Viertel v. USA

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF TRANSFER: The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit this Order and the attached motion to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/6/2012) (ab)

United States District Court
Southern District of New York
__________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
- against -

01 Cr. 571-3 (JGK)
08 Civ. 7512 (JGK)

CHRISTIAN VIERTEL,
Defendant.
__________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER OF TRANSFER

CHRISTIAN VIERTEL,
Petitioner
- against UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
__________________________________
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The Court has received the attached ex parte motion by the
petitioner for “Vacatur of Judgment of Conviction grounded upon
ab ovo deficit of interstate [§ 1341] jurisdiction over
international deliverances [via air cargo export], divesting
Federal Courts of adjudicatory powers.”

As explained below, the

Court determines that the petitioner’s motion is a successive
petition for habeas corpus within the meaning of the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and therefore
in the interests of justice transfers the motion to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
See Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1996).

1

I.
Under the AEDPA, “[b]efore a second or successive
application [for habeas corpus] . . . is filed in the district
court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application.”
2255(h).

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also id. at §

This requirement includes applications under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence. See, e.g.,
Negron v. United States, 394 F. App’x. 788, 792 (2d Cir. 2010);
Liriano, 95 F.3d at 122-23.
The petitioner has already filed one petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied by this
Court.

See Viertel v. United States, No. 08 Civ. 7512, 2009 WL

22863 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009), Docket No. 3.

The Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petitioner’s motion
for a certificate of appealability from this Court’s denial of
the petitioner’s § 2255 petition in November 2009.

See Viertel

v. United States, No. 08 Civ. 7512, Docket No. 7.
The issue is whether the petitioner’s current motion for
“Vacatur of Judgment of Conviction,” which is not explicitly
styled as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to § 2255,
should be construed as one, such that it is “a second or
successive petition” within the meaning of the § 2244.
2

Where a

petitioner has already had a § 2255 motion denied on the merits,
a district court may construe the petitioner’s subsequent postconviction motions to vacate the petitioner’s sentence as
successive § 2255 petitions without providing the petitioner
with prior notice and the opportunity to withdraw the subsequent
post-conviction motion.

Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 148 (2d

Cir. 2001) (Sotomayor, J.); see also Ching v. United States, 298
F.3d 174, 176 (2d Cir. 2002) (Sotomayor, J.).
Our Court of Appeals has explained that Ҥ 2255 is
generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner's challenge
to his conviction and sentence, as it encompasses claims that
‘the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was
in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise
subject to collateral attack.’”

Jiminian, 245 F.3d at 146-47

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255).
The current motion plainly seeks to attack the petitioner’s
underlying conviction.

The petitioner argues in substance that

his conviction was invalid “ab ovo” because the “interstate”
element of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, was not
satisfied in this case.

(Pet’s. Mem. at 1-7.)

The petitioner

claims that the Court lacked jurisdiction over him, and asks for
“vacatur of the [j]udgment of conviction and for vacatur of the
3

underlying indictment."

(Pet's. Mem. at 10.)

Because the

petitioner's motion is in substance a collateral attack on his
underlying conviction, it should be construed as a successive
petition pursuant to

§

2255, and transferred to the Court of

Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1631 for a determination of

whether the petitioner may proceed in this Court.

Liriano, 95

F.3d at 123.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit this Order
and the attached motion to the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1631.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
January 6, 2012
John G. Koe1tl
District Judge

4

31.12.2011

17:22

-) 0012128057912

CHAMliFUiI all
JOHN G. KOEL.TL
.0.

mniteb tetates 1llilistrid <!Court

jfor tlCbe soutbern 1llili!)trtct ®f jfletu ~ork

---------------------------------·--.· .. ·--·----x
(faxed to Chambers

@

805-7912 on 12/31/2012 &. mall)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

03 Cr 00571 (JGK)

Motion for VACATUR of Judgment of
Conviction grounded upon ab ovo deficit
of interstate [§ 1341] jurisdiction over
international deliverances [via air cargo
export], divesting Federal Courts of
adjudicatory powers [ex parte]

FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, JOHN C. LEE,

CHRISTIAN T VIERTEL,

Defendants

------·--·---·------------·---·------------··-----x
COMES NOW,

Christian T. Viertel, defendant - mostly pro se - to file an ex parte

Motion for VACATUR of Judgment grounded upon ab ovo lack of
interstate [§1341] jurisdiction over non-domestic international document
deliverance to Germany and similar other time-barred ~~non-relevant­
document-exportation-conduct" abusively relied upon during sentence
"enhancement" proceedings which trespassed the jury verdict.
i. There is little inherently wrong with zealous prosecutorial charges as long as that

zeal does not cross the line into violating defendant's constitutional rights or
trespasses those jurisdictional interstate limits set by strict congressional zoning
law's as set in stone in

§

1341 's statutory language. Here, the mail charge is off

by miles never reaching the legal definition of the statute: "But while he may
strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones." Ruled Justice
Sutherland in Berger vs. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
1

31.12.2011

17:22

-) 0012128057912

D 2/12

it "There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless

a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States". U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222[emphasis
added]. Here, in §1341 , Congress attached no modifiers but instead spelled out
the historically grounded "any private or commercial interstate carrier" limit of
this statute, in reiteration of its settled intent on the statute's clean and strictly
domestic limitation demonstrated by subsequent use of the words "such carrier".
The "wider" option, argumendo, as in: "interstate and foreign commerce" was
deliberately left untouched by Congress in §1341 thus specifically barring the
Judicial Branch from reviewing any aspect of the international deliverance or
transport away from the United States under §1341. Transcripts demonstrate,
Congress was not intended on other "larger" option. We do not require assistance
from any Federal Court precedent when analyzing the plain meaning of the terms
used by the government in its third count: "international carrier", as this a
definitive clue, that "we ain't close" to §1341.

iii. §1341': "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice

to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange,
alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any
counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything
represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious
article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to
do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter
or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or
causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered ~
any private or commercial interstate carrier. or takes or receives therefrom.
any such matter or thing. or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such
carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed
to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If
the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more
than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both." (June 25, 1948,
1

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys!pkg/USCODE-2001-titlel8/htmI!USCODE-200l-title18-partH::hap63-sec134l.htm
2

31.12.2011

17:22

D 3/12

-) 0012128057912

ch. 645, 62 Stat. 763; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, S34, 63 Stat. 94; Pub. L. 91-375,
S(6)(j)(11), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 778; Pub. L. 101-73, title IX, §961 (i), Aug. 9,
1989, 103 Stat. 500; Pub. L. 101-647, title XXV, §2504(h), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat.
4861; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXV, §250006, title XXXIII, §330016(1 )(H), Sept. 13,
1994, 108 Stat. 2087,2147.) [emphasis added]
iv.

Section S1341 (in all earlier versions and the 2001 version cited above, or in its
current version) is inoperative and inapplicable to international deliverance that
occurs "without" the United States into and in a sovereign foreign country
[Germany] and §1341 is equally inoperative when any "such" non-interstate
"carrier" was alleged to have been employed and was alleged to have been

caused to have been employed, and is equally inoperative when "such" non­
interstate carrier was drafted, as follows:
v.

Indictment page 12 [see: COUNT ONE: Conspiracy, " 2) .. .At the end of each
month, Burda Media sent to Burda Holding, via an international freight company,
the original invoices submitted by the vendors. "(emphasis added)],

vi.

And on page 11 [see Appendix pages 1 &. 11: "such matters and things, to wit,
FRITZ G.BLUMENBERG, JOHN C. LEE, and CHRISTIAN T. VIERTEL, the defendants,
caused Burda Media to send from New York, New York to Burda Holding in
Offenburg, Germany, via an international freight company, phony and inflated
invoices that BLUMENBERG, LEE and VIERTEL submitted to Burda

lssuea cneCX9 trom

~ts

bank accounts at Chase Manhattan Bank in

New York, New York, or gave cash to the vendors based on the
invoices.

At the end of each month, Burda Media sent to Burda

Holding, via an international freight company, the original

3

31.12.2011

17:22

~

-) 0012128057912

4/12

Media. "(emphasis added)] As charged in Count THREE [18 U.s.c. S1341, 1346 and

2] in the original indictment "time-stamped" June 14, 2001. The conduct charged
above (and below repeated) was outside the statute's territorial limit without
conferring rights or imposing duties.
vii. And on page 1, 11, 12 of JAMES B. COMEY's "51" indictment of Feb.14, 2002
which added counts for both other accused, but not for this applicant.
viii. And on "52" for this applicant the substantive "international type mailing" was
"dated and limited" to a single item: [Agate Invoice for] $8,120 3:
",.:.",::.".:

;-;."

,t."

.".:

......... .

.'......

Qata...'

Qaaerl.ptton '. pfDaltyuy .'

[""::;;/."381'6' .' ·~l.i;ery .})y .in~ern.t10tlaL.·.f:t'llalah~'/<;

,;~<':;::':i,.Q~Yfro~ Ne", '" .
: > ' " " .

}:,:...../:~\,.:(:>/" ':.,.:'

,)_,","'.
","." .

• •.•.,

BU:tdaHolding in ,Offetll>u.:r:g:~

'···s·'·

3The District Court resorted to DENIAL as regression into those dark ages
which had deemed genuine and new information as sinful and as a punishable
attack on intellectual rulers~ even if axiomatic proof~ exculpatory
documents and sworn statements point otherwise contradicting the fabricated
evidence presented at trial by the ruling government~ all of them dot.gov­
dependents. The Court's seriatim DENIAL of COMPULSORY/MANDATORY NOTICES OF
OPEN & CLEAN PROOF which, inter alia fact & data-driven, underscored that
mail-count-#3 was fatally corrupted~ reached Kafkaesque levels of conscious
avoidance to forego the destruction of a house of biased gov.cards:
a) unidentified "international freight company" was, in fact~ LUFTHANSA
GERMAN AIRLINES - a FAA licensed INTERNATIONAL AIRCARRIER prohibited from
providing UNITED STATES INTERSTATE CABOTAGE CARRIAGE~ thus a cargo/mail
"LuftfrachtfGhrer" entirely immune to §1341 engulfment) /con't FN Pg5
4

31.12.2011

17:22

ix.

- > 0012128057912

Cl

5/12

EquaUy important to zee people of the United States and to non-residents and
occasional alien visitor's are to understand what "duties" hundreds of thousands
of public laws create. All U.s. diplomatic posts overseas issue VISAS, but just a
few allow access to its "public" libraries which stock less than 2% of currently
valid public laws in document format, but point to internet resources like
http://www.gpoaccess.gov!plaws/.asite. which has expired. However, some
worried public information officers at outposts point to Congress, where another
newer site: www.crs.gov reports for "mlJt ~eolllt".
http://opencrs.com/document/94-166/2010-03-26/ is such a site, which openly
excludes 18 U.S.c. §1341 from its analysis of "Extraterritorial Application of
American Criminal Law, March 26, 2010 - 94-166".

x.

Applicant- who acts as visitor pro se and is not lawyer'd-up - has warranted
reliance upon congressionaL declarations. American Jurisprudence reality is
hopelessly kept treacherous on "Staatsraison" grounds, and whether local
defense counseL competes for the ineffectiveness [lAC] trophy, or CJAs are in a
venal panic over poverty from less or no future CJA-jobs, or are spell-bound rent
seekers under hyped-up toxic "air of kowtow to federal almightiness", fact
remains that 2-branch-rich hydras constitute an adversarial government

b) DEPARTURE AIRPORT:was OUTSIDE of the Southern District of New York
inside NEWARK NJ. At Liberty Airport (no pun intended),
c) DEPARTURE DATE 6/28/1996 WAS ALSO CHARGED WRONG: LH Flight 4e3 operating
June 29, 1996 carried the "substantive document" air-cargo via Frankfurt to
Munich on LH Flight 142/3e June 1996
d) ARRIVAL AIRPORT DESTINATION was botched and not «as marked" by this
government charge, as the real arrival was NOT uOffenburg", but MUNICH
AIRPORT. Germany
e) addressee was NOT Burda Holding in Offenburg. but M&M Air-Cargo in
Munich Airport~ Germany, and
f) "originaL invoice" charged as a $8,12e (Agate Invoice) - but was not
inside that export shipment at all, because this once & only "Agat@" fake
printed by Burda Media'S scriveners and certain other ORIGINALS were kept
at Burda Media NY in expectancy of forensic auditors July 9, 1996
5

31.12.2011

17:22

D 6/12

-) 1211211212812157912

apparatJ,!.s, which in this case played "clueless" what "interstate commerce"
really defines, or, argumendo, those two dot.gov branches were the type of
"scienter" Justice Sutherland calls "fouL" actors [supra] whose bad faith resulted
in powerful malfeasance.
xi.

The Supreme Court issued its conclusions which Justice Scalia's tought to the
Second Circuit in Morr;son vs National Australia Bank Ltd. Et al , SCOTUS 08·1191
of June 24, 2010: "It is a "longstanding principle of American law 'that legislation
of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the
territor;al jurisdiction of the United States: " EEOC v. Arabian American OJ[ Co.

I

499 U. S. 244, 248 (Aramco). When a statute gives no clear indication of an
extraterritorial application,

xii.

;t has none "(emphasis added).

"The intention of the legislature is to be collected from the words they employ.
Where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction. The
case must be a strong one indeed, which would jusUfy a Court in departing from
the plain meaning

Of words ...

in search

Of an intention which the words

themselves did not suggest." United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76, 95-96, 5 L.

Ed. 37 (1820) (Marshall. LJ.) was relied upon in the Second Circuit in 130 F.3d
547 (1997)

xiii.

Haines vs Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, controls here and restraints obstacles in the
procedural arsenal Federal Courts may no longer employ in its derailment of
legitimate and substantial complaints as this one, which raise a very serious
jurisdictional defect. See also: United States v. Ford, Dkt No. 03-1n4 (2d Cir.
Jan. 19, 2006) (Winter, Katzmann, Raggi): "[R1estraint must be exercised in
defining the breadth of the conduct prohibited by a federal criminal
statute."[Op.at 14, emphasis added]

xiv.

Once, as in this motion, the Court's jurisdiction over the charged "international"
deliverance on June 28, 1996 to Offenburg, Germany is challenged under §1341 's
interstate limits, Courts have "no discretion to ignore the jurisdictional
6

31.12.2011

17:22

->

D 7/12

0012128057912

challenge" and, moreover, when at any point in time the charging language
states claims that are plainly recognizable from afar to have crossed the sacred
line of the statute's jurisdictional fundamental boundaries of the domestic
territory of the Continental United States, it is incumbent on a Court to take
action upon such discovery notice, even if previously neglected, willfully ignored
or just overlooked, or to act

sua sponte in order to preserve the sanctity of

constitutional rights and to insure that a conviction is not the product of any
jurisdictional transgression, in particular when a case had multiple "learned"
judges either failed to detect, chose to noiselessly countenance or willfully
ignored jurisdictional violations at earlier stages. There are no time limits for
jurisdictional challenges. The law of the case is void when res judicata does not
trump facts and this jurisdictional challenge, which by itself may be brought at
any time, like right now.

Historical Background - sans

official revisionism

a) This applicant (03) was indicted4 jointly with Fritz G. Blumenberg (01), who, as the
transcript revealed, was not only an alien in an unintelligent state of mind but
remained blatantly unconvinced while being coaxed to plead guilty in 2002 of
4

Circumstances and timeline inside the Moynihan United States Courthouse on June 14,

2001 are

unreassuringly - more than murky, as Magistrate Dollinger and peers were

unavailable, were unwilling or were unable to "accept a BILL for filing" or they were not
ready to render process to a putative "TRUE BILL" outside an OPEN COURT proceeding
which therefore could not get on record of SONY reporter(s) and thus became a non-event
without calendar call ledger entry. Furthermore, due to this procedural void the loss of
OPEN COURT PROCESS became a structural error that caused more structural errors
impugning defendant's substantial constitutional protections when magistrates are
foreclosed from picking a random Article III presider from the spinning barrel-'o-chance
courts require to be uses. "Pre-ordainment" became the government's preference [for
presider JGK]. The pretense that at one D.J. is just as impartial or unfair as another, is
simply not true. That's what the barrel teaches. The barrel stood still on 6-14-2001.
7

31.12.2011

17:22

D 8/12

-) 01012128057912

"violations" of federal criminal laws he was untrained to even grasp, nor did he gain
from VI. Amendment protections of having effective legal representation by a
professional guide to indicate whether jurisdiction and the other elements of each
"crime charged" were either satisfied or were not. His plea, in which he did not cop
any acceptance or guilt for a conspiracy charge, inter alia, was constitutionally null
and void as he later learned, and had also violated "Padilla's" lAC rules for alien
pleas in case they entail unpronounced and undisclosed collateral extra-judicial­
punishments, loss of old-age-SS-benefits. Later, Blumenberg withdrew ex parte for
factual innocence of any break of federal laws once he had regained his 'intellect and
reviewed his memory, facts and records. In 2010, from his German homeland, he
effectively and irrevocably unilateral declared his withdrawal of plea for good
causes.
b) Defendant (02) was the only American, John C. Lee, charged in those same
conspiratorial "overt" acts and charged to have caused more of those deliverances
overseas just as (01) and (02), but Lee was unpremeditatedly nolle prossed in July
2002 under a veil of secrecy to hide a magic wand competent counsel waived off
stage (jurisdiction, time-barred conduct and constructive amendment) to keep the
two untenable co-conspirators from discovery of the legal validity and the
government happy. (reminder: "Equal Justice for All")
c) An original June 14, 2001 indictment had hastily charged a "conspiratorial triple ham
sandwich team" at its final hour, inter alia, with a federal criminal "vintage 1996"
interstate mail "violation" pursuant to statute §1341; subsequent super-indictments
maintained this charge while constructively adding additional charges for Lee and
Blumenberg only, but not for this applicant, while simultaneously expunging the
bogus three-way conspiracy charge. Other collateral "charges" under
§371 ,2,1343,1346 were simple "USAM boilerplate" window dressing exercises to
disguise time-barred commercial activity and are thus insignificant for this
application.

8

31.12.2011

17:22

D 9/12

-) 0012128057912

d) The federal government's authority to charge material pecuniary fraud claims
require a fundamental prong: FEDERAL JURISDICTION. Also required are venue and a
local loss by a "domestic" complainant (a "referral"). Upon review of corporate
documents, the government found neither, because the conduct was international in
nature and lacked a genuine local victim. The official efforts to fabricate under
Color of law commenced.

e) The government supplicated an entirely untenable "micro-economic theory"
pursuant to which a "thirty plus year old New York domestic business corporation,
named Burda Media Inc. 5 conducted entirely "charitable" news-gathering just like a
"hobby" from lUxury headquarters in Rockefeller Center. With a staff of 30, this $6+
million output-worthy Burda Media Boutique was colored to be hailed by the
government as a "Not-far-Profit" outfit, despite lack of a charitable business license
and a corporate NFP resolution to fit. Rube Goldberg, Esq. helped prepping these
machinations for a Grand Jury.

f) The interstate commerce aspect of this case arises as the main prong of section
§1341 offense. If that prong cannot be satisfied - and here it is unreachable - then all
three defendants are not guilty. A nolle prossequi of just one - the hand picked
American- out of three, is unconstitutionally unfair.

g)

Also, a legislature could not plausibly be understood to have used the

specific term of "interstate" [without any other deSCription as in §1343, or like
"foreign" or "international"] if it had not meant to refer only to the specific
domestic boundaries of interstate carriers, couriers or transporters, like the USPS,
over which Congress does have dominion. Congress well understood that it holds no
a 100% subsidiary of a non-disclosed German corporation, uncomfortable for the
prosecutors, which was later discovered to have been Burda GmbH, holder of aU 200 "no
par value shares" issued January 27, 1978. Burda Holding GmbH & Co.K.G. held no shares at
any time, while it remains in the dark when the government decided to "botch" this
material fact other than for clueless reliance upon foreseeably worthless advise by biased
fellow bar members. The government often mistakes high hourly rates for integrity.

5

9

31.12.2011

17:22

D 10/12

-) 0012128057912

authority over the Universal Postal Union [www.utu.int] which, as a United Nations
agency, manages exclusively international mail matters for 191 member Nations from
Bern, SwitzerLand. "This is not a circumstance," said Laurence H. Tribe, a Law
professor at Harvard "in which the courts have any plausibLe point of entry."

[J)

Therefore the district court had no §1341 6 jurisdiction under 18

U.S.C. 53231 et al.

f!J"eufore, appLicant moves based upon the foregoing, all the facts on record, pLain
Language of the §1341 statute and for the resulting absence of jurisdiction ab ovo for
VACATUR of the Judgment of conviction and for VACATUR of the underlying indictment.

Respectfully Submitted

Christian T Viertel, Def. 003 pro se

Copies of this submission were courtesy em ailed to
USAO Preetinder Bharara, CounseL for Fritz BLumenberg.
AdditionaL hard copy was mailed to the Pro Se Clerk
Please file on DOCKET

2 pages Appendix

The federal mail-fraud statutes are "our Stradivarius, our Colt .45, our Louisville Slugger, our
Cuisinart-and our true love," wrote former Assistant U.S. Atty. Jed S. Rakoff. "We may flirt with
[other laws] and call the conspiracy law 'darling,' but we always come home to the virtues of [mail
fraud], with its simplicity, adaptability and comfortable familiarity," Rakoff wrote. "It understands us
and, like many a foolish spouse, we like to think we understand it." And sometimes, nobody does.
More by Rakoff: "1 don't have any respect for judges who arrive at the result first, and then try to
figure out some way they can bend the law to reach their particular predilections.".

6

10

31.12.2011

D 11/12

-> 0012128057912

17:22

First and Last Page of the "Indictment":

INDICTMENT

at Cr.

l)efendant3.

Conspiracy

The Grand Jury

charge~:

Sackground

1.

At all times relevant to this Indictment, Burda

Mp.dia, Inc,

(\I Burda

York, New York.

Media" J

\t!il8

a media company lOCated in New

Burda Media .....as a wholly-awned subs:idiary of

Burda HolCiinq, a German-limited pnt"tnership, whICh had its

s;

.cz::

81

~

BUl:da

Holdrrig, a GermarfTimited-par"coershlP;

which had its

principal place of business in Munich, Germany, and offices in
Offenburg, Germany.

FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, the defendant, was the

President of Burda. Media.
2.

Burda Media contracted with numerous outside

vendors which prov1ded services to assist Burda Media's news­
gathering operations.

After wo.k was performed, those vendors

submitted invoices to Burda Media seeking payment.
issued

che~ks

Burda Media

from ita bank accounts at Chaee Manhactan Bank in

New YorK, New YorK, or gave cash to the vendors baQed on the
invoices.

At the end of each month, Burda Media sent to Burda

Holding, via an lnternational freight company, the original
11

31.12.2011

17:22

D 12/12

-> 0012128057912

Last Page (11) of the Indictment:

be sent and delivered by a private and commercial interstate
carrier, and would and did cause to be delivered by such carrier

according to the directions thereon, and at the place at which it
is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is
addressed, such matters and things, to wit, PRITZ G. BLUMENBERG,
JO~J

C. LEE, and CHRISTIAN T. VIERTEL, the defendants.

cau~ed

Burda M@dia to send from New York, New York to Burda Holding in

Offenburg, Germany, via an inte4national freight company, phony
and inflated invoices that BLUMENBERG, LEB, and VIERT6L submitted
to :Burda Media.
(Title 16, unit.ed States Code. sections 1341 f 1346 and 2.)

~

~$~
MMi.flfj:fo

oreperson

WHITE

United States Attorney

CEtmFlED AS A TRUE COjJY (
11

TmSDATE

12

{~~~