The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Looks At
The Antics of Federal Judge Lacy H. Thornburg.
Will They Do The Right Thing?

March 12, 2007

Hello Folks;

Our research staff has done an exemplary job of obtaining documents in the case of Mr. Peter Kay Stern, a case which we have been following for many years now.

Mr. Stern was active in the Patriot movement of the mid 1990's in Franklin, North Carolina. As a result of his activities, the government indicted him, had a trial before United States District Judge Lacy H. Thornburg, where he was convicted, and subsequently sentenced to 151 months in prison.

As we have reported in the past, the Supreme Court overturned Mr. Stern's sentence and ordered that the maximum sentence constitutionally available was no more than 57 months. On remand, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, agreed and remanded to the U.S. District Court in Asheville, North Carolina for re sentencing. On March 30, 2006, Judge Thornburg resentence Mr. Stern, but to 124 months, instead of the 57 months dictated by the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit.

Mr. Stern then filed a motion under 28 USC §2255 for relief, in the District Court, Case Number 2:06-cv-00028. Judge Thornburg issued an order on November 22, 2006, denying Mr. Stern release on bond, denying recusal, and denying a hearing on the §2255 motion. Mr Stern immediately filed an appeal from that decision and a petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, now docketed as Case Number 06-8017, asking the Appeals Court to order Judge Thornburg to recuse himself, and to allow Mr. Stern to go home on bond and have an evidentiary hearing on his §2255 motion. This was docketed December 12, 2006.

A careful analysis of the documents we have received reveals some alarming matters which are before the Fourth Circuit Panel. The question is, "What will the Panel do in response to the obvious misconduct Mr. Stern has brought to their attention?".

Let me report to you what our staff has distilled from the many documents we have reviewed.

First and foremost, to recount what we reported in the past, there is the very serious allegation that Judge Thornburg is orchestrating a cover up of the criminal conduct of A.U.S.A. David A. Brown.

Brown was never a member of the North Carolina State Bar which under North Carolina State law, is criminal conduct.

Judge Thornburg, several District Attorneys, and other court officers were aware of this fact, yet did nothing. Usually when this type of cover up is discovered, it is labeled by prosecutors a criminal conspiracy and immediately taken before a Grand Jury to seek indictment of those involved.

In his pleadings, Mr. Stern has also raised a question of fraud upon the court as a result of Brown's activities before the trial court and the Grand Jury. In light of this, we question whether or not that conduct falls under the Federal R.I.C.O. Statutes, 18 USC §1961, et. seq. as they say in lawyers' offices.

In his filings, Mr. Tern also raises a series of very serious allegations of perjury on the part of government witnesses and subornation of perjury by A.U.S.A. Brown and government agents.

From our reading of the documents, it would appear that Mr. Stern has raised some extremely strong arguments supporting that claim, one which, by the way, the government has not rebutted or refuted in any way.

The perjury claims were raised on Mr. Stern's §2255 motion, yet Judge Thornburg has not addressed these allegations which, if proven true, would result in federal prosecutions of the government witnesses and Brown under federal criminal perjury statutes, 18 USC §1621, and subornation of perjury, 18 USC §1622, and if made in front of the Grand Jury, §1623.

Looking at this issue, one must question whether or not Judge Thornburg is attempting to aid and abet in covering up this series of criminal acts, and if so, why? Has he discussed these matters with Brown or his boss, Gretchen Shappert? Does this also raise a question of conspiracy to hide these matters, ones on which Joe Average Citizen would instantly be prosecuted?

As we mentioned in our prior reporting on this bizarre case, it would seem that Judge Thornburg has appointed himself as ad hoc defense attorney for Mr. Brown and his cohorts, something a sitting judge is forbidden to do.

The crux of Mr. Stern's appeal to the Fourth Circuit is that the appellate court should order Judge Thornburg to recuse himself and appoint a disinterested judge from another district.

We agree, speaking for our group, and not necessarily the folks at A.T.G.

We would take it a step further and call for the panel at the Fourth Circuit, Judges NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HAMILTON, who are charged with this case, to consider the long term ramifications of allowing Judge Thornburg to continue in his obviously wholly improper conduct or, for that matter, to even remain on the bench, in light of the overwhelming evidence against him.

These three judges on the appellate court should also undertake to investigate the equally distasteful allegations of Judge Thornburg lying on the record that Mr. Stern so carefully documents, for if it is in Judge Thornburg's character to lie on one case, the inference is that he will lie on any case, something which flies in the face of the concepts of justice at its bedrock underpinnings.

How can the American people have a shred of confidence in the federal judicial system when faced with such outrageous and criminal behavior by a sitting federal judge?

Will Judges Niemeyer, Shedd, and Hamilton exhibit the moral fiber and backbone to do the right thing and grant Mr. Stern the relief he justly deserves, or will they cave in to the entrenched good "ole boy attorney cartel mentality and participate in a further cover up of Judge Thornburg's perfidy?

Mr. Stern has apparently been in prison three years longer than the Supreme Court says he should have been. Why doesn't the Fourth Circuit let him out now?

D. Tom