Monday, May 8, 2017

Help requested to the office of Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen

This is the copy of the email letter to the Office of Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen


Hello Mrs. Sanz, hope this email finds you well
Kindly deliver this email to Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen
========================================================



Dear Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen


Take this letter also as an opportunity to thank you along the way for going out of your way to assist me and my family with all of our request for justice. You are certainly always one of the best person, representative and politician fighting for the people. Your people. 

I approach you on behalf of my family once again 

My father was at the Nicaraguan Embassy of the United States this morning and presented a letter (attached) addressed to the new member of The Supreme Court of the United States Hon. Neil Gorsuch.

At the US Embassy he was suggested that you could help us forward same attached letter and you would get it to Supreme Court faster perhaps. 

My father and I ask to have the Urcuyo vs. Citibank N.A.,case revised as it contains too many injustices needing urgently revision taking place in the courts.
 
There seems to be a current US movement underway of people wanting transparency and stop corruption, which goes simultaneously with the transparency that must begin by revising the faulty court system. 

An interesting fact that by the year 2025 Millennials will be over 50% of the US population, woke up this interest in assist the "Voice of the Millennials". We cannot allow 12 voices to be voided by 1 voice.  


From the outcome of the Urcuyo vs. Citibank case, in which a 12 people jury panel voted in favor of my family and to later learn that 1 person judge rejected the 12 people jury panel.

We humbly request to have that rule "allowing a single person (the judge) to have complete authority to reject a unanimous verdict" revised. 


in that case there seems to be evidence of corruption or to the very least creating a bias system of the courts.



I want to take you back to our case,

After the jury came back with a unanimous verdict, that same last day at the trial, 12 jurors gathered around my family and hugged them at the steps of the Federal Court Building in Downtown Miami. The jury seem to genuinely be part of a justice system.


I can recall that all the members of the jury were dismissed and we never heard
back from them after they gave back the unanimous verdict and later dismissed. 

The jury must be ignorant to the post court judge decision rejecting the jury's decision.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of those jury members with an update of the post verdict outcome of the case in which

"Their unanimous decision was rejected and on that day 1 person decided for all 12 members of their jury panel."


In our opinion, if a jury panel is allowed in a case:

A. If a jury's decision has the potential for their decision to be rejected by the judge then do not approve a jury trial.

B. Let the jury decide (Why have a jury if this is not the option)


We cannot force anybody to do anything but we feel it will have a positive effect or impact among people as well as respect to begin to be restored in the court system and the law. 
 


Thank you always for your support




Luis Urcuyo


Inline image 1


Inline image 2




Friday, May 5, 2017

Letter to Honorable Neil Gorsuch



HON; NEIL GORSUCH

PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

1 FIRST STREET, NE

WASHINGTON, DC 20543

ATTN OF: MR. CHRIS HOFIUS

POLITICAL ADVISOR

AMERICAN EMBASSY

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU FOR THE SUCCESSFUL

NOMINATION OF OUR PRESIDENT, MR: DONALD TRUMP TO APPOINT YOU AS HE SAID

FULFILLING HIS WORDS THAT HE WILL NOMINATE FOR SUCH IMPORTANT POSITION

TOO A PERSON THAT QUALIFIES AS YOU DO.

"SOMEONE WHO INTERPRETED THE LAWS AS THEY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN".

MY FAMILY TRULY BELIEVED THAT COURTROOMS WERE PLACES WHERE JUDGES

LISTENED TO THE FACTS CAREFULLY AND DECIDED CASES WITH HONESTY AND

RESPECT ACCORDING OF THE LAWS OF EACH NATION.

FRANCISCO URCUYO MALIAÑO MY FATHER, WAS IN THE YEAR 1979 THE VICE

PRESIDENT OF NICARAGUA PRIOR TO 1979, AND WHEN SOMOZA LEFT THE COUNTRY

ACCORDING WITH THE AGREEMENTS DONE WITH JIMMY CARTER ENVOIS, LAWRENCE

PEZZULLO ET AL. MY FATHER WHO WAS BY THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL

CONGRESS, HE WAS NOMINATED AS PRESIDENT OF NICARAGUA UNANIMOUSLY BUT

HIS PRESIDENCY LASTED ONLY THREE DAYS DUE TO THE INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES

OF JIMMY CARTER, THAT MADE MY PARENTS FORCED ESCAPE TO GUATEMALA

RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES, AT THAT WAY THEY STARTED A LONG EXILE THAT BEGINS

IN GUATEMALA AND CONTINUE LATER IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF IN OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS STORY THAT BEGINS IN

NICARAGUA IN CENTRAL AMERICAN, THIS COUNTRY WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMUNIST

BY THE YEAR 1979. AT THAT TIME MY FATHER AND MOTHER BOTH MAINTAINED A

CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH “CITIBANK N.A.” AT THE NICARAGUAN BRANCH.

FRANCISCO URCUYO MALIANO AND HIS WIFE MARIA LUISA MUÑOZ DE URCUYO WERE

CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF NICARAGUA UNTIL 1979. ALSO, THEY WERE RESIDENTS

OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN THE STORY BEGINS.

DURING THE YEAR 1979, NICARAGUA WAS BESET BY A GUERRILLA INSURGENCY THAT

CULMINATED IN THE SANDINISTA MILITARY REVOLUTION OF JULY 1979 AND ITS

SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE OF POWER IN NICARAGUA.

CITIBANK N.A. IS A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF

BUSINESS OR HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK, MY FATHERS MAINTAINED AT THE

BRANCH OFFICE IN MANAGUA, NICARAGUA AS OF 1979 A CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH

THEM (“CITIBANK N.A.”) THAT ACC. WAS OPENED AT SOME POINT DURING THE

PERIOD 1977-1978 HAVING THE CHECKING ACCOUNT NUMBERED: 20-1037-2, AT

THAT MOMENT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THAT ACC. WAS AN AMOUNT WHICH

TOTALED 450,000.00 NICARAGUAN CORDOBAS (US$ 65000.00), IN JULY 17, 1979.

THEY WERE FORCED TO FLEE NICARAGUA AHEAD OF THE SANDINISTA REVOLUTION.

ON JULY 20TH OF 1979. THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT ISSUED THE DECREE NUMBER

3 WHICH STATED THAT:

“THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS AUTHORIZED TO IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH

THE TAKING OVER, REQUISITIONING AND CONFISCATION OF ALL THE

ASSETS OF THE SOMOZA FAMILY, MILITARY PERSONNEL AND OFFICIALS

WHO HAVE ABANDONED THE COUNTRY SINCE DECEMBER 1977”.

ONCE SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER, REQUISITIONS OR CONFISCATED, THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL TURN OVER EVERYTHING THAT HE'VE DONE TO THE

COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT.

BEING IN GUATEMALA IN JULY 1980. MY FAMILY REQUESTED INFORMATION FROM

CITIBANK REGARDING THEIR FUNDS LEFT AT THEIR ACCOUNT IN THE NICARAGUAN

BRANCH OFFICE, AND THEY RESPONDED TO OUR QUESTIONS BY STATING THAT

ACCORDING TO THE NICARAGUAN GENERAL ATTORNEYS SUCH FUNDS HAD BEEN

TURNED OVER TO THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT PURSUANT DECREE NUMBER 3.

MY FAMILY ASSUMED THAT IT WAS A TRUELY FACT THAT THE FUNDS THEY HAD IN

CITIBANK MANAGUA, IN FACT THEY HAS BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE SANDINISTA

GOVERNMENT, FURTHERMORE, BASED ON THE FORMER HIGH POSITION OF DR

URCUYO IN THE DEPOSED GOVERNMENT, AND THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT'S

HOSTILITY TOWARDS FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, MY FAMILY ASSUMED THAT

THEY HAD NO RECOURSE IN SEEKING COMPENSATION FROM THE SANDINISTA

GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE, WE DID NOT MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES AS TO THE

STATUS OF OUR FUNDS UNTIL 1990 WHEN A NEWLY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WAS

ESTABLISHED IN NICARAGUA WITH VIOLETA CHAMORRO.

(PLEASE SEE IN NEXT PAGE A COPY OF AN ORIGINAL LETTERS FROM CITIBANK N.A.,

WHICH COULD BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST).

PROOF OF ONE LAST DEPOSIT ON THE ACCOUNT 20-1037-2 OF CITIBANK

AS SAID BEFORE IN 1990, THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT WAS REPLACED BY A NEW

DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN NICARAGUA THAMKS TO THE SUPPORT

OF PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.

MY FAMILY PETITIONED THE NEW GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA FOR A

COMPENSATION ON THEIR FUNDS AND OTHER PROPERTIES THAT THEY BELIEVED HAD

BEEN CONFISCATED BY THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE FUNDS THAT

HAVE HAD IN THEIR CITIBANK N.A. ACCOUNT 20-1037-2.

IN 1995, MY FAMILY RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE NEW GOVERNMENT,

INCLUDING AN ITEMIZATION OF CONFISCATED ACCOUNT AND PROPERTIES PREPARED BY THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT IN 1980, WHICH INDICATED THAT CITIBANK HAD NEVER TURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT ANY FUNDS FROM THE ACCOUNT NUMBERED 20-1037-2.

IN FACT, CITIBANK NEVER TURN FUNDS OVER TO THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT

PURSUANT TO DECREE NUMBER 3. AT NO POINT DURING OR AFTER THE SANDINISTA

TAKEOVER, UP UNTIL MY FAMILY FIRST MADE INQUIRIES REGARDING THE FUNDS IN

1980, CITIBANK DID NOT INFORM MY FAMILY OF THE CLOSURE OF ITS

BRANCH IN NICARAGUA, OR GIVE MY FAMILY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER

THEIR FUNDS OR TO OBTAIN THEIR FUNDS AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION. AS

POINTED BY: JUDGE MANSFIELD OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

OF SIX CIRCUIT. (850 F.2d 1164 Ngoc Quang TRINH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITIBANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-1258. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.)

STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN 1980 TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY HAS BEEN

TURNED OVER TO THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO DECREE FALSE.

(ORIGINAL LETTER CONTAINING THOSE FALSE STATEMENT AND CITIBANK N.A. ARE

ATTACHED). CITIBANK MADE ITS FALSE STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN 1980

WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE HIS CLIENT TO RELY ON THE TRUTHFULNESS,

THEREOF, MY FAMILY RELIED ON THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CITIBANK FALSE

STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN 1980, REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR

FUNDS.

BUT FOR CITIBANK FALSE STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN 1980 REGARDING

THE STATUS OF THEIR CLIENT FUNDS, INDUCING MY FAMILY TO RELY ON THE

TRUTHFULNESS THEROF.

HOWEVER, THE CITIBANK DID KNOW, OR COULD HAVE KNOWN EVEN WITH

REASONABLE DILIGENCE, THAT ITS STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN 1980

REGARDING THE STATUS OF MY FAMILY FUNDS WERE FALSE.

SINCE THE TIME MY FAMILY FLED NICARAGUA IN 1979, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MY FAMILY AND CITIBANK HAS BEEN CENTERED IN NEW YORK, WHERE MY FAMILY

HAVE PRIOR CENTERED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH CITIBANK REGARDING THEIR

ACCOUNT.

WITH ALL THE FINDINGS OF ABUNDANT PROOF THAT “CITIBANK” HAS STOLE OUR

MONEY MY FATHER DECIDED TO OPEN A DEMAND AGAINST THEM, AND WE DID IT AT

THE FLORIDA COURT 11 CIRCUIT AND AT THE FEDERAL COURT IN ATLANTA,

PLACES IN WISH WE GET VERY DISAPOINTED DUE TO THE INCREDIBLE DESITIONS OF

THE JUDGES THAT MADE US THINK IN A OPPOSITE WAY OF WHAT I SAID IN THE

BEGINNING OF THIS LETTER.

MY FAMILY AND I TRULY BELIEVED THAT COURTROOMS WERE PLACES

WHERE JUDGES LISTENED TO THE FACTS CAREFULLY AND DECIDED CASES

WITH HONESTY AND RESPECT ACCORDING OF THE LAWS OF EACH NATION.

THE MAIN QUESTION OR IN OTHER WORDS THE CAUSE OF CORRUPTION POINTED

OUT IN THIS CAUSE WAS THAT EVENTHOUGH THAT THE “JURY CAME BACK IN OUR

FAVOR UNANIMOUSLY AND AGAINST CITIBANK FOR THEIR WRONGDOING” S.

THE EVIDENCE WERE OVERWHELMING AGAINST CITIBANK AND EVEN THE

JUDGE AGREED IN THE COURT FINDINGS THAT CITIBANK WAS GUILTY OF ALL

COUNTS. BUT WE RECEIVED NEWS LATER THAT THE JUDGE HAD REVERSED

THE JURY'S DECISION BECAUSE IN A CANDID WAY HE SAID THAT “ THE JURY

DID NOT UNDERSTAND BANKING LAWS”.

MR: PRESIDENT GORSUCH

¿HOW CAN THE JUDGE CHANGE THE JURY'S UNANIMOUS VERDICT? (AFTER

ALL A JURY IS ABLE TO SEND PEOPLE TO DIE IN THIS COUNTRY BUT THEY ARE

NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE CORRUPTED ACTIONS OF A BANK)

HOW CITIBANK, WITH NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THEIR FRAUD, MANAGED TO

PERSUADE THE JUDGE IN THEIR FAVOR, HOW THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE

WHICH MOUNTED HIGH AGAINST CITIBANK WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE JUDGE

TOO RULE IN OUR FAVOR, WAS CITIBANK RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

UNEXPECTED JUDGE'S DECISION? WAS CITIBANK GOING TO GET AWAY WITH

ROBBERY ONCE AGAIN?

THOSE JUDGES WHERE, ABOVE THE LAW. FEDERAL JUDGES AND FEDERAL

PROSECUTORS ROUTINELY BLOCK THE ACCESS COMMON CITIZENS ARE

SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY.

EFFECTIVELY, JUDGES TO "DISPENSE" OUR RIGHTS AT THEIR WHIM AND

PLEASURE WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY.

AMONG OTHER THINGS, A DISHONEST JUDGE CAN IGNORE EVIDENCE, TWIST

RULES AND PROCEDURE, OBSTRUCT THE RECORD, RETALIATE,

MANUFACTURE FACTS OR IGNORE OTHERS, ALLOW INFIRM CLAIMS OR

DISMISS VALID ONES, DENY ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE PREJUDICIAL TO THE

FAVORED PARTY, SUBORN PERJURY.

A JUDGE WHO IS HONEST 99% OF THE TIME IS USELESS TO THE PEOPLE. IF

THIS JUDGE IS YOUR JUDGE, HIS 1% OF CORRUPTION EQUALS YOUR 100%

OF CONVICTION. YOUR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DOES NOT GO AWAY JUST

BECAUSE NINE OUT OF TEN PEOPLE DID GET ONE. AND YOUR RIGHT TO

CHALLENGE A MAN FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT GO AWAY JUST

BECAUSE THAT MAN WEARS A BLACK ROBE.

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/urcuyo_vs_citibank/sets/72157632893107957/

BY ENTERING THE ABOVE WEB LINK, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO READ THE ENTIRE CASE

WHICH WAS LABELED “URCUYO’S VS CITIBANK”.

I WANT TO MAKE A CITATION OF A SIMILAR CASE THAT HAD HAPPENED AT

VIET NAM, IT WAS WHEN THE COMMUNIST TOOK THE CONTROL OF THE

COUNTRY SAME AS THEY DID IN NICARAGUA, AND THIS JUDICIAL CASE WAS

HELD IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IT HAS THE SAME SITUATIONS THAT

OCCURRED WITH MY FAMILY IN NICARAGUA ALMOST IN THE SAME TIME.

850 F.2d 1164

Ngoc Quang TRINH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITIBANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-1258.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued March 27, 1987. Decided July 8, 1988. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied Sept. 21, 1988.

WE THINK JUDGE MANSFIELD WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN VISHIPCO, WHERE

HE OBSERVED:

42

“A BANK WHICH ACCEPTS DEPOSITS AT A FOREIGN BRANCH BECOMES A

DEBTOR, NOT A BAILEE, WITH RESPECT TO ITS DEPOSITORS. IN THE EVENT

THAT UNSETTLED LOCAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE IT TO CEASE OPERATIONS, IT

SHOULD INFORM ITS DEPOSITORS OF THE DATE WHEN ITS BRANCH WILL

CLOSE AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THEIR DEPOSITS

OR, IF CONDITIONS PREVENT SUCH STEPS, ENABLE THEM TO OBTAIN

PAYMENT AT AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION. IN THE RARE EVENT THAT SUCH

MEASURES ARE EITHER IMPOSSIBLE OR ONLY PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL,

FAIRNESS DICTATES THAT THE PARENT BANK BE LIABLE FOR THOSE

DEPOSITS WHICH IT WAS UNABLE TO RETURN ABROAD. TO HOLD OTHERWISE

WOULD BE TO UNDERMINE THE SERIOUSNESS OF ITS OBLIGATIONS TO ITS

DEPOSITORS AND UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES (NOT NECESSARILY

PRESENT HERE) TO GAIN A WINDFALL”

(COMMENT)

AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, OUR CONSTITUTION WAS CONCEIVED

AND ADOPTED AS THE MECHANICAL FOUNDATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

FOR ORDINARY CITIZENS, THE INDEPENDENT GRAND JURY WAS THE ONLY

TOOL OF SALVATION FROM JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.

WITHOUT THIS CRITICAL TOOL OF REDRESS, AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS EXIST

ONLY AT THE WILL OF A JUDGE.

THAT TOOL (UNFETTERED ACCESS TO GRAND JURY) HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.

JUDGES SIMPLY SNATCHED IT FROM US. THEY DID IT BY ENACTING

"JUDICIAL LEGISLATION," I.E., BY "RULING" THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS HAD

NO RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE GRAND JURY.

THEY TOOK THE GRAND JURY FROM US AND THEY GAVE IT TO THEMSELVES,

AND THEY USE THEIR "GATEKEEPING" POWER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES

(FROM ACCOUNTABILITY) ALL THE TIME.

WHO DECIDED, "WHAT WILL BE THE LAW?" JUDGES DID. WHO IS SUPPOSED

TO DECIDE, "WHAT WILL BE THE LAW?" CONGRESS IS. RIGHT UNDER

CONGRESS'S NOSE, THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT

PLACED ITSELF OUT OF REACH. THEY ELIMINATED ALL MEANS TO BE HELD

ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

EFFECTIVELY, JUDGES "DISPENSE" OUR RIGHTS AT THEIR WHIM AND

PLEASURE WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY. UNFORTUNATELY, ORDINARY CITIZENS

HAVE NO OTHER MEANS TO ENJOY OR ENFORCE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS EXCEPT

THROUGH THAT SAME COURT SYSTEM.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT WITHOUT A MECHANISM FOR REMEDY, (THE

COURT) YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

IF A JUDGE REFUSES TO ORDER RELIEF, THEN YOU DON'T GET ANY.

THEREFORE, CITIZENS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO (LITERALLY) PRAY TO A

JUDGE FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS. WHERE THEIR PRAYERS ARE

DENIED, THEIR RIGHTS ARE DENIED.

HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, FINALLY WHAT I WANT IS

THAT BEING AWARE THAT KNOW JUSTICE HAS FELT OF RESPONSIBILITY AT

THIS COUNTRY, HELP ME TO OBTAIN, A REVIEW OF THIS CASE, TO OBTAIN A

SATISFACTORY END OF THIS NASTY CASE OF INJUSTICE.


THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN READING THIS LETTER AND ASSISTING US IN REGAINING TRUST IN THE COURTS AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES



FRANCISCO URCUYO JR.

RIVAS, NICARAGUA MAY THE 3TH OF 2017

Phone No 89682428

E-mail: paconi@gmail.com

Nicaragua Central America

=======================================================================