MEMORANDUM

ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

TO: Counsel of Record

The Court recently received a pair of ex parte communications from William C. Bond via email. Each email transmitted a letter regarding the above-captioned case. These letters are attached to this Memorandum for the information of counsel.

EXHIBIT A

RE: Criminal Action No.: 12-0014-RWT & Civil Action No.: 16-2713-RWT

Dear Judge Titus:

I write to you about your recent July 26, 2018. memorandum opinion about the above-numbered cases. I write specifically as a member of the public to offer my opinions over the future remedies to be imposed by the court here.

I. My interest

My Name is Bill Bond. Since 2007, I have been acting pro se in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in my long-running personal litigations. I also started a public policy initiative called "Baltimore Corruption Wire" whose mission is to challenge attorney, and party misconduct in the Maryland federal court arena.1

In 2009, both in the district court and in the court of appeals, I was joined by the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office to unseal the attorney disqualification records in the "Tommy Bromwell" case, which is the only time in history the U.S. DOJ has joined a pro se to unseal their own criminal case. I have also been involved, as a movant-intervenor under the First Amendment, in several other high-profile cases. In short, I have much experience with the legal system from many different angles.

II. The government

The conduct of the USAO MD you described in your opinion reminds me precisely of how they were portrayed by the U.S. Fourth Circuit in a rare Sealed Published Opinion, part of which was described in a Published Sealing Order. See. USA v. "Little Johnny," CA 4 no. 13-4360.2

The court held (Sealing Order at 2):

The conduct of the government identified above by the Fourth Circuit appears to fit the facts here almost exactly.

Other Maryland federal judges have also in the recent past noted or sanctioned the USAO MD for destruction of records, fabricating records, and violating the duty of candor owed the tribunal, among other things.3

III. The offending attorney

This court, not only here hut also recently in United Bank v. Buckingham, et al., and CX Reinsurance V. Johnson "lay the wood" to offending attorney misconduct. Judge Bredar also recently recounted a litany of outrageous conduct by an attorney toward a client. See USA v. Richard Shusterman, nos. 13-0460-JKB & 18-0963-JKB.

What all these cases have in common, and which my long history with the Maryland federal court tells me, is that the federal bench is not taking direct control of sanctioning — properly & publicly — attorney misconduct in the Maryland District Court. To be clear: I do not think that federal court misconduct should be referred to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission.

Instead, as shown by the facts here and the court's painstaking analysis, the subject attorney should be referred to the court's "Disciplinary & Admissions Committee" under Local Rule 705. Disbarment should be recommended

IV. The resentencing

First, the court touches upon this briefly in their memorandum, but it is worth expanding upon: the late AUSA Deb Johnston was a high-ranking and extremely tough prosecutor. If she had a range of pleas, those ranges were not sweet candy, but bitter pills for the defendant to swallow. That said, because of the USAO MD's conduct in this 2255 matter. I believe that the court should impose, as a first sanction, the government's lowest conceivable plea offer.

Second, this is America. And in America, a man has the right to his work product. Here, the work product is the effort the defendant expended to get a just resolution, which the court itself admits are rare birds indeed. The court might also consider the stress and strain of the additional suffering the defendant was subjected to because of his misfortune both because of his attorney's actions and the government's imperturbability. In short, I believe the defendant should be compensated in time both for his hard work and his pain and suffering. Should the court agree, the remedies could be (1) time served or (2) the difference between time served and the time remaining of the lowest plea number divided by half. So if the court decides that the defendant would have another 3 years to serve that under the plea it ultimately decides to accept, that number would then be reduced to 1.5 years as a recognition by the court of the defendant's hard work toward gaining justice and as a second sanction against the government.

Thank you very much for your consideration.4

I hope this email finds you well.

Very truly & respectfully yours.

William C. Bond

EXHIBIT B

RE: Criminal Action No.: 12-0014-RWT & Civil Action No.: 16-2713-RWT

Dear Judge Titus:

I write to you about your recent July 26, 2018. memorandum opinion about the above-numbered cases. I write specifically as a member of the public to offer my opinions about the future remedies to be imposed by the court in this case.

I. My interest

My Name is Bill Bond. Since 2007, I have been acting pro se in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in my long-running personal litigations. I also started a public policy initiative called "Baltimore Corruption Wire" whose mission is to challenge judicial, attorney, and party misconduct in the Maryland federal court arena.1

In 2009, both in the district court and in the court of appeals, I was joined by the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office to unseal the attorney disqualification records in the "Tommy Bromwell" case, which is the only time in history the U.S. DOJ has joined a pro se to unseal their own criminal case. I have also been involved, as a movant-intervenor under the First Amendment, in several other high-profile cases. In short, I have much experience with the legal system from many different angles.

II. The government

The conduct of the USAO MD you described in your opinion reminds me precisely of how they were portrayed by the U.S. Fourth Circuit in a rare Sealed Published Opinion, part of which was described in a Published Sealing Order. See USA v. "Little Johnny," CA 4 no. 13-4360.2

The court held (Sealing Order at 2):

The conduct of the government identified above by the Fourth Circuit appears to fit the facts here almost exactly.

Other Maryland federal judges have also in the recent past noted or sanctioned the USAO MD for destruction of records, fabricating records, and violating the duty of candor owed the tribunal, among other things.3

III. The offending attorney

This court, not only here but also recently in United Bank v. Buckingham, et al., and CX Reinsurance V. Johnson "lay the wood" to offending attorney misconduct. Judge Bredar also recently recounted a litany of outrageous conduct by an attorney toward a client. See USA v. Richard Shusterman, nos. 13-0460-JKB & 18-0963-JKB.

What all these cases have in common, and which my long history with the Maryland federal court tells me, is that the federal bench is not taking direct control of sanctioning — properly & publicly — attorney misconduct in the Maryland District Court. To be clear: I do not think that federal court misconduct should be referred to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission.

Instead, as shown by the facts here and the court's painstaking analysis, the subject attorney should be referred to the court's "Disciplinary & Admissions Committee" under Local Rule 705. Disbarment should be recommended.

IV. The resentencing

First, the court touches upon this briefly in their memorandum, but it is worth expanding upon: the late AUSA Deb Johnston was a high-ranking and extremely tough prosecutor. If she had a range of pleas, those ranges were not sweet candy, but bitter pills for the defendant to swallow. That said, because of the USAO MD's conduct in this 2255 matter. I believe that the court should impose, as a first sanction, the government's lowest conceivable plea offer.

Second, this is America. And in America, a man has the right to his work product. Here, the work product is the effort the defendant expended to get a just resolution, which the court itself admits are rare birds indeed. The court might also consider the stress and strain of the additional suffering the defendant was subjected to because of his misfortune both because of his attorney's actions and the government's imperturbability. In short, I believe the defendant should be compensated in time both for his hard work and his pain and suffering. Should the court agree, the remedies could be (1) time served or (2) the difference between time served and the time remaining of the lowest plea number divided by half. So if the court decides that the defendant would have another 3 years to serve under the plea it ultimately decides to accept, that number would then be reduced to 1.5 years as a recognition by the court of the defendant's hard work toward gaining justice and as a second sanction against the government.

Thank you very much for your consideration.4

I hope this email finds you well.

Very truly & respectfully yours.

William C. Bond