The Freedman Firm - Michael G. Freeman Breech of Fiduciary Responsibility, Unjust Enrichment and Participated in my Constitutional Rights being Violated Los Angeles California

On March 15, 2024, I was released from the Federal Correctional Institute in Sandstone Minnesota, after spending ten (10) months of detainment. Even though, I felt the greatest amount of relief, joy and happiness to finally exit this prolonged experience of detachment and solitude, I am very perplexed as to why something that I was guaranteed by my hired counsel would never happen, did in fact happen. 

Take Notice: The reason you have received this claim, is because your offices have been meticulously researched to ensure that this communique is received by oversight representatives that possess the independent authority to review the facts, investigate the facts, if necessary, apply disciplinary action and award lawful restitution as remedy for this total biased miscarriage of justice.

This Errors & Omissions Claim is based on facts, firsthand knowledge and experience, as being a recent client of Michael Freedman, Esquire #281279 at THE FREEDMAN FIRM 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone # 310-285-2210 and Email: michael@thefreedmanfirm.com. The many areas Freedman’s was ineffective consisted of the allowance of my constitutional rights being violated, erroneous guidance, inadequate discovery, misleading advice and coercing me into accepting a plea agreement that I was totally opposed to and never filed any motions into the case of record.

Even though I filed 2255 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Petitions in both the Eastern District and Southern District, I am compelled to file this claim because of the incompetence I experience from Freedman that was totally uncalled for, that I will never forget!

The two cases I received ineffective assistance of counsel that led to my detainment are the SDNY Case# 20-CR-00538 PPG and EDNY Case# 20-CR-00427 AMD. The goal of my Errors and Omission Claim is to provide as much clarity as possible with specific details, dealing with what led to my detainment.

BACKGROUND

 I will briefly provide some background information on the two New York cases that are the origin of why this claim is being made. The common denominator in both cases filed against me were my business relationship with Robert Sylvester Kelly aka R. Kelly, that the New York Prosecutors unsuccessfully tried to connect SDNY Case# 20-CR-00538 PPG and EDNY Case# 20-CR-00427 AMD to USA v. Robert Sylvester Kelly 19-286, also adjudicated in New York. Even though, the U.S. Prosecutors were unable to link the cases, they were able to prejudice and create bias in both administrator judges and a pool of peerless jurors.

 Even though everything R. Kelly has been charged with happened before I connected with Kelly, I was aggressively pursued by the New York State’s Attorneys in their pursuit to build a strong case consisting of a variety of offenses against Robert Kelly. Since I was unwilling, as well as unable, to assist the prosecutors in their case 19-286 USA v. Robert Sylvester Kelly against Kelly, the prosecutors convened two secret unconstitutional peerless grand juries that resulted in me receiving charges from indictments in two (2) different instances: first with Interstate Stalking in EDNY and second, with Threating Physical Harm By Interstate Communication in SDNY. My hired attorney, Michael Freedman’s ineffective assistance of counsel led to convictions in both cases, and I voluntarily surrendered on May 10, 2023, to the FCI in Sandstone Minnesota for a 32-month sentence for both cases (consecutively).

 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

I.                 Amendment I Violation - Freedom of Speech, Title 18 U.S.C. 2261A, the.

 The First Amendment protects my right to freedom of speech and expression, including sarcastic comments you make online or in a text message. A glaring flaw in the case is that, to the extent by criminalized my conduct using Domestic Relation Title 18 U.S.C. 2216A, is the violation of the First Amendments, Speech and petitioning clauses as applied to me. 

 The actions in cancelling an unwanted contract sent to Robert Kelly that led to this case, as the first violation of the 1st Amendment, were taken in support of defending the infringement of Mr. Kelly's copyrighted name and the R. Kelly trademarked brand in the courts of public opinion an law against what I understood to be salacious and false allegations by an individual Faith Rodgers aka Jane Doe, who was attempting to capitalize off of her past sexual encounters with Mr. Kelly by giving numerous interviews  on CBS This Morning, Entertainment, The Latest R. Kelly Accuser Drops Bombshell in Interview. May 22, 2018, and Faith Rodgers being interviewed on several social media channels.  When I appeared on social media explaining how the contract was cancelled and sharing other discoveries but not targeting anyone specifically, and when Kelly Rodgers, mother of Faith Rodgers called my phone I was completely within my 1st Amendment freedom of speech right to tell her not to call my phone again or I would bring charges against her.

II.               Amendment IV Violation - No “Verified” Complaint.

 A Verified Complaint prepared and signed by the prosecutor is required per the 4th Amendment* to lay the groundwork for the entire case. The starting document in US vs Russell Eastern District is an Affidavit in Support of a Search and Arrest Warrant prepared and signed by Homeland Security Agent Sylvette Reynoso, not the prosecutor. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides that every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name. If a properly drafted verified complaint was prepared, I’m sure one of the prosecutors as an attorney on record would have signed that complaint, but that was not the case, because no verified complaint was ever filed in case 20-mj-239 or 20-cr-00427.

III.             Amendment VI Violation - Improper Venue.

Fact 1: The State of New York was an improper venue, and the New York Circuit Court possessed no authority to the claim of subject matter jurisdiction because all the alleged violation took place outside of the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of New York, between Chicago, Illinois, my birthright domicile and Houston, Texas, the stated residence of Faith Rodgers, the alleged victim or the Southern District of New York because I was not in the State of New York or anywhere need the theater when the Cease & Desist call was made.

 After Michael Freedman legal services were retained, I the posed the same exact question to Freedman that I asked the appointed public defenders, but he never provided any satisfactory reason why or how New York was the proper venue for an alleged offense between Chicago and Texas.

The first glaring flaw in both cases was it venued in a judicial district with no connection to the charged conduct that violated the 6th Amendment*.  These cases were venued in Brooklyn, New York for the Eastern District and New York, New York for the Southern District where none of the charged conduct allegedly occurred versus the Northern District of Illinois where all of the charged conduct allegedly occurred. 

Furthermore, all of the alleged violation of “Intestate Stalking” 18 USC §§ 2261A(2) and 2261(b)(5), 2 and 3551 et. seq, took place outside of the jurisdiction of New York, between Chicago, Illinois, my birthright domicile and Houston, Texas, the stated residence of Faith Rodgers, the alleged victim. The fact that the State of New York was an improper venue, and the New York Circuit Court possessed no authority to the claim of subject matter jurisdiction was challenged by me post-trial after I terminated the service of my ineffective counsel.

 Freedman was ineffective for failing to move for a dismissal and/or challenging the improper venue. Since Freedman never challenged the venue or jurisdiction, I challenged both after I terminated his service.

IV.             Amendment VII Violation -No Trial By Jury

 VOID - SOUTHERN DISTRICT Threating Physical Harm By Interstate Communication Title 18, United States Code, Sections 875(c) and 2 .)

Concerning my conviction, the whole Southern District of New York trial is invalid, fraudulent, null and void, even though it was a jury trial, because the jury that convicted me was not a jury of my peers and was, therefore not a “Trial By Jury”.

I was in fact informed by retained Attorney Freedman that disclosed that I would receive the same guilty verdict from every bias and prejudice New York juror that would be impaneled to hear the Eastern District of New York case 20-CR-427 (AMD), because of the guilty verdict delivered in the South District of New York case 20-CR-538 (PGG), that Attorney Freedman was paid $125,000 after pitching that my innocence would prevail but he ineffectively never challenged venue or subject matter jurisdiction.

In the change of plea hearing that took place in the Southern District of New York Circuit Court about October 2022, Attorney Shihata, on the record, asked me a series of questions regarding my knowledge of the actions that subsequently lead to my conviction. During my testimony I expressly disclaimed this knowledge element that sending a Cease & Desist Letter to stop an extortionist lawsuit, that I did not write, would cause any harm or injury to Rodgers and then be used as the basis of the United States Government to file a lawsuit against me in the Eastern District of New York. A trial that baffles me because my protected freedom of speech rights in follow up social media interviews are being viewed by the court as dishonorable and a crime.

In United States vs Russell 20-cr-00427 and United States vs Russell 20-cr-00538, the United States Plaintiffs’ inability to identify any threat of injury deprives the United States Plaintiff of a concrete stake in the outcome of this case, rendering the case moot and divesting this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Eastern District of New York federal court lacked the power to adjudicate the case because there was no way to prove Third-Party Faith Rodgers sustained any actual injury. The Southern District of New York never provided any proof that the “Threat Caller” was me or any of the theater attendees were physically injured after the cancelled airing, therefore both cases were moot and should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Article III of the Constitution permits federal courts to adjudicate only actual cases or controversies. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). This means litigants must suffer, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant’s actions, and that the federal court must be able to grant effectual relief. See id. This case or-controversy requirement must be satisfied at every stage of judicial proceedings. Id. If it is not, the federal court lacks the power to adjudicate the case and must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Home Builders a*s’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).

INADEQUATE DISCOVERY

FALSE CHARGE - 18 U.S.C. § 2261 (A)(2) Interstate Stalking IN EASTERN DISTRICT CASE

The federal prosecutors were very crafty in turning a domestic relations statute into a weaponized criminal statute by adding a fake (2) after the 18 U.S.C. 2216A Interstate Stalking filed in the Eastern District of New York. The defined characteristics of an 18 U.S.C. 2261 (A) Interstate Stalking violation must demonstrate that a perpetrator intended to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place another person in fear to justify the federal crime.

Fact 2: Prosecutors never proved there was any intent to do harm to Rodgers, but Freedman never presented any supporting motion to dismiss the charges.

Fact 3: Rodgers gave firsthand testimony in case #19-286 that she never met, nor had any direct contact with me. Freedman never performed any collection of discovery or interviewed any witnesses to compile this fact to be presented in my defense.

Fact 4: I was never in possession of the Eastern District’s witness’s contact information to make any direct contact. This fact was never presented in my defense to prove my innocence.

The Facts of This Case Fall Outside the Scope of the Charging Statue.

The second glaring flaw in this case is that the facts established at the Change of Plea hearing do not come within the scope of the charging statue. 18 U.S.C. 2216A contains a knowledge element and I expressly disclaimed the knowledge element at the Change of Plea hearing. 

 Reference transcripts for United States v. Russell, 1:20-cr-427-AMD-1, Page 24:

MS. SHIHATA: And would this course of conduct cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress?

THE DEFENDANT: Are you asking me?

MS SHIHATA:  Yes.

THE DEFENDANT: Apparently it did.  I didn't know that it did but apparently it did, so I agree with that.

The facts established at the Change of Plea hearing did not establish the essential elements of the offense.  My attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the Court's acceptance of my plea because (2) Ensuring That a Plea Is Voluntary. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).

(d) Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere: (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.

Therefore, the Eastern District Court of New York not only lacked subject matter jurisdiction because 18 U.S.C. 2261 (A)(2) states with the intent—but true intent was never proven, and in-fact voids this charge.

MISLEADING ADVICE
Attorney Freedman, who aligned himself with the New York U.S. Prosecutors as their agent from my vantage point and whose only motive for being present was to consistently discourage me from any further thoughts of trying to prove my innocence and to secure a guilty plea in this case for the New York U.S. Prosecutors. Freedman discouraged another court battle through the pressure he applied with needing to come up with another $125,000 to pay him and even more if an appeal needed to be filed after a second guilty verdict. He also presented that if I didn’t enter a guilty plea, I would receive the maximum sentence of 5 years because Judge Donnelly is incapable of being impartial. This prejudice and biased statement alone “Judge Donnelly is incapable of being impartial” should be enough to disqualify Donnelly ever presiding over this case in the first place.

I never wavered from the fact I knew I was innocent and never plead guilty but I subjected to psychological pressure from repeatedly being told if I did not plead guilty, I would piss the prosecution off, and they would seek the maximum sentence of 5 years and take the lesser sentence of 20 months off the table for the purpose of fatiguing me into compliance with their measures.

ERRONEOUS GUIDANCE

Erroneous guidance received from Attorney Freedman was the fact that Judge Ann Donnelly was biased, prejudiced and incapable of being impartial referencing the 30-years of incarceration she sentenced Robert Sylvester Kelly too, proving he was ineffective for not challenging New York as the proper venue or requiring Judge Donnelly to recuse herself from administering the case.

The first 14 pages of the 23-page Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant had absolutely nothing to do with me, but those 14 pages were used by Ann Karamingos, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Nadia Shihata, Former U.S. Attorney as a lead in to prejudice the grand jury against me from the very beginning. Based on the July 3, 2022, Plea Agreement drafted by Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney and submitted to Michael Freedman, my hired attorney, whose services have been terminated, they attempted to get me to waive my 1st & 5th Amendment protected rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Since I was not in agreement with the terms and conditions in the Plea Agreement, I added “All Without Prejudice when I signed it because I was under duress. It has been explained that pleading guilty to criminal charges is not a plea deal. The “Without Prejudice” rule will generally prevent statement made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute whether written or orally, from being put before the court as evidence of admissions against the interest of the relevant party if the negotiations fail and the parties then have to formally engage in a dispute resolution procedure.

Judge Donnelly failed at her administrator duty when she failed to use her judicial discretion in acknowledging that Prosecutors Shihata and Karamingos failed to meet the “Burden of Proof” and failed to secure the signed Plea Agreement Contract drafted by Peace. 

It's Judge Donnelly’s failure to recognize that my peaceful protest to a public smear campaign that threatened my business should not have led to federal criminal charges that have disrupted my life carries a gross breach of trust in the judicial system, when a suggestion of the law of torts would have been a simple resolution. Additionally, the Prosecuting Attorneys, as fiduciary representative of the United States of America, have an obligation, responsibility and duty to uphold the bylaws in the form of the United States Constitution’s Articles and Amendments that protect “We the People”, as the shareholders.

Therefore, I am asking each oversight constituent in receipt of my Errors & Omission Claim and Statement 95 Tort Claim of these civil rights violation to provide remedy and relief using all the stated facts above, for specific personal listed injuries and injuries I sustained listed in my attached fee schedule from the New York Courts.

The Southern District and Eastern District Courts are established under Title 28 U.S.C. Part 1, Chapter 5, Sections 81- 131, and only have authority to handle Civil matters pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapter 85, Sections 130-169. The referenced sections provide a list of administrative duties. which limits the activities of the Municipal United States Government to the District of Columbia. The previous titles expose the fact that both courts possess absolutely no authority to adjudicate a criminal matter and that the results delivered in both courts should be voided. 

My hired attorney failed at his fiduciary duty to prepare and advise his client, and was ineffective in failing to defend my 1st, 4th & 6th Amendment Rights. And you, as a fiduciary representative of the United States of America, have an obligation, responsibility and duty to uphold the bylaws in the form of the United States Constitution’s Articles and Amendments that protect “We the People”, as the shareholders.