HMS PONZIE SUBPROJECT
MAXIMUS/BC MEDICAL
DEBT/WEALTH/LAND/GOLD CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
DATING BACK TO 1938 ON BC WESTCOAST
ONTARIO COMPANY AUDIT
1-KINGSCROFT INVESTMENTS
2-658051 ONTARIO LTD
3-KENDAX INVESTMENTS
Beginning in April 1998 and continuing through 2001,
(“Vavasseur”), a Bahamian corporation owned
and operated by Mr. Dowdell.
FACTS
1.This Court has summarized the background information on the Dowdell ponzi scheme as follows:
Terry L. Dowdell orchestrated and operated a classic Ponzi scheme.
Terry L.Dowdell solicited contributors for an
investment and trading program marketed by Vavasseur
Corporation (“Vavasseur”), a Bahamian corporation owned
and operated by Mr. Dowdell.
The Vavasseur program entailed trading of medium-term debentures and other private
bank debt.
Clients were promised returns on their investments of at least four percent per week for a minimum of forty weeks of trading activity for an expected annual return of 160
percent.
To perpetuate his scheme, Mr. Dowdell would simply use the money contributed by the newest investors to pay earlier investors their promised “profits.” He would then misappropriate the remaining funds, transferring at least $ 29 million to business associates, family, and friends.
JAILED FLORIDA PONZIE QUEEN
CROWN IMPERIAL soveriegns
sovereigns convicted in the Premier Benefit Capital Trust scheme,
which defrauded investors of more than $7.5 million; two of the principles, Janice Weeks-Katona and her son, Jason Weeks, were convicted on additional charges, including plotting to kill U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday in Tampa, Florida.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/james-murdoch-criminal-charges-phone-hacking7
Koehler said the US justice department was increasingly keen to bring cases against individuals as well as companies, because prosecuting people brought "maximum deterrence". He added: "Companies just pay out shareholders' money. There's not much deterrence there." Tom Fox, a Houston-based lawyer who specialises in FCPA cases and anti-corruption law, said most corporate cases were settled before going to court. But for individuals who are successfully prosecuted the penalties are severe.
In 2009 the former Hollywood movie producer Gerald Green and his wife, Patricia, were jailed for six months in the first criminal case under the FCPA. The Greens, whose credits included Werner Herzog's Rescue Dawn, were convicted of paying $1.8m in bribes to a government official in Thailand in exchange for contracts to manage the Bangkok international film festival.
FCPA charges can carry up to five years in jail for each charge but the Greens' short prison sentence was not the harshest element of their sentencing. The "biggest hammer" prosecutors hold is forfeiture of assets, said Fox. "The Greens lost everything. Their house, savings, retirement plan. They are destitute now."
The Vavasseur program
April 1998 and continuing through 2001,
a Bahamian corporation owned owned
and operated by Mr. Dowdell.entailed trading of medium-term debentures and other private bank debt
In January
2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), later
joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”),
initiated an investigation into the Vavasseur program. The
investigation to date has identified at least seventy-six direct
investors, with an undetermined number of subinvestors, who
contributed to the fraudulent investment program. While the
exact amount of investors’ loss is as yet unknown, it is
estimated to exceed of $ 121 million.
ESTATE VICTIM HIERS AND SUCCESSSORS WERE UNAWARE VICTIM WAS A PRINCIPLE DEBTOR OF A JOINT COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE FORGED DOUBLE DEEDED ESTATES
ATTACHED TO AT LEAST 10 FORGED BC SUPREME COURT WRITS
LETHAL AND LOATHING IN WEST SOVERIEGN VEGAS
GOLDEN MAXIMUS WELFARE WALL STREET CROWN IMPERIAL PONZIE
Five arrested in alleged plot to kidnap, kill Alaska State Troopers, judge by Sam Friedman / [email protected] Fairbanks Daily News Miner Mar 10, 2011 | 41104 views | 252 | 118 | |
Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Law enforcement agencies move against Sovereign Citizen movement in Fairbanks
FAIRBANKS — Five people, including militia activist Schaeffer Cox, were arrested Thursday in the Fairbanks area for allegedly conspiring to kill multiple Alaska State Troopers and a federal judge.
The group had stockpiled weapons and conducted surveillance on the homes of two troopers, according to Alaska State Troopers. Some of the weapons known to be in the cache are prohibited by state or federal law, according to troopers.
In addition to Cox, those taken into custody are Lonnie and Karen Vernon of Salcha, Coleman Barney of North Pole and Michael Anderson, whose hometown was unclear. All were taken into custody without incident.
The arrests were made by the Alaska State Troopers’ Special Emergency Reaction Team, along with Fairbanks troopers, the FBI, U.S. Marshal’s Service and the Fairbanks Police Department.
U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline was the judge targeted, U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said. Lonnie Vernon was recently indicted on the charge of threatening to kill Beistline, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Alaska, “in the fulfillment of his duties” and is the only member of the group facing federal charges, Loeffler said.
Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Law enforcement agencies move against Sovereign Citizen movement in Fairbanks
Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Law enforcement agencies move against Sovereign Citizen movement in Fairbanks
FAIRBANKS — Five people, including militia activist Schaeffer Cox, were arrested Thursday in the Fairbanks area for allegedly conspiring to kill multiple Alaska State Troopers and a federal judge.
The group had stockpiled weapons and conducted surveillance on the homes of two troopers, according to Alaska State Troopers. Some of the weapons known to be in the cache are prohibited by state or federal law, according to troopers.
In addition to Cox, those taken into custody are Lonnie and Karen Vernon of Salcha, Coleman Barney of North Pole and Michael Anderson, whose hometown was unclear. All were taken into custody without incident.
The arrests were made by the Alaska State Troopers’ Special Emergency Reaction Team, along with Fairbanks troopers, the FBI, U.S. Marshal’s Service and the Fairbanks Police Department.
U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline was the judge targeted, U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said. Lonnie Vernon was recently indicted on the charge of threatening to kill Beistline, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Alaska, “in the fulfillment of his duties” and is the only member of the group facing federal charges, Loeffler said.
Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Law enforcement agencies move against Sovereign Citizen movement in Fairbanks
The US passed the USA PATRIOT Act to, among other reasons, attempt thwarting the financing of terrorism (CFT) and anti-money laundering (AML) making sure these were given some sort of adequate focus by US financial institutions.
- The following patterns of activity indicate collection and movement of funds that could be associated with terrorist financing:number of paedophiles NEED TO BE being taken out of positions of trust,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, MINISTRY OF REVENUE LEGAL SERVICES BRANCH
WEST COAST CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
MAXIMUS/MERS/CROWN TARGETED ESTATES
CROWN SOVERIEGN LEGAL ABUSE/EXTORATION
The attraction of the world's most popular precious metal - along with the possibility of fantastic financial returns and possible tax advantages - "was used to entice investors into placing their money by investing in offshore shell companies CREATED THROUGH FORGED FEDERAL PERSONAL PROPERTY ATTACHMENTS,"
Hundreds of investors put millions of dollars into a Clearwater company that backed its notes with used-car loans. The scheme has run out of gas, and the company's founder is trying to stall a lawsuit.
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, MINISTRY OF REVENUE LEGAL SERVICES BRANCH
WEST COAST CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
MAXIMUS/MERS/CROWN TARGETED ESTATES
CROWN SOVERIEGN LEGAL ABUSE/EXTORATION
The attraction of the world's most popular precious metal - along with the possibility of fantastic financial returns and possible tax advantages - "was used to entice investors into placing their money by investing in offshore shell companies CREATED THROUGH FORGED FEDERAL PERSONAL PROPERTY ATTACHMENTS,"
Hundreds of investors put millions of dollars into a Clearwater company that backed its notes with used-car loans. The scheme has run out of gas, and the company's founder is trying to stall a lawsuit.
Johnston says First American had $60-million in car loans and $8-million in cash when he left the company in 1998, but Lazarou said the picture was much less rosy. He said Johnston told him the company had $3-million to $5-million less in assets than showed up on the books. But when he examined the records, he said he found the company was actually $35-million short.
The real gap between what the company owned and what it owed to investors may have been even wider.
The real gap between what the company owned and what it owed to investors may have been even wider.
Dangerously DISTURBED The Clerk of the SOVERIEGN Court
At the hearing the SOVERIEGN CLERKS MERS Court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and
dispose of the FRAUD matter as SOVERIEGN ROYAL law and IMPERIAL SOVERIEGN justice require.
IT IS CONCLUDED the SEIZED BOND MONEY WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO THE US QUEEN OF SOVERIEGNS NOW SITTING IN A US MILITARY JAIL AT CAMP PARKS, CALIFORNIA
THE US QUEEN OF SOVERIEGNS was sentenced to 234 MONTHS FOR ATTEMPTING TO THE KILL THE JUDGE who HER SHUT her PONZIE DOWN and seized her ASSETS ON BEHALF OF THE US GOVERMENT
greedy soveriegn sociopath minds.
SOPHISTICATED GROUP SHARING SOVERIEGN MEW AGE MASONS INVESTORS
LETHAL AND LOATHING JAILED PONZIE QUEEN
On December 23, 1998, she filed a § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence, and on January 4, 1999, she filed an amended § 2255 motion. (CR Doc. No. 469, 472). These motions were denied without prejudice. (CR Doc. No. 480, 486).
AUGUST 15 2006
ORLANDO FLORIDA
KAREN S JENNERMAN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
ILLEGAL WRIT
A FORGED STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND a FORGED BMO MORTAGE AND A ILLEGAL SEPERATION AGREEMENT on behalf of forged companies/banks creditors of forged mortgages attached to forged obligations of a forged ex spouse under assignment to the Queen in the right of Canada her heirs successors and ASSIGNS
SOVERIEGN EX SPOUSES OF THE BC targeted debtor ESTATE victim
2X CANADIAN LINDA GREENS both in COLLUSION with each other ie : Calgary SW Alberta real estate tax shelter BONAVENTURE COURT AND NOW IN A MERS TURF INTERNAL judicial WAR happening in both AMERICAN AND CANADIAN BANKRUPTCY COURTS TO GET THE SIEZED BOND MONEY IN SAN FRANSISCO CALIFORNIA.
LINDA DIXON GREEN ALBERTA
LINDA DIXON GREEN FLORIDA
SOME OF THOSE ASSETS SEIZED ORIGINALLY CAME FROM soveriegn PONZIE/REAL ESTATE TAX SHELTER investors IN CANADA
SOVERIEGN ALBERTA QUEENS BENCH CLERK'S SIGNATURE IS THE SAME AUTHOR AS SOVERIEGN ALBERTA QUEENS BENCH JUDGE KAREN HORNER
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA
1989
DONALD HARPSTER
1993 The CAMPBELL RIVER PROPERTY c1229 title was fraudulently transferred and then cancelled by Applicant "CR lawyers"
The Ministry of Social Services
(CR lawyers partner PAT FIELD ie:Director of LEGAL AID(North Island) "
in collusion WITH applicant(CR LAWYERS}and the FEDERAL GOVERMENT FOEA mortgaged the property to the Toronto Dominion Bank to secure an ALBERTA line of credit,BASED ON A PONZIE/RTAX SHELTER FRAUD WHICH HAD BEEN IN PROCESS AT THE TIME THE VICTIM BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 1988,
the interest checks stopped coming and First American Capital Trust of Clearwater filed for bankruptcy.
Hundreds of investors, seduced by promises of 9.75 percent interest, are still $59-million short.
And the man they blame for their losses, David Allen Johnston, still lives in the lavish lakefront home in Pasco County that investors contend he bought with their money.
Most of the money never will be recovered, said Melvin Johns, a Venice retiree who serves on the creditors' committee for the bankruptcy case. What investors want now, he said, is revenge
Hundreds of investors, seduced by promises of 9.75 percent interest, are still $59-million short.
And the man they blame for their losses, David Allen Johnston, still lives in the lavish lakefront home in Pasco County that investors contend he bought with their money.
Most of the money never will be recovered, said Melvin Johns, a Venice retiree who serves on the creditors' committee for the bankruptcy case. What investors want now, he said, is revenge
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
a superior court of record proceeding
according to the common law, having final jurisdiction, whose decisions are
conclusive on all courts.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANSISCO
whose decisions are
conclusive on all courts.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANSISCO
whose decisions are
conclusive on all courts.
If Janice Weeks--Katona and said property is not forthwith released
from custody, then within three (3) calendar days after service of this Writ each
Joindered Respondent custodian shall make a return certifying the true cause of
the detention, and shall show cause why the Writ should not be granted
. On
application to the Court for good cause, additional time not exceeding twenty (20)
days may be allowed for return.
Each above—named Respondent must state in his return, plainly and unequivocally:
1. Whether he has or has not the party and/or property in his custody, or under
his power, or restraint;
2. If he has the party and/or property in his custody or power, or under his
restraint, he must state the authority and cause of such imprison ent or
restraint;
Writ of Habeas Corpus/Order to Show Cause (JWK & Property) Page 1 of 3
application to the Court for good cause, additional time not exceeding twenty (20)
days may be allowed for return.
Each above—named Respondent must state in his return, plainly and unequivocally:
1. Whether he has or has not the party and/or property in his custody, or under
his power, or restraint;
2. If he has the party and/or property in his custody or power, or under his
restraint, he must state the authority and cause of such imprison ent or
restraint;
Writ of Habeas Corpus/Order to Show Cause (JWK & Property) Page 1 of 3
June 12, 2007, a PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
was filed in the above entitled Court
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 12, 2007, a PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
was filed in the above entitled Court, a superior court of record proceeding
according to the common law, having final jurisdiction, whose decisions are
conclusive on all courts.
The Clerk of the Court shall forthwith upon receipt of this Writ of Habeas Corpus]
Order to Show Cause endorse and docket same, and serve said document upon the
six Joindered Respondents named herein together with Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed June 12, 2007, and Notice of Permissive Joinder of Parties Respondent,
and Notice of Hearing. Service shall be made to each of the six Joindered Respondents
or their counsel via E—Filing no later than Friday, September 19, 2008.
The Clerk shall forthwith schedule the Hearing for Friday, September 26, 2008,
at 11:00 a.m. in Room 16111 on the 16th Floor of the Federal Building, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. (415-522-2103).
In consequence of Default Judgment and default on return by original thirteen
Respondents and likelihood of Joindered Respondents not having proof of claim,
the Clerk shall prior to Hearing accept bond on the case, andan Appearance Bond
for each of the Thirteen Original Respondents and Six Joindered Respondents from
Janice Weeks--Katona, as previously ordered.
Writ of Habeas Corpus/Order to Show Cause (JWK & Property) Page 2 of 3
Case 3:O7—cv—O3053-IVIJJ Document 51 Filed O9/17/2008 Page 3 of 4
At the hearing the Court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and
dispose of the matter as law and justice require.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
DEC 3 2008
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS: The SEAL of the Court on this 13th Day of September in the year 2008, A.D.
in accordance with Title 28 USCS Section 2243
IT APPEARING THAT THE APPLICANT, IS ENTITLED THERETO, EACH AND EVERY JOINDERED
RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED,
to forth-with release Janice Weeks-Katona, her property, and property under her control,
from custody.
Paul Copenhaver,
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Martin J. Jenkins,
Angela Lamie,
D. Lowell Jensen
Valerie Lynn Stewart,
Case 3:O7—cv—O3053-IVIJJ Document 51 Filed O9/17/2008
Page 2 of 4
3. If the party and/or property is detained by virtue of any writ, warrant,
or other written authority, a copy thereof must be annexed to the return,
and the original produced and exhibited to the Court on the hearing of
such return:
4. If the person upon whom the Writ is served had the party and/or property
in his power or custody, or under his restraint, at any time prior or
subsequent to the date of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but has transferred
such custody or restraint to another, the return must state particularly
to whom, at what time and place, for what cause, and by what authority such
transfer took place;
5. The return must be signed by the person making the return and except when
such person is a sworn public officer, and makes such return in his official
capacity, it must be verified by his oath.
The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set
forth in the return or allege any other material facts.
The return and all suggestions made against it may be amended, by leave of court,
before or after being filed.
When the Writ/Order is returned, a day shall be set for hearing not more than
five (5) days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.
Because the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Notice of Permissive Joinder
of Parties as Respondents present issues of fact as well as issues of law, if
Janice Weeks-Katona is constrained by actual physical force, then said Joindered
Respondent custodian is required to produce at the hearing the body of the person
detained together with said property or title thereto, and proof of claim.
DEC 3 2008
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS: The SEAL of the Court on this 13th Day of September in the year 2008, A.D.
in accordance with Title 28 USCS Section 2243
IT APPEARING THAT THE APPLICANT, IS ENTITLED THERETO, EACH AND EVERY JOINDERED
RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED,
to forth-with release Janice Weeks-Katona, her property, and property under her control,
from custody.
Paul Copenhaver,
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Martin J. Jenkins,
Angela Lamie,
D. Lowell Jensen
Valerie Lynn Stewart,
Case 3:O7—cv—O3053-IVIJJ Document 51 Filed O9/17/2008
Page 2 of 4
3. If the party and/or property is detained by virtue of any writ, warrant,
or other written authority, a copy thereof must be annexed to the return,
and the original produced and exhibited to the Court on the hearing of
such return:
4. If the person upon whom the Writ is served had the party and/or property
in his power or custody, or under his restraint, at any time prior or
subsequent to the date of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but has transferred
such custody or restraint to another, the return must state particularly
to whom, at what time and place, for what cause, and by what authority such
transfer took place;
5. The return must be signed by the person making the return and except when
such person is a sworn public officer, and makes such return in his official
capacity, it must be verified by his oath.
The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set
forth in the return or allege any other material facts.
The return and all suggestions made against it may be amended, by leave of court,
before or after being filed.
When the Writ/Order is returned, a day shall be set for hearing not more than
five (5) days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.
Because the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Notice of Permissive Joinder
of Parties as Respondents present issues of fact as well as issues of law, if
Janice Weeks-Katona is constrained by actual physical force, then said Joindered
Respondent custodian is required to produce at the hearing the body of the person
detained together with said property or title thereto, and proof of claim.
EXHIBIT "A"
LIST OF BSIG MEMBERS
ORDER
This cause is before the Court upon Petitioner Janice Weeks-Katona's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct an allegedly illegal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (CV Doc. No.1; CR Doc. No. 552). Because review of the motion and the file in the case conclusively show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court will not cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States Attorney but shall proceed to address the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
II. Discussion
Petitioner asserts five grounds in support of her contention that she is entitled to relief under § 2255. However, because her motion is untimely and a successive filing, the motion is denied.
A. Timeliness
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") sets forth the limitations period for § 2255 motions:
[The AEDPA] established a mandatory, one-year "period of limitation" for § 2255 motions, which runs from the latest of the following events:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
Jones v. U.S., 304 F.3d 1035, 1037-38 (11th Cir. 2002)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)-(4)). Petitioner appealed her conviction, and the Eleventh Circuit entered its judgment affirming the conviction on April 17, 1998. Thereafter, Petitioner had until July 16, 1998 to petition the Supreme Court for review. Petitioner did not do so, and as such, her judgment of conviction became final on July 16, 1998. See Clay v. U.S., 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003)(stating that after a non-meritorious appeal, "[f]inality attaches when th[e] [Supreme] Court affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires").
Since the one-year limitations period began to run on July 16, 1998, Petitioner's § 2255 motion was required to be filed by July 16, 1999 in order to be timely. However, Petitioner did not mail the instant § 2255 motion until June 1, 2009, more than a year after the expiration of the one-year limitations period. As a result, her § 2255 motion is untimely and must be denied.
B. Successive Filing
Additionally, this motion must be denied as it is a successive filing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), a second or successive § 2255 motion must be certified by a panel of the Eleventh Circuit prior to being filed in this Court. No such certification was obtained in this case.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2255 motion (CV Doc. No. 1; CR Doc. No. 552) is DENIED as time-barred and as a successive filing. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Petitioner in the civil case and to close the civil case.
This cause is before the Court upon Petitioner Janice Weeks-Katona's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct an allegedly illegal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (CV Doc. No.1; CR Doc. No. 552). Because review of the motion and the file in the case conclusively show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court will not cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States Attorney but shall proceed to address the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
II. Discussion
Petitioner asserts five grounds in support of her contention that she is entitled to relief under § 2255. However, because her motion is untimely and a successive filing, the motion is denied.
A. Timeliness
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") sets forth the limitations period for § 2255 motions:
[The AEDPA] established a mandatory, one-year "period of limitation" for § 2255 motions, which runs from the latest of the following events:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
Jones v. U.S., 304 F.3d 1035, 1037-38 (11th Cir. 2002)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)-(4)). Petitioner appealed her conviction, and the Eleventh Circuit entered its judgment affirming the conviction on April 17, 1998. Thereafter, Petitioner had until July 16, 1998 to petition the Supreme Court for review. Petitioner did not do so, and as such, her judgment of conviction became final on July 16, 1998. See Clay v. U.S., 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003)(stating that after a non-meritorious appeal, "[f]inality attaches when th[e] [Supreme] Court affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, or when the time for filing a certiorari petition expires").
Since the one-year limitations period began to run on July 16, 1998, Petitioner's § 2255 motion was required to be filed by July 16, 1999 in order to be timely. However, Petitioner did not mail the instant § 2255 motion until June 1, 2009, more than a year after the expiration of the one-year limitations period. As a result, her § 2255 motion is untimely and must be denied.
B. Successive Filing
Additionally, this motion must be denied as it is a successive filing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), a second or successive § 2255 motion must be certified by a panel of the Eleventh Circuit prior to being filed in this Court. No such certification was obtained in this case.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2255 motion (CV Doc. No. 1; CR Doc. No. 552) is DENIED as time-barred and as a successive filing. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Petitioner in the civil case and to close the civil case.
•Lured by the promise of astronomical profits and the chance to be part of an exclusive, international investing program, investors are once again falling prey to bogus "prime bank" scams. These fraudulent schemes involve the purported issuance, trading, or use of so-called "prime" bank, "prime" European bank or "prime" world bank financial instruments, or other "high yield investment programs" ("HYIP"s). The fraud artists who promote these schemes often use the word "prime" – or a synonymous phrase, such as "top fifty world banks" – to cloak their programs with an air of legitimacy. They seek to mislead investors by suggesting that well regarded and financially sound institutions participate in these bogus programs. But prime bank and other related schemes have no connection whatsoever to the world's leading financial institutions or to banks with the word "prime" in their names. The Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal and state agencies are continuing to warn investors about these scams
:
