Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“My father passed away while I was incarcerated. I lost my chance to have a family and to have children because I was falsely accused and illegally imprisoned. These are things that no one, not even the federal government in their deepest and sincerest apologies, can ever give back to me.” – Jan Marcusse

 

PROSECUTORS ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL SCHEME TO CONVICT JAN MARCUSSE

AS AIDED BY A COMPLICIT JUDICIARY

In 2004, the charge was described as a “Ponzi scheme” when obtaining the grand jury indictment, which charged $10 million against the defendants. To begin the 2005 trial, prosecutors Thomas Gezon and Michael Schipper described the charge as a “Ponzi scheme, except Judge Robert Holmes Bell denied Jan her intended defense, “the bank records show the money was invested with other individuals”, while admitting the allegation was a “Ponzi“. Judge Bell also denied Jan all direct witnesses to investments as “irrelevant”. Prosecutors, wanting to ONLY use their evidence, objected vehemently whenever Jan tried to submit documents from the bulk bank record exhibits proving legitimate investments were made.  After prosecutors were caught lying about at least $7.5 million in investments made as pointed out in defense closing arguments using the government’s own evidence and witnesses, including IRS agents acting as “investigators”, prosecutors abandoned their “Ponzi scheme” allegation, switching the charge to honest services fraud based on an irrelevant and tampered-with product exhibit after all opportunity for the defense to rebut was over. Judge Bell changed the jury instructions accordingly, advising the government did not need to prove the defendants obtained any money or property or that anyone lost any money or property. After the jury voted “guilty” on this new charge, prosecutors resurrected their old, abandoned “Ponzi scheme” charge for sentencing and appeal, except now attesting it was the jury who had determined it as a “fact”. Jan was given a 25-year sentence based on losses caused by others, making it an illegal sentence. While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted permission for Jan to file a pro se brief on her own behalf, Judges William Bertelsman, Jeffrey Sutton, and John Rogers ignored it in their 2008 decision in order to agree with prosecutors the jury found a “Ponzi scheme”. When Jan challenged the decision, the panel attested her issues had been “fully considered”, causing her “convictions” to be made “final”. When Jan challenged the panel in a petition for recall of the mandate for attorney and judicial fraud, they admitted they had “declined” to consider her issues, but refused to do anything about it. In March, 2011, in response to Jan’s collateral attack petition under §2255, Judge Bell reversed course and held “a ‘Ponzi scheme’ was not an element of any charges brought”. Judge Bell has also refused to allow Jan’s innocence claim to even be filed, as based on the previously unavailable evidence obtained from the Dept. of Justice proving IRS Agent James Flink committed perjury over at least $9 million at trial, and as based on a new Supreme Court decision repudiating the charge as amended in the jury instructions to honest services fraud.

On June 17, 2011, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed Michael Schipper as a judge for his part in successfully prosecuting this case, describing it as a “Ponzi scheme”.

On January 9, 2013, the evidence was obtained in FOIA litigation to prove a criminal fraudulent scheme was concocted at trial in which prosecutors, IRS agents, Judge Bell and defense counsel all colluded in the deliberate spoliation of Jan’s bank record evidence. They allowed her access to original bank record documents and even provided copies, except then objected to the use of these copies as defense evidence at trial as not in the bulk bank record exhibits by having removed the original documents and replaced them with the records supplied from the banks under subpoena.

The original bank records had been stolen from Jan by co-defendants Wesley and Diane Boss to conceal the evidence of their embezzlement of $1.5 million and given to the IRS. During the trial, however, prosecutors stacked the bulk bank record exhibits in boxes in front of the jury box, but first removed the original documents from them, leaving only the similar content documents provided under subpoena by the banks in the exhibits–documents to which Jan was not allowed access–a scheme which they believed allowed them to object every time Jan wanted to submit any of her copies as defense evidence as not from the bulk exhibits, acting as if she must have fabricated her evidence. This constitutes criminal activity in violation of 18 USC §§ 2,3, 2071 and 26 USC § 7214.

HAVE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, IRS AGENTS, AND THE JUDICIARY BEEN HONEST IN JAN’S CASE?

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

THE ABOVE SHOWS THE GOVERNMENT’S UNCLEAN HANDS
AND THE METHODS TO KEEP THE INNOCENT IN PRISON

Advertisements