The crimson of the truth balances within an understanding that everything is equal, fair, and just.

Antagonistic, while fanatical and unfriendly, the institution of the S.E.C, which claims to be truthful and forthright, is just the opposite. The number 404 probably does not mean anything to you as a reader. However, Devan Staren, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorney, FBI, and AUSA Jenifer Weir has been using her government position to violate the first amendment rights of the directors and officers of Vuuzle Media Corp.

READ: No one can Stop AUSA Jenifer Weir from hurting the 73-year-old retired dentist Dr. Richard Marchitto

Devan Staren, along with the FBI, has been using the government’s power to threaten news publications and agencies that published the stories about them to take them down or else. Under duress and being pressured by government officials, many of these international news wire services crumbled, leaving only the remanence of the real story listed as 404.

Vuuzle Media Corp previously wrote and posted these press releases to defend their position against the dishonest narratives being circulated on the internet by the SEC and DOJ.

READ: The United States S. E. C. manipulated and made-up a fictitious civil case against Ronald Flynn in a joint effort with the DOJ to smear his name and close down Vuuzle TV a Media disrupter in OTT

The United States constitution is clear about the rights given to all American citizens. The first amendment right states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or limiting the right of the people to assemble peacefully and petition the government for redress of grievances.

READ: Freedom of Press Overview – Constitutional Amendment

Regrettably, these individuals are above the law. They have contrived, pummeled, and acted out like 21st century Mafiosi. They hold nothing back, threatening everybody with grand jury inditement. Moreover, they intimidate and pressure innocent people in an effort to have them sign phony and deceptive plea agreements or else put them in jail.

READ: AUSA Jenifer Weir Uses S.E.C to Push her Agenda with Spy’s Hackers and News Wire Companies

The article states that four Dickinson Wright attorneys asked a New Jersey federal court for permission to withdraw as counsel for Vuuzle Media Corp. Dickinson Wright PLLC, the law firm representing Vuuzle Media Corp, sought to withdraw on June 21st from representing the company, saying the sides had “irreconcilable differences.”


However, the irreconcilable differences and withdrawal had to do with something much more ominous, conjured up and executed by the three play-actors and barnstormers, Weir, Devan, and Belluuzi. AUSA Jenifer Weir and Devan Staren, U.S. security attorney, have had the government block all US dollar transactions in or out, including a full block on any and all SWIFT wires being used by Ronald Flynn, the officers and directors of Vuuzle Media Corp, to defend their case.

READ: Ronnie Flynn is this time’s epitome of strength and humility amidst corrupt official’s made-up stories

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, is a cooperative of financial institutions formed in 1973 with headquarters in Belgium. It is overseen by the National Bank of Belgium in partnership with other major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank.


Nonetheless, SWIFT isn’t a traditional bank and doesn’t transfer funds. Rather, it acts as a secure messaging system that links more than 11,000 financial institutions in over 200 countries and territories, alerting banks when transactions are about to occur. (For instance, U.S. banks have unique SWIFT codes that customers use for incoming wire transfers in U.S. dollars.)

The S.E.C., FBI, and DOJ are completely above the law and will never be stopped. They have threatened news wire companies to take down press articles; made up phony plea agreements; and threatened everyone that does not agree with them that they will put them in jail if they don’t comply or agree.


The DOJ and the S.E.C’s dirty move to block all United States Swift wires is a full-on con. They did this so Ronald Flynn, Vuuzle Media Corp, and its directors could not pay the lawyers at Dickenson Wright. Moreover, with them shutting down all the company’s bank accounts and blocking Swift from the company’s sending or receiving wires is just another move to close the company. 


The bottom line is that Dickenson Wright has no choice under the relevant rules of law to withdraw as Vuuzle Media Corp is blocked from paying their bill. Vuuzle Media Corp can no longer fulfill its obligation to the lawyers regarding the lawyer’s services.

Furthermore, with Vuuzle being blocked by Swift and all their bank accounts being closed by the government, Dickenson’s right representation would result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyers.

READ: Vuuzle Media Corp Attorney Jacob S. Frenkel, Esq. for Dickinson Wright PLLC makes statement on Behalf of the company issues Response to Indictment of Company’s Founder

Now if this is not corrupt enough the FBI and DOJ took more than $200,000 after Richard Marchitto formed as a new business selling digital art.

READ: Special FBI Agent Michelle Belluzzi is granted seizure warrant to 73-year-old Richard Marchitto’s bank account upon mere suspicion

FBI Belluuzi gave fraudulent information to a federal judge claiming Marchitto was money laundering. So, a seizure was granted, and the funds were taken from his account. Richard Marchitto, a director and employee of Vuuzle Media Corp, was to make payment to both law firms. Those funds were earmarked as payments to Dickenson Wright and Jay Surgent, an attorney representing Richard Marchitto. Sadly, that money was stolen, and the bank accounts shut down.

The unconscionable deferment in all this is that AUSA Weir called Marchittos attorney about the seizure and said she will give him $10,000 USD back if he drops the case against them. Otherwise, if he doesn’t agree she will get a grand jury to indite him for money laundering and put him jail. When Marchittos transaction was blocked from paying the law firms, The money was frozen and held in place until the government had the bank transfer the funds to the governments account.

READ: No one can Stop AUSA Jenifer Weir from hurting the 73-year-old retired dentist Dr. Richard Marchitto

Unlike a preliminary hearing held in court with the defense side present, the grand jury doesn’t make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. It’s more of a one-sided affair. Grand jurors only see and hear what prosecutors present to them.

In part because there’s no one on the “other side” to contest the prosecutor’s evidence, grand juries almost always return an indictment as requested by the prosecutor. According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, “Grand juries are notorious for being ‘rubberstamps’ for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal matters.” (McDonald, William F., Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices (1985).)

It’s also suggested that grand juries rubber stamp prosecutors’ charges because grand jurors are not adept at evaluating evidence like judges are—making it easier to convince a grand jury than a judge that the defendant should stand for trial.

Prosecutors often prefer grand juries because the proceedings are secret, whereas preliminary hearings are open to the public. The rule on secrecy is meant to provide several benefits. For the accused, it protects their reputation should no charges be issued. For witnesses, it’s meant to allow them to testify more freely and truthfully. And for the prosecution, it provides control of information. But critics of secrecy rules say they run counter to the fairness and transparency of the justice system.

As a result, these departments have suffered a serious blow to their actual and perceived integrity, requiring that they take steps to repair their reputation and rebuild public trust in their capacity to carry out their functions impartially and consistently. In addition, the Department’s career personnel need information and guidance on how their colleagues responded to the various abuses, including which responses were appropriate and which were not. Likewise, this information is vital to the department’s leadership in determining what additional tools will enable the career staff to honor their oaths in the face of any future pressure to do otherwise.

To ensure maximum adherence to the Department’s mission—and to ensure that the public sees the Department to be adhering to that mission—DOJ leadership should develop transparent guidance to govern the separate but intertwined roles of both the political and career staff in the nonpartisan administration of justice. Relying only on the wherewithal of individual employees and political appointees to stand up for the department’s principles is not a sufficient defense against an abusive administration determined to exploit the department’s powers against innocent people.

The guidance should also highlight existing mechanisms for reporting and responding to misconduct. After all, improper interference in the department’s work is an egregious form of professional misconduct, and attorneys have a professional duty to report it.

Finally, Department of Justice personnel often cite confidentiality and attorney-client privilege obligations as reasons for reluctance to report misconduct by department officials. The attorney general’s guidance should expressly state that these obligations do not bar reports of misconduct to any of the sources set forth above.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here