Dr. Uche Akwuba,
LCE
| Bachelor
of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, With Honors, University of London |
|
…living by the Four Pillars
|
_____________________________________________________________________
February 28, 2002
Via
First Class US Mail, Certified. Return Receipt Requested. 6 pages.
Certified Article Number: 7000 1530 0002 9666 4056
Honorable
Frank Maas
United States Magistrate Judge
Through the Clerk
of Court, Pro Se Office
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Dr. Uche Akwuba v. United States of
America
01 Civ. 3057 (SWK) (FM)
Dear
Judge Maas:
This letter is respectfully submitted by the plaintiff to
oppose the government’s third, untimely, and time-barred
request (dated February 26, 2002) for an enlargement of time until April 26,
2002, to respond to my pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which
I filed on March 22, 2001. I received a copy sent by Mr. Mukasey (for the
government) yesterday.
I
oppose the government’s request for the following principal reasons:
1.
This is the government’s third of three untimely requests for
extension. Since it is yet another untimely request, it is time-barred
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, as was the case with the earlier
two, this Honorable Court should therefore not even
consider it.
2.
In his first request for extension, dated June 20, 2001, Mr. Marc Mukasey,
the same AUSA that signed this third untimely request, stated:
“I did not review the (Court) order until the due
date had passed, and because certain files will have to be retrieved from
storage to adequately respond to Akwuba’s claims, the Government respectfully
requests an extension of time of 60 days from today to submit its response.”
When
Mr. Mukasey wrote that statement in his request for an extension, he had a
copy of my petition in his hands, he had been present every day of the illegal
21-day trial, and he knew that an AUSA’s fulltime employment includes
responding to habeas petitions, along with other obligations. Therefore doing
his fulltime work cannot be a reasonable excuse for not doing his work.
Like
anyone else, Mr. Mukasey may request an extension, and one should be granted
if the situation so warrants. That is what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(FRCP) state. The FRCP also states, however, that the request for an extension
must be timely. The request had to be made before a default by the
requester. By waiting until after he had defaulted, Mr. Mukasey, a
knowledgeable attorney, knowingly waived his rights to his first request for
an extension.
The
Hon. Judge Kram, knowing the Federal Rules as she must, should not have accepted
the request for consideration. In violation of the rules, Honorable Kram chose
to consider Mr. Mukasey’s time-barred request anyway. Then, in clear
error, the honorable judge granted that time-barred request, contrary to the
FRCP. An arrogant Mr. Mukasey, a powerful attorney-at-law who apparently gets
whatever he wants, out of an arrogant disrespect for the Court, then
proceeded to also ignore the second Court Order, exactly as he did the first
one.
Had
Mr. Mukasey’s first request for an extension been timely, granting it
would still have been an error because:
(a)
Mr. Mukasey had knowingly misled the Court by falsely claiming that
he sent me a copy of his request though he did not,
(b)
I was not given the (constitutionally guaranteed) opportunity to oppose a
time-barred request, and
(c)
the reason advanced by Mr. Mukasey for his default makes no sense. An AUSA,
whose work depends on his interaction with U.S. District Judges, was not even
ashamed to state, in writing, that he did not see a Court Order until approximately
30 days after he had defaulted on the Order. What reasonable judge
would accept that flimsy excuse as reasonable, when reasonableness is what
the law demands? In undemocratic jurisdictions like, say, Iraq or Iran perhaps,
but in the democratic United States? Is that an indication of the power of
Mr. Mukasey?
Since
Mr. Mukasey had, unlawfully and knowingly misled the court and, by his inexcusable
tardiness, knowingly waived his right to any request for extension,
this third and, as usual, untimely, request should not now be countenanced
by this Honorable Court. His request is simply time-barred under the
Federal Rules to which these matters are uniformly subject. I pray this Honorable
Court to reject it.
3.
In a second time-barred request dated October 15, 2001, 60 days
after Mr. Mukasey’s second default, he stated as his excuse for
his default and as his only reason for the request:
“The government has received one extension of time
to respond to Akwuba’s claims. By this letter, we respectfully request
a second extension of 60 days. Akwuba’s habeas claims are so misguided
and inaccurate that they necessitate a fairly lengthy response with appropriate
citations to the lengthy record.”
In
addition to Mr. Mukasey’s unnecessary and impolite, conclusory statement
about my habeas motion, he advanced not one excuse that would have justified
even his first time-barred request. Mr. Mukasey seems disturbed that
I dared to file effective claims to defeat blatant illegalities that he himself
had spearheaded in open court.
Again,
Mr. Mukasey, a government attorney officially sworn to uphold justice and
the law, knowingly misled the Hon Judge Kram by implying, via his “CC”,
that he had sent me a copy of his second, untimely, and time-barred
request, though he never did.
To
my surprise, since this is the United States, not Iraq, Iran, or North Korea,
the Hon. Judge Kram, in clear error, again granted Mr. Mukasey’s time-barred
request, a request that Mr. Mukasey had, again, sent to her, accompanied by
his documented false claim. Such illegality is clearly not protected
by Mr. Mukasey’s limited immunity as an AUSA.
I
was even more surprised to see that where Mr. Mukasey had asked for 60 more
days, the honorable judge had granted him 63 days, 3 days more than
Mr. Mukasey himself could muster the courage to request. Is there a hidden
message here? Or is Mr. Mukasey just that powerful?
Since
Mr. Mukasey, an AUSA of the upright, prestigious, and honorable government
of the United States, (a) knowingly made a documented second, false statement
to a US District Judge in documented violation of Mr. Mukasey’s oath
of office and in a calculated attempt to mislead the Court, and since, through
his tardiness, he (b) knowingly waived any right to any request for an extension,
his current, third untimely and time-barred request should not
be considered by this Honorable Court. I pray this Honorable Court to reject
it.
4.
Mr. Mukasey’s third time-barred request for extension,
is dated February 26, 2002, exactly 70 days after his third default.
To support that third time-barred (and again untimely) request,
he also states as follows:
“First
is the complex nature of the underlying case, which involved a scheme to defraud
investors into placing money in fictitious ‘prime bank’ investment
programs.”
With
his reference to defrauding “investors into placing money in fictitious
‘prime bank’ investment programs”, Mr. Mukasey is again knowingly
attempting to mislead the Court by implying that I was defrauding the
investing public through non-existent investment programs. Yet he knows
that I stated in proffer sessions and during the unlawful trial, and I continue
to do so, that “prime banks” do not exist but that prime
debt instruments issued by banks do exist. They are, in essence,
bank bonds, and they are quoted on Bloomberg and on other financial quotation
services, and they are routinely traded everyday. Investing in such trading
is what I was in the process of doing when I was illegally arrested, unlawfully
prosecuted on fabricated evidence, and illegally imprisoned.
Non-bank
corporations, like IBM, issue prime debt instruments, and such debt instruments
are known as “senior debt”, “corporate bonds” or “prime corporate paper”. When banks issue similar
senior-debt instruments, the instruments are known as “prime bank
paper”, as distinct from “prime corporate paper”. That banking routine does not create a “prime bank” any
more that such paper issued by corporations creates a fictitious entity known
as “prime corporate”, except in the strange thinking of Mr. Mukasey.
All that the banking routine does is create “prime paper issued
by banks”. It is in such prime paper that I was investing,
when I found myself suddenly arrested by FBI Agent Keeley, and illegally imprisoned.
Mr.
Mukasey has again knowingly made a third, poorly disguised attempt
to mislead this Honorable Court. For this illegality, and for his inexcusable
reasons for his three successive defaults, I respectfully pray this
Honorable Court to stand for justice and deny Mr. Mukasey’s latest attempt
at legal manipulation.
At
this point, I respectfully request this Honorable Court to take judicial notice
that I have filed two motions with the Hon. Judge Kram, praying the Honorable
Court for an entry of default so that my unopposed claims may be considered
on their merits, as the law demands. (See Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.) The first such motion was filed in August 2001, and the
second is dated September 13, 2001, approximately one month after Mr. Mukasey’s
second default. As of
February 28, 2002, the Honorable District Court has not responded in any way.
The
question that keeps coming up for me is this: When, in this law abiding-country,
this democratic country that is now engaged in a popular national effort to
defeat international terrorism, will the arrogant agents of the government
itself be compelled, by independent judges like your honor, to obey the rules
that this democratic government has set down for its agents? Agents like Assistant
US Attorneys and FBI Special Agents, like Mr. Michael Keeley. What would men
like Messrs Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein say if they knew what is going
on with my case here in the United States, considering, especially, that the
charges against me were trumped up by government agents and that the evidence
against me was blatantly fabricated by FBI Agent Keeley? I think they will
probably laugh. What do you honestly think?
In
conclusion, I respectfully pray this honorable court to also take judicial
notice, should any unlawful extension be granted to Mr. Mukasey, that such
an extension is granted over my strenuous opposition. As the party wrongly
sent to prison and now restricted by supervised release, and on the opposing
side to Mr. Mukasey, I concede nothing. I allow nothing outside the Federal
Rules to apply. Mr. Mukasey’ has full knowledge of the
time requirements and he was in a commanding position from where he could
bring the relatively unlimited resources of the government of the United States
to bear. He has clearly abused those resources by demanding and receiving
extensions where he is entitled to none, under the law.
The
Court will not be serving the interest of justice by allowing Mr. Mukasey
to file a time-barred response. Granting him an extension will amount
to rewarding and sanctioning arrogance and barefaced attempts to mislead this
Honorable Court.
Though
I am now out of prison, I am still fully and unlawfully restricted
by the Probation Department under its supervised release program, the same
Probation Department that had me under pre-trial restrictions for two and
one half years before the illegal trial. All these restrictions and imprisonment
in the democratic United States, though I am innocent. Justice, for which the United States stands, demands that men of
goodwill, like Your Honor, do something positive in the face of blatant injustice.
The least Your Honor can do, at this time, with your considerable authority
is terminate the supervised release forthwith.
Should
Your Honor still grant an extension to Mr. Mukasey, let this paragraph be
accepted by the Court as the required notice that I will appeal such an extension
because it is in clear error. I will also move to strike from the records
any response filed by Mr. Mukasey; I will do so
for the simple reason that such a response is time-barred under the
FRCP, is also unconstitutional, and entirely unsupported by the law.
Finally,
I again pray this honorable Court to:
(a)
send Mr. Mukasey a clear message by denying his once-again time-barred
request and
(b)
consider and rule on my unopposed habeas corpus motion on its merits as the
law demands. Justice delayed, as the saying goes, is justice denied.
Thank
you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully
submitted,
Dr.
Uche Akwuba, LCE
Plaintiff-Petitioner Pro Se
CC:
Mr. Marc L. Mukasey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Via First Class US Mail, Certified. Return
Receipt Requested. Certified
Article Number: 7000 1530 0002 9666 4339
