Where are the Heroes? Episode 7

YesToHellWith

Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice. I’m recording off the southern coast of Mexico, so please excuse whatever sounds you hear in the background.

In the last episode, I mentioned that America has grave fundamental problems. Consider this one fact. America has had more people in prison per capita than any country in the world and is still one of the most incarcerated. Undeniably, if state and federal legislators pass laws which, by virtue of their mere existence, produce criminals, a virtuous people will be criminalized. Thus, if government officials fail to seek truth while, at the same time, holding citizens in contempt for behavior that is not criminal, we have a recipe for disaster.

Let me illustrate this point. There are 93 US Attorneys who are political appointments typically filled every presidential election and they are among 3 million federal employees who work for the US Government. Given the vastness of the federal work force, with many employees serving in the Department of Justice, one would expect US Attorneys to accomplish their responsibilities with alacrity and fairness and ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

What does it mean to “faithfully execute” the laws? Whatever the definition, which would include seeking truth and acting justly, we should and would expect US Attorneys to do so without fail. However, when US Attorneys are the cause of injustice, our reservations and fears are justified. Candidly, it does not matter why US Attorneys fail to act faithfully, it matters only that they are unfaithful. To lack the faithfulness to execute the laws connotes that the top-level officials of the DOJ are ill-equipped to ensure justice and the system will falter. There are two primary factors that permit injustice to prevail. The first has to do with the motivation of government officials. The second deals with the inefficiency of the Government.

Let’s briefly discuss motivations by citing an example. Before and after the 2016 federal election, Donald Trump was accused of conspiring with the Russians to influence the election. We now know this was a false allegation. We also know that Obama, the outgoing President, and James Comey, then Director of the FBI, were instrumental in creating, fostering, and advancing this false narrative.

The point is self-evident. If top officials undermine the rule of law, there will be injustice. If Donald Trump is not able to effectively and efficiently refute false allegations, how is the average American to prevail against the FBI and DOJ? How is someone like Orlando Carter to overcome false claims that he had a $4 million obligation with PNC Bank? Ten years later, with proof from another federal agency that there was no such loan, how was he to prevail over Benjamin Glassman’s lie that the alleged evidence, which never existed, was shredded?

Obviously, the ability to hold the Government or officials accountable for dishonesty becomes problematic. With Obama creating and fostering a lie, and supporting Jim Comey’s perpetuation of that lie, is it possible for the DOJ to arrive at the truth? Not anytime soon. Moreover, if the Federal Government is so consumed with advancing the Russia Collusion lie, will the DOJ and FBI have the time and resources to vet thousands of sundry unjust claims?

In the last episode, we learned that former US Attorney Benjamin Glassman lied about the Department of Justice shredding evidence of a $4 million loan which does not exist and never existed. Furthermore, we have proof from two separate federal agencies which contradict the DOJ’s false conclusion that there was a $4 million loan. If there was no $4 million loan in 2007, the evidence could not have been shredded in 2018. Glassman is a liar.

Is there any doubt that Glassman did not faithfully execute the laws of the United States while serving as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio? A liar does not execute anything faithfully. To be faithful to the laws means the truth is sought and honored. When a US Attorney lies, he rejects truth outright and denies justice completely.

Now that I have set the tone for this podcast, I will explain what both Benjamin Glassman and Kenneth Parker, the current US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, did and how they justified their lies to preserve a guilty conviction of an innocent man.

We need only look at Glassman’s response to our request that he review the Government’s case against Orlando Carter to understand the extent of his obfuscation.

Glassman began by stating,

The principal factual ground on which your correspondence questioned Mr. Carter’s guilt was a letter dated January 30, 2017 from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Let’s first note that Glassman referred to our “principal factual ground.” To be sure, we did not submit anything that was not factual. We only submitted the truth, which was a letter from a sister federal agency, the Department of the Treasury, concluding there was no $4 million loan. Though he did not intend to support our claim in any way, we appreciate that Glassman acknowledged our factual basis..

Glassman then stated,

That letter reports that Mr. Carter had requested that PNC Bank “validate a $4,000,000 debt with CBST Acquisition, LLC.

Glassman then refers to what Carter wanted, which was for the OCC to require that PNC Bank validate a $4 million loan. At no point does Glassman dignify the substantial role of the Department of Treasury and the OCC. Glassman does not ever acknowledge the importance of the OCC’s responsibilities and burdens.

Glassman continued with,

The bank provided a copy of note [sic] signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount of $250,000. The bank stated this is the only debt on file.

Glassman had, therefore, exactly what Carter sought to obtain, PNC’s admission and the OCC’s finding that there was no $4 million loan. Carter obtained the truth. Stated rather directly, Carter asked the proper federal agency with oversight over a national bank for the confirmation he needed. The OCC subsequently asked for the bank’s assistance, which admitted to the fact that no there was no other debt than the one legitimate liability created years earlier. The OCC then satisfied its burden by confirming the loan did not exist. One must ask if Glassman had sufficient information to question the Government’s case against Carter and a path forward to challenge the guilty conviction. Let’s see how Glassman handled this information and situation.

Glassman then stated,

The letter is signed “Customer Assistance Group.

and

PNC Bank is a successor bank to another successor bank to National City.

Now, what does Glassman’s point about PNC being a successor bank to National City Bank have to do with Carter’s query? Glassman stated this nonsense to muddy the waters, with the hopes to dismiss Carter’s concern as somehow less than worthy. In fact, when National City committed banking violations when issuing loans to minorities in some 80,000 transactions in the mid-2000s, the Department of Justice had no problem having the SUCCESSOR BANK, that was PNC, pay a $33 million fine for what was a problem created by National City Bank. The point is obvious, and Glassman should be ashamed. PNC, as a successor bank, has the assets and liabilities and records of the prior bank.

Moreover, why would the US Attorney acknowledge the wrong committed by National City Bank in the early 2000s, yet make it appear as though a successor bank would not be responsible for documents to prove the existence of the $4 million loan in 2018? What is glaringly obvious is that the Department of the Treasury and OCC, in response to Carter’s query, had no problem determining that PNC Bank was the current owner of the records in question. The OCC did not hide behind the ridiculous notion that a successor bank was somehow less accountable to a prior bank’s indiscretion. The question to ask Glassman is, “So what?” It matters not that PNC is a successor bank. As the successor bank, it still owns the records and has the burden of proof of any loan under federal banking laws, which was the OCC’s primary objective.

Glassman then further obscured by saying,

In my view, this letter does not raise any legitimate question regarding Mr. Carter’s guilt or innocence on any count.

So, THIS is how Glassman is going to handle the OCC information and situation. If Glassman does not reach the realm of extreme arrogance with this statement, I do not know what does. In what capacity is he offering his view? Personally? As an accomplished lawyer? As a faithful and accountable US Attorney? Is Glassman hoping we will accept his view as gospel, the Gospel according to Benny, and that we will agree to the far-flung supposition there is no legitimate question regarding Carter’s guilt or innocence? Yet, if the Department of the Treasury asks a national bank to verify the existence of a $4 million loan, and the bank confirms that no such loan exists, and this alleged loan was the basis for an unjust guilty conviction of an innocent man, is there a legitimate question about Carter’s case? Does the view of US Attorney Benjamin Glassman become suspect if refuses to acknowledge the relevance of the OCC finding and PNC’s admission? Finally, if PNC’s admission and the OCC’s finding do not compel Glassman to concede the possibility that a grave mistake was made, what will?

Glassman then stated,

First, regardless of what files the successor to a successor bank to National City had on file in 2017,

Once again, Glassman stoops to the idea that PNC, as a successor bank, somehow diminishes the relevance of the OCC’s determination and PNC’s culpability. What does successor to successor have to do with this? Is he intimating that because PNC is a successor bank then the documents might not exist, and if they do exist, is he suggesting that the documents are old and somehow less credible? When PNC acquired National City, it assumed all assets and all potential liabilities. The title of “successor bank” connotes ownership of assets and liabilities.

Glassman then wrote,

the documentary and testimonial evidence at trial was undisputed and overwhelming that CBST did receive millions of dollars from National City that it booked as revenue,

Glassman does what prosecutors do. He refers to the record. Yet there never was any dispute that Carter and his company received funds from PNC Bank. As a vendor in a transaction between PNC and Butler County, Ohio, Carter received funds from PNC. PNC sent the funds! Once again, as a word-shaping and definition-splicing lawyer, and not a rational professional seeking to faithfully execute the laws, Glassman avoids the issue. He refuses to acknowledge that the record must now be deemed flawed because of the OCC letter. Glassman refuses to consider the credible possibility that there was no $4 million loan or guaranty. He refuses to acknowledge a potential lease between PNC and Butler County, a lease the bank retracted as unenforceable in a Court of Common Pleas within Butler County, in Ohio in 2007. It cannot be disputed that, based upon the receipt of money from National City (or PNC), Carter had an obligation to book the funds as revenue, which is what he did.

Glassman then stated,

without disclosing to Fifth Third, its auditors, or anyone else that the money was actually supposed to be financing in support of a not-existing contract with a municipality

Glassman, what do you mean by the words, “was actually supposed to be”? Such language is not reflective of a sharp legal mind. Additionally, let’s note what Glassman says the money was, and that is financing in support of a “not-existing contract with a municipality.” How is financing ever used for a not-existing contract? Glassman, is this even possible? Glassman should concede that a “not-existing contract” is no different than a “not-existing $4 million loan” used by the DOJ to convict Carter. If the FBI or DOJ, which included Glassman as US Attorney, had investigated the veritable facts concerning the supposed contract or “non-existing” contract between PNC and Butler County, the essence of the government’s failure concerning its investigation of PNC Bank and Carter would be evident, especially as it relates to the “not-existing $4 million loan.”

Are we to conclude that Glassman, in his complete ignorance or abject indifference, relied upon the flawed court record alone in his review of Carter’s case, when he should have used the OCC letter and the PNC admission that there was no $4 million loan? If he had acknowledged the OCC letter, he would have realized there was and is a grave error in the Government’s theory of prosecution. Glassman, why do you refuse to acknowledge that a standalone transaction between PNC and Carter did not create an obligation for Carter to notify his personal bank absent his covenant obligation to notify Fifth-Third of a legitimate business loan? Thus, since there was no business loan, Carter did not have to contact Fifth-Third Bank.

Glassman, you are fooling no one. You cannot use words with the intent to deceive or cloud what is transparent. National City or PNC had a pending lease with Butler County, not with CBST or Carter. Carter received the money to complete the project that was the subject of the lease. As such, there was no loan. A lease is not a loan, and a loan is not a lease.

Glassman continued with,

or that National City had demanded the money’s return in the absence of an opinion of counsel letter.

Glassman, didn’t Carter return the funds to PNC Bank in the form of equipment that was purchased with the money? Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the plain facts? Let me spell it out for you. PNC sent the money to Carter without an Opinion of Counsel letter. This was PNC’s choice. Though Carter’s company attempted to get the Opinion of Counsel letter signed by Butler County officials, it was ultimately PNC’s responsibility and that of Butler County to secure this document. Since PNC decided to wire the funds to Carter before the receipt of this letter, Carter and his company did what was normal. They booked the funds and moved forward with the project.

When the demand letter, which had no legal significance to Carter or his company, was not enforced, Carter continued to work on the project. Would you expect Carter to sit on the money for months without using it? Additionally, wouldn’t you expect Carter to return whatever was purchased with the money? Did you not see a Bill of Lading for some 30 pallets of equipment returned to the bank? Did this not make the bank whole?

Finally, Glassman, when will you acknowledge PNC’s admission that there were banking improprieties and mistakes with the Butler County transaction? Or are you unwilling to grant this point because the bank’s admissions and emails about its errors are not part of the Court record, since the court denied this evidence? Thus, your coveted court record is without a key admission by PNC Bank that it was culpable for errors in a “existing” transaction that went terribly wrong. Absent evidence of the bank’s mistakes, you will only view what is available, right? Plainly stated, with the OCC letter and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan, you will continue to refuse to entertain that an unjust conviction was secured against an innocent man.

Unbelievably, Glassman wrote,

Indeed, if you are not aware, please note that Orlando Carter himself testified at trial:

Q. And isn’t it true that the six and a half million dollars of money came from National City into your bank account?

A. That’s correct, Sir.

Glassman, should Carter have lied in his testimony and denied receiving the funds, or was he correct to admit that the funds were received during the normal course of business without PNC Bank having an enforceable and legitimate loan or a guaranty? It appears that you do not understand the fundamentals of either banking, business or economics.

Glassman droned on with,

Second, the January 30, 2017 letter comes from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Customer Assistance Group; it is not the product of any investigation and does not purport to find facts.

Glassman, your attempts to deceive will not work. The OCC letter is the product of an investigation. Do you not appreciate that the OCC is the equivalent of God for national banks. When the OCC contacts a bank, the bank listens and responds. Banks respect the OCC with a healthy dose of fear. Banks will not easily falter with the OCC.

Glassman continued,

The letter provides that it “is specifically related to an individual consumer complaint and should not be construed as either a legal opinion of the OCC or a supervisory action.”

Glassman, why did you insert the small text at the bottom of the OCC letter, the boilerplate information given to all recipients? Why do this? This language has nothing to do with the merits of the language within the four corners of the document. Why would you attempt to deceive in this way? Was your primary objective to preserve a guilty conviction?

Here is Glassman again.

It further provides that “an agency such as the OCC would be going beyond its authority in acting as a trier of fact.”

Glassman, why did you not insert the language that appears at the beginning of this sentence, which is, “However, where a clearly defined civil dispute develops.” Carter did not write to the OCC because of a civil dispute. He was not asking the OCC to be a trier of facts. Carter sought a point of clarification of a substantial fact to overcome a false allegation that he committed a federal crime. Is this not the primary reason for him to contact the OCC? It seems reasonable to me that if an American were unjustly convicted and imprisoned for a crime predicated upon a $4 million-dollar loan, he would seek confirmation from the one federal agency that has oversight over national banks. As such, why did you refuse to recognize the OCC letter for what it was and without using boilerplate language that all recipients receive from the OCC?

Glassman then said,

The letter states that the OCC cannot even adjudicate civil disputes, much less criminal ones, nor does the letter purport to do so.

Glassman, did you ever once consider this is not a matter of stating what the OCC can or cannot do, but what the US Attorney could do based upon the facts within the OCC letter? Did Carter ask the OCC to adjudicate a civil or criminal dispute? No. As such, Carter did not accept the OCC’s letter in this light. Carter, as you know, wanted an answer to a question, and both the bank and the OCC answered the question, which you chose to ignore. This is the point entirely. As Carter’s Power-of-Attorney, I contacted you and asked that you review the letter as the factual basis for considering Carter’s exoneration. Not only did you refuse our request, but you also stated that evidence of the $4 million was shredded, which, based upon the OCC letter and PNC’s admission, was a lie.

Glassman stated,

By its terms, therefore, the letter is clear that no component of the Department of the Treasury has undertaken any investigation or made any finding relevant to Mr. Carter’s criminal case.

By its terms? What terms? Glassman, the length to which you excuse and ignore your responsibilities as US Attorney and the obligation of the DOJ is simply astonishing and shocking. We did not ask for your unscholarly and sanctimonious opinion of the OCC letter outside of what the letter represents. Who are you to interpret the OCC letter for anything other than what it is? It is evident that you purposely ignored the merits of the OCC letter and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan. Moreover, contrary to your sophomoric arguments, the Department of the Treasury, through the OCC, did investigate and made a finding of fact that is extremely relevant to Carter’s case.

Let me ask you this, Glassman. Did the OCC offer conjecture? Did the OCC offer an opinion? Did PNC Bank offer an opinion and nothing else? No, they did not. A more serious question is this. Why would you not weigh the merits of the OCC’s letter as worthy of challenging the guilty conviction against Carter? Do you not have the obligation to faithfully execute the law? Do you not have the burden to faithfully question the central premise of the government’s case with new evidence or proof which proves there was no $4 million loan?

Glassman, did you summarily ignore the OCC letter simply because you falsely stated that the DOJ shredded evidence of a loan that never existed? Rather than admit to your errors, you painted yourself into the proverbial corner and made the situation worse for everyone.

What is curious is that Glassman did not bother to air his opinion about the March 2018 OCC letter, which further explains the merits of its investigation and findings that are relevant to the Government’s criminal case against Carter. Let’s examine what the OCC stated.

Keep in mind that Carter was not satisfied with the language in the first OCC letter. He wanted both PNC Bank and the OCC to be more specific. So, he asked the OCC to compel PNC Bank to provide certified and authenticated records. Note what the OCC stated in the second paragraph:

The OCC examines national banks and federal savings associations (thrifts) to assure their safe and sound financial condition and to ensure their compliance with banking laws, rules, and regulations. The focus of the OCC’s review of consumer complaints against national banks… is to determine whether the financial institutions’ actions are consistent with banking statutes, regulations or any policies that are applicable to nationally chartered banking institutions…

Now, let’s consider a few points. First, this language is in the text of the letter and not in small print in a footnote at the bottom of the page. The OCC explained exactly what it wanted to accomplish. Since the OCC has significant power, any bank that receives a request from the OCC will respond as if providing an answer to God. Candidly, when a bank receives a letter from the OCC, the pucker factor is heightened, and the bank would dare not mislead. To falsify the facts would be to risk a bank’s charter. PNC Bank had to respond without fail and to do so honestly and completely. Glassman cannot diminish the importance of the OCC and PNC’s obligations.

Now let’s review the OCC’s next point.

In your most recent correspondence, you stated the prior letter from our office… was vague in that it did not specifically address whether or not the bank provided the OCC with certified and authenticated records showing the existence of a $4,000,000 debt between CBST Acquisition, LLC and the bank. You also requested a copy of the bank letter sent to this office in response to your complaint.

The bank specifically stated in the letter sent to this office that it did not have any other debt on file for CBST Acquisition, LLC, other than the note signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount for $250,000.00. To support their response, the bank provided a copy of the signed note.

To further address your concerns, the OCC does not require the bank to submit a “certified and authenticated record”.

The OCC’s language is significant. The OCC underscored that there was only one debt, and it was for $250,000.00 and not $4 million. The OCC even stated that PNC Bank did not have any other debt on file and the bank provided a copy of the note as proof of this one earlier obligation.

Notably, the OCC then stated there was no requirement for the bank to provide certified and authenticated records. Why? Well, perhaps my prior statement about the OCC within the Department of the Treasury being like God to the banks is correct. Why does the OCC need to ask for certified records when the bank should be offering the truth in the first place. To lie to the OCC would risk the bank’s charter. PNC Bank is not going to do this.

As we can see from Glassman’s warped explanations in his response to the Baptist Minister’s Conference, he chose to diminish the significance of the OCC and its findings. Why would he do this? Unlike PNC’s reply to the OCC, Glassman was writing to citizens of Ohio. He knew he would not be held to account for his dishonesty and gross incompetence.

We must keep one important point under consideration at all times. Glassman is a lawyer, and he was the United States Attorney. To most people, these titles are worthy of praise and respect. But to those who are informed about lawyers and government officials, Glassman deserved neither. Let me explain.

A lawyer doesn’t really know much. Why? A law student learns process and procedure and in three years graduates with a degree knowing nothing. Afterwards, a lawyer has opinions and interpretations. Ask one hundred lawyers one question and you will get seventy-five different answers. A new lawyer then interns with seasoned lawyers who have perfected procedure and practices the art of word play, word deception, word distortion. The lawyer understands that second to procedure and process is the game of shaping words and splitting meanings to fit a desired end, which often has nothing to do with the truth. As many people already appreciate, lawyers are snakes, vile and corruptible vermin without the integrity to be faithful to a larger goal, to seek and preserve truth for the benefit of humanity. I will prove as much with Glassman’s words and actions.

Had Glassman been faithful to his oath of office as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, had he dignified the all-important responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury and the OCC concerning banking queries and subsequent investigations, Glassman would have determined that the Federal Government had a serious problem with its central premise in the Carter case. Glassman would have acknowledged PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan as the equivalent of new financial DNA that could have been used to exonerate Carter. Had Glassman done so, he would have honored his role as a prosecutor seeking truth and not one who sought to preserve convictions.

Is it not transparent that Glassman could have viewed the OCC letter for what it was and acted heroically? Yes. He could have taken the high road. However, and this is an astonishing twist, even with the OCC letter in his hands prior to the October 2018, Glassman lied about shredding something that both the OCC and PNC said did not exist. I can’t help but wonder if Glassman thought we were a bunch of ignorant black folk and white trash who did not know what we were doing. Did he think that pandering to us would make the issue go away? If so, then why not listen to our complaint without lying about shredding evidence that did not exist? Why does he not do this even now and admit his mistake.

I invite Glassman to call Kenneth Parker and ask him to open an investigation into the Government’s case against Carter by admitting that he made a mistake about the OCC letter or that he misspoke. To make matters worse, there is now a second federal agency that has officially stated that there was no $4 million loan.

Lest anyone forget an extremely important point, the Federal Government offered Orlando Carter a plea agreement which, had he accepted, would have had reduced charges and he would have served no prison time. Carter, to his credit, rejected the plea agreement. Why? He was innocent. Furthermore, Carter has fought these unjust charges since the day the investigation began. Why wouldn’t someone like the current US Attorney acknowledge the history of Orlando Carter’s plight and reconcile the disparity between the FBI and DOJ conclusions with that of the OCC and PNC?

In the next episode, I will explain the lengths to which I tried to hold Glassman and Parker accountable for their lies. You will be shocked at what did not happen.

Until then, may truth reign supreme!