Marcusse

In 2004, the charge was described as a "Ponzi scheme" when obtaining the grand jury indictment, which charged $10 million against the defendants.

To begin the 2005 trial, prosecutors Thomas Gezon and Michael Schipper described the charge as a "Ponzi scheme", except Judge Robert Holmes Bell denied Jan her intended defense, "the bank records show the money was invested with other individuals", while admitting the allegation was a "Ponzi". Judge Bell also denied Jan all direct witnesses to investments as "irrelevant".

After prosecutors were caught lying about at least $7.5 million in investments made as pointed out in defense closing arguments using the government's own evidence and witnesses, including IRS agents acting as "investigators", prosecutors abandoned their "Ponzi scheme" allegation, switching the charge to honest services fraud based on an irrelevant and tampered-with product exhibit after all opportunity for the defense to rebut was over. Judge Bell changed the jury instructions accordingly, advising the government did not need to prove the defendants obtained any money or property or that anyone lost any money or property.

After the jury voted "guilty" on this new charge, prosecutors resurrected their old, abandoned "Ponzi scheme" charge for sentencing and appeal, except now attesting it was the jury who had determined it as a "fact". Jan was given a 25-year sentence based on losses caused by others, making it an illegal sentence.

While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted permission for Jan to file a pro se brief on her own behalf, Judges William Bertelsman, Jeffrey Sutton, and John Rogers ignored it in their 2008 decision in order to agree with prosecutors the jury found a "Ponzi scheme". When Jan challenged the decision, the panel attested her issues had been "fully considered", causing her "convictions" to be made "final". When Jan challenged the panel in a petition for recall of the mandate for attorney and judicial fraud, they admitted they had "declined" to consider her issues, but refused to do anything about it.

In March, 2011, in response to Jan's collateral attack petition under §2255, Judge Bell has dismissed this constitutional violation denying adequate notice of the accusation to prepare a defense, and held "a 'Ponzi scheme' was not an element of any charges brought". The Supreme Court has held an allegation of "fact" must be attached to the statute charged for adequate notice. Judge Bell has also refused to allow Jan's innocence claim to even be filed, as based on the previously unavailable evidence recently obtained from the Dept. of Justice proving IRS Agent James Flink committed perjury over at least $9 million at trial, and as based on a new Supreme Court decision repudiating the charge as amended in the jury instructions to honest services fraud.

On June 17, 2011, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed Michael Schipper as a judge for his part in successfully prosecuting this case, descriibing it as a "Ponzi scheme".

HAVE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, IRS AGENTS, AND
THE JUDICIARY BEEN HONEST IN JAN'S CASE?

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

THE ABOVE SHOWS THE GOVERNMENT'S UNCLEAN HANDS
AND THE METHODS TO KEEP THE INNOCENT IN PRISON

CALL FOR RECALL
OF THE MANDATE

CASEY vs US

US MARSHALLS
COMPLAINT

US MARSHALLS
EXHIBITS

1ST AMENDED
SUPP. MEMO

MARCUSSE v DC
LAWSUIT

FOR 7 YEARS THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST JAN MARCUSSE HAS BEEN A MOVING TARGET

FOR 7 YEARS THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST
JAN MARCUSSE HAS BEEN A MOVING TARGET