Scotton Racing
Scotton Racing
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Race Consulting & Broker
  • Auto Shopping
  • Scotton Blog
  • Terms and conditions
  • Contact Us
  • In the Shadow of Justice
  • The Shadow of Justice II
  • Shadow of Justice III
  • More
    • Home
    • About Us
    • Race Consulting & Broker
    • Auto Shopping
    • Scotton Blog
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
    • In the Shadow of Justice
    • The Shadow of Justice II
    • Shadow of Justice III
  • Sign In
  • Create Account

  • Orders
  • My Account
  • Signed in as:

  • filler@godaddy.com


  • Orders
  • My Account
  • Sign out

Signed in as:

filler@godaddy.com

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Race Consulting & Broker
  • Auto Shopping
  • Scotton Blog
  • Terms and conditions
  • Contact Us
  • In the Shadow of Justice
  • The Shadow of Justice II
  • Shadow of Justice III

Account


  • Orders
  • My Account
  • Sign out


  • Sign In
  • Orders
  • My Account

In the Shadow of Justice

 In the Shadow of Justice exposes misconduct by federal authorities and seeks accountability and justice.

Find out more

Conspiracy Revealed: The Dark Secrets of Fraud Agains him

USDOJ ATTORNEY Elizabeth Robyn Chapman

USDOJ ATTORNEY Elizabeth Robyn Chapman

USDOJ ATTORNEY Elizabeth Robyn Chapman

 

Elizabeth Robyn Chapman #274658

License Status: Active

Address: USDOJ, PO Box 878, Washington, DC 20044-0878

Phone: 202-630-0101  |  Fax: Not Available

Email: elizabeth.r.chapman@usdoj.gov 

 

On November 13, 2019, I was served by ICE with two forms, I-85 (Notice of Intent to Deport) and I-85A (Final Deportation Order), while detained at D. Ray

 

Elizabeth Robyn Chapman #274658

License Status: Active

Address: USDOJ, PO Box 878, Washington, DC 20044-0878

Phone: 202-630-0101  |  Fax: Not Available

Email: elizabeth.r.chapman@usdoj.gov 

 

On November 13, 2019, I was served by ICE with two forms, I-85 (Notice of Intent to Deport) and I-85A (Final Deportation Order), while detained at D. Ray James Correctional Facility. Form I-85 indicated that I had 10 calendar days to respond, but both forms were issued and signed on the same day, violating my due process rights under U.S. immigration law. I immediately filed for judicial review with the appellate court.

Before the court could respond, Elizabeth Chapman, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a motion to dismiss my petition as moot, claiming that the forms had been canceled. However, two days later, ICE served me with the same forms again, both issued and signed on the same day, repeating the due process violation. I filed another judicial review with the Eleventh Circuit, and again, Ms. Chapman requested dismissal, claiming the forms had been canceled.

On the third occasion, ICE issued the forms once more, but before I could file another judicial review, I was forcibly removed from the U.S. I was handcuffed, shackled, and transported through several states (Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Puerto Rico), before being deported to Brazil without identification, money, or proper clothing, despite having lived in the U.S. for over 42 years and having an approved I-130 petition filed by my U.S. citizen mother.

Ms. Chapman also failed to respond to multiple letters I sent to her office, including requests for my complete A-file (Alien file), a right to which I am entitled as part of my deportation proceedings. Her refusal to provide these documents further obstructed my ability to defend myself and properly challenge the legality of the deportation actions taken against me.

Moreover, Ms. Chapman was fully aware of the fact that ICE wrongfully classified me as an aggravated felon under INA § 101(a)(43)(M), which pertains to crimes involving fraud or deceit where the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000. There was no mention of any loss amounts tied to the 27 counts of mail fraud for which I was convicted. The restitution used to justify this classification was not connected to my charges, and the unverified spreadsheet presented at trial contained no specific loss amounts. Despite knowing this, Ms. Chapman allowed ICE to proceed with its improper actions, violating my rights.

Cancelling the I-85 and I-85A forms may have appeared to be the right course of action, but in reality, it was a deliberate attempt to avoid judicial review. By canceling the forms each time I filed a judicial review, Ms. Chapman effectively prevented the appellate court from ruling on my petitions and addressing the merits of my case. This intentional avoidance of court review violated my right to due process, which is a cornerstone of both U.S. and immigration law.

Under California Bar standards, Ms. Chapman’s conduct constitutes clear violations of the following rules:

  1. Rule 3-200(A) – Prohibiting attorneys from pursuing legal actions that are unwarranted. Her actions were in bad faith, as she repeatedly filed to dismiss my petitions under the guise of mootness, despite knowing that my claims were legitimate.
  2. Rule 3-110 – Requiring attorneys to act competently and diligently. Ms. Chapman’s refusal to provide my A-file, failure to respond to my letters, and deliberate obstruction of the court's review process demonstrate a lack of professional competence and diligence.
  3. Rule 8.4(c) – Prohibiting attorneys from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or deceit. Her conduct in filing motions to dismiss based on canceled forms, without addressing the underlying legal issues, amounts to deceit and a violation of my rights.

Ms. Chapman knew, based on my judicial reviews, that ICE’s use of restitution to classify me as an aggravated felon was wrong and lacked merit. Her actions have caused irreparable harm to my family, especially my legally blind U.S. citizen mother, who was forced to leave the U.S. with my ill stepfather to care for me in Brazil, without access to Medicare and other benefits she would have received in the U.S.

Elizabeth Chapman’s disregard for the law, her failure to act in good faith, and her deliberate obstruction of justice must not go unpunished. Her actions are in violation of her duties as an officer of the court and as a licensed attorney under California Bar standards. I respectfully request that the California Bar investigate her conduct in this matter and hold her accountable for the harm she has caused.



Official Complaint Against FBI Agent Roy VanBrunt

USDOJ ATTORNEY Elizabeth Robyn Chapman

USDOJ ATTORNEY Elizabeth Robyn Chapman

 

I. Threats and Coercion at Broward County Jail (August 24, 2013)

Incident:

On August 24, 2013, Agent VanBrunt visited me at the Broward County Jail, where I had already spent over a year in detention without representation by legal counsel. During this visit, he threatened me, stating that he would force all my friends to testify against m

 

I. Threats and Coercion at Broward County Jail (August 24, 2013)

Incident:

On August 24, 2013, Agent VanBrunt visited me at the Broward County Jail, where I had already spent over a year in detention without representation by legal counsel. During this visit, he threatened me, stating that he would force all my friends to testify against me and imprison my mother if I did not accept a plea deal. This occurred on a Saturday evening around 8:00 PM. These actions constitute severe violations of my rights and were intended to coerce me into an unjust plea agreement.

Legal Violations:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant): This statute makes it illegal to intimidate or threaten individuals to influence or prevent testimony.
  • United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1980): Coercing a defendant to plead guilty under duress or threats violates due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

II. Coercion of Witness (Junio Silva)

Incident:

Agent VanBrunt visited the home of my former brother-in-law, Junio Silva, to coerce him into testifying falsely against me. VanBrunt attempted to paint a negative picture of me, but when Silva refused to comply, VanBrunt became angry and threatened that he would imprison me regardless of Silva's cooperation and ensure my deportation once my sentence was served.

Legal Violations:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Witness Tampering): Attempting to force or threaten someone to testify a certain way is illegal under federal law.
  • Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959): The government cannot use coercion to manipulate testimony in criminal cases.
  • United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 86 (2nd Cir. 2004): Law enforcement officers are prohibited from intimidating or threatening witnesses, as it constitutes a violation of due process.

III. Fabrication and Manipulation of Evidence

Incident:

Agent VanBrunt fabricated evidence during the investigation, including a spreadsheet that was manipulated to contain over 1,363 repeated invoices from 1,289 entries. Additionally, evidence from February 3, 2014, shows that new evidence was manufactured and altered after witness testimony, further violating evidentiary rules.

Legal Violations:

  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963): Suppression or manipulation of evidence favorable to the defendant violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements): Any intentional falsification of documents or evidence by a federal officer is prohibited.
  • Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972): The government cannot suppress evidence that may impeach the credibility of witnesses or government agents.

IV. Unauthorized Entry and Search Without a Warrant

Incident:

Agent VanBrunt entered my mother’s condominium without a search warrant, illegally accessing the storage room. Following this unauthorized entry, important documents and DVR footage from my store’s security cameras were found to be missing. This blatant violation of my privacy occurred without any legal basis or search warrant.

Legal Violations:

  • Fourth Amendment (U.S. Constitution): Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961): Evidence obtained through unconstitutional search and seizure is inadmissible in court.
  • United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012): Law enforcement officers must have a warrant to enter private property without consent.

V. Coercion and Threats to Family Members

Incident:

On multiple occasions, Agent VanBrunt visited my stepfather’s job and my mother’s house to intimidate and coerce my family. He forced my stepfather into a van and interrogated him, attempting to coerce him into making false statements to incriminate me. During one incident, the agent threatened my family's safety if I did not plead guilty. These actions caused immense emotional distress, particularly to my ill mother, who was recovering from a colostomy procedure at the time.

Legal Violations:

  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971): A federal agent's abusive conduct in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments allows a civil claim against the agent.
  • United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987): Governmental coercion that targets innocent family members violates due process and equal protection.

VI. Tampering with Immigration Proceedings (I-485 Application)

Incident:

Agent VanBrunt unlawfully influenced immigration officials to deny my I-485 application on March 31, 2012. This denial occurred on a Saturday during a government shutdown, which raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the process. The denial of my I-485 was an intentional maneuver to prevent me from obtaining bail.

Legal Violations:

  • Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559): Government agencies must follow lawful procedures when making decisions on immigration applications.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings): Influencing or obstructing immigration decisions by fraud or threats is a violation of federal law.

VII. Involvement of FBI Agent’s Wife and Conflict of Interest

Incident:

There is evidence that Agent VanBrunt’s wife, Andrea VanBrunt, had a personal connection to my ex-wife and influenced him to target me due to my divorce. This relationship represents a clear conflict of interest, and Agent VanBrunt’s personal motivations compromised the integrity of the investigation and prosecution against me.

Legal Violations:

  • 28 U.S.C. § 455 (Disqualification due to conflict of interest): Federal officers are required to recuse themselves when personal relationships compromise their ability to conduct impartial investigations.

Conclusion:

In summary, the conduct of FBI Agent Roy VanBrunt represents gross violations of my constitutional rights and federal laws. His threats, coercion, manipulation of evidence, unlawful searches, and tampering with immigration proceedings are not only unethical but also illegal. I respectfully request that this complaint be thoroughly investigated and that Agent VanBrunt be held accountable for his actions. It is clear that no law grants him immunity from these illegal acts, and as a federal officer, he is not above the law.

I further request that Agent Roy VanBrunt be disbarred from the FBI and that a full investigation into his conduct be initiated.

USDOJ ATTORNEY Bertha R Mitrani

USDOJ ATTORNEY Elizabeth Robyn Chapman

11 CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE Robin Stacie Rosenbaum

 Bar Number:

88171

Mail Address:

500 E Broward Blvd Ste 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-3016

Office: 954-660-5691

Cell: 305-467-3729

Email:

bertha.mitrani@usdoj.gov


 

 

Complaint Against Bertha R. Mitrani, U.S. DOJ Attorney

Introduction

This complaint is filed to address numerous ethical violations, professional misconduct, and constitutional breaches 

 Bar Number:

88171

Mail Address:

500 E Broward Blvd Ste 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-3016

Office: 954-660-5691

Cell: 305-467-3729

Email:

bertha.mitrani@usdoj.gov


 

 

Complaint Against Bertha R. Mitrani, U.S. DOJ Attorney

Introduction

This complaint is filed to address numerous ethical violations, professional misconduct, and constitutional breaches committed by Bertha R. Mitrani, U.S. DOJ Attorney, during the case of United States v. Rogério Scotton. These violations occurred throughout the bail hearing, trial proceedings, and the evidence presentation phases. As a result of her actions, my constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and an adequate defense were severely compromised.

Background

I, Rogério Scotton, was charged and convicted of mail fraud and related offenses. Throughout the legal proceedings, Attorney Mitrani, alongside her colleagues in the FBI, engaged in a series of unethical actions that fabricated the case against me. The following points outline specific instances of misconduct and the related legal violations committed by Attorney Mitrani, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.

1. Bail Hearing – March 29, 2012

During my bail hearing, Magistrate Judge Snown was prepared to grant me bail based on my solid community ties, professional career as a race car driver, and history as a law-abiding resident. Attorney Mitrani, however, intervened, producing a forged and unauthenticated letter alleging my immigration status had been denied. This letter ultimately influenced the decision to deny bail. The fabricated letter had glaring inaccuracies, including:

  • Lack of date, signature, or identifiable source.
  • My name was misspelled, and the address listed was incorrect.
  • The letter purportedly came from the Miami office, though my immigration case was pending at the Oakland Park office.

Despite these issues, Attorney Mitrani presented this unauthenticated document as credible evidence, leading to the denial of my bail and violation of Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and Rule 4-8.4 (Misconduct).

Furthermore, Attorney Mitrani conspired with the FBI to deny my I-485 immigration application on March 31, 2012, a Saturday, when the office was closed, making it impossible for legitimate action to have taken place. This manipulation constitutes a direct violation of my Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, as well as 42 U.S. Code § 1983.

2. Violations of Due Process and Fabrication of Evidence

Throughout my trial, Attorney Mitrani routinely contradicted the indictment, shifting the government’s theory to confuse the jury and obscure the truth. For example:

  • One indictment count claimed a FedEx package was shipped on August 8, 2008, though the FedEx account wasn’t opened until August 11, 2008—a fundamental inconsistency ignored by the prosecution and court.
  • The evidence included spreadsheets riddled with errors: 1,289 invoices with 1,363 repeated entries, lacking authentication or supporting documentation like waybills or proof of delivery.

These actions violated Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel) and Rule 4-8.4 (Misconduct). By presenting falsified and unsupported evidence, Mitrani deprived me of my Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, further violating my constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

3. Brady Violations and Coercion of Witnesses

Attorney Mitrani repeatedly violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding exculpatory evidence. She also manipulated immigration records and actively concealed evidence that could have undermined the prosecution’s case. Specific instances include:

  • Failing to disclose inconsistencies and errors in the spreadsheets.
  • Suppressing evidence that demonstrated witnesses’ compromised credibility, including Renata Moreira, who committed immigration fraud by entering a sham marriage. Despite her own criminal activities, Moreira was granted immunity to testify falsely against me.

Attorney Mitrani also coerced my ex-wife’s testimony through threats from FBI agents. The prosecutor knowingly relied on this coerced, false testimony to build the case against me. This violated Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(b) (inducing a witness to testify falsely) and my Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and have a fair defense.

4. Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence

Attorney Mitrani further obstructed justice by suppressing exculpatory evidence essential to my defense, violating Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(d). Key evidence was either withheld or deliberately destroyed, denying me the opportunity for a proper defense. For example:

  • CDs provided by the prosecutor that were meant to contain exculpatory documents were found to be blank. Requests for missing documents, such as original waybills, were denied, depriving me of the ability to refute the fabricated spreadsheet entries.
  • Despite repeated requests, supporting documentation for the spreadsheets was never produced, further compounding the Brady violations.

The Suppression of exculpatory evidence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which mandates that the government must provide the defense with all evidence favorable to the defendant, as outlined in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

Constitutional Rights Violated

Attorney Mitrani’s actions directly violated numerous constitutional and civil rights, including but not limited to:

  • Sixth Amendment: Right to a fair trial and effective counsel. Her manipulation of evidence and the coercion of witness testimony violated my right to due process and the opportunity to present a complete defense.
  • Fifth Amendment: Right against self-incrimination and right to due process. The withholding of exculpatory evidence and falsified documents deprived me of fundamental procedural rights.
  • Fourteenth Amendment: The denial of bail based on fabricated immigration records violated my right to equal protection and due process.

Conclusion

The conduct of Attorney Bertha R. Mitrani represents a gross abuse of prosecutorial power, legal ethics, and my constitutional rights. Her involvement in fabricating evidence, suppressing exculpatory information, coercing witnesses, and presenting unauthenticated documents has deprived me of a fair trial, leading to my wrongful conviction.

I request that this complaint be thoroughly investigated for her violations of Florida Bar Rules, particularly:

  • Rule 4-3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
  • Rule 4-3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
  • Rule 4-8.4: Misconduct

The disciplinary actions taken should include, but not be limited to, revocation of her bar license. Additionally, I request a full review of the prosecution's actions in this case, as her misconduct undermines the integrity of the legal system and calls into question the legitimacy of the conviction rendered against me.


11 CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE Robin Stacie Rosenbaum

11 CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE Robin Stacie Rosenbaum

 Bar Number:

908223

Mail Address:

U.S. District Court
299 E Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1944

Office: 954-769-5670

Cell: 954-769-5670 - No Text Messages

Fax: 954-769-5679

Email:

robin_s_rosenbaum@ca11.uscourts.gov


 

 

1. Judicial Bias and Denial of Fair Trial

  • Violation of Right to Fair Trial (Sixth Amendment): The judge's repeated interfere

 Bar Number:

908223

Mail Address:

U.S. District Court
299 E Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1944

Office: 954-769-5670

Cell: 954-769-5670 - No Text Messages

Fax: 954-769-5679

Email:

robin_s_rosenbaum@ca11.uscourts.gov


 

 

1. Judicial Bias and Denial of Fair Trial

  • Violation of Right to Fair Trial (Sixth Amendment): The judge's repeated interference in your case suggests a bias that deprived you of a fair trial. The refusal to compel witnesses to appear and allow for proper cross-examination directly violates the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment.
    • Pros: This presents a clear constitutional violation, as the right to confront witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial.
    • Cons: Proving bias without concrete evidence (beyond the decisions made) can be difficult.
  • Failure to Address Jury Misconduct: When a juror expressed fear for their safety after disclosing personal information, the court should have immediately addressed potential jury tampering or undue influence. Additionally, the allowance of jurors who admitted to reading external news reports during the trial contradicts the principle of impartiality under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
    • Pros: Highlighting this showcases how the integrity of the trial was compromised by external factors.
    • Cons: The defense must show how this directly impacted the verdict, not just the process.

2. Deprivation of Counsel

  • Violation of Right to Counsel (Sixth Amendment): The court's failure to allow you effective assistance of counsel, particularly when your appointed attorney was relegated to the back row, is a clear violation of your rights. The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective assistance, and seating your attorney away from you during a critical trial phase hampered your defense.
    • Pros: This argument underscores your lack of proper legal representation, a key element of any criminal defense.
    • Cons: The court may argue you still had an attorney available, shifting the focus to the attorney’s performance.

3. Denial of Witnesses and Evidence (Subpoenas)

  • Violation of Subpoena Power (Fed. R. Crim. P. 17): The denial of 18 out of 29 subpoenaed witnesses without proper justification violates your right to call witnesses in your defense. Additionally, the failure to compel the appearance of witnesses under subpoena, such as Junior Silva and Wolff, who held exculpatory evidence, weakens the credibility of the trial process.
    • Pros: Subpoena rights are key to the defense's ability to gather and present evidence, and their denial is a strong point.
    • Cons: Courts often have discretion over the relevance of witness testimony, so this argument must emphasize how these witnesses were critical to your defense.

4. Refusal to Release Documents and Verifiable Evidence

  • Violation of Discovery Rules (Brady v. Maryland): The prosecution's reliance on unverified spreadsheets without supporting documentation violates your right to due process, as outlined in Brady v. Maryland. The prosecution is required to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, particularly when it could exonerate the defendant or cast doubt on the government’s case.
    • Pros: The lack of supporting documents and the reliance on unverified spreadsheets can show prosecutorial misconduct or evidence tampering.
    • Cons: The prosecution may argue the spreadsheets were sufficient evidence, necessitating a detailed breakdown of why they are not.

5. Improper Handling of Immunity

  • Misuse of Witness Immunity (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003): The judge’s handling of the immunity issue related to your ex-wife appears to be fraudulent. No proper procedure for immunity was followed, yet the court misled the jury into believing she had immunity. This false representation can constitute prosecutorial misconduct under Giglio v. United States if it was used to coerce testimony.
    • Pros: A fraudulent grant of immunity can undermine the entire credibility of a witness, especially if done to pressure testimony.
    • Cons: Proving intent to deceive the jury by both the judge and prosecution may require documented communication.

6. Prosecutorial Misconduct and FBI Interference

  • FBI Intimidation of Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1512): The involvement of FBI agent Roy VanBrunt in intimidating your ex-wife, and the subsequent cover-up by the prosecution and judge, constitutes obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. The agent’s interference with a key witness (Wolff) who held exculpatory evidence further compounds this.
    • Pros: Witness tampering is a serious crime and, if proven, can greatly weaken the prosecution's case.
    • Cons: Proving FBI misconduct can be challenging unless backed by substantial evidence like recorded conversations or testimony.

7. The Giglio Letter and Plea Pressure

  • Use of False Information to Pressure a Plea (Giglio Violations): The judge and prosecution misused a Giglio letter to suggest that truthful testimony from your ex-wife wouldn’t expose her to criminal charges, despite knowing that no immunity was granted. This tactic likely aimed to pressure you into pleading guilty, another form of prosecutorial coercion.
    • Pros: Highlighting the inconsistency between the prosecution’s letter and actual legal procedures shows clear manipulation.
    • Cons: The prosecution could argue it was merely offering clarification to the witness, making intent hard to prove.

8. Manufactured and Fraudulent Evidence

  • Submission of Fraudulent Evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 901): The government’s submission of redacted, unauthenticated documents, and the fabricated “draft” of your I-485 denial are clear violations of Federal Rules of Evidence 901 (Requirement of Authenticity). The judge’s allowance of these documents into evidence without proper scrutiny further compromised your trial’s fairness.
    • Pros: This underscores the court’s failure to maintain the integrity of the evidence.
    • Cons: It must be shown that these documents had a substantial impact on the outcome of the trial.

9. Improper Jury Instructions

  • Failure to Properly Instruct Jury (Fed. R. Crim. P. 30): The judge’s failure to properly address the jury’s confusion—especially when they admitted they did not understand the case—compounds her misconduct. Additionally, allowing a juror who admitted to outside influence (reading news reports) to continue undermines the integrity of the verdict.
    • Pros: Jury confusion and external influence are clear signs of an unfair trial.
    • Cons: The judge may argue that all parties agreed on jury instructions, which would shift the focus to their content rather than how they were delivered.

Conclusion

All these points culminate in a case of serious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, a violation of your civil and constitutional rights, and an overall failure to ensure a fair trial. The improper granting of immunity, denial of critical evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and reliance on fraudulent documents have severely undermined the judicial process, leading to an unjust conviction. Your complaint should be backed by referencing specific rules and case law (e.g., Brady, Giglio), and it must highlight the judge’s failure to act impartially.

This comprehensive list of violations will help in drafting a strong formal complaint against the judge, making it clear that your rights were systematically denied throughout the trial.

APPEAL COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY Richard C Klugh Jr.

APPEAL COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY Richard C Klugh Jr.

 Bar Number:

305294

Mail Address:

Richard C. Klugh, P.A.
40 N.W. Third Street, PH1
Miami, FL 33128

Office: 305-536-1191

Cell: 305-903-6900

Fax: 305-536-2170

Physical Address:

40 NW 3rd St Ph 1
Miami, FL 33128-1838

Office: 305-536-1191

Cell: 305-903-6900

Fax: 305-536-2170

Email:

rickklu@aol.com


 Complaint Against Attorney Richard Klugh
For Professional 

 Bar Number:

305294

Mail Address:

Richard C. Klugh, P.A.
40 N.W. Third Street, PH1
Miami, FL 33128

Office: 305-536-1191

Cell: 305-903-6900

Fax: 305-536-2170

Physical Address:

40 NW 3rd St Ph 1
Miami, FL 33128-1838

Office: 305-536-1191

Cell: 305-903-6900

Fax: 305-536-2170

Email:

rickklu@aol.com


 Complaint Against Attorney Richard Klugh
For Professional Misconduct, Violations of Constitutional and Civil Rights, and Ethical Breaches 


 

Introduction

This formal complaint is filed to bring attention to the serious misconduct, constitutional violations, and professional negligence committed by Richard Klugh, a court-appointed attorney for my appeal in the case United States v. Rogério Scotton. Mr. Klugh’s behavior as my appellate attorney was not only unethical but also a direct violation of my constitutional rights and the Florida Bar Rules. This complaint outlines his failure to uphold his duties, his misleading conduct, and his refusal to protect my rights as a defendant.


I. Violations of Florida Bar Rules

Richard Klugh’s actions are in clear violation of several Florida Bar Rules, which govern attorney conduct:

  1. Rule 4-1.1: Competence
    Attorneys are required to provide competent representation, which includes legal knowledge, skill, and thoroughness. Mr. Klugh failed to investigate and address numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct, trial court errors, and factual discrepancies in my trial, rendering his representation grossly incompetent.
  2. Rule 4-1.2: Scope of Representation
    Mr. Klugh ignored my instructions, including failing to file a motion for release pending appeal, despite my explicit requests. He also submitted a frivolous appellate brief without my consent, violating his obligation to consult and abide by client decisions under Rule 4-1.2(a).
  3. Rule 4-1.3: Diligence
    Mr. Klugh failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. His refusal to file the motion for release pending appeal and his delay in obtaining trial transcripts demonstrated a clear lack of diligence in representing me.
  4. Rule 4-1.4: Communication
    Mr. Klugh did not communicate honestly or adequately with me. He lied about the existence of federal court audio recordings and submitted legal documents without my approval. These actions violate Rule 4-1.4, which mandates that attorneys keep their clients reasonably informed and explain matters in a manner that allows the client to make informed decisions.
  5. Rule 4-3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions
    Mr. Klugh filed an appellate brief designed to ensure the affirmation of my conviction, rather than challenging the substantial legal errors in my case. His submission of a frivolous brief constitutes a violation of Rule 4-3.1, which requires attorneys to avoid filing meritless or frivolous claims.
  6. Rule 4-8.4(c): Misconduct – Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
    Mr. Klugh engaged in deceitful behavior by falsely claiming there were no audio recordings of my trial proceedings and refusing to correct known transcript errors. His deliberate misrepresentation of facts demonstrates a violation of this rule.
  7. Rule 4-8.4(d): Misconduct – Prejudice to the Administration of Justice
    By refusing to address prosecutorial misconduct and by misleading me, Mr. Klugh prejudiced the administration of justice. His actions hindered my ability to secure a fair appellate review and contributed to the miscarriage of justice in my case.

II. Constitutional Violations

In addition to violating Florida Bar rules, Mr. Klugh’s actions infringed upon my constitutional rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

  1. Sixth Amendment: Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel during all critical stages of a criminal proceeding. Mr. Klugh’s failure to advocate on my behalf during the appellate process, refusal to file crucial motions, and submission of a frivolous brief constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
    • Precedent: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), establishes that ineffective counsel must be shown where an attorney’s performance was deficient and the defendant was prejudiced as a result. Mr. Klugh’s failure to properly represent me meets this standard.

  1. Fifth Amendment: Due Process of Law
    • The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Mr. Klugh’s refusal to file a motion for release pending appeal deprived me of my right to a procedural safeguard. His failure to appeal significant legal errors and misconduct deprived me of my due process rights under the Constitution.
    • Precedent: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires that exculpatory evidence be presented during trial. By failing to challenge the Brady violations in my case, Mr. Klugh allowed due process violations to persist.

  1. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection Clause
    • The Fourteenth Amendment ensures equal protection of the laws. Mr. Klugh’s deliberate negligence and submission of a frivolous brief discriminated against my right to a fair appellate process, violating the principle of equal protection under the law.

III. Violations of Federal Law

  1. 18 U.S.C. § 1341: Mail Fraud
    • Mr. Klugh failed to challenge my mail fraud conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, despite my repeated requests. His refusal to address the legal flaws in the prosecution’s case was a dereliction of duty.

  1. Giglio Violations
    • Under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), it is required that any deals or promises made to government witnesses be disclosed. There were instances of Giglio violations in my case, including the prosecutor’s failure to disclose agreements with key witnesses. Mr. Klugh’s refusal to raise these issues on appeal directly violated my rights under Giglio.

IV. Failure to File Key Motions and Address Prosecutorial Misconduct

  1. Failure to File Motion for Release Pending Appeal
    • Mr. Klugh’s refusal to file a motion for release pending appeal—despite my explicit requests—was a violation of my constitutional rights. This failure prevented me from being considered for release under lawful conditions, denying me the opportunity to pursue release during my appeal. Precedent: United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), which discusses a defendant's rights concerning release pending trial or appeal.

  1. Manipulation of Trial Transcripts
    • The trial transcripts were manipulated, and my direct questions and witness responses were altered. When I requested that Mr. Klugh file a petition for the audio recordings to correct the transcript errors, he falsely claimed there were no audio recordings in federal court. This was a blatant lie, as United States v. King, 373 F.2d 813 (2d Cir. 1967), confirms that defendants are entitled to access accurate transcripts and recordings when material errors are outlined.

  1. Failure to Appeal Sentencing Enhancements
    • Mr. Klugh refused to challenge the wrongful enhancement for obstruction of justice and sophisticated means, despite the clear grounds for such an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the sentencing guidelines.

  1. Failure to Challenge Violations of my Compulsory Process Rights
    • During trial, my Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to present witnesses in my defense was violated. The lower court denied 18 out of 29 subpoenaed defense witnesses, including crucial testimony, such as that of FBI Agent Roy VanBrunt. Mr. Klugh’s refusal to raise this issue on appeal was an egregious failure of representation.

V. Conclusion

Richard Klugh’s conduct in my appeal was not only unethical but deliberately obstructive. His failure to properly represent me, file necessary motions, challenge prosecutorial misconduct, and address sentencing errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice. His actions were in violation of the Florida Bar Rules, the U.S. Constitution, and federal law, and they significantly prejudiced my case.

I request that disciplinary measures be taken against Mr. Klugh, including:

  • His immediate suspension and/or disbarment from the practice of law.
  • Criminal investigation into his misconduct.
  • A referral of his actions to the appropriate legal authorities for further review and potential legal consequences.

Supporting Documents and Evidence:

  • Letters from Richard Klugh misleading me about trial recordings.
  • Frivolous appellate brief filed by Richard Klugh without consent.
  • Records of requests for motions to be filed that were ignored.
  • Transcripts showing manipulated entries and omissions.

This complaint seeks to hold Richard Klugh accountable for his professional misconduct and to correct the severe injustice that occurred as a result of his actions.

Filed Complaints Against Federal Authorities

 Browse through official complaints and legal filings documenting federal misconduct, abuse, and violations. 

Complaint filed to California Bar against Government Attorney Elizabeth R Chpman CASE 24-O-24809 (pdf)

Download

COMPLAINT AGAINST FBI AGENT ROY VANBRUNT CIVIL RIGHTS (pdf)

Download

FIRST RESPONSE FROM CALIFORNIA BAR 24-O-24809 Elizabeth Robyn Chapman (pdf)

Download

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

Case Resume

 

                                                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT   IN THE  SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                                                                                                                      CASE NO: 12-cr-60049-KMW

                                                                                                                                      CASE NO: 17-cv-62428-KMW


                                     ROGERIO CHAVES SCOTTON, )

                                                                                  Defendant, )

                                                                       vs.  

                                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

                                                                               Respondent. )

 

  

 

 

On March 15, 2012, Race Car Driver Rogerio Scotton was wrongfully arrested on charges of mail fraud. He endured a protracted pretrial period of two years, during which a second indictment was filed against him, accusing him of 27 counts of mail fraud and false statements. The trial commenced on January 26, 2014, after Scotton faced financial difficulties and cycled through three different court-appointed attorneys, each of whom pressured him to accept a plea agreement despite his innocence. These attorneys neglected to conduct any investigations, interview witnesses, or review the government’s discovery materials, including unverified and inaccurate spreadsheets presented during the trial, in violation of the rules of criminal procedure.

Judge Rosenbaum demonstrated bias by falsely claiming that Scotton had not cooperated with his attorneys, despite the absence of supporting evidence. The judge's findings were fabricated and baseless, serving as a cover-up for judicial misconduct. During the trial, the government unlawfully amended the indictment without regard for Scotton's due process rights. They introduced 27 packages in court, asserting that they were the same packages mentioned in the indictment but failed to specify any loss amount. Additionally, the government presented numerous unverified and inaccurate spreadsheets containing thousands of shipped packages to Brazil under various shipping accounts. Scotton objected to the introduction of these spreadsheets, as he had not received them before the trial, as required by the rules of criminal procedure. However, the judge overruled these objections, falsely claiming that the spreadsheets had already been provided during the discovery process, which was completely untrue.

When Scotton informed the biased judge that he had never received the spreadsheets and had not been given the opportunity to verify their accuracy, the government assured the court that they had provided them during the discovery process. However, it was later discovered that six of the government's discovery CDs were blank. Despite this revelation, the judge ordered the prosecutor to create fresh copies of the CDs and provide them to Scotton, even though the trial was already underway, denying Scotton a chance to inspect the CDs.

The judge ignored Scotton's objections to the unlawful spreadsheets and allowed the government to mislead the jury by introducing false evidence. Additionally, the judge falsely suggested on the public record that Scotton had behaved inappropriately toward his court-appointed attorneys, despite the fact that none of the attorneys had inspected the spreadsheets for accuracy or reviewed the discovery CDs. The spreadsheets themselves were duplicated and contained repeated invoices, failing to provide any legitimate business records.

Scotton asserts that numerous unlawful actions were taken to secure his conviction at any cost. He provides various documents and evidence exposing the corrupt US judicial system, government misconduct, the judge's bias, witness intimidation by FBI agent Roy Vanbrunt, and other fraudulent acts. Scotton spent over eight years in prison under a sentence imposed in violation of his constitutional rights. While in prison, he studied law and attempted to prove his innocence. He also assisted other inmates with their cases, resulting in sentencing reductions, vacated terms, and overturned cases.

Scotton's habeas corpus case is still pending resolution in the Southern District Court, case no: 12-CR-60049-KMW, under ROGERIO CHAVES SCOTTON vs. UNITED STATES. Scotton filed this section 2255 motion on December 11, 2017. Shortly after filing, Magistrate Judge Patrick recommended that Scotton's motion be denied, stating that Scotton had already filed a habeas corpus petition and needed authorization from the appeals court to file a second one. On December 28, 2017, Judge Federico Moreno denied Scotton's habeas corpus petition, adopting the magistrate's report. Scotton objected to both the magistrate's and judge's decisions in four different motions, citing Supreme Court holdings in CASTRO vs. UNITED STATES. However, the Southern District Court disregarded the law and denied Scotton his constitutional rights.

With no other options, Scotton requested the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review the unlawful denial of his section 2255 motion, filed a lawsuit against Judge Moreno in the Southern District of Georgia, and filed a motion to remove Judge Moreno from the case based on bias, racism, and discrimination under sections 445 and 144.

After nearly two years, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Scotton, vacated and reversed Judge Moreno's denial order, and removed Judge Moreno from the case due to established bias. On April 27, Judge William reopened the case and ordered Scotton to amend his section 2255 motion, with the government instructed to respond to the allegations.

Throughout the proceedings, Scotton repeatedly requested copies of all lawyers' Criminal Justice Act (CJA) vouchers from the Court and the Clerk's office. However, the Court refused to release these public records, which are crucial evidence of the court-appointed attorneys' ineffective assistance and fraud against taxpayers. Furthermore, the government, with the Court's approval, violated another rule by submitting a 91-page response to Scotton's allegations under section 2255, exceeding the normal 15-page limit. However, this response failed to address any of the substantial constitutional issues raised by Scotton and instead presented a lengthy document filled with irrelevant arguments.

All of this occurred after Scotton had already served his entire sentence imposed in violation of his constitutional rights. The government consistently engaged in unlawful and incorrect procedures when issuing the second superseding indictment against Scotton, prioritizing winning at any cost over the pursuit of truth.

On November 15, 2019, Homeland Security (ICE) served Scotton with a notice of intent to issue a final administrative removal order and a final administrative removal order. These notices were issued on November 13, 2015, and served on November 15, 2019. Scotton filed a petition for judicial review with the Appeals Court on November 25, 2019, challenging the Department of Homeland Security's wrongful classification of him as an aggravated felon based solely on the restitution imposed by the District Judge.

The government avoided addressing Scotton's claims and used procedural maneuvers to falsely assure the Court that all administrative orders had been dismissed. However, on the same day, they lodged another final administrative removal order against Scotton with the same wrongful allegation of being an aggravated felon. This new removal order was issued on January 17, 2020, and served on January 29, 2020. Subsequently, on March 13, 2020, a third final administrative removal order was lodged against Scotton.

On May 13, 2020, at 23:00, Scotton was handcuffed and shackled by ICE agents. He was then taken to Atlanta airport, where he was placed on a U.S. Marshals airplane bound for Louisiana. Upon arrival in Louisiana, Scotton was left outside in the rain for over two hours, handcuffed and shackled next to another airplane. He was deprived of food and restroom facilities. Later, he was placed on another airplane headed for El Paso, Texas, while still handcuffed and shackled. In Texas, Scotton was kept inside an inmate bus parked on the runway for over four hours, waiting for the next airplane to take him to Brazil. All this time, he remained handcuffed and shackled.

Finally, Scotton was placed on another airplane that made a stop in Puerto Rico for refueling before reaching its final destination in Brazil. Throughout the entire flight, Scotton remained handcuffed and shackled. Just three minutes before landing in Brazil, Scotton was released.

Downloads Criminal Case files

 Download Scotton Criminal Case Transcripts and Evidence Highlighting Injustice and DOJ Corruption 

1-3-2014 usa vs scotton (pdf)

Download

1-10-2013 rochsc7 (pdf)

Download

1-15-2014 rochsc3 (pdf)

Download

1-17-2014Scotton 011714USAscotton (pdf)

Download

3-22-2012 rochsc4 (pdf)

Download

3-29-2012 (pdf)

Download

4-5-2012 rochsc5 (pdf)

Download

5-28 (pdf)

Download

5-29-2012 Scotton 5-29 transcript (pdf)

Download

7-1-2013 rochsc1 (pdf)

Download

7-27-2012 Scotton 7-27 transcript (pdf)

Download

8-10-2012 rochsc6 (pdf)

Download

8-16-2013 rochsc2 (pdf)

Download

8-27-2013 Scotton 8scot27 (pdf)

Download

10-23-2013 usa vs scotton (pdf)

Download

Downloads Criminal Case Files

  

 Access Evidence of Manipulated Case Transcripts: Denied Verbal Audio and Nonexistent Federal Court Records in Scotton's Appeal 

12-06-2014 Scotton 120614USAscotton (pdf)

Download

12-10-2013 (pdf)

Download

12-19-2013 us vs scotton (pdf)

Download

f-01-23-14-scotton-VD-Openings (pdf)

Download

F-02-26-14-Scotton (pdf)

Download

Scotton_trial_transcript_with_DE_cites (pdf)

Download

motion to vacate judgment (pdf)

Download

MEMORANDUM OF LAW (pdf)

Download

vacate judgment because of fraud on the Court to assert jurisdiction (pdf)

Download

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IMMIGRATION ATLANTA COURT MOTION FOR BOND (pdf)

Download

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IMMIGRATION ATLANTA COURT MOTION TO ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS (pdf)

Download

leave to amend reply motion (pdf)

Download

REPLY TO RESPONDET OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER EMERGENCY AMENDED MOTION (pdf)

Download

appelacao CASTRO V US (pdf)

Download

REPLY TO RESPONDET OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER EMERGENCY AMENDED MOTION (docx)

Download

Downloads Files & Evidences

FILES AND EVIDENCES THAT SHOWS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND SCOTTON'S INNOCENCE. 

false document introduced during bail hearing (pdf)

Download

redacted document by prosecutor (pdf)

Download

FRAUD UPON COURT CONDUCT BY PROSECUTOR AND AGENT (pdf)

Download

PLEASE AGREMMENT OFFERED BY PROSECUTOR (pdf)

Download

CALLS TO SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA INQUIRING THE CJA VOUCHERS. ALL REQUEST DENIED. 12/07/2020 (pdf)

Download

numerous false statement made by Court Appointed rat Klugh (pdf)

Download

EMAIL FROM KEVIN KAPPES CHIEF DEPUTY CLERKDENIYING SCOTTON REQUEST OF PUBLIC RECORDS (pdf)

Download

MOTION TO REQUEST EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND AND REQUESTING CJA VOUCHERS (pdf)

Download

JURY NOTE SHOW IS CLEAR DOUBT!!! JUDGE SHOULD HAVE STOP THIS MADNESS (jpg)

Download

case resume ingles (pdf)

Download

Fabricated Spreadsheet by Mickey-Mouse Squad- Van Brunt (pdf)

Download

APPEAL DIRECT DENIED AFTER KLUGH & ROSENBAUM PLANE OF SABOTAGE. (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON APPLEAS JUDGE MORENO ILLEGAL DENIAL OF HIS SECTION 2255 WHICH THE APPEAL COURT GRANTED AND (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON PETITION TO LEAVE TO AMEND (pdf)

Download

final Motion Rule 60b Scotton March 2025 (pdf)

Download

Downloads Casa files

Files and evidences that shows fraud upon court, prosecutorial misconduct and Scotton innocence.

SCOTTON PETITIONED HIS A-FILE. THE PROSECUTOR NEVER RESPOND AND SCOTTON WAS DEPORTED IN VIOLATION O (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AFTER BEEN ILLEGAL DEPORTED FROM USA (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON PETITION TO LEAVE TO AMEND (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON PETITION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED UPON FRAUD IN COURT TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION (pdf)

Download

MOTION TO REQUEST EXTENSION AND CJA VOUCHERS (pdf)

Download

COURT GRANT EXTENSION AND CJA VOUCHERS (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON & CIRLENE DIVORCE PAPERS (pdf)

Download

WhatsApp Image 2021-03-25 at 10.42.39 AM ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOTICE DISMISSING SCOTTON PETITION UNDER P (jpeg)

Download

MOTION TO REOPENING CASE JUDICIAL REVIEW FRAUDULENT DISMISSED DUE GOVERNMENT FRAUD. (pdf)

Download

AMEND MOTION TO THE MOTION TO OBJECT THE MAGISTRATE MOTION FILED ON 05/06/2021 ONLY DOC MAY 25 (pdf)

Download

petition for judicial review 2021 filed on July 26, 2021 (pdf)

Download

INJUNCTION (pdf)

Download

letter to ELIZABETH CHAPMAN (pdf)

Download

MOTION TO REOPENING second time (pdf)

Download

MOTION TO REOPENING CASE (pdf)

Download

Documents & Case Files

petition for judicial review 2021 (pdf)

Download

REPLY TO RESPONDET OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER EMERGENCY AMENDED MOTION (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AFTER BEEN ILLEGAL DEPORTED FROM USA (pdf)

Download

SCOTTON PETITION TO LEAVE TO AMEND (pdf)

Download

BIA APPEAL BRIEF (BOND) (pdf)

Download

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IMMIGRATION ATLANTA COURT MOTION FOR BOND (pdf)

Download

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IMMIGRATION ATLANTA COURT MOTION TO ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS (pdf)

Download

amend motion to motion to object magitrate (pdf)

Download

motion to object magitrate and stay of case (pdf)

Download

motion to object magitrate (pdf)

Download

cja (pdf)

Download

kreiss cja (pdf)

Download

adelsting cja (pdf)

Download

20210225_183031 (jpg)

Download

Unequal Enforcement of United States Immigration Laws (pdf)

Download

Evidence & Records

    HEARING REAL FACTORS OF SCOTTON CASE

    ANOTHER INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR FROM THE COURT

    TODAY 12/11/2020 THE CURT DENIED SCOTTON PUBLIC RECORDS FROM HIS OWN CASE IN ATTEMPT TO COVER-UP FRAUD CONDUCT BY THE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS IN HIS CASE. 

    Audio

    SCOTTON TELLS HOW HE SURVIVE TORTURE AND INUSTICE UNDER THE CORRUPTED AND PROFIT US LEGAL SYSTEM

    Photo Gallery

    Show More

    Photo Gallery

    FBI Agent Roy Thomas Vanbrunt
    Show More

    Copyright © 2004- 2024 Scotton  Racing LLC  - All Rights Reserved.

    • Home
    • About Us
    • Race Consulting & Broker
    • Auto Shopping
    • Scotton Blog
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
    • In the Shadow of Justice
    • The Shadow of Justice II
    • Shadow of Justice III

    Powered by

    This website uses cookies.

    We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

    DeclineAccept