1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Net central Investment Club Consortium

Discussion in 'Scam Alerts' started by gobilly, Apr 23, 2009.

  1. gobilly

    gobilly Recruit

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    NCICC


    "run" by Dr Michael Fleischer and Shaun Rosiere .

    afer 2 months of positive reporting....no contact from either in months....

    then a letter... "we moved to panama"...

    2 other Old sites from these 2 bozos

    prospertradernews.com

    eztradepro.com
     
  2. Royal Gotti

    Royal Gotti Highly Suspicious Person

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    As you should have known, Shaun Rosiere was never charged in any scam related to Net Central Investment Club Consortium Inc. The United States Government, has fully admitted in court that Shaun Rosiere was the real deal. Under his care the company make approximately 50 million dollars in just 6 years. The money is held to date in Panama, and at this point. Rosiere's attorneys are in court for the return of his portion of the money earned. The United States lost in court in 2012 and Shaun Rosiere won a judgement against the United States for the return of property and Trade Secretes. The Government admitted in court that the government knew Shaun Rosiere was 100% legitimate in all business activates. At the moment 2 federal judges are under investigation for the misconduct in the Shaun Rosiere indictments. Judge Simandle of the 3rd circuit court is under investigation by the FBI as well as Home Land security, for his actions of fraud upon the court, in the Shaun Rosiere case. In a news conference. Head of investigation D.C. office of the FBI, John Keys, has stated that an indictment of Judge Simandle is expected with in the statues of limitations and a full accountability of the Judges actions upon the bench, will undermine several Federal Cases to include Shaun Rosiere. The Judge Simandle has admitted, he knew of moneys being used by his wife that were the result of a conspiracy to defraud Shaun Rosiere and others to be announced of there held assets. Judge Simandle as put forth an accurate account of the actions of other Federal Judges in the 3rd circuit who are part of the conspiracy to defraud others out of assets held by the government. to include Judge McKee of the 3rd circuit court of appeals. All of these fact have come forward via Public News Wire, Inc. and the USA today, will release a story about corrupted, judges of the 3rd circuit some time at the beginning of 2016 at the closure of the federal grand jury. What a story to see. So If one is going to write a few words and just let the rest of the story, not be told so be it. But to, "gobilly" who can not even use his real name. You are the fake "gobilly"! Next time write the truth and look for the truth.

    This is a general over view of an innocent name Shaun Rosiere and a person who I have never met. For Public News Wire, Inc., this is Royal Gotti
     
  3. Pharaoh

    Pharaoh Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    19,591
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    If this was all "admitted in court" that Shaun Rosiere was "the real deal" as you say, please go ahead and post a link to the court cases. If you don't, everyone will suspect that you're just being paid to cast doubt and hide real information about a scam.

    For example, this court document mentions Shaun Rosiere plead guilty to federal mail fraud charges in 2009 in relation to Net Central Investing and a couple of other companies.

    https://cases.justia.com/federal/di...ce/2:2009cv01975/69408/19/0.pdf?ts=1377174026
     
  4. Royal Gotti

    Royal Gotti Highly Suspicious Person

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    For your information the case you posted, is civil not criminal. But as you could not use a real name you must be fake. Also for your information the civil case you "Quote". If you read the full docket as you clearly did not. Plaintiff Rosiere, filed the SEC closure case number. If you are not informed as to what that means look it up. The SEC, could not bring any charges either civil or criminal, on and trough AUSA's office. Thus there was no wrong doing by Plaintiff Rosiere, in relation to Net Central Investment Club, Inc., or any of the other companies listed. So for all future people, who follow a fake known as, "Pharaoh", just start reading all the information available to you.

    By Royal Gotti

    To add to the information available, there are close to 1 Million document related to the Shaun Rosiere criminal case. Has any one ever read the document in part or full. I would think not. Did you, know the total assets involved. I would think know. I find it funny that the government in the Criminal case, states for the record there was $30 million taken from banks. Yet, the government has stated that Shaun Rosiere, Owed nothing related to the $30 million dollars taken from Banks. The government, via FOIA request can not product, more that $2 million recovered, or owed. Also Shaun Rosier was the only one, in the case of Bank Fraud, via use of the mails charges, who did not owe a dollar in the case. Read the docket. Around Docket number 300-400 range. About 10 months after Shaun Rosiere was in prison, the government filled a joint application. 185 pages long. Rosiere only owes money to Him Self. I find that odd. $1.2 million to Active Trader News, Inc., and Rosiere, personally hold all shares to that company. Also, Active Trader News, Inc. So at the end of the day. The best the government could do is, ask the court to grant a motion for Shaun Rosiere, to pay Shaun Rosiere, Money's to him self.

    People need to read, before they write any stories about another person. So start reading what is on Dockets and File under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    By Royal Gotti

    To "Pharaoh", you need to learn to read a full case docket. You need to understand the difference between criminal and civil cases. Spend a moment before you write words. Make sure those word are the truth, not lies as you put word out of context in relation to the truth. So I Royal Gotti, have to tell the truth. You are a fake. Just writing to write with no real facts to back you up. For those who follow a fake. Start to read for your selves. Wow, I do not believe people follow such a person at all. But this is America and fake have always been in America, as one can see by the words of "Pharaoh".

    Also keep this in mind. Shaun Rosiere, when asked for an interview said no via lawyers. The government does not allow interview with inmates, but "Pharaoh", should know that. All inmates must get approval first. The BOP when ask by myself for the approval, has stated they will not allow Rosiere to interview. The lawyers reason were clear, if he goes ahead and does the interview via the prison phone system as I have asked. The BOP, will take way Rosiere's phone privileges, this is the reason of the NO for the interview. So, why does the DOJ who runs the BOP, not allow Rosiere to interview. Should be the real question.

    By Royal Gotti
     
    #4 Royal Gotti, Sep 8, 2015
    Lasted edited by : Sep 11, 2015
  5. Pharaoh

    Pharaoh Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    19,591
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    Had you bothered to read the item I linked, although the document itself is a civil complaint, it CLEARLY states:

    "The SEC’s Verified Points and Authorities (Dkt. #5) and the Verification of Amy Sumner (Dkt. #6), a staff attorney with the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, state the reasons the SEC issued the two subpoenas Rosiere challenges in this case. On September 17, 2009, Rosiere pled guilty to federal mail fraud charges for his involvement in several investment schemes involving Net Central Investment Club Consortium (“Net Central”) and MAAAC Financial Services, L.L.C. (“MAAAC”) and for an unrelated identity theft ring."

    The last time I checked, federal mail fraud was a criminal offense, even if it's only mentioned as part of the background of a separate civil case. I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb to believe that a civil case's mention of pleading guilty to criminal charges is likely to be factually correct. If for some reason it isn't, your argument isn't with me, but with the judge who denied all 3 of Shaun Rosiere's motions in that document.

    Before questioning my credibility, you should consider that I've been in this forum helping traders since 2007. Obviously, my real name is not Pharaoh. Considering my hobby of exposing Ponzi schemes and digging up information on scam brokers, I intend to keep it that way. You joined on Friday to make an unsupported defense of one person and only came back when I pointed out a possible flaw in your claims. Personally, I think Royal Gotti sounds like a pseudonym too, but I won't let that stand in the way of reading any court documents you care to post links to.

    I look forward to seeing some real case links supporting your claims, if there are any. If not, I'll be back later in the week and will see what else I can dig up on Shaun Rosiere's past history in court. Finding the first article took me under 1 minute. I think if I give it 15 minutes, I could find a lot more.

    All you have to do to prove your point is post links which show your claim that the SEC said Shaun Rosiere is the real deal and that all the criminal charges went away. If this is true, it would be easy. Or, you can continue making childish insults against me in an attempt to distract from the fact that, at minimum, Shaun Rosiere plead guilty to mail fraud charges.

    I see I should have taken longer to dig our more case files. Your words imply that Shaun Rosiere is currently an inmate. If the SEC had cleared him and said he was the "real deal" as you claim, you should provide documentation both to support that and to explain how such a fine and upstanding "real deal" is still in prison.

    BTW - Nothing I said implied anything about asking for any information about interviews with Shaun Rosiere. I am however, aware of many interviews done with inmates at various levels. To be denied all possibility of being interviewed is the sort of thing reserved for those where an interview itself could present a risk of triggering further criminal activity.

    All I asked for was proof of what you claim the SEC said. Surely someone as Royal as yourself should be well aware that posting a reference to prove your claim would be far more fruitful than attacking me, especially since you claim there are over 1 million documents to sift through.
     
    #5 Pharaoh, Sep 8, 2015
    Lasted edited by : Sep 11, 2015
  6. Royal Gotti

    Royal Gotti Highly Suspicious Person

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    To "Pharaoh" Who is not a King at all but an individual who should real the dockets of cases. Here is the question, to "Pharaoh": (1) If the SEC issues a closure number and no civil case or criminal charges related to Net Central Investment Club, Inc., were ever filled. then how do you say they relate to a scam related to Net Central Investment Club, Inc. at all? (2) Have you ever read the case docket you posted? (3) If you had then you would know at the end the SEC closure number. It's there. So, You have the case number on your link. Go and read the case. (3) If you are a person helping others since 2007 and can't even read a case docket, then how are you able to give any advice at all, related to criminal or civil legal issues. (4) Are you educated in the Law? (5) Are you educated at all? (6) The standard for this level of advice is at least four years of college and Law school. (7) How long again have you been given advice to others, and how many time is that advice, a lie and with out the fact?

    So at the end I use my name in my work. You use a name, that in it's self is fake. You are not a King of a kingdom, but a person who hides and gives advise to those who disserve a person with the background to look at fact. State facts!

    So, when you are done hiding behind a fake name and put your real name on the words you write. When you look into the fact of a case and read it. When you learn how to read the whole docket. I have read the whole civil and criminal dockets related to Shaun Rosiere.

    I ask this final Question to you. Have you read all of the dockets, in all 3 federal district? What are they? I bet you do not even know that one do you?!

    So, for those who follow, " Pharaoh", look at the bull as it is. Ask hard questions and see he if he could answer them.

    So, simple questions. What is the SEC closure number? You have the case number so start to read it, can you read a civil or criminal docket? How many federal district was Shaun Rosiere involved in? Do you even know that? What do each one relate to? Do you even know that? What were the last 10 government admissions on the record of the criminal case? Do you even know that?

    So simple questions to start and I will wait for your answer or no specific answer at all! If you can not answer these question, when stop giving advice to others. Stop being a fake, and false hope. Start to do, the right thing. Use your real name and put it out there for others to know and read. But your real name behind your words.

    So, there you go, I will wait and see if you can answer the questions then, what you will say is you Royal Gotti are right. But if you do not read, then stop writing garbage to others who deserve better.

    By Royal Gotti

    I realized one added point about "Pharaoh", lack of knowledge of the legal system and how courts work when he asked for a link as most docket filing are not on the internet at all. Next point, it that he used a "Quote", from a filing that the AUSA's quote of a plea was not correct at all. I have reviewed all criminal dockets filled in the Shaun Rosiere case. There is no plea at all related to or to included "pled guilty to federal mail fraud charges for his involvement in several investment schemes involving Net Central Investment Club Consortium (“Net Central”) "! So, when the government also can not produce such a plea at all under the useful tool of Freedom of Information Act. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, this plea that you want to make a claim would have to be done in open court and put upon the public record. But "Pharaoh", does not even know that. You are right on one thing you did say; "I see I should have taken longer to dig our more case files". Well if you know how to read a docket, but I think you do not, you would have know that fact. Before you wrote what you wrote. So, as "Pharaoh" want to lie more and more. Here is also some more facts for you who want facts not false statements. The original case number he "Quotes" or tried to use in a false manner is For Nevada Federal Court, civil case No. 2:09-cv-01975-JCM-PAL, if Pharaoh" or any one else would review Docket #36 it clearly list the SEC closure number. Funny that the SEC for a period of 2009 to 2012 never got the information from the banks, that they wanted as it was under litigation and at the end. The SEC closed the case, with no further action civil or criminal at all in relation to Net Central Investment Club Consortium (“Net Central”). So, "Pharaoh", does not know what a closure number issued by the SEC means or that no action was taken against Shaun Rosiere related to Net Central Investment Club Consortium (“Net Central”), but want to write on the subject. So. I producted fact "Pharaoh", not it's time for you to produce this plea agreement that states; On September 17, 2009, Rosiere pled guilty to federal mail fraud charges for his involvement in several investment schemes involving Net Central Investment Club Consortium (“Net Central”)"

    Time for "Pharaoh", to produce the facts. Produce for all of us the case number and the docket number and the page number and the line number. So all of us can see it. I know for fact it does not exist at all. But for your followers, I will give you one chance to do some real work and produce facts. If you do not, then it's time for you to stop writing garbage and move on to some thing else you can do.

    I would think a book on fiction would be a great start for you, and your kind.

    So, I have challenge "Pharaoh" to produce facts and when he fails and you will fail. Just realize that you are now found out to be the fake that you are.

    I look forward, to here from you with the words sorry some time soon. Also to here that you are going to move on to some thing else. Besides lies, in words.

    By Royal Gotti
     
    #6 Royal Gotti, Sep 8, 2015
    Lasted edited by : Sep 11, 2015
  7. AsstModerator

    AsstModerator FPA Forums and Reviews Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    997
    Hello Royal,

    Instead of trying to prove yourself by attacking and asking more questions of Pharaoh, why don't you answer some of the same questions. Please tell us what your background and qualifications are. How is it you know so many details of Shaun Roseire's background, but don't have a single link to support a single fact?

    By email, I asked you for links. So far, you haven't provided one. You claimed in your emails that much of the information isn't online, but expect Pharaoh to know it.

    Attacking Pharaoh or the FPA will do you no good. If there is any evidence anywhere showing your friend is innocent, please post the links or else attach copies of court documents..

    So far, the score in credible evidence in this thread is 1-0 against your position. Can you find even one credible link or other piece of evidence to tie the score before Pharaoh comes back with more?
     
  8. FxMaster

    FxMaster Lt. Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    670
    @ Royal Gotti,

    Let me ask something too and I`m also expecting the same reply about the name you wrote for Pharaoh as I am also not using my real name here.

    I need answer that You read court documents properly If yes then why you are not posting links which make your words rights?
     
  9. Royal Gotti

    Royal Gotti Highly Suspicious Person

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pharaoh, stop using all the other self generated AKA, to use misdirection about the truth. I have listed the case and docket number, so answer the questions. Also produce the case number and docket number and page number and line number of what you state to be the truth. I have read every docket and there is no such plea on the public record. Also look on the internet about your self, as there are hundreds of sites and blogs on how you do this here. So for real reader, Just type in "forex peace army Pharaoh". You will find a face and real name and a list of the truth about Pharaoh here at forex peace army. It will take 5 minutes of your time. Look and read for your self. I have asked Pharaoh hard questions and he can not product any facts at all. Copy of false statement, on a link. Wow. So have your read yet docket 36 and seen the SEC closure number. Or are you to busy trying to make a self generated win ratio. I could not find one real person who you really helped at all. Not a single one. I have found out that there are a lot of self generated, same IP names of multiple individuals. AKA, some one is writing a lot of stuff from the same IP address and calling them different people. It is the same IP as yours. Why is that Pharaoh???

    Pharaoh, stop using all the other self generated AKA, to use misdirection about the truth. I have listed the case and docket number, so answer the questions. Also produce the case number and docket number and page number and line number of what you state to be the truth. I have read every docket and there is no such plea on the public record. Also look on the internet about your self, as there are hundreds of sites and blogs on how you do this here. So for real reader, Just type in "forex peace army Pharaoh". You will find a face and real name and a list of the truth about Pharaoh here at forex peace army. It will take 5 minutes of your time. Look and read for your self. I have asked Pharaoh hard questions and he can not product any facts at all. Copy of false statement, on a link. Wow. So have your read yet docket 36 and seen the SEC closure number. Or are you to busy trying to make a self generated win ratio. I could not find one real person who you really helped at all. Not a single one. I have found out that there are a lot of self generated, same IP names of multiple individuals. AKA, some one is writing a lot of stuff from the same IP address and calling them different people. It is the same IP as yours. Why is that Pharaoh???

    By Royal Gotti
     
    #9 Royal Gotti, Sep 10, 2015
    Lasted edited by : Sep 11, 2015
  10. Royal Gotti

    Royal Gotti Highly Suspicious Person

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some facts read this I pulled it form court what can you find Pharaoh or any of your other AKA selves?

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

    ________, NEW JERSEY ________

    SHAUN ROSIERE :

    Petitioner(s) :

    : COMPLAINT / MOTION Pursuant to:

    : (a) U.S. is a Party to a Contract, 28 U.S.C.

    : § 1346 (a) (2);

    : (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1332, New Jersey Law

    v. : governs this dispute;

    : (c) Allegations of Attorney Misconduct &

    : Unethical Conduct Grievance Pursuant to

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : U.S. Dist. Court N.J., Civ.R. 104.1, establishes Respondent (s) : U.S.D.C. of New Jersey Jurisdiction; Judicial : Ethics and Professional Responsibility.


    THE PLEA OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTED WITHIN THE RESTRAINTS SET FORTH

    BY THE GOVERNMENT’S ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THE CONTRACT/PLEA

    AGREEMENT


    1. An enforceable contract requires an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and a meeting of the minds upon all the essential terms of the agreement. See, e.g., Weighert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435, 608 A.2d 280 (1992); West Caldwell v. Caldwell,

    26 N.J. 9, 24, 138 A.2d 402 (1958); Friedman v. Tapan Dev. Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 532,

    126 A.2d 646 (1956). Thus, an acceptance must be made before the offer is withdrawn

    or lapses (as in this case), and it must match the terms of the offer exactly. The offer

    submitted by the government was not open, and it had since lapsed when Plaintiff

    Rosiere and his unlicensed N.J. counsel, John H. Feiner, attempted to accept the offer

    by signing the lapsed offer on September 17, 2009 at approximately 2:15 p.m. EST.

    2. The clerk of the court’s records indicate that court commenced and Crim. No. 09-

    720-1 was electronically created/issued at 2:15 p.m. on September 17, 2009 (Exhibit A). In Crim. No. 09-720-1, doc. 6, pg. 1, of the plea agreement it clearly shows the hand written number 09-720-1. The criminal number for the Information charge was placed on the document just prior to the signatures of several parties involved; and was done by the AUSA’s themselves as is demonstrated on the plea agreement in question. All parties were in the courtroom just prior to the commencement of court at 2:15 p.m. EST and Plaintiff Rosiere and his counsel, John H. Feiner, were handed the plea contract/agreement at that time to sign. Logic would dictate, to any reasonable person, that no one could sign a plea agreement that was created and dated on September 17, 2009 before “Noon” as was stipulated as the expiration term of the agreement by the government. The plea agreement, doc. 6, pg. 1, paragraph 1, states, “This plea agreement will remain open until Noon, September 17, 2009. If an executed plea agreement is not received in this Office on or before that date, this plea agreement will expire.”

    3. To reiterate, the AUSA’s drafted a plea agreement on September 17, 2009 that expired within hours of its own creation and terms; that in fact expired at “Noon” of that same day. In their own hand they (AUSA’s) wrote the criminal information case number, 09-720-1, which was created by the clerk at 2:15 p.m. EST on the September 17, 2009 plea agreement and presented the offer to unlicensed New Jersey counsel, John H. Feiner, in Newark, New Jersey. The offer by its own terms expired before any acceptance attempt, or presentment. Thus, it was impossible for the attempted acceptance to form a binding contract. See, Restatement (First) of Contracts Sec. 40 (1) (1932), (see Appendix 3) which states: “The power to create a contract by acceptance of an offer terminates at the time specified in the offer . . .”. Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 41 (1) (1981), (see Appendix 4) which states: “An offeree’s power of acceptance is terminated at the time specified in the offer . . .”. Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 35 (2), (see Appendix 5) which states: “A contract cannot be created by acceptance of an offer after the power of acceptance has been terminated . . .” The time for acceptance was specified in the offer and clearly understood, “open until Noon, September 17, 2009.” The time was deemed to be of the essence on the government’s behalf, and was a contract issued and created on September 17, 2009 that expired within hours at noon of the same day.

    4. In the plea proceeding transcripts AUSA Katz stated the following:

    “I’m sorry . . . trying to get this together . . .” (pg. 2, lines 14-15) (Exhibit D-1). At sentencing AUSA Katz was speaking to the Court referring to Plaintiff Rosiere and stated, “he pled . . .just two weeks before we were set to go to trial,” (pg. 15, lines 22-24) (Exhibit D-2). AUSA Katz later stated to the Court, “. . . we wanted to make sure we could do it before we started the trial,” (pg. 16, lines 3-4) (Exhibit D-3). The mindset of the drafters (AUSA) is clear; all matters must be done right now; a hastened approach.

    5. When plea agreements are analyzed the analyzation is under contract law standards, as mentioned above, and ambiguities in plea agreements drafted by the government are construed against the government. See, United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (CA 3 2001); United States v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416 (CA 3 2007); United States v.Green, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5611 (3RD Cir.); United States v. Saferstein, 673 F.3d 237 (CA 3 2012). Also generally, see Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed. 2d 427 (1971). The reasoning behind this standard in all case precedents is the government’s tremendous bargaining power, as such, the court strictly construes the text of the plea agreement against the government as a whole when it was (is) the drafter of the agreement. With this said, the government is limited by its own draft as drafter to the word “Noon” in context of the September 17, 2009 agreement and its expiration clause.

    6. The Supreme Court has made its presence known on the subject in Puckett v. UnitedStates, 556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed. 2d 266 (2009); that plea agreements are construed in terms of contract law. As such, is used now in numerous cases to settle the issue. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that: “plea agreements . . . analyzed under contract law standards.” See, U.S. v. Rivera, 357 F.3d 290 (CA 3 2003); U.S. v.Gilchrist, 130 F.3d 1131 (CA 3 1997); U.S. v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357 (CA 3 1989) U.S. v. Trant, 389 Fed. Appx. 122 (CA 3 2010); U.S. v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416 (CA 3 2007); U.S. v. Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (CA 3 2012); U.S. v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529 (CA 3 2008); U.S. v. Nance, 500 Fed. Appx. 171 (CA 3 2012); U.S. v. Corso, 549 F.3d 921 (CA 3 2008); U.S. v. Cope, 452 Fed. Appx. 114 (CA 3 2011); Watts v. U.S., 386 Fed. Appx. 245 (CA 3 2010); U.S. v. Kenrick, 306 Fed. Appx. 794 (CA 3 2009); U.S. v. Benard, 373 F.3d 339 (CA 3 2003); U.S. v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (CA 3 2001); U.S. v. Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d 221 (CA 3 1998).

    7. The use of Restatement (First) of Contracts Sec. 40(1); Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 41(1); Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 35(2), are the unequivocal legal standards for the proper dissolution of the issue at hand. The offer was not accepted by: (1) Rosiere, current plaintiff; and (2) local New Jersey counsel Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.; See Crim. No. 09-720-1, doc. 6, pg. 5 to see the absence of required local New Jersey counsel Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.’s signature as counsel of record, as is required under New Jersey U.S. Dist. Court Local Rules 101.1 (c) (4); (See, CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES that apply before the time constraint expired).

    8. Unlicensed New Jersey counsel, John H. Feiner’s signature alone, violates U.S. Dist. Local Rule 101.1 (c)(4); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (See, CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES); requirements and beyond the contract expiration term, “Noon,” does not constitute a local N.J. counsel of record accepted, thus no contract is formed at the time in question, under the undisputed material facts, within the terms of the expiration of said contract, September, 17, 2009 at the “Noon”, mandate. John H. Feiner, presented himself as counsel for Plaintiff Rosiere in the Crim. Case No. 09-720-1 and is not licensed in the state of New Jersey, nor was he admitted into New Jersey as Pro Hac Vice in this particular criminal action case.

    9. Under New Jersey state law there is no question that an offeree must accept an offer within the time specified in the offer. Absent a waiver of the deadline by the offeror in compliance with the terms of the contract offer, an offeree’s power of acceptance is terminated at the time specified in the offer. See Senior Settlement, LLC, v. Growth TrustFund, 373 Fed. Appx. 287 (CA 3 2010); State v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 386 N.J. Super. 600, 902 A.2d {373 Fed. Appx. 292} 338, 345 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006). See also, E. ALLEN FARNSWORTH CONTRACTS SECTION 3.21 (1982); “The power to create a contract by accepting an offer terminates at the time specified in the offer.” Under state of New Jersey law, there are no cases that anyone, including the United States, can offer to describe how an offeror can waive a time limit in its offer, contrary to its own specified terms. Because there is no explicit or implicit extension of time in this case, because the time for acceptance was specified in the offer, because the time was deemed to be of essence, and because the offer was not accepted before the time expired, there was no contract formed at the time legally, as a matter of law.

    CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES

    1. New Jersey U.S. District Court Local Rule 101.1 (j) for criminal cases does not apply to civil litigation to include: (a) civil forfeiture provision of Title 18 U.S.C. § 981; (b) Title 28 U.S.C. 2461, related to civil actions; and (c) civil in rem action number 05-2589 (Civil forfeiture). As such, any legal issue that arises to be civil in nature must use the applicable, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to lawyers’ activities in client representation; inside and outside of the judicial court. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures are applicable only in criminal and not in civil proceedings. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 1 (a) (5) (B) – (“Proceeding not governed by these rules include . . . a civil property forfeiture for violating a federal statute . . .”). Thus, they (the Fed.R.Crim.P.’s) are not the proper legal procedure in any actionable legal remedy related to an in rem forfeiture action under congressional intent.

    2. The September 17, 2009 plea agreement, Crim. Nos. 08-629-5 and 09-720-1 (doc. 6, pgs. 2-3, starting at paragraph three) gives rise to the exclusion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a) (5) (B), which excludes any proceeding that would involve; “a civil property forfeiture for violating a federal statute,” from the rules of: Fed.R.Crim.P., when in its own terms the September 17, 2009 plea agreement encompasses civil forfeiture complaint (Civil No. 05-2589), in part and asked for; “waivers any and all claims, “ AKA stipulations. Thus, this gives full rise to the New Jersey U.S District Court Local Rule 101.1 in its entirety and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 applications. In addition, civil asset forfeiture proceedings are governed by two sets of procedural rules as set forth by Congress: the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions and Federal Rules of Civil Procedures only. See United States v.$8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 149 (3rd Cir. 2003).

    3. It is well settled that civil forfeiture is not governed by Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 41 (g) motions, because the property was never used as evidence of any crimes. This further supports the foundation of congressional intent and the use of applicable civil rules. See United States v. All That Tract or Parcel of Land, 731 F Supp. 2d 1345 (11th Cir. 2010). Thus all civil forfeiture actions; Title 18 U.S.C. § 981 are governed in part by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 2000 (CAFRA), Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2001). See generally, U.S. v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v.$144,031 in U.S. Currency, 284 Fed. Appx. 754 (11th Cir. 2008); Dresdner Bank AG v.M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1233, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006).

    4. To put all of the above in context, one must ask the simple question of: What is congressional intent? We begin, as we must, with the language of the statute itself. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 103 L.Ed 2d 290, 109 S.Ct. 1026 (1989). Where the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms. See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 61 L.Ed. 442, 37 S.Ct. 192 (1917). The statute states as follows; Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a) (5); “Excluded Proceeding. Proceedings not governed by these rules include: . . . (B) a civil property forfeiture for violating a federal statute.” The rules are drawn under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2072 by and through; Nov. 19, 1988, P.L. 100-702, Title IV, Sec. 401(a), 102 Stat. 4648; Dec. 1, 1990, P.L. 101-650, Title III, Sec. 315, 104 Stat. 5115. Congress expresses its intent through the ordinary meaning of its language. See Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLM, 650 F.3d 295 (CA 3 2011); Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 585 F.3d 753 (CA 3 2009); United States v. Diallo, 575 F.3d 252 (CA 3 2008); Disabled in Action v. SEPTA, 539 F.3d 199 (CA 3 2008); Rosenberg v. XM Ventures, 274 F.3d 137, 141 (3rd Cir. 2001). Webster’s New World College Dictionary; Fourth Ed. 2010, the word “excluded,” means: “keep from entering . . . prohibited . . .”. Here the meaning of congress is clear, the courts may not apply Fed.R.Crim.P. to any Civil forfeiture provision and in light of this one key point, any plea agreement contract, in part, that encompasses civil forfeiture.

    5. All the aforementioned gives rise to any local rules, as well as the Fed.R.Civ.P., the proper governing rules dealing with civil forfeiture. Hence, as Pro Hac Vice, John H. Feiner, cannot sign on his own as an unlicensed New Jersey counsel, as he tried to do. In doing so he violated the New Jersey Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 in relation to the stipulations related to the issues involving the civil In Rem Action No. 05-2589; encompassed in the September 17, 2009 plea agreement contract (Crim. Nos. 08-629-5 and 09-720-1, doc. 6, pgs. 2-3, and beginning at the third paragraph). New Jersey Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4) requires that an attorney of record authorized to practice in New Jersey sign documents dealing with civil issues; this never happened. As well, John H. Feiner, counsel for Plaintiff Rosiere, did not comply with New Jersey U.S. Dist. Court Local Rule 101.1(c)(2), which stipulates he must, in civil issues, make a payment to the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection as provided by New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2(a); (Exhibit B – shows no listing in the NJ Lawyers Index for Mr. Feiner).

    PLEA AGREEMENT / CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS FORCLOSES TIME EXTENSION MODIFICATIONS BY OFFERER ALONE

    1. There is no explicit extension of time waiver in this case, thus there is no contract. The AUSA’s (the government) declared time to be of the essence, hence drafted a plea agreement on September 17, 2009 that expired, for their reasons, within hours of its own creation and terms. The absence of an explicit modification of this essential deadline rendered the offer nullity after 12:00 p.m. EST, “Noon,” on September 17, 2009. Both Crim. Nos. 09-720-1 and 08-629-5 dockets are absent an explicit deadline modification filing.

    2. One needs to look at the essential terms of the contract. A waiver in any form must be reduced to writing and signed by all parties. See the Plea Agreement, page 4, paragraph 4 which states, “No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been made or will be made unless set forth in writing and signed by the parties.” As well, on page 5 of the Plea Agreement it states, “. . . no additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been made or will be made unless set forth in writing and signed by the parties.” The meaning is clear since the drafters will not allow any modifications unless all parties agree and put forth in writing and signed. This clearly, includes, any time expansion or extension of the contract offer.

    3. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has used the Parol Evidence Rule for written contracts. As such, when a written contract is clear and unequivocal, its meaning must be determined by its contents alone. See Am. Eagle. Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., 584 F.3d 575 (CA 3 2009); Alleman v, State Farm Life Ins. Co., 334 Fed. Appx. 470 (CA 3 2009); U.S. v. Suferstein, 673 F.3d 237 (CA 3 2012). The contract was not modified, or was there any intentions to do so by the government. There was no meeting of the minds, as Thomas Eicher, Attorney-in-Charge, Trenton Office, was not present at the plea proceeding. The plea proceeding transcript does not have him listed as being a party to the proceeding in question (Exhibit D). Thus, he could not approve any plea contract modification, as demonstrated on docket 6, page 5, Crim. No. 09-720-1; his approval signature, which is required for any and all of the above.

    4. The attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., was required to sign the plea agreement under Local Rule 101.1 (c) (4). The absence of his signature on the plea agreement is clearly evident, and he was not present during the sentencing proceedings (see doc. 6, pg. 5, Crim. Case No. 09-720-1). As such, counsel Mr. Sanzone did not sign the four party contract and is required to do so under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11 (see CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES). Counsel Sanzone was also not present at the plea proceeding (see Transcript of Proceedings {Plea}, pg. 1, cover pg.) (Exhibit D). He is not listed as being a party to the proceeding in question. To make the above point clear; the transcript of Plea Proceedings, page one (Exhibit D) shows both of them, Mr. Sanzone and Mr. Eicher absent from the proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, where the plea agreement was presented to an unlicensed New Jersey counsel, John H. Feiner. Counsel Feiner only had Pro Hac Vice authority on criminal matters in the 08-629-5 (see Exhibits C & C-1, doc. 42-2, dated 03/10/2009, Crim. No. 08-629-GEB).

    5. A complete review of the docket listings under Crim. No. 09-720-1and 08-629-5 is absent a waiver agreement for:

    (a) Any initial offer for extension of the expiration clause.

    (b) Any waiver agreement signed by all parties to a new time frame for acceptance of the offer.

    (c) A waiver to address attorney of record, local New Jersey counsel signature block, a requirement under Local Rule 101.1 ( c )(4), thus gives rise to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requirements; counsel of record approval of the plea contract and signature; required for the civil aspects within the contract/plea agreement (see CHOICE OF FEDERAL RULE PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND APPLICABLE LOCAL RULES). Under these conditions, absence of key individuals: (a) attorney of record, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., as required local counsel; (b) Thomas Eicher, Attorney-in-Charge, Trenton office; no meeting of the minds could have occurred to form a waiver agreement to essential terms of the contract/agreement on September 17, 2009, the day and place in question. Therefore, the plea contract represents a non-enforceable contract, void under its own terms and legal requirements.
     

Share This Page