DOJ GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
the gary mcduff innocence project
The Pursuit of Justice and Freedom for Gary McDuff
doj corruption mistrial corrupt scotter libby scandal corrupt judicial fbi sec trump covert dishonest government department of justice mueller robert innocence project obama administration fox news cnn msnbc abc cbs nbc npr google yahoo abuse authority evidence prosecutor judge lies pardon lawyer pro bono amicus curiae brief disbarred senator ted stevens cliven bundy innocent man behind bars shocking special prosecutor political prosecution witch hunt scape goat michael flynn scotland yard serious fraud office crown prosecution service aclu regina securities fraud misconduct prosecutorial british justice
Pettifoggers AUSA Shipchandler and DOE Counsels Jessica Magee and Janie Frank conspired and confederated to produce a penny dreadful.
Former Ninth Circuit Chief Federal Judge Alex Kozinski wrote, "[it] is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers." Stuart Taylor, Jr., For the Record, Am. Law., Oct 1995, at 72. This perjury phenomenon permeated every aspect of McDuff’s trial; its testimony, post-trial statements by prosecutors, and McDuff’s follow-on proceeding. This problem system-wide is, generally speaking, an open secret. See Andrew J McClung, Good Cop, Bad Cop: Using Cognitive Dissonance Theory to Reduce Police Lying, J2 U. L. Davis L. Rev. 389, 405 (1999).
The following seeks to expose and reverse their unconscionable conduct. For more than half a century, the Supreme Court has sought to put into practice, in its admonitions of prosecutors, the platitudes that adorn the halls of the Department of Justice. The court admonished that the principle in prosecutions "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 78,88 (1935); that admonition was reiterated again 64 years later by the Supreme Court in STRICKLER V. GREEN, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999).
Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Martin voiced his concerns about government corruption;
"What if Uncle Sam sues you, charges you with a criminal violation, even gets an indictment, and proceeds, but they are wrong. They are not just wrong, they are willfully and frivolously wrong. They keep information from you that the law says must be disclosed. They hide information. They do not disclose exculpatory information to which you are entitled. They suborn perjury."
(As stated by Chief Judge Martin in UNITED STATES V. HOFFMAN, et al, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7050 April 2, 2012 (5th Cir. case No. 09-12129 Dissent).
What the government did was hide all its own lies and fabricate McDuff's alleged lies. The government's penny dreadful is a chronicle of slip-shod prosecution, infused with government perjury, deceptive sleight of hand, all typical quills in a pettifogger's quiver. [The government withheld some 7,000 pages of Brady, Giglio, and Jencks materials from McDuff that were discovered when the Discovery (SEC investigative file) was ordered to be delivered in a follow-on proceeding on and after a June 15, 2016 hearing.]
Gary Lynn McDuff was charged on August 13, 2009, with a conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count 1), and promotional money laundering (Count 2). He was offered an appointed defense attorney who admitted (pre-trial) never taking a case to trial and winning or winning on appeal. This resulted in McDuff presenting no defense at trial.
Because of the government's violation of its Brady, Jenks, and Giglio obligations, McDuff was wrongfully convicted. The conduct of the government was so egregious in McDuff’s case that it shocks the conscious. Government witnesses gave perjured testimony at the AUSA's insistence. Their suborned perjury resulted in McDuff’s conviction. Sound familiar? It happened to Senator Stevens. It happened to Cliven Bundy. It happened to Scooter Libby.
The incidents of perjury are methodical and repetitive throughout the trial: So protective was the government of the evidence of McDuff’s innocence, that it was not all released to McDuff until 2016, post trial and appeal.
For example:
1. The government alleged that the owner of the Lancorp Fund did not have any securities licenses. FINRA-NASD-SEC official records show Lancaster held a series 6, 7, 63, and 65 license at all times in question. A government attorney lied about this at McDuff s criminal trial under oath. Sound familiar? It happened to Senator Stevens. It happened to Clive Bundy. It happened to Scooter Libby.
2. The government alleged that Lancorp was not filed or registered with the SEC. Lancorp was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (FORM D filed on May 27, 2003). A government attorney lied about this at McDuff’s criminal trial under oath. Sound familiar? It happened to Senator Stevens. It happened to Clive Bundy. It happened to Scooter Libby.
3. The government alleged that Lancorp Fund provided insurance policy protection for investors to protect against lost. Before any investor's money was removed from escrow, Lancaster informed investors (in writing) that the insurance policy protection was no longer being offered. The government lied about the insurance declaration. Investors were given a choice to withdraw their money or agree (in writing) to remain invested without insurance. Government witnesses lied about this at McDuff s criminal trial under oath. Sound familiar? It happened to Senator Stevens. It happened to Clive Bundy. It happened to Scooter Libby.
4. The government asserted McDuff controlled the Lancorp Fund. Documents reveal (Deposition of Lancaster) that Lancaster told investigators, SEC attorneys and Quilling (SEC Receiver) in 2005 and 2006 that McDuff did not control the Fund, its money, or its investment decisions. The government suborned and committed perjury (knowingly false testimony by government attorneys and agents) subverting the very foundation of our judicial system. Sound familiar? It happened to Senator Stevens. It happened to Clive Bundy. It happened to Scooter Libby.
The evidence discovered post-trial, which establishes both proof of the perjury and the subornation of perjury, is contained in the court filings by Mr. McDuff, which can be viewed online by clicking here.