HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-06 CorrespondenceNovember 9, 2011
Michelle Payne
Community Contact Volunteer
MidAmerican Energy Co.
1630 Lower Muscatine Rd.
Iowa City, IA 52240
l 1 3b
Win A, `t
W1 -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa city. Iowa 52240 -1826
(319) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Re: MidAmerican Community Grant Request - University of Iowa Student Government
(USIG) Distribution of Compact Florescent Light Bulb
Dear Michelle:
I have been in contact with Kelsey Zlevor, USIG Sustainability Initiatives Advocate for the
University of Iowa Student Government over the past few weeks regarding their request for
my assistance in connecting potential eligible Iowa City residents with a program designed
to distribute compact florescent light bulbs to Iowa City residents. As you can see from their
attached letter, they are interested in providing these light bulbs to low /moderate income
families, elderly and handicapped in an effort to reduce their electricity usage and decrease
their utility expenses. As you may recall, a similar project was coordinated by the UISG and
almost 500 CFL light bulbs were distributed to residents in the Forest View Mobile Home
Park and Ecumenical Towers. MidAmerican Community Grant funding enabled 72
additional CFL bulbs to be distributed as part of this project.
I intend to work with Kelsey and other UISG members to connect with eligible households
by working with the Public Housing Authority, neighborhood associations and other local
agencies who may provide a distribution resource for this program. As you can see, they
have secured funding from UISG and Office of Sustainability and are asking for additional
assistance through the MidAmerican Community Grant.
I'm excited to work with UISG and all the students in this effort and see it as a wonderful
opportunity to create positive relationships between students and neighbors. Please let me
know if you have questions or if there is additional information that you may need.
Thank you in advance for consideration of this request.
Marcia Bollinger
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
City of Iowa City
319- 356 -5237
1
UISGIowa Iowa Memorial Union — 2608
125 N. Madison Street
City, Iowa 52240
University of Iowa 319- 335 -3860
Student Government
November 5, 2011
Marcia Bollinger
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Marcia:
The University of Iowa Student Government (UISG) and the University of Iowa Office of Sustainability,
under my direction as Sustainability Initiatives Advocate, are wishing to work with your office to distribute
compact fluorescent light bulbs to low- income community members in possibly senior citizen housing
developments and other low- income communities in Iowa City to help these residents reduce their energy
costs.
The project will hopefully provide several benefits the community; improved student/neighbor
relationships, help lower income families save on their energy bills and provide for a number of positive
environmental impacts. With the recent debate over local bar ordinances, UISG understands that students
and community members have often felt at loggerheads over the past year. This event, proposed for April,
2012, is part of an effort by UISG to bridge the gap between community members and students. UISG
plans to invite dozens of UI students to help distribute the compact fluorescent light bulbs to community
members. In the distribution of these light bulbs, students will have an opportunity to show that they care
about the Iowa City community, as well as interact with members of the Iowa City community with whom
they would normally not interact.
With the financial and housing crises of 2007 -2010, low- income residents of Iowa City are struggling to
pay their bills. Low - income consumers in the Midwest spend an average of $964 on electricity per year,
much of which comes from powering lights. A reduction in energy use will help low- income consumers
save money on energy bills at a critical time, while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions related to
climate change.
The project will also have a major positive environmental impact. Compact fluorescent light bulbs use
four times less energy than standard incandescent light bulbs, and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions
per light bulb by 200 pounds over their lifetime. Although compact fluorescent light bulbs contain
mercury, the emission of mercury from power plants saved by using these light bulbs outweighs the
amount of mercury contained in the bulb. To reconcile the environmental concern of the mercury disposal
issue, UISG will attach a paper flier, written by the UI Office of Sustainability, which describes the proper
way to recycle the bulbs.
UISG will fund $500 for the bulbs, which will be matched by the UI Office of Sustainability. The $1000
funded by these organizations will provide for 357 bulbs (at a cost of $3.50 a bulb) to consumers. This will
combine for energy savings of $14,000 for these low - income consumers, as well as a reduction of 70,000
pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. UISG is working with local businesses to obtain light bulbs at
wholesale cost, as well as donations from stores.
We are interested in working with your office to help us direct this program the most effectively as well as
promote it through the existing neighborhood associations in Iowa City. As we are also interested in
helping residents install the light bulbs in their homes, we would like to receive guidance from your office
on how to execute the installation process for residents.
We believe strongly in this project after witnessing its success last year, and hope that it will become an
annual project with your continued support. As aforementioned, this project provides a degree of
economic relief to community members in terms of energy payments, helps the environment, and brings
students closer to the community. With all of these benefits, this project is a very important endeavor.
We would be very pleased if MidAmerican Energy would be willing to assist in funding this program
through their Community Grant Program. An additional $250 in funding would provide for 72 more bulbs,
saving consumers approximately $2800 in costs.
Please let me know if you need additional information or have questions.
Thanks for your consideration,
Kelsey Zlevor
UISG Sustainability Initiatives Advocate
The University of Iowa Student Government
Iowa Memorial Union — 260B
125 N. Madison Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319 - 335 -3860
I _� - 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
' OM % 4 E�CJ RANDUM
�
Date: November 23`d, 2011
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for December 6th, 2011 City Council meeting; Installation of (2) NO PARKING
ANY TIME signs on the south side of the 900 block of Walker Circle and (1) NO
PARKING HERE TO CORNER sign on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Walker Circle and Foster Road.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (10); Install (2) NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on the south side
of the 900 block of Walker Circle and (1) NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER sign on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Walker Circle and Foster Road.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the Transit department to allow for the through
movement of transit vehicles.
�,!,_ r ,;, ®64 CITY OF IOWA CITY 4g(2)
,,�Za �w= 1 Q i �w MEMORANDUM
Date: November 16, 2011
To: City Clerk
From: Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner �2
Re: Item for December 6, 2011 City Council meeting; Installation of NO PARKING 8 -5
MON -FRI signs on the west side of Normandy Drive and on the north side of Manor
Drive.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3C of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action:
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (10), install NO PARKING 8 -5 MON -FRI signs on the west side of
Normandy Drive between Park Road and 701 Normandy Drive, and on the north side of Manor
Drive between Normandy Drive and Eastmoor Drive.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the neighborhood to alleviate congestion created by
commuter parking. The results of a neighborhood survey show that 86% (6 votes in favor, 1
vote opposed) of respondents are in favor of said action.
r --
�,!,, ®r CITY O F IOWA CITY 4g(3)
� MEMORANDUM
Date: November 22, 2011
To: City Clerk
From: Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner t�
Re: Item for December 6, 2011 City Council meeting; Installation of (1) NO PARKING
HERE TO CORNER sign at the southwest corner of the Johnson Street / Iowa
Avenue intersection.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action:
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (10); Install (1) NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER sign at the
southwest corner of the Johnson Street / Iowa Avenue intersection approximately 30' west of
Johnson Street.
Comment:
This action is being taken to increase visibility for northbound motortists at said intersection.
The existing on- street parking designation makes it difficult for northbound motorists to see
eastbound traffic.
4+•� 4
CD
tl
Co
o�
F
4)
Marian Karr
From: Adam Bentley
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:25 AM
To: Amy, Laura E
Cc: Tom Markus; Marian Karr; Bob Hardy
Subject: RE: Internship
Goof Morning Laura,
Thank you for your email. We normally do have one paid intern who works in the City Manager's Office; however, that
position is filled at the moment. If you are looking for an internship this summer, the paid intern position may be open
by that time. I would highly encourage you to subscribe to our City news (www.icgov.org) so that you can be kept up to
date on the most recent job postings which will include the intern position. If an unpaid position is something you would
be interested in pursuing, we would have opportunities to get you some practical experience in our office.
If you are looking for more media /communications oriented experience, I would direct you to Bob Hardy (bob -
hardy(@iowa- city.org). There may be opportunities in his division to gain that kind of experience.
Please let me know if you have any questions, Thank you- Adam
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Arny, Laura E [mailto:laura- arny @uiowa.eduj
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 20116:47 PM
To: Council
Subject: Internship
This correspondence will become a public record.
City Council,
My name is Laura Arny and I am a student here at the university. I am graduating in a year from this December and have
decided that I may be interested in local politics of some sort. For this upcoming summer I have been looking for
internships dealing with either politics or communication work of some sort. I have to stay around the Iowa City area
because I am responsible to pay for my school and therefore need to stick with the jobs I have here. I was wondering if
any of you council members or someone you know would have an internship opportunity for me to take part in next
summer. I am just looking for some sort of experience and would be very interested in working with you!
Thanks for your time,
Laura
4g(5)
Marian Karr
From: GREG BOYD <floydhawk @msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Council
Subject: Mediacom Rates /Competition
I would like to ask the Council to investigate the possiblity of replacing Mediacom or finding another
provider to give them some competion. Mediacom seemingly increases their rates monthly.
We pay over $250 /mo for cable, internet and phone service, which I think is ridiculous. I would prefer not using a satellite
provider such as Dish or Direct N. Mediacom is rated by Consumer Reports as one of the worst
cable providers and I would agree that their customer service and quality of signal is poor at best.
I think you owe it Iowa City residents to find a better provider or at least get us more for what we pay them.
Thanks
Greg Boyd
937 Barrington Rd.
Marian Karr
From: Bob Hardy
Sent: Monday, November 28, 20114:34 PM
To: Tom Markus
Cc: Dale Helling; Adam Bentley; Marian Karr; Matthew J. Hayek (mhayek @hhbmlaw.com)
Subject: Re: Mediacom Rates /Competition
The following is the response to Mr. Greg Boyd
November 23, 2011
Dear Mr. Boyd:
City Manager Tom Markus asked that I reply to your letter to the Iowa City City Council regarding replacing Mediacom
as the local cable provider. Unfortunately, the City's ability to make any of the changes you suggest is extremely limited
both by Federal law and regulation and by market realities.
Iowa City's ability to regulate Mediacom's cable service is based on a franchise agreement, i.e. a contract, with Mediacom
as provided by Federal law. In general, the laws and regulations that govern cable television franchise agreements would
require extreme circumstances for the City to be able to terminate this contract. As Mediacom's rates fall in the average
range of all cable providers nationally, this would not be a sufficient reason. And though poor customer service is an
issue of on -going discussion between the City and Mediacom, their service does meet the minimum requirements of both
the Cable Franchise and FCC regulations.
Mediacom's franchise with Iowa City is not exclusive. Over the years the City of Iowa City has made many efforts to find
companies willing to compete against the various cable service providers that have served Iowa City. The main reasons
why no companies have accepted our invitations seem mostly to be economic. The simple fact is that it is extremely
expensive to "overbuild" a second cable television distribution system. In addition, any company that might try to do so
could only expect a limited share of the total subscribers available and therefore a limited opportunity to recoup their
investment or realize a profit in a market of this size. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but such exceptions do
not seem to apply to the Iowa City /Coralville market. Please be confident that the City would welcome and support any
responsible effort to enter this market.
Currently telephone companies offer the greatest potential for competition. The State of Iowa has recently created
legislation that is designed to encourage phone company competition, but it has produced little positive result. In Iowa
City Century Link, the phone company that replaced Quest, has indicated a long -range interest in providing video
service. But at present, no alternative service is expected to be available to Iowa City in the near future.
Finally, it is only fair to mention that the recent increased cost of cable television service has often resulted from what
many believe are excessive retransmission fees being demanded by broadcast channels such as CBS and Fox and other
video program providers such as ESPN. This is currently a serious issue in the Cable and Satellite industries and directly
affects your Cable bill.
I hope this is a satisfactory overview of the situation. Your email will be included in the report of issues provided to the
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission. If you have questions or wish to discuss this issue further, please do not
hesitate to call or email me.
Sincerely,
Bob Hardy
Cable Television Administrator
bob -hardy Iowa- city.org
319- 356 -5047 1
i
Marian Karr 4g(6)
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:51 PM
To: Council
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE /FBI ALERT - - -- REVISED
CONCIL NOTE - 31 USC 3733 - -- federal appellant rules of civil procedure 44a --- obama
/g30 ignore the constitution - -- ignore the bank statues as deter and fraud guidlines --- it is in...
Attachments: INVEST IN US MARKET- OBAMA CIVIL FRAUD CASE.docx; POST 16 FOLLOW- UP.docx;
FRCP 37 FILED.doc; PETITION.doc; MEMO TO REVIEW.docx; obstruction- fraud.docx;
councilnote.doc
4 174 page-attachment archived in meeting folder but not distributed hard copy; available
on City Council website:
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
To: " mayorjuliancastro @sanantonio.gov" < mayorjuliancastro @sanantonio.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:21 PM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE /FBI ALERT - - -- REVISED CONCIL NOTE - 31
USC 3733 - -- federal appellant rules of civil procedure 44a --- obama /g30 ignore the constitution - -- ignore the bank statues
as deter and fraud guidlines --- it is insulting to the judges for them to correct a lawyer with this type of issue - -the conduct of
these insults the bench --- mens rea -- actus rea barack and giethner hillary are clearly pathological and deceptive - -- the
manipulation displayed to obsure the issue in front of everyone is awful and just plain ugly and dirty politics...the
government and the BUSH went to great length to do something proactively in good faith and good will ... just to have a
good american story -- for compilatedclosure of one of america's historical open estate and adjioining effects included with
the estate - - -- "CAST YOUR OPINION" -- PETTION FOLLOWS
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
To: "scheduling @houstontx.gov" <scheduling @houstontx.gov>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE /FBI ALERT - 31 USC 3733 - -- federal appellant
rules of civil procedure 44a --- obama /g30 ignore the constitution - -- ignore the bank statues as deter and fraud guidlines - --
it is insulting to the judges for them to correct a lawyer with this type of issue - -the conduct of these insults the bench-- -
mens rea -- actus rea barack and giethner hillary are clearly pathological and deceptive - -- the manipulation displayed to
obsure the issue in front of everyone is awful and just plain ugly and dirty politics ... the government and the BUSH went to
great length to do something proactively in good faith and good will ... just to have a good american story -- for
compilatedclosure of one of america's historical open estate and adjioining effects included with the estate - - -- "CAST
YOUR OPINION" -- PETTION FOLLOWS
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
To: "mike.paluska @cbsatlanta.com" <mike. pal uska @cbsatlanta.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:25 AM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE /FBI ALERT - 31 USC 3733 - -- federal appellant
rules of civil procedure 44a --- obama /g30 ignore the constitution - -- ignore the bank statues as deter and fraud guidlines - --
it is insulting to the judges for them to correct a lawyer with this type of issue - -the conduct of these insults the bench-- -
mens rea -- actus rea barack and giethner hillary are clearly pathological and deceptive - -- the manipulation displayed to
obsure the issue in front of everyone is awful and just plain ugly and dirty politics ... the government and the BUSH went to
great length to do something proactively in good faith and good will ... just to have a good american story-- for
compilatedclosure of one of america's historical open estate and adjioining effects included with the estate - - -- "CAST
YOUR OPINION" -- PETTION FOLLOWS
stalking anyone via computer and satellite communications is cybercrime - -in which money or a
financial matter is demanded is grossly - - -- -the criminality given the money involved in
trillionaire account outweighs the executive privilege - -- "extortive and coercive from executive
directive order - -- 2403 and 2404 HOBBS ACT -- oppression under the color office - - -46
Appendix 322 any done to persons in criminal negligence or intention reckless endangerment is
sufficent and profound overact in the intent to defraud 46 use 1986 the president and giethner
used others and convcolutinE this situation in the us public, media and political fronts!!
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
To: "colin. man ning @nh.gov" <colin. manning @nh.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:56 AM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE - SATELLITE COMMUNICATION ILLICIT
ACTIVITES FROM WHITE HOUSE ORDERS IS OBNOXIOUS POLITICAL VIGILANCE AGAINST AMERICA'S
TRILLIONAIRE -- this is a complaint forward to the proper enfrorcement ------ stalking breaking ordinace over every city in
america with satellite communications"
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
To: "Mark.johnson @nc.gov" <Mark.johnson @nc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 3:35 PM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE - SATELLITE COMMUNICATION ILLICIT
ACTIVITES FROM WHITE HOUSE ORDER IS OBNOXIOUS POLITICAL VIGILANCE AGAINST AMERICA'S
TRILLIONAIRE -- this is a complaint forward to the proper enfrorcement ...... stalkin trillionaire by breaking ordinace
over every city in america with satellite communications"
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
To: "chrissy.pearson @nc.gov" <chrissy.pearson @ nc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 3:34 PM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS -- -PRESS RELEASE - SATELLITE COMMUNICATION ILLICIT
ACTIVITES FROM WGITE HOUSE ORDER +IS OBNOXIOUS POLITICAL VIGILANCE AGAINST AMERICA'S
TRILLIONAIRE -- this is a complaint forward to the proper enfrorcement ------ stalkin trillionaire by breaking ordinace
over every city in america with satellite communications"
TIRED OF SAT -COM ACROSS NORTH CAROLINA
GOVERNOR MESSAGE AND PRESS RELEASE
FBI /SBI AND ALOT OF THE OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS WELL AS
THE FCC
IS AWARE THE ACTVITY NEEDS TO STOP
TIRED OF THE OBAMA'S AS WELL AS OHTHER (OPRAH)
LIEING AND TALKING IN PRESS IN NORTH CAROLINA
TIRED OF SAT -COM ACROSS NORTH CAROLINA
I CANT EVEN SLEEP FOR THE ACTIVITY
THE EXCUETIVE ORDER IS ERROENOUS AND UNWARRANTED
IT BASICLALY ECONOMIC SANCTION WITH INTELLIGENCE
ORDERS - -- EXCUETIVE ORDER 13508 IS THE ORDER NUMBER
THE PRESIDENT IS USING TO RUN THIS WHOLE SITUATION IN
FRAUD OR TO SPOIL AND RUN NORTH CAROLINA AND THE
UNITED STATES AMERICA CRAZY!!
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
To: "publicinfo @sec.gov" <publicinfo @sec.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 5:20 PM
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUMICATIONS - -- AMERICA'S TRILLIONAIRE -- this is a complaint forward to the
proper enfrorcement--- "stalking breaking ordinace over every city in america with satellite communications"
INTERNATANTIONAL PRESS ALERT - -MEDIA RELEASE
OBAMA SATELLITE ACTIVITIES WARFARE / ASSAULT
ISSTALKING TRILLIONAIRE
IS A POLITICALLY HANEOUS AND OBNOXIOUS
TOTAL DISREGARD FOR CIVILITY OF WORLD
" A PROFOUND INSULT TO THE WORLD WEALTHY PEOPLE"
THE WORLD IS TIRED OBAMA'S SATELLITE CIRCUS FROM
AMERICA
OBAMA WILL TAKE THE WORLD HOSTAGE TO TAKE MONEY
FROM A INNOCENT LAND OWNER AND WELATHY MAN
DRIVING THE WORLD CRAZY WITH SAT COM ---- IS A LIABILTY
TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
POLITICAL CONVOLUTION TO ALLOW THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TO BALANT AND RECKLESS DISREGARD IN
VIOLATION OF BANK, SECURITIES AND CIVIL LAW, THE US
CONSTITITUION AS WELL AS THE UN ARTICLES. THIS
OVERACT CAUSE DISTRESS TO THE WORLD - INCITES
EXCITIE DRAMATIC EVENTS -- -ACTS OF TYRANNY THAT
CAUSEA AND RAISE WORLD TENSION AND MANIA
--- "exstrinsic fraud bank fraud -- economic coercion - - - -- -civil
fraud " - - --
46 USC 1986 civil conspiracy to defraud or "squeeze out/ squeeze play trillionaire; there is
profound overact in reinteration of the element in the issue. The rescinding of the trillionaire's
diplomatic immunity on discrimative, untrue and assumptive allegations by "madam Clinton"
is a concrete overact in the intent of malversation/ defraud/ "deceptive and fraudulent means" of
public money and land is prohibited in governemet ethics; 46 Apendix 322 the G -30/ the
President and sec.of state are oppressive and constitutionally obnoxious in which the totally
ignore the bank laws of America and disregard fraud parameters; they misuse and abuse their
office with adverse, aversive or undue sanctions while simultaneously jeapordize the
4
trillionaire with political actitvity and political duress..telecommuncations and media. Eminent
Domain is abolished in America by Excutive Order 13406.
om>
Subject: TRILSEN CASE BRIEF -- MEMO - -- CLARIFY ARGUEMENTI ---- SURRENDER AT
THE APPOMATOX --
To: KELLY @FOXNEWS.COM
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 3:23 PM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DISTRICT
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
1�
Department of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner
Barack Obama
Defendants
Case No. 3:11cv247
Judge: Frank D. Whitney
Memorandum of Points to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Amended)
FRCP 52 The Plaintiff request to support complaint for conclusion in the matter of the
law as stated in the complaint. United States v. Nixon 418 US 683 (19 74) the defendants
violate 18 USC 1001 (1)(1) conceals administrative materials in the matter concerning
the procurement of property or materials for claim by way of trick or scheme; the
defendants are liable.
FRCP 34 and FRCP 64 compels court order and summons in regards to take possession
of the Estate of Mt. Vernon and adjoining securities; United States v. Schireson,116 F.
2d 881, 884 (3d Cir. 1941) the concealment of transferring property and the other
elements or activities of the offense defined being present does constitute an offense 18
USC 641 by the defendants.
1 of 5
FRCP 37 the Defendants must answer summons and order. The Plaintiff is pursuant in
the provisions of 28 USC 1442 by Burchinal v. United States, 342 F. 2d 982, 985 (160
Cir.) cert. denied, 382 US 843 (1965) the Defendants know there is a proceeding against
them and the Defendants have the aggravated activity to defeat the law knowingly to later
fraudulently appropriate and is in the furtherance to conceal property or Estate of the
Plaintiff, 193 F 2d 776• Viles v United States, United States Court ofAppeals Tenth
Circuit 193 F 2d 776 January 7,1952 Rehearing Denied January 18, 1952 Writ of
Certiorari Denied March 31, 1952 affirms that act is unlawful.
FRCP 3 The Defendants did unlawfully, fraudulently with the intent to defeat the
operations and legitimate functions of US Treasury in settlement of Estate of Mt.Vernon,
Virginia and securities with the Plaintiff. United States v. Tuohey, 867 F. 2d 534, 537
(1989) the Defendants by intentional acts or misrepresentation have the intent to illegally
acquire the Plaintiff's property in which the they obstruct by the function of the US
Treasury by deceit or trickery. United States v. Montilla Ambrosiani, 610 F. 2d 65, 69
(1St Cir.1979) cert. denied, 445 U.S. 930 (1980) the Defendants cannot make false oath or
accounting, failing to disclose deposits of money, and it is crime to conceal a receipt or
make a false statement concerning the property or assets in controversy.
• FRCP 3 Huddleston v. United States 485 US 681 (1988) the Plaintiff's purpose or
burden is to magnify the Defendant's wickedness in the eyes of the jury beyond what was
already; the Defendants motives was improper and unlawful. The Defendants are
unlawful as federal officials in which as a the intent result appropriation later directly or
indirectly receives agrees to receive to receive any compensation for himself or another
in any relation to claim or other matters in which the United States or US Treasury is a
party directly or indirectly interested before any Government Agency or Department the
Defendants are violate 31 USC 330 and 18 USC 641; 320 F. 2d 3: United States v.
Ketchum, United States Court ofAppeals Second Circuit — 320 F. 2d 3 Argued May 8,
1963. Decided June 25, 1963.
• FRCP 3 in concealment United v Moss, 562 F. 2d]55,159 (2d Cir. 1977), cert denied,
435 US 914 (1978): United States v Cardall, 885F. 2d 656, 677 (reh',Q denied) 001
Cir. 1989 is broadly construed to include all property interests wherever located and by
whomever is holding that property. Concealment can occur pre and post proceedings to
settle matters in controversy Sultan v. United States, 249 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 1957). The
Defendants know, have motive and have reasoning to understand that the scope of their
acts that their own benefits depended on the results or success of the venture or plant
United States v Montmomery, , 384 F. 3d 1050,1062 (9th Cir. 2004). United v. Hopper,
177 F. 3d 824, 829 ( 9" Cir. 1999) the Defendants have an agreement which may be
inferred or understood from the Defendants acts and other involved acts or activities in
pursuant of the scheme. The Defendants are concealing title deed and other adjoining
property or assests in the Estate of Mt. Vernon, Virginia with fraudulent, utilizing
unlawfully flagrant and deceptive means United States v Trindad Coal and Coking Co.
137 US 160 (1890) the defendants are prohibited and unqualified in the procurement of
the Estate of Mt.Vernon, Virginia; United States v. Forrester 211 US 175 (1911).
• FRCP 9 the Plaintiff has enough in the capacity and grounds to sue the Defendants. 340
F. 2d 142 Hansen v. United States No. 1780 the federal court can levy judgment to for
the US Treasury to cohere or compliance of the trust, Estate or security account be paid
directly to the Plaintiff. For the reduction of interference or controversy of Estate in this
suit; Lindberg v. 164 F. 3d. 1312 (16th Court ofAppeals) Estate of Temple H. Buell the
Plaintiff is eligible to take possession of Estate and adjoining securities. FRCP 9 has
enough to sue for possession of Estate; Kolb v. Empire Trust Company, 280 AD 370.
N. Y.S. 2d (1952) the defendants and US Treasury should deliver payment and turnover
the Estate's Title Deed to the Plaintiff FRCP 70. FRCP 9 make full disposition of Mount
Vernon Estate in Virginia and security accounts in holding to the Plaintiff; Richardson
v Richardson 298 N. Y. 135 2d 54,60 (1948) the US Treasury and Defendants have a
"moral debt" United States v. Sioux of Indians . 448 US 371 (1980) the Defendants
ignore Executive Order 13406 a public law that no land will be taken from a US Citizen
by the US Government.
• FRCP 3 the Plaintiff is pursuant also Shaw v. United States 981 F. 2d 602 Court of
Appeals (6th Cir. 1989) the Estate nor accounts is not subject civil forfeiture; 21 USC
881 the US Treasury did not order for the arrest or seizure of the property or Estate.
FRCP 9 the Plaintiff must be afforded the ability, opportunity to contest or challenge the
Defendants are actions unreasonable freeze or seizure in a court of law. FRCP 9 this
property is not and was not subject to any seizure activity by the government or law
enforcement by 18 USC 981; the Defendants are in erroneous in seizure or freeze. The
Plaintiff is protected by Fifth Amendment the microchip technologies on the Plaintiff's
body he was not aware it presence until December 2008. The Defendants withhold the
Plaintiff "diplomatic immunity issued prior to December 2008. This fact complicates and
magnifies the Defendants in 18 USC 641 in the concealment of accounts and Estate.
FRCP 60 the Defendants conduct is breech of duty and negligence the Plaintiff has
submitted enough violations policy and can prove enough statutory provisions infractions
and fails to complete transaction 31 USC 330. The Plaintiff has suffered damage from
that proximate cause of that breech of duty and trust. McLoughlin v. People United
Bank, INC and Bank of Mellon, INC civil action No. 3:08- cv- 00944(VLB) the
Defendants are concealing the assets, there is injury in fact, there are activities that are
provable surrounding the Estate and accounts since December 2008. Right v Breen 277
Conn 364, 890 A. 2d 1287,1294 (Conn.2006) there is actual harm occuring the claim or
complaint should be allowed to survive there are several issues that are unlawful: satellite
communications activities and computer involvement the Plaintiff has discussed in
previous memorandum of points in 18 USC 1030. The issue is connected to the
Defendants fiduciary, which is subject to liability in harm has resulted to the Plaintiff.
The claim is not speculative and this complaint is not hypothetical for future injuries. The
injuries are irreparable the Plaintiff has incurred due to Defendant's assertion in malus to
defeat the law and furtherance in secrecy or evasiveness.
FRCP 9 the Plaintiff is at risk for a financial loss Pope v. United States 323 US 1944 the
court must not withstanding any other allowance to hear and determine this claim. There
is outstanding merit in this claim and corroboration of fact in the allegations in the
reviewing the merits United States v. Realty Co. 163 US 421.
Date: 7 June, 2011
& ;nbs p;
& ;nbs p;
& ;nbs p;
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury NC, 28144
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
To: baltimore @ic.fbi.gov
Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2011 11:38 AM
Subject: Fw: FBI ALERT - DUTY AGENT -- FINANCIAL CRIME ISSUE US TREASURY - -- CYBER -- 31
USC 310 - - - -31 USC 31 USC 3733 - -- -THIS IS AN OMINIBUS ISSUE - -- INTERVENE - - -- DISCOVERY
FRCP -- CALL JUSTICE WHITNEY - -- 15 USC 78 - - - - --
- -- On Sat, 6/4/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l@a yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen2l @ yahoo.com>
Subject: FBI ALERT - DUTY AGENT -- FINANCIAL CRIME ISSUE US TREASURY - --
CYBER-- 31 USC 310 - - - -31 USC 31 USC 3733 - -- -THIS IS AN OMINIBUS ISSUE-- -
INTERVENE---- DISCOVERY FRCP -- CALL JUSTICE WHITNEY - -- 15 USC 78 - - - - --
To: DHSOIGHOTLINE @dhs.gov
Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011, 3:27 PM
ony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: MULTRILLIONAIRE MESSAGE - -- FBI ALERT- CYBERCRIME STATEMENT -- THE
OBAMA GIETHNER SITUATION
To: safety @amw.com
- -- On Thu, 6/2/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l@a yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
Subject: MULTRILLIONAIRE MESSAGE - -- FBI ALERT- CYBERCRIME STATEMENT- -
THE OBAMA GIETHNER SITUATION
To: tips @nbcchicago.com
- -- On Thu, 6/2/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
Subject: MULTRILLIONAIRE MESSAGE - -- FBI ALERT- CYBERCRIME STATEMENT- -
THE OBAMA GIETHNER SITUATION
To: tips @nbcchicago.com
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2011, 7:31 PM
To: KELLY @FOXNEWS.COM
Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 3:23 PM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DISTRICT
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff/Pro Se
V.
Case No. 3:11 cv 247
Judge: Frank D. Whitney
Department of the Treasury
Timothy Geithner
Barack Obama
Defendants
Memorandum of Points to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Amended)
FRCP 3 United States v. Zezev, No. 00 CR 01026 (S.D.N.Y.. July 14,
2003) the Defendants are engaging in harassing and malicious conduct. The
Defendants conduct and directives have incorporated the use the of others while
the Plaintiff is attached to a government computer system biophysically; The
Defendants manifest aggravated retention of money or malus in the withhold of
money; and the threatening or excitation of for the use of force and physical
injury. The Plaintiff is irritated with continuous low frequency noise daily. The
Defendants are using their employment as opportunity to gain access for
withhold violate 18 USC 641 money cannot be delayed, cannot be concealed
retained with the intent to convert. United States v. Iffih (D. Mass Feb. 2003)
the Defendants are controlling a government computer with the intent to cause
harm. United States v. Castillo (W.D. Tex.) July 17, 2008 the Defendants are
intentionally exceeding lawful access by malicious activity for personal gain,
furtherance of political gain and for the benefit of the government; 18 USC 202
and 18 USC 205 are violated also.
• FRCP 3 Kingslow v Treasury 2009- 3030 the Defendants in 31 USC 330
are questionable and engaging in activities of culpability in damages to the
Plaintiff. The Defendants are causation by directive the cause harm or change to
the Plaintiff's person and environment Korematsu v United States 323 US 214
(1944); the US government is allowance of activity. The Defendant intent or
result is to defraud the Plaintiff by obstruct the payments or functions of the US
Treasury Tanner v. United States 483 US 107, 128 (1987). The US Court must
rescind all orders, directives and cease desist activity FRCP 65. 28 USC 1442
The Plaintiff is pursuant of the Defendants by FRCP 52 there is exceptional
condition to proceed in forma pauperis Sprague v Syngenta Crop Protection
(Southern District Illinois, October 20, 2010).
FCRP 16 the Plaintiff has attached 79 pages of documents or factual
information for submission into evidence to the complaint and compel in forma
pauperis. FRCE 401 as relevant evidence to the subject matter of law and
matters in controversy; to clarify and narrow the argument in the "burden of
proof' Brain Computer Interface, Bio — Face Computers Technologies is being
by the US Government in "secrecy" or special access programs. Gerard Burke
et al. v State Board of Retirement CR 07 -293, 294,296, 315,316, 362 (DALA
2009) the attached information be admitted into or as record as relevant to
subject matters of the law in controversy and culpability of the Defendants;
Matters v University , Appeal No. C- 100 -590, Trial No. A- 0906614 (2011).
• FRCP 3 The Defendants are misusing with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff
or withhold money by the assistance of a Federal Government Computer System 5
USC 551 (10A) the Defendants affect the Plaintiff. The Defendants violate Public
Law 100 -235, the using the computer and satellite systems together against design
to create interference or force in connection with money and property 18 USC
1030 that activity is unlawful. The Defendants cannot with hold money or Estate;
are evasive to settle claim Armstrong v Treasury No.2009 -3155 and ignore or
non - compliant to Treasury Regulation 20.2031 -1. The Defendants are connected
with aggravated acts and used extraordinary means to a Federal Depository or
Federal Institution in 31 USC 3733 in civil demand in relief for the Plaintiff,
United States v. Edick 432 F.2d 350 (4th Cir. 1970) the Defendants as
employees of the government are connected in unlawful with the intent to divert or
appropriate at a later time United States v. Cooper 464 F.2d 648 (10th Circ. 1972
cert. denied 409 US 1107 (1973) there is fraudulent activity where the defendants
have caused injury to the Plaintiff and impaired the legitimate function of the US
Treasury violate 18 USC 641 to conceal and retain.
• 79 pages are attached.
• There are no changes to the IPF also attached.
2 of 3
Plaintiff is requesting that civil proceedings to continue in forma pauperis on the grounds and
merit.
Date: June 1", 2011
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
CAVUTO @FOXNEWS.COM
Date: Friday, May 20, 2011, 4:56 PM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DISTRICT
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
V
Department of Treasury
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Case No. 3:11 cv247
Judge: Frank D. Whitney
Memorandum of points to proceed in forma pauperis
• Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers Inc. F .3d 2010 WL 33979419 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 312010);
the Plaintiff has suffered "injury in fact" where the invasion of the Defendants the
Plaintiff is legally protected. The Plaintiff injury is actual and imminent; there is "casual
connection" between the injury and the conduct of the Defendants. There activity is
fraudulent.
• Sprague v. Syngenta Crop Protection (Southern District Illinois, October 20,2010);
the Plaintiff compels the NCWD to proceed in forma pauperis FRCP 16 for scheduling
due to the fact there are no extraordinary circumstances that should put this case on hold;
there is no legitimate reason to assist in furtherance of injury to Plaintiff.
• Berkemer v. McCarthy; FRCP 26 the Court and Plaintiff by 31 USC 3733 have
reason to suspect that "criminal activity is occurring ". The Defendants do not have to be
in custodial interrogations for the information gained to be used against the Defendants.
The issue in this claim, civil infractions and factual allegations encompassed within this
complaint is serious offenses by Title 31, Title 12 and 15 USC 78t.
• Farley v. United States 354 US 521 (195 1) the Plaintiff application to proceed in
forma pauperis is in good faith and should be afforded the opportunity on the merits of
his complaint the court must allow information to reach the jury Huddleston v. United
States 488 US 681 (1988); Johnson v. United States 323 US 565 (1957) the defendants in
must show in court that this claim is frivolous. The Plaintiff doe not have to show proof
prior entry to evidence, the narrative complaint one - hundred percent fact and has been
corroborated as truth by law enforcement officials and by other agent or agencies of the
US Government.
• Schenck v. United States 249 US 47 (1919) the Defendants have created
circumstances or causation by non - advantageous propaganda from political origin via
satellite communications. The Defendants are causation of such nature that is clear and
present danger that will bring substantive evil, provoke an imminent lawless action or
harm to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is subject due to direct political rally, political
opposition; political persecution through Executive Directives and Operative to suggest,
excite use physical force is compensatory; the Defendants and Government have
culpability or liable to the Plaintiff. FRCP 3 Younger v Harris the court should proceed in
immediate injunction and descend all Executive Directives and Order in matters
concerning the Plaintiff. The Administrative Procedure Act give the court the ability to
review any activity of a government agency or and its agents. The US Treasury should
surrender the Estate of Mt.Vernon, Virginia, transfer manifest statements of inventoried
accountability gold in within Treasury vault that are attached to belongs Washington
George and allow accounts released for access to the Plaintiff, Descendant and
Beneficiary; Tony Curtis Barrino by FRCP 64. FRCP 70 the court should issue or service
the Defendants with a Bank Levy; Writ of Execution for gold Public Laws: 93 -110, 97-
258, 93 -373 from the justice bench to accompany summons.
• FRCP 3 the Defendants violate 18 USC 1030 their conduct is intent to defraud the
Plaintiff and distort legitimate function of the US Treasury and malversation of public
land 18 USC 1901; through the use of computer and satellite technologies. The Plaintiffs
implant is Government Engineered as well as the computer receiver. 5 USC 551 (1 OA), 5
USC 11(B) the Defendants withhold relief and causation to the change in the conditions
of the Plaintiff to extort money and land in which is prohibited or unlawful by the
Computer Security Act of 1987. The Bio -Phase or Brain Computer Interphase and
satellite systems are (US Government Engineered) is being used in a reckless and
malicious manner termed as "Hazardous Interference." FRCP 3 the Plaintiff is pursuant
28 USC 1442 of the Defendants by the Federal Property and Administrative Act of 1949
they violate 18 USC 643 and 18 USC 656.
• The Executive Directive or Operations intent is tortuous activity violation by Title
31 and Title 12 money, federal depositories and federal institutions. FRCP 26; Robert
Muller, Director of Federal Bureau of Investigations was informed December 2010 about
this situation.
FRCP 3 the Defendants ignore and unlawful Department of Defense Directives that
govern SAT -COM or satellite communications in "space activity" 8585.1, 4650 -1,
3500.01, 5205.01, 81002, 5144.1 and 3003.1 that assist in violation of 18 USC 1030.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 sec. 5 502 is violations of Title 47.
FRCP 3 By court order descend by injunction orders, operatives and Directives of
the President United States Barack Obama concerning the Plaintiff; Korematsu v. United
States from or due to Presidential Executive Order the Plaintiff's environment or
immediate surroundings is or were changed controlled and manipulated due to his
directive. The Department of Defense Regulations infractions is a military operation
activity in satellite system use; crimes or fraudulent activity concerning the National
Defense Title 32 11.4. Younger v. Harris 401 US 37 (1971) prohibits the use, excitation
and suggestion of force or violence from political origin. FRCP 65 compel the against
the Defendants 28 USC 1442 with force of the federal court for injunctive processes and
relief.
See attached forms, documentations and application per judge's request
Plaintiff is requesting that civil proceedings continue in forma pauperis on the above grounds or
merits.
Date:
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
SURRENDER OF THE WHITE HOUSE.... BIG TIME
To: mediainquiries @msnbc.com
Date: Monday, May 16, 2011, 9:04 PM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DISTRICT
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff/Pro Se:
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
226 N. LONG ST
SALISBURY, NC 28144
VS
Defendants:
UNITED STATES TREASURY
US GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
BARACK OBAMA
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20500
Plaintiff/Pro Se: Tony Curtis Barrino
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
COMPLAINT
I, Tony Barrino, Plaintiff, as pursuant, request a new trial by FRCP 60(b) to relieve the judgment
and previous orders in 10 -8582, 10 -1674 and NCWD cases file against the US Treasury on the
grounds there is misconduct by the Defendants. The Plaintiff is pursuant 28 US 1442 where the
jurisdiction and powers of 15 USC 80 government securities FRCP 59 the Plaintiff has grounds
and fact for new trial.
The Defendants violate FRCP 70, the US Treasury and defendants fail to turn over deed to land
in the Estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia. The Defendants violate FRCP 70;
Respondents fail to turn over financial access card and all document or files regarding Tony
Barrino in matters concerning the Washington Family. The Defendants fail to turn over
documents in which where gathered while subject in a Special Access Program by US
Government; those files are being used to where the Plaintiff s right's to privacy are
compromised. The files are being used to in political smearing and social scrutiny without the
Plaintiff s consent. The files where formed or collected, and are still being collected at this time
that without consent also; they are being used while this entire judicial proceeding has started in
NCWD in 2010 the information was used to withhold, execute malicious executive directive,
erroneous allegations and due to those files the Defendants have been with malicious prosecution
by investigation to spoil abilities to claim the Estate and securities in accounts. The Defendants
erroneous allegations with use the have caused damage intentionally which violate 60(b)
causing animosity and non - advantageous conjectured favoritism in the public at large which in
reason that activity is be done is concerning this matter of Estate and securities within this
litigation claim or suit. This activity is empowering malversation where the Defendants cause
controversy or conflict of the money and values of Estate. In malversation are withhold financial
documentation and financial access to accounts that impair the Plaintiff's way of life daily. 15
USC 80 where there are government securities management issues the Defendants are in
violation 18 USC 1001 (1)(1) this documents are withheld with force, intimidation and
interference by 70(e) the Plaintiff by new trial can compel compliance by 31 USC 5318, the US
Treasury is liable. The Defendants are connected and collectively in directives, operations and
activity that have additional culpability due malicious aggravation to withhold since this civil
proceeding has been ongoing. The Defendants have planned to withhold and disburse to others in
the future, planning of misappropriation in new factual information, the petitioner continued by
FRCP 26. 31 USC 310 gives grounds to continue, United States V. Nixon (418) US 683 (1974)
in 50(e). Withholding or obtaining documents or material by force or interference directly or
indirect influence having knowledge of the means the material is obtained or retained is grounds
by FRCP 60 is misconduct that violate 18 USC 1001 (1)(1). The petitioner compels United
States V. Nixon by FRCP 64 to seize in order for the return into the possession of the Plaintiff,
the rightful and lawful owner Tony Barrino.
The court failed to recognize interference and malversation in matters of the law concerning
public money management or management of public property, there are violations in 18 USC
1901 and 18 USC 641 is mismanagement by the Defendants unreasonable freeze by 15 USC
80. FRCP 60 the Plaintiff request relief from previous judgment. There are activities in the
matters of the law by which the Defendants are causation of activities by Executive Directive in
which are prohibited by the Omnibus Clause 1503 during this judicial process has been ongoing;
the Plaintiff is physically intimidated, harassed and physically manipulated or physically
trespassed daily. There are factors in activity that disturbance the physical environmental
surroundings promoted by the Defendants.
Pagels V. Vargus 2004 WI App 21, 269 Wis. 2d 543, 674 N.W. 2d 6812003 Wisc. App. Lexis.
Tsuchiya V. Brennan, 215 Wis. 2d 324, 572 N.W. 2d 903, 1997 Wis. App. Lexis 1346 (Wis. Ct.
App. 1997). A claims case can be reopened. The defendants carelessness to relinquish and
avoidance to allow access to the beneficiary of accounts, securities and Estate is "good cause"
enough by FRCP 60 and in 59(e) grounds for new trial or amend the previous ruling.
The Plaintiff is pursuant by 50(e) to the US Treasury and Defendants because the court erred not
allowing the motion in rehearing by Title 31 in public money malversation conduct and Title 47
using SAT — COM or satellite communications it interferes with the Plaintiff s personal "right to
space survive" daily due unauthorized and unconstitutional use of or activation "atmospheric
space activity" subsonic communications propaganda transmissions that disturb the public or
change the public at large.
Rule 50(b) the Plaintiff recognizes FRCP 16 the court needs to narrow, clarify and simplify the
issue. The Plaintiff has continued to in FRCP 26 to improve quality of trial and clarify fact in
issue to establish control and so that the case or issues would not be protracted litigation.
The US Solicitor General did not answer the Writ of Certiorari and US Solicitor General did not
answer the Petition for Rehearing of Certiorari; in FRCP 37(4) the Respondents are violating and
being evasive. The Defendants compels the court to consolidate by FRCP 42 (2) the failure to
respond, Hazardous Interference and violations of the statutory provision infractions involved in
10 -8582 and 10 -1674 moves the court in FRCP 59 as malversation. FRCP 36 the Defendants
should have answered the court. The knowledge is corroborated, there is gross aggravating civil
infraction that should be factored into consideration of the court and there is genuine issue and
genuine problem.
FRCP 60 the Defendants are in fraud of the court. The Defendants violate the due process
because they had improper influence and ex parte communication or contact that impacted the
entire civil proceeding. In that ex parte communication shows beyond a shadow of doubt the
Defendants are evasive and the court should take into consideration the Defendants have latitude
or allow to operate in "secrecy" in contact with other people and members of the government by
Executive Privilege; in which the Plaintiff has outlined in the rehearing phase of litigation. The
Plaintiff's request new trial in FRCP 60; Lund V Lund 849 P. 2d 731 Wyoming Supreme Court
(1993); the Defendants contact politically influenced the outcome or the judicial impression in
rulings by in the lower court. FRCP 60 the court cannot rule out that this process has political
sensitivity, political opposition, political interference or unconstitutional actions of the Executive
Branch as whole or as individually connected. In FRCP 60 Marbury V. Madison the US Courts
can nullify action of the Executive Branch of the US Government. FRCP 65 There are no statue
of limitations in this case the Defendants by utilization of satellite communication and
Department of Defense Regulations and Department of Defense Satellite Systems where there
are matters of criminality involving the National Defense there is no statue of limitations; the
Defendants should served with summons also to cease and desist for the safety of the Plaintiff.
FRCP 64, the Defendants ignore Executive Order 13406; the Defendants are responsible and
cause of Plaintiff's retention or unreasonable seizure of property since January 2009 to the
present. 28 USC 1442 the Plaintiff is pursuant as federal employees Defendants where their
conduct is and has been connected in seizure. Rule 60(b) involvement, conduct or acts of the
Defendants are connected in planned facilitation or is contributory.
FRCP 26 the Plaintiff continues to clarify and gathered facts in this matters of individual
securities in custody of the US Treasury lawfully the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has the right to do so
by 31 USC 3733 as a demands to resolve and investigate civil securities litigation in which this
claim in allegation was not discredit by the US Attorney General's Officer, Eric Holden. FRCP
26 gives the Plaintiff the power by 28 USC 1442 as pursuant of Defendants; the Defendants
pursuit cannot be relieved of liability by 31 USC 3126; the Defendants must show evidence of
payment to the beneficiary. 31 CFR 321.15 the Defendants are liable for the loss of any
monetary notes,31 CFR 321.17 there is should be investigation of the potential loss, 31 CFR
321.21 if a loss has occurred from the redemption of a security the replacement of funds should
be established or replaced by the Government Shipment Act. The rights of the security hold is
holders are not restricted, 31 CFR 321.24 if a security is redeemed by an agent and is stole, lost
or destroyed while in custody or prior to transit prior to settlement; 31 USC 5318 still compels
compliance 17 CFR 450 in custodial holdings of government securities by depository institution
17 CFR 450.4 a depository shall maintain possession or control of all government securities held
for the account of a customer by safeguarding such securities. The institution is should keep
them free of any lien, claim or charge such account and are to be without any kind of favor
advantageous or non - advantages by persons claiming through it; 15 USC 78t includes tangible
property. 12 USC 3410 the Defendants violate FRCP 60b(3) in misconduct 15 USC 78t unlawful
activity; the court may exercise a warrant on the Defendants and on rights of the customer by
FRCP 64 to satisfy judgment, remedy and relief. In FRCP 64, 12 USC 4309 the court can
demand release of possession of all accounts and securities to the beneficiary or Plaintiff. FRCP
64, 12 USC 3406 demands release all records connected to that security; Public Law 91 -508
financial information, forms and access cards cannot be deprived. Public Law 99 -571 require
appropriate responsibility to the customer or beneficiary in that security Public Law 101 -73 Title
9 is provisional grounds for a court order for restitution and cease and desist on specific
activities. FRCP 64 in 12 USC 3410 compels motion for additional proceedings and in 12 USC
3416 has gives jurisdiction to enforce any provision in Title 12 no matter how much money is in
that beneficiary's account or are in controversy. 15 USC 78u -4 the Plaintiff can bring suit for
violation of any private securities violations and is entitled to relief and compensation FRCP 23.
The amount money in the account for Tony Barrino is another reason for freeze or seizure. 988
F. 2d 658 Medicare /Medicaid of the United States of America V. Brown (No. 92 -3676; 1987) the
Plaintiff's account cannot be frozen or withheld; because the Defendants or Government are
suspicious. The Defendants have more power and abilities than most enforcement agent, in abuse
the Defendants have made outrageous efforts. 15 USC 78u -4 Plaintiff by FRCP 60b(3) has
grounds for relief previous judgment in outrages efforts and misconduct. United States V. Nixon
418 US 683 (1974); the place, manner and means of the physical subject object that being
trespassed is irrelevant. The relevancy is that the President had knowledge of of that illegal act or
conduct had, is or was occurred; where he had or has a beneficial interest in the results of that
activity. In which there Presidential interest in material of government origin to obtained or
retained ; the exact physical, format of those materials or documents is irrelevant. Also, the
relevancy is that President had contact or connected with others that had engaged in an criminal
acts to gain that ability to obtain such documents. The Defendants in their administrative
connection of office also have external contacts to assist in activities questionable by causation in
the matters of the law where there is interference or obstruction to the Plaintfff. The Defendants
in connectively are using extraordinary and unusual efforts in causation to materials of
government form or origin, administrative material, material documentations of US Treasury
concerning and individual securities with force or by unusual means to retain possession of that
documentation or US Government manufactured financial form and financial access card and an
Estate deed to Mt. Vernon this violates 18 USC 1001 (1)(1). FRCP 37 (4) Defendants fail to
comply United States V. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974) the court and Plaintiff can recover those
documents from the Respondents possession. 18 USC 202 the material withheld has interest of
the Executive Branch as Respondents; FRCP 60 the Plaintiff in 28 USC 1442 can recover that
documentation in matters that concern the Plaintiff individual security account.
FCRP 60(b)(3) this misconduct of Defendants by 18 USC 1001(1)(1) establish grounds due to
new fact; Respondents are in non - compliance and evasive by Executive Privilege and Executive
Directives. The Defendants are in continuance in conjunction or in connection by aggravated or
provoked activity and illegal acts; in which effects the ability to continue to physically conceal,
maintain or appropriate by a scheme or sequence of acts to maintain documents or
documentations in question. Defendants violate 18 USC 1001(1)(1) where the administrative
matters of material withheld belong to another person to claims in matters from the US Treasury;
Title 31 and 15 USC 80 in securities matters as beneficiary. Defendants violate 18 USC
1001(1)(1) where the matters related in procurement of property; the information enclosed in
those documents and data are for the Plaintiff to claim as rightful and lawful owner as
beneficiary in 15 USC 80 jurisdiction is established right to sue defedants in 28 USC 1442.
The Plaintiff may sue and take possession of those documents concerning that individual
security; Huddleston V. United States 485 US 681 (1998) possession is that is necessary
Defendants have motive and knowledge of the exact descriptive means of the extraordinary
efforts, knowledge relating of the unconstitutional violation and knowledge of the
unconstitutional trespass to maintain possession to maintain possession of that US Treasury
material concerning the Petitioner.
FRCP 50(e) the Plaintiff has grounds enough facts as a matter of evidence to question in
violations by Respondents that clearly infringe upon the Omnibus Clause; 18 USC 1503.
Defendants are using force, extraordinary physical means, utilizing political means in secrecy
and political influence in contacting others to assist in physical inference of Plaintiff. The
Defendants throughout this judicial process have directed and orchestrated interference and
intimidation described as "Hazardous Interference" with satellite communications. This
interference is harassing and threatening Plaintiff while the due process is in motion. Ornelas V.
United States 517 US 690 (1996) the Plaintiff request new trial and review in the US Supreme
Court; this case enough has reasonable suspicion and connected as malversation of public
officials regarding in mismanagement public money and public money. The retaliation,
"Hazardous Interference" and encroachment is prohibited in provision by 18 USC 1513 while
those persons are involved in judicial proceedings.
The Defendants violate Omnibus section 1513 by is violated explained throughout the narrative
complaints, petition en banc and petition collectively clearly. FRCP 60(b)(6) the Petitioner
clearly explains distress, intrusion and extraordinary means of trespass that affect the Petitioner
physical body and physical environmental surroundings. Physical prohibitions in violations are
causation by the Defendants and they are responsible for the overall occurrence or responsible
for the activity overall that change the surroundings in which manipulate the physical person and
or persons that affect the Plaintiff indirect and indirectly. The main connection is the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Brain Computer Interphase System is housed, managed, operated and
controlled these Defendants authorized or gave direction to use that computer system in
connection with satellite communication and military satellite communication systems is being
used or is allowed to be used by other satellite operators in a malicious manner. The Defendants
knowing that the Plaintiff is directly physically connected to this systems, the Defendants intent
was to maintain documents money, land and all other securities involved in this issue or Estate of
Washington, George. The Defendant's know that the Plaintiff's biological name is Samuel
Washington an the last living "blood" kindred; reasoning for the Special Access Program or
Computer Development Program that Plaintiff was inducted for protection by US Government.
18 USC 1513 is violated the Plaintiff `s person in malicious use Title 47 part 18.101 where the
use of satellite communications by bio- medical device is being used to cause harm and changes
by means of ultra -sonic or low frequency signaling or communication. Space satellite
communications activities are strictly forbidden by to used in that manner Title 47 part 18.111,
Title 47 part 18.123 and Title 47 part 18.107 does violate the Plaintiff by the Omnibus section
1513; the Defendants in interference causes the petitioner non - advantageous situations and
complications in which particular malice concerning this litigation and individualized political
opposition obstruct the Plaintiff's right to claim and sue. The Plaintiff in motion and grounds
FRCP 60(b)(6) against the Defendants by 28 USC 1442. Defendants are subject 31 USC 310
matters concerning money to investigation of the US Treasury and US Government 15 USC 80
in government securities in trust. The Defendants activity and conduct is malversation, Title 5
USC 551 10(A) "Harmful Interference" affects the conditions and freedoms of person. Title 5
USC 551 11(B) the Defendants are in avoidance to withhold relief; their activity is illegal seizure
and unreasonable freeze. The Plaintiff FRCP 60(b)(6) compels motion for new trial on the
principal 18 USC 2 the Defendants commands interference for further to withhold securities and
Estate is malversation. Also the Defendants infringe; to obstruct, delays, wrongful force,
intimidation and physical manipulation has grounds for FRCP 60(b)(6) carries strong factual
evidence inferences or criminal case dynamics of 18 USC 1951.
FRCP 37(4) the Defendants fail to answer, evasive and fail to respond to civil demands; in which
the demand to in claims was not ruled out in FRCP 26 by the US Attorney General and NC
Attorney General's Office; 31 USC 3733 the Defendants withhold deed and financial
paperwork in this claim. The US Department of Justice is fully aware of this case with the
Defendants and US Treasury; notified on May 11th, 2011.
The Plaintiff by 50(e) request a trial. Schillenger V. United States, 155 US 163 (1984); Congress
never intended the wrongful seizure document or power's of right enclosed in that
documentation in law that gives right to enable. The Defendants are in wrongful seizure of
deed; a patent carries the same power of rights as property deed. The defendants and US
Treasury cannot keep deed to Estate or deed to land. The Plaintiff, by 28 USC 1442 is pursuant;
of those documents and deed by FRCP 34 to the Estate of Washington Mt. Vernon, Virginia.
28 USC 1442 a government official cannot take or withhold documentations or documentations
in law of right from a citizens 18 USC 1001 (1)(1).
The Plaintiff reinforces infractions in this case of Omnibus Clause section 1513 60(b)(3)(6);
Younger V. Harris 401 US 37 (197 1) prohibits unlawful acts of violence to effect a political
change. The values of Estate and securities raises in motive Executive Branch as Defendant in
furtherance of personal and political empowerment; FRCP 59(1) the court should raise questions
18 USC 202 and 205 the Defendants have used extraordinary efforts or engaged unusual activity
that have excited the public at large; the Defendants have caused change in the "status quo" or
change the normal in the public at large with satellite communications use.
Dombrowski V. Prister 380 US 479 (1965); ruled that the plaintiff does not have to show
evidence of irreparable damage. The Defendants infringe upon the Plaintiff by the First
Amendment in the guarantee of civil liberties. The rights and civil liberties of Plaintiff s
infringement or depravation; can be and is profoundly proven compels by FRCP 70 due to the
acts and conduct Defendants. FRCP 3 US Treasury due to civil demand to settle 31 USC 3733
should comply to the court and Plaintiff FRCP 38(a -c) on the issue of malversation FRCP
59a(1).
The Plaintiff in FRCP 59a(1) and FRCP 60(b); Newsome V. US Treasury F.2d 74 (5th Circ.).
The lower courts refused to grant the Plaintiff review or denied reconsideration. Newsome V. US
Treasury F.2d 74 (5th Circ), Newsome was granted a new trial in which the district erred where
there was not precautions for the judgment, order or verdict to speak the truth. The US Treasury
employee had question in matter of law where the demeanor or conduct of his duty was
performed in the case.
FRCP 59 and 60 the Plaintiff argues that the lower courts decisions had carried over thorough
the appeals process; the Defendant Timothy Geithner US Treasury employee is questionable in
malversation and Hazardous Interference as the constitutional demeanor in carrying out his duty
as US Treasury Secretary knowing that there is non - advantageous activities concerning a
security in litigation to be claimed by the Plaintiff.
FRCP 59 and 60; Kingslow V. Treasury 2009 -3030. The courts found and upheld Kingslow of
the US Treasury ethics as manager; was questionable in trustworthiness Kingslow's
employment in termination with US Treasury was affirmed by the court.
Geithner is questionable in 31 USC 330 Practice before Department; Geithner as Defendant
know of all the circumstance surrounding this Estate and Security where he is a connected
participant violate the Plaintiff by 18 USC 656 or 18 USC 641 with malus delay compels the
Plaintiff FRCP 60 and 59 Timothy Geithner is non - compliant and in gross violation in
contributory of interference by 31 USC 5318. Geithner was served with petition and Writ of
Certiorari through the US Solicitor General's Office.
Armstrong V. US Treasury No.2009 -3155; Armstrong presented new evidence that was
"sufficient weight" to warrant a different outcome from that of the initial decision. Armstrong
failed in compliance in settlement agreement; as GS -14 criminal tax investigator for the
Department of the Treasury.
31 USC 5318 the Defendants fail to comply in settle with the Respondent FRCP 60b(4) previous
judgment is void FRCP 50(c).
FRCP 60 there is evidence activity strong enough in culpability and the fact strongly favor the
Plaintiff.
Huddleston V. United States 485 US 681 (1988); the evidence and facts that might relate to
relevant issue in the case such as motive, opportunity or knowledge is admissible. Huddleston
was convicted on the possession because he had knowledge of the illegal means he possessed the
material he also was connect with others he received benefit of that activity; United States V.
Nixon 418 US 683 (1974).
The Plaintiff provides factual information has been corroborated information in this complaint is
sufficient where the Defendants would and could not protect themselves form a jury. The
Plaintiff is not required to any other preliminary showing before admitting evidence.
The Plaintiff provides factual information has been corroborated information in the petition is
sufficient where the Defendants would and could not protect themselves form a jury. The
Plaintiff is not required to any other preliminary showing before admitting evidence. The
Defendants have opportunity and knowledge; there is aggravated malicious activity concerning
this Estate and security in litigation or discussion.
The Plaintiff provides factual information has been corroborated information in this complaint
sufficient where the Defendants would and could not protect themselves from a jury. The
Plaintiff is not required to any other preliminary showing before admitting evidence. The
Defendants have opportunity and knowledge; there is aggravated and malicious activity
concerning this Estate and the securities in controversy. The Defendants are questionable 31
USC 330 matters concerning government securities no fraudulent activity 15 USC 78o -5.
FRCP 59(2) the Plaintiff's request for trial is in equal protection of the law 28 USC 1442,
Boiling V. Sharpe 347 US 49 (1954); the Plaintiff is in need to remedy and relief in which to
restrict the government, protect the rights of the individual from invasion because of
discriminatory reasons.
FRCP 59(2) on the grounds collectively in this motion to amend findings of fact and conclusion
of law. The Defendants deprive the equal benefit of the law for security of persons and property.
The Plaintiff continued In FRCP 26 on that fact of deprivation of security person reinforces
59(2) due to the merits of in infarctions outline in Omnibus Clause 1503 and 1513.
The Defendants have solicited or tried to acquire; "a hitman, sniper or murder for hire" through a
government contract security company in malice against the Plaintiff. The lower courts did not
allow opportunity of the facts to reach a jury. FRCP 26 that fact is grounds for intent and motive
is obvious to compel motion for new trial in 59(2) by FRCP 60. On numerous accounts President
Barack Obama "brags verbally" that he has tried acquire a contract "killer" and he loosely
conveys that he does not Tony Curtis Barrino" to survive or does not want Tony Cutis Barrino to
live beyond his tenure as President of the United States. The President has made these types
suggestion to the public on television on numerous occasions; Federal Rule of Evidence 801 that
video is available from television news networks and is not "Hearsay" and is not protected in a
court of law to reach jury by Executive Privilege. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) those
statements are excited utterance or utterance to excite in suggestion of irreparable injury or harm
to the Plaintiff.
State V Torres (South Carolina Court of Appeals 2010) containing previous acts, previous events
or prevents statements involving Torres was allowed as admissible or was allowed in attested to
Torres's character and behavior.
FRCP 37 the Plaintiff can produce that video if the Defendants do not want respond to allegation
in questioning. There are television news stations have video Defendants and politicians of the
US Government are making statements of suggestion in harm to Plaintiff. These television
stations are in frequently contacted by the Plaintiff. These television stations are fully aware of
the intent of the Defendants and aware of the Defendants conduct in corroboration also. The
Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 41 the court will need to exercise warrant to obtain all video
from the television new stations into admissibility.
The Plaintiff's motion new trial in FRCP 59(d) on the court initiative; the lower courts prejudice
presents as a danger to the Plaintiff. The lower courts where not in allowance for evidence to
reach the jury. FRCP 52(b) the lower courts did not seek additional findings, the Plaintiff
knowing of available video then. FRCP 52(b) by additional findings conveys to the there is even
more producible video that support all Plaintiff s allegations this complaint as well as the
previous case, appeals, writ and petition proceedings collectively is grounds for new trial in
FRCP 60(b) misconduct of the Defendants. The Defendants and US Solicitor General failed to
respond by FRCP 37; should compel court in summary judgment FRCP 56 because the
Defendants fail to address facts , the Defendants did not address, did not answer and cannot
refute the Plaintiff s assertion FRCP 52 the Defendant's can be defeated on the facts.
FRCP 60(b)(3) in misconduct the Defendants as a whole violate the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act is grounds by FRCP 59(2). The Defendants -have organized others to use satellite
communications in malicious propaganda to excite others in malice, where a violent act would
be inflicted upon the Plaintiff. There are other people by the Defendants organization to assist
promised money to be received or promised payment to them in the hopes of an event to occur in
detrimental injury to the Plaintiff; the subject or object of their interference.
FRCP 60b(3) a physically aggressive Executive order or Executive Directive intentional
directions to be used in operative against a citizen while their individual security and land is in
trust or in custody to manage for claim in the US Treasury is criminal by 15 USC 80.
28 USC 1442, United States V. Sioux of Indians 448 US 371 (1980); Seminole Tribe of Florida
V. Florida; claim and lawsuit against government; the land in controversy of compensatory issue
was not or had not been in the plaintiff's control or occupation physically for great number years.
Executive Order 13406 is constitutional and public law, "Land cannot be taken away from the
American Citizen ". The Estate of Washington George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia has been by US
Government and US Treasury documented to Tony Curtis Barrino as rightful and lawful owner
since 1969. Tony Curtis Barrino; is a blood relative of George Washington. The Defendant's
biological name is Samuel Washington; he is adopted and his legal name is Tony Curtis Barrino.
CONCLUSION
1.
FRCP 52 US Treasury and Defendants in matters of national defense are violating
Department of Defense Regulations; Title 32 part 11.4 with exercise of Executive Order and
Directive 13526 from President Barack Obama which can be used in secrecy intelligence
matters to include satellite communications civilian and military satellites communications.
The Defendants violates the Plaintiff in Title 47 by "Hazardous Interference "; Title 47 parts
18. 107, 18.101 and 18.123. The Defendants know that the Plaintiff has no control over the
connection between the bio- medical implant signaling through the satellite to the computer
controls and computer receiver housed or kept on government property. This allows the
Plaintiff body to be tracked, manipulated and interfered anywhere at anytime as well the
immediate environmental surroundings. The space activity via satellite is aggressive; the
Omnibus Clause 1503 and sections 1513 apply in trespass of person. The motive of this
operative is the values of the estate and securities the Plaintiff has rights to take over possess.
There are no statues of limitations in this litigation or complaint this situation that infringe
upon matters of law concerning National Security, this situation involves the Department of
Defense Title 32 part 11.4. The Defendants are in continuance since 2009.
2.
FRCP 60 are still in continuance of activity since previous filings. The US Treasury and
Defendants violates the Fourteenth Amendment profoundly; the Respondents are depriving
him of life by "Hazardous Interference" or space activity diminished " right to space to
survive" where the results or affect of that activity would hamper the ability claim land and
adjoining securities in this litigation.
3.
FRCP 59 The Defendants together desire to withhold the Estate of George Washington: Mt
Vernon Virginia. The Defendants desire to withhold money set aside money in account in the
Plaintiff's name, that was money drawn from the fair market value of gold that is connected
to that Washington Estate. The gold enclosed within the Washington Estate is as "real
property ". The Defendants desire to withhold the gold and the total security.
4.
FRCP 59 The Defendants planned together started non - advantageous conjecture and
controversy in the public at large through the US and international television and radio
media; activated satellite communications systems to be used malicious aggressive manner.
The Respondents influenced the US Courts Fourth District. The Defendants started
investigations on the Plaintiff on assumptions and erroneous allegations, knowing that the
Plaintiff was granted Diplomatic Immunity from the previous Administration.
5.
FRCP 4 The Defendants cannot deny unreasonable seizure. The Defendants cannot deny the
intent to withhold to appropriate or disburse at a later. The Defendants cannot deny the intent
by their causation to result in irreparable, detrimental injury or intimidation.
6.
FRCP 52 the US Supreme Court should conclude the Defendants started a sequence of events
since the occupancy or tenure of the offices since January 2009 that are in the courts
jurisdiction and power of 15 USC 80. Their connected is conduct is in fraud and in malice;
malversation by public or governmental official concerning public money and public
property infringes or "pierces the vale" in law by 18 USC 371 because the Defendants have
been working together with the intent collectively to gain total access to the Estate and
money by "deceptive practice "; belonging to Tony Curtis Barrino. The Defendants conduct
profoundly violate 18 USC 643 and 31 USC 330 employees of the United States Government
cannot retain public money FRCP 60(b)(3).
7.
FRCP 65 The Defendants show need that injunction of activity the Plaintiff is pursuant of
Respondents in 28 USC 1442 for new trial on new factual evidence and conclusions violated
the Omnibus Clause section 1503 and 1513 in conjunction with Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1978 while this litigation was and is in process of settlement due to fact that
the Respondents are violating the Petitioner in rights to take possession of Estate of
Washington; Mt. Vernon and the adjoining securities in that Estate. Respondents violate the
Petitioner; 18 USC 373 the Respondents have acted with intent in which to solicit other
persons to use force against the Plaintiff. The Respondents have commanded and have
endeavored to persuade others to engage in conduct or acts that would have a direct and
indirect force in which the Plaintiff would encumber detrimental injury or detrimental harm;
as result the Defendants could retain the Estate of Washington, George; Mt.Vemon, Virginia
and its adjoining "real property" or securities.
8.
The Plaintiff does not show proof that he is being defrauded; United States V. Winkle, 587
F.2d 705,708 (5th Cir.1979); United V. Conover 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985) the Plaintiff
does not have to show that there is monetary or proprietary loss. Tanner V. United States 483
US 107, 128 (1987); the Respondents impair the purpose in which obstruct and are impair the
lawful function of the US Treasury. The satellite communications use Presidential from
executive orders and directive illegally termed as `Hazardous Interference ", "smearing" or
non - advantageous propaganda in political opposition, violations or acts involving the
Omnibus and the Comprehensive Crime Act of 1978 is distortion in the rights and abilities
for the Plaintiff to take possession from the US Treasury as the rightful and lawful
beneficiary. FRCP 60(b)(3),The Defendants improper acts or sequence of activity impairs the
legitimate function of the US Treasury; Dennis V. United States 384 US 855 (1966). United
States V. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (1989) protects the government from scheme, property
loss and financial loss; uphold the policies that involve or government securities in Title 31
and 15 USC 80. FRCP 60 and FRCP 4 in 28 USC 1442; the Plaintiff has grounds as
pursuant of Defendants capacities of their office.
ZI
FRCP 4 the Defendants are non - complaint, US Treasury Regulation section 20.2031 -1 the
valuation of property and gross Estate can be passed to the beneficiary or descendent even if the
surviving descendent did have knowledge of the property FRCP 64 the Plaintiff is requesting to
seize or retake property and placed in the custody possession of the Plaintiff; 31 USC 3733 the
US Attorney General Officer has given this claim merit and the US Solicitor General Office in
all aspects. The Plaintiff can and will produce further corroboration to attest all to facts in this
motion.
Request trial by jury.
a
FRCP 5 the Defendants are non - complaint, US Treasury Regulation section 20.2031 -1 the
valuation of property and gross Estate can be passed to the beneficiary or descendent even if the
surviving descendent did not have knowledge of the property. FRCP 64 the Plaintiff is
requesting to seize or retake property and placed in the custody possession of the Plaintiff, 31
USC 3733 the US Attorney General Officer has given this claim merit and the US Solicitor
General Office in all aspects. FRCP 38 the Plaintiff has enough fact and involves enough
aggravated activity; produced further corroboration to attest all to facts in this motion and
complaint; to take possession of the Estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia and
adjoining "real property and attached securities in trust ". FRCP 39 the Plaintiff has given the
court enough issue in matters of law by 15 USC 80 and Tile 31 for trial or reopen this case for
settlement FRCP 3 the Plaintiff is pursuant to against the Defendants FRCP 4; 28 USC 1442
gives authority and jurisdiction for service of summons.
10.
FRCP 60 the Defendants misconduct where they are withhold deed and property to the Estate of
Washington; Mt Vernon, Virginia. The amount acreage and values of estate is motive for the
Defendants avoidance to settle, their intent is have final entry to land at a later time and
appropriation a the Defendant's discression or purpose without compensation to the Plaintiff.
The Defendants connected activity and directive are fraudulent in malversation to withhold the
Estate the Defendant show profound non - compliance and culpability violate 18 USC 654 the
defendants intended to convert or transfer the Estate of Washington; Mt Vernon by unlawfully
means of their office utilization of unreasonable, extraordinary means and malus efforts 18
USC 645 the defendant Timothy Giethner as US Treasurer cannot retain or transfer the deed and
title Estate Washington; Mt. Vernon or the attached securities to no other than the rightful
owner. Timothy Giethner cannot by himself, use of others, utilize relations within US
Government official to retain money or deed. FRCP 34 the Defendants should produce
documents, release custody, possession and control. Defendants violate 18 USC 1001 (1)(1) in
retention of those administrative documents of Titles and Deed of Estate of Washington Mt.
Vernon; Virginia with aggravated acts and aggravated means. The Defendants impair the
legitimate function and has inference to defraud the United States and Plaintiff in a scheme;
United States V. Trinidad Coal and Coking Co. 137 US 160(1911); United States V. Munday
222 US 175 (1911) the Defendants are conspiring to withhold Title and Deeds there cannot be no
other procurement of that property or Estate. FRCP 60 the means in which retention or
acquirement of Estate in controversy; furtherance interference, unconstitutional encroachment or
unreasonable freeze with this type activity or of any culpable type is fraudulent final entry,
misappropriation or malversation of public property 18 USC 1901 that conduct is prohibited;
United States V. Forrester 211 US 399 (1908). FRCP 64 the Plaintiff seeks and pursuant to with
force of the Federal Court to seize, take to possession and satisfy judgment against the
Defendants. 28 USC 1442 the Defendants violate Executive Order 13406 as public law;
Eminent Domain by US Government deprives the Plaintiff. FRCP 3 compels the court against
the Defendants in 18 USC 401 the have obstructed, impaired legitimate function official
transactions of the US Treasury and US Government; United States V. Tuohey, 867 F. 2d
534,537 (1989) FRCP 38 the Plaintiff has the right to sue in civil demand 31 USC 3733 Treasury
Regulation 20. 2038 -1 the descendant can exercise and apply power to acquire the Estate of
Washington; Mt. Vernon , Virigina.
11.
FRCP 59 the Plaintiff has sufficient grounds for new trial the US Treasury and the US
Government has established intent to settle and transfer the Estate of Mt. Vernon to the
descendant prior to Defendants involvement. 12 CFR 330.13 the trust, money accounts and
Estate of Mt. Vernon is irrevocable trust; therefore is owned by beneficiary or descendant
established provision in 12 CFR 330.3. 12 USC 248 subsec.(n) Public Law 97 -258 the 250 tons
of gold encompassed within the Estate of Washington, George inl5 USC 80 in jurisdiction the
US Treasury must pay the Plaintiff directly 12 USC 3416 no matter of values in controversy.
Treasury Regulation 20.2038 -1 the gold in holding or custody it appreciating value or worth is
considered income and should be paid directly to beneficiary by Treasury Regulation 20.2031 -5.
Kolb V. Empire Trust Co., 280 AD 370, N.Y.S. 2d 550 (1952) the plaintiff should be paid the
US Treasury and US Government had made arrangements as trustee to give full disposition of
the Estate of Washington; Mt. Vernon, Virginia to the next kin Richardson V. Richardson 298
N.Y. 135, N.E. 2d 54, 60 (1948); Treasury Regulation 20.2031 -1 the values of Estate, real
property and encompassed securities can be passed to the surviving descendant even the
descendant did not know about the property. FRCP 59 the court should determine the Defendants
are willful and have intent to deprive the Plaintiff 12 USC 3417 as employee of the United States
. FRCP 3 the Plaintiff has right to compel the court in the provision of 12 USC 3410. FRCP 3
compels the Defendants to comply or answer to settle claim 31 USC 5318 with Plaintiff; 12 USC
4309 gives the court power in provision by Administrative Enforcement. FRCP 37(4) the
Defendants need to answer and comply.
12 USC 4309 gives the court power in provision by Administrative Enforcement. FRCP 37(4)
the Defendants need to answer and comply.
12.
FRCP 60 the Defendants have misconduct asserted extraordinary effort where they have
profound culpability in compensatory damage, including the Estate and securities.
Judicial Canon 3 -5 this case is politically sensitive; 28 USC 1442 the Poe V. Ullman 367 US 497
(196 1) the Plaintiff does have enough facts and standing as pursuant established right to sue due
unreasonable seizure, causation of irreparable injury with political interference; Lujan V.
Defendant's of Wildlife 504 US 555, 561 (1992) the Plaintiff has suffered personal injury Allen
V. Wright 468 US 737, 751 (1984); Raines V. Byrd 521 US 811(1997) the complaint against the
Defendants establishes the fact that there is unlawful conduct. The Defendants are causation of
personal injury, utilizing Hazardous Interference as restraint or unusual restraints and arbitrary
imposition to furtherance retention of Estate and securities; which violate the Plaintiff's
fourteenth amendments.
The Defendants and US Treasury have no justification. Huddleston V. United States 485 US 681
(1988); the Defendants have possession and using acts political strategies of malice with
suggestive excitatory violence or force is unlawful by Younger V. Harris 401 US 37 (1971). The
Defendant are liable and have culpability in compensation. FRCP 59 the Plaintiff has grounds
and established issue that warrant judicial remedy and relief immediately.
Tony Curtis Barrino
Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, NC 28144
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DISTRICT
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff
V.
Department of Treasury
US Government Administration
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Robert Gibb
Defendants
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
• 988 F. 2d 658 Medicare /Medicaid of the United States of America V. Brown (No. 92-
3676, 1987); the United States and US Attorney General has not shown by "burden of
proof' to order freeze assets or security, the judge ordered to remove the injunction on the
assets in question. The US Treasury violate the Plaintiffs rights of the Fifth Amendment,
the Defendant is not under indictment of any federal crime.
• United States V. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974); the Plaintiff has proven facts and record acts
"that is sufficiently likelihood President Barack Obama posses documentations or had
possessed documentations that prove a motive for activity and allegations of offense ", also.
The documentations are US Treasury of individual security necessary to claim in
settlement and necessary for a trial."
• United States V. Perrin, 580 F.2d 730,733 (5th Cir. 1978) the Defendants conspired
between themselves and others corruptly to defraud the US government of a large sum
money. The Respondents in connection have made communicative efforts for
misappropriation of a US Treasury or US Government managed individual security and
property.
• United States V. Pecora, 693 F.2d 421 (5th Cir.1982) the Defendant's have made used
phones and other person - to - person communications between themselves as well to other
individuals to persuade in performance of activity concerning the Petitioner's security or
money that communication furthered the scheme to aid in ability to withhold.
• Korematsu V. United States US 214 (1944) in Executive Order 9066 government action
was suspended due to the fact it violated the 5th Amendment; it also infringes upon the 14th
Amendment. Presidential Executive Orders, Directives or Operatives cannot intrude or
violate against a group or against an individual that are encompassed by the 5th and 14th
Amendment on any issue. President Obama and the Defendants are causation such
activities that in infringe upon those exact same civil rights of the Plaintiff.
• United States V. Sioux of Indians, 448 US 371 (1980) affirmed fair honest dealings with
government in claims concerning land with a past controversy and conflict. The US Court
affirmed the US Government did and also does have a "moral debt ".
101
• Dennis V. United States 384 US 855 (1966) the Trial court erred in denying the
complainant's motions; raised question prejudicial hearsay was allowed or the conviction
was affirmed.
• United States V. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534,537 (1989) acquiring another's property by
intentional misrepresentations, the government only needs to the Defendants into an
agreement to obstruct the lawful function of the government by deceit in on over act in
furtherance in conspiracy.
• United States V. Conover 772 F. 765 (11th Cir.1985), evidence and fact presented at the
strial is sufficient to establish to misrepresentations and evidence or fact established is
enough to convict or overturn.
• Hickman V. Taylor 424 US 392 (1947) the Complainant has shown necessity,
justification and has adequate reasoning information and records with held or obtained is
not protected by attorney - client privilege or anything obtained after a claim has been made
in not protected.
• United States V. Testan 424 US 392 (1976) affirms the Tucker Act that the court does
have jurisdiction over the US Government.
• Clinton V. Jones 520 US 681 (1997) federal courts do not mandate or "stay" civil
lawsuits until the end of the end of his term of office.
• Arizona V. Hicks 480 US 31 (1987) the Defendant's had made contact with officer's of
the law concerning; Defendant's knew they where on camera in public and political
functions public in view. The Defendants actions and statements used in those venues and
on government property can be used against them in a court of law to resolve this or any
civil matter.
• Lund V. Lund, 849 P. 2d Wyoming Supreme Court (1993) if the a judge has contact
with either of the parties in litigation in either party feels that contact made influence in out
come his case the party can have the judgment vacated and rehear the case or has
constitutional ground to have his case a new trial.
• Boiling V. Sharpe 347 US 49 (1954) protects the Plaintiff and compels the court in the
request for new trial in the Fifth Amendment; the Defendants acts are discriminatory in
nature or has reasoning for unjustified malice.
• Huddleston V. United States 485 US 681 (1988) affirms that possession and knowledge
of acts or knowledge of activity to acquire what ever is enough to convict or demand
restitution or compliance.
• Armstrong v US Treasury No. 2009 -3155 US Treasury employee can be sued with new
trial or be re- review with new relevant information to settle claims.
• Kingslow V. US Treasury No.2009 -3030 a US Treasury employee conduct is
questionable in civil court of law where the conduct is on government property or off
government property they can be held accountable in ethics that my influence their duty as
US Treasury employee.
• Newsome V. US Treasury F. 2d 74 (5th Cir) a case can overruled, or reversed or a new
trial proceedings in admissible if the matter in the case are unclear and not true matter
concerning the US Treasury can be summons for a new trial.
• Younger V. Harris 401 US 37 (1971) it prohibited to excite violence from apolitical
origin or for a political change in which directly to affect an individual person, to which
irreparable injury occurs; court may impose injunctions. Irreparable injury does not to
visible and is compensatory in liability.
• Pagels V. Vargus 20004 WI App 21, 269 Wis. 2d 543, 674 N.W. 2d 6812003 Wisc.
App Lexis; claims case can be reopened.
• Tsuchiya V. Brennan, 215 Wis. 2d 324, 572 N.W. 2d 903, 907 Wis. App. Lexis 1346
(Wis. Ct. App 1997); claims case can be reopened.
• Marbury V. Madison 5 US 137 (1803) the power of judicial process is to review the
actions of the Defendants in the official capacity of their office of the Executive Branch of
United State Government to ensure adherence to US Constitution and the empowers to
enforce civil rights of the individual in government affairs in controversy.
State V. Torres (South Carolina Court of Appeals 2010) video is admissible to
attest to the Defendants; demeanor before and after, it shows the intent or as well as
the degree malice of the defendant can be established.
United States V. Trinidad Coal and Coking Co., 137 US 160 (1890); individual officers
formed a scheme to obtain title or deed in which through the acquirement of those titles
deed where for another entity. The other entity gained benefit of acquired title deeds;
where by statue, their reasoning or purpose was actually prohibited to entrance or
possession of that land outlined by title deed.
• US V. Munday 222 US 175 (1911); procurement; appropriation, acquirement, entrance
and occupation was prohibited due statutory regulations for that entity or individual to
posses; the occupation of that land or possession of land there can be no fraud in which
the entity is gaining the benefit or comfort of that land.
United States V. Forrester 211 US 399 (1908) intentional acquisition of title deed by a
person assumed qualified in possession by law; transferred title deed to a knowing
unqualified person to own, take possession and or to develop was prohibited by statutory
regulation and provision.
Kolb V. Empire Trust Co., 280 AD 370, N.Y.S. 2d 550 (1952) the defendant or trustee
has to payment and deliver trust directly to the plaintiff.
• Richardson V. Richardson 298 N.Y. 135, N.E. 2d 54, 60 (1948) the trustee must make
full disposition to the next of kin
Poe V. Ullman 367 US 497 (1961) on the merits liberty is protected by due process.
Lujan V. Defenders's of Wildlife 504 US 555, 561 (1992) the plaintiff does suffer a
concrete or discernable injury; future injury does meet requirement to bring suit against
government agency where the government agency action had or will have an indirect
affect on them is liable.
Allen V. Wright 468 US 737 (1984) where there is traceable government conduct and
there is injury to opportunity is enough to grant lawsuit and the plaintiff is denied equal
treatment.
• Raines V. Bryd 521 US 811 (1997) the plaintiff has the constitutional right to challenge
in which he suffers judicially cognizable injury.
The Complainant enters and request Trial by jury; to be permitted on the above grounds for
argumentation.
Respectfully Submitted
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FILE. THIS FILE JIONS THE PREVIOUS TWO FILE FROM MY
ADDRESS EARLIER - -- IT EXPLAINS IN CONNECTION OR REASON FOR THE PREVIOUS
EMAILED FILES - -THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESS AND ALOT KNOW THAT THIS
ACTUALLY HAPPENING THERE ARE ALOT PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD -- ELECTION FRAUD IS WHAT THE SUM OF THE SITUATION CREATED SINCE THE
2008 VOTE - -- THIS IS A FEDERAL CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 26 NOTE AND FILE. I MUST
INFORM THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ON THIS SITUATION DUE 31 USC 310 AND
31 USC 3733 IN THE EXAMINATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO AVOID AND INSURE
THAT THE ELECTORIAL PROCESS AND INDIVIDUALS TO BE ELECTED IS FREE OR
CORRUPTION 18 USC 73 IN MATTERS THAT CONCERN THE US TREASURY TO INSURE
THOSE INDIVIDUAL DONT ABUSE THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN SYSTEM IN 18 USC 205 IN A
SCHEME THAT SHOULD BE REGULATED OR GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ETHICS OF 1978 SECTION 63HIS ISSUE MAY PROCEED OR SHOULD PROCEED TO A
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS.THE FEC NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF
ALL CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED.
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
AKA.
TRILSEN --
"GEORGE WASH INGTON ": GRAN DSON --
TRILLIONAIRE
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: ELECTION FRAUD - -- CONNECTED TO COURT OF APPEALS CASE
OF BANK FRAUD OR SPOILATION INHEIRTANCE CASE IN THE US SUPREME
COURT - - -FBI HAS THE ALL FILES AND NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS AWARE
ALSO US MARSHALL OFFICE IS AWARE
To: Ops-Center@ncdoj.gov
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 2:46 PM
- -- On Wed, 9/28/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l�a yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: ELECTION FRAUD - -- CONNECTED TO COURT OF APPEALS CASE
OF BANK FRAUD OR SPOILATION INHEIRTANCE CASE IN THE US SUPREME
COURT - - -FBI HAS THE ALL FILES AND NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS AWARE
ALSO US MARSHALL OFFICE IS AWARE
To: Charlotte.public @ic.fbi.gov
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 2:45 PM
- -- On Wed, 9/28/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l a�yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen2I @yahoo.com>
Subject: ELECTION FRAUD - -- CONNECTED TO COURT OF APPEALS CASE OF
BANK FRAUD OR SPOILATION INHEIRTANCE CASE IN THE US SUPREME
COURT - - -FBI HAS THE ALL FILES AND NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS AWARE
ALSO US MARSHALL OFFICE IS AWARE
To: HLNHelpDesk @cnn.com
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 2:44 PM
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FILE. THIS FILE JIONS THE PREVIOUS TWO FILE FROM MY
ADDRESS EARLIER - -- IT EXPLAINS IN CONNECTION OR REASON FOR THE PREVIOUS
EMAILED FILES - -THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESS AND ALOT KNOW THAT THIS
ACTUALLY HAPPENING THERE ARE ALOT PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD -- ELECTION FRAUD IS WHAT THE SUM OF THE SITUATION CREATED SINCE THE
2008 VOTE - -- THIS IS A FEDERAL CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 26 NOTE AND FILE. I MUST
INFORM THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ON THIS SITUATION DUE 31 USC 310 AND
31 USC 3733 IN THE EXAMINATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO AVOID AND INSURE
THAT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND INDIVIDUALS TO BE ELECTED IS FREE OR
CORRUPTION 18 USC 73 IN MATTERS THAT CONCERN THE US TREASURY TO INSURE
THOSE INDIVIDUAL DONT ABUSE THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN SYSTEM IN 18 USC 205 IN A
SCHEME THAT SHOULD BE REGULATED OR GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ETHICS OF 1978 SECTION 63HIS ISSUE MAY PROCEED OR SHOULD PROCEED TO A
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS.THE FEC NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF
ALL CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED.
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
AKA.
TRILSEN --
"GEORGE WASH INGTON ":GRANDSON --
TRILLIONAIRE
TO: FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMISSION
FROM: TONY CURTIS BARRINO
SUBJECT: PREVIOUS ATTCHMENTS — COURT CASE
ELECTION FRAUD
COERCION OF CAMPAIGN SUPPORT IN THE EXPECTION OR BY PROMISE TO
RECEIVE MONEY TAKEN FROM AN ACCOUNT
BARACK OBAMA HAS TAKEN MONEY FROM INDIVIDUALS GIVEN THEM THE
EXPECTATIONS THAT COULD RECEIVE MONEY BACK FROM A
PREMEDITATED DRAMATIC EVENT PLANNING OF PECUINARY HARM OF MR.
BARRINO. BARACK OBAMA KNEW THAT MR. BARRINO HAD AND HAS
MONEY ON A OFFSHORE ACCOUNT IN WHICH HE WANTS FOR HIMSELF.
THEIR SUPPORT AND EXPECTATION OF KICKBACK; THEY ARE NOT
"SUPPOSED TO BLOW THE WHISLE ON HIS SCHEME OR PLAN" TO TAKE OVER
AND SPOIL THE ASSEST TRANSFER IN WHICH THEY ARE ALSO
PARTICIPANTS ON SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PROPANGANDA; THESE
INDIVIDUALS GAVE MONEY TO BARACKYOST THEIR CONTRIBUTION FROM
THE DIRECTION AND CUE OF BARACK INTENTIONALLY CAUSE THE A LOT
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITY THAT ADVERSLY AFFECT, ILLICIT
AFFECT OR INCITE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AGAINST MR. BARRINO. THESE
INDIVIDUALS MADE PACT WITH BARACK IN THIS SCHEME IN MID 2008 AND
IS STILL GOING ON A DAILY BASIS. THIS SITUATION VIOLATE 18 USC 600
AND 18 US 610. (PAGE 13 1) OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN STATUE. THEIR
PARTICIPATION MOTIVATION IS MONEY BACK FROM BARACK GREATER
THAN THEY CONTRIBUTED IN THEIR ILLICIT PARTIICIPATION TO CAUSE A
POLITICAL CHANGE DIRECTED AT MR. BARRINO WHERE HE IS BY PLAN IS
OR WAS TO INUR A LOSS OR RENDER WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO COLLECT
AND TAKE POSSESION OF ASSEST SET ASIDE BY US GOVERNMENT AND US
TREASURY IN WHICH HE AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON HAS HAD
OVERACT IN PERSONAL INTEREST IN THAT ASSEST AND PROPERTY IN
CONTROVERSY OR IN DISCUSSION SINCE AND WELL BEFORE MID 2008.
SMEARING AND HAZING THROUGH THE USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TO
SPOIL WITH CONJECTURE AND DISDAIN DURING THE CAMPAIGN OF 2008
AND GOES ON DAILY IN TELEVISION AND POLITICAL VENUES. United States v
McCoy, Morgan 488 F. 2d 761 (8t" 1973). THIS IS A BIG BANK FRAUD WIRE
FRAUD ELECTION CORRUPTION ISSUE CURRENTLY IN COURT THAT ALSO
WARRANTS FEC CONCERN AND OBSERVATION OR INVESTIGATION OF THE
PREVIOUS AND FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTION IN THE UNITED
STATES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
Date: 28 September 2011
Signed:
TONY BARRINO
226 N. LONG ST.
SALISBURY, NC 28144
HE KNEW THAT MONEY WAS there PRIOR TO INAGURATION AND THE
ELECTION AND HAD TIME TO GET PEOPLE INVOLVED THAT SATCOM
CAPABILITES. THAT IS WHY THEY CAN AFFORD TO PUSH SATELLITE
COMMUNICATION IN AMERICA this also why you cannot watch a foot ball game or a
lot show with out interruption of "oprah„ and others — election fraud they expect they will
get money and the on air responses where to polished and to much insight in early 2009
they planned " oprah„ was way to convinced way too soon. BECAUSE HE PORMISED
THE MONEY PRIOR TO ELECTION AND WAS TALKING NEGATIVELYON THE
CAMPAING TRAIL —THIS SUPPORT THE WHOLE SITUATION AND INCURED HE
PITICHED THE RIGHT NEGATIVE OR LIE TO RIGHT PEOPLE THAT HE CHOSE
IN THOS PARTICULAR POSITIONHILLARY KNOW ADMISTRAVE PROCESS
AND TWANTED THE LAND AND HAD A LOT PULL IN MEDIA AND KNEW
SINCE 1993 - "SICK OF THE NIT - PICKERS" THEY ARE MIT PICKING THE
SITUATION AND THE BIG THING WAS THAT STOCK MARKET WAS FALLING
AND UNEMPLOMENT UP - -- AMERICA IS NOWHERE BROKE -7 -8
QUADRILLION DOLLARS- - - - -if you attempt to defraud anyone or move 100 million its
ten years mandatory - -- not to mention all the other things or infraction in activities that are
going on that is direct at trilsen ---- that is level 32 offense - -- -this situation with barrack
oprah and the g30 is a lot greater than level 32 on the United States Sentencing Guide –
on fraud -- -there are guideline sstiff concerning fraud duress deception against person or
money or any assets to include the paperwork fraudulent inducement —this termed
spoliation inhiertance where this account and money set aside for trilsen is an irrevocable
trust.
- -- On Sat, 9/24/11, Tony Barrino <tri1sen21@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen2l @yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS - FBI ALERT - - -- OBAMA - G -30
POLITICAL COERCION ISSUE IS BANK FRAUD AND WIRE FRUAD ----- BE
ADVISED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CELEBRITIES TALKING ACROSS YOUR
FOOTBALL AND PRIME TIME PROGRAMMING AMERICA CAN NOT WATCH
TELEVSION ANYMORE WITHOUT THE INTERUPTION OF OPRAH WIN FREY
AND ELIZABETH HASSLEBECK -- IN PROPRAGANGDA AS POLITCAL CHANGE
AND CRUSADE -- -THAT HAVE ENGANGED IN A SMEARING CRUSADE SINCE
BARACK HAS BEEN IN OFFICE THEY ARE AIDING AND ABEDING -- THAT IS
SO BAD THE FCC CHARIMAN GENAKOWSKI IS AWARE - -- PLEASE ASSIST ME
TO ASSURE THAT THIS ACTIVITY ACROSS YOUR PROGRAMING STOP WE
WOULD LIKE TO WATCH FOOT BALL WITHOUT JAMIE FOXX - -- SPOLING A
GOOD SITUATION FOR TRILLLIONAIRE JUST FOR POPULAR AND COMPETIVE
SPITE OR JUST OT BE PALIN DIVIOUSNESS
To: Brian. Steel @nbcuni.com
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 4:36 PM
PLEASE ADJUST YOUR NEWS MEDIA AS WELL - - -- TIRED OF THE LIES
MANIPULATION OF AMERICANPUBLIC - -- PEOPLE THAT ARE ON YOUR TALK
SHOW AND NEWS COMMENTARY OR POLITICAL COMMENTARY ARE VERY
UGLY WRONG -- TRILSEN KEPT AMERICA FROM GOING INTO A DEEP
DEPRESSION BY GETTING THE STOCK MARKET IN 2009 - -- THE CONDUIT
THEORY KEPT AMERICAN MARKETS UP - - -- THE NYSE DIRECTLY AFFECTS
52% OF AMERICAN HOUSE HOLD TRILSEN HAS THE A RECOVERY PLAN
THAT WORKS BETTER THAT BARACK OBAMA CAN COME UP-- - - - -HE AND
THE BLACK ECELON AGGRAvatedTORTURED TRILLIONAIRE WITH ADVERSE
SIGIANLING since JANUARY 2010 - -- -THERE IS NOTHING WORNG WITH
TRILLIONAIRE AND HE HAS NOT RAPED ANYONE - -- TRILSEN TRIED TO HELP
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION - - -- THEY HAVE PREMEDITATLEY CAME OUT
UGLY OR AS PREPLAN TO SPOIL THE SITuation which is clearly bank fraud wrong
AND UGLY
- -- On Fri, 9/23/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS --- obama's bank fraud issue - --
oppression under the color of office - -- extortion under the color right -- conflict of interest-- -
NATIONAL SECURITY -- -CIVIL CONSPRIACY - -- "INSTITUTIONAL BANK FRAUD"
- -- WIRE FRAUD - - -- CONCEALMENT
To: lcondelu @aoc.gov
Date: Friday, September 23, 2011, 4:14 PM
- -- On Fri, 9/23/11, Tony Barrino <4rilsen2l@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
Subject: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS - - -- NATIONAL SECURITY -- -CIVIL
CONSPRIACY--- "INSTITUTIONAL BANK FRAUD" - -- WIRE FRAUD--- -
CONCEALMENT
To: radioty @mail.house.gov
Date: Friday, September 23, 2011, 3:40 PM
CORRUPTION ISSUE -- -STATE DEPT - - -- TREASURY DEPT - -- -CIA
- -- On Thu, 9/22/11, Tony Barrino <trilsen2l@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen2I @yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: FROM: TONY BARRINO - - -TO: DIRECTOR AND ALL CONCERNED-- -
CITIZENS ISSUE
To: Chicago @ic.fbi.gov
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 5:53 PM
FBI ALERT THIS GREATER THAN A LEVEL 32 SITUATION OR OFFENCE /CASE
- -- On Thu, 9122111, Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen21 @ yahoo.com>
Subject: FROM: TONY BARRINO - - -TO: DIRECTOR AND ALL CONCERNED - -- CITIZENS ISSUE
To: stephanie.scherline @dni.gov
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 5:21 PM
THIS SITUATION NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED UP AND INVERSTIGATED
IMMEDIATELY
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ASSIST DIRECTOR
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
GWEN IFIL
FRANCES AZILLE
SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED A POLYGRAPH CONCERNING THIS MATTER
THEY ARE ARE CAUSING MAJOR PORBLEMS WITH SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS THEY ARE BREAKING ORDINANCE OVER EVERY CITY IN
THE UNITED STATES
PEOPLE CANNOT WATCH TELEVSION
TOLD LIES ABOUT MR BARRINO - HE HAS RAPED NO ONE AND IS NOT A
THREAT TO ANYONE
THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS PREMEDITATED TO DEFRAUD MR. BARRINO
MR. BARRINO WAS NOT ON ANY FEDERAL INVESIGATIONS OR HOT LIST
WHAT SO EVER BEFORE BARACK OBAMA AND TIMOTHY GIETHNER TOOK- -
MR. BARRINO HAS DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND WAS TO BE AFFORDED TO
HIM AT THE TRANSFER OF THE ESTATE AS COUTRESY -- HILLARY RESCIND
MR. BARRINO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY BECAUSE SHE AND DAUGHTER
WANT THE ESTATE OF MT. VERNON AND HAS STARTED A BIG PROPAGANDA
HAZING AND SMEARING CAMPAINGN - -- MS, UUSE RIDICULOUS REASONING
IN WITHHOLDING MY PAERWORK
NOW AFTER THEY HAVE TOTRUED ME WITH BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE
HAVE OR IS BASICALLY LIEING ABOUT PERSONALITY OR "COLORING" MY
PERONSALITY WITH THESE INDIVIDUAL - IFIL AND AZZILE IRRATING ME
EVERYDAY AND ALSO HAVE USED OR LIED ABOUT THE INFORMATION IN
MY FILES AND HAVE GIVEN THAT INFORMATION TO OTHER PEOPLE AND
CELEBRITIES OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST IN "HAZING OR
SMEARINGN CAMPAIGN"
THIS IS CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD ISSUE --- MULLER AND GEORGE BUSH
NEED TO BE BROUGHT IN ON THE SITUATION TO CLARIFY EVERYTHING
PRESIDENT BACISICALLY FOR SPITE INITIATED EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR NO
REASON FOR ILLICIT TAKE OVER OF PROPERTY AND MONEY IN MY
ACCOUNTS PLANNED WITH 1NDVIDUALS HELP SOME CELEBRITIES HELP
BEFORE EVEN TAKING OFFICE
I AM AWARE THAT AND OPRAH WINFREY AND BARACKS BORTHER
AND WHITE HOUSE AID USE THIS COMPUTER AND SATELLITE SYSTEM AND
ALL HAVE BEEN INSIDE LANGLEY AND PLAINLY SPOLIED THIS SITUATON.
USING PEOPLE WITH SATELLITE COMMUNICATION TO SABBBATOGE OR
SPOIL THE UNDERSTANDING AND OBSURE THE ISSUE IN THE MEDI --- QUITE
CLEVER
I ASK YOU TO HELP CEASE DESIST THE ACTIVITES --
GIVE THESE PEOPLE POLYGRAPH
THEY RUINED AND LIED ABOUT THINGS THORUGHT THE MEDIA
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
31 USC 310 I AM USING AS FINANCIAL CRIME NETWORK SOURCE BECAUSE
THIS DOES INVOLVE NATIONAL SECURITY USE OF SAT -COM 31 PART 11.4
THIS IS A CORRUPTION ISSUE TITLE 32
THESE PEOPLE ARE MEANER THAN YOU THINK AND WILL LIE JUST FOR THE
SPITE OF THE SITUATION - -- SPOILATION OF INHEIRTANCE ...... THEY DONT
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"
PETITION FOLLOWS
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff/Pro Se
V
DEPT. of the US TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendant
APPEALS NO. 11 -1713
Memorandum of Law — Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing
The Plaintiff is pursuant in 4th Circuit Court of Appeals through the En Banc Court. The
Plaintiff continues to clarify matters and issue Federal Civil Rules of Procedures Rule 16.
I. STATEMENT: GROUNDS TO NULLIFY ACTION OF EXCECUTIVE
BRANCH: The Defendants are not afforded Executive
Privilege.
A. 28 USC 1291. The En Banc should be aware and take into consideration also of a
"joint venture" between the US Attorney Eric Holden or Department of Justice
and the named Defendants. The Executive Order and Adverse Directives against the
Plaintiff are unlawful and unreasonable; the Defendants cause loss and injury to the
Plaintiff.
B. The unconstitutional and unlawful present in the interference by US Attorney
Office. The element of civil conspiracy (1) there is a common design between two
or more persons (2) the goal is unlawful in by means or modalities to conceal,
withhold or freeze the estate and asset (3) there is overact in furtherance of
conspiracy; the Defendants cause advantageous controversy and is a conflict of
interest (4) resulting injury of financial loss. The allowance of Attorney General for
Barack Obama to operate in the capacities with duress, aversive or oppressive
action against the Plaintiff person concerning property, securities and account own
or in the name of the Plaintiff. Allowance is participation in lawful course of action
with a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the scheme is sufficient basis for
imposing tort liability and must compel in further proceeding according to the law
on civil conspiracy 42 USC 1986. The US Attorney General must abide by 31 USC
3733 in civil concerning matter of land, estate and money in custody of the US
Treasury or in any illegal question by conducting civil investigation to settle dispute
or contest. The US Attorney General can be considered aiding and abetting: (1) the
Executive Branch is using or signed into the of unlawful order; that is a wronkful
act. (2) the Defendants and the Attorney General is aware of their role in this
situation or matter; the Attorney provides assistance. (3) The Attorney General
assist the violation. "The essence of conspiracy is an agreement together with
overact- to do or allow an unlawful act, or a lawful act in a unlawful manner. The
Defendants agreement and Department of Justice or the Attorney General Office
can lead only to liability if an act pursuant leads to injury or leads to a financial
loss. The allowance of act or order and directive only advance the overall object of
goal or advances the duress in this situation. The use of political tactics, a by
campaign of design satellite communications: that magnify, interfere, hazing and
target, intrude upon in any manner or inhibits the safety of Plaintiff is unlawful
and is wrongful. The Defendants do not have to present if a injurious event or
injurious act occurs to the Plaintiff; the Defendants acts are causation. Halberstam
v Welch 705 F. 2d 472 227 U.S. App. D.C.167 (DC Cir.1983). 5 USC 551 the
Defendant want the property or estate and want retain the money in the accounts in
the Plaintiff. The En Banc Court must consider all legal perspectives involved due
to the values of estate and En Banc the deny that money is motive for presence of
aggravating or mitigating factors in this lawsuit.
II. STATEMENT: GROUNDS FOR THE ALLEGATION: Defendants Intent
or Goal
A. "Implied by law the acts and conduct of the Defendants and facts, also the
circumstances which exist at this time surrounding the withhold of transaction
of which arises." Story v Lanier, 166 S.W. 3d 167, 184(Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)
(quoting) In re Estate of Nichols, 856 S.W. 2d 397 401 (Tenn. 1993).
B. In re Conservatorship of Brown, No. W2004 -2825 — COA — R3- CV 2005
WL 1848482 App. (Aug. 2005) . Id C *4 (quoting) O'Daniel v Messier, 905
S.W. 2d 182, 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). The Plaintiff and En Banc Court can
establish clear and convincing evidence and fact; also in a trial de novo to
eliminate any substantial doubt correctness of the conclusion to be drawn from
the evidence and fact. The En Banc should proceed to for trial de novo: (1)
withholds and conceal title deed to estate is in violation of law 18 USC 1001
(2) withhold title deed to estate in fraud and duress (3) has made disclosure
confidential information (4) created conjectured controversy for undue or
improper influence (5) made confidential relationships upon more advantageous
terms than would otherwise be obtained (6) withhold or freeze property and
estate due to the would be unlawful or unqualified individuals have interest and
improperly influence or push an unfair contest for the Plaintiff loss and injury.
C. Burton v Boiazi, No. 03351, 2005 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 284,75 Pa. D.& C
4" 403 (C.C.P. Phila. June 2005) Abramson J.. The En Banc court should
allow confrontation in pursuit by the Plaintiff, because there is sufficient fact
and evidence in the allegation as civil conspiracy assertion on the Defendants
and US Attorney or the Department of Justice allowance for the use of other
government agencies to interfere and obstruct the transfer: the Defendants are in
use of Executive Order and Directives to facilitate freeze or concealment. The
Defendants planned to use the money in Plaintiff account held until claimed or
the Plaintiff has take control in a financial institution placed in an account; in
the Plaintiff s name in an outside financial institution placed by the US Treasury
prior to December 2008 or before the Defendants direct involvement in the
matter of the transfer.
D. Larsen v Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 411 Pa. Super. 534, 602 A. 2d 3224
(1991) appeal denied 537 Pa. 622, 641 A. 2d 587 (1994); Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b).
The Defendants have agreed to engage in a scheme that would injure the
Plaintiff or cause a financial loss. The Defendants in mispresenting information,
details and conceal the "true facts" concerning the account and the estate. The
En Banc Court should be observant of aiding and abetting; "breech of fiduciary
duty" should be expressly recognized. Sovereign Bank v Ganter, 914 A. 2d
415,424 (Pa. Super 2006). Miller v Santilli No. 1225, 2007 Phila. Ct. Com. PI
LEXIS 252(C.C.P. Phila. Sept.2007). The Defendants as officers and
representatives have knowledge of wrong doing and committed wrongful acts
by exercising or use executive order and directive where it is manifest as duress,
obstruction and malice against the Plaintiff. The Department of Justice and the
Attorney General are in assistance where there was erroneous and malicious
investigation to unjust enable the unreasonable administrative freeze. The
compounded interference by duress; the Attorney General admits the unlawful
use of satellite communications through another government agency; the
Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency.
E. Koch v First Union Corp., No. 0549 Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 82 (C.C.P. Jan
2002). The En Banc court should take into consideration in the initial pleadings
or the initial complaint and conclude that sufficient factual elements exist or
present. The Defendants would have the illicit benefit that would accrue from
the Defendants actions and the court cannot recognize the matter without some
degree of malice and duress is involved to not render honest services, for a
uncomplicated transfer, uncomplicated settlement or non - encumbered payment.
The En Banc Court conclude there is enough factual averment of the entire
complaint that is legally sufficient to proceed in tortuous conduct liability and
breech of fiduciary by Defendants.
III. CONCLUSION: Defendants are not afforded Executive Privilege and
Turnover the Estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia and all
accounts in the Plaintiff name as proven lineal descendants set aside by the
US Treasury; Cease and Desist all actions against the Plaintff.
A. The Defendants and US Attorney must adhere to US Court of Appeals 4 th Cir. in
this matter. There is grounds to proceed against Defendants by 42 USC 1986. The
Defendants are not afforded political immunity Holt v United States , 218 U.S. at
247, 31 S. Ct at 4, 54 L. Ed at 1028. This is an extreme and complex matter; the
Plaintiff can prove this lawsuit before a grand jury. Costello y. United
States,350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S. Ct. 406, 409, 100 L. Ed. 397, 402 -03 (1956).
An indictment can be returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury;
there is enough to call for trial on the merits.
B. United States v Sawyer, 85 F. 3d 713, 723 n.6(l" Cir. 1996) in the initial review
because there a reasonable foreseeable scheme. United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.
3d 1069, 1076 (1St Cir. 1997); United States v. Mangiardi, 962 F. Supp. 49,
51(M.D. 1997), aff d 202 F. 3d 255 (P Cir. 1999) cert. den. 529 U.S. 1060 (2000)
the Defendants intended for an actual injury or loss by their action and activity
deprive the Plaintiff of "honest services ". United States v. Lopez - Lukis, 102 F.
3d 1164, 1169 (11t" Cir. 1997); United States v deVegter, 198 F. 3d 1324,
1328(l It' Cir. 1999).
C. 18 USC 73 is unlawful for the Defendant obstruct the matter in Title 31 and
unlawful simultaneous action of inflicting duress and conjectured political
controversy to the estate. The Department of Justice and Defendants in unlawful in
the infliction duress 28 USC 1655; 46 Appendix 322 in unlawful oppression and
wrongful assertion of unreasonable freeze. Article III section 2 of US Constitution
and Federal Government Ethics Act of 1978 Title 6. The Plaintiff in the Seventh
Amendment pursue in civil litigation against the Defendant. The US Solicitor
General nor the US Attorney General escape the provisions of 31 USC 3733.
Nation v United States (2008 -5043) the Defendants must adhere to 18 USC 1001.
D. 42 USC 1986. In re Nation. Barack Obama investigation into Plaintiff's individual
affairs was erroneous, in its assertion or activity malicious prosecution is invalid if
unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers conferred upon
Congress by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168. The Plaintiff
was afforded Diplomatic Immunity prior to the Defendants involvement. The
Defendants had Diplomatic Immunity rescinded through State Department so that
the Plaintiff would be vulnerable to a malicious investigation, political hazing or
conjecture, to be more susceptible of duress of satellite communications activity
and target or subject of undue propaganda and smearing. It against oppression law
of the United States to use executive order or erroneous executive investigations
activity; concerning properties and money accounts where that manifest as an
encumbrance or obstructs. United States v Johnson 383 US 169 (1966) the
Defendants initiated political statements of "smearing" scheme to justify withhold
or freeze, in actuality is result is defraud the Plaintiff by civil conspiracy, they are
the origin and author of concealment they knew of investigations of their origin to
complicate transfer or cause financial loss due that investigation; that legal issue
would render the unable or unavailable to claim the estate and asset set aside in the
Plaintiff name. In re Sultan v United States. In re United States v Schierson. The
Plaintiff's First Amendment rights are threatened, the delegation of power to a
congressional committee must be clearly revealed in its charter. United States v.
Rumely, 345 U.S. 41. The Plaintiff has not issue that warrant inquiry or
investigation by the executive branch; the Plaintiff is not subject issue or inquiry of
national defense or congressional inquiry and has not been summons on any issue.
The Plaintiff has protection of self - incrimination and committed no offenses in
"moral turpitude" that warrant review judicial review or legislative review Due
process without first knowing the "question under inquiry "; with the same degree of
explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of
any element of a criminal offense. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263. Pp.
208 -209. Barablatt v United States 360 US 109 (1959). 28 USC 1291 The US
Court of Appeals 4th Circuit should override the US Attorney Office in matters
concerning the President where is in directly i scrutiny of law by conflict of interest
and civil conspiracy in matters encompassed by Title 31 concerning the US
Treasury. The Defendants should understand the provision of 18 USC 641 and 18
USC 1001, and should not obstruct the power of court. FRCP 37 the Defendant
must comply and turnover the estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon and
accounts set aside for the Plaintiff as well as all information. The Plaintiff and En
Banc court is pursuant to guard against acts of tyranny that deprive life and
property. The Bill of Attainer Clause is applicable to nullify action of the
Defendants and the Executive Branch of the United States.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: August 31, 2011
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRING
Plaintiff
V
DEPARTMENT OF THE US TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendant
APPEALS NO. 11 -1713
Memorandum of Law Statement of the Facts to Support
Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
(704)637-9355
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff
V Appeals No. 11 -1713
DEPARTMENT OF THE US TREASURY
Defendant
Memorandum of Law Statement of the Facts to Support
Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing
The Plaintiff is pursuant in submission of this memorandum of law by Federal Rule of
Procedure
Rule 16. The Plaintiff is establishing early for the facilitation of the lawsuit. There are
precedent decisions that pertinent and other appropriate decisions in close similarity that
should be considered in the en banc and rehearing stages of this matter. The en banc court
needs to consider also the cited cases to follow and narrative clarification to assist the
management of this complex lawsuit and matters; this assist the en banc court to determine
the content of order and summons and insures a just action of this lawsuit. The previous
judgment is voidable it obstructs the lawsuit. The lawsuit is valid and must be given
material respect City of Lufkin v Mc Vicker, Tex. Civ. App., 510 S.W. 2d 141 144.
I. Statement of the Facts: Grounds in the Defendants Behavior and Actions
A. 42 USC 1986 compel the action to prevent a wrongful conspiracy; to be
committed, having the power to prevent or should in the prevention of
concealment or unlawful freeze and seizure. The en banc court set forth in
assertion in pursuit of the Defendants by the standards of 18 USC 73; the
Defendants are liable. The government and government officials in the
capacities of their office are subject to the same rules of conduct that are
commands to the citizen. The excited controversy in the matter increases
opportunity for a financial loss and impairs the Plaintiff's civil liberties; this is
contagious in theory of conflict of interest due to activity and duress against the
Plaintiff. The Defendants are breeding the contempt of law Olmstead v United
States 277 438 S. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928).
B. Fick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356 6. S. Ct 1064 Ed 220 (1886). The Defendants
are using their authority in a unlawful and discriminative manner. Barack
Obama is use or in the exercise Executive Order and Executive Directives
where he is using other government department to interfere and obstruct the
transfer of estate and assets. The US Treasury and Timothy Giethner have no
power against the judgments of en banc court or US Courts. United States v
Jones 119 U.S. 477 7 S. Ct 283 30 L. Ed 440 (1886). 28 USC 1291
C. Burchinal v United States, 342 F. 2d 982, 985 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 382 US
843 (1965) the Defendants know there is a proceeding against them and the
Defendants have the aggravated activity to defeat the law knowingly to later
fraudulently appropriate and is in the furtherance to conceal property or Estate
of the Plaintiff; 193 F. 2d 776: Viles v United States, United States Court of
Appeals Tenth Circuit. 193 F. 2d 776 January 7, 1952 Rehearing Denied
January 18, 1952 Writ of Certiorari Denied March 31, 1952 affirms that act is
unlawful. in concealment United v. Moss, 562 F. 2d 155,159 (2d Cir. 1977),
cert denied, 435 US 914 (1978); United States v. Cardall, 885 F. 2d 656, 677
(reh'g denied)(10th Cir. 1989) is broadly construed to include all property
interests wherever located and by whomever is holding that property.
Concealment can occur pre and post proceedings to settle matters in controversy
Sultan v. United States , 249 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 1957). The Defendants know,
have motive and have reasoning to understand that the scope of their acts that
their own benefits depended on the results or success of the venture or plani
United States v. Montgomery , 384 F. 3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 2004). United v.
Hopper, 177 F. 3d 824, 829 ( 9th Cir. 1999) the Defendants have an agreement
which may be inferred or understood from the Defendants acts and other
involved acts or activities in pursuant of the scheme. The Defendants are
concealing title deed and other adjoining property or assets in the Estate of Mt.
Vernon, Virginia with fraudulent, utilizing unlawfully flagrant and deceptive
means United States v Trindad Coal and Coking Co. 137 US 160 (1890) the
defendants are prohibited and unqualified in the procurement of the Estate of
Mt.Vernon, Virginia; United States v. Forrester 211 US 175 (1911). For the
reduction of the interference or controversy of Estate in this suit; Lindberg v. 164 F.
3d. 1312 (10'4 Court ofAppeals) Estate of Temple H. Buell the Plaintiff is eligible to
take possession of Estate and adjoining securities. The Plaintiff has enough facts and
merit or has a lawful to sue for possession of Estate; Kolb v. Empire Trust Company,
280AD 370, N.Y.S. 2d (1952) the defendants and US Treasury should deliver payment
and turnover the Estate's Title Deed to the Plaintiff. United States V. Tuohey, 867
F.2d 534,537 (1989) acquiring another's property by intentional misrepresentations, the
en banc court only needs prove in open court that the Defendants entered into an
agreement to obstruct the lawful function of the government by deceit in on over act in
furtherance in conspiracy to conceal estate. The allegations are not colored or
speculative.
D. 28 USC 2072. The Plaintiff through en banc court has right as pursuant; the
Defendants are knowing, intention and are with voluntary action that has
manifested as a encumbrance or unreasonable obstruction in which conceal the
asset and estate. The Defendants understand their action have increased risk for
financial loss and injury; unlawful in the legitimate functions and transfers of
the US Treasury. United States v Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970). United
States v O'Dell 160 F. 2d 304(6th Cir. 1947). There is outstanding merit in this
claim and corroboration of fact in the allegations in the reviewing the merits
United States v. Realty Co. 163 US 421.
II. Statement of Facts: Grounds Unlawful Eminent Domain
A. Whenever there is imposed restraints, encumbrance or oppressive interference that
deprives him of beneficial use possession and the free enjoyment without legal
process it deprives him of a meaningful constitution. Article III section 2. The
Executive Order and Executive Directives against the Plaintiff and serves a an
administrative estoppel or freeze is obnoxious; where the effects or goal would be
physically would taking the property, taking the assets and taking the estate. 5 USC
551 (10B)(10D). Forster v Scott 136, N.Y. 577 [18 L.R.A. 543 32 N.E. 976].
Monongahela Nay. Co. v United States 148 U.S. 312 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 622]. The use of executive order and executive directives is not law. The
Defendants cannot use other departments to facilitate unlawful activity.
B. Chicago R.R. Co. v Chicago 166 U.S. 226 (1897). There is due process in a free
government; it is the duty of the court to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas v
Mitchell 245 S.W. 944, 945- 46 (1922). Simpson v Los Angeles 4c 2d 60, 47 P. 2d
474 (1935). Bell v Hood 71 F. Supp. 813, 816 (1947). The court should afford the
protection against the federal government officials or federal government in land or
estate matters. The executive order and directives is an unconstitutional act and is
not law; they afforded any protection in their application. Norton v Shelby County
118 U.S. 425 P442 (1886). 28 USC 1655 the Defendants in the capacities of their
office should cease and desist; stop all activity or action that serve as encumbrance,
interference, obstruction to in this matter of estate, property, financial accounts and
to the personal physical affect of the Plaintiff person; as well as immediate
environmental surrounding the may cause injury. Billings v Hall (1957). Luian V
Defenders's of Wildlife 504 US 555, 561 (1992) the plaintiff does suffer a concrete
or discernable injury; the potential for future injury does meet requirement to bring
suit against government agency where the government agency action had or will
have an indirect affect on the Plaintiff is liable. Allen V. Wright 468 US 737 (1984)
where there is traceable government conduct and there is injury to opportunity is
enough to grant lawsuit and the Plaintiff should not be is denied equal treatment.
II. CONCLUSION: Grounds and Facts
A. Golden v Golden 382 F. 3d 348 No. 03- 2184(3 rd Cir. 2004). The Defendant
as representatives of the US Treasury are with mismanagement of estate; estate
of Washington, George. Mt. Vernon, Virginia and the adjoining asset or
securities. The Plaintiff clarifies to the en banc court that subject matter
jurisdiction has been established. 28 USC 1332 the values of estate and
securities fluctuate where those value exceed the statutory minimum. 250 tons
gold must be compensated at fair market value it covered by Public 93 -110
and Gold Exchange Act also the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff
wishes to leave the amount or open. The cause the Defendants are with duress,
controversy and conjecture is due to fast appreciating values of gold price. The
Plaintiff, beneficiary or lineal descendant must be compensated by Treasury
Regulation 20. 2031 -6 in the personnel effects; that provisions if it bought or
sold it must be done so by the collective weight. The gold is now classified
regulated by 15 USC 78 due that amount of gold. The US Treasury applied
power in the values of that gold hold and transferred cash money into outside
financial account in the Plaintiff, beneficiaries or lineal descendant name prior
to the Defendants involvement; US Treasury established account in the
Plaintiff's prior to 2008. The Plaintiff is pursuant in the en banc by 28 USC
1442 for the recovery and take possession of securities in trust and land or
acreage in that estate Washington, George Mt. Vernon.
B. Nation v United States (2008 -5043) US Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.
The Defendants are in "breech of fiduciary duty" of funds and land; in estate
Washington George and account in the of Tony Barrino. The Plaintiff owns or
takes over the estate as lineal descendant. The US Treasury and Defendants
must provide complete accurate and show adequate account of all asset
concerning the estate. The Defendants must provide all information regarding
the management and the administration of trust asset or accounts belonging to,
previously transferred and in delayed or by withhold belonging to that as
beneficiary Tony Barrino. FRCP 37 the Defendant must comply.
C. HI -Pro Fish Products, Inc v McClure 346 F. 2d 497 No.17628(8th 1965) the
Defendants avoid payment and avoid examination. The Defendants is
corroborating fact that their conduct is viewed as negligent mismanagement, by
concealment or by negligent acts to avoid payment or fraud. Schierson v
United States 116 F. 2d 881, 884 3d (1941); Sultan v United States , 249 F. 385
(5th Cir. 1957). 31 USC 330 the Defendants as officers and representatives of
US Treasury are acting without authorization of law, oppressive in the
withhold by adverse or with aversive orders and is liable and should turnover
the estate Cooper v O'Conner 69 App. D.C.100, 99 F. 2d (1938).
D. In re Nation; United States v Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974) the Defendants should turn
over files relevant to the Plaintiff and estate, Barack Obama as Defendant cannot
violate 18 USC 1001 in the concealment of material that are pertinent to any claim or
property. The Plaintiff through the en banc court has due to the fact have violated the
Right to Financial Privacy Act. The Defendant is subject to lawsuit "in matters
concerning the President "; the Defendant in unlawful in the freeze or concealment or
estate violate Title 6 of the Federal Ethics Act of 1978.The Department of Justice Eric
Holden cannot shield the or obstruct a civil lawsuit by the protection of executive
privilege. 31 USC 3733 does not protect the President in matter or investigation of any
suspected criminal activity of misconduct. Clinton v Jones. 28 USC 1291 the en banc
court and 4th Circuit has jurisdiction and powers Article III section. The matters in
discussion are Title 31 and US Treasury issues in matters of law can not be obstructed
18 USC 73.28 USC 1655 The defendants must comply and cease where there the
action of the President or the US Treasury is manifest or perceive in judicial review as a
unlawful encumbrance, unreasonable freeze or violate the oppression laws of the
United States of America. 5 USC 551 the Defendants can not take or render any
political retaliation, nor assert any duress, or assert any activities described as a conflict
of interest in this matter of estate claim and transfer.
This memorandum law is grounds for the Petition En Bane and Rehearingll -1713
should be granted in the United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: August 29, 2011
IN THE
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
Plaintiff/ Pro Se
V
DEPARTMENT OF THE US TREASURY
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
BARACK OBAMA
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530 -0001
Defendant
PETITION for PETITION ENBANC AND REHEARING
for the US Court of Appeals 4th District
APPEALS NO. 11- 1713
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff/Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28103
(704)637-9355
LIST OF PARTIES
The Parties in involved are shown on the cover page.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Parties Involved ....... ............................... i
Table of Contents ................. .............................ii
Table of Authorities .............. ............................iii
Statement of Pro Se ................ ..............................1
Introduction ........................ ..............................3
Argument........................... ..............................4
Conclusion...................... ............................... 7
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Armstrong v. US Treasury No. 2009 - 3155 ..... ..............................9
Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 US 393, 406 -407 (1932).......11
Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 US 800 ( 1982) ........ ..............................6
Jones v Jones, 234 US 615, ( 1914) .............. ..............................7
Korematsu v United States 322 US 214 ( 1944) ..............................6
Kingslow v. Treasury No. 2009 - 3030 ........... ..............................9
Kindredhearts for Charitable and Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Timothy Giethner, et
al, Case No. 3;08 cv 2400 US District Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Oct.
2008) ........................................ .............................10
Marbury v. Madison US 137 ( 1803) ............ ..............................6
988 F. 2d 658 Medicare /Medicaid of the United States of America v Brown
(No. 92- 3676) ...................................... ..............................7
Mitchell v Forsyth 472 US 511( 1985) ........... ..............................6
Newsome v. Treasury F. 2d 74 (5th Cir 1962.)_ .............................9
Nixon v Fitzgerald, 457 US 731
( 1982) .......... ..............................5
Shaw v United States, 981 F. 2d 602 (6th Cir. 1989) .........................8
Schierson v. United States 116 F. 2d 881 884 3d (1941) ....................8
Smith v Allwright, 321 US 649, 665 ( 1944) ... .............................11
Sultan v United States, 249 F. 385 (5th Cir. 1957 ) ...........................8
United States v. Bess, 593 F. 2d 749, 755 (6th Cir. 1979) ...................9
United States v Johnson, 383 US 169 ( 1966) .. ..............................9
United States v. Sioux of Indians, 448 US 371 (1980) .......................7
iii
United States v. Watson 423 US 411 (91h Cir. 1976 .....................9
Wood v Strickland 420 US 308, 322 ( 1975 ) .............................6
STATUES
5 USC 551 ......................................
..............................6
12 USC 3416 ...................................
.............................11
12 USC 4631- 4635 chapter 7 Title 5 ......
..............................9
15 USC 78u- 4 ..................................
..............................8
18 USC 73 ...... ...............................
...........................6,11
18 USC 641 ....................................
..............................6
18 USC 1001 ..................................
.............................11
26 USC 7214 ..................................
..............................5
28 USC 1291 ..................................
..............................5
28 USC 1655 ...................................
............................5,8
28 USC 2072 ..................................
.............................11
28 USC 2347 ...................................
.............................10
28 USC 3904 chapter 5 Title 3 ..............
.............................11
31 USC 330 ....................................
.............................10
31 USC 3733 ...................................
..............................5
31 USC 5318 ...................................
..............................5
32 part 516 .....................................
..............................5
46 Appendix 322 ..............................
..............................6
50 USC 401( 4)( 5) ..............................
..............................5
iv
50 USC 1803( 2) .................................
............................... 6
Treasury Regulation 20. 2031- 1 ................. ..............................8
Treasury Regulation 20. 2031- 6 ................. ..............................8
Treasury Regulation 20. 2036- 1 ................. ..............................8
OTHER:
Executive Order 13406 .......................... ..............................8
Federal Government Ethics Act of 1978 Title 6 ..........................5
Gramm -Leach Billey Act ....................... ..............................9
Right to Financial Privacy Act ................. ..............................9
V
STATEMENT OF PRO SE APPELLANT UNDER RULE 8
The Plaintiff has grounds and fact as a matter law that previous judgment is contrary to the
United States Supreme Court or the precedents of this court:
Anders v California, 386 U.S. 738[87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.E. 2d 493 (1967)
Barnett v State, 103 S.W. 3d 765 (Mo. 2003)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,127 S. Ct. 1955 (No.05- 1126)(2007)
Browning v Foltz, 837 F .2d 276,279 (6th Cir. 1988)
Carey v State, 405 A. 293 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. (1979)
Charles v Garret, 12 F. 3d 870, 873 (91h Cir. 1993)
Conley v Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 -46 (1957)
Denton, 504 U.S. at 32 112 S. Ct. at 1733
Hale v Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995)
H.J. Inc. v Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229,249 - 50(1989)
Federal Administrative Procedures Act
Federal Administration and Property Act of 1949
Federal Government Ethics Act of 1978 — Title 6
Ford v Elsbury, 32 F. 931, 937 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994
Financial Privacy Act
Greenlaw v Garret, 59 F. 3d 994, 1000 n. 17 (91h Cir. 1995)
Infusion Resources v Minimed, Inc., 351 F. 3d 688, 696 -97 (51h Cir. 2003)
Simon v United States, 891 F. 2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)
Trust Co. v N.N.P., 104 F. 3d 1478, 1491 (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v Barry, 938 F. 2d 1327, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
United States v Bremers, 195 F. 221,225 (5th Cir. 1999)
United States v Brown, 321 F.3d 347,351 (2d Cir. 2003)
United States v Crisci, 273 F. 3d 235, 240 (2d Cir. 2001)
United States v Jordan, 49 F. 3d 152, 155 -58 (5th Cir. 1995)
United States v Holland, 655 F .2d 44 (5th Cir. 1901)
United States v McGovern, 329 F. 3d 247, 252 (1St Cir. 2003)
United States v Reynolds 345 U.S. 1 (1953)
United States v Ritter, 540 F. 459,464 (101h Cir.), cert. denied U.S. 951 (1976)
United States v Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 178, 97 S. Ct. 1823, 52 L.Ed. 2d 231 (1977)
United States v Zagari, 111 F. 3d 307, 328 (2d Cir. 1997)
Zlotnick v TIE Communications, 836 F. 2d 818,819 (3d Cir. 1988)
Tony Curtis Barrino
Appellant /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.0 28144
(704) 637 -9355
INTRODUCTION
The 4th Circuit of Appeals en banc court has the burden to dispense justice in this matter.
The court must take the totality of the circumstances. This case is extremely fact driven and
the must insure the general principles and procedures are followed; in which disposition
and judgment are legally sound in pursuit to uncover the truth. There must be no bias or
prejudice in order balance the scale of justice and satisfy the appearance of justice. The
court must render just decisions based on all the facts; this case is agreeable on the merits.
The US Treasury and Defendants have culpability. The Appellant conveys to the en Banc
court that is not colored or artful in its filing. The lawsuit is not economically, monetarily
trivial nor frivolous; in the amounts of money in controversy. The court should not
terminate this lawsuit without exhaustion of judicial process and investigative inquiry. The
factual allegations in the complaint are true and there is cause for action and the Defendants
must answer the Plaintiff claim through a sufficient legal process of the court. The court is
obligated to Pro Se litigant against the federal officials involved in this issue; Article III
section 2 of the US Constitution the court must be objective. The Judicial Canon in
combination with Seventh Amendment are the catalyst for the intervention or remedy for
this to overrule the previous judgment. The Plaintiff has established the issues in the matter
of law in question or violation; by not vacating and voiding the previous order is
abandonment and obstruction by unapplied or by neglect to protect the public safety and
interest. The court should show a valid concern; the issue do shock judicial conscience and
not shield the Defendants. They have grossly trespassed the boundaries of the civil liberties
by unlawful encroachment and is trespassing civil rights of the Plaintiff. The Defendants
have limited immunity protections in the capacities as officials of the United States
Government; there a narrow guidelines in matters of public money and land management
while in the custody or in commerce with the public by government connection. The
statement of precedent cases narrow and clarify the argument and support all aspects
previous filings before the en banc court review.
ARGUEMENT
The collective acts of Defendants are unlawful and unreasonable in the freeze of Plaintiff
accounts, securities and the estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia. The
Defendants in the capacities of their office initiated freeze or concealment due to a
frivolous, malicious, undue and frivolous Executive Branch Investigations and at the same
started "propaganda" through a satellite communication in creationism for opposition and
interfere. This activity been on going since; January 2009. The Plaintiff was not made
aware or did not find out the estate in controversy until December 2008. The Defendants
though the use of other government offices have caused an oppressive and abrasive contest
as obstruction to inhibit the transfer the estate and all adjoining securities collectively. The
filing of this lawsuit is evidence of complication of matters.
There is issuance of and usage of operations or directives for of an executive order in
scheme to facilitate the freeze. This usage of an executive order and executive is an
unlawful administrative modality to increase the risk for financial loss and personal
complications to the Plaintiff; and profoundly unconstitutional. The Defendants are
utilizing the Department of Justice administrative abilities to assertion to freeze the outside
financial institutions for the Plaintiff to have accessibility to that institution for transaction
and withhold all the necessary financial documents and data format to access those
accounts also. The US Attorney Holden fails to intervene in this matter or is unable to
override the executive order rendered by the President Obama. This is a unlawful by Title
6 of Federal Government Ethics of 1978 . The court has the power and authority to
override the US Attorney General Eric Holden to nullify all activities and order compliance
of both Eric Holden and the Defendants; by Title 6, Title 12, 31 USC 5318 and 31 USC
3733.28 USC 1655 the President as Defendant must remove and cease and desist all
activity that surround the estate of Mt. Vernon, Virginia; estate of Washington George and
Tony Barrino. He cannot contest the estate, be causation of interference, cannot be the
author of freeze and he cannot obstruct the accounts or securities encompassed in that
estate belonging lawfully to the Plaintiff. Nixon v Fitzgerald, 457 US 731 (1982) the
President is not immune from a civil or criminal lawsuit, he is for the acts under the color
his office against the Plaintiff violate is concealment and unlawful oppression by 26 USC
7214. The President in connection or communication with the US Treasury in the withhold
of the securities from the Plaintiff by utilizing the Department of Justice and Central
Intelligence Agency he is unlawful by 50 USC 401(4)(5). The President cannot utilize the
Department of Defense satellite communication in the United State for any type
suppression or propaganda nor for a negative conjectured campaign to assistance for
spoliation of the transfer of the estate and securities; it unlawful by 32 part 516. 28 USC
1291 the 4th Circuit court must override the lower court and issue order to the Defendants
to nullify or override actions of Department of Justice; or to the Defendants as a whole by
connection by 50USC1803(2).
The US Attorney is unlawful 46 Appendix 322 due to the fact of having knowledge of and
by the allowance aggressive against the Plaintiff, by unlawful shielding the Defendants.
The US Attorney Holder is liable and does not have qualified immunity due to the fact that
Plaintiff would have increased risk for injury and knows the Plaintiff may or could have
loss of asset. Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 US 800 (1982). Wood v Strickland 420 US 308,
322 (1975). Mitchell v Forsyth 472 US 511(1985). The US Attorney General can be in
contribution or accessory to a conflict of interest where is there is questionable
concealment of asset. 18 USC 73 Defendants cannot be unlawful in the examination of
financial institution of matters law where there is there evasion to render honest services to
the Plaintiff. Section 2404 of the Hobbs Act prohibit action of the Defendants and US
Attorney General the court must arrest political interference or political opposition
Marbury v. Madison US 137 (1803) empower the court to insure is no oppressive civil
activity. Korematsu v United States 322 US 214 (1944) nullify executive order that inhibit
the rights of citizens of the 14th Amendment by show of undue affects of person and place
or plain civil liberties from directive and suggestions of that executive order.
CONCLUSION
• 5 USC 551(lOB). SUSC 551 (lOD). The Defendants are in attempt to take,
cause to loss to transfer estate of Mt. Vernon and its adjoining securities. This
is malversation of public funds and land unlawful by 18 USC 641. The
concealment activity is an unreasonable seizure. The Plaintiff by petition of the
en banc is an legal attempt to arrest spoliation inheritance due to invasion of
the activities.
• 988 F. 2d 658 Medicare/Medicaid of the United States ofAmerica v Brown,
that
(No. 92- 3676). The Defendants cannot shield or seize money in accounts
was not accumulated by the questioned activity under investigation.
• The US Treasury was lawful prior to December 2008. The Government
has established intent prior to Defendants involvement or application of
administrative freeze initiated January 2009. The US Treasury applied power
to the estate's gold security and placed in account for the Plaintiff. The is in an
attempt to settle a moral debt to lineal descendant where the US Government
has proven to be Tony Barrino. The Plaintiff is a descendant of George
Washington in re estate of Mt. Vernon, Virginia. The Plaintiff is an adopted
child born as Washington, Samuel in Richmond Virginia 1969. Jones v Jones,
234 US 615, (1914) is the decision that guidelines in this matter. United States
v. Sioux of Indians, 448 US 371 (1980). The Plaintiff property should return
or completely transferred into the Plaintiff possession and accessibility. The
Department of Justice and Defendants should be ordered to release that
property Shaw v United States, 981 F. 2d 602 (6t' Cir. 1989). 28 USC 1655.
Treasury Regulation 20.2031 -1 authorizes property to be transferred to the
decedent. Treasury Regulation 20.2036 -1 authorize the decedent to use, take
possession and receive income in payments. Treasury Regulation 20.2031 -6
the estate has a collection of gold 250 tons is classified as personal effects
which was seized a take in custody by the US Government upon George
Washington's death; in which now the US Treasury and US Government
classifies the gold in law as a security holding personal 15 USC 78u -4. 28
USC 1655 the Plaintiff files this claim and lawsuit before the en banc court by
law 15 USC 78 to order and summons the US Treasury and Defendants to stop
or cease activity of executive it is a unlawful incumbrance or unlawful action
that violate oppression law in matters of property that is contested. The
Defendants are wrongful by due to Executive Order 13406 which is a public
law, in which protect property rights of the citizen from government
encroachment and unreasonable seizure of estate and all encompassed
property.
• The Defendants cannot obstruct the examination of financial institution,
the defendants are unlawful by being evasive and as origin of aggravated
interference to transfer the Plaintiff asset Schierson v. United States 116 F.
2d 881 884 3d (1941) they exercised efforts in to be non - complaint to make
available the accounts and assets in the lawsuit they had prior planning to
accomplish the goal Sultan v United States, 249 F. 385 (5th Cir. 195 7) to
retain the money; this is an irrevocable trust matter.
• The 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals; the en banc court and Plaintiff is
pursuant to review, order and examine the matters in controversy on the
grounds of 12 USC 4631- 4635; chapter 7 Title 5. The court issue and
summons on Timothy Giethner and President Barack Obama: Defendant
representative of the US Treasury due to matters in law of "honest services ",
"sound practices ", "interference of legitimate functions" and "delay of
transfer ". The Defendants cause controversy where the Plaintiff is at risk for
financial loss. The en banc court and through this petition has grounds,
jurisdiction and power issue for cease and desist proceeding in the matter of
estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia.
United States v Johnson, 383 US 169 (1966) the Defendants are wrongful
to use political strategies nor political campaign where there is of conflict of
interest where the Defendants may benefit by unlawful means. The Defendants
created controversy, initiated activity and gave order and directions; by the
simplification of the matter the Defendant need answer the court and settle
with the Plaintiff. The Defendant and US Treasury are unlawful; section 6801-
6803 section 6805 of the Gramm -Leach Billet/ Act. The Right to Financial
Privacy Act is grounds for the en banc court they questionable in matter of the
law by 12 USC 3401 — 3420. 18 USC 73 the Defendants can not obstruct the
examination of US Treasury. United States v. Watson 423 US 411 (91 Cir.
19 76). United States v Bess, 593 F. 2d 749, 755 (6th Cir. 1979). The en banc
court should have probable cause and should drawn a conclusion that these act
are occurring.
KinQslow v. Treasury No. 2009 -3030; Timothy Giethner conduct or action
in this issue can be questioned in a court of law. The lower court must allow
the relevant information to obtained by investigation if necessary to settle this
claim Armstrong v. US Treasury No. 2009 -3155 because there is matter in this
issue FRCP 60 there is obvious misconduct by the Defendants Newsome v.
Treasury F. 2d 74 (5th Cir.) The Defendant are in "breech of duty" and violate
government trust. PaQels v. Varpus 2004 WI App 21, 269 Wis.2d 543, 674
N. W. 2d 6812003 Wisc. App Lex this claim must be opened and allowed to
speak the truth because of the outstanding merit and this situation. The Plaintiff
must be afforded the same right as others have been afforded in other courts to
refute seizure and freeze of asset in the 4t" Circuit Court of Appeals. The
Defendants have a unfair advantage there is a unlawful assertion and wrongful
action. The Plaintiff has the right to "process of law" and "due process ". 31
USC 330. There is probable cause for this petition en banc to grant summons
or order and vacate or reverse the previous ruling; there is unreasonable freeze
or concealment of assets; 28 USC Kindredhearts for Charitable and
Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Timothy Giethner, et al, Case No. 3:08
cv 2400 US District Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Oct. 2008)
28 USC 2347 the en banc court should set aside the original order or set void
the original judgment there evidence and merit to allegations; the court should
hear both sides of this issue in open court if necessary. If the matter of this
lawsuit is too overwhelming in the administrative exhaustion to uncover the
truth or money amount in controversy is uncomfortable for the en banc court to
remedy issue by summons or order; the court should be guided to compel for
further proceedings by 28 USC 3904 chapter 5 Title 3 and refer this lawsuit to
US Supreme Court so that proper justice is rendered to the Plaintiff in the
issue. 28 USC 2072 the en banc has the duty or judicial charge to protect the
safety or insure the civil liberties of the Plaintiff and guard against financial
loss; in the examination of a federal financial institution 18 USC 73 insures the
Plaintiff and guides the US Courts. 12 USC 3416 the values of estate nor the
value of securities in contest or in controversy have no bearing on the US
Court.
The Seventh Amendment assures the Plaintiff has adequate and acceptable
application of procedures and application of law in this petition. FRCP 60 there
is misconduct, error and discretion issues. The en banc court must remove
actions against the Plaintiff and estate. The Plaintiff seeks correction and relief
in issue; because this a true case with obvious other aggravating factors liable
for compensation also. The issuet must be corrected and must be reexamined in
the applicable of laws. Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 US 393, 406-
407 (1932); Smith v Allwright, 321 US 649, 665 (1944). The Defendants
cannot conceal or withhold anything that pertain to property, claim or accounts
18 USC 1001; especially with aggravating activity, actions perceived as
intentional malus or interference directed against that lawful holder, lawful
owner, beneficiary or decedent.
WHEREFORE, on the above grounds and facts the Plaintiff request that the
rehearing and the petition en banc be granted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: August 29th, 2011
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
From: Tony Barrino <trilsen2I @yahoo.com>
Subject: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS - -- FBI/ FCC MEMO ALERT - -FCC
NEED TO STOP ALL ACTIVITIES- -
To: Julius.Genachowski @fcc.gov
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 12:21 PM
THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PROGANDA,
RADIO AND TALKING THE TELEVISION PROGRAM IN AMERICA-- -
PLUS BREAKING ORDINACE OVER CITY IN AMERICA
"THE WHOLE SCHEME"
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS- america's big time case politcal corruption
issue
IN THE
Thursday, September 1, 2011 7:19 PM
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff
V
US DEPARTMENT of the TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendants
APPEALS NO. 11 -1713
Memorandum of Law to Support Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing
The Plaintiff is pursuant represents and clarifies matters Federal Civil Rules of Procedures
11(b) through the En Banc Court and Rehearing; the Defendants in the official capacities
of their office represents as Defendants in matters concerning the US Treasury; through the
US Solicitor General Office and US Attorney Office; this issue warrants investigation of
the President of the United States and the "practice before" the Department of the US
Treasury Secretary. The Plaintiff moves the en banc court to order against Defendants to
show cause in this matter Federal Civil Rules of Procedure 12(2)(3); 28 USC 1442 the
Plaintiff is pursuant due issue in the matter of law concerning 42 USC 1986 in the Estate
George Washington; Mt. Vernon; Virginia and the adjoining assets, outside accounts or
securities that belong to Tony Barrino as lineal descendant and lawful owner of the entire
estate in custody of the US Treasury. 50 USC 1803(2) there is need for judicial proceeding
due to acts that manifest as aggravated and exceptional conditions as well as exigent
circumstances that directly affect the Plaintiff, due wrongful assertion of interference,
duress and oppression in the Defendants official right or color of office.
I. CIVIL CONSPIRACY : Cease and Desist Proceedings; Grand Jury Investigation
Hartman v Greene, 193 La 234,190 So 390, 391 (1939) ( "The term `an unlawful act'
does not mean necessarily a criminal act; it means a wrongful act, or a tort -any
wrongful act (not involving a breach of contract) for which a civil action will lie.").
The evaluations of a motion to dismiss or deny requires the Court to accept as true all
material allegations of the entire complaint and petition En Banc. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372
F.3d 218,223 (3d Cir. 2004).
He who conspires with another person to commit an intentional or willful act is answerable,
in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such act.
He who cause another person to do an unlawful act, or assists or encourages in the
commission of it, is answerable, in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such
act
An action against a fiduciary may involve his failure to meet some general In contrast, an
standard of care (negligence) and therefore sound in tort. action for breach of a fiduciary
duty arises from the special relationship between the fiduciary and the one who claims the
duty [or "principal "], which therefore arises in contract (or quasi- contract).47 As such, a
breach of a fiduciary duty would not provide a basis for conspiratorial liability
The Plaintiff and En Banc court relied on Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 121
S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221, (2000). established that the conduct with which the Defendant
court charged or in as pursuant is proscribed by the statute he is violating.
Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir.2006). The law of the case doctrine
provides that "an issue of law or fact decidedon appeal may not be reexamined either by
the district court on remand or bythe appellate court on a subsequent appeal." Fuhrman v.
Dretke, 442 F.3d 893,
896 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). Exceptions to the doctrine allow reexamination of
issues decided on appeal only if "(i) the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially
different, (ii) "42 USC 1986" controlling authority has since made a contrary decision
of the law applicable to such issues, or (iii) the decision was clearly erroneous and
would work a manifest injustice." Id. at 897. The law of the case doctrine applies to
matters decided on interlocutory appeals. Royal Ins. Co. v Quinn -L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d
877, 881 (5th Cir. 1993). The doctrine is "based upon sound policy that when an issue is
once litigated and decided,
that should be the end of the matter." United States v. U.S. Smelting Reining& Minin
Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950); this issue has not been litigated the court has asserted no
exhaustion to uncover the truth and ensure the Plaintiff is safe, acquired no irrepairable,
cognizable and the Plaintiff is suffering no financial loss issue.
United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir.1998) These exceptions are: "(1)
The evidence at a See Becerra, 155 F.3d at 752 -53. subsequent trial is substantially
different; (2) there has been an intervening change of law by a controlling authority; and
(3) the earlier decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice."
Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002) (Matthews II) (citing Becerra, 155 F.3d at
752 -53).
Gugliuzza v. K.C.M.C., Inc., 606 So.2d 790,793 (La.1992) ( "Criminal statutes are not, in
and of themselves, definitive of civil liability and do not set the rule for civil liability; but
they may be guidelines for the court in fixing civil liability. "); Pierre v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 257 La. 471, 242 So.2d 821, 829 -30 (1971)
I. BILL OF ATTAINER CLAUSE: Defendants Goal and Action to Defeat the Law
Grounds: in the assertion of Duress acts by the Defendants the 4th Circuit Court can order
to enforce the power of the court to " show cause" and "probable cause" 18 USC 401.
• The Defendants are violating 18 USC 1343 in wire fraud to obtain,
withhold or conceal property under unlawful and fraudulent pretenses. United
States Johnson 383 US 169 (166).The Defendants are the origin or in the
authorship scheme of statement and or campaign to defraud or conceal the
Estate and assets; they cause a controversy or advantageous conflict of interest
in the television and radio in political venue also incorporated other in the
scheme to deprive the plaintiff of property, honest services or caused
complication to intentionally obstruct the transfer of estate and asset by utilizing
the public at large which affects the Plaintiff "right to space to survive" or
diminished the liberty in total aspect in financial privacy or financial freedoms;
therefore has greatly increased the risk for loss. The overact in assertion of
duress in speech and stamen in the suggestion that empowered wrongful
application political assertion where the laws and policy governing the US
Treasury was ignored while directed wished a violent act upon the Plaintiff ,
assertion malice or duress against the Plaintiff which wholly manifested as an
encumbrance Younger V. Harris 401 US 37 (1971) prohibits unlawful acts of
violence to effect a political change. Allen V. Wriz 468 US 737 (1984) where
there is traceable government conduct and there is injury to opportunity is
enough to grant lawsuit. Luian V. Defenders's of Wildlife 504 US 555, 561
(1992) the plaintiff does suffer a concrete or discernable injury; future injury
does meet requirement to bring suit against government agency where the
government agency action had or will have an indirect affect on them is liable.
II FEDERAL GOVERNEWN ETHICS ACT OF 1978(Title 6):
Grounds: Proceedings in Civil Conspiracy the elements of overact are present
There is evidence to support allegations to defraud the Plaintiff; Jackson v Virginia 443
U.S. (1979) the Defendants have the intent to defraud where money is issue or motive;
United States v Reaume 338 F. 3d 577(6th Cir. 2003). The court must proceed further in
discovery to assure there can be question in oversight as prosecutorial or judicial
misconduct United States v. Carter 236 F. 3d 777 (6th Cir. 2001)
United States v Cantrell, 278 F. 3d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 2001)(cititing Crossley, 224 F. 3d at
856); a reasonable person could interpret as showing participation in common plan may be
used to established the existence of a conspiracy for concealment as a unlawful goal in the
conjunctive can be properly supported by proof of the alleged goals.
United States v Thomas, 54 F. 3d 73, 81 (2d Cir.1995)(citing Griffin v United States 502
US 46, 56 -57 (1991) the action of the Defendants is constitute for concealment by
increasing the risk of loss due adverse action orders and directives
United States v. Tuohey, 867 F. 2d 534, 537 (1989) the Defendants by intentional acts or
misrepresentation have the intent to illegally acquire the Plaintiff's property in which the
they obstruct by the function of the US Treasury by deceit or trickery
United States v. Montgomery, 384 F. 3d 1050,1062 (0 Cir. 2004). United v. Hopper,
177 F. 3d 824, 829 ( 9th Cir. 1999) the Defendants have an agreement which may be
inferred or understood from the Defendants acts and other involved acts or activities in
pursuant of the scheme.
United States v. Edick 432 F.2d 350 (4th Cir. 1970) the Defendants as employees of the
government are connected in unlawful with the intent to divert or appropriate at a later time
United States v. Cooper 464 F.2d 648 (10th Circ. 1972 cert. denied 409 US 1107 (1973)
there is fraudulent activity where the defendants have caused injury to the Plaintiff and
impaired the legitimate function of the US Treasury.
III. FACTS / REASONS APPLY "POWER OF THE COURT' — ARTICLE III
section 2
• 28 USC 1291 The court must override the Department Justice and US
Attorney Office due the fact the Defendants violate Bill of Attainer Clause with
duress concerning property and person in the use satellite communications
system that are Department of Defense, the unlawfully authorized those systems
to used with malicious interference and abrasive propaganda against the
Plaintiff due to the issue in the estate and account in controversy. The Executive
Branch violates: Title 47, 18 USC 1030, Computer Security Act of 1987 and
Federal Administrative and Property Act of 1949. The Plaintiff is cognitively
enhanced through microchip application on the Plaintiff person, a bio —
computer application. United States v Zev Zev No. OOCRO1026. United States
v Iffih (D. Mass Feb2003). The Defendants exceed the lawful access where the
interference is duress or harassment inflict distress upon the Plaintiff. 32 USC
part 516 the Attorney is prohibited to allow Department of Defense in the
assistance to attain property in the civil sector. The Defendants are with willful
blindness or criminal negligent in duress in the use of satellite communication
joined with Plaintiff application by 46 Appendix 322.
• 28 USC 1655 The US Court Appeals Fourth Circuit must arrest the action
involving the estate and accounts or property. 18 USC 1343 is appropriate to
apply the situation. 42 USC 1986 clarifies and consolidate the matter for further
proceeding past the En Banc Court.
This memorandum of law by Federal Civil Procedure 11(b) and
12(2)(3).The Defendants are in furtherance of concealment of asset. FRCP 37.
The Defendants should be order be court to show cause and remedy by 31 USC
3733.This memorandum of law enhances the petition for petition en banc, the
previous memorandum of law and the entire complaint to represent or reopen
this lawsuit in support of the facts and merits.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: August 2 "a 2011
Tony Barrino
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
(704) 637 -9355
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Tony Barring
Plaintiff
V
Dept. of the US Treasury
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendant
FOURTH CIRCUIT
APPEAL NO. 11 -1713
MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO SUPPORT PETITION FOR PETITION
EN BANC AND REHEARING
CIVIL CONSPIRACY & CONCEALMENT:
Summarized dynamics and assertion of duress against estate or against "innocent
owner"
The Plaintiff is pursuant against the Defendants 28 USC 1442. Federal Civil Rule of
Procedure Rule 9 the Plaintiff clarifies, reinforces before the En Banc court and improves
the petition's indicia reliability to establish in furtherance the capacity to sue the
Defendants due to the action against estate and further explain the affect person with
duress; and firmly establish the need magnify under judicial examination or process the
modalities of intent to defraud, conceal and cause loss of the Washington, George; Mt
Vernon, Virginia and accompanying accounts in which the Plaintiff is the lineal
descendant, is the beneficiary or customer and lawful owner. The memorandum
summarizes the need by Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11(b)for a "show cause
order" to explain the actions against the estate and person. Federal Rule of Procedure
Rule 8 concerning the entire complaint and petition the Defendant need to defend against
Plaintiff. 28 USC 2347 this memorandum of law enhances before the En Banc court
sufficient grounds, facts and material that satisfy the court for further process insure there is
no injustice in these matters of estate and civil issue and insure that the citizen or plaintiff is
protected and compensated accordingly.
42 USC 1986. United States v Dial, 757 F. 2d 163, 168 (7t" Cir. 1985) the Defendants are
deliberate and malicious in the concealment and manifest aggravated non - compliance
action in the allowance or transfer of the material information concerning the estate and
adjoining or accompanying securities; therefore the Defendants are in breech of fiduciary
obligation. The Defendant is attempting to defeat the law and have the goal that the transfer
of estate be unsuccessful with implications of unusual, evasive or extraordinary efforts. The
Defendants are not afforded Executive Privilege, political immunity or qualified immunity
due t those efforts and acts: even with the absence, little proof that a loss is actually or
potential loss is occurring. Taking into consideration all factual allegations the En Banc
court and Plaintiff arrive at the conclusion that there is obvious deceit in this matter. United
States v Holzer, 816 F. 2d 304 (1987) the Defendant are should show cause in the
provisions and law guidelines of the Crime Act section 81. 5 USC 551 the Defendants
cannot take the estate nor negatively affect the physical person of Plaintiff concerning this
estate or involved matters in controversy. The Defendant cannot take, procure or delay the
estate by any species of scheme; may not use any deceptive means or interference that
deprive of right by the Defendants act direct or indirect nor by instances that others may
mimic or react to the Defendants suggestions that excite or increase the risk and increase
the potential for loss or inhibit the matter for settlement. During this reviewing stage before
the En Banc court; the Plaintiff does not and is not required to have evidence that duress is
present and that he is at risk for losing money and property; the Defendant interfere with or
obstruct this matter of lawful government with deceit by political craft and designed means
or modalities that is deemed dishonest. United States v Barnow, 239 US 74 (1915) the
Defendants have incorporated others to assist or in the cause of a reactionary
telecommunications scheme for an unsuccessful transfers of estate and allowance to access
accounts. Telecommunications: satellite communication, radio and television propaganda
of political or government origin; the Defendants use of various or numerous political
venue where is broadcast to the public where there is intentional affect on the public from
that excite of political change to assert or manifest political opposition in favor for the
Defendants to sustain the concealment of the estate and accounts. That political action is
non - advantageous excitations where the intent is for the Plaintiff to be unsuccessful or
suffer loss of property; therefore the action was or is designed for empowerment or sustains
the ability to take the property with duress and intimidating political tactics; the Defendants
created a political contest or aggravated political controversy. The courts should view this
activity as fraudulent or as by deceptive modalities that created an unfair contest that is also
oppressive activities in matters regarding any type of properties where the government is
involved, under any custodial management or has any concern. Telecommunications
systems are the "instrument of crime" in which assist the ability to apply force and duress
in the obstruction of the transfer; and manifest political empowerment to sustain an
unreasonable freeze. Title 47. The court must protect and maintain the integrity of the
telecommunication systems and broadcast media in the United States of America so that is
not used to deprive or assure no figure does not use the systems and do not use broadcast
venues in direct or indirect design to manifest deprivation that is intentional and
unjustifiable loss of any type of properties. 18 USC 1343 is the guideline that prohibit
fraudulent scheme, prohibit malicious scheme, and prohibit political duress or undue
political opposition by non - advantageous excitements where properties is an issue or in
discussion. The Defendants issued executive order and executive direction, in
authorization, to use satellite communications; where there is involvement Department of
Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. The Defendant know the Plaintiff is
physically "looped" into telecommunication satellite system by a bio- medical appliance;
through a brain - computer interface system designed by the US Government or the
Department of Defense for personal security. The authorization from the office of the
President applies communications and signaling in manner that creates distress; this is
another or additional modality that create duress that is recklessly endangering or causing
diminished liberties; therefore a causation of potential injury and cause changes that
interfere to obstruct or inhibit the Plaintiff. Again; raise the potential loss reduce ability to
claim the estate and accounts that is unlawful coercion. Section 22; Section 23 Crime Act
1958. The Defendants need to answer the court on their act in use of executive order and
directive and the conduct; their reason is unlawful, Bill of Attainer prohibits such act
where the goal is loss or damage. 31 USC 37333 has the desire to protect the right of
Plaintiff and property; this matter or situation is clearly within that statue, the Defendants
complicated the issue or designed a situation to deprive the Plaintiff. The Defendants
methods and conduct is inconsistent with the practices and duties of the US Treasury.
United States v Clapps, 732 F. 2d 1148, 1152 (CA3 1984). United States v States, 2d 761,
764 (CA8 1973). The Defendants knew by the activation of telecommunication systems
against the Plaintiff, could and would cause an element of deception, distortion to
complicate and enable furtherance of delay as well raise or increase the ability to spoil the
transfer and sustain the freeze of estate assets. Section 81, Section 247A Crime Act 1958.
The Defendant order the use of adverse or aversive telecommunication signaling in
conjunction; with television and radio broadcast that creates illicit political opposition;
illicit malicious political campaign that totally affect the matter and directly affect the
Plaintiff. The Defendants are overreaching, overacting and exceeding the lawful allowance
by their direct and directed invasion or created interference is wrongdoing due to the fact it
obstructs the ability to obtain the estate and money. Hammerschmidt v United States, 265
U.S. 188 (1924). United v Zev Zev No. OOCRO1026. The Defendant are in
communications between themselves and in communications with others within the
government and in communications individual citizen that posses compatible satellite
telecommunication equipment that in is linked into mainstream television and radio;
together these individuals with Defendants approval and direction initiated an aggravated
campaign in which the objective is interference from a political conveyed origin or political
excitement to support that sustain freeze and sustain concealment of the estate. The other
individuals directly involved with Defendants have expectation receipt of some amounts of
money from the Defendants success in final procurement of assets and estate, due to their
participation in telecommunication scheme or due to their participation to accomplish a
political goal or assistance to promote a biased political agenda of intent; 18 USC 205 the
activity is a conflict of interest that affect the legitimate function of the US Treasury.
United v Mandel, 591 F. 2d 1347 (CA 4 1979). United States Bohonus, 628 F. 2d 1167,
1171 (CA 1980) The Defendants are discriminating and retaliating due to values of estate;
applying or creating political oppression, creating malicious duress and causing a biased or
colored controversy that halt the process which at the same time raise the risk of loss and
perceive as endangerment at this point in the situation from the total action of Defendants.
Blanchly v United States 380 F. 2d 665 (CA 1967). United States v O'Malley 535 F. 2d
589, 592 (CA 1976) the Defendants goal or political agenda is to take the land and transfer
the money in account or appropriate back into government use and appropriate or disburse
to special interest groups in political affiliation and association with Defendants. United
States v Johnson 383 169 (1966) the Defendants are the authors of a coercive scheme; in
which they are operating a political communications scheme or political campaign. The
incorporation or participation of other individuals creates an unfair contest and undue
conflict of interest. The En Banc court is compelled to show cause on the grounds of the
Plaintiff s intangible rights to honest and impartial government officials; that should not
misuse their office concerning money and land matters. United States v Marietta 688 F. 2d
108, 122 (CA2 1982) cert. denied 461 US 46 US 913 (1983). In Re Landmark Trust v
Goodhue 172 Vt. 515, 525 78 A .2d 1219, 1228 (2001). The Defendants have wrongful
modalities in which they have applied duress, political interference, and coercion by design
and deception in the intent cause conflict or contest form a campaign through the use of
television, radio and satellite communications. This mitigating conduct or mitigating acts
that affect others in reception of broadcast view the situation with negative conjecture and
suggestively point out the Plaintiff to treat as a target which affects civil liberty due to
violation of "freedom of the press" is wire fraud 18 USC 1343. The Defendants caused a
political change that make statement or present as actions of actual or direct malice directed
at the Plaintiff that has caused a danger, damage and creates injury that result in loss of
property; there should no duress of any species concerning land or estate matter. Federal
Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11(b). United States v Crandall, No. 06 -5059, 06 -50593
(91h Cir. 2008) "Reasonable foreseeable pecuniary harm" the Defendants know that by
their political design of circumstances, reasonably should have known, what was a
potential result of the acts, offense or activities that is occurring. Near v Minnesota, 283 US
677 (1931). The Defendants are reckless where they are causing anger and political
agitation that would incite and imminent lawless action; also cause distortion of a lot of fact
that encompassed in the situation. The operation of satellite and telecommunication media
used in "propaganda manner" affects the Plaintiff, where it influence others, influence the
immediate physical surrounding that breach the peace. The overall intent of the
telecommunications broadcast scheme; convey in utterance by the individuals involved
present as provoking or provocative influence for other and the public to be angry or
disgruntle due to the wishes and desires of the Defendants individual political agenda or
goals. The Defendants intent is to create controversy, create resentments and arouse the
public at large to support the total spoliation of inheritance and sustain support for the
freeze or concealment of estate and accounts; this is opposition or duress against the
Plaintiff; wrongful in the provision of 18 USC 641. The Defendants political desire or goal
is to benefit directly from the spoliation. The Defendants delegation of conduct or
delegation of demeanor in the use of abrasive telecommunications is offensive conduct.
Masses Publishinz Co. v Pattern 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917) this situation is political
agitation with the intent to endanger Plaintiff in regards or matter that concern property and
money. section 23 Crime Act 1958. The Defendant intent is to gain of the estate and asset
control through a complicated political scheme. The use telecommunications as the
instrument of duress is a promotions propaganda or political campaign that creates evil,
clear and present danger directed at or against the Plaintiff Dennis v United States 341 US
494 (1951). The Defendants and the other involved by participation have an illicit and
wrongful modality to conceal, spoil or make the Plaintiff unsuccessful in take over
possession of the estate and securities accounts. United States v O'Brien ,391 US 367
(1968). The executive order and directives to use satellite communication in manner of
propaganda or with malicious incitement of duress is a lawless action, in which the
Defendants and the other involved create a unusual ,unstable, hostile and dangerous
environment. Abrams v United States 250 US 616 (1919). The Defendants intentionally
created and increased possibility of a reactionary environment in the public at large in
locations same as the Plaintiff. The intent of telecommunication broadcast cueing intent is
the infliction of harm or detrimental injury to be directed at the Plaintiff so that the
Defendant can retain the estate and securities. The Defendants politically targeted the
Plaintiff due to values of estate. Halberstam v Welch 705 F. 2d 472 227 US App. D.C.
167 (D.C. 1983). The Defendants are author of a potentially injurious event where the
Plaintiff would be subject or object to gain control through political tactics that change the
demeanor of others into aggressive state mind; where other wise would not have occurred
or would not be a concern to the Plaintiff nor would not be a public interest subject to
attention and concern of conjecture, disdain or any types of adverse feedback from a
government or political originating campaign. Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971). Allen v
Wry, 468 US 737 (1984). The Defendants as government officials have culpability or is
responsible for the situation; where their conduct and management of matter created a
wrongful or unlawful opportunity to gain control of money the estate. Luian v Defender's
of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 561 (1992). The Defendants cause concrete duress or force that is
injurious; in which the telecommunication activity affect the right to space or affect the
liberties of the Plaintiff. United States v Thomas, 54 F. 3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 1995) citing
Griffin v United States 502 US 46, 56 -57 (199 1) the Defendants campaign or directed
activities created a risk for loss that impairs the legitimate intent and function of the US
Treasury to transfer the estate and securities accounts or asset to a lawful beneficiary or
lineal descendant United States v Cooper 464 F. 2d 648 (10th Cir. 1972 cent. denied 409 US
1107(1973). United States v Edick , 432 F. 2d 350 (4th Cir. 1970). The Defendant manifest
willful neglect and assert intentional malicious duress against the Plaintiff physically and
apply undue or unjust administrative government sanctions against the estate and securities
accounts that belong to the Plaintiff at the same time utilizing political campaign in
conjecture that affect the public in view or in audio reception telecommunications
broadcast. The Defendants as employees of the United States government intentionally use
a wrongful or oppressive practice of duties in abrasive, adverse, aversive or intrusive
measure that negatively affect the Plaintiff to be unsuccessful. The Plaintiff uses
Rosenblatt v Baer, 383 US at 92 (Stewart, J concurring) as protection against the
Defendants due to there is unwarranted intrusion where the Defendants campaign and
telecommunication will not and did not allow adequate breathing space. The Defendants
and telecommunication individuals that are involved present matters with reckless
disregard, cause of damage or are the origins of proximate cause of undue duress and or
encourage illicit political interference by negatively magnifying the Plaintiff with
aggression, danger or conjecture. This assist the Defendants to accomplish a unlawful goal
or carry on unethical practices contrary to norms of US Treasury and continues to create or
use unusual actions or unusual utterance in the telecommunication and publications
medium. Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 Time v Hill, 385 U.S. at 389 The court
should steer the Defendants away from the unlawful zone in communication where the
freedom speech negatively affect the citizen with duress or unduly subject a citizen to
malicious political scrutiny and stigmatizations Garrison v Louisana, 379 U.S. 64, 75
(1964). Associated Press v NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132 -133 (1937). The court must protect
the privacy and safety of Plaintiff in matter that are outside the public concern to ensure
the Defendants in capacities of their office are not creating a situations that might injury or
are not increasing the probabilities that a dramatic event may occur in which the Plaintiff
is the intended subject or target. Time v Pape,401 U.S. 279,293 (1971). Schnabel v
Meredith, 378 Pa. 609 107 A. 2d 860 the court should allow the Defendants to manufacture
hatred, resentment or allow the Defendants to be suggestive for other to ridicule in order to
deter the transfer of estate and securities or money account. The Defendant have created a
tense political tone and opposition intentionally. 46 Appendix 322 the Defendants in
premeditation initiated a sequence of non - beneficial actions or acts where the Plaintiff
would lose the situation and inhibit the ability of the Plaintiff to take possession estate and
the accompanying assets or securities without a reasonable or explainable amount of
complication. 46 Appendix 322 the Defendant are subject to conduct governed by Title 50
where they manifest no regard to for the Financial Privacy Act or Gramm -Leach Billey
Act, in which the Defendant manifest an obvious and foreseeable scheme by political
design to conceal and eventually to control by deceptive means or fraudulent or unlawful
modality. United States v Czubinski, 106 F. 3d 1069, 1076 (1St Cir. 1997). The Defendants
should render an honest service and present or transfer the estate without any complications
or duress; the Defendants attempt to defeat the law and work an injustice. The Plaintiff
actually owed or have the right to take over possession of estate; would suffer loss due to
the concealment and due to extraordinary efforts to applied or used to further be evasive
with aggravated complications. United States v Schierson, 116 F. 2d 881, 884 (3d Cir.
1941). Article III section 2 due to the degree of suspicious circumstance, aggravating facts
and the money values of value. 28 USC 1291 this petition is enough to take possession of
estate and take control of the securities by the Plaintiff. Holt v United States 218 US at
247, 31 S. Ct at 4, 54 L. Ed at 1028. The Plaintiff request the court for the Defendant to
show cause Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11(b) the conduct or acts of the
Defendants concerning the money surrounding the estate , the factors in the suspicious
circumstances and the affects on Plaintiff ; there is manifestation and obvious of wrongful
exceptional conditions, undue assertion of duress of a illegal complicated kind. 46
Appendix 322 there is enough civil trespass the Office of President and Office of Secretary
is not the shielding of executive privilege against this suit or claim the Defendants have
given no respect to the Bill of Attainer. Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 9(2)b In re
United States v Nixon 418 US 683 (1974). 42 USC 1986 the Executive Branch and the
Office of the President and Office of Sec. of US Treasury need to answer the lawsuit in
open court; the Plaintiff can prove enough averment and there is enough "true fact" in the
breech of duty and the breech of government trust where the Defendant would have illicit
benefit the US Treasury has tortuous liability and has obligation to pay the Plaintiff also
turnover the estate. United States v Lovett, 964 F. 2d 1029, 1042 (10th Cir. 1992) .United
States v Cantrell, 278 F. 3d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 2001)there is specified unlawful activity or
the Defendants work to defeat a specific law that govern the US Treasury. The Plaintiff s
factual allegation are sufficient enough and matters are illicitly flagrant enough against the
executive branch are sufficient enough to pierce the vale of ethics codes of the federal
government to compel proceeding in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 60 the Defendants manifest or display enough conduct contrary to the
law. United States v Manion, 339 F. 3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) the government can
prove upon the examination of the US Treasury the Defendants have the to defraud and
conceal the estate and securities from the Plaintiff since December 2008. Sultan v United
States 249 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 1957).
Date: September 13, 2011
IN THE
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
Tony Barring
Plaintiff
V
Dept. of the US Treasury
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendant
APPEAL NO. 11 -1713
MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO SUPPORT PETITION FOR PETITION
EN BANC AND REHEARING
CIVIL CONSPIRACY & CONCEALMENT.•
Summarized dynamics and assertion of duress against estate or against "innocent
owner"
The Plaintiff is pursuant against the Defendants 28 USC 1442. Federal Civil Rule of
Procedure Rule 9 the Plaintiff clarifies, reinforces before the En Banc court and improves
the petition's indicia reliability to establish in furtherance the capacity to sue the
Defendants due to the action against estate and further explain the affect person with
duress; and firmly establish the need magnify under judicial examination or process the
modalities of intent to defraud, conceal and cause loss of the Washington, George; Mt
Vernon, Virginia and accompanying accounts in which the Plaintiff is the lineal
descendant, is the beneficiary or customer and lawful owner. The memorandum
summarizes the need by Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11(b)for a "show cause
order" to explain the actions against the estate and person. Federal Rule of Procedure
Rule 8 concerning the entire complaint and petition the Defendant need to defend against
Plaintiff. 28 USC 2347 this memorandum of law enhances before the En Banc court
sufficient grounds, facts and material that satisfy the court for further process insure there is
no injustice in these matters of estate and civil issue and insure that the citizen or plaintiff is
protected and compensated accordingly.
42 USC 1986. United States v Dial, 757 F. 2d 163, 168 (7t" Cir. 1985) the Defendants are
deliberate and malicious in the concealment and manifest aggravated non - compliance
action in the allowance or transfer of the material information concerning the estate and
adjoining or accompanying securities; therefore the Defendants are in breech of fiduciary
obligation. The Defendant is attempting to defeat the law and have the goal that the transfer
of estate be unsuccessful with implications of unusual, evasive or extraordinary efforts. The
Defendants are not afforded Executive Privilege, political immunity or qualified immunity
due t those efforts and acts: even with the absence, little proof that a loss is actually or
potential loss is occurring. Taking into consideration all factual allegations the En Banc
court and Plaintiff arrive at the conclusion that there is obvious deceit in this matter. United
States v Holzer, 816 F. 2d 304 (1987) the Defendant are should show cause in the
provisions and law guidelines of the Crime Act section 81.5 USC 551 the Defendants
cannot take the estate nor negatively affect the physical person of Plaintiff concerning this
estate or involved matters in controversy. The Defendant cannot take, procure or delay the
estate by any species of scheme; may not use any deceptive means or interference that
deprive of right by the Defendants act direct or indirect nor by instances that others may
mimic or react to the Defendants suggestions that excite or increase the risk and increase
the potential for loss or inhibit the matter for settlement. During this reviewing stage before
the En Banc court; the Plaintiff does not and is not required to have evidence that duress is
present and that he is at risk for losing money and property; the Defendant interfere with or
obstruct this matter of lawful government with deceit by political craft and designed means
or modalities that is deemed dishonest. United States v Barnow, 239 US 74 (1915) the
Defendants have incorporated others to assist or in the cause of a reactionary
telecommunications scheme for an unsuccessful transfers of estate and allowance to access
accounts. Telecommunications: satellite communication, radio and television propaganda
of political or government origin; the Defendants use of various or numerous political
venue where is broadcast to the public where there is intentional affect on the public from
that excite of political change to assert or manifest political opposition in favor for the
Defendants to sustain the concealment of the estate and accounts. That political action is
non - advantageous excitations where the intent is for the Plaintiff to be unsuccessful or
suffer loss of property; therefore the action was or is designed for empowerment or sustains
the ability to take the property with duress and intimidating political tactics; the Defendants
created a political contest or aggravated political controversy. The courts should view this
activity as fraudulent or as by deceptive modalities that created an unfair contest that is also
oppressive activities in matters regarding any type of properties where the government is
involved, under any custodial management or has any concern. Telecommunications
systems are the "instrument of crime" in which assist the ability to apply force and duress
in the obstruction of the transfer; and manifest political empowerment to sustain an
unreasonable freeze. Title 47. The court must protect and maintain the integrity of the
telecommunication systems and broadcast media in the United States of America so that is
not used to deprive or assure no figure does not use the systems and do not use broadcast
venues in direct or indirect design to manifest deprivation that is intentional and
unjustifiable loss of any type of properties. 18 USC 1343 is the guideline that prohibit
fraudulent scheme, prohibit malicious scheme, and prohibit political duress or undue
political opposition by non - advantageous excitements where properties is an issue or in
discussion. The Defendants issued executive order and executive direction, in
authorization, to use satellite communications; where there is involvement Department of
Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. The Defendant know the Plaintiff is
physically "looped" into telecommunication satellite system by a bio- medical appliance;
through a brain - computer interface system designed by the US Government or the
Department of Defense for personal security. The authorization from the office of the
President applies communications and signaling in manner that creates distress; this is
another or additional modality that create duress that is recklessly endangering or causing
diminished liberties; therefore a causation of potential injury and cause changes that
interfere to obstruct or inhibit the Plaintiff. Again; raise the potential loss reduce ability to
claim the estate and accounts that is unlawful coercion. Section 22; Section 23 Crime Act
1958. The Defendants need to answer the court on their act in use of executive order and
directive and the conduct; their reason is unlawful, Bill of Attainer prohibits such act
where the goal is loss or damage. 31 USC 37333 has the desire to protect the right of
Plaintiff and property; this matter or situation is clearly within that statue, the Defendants
complicated the issue or designed a situation to deprive the Plaintiff. The Defendants
methods and conduct is inconsistent with the practices and duties of the US Treasury.
United States v Clapp—S, 732 F. 2d 1148, 1152 (CA3 1984). United States v States, 2d 761,
764 (CA8 1973). The Defendants knew by the activation of telecommunication systems
against the Plaintiff, could and would cause an element of deception, distortion to
complicate and enable furtherance of delay as well raise or increase the ability to spoil the
transfer and sustain the freeze of estate assets. Section 81, Section 247A Crime Act 1958.
The Defendant order the use of adverse or aversive telecommunication signaling in
conjunction; with television and radio broadcast that creates illicit political opposition;
illicit malicious political campaign that totally affect the matter and directly affect the
Plaintiff. The Defendants are overreaching, overacting and exceeding the lawful allowance
by their direct and directed invasion or created interference is wrongdoing due to the fact it
obstructs the ability to obtain the estate and money. Hammerschmidt v United States, 265
U.S. 188 (1924). United v Zev Zev No. OOCRO1026. The Defendant are in
communications between themselves and in communications with others within the
government and in communications individual citizen that posses compatible satellite
telecommunication equipment that in is linked into mainstream television and radio;
together these individuals with Defendants approval and direction initiated an aggravated
campaign in which the objective is interference from a political conveyed origin or political
excitement to support that sustain freeze and sustain concealment of the estate. The other
individuals directly involved with Defendants have expectation receipt of some amounts of
money from the Defendants success in final procurement of assets and estate, due to their
participation in telecommunication scheme or due to their participation to accomplish a
political goal or assistance to promote a biased political agenda of intent; 18 USC 205 the
activity is a conflict of interest that affect the legitimate function of the US Treasury.
United v Mandel, 591 F. 2d 1347 (CA 4 1979). United States Bohonus, 628 F. 2d 1167,
1171 (CA 1980) The Defendants are discriminating and retaliating due to values of estate;
applying or creating political oppression, creating malicious duress and causing a biased or
colored controversy that halt the process which at the same time raise the risk of loss and
perceive as endangerment at this point in the situation from the total action of Defendants.
Blanchly v United States 380 F. 2d 665 (CA 1967). United States v O'Malley 535 F. 2d
589, 592 (CA 1976) the Defendants goal or political agenda is to take the land and transfer
the money in account or appropriate back into government use and appropriate or disburse
to special interest groups in political affiliation and association with Defendants. United
States v Johnson 383 169 (1966) the Defendants are the authors of a coercive scheme; in
which they are operating a political communications scheme or political campaign. The
incorporation or participation of other individuals creates an unfair contest and undue
conflict of interest. The En Banc court is compelled to show cause on the grounds of the
Plaintiff's intangible rights to honest and impartial government officials; that should not
misuse their office concerning money and land matters. United States v Marietta 688 F. 2d
108, 122 (CA2 1982) cert. denied 461 US 46 US 913 (1983). In Re Landmark Trust v
Goodhue 172 Vt. 515, 525 78 A .2d 1219, 1228 (2001). The Defendants have wrongful
modalities in which they have applied duress, political interference, and coercion by design
and deception in the intent cause conflict or contest form a campaign through the use of
television, radio and satellite communications. This mitigating conduct or mitigating acts
that affect others in reception of broadcast view the situation with negative conjecture and
suggestively point out the Plaintiff to treat as a target which affects civil liberty due to
violation of "freedom of the press" is wire fraud 18 USC 1343. The Defendants caused a
political change that make statement or present as actions of actual or direct malice directed
at the Plaintiff that has caused a danger, damage and creates injury that result in loss of
property; there should no duress of any species concerning land or estate matter. Federal
Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11(b). United States v Crandall, No. 06- 5059.06 -50593
(91h Cir. 2008) "Reasonable foreseeable pecuniary harm" the Defendants know that by
their political design of circumstances, reasonably should have known, what was a
potential result of the acts, offense or activities that is occurring. Near v Minnesota, 283 US
677 (1931). The Defendants are reckless where they are causing anger and political
agitation that would incite and imminent lawless action; also cause distortion of a lot of fact
that encompassed in the situation. The operation of satellite and telecommunication media
used in "propaganda manner" affects the Plaintiff, where it influence others, influence the
immediate physical surrounding that breach the peace. The overall intent of the
telecommunications broadcast scheme; convey in utterance by the individuals involved
present as provoking or provocative influence for other and the public to be angry or
disgruntle due to the wishes and desires of the Defendants individual political agenda or
goals. The Defendants intent is to create controversy, create resentments and arouse the
public at large to support the total spoliation of inheritance and sustain support for the
freeze or concealment of estate and accounts; this is opposition or duress against the
Plaintiff, wrongful in the provision of 18 USC 641. The Defendants political desire or goal
is to benefit directly from the spoliation. The Defendants delegation of conduct or
delegation of demeanor in the use of abrasive telecommunications is offensive conduct.
Masses Publishing Co. v Pattern 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917) this situation is political
agitation with the intent to endanger Plaintiff in regards or matter that concern property and
money. section 23 Crime Act 1958. The Defendant intent is to gain of the estate and asset
control through a complicated political scheme. The use telecommunications as the
instrument of duress is a promotions propaganda or political campaign that creates evil,
clear and present danger directed at or against the Plaintiff Dennis v United States 341 US
494 (1951). The Defendants and the other involved by participation have an illicit and
wrongful modality to conceal, spoil or make the Plaintiff unsuccessful in take over
possession of the estate and securities accounts. United States v O'Brien ,391 US 367
(1968). The executive order and directives to use satellite communication in manner of
propaganda or with malicious incitement of duress is a lawless action, in which the
Defendants and the other involved create a unusual ,unstable, hostile and dangerous
environment. Abrams v United States 250 US 616 (1919). The Defendants intentionally
created and increased possibility of a reactionary environment in the public at large in
locations same as the Plaintiff. The intent of telecommunication broadcast cueing intent is
the infliction of harm or detrimental injury to be directed at the Plaintiff so that the
Defendant can retain the estate and securities. The Defendants politically targeted the
Plaintiff due to values of estate. Halberstam v Welch 705 F. 2d 472 227 US App. D.C.
167 (D.C. 1983). The Defendants are author of a potentially injurious event where the
Plaintiff would be subject or object to gain control through political tactics that change the
demeanor of others into aggressive state mind; where other wise would not have occurred
or would not be a concern to the Plaintiff nor would not be a public interest subject to
attention and concern of conjecture, disdain or any types of adverse feedback from a
government or political originating campaign. Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971). Allen v
Wry, 468 US 737 (1984). The Defendants as government officials have culpability or is
responsible for the situation; where their conduct and management of matter created a
wrongful or unlawful opportunity to gain control of money the estate. Luian v Defender's
of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 561 (1992). The Defendants cause concrete duress or force that is
injurious; in which the telecommunication activity affect the right to space or affect the
liberties of the Plaintiff. United States v Thomas, 54 F. 3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 1995) citing
Griffin v United States 502 US 46, 56 -57 (1991) the Defendants campaign or directed
activities created a risk for loss that impairs the legitimate intent and function of the US
Treasury to transfer the estate and securities accounts or asset to a lawful beneficiary or
lineal descendant United States v Cooper 464 F. 2d 648 (10th Cir. 1972 cent. denied 409 US
1107(1973). United States v Edick , 432 F. 2d 350 (4th Cir. 1970). The Defendant manifest
willful neglect and assert intentional malicious duress against the Plaintiff physically and
apply undue or unjust administrative government sanctions against the estate and securities
accounts that belong to the Plaintiff at the same time utilizing political campaign in
conjecture that affect the public in view or in audio reception telecommunications
broadcast. The Defendants as employees of the United States government intentionally use
a wrongful or oppressive practice of duties in abrasive, adverse, aversive or intrusive
measure that negatively affect the Plaintiff to be unsuccessful. The Plaintiff uses
Rosenblatt v Baer, 383 US at 92 (Stewart, J concurring) as protection against the
Defendants due to there is unwarranted intrusion where the Defendants campaign and
telecommunication will not and did not allow adequate breathing space. The Defendants
and telecommunication individuals that are involved present matters with reckless
disregard, cause of damage or are the origins of proximate cause of undue duress and or
encourage illicit political interference by negatively magnifying the Plaintiff with
aggression, danger or conjecture. This assist the Defendants to accomplish a unlawful goal
or carry on unethical practices contrary to norms of US Treasury and continues to create or
use unusual actions or unusual utterance in the telecommunication and publications
medium. Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 Time v Hill, 385 U.S. at 389 The court
should steer the Defendants away from the unlawful zone in communication where the
freedom speech negatively affect the citizen with duress or unduly subject a citizen to
malicious political scrutiny and stigmatizations Garrison v Louisana, 379 U.S. 64, 75
(1964). Associated Press v NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132 -133 (1937). The court must protect
the privacy and safety of Plaintiff in matter that are outside the public concern to ensure
the Defendants in capacities of their office are not creating a situations that might injury or
are not increasing the probabilities that a dramatic event may occur in which the Plaintiff
is the intended subject or target. Time v Pape,401 U.S. 279,293 (1971). Schnabel v
Meredith, 378 Pa. 609 107 A. 2d 860 the court should allow the Defendants to manufacture
hatred, resentment or allow the Defendants to be suggestive for other to ridicule in order to
deter the transfer of estate and securities or money account. The Defendant have created a
tense political tone and opposition intentionally. 46 Appendix 322 the Defendants in
premeditation initiated a sequence of non - beneficial actions or acts where the Plaintiff
would lose the situation and inhibit the ability of the Plaintiff to take possession estate and
the accompanying assets or securities without a reasonable or explainable amount of
complication. 46 Appendix 322 the Defendant are subject to conduct governed by Title 50
where they manifest no regard to for the Financial Privacy Act or Gramm -Leach Billey
Act, in which the Defendant manifest an obvious and foreseeable scheme by political
design to conceal and eventually to control by deceptive means or fraudulent or unlawful
modality. United States v Czubinski, 106 F. 3d 1069, 1076 (1St Cir. 1997). The Defendants
should render an honest service and present or transfer the estate without any complications
or duress; the Defendants attempt to defeat the law and work an injustice. The Plaintiff
actually owed or have the right to take over possession of estate; would suffer loss due to
the concealment and due to extraordinary efforts to applied or used to further be evasive
with aggravated complications. United States v Schierson, 116 F. 2d 881, 884 (3d Cir.
1941). Article III section 2 due to the degree of suspicious circumstance, aggravating facts
and the money values of value. 28 USC 1291 this petition is enough to take possession of
estate and take control of the securities by the Plaintiff. Holt v United States 218 US at
247, 31 S. Ct at 4, 54 L. Ed at 1028. The Plaintiff request the court for the Defendant to
show cause Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11(b) the conduct or acts of the
Defendants concerning the money surrounding the estate , the factors in the suspicious
circumstances and the affects on Plaintiff ; there is manifestation and obvious of wrongful
exceptional conditions, undue assertion of duress of a illegal complicated kind. 46
Appendix 322 there is enough civil trespass the Office of President and Office of Secretary
is not the shielding of executive privilege against this suit or claim the Defendants have
given no respect to the Bill of Attainer. Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 9(2)b In re
United States v Nixon 418 US 683 (1974). 42 USC 1986 the Executive Branch and the
Office of the President and Office of Sec. of US Treasury need to answer the lawsuit in
open court; the Plaintiff can prove enough averment and there is enough "true fact" in the
breech of duty and the breech of government trust where the Defendant would have illicit
benefit the US Treasury has tortuous liability and has obligation to pay the Plaintiff also
turnover the estate. United States v Lovett, 964 F. 2d 1029, 1042 (10th Cir. 1992) .United
States v Cantrell, 278 F. 3d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 2001)there is specified unlawful activity or
the Defendants work to defeat a specific law that govern the US Treasury. The Plaintiff's
factual allegation are sufficient enough and matters are illicitly flagrant enough against the
executive branch are sufficient enough to pierce the vale of ethics codes of the federal
government to compel proceeding in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 60 the Defendants manifest or display enough conduct contrary to the
law. United States v Manion, 339 F. 3d 1153, 1156 (91h Cir. 2003) the government can
prove upon the examination of the US Treasury the Defendants have the to defraud and
conceal the estate and securities from the Plaintiff since December 2008. Sultan v United
States 249 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 1957).
Date: September 13, 2011
"Tony Barrino" <trilsen21 @yahoo.com>
Add sender to Contacts
hardball @msnbc.com
-IN THE
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
To:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO Appeals Case No. 11 -1713
Plaintiff
Complaint No. 3:11 cv 00247
V
US COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
FOURTH CIRCUIT
PETITION
Timothy Giethner
REHEARING
Barack Obama
Defendants
Manion)
BARRINO
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
EN BANC AND
(FRCP 11(b), Seventh Amendment;
United States v
AND
DECLARATION OF TONY
Date: September 15, 2011
Trial Date: N/A
Petition/Action Filed: August 29, 2011
Complaint /Action: May 18, 2011°
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Plaintiff request the US Court of Appeals 4th Circuit to take judicial notice as pursuant
against the Defendants in Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 201. The Plaintiff request
the En Banc to accept the allegations, explained throughout the entire complaint and all the
supplements that legally support the Petition En Banc, as a accurate, conclusive or
adjudicative fact. The Plaintiff given an opportunity before an open court and a jury is
capable of determining the same liabilities and question the issue with reasonable due
process or judicial exhaustion. The entire Petition En Banc and Complaint has raised
enough fact or circumstance in legal grounds to against the Defendants. The Plaintiff has
firm indicia reliability raised above a speculative level; the Plaintiff has supplied before
court the necessary information to proceed to docket. 50 USC 1803(b) mandates this matter
for further proceedings due to those facts manifest enough illicit, suspicious circumstances
and issue qualify as exceptional conditions for the Defendants to show cause to settle this
matter Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 11(b).
The US Court of Appeals 4t" Circuit; the En Banc court upon this reviewing stage should
ascertain and conclude there is need to apply the law by 18 USC 1344. The Plaintiff and
the court should push the action concerning this matter. 18 USC 1344 the force the federal
court to administer justice and relief the Plaintiff has a genuine issue; the Defendants under
the color of their office fraudulently hold money in financial institution where their actions
is obnoxious in the attempt to defeat the law that govern the US Treasury. The Defendant's
amplified conduct is reason for action. The Defendants acts and activities have employed a
scheme involving other government agencies and officials. The Defendants activities also
involve the public by political designed artifice or by using political tactics and campaign
this is deceptive interference; in which can not negate the legal and non - aggravated
providence of a honest service to a customer or beneficiary; in matters that involve any
money, any asset or properties. The court and Plaintiff can contend in pursuit as a bank
fraud an "illicit manners" of estate management: in which the estate of Washington,
George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia and the accounts set aside for the Lineal Descendant or
Plaintiff is clearly been object, subject or target of scheme. The "effects" of the estate and
those accounts are being unlawfully obstructed and impeded in the transition for the
Plaintiff to take possession; 18 USC 656 that act is prohibited as officials in the US
government.
The situation or issue presents an extortion inference or extortion overtone due to the
degree and manner of duress that is asserted against the Plaintiff; the situation presents
coercive modalities and improper means to retain control of the assets or securities
involved. "Relevant Conduct" or "Relevant Actions" 18 USC 1344 the Defendants can
not deny that have entered into a joint venture where there is political design or political
coercion; that is a manipulation scheme that in operation mode or through the directions in
the sequence events the Defendants intended goal is for the Plaintiff to lose control or the
ability to claim possession of the estate and property. 18 USC 1343 the instrument of
crime is identified as proximate cause the Defendants as author utilized television, radio
and satellite communication initiated a campaign that change the demeanor of the listening
and viewing audience. The intent is create resentments and opposition or undue rejection;
thus created political tension surrounding the matter; a deceptive practice or deceptive
design for the Defendants to gain an advantage from the public, peers and other
government agency officials. The Defendants wish to ignore and defeat the law from that
approval; basically created a political "smokescreen ", a mispresentation to facilitate the
power to apply an unreasonable freeze. The Defendants sought the approval of the public at
large to oppress the Plaintiff; in an unfair contest to gain possession the estate. This should
present before the en banc court as extraordinary means of duress by scheme 18 USC 1344.
The Defendants intended result is malversation of public property and money or termed in
fact as spoliation inheritance; knowing that the accounts in controversy is a irrevocable
trust. This is mismanagement through the assertion of duress that is creating interference or
impede the legitimate function of the US Treasury to settle a moral debt. The Defendant
attempt to defeat the law, escape the fiduciary duties; evade or abandon a previously
determined obligation or payment to the Plaintiff. The activity is contrary to the "honest
services" and "good faith" handling of private money or private land United States v
Czubinski, F. 3d 1069,1076 (1St Cir. 1997). The material fact; United States v. Manion,
339 F. 3d 1153,156 (91h Cir.2003). United States v Crandall No. 06 -5059, 06 -50593 (9th
Cir. 2008). The Defendants have the intent and exhibit through by a political foreseeable
scheme created a circumstance that would complicate the ability for the Plaintiff to gain
control and possession of the assets of the estate; direction and order to" imply" pecuniary
harm of the innocent account holder or "imply" pecuniary harm I to the "innocent land
owner" is a "wrongful" species of complication, duress and malice in those type matters
46 Appendix 322. The value of estate nor the value of securities; does not excuse offensive
conduct of a government official; 12 USC 3416 the court cannot excuse the application of
law where there is illicit acts or improper motive. The court cannot fail the public interest,
cannot fail the public safety and the court must be just and consistent with a judicial
process in the examination of a financial institution. 42 USC 1986. United States v
Beccerra, 155 F. 3d 740, 752 (5th Cir. 1998). Cleveland v United States, 531 U.S. 12,121 S.
Ct. 365, 148 L. Ed. 2d 221(2000). The Defendants use extraordinary means in aggressive
excitement of others where there assertion and change that has intentional results in the loss
of land and money. The Plaintiff is targeted with duress and malice; to raise the potential
for injury and loss of estate. The communications between the Defendants and the
incorporation of others in communications, the active participation any of the actors
involved is agreement. A political manufactured unlawful action by a unlawful manner is
an overtortious act in furtherance of agreement or collaboration where the affect would
cause a loss and cognizable injury. Halberstam v Welch 705 F. 2d 472, 227 U.S. App.
D.C. (DC Cir. 1983). The Defendants due to their authorship or from their originating
direction and administrative orders are liable by the legal parameters of civil conspiracy
action or activities; in which under norm circumstances and with a reasonable amount of
care there would no duress, there would be no potential for conflict, thus there would not
be any amount specific implied agitation from the public at large and there would no
specific implications verbal conveyance from public figures that might manifest agitation
later where a conflict may occur between the Plaintiff and another would be person; excited
from the telecommunications media throughout the United States broadcast audience. The
Plaintiff would not have acquired any force, subject to no retaliation and there would be
matters of concern in oppressive action. 18 USC 1344 the Defendants create a suspicious
circumstance to maintain control of asset and estate that is clearly prohibited in the
"Practice before Department of the US Treasury 31 USC 330. 18 USC 1001 support 18
USC 1344 is it "unlawful and fraud "; for any member of the executive branch in the US
Government to obtain or conceal in which to procure any property by any administrative
scheme or political design. The Bill of Attainer gives the court grounds for judicial
confrontation by Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 11(b) to show cause and answer to
the allegation. Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 12 (2)(3) this matter has not be
litigated before a jury the 28 USC 1291 is judicial powers Article III section 2 to nullify the
action of Defendants, Plaintiff use the Seventh Amendment to confront the Defendants;
they violate the 5th and 14th Amendments that is the civil rule in rights of land, money and
the basic civil liberties.
Date: September 15, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
DECLARATION OF TONY C. BARRINO
I, TONY C. BARRING, declare:
1.) I am Pro Se, acting on my own behalf and represent my self in the above action.
I make this declaration to support Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing and
the original Complaint filed herewith. The facts set forth are true with my
personal knowledge.
2.) The Complaint, previous supplements attached to Petition for Petition En Banc
and Rehearing along with this Judicial Notice; filed in the Charlotte Division. US
District Court North Carolina Western District and I file this notice in the US Court
of Appeals 4th District to all documentations of evidence to be true and correct in
this action.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this day of September, 2011; at Salisbury, North Carolina.
Tony Curtis Barrino
Plaintiff/Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
Signed and Sworn before me on this
Salisbury, North Carolina
Notary Public
My Commission expires on
day of September, 2011 at
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff
V
US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendants
APPEALS NO. 11 -1713
Memorandum of Law to Support Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing
Points to compel further process as bank fraud and concealment of estate
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) due to the of duress, aggravating factors,
intent to defraud or extraordinary efforts in action to defeat the law to evade obligation of
fiduciary duty by infliction of direct pecuniary harm by an direct affects of civil conspiracy
by a political design that would negate an honest service or in the concealment the
Defendant plan a wrongful transfer, procurement or obtainment of asset belonging to the
Plaintiff. 18 USC 1344 Halberstam v Welch, United v Crandall the Defendant show no
respect for the law, ignore the deterrence ofstatutory provisions where ;in their capacities,
colors, in the official rights as officers should have understood and adhered in a functional
knowledge. There is the intent and goal of an to gain by an illicit action or in the intent of a
illicit benefit. United States v Manion There is a clear conspiratorial objective that is
clearly exaction due to the undue and unjust implementation of administrative freeze. The
petition before the en banc court is supported by evidence, facts and display of obvious
overact. Griffin v United States, 502 U.S. 46,112 S. Ct 466 the Defendants initiated
multiple or sequence of events and actions in which affect the Plaintiff with political duress
and oppression. The intent subject or the objective of the political agitation concerning the
situation manifest a dramatic event; therefore the Defendants created an increased risk for
loss or created a direct affect of pecuniary harm where under norm circumstances would
not have occurred with an incitement of political scheme or political design by Defendants.
The Defendants utilized or coerced the entire political party in this scheme of conflict of
interest and by accruing political opposition to improve the political statue of the party in
the procurement of asset involved United States v States, McCoy, Morgan 488 F. 2d 761
(e Cir. 1973) the Defendants violate 18 USC 205. The Defendants involved the
Democratic party campaigned or involved the public in the issue where they conveyed they
needed the public support to where in the capacities of their office by taking the asset
involved; the members of the Democratic Party, the Democratic supporters and the
individual Defendants would benefit. 18 USC 1343 the campaign was a deceptive and
elaborate scheme that also combined use propaganda tactics via audible satellite
communications systems as well as television and radio broadcast. The situation is
political coercion where the Defendants actions show a sophisticated modality to or
encroach to take the property and asset of the estate. The secondary motive is improved
political consideration or for improved political gain; the money procurement or by an
illicit benefit would assist in securing and controlling a political office; prohibited in the
"official right of office" section 2404 of the Hobbs Act. 18 USC 1344 the Defendants
devised an elaborate scheme, deceptive in the honest service, failed in the continuance in
the legitimate function to close the transfer on the obligations of moral debt settlement in
lineal descendancy. The Defendants are authors of a manipulation scheme of
telecommunications design that incite duress and coercion against the Plaintiff that
obstructs, impede the uncomplicated transfer of property asset and interfere in the overall
function of the US Treasury in the matter. The scheme involves a transfer or an outside
depository; or a outside financial institution where the first deposit was set aside for the
Plaintiff to take over and freely access. United States v Booker 543 US 220 the facts can
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt ; M the Defendants commanded, induced or
willfully cause (2) in their authority uses sophisticated concealment technique that impact
the Plaintiff (3) the recognized the Plaintiff was susceptible and vulnerable; the knew the
Plaintiff did not have full knowledge of nor have an absolute understanding about the
computer brain interface system on his physical person in the Defendants use and direct or
order to gain an advantage (4) the Defendants disrupt a governmental function (5) there is
coercion due to intent to threaten, proximate cause of injury (6) the matter involves the
public welfare and involves national security in the illicit use of government satellite or
Department of Defense computer and satellites systems; the brain computer is government
designed and operated (7) the matter manifest a illicit, criminal modalities and means to
conceal the action reflect the Defendants conduct ( 8) the Defendants inflict intentional
psychological injury or distress due to the Defendants order, scheme and operative;
attempted to impair the Plaintiff intellectual ability to process the transfer by judicial
means (21 obstruct the administration of justice because they evade, impede or is
attempting to obstruct the investigation and examination of a financial institution. In re
United States v Stephian, No. 08 -1053 570 F. 3d (1St Cir. 2009) at 55 the Defendants are
in scheme to withhold the Plaintiff bank access card and withhold the information. United
States v Yagar, 404 F. 3d 967, 971 (6th 2005) the is reasonable foreseeable pecuniary harm
that results from the offense; the Plaintiff suffered an adverse affect form the defendants
conduct. United States v Lee, 427 F. 3d 881, 895 (1 lth 2005) the court must address the
actual and intended loss where the Defendants provoke a subjective intent in calculation of
compensation and compensatory liabilities caused by the Defendants conduct United
States v Confredo, 528 F. 3d 143 (2d 2008) the Defendants order and directive to exceed
lawful allowance or abort the actual intent and proper usage of brain computer interface
facilitated and created an intrusion to gain improper advantage for illicit benefit due to
physical duress by trespassing or manipulating the norm intellectual faculties is pecuniary
harm to gain, control or conceal asset in the US Treasury and the other accounts set aside
in a sister financial institution.It is criminal to exceed access to government computer
system know the nature or species in reason at that time is was illicit and unauthorized to
any interference or adverse signalling that impede or change the normal function of that
that computer system. Sawyer v Department of Air Force, 31 M.S.P.R. 193,196
(M.S.P.B. 1986) 18 USC 1030 those order and direction are unlawful because the adverse
change due to connections to satellite communications that involve 18 USC 1343 television
and radio, a person or person cannot cause an individual interference, usage or operations
distortion, the deprivation of property or asset from that manipulation of that particular
telecommunications and joint computer system; proximate causation of those illicit intent
or actions of accessing into that system. The Plaintiff has bio- medical appliance
connections to that bio- computer (brain computer interface). The Defendants as officials of
the executive branch must respect the rights of the citizen in a government affairs or where
there is government commerce of securities and properties to claim. 18 USC 1001 the Bill
of Attainer insure there should not any species or design of duress, encumbrance of
oppression whatsoever 18 USC 1343 the use telecommunication where there is
empowerment to facilitate a executive administrative freeze while in that placement or in
active there is the intent and expectation of dramatic where under normal circumstance
would be occurring, the Defendants as executive branch pushed into malice into the
public, produced political agitation and duress to attain an advantage 46 Appenix 322; a
political designed scheme where is the Plaintiff subject created a situational change, created
suspicious or aggravated circumstances; obviously a exigent circumstance. In essence
produced a hostile environment of a "Moral Hazard' and "Moral Turpritude" in which a
loss would occur.Cleveland v United States 531 U.S. 12, 121 S. Ct 365, 148 L. Ed 2d 221
(2000). 18 656 and 18 USC 641 the Defendant conceals the asset by unlawful design and
illicit manner to gain control. Spoliation Inheritance or malversation of an irrevocable trust
in the aggravated and intentional malicious incited participation of others is unlawful 42
USC 1986. Article III section 2 the Defendants are liable in ethics or actions of a federal
officer or politician United States v Czubinski. The Petition En Banc, the entire complaint
and supporting supplements shock the judicial conscience has 9 indicators that would
weigh upon the court in the standards of United States Sentencing Guidelines; Federal
Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 11 the federal court should request the Defendants to "show
cause ". There is enough misconduct in the matter, true facts and "essential conduct
elements" of a crime qualify United States v Rodriquez- Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280
(1999) to warrant to trial by jury and investigate for a just disposition or settlement 31 USC
3733 in civil matter concerning the US Treasury. Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule
60.
Date
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff
V
US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendants
APPEALS NO. 11 -1713
Memorandum of Law to Support Petition for Petition En Banc and Rehearing
Points to compel further process as bank fraud and concealment of estate
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) due to the of duress, aggravating factors,
intent to defraud or extraordinary efforts in action to defeat the law to evade obligation of
fiduciary duty by infliction of direct pecuniary harm by an direct affects of civil conspiracy
by a political design that would negate an honest service or in the concealment the
Defendant plan a wrongful transfer, procurement or obtainment of asset belonging to the
Plaintiff. 18 USC 1344 Halberstam v Welch, United v Crandall the Defendant show no
respect for the law, ignore the deterrence ofstatutory provisions where ;in their capacities,
colors, in the official rights as officers should have understood and adhered in a functional
knowledge. There is the intent and goal of an to gain by an illicit action or in the intent of a
illicit benefit. United States v Manion There is a clear conspiratorial objective that is
clearly exaction due to the undue and unjust implementation of administrative freeze. The
petition before the en banc court is supported by evidence, facts and display of obvious
overact. Griffin v United States, 502 U.S. 46, 112 S. Ct 466 the Defendants initiated
multiple or sequence of events and actions in which affect the Plaintiff with political duress
and oppression. The intent subject or the objective of the political agitation concerning the
situation manifest a dramatic event; therefore the Defendants created an increased risk for
loss or created a direct affect of pecuniary harm where under norm circumstances would
not have occurred with an incitement of political scheme or political design by Defendants.
The Defendants utilized or coerced the entire political party in this scheme of conflict of
interest and by accruing political opposition to improve the political statue of the party in
the procurement of asset involved United States v States, McCoy, Morgan 488 F. 2d 761
(8th Cir. 1973) the Defendants violate 18 USC 205. The Defendants involved the
Democratic party campaigned or involved the public in the issue where they conveyed they
needed the public support to where in the capacities of their office by taking the asset
involved; the members of the Democratic Party, the Democratic supporters and the
individual Defendants would benefit. 18 USC 1343 the campaign was a deceptive and
elaborate scheme that also combined use propaganda tactics via audible satellite
communications systems as well as television and radio broadcast. The situation is
political coercion where the Defendants actions show a sophisticated modality to or
encroach to take the property and asset of the estate. The secondary motive is improved
political consideration or for improved political gain; the money procurement or by an
illicit benefit would assist in securing and controlling a political office; prohibited in the
"official right of office" section 2404 of the Hobbs Act. 18 USC 1344 the Defendants
devised an elaborate scheme, deceptive in the honest service, failed in the continuance in
the legitimate function to close the transfer on the obligations of moral debt settlement in
lineal descendancy. The Defendants are authors of a manipulation scheme of
telecommunications design that incite duress and coercion against the Plaintiff that
obstructs, impede the uncomplicated transfer of property asset and interfere in the overall
function of the US Treasury in the matter. The scheme involves a transfer or an outside
depository; or a outside financial institution where the first deposit was set aside for the
Plaintiff to take over and freely access. United States v Booker 543 US 220 the facts can
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt ; (1) the Defendants commanded, induced or
willfully cause (2) in their authority uses sophisticated concealment technique that impact
the Plaintiff (3) the recognized the Plaintiff was susceptible and vulnerable; the knew the
Plaintiff did not have full knowledge of nor have an absolute understanding about the
computer brain interface system on his physical person in the Defendants use and direct or
order to gain an advantage (4) the Defendants disrupt a governmental function (5) there is
coercion due to intent to threaten, proximate cause of injury (6) the matter involves the
public welfare and involves national security in the illicit use of government satellite or
Department of Defense computer and satellites systems; the brain computer is government
designed and operated (7) the matter manifest a illicit, criminal modalities and means to
conceal the action reflect the Defendants conduct ( 8) the Defendants inflict intentional
psychological injury or distress due to the Defendants order, scheme and operative;
attempted to impair the Plaintiff intellectual ability to process the transfer by judicial
means (21 obstruct the administration of justice because they evade, impede or is
attempting to obstruct the investigation and examination of a financial institution. In re
United States v Stephian, No. 08 -1053 570 F. 3d (1St Cir. 2009) at 55 the Defendants are
in scheme to withhold the Plaintiff bank access card and withhold the information. United
States v Yagar, 404 F. 3d 967, 971 (6th 2005) the is reasonable foreseeable pecuniary harm
that results from the offense; the Plaintiff suffered an adverse affect form the defendants
conduct. United States v Lee, 427 F. 3d 881, 895 (11th 2005) the court must address the
actual and intended loss where the Defendants provoke a subjective intent in calculation of
compensation and compensatory liabilities caused by the Defendants conduct United
States v Confredo, 528 F. 3d 143 (2d 2008) the Defendants order and directive to exceed
lawful allowance or abort the actual intent and proper usage of brain computer interface
facilitated and created an intrusion to gain improper advantage for illicit benefit due to
physical duress by trespassing or manipulating the norm intellectual faculties is pecuniary
harm to gain, control or conceal asset in the US Treasury and the other accounts set aside
in a sister financial institution.It is criminal to exceed access to government computer
system know the nature or species in reason at that time is was illicit and unauthorized to
any interference or adverse signalling that impede or change the normal function of that
that computer system. Sawyer v Department of Air Force, 31 M.S.P.R. 193, 196
(M.S.P.B. 1986) 18 USC 1030 those order and direction are unlawful because the adverse
change due to connections to satellite communications that involve 18 USC 1343 television
and radio, a person or person cannot cause an individual interference, usage or operations
distortion, the deprivation of property or asset from that manipulation of that particular
telecommunications and joint computer system; proximate causation of those illicit intent
or actions of accessing into that system. The Plaintiff has bio- medical appliance
connections to that bio- computer (brain computer interface). The Defendants as officials of
the executive branch must respect the rights of the citizen in a government affairs or where
there is government commerce of securities and properties to claim. 18 USC 1001 the Bill
of Attainer insure there should not any species or design of duress, encumbrance of
oppression whatsoever 18 USC 1343 the use telecommunication where there is
empowerment to facilitate a executive administrative freeze while in that placement or in
active there is the intent and expectation of dramatic where under normal circumstance
would be occurring, the Defendants as executive branch pushed into malice into the
public, produced political agitation and duress to attain an advantage 46 Appenix 322; a
political designed scheme where is the Plaintiff subject created a situational change, created
suspicious or aggravated circumstances; obviously a exigent circumstance. In essence
produced a hostile environment of a "Moral Hazard" and "Moral Turpritude" in which a
loss would occur.Cleveland v United States 531 U.S. 12, 121 S. Ct 365, 148 L. Ed 2d 221
(2000). 18 656 and 18 USC 641 the Defendant conceals the asset by unlawful design and
illicit manner to gain control. Spoliation Inheritance or malversation of an irrevocable trust
in the aggravated and intentional malicious incited participation of others is unlawful 42
USC 1986. Article III section 2 the Defendants are liable in ethics or actions of a federal
officer or politician United States v Czubinski. The Petition En Banc, the entire complaint
and supporting supplements shock the judicial conscience has 9 indicators that would
weigh upon the court in the standards of United States Sentencing Guidelines; Federal
Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 11 the federal court should request the Defendants to "show
cause ". There is enough misconduct in the matter, true facts and "essential conduct
elements" of a crime qualify United States v Rodriquez- Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280
(1999) to warrant to trial by jury and investigate for a just disposition or settlement 31 USC
3733 in civil matter concerning the US Treasury. Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule
60.
Date
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff/Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
V
MOTION FOR EN BANC
RECONSIDERATION
US Dept of Treasury
Timothy Giethner APPEAL NO. 11 -1713
Barack Obama
Defendants
MOTION FOR ENBANC RECONSIDERATION, MOTION TO VACATE PREVIOUS
ORDER and DEMAND TO DEFENDANTS ANSWER ON THE PREVIOUS MOTIONS
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, acting on his own behalf, hereby moves this Honorable
Court to enter an Order to Vacate to Judgment entered and offers in support the
following:
BACKGROUND
1. On October 25th, 2011 the court denied petition en banc, the Plaintiff on October
26th, 2011 submitted Motion to Compel, October 19th, 2011 submitted a Motion
for Discovery and Answer. The Plaintiff submitted memorandums of law in
attempts or with diligence to narrow the administrative issue that surround
concealment and attempted to show the court further issue in the financial, real
estate and civil torts; in doing so the Plaintiff has highlighted all issue that would
have rendered a different judgment. The Plaintiff was clarifying matter or
questions that may have arose in the en banc review that where very profoundly
relevant and mitigating facts in those memorandums. The Defendant are in
concealment of property, securities and delay transaction of accounts with
1 of 6
adverse acts, action and non - advantageous political vigilance directed or target at
the Plaintiff; the Defendants are causing duress over a financial and estate matter
since January 2009.
2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (44a) The Defendants are exceeding the
constitution boundaries of their office by initiated and using the executive order
powers of office; that is political or congressional support by solicitation. The
executive order are illicit sanctions that freeze monetary accounts, jeopardize
property loss and specific or cognizable damages to Plaintiff. The previous
motions clarify, explain and details the matter is sufficient or the situation is
serious enough re- review; the whole situation is complex and convoluted. The
Plaintiff as pro se it is difficult to present the matter before your court and ask for
leniency in the review and requests in due process to achieve a just disposition.
The Petition and Motions are well pled; the motion should be treat as collateral
attack against the previous orders, judgment and as well as against the
Defendants powers and functioning scheme or activities to compel for different
conclusion or different disposition; the motion should be allowed in this action as
collateral attack as efforts to launch further proceeding. The matter should be
challenge considering the amount of issues in the element or matter; the court must
allow the Plaintiff to impeach and overturn the original judgment and orders. The
orders are without a supported conclusion; the petition and motions raised enough
substantial issue that cannot be overlooked which indicative for the en banc to
remand the previous order and pursue the Defendants. Federal Civil Rule of
Procedure 47b the Plaintiff is at a disadvantage; the Defendants must be served
2 of 6
with an actual notice of the requirement, the Defendants have placed illicit
sanctions and oppressive in the color of their office. The court must practice in a
manner that are consistent with law; the Plaintiff manner of pursuit by submitting
motion Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 16 and 37 is reasonable diligence.
Federal Civil of Procedure 16 can be used in any action before the court as long
as it timely, the court should take into consideration this a difficult lawsuit or
situation, the Defendants present a unusual problem due executive privilege and
the amount of money involved; the motion should be allowed to assist the dispute
in the petition. A petition is enough to take the property, securities and acquire the
transaction of the money account to the lawful or rightful owner with the
assistance of Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 37 that foregoing in due process as
well to cease and desist the actions of the Defendants. Federal Civil Rules of
Procedure 27 the previous motions should be allowed they have relevant merit
against a frivolous defense and erroneous or undue assertion on the behalf of the
Defendants; the Plaintiff and the en banc must have collateral attack, to fight and
guard against unconstitutional abuse of power and criminal negligent procedure or
act of the Defendants. The court should allow the motions to be successful as
judicial screening or review mechanism as collateral attack for a substantial or just
opinion. The Defendants "must identify the specific facts that further discovery
would reveal and explain why these facts would preclude summary judgment."
Tatum v. San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). United States v.
Wood, 364 F.3d 704, 725 (6th Cir. 2004); S J v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 374 F.3d
416, 423 n.5 (6th Cir. 2004); Sheets v. Moore, 97 F.3d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1996); see
also Sixth Cir. R. 206(c) ( "Reported panel opinions are binding on subsequent
3 of 6
panels. "). See also Sixth Cir. R. 28(g) (citation of unpublished opinions is
"disfavored," but permissible "[i]f a party believes ... that an unpublished disposition
has precedential value in relation to a material issue in a case, and that there is no
published opinion that would serve as well .... "); Oviedo v. Jago, 809 F.2d 326, 329
n.3 (6th Cir. 1987) (relying on unpublished decision because "the panel's reasoning
[is] sound and its decision supported by the existing law "). The matter before court
is an aggravated estate concealment issue, property or accounts mismanagement
(fraudulent and duress), civil torts and wrongful government procedures acts. A lot
of the torts in this matter is invisible that is why the Plaintiff is using precedent
opinion in the memorandums to narrow this issue; the Petition and Motions are
not colored nor speculative in the presentation before the court.
3. The en banc panel should grant the reconsideration due to fact the Defendants are
absconding wrongful by the Uniformed Transfer Act that is mandated for
lawsuit be dealt without question or further delay. The outstanding facts in issue
could not be present to the open appellate court, nor from the district court and
due to petition restriction. The previous judgment is open to collateral attack by
motion Bell v Eastman Kodak Company, No. 98 -4142 (7th Cir. 2000).
4. There is procedure concerns and abuses by the executive branch; the Attorney
General Office is wrongful to allow wrongful procedure, wrongful to allow
illicit sanctions or unreasonable freeze and trespass civil liberties. The en banc
court should reconsider this matter, the panel must make sure that it is
4of6
constitutionally adequate due to the obvious fact there are procedural acts that
infringe on the citizen, United States v Tovar, 975 F. 2d 592, 595 (91h Cir. 1992) (en
banc); United States v Jimenez Maromleio; United States v Leon -Leon, 35 F. 3d
1428 (9th Cir. 1994). The court must rule or reverse on the conflict of interest statues
of the US Government due to improper procedure with executive sanction and
ordered directives that cause the Plaintiff undue duress in financial matters. The
Defendants are violating 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 641 they are connecting statues
of 18 USC 1006.
5. There is economic coercion due to illicit sanctions or unreasonable freeze. The
court is committing extrinsic fraud by in the denial of the petition and not
allowing the motion in as reasonable diligence. The en banc must in the interest
of justice and in the appearance of corruption amend the previous order; the
Defendants in this matter have obvious misconduct. The Plaintiff has enough
grounds, present issue in element and allegation as fact manifest intent. Federal
Civil Rules of Procedure 59 the matter should be reviewed again by en banc
court and the Defendants should answer the court order and /or settle this lawsuit
28 USC 2347 the Plaintiff has right for a adequate review, the Plaintiff is subject
to much of a financial loss and there too much civil torts involved in the en banc
not have different.
WHEREFORE, I, Tony Barrino; respectfully requests that the Court enter an
Order to Vacate the Judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
5 of 6
Date: October 28th, 2011
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704)637 -9355
6 of 6
JUST ONE (91 INFRACTION ON THE UNIFORM FRUADULENT TRANSFER ACT INDICTMENT IS
MANDATORY - - -THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SEVERAL "OBSCONDING" PLUS 9 OTHER INDICATORS
ON THE US SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN FRAUD CRIME OR ACTIVIES
BARACK AND HILLARY PLANNED THIS WHOLE SITUATIO SINCE 2008 ... TIRED OF
THEIR RATIONALIZATION - -- FRAUDSTERS DO THAT OFTEN BECAUSE THEY FEEL
THAT ARE JUSTIFIED IN MANIPULATION OF THE LAW AND THE CUSTOMER OR
INDIVIDUAL - -- IN OTHER THE FRAUDSTER FEEL THEY ARE BETTER OR SMARTER
THAT IS GENERALLY THE REASON PEOPLE TRY FRAUD .... "VULNERABILTY" THE
COMPUTER THEY THOUGHT WOULD GIVE THEM AN EDGE ACTUALLY THEY ARE
JUST PLAINLY STALKING.... JUST PLAINLY STALKING A "CYBERCRIME"
BARACK - GIETHNER- HILLARY AND THE WHOLE CREW HAVA SEVERAL
DIFFERENT INFRACTIONS OR INDICATORS /ASPECTS OF ILLICT FRAUDULENT
ACTS--- "FIDUCIACARY DUTIES" HONEST SERVICES PREMIDITATED WRONGFUL
TRANSFERE AND CONCEALMENT IS ENCOMPASSED IN FRAUD EXCEUTIVE
ORDER TO FREEZE THEN DIRECTED OR INFLICT "TARGETED DURESS OR MALUS
OPPRESSIVE ACTVITIES AND POLITICAL OPPISITION --- PLUS YOU OBSTUCTED
THE COURTS OR IMPROPER INFLUENCE---- "OBSTRCTION ENHANCED CASES ARE
NOTHING TO PLAY WITH THEY ARE VERY HARSH - - - -BY OMNIBUS 1513 IF YOU
HARASS OR IN FLICT ANY DURESS OF ANY TYPE ESPECIALLY A MONEY OR
LAND ISSUE VERY UGLY IN THE EYE OF COURT - -- VIOLATING OMNIBUS IS A
FORM OR OBSTRUCTION - - - -18 USC 73 OR 18 USC 373 EXAMINATION OF
FINANCIAL CORRUPT OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES WITHINA FINANCIAL
INSITITUTION.
PLEASE "RESEARCH" ----"'FRAUD TRIANGLE" ON GOOGLE - - -- YOU WILL LEARN
A LOT ABOUT FRUAD - -- FRAUD DRIVERS OR CULPRETS ARE USUALLY POLITICAL
SOCIAL OR CULTURAL -- -THE G -30 AND THE PRESIDENT FIT IN ALL THREE
CATAGORIES -OF HOW OR WHY THERE ARE VERY MUCH NOT IN THE PROPER
ETHICS OF GOVERNMENT AND VERY UGLY GROSSLY ILLICT BY BANKING AND
FINANCAL INSTITUTION STANDARDS - -- THIS RECKLESS DISREGARD BY BARACK
GIET14NER AND HILLARY DOES NOT MEET A BANK STANDARDS ANYWHERE -
UGLY AND SUSPICIOUS IN THE "NORMS" OF BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN WHICH
TO SOLVE ISSUES AND SETTLEMENT
IFA GROUP OF PEOPLE WITHA BANK WORKAND PLANNED IN COLLABORATION
TO "HARM OR KILL A ACCOUNT HOLDER FOR THEIR LAND AND "CLEAN OUT
THAT BANKACCOUNT" JUST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE OR WHAT REASON
THEY FITS TO DO SUCH..... THEY WOULD PUT THE EMPLOYEES 25 FEET UNDER
THE BANK FOR STUFFLIKE THIS OR IN THIS SITUATIONIT WOULD RUINA
BANK FOREVER.-NOBODY WOULD BANK WITH THEM EVER
AGAIN. — EXECUTIVE PRIVIDLEDGE DOES NOT ALLOW TO THROW OUT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OVERLOOK BANK LAW ON WHOM
EVER YOU FEEL D UE TO THE AMOUNT MONEY THEY HAVE- ---" THE AMOUNT
MONEY INVOL VED THE HARDER THE COURT ARE ON PEOPLE THAT INFLICT
DURESS OF ANY KIND ENGAGE IN FRA UD ULENT AND DECEPTIVE MANNERS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff
1
DEPT. OF US TREASURY APPEAL NO. 11 -1713
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO SUPPORT PETITION FOR PETITION
EN BANC AND REHEARING
Herron v United States, 825 F. 2d 50 (5`h Cir. 1987) with intent to defraud, participates in,
shares in, or receives directly or indirectly any money, profit, property or benefit through an
illicit act, order or actions. Beaudine v United States, 368 F.2d 47 (5`h 1996) the federal
government made efforts to be free of fraud, deception and corruption. The Plaintiff as pursuant
against the Defendants; Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 11(b) it makes no difference
whether the objective was fraud; the defendants objective was "to obtain a sophisticated
advantage and process or cause the principal or accounts loss by a wrongful transfer" 368 F. 2d
at 420. The focus should be placed on the officers; the Defendants as US Government agents and
government political officials that intentionally jeopardize the Plaintiff, customer, beneficiary or
the claimant. US Treasury transactions are insulated by statues that mandate the functions or the
transactions are carried out with clear and uncomplicated government trust relationship that must
be maintained by the US Treasury as an institution in commerce with beneficiaries, claimants
and customers. The Defendants as officer or government representatives have a personal interest
or seek personal gain; by their powers of office or position administratively aggravated with
undue freeze implementation to delayed transaction or by a complicated concealment artifice;
United States v L.J. Munna, 871 F. 2d 515 No. 88 -3393 (5`h 1989) the Defendants as officials
are prohibited to gain any directly or indirectly; where there is government money management,
where the government is origin to and transfer into trust accounts from securities holding or
where funds are being applied and used. The Estate of Washington George; the land or acreage
of Mt. Vernon Virginia, the erect properties the gold tonnage and the workable cash account
are set aside to claim. The status in that management to transfer is a irrevocable trust, personal
government security account and open estate or lineal descendancy settlement debt. The property
should not contested or concealed by any aggravated modalities; the US Treasury and US
Government established intent to settle a moral debt prior the administrative interference or
direct duress against the Plaintiff by the Defendants. 18 USC 1006 the Defendants are employed
and governed by the laws of a financial institution; the government and treasury is disqualified to
appropriate, unlawful in unreasonable seizure, unexplainable delay and exert inexcusable illicit
activities against the Plaintiff to regain control. Maxsugarman Funeral Home Inc. v ADB
Investor, 926 F. 2d 1248, 1254 (Is' Cir. 1991) the En Banc court or 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
can where a reasonable person with reasonable judicial exhaustion would be conclude that
fraudulent intent is present in this matter. 18 USC 1001 the Defendants conceal, delay, aggravate
and complicate with administrative duress the of transfer property to the Plaintiff. 42 USC 1986
the Defendants are the authors in which they created a conflict of interest and created political
opposition or political conjecture among the public and involved other government officials to
assist in the furtherance to support a hostile concealment of money and property or asset. 18
USC 1343 the Defendants utilized the telecommunications in various modalities to cause a
political change, assert oppressive conjecture and used telecommunication to incite dramatic
event direct at the Plaintiff, intentional result of pecuniary harm. In the attack of Defendants
credibility and show no fabrication, coloring or insure that is not a speculative pursuit Federal
Civil Rules of Evidence 806 the Plaintiff has capabilities in grand jury investigation or open
court to prove the intent for financial loss, intentional dolus malus; on numerous from political
venues or telecommunications venues there is directed or suggested violence aggression directed
against Plaintiff. State v Torres No. 26904 (S. C. Supreme Court 2010) the En Banc Court
should be aware that video is available with these defendants in full view at different political
venue and television broadcast venue since 2009 speak in malus or speak with promotion for
conjecture; where a reasonable person would that the Defendants have no good intentions to
transfer and they conclude that by displayed behavior or viewed individual political demeanor
the Defendants goal is pecuniary harm, concealment and duress concerning the matter in
controversy. The video that is available where this matter is in discussion attack the credibility
and integrity of Defendants; manifest the intent and show causation of duress in which the
Defendants negatively affected the Plaintiff s civil liberties. The Defendants intentionally
diminished the Plaintiff s "elbow room" and adverse affect the "right to space to survive ". 18
USC 1344 is the simplified issue or question in the matter before the en banc court the simple
goal was or is evade of honest services and defeat the law where the transfer of asset aggravated
with a political species of duress. 18 USC 1006 is supported by the Bill of Attainder Clause
the Defendants are unlawful in the use of executive order and unlawful in the use government
operative or political non - advantageous movement in the furtherance to deprive the Plaintiff's
liberties of access to assets or property. Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act should deter
Defendants from absconding by misuse office with an executive privilege and qualified
immunity or political immunity. Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 11(b) the Defendants need to
"show cause ". The Plaintiff moves the court to moves the case to docket 28 USC 2347 the
evidence and facts are sufficient for proceedings 18 USC 641 the Defendants are concealing
assets and property viewed in the examination of a financial institution as "bank fraud ". 31 USC
330 the Defendants fail to adhere to the statues that force the legitimate functions without
political coercion and be without aggravated obstruction
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: 3rd October, 2011
Tony Curtis Barrino
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 637 -9355
.---"OR DURESS" – OMNIBUS 1513- 1503" .
On OBAMA — G30 VIOLATE THE PATRIOT ACT 700 COUNTS
intent to defruad
Sat, 1018111, Tony Barrino <tri1sen21@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Tony Barrino <tri1sen21 @yahoo.com>
Subject: TRILLIONAIRE COMM INCATIONS-- MEDIA/PRESS RELEASE -ALERT &
MEMO -SICK AND TIRED OF GIETHNER AND OBAMA OBSCONDING BY
VIOLATING THE PATRIOT ACT TO CAUSE MANIA -- -SICK AND TIRED OF "MANIA"
WITH SATELLITE COMMUNICATION ... FROM THE OBAMA GEHADIST UPPER
ECHELON REFUGEES
To: HLNHelpDesk @cnn.com
Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 7:45 PM
Q
C!!►!!►, OPRAH AND BARACK VIOLATE THE PATRIOT ACT BY WIRE FRAUD
WITH THE INTENT TO COMMT BANK FRUAD!!!!
OPRAH AND THE BLACK UPPER ECHELON BY BEING ON THE US SATELLITE
SYSTEMS VIOLATE THE PATRIOT ACT IN A ILLICIT CYBER ACTIVITY IN ASSERT
DURESS FROM OR FOR POLITICAL INFLUENCE THAT AFFECTS TRILLIONAIRE IN A
LOSS OR INJURY - -- OPRAH AND HER ASSISTANTS CAN LOSS THEIR ASSET IF A
LOSS OCCURS OR INJURY OCCURS TO MR. BARRINO ---- "CIVIL CONSPIRACY
WITH THE COMMIT BANK FRAUD "....INTERFREING BY THE USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COERCION OR CAUSATION THAT CONCERN THE
LEGITITMATE FUNCTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS OF THE US TREASURY
[edit] Cyberterrorism & cybersecurity
Cybercrime crime committed using a computer
AND stalk victims or causation to disrupt
through the use of satellite communications
and microchip implant
PATRIOT ACT
TRILLIONAIRE SHOULD NOT BE UNDER ANY CIVIL
THREAT OR DURESS WHAT SO EVER WILL
CONNECTED TO THE BCI COMPUTER AND
SATELLITE SYSTEM
BARACK AND GIETHNER COULD FACE 700 COUNTS
OF "INTENT" TO DEFRAUD — FOR EVERYDAY
TRILSEN HAS BEEN ATTACK WHILE ON THE
SYSTEM (SINCE INITITATION OF EXECUTIVE
ORDER AND DIRECTIONS EARLY2009)
Intent to defraud is the intention to deceive others. It involves a specific intention to cheat others,
for causing financial loss to others or bringing financial gain to one's self. Intend to defraud can
also include an intention to deceive others, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon
such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power of a
property.
948 Intent to Defraud
The government must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Diggs, 613
F.2d 988, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ( "Because only'a scheme to defraud' and not actual fraud is required, proof of
fraudulent intent is critical. "), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); see also United States v. Costanzo, 4 F.3d 658, 664
(8th Cir. 1993) (intent is an essential element inquiry is whether defendants intended to defraud); United States
v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352, 1358 (2d Cir.) (specific intent requires intent to defraud, not intent to violate the statute),
cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810 (1989); cf. United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ( "Proof that
someone was actually defrauded is unnecessary simply because the critical element in a 'scheme to defraud' is
'fraudulent intent,' Durland v United States 161 U.S. 306 (1896) and therefore the accused need not have
succeeded in his scheme to be guilty of the crime. "); United States v. Bailey, 859 F.2d 1265, 1273 (7th Cir. 1988)
(court held that there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with intent to defraud, that is, "willful
participation in Ethel scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with intent that these illicit obiectives
be achieved." (quoting United States v Price 623 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980),
overruled on other grounds by, United States v. DeBright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1984)), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1010
(1989).
Crui nial Jury Instructions Criminal Jury Instructions
Home
2.3 -6 Intent to Defraud
Revised to December 1, 2007
A person acts with the intent to defraud when (he /she) deceives or tricks another person with the intent
to deprive that person of (his/her) right or in some manner to do (him /her) an iniunr.
The word "defraud" means to practice fraud, to cheat or trick, to deprive a person
of property or any interest or right by fraud, deceit or artifice.
The meaning of "fraud," both in its legal usage and its common usage, is the
same: a deliberately planned purpose and intent to cheat or deceive or unlawfully
deprive someone of some advantage, benefit or property.
"Fraudulently" means done, made or effected with a purpose or design to carry out a fraud
Commentary
See State v DeCaro, 252 Conn. 229, 242 n.12 (2000) ( "defraud"
requires the intent to cause iniury); State v. Yurch, 37 Conn. App. 72,
80 -81, appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 469 (1995) (distinguishing an intent
to defraud from an intent to deceive).
"CREATED A LOSS IN THE INTENT OF PECUINARY
HARM FROM INCITEMENT OR EXCITEMENT
INFLICTION POLITICAL DURESS DIRECT AT MR.
BARRINO /TRILSEN
Several aspects of cyberterrorism are dealt with in title VIII. Under section 814 of the
Patriot Act, it is clarified that punishments apply to those who either damage or gain
unauthorized access to a protected computer and thus causes a person an aggregate loss
greater than $5,000; adverseley affects someone's medical examination, diagnosis or
treatment; causes a person to be iniured; causes a threat to public health or safety; or
causes damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice, national
defense, or national security. It is only through these specific actions that civil action may be
taken against an offender.r3ol Section 814 also prohibits any extortion via a protected
computer, and not just extortion against a "firm, association, educational institution, financial
institution, government entity, or other legal entity ". 31 Punishments were expanded to include
attempted illegal use or access of protected computers. The punishment for attempting to damage
protected computers through the use of viruses or other software mechanism is now
imprisonment for not more than 10 years, while the punishment for unauthorized access and
subsequent damage to a protected computer is now more than 5 years imprisonment. Should the
offense occur a second time, the penalty increases to no more than 20 years imprisonment. The
Federal sentencing guidelines were amended to allow any individual convicted of computer
fraud and abuse to be subjected to appropriate penalties, without regard to any mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment.
Section 816 specifies the development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities. It
directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic laboratories that have
the capability of performing forensic examinations of intercepted computer evidence
relating to criminal activity and cvberterrorism, and that have the capability of training and
educating Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in computer
crime, and to "facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and
information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer - related crime with
State and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, including the use of
multijurisdictional task forces ". US$50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.
Title VIII defines or redefines a number of terms. The terms "domestic terrorism" is already
defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2331 and this was amended by section 802 of the Patriot Act to
include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The
definition encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of
the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or
coerce a civilian population ", "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion" or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States.
When investigating international terrorism, the Attorney General can
investigate:
USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII
threats made to kill or injure another person [441
unauthorised access to protected computers
• the conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad 57
• the killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.,(trilsen has a microchip
and connected to BCI of government design in use modality to assert direct or inflict duress and
coercion)
• torture [23]" "satellite therapy" termed by some --- duresss is torture with signalling that cause
distress - -- "aversive or adverse activity" as termed
Under section 814, a number of terms relating to cvberterrorism were redefined. A "protected
computer" was expanded to include a "computer located inside the United States that is used in a
manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States ",
"damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system,
or information, "conviction" now includes a conviction under the law of any State for a crime
punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, where the crime involved the unauthorized
access of a protected computer, "loss" means "any reasonable cost to any victim, including
the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data,
program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost
incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service ", and
"person" means "any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial
institution, governmental entity, or legal or other entity."
if they committed a terrorist act that resulted in, or created a foreseeable risk of,
death or serious bodily injury to another person!!! "PECUNIARY HARM"
orRA' AND THE INDIVIDUALS OF THE UPPER ECHELON SHOULD KNOW THEY
CAN LOSE THEIR ASSEST IN MAKING TRILLIONAIRE "UNPOPULAR" AND
GETTING TRILLIOANIRE INTO "HARMS WAY" OR CAUSING A DRAMATIC
EVENT WHERE MILLIONAIRE GET HURT OR THEIR WAS A LOSS OF LIFE
WHILE ON THE BRAIN COMPUTER SYSTEM THEY WHERE GVIEN DRIECTION
TO INTERFERE FROM BARACK OBAMA
It also encompasses actions that cause a person to be injured, a threat to public health or
safety, or damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice,
national defense or national security "dod defense satellite systems individuals have hacked
into to interfer with a person on a governement BCI. Also prohibited was extortion
undertaken via a protected computer.
§ 846. Extortion; class E felony.
A person commits extortion when, with the intent prescribed in § 841 of this title, the
person compels or induces another person to deliver or taken by coercion or duress property to
the person or to a third person by means of instilling in the victim a fear that, if the property is
not so delivered, the defendant or another will
Cause physical injury to anyone
(3) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime
Use or abuse the defendant's position as a public servant by performing some act within or
related to the defendant's official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official
dam, in such manner as to affect some person adversely
Perform any other act which is "calculated "to harm another person materially with respect
to the person's health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal
relationships.
to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is
caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be
seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organisation for the purposes
of further terrorist activities.
MR GIETHNER AND BARACK VIOLATE OF THE PATRIOT ACT
Section 351: Amendments Relating to Reporting of Suspicious Activities
This Section expands immunity from liability for reporting suspicious activities and expands
prohibition against notification to individuals of SAR filing. No officer or employee of federal,
state, local, tribal, or territorial governments within the U.S., having knowledge that such report
was made may disclose to any person involved in the transaction that it has been reported
except as necessary to fulfill the official duties of such officer or employee "`involving
others in organized illcit acts that conspire against the account holder"
BARACK AND GIETHNER INTENT TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM MR. BARRINO ACCOUNT POST
ORGANIZED PREMDEITATED PLAN OR SCHEME TO CONCEAL WITHHOLD OR DEFRAUD PLANNED
TO VIOLATE THE FOLLOWING STATUE BY OBSCONDING AND EVADE THE TRANSFER OF MONEY
AND PROPERTY TO MR. BARRINO ILLICIT BY THE UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT AND
18 USC 1006
Section 325: Concentration Accounts at Financial Institutions
Allows the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations governing maintenance of
concentration accounts by financial institutions to ensure such accounts are not used to obscure
the identity of the customer who is the direct or beneficial owner of the funds being moved
through the account.
• To strengthen measures to prevent use of the U.S. financial system for personal gain by
corrupt foreign officials and facilitate repatriation of stolen assets to the citizens of countries
to whom such assets belong.
Section 356: Reporting of Suspicious Activities by Securities Brokers and Dealers; Investment
Company Study
Required the Secretary to consult with the Securities Exchange Commission and the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve to publish proposed regulations in the Federal Register before
January 1, 2002, requiring brokers and dealers registered with the Securities Exchange
Commission to submit suspicious activity reports under the Bank Secrecy Act.
• THERE SHOULD NO DURESS OR "DOLUS MALUS" WHATSOEVER IN THE DIRECTION OF
TRILLIONAIRE / BARRINO!!!!!
• 850. Use possession, manufacture distribution and sale of unlawful
telecommunication and access devices.
• (a) Prohibited acts -- A person is guilty of a violation of this section if the person
knowingly:
• (1) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, possesses with intent to distribute, transfers,
sells, promotes, offers or advertises for sale, use or distribution any unlawful
telecommunication device or modifies, alters, programs or reprograms a
telecommunication device:
• a. For the unauthorized acquisition or theft of any telecommunication service or to receive,
disrupt, transmit, decrypt, acquire or facilitate the receipt, disruption, transmission,
decryption or acquisition of any telecommunication service without the express consent or
express authorization of the telecommunication service provider; or
• b. To conceal, or to assist another to conceal from any telecommunication service
provider or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination, or
the originating and receiving telephone numbers, of any telecommunication under
circumstances evincing an intent to use the same in the commission of any offense.
• (2) Manufacturers, assembles, distributes, possesses with intent to distribute, transfers,
sells, offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any unlawful access
device;
• (3) Prepares, distributes, possesses with intent to distribute, sells, gives, transfers, offers,
promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution:
• a Plans or instructions for the manufacture or assembly of an unlawful
telecommunication or access or device under circumstances evincing an intent to use
or employ the unlawful telecommunication access device or to allow the unlawful
telecommunication or access device to be used, for a purpose prohibited by this
section or knowing or having reason to believe that the unlawful telecommunication
or access device is intended to be so used, or that the plan or instruction is intended
to be used for the manufacture of assembly of the unlawful telecommunication or
access device; or
• b. Material, including hardware, cables, tools, data, computer software or other
information or equipment, knowing that the purchaser or a third person intends to use the
material in the manufacture of an unlawful telecommunication or access device.
• (b) Criminal penalties -- (1) Except as provided for in paragraph (2) or (3) of this
subsection, an offense under this section is an unclassified misdemeanor with a sentence
up to 1 year incarceration at Level V, and a fine of up to $10,000 for all violations of this
section.
• (2) A person shall be guilty of a class F felony if:
• a. The defendant has been convicted previously under this section or convicted of any
similar crime in this or any Federal or other state jurisdiction; or
• b. The violation of this section involves at least 10, but not more than 50, unlawful
telecommunication or access devices.
• (3) A person shall be guilty of a class D felony if:
• a. The defendant has been convicted previously on 2 or more occasions for offenses under
this section or for any similar crime in this or any federal or other state jurisdiction; or
• b. The violation of this section involves more than 50 unlawful telecommunication or
access devices.
• (4) For purposes of grading an offense based upon a prior conviction under this section or
for any similar crime pursuant to paragraphs (2)a. and (3)a. of this subsection, a prior
conviction shall consist of convictions upon separate indictments or criminal complaints
for offenses under this section or any similar crime in this or any federal or other state
jurisdiction.
• (5) As provided for in paragraphs (2)a. and (3)a. of this subsection, in grading an offense
under this section based upon a prior conviction, the term "any similar crime" shall
include, but not be limited to, offenses involving theft of service or fraud, including
violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Public Law 98 -549, 98
Stat.2779).
• (6) Separate offenses -- For purposes of all criminal fines established for violations of this
section, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each unlawful
telecommunication or access device shall be deemed a separate offense.
• (7) Fines -- For purposes of imposing fines upon conviction of a defendant for an offense
under this section, all fines shall be imposed for each unlawful telecommunication or
access device involved in the violation.
• (8) Restitution -- The court shall, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law,
sentence a person convicted of violating this section to make restitution in the manner
provided in § 4106 of this title.
• (9) Forfeiture of unlawful telecommunication or access devices -- Upon
conviction of a defendant under this section, the court may, in addition
to any other sentence authorized by law, direct that the defendant forfeit
any unlawful telecommunication or access devices in the defendant's
possession or control which were involved in the violation for which the
defendant was convicted "if you attacking , harass, annoy cuasing
duress trillionaire with a telecommunications your equipment and acess
equipment canbe taken
• (c) Venue -- An offense under this section may be deemed to have been committed at
either the place where the defendant manufactures or assembles an unlawful
telecommunication or access device, or assists others in doing so, or the places where the
unlawful telecommunication or access device is sold or delivered to a purchaser or
recipient. It shall be no defense to a violation of this section that some of the acts
constituting the offense occurred outside of this State.
• (d) Civil action -- (1) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil
action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
• (2) The court may:
• a. Grant preliminary and final injunctions to prevent or restrain violations of this section;
• b. At any time while an action is pending, order the impounding, on such terms as it
deems reasonable, of any unlawful telecommunication or access device that is in the
custody or control of the violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was
involved in the alleged violation of this section;
• c. Award damages as described in paragraph (3) of this subsection;
• d. In its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees and costs, including, but not limited to,
costs for investigation, testing and expert witness fees, to an aggrieved party who prevails;
and
• e. As part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation of this section, order the
remedial modification or destruction of any unlawful telecommunication or access device
involved in the violation that is in the custody or control of the violator or has been
impounded under subsection (b) of this section.
• (3) Types of damages recoverable -- Damages awarded by a court under this section shall
be computed as either of the following:
• a. Upon the complaining party's election of such damages at any time before final
judgment is entered, the complaining party may recover the actual damages suffered by
the complaining party as a result of the violation of this section and any profits of the
violator that are attributable to the violation and are not taken into account in computing
the actual damages. In determining the violator's profits, the complaining party shall be
required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to
prove the violator's own deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to
factors other than the violation; or
• b. Upon election by the complaining party at any time before final judgment is entered,
that party may recover in lieu of actual damages an award of statutory damages of
between $250 to $10,000 for each unlawful telecommunication or access device involved
in the action, with the amount of statutory damages to be determined by the court as the
court considers just. In any case where the court finds that any of the violations of this
section were committed wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory
damages by an amount of not more than $50,000 for each unlawful telecommunication or
access device involved in the action.
• (4) For purposes of all civil remedies established for violations of this section, the
prohibited activity established in this section applies to each unlawful
telecommunication or access device and shall be deemed a separate violation.
• (e) Definitions -- As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings given to them in this subsection.
• (1) "Manufacture or assembly of any unlawful access device" -- To make, produce or
assemble an unlawful access device or modify, alter, program or reprogram any
instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology or software so that it is capable of
defeating or circumventing any technology, device or software used by the provider,
owner or licensee of a telecommunication service, or of any data, audio or video programs
or transmissions, to protect any such telecommunication, data, audio or video services,
programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, access, decryption,
disclosure, communication, transmission or retransmission, or to knowingly assist others
in those activities.
• (2) "Manufacture or assembly of unlawful telecommunications device" -- To make,
produce or assemble an unlawful telecommunication device or to modify, alter, program
or reprogram a telecommunication device to be capable of acquiring, disrupting,
receiving, transmitting, decrypting or facilitating the acquisition, disruption, receipt,
transmission or decryption of a telecommunication service without the express consent or
express authorization of the telecommunication service provider, or to knowingly assist
others in those activities of illicit intent or goal.
• (3) "Telecommunications device" -- Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment,
technology or software which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, decrypting or
receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, Internet access, audio, video, microwave or
radio transmissions, signals, communications or services, including the receipt,
acquisition, transmission or decryption of all such communications, transmissions, signals
or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite,
microwave, data transmission, radio, Internet -based or wireless distribution network,
system or facility, or any part, accessory or components thereof, including any computer
circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, electronic mechanism or
other component, accessory or part of any telecommunication device which is capable of
facilitating the transmission, decryption, acquisition or reception of all such
communications, transmissions, signals or services.
• (4) "Telecommunication service" -- Any service provided for a charge or compensation to
facilitate the origination, transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, data,
writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by telephone, including
cellular telephones, wire, wireless, radio, electromagnetic, photelectronic or photo -
optical system, network, facility or technology; and any service provided by any radio,
telephone, fiber optic, cable television, satellite, microwave, data transmission, wireless
or Internet -based distribution system, network, facility or technology, including, but not
limited to, any and all electronic, data, video, audio, Internet access, telephonic,
microwave and radio communications, transmissions, signals and services, and any
such communications, transmissions, signals and services provided directly or
indirectly by or through any of the aforementioned systems, networks, facilities or
technologies.
• (5) "Telecommunication service provider" -- a. A person or entity providing a
telecommunication service, whether directly or indirectly as a reseller, including, but not
limited to, a cellular, paging or other wireless communications company or other person or
entity which, for a fee, supplies the facility, cell site, mobile telephone switching office or
other equipment or telecommunication service;
• b. Any person or entity owning or operating any cable television, satellite, Internet - based,
telephone, wireless, microwave, data transmission or radio distribution system, network or
facility; and
• c. Any person or entity providing any telecommunication service directly or
indirectly by or through any such distribution systems, networks or facilities.
• (6) "Unlawful access device" -- Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment,
technology or software which is primarily designed, assembled, manufactured, sold,
distributed, possessed, used or offered, promoted or advertised for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing any technology, device or software, or any component or
part thereof, used by the provider, owner or licensee of any telecommunication service
or of any data, audio or video programs or transmissions, to protect any such
telecommunication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from
unauthorized receipt, acquisition, access, decryption, disclosure, communication,
transmission or retransmission.
• a. Phones altered to obtain service without the express consent or express authorization of
the telecommunication service provider, tumbler phones, counterfeit or clone phones,
tumbler microchips, counterfeit or clone microchips, and other instruments capable of
disguising their identity or location or of gaining unauthorized access to a
telecommunications system, network or facility operated by a telecommunication service
provider; and
• b. Any telecommunication device which is capable of, or has been altered, designed,
modified, programmed or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another
telecommunication device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition,
receipt, transmission or decryption of a telecommunication service without the express
consent or express authorization of the telecommunication service provider, including, but
not limited to, any device, technology, product, service, equipment, computer software, or
component or part thereof, primarily distributed, sold, designed, assembled, manufactured,
modified, programmed, reprogrammed or used for the purpose of providing the
unauthorized receipt of, transmission of, disruption of, decryption of, access to, or
acquisition of any telecommunication service provided by any telecommunication service
provider.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 637 -9355
Plaintiff/ Pro Se
V
DEPARTMENT OF US TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
(202)514-2000
Defendants
MOTION TO COMPEL FOR DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE AND RESPONSE
DEFENDANTS TO COOPERATE
PETITION EN BANC AND REHEARING (Pending)
NO. 11 -1713
TONY BARINO
Plaintiff/Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 637 -9355
1 of 14
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY BARRINO
Plaintiff /Pro Se
V PETITION FOR PETITION EN BANC
AND REHEARING
DEPT. of US TREASURY
Timothy Giethner CASE NO. 11 -1713
Barack Obama
Defendants
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE FOR DISCOVERY
COMES NOW the Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf hereby moves the Honorable US Court
of Appeals 4h Circuit to enter Order to Compel Discovery in lieu of Defendants response of this
motion and the Plaintiff offers in support the following:
On this day Plaintiff request the following with explanation and legal grounds.
1, Tony Barrino, is pursuant through Federal Civil Rules of Procedure 37 against the Defendants
by 28 USC 1442. The Plaintiff request the Defendants to answer this motion or show cause on the
on court order or summons that is pending in the en Banc court. 18 USC 1001 The Plaintiff
request the US Treasury and the individual defendants turnover and release the title deed to Mt.
Vernon, Virginia; the estate of George Washington. 18 USC 1001 The Plaintiff request the US
Treasury and individual Defendants to surrender all financial documentation, bank access cards
and all certificates or documentation of gold security holding in the management custody of the
US Treasury; the gold in custody is attached to the estate of George Washington as personal
effects governed as private government security 15 USC 78u the Plaintiff is the sole lineal
descendant or sole heir of Washington, George estate. 18 USC 1006 statue that force the money,
property and gold to be transfer to the Plaintiff; the entire estate is irrevocable trust by law the US
Government and US Treasury prior to November 2008 established or affirmed the intent to settle
2of14
by the transfer money to outside account and all tangible property was also to be transfer the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff request that all files be sealed created since 1969 in the secrecy to be seal
by the government or turnover to the Plaintiff immediately: those files contain information
concerning the late Washington and Barrino families. These files are directly related to this
financial matter. The Plaintiff is protected self - incrimination and these files intrude upon the
Plaintiff right to privacy; the Plaintiff has been under watch by the Central Intelligence Agency or
the US Government since through secret intelligence technology modalities since 1969, the
government technology monitoring was to ensure the Plaintiff was able to take over possession
the historical and maintain the Washington family linage. The Plaintiff is the sole blood kindred
of the Washington family and was adopted in 1969 by the Barrino family. The government in
secrecy maintained the whereabouts of Plaintiff in hopes and intent to relinquish the entire estate
effects to the Plaintiff; since 2008 the situation of settlement; the intent to transfer and activities
of the government prior as well the activities of the Plaintiff. The Defendants have politically
convoluted, manipulated and initiated activities this clearly an aggravated delay as a
conspiratorial scheme to conceal and to take the or misappropriate the estate and money.
5 USC 551 the requested document is facts, evidence and background information that support
this claim and motion. Plaintiff hereby moves for order and summons against Defendants, the
Defendants are to those documents and pay or transfer everything that is encompassed in the
estate of Washington, George for the settlement and relief. 12 USC 4631 is law in financial
matters that require further proceedings and demand a response from the Defendants, the
Defendants conduct is merely a sophisticated scheme with fraudulent intent, politically coercive
or political executive branch artifice that compel answer discovery. The Defendants violate 18
USC 1344; need to pay the Plaintiff immediately and turn over all requested documentations.
18 USC 656 the Defendants are in "breech of government trust' in which they are neglectful and
wrongful in their fiduciary duty to provide honest services.
3of14
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
I. BACKGROUND — Plaintiff grounds and reasons for an answer that compel Discovery
In fact, the requested documents sought are relevant to the matter. The Plaintiff and the court
demand full disclosure it is admissible evidence that adequately inform the jury. The court needs
clear up and give a just disposition in the management of accounts funds in the financial
institution that bear the Plaintiff name and the named estate of estate of Washington, George.
Herbert v Lando, 441 US 153, 157 177 (1979); Sierra Rutile Ltd. v Katz 1994 WL 185751
*3 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) those document have relevancy that will have bearing and reasonably lead to
matters in lawsuit. The Plaintiff financial information is relevant the court must insure that there
is no misappropriation of funds or misappropriation of the estate assets; 31 USC 330 the US
Treasury demands full disclosure and a discovery is allowed due to the fact the information
sought has clear bearing on the matter. Snowden v Connaught Labs., 137 F, R.D. 336, 341 (D.
Kan. 1991), the documents and files make more evident light the Defendants inconsistent and
unpersuasive explanation for the duress, delay and adverse activities directed at or against the
Plaintiff physical person and undue freeze of account. Monte Hasie Hasie Financial Group v
Office of the Comptroller No. 08- 1064(5`h Cir. 2011); the Defendants violate basic financial
policy in honest services the transactions should have been uncomplicated and not driven by
political ulterior motives that created a conflict of interest with administrative duress that unduly
has frozen the Plaintiff account and inaccessible since January 2009. Since 2009 the Defendants
have conspired and organized a sophisticated political scheme because of the value of the estate
and ready cash available in the Plaintiff accounts previously set aside by a deposit from the US
Treasury prior November 2008. The Defendants introduced political coercion, political
opposition by political change that gave the Defendants the confidence to act in continuance of
freeze. The court must order the documents to turnover into the possession of the Plaintiff to
guard against new or uncover previous fraudulent inducement that may obstruct the transaction at
4of14
this present time. 18 USC 73 the court must ensure that the Defendants are in accordance with
the law; regarding the paperwork deed, gold in the estate, money that is posted in a account in the
Plaintiff name and the physical estate of Mt. Vernon. 18 USC 1001 the Defendants obstruct and
interfere with rights and ability to take possession; the Defendants are absconding will not
transfer the securities and assets to the Plaintiff. The Defendants must make or allow full
disclosure of pertinent document and information; they must facilitate the full access and ability
to take possession of the asset or estate. The Defendant activity is considered "deceptive practice"
in a financial institution concretely termed as "bank fraud" and "civil conspiracy to defraud ". 46
Appendix 322 the Defendants started a series of non - advantageous acts since January 2009 that
interfere, distort and delay the transaction. The Defendants actions is "high prejudicial evidence"
since 2009; the court by a reasonable conclusion that the Defendants are in violation 5 USC 551
in which they want to take the property and criminally negligent for actions that directly affect the
Plaintiff s physical person and immediate environmental surrounding or physical security; that is
unlawful as pecuniary harm. The intentional effect of goal was for the Plaintiff to be oppressed so
that Plaintiff could not acquire the money and the inclusive estate by normal means; United States
v Everett, 270 F. 3d 486 (6`h Cir. 2001). The Plaintiff can prove the Defendants had "specific
intent" to deprive the Plaintiff as owner of the estate, money and the gold securities attached.
18 USC 1344 the planned result of continued activity of the Defendants and the action since 2009
is sufficient evidence and fact, the Defendants would be able to illicitly acquire or gain
unqualified access; the law recognizes as "cognizable injury" from a series of illicit or aversive
directed, organized and order actions. The Defendants are able to hide the wrongdoing in public
controversy and public campaign manipulation scheme or by "modern" political campaign tact
and modalities. The court should conclude prior to discovery that the Defendants are activity
engaged in a foreseeable scheme United States v Wiese, DOKAJ, GJOKAJ (Eastern District of
Michigan Southern Div. 2011). The Defendants cause the Plaintiff special damage; the nature if
the duress or coercion against the Plaintiff is covert. The Defendants are absconding and fail to
5of14
communicate so the asset or property can be transferred. The Plaintiff should not any species of
duress the transaction or transfer should have been conducted in January 2009, the Plaintiff
should have had "in hand possession ". The Defendants have delayed with deceptive act or is
negligent in the direct adverse activity that proximate cause that has and would cause harm and
loss to the Plaintiff. Robinson v First Union National Bank, No. 3491(S.C. Court of Appeals
2002); the Plaintiff is entitled to just disposition of claim and the property should be transferred.
Munn v Bank of Michigan 924 F. 1058 (6th Cir. 1991) the Defendants will be ordered to pay
sanction or settle the lawsuit the Defendants manifest wrongdoing or is fraudulent in the
transaction. 28 USC 2606 the Defendants by law should compensate or pay the Plaintiff directly
out the US Treasury and or replace the money for the gold security holding in the name of
Washington, George; the Defendants have the ability to pay the sanction imposed by the court
from those accounts. 28 USC 1291 the court has the ability to apply and enforce sanction
payments to be deposited into an account bearing the Plaintiff name if one established has been
illicitly or fraudulently closed by the US Treasury or by the Defendants order to do so; the
Defendants would be and are wrongful by 18 USC 1006. The Plaintiff should paid the equitable
market value of property and the gold hold no matter how much is worth provisional in Title 12.
The court must uphold and insure the standard of enterprise corruption and financial corruption;
the should be no corruption in the US Government or US Treasury that cause the citizen loss or
come under the oppression of actions by the government stated by the 5th and 10 Amendment.
The Defendants since January 2009 are committing dishonest, fraudulent, deceptive,
manipulative or criminal acts that violate the those amendments; the Defendants have liability for
their conduct. The Plaintiff has the right to recover those assets and over any cash in accounts
bearing the Plaintiff's name associated with the estate of Washington, George. The Defendants
are proximate cause in the Plaintiff inability to do so; FDIC v A.W. Lott 460 F. 2d 82 No 71 -2065
(5th Cir. 1972); Conley v Gibson, 355 US 41, 45- 46 (1957) the Plaintiff can prove there are
additional underlying torts before an open court and jury. The en banc court review should accept
6of14
the allegations as true and well established; Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232, 236 (1974); the facts
require the application of the discovery rule the Defendants must answer this motion. Firestone v
Firestone, 76 F. 3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996)(citing Knight v Furlow, 553 A. 2d 1232, 1234
(D.C. 1989)) the court cannot ignore that is situation warrants a discovery (1) the existence of
injury and the intent to injury (2)there is factual evidence or knowledge there is or was wrongful
act committed (3) it cause in fact. The court through this motion can grant the Plaintiff with
adequate judicial process and exhaustion derived from the facts before the court at this present
time. The Defendants unconstitutionally exceed the parameters and is negligent in the official
capacities as well as abuse their office by assertions directed against the Plaintiff and this estate;
there conduct is tortuous and outrageous (quoting Haddon v United States 1423 — 24(D.C. Cir.
1995)). The Defendants are responsible for their actions in the conspiracy and intent to defraud or
cause undue duress in this transaction of estate's property, money and gold holding. 46 USC 1986
the Defendants conduct must be considered with specific content, specific intent and the nature of
the activity in which their acts and activity is dolus malus in which exceed the norms of civilian
financial institutions as well as prohibited by the US Government and US Treasury ethics; the
Defendants are subject to the control of the court. From the Defendants statements to other
concerning this matter they intentionally "steered" the public and expected to excite a dramatic
event; the Defendants diminished the Plaintiff's "elbow room" and infringed upon the Plaintiff
civil liberties; so there would be discomfort in process to acquire this property and take over the
encompassed assets or tangible holdings in custody of the US Treasury as well as the money in
the outside accounts the Defendants maliciously used their influence for the public to have
conjecture and disdain concerning the issue or situation; Harvey Strayer College, Inc. 911
F.Supp. 24 (D.C. 1996). The Plaintiff through the court is pursuant in this motion to nullify the
actions of the Defendants, force the Defendants to answer this motion and settle claim without
further complication in the power of the US Constitution Article III section 2; the Defendants in
the capacities of their office their acts or activities in this situation is "functionally criminal"
7of14
questionable in the intent to defraud with aggravated duress in the delay and has used society or
public coercion that would negatively impede the transaction by adverse political change or a
adverse political influence; Younger v Harris. Cobell v Norton, 344 F. 3d 1128, 1140 (D.C. 2003)
(citing) Byrd v Reno, 180 F. 3d 298 (D.C. 1999) the court has enough to proceed for discovery in
civil contempt because the court can arrive at determinations supported the "overwhelming
misconduct and fraudulent inferences ". The Defendants are requested to answer or respond to a
"show cause" order. The court may see it necessary that this matter be referred to a federal
prosecutor in proceedings; Young v United States ex rel Vuilton et Fils, S.A. 481 US 787,
801(1987) In Re Murchison 349 US 133, 136 — 39 (1955) the court must arrive at a just
resolution because this lawsuit or petition has an actionable basis for specific acts that reveal a
conspiratorial scheme preventing the Plaintiff to take possession and control of asset through
normal administrative means. The court must protect judicial process and must protect the
judicial integrity where there is obvious necessary examination or review of circumstances 18
USC 73 it is in the best interest of Defendants to be truthful and forthcoming in this situation and
delayed transaction the Uniformed Fraudulent Transfer Act is force of law for the Plaintiff to
take possession by the powers of the court 28 USC 1291. The Plaintiff is pursuant in Federal
Civil Procedure Rule 37 to cease and desist all activities that are adverse directive or aversive
orders in the executive branch against him, remove the freeze on the accounts and cease in the
concealment of this property and title deed, the Defendants must answer this motion and settle
this lawsuit without any more direct or special damage to Plaintiff 18 USC 401 the Defendants
can viewed in contumacious conduct by the court.
II. DEFENDANTS — Grand Jury Investigation Sustainability against Defense
The facts and evidence that a civil conspiracy is overwhelming, United States v Robinson, 470 F.
2d 121 (7th Cir, 1972) the existence of a common scheme can be established. There is enough
8of14
activity, extra ordinary efforts, unusual modalities, and overact by the Defendants since January
2009 to show beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendants are absconding and concealing the
properties assets from the Plaintiff • United States v Harris, 542 F. 1283 (7th Cir. 1976) the entire
situation in the narrative petition and complaint profoundly manifest suspicious circumstance; the
Defendant cannot explain the political change, the reasoning for the political duress or coercion,
cannot explain reason for the use of telecommunications that clearly was intentional derivative or
injurious campaign directed against the Plaintiff concerning the money and values of the estate
now in needless controversy. The Defendants attempt to create a unfair competition where the
Plaintiff is subject and target of pecuniary harm as goal of the scheme, action or political
campaign tactics, the Defendants cannot explain the simultaneous freeze through government
channel or through order of President of the United States to further the freeze which actually is
concealment do to the fact the Defendants knew that the only possible way to arrest the activity
that is and was on going was through judicial process or the Defendants the Plaintiff would
submissive or allow the affect in susceptibility of coercion to affect the amount, manner and time
of the transfer of property which was not given the Defendants refuse to conduct the transaction
without complication. The Defendants are author and party in the intent to defraud or cause
spoliation of inheritance; their actions show or manifest the legal discriminating conclusions and
exceptional circumstances or conditions; where a jury studied the knowing participation and acts
of the Defendants would be sufficient to warrant a federal investigation and indictment. The facts
as it is presented before court warrant a discovery; United States v Kaufman 429 F. 2d 240 (2d
Cir.) cert. denied 400 US 925 91 S. Ct. 185, 27 L. Ed 2d 184 (1970). United States v Morris, 568
F. 2d 396 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v Meeker 558 F. 2d 387 (7th Cir. 1977) the jury would
notice the Defendants are absconding and they would be made aware that fraud is often invisible;
fraud also has very secret nature the en banc court must compel for further proceedings from the
collection and understanding of the facts already declared by judicial notice a factual evidence
that support this motion for discovery; with a reasonable judicial exhaustion the jury can arrive at
9of14
disposition that favor the Plaintiff; United States v Jones, US App. D.C. 158, 482 2d 747 (1973).
United States v McClure, 546 F. 2d 670 the Defendants as "evidence and fact" used a systematic
campaign of duress or coercion and intimidation directed at the Plaintiff. The Defendants have
knowledge and reason for the activity that is connected to property and the estate valued assets;
whether the encroachment or invasion that inflicts duress is direct or indirect is relevant evidence
of the fact that illicit activity against Plaintiff is the specific intent of the Defendants in which
would result in pecuniary harm, cognizable injury and financial loss concerning the estate assets
that should been claimed or should been recovered in 2009 by the Plaintiff ; lawful owner and
blood kindred. The Defendants should answer this motion for response and discovery; the
Defendants must sustain the argument and explain the ongoing activity, prior action or acts in
front of the informed discretion of a trial judge and jury . United States v Peskin, 527 F. 2d 71,
84(7 Ih Cir. 1975) cert. denied 492 US 818, 97 S. Ct. 63, 50 L. Ed 2d 79 (1976); United States v
Sigal, 572 F. 2d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 1978); the Defendants are questionable in the statutory
provisions of 18 USC 1006 and 18 USC 1344 there is evidence and fact in the intent to defraud
where a jury will take the facts and evidence to indicative of a criminal disposition. Federal Civil
Rules of Evidence 404(b) permits proof in en banc court or in a jury trial; the Defendants have
motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, deception and applied direct duress or coercion
against the Plaintiff concerning the assets of the estate to be claimed. United States v Fairchild,
526 F. 2d 185, 189 (7th Cir. 1976), cert denied 425 US 942, 96 S. Ct. 1682, 48 L. Ed.2d 186
(1976); the element of a crime and torts can be established that being committed against Plaintiff
in which there is a series acts that mitigating factors that enable aggravated concealment that
allow the Defendants to evade, abscond, refuse to pay, allow access to and refuse to conduct
legitimate or uncomplicated transaction that violate the Plaintiff in 18 USC 641.
10 of 14
III. COURT GROUNDS - Legal Enforceability for against the Defendants for Discovery
28 USC 1291 the court of appeals can force the action against the Defendants Federal Civil Rules
of Procedure 3 to guard against extrinsic fraud the Plaintiff substantive rights and grounds to
take control and possession of estate property, assets and encompassed set aside bank account in
the Plaintiff name. United States v Bell, No. 09 -672 (US District Eastern District of Penn. 2011)
the court has jurisdiction due to the fact there is elements of offenses that are fraudulent activities
or cognizable crimes prohibited by 18 USC 1344 in the confinements or in the concerns of a
financial institution governed by US Government and US Treasury in corruption. United States v
Calandra, 414 US 338 (1974) a grand jury has the power to issue order on documents requested
by Plaintiff; the Defendants fail to answer or appear will lead to sanctions against the Defendants
Blair v United States, 250 US 273, 282 (1919) the Defendants cannot refuse to turnover
requested documents because there is culpability in torts since 2009 relevant to criminal statue;
the court has power to demand those records or documents in possession of the Defendants, in the
possession of the US Treasury or in the possession of the US Government. Coronado v
Bankatlantic Bancorp, Inc., 222 F. 3d 1315 (11th Cir. 200) that financial information and
documents requested is connected to torts in a matters concerning an estate property, money in
an account and gold securities that pertain to this lawsuit; 18 USC 1001 United States v Nixon,
418 US 683 (1974) there is an existence of tort and illicit activities connected to those document
that is essential to take to possession in transaction. The Defendants must here to 18 USC 1006;
the fact the Defendants have a deliberate purpose to deprive the Plaintiff the benefit of estate
property, money account and the estates gold security, the court can establish intent at this time
the inquiry can proceed into a discovery and grand jury investigation. The Plaintiff and court can
prove the Defendants have fraudulent intent; Durland v United States, 106 US (1896) the
Defendant have will participation, knowledge of adverse administrative acts, civil torts in which
the objective is further the concealment, deny access and absconding to evade the transaction as
payment or settlement; in the eyes of the law or in a jury study is illicit objective is being carried
11 of 14
out that manifest to the Plaintiff as administrative duress and obstruction (quoting United States v
Price, 623 F.2d 587, 591(9t' Cir. 1980). 31 USC 3733 the Attorney General must obey the
powers of the appeals court Article III section 2, 28 USC 1291 the executive branch can
participate in the extrinsic fraud; the Plaintiff has capacity to sue and Attorney General should
not obstruct a just disposition of the this lawsuit and claim; this matter is illicit and
unconstitutional by Federal Government Ethics Act of 1978 section 6 the Attorney General and
Solicitor General should not fuel a conflict a interest in financial matters that concern the US
Treasury. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is pursuant against the Defendants to answer
motion, adhere to show cause order and be subject to default, or transfer and settle this lawsuit or
claim. The Plaintiff is pursuant for response and discovery through the en banc court with
justification and present enough civil tort that compel with reasonable due diligence to assert the
necessary the legal exhaustion for this motion Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 37. "Actus Reus"
the Defendants attempt to defeat the law and ignore the Bill of Attainder Clause; "Mens Rea"
the Defendants have intent and knowledge their activity would result in pecuniary harm,
cognizable injury and financial loss. 46 USC 1986; Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472, 481
(D.C. 1893) once a conspiracy is formed all members are liable for injuries and financial loss
caused by prior acts, prior activity and on going present activity, in the furtherance illicit civil
conspiracy, can be held responsible in participation with unlawful purpose or unlawful specific
intent of consequential damage and special damage to the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE I, TONY BARRING. Respectfully request the court grant this motion to Compel
for Discovery and enter order for the Defendants to provide full and complete response to the
above request.
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St
Date:19th October 2011 Salisbury, NC 28144
12 of 14
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Tony Barrino, having been first duly sworn, state that I have serve a copy of the
attachedNotice of Motion and Motion to Compel for Discovery, Disclosure and
Response. The Solicitor General should serve on the Defendant's. The Solicitor General
was served by mail at 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.; Washington, DC 20530; on 19th of
October, 2011.
Signed and sworn to before me on October 18th, 2011
My Commission expires on
[Seal]
13 of 14
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff/ Pro Se
Notary Public
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH CIRCUIT
Tony Barring,
Plaintiff
v
BANC
Depart. of US Treasury,
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Defendants
To: US Solicitor General
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
PETITION FOR PETITION EN
AND REHEARING
CASE NO. 11 -1713
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 19th, 2011, as soon as counsel can heard, the
Defendant in the above - captioned matter will present the attached Motion to Compel
Discovery, Disclosure and Response before the Honorable United States Court of
Appeals in the en banc court; Richmond, Virginia.
Dated: October 18th, 2011
14 of 14
Tony Barrino
Plaintiff /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 637 -9355
Marian Karr
From: Ian Schmit <ianschmit @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:46 PM
To: Matt Hayek
Cc: Council
Subject: SJMC story on Iowa City development and improvements
Hello,
I'm a University of Iowa student studying at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and I'm
working to develop a summary story on the development and improvement projects across the Iowa City area.
For the story I'd like to set up a short interview with you you about the direction the new council is headed
concerning projects already underway and those planned for the future. I'll also be talking with local residents
and business owners about their various opinions on the improvements.
I'd be happy to meet at any time of your convenience, or before or after either the upcoming formal meeting or
work session next week.
Thank you,
Ian Schmit
SJMC
J�`agRSFrY0
,t, O
`tom j1 a
o �
'N�2FD FES•Z5�
University of Iowa Student Government
Executive Order 1
November 28, 2011
By the President:
Whereas: Matthew). Uttermark has extensive experience working with municipal
government officials;
Whereas: The University of Iowa Student Government (UISG) Executive Branch is
in need of a capable individual to serve as Vice City Council Liaison;
Therefore, by virtue of the power vested in me by the University of Iowa Student
Government, it is hereby
Ordered: That Matthew j Uttermark is appointed Vice City Council Liaison until
May J$t. 2012.
SO ORDERED
Authorized this aV4 day of AWAI her 2011
UISG President, Elliot W Higgins
- 1 -