This website is about how the Department of Justice employs Unlicensed Civilians to conduct trials so filled with unlawful acts the Licensed Attorney refuse to touch them and how two of these cases came across the desk of Chief Justice John Roberts and Kimberly Moore and how they condoned this action. See: James D. Bennett vs United States, 127 S.Ct. 245 (2006) and Michael S. Carona vs United States of America, 132 S.Ct. 2102 (2012), and James Bennett vs United States, Federal Circuit Case Number 24-1674. The Department of Justice and the Federal California Courts use a version of what is known as Sewer Service. Although Service is typically used in Civil Cases the Federal Criminal Courts have found it useful. Sewer Service is a practice where Defendants are Indicted by the Grand Jury on a set of charges and the Federal Judge and the Attorneys change the charges to a set of charges the Defendant never knows then secretly orders the Federal Clerk to enter verdicts in the charges Indicted by the Grand Jury although those charges were never seen by the Jury. In other words the Defendant never knows about or is served with the Charges reviewed by the Jury. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_service#cite_note-3)

The United States Department of Justice employs Unlicensed Civilians to act as United States Attorneys. They do what the licensed Attorneys will not. They used such a person named Brett A. Sagel. He prosecuted the Cases entitled US vs Bennett and US vs Corona. Both these Cases eventually wound up in Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court and Justice Kimberly Moore Federal Circuit Court. There Roberts and Moore allowed the behavior by falling to rectify it. We see the behavior described below.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit hired their fixer too. His name is Peter Lind Shaw. The Ninth Circuit created a position for him listed as an “Appellate Commissioner”. They assigned Mr. Shaw to fill this position although we find no such legal position listed in the federal appeals system.

Despite this, Mr. Shall has served as an “Appellate Commissioner” for the Ninth Circuit since 1995 while he was an inactive licensee of the California State Bar (see exhibit 14). He has been practicing law in the Ninth Circuit and pretending to be a Circuit Justice ruling on and deciding judicial issues during this period. See exhibit 15 and exhibit 16.

As proof, exhibit 15 shows a three Justice Panel Ordered Bennett’s Appeal to move forward; however, exhibit 16 shows Peter Shaw, pretending to be an Appellate Justice, sua sponte overrules; cancels the Ordered Appeal; and without any authority sends the Issue sent back to the lower District court.

Mind you, this is the same District Court where the problem occurred. There, the District Judge created the problem by allowing the Department of Justice to hire Brett Alan Sagel. Brett Alan Sagel is another person who the Judge and the Department of Justice allowed to practice law for over six years by holding Criminal Trials without a license.

In the Central District of California the Federal Judges have team up with the Department of Justice to set up a Conviction for Cash scheme where they allow the Department of Justice to employ Unlicensed persons to conduct Criminal Trials filled with made up victims and charges that no jury ever seen nor issued verdicts of convictions. These Judges thereafter order the Defendant to pay restitution to the Victims the Judges list on the Conviction Judgments. After the Conviction Judgments are filed and recorded, the Judges and the Department of Justice force the Defendant to pay the Department of Justice the Restitution that the Conviction Judgments ordered to go to the fabricated Crime Victims.

Exhibit 1 shows a person named Brett A. Sagel practiced law at least since 2001.
Exhibit 2 shows in 2006 Mr. Sagel was pretending to be a US Attorney. The letter there shows a date April 21, 2006 but Mr. Sagel Bar printout shows he was not licensed until August 14, 2006. Therefore, Sagel was pretending to be a US Attorney with the consent of the United States Department of Justice.
Exhibit 3 shows on December 15, 2005 Mr. Sagel; Judge Alice Marie Stotler; and Federal District Clerk Ellen Matheson discus replacing the Grand Jury Second Superseding Indictment with what they called the Trial Indictment.
Exhibit 4 shows Federal District Court Judge Alice Marie Stotler tells the Jury she was giving them the Non-Grand Jury Trial Indictment in place of the Grand Jury Second Superseding Indictment for deliberations.
Exhibit 5 shows after deliberations, Judge Stotler orders Federal Clerk Matheson to enter the jury verdicts in the Grand Jury Second Superseding Indictment the jury was never given nor did they ever see.
Exhibit 6 shows Judge Stotler Judgment and Sentence to prison. We see there is no mention of the United States being a victim to be paid Restitution.
Exhibit 7 show a letter from the United States Department of Justice where they attempt to force the Defendant to pay Restitution to them through the District Court claiming the Restitution was theirs.
Exhibit 8 shows excerpts of transcripts where Lawrence Kole, actually licensed as an attorney, admits the Jury did deliberate on the Trial Indictment that Judge Stotler never sentenced the Defendant on.
Exhibit 9 is the Sentencing Transcripts proving after being asked which set of charges the sentence was to rely on the Judge abruptly walks out of court.
Exhibit 10 shows this is a systemic problem in California.
Exhibit 11 is the proof of it all. It is a Pro Se Federal Criminal Rule 29 Acquital issued after Defendant caught the District Judge submitting non illegal Indicted charges to the jury and thereafter listing them in the Record as being true Verdicts in the Grand Jury Indictment she never submitted to the jury.
Exhibit 12 is a bio of Federal Judge William Q Hayes. He hired the Unlicensed US Attorney Brett A. Sagel. Hayes was the head of the Southern District of California Criminal Division when he hired, trained, and allowed Sagel to conduct trials without a License. Hayes taught Mr. Sagel and others how to manipulate Grand Jury Indictments when he as Professor at Western State College/Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Exhibit 13 shows Chief Judge Cynthia A. Bashant also worked there and taught students the same methods.
Exhibit 14 shows Peter Shaw has not been an Active Member of the California Bar since 1995.
Exhibit 15 shows Bennett was granted an Appeal by a Three Judge Appellate Panel
Exhibit 16 shows Peter Shaw single handedly while posing as an Appellate Jusitice reverses the three judge Appellate Panel to send the Flipping of Indictment Issue back to the District where the fraud was created
Exhibit 17 shows the Personal Qualifications of James Bennett

Below are the exhibits that support the above

EXHIBITS

• Exhibit 1--Brett Sagel practice
• Exhibit 2--Sagel Letter of 2006
• Exhibit 3--Trial Indictment
• Exhibit 4-Jury Gets Trial Indictment
• Exhibit 5-Verdict in the Second Superseding Indictment
• Exhibit 6-Judgment
• Exhibit 7-US said Restitution
• Exhibit 8-Kole admits Trial Indictment
• Exhibit 9-Transcripts
• Exhibit 10-LA Times Articles
• Exhibit 11-Rule 29
• Exhibit 12-William Q.Hayes
• Exhibit 13-Bashant Senate Confirmation Letter
• Exhibit 14-Shaw's License Printout
• Exhibit 15-Bennett's Appellate Appeal Approval
• Exhibit 16-Shaw's reveral of Bennett's Appellate Appeal Approval
• Exhibit 17-Personal Qualifications of James Bennett