In the Shadow of Justice

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.