Stop injustice in the Grand Jury!

To Whom It May Concern,

Let me introduce myself as a concerned friend. I am contacting you on behalf of a friend. My friend lives in the Washington DC Metropolitan area and has a story that I hope will interest you. My friend needs your assistance in this matter of great importance. If this situation is happening to my friend, it has and surely is happening to others and I am asking for oversight on the cases of an AUSA.

The officials involved:

Assistant U.S. Attorney
&

FBI

As you may recall, to my and many American’s horror, there was an investigation on this office and AUSA Misconduct at the Justice Department

My friend was introduced to this AUSA by way of the FBI, to be a witness for the government in a financial crimes investigation on a woman owned business. This woman and her team had been held against her will while on a trip overseas in Iraq in 2015.

My friend's involvement with this woman owned business was evaluating if his company could provide an anti-terrorism training program as a sub-contractor in a 2015 government contract.

While my friend was working on evaluating the anti-terrorism training program as a sub-contractor for this woman owned business the female and some of her employees went overseas to work on getting other contracts not involving my friend. While overseas, the woman and some of her employees were held against their will in Iraq in 2015, my friend was asked by her office staff to assist them in getting them home safely.

This was a trying time to say the least for everyone involved; my friend was very ill and did not want anyone to know of his illness. My friend was diagnosed with leukemia, but at the time did not know what the problem was until after these events. For no pay and/or any reward my friend came to the aid of these Americans during a time when no one from our government was doing anything to assist. My friend was losing everything, strength, memory, sleep, home and business while being very ill. Getting these Americans back home safely became my friend’s main focus and primary goal.

For this heroic effort, instead of being thanked by our government, my friend was introduced to this famous AUSA's type of justice.

My friend found, to his amazement, this AUSA was being overly aggressive, vindictive and misleading to the Grand Jury in the investigation of a case in which my friend was originally asked to be a witness for the government. My friend found the AUSA lacking the ability to recognize the truth from fiction for his own personal ego. My friend has tried to provide all the information requested about these events that occurred to demonstrate the truth and justice. Also my friend’s involvement was trying to assist this woman’s business during a time of crisis.

My friend was in pain and experiencing memory loss even before this incident. When asked to testify, my friend could not testify in front of the Grand Jury without using documents to refresh my friend's memory to make sure what was said was true and factual. My friend did not have any of the supporting documents when he went to appeared before the Grand Jury. My friend did not expect to be attacked or questioned as a target when my friend was told by the FBI agent that my friend was to be a witness of the government. My friend had done this hundreds of times before in his line of work over the years. My friend has recordings of this conversation with the FBI telling him he is to be a supporting witness only.

Once in the state, after traveling for three days against doctors’ orders, my friend found that my friend became a target of the investigation. My friend’s only role was to evaluate an anti-terrorism training program for this woman’s business and see what was required for him to assist and make sure she was in compliance to support this contract and after evaluation to see if his company had the proper registrations in place and could provide a training outline that DDTC would allow before he could be an approved and in compliance sub-contractor on the contract.

To my friend’s amazement, it appeared that the AUSA was not interested in the truth but was up to his old tricks without fear of any accountability or repercussions in distorting the facts and misleading the Grand Jury. The AUSA is clearly providing the Grand Jury whatever information he wants them to hear without fear of the truth being found out.

The AUSA was not allowing witnesses that had positive aspects of the truth of the case to testify regarding my friend’s role, reputation and character. In fact to reiterate this point, he had subpoenaed certain witnesses to appear before a Grand Jury with great expense to the government and would not allow them to testify before this body i.e. the Grand Jury. This point demonstrates that this AUSA was not looking for the truth, but had his mind made up to take the case in an unprofessional direction instead of proving the truth of the case. This abuse of judicial power does not seem to bother him or his office while expending large amounts of government funds and resources. He is only interested in proving his case to the benefit of his ego and a direction to his own choosing.

In conclusion this AUSA is a government official when sworn in took an oath to have integrity, honor and justice, to protect the innocent and present the facts in a logical, legal and truthful manner. In addition he not only misused his power, but usurped his authority in not fulfilling his judicial obligation to the Grand Jury.

Facts:

AUSA is misleading the Grand Jury with false statements, fabricating evidence, leaving out witnesses and manipulating documents.

AUSA is saying things about my friend paying for medical bills that this AUSA knew for a fact was untrue when he made these false statements to the Grand Jury to get the Grand Jury to see my friend in an unfavorable position.

This AUSA stated for a fact that my friend had paid for the doctor bill for someone else involved in this case, but knew for a fact that was also untrue.

This AUSA referenced to the Grand Jury that my friend’s doctor was acting as the Medical Director for the school in name only.

This is not only misleading, but also inaccurate.

My friend did not know that the patient this AUSA was referencing to even knew my friend’s doctor. Just for the record this AUSA already knew from an earlier FBI interview that the good doctor had a receipt showing the bill was paid for by the patient with the patient’s credit card, not by my friend.

My friend has trained thousands of top security officers for top security sites over the years and during this training many subjects that were taught included ASHI CPR, First Aid, AED and OC spray. The reason I mention this is to recognize ASHI’s the requirement of having a Medical Director assigned to the school.

Under the American Safety and Health Institute (ASHI) to be able to teach these classes my friend’s training school was required to have a Medical Director. Most government contracts, for a training center to be able to provide training of this type, a Medical Director must be assigned and on call to assist with medical emergencies should they occur.

My friend’s doctor was also my friend’s Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services certified training school’s Medical Director.

My friend’s doctor was asked to appear and testify before the Grand Jury as a witness. My friend’s doctor, a highly recognized professional in the field of medicine, felt attacked during questioning when the doctor appeared before of the Grand Jury. The doctor felt that this AUSA treated the doctor as a hostile witness when the doctor was trying to be truthful to the questions propounded by the AUSA. As a point of emphasis, this same AUSA handed documents to the doctor to review and it seemed that he did not allow the doctor to have time to review them thoroughly and snatched them out of the doctor’s hands, giving the impression to the Grand Jury that the document was true and accurate when in fact the doctor did not have time to review them.

This AUSA asked how many students had the doctor treated for the training school as a Medical Director over the years. Before the doctor had a chance to answer the AUSA , the AUSA stated loudly while facing the Grand Jury, None!, None!, as though he was certain of it.

For the record the doctor was caught off guard and was not allowed to answer the question, the answer would have been several if my friend’s doctor had been given the courtesy of having this question asked when the FBI was at the doctor’s office so the doctor could research the records or at least given the courtesy to have some time to reply. The question from the AUSA was not clear, which training class or contract he was wanting the answer for, but my misleading the Grand Jury here clearly shows his intent. Did he want the truth or did he just want to try and discredit the doctor? It looks like he got what he wanted, with the answer of None. The answer to the question for the record I believe was five. Most of the people seen were former military and one was immediately hospitalized when he needed assistance. Because of the doctor’s quick reaction and assistance in this case the good doctor was able to save the life of this veteran which enabled the veteran to have many more years with his family before his passing.

The doctor donated his time for this position for nearly 20 years and did not charge any of these patients for his services. If any of the government contracts had been awarded the doctor would only bill whatever the contract would allow for these services. For assisting young men and women in service to their country while at the training center the doctor offered and provided his professional service in medicine freely and without reservation. For this, This AUSA tried to discredit him, this was very disrespectful. The doctor was never asked to find the answer to this question before he appeared at the Grand Jury. If he had been given the chance to research this question he would have gladly provided this information. The doctor has been my friend’s friend for over 20 some years and being the Medical Director of the training school has given the doctor great pride in giving back.

This AUSA seems to have wanted to ambush the good doctor to discredit his testimony to the Grand Jury for his own personal vendetta. This AUSA had already lied to the Grand Jury about my friend paying for another patient’s bill for his kids and tried to cover it up by using misdirection and confusion and discrediting the doctor. This AUSA evidently did not want the truth, he wanted to prove his own theory and discredit the good doctor to the Grand Jury.

This AUSA not only asked the doctor about who paid for the patient’s bill, but seemed to be lying in wait for the answer, to ridicule the doctor for the medical fees the doctor charged. This only validates that this AUSA already had seen the credit card charge, the amount, who and how it was paid. The problem for this AUSA was, it was not my friend as the AUSA had stated as fact to the Grand Jury. These facts disproved the AUSA's earlier statements, now he needed to discredit the doctor for his services in front of the Grand Jury and challenge his fees for his services. The AUSA did not research what the fees were for; they were for a year of executive medical service.

Where did this question come from? The doctor is an executive physician in the Washington D.C area and is highly respected among his peers. The doctor is responsible for arranging medical treatments for his patients and evaluating medical cases that other doctors try to stay away from; he donates his time to help when others do not; he always goes the extra mile. When you go to his office you see the doctor, not pushed off to a nurse practitioner. He listens and truly cares about his patients. He is one of the few doctors that still make office and house calls. He does not try to diagnose a case with limited data as this AUSA seems to be doing in this case; this would be considered gross negligence or possibly murder in the doctor’s line of work. It seems that in the AUSA's line of work he thinks it acceptable practice in the AUSA’s office and would just get a slap on the wrist like he did before as he had gotten away with his type of injustice before.

The AUSA asked the doctor about patients the doctor had? The AUSA specifically named a few involved in this case. the AUSA kept asking what was the relationship between two of them, one female and one male many times, inferring that the doctor should know or would know of any involvement among his patients other than professional and would share this information openly; one of these patients was my friend of which the AUSA was referring to by name to the Grand Jury. This was an improper and very unprofessional line of questioning to the doctor as to his character and professionalism along with my friends character and integrity.

The AUSA was not just referencing that the good doctor would violate patient confidentiality or the HIPPA laws to the Grand Jury, The AUSA even suggested it. This was even after the doctor had stated he could not give out any information on his patients, due to HIPPA laws without proper request from the government.

As stated earlier, the AUSA accused the good doctor of such conduct after showing him a document that looked like a text message showing no HIPPA, violation, but suggesting it did to the Grand Jury. AUSA Kunz continued to accuse the doctor in an effort to discredit the doctor’s earlier statements of fact of who made the payment for his services, which turned out to be the patient not my friend as the AUSA had stated for the record to the Grand Jury earlier. This type of behavior went on for so long that the good doctor had to say to the AUSA that he was disrespecting him, his profession and he was trying to put words into his mouth and the doctor said he had nothing else to say to the AUSA. The behavior and vindictive nature was so obvious that one of the Grand Jurors asked what was going on and just research the doctor’s computer and or records.

After getting the doctor upset with accusations, feelings of betrayal and placing the doctor right where he wanted, the AUSA showed the doctor an affidavit and asked him if he wrote it? Note the question did you write this affidavit? The doctor replied that the doctor did not know how to write an affidavit. The paper that may have been shown was of a voicemail the doctor had left for my friend and the AUSA did not allow the time for the doctor to read it. The AUSA took the document back so fast that the doctor did not have time to thoroughly examine it nor the time to remember it or recognize his signature. At the time the doctor did not and could not remember this or any affidavit. The importance to this affidavit was the date and time in which this voicemail was left as it would validate my friend receiving any funds from the female’s business had no involvement with this AUSA ongoing case. This affidavit of the voicemail showed the doctor had asked my friend to come in for a physical. This affidavit also clearly showed the female of the woman owned business had ask the doctor to get in touch with my friend to relay a message for my friend to contact her in regards to a business opportunity and that she had money to give to my friend. This was not unusual because if the opportunity involved any training for the government the doctor would definitely be involved as well and his office would have to plan to expand the doctor’s medical staff for it, no HIPPA violation.

These misleading statements and lack of respect of true information should not be allowed or left unanswered. The Grand Jury should be allowed to evaluate the facts from all sides; all of the facts that any AUSA has knowledge of, to find the truth. All of these questionable offences can be easily verified and seen by viewing the transcript of the Grand Jury by an unbiased person in order to determine if the questions are misleading and or tainted to get a specific answer. My friend is asking for a simple oversight into this matter, because my friend’s view may differ from the actual intent of the AUSA.

I think that this AUSA is in on the borderline of lying and committing perjury, if he has not done so already. His underhanded vindictive tactics and misuse of power is disgraceful to say the least. I and my friend are starting to think that this AUSA may have not taken his oath to our justice system seriously.

Something needs to be done about this injustice and I hope it is not too late; we are asking America to take the time to look into this further and donate some funds to help my friend balance the scales of justice and bring these atrocities to light and fight for justice in the court room. My friend does not know where to go. Would coming forward with this information be considered tampering with or influencing the witnesses in an ongoing case? My friend believes this is his first amendment right and does not want to be charged with impeding or interfering with an ongoing investigation. My friend wants the truth and all the facts brought out.

Even if my friend does not get indicted or given immunity, I and my friend feel these issues need to be investigated and not allowed to continue without some sort of oversight from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Justice.

In closing I know this is the holiday season, but I hope you have time to participate and the ability to donate to this fund. Look at all the facts for the benefit of everyone. and if you are able to donate to my friends legal defense fund, Thank You. Even my friend in his physical state is willing to help in any way my friend can; he is willing to take a polygraph, wear a wire anything to get to the real truth. My friend cannot leave the D.C metropolitan area due to his illness, is expected to travel 3 days to the court hearing in January 2018.

Please become an Equalizer today and donate any funds you can my friend found out today he needs to raise $500,000 to fight this injustice, by March, 2018. It is only with friends like you will he be able to overcome this problem. My friend has helped many people over the years without asking for recondition or anything he has always given back to the community and now I am asking for the community to help and give back to his legal defense fund, Note any additional funds raised will be given back to the community as he has done for over 20 some years, with the assistance of law-enforcement charities, with the widows and orphans and Concerns of Police Survivors.

Sincerely,

A Friend

Please Make a Donation Today

Working Together We Can And Will Make A Difference.

Let make 2018 a better place to live in our legal system

Thank You!

Donation Wire Instructions:

Account Name: Uplift Services inc.

TD Bank NA-Wilmington Delaware

ABA: 031101266

ACCT: 43343487983

Thank You!

Or Click Donation Button Now to Donate with Credit Card or PayPal!