shane-christopher: buczek, as third party intervener and Grantor / Beneficiary

MENS REA Affidavit - A

Honorable court of record

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

09-CR-121-S

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT

Defendant

v.

SHANE C. BUCZEK, a U.S. TRUS

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND COMPREHENSIO FOR RULES 29 & 33 FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST - NO CRIMINAL INTENT - NO MENS REA

I, shane-christopher: family of buczek as third-party intervener and grantor/beneficiary for the

alleged defendant SHANE C. BUCZEK a U.S. TRUST declare under pains of penalty and

perjury that the following is true, correct and complete and not misleading to the best of my

knowledge and that I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify to the following from

my first hand knowledge:

1) In numerous discussions that I had with my Federal Court appointed attorney and at times my

stand-by counsel, Brian P. Comerford, statements were made by him to me concerning various

aspects of this case that caused him to be both ineffective and conflicted as to his representation

towards my defense and the success therein.

2) At a meeting with Mr. Comerford in the first week of February, 2010, said attorney told me,

"that it would be best if! went along and did the trial by myself, because I (Comerford) would

end up being an extra wheel that would help ride you right into prison otherwise."

3) I requested Attorney Comerford to help subpoena many people on my witness list of which many were experts in the very area that I was being tried in and who testified for defendants in other cases that were successful, but he would not, and he said that the Court would not allow them in to testify on my behalf and to question them on my belief system and State of Mind. To the point of establishing my 'intent', these witnesses would have been beneficial to help enter my extensive exhibits lists into evidence to help the jury determine if I had a 'Good Faith' belief in what I was doing.

4) Said attorney Comerford ineffectively allowed government in Limine motion to be granted in its entirety which eliminated my ability to get into evidence any of my Good Faith beliefs, to prove there was no Mens Rea or criminal intent, or to express my State of Mind which was an essential element of the offense charged. This had the effect of relieving the government of its Constitutional burden to prove each and every element of a charged offense.

5) I expressed my desire to take the witness stand in my own defense, and said attorney Comerford told me to not take the witness stand, wherein that was my only way to get my evidence, exhibits, State of Mind and belief system in front ofthe jury, in light of the mandated motion in Limine. This exasperated the bias, ineffectiveness and conflict of interest in this case by said attorney.

6) I believed and obeyed the District Court Judge Skretny, when he told me to follow my standby counsel's advice, I complied. Wherein said attorney's influence helped to obstruct my ability to get any of my evidence into the trial and before the jury in order for them to determine my State of Mind, belief system and 'Good Faith' in what I was doing was proper. The jury then could have determined that, even if I was in error, there would be no crime.

7) The way the trial unfolded and manifested, the ineffectiveness, bias, prejudice, and

3

obstruction that court appointed attorney and stand-by attorney Comerford had towards Petitioner was apparent. Although sparingly, I have had some contact with Mr. Comerford, I have for the most part placed up to 50 calls to his office without a return call or any correspondence from Mr. Comerford whatsoever.

Finally, after over 2 months, I just received an e-mail on 6/28/10 from Mr. Comerford, conveniently one day before all of my post conviction motions have to be into the court. It would be too late to gain any assistance from him at this late date. Mr. Comerford has continued the pattern that he displayed during the trying of my case from front to back, of continued deliberate ineffectiveness, ignoring me, being disinterested in the case, being obstructionist, compliant to the court and government, not setting up an adversarial role and not performing his Constitutional duty. The appearance of impropriety is glaring, especially in his allegiance to the District Court judge Skretny, of whom Mr. Comerford was recently his law clerk.

8) Assuming Mr. Comerford was out of pocket during that time, why did he not assign another attorney to check on his messages, or his clients and see if they could lend a helping hand?

9) There was manifest conflict of interest between the District Court judge and my federally court appointed attorney. I believe there was a breach in Maintaining the Public Trust, wherein there are Ethics in the performance of one's duty for Federal Officer's of the Court. Under Cannon 3F(2) [conflicts arise], if you, or a lawyer with whom you have practiced, serves as a lawyer in the matter, or you may have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, (actual conflicts) after your clerkship, you serve as counsel in a matter that is before your judge. Under Cannon 4D, does the activity present an appearance of impropriety. Under Post-Clerk Considerations, one should not handle any matter pending before a judge while one was recently a clerk there. (See transcript: August 20,2009, Page 2 Lines 21-25, Page 3 Lines 1-25)

10) I believed in the conduct in which I was doing included no criminal intent. Jury instruction #34 stated that, "If the defendant believed in Good Faith that he was acting properly, even ifhe was mistaken in that belief, and even if others were injured by his conduct, there would be no crime." I lived and breathed this activity for the last 7 years night and day. This would have been an easy case for me to prove in that I believed that my conduct was proper. I believed that the government and Court knew this as well, therefore, motion of in Limine prevented me from entering any evidence to support my State of Mind.

11) I, in no way attempted to hide my conduct. I filed all of my documents into the public domain at various County Recorder's offices. When approached by FBI and DDS agents on October 16, 2008 at 12 noon till 1 :00 pm at the Orchard Park, New York, Pancake House,

at a public luncheon, I disclosed what I was doing in detail because I fully believed in what I was doing was right, even ifl was mislead. The next day on October 17,2008, I met again an FBI and two DDS agents in the parking lot at Dick's sporting store, Galleria Mall, in Cheektowaga, NY, at 3:15- 3:45 pm. On October 31,2008 I met an FBI and DDS agent at Tim Horton's on Grand Island, NY, between 4:00-4:30 pm. Again on November 21,2008, I met with an FBI and DDS agents at a fast food restaurant. If I was trying to hide my conduct, I would not have been so forthcoming to the FBI and DDS agents. If I believed I was engaged in any criminal conduct or 'intent' to commit an illegal act, I certainly would not have fully disclosed it to these agents. 12) I state with my whole heart that I did not have any criminal intent to defraud. I followed my belief system in that I thought what I was doing was proper based on the information I submitted myself to for the last 7 years. Even if I was wrong and I injured someone, there would be no crime because my conduct followed what I had learned and believed. I certainly would not have carried out my conduct if I truly did not believe in what I was studying all this time. Because of

I certify that the facts stated herein are true and correct under the penalty of perjury as provided by 28 USC Section 1746, that I am over the age of 18, and that I have firsthand knowledge of the facts stated herein.

that, there was no Mens!£.!! committed and I purpose not to follow this course of action again.

CERTIFICATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

In Trust BY:~~-.· shane-christopher: DU(~Z~I.('~:::>

as third party intervener:

Grantor/Beneficiary for:

SHANE C. BUCZEK a US TRUST All rights reserved Without Prejudice Without recourse UCC 1-308

JU I) e, 7_ 'I, a DI D

Exhibit "A" Transcripts statements on Belief System-No Criminal Intent Ineffective Assistance of Counsel See District Court Judge Skretny Page 189 line 3-11 (AFV) Public Policy HJR 192 June Sth,1933

Exhibit "B" Affidavit of Fact NO CRIMINAL INTENT RULE 29 &33 Filed June 18,2010

Exhibit "C" William Edwin Diehl Affidavit & Shane UCC FINANCING STATEMENT

JURAT

ERIE COUNTY

)

) ss. )

NEW YORK STATE

The above named Libellant, shane-christopher: buczek, as third party intervener and Grantor/Beneficiary for: for SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK appeared before me, a Notary, subscribed, sworn to the truth of this Petition

Under oath this d2.9 t;~ day of Tun.£-

c2< L ~ rn. Q-t:-L4~

,2010,

Notary SEAL

My Commission expires c2/.;;z_-g !.;l.L)14

NOTARY PUB!'" 'lEW YO;;.'

tiff co~:';~~;~NW;h'-". c:i:; 20. 17

s

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On this the ~ay of June 2010, a true and correct copy was personally 09-CR-121-S AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND COMPREHENSION FOR RULES 29 & 33 POST CONVICTION INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL & CONFLICT OF INTEREST NO MENS REA Affidavit delivered to the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk will serve counsel by electronic filing.