Part 4: “Beiter 2” – The Malicious Targeting Continues and
Culminates in a 35 Year Prison Sentence
The amount of evidence proving the continuation of the malicious targeting against myself and others is as already displayed on this site; overwhelming. I will only be presenting a small portion of the evidence of the crimes committed against me in Beiter 2, because it is the same perpetrators as in Beiter 1. I will focus on some key elements for Beiter 2, and using the actual court docket to affirm what is stated herein. When I have done so, I will give the actual number of the document that coincides with a specific instance, as well as referencing samples of evidence in the file attached to this portion of my story. As stated on several places on this site, the overwhelming amount of fraud and perjury committed against me in what was aptly named “Beiter 1” by the conspirators, is the same tactics used by the same people, adding a few more accomplices as they stampede forward:
“Crime vitiates everything which springs from it.” Maxim of Law – Henry v. Bank of Salina, 5 Hill (N.Y.) 523,531.
If you have thoroughly researched this site and looked over the vast amounts of exculpatory evidence, one crucial element of fraud that you would have noticed, is the appointing of Chantel Doakes and Nissen Marks of the Federal Public Defenders Office, to case # 09-CR-60202-JIC. This appointment by Judge James Cohn was done against my will, without my permission, consent, or consent by assent.
Every time I was forced into their foreign jurisdiction, I fired both Chantel and whomever they attempted to force on me. Every time Chantel and Nissen attempted to visit me in the prison I was being held in, against my will, I fired them immediately. Chantel, upon each time meeting with me stated, I quote, “Mr. Beiter, I know that you have fired me and that I don’t represent you, but the Judge is ordering me to do this.” For almost one year, at every opportunity I had, I asked Chantel, Nissen and Judge Cohen himself, “What law are you supposedly operating within, that allows you to seemingly force counsel on me, against my will, without my permission, consent, or consent by assent?”
That question was ignored and went unanswered, and it was asked with diligent fervor every time I had the chance. Court transcripts will prove up all of this, as well as evidence submitted on the site for Beiter 1. In one instance while in court, Chantel specifically told Judge Cohn he had no lawful ability to force her to represent me against my will to which he responded that he was going to do it anyway-and he did. I immediately turned to Chantel and said, “If you think you represent me, you’re fired!” And so it would go right through a trial, a sentencing and incarceration for ten years according to the conspirators. This is until Beiter 2 was hatched.
On 1/9/12, now into Beiter 2, miraculously, unlike Judge Cohn, Judge Dimitrouleas would allow for the firing of Chantel Doakes as counsel of record. That’s correct, the one who told me I could not remove her, so says the Judge, was now miraculously dismissed just like that, with no problems whatsoever (see document #164 on the docket for case # 11-CR-60273-WPD). Chantel told me that the entire Public Defenders Office had recused itself from representing anyone in Beiter 2, to which I asked under what supposed law? The very thing she stated she was unable to do under “Judges Order,” was now being done by the entire Public Defenders Office as a whole. The fix was in on Beiter 2 and it would come in the way of the “Criminal Justice Act” and “CJA” appointed attorneys.
As for the continuation of forced counsel, pages 1 & 2 of the attached file will reveal my position of record, in regards to a man named Clark D. Mervis, and his business with Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Clark was a “CJA” attorney, and the go to guy of Judge Dimitrouleas. The “Notice of Fraud,” dated 6/26/12, and sent directly to Dimitrouleas outlines my exact intent in regards to any association with Mr. Mervis and Mr. Dimitrouleas combined.
As my exculpatory evidence and court transcripts, unless altered, will prove up, I put all parties on Notice multiple times, of the crimes committed in the case they were now both accomplices in. The actions of both Mervis and Dimitrouleas prove they ignored every single act of crime expressed to them, “alleged” or otherwise and simply ignored the matter completely. Both of their actions reflect the position that they had zero responsibility to provide honest services, oath bound and otherwise to the very serious criminal acts I was noticing them of.
The evidence to support the claims was so overwhelming that one attorney in the case actually put in a “Motion to Dismiss” based on the fraud and perjury committed by Michelle Lavoro of the IRS and Bertha Mitrani of the United States Attorneys Office. The docket will reflect the Motion I speak of. Someone obviously got to the attorney mentioned, as the Motion was quickly denied and the attorney would never even discuss the matter again. His actions, along with Mervis and Dimitrouleas show that a simple “denial” of serious matters, never once investigated, and specifically denied investigation, was all it took to wish it all away and out the gates. The Notice of Fraud (pages 1 & 2 of attached file) was of course stricken by Dimitrouleas (see Court doc #307).
There are ample opportunities to reveal evidence that prove the multiple crimes committed against me, including, but not limited to Misprision of Felony, Fraud, Coercion, Jury Tampering, etc. but the July 5, 2011 hearing in front of Mr. Dimitrouleas is very telling for many reasons. I have attached it in the accompanying file and it is recognized by the page numbers on the upper left hand side of each page. The transcript is pages 3 through 31 of the file and I will make comments on a page by page basis, referencing the numbered lines of each page. As you will see on page 3, Clark Mervis, the man appointed to MICHAEL D. BEITER by Dimitrouleas, is the man I specifically reject as my counsel.
Let’s look at a page by page analysis: page 4 – lines 12 – 25:on lines 13 and 14, Dimitrouleas purposely calls my Notice, “prose”, when it was in fact sent In Propria Persona. He also acknowledges the fraud claimed by myself. On lines 20-25, Mr. Dimitrouleas, based upon previous court transcripts, knows that I only agreed to meet Mr. Mervis to discuss criminal acts against myself, but he claims he “appointed” him to represent me, and this directly against my will.
The 1/12/2012 transcripts of a previous court hearing will prove I fired Clark Mervis from the moment he stated he was my counsel; page 5 – lines 4 & 5 – Dimitrouleas states it was not his responsibility, under oath to “investigate crimes,” and as you will soon see, he refuses to say who would be the appropriate agency, other than a whimsical guess: Lines 14 – 16– he then states that Mervis would not be the man to literally speak to about my evidence; this was the only reason I agreed to meet Mervis in the first place.
Line 24 – he then makes some erroneous statement about the year “1983” which has nothing to do with my being targeted from 2004 to the present date; page 6 – lines 1-7 – Dimitrouleas then acknowledges again my claims, which were offered with evidence, and yet he states, “but maybe that is an indication that there is a tremendous conspiracy against Mr. Beiter or that his complaints have no merit”. Dimitrouleas, like all other agencies notified in over 400 writings directly to them, never once asked to see the evidence, or open an investigation into my substantial claims; Lines 8 -11– he then mentions “ignoring” my complaints, yet swore to provide honest services; page 7 – lines 4 – 15– my intent is made clear again. Lines 16-17 – Mervis is said to have told me to contact the FBI. As you will see in the evidence, the FBI completely ignored every single contact Lines 18-19– I stated they did receive my complaint, and that they ignored it. Line 20 – 21 – Dimitrouleas makes the preposterous statement, to which I respond Lines 22-23 “They never asked to see my evidence….”
Page 8 – lines 1-10 – I again make my position very clear about my history with government agencies, and Dimitrouleas himself. Lines 11 – 25 – more back and forward about being completely ignored and Dimitrouleas makes the incredible statement, Lines 23 – 25 “I guess you have done everything you can and you are just going to have to make the best out of a bad situation.”; Page 9 Lines 1-25 More attempts by me to find the right agency to investigate and more stonewalling; Page 10 Lines 5 – 7– Dimitrouleas speaks of the fact that claims of fraud and perjury in the Grand Jury are alleged, but NEVER does a thing to investigate. As stated earlier, a Motion to Dismiss though done very weakly by an attorney, never even got Dimitrouleas to look into the matter. He simply denied the Motion. Lines 8-25 – I make it very clear Clark Mervis is not my attorney; Page 11 – Lines 1-25 – More arguments about Mervis as well as me expressing how attorneys had been previously forced on me against my will – Lines 6 – 10; Page 12, Lines 1-25 – I am still attempting to find the appropriate agency to bring my evidence too; Page 13, Lines 1-25 – More stonewalling;
Page 14, Lines 1 – 25 – More stonewalling; Page 15, Lines 1-25 – Remember this – NO INDIGENCY HEARING WAS EVER DONE IN BEITER 1 or BEITER 2; Page 16, Lines 1-25 – More stonewalling; Page 17, Lines 1-25 – Mervis never once contacts the Office of Professional Responsibility and specifically tells me he will not turn in any of his colleagues; Page 18, Lines 1-25 – Perjury and fraud openly discussed but NEVER is anything done to look in to it as Dimitrouleas again says on Lines 21-23.
No one ever asked to look at my evidence, as Mervis even admits is “thousands of documents”; Pages 19, Lines 1 – 25 – Again, I ask for the law that they say allows them to appoint me counsel against my will; Page 20, Lines 1-5 – Amazingly, Mervis acknowledges that I fired him, yet, he and Dimitrouleas then state I don’t have “the authority.” Never once do they show me any supposed law that allows for the overriding of my will. Lines 23-25 – I state my personal belief in Yahweh, and my right to wait upon him to defend me; Page 21, Lines 4-5 – Dimitrouleus mocks Yahweh in court.
Line 23-24 – I ask again for the law he says he is using to force counsel on me against my will;
Page 22, Lines 10-11 – Dimitrouleas again mocks Yahweh. Lines 23-24 – Dimitrouleas speaks a blatant lie in court as the entirety of the transcripts for January of 2012 will prove; Page 23, Lines 1-25 – I expose more lies; Page 24, Lines 1-25 – I express how an appeal was done in Beiter 1, without me having knowledge of any of it;
Page 25, Lines 1-25 – More exposing of their lies; Page 26, Lines 1-25 – I again fire Mervis;
Page 27, Lines 21-22 – Again, Dimitrouleas mocks Yahweh; Page 28, Lines 14-15 – Dimitrouleas says he does not recognize my right , to which I respond, Lines 16-18; Page 29, Lines 1-25 – More reasons Clark is fired, plus I again state I did not waive speedy trial rights – Lines 20-21; Page 30, Lines 1-25 – We discuss the millions of pages of discovery in Beiter 2. (More on this in a bit) Page 31 – I again fire Clark Mervis.
Pages 32 – 55 will reveal how all the way up to their trial, almost one year after meeting Clark Mervis, I had spent less than one hour total time with Clark Mervis. The evidence will also show Clark never once offered me discovery as supposed counsel, and he specifically told me I did not have the right to look at it.
What the court docket will also show is that Dimitrouleas also put in an order DENYING myself and others access to discovery. That’s correct, I was denied the ability to look at one single page of the over million pages of discovery in the case. An actual hearing was held wherein attorneys for the Bureau of Prisons were called into a hearing to determine whether or not the Bureau would allow myself and others access to laptops, and the ability to view the over a million pages of discovery. Even though according to an expert, this would have taken years to view, Judge Dimitrouleas, based upon the Bureau of Prisons decision to deny us laptops, ruled we could access none of the discovery. The court docket will prove this as true.
And so, as it was with Beiter 1, it would be with Beiter 2. Lies, lies, lies and all of these in the trial itself. I would be forced to go to trial with a counselor whom I repeatedly fired, who never once wanted to discuss my volumes of evidence of crimes committed against me, and who purposely blew the trial and not ask any pertinent questions to prove up all of the fraud and perjury against me.
One of the most egregious cover ups by Clark is when the prosecution would continually tell the jury that it was 160 million in fraud, yet the evidence showed that it was actually less than 5 million, and this, never discussed in front of the jury. The sentencing and the amount of time given was done so by Dimitroules himself as the jury never once was showed a single piece of evidence proving any monetary loss by the IRS whatsoever.
Court transcripts will prove this to be absolutely true. Dimitrouleas gave sentences based upon what he himself believed was intended loss having never seen a shred of evidence proving any loss whatsoever. Each tax payer was responsible for their own filings signed under penalty of perjury, and I never touched one of the filings or prepared a single document. Clark Mervis failed to do anything, as supposed counsel to prove anything on my behalf. Not one single witness was brought on my supposed behalf; nothing!!
Suffice it to say, I was given and additional twenty five years of prison sentence, on top of, not concurrent to the previous ten year sentence. Thirty five years of prison, for a non-crime in both instances. Oh, and by the way, Dimitrouleas ruled that Clark Mervis would be doing the appeal. How do you think that will turn out?
Thank you for caring enough to learn of my story. May Yahweh (the LORD) bless you and keep you – may He make his face shine upon you – may He lift up his countenance on you and give you peace.
Michael David Beiter Jr.