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