Send to:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW
Washington, DC 20534

Phone:
(202) 307-3198

Email:
SCRO/ExecAssistant@bop.gov

http://www.scribd.com/collections/4399699/Regional-Appeal-Regional-Deni

I just pretty much came from a page/ meeting with Mr. Maynard; and he lowered my halfway house placement again to maximum of 5 months. He tried to tell me that I could of gotten 6 months if I signed the first time while I was waiting for Central/ Washington to answer my BP-11 for the Second Chance Act (which i am still waiting for, deadline is tomorrow). he said that he needs at least two months to place the RRC request in and that’s why he needs to reduce my halfway house. I called him on it, as I have seen dozens of times before that a RRC date can be had within A WEEKS TIME. He just smiled and said that it is not his policy to push back the date two months… I could go more into the meeting but it is just maddening to listen to…

The truth was that I was not offered 6 months to begin with, as I have written you all earlier about that meeting… and I called him on it; looked like he wanted to laugh that I remembered and helpless to do anything about it…

I had to sign for something cas no one here gives a fuck and the situation is just sickening…

I am sorry everyone. I did my best and failed at getting what the policy says I was entitled to and worked so hard to receive.

it appears that the last day of March could be the best/ earliest release date, but I believe that falls on the weekend so that is not going to happen either… so some time in April. Unless some miracle happens.

Love you all,

cirino

again, i am sorry…

(out of money for the most part already)

case manager says i refused my halfway house when i told him that I was waiting to hear back from central/ washington; so now I am not sure when I will be getting out. could be March could be August this year.

love you all…

cirino

2. Will not be “disappeared.”

3. No more secrets;

4. Initialize: Project “Prometheus.”

—-see you all soon…

love you all,

Cirino Gonzalez
AKA Reno

I was attempting to speak with CMC/ Ms. Helaire when she continued to cut me off as I attempted to ask her my initial question of why when my Case Manager Mr. Maynard, agrees that I need a year’s halfway house, it was not given to me under the Second Chance Act. Instead, Mr. Maynard is wanting to extend BOP’s custody of and court order an additional 6 months at the halfway house AFTER my release date. But as I have written that event already. —-As I was saying, I was not able to get her to answer me and she insisted that I was not homeless (though Mr. Maynard has already stated I am) because I am going to a halfway house. Never mind that I was jobless and homeless before my arrest…

As part of her refusing to answer my questions and tell me why I do not fit into the Second Chance Act, she claims that I have community ties in a city I have never lived in (Corpus Christi). Allow me to just go into the BP-8′s filing:

1. WRITE YOUR COMPLAINT IN THIS SPACE, AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING ANY DETAILS & FACTS WHICH SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST.
—-On 08/13/13, At mainline, I attempted to ask CMC/ Ms. Helaire 3 questions for nearly ten minutes concerning my BP-9 (Second Chance Act filing). She never answered my questions, instead, she claimed that I had community ties in a city that I have NEVER lived in (Corpus Christi, not 1 day), stated “that no one needs a year or even six months to get their life together” & that “you’re not homeless because you’re going to a halfway house” even though I was jobless and homeless before my arrest (PSR), claimed that 3 months IS the Second Chance Act.

2. WHAT ACTION DO YOU WISH TO BE TAKEN TO CORRECT THE SITUATION?
—-Due to CMC/ Ms. Helaire’s personal belief that NO ONE NEEDS A YEAR NOR 6 MONTHS to get their live’s together & that somehow only 3 months IS the Second Chance Act & all the above and more, shows Ms. Helaire to be bias towards understanding the Second Chance Act’s language. I see the IMMEDIATE forwarding of my BP-9 to Region as corrective action.

3. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO INFORMALLY RESOLVE THIS MATTER? TO WHOM HAVE YOU SPOKEN?
—-Counselor Perez on 08/13/13 at Yard Recall, he was acting Unit Manager & Ms. Helaire stated if I did not like her answers then I can file a grievance. Secretary S. Emberton was there second half of mainline meeting, being witness.

[end]

I filed this with AW (Assistant Warden) Fick, a woman known to be fair and follows policy (newly arrived). When I spoke with her at mainline today 08/14/13, she noted that this was worth looking into and that she would follow up looking into it (concerning the newest write up), as she took my BP-8 form from me and kept it.

From there, I then addressed the issue that brought about the meeting over all, the question being that why is it that Mr. Maynard is recommending a year’s halfway house but on my release time’s expense when the Second Chance Act was created to handle the prison over crowding situation amoung other issues that it deals with and I have written you already about. She agreed to that statement and said she would look into my BP-9 filing and do what’s right, but not making any promises until she reviews everything. I explained to her that I have filed the BP-9 and that everything she needed to know was in there and that it matches up with their records too when researched.

I also found a name and number to someone that deals with these types of situations (staff not understanding the Second Chance Act) and maybe able to help. Brent Kiser, RRM Administrator 202-305-8906. The Program Director Blake gave this number as a source for information. He may also know where to complain to as well… I think it is a good place to start if lost, and I am feeling pretty lost.

love you all

Cirino Gonzalez,
76342-179
AKA: Reno

and i should have mentioned that i got an answer for the BP-8 already (yesterday afternoon).

at present the Unit Team says that they are reccommending that i get 180 days (six months); although this is considered great for FCI Bastrop, it is the basic minimum for everywhere else…

but i have good news, when they gave me the answer, they cited the reason that i have a place to live and community ties as the reason why i would only get 6 months instead of the full year that i am entitled to; and cited that i have taken many programs in the BOP that will help me when i get out, which is ass backwards because it is the Second chance act that says you can only get the full 12 months only if you do the full programing, some sort if doublespeak from my case manager. —but as you are aware, i have the mother’s affidavit, so i am begining my filing and showing the fact that i do not have a place and that my weapons skills are not transfereable to minial work/ jobs bla bla bla…

i will keep you updated as possible.

i am going to get more time off and am certain that i will be out this year. i just need the help from the public (you all) is all…

love you

cirino

everyone,

i just filed my bp-8 with the on duty counselor Pratz this evening. the focus is that my case manager Maynard and unit manager Felts have not answered my formal request for the Second Chance Act review that allows up to a full year of halfway house placement for me, allowing me to rebuild my life that has been destroyed over my case/ charges. the bp-8 is an informal resolution of my grievance in this matter concerning my release and a chance to better myself and allowing for the best chance to be released and not reoffend over my poor circumstances…

the formal request and letter of support should now be available to you all to view now online. the letter was addressed to the unit team and the warden as he has the last say in granting me any time over 6 months halfway house. problem is that Maynard and Felts have already told me that they do not even want to give me even six months halfway house and because of such remarks and history, they will not even advise the warden of my request nor show him my letter in support of granting the full 12 months and review my circumstances that allows and fits the ideal usage of the second chance act for inmates in my position.

i hope you are able to review my letter and are moved to assist me in convincing the BOP that attention needs to be given to this situation i am in as i am already just about 6 weeks away from what could/ should be my release date.

i have been told already by other inmates that Maynard has told people to their faces that he does not put inmates in for anything over 6 months because it involves “weeks of paper work.” so things do not look too good right now. plus other inmates have had to file against FCI Bastrop in order to get Region (higher authorities) involve and force the Staff here to do their jobs and the do the right thing for the inmates that have filed against them (granting them more halfway house).

i wanted to avoid all that, but it appears that the only time i get away where with paper work here is to begin filing, which i have already started. the problem is that it is so late in the process of my review period due to many people/ staff simply dragging their feet my situation. forcing me to be even more proactive than i am comfortable with due to my fear of being messed with in some way.

i have always appreciated your help in matters like this before and i hope you are there for me in this (hopefully) last hurtle. then i will be “home” soon.

love you all,

cirino gonzalez
aka Reno

Formal Request for Full Residential Reentry Center cover page

Cirino’s Formal Letter in Support of Request for Full 12 Months

FCI Staff response to inmates message in ref. to RRC

i arrived last night in FCI Bastrop last night, got into my cell about midnight… not the welcome i expected but screw it, i am still in prison and it was a comfortable bed all the same. —-even though it says “FCI” i am really (and finally) at a “low prison.”

i was very excited to get here and the number one reason why is that i am back home in Texas now! from what i can figure, i am just under Austin and a bit to the side; thats the way that i remember this spot being… i have not had a chance to check yet. i am sure you all will be able to track it down better than i could ever explain it in here.

you should be able to do that via the fbop.gov website; least i think that is what it is called. could be just bop.gov for all i know… but while you are there, you may want to try to check out the visit forms they have there so that you can fill them out and send them off to the prison via the net to my counselor. my understanding is that it is way faster and easier this way. let me know when you try it, that way i can keep an eye on it from here to see what happens…

this place is sooo sweet! again the welcome is not what i was expecting, but i am sorta figuring out why that is… it should be just a matter of time that everything gets settled out, after all we did just get in late last night…

i love you all, time to get my uniform!

again, love you all!

cirino gonzalez

Cirino’s Birthday is coming up on the 15th of this month. Feel welcomed to sending him some well wishes, remember cards must be in cut at the fold to apply to the FBOP guild lines.

Cirino Gonzalez 2255 – Gov Response (1)

~ Donna VanMeter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DITSTRICT OF
NEW HAMPHIRE
Gonzalez, Cirino * CASE NUMBER
V * 07-CR-189-03-GZS
UNITED STATES *
OF AMERICA *

MOTION UNDER 28 USC § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE
BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY

Comes now the Movant, Cirino Gonzalez, PRO SE and INFORMA PAUPERIS; under the case of: UNITED STATES v. MORGAN, 346 U.S. 502, 505 (1954), the MOVANT, Cirino Gonzalez, should not be barred from an appropriate remedy because he has mistyled his MOTION. The Court should construe it as whichever one is proper under the circumstances and decide it on its merits. MOTION remedy is in the criminal proceeding, affords the opportunity and expressly gives the broad powers to set aside the judgment and to “DISCHARGE THE PRISONER or RESENTENCE HIM or GRANT a NEW TRIAL or CORRECT THE SENTENCE AS MAY APPEAR APPROPRIEATE.”
(*rules of evidence*)
This MOTION is provided invoking FED. R. of EVID.; specifically, RULE 901, 33 evidence, and other rules, which makes these rules APPLICABLE in this proceeding.

This MOTION is to present the inquiry of whether the claimed errors of law were a fundamental defect, which inherently results in a complete MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE [Hill v. UNITED STATES, 368, U.S. 424, 428 (1962)] and whether it presents EXCEPTIONAL circumstances where the need for remedy afforded by a 2255.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BACKGROUND
Movant, Cirino Gonzalez, hereon to referred to as “Movant,” was tried and convicted in the UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Docket Number: 07-CR-189-03-GZS), ON April 10, 2008. a judgment of PARTIAL CONVICTIONS and MISTRIAL was ruled by Judge George Z. Singal, hereon “Singal,” and SENTENCING followed on September 26, 2008, with 96 months (8 years) imposed on Movant for the count of 18 U.S.C. §371, 18 U.S.C. §111(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. §3. The Movant entered a plea of NOT GUILTY and went forward in a JURY TRIAL, where Movant testified upon the stand under oath.

Movant APPEALED the conviction of UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE to the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT (Docket Number: 08-2300), where the sentence and convictions were affirmed on July 30, 2010. Citation: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 615 A.F.T.R. 2D (RIA) 5962 NO.08-2300. Some of the grounds raised in DIRECT APPEAL were:
Convicted of accessory and conspiracy to accessory, but not conspiracy to impede officers.
Not guilty of Count II Conspiracy
Count III Accessory after the fact indictment failed to state an element.
No evidence to prove Movant knew the elements of the Browns’ crimes.
Reasonable doubt instructions diluted the Government’s burden of proof.
The Court erred in directing the Jury that Marshals are Government Officers.
Dual object conspiracy analysis resulted in Movant being sentenced for a crime of which the jury did not find guilt.
Movant was IMPROPERLY sentenced for use of a weapon, which the Jury REJECTED.
Count II(a) is a MISDEMEANOR but Movant was sentenced as if it were a felony.
Guideline calculations for Count II(b) and Count III were based on the WRONG underlying offense.
Movant should NOT have been penalized for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE based on his statement to the jury regarding JURY NULLIFICATION.
The Federal Government had/has NO territorial JURISDICTION in Plainfield, New Hampshire, NOR at the Federal Court House in Concord, New Hampshire [not cited by ineffective appellant counsel was ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943)].

Movant filed a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, which is filed as No. 11-5260 on July 14, 2010, and Movant was informed that it was denied on October 03, 2011. Citation to Case: Cirino Gonzalez, Petitioner V. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 132 S.Ct 288; 181 L.Ed. 2d. 173;2011 U.S. LEXIS 5416; 80 U.S.L.W. 3189 NO. 11-5260. Grounds raised in WRIT OF CERTIORARI the THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES are moot at this point and may include some issues listed in this MOTION.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ISSUES
Note that the unusual circumstances of this case have resulted in NEW EVIDENCE as well as MANY transgressions listed under three categories. Movant prays The Honorable Court will find in favor of Movant on this Motion but points out that mistakes or disagreement on one or a few of the listed transgressions does not constitute a denial of the WHOLE item number, under which the one or a few of the questionable transgressions were listed.
As per instructions and guidance for preparing a MOTION under 28 USC § 2255, Movant makes the following claims and provides the necessary documentation to point out to this Honorable Court the reasons for this MOTION:

1.INEFFICTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Court-appointed Counsel was ineffective on several counts. Movant was Court-appointed trial attorney, David Bownes, hereon “D.Bownes.” D.Bownes, at least once, attended an Attorney-Movant meeting in a state of INTOXICATION. D.Bownes failed to state clearly to Movant whether a petition could have been or was even filed in the ORIGINAL conviction, in addition to the direct APPEAL. In dealing with missing emails from Movant to Daniel Riley, D.Bownes refused to bring in the necessary materials or expert witnesses to provide Movant opportunity to find said exonerating emails (Exhibit#CG001). D.Bownes failed to emphasize “FOR THE RECORD” that a key defense witness, Jose M. Gonzalez, invoked “UNDER DURESS” his right to remain silent as per the 5th Amendment of the CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. (Exhibit#CG002) to expose the coercive tactics of the Government. D.Bownes removed or failed to follow or refused to follow an agreed-upon DEFENSE ARGUMENT without informing Movant (Exhibit#CG003). D.Bownes concurred with and failed to object to the Court’s ruling and presumption to include Movant as part of a conspiracy with regard to a questionable recording, the “CONSPIRACY STATEMENT,” that Movant did NOT make and denies having made (Exhibit#CG004). D.Bownes refused to have this CONSPIRACY STATEMENT evidence refuted with voice comparison tests, as requested by Movant and this evidence was used against Movant in SENTENCING. NEW EVIDENCE in the form of TWO letters from Daniel Riley attesting to Daniel Riley’s knowledge as to whose voice was on this recording (Exhibit#CG005 & CG006). D.Bownes BLATANTLY refused to withdraw Movant from the conspiracy (Exhibit#CG007). D.Bownes refused Movant’s request to obtain another attorney with regard to finding missing emails (Exhibit#CG008). Later, D.Bownes admitted that he should have obtained another attorney and ADMITTTED to unlawfully arranging to unlawfully transfer Movant out of jurisdiction without consent of Movant (Exhibit#CG008). D.Bownes was unprepared to represent Movant, as demonstrated by Motions filed (Exhibit#CG010). D.Bownes admitted being too busy to prepare an adequate defense AFTER the trial in his Motion (Exhibit#CG011). Movant points out that even The Court stated that D.Bownes should have been prepared (Exhibit#CG012). D.Bownes ADMITTED to being “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL” and Movant highlights that, although the Motion used in this Exhibit pertained to a re-trial, D.Bownes effectiveness would have been demonstrated in a lack of need for re-trial (Exhibit#CG013). D.Bownes filed MOTION TO WITHDRAW after having been fired by Movant for having failed in many ways as pointed out in this Motion (Exhibit#CG014). D.Bownes acted unlawfully in arranging a transfer of Movant to a different Court (Exhibit#CG008).

2.INEFFICTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELATE COUNSEL
The Court appointed appellant attorney, Joshua Gordon, hereon “J.Gordon” to Movant. J.Gordon refused to APPEAL on grounds of INEFFICTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL based on D.Bownes’s behavior and lack of Professional performance. J.Gordon did inform Movant in writing that a PETITION could be filed on the denial of the APPEAL based on his opinion that the 1st CIRCUIT argument was INCOMPLETE and basely WRONG. However, later, J.Gordon REFUSED to file the petition (Exhibit#CG015). J.Gordon replied positively to an email sent to him by Jose M. Gonzalez regarding instructions from Movant but failed to follow the instructions (Exhibit# See CG016CG016). In response to the INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELATE COUNSEL, Movant filed grievances against J.Gordon (Exhibit#CG019) in attempts to motivate EFFECTIVE performance(Exhibit#020). Instead of improving his performance, J.Gordon filed a Motion to Withdraw (on FILE) and seemed to have obtained legal representation to defend his actions (Exhibit#CG021). J.Gordon received, and replied to, but failed to take action on, an email (Exhibit#CG017) in which Patricia Webber denied having made statements on Documents used in WRONGFUL SENTENCING of Movant; an issue to be presented in the Argument of APPEAL. Furthermore, Jose M. Gonzalez sent a hard copy of a WITNESSED statement SIGNED by Patricia Webber, in which she clearly stated “…draft reported by DENNIS SUSZKO contains numerous errors and discrepancies…NOT my statements…” (Exhibit#022) J.Gordon sent an email to Jose M. Gonzalez informing that Movant was going to be sent legal correspondence directly from The Court, but the address to which Movant was being sent correspondence was wrong (Exhibit# CG018). While Movant was in the “HOLE” at FCI-ER.OK, J.Gordon telephoned and told Movant that he (J.Gordon) was not going to risk losing his license to practice law over Movant. When Movant insisted on being released pending appeal to assist in his own defense, J.Gordon suggested that Movant remain in prison in a “Sometimes doing nothing is STRONGER” note (Exhibit#CG023); this strategy proved to be INEFFECTIVE. J.Gordon claimed he had not received email from Movant but failed to act upon the apparent or even OBVIOUS interference on the part of the BUREAU OF PRISONS, hereon “BOP” (Exhibit#CG024). J.Gordon continued sharing information with D.Bownes despite Movant having expressed distrust of D.Bownes. J.Gordon failed to provide Movant with court transcripts necessary for Movant to demonstrate the Court-appointed trial attorney as having been INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, a real and APPEALABLE defense (Exhibit#CG025 & CG026). Often, information sent by J.Gordon and/or his attorney was undelivered, delayed, returned, or incomprehensible either at the hands of BOP or the senders, further evidencing INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELATE COUNSEL (Exhibit#CG027). J.Gordon refused to act upon information and evidence provided by Movant that exposed misconduct, as well as obstruction of justice, on the part of U.S. Marshal(s) and BOP Agents. Movant sent letters to The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT as well as to James L. DeHart in the NEW HAMPSHIRE SURPEME COURT (Exhibit#CG028) to no avail. Despite grievances filed against J.Gordon by Movant, J.Gordon continued to get away with refusing to allow Movant to participate in his own appeal (Exhibit#CG029). J.Gordon covered his own ignorance of applicable law at the expense of Movant’s freedom (Exhibit#CG030). J.Gordon made false statements to protect himself (Exhibit#CG031), and J.Gordon failed to recognize and act on the ‘BIG PICTURE’, in which Government Agents coerced witnesses and FALSIFIED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS (Exhibit#CG000), as well as evidence in order to win this case: blatant disregard to the TRUTH (Exhibit#CG032).

3.PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Movant emphasizes the interference on the part of many Agents of/for the Government, including Prosecuting Attorneys, U.S. Marshals and other Enforcement Agents, and Judges specifically acting as, or in conjunction with the BOP, which repeatedly denied, delayed, or otherwise restricted legal mail, electronic-mail, and other correspondence that was and is pertinent to Movant’s preparation for defense (Exhibit#CG024). Additionally, Agents for the BOP repeatedly punished Movant for his attempts to communicate with his family and other contacts outside of the prison that were/are his only reliable source and connection to The Court system for information regarding his DEFENSE and APPEAL.

In one of MANY demonstrations of BIAS, Singal ignored the SUPPLEMENTAL SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, filed by Movant’s INAFFECTIVE attorney, D.Bownes detailing LEGAL reasons against “Upward Variance” in sentencing (Exhibit#CG082-A). Continued BIAS on the part of Singal was further demonstrated by his having ignored the SENTENCING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD VRIANCE (Exhibit#CG083). Instead, Singal chose to focus sentencing criteria on negative, usually inaccurate or false, documentation in the PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT, hereon “PSI/PSR,”despite disputed information therein and Movant has discovered even more NEW EVIDENCE regarding the inconsistencies of the PSI/PSR (Exhibit#CG 084).
A statement, SIGNED before a WITNESS, written by Patricia Webber, exposing falsehoods by U.S. Marshal, DENNIS SUSZKO, on forms used to enhance sentencing of Movant, was sent to The Court without any reply as to the actions or inactions against DENNIS SUSZKO, or in favor of Movant (Exhibit#CG022). Movant maintains that other documents, the information from which was used in sentencing Movant, was coerced from, and later recanted by, Daniel Riley (Exhibit#CG048). The Court was repeatedly informed about its lack of JURISDICTION but proceeded in this case with full knowledge of its violation of JURISDICTION (Exhibit#CG049). The Judge in this case, Singal, was exposed as having BIAS against the cause of the defendants and defied a MOTION FOR JUDGE SINGAL TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE (Exhibit#CG050). The Prosecution WITHHELD exculpating emails from Movant, written by Movant to co-defendant, Daniel Riley, in which Movant repeatedly refused to perform conspiratorial acts such as returning to the Browns’ home or updating the Browns’ website; therefore, REMOVING Movant from the CONSPIRACY (Exhibit#CG009).
Judge Singal demonstrated his BIAS against all defendants, including Movant in arguing points for the Prosecution against Defense Attorneys even when the Prosecution admitted that raising the legality of the income tax would hurt the argument of the Prosecution and favor the Defense (Exhibit#CG071). Movant was forced to stand trial as a member of a CONSPIRACY based on information obtained from, and recanted by, Daniel Riley before Daniel Riley had been given his MIRANDA warning (Exhibit#CG072). Singal allowed Exculpatory Evidence to be withheld despite MOTION TO DEMAND DISCOVERY which could have demonstrated the degree to which defendants may have felt their lives were THREATENED by U.S. Marshals (Exhibit#CG073). Singal allowed Prosecutors to LIE to the GRAND JURY (Exhibit#CG074). Singal ignored and/or denied to Movant EXCUPATORY information necessary for preparation for trial (Exhibit#CG075) and even DEFIED case LAW (Exhibit#CG076). Singal was present in what appears to be a CONSPIRACY of ALL Attorneys, DEFENSE and PROSECUTORS against the Defendants, including Movant to facilitate denying Defendants and Movant of their Rights to JURY NULLIFICATION and defining of ‘reasonable doubt’ (Exhibit#CG077). Testimony of a key Government witness exposed obvious tampering of video evidence and probably acts of OBSTRUCTION on the part of the U.S. Marshals Service but Singal seemed to either ignore the obvious or support the OBSTRUCTION when the witness claims lacking any knowledge about the video (Exhibit#CG078). Singal demonstrated his BIAS against Movant by denying D.Bownes’s corrected request to reschedule jury selection rendering D.Bownes more so INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL to Movant (Exhibit#CG079). Singal IGNORED a MOTION REQUESTING DUE PROCESS filed on behalf of Movant, in which Singal is accuse of “ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION… showing a pattern of BIAS…” (Exhibit#CG080). D.Bownes, whose services were INEFFECTIVE and having been repeatedly terminated by Movant was denied, by Singal, his MOTION TO WITHDRAW, despite a letter written to Singal by Movant, which Movant pointed out specific and ILLEGAL MISCONDUCT on the part of D.Bownes, Singal, and Prosecutors (Exhibit#CG081). Furthermore, Singal COERCED Movant into maintaning INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (Exhibit#CG081).
Exhibit#CG069 includes Movant’s hand-written notes and a typed out transcript of those notes, which reflect the Testimony transcribed on March 31, 2008 beginning at 12:15PM, Day Seven – PM Session, (possible known as “Document # 132”) and special attention should be given to note items highlighted and/or circled on pages FOUR, FIVE, and SIX of Exhibit#CG069 (Exhibit#CG069), in which the judge, Singal, openly demonstrated BIAS against the defendants, including Movant. The Judge further demonstrates BIAS against Movant during the sentencing hearing during which Singal refused to respond to questions and information Movant provided (Exhibit#CG070). Singal seemingly ignored OBJECTIONS by Movant regarding the PSI/PSR, which was used extensively by Singal in administering sentencing to Movant (Exhibit#CG085). The PSI/PSR, as previously mentioned contained information that was questionable, at best, coerced by disputable means, at worst, as is pointed out by Daniel Riley, who claims having been coerced to make statements into a “proffer,” which were in turn used against Movant in the PSI/PSR and sentencing (Exhibit#CG086). Specifically, Singal showed overt BIAS in determining whether Daniel Riley’s ‘coerced’ statements should be removed from the record when Singal supports the Prosecution by claiming Daniel Riley was acting on what Daniel Riley’s “… attorney allegedly told you…” while ending the same sentence with “… and you ended up telling the Government” which demonstrated Singal’s accepting the Government’s side in opposition to Daniel Riley and later on, threatening Daniel Riley with complete loss of attorney-client confidentiality (Exhibit#CG086). In denying Daniel Riley’s MOTION TO SUPPRESS, Singal allowed evidence to be entered into Movant’s PSI/PSR without giving Movant opportunity to cross-examine Daniel Riley with intent to discredit such statements and the Government was able to use the coerced statements to their unfair advantage (Exhibit#CG087). Unless the Court allows unsubstantiated comments devoid of legal support in a Court of Law Singal tolerated, without action, the LIES spoken by Prosecutor Arnold H. Huftalen, AUSA, during the September 26, 2008 SENTENCING HEARING (Exhibit#CG082) especially, in terms of statements made that the Prosecution FAILED to prove or even demonstrate in court as circled in the Exhibit#CG082.
With regard to Movant’s witness list; Prosecution intimidated several witnesses into refusing to testify (Exhibit#CG088). The Prosecution also REMOVED a witness, Amy Williamson, from Movant’s list whom Movant maintains held exonerating telephonic recordings despite the witness having been suspected as being a Confidential Informant, hereon “CI,” for U.S. Marshals working to entrap Movant. Furthermore, Amy Williamson lied to Round Rock, Texas Police in accusing another Witness on Movant’s list, Jose M. Gonzalez, of assaulting her (Exhibit#CG089). Prosecution filed a Response in which they admit to violating case law in failing to reveal the identity of the CI (Exhibit#CG90) but give no reason, other than accusations for having kept the identification of CI from the Defense. Other witnesses such as Terrell J. Melton and Joel Edgington have come forward with admissions of having been INTIMATED by either U.S. Marshals, Prosecuting Attorneys, or both but yet, some shy from making their allegations public for fear of reprisals.

The record is replete with discreet, as well as blatant, examples of BOP interference with Legal mail sent to and from Movant (Exhibit#CG033). Agents of the FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION-PHOENIX, ARIZONA (FCI-PA) blatantly determined, without proof, cause, or legal citation, that a letter written by Movant to Movant’s father, and possessor of POWER OF ATTORNEY (Exhibit#CG036), did ‘… not qualify as “LEGAL MAIL” ‘ and delayed its departure using an UNOFFICAL format to notify Movant (Exhibit#CG034), obstructing justice, and denying Movant of DUE PROCESS, as the letter contained time-sensitive information to be forwarded to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Exhibit#CG035). The BOP returned to sender Movant’s in-coming mail, even though marked “INCLUDES LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE,” from Movant’s father, upon whom Movant depended to maintain the flow of legal mail (NOTE: Item “B” on Exhibit#CG035), as well as LEGAL mail sent to Movant by his Appellate Attorney, J.Gordon (NOTE; Item “C” on Exhibit#CG035). At one point, Scott Willis, Associate Warden of Programs, systematically denied Movant of THREE incoming letters from Joe Haas, a man known to be an excellent legal researcher and well-known amongst his acquaintances as extremely knowledgeable in the letter of the law (Exhibit#CG051, CG052, & CG053). Often, paltry reasons were used to justify the denial of LEGAL MAIL from Movant (Exhibit#CG054) and these reasons were all too often redundant and lacked any legal or policy citation whatsoever, other than a mere accusatory statement (Exhibit#CG055, CG056, CG057, CG058,CG059). While incarcerated in FCI-ER, OK, Movant was denied telephone use for over a WEEK, without cause, or even having been given an explanation, in typical early 20th century prison style ((Exhibit#CG038), despite a key Correctional Officer (CO) admitting that Movant had done nothing to warrant such punishment. This was done during a time in which Movant had to maintain communications with family and Appeal Attorney, while working on the APPEAL. The “RESPONSE” from the FCI-PA required Movant to speak with a CO that was out, away for a week (Exhibit#CG038 “REPONSE”), demonstrating DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE against Movant on this, and several other occasions. Many times Movant was prevented from accessing documents vital to his defense APPEAL by FCI-PA Agents, relying on technicalities that further frustrated the process, when simple approval could have sufficed IF the Agents cared at all about justice (Exhibit#CG039). BOP Agents refused to explain to Movant the reasons Movant had been placed in a security level that endangered Movant and complicated Movant’s attempts at correcting falsified documents, which resulted in UNLAWFUL SENTENCING of Movant, as well as possible wrong placement of security level within the BOP (Exhibit#CG040). The long-standing denial of the FALSIFIED documents (Exhibit#CG000) potentially served the purpose of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, even as Movant wanted only ACCESS to the documents in question, BOP Agents replied as if he were requesting POSSESSION (Exhibit#CG041) and REPEATED attempts on the part of Movant were denied without citation or documentable reasons (Exhibit#CG042 & CG043). On February 26, 2010, Movant filed a grievance advising BOP Agents at the El Reno, Oklahoma FCI (FCI-ER,OK) that their actions constituted “DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE (Exhibit#CG044), and with typical DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE, the warden’s office stamped Movant’s written grievance as received on March 30, 2010, over a MONTH after the date on which the grievance was written. In another blatant example of BOP partaking in OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE, the Regional Director, G. Maldonado, Jr. of FCI-ER,OK on October 29, 2010, replied to Movant by explaining that Movant DOES have access to the requested evidence without addressing the fact that Movant is requesting the evidence because he had been, and continued to be, DENIED access to same (Exhibit#CG045), and again on March 24, 2010, with the same non-responsive denial of Movant’s in-house appeals (Exhibit#CG046). The ordeal over Movant’s assigned SECURITY LEVEL and Movant’s battle against the BOP’s interference with his own defense continued throughout Movant’s incarceration at FCI-ER,OK and followed Movant to FCI-PA Exhibit#CG068) and remains as yet unresolved. Having faith in the HONORABLE Courts System, Movant demanded that J.Gordon file a Motion To Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail (Exhibit#CG093), and in an obvious act of BLATANT PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, on July 21, 2010 the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT demonstrated their BIAS against Movant and entered an ORDER OF THE COURT denying Movant’s Motion to allow Movant receipt of Certain Mail; referring to the long-standing attempts to receive the falsified documents/evidence used to unjustly sentence Movant. If the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT was at all interested in the TRUTH, it could have just as easily, and with HONOR, have APPROVED Movant’s Motion to Allow (Exhibit#CG047). In response to this decision, Movant filed a NOTICE OF PERJURY with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS advising of the PERJURY performed onto the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS and further exposing the violations of office by the U.S. Attorney’s office (Exhibit#CG091). Additionally, Movant filed, within the in-house system of FCI-ER,OK, several “BP-9” docume­nts, at least one of which named Mr. J. Rogalsky, hereon “J.Rogalsky,” as the BOP Agent responsible for preventing Movant’s access to the falsified documents and possibly having lied to the FIRST CIRCUIT (Exhibit#CG068,33-33). In response, J.Rogalsky THREATENED Movant by asking Movant, “You want a safe environment while in prison, don’t you?” and in typical BOP INDIFFERENCE, BOP Agents responded unenthusiastically (Exhibit#CG060). On the day that Movant was THREATENED, J.Rogalsky further abused and harassed Movant by performing a “shake-down” of Movant’s cell and THREATENED to return and do more of the same often (Exhibit#CG061). Movant felt endangered, as tactics used by corrupt BOP Agents often involved pressuring fellow inmates into harming the inmate seen as causing trouble to BOP Agents (Exhibit#CG062). The following morning, Movant believed that as a means to intimidate fellow cell-mates into harming Movant, J.Rogalsky “tossed” Movant’s cell, as well as the two adjacent cells (Exhibit#CG063), and J.Rogalsky posted an UNOFFICIAL notice (Exhibit#CG064). In response to Movant’s having reported THREATS from J.Rogalsky, the BOP placed Movant “In the HOLE” pending an investigation of the matter (Exhibit#CG065). On September 02, 2010, Movant filed another grievance asking the BOP to investigate and determine whom, in FCI-ER,OK, it was that had OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE in lying to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT (Exhibit#CG066).
Co-Defendant, Robert R.Wolffe, hereon “R.Wolffe,” testified in court to avoid, among other coercion, a prolonged sentence as punishment for the crimes of which he was accused, and as evidence of such, as well as evidence of PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT; the Prosecution filed a Motion to ‘CONTINUE SENTENCING’ of R.Wolffe, until AFTER R.Wolffe testified against Movant in what was to be the re-trial of Movant on June of 2008 (Exhibit#CG067).
E. ROBBINSON admitted to lying about what he reported. All other officers, having entered my home, my room, before E.Robbinson, have uniformly matching reports of the facts, which all contradict those reported by E.Robbinson. R.Wolffe admitted on the stand there was ‘No conspiracy with Movant. Singal punished Movant for perjury in testimony that was NOT rebutted but refused to punish R.Wolffe even after Singal admitted that R.Wolffe had impeached himself, to Defense Attorney, Sven Wiberg, at side bar .
Prosecution had DISCOVERY, from Movant’s website, which stated Movant’s date of departure from the Browns’ home and further elaboration on Movant’s personal causes, plans, etc. Such evidence should have led the government to question their own purposes in continuing their PERSECUTION of Movant.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT issues abound in this case against Movant. The most transparent examples are where defense AND prosecution witnesses were involved. A prosecution witness, Joel Edgington, had approached Daniel Riley’s defense attorney, Sven Wiberg, to recant his testimony during the trial, in which he claims feeling coerced by Government agents and accused Prosecution attorneys of submitting false evidence, upon which he testified as real evidence for fear of retaliation from the Government (Exhibit#CG092). A special NOTE must be made of this claim, as Movant has only anecdotal knowledge of Joel Edgington’s recanting of testimony because, as a direct result of The Court’s blatant demonstration of BIAS against Movant, in which THE FIRST CIRCUIT’s REFUSAL to order the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to cease interfering with LEGAL MAIL pertinent to the proper defense of Movant in this case, the BOP has continued to block Legal Mail to/from Movant, whether such LEGAL MAIL be to/from supporting family members, friends, or Attorneys, made further ineffectual by the BOP interference (Exhibit #047).

Movant submits, as fact, that Movant was DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL through, and BY, the Government, The Court, and the ACTIONS and INACTIONS of the Court-appointed attorney, David Bownes. Movant TERMINATED David Bownes on THREE separate occasions DURING the trial, again AFTER declaration of the MISTRIAL, and again after the SENTENCING. The Prosecution AND the Judge resisted and denied, respectively, Movant’s termination of David Bownes, and forced/coerced Movant into re-instating David Bownes, who freely admitted, to Movant, to having thrown out/away EXONERATING EVIDENCE, FAILING/REFUSING to file MOTIONS, as Requested by Movant, AND even WITHDRAWING Motions agreed-upon by both Movant and INEFFECTUAL Court-appointed attorney, David Bownes.
Movant further submits, as fact, that he was Denied EFFECTIVE ASSITANCE OF APPELLET COUNSEL in that The FIRST CIRCUIT COURT intimidated Joshua Gordon into becoming less ‘EFFECTIVE’ when Joshua Gordon attempted to pursue the matter of JURISDICTION in Movant’s APPEAL.
Movant STRONGLY emphasizes the MANY incidents of PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, many of which were excluded from this filing for the sake of preserving time and space.

SUPPORTING FACTS
Firstly, Movant addresses the issue of JURISDICTION, about which THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has ruled in Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943) that “Since the government had not accepted jurisdiction in the manner required by the Act, the federal court had no jurisdiction of this proceeding.” This alone should be enough to warrant approval of this MOTION.
Movant prays The Honorable Court will make the appropriate connections as Movant supports the NEW EVIDENCE and other charges made in this MOTION by offering the following:
Motion for new trial under Rule 33 must be granted if Court is reasonably well satisfied that testimony given by material witness is false & that without it, Jury might have reached a different conclusion; Where motion for new trial does not allege perjury or prosecutorial misconduct, however, Movant-Defendant must show that the new evidence would probably produce acquittal. United States v. Street (1977, Ca, Mass) 570 F.2d.
“The Jury is the only actor permitted to determine guilt—NOT the judge” United BHD of Carpenters & Jointers of AM v. United States, 330 U.S. 395, 408, 67 S. ct. 775, 91 L.Ed 973 (1947)
“A court cannot do indirectly that which it has no power to do directly” Spare v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, 15 S.ct. 273, 39 L. Ed. 343 (1895)
“Jury nullification is that unreviewable power of the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty ‘In the teeth of both law & facts” Horning v. District of Columbia, supra at 138.
“… the jury’s power to issue a general verdict of not guilty which is irreversible by the court …” United States v. Dougherty, 154 U.S. App D.C. 76, 93, 473 F.2d 1113 (1972)
“The trial judge…took a quantum leap beyond merely withholding encouragement… It impinges on the very essence of the Jury’s role as one of the spokesmen for the community conscience in determining whether blame can be imposed”” Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100, 26 L.Ed. 2D 446 90 S Ct. 1893(1970); Duncan v Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56, 20 L.Ed 2d 491, 88 S. Ct. 1444 (1968).
“The Common Law Jury… has the power to nullify, that is, act as judge of the law and facts & render a verdict based on what it thinks is right …” New York State Bar Journal, Vol. 65, No. 7, Nov. 1993, At 40-44.
“If it is shown that Government’s case includes false testimony & Prosecution knows or should have known of falsehoods, new trial MUST be held if there is any reasonable likelihood that false testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury” United States v. Geders (1980, CA5 FLA) 625 F. 2d 31
“Standard for evaluating new trial Motion is more lenient in cases of recantation…”United States v. Olson (1988, CA7 WIS) 846 F. 2d 1103, 25 FED Rules EVID. SERV. 907, CERT DEN (1988) 488 US 850, 120 L Ed 2d 104, 109 S. Ct. 131
“… Court need only be reasonably well satisfied that testimony was false & without false testimony jury might have reached different conclusion.” United States v. Bonilla (1980, DC Puerto Rico) 503 F supp 626.
“… new trial on ground that prosecutor withheld evidence favorable to defendant…intentionally withholding exculpatory matter from defendant after request” United States v. Meier (1980, DC Utah) 484 F. supp 1129
“… require new trial under FRCRP 33, where newly discovered evidence… with conflicts of evidence known to defense before & during trial… & effectively to cross-examine particular witnesses was severely impeded” United States v. Conley (2000, DC MASS) 103 F. supp 2d 45, REVD (2001, CAL MASS) 249 F. 3d 38.
“ To obtain reversal… on ground of prosecutorial conduct, defendant must meet plain error standards of RULE 52 by showing that Prosecutor’s conduct affected his substantial rights” United States v. Veytia-Bravo (1979,CA5 TEX) 603 F. 2d 1187, 4 FED RULES EVID SERV 1474, REH DEN (1980) 444 US 1024, 62 L Ed d 658, 100 S Ct. 686
“… (1) … Counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness measured against prevailing professional norms; … (2) That there is a reasonable probability that but counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d. 674 (1984); Also Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S., 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2D 284 (2010).
“A Petitioner may demonstrate ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by showing that his or her appellate counsel ‘omitted significant & obvious issues while pursuing issues that were clearly & significantly weaker’ ” Clark v Stinson, 214 F. 3d 315, 322 (2d. Cir. 2000)
“… when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome” Mayo, 13 F. 3d at 533 (quoting Gray v. Greer, 300 F. 2d 644, 646, (76h Cir. 1985)

CONDUCT AND REHABILITATION
Movant, while under FEDERAL INCARCERATION, and despite his questioning the LEVEL of his INCARCERATION, has maintained himself as a model inmate for other inmates to emulate. His calm and peaceful approach to various ‘questionable’ practices, on the part of employees of the BOP, have gained Movant the respect of fellow inmates, as well as that of Correctional Officers in every facility into which Movant has been transferred. Movant has been, and continues to be, an active participant in unit team programming. Movant remains a smoke-free man, as he was before his incarceration, and stands true to his personal conviction to remain drug-free and supports all others wishing to improve themselves in this regard. Movant has maintained connections with his family of origin, as well as with his current wife, ex-wife, and four children, whom have suffered much, economically and emotionally, since his incarceration. He remains respected by his siblings, distant relatives, and respective neighbors. Movant owned a Service Business in which he was often entrusted with access to clients’ property for various services including security, maintenance, etc.

RELIEF
Movant, Cirino Gonzalez, prays this Honorable Court will recognize the expediency of this matter in that Movant has been held well beyond his Constitutionally allowable punishment, even had he been found guilty under Constitutional grounds. As such, Movant prays this Honorable Court to VACATE the unlawful sentencing and ORDER the Federal Bureau of Prisons to RELEASE Cirino Gonzalez and provide adequate private civilian transportation to the same address from which he was originally taken by Federal Agents at 1025 N. Wright Street in Alice, Texas.
Or, in the alternative, Movant, Cirino Gonzalez, prays this Honorable Court remand that Movant be released and able to participate in his own defense: back to Court for RETRIAL.
At the very least, Movant, Cirino Gonzalez, prays this Honorable Court acknowledges the questionable actions and dishonesty on the part of Federal Agents, U.S. Prosecuting Attorneys, and others in leading this Honorable Court to having been MISGUIDED and MISINFORMED and over-sentencing Cirino Gonzalez. In so acknowledging, Movant prays to be remanded to the Honorable Court for correct RESENTENCING and/or release for having satisfied the sentencing time required.
Lastly, Movant, Cirino Gonzalez, informs this Honorable Court that he remains devoted towards PEACEFUL and educational actions in dealing with corruption of Government Officials and policies.

Respectfully submitted under penalty of perjury and
without prejudice by written power of attorney (on file)
for Cirino Gonzalez
_________________________________ _____________
Jose M. Gonzalez Date State of Texas
County of Jim Wells
This document was acknowledged before me on _____________ (date)
By ___Jose Manuel Gonzalez©___ (name of principle)

______________________________
(signature of notarial officer) Seal/Stamp:

https://www.change.org/petitions/i-was-5yrs-the-last-time-i-saw-my-daddy

5 years is far too many to be separated from ones family and loved ones, especially if you did not commit a crime of violence, but instead of standing up for your 1st Amendment Right and becoming a whistle blower and blogger. 

Please sign and share this petition with others. It means a great deal to all of us in the Gonzalez family. 

Well, here I am writing again. That statement is funny to me cause this is how I really got myself into trouble in the first place. You could even say that it was also other people’s writings that got me into all this too; though, I could not pin point any specific moment in time that would have been the beginning for me. Just that it was long ago; of this, I am certain…

I never stopped though. I have been busy researching and “connecting the dots” for many others still to this day, after all these years being locked up. Some would say that I have not learned my lesson yet. Others still say that I am really pressing the limits on all this. Personally, I feel that I should be pushing harder and that I have room to increase my efforts evermore still.

It was not so long ago when a good friend of mine in here stopped to beg me not to do this anymore, that I am a good person and he did not want to see me get into any more trouble than I have gotten myself into already. How I could get hurt really bad if not worse. It really tugged at my heart because I really felt that he truly cared about my safety and his voice carried like a father’s would being that he was much older than I; and I knew full well what he was talking about and that he meant well too. After all, I knew that once I went active that I was pretty much dragging everyone else that I loved and cared about into the darkness with me.

—-But, the way I saw it, we (YOU & I) were ALL headed that way regardless. If that was to be so, then I’d rather it be I that leads my loved ones through the darkness by the light I can cast throughout this said darkness. I will give the truth as I find it and reveal it as soon as I find it; even if you are not ready for it, even if I am not ready for it. And these days, finding the layers of stories behind the “history,” has been happening more and more and faster and faster every day.

I have been following a few new reports that have been tying into my prior research and I feel that everyone needs to be aware of what is really happening behind the scenes. If you have the access, go to David Wilcock’s site to read his own research on the trillion-dollar law suit; as he has reported on much of what has been put out there too. and I can say that I believe it is one of the few sites that has nearly all the Intel concerning what I am about to go into with you all here, just that his will have a lot of the background. Another site to get even more detailed background (over all) is at David Icke’s own site too…  for those of you not aware of these gentlemen, then some of what they will report/ relay to you will hit you like a ton of bricks to the chest.

All that I ask is that you READ their work. I am not saying that everything they say is correct, but their work is SOLID, based on the latest and original research around. Some articles use information as new as just last week, while others use resources that are over 10,000 years old. Just read their work and lend your feelings to the question at hand: what are we to do?

So here it is, my new year’s resolution: to unite the people of the world in the goal to save not just our home planet but to rescue ourselves too. —-But more on this later. I heard a pretty cool saying earlier today where someone else was speaking (on a video) right along about the same lines on my ideas (the video was made a few years ago). It was something aligned with, “The Earth is where we will make our stand.” It had taken my breath away as I reflected on those words and how they related to my goals too.

The Earth is where We will make our stand! This is where we will prove not only to ourselves but to all those “others out there” that we are not anyone’s slave anymore. We will prove to our own selves that we are more than just human. We are very much a part of much more than what we can see and have been told. WE will finally begin to take responsibility for not only our own future, not only for our children’s and loved ones’ future, but for the All that We are! The Earth’s, the Solar System’s, the Universe’s, the Multiverse’s and beyond…

The year 2012 is important for many reasons to many people. But here is another one for Us as humans regardless of what our mix is; and believe me, We are all mixed. This could very well be the last year we live as slaves. This could very well be the last year we are kept oppressed by the corrupt (so called) leadership. This could very well be the last year we wage war against our own brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, aunts and uncles —-and perhaps even our very own children. I realize what I am stating here is beyond what most people may believe is even possible. —-but that is only because those before me gave up or where taken out one way or another. I have been working on this for years. I have trained many for leadership and they have moved to do the same for us too.

I am not claiming that I have all the answers. But I do know oppression and slavery when it crosses my senses. I am not saying that all those that I have worked with have all the correct answers either. But I allowed them (leadership/ guides) to search for themselves what is true in their own hearts. And I have seen from time to time, many of them step up when the ideas presented here (the above) were attacked as being of those of only a dreamer. Many times, even to the amazement of myself, as they (leadership/ guides) had often laughed at me too when i shared the above with them at various points in our conversations, —-only to see them (leadership/ guides) rush up and defend what was before their sport. With a self-assured smile I would look on as they (leadership/ guides) handled themselves remarkably well against those what choose to attack the idea before they researched it…

Look, there are many things that are happening to you all out there that I am just floored by. I am not surprised by the lack of action either, But all the same, I am just in shock over all; which leads me to wonder every once in a while, is it worth my life to help these people that will not even speak out for themselves… here is a short list:

*Nation Defense Authorization Act, with this in place, your government has authorized the military to grab you & the ones you love to be “arrested”/ “disappeared” and detained with no rights or legal help what-so-ever and no one must be informed about your status. The reasoning is to ship you to a country where they will torture you and if you die in the process so be it… of course, “they” can also just assassinate you all the same without so much as a trial. THIS IS AGAINST THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! Where are The People standing up against this insane act?

*Veterans are terrorist/suspects now. The Dept. of homeland security released reports detailing who to target as suspects for terrorist agents. “they” labeled us veterans as those to be watched and if necessary, be “arrested”/ “disappeared.” again, without a trial. So you know, if you have not heard already, it is even stated that those that carry a copy of the U.S. Constitution are possible terrorist; working to overthrow the very government that is SUPPOSE TO BE PROTECTING this document!

*All the lies, every so often the government releases figures that cover certain aspects of our lives here in the U.S. and after those –oh so positive numbers are totted on T.V. there is a revised list that is only commented on in the papers, always with the newly accrued numbers settling in the much more negative side of the matter; such as the housing, unemployment, government debt, etc…

*I could go on and on but it cost me $ to write this, so help me and yourself out here, just go look at the declaration of independence and read the list given and see if you can find just ONE thing on there that does not apply to our situation today.

The F.B.I. and Secret Service agents that have spoken to me admit that the government is (more of) an empire and that they know it; that at some point they will be forced to choose a side: for the people, or for the government that they know is running illegally… my guess is that if any one of them looks at the current situation of not just this government/country but the world’s issues too, they will come to realize that the reason why they stay employed with the government (the money) will soon be gone. So my guess is that many will want to be running with us when the time comes.

Well, I am sorry. You must choose now. Pick your side and back it. It is your only chance to save the future for not just your own children but for your own self too. I am not threatening you; I am stating the obviousness of your situation.

This may all still seem to be just a dreamer’s dream. But I have an idea that will help make this all happen. I am gonna ask for your help in this. If you are a dreamer too then we should be in good company, yes? If you are not a dreamer, then you may believe that we need more of a “grounded” approach to this goal, then, you should feel all the more compelled to help each other out. This is a worthy goal to achieve, lend us your strengths and we will do the crazy parts.

If you stay where you are and say that it will not happen then YOU held us back. It is always “no” until you ask. Well, I have asked you. If you accept then we can move forward in this grand plan. And when we succeed, and others born afterwards ask us how? Then we can say we did our part and we just did it. I used to tell my shipmates in the Navy, “There’s nothing left to it than to do it.” meaning, everything is pretty much done, we just need to start it and it will finish its self. That the hardest part is starting.

i wish i could hear you say, “I am here to win,” “yes, I will and I can,” “we can do this together!” but I am in here and you are all out there. So what is more important at this point is that YOU hear yourself say it aloud and then you and yours discuss it. This is an important part…

The only way that we are going to get through this is for the human race to evolve into a higher consciousness. Yes, there are billions of people on this planet. And yes, it would appear that perhaps that there is too many of us but we need this level to become the stewards of this planet. We must, and we WILL move into a higher level of awareness, those that can get in first will have the easiest passage into our coming future. Those that fight it, I pray that you make it somehow. But if you buck this too much, or perhaps a little at the wrong time, you may not make it at all.

You are all my brothers and sisters. I will continue to look out for you and safe guard your freedoms. This is needed because if they are not guarded by me, then how will I be safe if I must defend against the many to save my own freedoms; I will need you to act in the same manner. Ideas don’t die. And neither does your spirit/ soul. We all move on and choose to live the lives we live today. Learn this and you will be free to also change your stars and move to a higher plane.

Please realize this; the lack of war is not peace. Peace is people working together. How can we work together if we have governments that build borders to keep us all apart, that press us by fooling us to war against our own kind; mankind?

You have the personally responsibility to yourself and loved ones.

Only you can determine your level of involvement.

I love you all and I hope you join in creating the future with the rest of us. We are many, the oppressors are few. We rule our lives, they only seek to control it for their benefit.

Gonzalez, Cirino

aka Reno

aka Dok-Ti

this letter was given to me on friday 06/10/11. the letter is dated on 05/24/11 and states:

(start)  the above-entitled petition for writ of certiorari was originally postmarked December 24, 2010 and received again on April 12, 2011. the papers are returned for the following reason(s):

no motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, signed by the petitioner or by counsel, is attached. rules 33.2 and 39. the motion must be signed.

the notarized affidavit or declaration of indigency does not comply with rule 39 in that the affidavit must be signed by the petitioner.

please correct and resubmit as soon as possible. unless the petition is submitted to this Office in corrected form within 60 days of the date of this letter, the petition will not be filed. rule 14.5

a copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel.

when making the required corrections to a petition, no change to the substance of the petition my be made.

(signed) william k. suter, Clerk

(end)—- well, there you have it, i will check to see what they are talking about, as it stands now, i thought i had it correct the first time i sent it out. you all have a copy of it too, so feel free to have someone look at it and help me in case i am missing something.

by the time it even gets heard, it will be a year in delays due to “proceedureds and rules” this is how “they” get you.

love you all,

i love you My Donna…

cirino