Brent Ferguson Fraud on the Courts.

FRAUD ON THE COURTS.

Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
​

Rowan Sophia Frances Rinaldi
IS
MY
NIECE.

HOW
IS
THIS
SENDING
A
SEXUALIZED
SHIRTLESS
PHOTO
?
(IDIOT)

Granted, Mr. Ferguson is attempting to do his job, but the District Attorney’s Office
MUST
STOP
COMMITTING
FRAUD
ON
THE
COURT.

We move to strike all charges, as Fraud on the Court Demands.

*** For the record, Brent Furgosun is 50x cuter than Brooke.

As per Ms. Shields’ paid for security, Gavin de Becker states in all of his 4 categories of Stalkers- (Weirdos) are based on romantic predilections, AND trust me I had none for Ms. Shields.

Chris Henchy was more my type. (40lbs ago.)

1200 people can attest that I prefer 6’ red headed Italians. And have been off the market since 4 June 1999.

https://https://www.brennancenter.org/expert/brent-ferguson
​www.brennancenter.org/expert/brent-ferguson

New York, N. Y. 10013 (212) 335-9000
CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Honorable Leslie E. Stein Judge of the Court of Appeals New York Court of Appeals
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York 12207-1095

May 30, 2018

Re: People v. John Rinaldi Docket No. 2015NY030419

Your Honor:
I am writing to oppose defendant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Defendant made constant attempts to contact actress Brooke Shields beginning in the 1980s, writing letters, making telephone calls, confronting Shields in person, and attending many of her Broadway shows. His ceaseless efforts led Shields’s security team to classify defendant as an “inappropriate pursuer” and direct Shields to report all of his contacts. The intensity of defendant’s efforts escalated between November 2013 and May 2015. On November 8, 2013, he delivered a box to Shields’s home on West 10th Street, in Manhattan, containing a teddy bear and two letters from his purported charity. Two weeks later, defendant waited outside Shields’s home with a framed picture of Shields as a young child and tried to hand it to her, telling her it was a gift for her daughter, Rowan. Shields quickly moved past defendant, and her employee later told defendant that it was inappropriate to approach Shields’s house or contact Shields or her family. Yet defendant returned to Shields’s home twice in the next few weeks, one time following her down the street as she rode away from him on a motor scooter driven by her assistant. A few months later, defendant approached Shields’s husband, Chris Henchy, on the sidewalk near their home. Defendant acknowledged that he had “spooked” Shields when he approached her; Henchy agreed and told defendant to “leave Brooke alone.”
In 2014, Shields continued to see defendant and his car near her home, and defendant also wrote to or about Shields on social media. For example, he used Twitter to send Shields a photo of a child, with the caption “my Rowan Sophia,” using the name of Shields’s daughter. In November 2014, defendant attended an event in which Shields was promoting a book she had authored; he sat in the front row and then used the question-and-answer session to give Shields a

DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Hon. Leslie E. Stein 2

gift and speak at length to her without asking a question. He later wrote on his blog that he found it unnecessary to ask Shields a question because he saw her “al[l] the time in the neighborhood.”

Shields began to see defendant more often in her neighborhood, and she sometimes saw his car parked outside his house “for days at a time.” If Shields saw defendant while she was walking in her neighborhood with her daughters, she would avoid going home because she was fearful for their safety. On May 3, 2015, defendant parked outside Shields’s home and sent her a Twitter message telling her that he had believed she was out of town, but that she should tell him if she wanted the parking spot in front of her home. Defendant later recounted that he offered her the parking spot again the next day in person while Shields was with her daughter Rowan, but she declined.

On May 5, defendant was waiting in front of Shields’s home when she returned home with her trainer. Defendant later tweeted that he saw Shields coming home and that she should be nicer to him. The same day, Shields saw defendant’s car in the same spot in front of her home, this time with “Brooke” written in the dirt on his window in the same style as her signature. After her assistant wiped off the signature, defendant sent Shields a message on Twitter that said, “pls tell your faggy henchman 2not [sic] touch my car.” The same evening, Shields returned from an event with her assistant, and they saw defendant “rustling” around in the back seat of his car, which was still parked in front of her home. Her assistant approached the car to confront defendant, and defendant drove away. That night, Shields went to the police station to file a complaint.

The next morning, a police detective approached defendant, who was sleeping in his car near Shields’s home, to tell him to stay away from Shields, her family, and her house, and to cease writing to or about Shields on the internet. Defendant acknowledged the warning and was cooperative, but the detective saw him walk by Shields’s home later the same day. After that, the detective and another police officer approached defendant in a coffee shop and reiterated the warnings. Over the next ten days, defendant sent many online messages targeting Shields. He first posted online calling Shields a “bully” and referring to his Second Amendment rights. Later, he sent an e-mail to Shields’s publicist, saying he “never wanted to know” Shields, criticizing her “effeminate assistant,” and explaining that he decided not to attend some of Shields’s public events because of Henchy’s warning. The e-mail also discussed the murder of Rebecca Shaeffer, an actress who was killed by a stalker in the 1980s. Defendant was arrested on May 16, 2015.

Defendant was charged with two counts of fourth-degree stalking, one count of first-degree harassment, and one count of second-degree harassment. After a bench trial in the New York City Criminal Court, New York County (Kevin McGrath, J.), defendant was convicted of all four charges and sentenced to sixty days in jail. Defendant appealed, arguing principally that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. He also maintained that his e-mail and other online messages should not have been considered part of the proof of his guilt because they constituted speech protected by the First Amendment. The Appellate Term, First Department, unanimously affirmed the conviction, holding that “[a]mple evidence” proved “that defendant engaged in a course of conduct from November 2013 through May 2015 that was reasonably likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health or safety of the complainant.” People v. Rinaldi, 59 Misc. 3d 137 (A)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Hon. Leslie E. Stein 3

at * 1 (App. Term 1st Dep’t 2018). The Court found that based on all of defendant’s actions, including that he “followed [Shields] when she left her house; ignored numerous warnings by family, security and the police to stop contacting her . . . and sent her unwanted communications, including . . . an email to her publicist in which [he] referenced an actress that had been murdered by a stalker,” the trial “court could rationally infer that defendant’s conduct was designed to hound, frighten, intimidate and threaten.” Id. The Court added that “[d]efendant’s remaining arguments, to the extent preserved for appellate review,” were “unpersuasive.” Id. at *2.

In his leave letter, defendant contends that his actions were not “sufficiently connected or continuous to establish a course of conduct” necessary for a stalking or harassment conviction (Leave Letter at 9). In addition, defendant argues that the use of his “social media missives” to prove the charges violated his First Amendment rights (Leave Letter at 6). However, defendant’s First Amendment argument is unpreserved, and all of his claims lack merit.

To begin, as the Appellate Term found, the evidence amply proved that defendant engaged in a course of conduct designed to harass and intimidate Shields. In fact — as detailed in the People’s Appellate Term brief, and as summarized briefly above — defendant hounded Shields, both in person and online, over a period of 19 months. The trial judge soundly rejected defendant’s arguments that he had some sort of personal relationship with Shields, or that he failed to realize that is contacts were unwelcome, and that finding was supported by a wealth of evidence.
Indeed, as the Appellate Term found, “defendant repeatedly appeared at and lingered around Shields’ home,” Rinaldi, 59 Misc. 3d 137 (A) at * 1, for no legitimate purpose, intimidating Shields and placing her in fear. And, all the while, he stalked her on social media, posting aggressive and intimidating messages at times, and even accosted her at a publicity event. He claimed familiarity with Shields’s children, wrote her name in the dirt on the window of his car, and reminded her of his “Second Amendment” rights. Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not present any credible argument that he engaged in “infrequent and temporally diffuse contact” that did not rise to the level of a “course of conduct” (Leave Letter at 9 (quotation marks omitted)).
Similarly, defendant is wrong to claim that he was punished for “expressing his views about Ms. Shields,” in violation of the First Amendment (id. at 7). At the outset, this claim is unpreserved and is therefore beyond this Court’s review power. See People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491 (2008). While defense counsel made two passing references to “protected” speech when discussing evidence at trial, he never mentioned the First Amendment, and he certainly never moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that they were based on speech protected by the Constitution. Thus, his argument is not preserved for this Court’s review. See id. at 492 (“To preserve for this Court’s review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be specifically directed at the error being urged.”) (quotation marks omitted); People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 404,

DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Hon. Leslie E. Stein 4

408 (2006) (explaining that “a constitutional claim in the guise of an argument that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient” must be preserved).1
Even if defendant’s claim were preserved, he is wrong to assert that this case presents a leave-worthy issue. Contrary to his claim, there is no threat that his conviction for stalking and harassment “will open the door to prosecution of a wide swath of speech about public figures” (Leave Letter at 8). Instead, had the First Amendment issue been argued below, it would have called for a straightforward application of People v. Shack, 86 N.Y.2d 529 (1995), in which this Court set the standard for as-applied challenges to harassment or stalking convictions involving some speech.

In Shack, the defendant was convicted of aggravated harassment after repeatedly making phone calls to his cousin, who had told him to stop calling. In response to his First Amendment challenge to the conviction, this Court noted that “[a]n individual’s right to communicate must be balanced against the recipient’s right ‘to be let alone’ in places in which the latter possesses a right of privacy,” noting that “the privacy right may ‘plainly outweigh’ the free speech rights of an intruder.” Id. at 536 (quoting F.C.C. v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978)). This Court analogized the defendant’s calls to a person sending unwanted mail, noting that the First Amendment did not allow “communications to be foisted upon an unwilling recipient.” Id. at 536 (citing Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep’t, 397 U.S. 728, 736 (1970)). Finally, this Court explained that the defendant was not convicted “for engaging in protected speech; his liability arose from his harassing conduct, not from any expression entitled to constitutional protection.” Id. This was because the trial evidence showed that defendant called the victim “with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm her and that his calls were made with no legitimate communicative purpose.” Id. at 537.2

1 Contrary to defendant’s argument to the Appellate Term, his motion for a trial order of dismissal did not properly present the First Amendment question to the trial court. During his motion, defense counsel made an argument about the types of conduct that lacked a “legitimate purpose” under the stalking statute. He argued that criticism should qualify as a legitimate purpose, because “Americans are, after all, free to criticize one another,” citing People v. Bethea, 1 Misc. 3d 909 (A) (Crim. Ct. N.Y. County 2004), and People v. McDowd, 3 Misc. 3d 380 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County 2004) (Trial Tr. at 274-75). But critically, defendant confined his argument to the statutory definition of “legitimate purpose” and did not make a freestanding claim based on the First Amendment. Indeed, defendant did not even make any reference to the First Amendment (or the fact that Bethea and McDowd mention the First Amendment). Defense counsel’s discussion was thus insufficient to preserve his current appellate claim.

2 Since Shack, New York courts have consistently affirmed stalking and harassment convictions even if part of the criminal conduct at issue included speech or other expressive activity. In People v. Carboy, the defendant was convicted of stalking in part because he made t- shirts displaying degrading photographs of the victim accompanied by “derogatory, vulgar or suggestive comments.” 37 Misc.3d 83, 84 (App. Term 2d. Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2012). The Court rejected his First Amendment argument “because defendant’s criminal liability arose not from his expression of speech but from his repetitive trespass upon the complainant’s privacy.”

DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Hon. Leslie E. Stein 5

Here, as in Shack, defendant’s convictions “arose from his harassing conduct, not from any expression entitled to constitutional protection.” 86 N.Y.2d at 536. Once again, defendant repeatedly stalked, harassed, and intimidated Shields, both in person and online, over an extended period of time. Defendant had no First Amendment right to bombard Shields with a steady stream of public and private messages — some of which included abusive language and veiled threats. Further, defendant’s effort to equate his messages with legitimate communication about public figures fails. His messages, which included references to his Second Amendment rights and an actress murdered by her stalker, were, like the communications in Shack, intended to harass a specific victim; they were not constitutionally protected speech important to the public discourse. Notably, too, defendant’s online posts about Shields were properly received as evidence for an independent reason: they demonstrated that defendant knew his contacts were unwelcome and added to Shields’s reasonable fear of harm. In that regard, defendant’s posts showed that he knew Shields had rejected him and his angry rants created a climate of fear. Thus, defendant’s various communications and posts were properly received in evidence, and no First Amendment issue is presented for this Court to review.3
** *
In sum, defendant’s current appellate claims are partially unpreserved, and, in any event, do not present leave-worthy issues. Therefore, defendant’s leave application should be denied.

cc: David Bernstein
Center for Appellate Litigation 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005

Respectfully,
Brent Ferguson
Assistant District Attorney (212) 335-
​9303
Id. at 86; see also Dennis v. Napoli, 148 A.D.3d 446, 447 (1st Dept. 2017) (rejecting argument that comments concerning plaintiff’s sexual habits were constitutionally protected, because they “unnecessarily intrude[d] upon [plaintiff’s] right to privacy”); People v. Brown, 61 A.D.3d 1007, 1009 (3d Dept. 2009) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to stalking and harassment convictions based on phone call).
3 The stalking and harassment statutes at issue here contrast sharply with those that target “pure speech” rather than conduct that may contain a speech element. See People v. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1, 7 (2014) (cyberbullying statute swept up a “broad spectrum of speech”); People v. Golb, 23 N.Y.3d 455, 467 (2014) (second-degree aggravated harassment statute criminalized “any communication that ha[d] the intent to annoy”).



Official Complaint:
Anjelica Gregory, NY State Bar
Assistant District Attorney, City of New York
kirkland & Ellis Associate

​
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT/
​ABUSE of POWER.

The information contained in this document and it's attachments shall be considered an official Complaint to the State Bar of New York, and provides unequivocal proof of gross prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts committed by Anjelica Gregory, New York State Bar.

These violations include, but are not limited to the following:

• Subornation of Perjury
• Conspiracy
• NY State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct
• Fraud on the Court

​
Rule 5-110 Performing the duty of a Member in Government Service
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct
Rule 5-220 Suppression of Evidence

• Violations of the New York State Bar Act
• Violations of the American Bar Association, Professional Rules of Conduct.
• Violations of Federal Civil Rights under Color of Law.

The State Bar is advised that this document is also provided to the New York State Grand Jury as supplemental information to the formal Public Corruption Complaint filed independently by a collaboration of Human Rights organizations, specifically naming Anjelica Gregory, NY State Bar #

The State Bar is distinctly advised that the prosecutorial misconducts and criminal acts of Ms. Anjelica Gregory detailed herein are not isolated incidents. They are part of a sustained pattern and course of misconduct, warrants criminal conviction, and necessitate permanent disbarment to protect the people of New York.

A substantial amount of supplemental documentation of this will further be provided to the State Bar, the New York State Grand Jury, the Center for Prosecutorial Integrity, and other Human Rights Organizations investigating Angelica Gregory, New York State Bar.

BACKGROUND AND SYNOPSIS

In 2005, Mr. Chris Henchy and I met after a Broadway play. After introducing myself to him, he grabbed me and said that I had to meet his wife, Brooke Shields personally. There had been a gift sent that she was so in love with that she had told me point blank, 1. It was too nice to share, and 2. It would remain on her bed-room bureau... I was very pleased because throughout my life I had developed a sense of gratitude to the Shields' after their stepping in and having my abuser prosecuted. Through Mrs. Shields' kindness, I was no longer a victim of abuse, but a survivor..

After many kind words were exchanged, I gave a friendly man to man friendly punch-to-the- shoulder and said my good-byes.

There was no further communication from 2005 aside from my attending 2 or 3 Broadway shows..

My father had died in November of 2012, and things that were once his became more valuable/sentimental to me. Roughly some time in 2014, I stumbled upon a gift Mrs. Teri Shields gave me personally out of the goodness of her heart. The loss of a parent is tough enough, but the loss of a grandparent is especially tragic because this relationship ends when the child is often quite too young and all they have are their young memories to hold on to. Since I was given such a kind gift of a heart shaped silver framed young Brooke, I felt obliged to return it to its rightful owner, Brooke with a comment that I thought her eldest daughter would appreciate it more that I. At the time it seemed to be the right thing to do- a 'paying it forward.' Brooke would later state in court that my gesture was a 'target-' which both the Ms. Shields and her attorney Assistant District Attorney Anjelica Gregory knew to be false. When all is said and done, I'd still repay the kindness- I'd still give it to her again. Brooke knows her children were never a target- she simply told the court what was needed to achieve the results wanted- me away no matter the cost. In this case, even if it was her committing perjury to do so.

And why not? Perjury is rarely enforceable.

In 2014, I received a mailing from Ms. Shields inviting me to several events to which she was to speak on behalf of a book she had published. During one event the mc was kind enough to ask if there were any questions in the audience, so I put my hand up. We spoke of my 'paying it forward' and attributed my philanthropic work to her mother who had been kind to a child a long time ago. Brooke then asked if there was a question, and I just said no. I had only wanted to say thank you. She moved on and before I knew it I had said, yeah I do have a question after-all.. but someone had already begun to speak, and Brooke smiled at me, and I smiled back.

The next event was several hours later at a book signing at Barnes and Noble- also personally invited through her social media. (If I was as they say, you'd think I would have been removed from her lists- I wasn't because I wasn't a threat.). While I joined the line to have my book signed, I didn't solicit a conversation, but when Brooke saw me, she quickly apologized for not getting to me to ask my question at the previous event.. She took it upon herself to engage me, I might add, and I did ask my question.

In just a few months later, I would run into Ms. Shields in my neighborhood. For the record, Ms. Shields moved within 2blocks of me.. and despite her living so close, I had only run into her a total of maybe 3 or 4 times over the course of many years. Again, if I was as they would you to think, I would have known about her living so close to me. But, I hadn't until they had publicized it. Also, Ms. Shields had stated that after the AOLBuild event in which I was invited to speak, it was only after that she seemed to see me with any regularity. This again proved that the only reason I was even on her radar was because I had just re-intorduced myself to her just a few months ago. Which proves my argument all along. I was a fan at age 14-16 when going through adolescents and having to hide my abuse sustained- I thought everyone who looked at me could see what my 38year old neighbor had done to me.. so, I had to front my fascination of Ms. Shields to be one-of-the-guys.

Again, if Ms. Shields is just a few doors down from my pharmacy that I've been loyally patronizing for over 20years, and a local Thrift store that I would visit several times a week... I'd think I would become somewhat a familiar staple. Yet, I wasn't- Ms. Shields wasn't a priority- in fact she was rarely thought of. Ms. Shields in her initial complaint had told the court that from 2003- 2012, I had sat in the front row of her shows some 10 times. This is another fabrication both known to Ms. Shields and Assistant District Attorney Anjelica Gregory. Through discovery, Ms. Shields listed events in which I had attended. She did not have any specifics from any shows- which again means it was compiled after the fact. Incidentally, you have to present a credit card with ID to pick up tickets. Ms. Shields willingly and with full knowledge filed a false police report.

The quantity and severity of the many criminal acts committed against me has been so expansive that it has drawn the attention of a number of Human Rights organizations, who for nearly 7 months have collaborated on a pro bono comprehensive investigation and have helped me file a formal public corruption complaint with the New York City County Grand Jury. Ms. Anjelica Gregory, State Bar # is one of the primary public officials identified in this corruption.

The evidence provided herein proves unequivocally that ADA Anjelica Gregory of the Manhattan DA's office violated her oath of office, abused public trust, and made a mockery of our judicial system in her relentless pursuit of a criminal conviction. Ms. Gregory is also on record for stating she would soon thereafter leave the District Attorney's office for her participation of putting 'away' innocent people.

Ms. Gregory is with no moral compass. She did in fact upgrade from her criminal activities to secure a position with a high profile law firm where the average take home bonus is upwards to $4,600,000 (according to company records.) I'd like to then add that I can understand her greed but the oath of a civil servant should be more respected as the honor and privilege is well established. I'd like to think that I too would sell out, but if I may be honest, no amount of money could buy 'my' integrity.

I'd like to also add that for close to two years, I was constantly asked/ begged to accept a disorderly conduct. With advise from Assemblyman O'Donnell, I was told to not accept any plea if I was innocent- which I was. He also warned me that as long as I was fighting a celebrity I would not win. But, at that point the only thing important to me was the lesson I would ultimately be instilling upon my little boy. and 'perjury wasn't one of them even if it meant my freedom.

Specifically, the facts and evidence herein establish:

1. Ms. ADA Anjelica Gregory filed criminal charges on behalf of Ms. Brooke Shields even though insufficient probable cause existed.
2. Ms. ADA Anjelica Gregory filed charges despite Ms. Shields' testified objection.

The assumption of criminal behavior was based on the discovery from an extortion/ consumer site called Rip Off Report. This site defamed me in its accusations of being a child predator and running an illegal non profit. In 2010, thanks to Detective Paul Arroyo, these reviews were proven false. Yet, they remained because reports can not be removed. The only option was to then pay a $5,000- $100,000 service fee to have the reports 'buried.'

1. Ms. Anjelica Gregory then committed fraud to procure this deficiency by fabricating a false accusation of a crime (Ms. Shields made up a history of events that never took place, lied about situations, and even Ms. Shields' husband lied in court stating he had only one encounter with me despite documentation the prosecution released that clearly contradicted both Ms. Shields and her husband Chris Henchy.) to convince the judge that I should have reasonably known that Ms. Shields was fearful. All the while making up dots... a how to do to speak that was necessary to make a stalker out of a guy who's soul existence for the past 25 years was to eradicate abuse, and to stop the bullying- both I hold responsible for all the gun/school violence. Essentially, fabricate a skillfully crafted scenario to procure a wrongful conviction.
2. Subsequent to fabricating her false accusations, Ms. Gregory had met with Ms. Shields dozens of times, as said in court, over the previous two years to create her testimony. The facts herein prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ms. Gregory conspired with and coached Ms. Shields to elicit perjured testimony. They essentially re-wrote history which again contradicted a paid for security detailed 'Rinaldi' file. In addition, they trolled my social media accounts and created their own narratives. For example, someone had made a comment discrediting Ms. Shields and came to her defense on social media.

I could go on and on, but trust me when I say everything out of Ms Shields and Mr. Henchy's mouths were lies. To further prove (my claims) any and all my actions and activities were/ are transparent on-line connected with evidentiary proof of no wrong-doing throughout multiple on-line sources referenced in court by prosecution.


FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
www.johnmrinaldi.com
www.theSandyHookKidsCenTer.com
johnmrinaldi.blogspot.com

https://www.brennancenter.org/expert/brent-ferguson