he filed several motions to dismiss on various grounds

[Michael]

You can read this one it is instructive:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14515855/69/united-states-v-stone/

[Michael]

On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 12:18:37 PM UTC-6, Michael wrote:
> You can read this one it is instructive:
>
> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14515855/69/united-states-v-stone/

VI. Mueller’s Appointment was Made Without Requisite Statutory Authority
A. In 1978, Congress Created a Detailed Law Addressing the Constitutional Issues
Related to Appointing a Special Prosecutor to Investigate a Sitting President and
Presidential Campaign.
In 1978, following Watergate--and the Saturday Night Massacre where Attorneys
General Richardson and Ruckelshaus each refused to fire Archibald Cox--Congress created the
Ethics in Government Act.22 The Act was designed, in part, to create a Special Prosecutor capable
of investigating the President or his campaign while respecting the unique position of the President,
and the separation of powers among the three branches of government.23 The law was designed
specifically to create a Special Prosecutor capable of investigating crimes committed by the
President and/or his campaign; the precise reason for which the Mueller Appointment was made.
The Act carefully involved all three branches: a) Congress to create the law providing for the
Special Prosecutor, and to have ongoing oversight in the event a Special Prosecutor was appointed;
b) the Attorney General to determine whether a Special Prosecutor was required, and to make the

application for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor; and, c) a special three judge court, called
the Special Division, to receive the application and actually appoint the Special Prosecutor.
The law was the result of a thorough legislative process reflected in thousands of pages
of legislative history. It was specifically designed to handle the specific situation for which the
Mueller Appointment was undertaken. Because of that, the carefully crafted law addressed the
outcome of most of the issues being hotly debated today regarding the Mueller investigation and
resulting report, highlighting the problems that arise when such an investigation is undertaken in
the absence of specific underlying statutory authority.
A review of the provisions of Title VI demonstrates the level of attention Congress
devoted to achieving the appropriate balance among the branches in order to constitutionally
appoint a special prosecutor capable of investigating the President, and/or a campaign to elect the
President.
The Supreme Court upheld these Title VI provisions for appointing a special prosecutor
in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). Title VI was at the time, and remained until its
expiration, the only law that specifically allowed the investigation of a sitting President and
Presidential Campaign. But Congress determined that the law should expire in 1999, and has not
reenacted it since that time.

B. In 1999, Congress Determined that Title VI Should Expire, Ending the Role of
Special Prosecutors Capable of Investigating Presidents and Their Campaigns.
The original provisions discussed above were enacted in 1978 as a direct response to the
Watergate scandal. The 1978 law was amended and reauthorized in 1983,24 and again in 1987.25
Between 1987 and 1992, due to the breadth, length and expense of the Iran Contra investigation
by Special Prosecutor Walsh, the statute came under increased criticism. In the face of this
criticism, Congress determined that the law should not be renewed, and it lapsed on December 15,
1992.
Following the Whitewater scandal in the Clinton Administration, however, in 1994
Congress took the action of reinstating the statute to allow the appointment of Judge Starr to
investigate President Clinton.26 From the standpoint of Congressional intent, it is significant to
note that when faced with the investigation of a President Clinton, Congress reenacted Title VI of
the Ethics in Government Act. As with the Walsh investigation, however, the breadth, length and
expense of the Starr investigation came under a great deal of public criticism. Congress therefore
once again allowed the statute to lapse on June 30, 1999, and to date it has not been reenacted.27
Accordingly, there is currently no law on the books that provides for the appointment of a special
prosecutor with the authority to investigate a sitting President and his Presidential campaign, as

Title VI did. It is clear from past Congressional action that if Congress intended to have such a
law in force, it knows how to do so. Indeed, it reenacted Title VI specifically to support the Starr
investigation, and then once again removed it from the books. The only conclusion that can be
drawn is that it is the intent of Congress that there shall be no more special prosecutors
investigating the President or Presidential Campaigns.28
C. The General Statutes Relied Upon by Acting Attorney General Rosenstein do not
Authorize the Appointment of a Special Counsel Capable of Investigating
President Trump and his Campaign.
In the face of the repeal of Title VI, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein based the
Mueller Appointment on three general statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, which were passed
in 1966, none of which mentions the investigation of the President or presidential campaigns.
When the general language of these statutes is compared to the extensive and carefully crafted
provisions of Title VI, it is clear that they do not provide the explicit statement the Supreme Court
has required in the past when considering whether a statute was intended to apply to the unique
constitutional position held by the President.29
Title 28 United States Code Sections 509 and 510 provide general of statements and all
functions of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General with specific exceptions
not relevant here. These statutes make no mention of investigating the President of the United
States or his campaign, as Title VI specifically did. It is clear from the Mueller Appointment that

Special Counsel Mueller was specifically appointed to investigate the President and his Campaign.
Accordingly, the issue before the Court is whether three very general 1966 statutes--that make no
mention of granting the Attorney General the authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate
the President and his campaign--can be construed to authorize the appointment of a special
prosecutor to investigate the President and his campaign when the 1978 statute that was
specifically designed to allow the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the President
and his campaign was intentionally abandoned by Congress in 1999. Logic, the rules of statutory
construction, and constitutional considerations mandate an answer in the negative.
i) Logic.
Logic dictates that if the general statutes pre-existing Title VI were sufficient for the job,
Congress would not have passed Title VI to begin with. There would have been no need. The
great care taken with regard to Title VI to arrive at a structure Congress believed would allow the
appointment of a prosecutor to investigate the President is not at all evident in 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,
510, and 515. These general statutes at best allow the Attorney General to enlist special lawyers
for special tasks. They never address the investigation of the President or a Presidential Campaign.
Those issues were explicitly addressed by Title VI, but Congress made the determination that Title
VI should expire. It would be illogical to assume that the Acting Attorney General can now
achieve the same exact result through reliance on the pre-existing general provisions contained in
28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515.


ii) Statutory Construction.
The guiding light of statutory construction is to determine Congressional intent.30 As
discussed above, Congressional intent is that special prosecutors capable of investigating the
President and/or Presidential Campaigns shall no longer exist. Construing 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510,
and 515 so as to have the same result as Title VI would therefore be contrary to Congressional
intent to abolish such special prosecutors by determining that Title VI should expire.
Congressional intent that any investigation into a President or Presidential Campaign requires a
specific law to support the appointment of a Special Prosecutor is illustrated by the fact that when
Congress desired the Whitewater investigation to be handled by a Special Prosecutor, it reenacted
Title VI. If Congressional intent was that 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 were sufficient to appoint
a Special Prosecutor to investigate the President, Congress would not have reenacted Title VI.
Moreover, interpreting 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 to have the same exact result as
Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act would contradict the canon of statutory construction that
the legislature would not pass meaningless or redundant words into law.31 As noted above, if 28
U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 are interpreted to mean the same thing as Title VI, then Title VI were
merely redundant, meaningless provisions. This cannot be the case. Finally, the canon of statutory
construction known as generalia specialibus non derogant provides that specific statutes control

over more general statutes. 32 Here, Title VI, repealed, is on all fours with the Mueller
Appointment, and controls over the more general provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515.
The general and specific cannot be interpreted to mean the same thing.
D. The Most Reasonable Interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515.
Given the foregoing, the most reasonable interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and
515 is that they allow the Attorney General to appoint a Special Prosecutor capable of investigating
crimes within the executive branch in general, but not the unique constitutional position of the
President.33 Indeed, investigations of crimes within the executive branch, by officers of the
executive branch, routinely take place. The argument here is that when it comes to investigating
the President, the one individual vested with the entire power of the Executive Branch, these
general statutes are insufficient for the reasons discussed above. Similarly, while 28 C.F.R. §
600.1 et seq. may be sufficient to support the appointment of special prosecutors to investigate
subordinate officers of the Executive Branch, they cannot constitutionally be interpreted as a basis
for the Mueller Appointment.
E. The Constitution Provides the Remedy.
The argument is not that the President cannot be investigated. For example, a President
may consent to an investigation undertaken by a subordinate officer of the Executive Branch, as

President Nixon did in Watergate when he appointed Leon Jaworski, and consented to special
regulations regarding Jaworski’s removal.34 However, the primary method for the investigation
of the President is through Congress under the Impeachment Power. If Congress truly believes that
a President has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution already provides the
remedy: Impeachment. The tortured history of the various special counsels who have undertaken
investigations of the President—Cox, Jworski, Walsh and Starr--demonstrates that the Framers got
it right from the start. The power to investigate and impeach the President lies with Congress, not
within the Executive Branch. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state that:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When
sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When
the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall
preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence
of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment,
Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
Article 2, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors

These provisions address under what circumstances, and under what process, the President of the
United States may be investigated, impeached, tried in the Senate upon articles of impeachment,
and, if removed from office, subsequently prosecuted and held accountable in a court of law.
In his 1998 Georgetown Law Review article, The President and the Independent
Counsel, Justice Kavanaugh reviewed the practical reasons supporting this conclusion as follows:
In an investigation of the President himself, no Attorney General or
special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the
inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether in favor
of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading
the investigation and its results. In terms of credibility to large
segments of the public (whose support is necessary if a President is
to be indicted), the prosecutor may appear too sympathetic or too
aggressive, too Republican or too Democrat, too liberal or too
conservative.
The reason for such political attacks are obvious. The indictment of
a President would be a disabling experience for the government as a
whole and for the President's political party—and thus also for the
political, economic, social, diplomatic, and military causes that the
President champions. The dramatic consequences invite, indeed,
beg, an all-out attack by the innumerable actors who would be
adversely affected by such a result. So it is that any number of the
President's allies, and even the Presidents themselves, have
criticized Messrs. Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski, Lawrence Walsh,
and Kenneth Starr—the four modern special prosecutors to
investigate presidents.
The Constitution of the United States contemplated, at least by
implication, what modern practice has shown to be the inevitable
result. The Framers thus appeared to anticipate that a President who
commits serious wrongdoing should be impeached by the House and
removed from office by the Senate—and then prosecuted thereafter.
The Constitution itself seems to dictate, in addition, that
congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal
investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and

that criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left
office.35
Leon Jaworski came to the same conclusion in the 1975 Report of the Watergate Special
Prosecution Task Force:
[T]he impeachment process should take precedence over a criminal
indictment because the Constitution was ambivalent on this point
and an indictment provoking a necessarily lengthy legal proceeding
would either compel the President's resignation or substantially
cripple his ability to function effectively in the domestic and foreign
fields as the Nation's Chief Executive Officer. Those consequences,
it was argued, should result from the impeachment mechanism
explicitly provided by the Constitution, a mechanism in which the
elected representatives of the public conduct preliminary inquiries
and, in the event of the filing of a bill of impeachment of the
President, a trial based upon all the facts.36
Ad hoc attempts to alter the Framers’ vision have repeatedly been determined to be
unsatisfactory, which is why Congress determined to sunset Title VI. It also explains the
dissatisfaction, dissention and uncertainty surrounding the issuance of the Mueller Report; what it
means, who should see it, whether the public can or cannot see some or all of it, and what happens
next. This uncertainty demonstrates that the Framers got it right, and the solution they provided
to the problem is the one that should be followed today. Indeed, absent the statutory authority
formerly provided by Title VI, it is in fact the only available remedy

No federal statute authorized the Special Counsel Appointment at the level of United
States Attorneys. No statute authorized the creation of a Special Counsel to replace, not assist
United States Attorneys. 37 Congress has deliberately terminated the only statutory authority
designed to appoint a special prosecutor with the power to investigate the President or a
presidential campaign. With that authority no longer in place, there exists no statutory
authorization for the Office of Special Counsel Mueller now purports to hold. The appointment
was illegal, the resulting office has been a nullity from inception, and all actions taken by this
illegally appointed officer should be declared null and void. The indictment of Roger Stone should
be dismissed with prejudice.

[Michael]

I. Separation of Powers Prevents the Executive Branch Special Prosecutor from
Prosecuting Stone for Allegedly Making Material False Statements to the Legislative
Branch, Absent Congressional Referral.
The separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches is
fundamental to our constitutional system. Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417, 450, 118 S. Ct. 2091,
2109(1998) (Kennedy, J.,) (concurring). Each branch is required to respect the scope of power of
the other two branches. Part of this mutual respect has traditionally been that the Executive Branch
not act as if on “road patrol” looking to police proceedings of the Legislative Branch for criminal
behavior. It may only act upon alleged criminal activity impacting the Legislative Branch upon
the receipt of a “referral” from Congress. As stated by former FBI Director James Comey in his
July, 2016 testimony before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing
regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (“FBI”) inquiry of the potential mishandling of
classified information:
We, out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch,
we do not commence investigations that focus on activities before
Congress without Congress asking us to get involved. That's a longstanding practice of the Department of Justice and the FBI. So we
don't watch on TV and say we ought to investigate that, Joe Smith
said this -- in front of the committee. It requires the committee to
say, “We think we have an issue here; would you all take a look at
it?”1

A. Prosecution Absent a Referral Invades the Investigative and Oversight Powers of
Congress in Violation of Separation of Powers.
The Department of Justice has long taken the position that prosecutorial discretion rests
solely with the Executive Branch, and that Congress cannot force the FBI to conduct an
investigation, or force the Department to institute a prosecution.2
Comity among the three coequal
branches supports the proposition that the Department cannot police Congress, and prosecute
potential violations which Congress has not referred for prosecution. To do so would allow the
Executive Branch to invade and impede Congress’ right to conduct inquiries, a key aspect of the
legislative function.
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174, 47 S. Ct. 319 (1927), held that “the power of
inquiry -- with process to enforce it -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function.” See also Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 77 S. Ct. 1173, 1179 (1957), and
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111, 79 S. Ct. 1081, 1085 (1959). The investigative
power of Congress goes hand in hand with Congress’ oversight power. Numerous committees and
subcommittees of the House and Senate engage in investigative and oversight hearings on a routine

basis.3
These Congressional powers are implied from both the Article I, Section 8 enumerated
powers, as well as the necessary and proper clause. Investigation and oversight have been upheld
by a series of cases dating back to at least 1821, and have been explicitly authorized by statute
since 1946.4 To allow the Executive Branch to roam the Halls of Congress to look for prosecutable
offenses sans a referral from the Legislative Brach would violate the separation of powers doctrine.
There has been no referral by the Legislative Branch. Indeed, the alleged offense occurred nearly
two years ago and nary a word was ever said by the Committee before which the alleged false
statement was made.
II. The Appointment of the Special Counsel Violates the Appropriations Clause.
The Appropriations Clause provides: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequences of Appropriations made by Law.” Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. This Special
Counsel’s Office was not funded by monies approved by Congress; rather, the Department of
Justice is funding the investigation from an unlimited account established in 1987 to pay for
independent counsels.
This Special Counsel's Office budget and funding were not congressionally approved.
Because it was not congressionally approved, its funding is in violation of the Constitution. Since
the investigation violates a fundamental clause of the Constitution authorizing congressional
oversight, it lacks authority to investigate and prosecute Roger Stone. The law provides that the


indictment should be dismissed and the prosecution enjoined. See United States v. McIntosh, 833
F.3d 1163, 1175 (9th Cir. 2016):
The Appropriations Clause plays a critical role in the Constitution’s
separation of powers among the three branches of government and
the checks and balances between them. “Any exercise of a power
granted by the Constitution to one of the other branches of
Government is limited by a valid reservation of congressional
control over funds in the Treasury.” Id. at 425, 110 S. Ct. 2465. The
Clause has a “fundamental and comprehensive purpose … to assure
that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult
judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not
according to the individual favor of Government agents.” Id. at 427-
28, 110 S. Ct. 2465. Without it, Justice Story explained, “the
executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse
of the nation; and might apply all its moneyed resources at his
pleasure.” Id. at 427, 110 S. Ct. 2465 (quoting 2 Joseph Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1348 (3d
ed. 1858)).
A. The Independent Counsel Statute.
The Supreme Court described the appointment, investigative, and prosecutorial procedures
of the Independent Counsel statute as follows:
Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act (Title VI or the Act), 28
U.S.C. §§ 591–599 (1982 ed., Supp. V), allows for the appointment
of an “independent counsel” to investigate and, if appropriate,
prosecute certain high-ranking Government officials for violations
of federal criminal laws.
The Act requires the Attorney General, upon receipt of information
that he determines is “sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate
whether any person [covered by the Act] may have violated any
Federal criminal law,” to conduct a preliminary investigation of the
matter. When the Attorney General has completed this investigation,
or 90 days has elapsed, he is required to report to a special court (the
Special Division) created by the Act “for the purpose of appointing
independent counsels.” 28 U.S.C. § 49 (1982 ed., Supp. V).
If the Attorney General determines that “there are no reasonable

grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted,” then he
must notify the Special Division of this result. In such a case, “the
division of the court shall have no power to appoint an independent
counsel.” § 592(b)(1). If, however, the Attorney General has
determined that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that further
investigation or prosecution is warranted,” then he “shall apply to
the division of the court for the appointment of an independent
counsel.”
The Attorney General’s application to the court “shall contain
sufficient information to assist the [court] in selecting an
independent counsel and in defining that independent counsel’s
prosecutorial jurisdiction.” § 592(d). Upon receiving this
application, the Special Division “shall appoint an appropriate
independent counsel and shall define that independent counsel’s
prosecutorial jurisdiction.” § 593(b).
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 660-661, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 2603(1988).

Title VI was at the time, and remained until its expiration, the only law that specifically
allowed the investigation of a sitting President and Presidential Campaign. But Congress

determined that the law should expire in 1999, and has not reenacted it. The independent counsel
was vested with “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and
prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice” with respect to matters within
their jurisdiction. Id. at 662; 28 U.S.C. § 594(a). The independent counsel has authority to conduct
investigations and grand jury proceedings, to obtaining and reviewing tax returns, to carrying out
prosecutions. Id.; 28 U.S.C. §§ 594 (1)-(9). The independent counsel could request assistance from
the Department in the course of the investigation, including access to materials relevant to the
relevant inquiry and necessary resources and personnel. Id.; 28 U.S.C. §594(d).
Even with controversy about the over-extension of power to and insufficient supervision
and oversight of the independent counsel, congressional oversight was in place.

Finally, the Act provides for congressional oversight of the activities
of independent counsel. An independent counsel may from time to
time send Congress statements or reports on his or her activities. §
595(a)(2). The “appropriate committees of the Congress” are given
oversight jurisdiction in regard to the official conduct of an
independent counsel, and the counsel is required by the Act to
cooperate with Congress in the exercise of this jurisdiction. §
595(a)(1). The counsel is required to inform the House of
Representatives of “substantial and credible information which [the
counsel] receives ... that may constitute grounds for an
impeachment.” § 595(c). In addition, the Act gives certain
congressional committee members the power to “request in writing
that the Attorney General apply for the appointment of an
independent counsel.” § 592(g)(1). The Attorney General is required
to respond to this request within a specified time but is not required
to accede to the request. § 592(g)(2).
Morrison, 487 U.S. at 665.
Over the years, there were concerns over whether the independent counsel possessed too
much power after the Iran-Contra and Whitewater investigations. See Exhibit 1, Special Counsel
Investigations: History, Authority, Appointment and Removal, at 8. 5 Even the then-Deputy
Attorney General Eric Holder testified: “Independent counsel are largely insulated from any
meaningful budget process, competing public duties, time limits, accountability to superiors and
identification with the traditional long-term interests of the Department of Justice. See Exhibit 2,
[t[he Independent Counsel Act, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative
Law, on the Judiciary6

The Special Counsel statute provides a different framework but enables the Special
Counsel to investigate and prosecute without providing the direct and ongoing congressional
oversight as required by the independent counsel’s statute under § 591. Title 28 U.S.C. Sections
509, 510, and 515, passed into law in 1966, remain general provisions that do not contemplate the
appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate potential criminal actions by the President of the
United States or a Presidential Campaign.
Congress presently must subpoena a copy of the Mueller report and will receive a version
at the discretion of the Attorney General. Thus, the only oversight provided to Congress by the
Special Counsel statute and accompanying regulations would be the power to appropriate spending.
B. The Special Counsel Statute.
“There is a federal statute that governs who may litigate cases in the name of the United
States, and provides for the appointment of the Special Counsel.” United States v. Manafort, 312
F.Supp.3d 60, 68-69 (D.D.C. 2018) (Berman Jackson, J.,) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 509). As described
earlier, prior to the enactment of the special counsel statute, there was an independent counsel
statute. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1050 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff'd, 916 F.3d 1047
(D.C. Cir. 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 591-599 (expired)). Then as the independent counsel
provisions of the Ethics in Government Act expired in 1999, the Attorney General promulgated
the Office of the Special Counsel regulations to “replace” the Act. Id. (citing Office of Special
Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,038 (July 9, 1999) (published at 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1–600.10).
7

See also Manafort, 312 F.Supp.3d at 68-69 (Berman Jackson, J.,). The Independent Counsel statute
was permitted to sunset in the hopes that the use of the statute would not be used to pursue
politically partisan agendas, rather than a means of assuring accountability in government. United
States v. Manafort, 321 F. Supp. 3d 640, 647–48 (E.D. Va. 2018) (Ellis, J.,).
“The Department of Justice has promulgated a set of regulations concerning the
appointment and supervision of Special Counsel appointed pursuant to section 515.” Manafort,
312 F.Supp.3d at 69 (citing General Powers of Special Counsel, 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1-600.10, citing
5 U.S.C. §301; 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515-519)). “The Department published the regulations in
1999 to ‘replace the procedures set out in the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.’”
Id. (citation omitted). The regulations provide that a Special Counsel be appointed when the
Attorney General determines there is a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,
that assigning a United States Attorney or other lawyer within the Department would present a
conflict of interest for the Department, or “other extraordinary circumstances.” Id. (citing 28 C.F.R.
§600.1)). The Special Counsel must be appointed from outside the Department, with a “reputation
for integrity and impartial decision-making,” with “appropriate experience” to conduct the specific
investigation, and understands the criminal law and the Department’s policies.” Id. (citing 28
C.F.R. §600.3)).
The Attorney General or in this case, his designee, defined the scope of the Special
Counsel’s jurisdiction. Id. (citing 28 C.F.R. § 600.4)). Once the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction has
been established, he has “full power and independent authority” to exercise all investigative and
prosecutorial functions of a United States Attorney.” Id. at 70. (citing 28 C.F.R. § 600.6)). As
opposed to the prior Independent Counsel, the Special Counsel “remains subject to oversight by

the Attorney General.” Id. “The Special Counsel's authority is not clearly greater than the
Independent Counsel's, and arguably is lesser.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F.Supp.3d at
641. What is clear, however, is that the authority given is different.
The Special Counsel should consult with the Department for “guidance with respect to
practices and procedures” within the Department or Attorney General, unless such consultation
would be “inappropriate.” Manafort, 312 F.Supp.3d at 68-69 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 600.7). The
Special Counsel is not subject to day-to-day supervision of the Attorney General; however, the
Special Counsel has to explain “any investigative or prosecutorial step” taken. Id. (citing 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.7(b)). If deemed inappropriate or unwarranted by the Attorney General, then he can order
the Special Counsel not to pursue it. Id. The Attorney General has personal enforcement power to
discipline or remove the Special Counsel. Id. Pursuant to the new statute, the Department
announced the new regulations as a means to “strike a balance between independence and
accountability in certain sensitive investigations.” Id. (citing 64 Fed. Reg. at 37,038).
As stated above, the independent counsel statute enacted congressional oversight
provisions that the special counsel statute does not. With supervision in place, Congress authorized
funding of the independent counsel’s office from a designated fund within the Department of
Justice. The permanent and indefinite independent counsel fund within the Department cannot and
was not deemed a Special Counsel fund.
Robert Mueller, III was appointed to be the Special Counsel to investigate Russian
interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters. United States v. Manafort,
312 F.Supp.3d 60, 64 (D.D.C. 2018) (Berman Jackson, J.,); see Exhibit 3, Appointment of
Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and


Related Matters, Order No. 3915-2017.
8
The Special Counsel's Office is currently funded by the permanent, indefinite appropriation
for independent counsels. See 28 C.F.R. § 600.8 (a)(1)-(2) (budget); Exhibit 4, Dep't of Justice,
Special Counsel's Office Statement of Expenditures October 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. In
title and actuality, Mr. Mueller is not an independent counsel. Mueller’s independence is defined
and limited by Part 600 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This does not authorize
independent funding at the Department’s discretion to be used for Mueller’s investigation and
prosecution.
The Government will claim it has been given authority by Congress to use the independent
counsel fund since the General Accounting Office gave its opinion that it was appropriate to do so
in a prior investigation in 2004 when a “special counsel” was appointed to investigate the Chief of
Staff of the Vice President, I. Lewis, “Scooter” Libby. See Exhibit 5, GAO B302582, SPECIAL
COUNSEL AND PERMANENT INDEFINITE APPROPRIATION.
9
Scooter Libby was investigated and prosecuted by a “special counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald was the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and maintained that
position while he acted as special counsel prosecuting Libby. See United States v. Libby, 498
F.Supp.2d 1, 5-6 (D.D.C. 2007). Fitzgerald was not hired from outside the Department as the
Special Counsel statute and regulations require. Fitzgerald was, explicitly in his appointment, not

limited by Part 600 of the federal regulations. Mueller, however, is limited by Section 600.7(b),
which made him accountable to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein; and now, the Attorney
General. Mueller is not an independent counsel in any way. Because Mueller is not an independent
counsel, i.e. limited by Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations Section 600, he cannot be subject to
the indefinite independent Department of Justice Fund – Congress must approve his funding. See
Exhibit 1 at 1.
The Department has equivocated on the meaning of “independent” and “special” since
enactment of Special Counsel statute. Mueller is a different type of counsel conducting this
investigation and qualitatively different than the counsel the General Accounting Office required
in 2004 when analyzing the last independent counsel, “special counsel,” Patrick Fitzgerald. See
Exhibit 1 at 2. Fitzgerald was truly independent and held the authority of the Attorney General. Id.
at 2. The GAO Report assumed that the Part 600 regulations were “not substantive” and therefore
could be waived by the Department, and were. Id. at 8. Acting Attorney General James Comey
“clarified” that Fitzgerald’s delegation of authority was “plenary.” Id. at 3. “Further, my conferral
on you of the title of ‘Special Counsel’ in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that
your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.” Id. at 3 & n. 4. Mueller
is defined and limited by 28 C.F.R. Part 600.
The authority to appoint independent counsels pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 591 et seq. expired on June 30, 1999.
However, the permanent indefinite appropriation remains available
to pay the expenses of an independent counsel (1) who was
appointed by the Special Division of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. §§ 591 et seq. whose investigation was underway when
the law expired (2) who was appointed under “other law.” Under the
expired law, a person appointed as an independent counsel could not

hold “any office of profit or trust under the United States, 28 U.S.C.
§ 593(b)(2) (2000).”
Id. at 3.
The present day Special Counsel’s relationship to the Department is qualitatively different
than the independent counsel. But, “[t]he Attorney General establishes the budget for the Special
Counsel’s investigation, and is to determine whether the investigation should continue at the end
of each fiscal year” nonetheless. In re Grand Jury, 916 F.3d at 1050 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(a)(1),
(a)(2)). The GAO Report never analyzed the effect of the post-1999 regulations on its 1994
memorandum’s analysis. It is this misuse of the permanent independent appropriation fund Stone
challenges as unconstitutional in violation of the Appropriations Clause. U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 9,
cl. 7. Because Part 600 limits the independence of the Special Counsel and the present day statute
limits Congress’s oversight role the indefinite independent counsel fund is not a resource for the
Special Counsel that can be used without violating the Appropriations Clause.
“Decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have strictly enforced the constitutional
requirement, implemented by federal statutes, that uses of appropriated funds be authorized by
Congress.” U.S. Dept. of Navy v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 665 F.3d 1339, 1342 (D.C. Cir.
2012) (Kavanaugh, J.,) (Circuit Court) (citing U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 9, cl. 7; 31 U.S.C. § 1301 et
seq.). The Clause conveys a “straightforward and explicit command”: No money “can be paid out
of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.” Office of Personnel Mgmt.
v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 2471 (1990) (citations omitted). "An
appropriation must be expressly stated; it cannot be inferred or implied. 31 U.S.C. § 1301(d) (“A
law may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury ... only if the law specifically
states that an appropriation is made.”). It is well established that “a direction to pay without a

designation of the source of funds is not an appropriation.” United States House of Representatives
v. Burwell, 185 F.Supp.3d 165, 169 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
GAO-04-261SP, PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW (Vol. I) at 2-17 (3d ed. 2004)10)
(hereinafter “GAO PRINCIPLES”). The inverse is also true: the designation of a source, without a
specific direction to pay, is not an appropriation. Id. The Clause protects Congress's “exclusive
power over the federal purse.” Rochester Pure Waters Dist. v. EPA, 960 F.2d 180, 185
(D.C.Cir.1992). The power over the purse was one of the most important authorities allocated to
Congress in the Constitution's “necessary partition of power among the several departments.” THE
FEDERALIST NO. 51 at 320 (James Madison). The Appropriations Clause prevents Executive
Branch officers from even inadvertently obligating the Government to pay money without
statutory authority. See Richmond, 496 U.S. at 416; see also Dep't of the Air Force v. FLRA, 648
F.3d 841, 845 (D.C.Cir.2011).
A “permanent” or “continuing” appropriation, once enacted, makes funds available
indefinitely for their specified purpose; no further action by Congress is needed. Nevada v. Dep’t
of Energy, 400 F.3d 9, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2005); GAO PRINCIPLES at 2–14. A “current appropriation,”
by contrast, allows an agency to obligate funds only in the year or years for which they are
appropriated. GAO PRINCIPLES at 2–14. Current appropriations often give a particular agency,
program, or function its spending cap and thus constrain what that agency, program, or function
may do in the relevant year(s). Most current appropriations are adopted on an annual basis and
must be re-authorized for each fiscal year. Such appropriations are an integral part of our

constitutional checks and balances, insofar as they tie the Executive Branch to the Legislative
Branch via purse strings. House of Representatives, 185 F.Supp.3d at 169-170. Examples of
permanent appropriations include the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. § 1304(a)) and payment of
interest on the national debt (31 U.S.C. § 1305(2)). House of Representatives, 185 F.Supp.3d at n.
3.
Title 31 Section 1341, known as the Anti-Deficiency Act, makes it unlawful for
government officials to “make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount
available in an appropriation” or to involve the Federal Government “in a contract or obligation
for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law.” U.S. Dept.
of Navy, 665 F.3d at 1347 (citing 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A)-(B)). It is a crime to knowingly and
willfully violate it. Id. (citing 31 U.S.C. § 1350)).
The government’s reliance on approved funding without a specific authorization from
Congress comes from “. . . a permanent indefinite appropriation is established within
the Department of Justice to pay all necessary expenses of investigations and prosecutions by
independent counsel appointed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq. or other law.”
Pub. L. No. 100-202, § 101(a) [title II], 101 Stat. 1329, 1329-9 (1987). Special Counsel Mueller,
however, was not appointed under the expired independent counsel statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 591. Also, there is no “other law” because the Independent Counsel statute was not replaced with
another law, i.e. another statute enabling a special counsel to have the same role as the Independent
Counsel. The Independent Counsel statute was replaced by Department rules promulgated by
itself, not Congress. The Department must argue that the “or other law” clause survives the sunset
of Section 591, in order to support the payment of expenses without congressional approval.

Congress must have intended to maintain payment for a different and unique “special” counsel in
perpetuity while surrendering the direct oversight it had under the Section 591. The “or other law”
does not mean any law. It must mean another law that creates a similar special lawyer with similar
authority to investigate and prosecute specified matters. The Special Counsel law does not have
sufficient specificity to investigate a president or the campaign.
Because the expenditure of funds supporting the Special Counsel investigation and
prosecution violates the Appropriations Clause, an order dismissing the indictment and enjoining
the prosecution of him until Congress has made the proper constitutional appropriation is
appropriate. United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1174-1175 (9th Cir. 2016), supra. The
Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7, prohibits the payment of money from the
Treasury unless it has been approved by an act of Congress. Here, the Department violates the
Appropriations Clause and the maintenance of the criminal action constitutes a violation of the
separation of powers. See McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1175.

[Mihaela Hristodor]

That helps a lot ...thanks

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Before I read that it crossed my mind to make appeal to special counsell.
And I will !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Your case will be right here :

https://osc.gov/PublicFiles

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Investigation must be done because I accuse you of many things not only jailing me innocent .
But being part of WF 15 years campaign against me ...something I didn't told Congress . But I bet they kinda put it togheter when I sent the book ...hopefully ...if not ? Is ok ...will enlighten them by giving to everyone the full story this time with screenshots and proofs of my sayings and reason if why I believe you are part of it !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

> But being part of WF 15 years campaign against me ...something I didn't told Congress . But I bet they kinda put it togheter when I sent the book ...hopefully ...if not ? Is ok ...will enlighten them by giving to everyone the full story this time with screenshots and proofs of my sayings and reason if why I believe you are part of it.


https://osc.gov/PublicFiles#k=PROSECUTOR#l=1033

I wrote to OIG but at the time I did it , I didn't knew what I know now .
Will go ahead and provide them with all events ....am sure they will look into it . Especially is all connected to my whistleblowing.

[Mihaela Hristodor]

You have "friends " there too?
Will find out !
I doubt the friends would risque their jobs seeing I sent the same to everyone ,Congress included & all others mentioned !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-7, Michael wrote:
> You can read this one it is instructive:
>
> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14515855/69/united-states-v-stone/

And this one is more instructive:
I wonder how on Earth you enjoy your job when you know you stole the elections?
You are a big criminal!


https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-02-25/riverside-district-attorney-holds-november-ballots-uncounted

[Mihaela Hristodor]

How on Earth you don't feel ashamed of your own self?
I truly wonder: DO YOU EVER SAY ANYTHING TRUE?
EVER????

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 8:14:44 AM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:

You are a liar!!!!!!
You know am innocent and you offered me settlement and breached the deal we had and not only that?
But now? You decided am guilty again !
You falsely accused me and charged me and jailed me 10 TIMES FOR DV AND NOW YOU SAY AM A WELL KNOWN SRUG ADDICT!
YOU ARE A PIG!
WHO LIKES TO JAIL INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!
I BET OUT OF THE 7 PEOPLE YOU SENT TO DEATH ROW ? AT LEAST ONE IF NOT MORE, ARE INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!


https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-horace-roberts-20181015-story.html


YOU DO SO ? HABITUALLY!

I COLLECT ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU AS STANDS AS PROOF YOU DO SO HABITUALLY!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

I have A LOT!!!
A LOT !!!
!WILL ADD EACH PAGE WITH YOUR WRONG DOING TO MY COMPLAINT !
WHEN YOU'LL SEE THEM ALL TOGETHER? HOW MUCH YOU DID ?
YOU'LL END UP SPITTING ON YOUR SELF IMAGE IN THE MIRROR! WILL BE LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KISS ON YOUR OWN UGLINESS!!!¡

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Michael Jackson did not ask for settlement.,,poor Michael !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

You are an ASSASSIN OF MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE'S CHARACTER !
YOU'LL SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOURS WHEN AM DONE WITH YOU!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Dude ! I decided I dislike you
greatly ! GREATLY ! YOU REPRESENT WHAT I DESPISE THE MOST : LIARS AND CRIMINALS !
SO YES , THERE IS NOTHING TO LIKE ABOUT YOU! I TAKE BACK EVERYTHING I SAID CONTRARY TO THAT ! I AM DISGUSTED ! VERY MUCH! VERY VERY VERY MUCH!
A!D THIS IS MY ULTIMATE OPINION OF YOU AND IS HERE TO STAY AND I KNOW I! MY HEART YOU STOLE THE DONATIONS FOR TURPIN'S KID'S !
AND I TRULY HOPE YOU WILL PAY FOR IT AS THERE IS NO HIGHER CRIME THAN ABUSING THE ABUSED ! AND I AM ONE ! YET YOU HAVE NO LIMITS YOU EXTEND YOUR NASTY ABUSE TO KIDS YOU F PIG !
I FEEL LIKE THROWING UP LITERALLY WHEN I RECALL ALL YOU DID ...YOU ARE A NASTY PREDATOR ! A MURDERER AND A THIEF AND AN ABUSIVE F PIG ! A LIAR AND A SELFISH NASTY PSYCHOPATH / SOCIOPATH AND NARCISSIST !
YOU ARE A DANGER TO HUMANITY YOU F PIG !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

This complaint against you that am sending out now ? Today? Will be so complete! I won't leave out a thing ! AND I ASSURE YOU THAT ALL THAT WILL READ ?
WILL FEEL EXACTLY WHAT I DO !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Comes to my mind now Schwarzenegger when he was caught on the wrong foot ... At least that man ? Didn't lie ., He said :" there is no smoke without the fire " .. and the moment he said that ? We all forgave him!
You? Lie in every single interview ! Shamelessly!
And for this ¿ You will be punished !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Was your sole decision to be punished not forgiven ! You alone decided to continue lying ! Never took responsibility like Schwarzenegger did .

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Schwarzenegger? By speaking the truth ? Did one huge thing : salvaged his INTEGRITY !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

While you ?
Destroyed yours IRREMEDIABLY !!!
ONCE A LIAR ? ALWAYS A LIAR !
YOU GOT SO ENTANGLED IN YOUR OWN LIES ? THAT YOU WILL NEVER FIND THE EXIT DOOR FROM RUIN OF YOUR INTEGRITY !
YOU DONT HAVE ANY !
ALL OF US THAT RAISED VOICE AGAINST YOU ?
WE DONT KNOW EACH OTHER AT LEAST !
YOU CALL US ALL LIARS YOU DAMN PIG ?
WE ALL SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT YOU : YOU ARE A CRIMINAL !!!!!

YOU KNOW WHAT HURTS THE MOST WHEN PEOPLE LIE WITH NO SHAME ?
IS A DOUBLE OFFENSE :

1. THE WRONG ITSELF , WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE .

2. YOU CALL US ALL IDIOTS ! LYING TO US ALL ? SPELLS EXACTLY THAT TO ALL OF US : " I AM SMART AND YOU ARE ALL RETARDS ! AS IF I WOULD BELIEVE YOU ARE SMART ? I WOULDN'T LIE , AS SMART PEOPLE CATCH A LIE ! BUT YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS SO I LIE TO YOU ALL AND I AM SURE WILL GET AWAY WITH IT , SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL IGNORANT IDIOTS !"

THAT'S THE STATEMENT YOU MAKE EVERY TIME YOU LIE TO US ! THE DAMN PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT !
WHAT A SHAME !
YOU INSULT ALL OF US , UNDERMINING OUR INTELLIGENCE YOU NASTY CRIMINAL !
AND TRUST ME : THIS INFURIATES EVEN THE CALMEST PERSON ON THIS EARTH !!!!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

You truly believe you are the only one that carries a brain around !
Am ready to proof you wrong !
This idea ?
Will be the base of your downfall!
And you'll fall so damn hard !
Because you fall from a great height !
You'll be "injured "? For life !
Never will you be able to restore : INTEGRITY AND TRUST !
AND YOU DESERVE NONE !
WAS PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN ! .
YOU ARE A DAMN TRAIN WRECK !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

You love to but in everyone's life with your nasty surveillance !
If you did that to me ? Then you do it to all !!!
Even to that retired cop with absolutely no reason at all. No legal reason !
Personal ?
Hell yeah !
Blackmail !!! Blackmail is your expertise !
You are nasty dude ! So f. Nasty to violate our sanctuary : our privacy at home you damn pig ! Would you like someone to do this to you ? Huh?

You f HYPOCRITICAL Mr. Onanismus ! Tell me you never did it you lying pig !
Yet dare point fingers and blackmail with sharing to all contacts !
Will be no shy to show the email from you damn you pig !
You surveill the innocent one to find out about things you can blackmail with forcing people to not speak out loud about your crimes !
You will f see !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

And not only that you "obseve " people that you are scared of so you can blackmail them , but you share too you nasty criminal !
No worries : I will share myself your illegal Acts! Onanism in your own home is not illegal ! While blackmail is !
And the shame ?
Is all yours ! To dare to invade my privacy to such degree you f pig !
I don't let my ex touch me or talk about sex at least since !
YOU DESTROYED that aspect of my life too! You pig !
While you ? Like a damn pervert you are ? I can only bet ( no worries I don't need you to admit ) you did yourself a million times on it and not only mine , but many !!! You are mentally ill dude ! Are you aware of that ?
Very sick !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Disposable email addresses and all that COVERTED CRIMINAL AND NASTY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY YOU PERFORM , JUSTIFYING YOUR LAW BREAKING SAYING IS FIR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE !
WHAT CAN BE MORE SICK THAN THAT ?

[Mihaela Hristodor]

> > Hell yeah ! 9

> > Blackmail !!! Blackmail is your expertise !
> > You are nasty dude ! So f. Nasty to violate our sanctuary : our privacy at home you damn pig ! Would you like someone to do this to you ? Huh?
> >
> > You f HYPOCRITICAL Mr. Onanismus ! Tell me you never did it you lying pig !
> > Yet dare point fingers and blackmail with sharing to all contacts !
> > Will be no shy to show the email from you damn you pig !
> > You surveill the innocent one to find out about things you can blackmail with forcing people to not speak out loud about your crimes !
> > You will f see !
> And not only that you "obseve " people that you are scared of so you can blackmail them , but you share too you nasty criminal !
> No worries : I will share myself your illegal Acts! Onanism in your own home is not illegal ! While blackmail is !
> And the shame ?
> Is all yours ! To dare to invade my privacy to such degree you f pig !
> I don't let my ex touch me or talk about sex at least since !
> YOU DESTROYED that aspect of my life too! You pig !
> While you ? Like a damn pervert you are ? I can only bet ( no worries I don't need you to admit ) you did yourself a million times on it and not only mine , but many !!! You are mentally ill dude ! Are you aware of that ?
> Very sick !

You break the law in the name of Justice !
How sick you must be !!!
And how stupid you must believe we all are ! To believe you !
Only you and your sicko CONSPIRATORS BELIEVE ONE ANOTHER SUCH STUPID THING !
YOU FULLY MEET MY DEFINITION OF CRAZY !
YOU ARE NUTS BUG TIME !
GO SEE A DAMN SHRINK!
As our mind ? Is most important out of all! And yours is defect big time !
You didn't learn so far that you can't be :
1: single and married in the same time
2. criminal and cop in the same time

You are a juggler who make a total circus out of Justice system !
And a bad juggler too! As in middle showtime ?
Your own juggling objects ( have no clue how you call them ) will hit you ?
Deadly !
Circus ? Must leave the town !!!! We had enough !

You didn't learn so far that many tried and never worked ?
And if you believe you are better than all others that failed since the world began ?
You are crazier than am so far aware about you !

All that tried ? Failed ! Was just a matter of time !
AND YOUR TIME ?
ARRIVED!!!!!!

And the fact that you invaded my privacy to such degree ?
And dare share?
Will cost you !!! There is no amount you can pay for that one : but jail !!!!!!!!
You are immune only within your prosecutorial duties !
And blackmail and threats ?
I doubt is part of your job responsibilities!

You'll see 4 mill tax free !!!
Happy hour ?
Gone ! And gone for good !
No amount of money can reverse time dude! No amount of money can reverse trauma you put me through you pig !
No amount of money can change the fact that I was deprived of my freedom so many times !
I was so proud saying :" I never been to jail ! Never arrested , or at least in a close to be arrested situation !"
I will never be able to say that you damn pig ! Never !
I don't care how many millions!
I was charged and jailed ten f times for crimes I never commit !!!
Exposed to Corona virus inn jail in quarantine , as you lied to me am sick just to hold me 14 days in jail in solitary when healthy as a teen as nurse said it every day you nasty pig and am 52!!she said my vitals are teenager like at my 52 !!!! I was 50 actually ...52 am now .
And I was nowhere in the system . She would put my.name there and would be gone by next day ..Then TB SHOTS TILL MY BODY REACTED!
AND TILL I TOLD THE DAMN NURSE TO STOP !!! AS SHE PLAYED STUPID ! SHE SAW ON HER SCREEN THAT SHE GAVE ME ONE 2DAYS PRIOR , OR ONE WEEK PRIOR , AS OFTEN AS I WAS JAILED ...ONCE I WAS JAILED FOUR DAMN TIMES IN ONE MONTH ?!!!????
YOU NASTY CRIMINALS !

I was looking at myself there in the cell and refused to believe is real as 24 h hours prior ? I bailed out !
I was telling myself : this can't be reality for God sakes !
The biggest criminal on entire Earth was not jailed four times in one month ! Or twice in less than 48 hours like I was ! You nasty criminals with no limits !
4 millions ?
You wish !
To me ? No amount of money ever will be able to compensate me for the torture I received for the last five years at least !
You are dangerous MURDERERS!!!!

And people for God's sakes ?
Isn't illegal to urinate and defecate in public ?
You force us to do it !
I was forced to urinate in a holding cell with another 8 of us there , people I never saw in my life !!! And a damn camera pointed right towards toiilet ! Plus the traffic outside the door ! This is damn public !!!! You force us all to break the laws !!!!

I refused to do it saying my bailed is posted and the deputy made threats saying if I don't give her my urine sample will not bail out !!
Crying and begging to all other women to close eyes , I had to forget all my Mama's good teachings who told me since I was 2-3 yo, to hide my little birdie , because is shame ! And break the law ! You are some nasty people ! Class action on that one !
You'll see ! All of you ! CLASS ACTION !
With my mother there I won't do it ! And I was forced to do it by you all you damn perverted HYPOCRITICAL and shameless criminals !
You force us all to break the damn law !
"Funny " is that nobody saw how outrageous this is !
I had to come from Europe to tell you all : shame on you !
The biggest and the richest country in the world who forces inmates to pee in public while videoed!
You sell those videos ? It wouldn't be a shocker ! The state is in deficit ! Isn't it ? Always ! They never have enough money ! You sell the videos on the black market to psycho pervs or what ?
Class action !!!!!!!!! Will make you demolish all jails in this country and upgrade them to the requirements of this century !!! If you made a business out of JAILING people , invest in your business ! Not only take !
Damn PRIMITIVES !
That was the most humiliating moment of my life next to your SURVEILLANCE you damn pig !
And you'll pay for it ! I promise you ! Many jail years !
What are we animals ?
You dehumanize us every opportunity you have you nasty people !

CLASS ACTION !
THE STATE WILL BE COMPLETELY RUINED AFTER SETTLE WITH ALL OF US JAILED AMD FORCED TO BREAK THE LAW URINATING AND DEFECATING IN PUBLIC !!!!

ESPECIALLY WE , POOR OF US WOMEN ! WE ARE NOT LIKE YOU THE DUDES WE TURN AROUND AND DO IT ! YOU HAVE TO ...OMG ! TO FILL THAT SAMPLE BOTTLE ...IS ONLY ONE WAY WE CAN DO IT ! NASTY DISTURBED CRIMINALS WITH NO SHAME !
I wrote to General Attorney the moment I was out on bail about that !
I asked the deputy to take me in another room not with eight of us there ...I was refused .
Everyone was looking at me like I can from another planet when you all are crazy ! Not me !
Shame on you all to force us to do such humiliating and illegal thing : publicly ! In front of strangers and camera ! Like animals ! Just lift a leg and use that hole as a tree no?
Regardless who passed by and stare at you !
Damn you people !
I love dogs btw ...and they do ok what they do ...but WE CALL OURSELVES HUMANS !!!!!!
SORRY I FORGOT AM NOT SEEN AS SUCH ...am AN ALIEN !!!! ACTUALLY ...THAT EXPLAINS A LOT !
BUT YOU DO IT TO American's TOO ! TO ALL OF US !!! SHAMELESSLY! UNF.BELIEVABLE !

And I have no clue how jails are in Romania ...I bet they aren't any better , yet at least we don't advertise ourselves as the biggest and bestest t country in the world . And is huuge shame there to go to jail .. we follow the law!
I know a friend of mine said she was in jail in Germany for taking credit from bank and not paying back and she said was nice ! She had library , gym, good food and all conditions . She said she felt she's in vacation !
So yeah: Aligned USA with modern countries or you lose the title !
Or am I in Turkey ?

Will write all that in my book ! For the whole world to know ! The truth will be spoken !

After I wrote to AG ? Next time I was jailed , through my surprise , deputy without me asking this time took me in a separate cell alone . So he took measures and this tells me he fully understood my issue . Yet didn't last....
Third time ? Back to basics ! And every other time after ....I didn't made anymore noise as I knew will just hurt myself more so I let you all treat me like an animal ....in the end am nothing but a damn criminal ! Ain't I ?

I met a Romanian deputy once and I can't explain how embarrassed I was . As in Romania ? We don't commit crimes like people do nhere ...at least my generation and all prior to mine . Romanians ? The most they did ? Was : wallets ..watch your wallet ...there are few thief pockets ...nothing else .
A rape here and there one in ten years no murderers...one in 20 years and everyone knew and was wowed about it ..and all this when Ceausescu was president . We had no drugs , just alcohol... A drink here and there ...everyone behaved in Romania ...and we are very religious and hospitality is huge in my country we are pretty cool people ! Educated too ..
Am sure is all different now that we aligned to all others ...drugs and all the bad that comes with it ....
Unfortunately ....

I never met one person in my 29 years there that was jailed ! Is all I can say and this says a lot ! Not one person ! Friends , neighbours , classmates , not one at least went to jail ! Huge thing isn't it ? Not in jail in Romania during Ceausescu's time . I must mention that . That friend of mine that I mentioned she went to jail in Germany for a month or two , was after Ceausescu was murdered ( to me he was ). And after they opened the borders for us. I am strictly speaking about communism time in my country which ended with Ceausescu's death .

While here ? Omg ! Everybody went to jail ! At least once !

If I ended up there ???ME?????

And Ten times for God's sakes ? Wow ? !!!

You people are all mentally ill to do this to this society !
Business out of JAILING people innocent ones too ! You are all nuts !
I swear to God ! Is my honest opinion after 20 years here !
If I knew ?oh God ! I would have never come here !

Is your fault American people : you falsely advertised this country as immigrant friendly !
I didn't went to Germany 1hour flight I came 17 h's flight just to not deal with Nazi and there I find : the weirdest form of politics ever seen : Communism Nazi regime!
Weird as hell because Communism is all about equality and Nazi is exactly the opposite .
Yet somehow , you American politicians ? Managed to create out of this paradox a new breed of government!
Strange, strange one !
As communism , has benefits too ! But the Nazi part of it ? Puts a big STOP to it !Nothing works the way it should !

Very many benefits we had!
Romania ? After I read about the communism in China ? I recognized nothing in Romania like in China ! It made me wonder if we were Communists just by name , pressured by Russia ! Factually , Romania , just like the name said : "Socialist Republic of Romania" was the name of my country and it was exactly that : A SOCIALIST COUNTRY, NOT A COMMUNIST ONE.

Between other things this is what we had : free housing ,.free Medicare , free schooling , jobs for all and for each child the state would give to the head of the family , $300/ child . In case of divorce ? The custodial parent would get the money on their paycheck from the state .
So we had no homelessness, no drugs , no illiterates , no joblessness , no criminals ( this is a huuge one ) .. kids were not seen as "assets " like here where the husband or the wife throws dirt on one another ...no! None of this in Romania ...not by default ! wasn't bad ...i would lie to say was bad . NOT BANKS !!! ( JUST ONE OR TWO WHERE WE HAD SAVINGS ACCOUNTS , ZERO DEBTS! ) ROMANIA WAS A CASH COUNTRY! YOU HAD MONEY YOU BUY , YOU DONT ? YOU LOOK ! YOU SAVE AND THEN BUY CASH ALL AT ONCE ! SO ALMOST ALL ROMANIANS APARTMENTS AND HOMES ARE PAID OFF ..

One thing I liked there was that you wanted to become someone ? To do something with your life higher than average manufacture worker? You had the possibility to do it ! Ceausescu emphasized education and was free and he was insisting on multi and diverse qualifications . My parents too!
In Romania ? We don't take credits in highschool based on how well we sell MacDonald's We study ! And we had a bacalaureate exam at the end of 12th grade written , one oral and one practical as we get qualified in a skill of our choice . Not easy !
My dad I remember was telling me : you don't have to work go to university and when done go to another one and will take care of you ! You dont have to work I just want you to study ...I want you to be someone ! And I feel like crying because I miss them so bad and because of you I can't see them !!! And they may die as they are old and if this happens and I can't see my parents before they die ? You rott in hell for ever you hear me ? FOREVER ! AND MY DAUGHTER! EVIL DOER YOU ARE ! I GET UPSET AGAIN ...

SO LET ME GO BACK TO MY STORY ...

The only thing we didn't had was easyness of traveling aboard. Was expensive yet possible for the ones that had money.
We all afforded every summer to take vacation for one month , the state would pay vacation money , and we all were able to enjoy one month a year vacation time .
So we didn't had drugs and rock'n roll ...and we couldn't talk shit about the president .
I don't recall missing neither one neither the other ...how many Americans went anywhere besides Mexico ? If , even there ? Most of them went nowhere outside of USA unfortunately ! Europe ? Can't be missed ! And everywhere else is worth to go and see ! Traveling ? Is a well worth experience ! It expands your view of this world ...teaches you to read ...without travelling ? We remain illiterate ...so yes is the only thing I couldn't do in Ceausescu's time ...we could go to Russia , Poland , Hungary ...affordably ...all else we couldn't afford I guess as I perceived it as very young woman back then .
The fact that the borders opened , wake up my adventurous spirit and desire and curiosity to learn and see and travel the world ! So I left my engineering job and worked as waitress for Carnival Cruise Lines ...and saw the world ....I missed only one continent : Africa ...so I can say about self : am well traveled .

With regard to talking crap about president ? Here is my honest input about that :
A country ,. should not talk crap about their own president ! If we don't respect the first man ( first lady right ?) of ones country , then who do we believe deserves respect ?
He is the president no?
So I never mind that !
Talking bad about your own president is like pouring crap over your own head ! As he does represent you and everyone else out there in the world ! If the president is respected ? So the ones he presides !
You people got it all wrong with a those free speech rights !
I saw pictures with bush having anal with bin laden !
I was shocked people !
Ceausescu ? Would have throw your ass in jail for that ! And I don't blame him ! He is the president and for this fact ! He deserves respect !
You have the right to vote .. once elected ? Then respect the majority ! So respect the president good or bad ! Trashing the president all over the media ? Is such a huge shame people !
You express your opinion in a civil manner ...not pouring shit on the ones that represents you all internationally !
You lower yourself as country to the whole world whenever you do that !
He represents USA in this world ! He is the "face " of this country ! And he is full of the crap you people throw on them ! Head to toes ! Then how the entire world can see you ? Full of crap head to toes too! The world believes you and you may even have a point but ! This is not the right way to address it ! ! You all forget he is the "face" of all of you !
What you people miss to see ???

Will never get that part ....

You all disect every video of the president and study his mimics and gestures and diagnose them all ...what the heck ?
You look to find something wrong in every gesture and every word ...
Why ?
Why?
Will never get it !
To make news ???
Or comedy shows ?
Well you all do it at own expense !
The world ? Sees exactly you set in display !
And is always ugly there ...starting with Bush ? No one escaped ...Clinton too!
Are you all borwed to death ? Have no better things to do ?
No better subjects for the news ?
All this looks to me as an observer , very low and unhealthy as your kids sees you and guess what ?
They will replace you and make the same mistake ..you may need some Ceausescu in your lifes to temper your appetite for selfslander !



P. S. : I never intended to write such long message and about those subjects ...it just happened and I hope some people may be curious about my spectator genuine opinion or at least find it interesting...or disliked it even ...am ok with all of it ...go ahead feel free to disrespect me ...is true am not the president.. and if you don't respect him ? Then what can I expect other then :" no expectations " ...is all good to me for good or bad? Is all good in the very end ....

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Wow ...I just mentioned my parents and look what I saw ...had no clue what it is !
It breaks my heart in million pieces ...last time I saw my parents and my daughter was back in 2008 on Christmas .
I am broken ....literally my heart shattered in million thousand pieces !
You are a very heartless and cruel man !
You aren't humane !
Some demon took over your soul ! No doubt this is true !


https://youtube.com/shorts/x8ah35csMkM?feature=share

[Mihaela Hristodor]

And if my parents will die before will see them one more time ?

Will curse you today , right now as follows :

I am asking God to give you no more no less but exactly what you do deserve for all the pain you brought in my , and in many others people's soul and mind!
Amen.

And I am very powerful Michael ! ISET IN THOSE ABOVE WORDS: MY VERY STRIKING PAIN , MY TEARS , AND INTENT !

And I can tell that JUSTICE WILL FINALLY B E DONE !

I ASKED GOD FOR IT RIGHT NOW IN THIS VERY MOMENT !
AND GOD NEVER SAID NO TO ME AS ALL MY REQQUESTS AND PRAYERS WERE ALWAYS LEGIT !

AM NOT WILLING TO FORGIVE YOU ANYMORE !

YOU CANT FORGIVE BUT ONLY THE ONES THAT ASK FOR IT !
YOU NEVER DID !

AND IF YOU EVER WANT TO DO SO?
TOO LATE ...
NOTHING EVER WILL CONVINCE ME NOW TO SETTLE .
I WANT YOU TO PAY FOR IT !
YOU , PERSONALLY ...NOT THE STATE ON PEOPLE'S MONEY , MINE INCLUDED !
THAT'S NOT WHAT JUSTICE IS ALL ABOUT !

YOU'LL SEE WHAT TRUE JUSTICE MEANS !
GOD ? WILL DELIVER EXACTLY THAT : NO MORE NO LESS BUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO DESERVE !
I want you JUDGED IN A COURT OF LAW !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

You are far away from being ""TOUGH ON CRIME !" as you falsely advertised yourself !

You are A VAMPIRE THIIRSTY FOR BLOOD !

AND NOT JUST ANY BLOOD!

BUT THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT !

IS MORE CHALLENGING ISN'T IT ?

AND MORE SATISFIYING FOR SOMEONE POSSESSED BY DEMONS!

TO PUNISH THE CRIMINAL ? IS NOTHING BUT ORDINARY

TO PUNISH THE INNOCENT ? IS EXTRAORDINARY ! ISN'T IT ?

YOU MUST BE REALLY GOOD TO MAKE OUT A LIE SEEM TRUE!

And comes with rewards from WF AND A PAT ON YOUR SHOULDER FOR A WELL DONE JOB !
EVERYONE TELLING YOU YOU ARE THE MAESTRO OF LAW !
YOU ARE SO DAMN GOOD THAT YOU CONVICT THE INNOCENT EVEN !
YOU CAN DO ANYONE IF YOU WANT TO !
WOW ! SO POWERFUL YOU ARE ! I THINK YOU ARE SUPERIOR TO SUPERMAN !
YOU NEED THAT FOR YOUR HUNGRY NARCISIST EGO!

YOU ARE BORED WITH THE REGULAR NORMAL CONVICTION OF CRIMINALS.
YOqUR BRAIN NEEDS CHALLENGE ! AND CONVICTING THE INNOCENT DOES SATISFY THE CRITERIA
AND QUENCHES THE THIRST OF YOUR EGO FOR POWER!
YOU ARE EVEN PROUD OF SELF EVERY TIME YOU BREAK THE LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT
YOU ARE ADDICTED TO DOING IT !
YOU FEEL YOU ARE GOD LIKE , ISN'T IT ? SENDING PEOPLE TO DIE OR ROT IN A CELL FOR 20 years or life even just because your balls wants that ...no?
As let me tell you this : " YOU GOT BALLS LARRY , YOU GOT BIG BALLS LARRY !" ...DID YOU SAW THAT EPISODE IN CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM?
AND YOU LOVE ABUSING THE POWERU HAVE !
AND THIS IS SO DAMN SICK ABOUT IT !
THE LACK OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND SENSE OF GUILT ?
States very clearly you are all I said your are : severely mentally ill !
Is not normal to be like you are

Only to you !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

And
PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

-__--++_±+++++±+++-++++

Let me show you something that NONE OF YOU HAD THE HONOR TO RECEIVE:


you know someone like this?


Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:07 AM

President Barack Obama <pres...@messages.whitehouse.gov> To: mihaelah...@yahoo.com


Good morning.


Last year I asked the public to help identify outstanding Americans I should consider for the Citizens Medal, the nation's second-highest civilian honor. After receiving more than 6,000 nominations, I invited 13 outstanding Americans to the White House to receive the medal and be recognized for their service.


It's time to do it again.


Like last year, we're looking for Americans who have performed exemplary deeds of service outside of their regular jobs and provided inspiration for others to serve. You can view the full criteria and get started on a nomination here:


Now I know there are thousands of citizens out there who meet these. criteria -- I read their letters every night, and I meet many of them in my travels around the country. I also know that many times their contributions go unrecognized. The 2011 Citizens Medal is a chance to recognize the everyday heroes in your community.

Here are a few examples of Citizens Medal recipients from last year. Betty Kwan Chinn was homeless as a child in China and became mute. When she came to America, Betty found her voice and her calling.

Today, she provides meals to the homeless in her community twice a

day as expressions of gratitude to a welcoming nation.

Susan Retik Ger is a widow who lost her husband on 9/11 who found cause in educating and training Afghan widows and their children.

George Weiss, Jr. is veteran of World War II who founded the Fort Snelling Memorial Rifle Squad, a group of over 125 volunteers who have performed final military honors at over 55,000 veterans' funerals.

Their stories are powerful reminders of the impact an individual can have on his or her community and on the world. You can watch them tell their stories in a video gallery on White House.gov:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/citizensmedal/2010

If you know someone like Betty, Susan or George, please take a moment to nominate them for the 2011 Citizens Medal before May 30.

+

-----------------

[Mihaela Hristodor]

You know what it is?
Email from President Obama ...
As you see in Subject line he says : "you know someone like this ?"

I DOUBT AM WRONG IF I SAY HE WANTED ME TO SAY :
" YES ! ME " AND NOMINATE MYSELF ...HE KNEW NOBODY ELSE WILL AND HE CANT NOMINATE AND AWARD IN THE SAME TIME .

FOR TWO YEARS HE INVITED ME TO DO IT ...I DIDN'T SAW EMAILS....
MICHELLE ? SHE WROTE ME TOO AND SAID IN THE TITLE :
" WHO INSPIRED YOU?"
I have lots of emails from them ...Diana Ross's daughter wrote me from white house too and.she clearly said for some other event that I can nominate myself .

It makes me cry when I see that President wanted so bad to compensate me for my great deeds and he was the only one that wanted to deliver what I deserve .

While you people ? Made out of me the biggest criminal in rivcoda!
Thanks !
Is for sure what should be done !
Thank you !!!!
Excellent job ! You and WF !


I feel.like.writing to President Obama and tell.him what happened to me .
Tell him what you all do to me .
He will help me !

A president ? Never loses his title . Even on his grave he will be Mr. President !
He surely has influence and can help me.
He is a lawyer too.

I really should contact him .

[Mihaela Hristodor]

And this was done by the President with highest IQ of them all !!!
He will forever have my deep respect !
We the only one him and First Lady .
Am sure he read the book about three Americans making history in China !
Yep...and wondered why the lies? And even more disturbing are people's comments about the book where they so sincerely appreciate the author for "speaking the truth ! "

Wow ...
I wonder did he felt bad for a brief second at least when he read the comments and he knew was all a lie ?
I doubt he did ...
He ? Just like you all ? Has no consciousness ...
As if he would had any ? He wouldn't lie to begin with !

I guess is all an American thing .isn't it ?
American and crook should be synonyms...really ..
If in 20 years I have enough fingers at one hand to count the people that here honest .
All different backgrounds , from smallest ? To tallest : CROOKS!
Sorry , I wish I could have say the opposite ...yet would be a lie .and lying ? Is really not my style!
Shameful .....very !