|
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cathryn Caton, Petitioner vs. case
no.
10-MC-543 Eric Holder, United States Attorney General; Ronald C. Machen,, Respondents PETITION TO APPEAR BEFORE A GRAND JURY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATEMENT OF THE CASE The instant action arises from the unwillingness of the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear This matter of governmental misconduct is an emergency of the utmost importance to: 1) maintaining the integrity of the U.S. Judicial System and; 2.) prevent governmental intimidation of the two testifying witnesses, who fear for their safety due their willingness to testify about the government’s attempt to use them in a scheme to defraud the Court and the Petitioner and her family. The petitioner seeks to petition the government for redress of her grievances in this Court due to the conflict of interest issues that arise in Louisiana ,occurring in the Department of Justice and their inabilities to be fair and objective; and due to the fact that Petitioner Caton is currently a resident of Ecuador. The failure of the Justice Department to investigate its own and its sister agency officials violating the federal laws is contrary to the mandates of Section 1001 of the USA Patriot Act, Public Law 107-56, which directs the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to investigate complaints against Federal Officials and make public their findings, as well as report to Congress, in a semi-annual report. Court intervention is needed to prevent further governmental retaliation/intimidation against the two main witnesses of the criminal actions committed by the two federal officials, in concert with a private citizen of Louisiana. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to: A.) 28 USC 1331, the general federal question statute; B.) 28 USC 1361, to compel an officer of the United States to do their duty; C.) 28 USC 1651, the All Writs Act; D.) 28 USC 2201 and 2202, the Federal Declaratory and Injunctive relief statutes; Venue is proper in this district, pursuant to 28 USC 1391 (b), (e), as: A.) The United States Attorney General and United States Attorney have their office in the District Of Columbia; B.) The United States Attorney’s office in the Western District of Louisiana has an immediate direct conflict of interest with this case/issues; C.) The right to petition the courts under the first amendment and the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. PARTIES Petitioner Cathryn Caton is a former citizen of Louisiana and is the former owner of Lumen Foods and is currently a resident of Ecuador. Her business address is Casilla 09-04-99-P, Guayaquil, Ecuador. Respondent Eric Holder is the current United States Attorney General , who maintains his principal Office in Washington, DC . His business address is 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001. Respondent Ronald C. Machen is the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who maintains his principal Office in Washington, DC. His business address is 555 Fourth St., NW, Washington, DC 20530. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Background Private citizen Crystal Leslie was employed at Petitioner’s Company, Lumen Foods, in Lake Charles, Louisiana, from July 2002 through March 2007. During this time, Ms. Leslie was believed to have been trustworthy and was allowed to take out loans from the company, based upon an agreement that she would post all of her loans and pay them back. When Petitioner Caton sold, Lumen Foods, in March of 2007, Ms. Leslie owed the company, according to her postings, $12,325.35. In June of 2007, Ms. Leslie started turning against Petitioner and her family, possibly because Petitioner had sold Lumen Foods and Ms. Leslie thought she was being left out of the future plans. Ms. Leslie began making threatening phone calls, which led Petitioner to call the police and file a complaint. Petitioner Caton realized that something was wrong with the way Ms. Leslie was acting and so she started checking out the company books through an audit. During this audit, Petitioner Caton discovered that Ms. Leslie had not posted all her loans and charges to Sam’s Club and that a total of $21,380.36 was missing from the company accounts, instead of the $12,325.35 that Ms. Leslie had declared in her postings. Petitioner Caton has lived in Ecuador, since 2007 with her husband and son. During this time, the exact dates and times unknown to the Petitioner, Ms. Leslie, who was familiar with the operating procedures of Lumen Foods and knew the details of Petitioner’s husband’s run in with John Armand of the FDA and Rick Willis, Assistant U.S. Attorney of the Western District of Louisiana, and his subsequent prosecution by these officials, contacted Mr. Armand and Mr. Willis and started trying to initiate another prosecution of the Caton family by spreading lies and false information concerning Mr. Caton’s activities, while on Supervised Release. Ms. Leslie, a “former” Drug addict and informant, knew all the buttons to push and the right things to say to get the government to do her dirty work for her and allow her to succeed in her vendetta against the Caton family. In addition, Ms. Leslie turned over stolen copies of Lumen Food records to Mr. Willis, which indicates that Ms. Leslie has plotted against the Caton family even when she worked for them because that is the only time she had access to these records. Based upon Ms. Leslie’s smear campaign and conspiracy, the FDA and DOJ, Mr. Armand and Mr. Willis initiated an investigation and prosecution of Mr. Caton, resulting in the Federal authorities flying down to Ecuador and kidnapping Mr. Caton and returning him to the United States for A SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION, which under normal circumstances results in approximately a nine month prison term. Instead, Mr. Caton received the maximum sentence of two years, with the prosecution crying for more. B. SUPERVISED RELEASE HEARING At Mr. Caton’s Supervised Release Hearing, it came to the attention of Mr. Caton’s attorney that Mr. Armand and Mr. Willis were submitting sworn statements that former Lumen Company employees , Tabetha LeDoux and Zoe Farris had made statements that they personally had observed Mr. Caton making unapproved drugs, while on Supervised Release, and that they would testify on behalf of the government at the Supervised Release Hearing. Petitioner Caton, upon learning this information , contacted Tabetha and Zoe and learned from them that they never told the investigators that they saw Mr. Caton making unapproved drugs while he was on Supervised Release and that they never had any intention of testifying on behalf the government to those lies. This information was brought to the attention of the Court , but by then the damage had already been done and the Judge had made up his mind that the government’s witness was telling the truth about these same matters and ruled against Mr. Caton. These falsified, perjured testimonies and falsified court documents tainted the Court’s perception of Mr. Caton and continues to cast negative harmful effects on the Caton family and their legitimate business activities. C. RETALIATORY THREATENING AND
INTIMIDATION OF THE WITNESSES Tabetha LeDoux and Zoe Farris were willing to testify about Mr. Armand/Willis’ falsifying evidence/ using perjured testimony and, in fact, were in the process of aiding the Petitioner in her preparation of Court filings to expose the governmental misconduct of Mr. Armand / Mr. Willis, when some unknown person or persons entered the picture and physically made these witnesses too scared to talk to the Peti- ioner about these accusations against the government. Now these two witnesses refuse to get involved with the Petitioner with respect to the criminal violations, to which they were used as pawns. Tabetha admitted her fear for her and her children’s safety, in an email to the petitioner.(See attached Exhibit ” A “). D. PETITIONER FILED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINTS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND
FBI
Petitioner Caton continued her pursuit of justice by filing Criminal Complaint Requests with the Department of Justice, and FBI on July 7, 9, and 12 , 2010, respectively. Petitioner, not hearing from any of the agency investigators, at any time, became alerted to the fact that the government was refusing to do anything to their own, even when she emailed them for a response. The appearance of bias and conflict of interest is apparent. II
REASONS
FOR
GRANTING THE APPLICATION TO
APPEAR
BEFORE A GRAND JURY A. SUBMISSION OF FALSE EVIDENCE TO A
FEDERAL COURT Submission of false documents /sworn statements or evidence to a Court by AUSA Willis and FDA Armand violates, inter alia, 18 USC 241, 242; 18USC 1001 (1),(2) & (3); 18 USC 1503and; 18 USC 1961, Et. Seq. B. SUBMISSION OF KNOWN PERJURED TESTIMONY TO A FEDERAL
COURT Putting Crystal Leslie on the witness stand, knowing her testimony was false violates, inter alia, 18 USC 1001; 18 USC 1503; and 18 USC 1961 et. Seq. C. CONSPIRING TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF HER CIVIL RIGHTS The actions complained of , herein, of FDA Armand; AUSA Willis and private citizen Crystal Leslie Constitute a violation of 18 USC 241. D. DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER’S CIVIL RIGHTS The actions complained of, herein. Of FDA Armand; AUSA Willis constitute a violaton of 18 USC 242. E. INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES The intimidation of Tabetha LeDoux and Zoe Farris because of their testimony against the conspiracy involving FDA Armand; AUSA Willis and Crystal Leslie constitutes a violation of 18 USC 241,241; 18 USC 1503; 18 USC 1512 (b) & (d) and; 18 USC 1961 Et. Seq LEGAL
CLAIMS
. POINT
ONE
THE
U.S.
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IGNORED THEIR DUTY On July 12,2010 Petitioner submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in Washington, DC , a request for investigation and prosecution of FDA Armand; AUSA Willis and; Crystal Leslie. (See attached Exhibit “ B “). On July 7 and 9 ,2010 Petitioner, also, filed similar criminal complaint investigations to the FBI and Office Of Responsibility.(See attached Exhibits “C” & “D”). Thus far, no federal official has responded to said complaints nor have they responded to numerous email requests from the Petitioner. A. AGENCY OFFICIALS ARE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 1001 OF
THE USA PATRIOT ACT Section 1001 of the USA Partriot Act (Pub. Law 107-56) directs the office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to undertake a series of actions related to claims of civil liberties violations and make findings , which are made part of public record and file these findings in a report to Congress twice a year. Thererfore, Petitioner Caton, with the blessing of Congress, is entitled to have her criminal complaint processed through the Department of Justice and when that failed Petitioner, herein, seeks Court intervention. B. THE RESPONDENTS’ SUBORDINATES HAVE
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Respondents’ and their subordinates have a deep rooted bias and conflict of interest in filing charges on one of their own. That is what is preventing this action from moving forward for a resolution. It is undisputed that what one US Attorney’s Office has knowledge of, it will be imputed to the whole agency. Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 (1972). The above conflict of interest issues squarely places the Department of Justice with a catch 22 dilema requiring special treatment. It is equally obvious that the Respondent’s are not going to pursue a criminal investigation of charges against one of their own. This results in a violation of Petitioner’s civil rights POINT TWO THIS
COURT
HAS AUTHORITY TO CONVENE A
SPECIAL
GRAND JURY When there is an impediment in the prosecutor’s ability to present evidence of criminal violations to a grand jury, the District Court is well within its right to convene a grand jury on its own. U.S. v Christian, 660 f2d 892,899-900(3rd Cir. 1981); Morris v United States, 128 f2d 912,915 (5th cir,1942) (“A federal judge can convene a grand jury to investigate a single crime. It’s power to call a federal grand jury into existence is unlimited”); Application of Wood, 833 f2d 113(8th Cir. 1987); Charge to the Grand Jury, 30 F Cas.992 (C.C.D. Ca.1872) (no. 18,255). Clearly, under precedent case law, this Court has full authority to call a federal grand jury into existence. A. 18 USC 3332 (A) AUTHORIZES THIS
COURT TO CONVENE A GRAND JURY Further power is conferred to this Court through 18 USC 3332 (a), which provides, in relevant part: “Such
alleged
offenses may be brought to the attention Of
the
grand jury by the Court or by any attorney Appearing
on
behalf of the United States.” The grand jury is an arm of the judiciary. Brown v United States, 79 S.Ct. 539,546 (1959); Simpson v Reno, 902 F Supp. 254 (D.D.C. 1995). REQUESTED
RELIEF
WHEREFORE Petitioner Caton respectfully requests: 1. That Petitioner Caton be allowed to present her evidence of federal criminal violations to the federal Grand Jury, pursuant to 28 USC 1301; 28 USC 1651; 28 USC 2201 & 2202 AND; 18 USC 3332 (a); 2. A Declaratory Order that the Respondent’s have and are violating Petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment Right to Petition The Government For Redress Of Grievances 3. That
this
Honorable Court appoint either a special Counsel and/or convene a
Special Grand August 23, 2010 Respectfully Submitted,
CATHRYN CATON
Casilla 09-04-99-P Guayaquil, Ecuador U.S. Mailing address: Cathryn Caton 8345 NW 66th St., #7093 Miami, FL 33166 Vonage phone number: 830-299-3427 (US exchange that reaches me here in Ecuador) |