was uncharged by NY state, despite Rogers &
7
Wells fruitless attempts at Morgenthau's: turns out, voil, the Fed's are evidently easier to
inveigle.
The inveigled were White, Canellos, Weddle, Harris, who threw a curve-ball to ex-
officio Pomerantz , then Esquire Feldman snatched it for his and his team's personal
monetary gain to the 100% detriment of local Burda Media Inc.(BMI), the cash-rich business
corporation Blumenberg built from scratch on loan as honorary chief executive.
BMI's agreed modus operandi was to habitually overcharge its almost 3 dozen foreign
customer billings, albeit with corporate consent from his German parent (Blumenberg's only
employer: Burda GmbH). Since such a billing model as of 1/1/1992 was grounded upon
BMI's independency
VII
, it carried German tax advantages and better still, permitted his
employer Burda GmbH to recoup Blumenberg's contractually high maintenance cost through
mark-ups BMI charged all its customers. Including also bobkes customers such as Burda
Holding (GmbH & CoKG). BMI Revenue from services ('96 = $6,888 Millions) streamed
partially onshore to BMI's NY local bank accounts, retained earnings collected in Germany
were left un-repatriated.
In the second half of 1996, post-Blumenberg resignation, Feldman's scofflaw team
billed $600'000+ as retainers to BMI , millions more were plundered later. Then in 2001, 5
years later, AUSA's Canellos/Harris plumped in to fake
VIII
an indictment based upon an ex-post-
facto stunner: a victimized BMI, which all of a sudden was not to bob up as selfsustaining,
but disguised as a revisionist existance grace to tax free wire donations from some foreign
benefactor: Feldman selected bobkes BMI client: Burda Holding out of the blue sky and
without approval by Holding's GC. The 1996 audit nixed this swindel.
D. WHO done it and WHO fooled the Fed's et al ?
by inventing this scheme, while hourly billing millions to poor victim BMI ?
The answer is : Feldman.
He was either not worth a dime of BMI's treasury funds for never grasping BMI's business
model, or too klutz to grok the Y'96 audit part of corporate BMI documents which he so
VII The transition to INDEPENDENT corporation had been caused by an IRS problem at German Publisher
Bauer. All German Media Bureau's in the USA were prudent to transition into separate entities after
1990, and so did Burda Media Inc. In 12-31-1991.
VIIIWhile the U.S. pretenders kept their eagle eyes off Commissioner Kerik of the greatest police
department in the world [BHARARA 2-18-2010], and far off the super busy ponzi meisters all around.
8
costly billed, as if he had reviewed them. The document also disclosed his own Y'96 billing
scheme and showed a 700+% rise in legal fees for Y'96.
However, it is more likely than not, that he embarked on a sneer campaign to fool Judge
Sweet, fake a SUMMONS & Complaint and bluntly deny autarchic-BMI-life existence.
Right thereafter, he went on to fool the dupes in Mollo's building.
This Presider should be well aware, who was next in line.
E. New Skullduggery
can be discovered in the [more complete] archives of 97cv7167 (RWS) as Dkt#1. Our
proctor #4705, inept to cinch simple Rule 4 instructions (and template appendices for les
plus maladroit),jurisdictionally fatal to Senior Judge Sweet, omitted INSERTION of the Name
DESIGNATOR for the District into which he meant to SUMMONS. FRCvP Rule 4 is crystal clear
: (a) (1) (A) name of the court
(a) (2) (b) ....If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must.....
(emphasis added)
a) Feldman's white-shoe-shine gleamed and buddied up the clerical incompetency
band behind the glass windows, where they raffle and re-raffle the Honorables until a
match is perfected, and then improperly at times, affix Case # stamps on those upscale
summons, defective or not. Fatal proof is right here in the Anex (3)
IX
.
b) That same proctor #4705-Feldman (jointly with #7097-Stephanz & #5941-
Anderson), submitted ample unverified verbiage in a basically rogue Complaint filed under
97cv7167 [RWS] on September 24, 1997 language and facts that were entirely not
sanctioned by BMI's stand-in director. The German Burda executive, Dr. Bolls, who originally
retained Rogers&Wells, had died in a company plan crash.
c) Points 24) & 25) are utterly contrary to what Rogers & Wells knew or should have
known to be true, and contrary to what Sr. Group Auditors [Maginot/Fluhrer] GAAP certified
for BMI to be factual on page 2 of the June 1997 BMI audit for Y'96 [see in Annex 4 as page
-2- while the complete audit with translation are presumably kept in Court files].
IX Footnote for JGK: this time around, Gendarme Pascal may not rescue the jurisdictional day, CJA Abe
Moskowitz can not botch it up, and C.J. McLaughlin shall be alerted to promptly amend sua sponte - his
opprobrious (2005) 417 F.3d 292 publication.
9
d) That Y'96 audit, became the Brady auditnamed after the government's deep-
sixing, overtly states on page -2- (B)(1)(a) paragraph 2 the following two-liner: [Die
Gesellschaft....] The company existed until December 31, 1991 as a branch office (bureau) of
Burda GmbH, Offenburg
X
. Since January 1, 1992, [the BMI company] operated as an
independent corporate entity . (emphasis' added/ page -2- in Annex 4).
e) Feldman, Court officer #4705, a dilettante micro-economist crossdresser, figured out
how to falsify general ledgers and how to conceal the true source of funds all by himself (the
facts be damned-he might by Madoff worthy). Feldman concluded, that a desirable RICO
breach cannot attach without allegations 1341 or 1343 violation, even if just the wonton
type!
f) Thus, he plainly transmogrified corporate reality into never-never land defrauding
the Sweet bench and all the other official actors
XI
. 4 years later Feldman set out to inculcate
Mollo's bunch (USAO SDNY) during his job-hunting-campaign to profit from as many time-
consuming subpeonas as BMI's opulent treasury could be cozen. Feldman's motivation was
greed: Lets get loaded by initiating more BMI related hourly billings pursuant to his
last inducement of a federal criminal referral action. To help along, he pulled a let's fake a
local victim ruse bamboozling the FBI's O'Sullivan. Since FBI manuals disfavore cases with
multiple jurisdiction-dissociate overseas victims who could not /would not initiate a
referral, Feldstein went to streamline and simply bent BMI facts around, that he knew
were indubitable falsehoods including EVERY reference to Burda Holding.
g) Feldman knew, and set out to scam the world, that Holding as never an actor nor a
payee at any time. He was actually in the know [at BMI's ample pecuniary detriment] of
BMI's financial audit, and knew that Holdings was totally desinvolved, Feldman chose to
forge the transition of 1992 and concealed the independency modus operandi. Feldman just
re-structured Historical REALITY, like a sex-change procedure.
h) Later, in 2002, when Feldman's cohorts Anderson/Stephanz freaked out suddenly
realizing that, without an immediate release of the incriminating Y'96 BMI audit to the USAO
pre-trial, their paperhanger-hit-and-run whitewash plan was likely to be foiled, the buck was
passed to government's imlicks. From that moment in August 2002, pre-trial, when the Y'96
X Burda GmbH, Offenburg was Blumenberg's exclusive employer and counterparty (BMI was not)
XI Each of the 9 (!) times Feldman states Burda Holding in 24) and 25) he knowingly falsified BMI's
corporate counterparty to fabricate federal acts, that he knew were maliciously counterfeit
10
BMI audit was hand-delivered and dumped upon the AUSO, they grappled, as their case had
crumbled, and had reached non-resurrectibility due to a June 18, 2001 SOL deadline.
i) But, then again, as recent history showed, exculpatory FACTS do not weigh too much
chez Mollo's star chambers. Lee was just been nolle prosequit, and those 2 unsuspecting
foreigners (effectively declawed by F.D./C.J.A. kittys) would get a Federal circumbendibus, and
eventually did so. Prosecutorial misconduct par excellence !
[see Annex 5 of Complaint page 8].
j) Ostensibly, deficient Court house staff at hand shall not scavenge white-shoe
proctor's grunge, but rather compliantly authenticate, what the proctors first type up, and
then demand to be certified by signature, like Finneran for Parkinson: Puppets-On-A-String.
[ see 97cv7167 Certificate of Default- page 2: Annex 6]
F. Wrong Victim ! Again !
Movant prays the Court to examine, during its tertial bonafide true victim search, what
the FBI released (after several time consuming FOIA complaints). The Court shall notice, that
on 8/30/2004 FBI's BQMRA refers again in caps to BURDA MEDIA INC.,-VICTIM;, while this
Court has done neither. Not in its older nor newer worded Viertel judgement ORDER. This
Court randomly chose to coin a fantasy entity, not even a victim. [see Annex 7]
G. BMI was not the 01-cr-571 victim
On seriatim try out, this Court fell again short of correcting this element, and leaves
again an identifiable true economically entitled restitutee out of a quixotic prepondered
restitution order in total murkiness. The defendant is still due judicial craftsmanship.
We already have the RECORD incontrovertibly clear that BMI was not victimized by a
third-party during the $8'120,10 Checkdraft it had - self directed - issued
XII
io ipso.
a. BMI wanted issuance of this check. The boss ordered a check and got it.
b. BMI did not have a payment reason when BMI drafted the check for $8'120,10
XII Blumenberg refunded this and other amounts 28 days after the check had cleared on 6/18/1996
11
c. BMI cannot be transformed into victim-status, 5 years or 5 minutes after payout
d. BMI was not a 1341 mailer, BMI made itself addressee and records keeper
e. BMI never mailed any internal Cashier reports via a licensed courrier
f. BMI subcontracted a BPO
XIII
firm in Germany to EXCLUSIVELY receive Cash Reports
g. BMI did not transfer any NY documents to a victim or a client or dupee
h. BMI held original vouchers for Maginot to carry to Germany, post payout
i. BMI printed the Agate Invoice for it's own books and records, self-addressed
j. BMI earned a 150% mark-up on expense vouchers - volutional expenses
k. BMI had 25+ clients, who willingly paid for mark-ups, overhead on great work
l. BMI's audit in 1997 held that all 1996 vouchers were bonafide (incl.$8,120.10)
m. BMI had no line-items for loss from operations/fraud or similarly qualifying
n. Owner Burda ordered BMI to cover up Blumenberg's mess until the end in 7/1996
The Court shall direct the government, to specifically address - in affidavit format- all items
herein and above ( a.- n.), and shall seek insurance that the government is limited to facts only,
and may not add conjecture, or, what it constructs from previous flawed opinion or dicta in
its favor. The law of the case is entirely corrupted.
H. Burda did not criminally refer to the FBI its most embarrassing 5 year old problem
Rogers&Wells auto-criminally refered this matter only to generate income from BMI,
and they sought and received a sensitive document seal from Judge Sweet to keep the lid on
other civil transgressions before him. Burda Germany, however, through its GC Schweizer, sans
Rogers&Wells, tried to dodge a '97 official German criminal investigation to the point of arrest
threats for obstruction.
Blumenberg was charged, pleaded out and convicted in Germany to 2 year probation
term, successfully concluded at his New Jersey home, and a $3000 fine to an orphanage.
Viertel was not even suspect.
Abuse of fiduciary duty is a german type of honest service felony, if against a German
employer, who was owed such duty, despite the fact that Blumenberg was permitted to self-
dealings, legal limits were transgressed. Victim was Burda GmbH his employer, not BMI.
XIII BPO= Business Process Outsourcing, third-party subcontracted accounting services
12
Blumenberg was exclusively employed by Burda GmbH, and no contract with BMI was ever
signed.
I. More VICTIMLESS charges ( Count 2)
The BMI '96 financial audit was independently issued, and was CONSEQUENTLY not
subject to Rogers&Wells' manipulation, even though they billed BMI heavily during the period
the audit was perfected. Therefore, this audit stayed totally silent about any, even small,
victimizing losses during 1996 at BMI, nor does this audit reference, account, chronicle any
incoming wires (as Count 2 ficticiously stated in total disregard that Burda Holding was
NOT even the counterparty of the transfer Swift) for any sum or a plum sum of $345,000.-.
All fourteen '96 transfers cannot be subject to prominence during a financial snapshot,
because they are NON-EVENTS, a status similar to foreign currency transactions,
countervalued but materially irrelevant.
But this economic reality was concealed from this Court, from defense and from jury to
protect a fake case from growing Brady breaches and discovery of malfeasance by Mollo's
band. These 14 FOREX trades had no impact upon assets, nor did they effect profit & loss,
balance sheet, nor the treasury. THE TRADES WERE PLAINLY economically NOT relevant, nor
did they victimize any party or counterparty, ergo , they cannot substantiate a misleading or
fraudulent interstate event with pretense and loss claim.
The proctor-tricksters resorted to illegal structuring. While no defendant nor victim
was effected or benefited from these TRANSFERS, this defendant was sentenced and
oppressively enhanced, as if there was a crime he had consented to, abetted, knew about or
had control over. Now has come the time for this Court to accept responsibilty and to
VACATE this utter absurdity. This movant did not profit, but still sustains a cash/interest loss
of 120.000+ from the imbroglio which ended 1996, 14 years ago. Movant refers also, in
particular, to his 11-30-2007 SURREPLY filing , which the Court shall review, and take into
consideration.
Quote: The whole trial is out of order!
XIV

XIV Reply to Judge Rayford in Justice for all.
13
Conclusions
Under the current State of your Nation, when Health care reform maybe as vital as justice
reform to re-separate the powers, and when extreme jailterm practices earned a human
rights Trophy for ber-incarceration, when Supreme and lower Court stacking effectively
extinguished the beacon America once was, that becomes the rare moment when an
honorable judge should shall use supervisory powers to correct an injustice - sometimes the
only right righteous action - especially when there has been not only DUBIOUS but outright
baseless FALSE charges, cumulative government misconduct, MLAT fraud, forgery, artifice
liens, abusive BOP, INS, ICE and adminstrative chicanery, overall obstruction of the truth-
finding process and now 5 added years of restitutional imbroglio.
The integrity of the trial and subsequent proceedings was long compromised and these
transgressions will not bio degrade.
It is respectfully requested to grant the MOTION in its entirety.
This submission is truthful and made pursuant to 28 USC 1746 (1)
XV
.
Respectfully Submitted this 28 day of February 2010
Christian T Viertel, movant pro se
Torre Di Monterrivecchi
9/18 via delle Ballodole
Italia 50139 Firenze
T: +1 302 261-5000
F: +1 801 346-7954
Annex of Exhibits ( 8 pages), lost Judicial Notice attached below.
Certificate of Service : Fax delivery upon Chambers JGK and HBP
Fax delivery upon Preet Bharara, Esq.
Email: Robert Culp, Esq. Certified : /s/ 2/28/2010
XV(1) If executed without the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the USA that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
14
The lost 25.Feb 2006 JUDICIAL NOTICE :
AXED TO CHAMBERS 11.Sog-,q1 Christiun T. Viertel
Runkestrusse 1o,Sq Berlin
U.S. MuII: 8;o EugIe Run DrIve
Bocu RuLon, qq
To The Honoruble
istrict Jodge John G. Koeltl Cuse o1-oog,1 {JGK)
Lnited Stutes Coorthoose
goo Peurl Street
New York, NY 1ooo, g Iebroury oo6
Deur Judge KoeILI:
Whereas, defendant pro-se, Christian Viertel, hereby submits to this honorable Court a:
Mandatory Judicial Notice
In furtherance and during the pendancy of defendants
Petition For Correction Of RESTITUTION
[Dkt# 161] and in addition to other submissions including defendants RESPONSE to the
governments averments filed January 27, 2006.
This NOTICE is filed in the interest of justice and to best position this Court to view the depth of
the scenario and facts underlying the Petition.
Defendant, whose instant case is not yet final, and whose strong claims of [f]actual innocence from
any federally violative conduct remain strong, obtained this week in Germany two letters , both of
which are adjoined and part of this NOTICE to the Court:

#1 letter: was issued 10 Nov 2003

by an associate Member of
Standing at HUBERT BURDA Medias Board of Directors (VORSTAND). In fact,
Professor Dr Robert Schweizer, the writer of letter

#1 addressed to a retired senior

Three days after this defendant was regrettably forced to self-surrender, without benefit of a
postponement- found by this Court to be unreasonable, into a putrid prison warehouse
machinery run by nefarious miscreants whose goal, initially, was to curtail all communications,
and to humiliate new arrivals in violation of 18USC 3553, ff. et.al.
Translation in FULL : Honorable, dear Mr.Sakowski:
Dr.Burda sends his gratitude for your letter of October 12, 2003. Your letter was discussed at the
Board (meeting), and I was chosen to respond to you herewith.
Initially: Mr.Markwort and Dr.Todenhfer did not sink their teeth into Fritz. When his fraudulent
activities were discovered, Mr.Bolls and myself were in charge of review and further handling.
BURDA group and its employees never made any [U.S.] criminal referral. BURDA group does not
punish Mr. Blumenberg twice. We never exercised any influence whatsoever upon [United
States] criminal proceedings. We [BURDA] attempted throughout the years, within our set
15
executive (Sakowski) in France, pursuant to the executives earlier intervention on behalf of
Mr.Blumenberg. Blumenberg is my untried co-defendant and the primary restitutioner in this
joint case 01-0571(JGK)
From all 4 corners of the #1 letter, it is apparent, and thus for this COURT to take immediate
mandatory consideration, that BURDA group was already satisfied with Blumenbergs restitution by
November 2003, prior to Blumenbergs incarceration and most probably prior to this defendants
ugly sentencing day experience in June 2003, the constitutionality of which is currently under
appellate review. This honorable court holds Proctor Warren Feldman as his officer-of-the-court,
who, highly unethically, moved without due authorization from his ultimate client to mislead this
Court by obtaining undeserved and untimely victim standing

. It is more likely than not that

Feldman & Co. knowingly acted violative of their clients mandate with respect to an earlier referral,
and viewed in that light, the Court shall consider the governments motivation to continue to
obstruct

disclosure of AO 257, a required Court form, which was sought by this defendant, and
which this Court repeatedly ordered to be disclosed, to no avail and thus far, without sanctions.
#2 letter: was issued by the law offices of Professor Dr Schweizer, who then and now
acts as general counsel to the BURDA group, in addition to his board position. The letter

parameters, to mollify these problems.

Dr.Burda must treat a single instance also reasonably within its framework. Everyday, as you
experienced yourself, we have to balance some interests. Such balance, i.e., restrains us from
financially supporting Mr.Blumenberg. However, Dr.Burda ruled in favor of Mr.Blumenberg not
to seek further restitution of damages. Presumably, you did not even have thoughts about
financial help.
BURDA never wanted the arrest of Mr.Blumenberg. But, as previously stated, we are incapable to
prevent such detention.
The problems rest, in my opinion, at more depth. Why did Mr.Blumenberg, while he was highly
remunerated, damage BURDA for so many years and with such intent? As far as we know, was
Mr.Blumenberg subject to outside BURDA unrelated influences, which caused him to divert
monies and caused further damages to BURDA by diverting BURDA funds to associates. He
furthermore caused grief to many his BURDA-colleagues.
Due to all these circumstances, Dr.Burda was not willing to give even more support to
Mr.Blumenberg than what he decided several years ago, as mentioned: No further damages
will be sought. BURDA is contented the restitution obtained in the past. New damages claims
would arise only in case of new circumstances. With friendly greetings, please also for
Mr.Blumenberg Schweizer
Which this defendant has substantially disputed as false, fabricated and erroneous
United States Attorney Acosta (SDFL) just stated, Attorneys, as officers of the Court, have an
ethical obligation and a duty to protect and promote our system of justice. When attorneys
breach that duty and actively obstruct justice, it erodes the public confidence in our legal
system.
Translation in FULL: Referenced BLUMENBERG/VIERTEL 2 September 2004
Honorable Mr. Rahlf,
In reference to your letter dated August 6, 2004, for which we thank you: Your client accepted at
the USDC-SDNY on June 4, 1998 a 38-page settlement, which contained numerous
appendices detailing his obligations. Those obligations have substantially been satisfied. His
[Capital] Life Insurance with Journalist-Pension Fund (Stuttgart) remains outstanding but those
pension benefits were irrevocably ceded by your client on June 1, 1998 in favor of BURDA. We
do not know of any other issues. With friendly greetings: Law office Prof.Schweizer, written
16
was issued on September 2, 2004 to a chartered accountant at the BEER, GASTL &
PARTNER law firm in Hamburg, which acts as Blumenbergs CPA in Germany and,
apparently in response to a letter dated June 4, 2004 (which has not yet been made available
to me). BURDAs attorney states therein, that Blumenberg has, in September 2004,
satisfactory status vis--vis his obligations pursuant to DJ.Sweets proceedings. Those
[OBLIGATIONS] have substantially been satisfied, he writes.
Once more, very clear language from BURDA, which squarely accolades defendants PETITION
TO CORRECT RESTITUTION with high merit, for this COURT to grant the reasonable relief
sought, and BURDA-language which also confirms that Blumenberg complied with this Courts
stated Sentencing ORDER:
5) The defendant is to continue to comply with
the terms of his civil agreement with Burda
Media, the victim in the instant offense; and 6)
The defendant shall cooperate with the Internal Revenue
Service with their efforts to collect any due and owing
taxes.

THEREFORE , the defendant PRAYS this Court to grant his PETITION, inter alia, and such other
relief

as might be considered just, certainly overdue and reasonable in the interest of justice, and
maybe to go beyond the petitions calling and rectify the wrongs which this Court has supported for
too long.
Respectfully Submitted
Iebroury g, oo6 [s[
________________________
Christiun T Viertel, deIendunt pro se
THIS IAX HAS PAGIS ATTACHI { letters) (mIssIng InIere zJzo1o)
Service by Iux {6, q) und e-muil to L.S. Attorney
MIcIueI J. GurcIu uL MoIIo`s BuIIdIng JsJ
One St. Andrews Pluzu, New York City, NY 1ooo,
by Mr.Delhey and signed during his absence by Sder.
United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1774 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi):
"[R]estraint must be exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federal
criminal statute.". Opinion at 14.
17






Appendix

E






Appendix

F






Appendix

G






Appendix

H






Appendix

I
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------x
(via fax 212-805-7912 to Chambers May-16-2011 & mail)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, 01 Cr 00571 (JGK)
v. MANDATORY COURT NOTICE AND
MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, JOHN C. LEE,
CHRISTIAN T VIERTEL, Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------x
Dkt.# 215 [The] defendant is reminded that the issue is whether the
Magistrate Judge erred in deciding the matters before him. It is unclear how
searching for new documents affects that issue. SO ORDERED.
(Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/3/2010)

Dkt.# 238 ENDORSEMENT: [Adjourned to Friday, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 P.M.]
So Ordered. The Court notes that it would be useful to have a
definitive statement from a senior corporate official as to the status of restitution.
(Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/31/2011)

NOW COMES, Fritz G. Blumenberg, defendant partially pro se to give NOTICE to this honorable
Court that the defendant heeded the Courts opinion [see: of Dkt.# 238] and as a result, SUBMITS
THREE DEFINITE STATEMENTS in the annex.
My previous AFFIDAVIT filed 2-27-2010 with this Court OBJECTING to MJ. Pitmans under-
valuations [Dkt.# 211] was CLEARLY JUSTIFIED. My incontrovertible statements are fully adopted;
in particular my objections laid gravamen to the DOJs continuing obstruction of justice by refusing
closure of the USAOs FLU-teams Restitution money book recorded at the SDNY.
2

In fact, at the time of my guilty plea in May 2002 and certainly a year later at my sentencing
on 5-22-2003 the judicial levy of the Restitution amount was not only incorrect then and unreflective of
my substantial performance, but apparently used to drive guideline number upwards. As submitted
below, the REAL non-manipulated Money Count stood empirically on May-2003 as follows:
I Co-def Lees Payment 1998 [see Blumenberg PSA] $ 250.000.00
II German Mark 1996 Refund of DEBT to Burda Holding $ 328,150.00
III Varied undervalued Disposals by Rogers & Wells $ 914,659.79
IV Removal of undervalued 6-98 Pension Credit from above list ($ 317,870.58)
V Real Future Value Pension 98 Transfer of 736K at U$D Rate 2003 $ 861,000.00
VI Credit 2000 Insurance Wrtembergische 50% Value 95 TDM $ 56,000.00
RESTITUTIONAL VALUE TRANSFERRED BEFORE SENTENCING $ 2,091,939.21
Todays submission of three definite VERIFICATIONS result in an $105,101.00 enlarged
RESTITUTED AMOUNT, partially pursuant to a value-drop of the US-Dollar, the result of which is
additional USD Value realized by BURDA:
VII [see V] Pension 98 Presse Insurance FINAL VALUE adjustment $74,352.00
VIII Two additional [not foreseen] Insurances transfers per Dec-2008 $30,749.00
RESTITUTIONAL 2008 Grand Total of $2,197,040.21.
This defendants historical sentencing was flawed; a judgment is rendered defective once at least
ONE element, here RESTITUTION and the conditions for interest and payment henceforth, was
plainly in error, since RESTITUTION was no longer due at sentencing. Not only, but the governments
FLU commenced INTEREST calculations, imposed LIENS, issued Affidavits and added serious
opprobrium for the defendants by creating a flawed public record. See Fed.R.Crim.P.52(b). "A plain
3

error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights." U.S. v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1199 (9th
Cir.), Cert. Denied, 444 U.S. 979 (1979). Plain error is invoked to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to
preserve the integrity and the reputation of the judicial process. U.S. v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 935 (9th
Cir. 1992).
Three VERIFICATIONS plus BURDA GCs cover
1
letter are annexed; originals are on hand to
be filed by my CJA attorney, upon directions from the Court.
Therefore, this Court shall take NOTICE, that all RESTITION AMOUNTS were beneficially submitted
to and received by my direct employer, Burda GmbH, or, in lesser part, by its direct parent, [Hubert]
Burda Holding GmbH & Co. KG. on behalf of Burda GmbH, Arabellastrasse 23, in Mnchen. The
governments deleteriously counterfeit a local [SDNY based corporation: Burda Media Inc.] as Victim
and presented this wrong status for BMI in AOUSC charging certificates, to inveigle upon the trial
Court. Through the entire FBI file the false victim captioned as: BLRB4 HLBl4 lNC. - vlC1lH;
Government by trickery and deceit
Burda Media Inc. New York was NEVER an authenticated victim, regardless of coached
[302] hearsay from Burda Inc. staff, none of whom was privy to Burda Groups corporate modus
operandi. As former President/CEO of Burda Media Inc., I state that the NY Company was a NET
WINNER at all times since its 1992 corporate mutation into a bona fide INDEPENDENT company,
inter alia, just as properly certified by the Burda Groups YE 1996 AUDIT issued by Mssrs Maginot &
Fluhrer, Burda Groups top CPAuditor team. This AUDIT, which the government willfully and
certainly unlawfully withheld from my defense and from this case, was FATAL to the prosecutions
theorem. Violations of Brady obligations are intentional acts of obstructive behavior in violation of
the due process clause. When the government came into possession of such an important

1
TRANSLATION of COVER LETTER May-3-2011 from Law Office Prof. Schweizer: Honored Mr.
Blumenberg, we are hereby transmitting as requested three Verifications signed by Prof.
Schweizer in his authority as associated member of the [Holdings] board and permanent general
counsel of HUBERT BURDA MEDIA companies, including subsidiaries, among them Burda GmbH. With
Kind Regards Law Office Prof. Schweizer ( 2 /s/ signatures)
4

INDEPENDENTLY issued, six year old EXCULPATORY document showing the relevant economic
details of 1996 [inclusive of my last 6 months at Burda until I resigned on July 9, 1996], the government
case, the single mail fraud, the single wire fraud and the single conspiracy died instantly upon arrival of
the AUDIT. [My tax charges were also false, but on other grounds, in as much as my IRS declared
income for 1995/96 was correct and not underreported, due to the substantial REAL 1995/96 income
reduction vesting before my IRS declarations were issued. This REFUND is certified now by one of the
VERIFICATIONS Burda issued last week and is proof my taxable income was truthfully declared at the
exact level]
DEFENDANT NOW RESPECTFULLY MOVES THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING
PROSECUTION and FBI TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT:
WHY THEY SHOULD NOT GET SANCTIONED FOR
1) PRESENTING A BOGUS ECONOMIC VICTIM AND CLOAKING BVG
2

2) PRESENTING A FABRICATED INDICTMENT BY ALL COUNTS
3) BRADY VIOLATIONS FOR CLOAKING BMIs 96 AUDIT REPORT
4) WONTON F.B.I. FUGITIVE CLASSIFICATION UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Two economic details [A & B below] are crucial to fathom the gravity of official misconduct, their zeal
to overstep law enforcement
3
limits, and the FATALITY prospects for the governments fabrications
and deceptions, if they got caught. They arrogantly flaunted accounting facts and standards to obstruct
the Grand Jurys investigation employing corrupt conduct intended to "influence, obstruct, or impede"

2
Burda Verlagsservices GmbH (BVG), Hauptstrasse 130, D-77654 Offenburg [HRB 20.Dec.1994]
3
United States v. Ford, 03-1774 (2d Cir. 1-19-2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): "[R]estraint must be
exercised in defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federal criminal statute."Op. at 14

5

the due administration of justice [18 U.S.C. 1503] inclusive of the June-2001 INDICTMENT & SS-
versions that followed: The defendant pursuant to USC 28 1746 hereby states as follows:
A) Burda Media Inc. was an INDEPENDENT profit center with more than $6,8+ million
annual [95 & 96] proceeds from journalistic services activity resulting in $6,8+ million
SALES TO TWO DOZENS OVERSEAS CLIENTS. BMI not ever received
GRANTS/Reimbursements from Burda Holding to cover our operational cost; neither
did BMI get Wires from Holding. Purest government treachery.

B) I produced on or after June 20, 1996 inside Burda Media Inc.s offices on Burda Medias
computer equipment/laser printer what was to become Grand Jury Exhibit 507
4
in its clean,
unaltered form [sans ink altered value] that was to REPLACE an successfully completed
disbursement of a generic PAYMENT ORDER for $8120.10, that I handwrote to Kiefer
June 17, 1996. Contrary to the prosecutions fabrication, GJ 507 could not have triggered
an illicit payment, GJ 507 arrived too late; GJ 507 just sought to cover a 3+day-old
disbursements insufficient documentation without changing the underlying economics,
namely those of a General Overhead = 460-23 classification, allowing for Burda Medias
standard 100+% profit margin, to result in posterior to my mid-term-resignation at
least $16,240.20 (double $8,120.10) bundled earnings to Burda Media, Inc. in June 1996.
Audit issued in June 1997, no loss detectable, Federal Mail statute not ever reached.

C) The 371 charge to jointly cause mail or wire was utterly bogus ad initio, and is neither
tenable nor factual, because NO PERSON outside TOP BRASS at BURDA GROUP
[certainly not Mr. Lee or Mr. Viertel] could ever know that BMI retained [at a yearly FEE of
$350K paid by BMI] in early 1995 their crucial subcontractor in Offenburg BURDA
Verlagsservice GmbH (BVG see FN 2) to handle BMIs invoicing and money book.

4
Agate Invoice for $ 8120 no cents; see: annexed as page 5, GJ 6/06/02 page 53
6

BVG was the exclusive DESTINATION for our cashier/bookkeeping mailings, which
included all those fake and pro-forma vouchers I submitted as part of my scheme. Only
BVG got BMIs MAIL, but, was not a victim at any time. BVG did not question suspicious
vouchers, in order not to endanger their highly profitable contract with BMI. Government
disclosure of BVGs mere existence (founded 1994) or their overseas exclusive invoicing
function would have been FATAL to their SDNY action, thus they purposefully withheld
this exculpatory knowledge about BVGs key functions from Grand Jury, Case, Hearings,
and Court. The DOJ shrewdly directed its own FBI agency to cover up the truth.

D) The wire charge was likewise bogus, for three reasons, first the wire instructions do not
identify BURDA Holding as PAYOR/sender, second, DM 534,660 German Mark were
beneficially owned 100% before and after this FOREX TRANSFER to BMIs NY Dollar
account [no change in economic ownership occurred], and third, the AUDIT does not
reflect TRANSFERS (-records), because of their INTRAMURAL status. [Note to USA:
Topping-Up its own office petty-cash-box is never an economically relevant event]

E) This FBI document speaks for itself (Annex Page 6). That the SDNY-D.C. publicly
designated our new Case 01-cr-571 as a Non-Fugitive [USM] process, is of no import to
the USAO and Harris. Harris coaxed the agency to apprehend 3 SDNY defendants outside
in foreign jurisdictions by a fraudulent ruse. Harris caused three interstate wire
transmissions to deceive operatives in Newark, New Haven and Miami, to obtain his means
and to humiliate defendants and their families by scamming local police departments in NJ,
CT and FL into wonton assistance to re-catch Fugitives from law. The USAOs intend was
to manipulate federal officers into hoodwinking local police to commit criminal false arrest
acts under color of law violating defendants constitutional due process rights. Its a routine.

7

There was no question ever, that I violated my fiduciary duty obligations as proscribed by
GERMAN law as an executive of Burda GmbH and as President-On-Loan to BMI NY. For the
reasons above, United States Federal laws were unwisely relied upon. The U.S.C.s breadth [FN3]
NEVER REACHED any real 1996 facts, any circumstances or any substantive mens rea requisite.
Government
5
and Courts have no congressional authority to fabricate, argue and opine away
HISTORICAL CORPORATE FACTS nor ECONOMIC REALITIES under some dubious albeit
corrupt - goal, in particular, when official acts result in tort and wreak havoc upon the lives and families
of accused defendants certainly, by constitutional law, presumed to be innocent.
Defendant PRAYS this Court to correct the errors of SENTENCING and to vacate and
declare nunc pro tunc - all OBLIGATIONS to make RESTITION a NULLITY, and to direct the
plaintiff to show cause without further delay. My declarations are made under 28 U.S.C. 1746.
Respectfully AFFIRMED and Submitted, May 15, 2011
___________________________________
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant 001
Am Hempberg 2, D-21224 Rosengarten-Ttensen
Copies of this submission were emailed to
USA Preet Bharara, Counsel Alan Nelson, Christian T Viertel & his Counsel Thomas Dunn /s/
Additional hard copy was posted to the Pro Se Clerk Please file on DOCKET

ANNEX Pages:
Page No 1, 2 & 3 are VERIFICATIONS issued by BURDAs GC on May-3-2011
Page No 4 is the COVER LETTER issued by BURDAs law firm [translation in FN 1]
Page No 5 is defendants GJ transcript of 6-06-2002
Page No 6 FBI FACSIMILE 6/15/2001 Locate and apprehend 3 FUGITIVES

5
SDNY USA Bharara promised to pursue and prosecute those who believe they are both above the law
and too smart [and too embedded] to get caught. Albeit, Bhararas standard praises for prosecutors,
F.B.I. and FLU are highly inopportune here. Now, the Sheriff shall clean out his own bad apples.

8

Annex Page No 6 Locate and apprehend THREE FUGITIVES








Appendix

J
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------x
(via fax 212-805-7912 to Chambers Jul-10-2011 & mail)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, 01 Cr 00571 (JGK)
v. MANDATORY COURT NOTICE AND TRAVERSE TO
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE IN FURTHER SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, JOHN C. LEE,
CHRISTIAN T VIERTEL, Defendants
------- ------------------------------------------x

COMES NOW, Fritz G. Blumenberg, defendant partially pro se to give NOTICE to this
honorable Court that the governments submission dated June-30-2011 is not only without merit, is
deceptive, dilatory and avoids all RESTITUTION issues altogether. Thus, their submission is made in
contempt of at least one prior COURT ORDER dated September 16, 2008 and in violation of 18 USC
241, 241 et.al and their strict obligation to provide truthful statements, sworn affidavits and
accounting on amounts and beneficiary. Accordingly, the submission should be entirely rejected.
Also, the government violated 18 USC 3612 (b) Information to be Included in
Judgment; Judgment to be Transmitted to Attorney General. (1) A judgment or order imposing,
modifying, or remitting a fine or restitution order of more than $100 shall include (G) in the
case of a restitution order, information sufficient to identify each victim to whom restitution is
owed. It shall be the responsibility of each victim to notify the Attorney General, or the
appropriate entity of the court, by means of a form to be provided by the Attorney General or the
court, of any change in the victims mailing address while restitution is still owed the victim. And
also violated: 18 USC 3664(j) (1) If a victim has received compensation from insurance or any
2

other source with respect to a loss, the court shall order that restitution be paid to the person who
provided or is obligated to provide the compensation, but the restitution order shall provide that
all restitution of victims required by the order be paid to the victims before any restitution is paid
to such a provider of compensation.(2) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of restitution
shall be reduced by any amount later recovered as compensatory damages for the same loss by the
victim in(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and (B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent
provided by the law of the State.

It is outrageous for the DOJ, the largest law firm on this planet, to scoff the law and come
before a federal judge as if to pronounce: yeah, Judge, you know, we recognized your order, we realized
it and we just havent gotten around to complying with it since 2005, and we really dont have a good faith
reason or any reason for not having complied with it.

Unsupported government claims are delusional
Since the governments charges were purely fabricated, they are unsupported by certifiable
financial facts on case record plus, they became a micro-economic absurdity in bad faith. The
prosecutors conduct violated due process as is prohibited pursuant Drake v. Portuondo, 553 F.3d 230,
240 (2d Cir. 09) (quoting Wei Su v. Filion, 335 F.3d 119, 126 (2d Cir. 03)) since prosecutors are
officer[s] of the court whose duty is to present a forceful and truthful case to the jury, not to win at
any cost..

Plaintiff United States set out to fool the grand jury by obstructing truth and justice and their
new submission is another seriatim attempt to bury or cover prosecutorial malpractice. The COURT
shall reject their claims also because it represent precisely the type of "abuse and sharp practice" the
Second Circuit condemned, inter alia, United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 31 (2d Cir. 84).

3

It is important to realize, that AUSA Cohan is a member of a blue-collar sex-crime division and
neither trained nor micro-economically blessed to handle white collar complications, and even less
anointed to produce credible economic reason or facts to a Court. Harris and Cohan found it tactically
advantageous to turn a blind eye to the manifest potential for malevolent disinformation that flowed
from coached witnesses like Kiefer working for a proven loss-free company [not for a victimized entity]
or they relied on FBI OSullivans fear of non-compliance with his boss. It is evident in 01-cr-571 here
that prosecutors failed in their "clear duty under our Constitution" to "collect potentially exculpatory
evidence, to prevent fraud upon the court, and to elicit the truth." Northern Mariana Islands v. Bowie,
243 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 01).

75 years of CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT, botched

The Supreme Court declared more than seventy-five years ago that obtaining a conviction
through the "deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be
perjured" is "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice." Mooney, 294 U.S. at 112. Since
Mooney, SCOTUS reaffirmed this bedrock principle in e.g., United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103
(76); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (72); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (59).

The Second Circuit recently summarized these cases: "'Since at least 1935, it has been the
established law of the United States that a conviction obtained through testimony the prosecutor knows to
be false is repugnant to the Constitution. This is so because, in order to reduce the danger of false
convictions, we rely on the prosecutor not to be simply a party in litigation whose sole object is the
conviction of the defendant before him [see supra Drake, 553 F.3d at 240]. In the criminal case here,
this principle extends even farther. The Second Circuit held that the prosecution violates a defendant's
right to due process when it presents testimony "that it knew or should have known was false." United
States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389, 392 (2d Cir. 97); see Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103 ("knew or should have
known").
4


It is evident that Harris and Cohen knew and the reasonable likelihood standard can easily
be met, because both were imbued into the know by Warren Feldman who milked Burda Group for
$1plus millions for investigating BMI finances while he seems to have actually just colored his
Rico 4 Dummies booklet each day. Feldmans investigation was a sham.

Ruse to forego sudden defeat
In the claim to excuse its silence here, the government alludes to work it is planning to
perform by collaborating with my CJA counsel Alan Nelson, who was assigned to effectively assist this
defendant as counsel in front of the bar. Counsel Nelson has not received a mandate from this
defendant that would permit him to react with the government, other than for scheduling matters or
copies. Permission to work with the government will not be forthcoming, unless and until the
government has ceased to obstruct justice, subscribes to lawful conduct and withdraws its shameful
contentions and fabrications by admission and stipulation to a certified audit that established genuine
economic and corporate FACTS. These facts are historic and end the denial the government clings onto
and will finally throw its 2001 prosecution in fatal doubt and demise. So far the government sought to
maintain its fraudulent construction because it fears the consequences, inter alia, and in fear of the
principle of law by which any person who seeks to defraud a foreign customer of a domestic
corporation [he has control over] without creating a loss at the domestic corporation, is not breaking
the mail fraud law, which has no exterritorial reach.
All crime is local.
The defendant, pursuant to USC 28 1746, hereby states as follows into the record:
I) The government contents to have somehow established that a S1 charged bank transfer
originated from an entity it did not: BURDA HOLDING. This claim is an absolute
fallacy and such establishment is false and, in fact and document, untenable. It appears
5

opportune for me to seek procurement of a CERTIFICATE from Germany, that
confirms the true beneficial ownership of [then] Dresdner Bank banque account 7238-
595-00, the true order account identity and the signature authority in reference to the
S1-charged $350,000 transfer dated 6-20-1996. This CERTIFICATE will serve to fully
impeach the absurd government contention that the funds came from BURDA
HOLDING, while they knew otherwise and were sitting on an authentic 6-20-1996
intramural banque transfer receipt it espied out of Feldmans special paper collection
and Harris withheld it from grand jury, from my defense, from Viertels petit jury and
Court. It seem opportune to remind the Court, that Viertel provided this Court with a
copy obtained overseas of Roger&Wells hand-delivered letter to USA Harris
1
, in which
Burda discloses in August 2002 several BMI Balance Sheet books for years including
1996. None were submitted to either defense counsel, Mssrs.Weinstein nor Moskowitz.

II) On the issue of BURDA MEDIAs INDEPENDENT STATUS as a millions of dollars
INCOME producing domestic entity, the government apparently used its magic bald
eagle elixir to somehow compel this Court to absurdly adopt their perverted view [if
such adoption actually occurred, as they claim]. The simple fact, that I, the alien without
of jurisdictional borders of the US, effectively withdrew my guilty plea and reverted to its
previous uncorrupted not guilty status, at least disinherits the government from any
probative value it claims to have obtained from my temporary unintelligent plea. Based
on the know & the how this Court gleaned over these last 10 years should compel it to
do something about it that might not be politic, but it would definitely be fair and just :

1
Experienced prosecutors know that they can almost always get away with Brady violations. The
number of prosecutions or disciplinary actions against prosecutors for Brady violations is
miniscule. Appellate courts are generally loathe to reverse convictions for anything but
egregious Brady violations, generally finding that the withheld information was immaterial.
There are certainly prosecutors who withheld exculpatory information to increase their chances
of achieving what they believe is the just result. And there are others, who would withhold the
information to advance their own careers. (in part thanks to lawprof_blog/goldman)
6

i. To Wit : My decade long executive functions as a director of the New York
domestic business corporation BURDA PUBLICATIONS INC
[BPI][initial NYDOS filing date 1-27-1978] was a legal and DTA tax-treaty-
compliant, what is considered a branch operation [a status that is often
also classified as [PE] Permanent Establishment of another firm elsewhere]

ii. Extrinsic events in the late Eighties at another news gathering outpost,
combined with a altered view by double taxation experts, led BURDA
GmbH, my employer and parent of BPI, to TRANSFORM our branch on
Jan-1-1992 into a separate independent [german: selbststndige] subsidiary. I
was actively involved in this transformation targeted to complete in 1991with
BPIs lawfirm Walter, Conston,Alexander & Green P.C.
2
, who is perfectly
qualified to confirm the legal work to this respect.

iii. The post-Blumenberg-era forensic Audit of BMI was issued in Offenburg,
Germany on June 8
th
, 1997 by 2 certified chartered and squarely qualified
financial audit professionals, Mr. Maginot and Dr. Flatter. It is classic analysis
ordered by my successor Preute as president of BMI on or after August 19
th
,
1996. The government subpoena covered the audit. The subpoena was
complied with by BMI late in 2002 [as it may have been], but government
proctors had it, and all we know is that they kept it from discovery. It might
be due to the fact that government or Court Probation official in this case,
have either none nor competent enough financial qualifications or legitimate
training, that would permit them to even comprehend simple historical

2
New York-based law firm existed from 1843-2001 when it merged with Atlanta-based Alston &
Bird to launch the New York office of that national firm : www.alston.com
7

micro-economic events, that took place during my directorship. Or, they had
an agenda to keep it secret and violated Brady. [see FN 1 supra]

iv. Maginot and Flatter certified on page 2 : Die Gesellschaft war bis zum
31.Dezember 1991 eine Betriebssttte (Bro) der Burda GmbH, Offenburg.
Sie ist ab 1.Januar 1992 eine selbstndige Firma. Translation to English:
The corporation [BURDA MEDIA INC.] was until December 31, 1991 a
permanent establishment (branch office) of Burda GmbH, Offenburg.
The corporation became on January 1, 1992 an independent subsidiary.
[Langenscheidt: selbstndig = freelance, self-reliant, independent]

v. On page 8 BMIs 1996 year-end liabilities lenders are listed as follows:
$1266356.83 due in favor of [Parent] Burda GmbH, Offenburg; $17835.55
due in favor of Elle Verlag GmbH, Mnchen; and $ 0.00 due in favor of
Burda Holding GmbH & Co Kommanditgesellschaft, Offenburg for a total
liability of $1284192.38. BMI re-paid Burda Holdings old loan carried from
1995 in the value of $360000.00 during 1996. Holdings loan was repaid from
BMIs INCOME during 1996. The entire scope of 1996 financial interaction
with Burda Holding was this [-$360000] loan vs. $129552.93 INCOME for a
net positive cash flow in favor of Burda Holding of $230447.07. This
simple fact will never go away or can be overruled by any Court. In the 4
years to the indictment this government was too inept or too corrupt to
figure, that BMI was an income producer and domestic services exporter to
clients in Europe. BMI was liquid enough to repay most of its loan balances.

vi. Burda Media Inc had large ordinary INCOME of $ 6888204.32 in 1996, a
rate of more than DOUBLE its cost/expense base for its NEWS/Information
8

services/production operations by its NY/LA offices. Our arms length
PAYING CUSTOMERS WERE (in thousands of dollars collected/ on page
11 thru 14): Focus $2639; Bunte Verlag $2203; Bunte Senator $627; Burda
GmbH [parent] $472; FMC $380; Elle Verlag[see v. above]$183; Burda
Holding [!]$129; MVB $89; FocusTV $47; BurdaCom $31; BAC Burda $15;
New Media $14; Europe Online $10; Verlag Aenne $8; MIG $7; Health
Online $6; Navigo $5; TZV $5; Burda Ost $4; Burda Verlagkoo $3; Focus
Online $0,6; Globus $0,5 and InternetMag $0 for grand total billing
product of $6,888,204.32 [BMI had miscellaneous extra income in 1996 to
the amount of $48,901.78 not included in above client income]
vii. On page 19 the audit certifies BMIs largest administrative cost position in
1996 [weighing in at a Championship +720% increase over Y95]: $411,424.40
was expensed as an initial installment - for financial/legal investigation by
and in favor of Rogers & Wells in just the second half of 1996 [after my
departure July 9, 1996 the real party began]

III) Rogers & Wells conspired almost 5 years to hook the USAO into their malpractice
racket after legendary Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau [justly] turned them down for
a referral. That conspiracy racket is well alive and in continuance to this date.

IV) Why the government appeared 5 years later with false claims from a dark corner
demands bright sunshine into these actors inter-connections: res inter alios acta, aliis
nec nocet nec prodest.

V) The defendant submitted three VICTIM VERIFICATIONS issued by BURDA GC
Professor Dr. Schweizer that breathe new life into the Sixth Amendments confrontation
clause. The clause gives a criminal defendant the right to be confronted with the
9

witnesses against him. These witnesses must have bona fide nexus and lawfully represent
a real VICTIM. No FBI 302 report or witness was presented who represented Burda
GmbH of Offenburg and other 22 also foreign - corporate clients probably victimized
by my conduct. Thus, since none of them ever showed up no actionable scheme
occurred inside jurisdictional U.S. borders.

VI) If the COURT has any doubt that this affidavit has flaws which is does not - the
defendant will seek Mr. Maginot and/or Dr.Flatter to be available for an evidentiary
hearing by video-link as the ghastly competition between the unrelenting truth and
prosecutorial fabrication must end now.
THEREFORE, defendant moved this COURT for JUST CAUSE for an ORDER DIRECTING the
PROSECUTION and the FBI TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT: WHY THEY SHOULD NOT GET
SANCTIONED FOR 1) PRESENTING A BOGUS ECONOMIC VICTIM AND CLOAKING BVG
3
; 2)
PRESENTING A FABRICATED INDICTMENT BY ALL COUNTS; 3) For BRADY VIOLATIONS FOR
CLOAKING BMIs AUDIT REPORT & FINANCIALS & Wire Info; 4) WONTON F.B.I. FUGITIVE
CLASSIFICATION UNDER COLOR OF LAW; and other government conduct the COURT deems
worthy to uncover while seeking to reestablish dignity to these judicial proceedings .

Respectfully AFFIRMED under penalty of perjury and hereby submitted, July 9, 2011

___________________________________
Fritz G. Blumenberg, Defendant 001
Am Hempberg 2, D-21224 Rosengarten-Ttensen

Copies of this submission were emailed to
USAO Preet Bharara, CJA Counsel A.Nelson, Christian T Viertel & CJA Counsel Thomas Dunn /s/
Additional hard copy was mailed to the Pro Se Clerk Please file on DOCKET

3
Burda Verlagsservices GmbH (BVG), Hauptstrasse 130, D-77654 Offenburg [HRB 20.Dec.1994]






Appendix

K