YesToHellWith

Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice. I’m recording off the southern coast of Mexico, so please excuse whatever sounds you hear in the background.

In the last episode, I mentioned that America has grave fundamental problems. Consider this one fact. America has had more people in prison per capita than any country in the world and is still one of the most incarcerated. Undeniably, if state and federal legislators pass laws which, by virtue of their mere existence, produce criminals, a virtuous people will be criminalized. Thus, if government officials fail to seek truth while, at the same time, holding citizens in contempt for behavior that is not criminal, we have a recipe for disaster.

Let me illustrate this point. There are 93 US Attorneys who are political appointments typically filled every presidential election and they are among 3 million federal employees who work for the US Government. Given the vastness of the federal work force, with many employees serving in the Department of Justice, one would expect US Attorneys to accomplish their responsibilities with alacrity and fairness and ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

What does it mean to “faithfully execute” the laws? Whatever the definition, which would include seeking truth and acting justly, we should and would expect US Attorneys to do so without fail. However, when US Attorneys are the cause of injustice, our reservations and fears are justified. Candidly, it does not matter why US Attorneys fail to act faithfully, it matters only that they are unfaithful. To lack the faithfulness to execute the laws connotes that the top-level officials of the DOJ are ill-equipped to ensure justice and the system will falter. There are two primary factors that permit injustice to prevail. The first has to do with the motivation of government officials. The second deals with the inefficiency of the Government.

Let’s briefly discuss motivations by citing an example. Before and after the 2016 federal election, Donald Trump was accused of conspiring with the Russians to influence the election. We now know this was a false allegation. We also know that Obama, the outgoing President, and James Comey, then Director of the FBI, were instrumental in creating, fostering, and advancing this false narrative.

The point is self-evident. If top officials undermine the rule of law, there will be injustice. If Donald Trump is not able to effectively and efficiently refute false allegations, how is the average American to prevail against the FBI and DOJ? How is someone like Orlando Carter to overcome false claims that he had a $4 million obligation with PNC Bank? Ten years later, with proof from another federal agency that there was no such loan, how was he to prevail over Benjamin Glassman’s lie that the alleged evidence, which never existed, was shredded?

Obviously, the ability to hold the Government or officials accountable for dishonesty becomes problematic. With Obama creating and fostering a lie, and supporting Jim Comey’s perpetuation of that lie, is it possible for the DOJ to arrive at the truth? Not anytime soon. Moreover, if the Federal Government is so consumed with advancing the Russia Collusion lie, will the DOJ and FBI have the time and resources to vet thousands of sundry unjust claims?  

In the last episode, we learned that former US Attorney Benjamin Glassman lied about the Department of Justice shredding evidence of a $4 million loan which does not exist and never existed. Furthermore, we have proof from two separate federal agencies which contradict the DOJ’s false conclusion that there was a $4 million loan. If there was no $4 million loan in 2007, the evidence could not have been shredded in 2018. Glassman is a liar.

Is there any doubt that Glassman did not faithfully execute the laws of the United States while serving as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio? A liar does not execute anything faithfully. To be faithful to the laws means the truth is sought and honored. When a US Attorney lies, he rejects truth outright and denies justice completely.

Now that I have set the tone for this podcast, I will explain what both Benjamin Glassman and Kenneth Parker, the current US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, did and how they justified their lies to preserve a guilty conviction of an innocent man.

We need only look at Glassman’s response to our request that he review the Government’s case against Orlando Carter to understand the extent of his obfuscation.

Glassman began by stating,

The principal factual ground on which your correspondence questioned Mr. Carter’s guilt was a letter dated January 30, 2017 from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Let’s first note that Glassman referred to our “principal factual ground.” To be sure, we did not submit anything that was not factual. We only submitted the truth, which was a letter from a sister federal agency, the Department of the Treasury, concluding there was no $4 million loan. Though he did not intend to support our claim in any way, we appreciate that Glassman acknowledged our factual basis..

Glassman then stated,

That letter reports that Mr. Carter had requested that PNC Bank “validate a $4,000,000 debt with CBST Acquisition, LLC.

Glassman then refers to what Carter wanted, which was for the OCC to require that PNC Bank validate a $4 million loan. At no point does Glassman dignify the substantial role of the Department of Treasury and the OCC. Glassman does not ever acknowledge the importance of the OCC’s responsibilities and burdens.

Glassman continued with,

The bank provided a copy of note [sic] signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount of $250,000. The bank stated this is the only debt on file.

Glassman had, therefore, exactly what Carter sought to obtain, PNC’s admission and the OCC’s finding that there was no $4 million loan. Carter obtained the truth. Stated rather directly, Carter asked the proper federal agency with oversight over a national bank for the confirmation he needed. The OCC subsequently asked for the bank’s assistance, which admitted to the fact that no there was no other debt than the one legitimate liability created years earlier. The OCC then satisfied its burden by confirming the loan did not exist. One must ask if Glassman had sufficient information to question the Government’s case against Carter and a path forward to challenge the guilty conviction. Let’s see how Glassman handled this information and situation.

Glassman then stated,

The letter is signed “Customer Assistance Group.

and

PNC Bank is a successor bank to another successor bank to National City.

Now, what does Glassman’s point about PNC being a successor bank to National City Bank have to do with Carter’s query? Glassman stated this nonsense to muddy the waters, with the hopes to dismiss Carter’s concern as somehow less than worthy. In fact, when National City committed banking violations when issuing loans to minorities in some 80,000 transactions in the mid-2000s, the Department of Justice had no problem having the SUCCESSOR BANK, that was PNC, pay a $33 million fine for what was a problem created by National City Bank. The point is obvious, and Glassman should be ashamed. PNC, as a successor bank, has the assets and liabilities and records of the prior bank.

Moreover, why would the US Attorney acknowledge the wrong committed by National City Bank in the early 2000s, yet make it appear as though a successor bank would not be responsible for documents to prove the existence of the $4 million loan in 2018? What is glaringly obvious is that the Department of the Treasury and OCC, in response to Carter’s query, had no problem determining that PNC Bank was the current owner of the records in question. The OCC did not hide behind the ridiculous notion that a successor bank was somehow less accountable to a prior bank’s indiscretion. The question to ask Glassman is, “So what?” It matters not that PNC is a successor bank. As the successor bank, it still owns the records and has the burden of proof of any loan under federal banking laws, which was the OCC’s primary objective.

Glassman then further obscured by saying,

In my view, this letter does not raise any legitimate question regarding Mr. Carter’s guilt or innocence on any count.

So, THIS is how Glassman is going to handle the OCC information and situation. If Glassman does not reach the realm of extreme arrogance with this statement, I do not know what does. In what capacity is he offering his view? Personally? As an accomplished lawyer? As a faithful and accountable US Attorney? Is Glassman hoping we will accept his view as gospel, the Gospel according to Benny, and that we will agree to the far-flung supposition there is no legitimate question regarding Carter’s guilt or innocence? Yet, if the Department of the Treasury asks a national bank to verify the existence of a $4 million loan, and the bank confirms that no such loan exists, and this alleged loan was the basis for an unjust guilty conviction of an innocent man, is there a legitimate question about Carter’s case? Does the view of US Attorney Benjamin Glassman become suspect if refuses to acknowledge the relevance of the OCC finding and PNC’s admission? Finally, if PNC’s admission and the OCC’s finding do not compel Glassman to concede the possibility that a grave mistake was made, what will?

Glassman then stated,

First, regardless of what files the successor to a successor bank to National City had on file in 2017,

Once again, Glassman stoops to the idea that PNC, as a successor bank, somehow diminishes the relevance of the OCC’s determination and PNC’s culpability. What does successor to successor have to do with this? Is he intimating that because PNC is a successor bank then the documents might not exist, and if they do exist, is he suggesting that the documents are old and somehow less credible? When PNC acquired National City, it assumed all assets and all potential liabilities. The title of “successor bank” connotes ownership of assets and liabilities.

Glassman then wrote,

the documentary and testimonial evidence at trial was undisputed and overwhelming that CBST did receive millions of dollars from National City that it booked as revenue,

Glassman does what prosecutors do. He refers to the record. Yet there never was any dispute that Carter and his company received funds from PNC Bank. As a vendor in a transaction between PNC and Butler County, Ohio, Carter received funds from PNC. PNC sent the funds! Once again, as a word-shaping and definition-splicing lawyer, and not a rational professional seeking to faithfully execute the laws, Glassman avoids the issue. He refuses to acknowledge that the record must now be deemed flawed because of the OCC letter. Glassman refuses to consider the credible possibility that there was no $4 million loan or guaranty. He refuses to acknowledge a potential lease between PNC and Butler County, a lease the bank retracted as unenforceable in a Court of Common Pleas within Butler County, in Ohio in 2007. It cannot be disputed that, based upon the receipt of money from National City (or PNC), Carter had an obligation to book the funds as revenue, which is what he did.

Glassman then stated,

without disclosing to Fifth Third, its auditors, or anyone else that the money was actually supposed to be financing in support of a not-existing contract with a municipality

Glassman, what do you mean by the words, “was actually supposed to be”? Such language is not reflective of a sharp legal mind. Additionally, let’s note what Glassman says the money was, and that is financing in support of a “not-existing contract with a municipality.” How is financing ever used for a not-existing contract? Glassman, is this even possible? Glassman should concede that a “not-existing contract” is no different than a “not-existing $4 million loan” used by the DOJ to convict Carter. If the FBI or DOJ, which included Glassman as US Attorney, had investigated the veritable facts concerning the supposed contract or “non-existing” contract between PNC and Butler County, the essence of the government’s failure concerning its investigation of PNC Bank and Carter would be evident, especially as it relates to the “not-existing $4 million loan.”

Are we to conclude that Glassman, in his complete ignorance or abject indifference, relied upon the flawed court record alone in his review of Carter’s case, when he should have used the OCC letter and the PNC admission that there was no $4 million loan? If he had acknowledged the OCC letter, he would have realized there was and is a grave error in the Government’s theory of prosecution. Glassman, why do you refuse to acknowledge that a standalone transaction between PNC and Carter did not create an obligation for Carter to notify his personal bank absent his covenant obligation to notify Fifth-Third of a legitimate business loan? Thus, since there was no business loan, Carter did not have to contact Fifth-Third Bank.

Glassman, you are fooling no one. You cannot use words with the intent to deceive or cloud what is transparent. National City or PNC had a pending lease with Butler County, not with CBST or Carter. Carter received the money to complete the project that was the subject of the lease. As such, there was no loan. A lease is not a loan, and a loan is not a lease.

Glassman continued with,

 or that National City had demanded the money’s return in the absence of an opinion of counsel letter.

Glassman, didn’t Carter return the funds to PNC Bank in the form of equipment that was purchased with the money? Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the plain facts? Let me spell it out for you. PNC sent the money to Carter without an Opinion of Counsel letter. This was PNC’s choice. Though Carter’s company attempted to get the Opinion of Counsel letter signed by Butler County officials, it was ultimately PNC’s responsibility and that of Butler County to secure this document. Since PNC decided to wire the funds to Carter before the receipt of this letter, Carter and his company did what was normal. They booked the funds and moved forward with the project.

When the demand letter, which had no legal significance to Carter or his company, was not enforced, Carter continued to work on the project. Would you expect Carter to sit on the money for months without using it? Additionally, wouldn’t you expect Carter to return whatever was purchased with the money? Did you not see a Bill of Lading for some 30 pallets of equipment returned to the bank? Did this not make the bank whole?

Finally, Glassman, when will you acknowledge PNC’s admission that there were banking improprieties and mistakes with the Butler County transaction? Or are you unwilling to grant this point because the bank’s admissions and emails about its errors are not part of the Court record, since the court denied this evidence? Thus, your coveted court record is without a key admission by PNC Bank that it was culpable for errors in a “existing” transaction that went terribly wrong. Absent evidence of the bank’s mistakes, you will only view what is available, right? Plainly stated, with the OCC letter and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan, you will continue to refuse to entertain that an unjust conviction was secured against an innocent man.

Unbelievably, Glassman wrote,

Indeed, if you are not aware, please note that Orlando Carter himself testified at trial:

Q.  And isn’t it true that the six and a half million dollars of money came from National City into your bank account?

A. That’s correct, Sir.

Glassman, should Carter have lied in his testimony and denied receiving the funds, or was he correct to admit that the funds were received during the normal course of business without PNC Bank having an enforceable and legitimate loan or a guaranty? It appears that you do not understand the fundamentals of either banking, business or economics.

Glassman droned on with,

Second, the January 30, 2017 letter comes from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Customer Assistance Group; it is not the product of any investigation and does not purport to find facts.

Glassman, your attempts to deceive will not work. The OCC letter is the product of an investigation. Do you not appreciate that the OCC is the equivalent of God for national banks. When the OCC contacts a bank, the bank listens and responds. Banks respect the OCC with a healthy dose of fear. Banks will not easily falter with the OCC.

Glassman continued,

The letter provides that it “is specifically related to an individual consumer complaint and should not be construed as either a legal opinion of the OCC or a supervisory action.”

Glassman, why did you insert the small text at the bottom of the OCC letter, the boilerplate information given to all recipients? Why do this? This language has nothing to do with the merits of the language within the four corners of the document. Why would you attempt to deceive in this way? Was your primary objective to preserve a guilty conviction?

Here is Glassman again.

It further provides that “an agency such as the OCC would be going beyond its authority in acting as a trier of fact.”

Glassman, why did you not insert the language that appears at the beginning of this sentence, which is, “However, where a clearly defined civil dispute develops.” Carter did not write to the OCC because of a civil dispute. He was not asking the OCC to be a trier of facts. Carter sought a point of clarification of a substantial fact to overcome a false allegation that he committed a federal crime. Is this not the primary reason for him to contact the OCC? It seems reasonable to me that if an American were unjustly convicted and imprisoned for a crime predicated upon a $4 million-dollar loan, he would seek confirmation from the one federal agency that has oversight over national banks. As such, why did you refuse to recognize the OCC letter for what it was and without using boilerplate language that all recipients receive from the OCC?

Glassman then said,

The letter states that the OCC cannot even adjudicate civil disputes, much less criminal ones, nor does the letter purport to do so.

Glassman, did you ever once consider this is not a matter of stating what the OCC can or cannot do, but what the US Attorney could do based upon the facts within the OCC letter? Did Carter ask the OCC to adjudicate a civil or criminal dispute? No. As such, Carter did not accept the OCC’s letter in this light. Carter, as you know, wanted an answer to a question, and both the bank and the OCC answered the question, which you chose to ignore. This is the point entirely. As Carter’s Power-of-Attorney, I contacted you and asked that you review the letter as the factual basis for considering Carter’s exoneration. Not only did you refuse our request, but you also stated that evidence of the $4 million was shredded, which, based upon the OCC letter and PNC’s admission, was a lie.

Glassman stated,

By its terms, therefore, the letter is clear that no component of the Department of the Treasury has undertaken any investigation or made any finding relevant to Mr. Carter’s criminal case.

By its terms? What terms? Glassman, the length to which you excuse and ignore your responsibilities as US Attorney and the obligation of the DOJ is simply astonishing and shocking. We did not ask for your unscholarly and sanctimonious opinion of the OCC letter outside of what the letter represents. Who are you to interpret the OCC letter for anything other than what it is? It is evident that you purposely ignored the merits of the OCC letter and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan. Moreover, contrary to your sophomoric arguments, the Department of the Treasury, through the OCC, did investigate and made a finding of fact that is extremely relevant to Carter’s case.

Let me ask you this, Glassman. Did the OCC offer conjecture? Did the OCC offer an opinion? Did PNC Bank offer an opinion and nothing else? No, they did not. A more serious question is this. Why would you not weigh the merits of the OCC’s letter as worthy of challenging the guilty conviction against Carter? Do you not have the obligation to faithfully execute the law? Do you not have the burden to faithfully question the central premise of the government’s case with new evidence or proof which proves there was no $4 million loan?

Glassman, did you summarily ignore the OCC letter simply because you falsely stated that the DOJ shredded evidence of a loan that never existed? Rather than admit to your errors, you painted yourself into the proverbial corner and made the situation worse for everyone.

What is curious is that Glassman did not bother to air his opinion about the March 2018 OCC letter, which further explains the merits of its investigation and findings that are relevant to the Government’s criminal case against Carter. Let’s examine what the OCC stated.

Keep in mind that Carter was not satisfied with the language in the first OCC letter. He wanted both PNC Bank and the OCC to be more specific. So, he asked the OCC to compel PNC Bank to provide certified and authenticated records. Note what the OCC stated in the second paragraph:

The OCC examines national banks and federal savings associations (thrifts) to assure their safe and sound financial condition and to ensure their compliance with banking laws, rules, and regulations. The focus of the OCC’s review of consumer complaints against national banks… is to determine whether the financial institutions’ actions are consistent with banking statutes, regulations or any policies that are applicable to nationally chartered banking institutions…

Now, let’s consider a few points. First, this language is in the text of the letter and not in small print in a footnote at the bottom of the page. The OCC explained exactly what it wanted to accomplish. Since the OCC has significant power, any bank that receives a request from the OCC will respond as if providing an answer to God. Candidly, when a bank receives a letter from the OCC, the pucker factor is heightened, and the bank would dare not mislead. To falsify the facts would be to risk a bank’s charter. PNC Bank had to respond without fail and to do so honestly and completely. Glassman cannot diminish the importance of the OCC and PNC’s obligations.

Now let’s review the OCC’s next point.

In your most recent correspondence, you stated the prior letter from our office… was vague in that it did not specifically address whether or not the bank provided the OCC with certified and authenticated records showing the existence of a $4,000,000 debt between CBST Acquisition, LLC and the bank. You also requested a copy of the bank letter sent to this office in response to your complaint.

The bank specifically stated in the letter sent to this office that it did not have any other debt on file for CBST Acquisition, LLC, other than the note signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount for $250,000.00. To support their response, the bank provided a copy of the signed note.

To further address your concerns, the OCC does not require the bank to submit a “certified and authenticated record”.

The OCC’s language is significant. The OCC underscored that there was only one debt, and it was for $250,000.00 and not $4 million. The OCC even stated that PNC Bank did not have any other debt on file and the bank provided a copy of the note as proof of this one earlier obligation.

Notably, the OCC then stated there was no requirement for the bank to provide certified and authenticated records. Why? Well, perhaps my prior statement about the OCC within the Department of the Treasury being like God to the banks is correct. Why does the OCC need to ask for certified records when the bank should be offering the truth in the first place. To lie to the OCC would risk the bank’s charter. PNC Bank is not going to do this.

As we can see from Glassman’s warped explanations in his response to the Baptist Minister’s Conference, he chose to diminish the significance of the OCC and its findings. Why would he do this? Unlike PNC’s reply to the OCC, Glassman was writing to citizens of Ohio. He knew he would not be held to account for his dishonesty and gross incompetence.

We must keep one important point under consideration at all times. Glassman is a lawyer, and he was the United States Attorney. To most people, these titles are worthy of praise and respect. But to those who are informed about lawyers and government officials, Glassman deserved neither. Let me explain.

A lawyer doesn’t really know much. Why? A law student learns process and procedure and in three years graduates with a degree knowing nothing. Afterwards, a lawyer has opinions and interpretations. Ask one hundred lawyers one question and you will get seventy-five different answers. A new lawyer then interns with seasoned lawyers who have perfected procedure and practices the art of word play, word deception, word distortion. The lawyer understands that second to procedure and process is the game of shaping words and splitting meanings to fit a desired end, which often has nothing to do with the truth. As many people already appreciate, lawyers are snakes, vile and corruptible vermin without the integrity to be faithful to a larger goal, to seek and preserve truth for the benefit of humanity. I will prove as much with Glassman’s words and actions.

Had Glassman been faithful to his oath of office as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, had he dignified the all-important responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury and the OCC concerning banking queries and subsequent investigations, Glassman would have determined that the Federal Government had a serious problem with its central premise in the Carter case. Glassman would have acknowledged PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan as the equivalent of new financial DNA that could have been used to exonerate Carter. Had Glassman done so, he would have honored his role as a prosecutor seeking truth and not one who sought to preserve convictions.

Is it not transparent that Glassman could have viewed the OCC letter for what it was and acted heroically? Yes. He could have taken the high road. However, and this is an astonishing twist, even with the OCC letter in his hands prior to the October 2018, Glassman lied about shredding something that both the OCC and PNC said did not exist. I can’t help but wonder if Glassman thought we were a bunch of ignorant black folk and white trash who did not know what we were doing. Did he think that pandering to us would make the issue go away? If so, then why not listen to our complaint without lying about shredding evidence that did not exist? Why does he not do this even now and admit his mistake.

I invite Glassman to call Kenneth Parker and ask him to open an investigation into the Government’s case against Carter by admitting that he made a mistake about the OCC letter or that he misspoke. To make matters worse, there is now a second federal agency that has officially stated that there was no $4 million loan.

Lest anyone forget an extremely important point, the Federal Government offered Orlando Carter a plea agreement which, had he accepted, would have had reduced charges and he would have served no prison time. Carter, to his credit, rejected the plea agreement. Why? He was innocent. Furthermore, Carter has fought these unjust charges since the day the investigation began. Why wouldn’t someone like the current US Attorney acknowledge the history of Orlando Carter’s plight and reconcile the disparity between the FBI and DOJ conclusions with that of the OCC and PNC?

In the next episode, I will explain the lengths to which I tried to hold Glassman and Parker accountable for their lies. You will be shocked at what did not happen.

Until then, may truth reign supreme!

Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice.

Based upon what we have learned about the Government’s case against Orlando Carter, we can only reach but one conclusion. No innocent American should ever endure his experience. No one should suffer the abject indifference and heightened arrogance of public officials who knowingly or unknowingly abuse the criminal justice system.

There are grave foundational problems in America. Many of them originate within the minds and hearts of public officials who often act without regard to basic facts and truth. Sadly, facts and truth are secondary to their ulterior motives. For example, nothing can excuse FBI Agent Kevin Gormley from failing to adequately investigate PNC Bank’s false claims.

Stated simply, a great injustice occurs when little men with over-sized egos seek glory instead of grinding through the rigors of significant details to achieve verifiable and veritable conclusions to criminal cases.

We now know what is indisputable regarding the Federal Government’s case against Orlando Carter. PNC Bank lied about a $4 million loan obligation. Orlando never had this financial liability with this financial institution. There is no need to reiterate the amount of evidence in our possession that supports this fact. Suffice it to say that PNC Bank made false claims which the FBI did not thoroughly investigate.

This brings us to the next phase of the criminal case against Orlando Carter, the submission of the Gormley’s “facts” to Gregory Lockhart, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. Lockhart’s assistant, Richard Chema, handled the case against Orlando Carter.

Just to clarify for this audience, the US Attorney should not gratuitously accept the FBI’s investigative conclusions as true. Rather the Department of Justice, through the US Attorney, is expected to conduct its own competent and comprehensive investigation. Even when the US Attorney does not conduct such an investigation, it is deemed to have been done, nonetheless.

Did Lockhart and Chema conduct an independent investigation? No.

Did Lockhart and Chema investigate PNC’s allegations? No.

Did Lockhart and Chema seek the assistance of the Department of Treasury? No.

Did Lockhart and Chema conduct a forensic financial audit? No.

Since Orlando was convicted of a crime related to an alleged $4 million obligation, we must conclude that Chema failed to determine the facts and truth. For Chema relied upon a piece of paper signed by James Smith which was not legally or financially binding upon either Orlando Carter or his company. Chema asked and the court permitted the jury to see a document that was pitched as a guaranty of a loan. Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

Chema’s submission and the court’s acceptance of this “guaranty” as evidence of a $4 million loan obligation cannot be reconciled.

Orlando’s situation was made even more difficult since his defense attorneys did not verify the existence of the alleged $4 million loan obligation. They merely questioned the Government if the loan existed. When they received an affirmative response, they did not pursue the matter. This must be viewed as gross negligence as well. Defense attorneys are often culpable for grave mistakes and incompetence. This is exactly what happened with Orlando’s lawyers.

Let’s pause to appreciate Orlando’s desperation before the trail began. The FBI, DOJ, and Court accepted that Carter had a financial obligation to PNC Bank without his defense attorneys investigating and refuting this false claim. Consequently, a black man sat alone as the legal system allowed a jury to believe that the fictious loan was real.

Chema’s failure to dignify Orlando’s potential innocence is monumental. For, Chema effectively defeated truth as he cemented into the court a lie which became central to the “the record.”

This record is what the government and courts rely upon as finality for the preservation of a conviction. Thus, when a defendant makes a righteous, post-conviction challenge, the prosecutor and court summarily dismiss such attempts by asserting that the record is established. The record is final. The record proves guilt. The record is truth.

Over the years, Orlando has challenged his conviction repeatedly only to have the government and court argue that the established record confirms his guilt.

But what if the record is based upon a lie?

This brings us to a very significant point. We have heard of innocent people being exonerated when DNA proves they did not commit the crime. DNA evidence is irrefutable. Blood, saliva, hair, semen, and much more are insurmountable proof of innocence and guilt.

Now let’s ask an important question. Is the absence of banking instruments and corporate resolutions authorizing a loan the equivalent of a lack of financial DNA? In other words, if Orlando’s physical DNA was not at the scene of a murder, rather, if he was at home with his family, does he not have an alibi? Now, if James Smith said that he saw Orlando commit the murder, does this make Orlando guilty? Or does it make the witness a liar?

If a bank claims that someone has a loan, the financial DNA must be the signature of the authorized principal upon a credible banking instrument. If the FBI does not ask for the certified and authenticated loan documents from PNC Bank with the signature of the authorized creditor, then the FBI accepts PNC’s false accusations as real. In such a scenario, isn’t the Federal Government ignoring the absence of financial DNA? If the Department of Justice does not ask the Department of Treasury to confirm or deny the existence of the loan, isn’t the Federal Government rejecting the financial DNA and accepting PNC’s lies?

Ultimately, the existence or absence of financial DNA is the proof which refutes the flawed conclusions of the “court record.” The DNA, or lack thereof, is a means to establish truth.

It is tragic that the government’s investigation advanced from the FBI to the DOJ without confirming the $4 million loan obligation. This passing of this baton, as it were, was a result of either the height of haughtiness, depraved indifference, or gross incompetence. Regardless of the motivation, the Federal Government’s conduct is negligent. Orlando was a victim of a thoughtless indictment and jury trial.

Not one government official dared to question a billion-dollar bank’s representations and reputation. Nobody challenged the FBI’s ironclad conclusions. The US Attorney’s assertions prevailed uncontested. Everyone, except Orlando Carter, drank the Kool-Aid. It was too easy not to partake.

I used the word thoughtless deliberately. The Government’s case against Carter was prosecuted with thought. No thought was needed by Richard Chema to accept the document signed by James Smith as proof of a $4 million obligation.

The defense attorneys’ one chance to destroy the prosecution’s theory that there was a $4 million obligation was wasted when they accepted the government’s representations that the loan was real. The “court record” established during the criminal trial was a mockery of truth.

Judge Sandra Beckwith ensured that what the prosecution needed for a conviction was accepted for the jury’s consumption. In fact, the alleged $4 million loan guaranty signed by James Smith, which was not at all binding upon Orlando and his companies, became, according to Beckwith, the “centerpiece” of the trial. Yes. Let’s weigh this idea for a moment. The guaranty of a non-existent loan became the centerpiece of the court record. If the loan did not exist, the guaranty did not exist either.

The once solid legal construct that was once American Justice is often nothing but an illusion, a delusion, a smorgasbord of hollow and false theories advanced by glory-hungry officials. Public officers knowingly or unknowingly weave an impenetrable tale of fiction. As the tale is passed from one officer to the next, both fact and truth are either never unearthed or they are completely ignored. To be sure, fact and truth were defeated.

I never intended to offer a blow-by-blow explanation of the Government’s unjust criminal trial against Orlando Carter. We know what happened based upon the conclusions reached by FBI Agent Kevin Gormley and Assistant US Attorney Richard Chema.

Should we fault the jury? Most Americans sit in judgment as jurors without knowing the full extent of their authority. Why would we expect jurors to challenge the facts and law? Like most jurors, they are spoon-fed lies while the judge states the laws that were supposedly violated. As such, the jury had an easy burden. They choose a simple yes or no to guilt.

Can you imagine the grand jury or petit jury questioning Richard Chema as to whether the “guaranty” signed by James Smith was invalid? No. Not at all. Not in America.

Equal to the inadequate and embarrassing investigations by the FBI and DOJ, the criminal trial was a sham. To expect Judge Beckwith and the jury to have acted as a checks and balance against such reckless disregard for an innocent man’s life is to expect decency and fairness. Such commodities are often lacking in the criminal and legal systems. The government’s case against Orlando Carter proved as much.

I have often explained to others that the justice system is a system and nothing more. That is to say, the system is not a composite of independently minded professionals seeking to act righteously and honorably. Rather, these professionals often graft themselves into an already established mentality whereby the process and current results become the priority. After all, the path of a boulder rolling downhill cannot be easily altered. Whatever immoral and unethical act that is advanced within a criminal case is often done with little to no rebuttal. Though officials may feign fierce independence, invariably they advance what others have culled from flawed theories plagued by flawed evidence.

In the end, there is either the choice to preserve the system of injustice or to act as a maverick for truth. Rarely will the valiant knight appear, that lone force who will defy injustice in the name of truth. Promotions within the system are not often secured by such a path. As such, the system and its unjust theories are to be preserved at all costs.

The preservation of the collective efforts in the Government’s case against Orlando Carter became strikingly evident to me on October 22, 2018.

By the time I had received the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency conclusion that there was no $4 million loan obligation, which included PNC’s admission that no such loan existed, I held a genuine belief that Orlando now possessed new evidence and the requisite financial DNA that no crime had been committed. I prepared to seek his exoneration.

Given the social climate at the time, as there was increased strife concerning injustice against minorities, I joined forces with members of the Baptist Minister’s Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio, and wrote to the current US Attorney, Benjamin Glassman. To his credit, Glassman agreed to meet with us.

On the morning of the 22nd of October 2018, James Chisley, Doc Foster, and I waited for Glassman in his conference room in downtown Cincinnati. We had new evidence from the OCC with PNC’s admission. Forearmed, we prepared a formal request that the DOJ review the case with the aim of exonerating Orlando Carter.

Glassman entered the room with Kenneth Parker, who was the Chief of the Criminal Division, and without hesitation and having already received a copy of the OCC letter from us by mail, Glassman stated that any evidence of a $4 million loan obligation had been shredded by the DOJ.

I was shocked by Glassman’s declaration, and I immediately responded that this was not possible.

The situation was surreal. Sitting before us was a US Attorney who lied about something that the DOJ could not have done. The US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio had just lied about the most significant fact of all.

As is evident by the affidavit I signed after meeting with Glassman, which you will find below, I asked him how evidence of a loan could be shredded when it never existed. I handed him the OCC letter and other admissions by PNC Bank which proved there was no loan. I then explained that records in any criminal case could not be shredded if there was ongoing litigation and the case was less than ten years old. Orlando’s case met both conditions.

First, as is stipulated by the attached regulations governing the handling of documents, the Government is prohibited from destroying files in any manner not circumscribed by law. Based upon this point alone, Glassman’s deceit was transparent. More importantly, I knew Glassman wanted to avoid the significance of the OCC findings. The best way for him to do so was to discredit the OCC. The OCC could not be credible if he declared that the actual evidence was destroyed. If any agency was wrong, it had to be the Department of the Treasury and the OCC and not the Department of Justice.

We must recall that this is a system, the legal system. Glassman was not prepared to be a maverick. He was not willing to act with the character and integrity necessary to weigh the possibility that other officials had made egregious errors. Glassman, the top prosecutor for the Southern District of Ohio, the one person with the responsibility to pursue the truth, decided to preserve flawed efforts and conclusions of those who decided wrongly years earlier. In other words, Glassman acted cowardly and chose to preserve an unjust conviction that had been secured by cowards years ago.

Glassman’s deceit is even more problematic since the US Attorney has the official responsibility to represent the Federal Government with respect to findings issued by other agencies. Thus, Glassman had the incumbent burden to serve as the spokesperson for the Department of Treasury and the OCC. Let me explain.

The Government cannot be divided on any issue. If there is division, it must be resolved until a unified representation is attained. Since there is only one Federal Government, it must speak with one voice. Given Glassman’s responsibilities as spokesperson for the United States, he should have at least stated that he would confer with the Department of the Treasury to ascertain the substance for the OCC’s determinations. He should have made some effort to clarify why the OCC differed from the DOJ regarding the alleged $4 million loan obligation. Shamefully, Glassman did nothing of the sort.

Now, you might be wondering why the US Attorney and his assistant did not reason that if the OCC, with PNC’s admission, stated that a $4 million loan never existed, how could the record within the court support that the loan was real.

The answer is simple. Both Glassman and Parker did not have the wisdom, character, and integrity to act independently in the name of truth and justice. Lacking the necessary mettle to right a wrong, they advanced the wrong until they had compounded the situation with an even greater wrong. Their choice would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Attached you will find a letter that we sent to Glassman after that October 2018 meeting. I also attached Glassman’s response.

In addition to lying about something the DOJ could not have done, what did Glassman do? He referred us back to the court record. Yes, the record, that coveted record. He reviewed the record and determined that the record was sound, and Orlando was guilty.

A word of caution is needed. If you read Glassman’s review of the record without first reading our letter with a filter that there was no $4 million loan obligation, you will, like a salacious soap opera, be drawn into details that otherwise have no relevance to Orlando’s innocence. In other words, Glassman’s review of the record can only be deemed credible absent a $4 million loan obligation. No different than cheap gossip about a false accusation that a married man is having an extramarital affair, we can either fall prey to the sensational or ignore such unfounded trash outright.

Since there was no loan, Glassman’s response concerning the record should not be considered credible. For, without a $4 million financial obligation, the Government never had jurisdiction to file criminal charges against Orlando Carter. Consequently, there is no basis for gossip and lies, much less guilty verdicts.

Dominic Mango is a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, who has helped Orlando for years. Dominic began to fully appreciate the key deficiency in the Government’s case after speaking with Theodore Johnson, a Certified Public Accountant. Both men conferred with each other after the criminal trial when Johnson conducted a forensic financial audit. Johnson concluded that neither Orlando nor his company had a $4 million financial obligation with PNC Bank.

Knowing that PNC Bank admitted to the OCC that there was no loan, Dominic Mango wrote to then Acting US Attorney, David DeVillers, in June of 2020. Dominic explained Orlando’s concerns and asked for a meeting to resolve the matter. DeVillers did not make himself available.

How is it possible for a lawyer like Dominic Mango to have such a simple and clear understanding of the dilemma with the Government’s case, but the US Attorney does not? Moreover, why does the US Attorney ignore the obvious? Is it because the “record” cannot and will not be altered? Why does the US Attorney refuse to consider “new evidence” in the form of financial DNA that would exonerate an innocent man?

Let’s consider an age-old query. What motivates humanity? What moves man to choose as he does? Is it fear? Greed? Before our meeting with Glassman in October 2018, did Glassman have a fear of further harming Orlando? Or was he fearful of upending the entire record as established by previous officials? Would such a move be uncomfortable for him among his colleagues. Did he contend with greed as he weighed the glory that he might receive by exonerating an innocent man? Or did he covet the idea of appearing strong while rejecting the OCC conclusions and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan?

I stated at the beginning of this podcast series that I have every intention of holding Benjamin Glassman and Kenneth Parker accountable for their lies. Glassman lied to the people of Ohio. He lied as a lawyer. He lied as an officer of the court. Benjamin Glassman lied as the top law enforcement officer of the Southern District of Ohio.

Not only did Glassman refuse to cooperate with the Department of the Treasury by confirming or denying the OCC findings and validating PNC Bank’s admissions that there weas no $4 million loan, but he also refused to serve as the spokesperson for the Federal Government at the most extraordinary opportunity.

A prosecutor’s ultimate responsibility is to seek the truth. His goal is not to seek or preserve convictions. In Glassman’s calculus, truth was neither part of the equation nor the answer.

As unbelievable as it is, during a time of tension among minority communities across the United States, Glassman rejected his chance to become a hero by acknowledging the inherent wrong done to a black man who was innocent of the alleged crimes.

Given Glassman’s intransigence then and now, for I have asked him to correct his mistakes, let us ask if there is a solution? If there is no solution then, as I did with Bill Demchak, CEO of PNC Bank, I will invite Benjamin Glassman to this podcast to prove that the loan documents were in fact shredded. The Government is required to document what is shredded and when the destruction occurs. Or Glassman can explain why he lied about the DOJ shredding evidence of a $4 million loan obligation. Since I know with certainty that the evidence was not shredded, Glassman can either concede that he made a mistake or state that he misspoke. He can then call upon the current US Attorney, Kenneth Parker, to revisit the OCC findings and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan obligation.

Will you do this, Mr. Glassman? Will you do the right thing? As the former top prosecutor for the Southern District, will you finally seek the truth? I assure you that remaining silent would be a mistake. For I will never let this issue go. I will pursue this matter until you admit to your lie or until the system holds you accountable for your cowardice and lies.

To put it plainly, Glassman can prove that the DOJ shredded evidence of the $4 million loan documents or he can help Orlando Carter secure his long overdue exoneration.

I will support the claim that Glassman lied with an additional development. Within the US Department of Commerce is the Minority Business Development Agency. Rafael Underwood is the representative of the Department of Commerce for this agency in Ohio. He is the Case Manager for CBST Acquisition LLC, which is Orlando Carter’s company.

Mr. Underwood submitted an affidavit into a court case in 2022 that indirectly involved CBST. Underwood stated that he conferred with the OCC within the Department of the Treasury, which is something Glassman did not do during his review of the criminal case.

Underwood stated,

PNC Bank’s claim that it originated an authentic debt with CBST in the amount of $4 million… is false and deceptive and should be deemed a fabrication. The alleged demand made upon CBST for payment related to a $4 million loan guarantee was a fabrication. There never was an underlying $4 million loan or loan guarantee upon which PNC Bank could have made a demand.

Underwood continued

Because the alleged loans and loan guarantees in the amount of $4 million… were fabricated by PNC Bank, I conclude that any and all parties, including law enforcement authorities and court officials, that relied upon information, statements, and documentation provided by PNC Bank executives and attorneys which alleged the origination and existence of loans or loan guarantees in the amount of $4 million between PNC Bank and CBST have been deceived and defrauded.

Based upon what PNC asserted in a separate court action that indirectly involved CBST in 2020, Underwood, given his review of correspondence from Butler County, shared that,

PNC Bank did not originate two loans with Butler County, as PNC Bank claimed on April 7, 2021.

Underwood concluded by stating,

Because PNC Bank did not originate… loans with the Butler County, Ohio municipality, I conclude that PNC Bank’s claim to the U. S. District Court on April 7, 2021 that “CBST and somebody” guaranteed loans made to Butler County is deceptive, misleading and was made for the purposes of deceiving those who relied upon such claim.

Yes, we have the Department of Treasury stating in 2017 that there was no $4 million loan and the Department of Commerce doing the same in 2022. Underwood’s affidavit should scare the hell out of the likes of Glassman and Parker. Both men made grievous errors when they stated and advanced the lie that the DOJ shredded evidence of the non-existent $4 million loan.

What Glassman and Parker fail to appreciate is that there are now two separate federal agencies that have refuted the determinations of the FBI and DOJ. As is oft stated, a house divided cannot stand.

When Dominic Mango wrote to David DeVillers in June of 2020, he stated,

We are asking that your office take the time to review the inexplicable, above referenced cases, specifically as it relates to the lack of any “debt” or “loan” previously claimed to have been “verified” by the FBI. We are asserting herein that, it not only never existed, there is not only no evidence to support its existence, but more so, the evidence known to the government at the time of the prosecutions above (and currently) supports, if not wholly confirms the absence of any such “debt or “loan”.

Mr. Mango then states,

As your office was aware and the letter notes, bank executives “restructured” transactions to “elude improprieties” per bank internal emails.  Compounding the “improprieties”, the FBI has failed to provide the requested certified and authenticated bank records by National City Bank kna PNC Bank related to CBST Acquisition LLC (“CBST”) which it has claimed authenticates a $4 million debt.

The enormity of Glassman’s lie is beyond comprehension when we consider that he could have agreed to, at a minimum, investigate the OCC’s findings to justify possible exoneration.

Man has the power of creation and destruction. Glassman could have supported the new evidence and PNC Bank’s admission to secure Orlando’s freedom. Glassman could have used his position and power to acknowledge the mistakes of previous officials. Glassman could have done the right thing.

“Oh the tangled web we weave when we first we practice to deceive.”

I know of attorneys who practice delivering their arguments to their children before they express them in court. Glassman could do the same now as he considers correcting his mistake. He could present his children the following:

My dear children, listen to what I am about to share with you and then answer a simple question.

1)      A big bank said that a man had an obligation for a loan and stole the money.

2)      The police, prosecutor, and court believed the big bank.

3)      Even though the man said he was innocent, no one listened to him.

4)      The jury believed the big bank and court sent the man to prison.

5)      Ten years later, another government agency found out that the loan did not exist.

6)      Even the big bank agreed with this new conclusion.

Now, here is the question. Should I listen to the new agency and bank that there was no loan and help the man get out of prison?

Glassman, I encourage you to ask your wife this question as well. Ask her if she would respect you more if you recanted and retracted your lie that the DOJ shredded evidence of the $4 million loan. If your wife does not yet know of your lie, perhaps it is time to share it with her and gain her insight.

What Glassman should understand is that his lie is not going away. Someday he will be forced to address it. And, as I shared with PNC Bank CEO Bill Demchak in the second episode of this series, no one is committing a crime by asking for the truth or for companies and governments to do right. There is no actus reus or mens rea by seeking Demchak’s and Glassman’s cooperation. No one is at fault for telling the public about PNC’s false allegation and encouraging people to use a different bank. It is not slanderous, libelous, or defamation to expose Glassman’s lies and ensure he never serves in public office again.

To the contrary, were Demchak and Glassman to assist Orlando Carter resolve this issue once and for all, everyone would benefit. As it stands, Glassman’s unwillingness to correct his mistake would be foolish, just as Demchak’s silence is unwise. If PNC Bank and Glassman lose business and opportunities because of their recalcitrance, they only have themselves to blame. They are the ones committing and foster crimes and immoral and unethical acts.

Most Americans do not likely understand that government officials are protected from punishment for their mistakes by what is known as sovereign immunity. Even when the mistake rises to the level of gross negligence, whether intentional or not, these officials are usually not sued. In fact, the government cannot be sued unless the Government grants its permission. That’s right, the government must agree to be sued for negligence.

We know that Glassman’s lie about shredding evidence of something that did not exist was intentional. Bluntly, Glassman intended to lie about destroying what was not real. But the added query is this: Did Glassman choose not to investigate the OCC findings and PNC’s admission that the $4 million loan did not exist? Of course. That he acknowledged the OCC determinations without acting on them is the same as the government acting on the $4 million loan obligation that does not exist. Both are absurd and both rose to the level of gross negligence.

Let’s ask Glassman to consider his children once again. Glassman, suppose your child was accused of doing something wrong at school and was punished. However, let’s suppose that you found proof that the basis of the wrong did not exist and the accuser agreed with the new finding. In such a scenario, would you seek your child’s exoneration?

Truth and life. That is what we are talking about here. Truth must mean something and there is nothing more precious than life in truth. To ignore truth is to destroy life and the lives of others. When this destruction is done with callous disregard, and the person causing the destruction is protected, there exists a most severe divide between reality and fiction, with the fiction often in the form of a tragedy.  

Glassman, you have a chance to make amends before this issue mushrooms into something you cannot ignore. Discretion is the better part of valor.

In the next episode I will explain in detail the words and conduct of both Glassman and Parker. The story is simply incredible.

Until then, may truth reign supreme.

During any criminal investigation, FBI Agents will, as a matter of course, document witness interviews on forms known as 302 Statements. In episode 5, we will question the effectiveness of FBI Agent Kevin Gormley based upon the testimony of two Ralph Martinez and Sean McAlister, two bank employees. They made comments which clearly demonstrated PNC's failures with a lease transaction with Butler County.  Given the number of errors and poor judgment by several PNC officials, one must ask how and why Kevin Gormley ever arrived at the conclusion that Orlando Carter committed a crime. In this episode, I ask very pointed questions which cast serious doubt as to Gormley's competence and sincerity as an agent. 

Opinion Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.

Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast. I am Beau Johnson. I wrote The End of Justice, which is a book that explains how and why America became the most incarcerated country in the world.

In our last episode, we discussed FBI documents known as 302s Statements, which are summations of an agent’s interviews with witnesses.

YesToHellWith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

I provided two of these 302s in which FBI Agent Kevin Gormley memorialized his interviews with Ralph Martinez and Sean McAlister, both of whom were employees of what is now PNC Bank. In the last episode, I stated my personal observations that, based upon the substance of the testimony of both Martinez and McAlister, Gormley was incompetent and prejudicial in his investigation of PNC’s false claims and Orlando Carter’s innocence.

I decided to dedicate an entire episode about Gormley and his investigation. Based upon Gormley’s interpretations of the witness testimony and knowing the basic elements of the Government’s case against Orlando Carter, which was based upon specious claims made by PNC Bank, there is more than enough fodder to prove Gormley did not approach his responsibilities with an expected standard of professionalism. In fact, I will state without reservation that Gormley was never a serious agent from the very moment he began this investigation.

This brings me to an important point. In my book, The End of Justice, I offer a fundamental belief that the titles people use to make unspoken representations of themselves to the world is a flawed practice. Whether someone is a lawyer, an FBI Agent, a pastor, or a doctor means nothing in and of itself. Rather, people have more credibility when portraying themselves by their words, actions, their character, and integrity. A doctor is not a doctor when he amputates the wrong leg. For our purposes, an FBI Agent who never challenges the false claims of a billion-dollar bank is not a professional.

Let’s take this a step further. Since the united States of America is the most incarcerated country in the world per capita, we should inherently hold judges, lawyers, and detectives accountable for this infamous “title.” Not only are Americans incarcerated at a higher rate, they, inherently, have must have less freedom. People do not consider this perspective, but there can be little doubt about the conclusion. An incarcerated country is not a free country.

In the case of Kevin Gormley, if he did not investigate PNC’s claims that Orlando Carter had a $4 million loan obligation, then he should be deemed anything but competent.

I shall establish this assertion by asking Kevin Gormley some basic questions.

Mr. Gormley,

Did PNC Bank claim that Orlando Carter was liable for a $4 million loan in some form or fashion?

What is a loan? Is a loan a basic transaction in which one party provides money to another party for an extended period and to be paid back with installments at a rate of interest?

What is a guarantee of a loan? Is a guarantee when a third party pledges to pay for a loan for another party in the event of default?

What is a lease? Is a lease a transaction in which one party provides something to another party in exchange for frequent payments?

Mr. Gormley, can a third-party guarantee a loan? Can a third-party guarantee a lease?

As the investigator, did you ask PNC Bank for proof of the $4 million loan obligation?

Did you ask any other federal agency, like the Departments of Treasury or Commerce, for proof of the loan?

Did you ask Orlando Carter for proof of the loan obligation?

Is it reasonable to conclude that the only valid reason for PNC to submit a Suspicious Activity Report to the Government was because bank officials could prove that Orlando Carter stole $4 million dollars?

Is it equally reasonable that PNC Bank submitted this Suspicious Activity Report and alleged that Carter stole the money in order to hide a violation of banking laws?

Shouldn’t you have challenged the premise of any criminal allegation by weighing PNC’s motives?

Isn’t it true that PNC Bank created an advantage by hiding its internal problems concerning a very public transaction and blaming a citizen for something he did not do?

Had you discovered alleged proof that Carter had a financial obligation to PNC Bank, would you not have had a responsibility to verify that alleged proof based upon 1) federal law, 2) Ohio law, or 3) confirmation by Mr. Carter and his corporate records?

Are you aware that banks require that a corporation or LLC provide resolutions when entering a significant financial transaction?

Did you request the corporate resolutions from Mr. Carter? Did PNC Bank ever require these resolutions from Carter?

Could it be deemed correct in retrospect that you did not investigate PNC’s false claims against Orlando Carter? That you did not request certified and authenticated bank records which proved or disproved the existence of the $4 million loan obligation? That you did not seek the assistance of another federal agency? That you did not request a forensic financial audit of the allegations?

Mr. Gormley, had you conducted a competent and comprehensive preliminary investigation, isn’t it true you would have mitigated the need for further investigation? Had you discovered that PNC Bank committed multiple internal errors and misjudgments about a transaction with Butler County, wouldn’t you have likely discovered that Orlando Carter did not have a $4 million loan obligation? Wouldn’t you have exposed PNC’s true motives?

On the yestohellwith.com blog, under the second episode, is a list of PNC’s civil and criminal banking violations over the years. Are you not aware that billion-dollar banks make mistakes all the time? Did you ever consider that PNC was in the wrong in this instance? That PNC was lying?

Mr. Gormley, did you ever ask yourself or PNC Bank why this was not an issue for the civil courts to resolve?

Especially since you did not have the commensurate training to investigate a complex financial crime, would you not agree that you should never have been entrusted with this tremendous responsibility?

Permit me to prove as much by asking some very basic questions that will validate my assertion of your inability and lack of knowledge to investigate this particular crime.

If PNC Bank had a legitimate financial instrument to which Orlando Carter was beholden, wouldn’t PNC Bank have expected him to purchase equipment and labor to advance the project with Butler County? In other words, wouldn’t it have been prudent to use the money for its intended purpose rather than do nothing with the money? If this is a reasonable conclusion, when PNC Bank became uncomfortable with the transaction AFTER the $4 million dollars was wired to Orlando Carter, wouldn’t the bank expect a return of the equipment instead of money?

Mr. Gormley, on the yestohellwith.com blog is a copy of a Bill of Lading showing the return of equipment to PNC Bank from Orlando Carter’s company. You may not have seen this Bill of Lading, however, wouldn’t the return of thirty-one pallets of telecommunications equipment serve as proof that PNC Bank received a return of the $4 million dollars? Doesn’t this Bill of Lading prove PNC Bank was made whole, less any cost of labor and the devaluation and depreciation of the equipment?

Given the facts as we know them, and without looking at the 302s for Martinez and McAlister, Mr. Gormley, isn’t it transparent that PNC wired Carter $4 million dollars and, at a later date, PNC received 31 pallets of equipment in return? Doesn’t this point prove that Mr. Carter did not commit a crime associated with a loan or a guarantee and did not steal the money?

I will be back after this brief message.

Welcome back to “Where are the Heroes?” Let’s return to our questions concerning Kevin Gormley and his investigation of PNC’s false allegations against Orlando Carter.

Mr. Gormley, I am not an investigator or detective, but I have asked you questions that are so elementary that the title of FBI Agent is immaterial. Based upon your character, integrity and commonsense, why didn’t you conduct yourself as a professional? Is it because you had other motivations? Do you have a prejudice against black people? Did you unfairly question Mr. Carter’s abilities and success? Did you seek to investigate other and more prominent people for your own glory? Mr. Gormley, isn’t it typical that an agent wants the case to go forward and to receive credit for securing convictions? But, then again, wouldn’t it have been more gratifying to prove that Orlando Carter was innocent, and PNC Bank was guilty of making a false accusation? Yet, to accomplish the second scenario, you would have needed to have been a man of honor. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. Gormley, though I believe there is already ample evidence proving that you failed both truth and justice with your investigation of PNC’s claims, I will be asking questions based upon your 302 Statements concerning Ralph Martinez and Sean McAlister.

When Mr. Martinez made comments about the possibility of losing the financing of the Butler County project to another bank, did you question how this affected the judgment and best practices of bank officials?

Did Martinez ever verify Jim Smith’s legal capacity to bind Dynus Technologies to a significant financial obligation? Why would this bank ever send such a large amount of money without first verifying the approval of the owners and principals of Dynus with corporate resolutions? If you had verified that Smith did not have the authority to bind Dynus Technologies, wouldn’t this have affected your investigation concerning Orlando Carter?

Why did Martinez accept that Smith had the authority to sign for Butler County as well?

Why did Martinez rely upon Jim Smith and Dynus Technologies to secure the Opinion of Counsel letter from Butler County when county officials were responsible for signing and securing this document?

Did you ever make the distinction between Dynus Technologies and CBS Technologies and question which one was the proper entity involved with PNC Bank?

As the salesperson representing the bank, to what extent was Ms. Shelly Maxwell accountable to and for the project with Butler County?

Did you question Martinez when he said that the owner of Dynus was making changes to the Opinion of Counsel Letter, especially since Butler County was the responsible party to sign it?

Why did you believe that Orlando Carter, CEO of Dynus Technologies, committed a crime when the bank made so many errors, and especially when Martinez said there were no red flags and funded the project without the Opinion of Counsel Letter?

Mr. Gormley, why didn’t you research Ohio law and the requirement that an LLC or corporation must have corporate resolutions to bind itself for a financial obligation?

Why didn’t you ask Martinez to distinguish between a lease and a loan?

Why didn’t you ask Martinez about the validity of the guarantee signed by Smith?

Didn’t you view Smith’s role as troublesome given his threats to the bank and his alleged authority to sign for both Dynus Technologies and Butler County?

Since the first lease was not listed as a municipal transaction and required an Opinion of Counsel letter, which was a grave error by the bank itself, wouldn’t the bank be even more suspect with the number of errors in the second lease and the same requirement to secure an Opinion of Counsel Letter?

When the news about the Butler County project became public, didn’t you view this as an indicator that the bank was culpable?

Doesn’t the tax write-off of the $4 million loss by the bank indicate that the bank was to blame, especially since Martinez acknowledged that there were risks with any transaction and that the bank made a lot of errors?

What did you think when Martinez said, concerning the wiring of the funds to Carter, “book despite material deficiencies?” Is this not the most glaring of admissions that the bank was at fault?

Since Martinez said that he wanted to tie the two leases together with the Opinion of Counsel Letter, wouldn’t it have made sense that the bank receive the letter?

Don’t you find it odd that no one lost their job at the bank over the fiasco that was the funding for the Butler County project?

Given that McAlister can be deemed an expert with municipal leases, and since he knew there were problems with the first and second leases with the Butler County project, what did this tell you about the competence of the bank and its employees?

Did you not ask McAlister why he did not speak with Butler County for two weeks knowing that the transaction was flawed?

Did you question that at least four documents in the transaction were either not standard or unusual, all-the-while PNC Bank did not have the one document that was required, the Opinion of Counsel Letter?

Meanwhile, one document known as the First Amendment was considered “unusual”, but it would combine the two leases, since it was designed to “correct deficiencies with the first lease.” Mr. Gormley, did you not consider this peculiar?

Let’s now review the 302 Statement concerning Sean McAlister.

Why didn’t you challenge McAlister about Dynus Technologies having the Opinion of Counsel Letter for ten days without getting it signed, wasn’t Ms. Maxwell the sales representative for the bank and Butler County and wasn’t she the responsible party to get the letter signed?

What did you think when both Mike Fox and Kay Rogers, officials of Butler County, stated that the Opinion of Counsel Letter was with Mr. Piper at the County’s legal department?

Did you challenge Mr. McAlister about the Final Receipt Certificate which indicated that all documents were on hand and the deal could be funded?

Given that the salesperson told McAlister to contact Rogers about the Opinion of Counsel Letter, didn’t this tell you that Dynus and Orlando Carter were not the responsible parties?

Given that McAlister informed Martinez about his conversations with Fox and Rogers, and Martinez responded to him that the project would be funded without the Opinion of Counsel Letter, didn’t you hold the bank suspect, since the bank alleged that Carter committed a crime?

Did you question McAlister about the “letter” to be signed by Dynus as the basis to fund the project? From a detective’s perspective, what was the legal and financial significance of the letter signed by Smith? Was it a binding legal document?

Did you question McAlister’s request for Dynus Technologies’ financial statements after the project was funded when, in fact, the “guarantee” was not sufficient as a guarantee? Did you ask McAlister why he did not request the financial statements before the funds were wired to Dynus?

Moreover, what sense did it make to secure Dynus financial statements after the $4 million was wired to Carter if 1) Dynus bought telecommunications equipment with the funds, or 2) if, in fact, Orlando Carter was a criminal, wouldn’t it have made sense for the bank to prove Carter’s ability to repay before sending the funds?

Did you question McAlister about the lack of Minutes from the county commissioners approving the lease, especially since the minutes were not available on the county website?

Did you question McAlister about the tension with Shelly Maxwell, the sales rep for the bank, and her stern warning to McAlister to back off Dynus Technologies?

Did you challenge McAlister for not knowing Orlando Carter and his role with Dynus Technologies until January 2005 and why he assumed Jim Smith was the General Manager?

As an expert on municipal lease transactions, and as the leader of the new division within the bank for municipal transactions, did you question the wisdom of McAlister stating that he could not comment on bank policies with this particular transaction? Didn’t you find it strange that the one person who was hired to correctly handle these leases decided to remain silent?

Since McAlister said he would have spoken with someone in the bank’s legal department about the Opinion of Counsel Letter being signed by Butler County, why didn’t he act aggressively to protect the bank?

Given that McAlister spoke with Butler County Commissioner Mike Fox, who admitted to not knowing that Jim Smith signed on behalf of the county, didn’t you find this incongruent for a typical and sound banking transaction?

Do you not see that even the most inexperienced FBI Agent would have viewed and understood that the bank’s mistakes were numerous and obvious, that banking officials exercised poor judgment, and this was the likely reason the bank submitted the Suspicious Activity Report to the Federal Government?

Mr. Gormley, do you honestly believe you conducted a competent and comprehensive investigation with the goal of seeking truth as it related to a man’s innocence?

Since the PNC’s allegations were beyond your training and experience, why didn’t you request a forensic financial audit by a qualified agent?

Mr. Gormley, consider the following summation.

PNC Bank made mistakes with the Butler County project because the first lease was not handled as a municipal transaction and the first lease did not have an Opinion of Counsel Letter. So, in its second lease, which also had errors, PNC Bank included an Amendment that would combine both leases with an Opinion of Counsel Letter. Yet, once again, PNC failed to get this letter, and, instead, secured a supposed “guarantee” from someone who did not have authority to bind Orlando Carter or his company. Only when this alleged guarantee was received was the money wired by PNC Bank. Moreover, since Carter was not involved in the transaction until after allegations surfaced in the newspaper of wrongdoing, how and why would you accept the bank’s representations that Carter was a criminal?

Mr. Gormley, attached to the yestohellwith.com blog is a Master Lease Agreement between PNC Bank and Butler County. What would this document indicate generally to any competent detective or to a man with character, integrity, and common sense? Isn’t the answer that there was no $4 million loan since a lease is not a loan?

Attached to the yestohellwith.com blog is a Release of the Master Lease agreement that was filed in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. What would this document indicate generally to any competent detective or to a man with character, integrity, and common sense? Since this release was signed in 2007, which was well before the criminal trial of Orlando Carter, doesn’t it make sense that Carter did not have a $4 million loan obligation as alleged by PNC Bank?

Mr. Gormley, attached to the yestohellwith.com blog is a letter sent to the Ohio Attorney General. The letter poses clear concerns from the perspective of state jurisdiction to prevent federal overreach. This letter, which was written by people who are not lawyers or detectives, validates that you failed to conduct a competent investigation.

Mr. Gormley, if you ever listen to this podcast and wish to respond to these questions or allegations against you, I will give you the opportunity to explain everything.

There are more questions that could be asked of Kevin Gormley. But for our purposes, what I have offered is more than enough. While the litany of queries may sound condescending, this was not my intention. However, I will not hesitate to state the obvious. Kevin Gormley did not serve as a professional FBI Agent in the case against Orlando Carter. Rather, and this must be acknowledged given the cultural decline within the FBI over the last two to three decades, Mr. Gormley reflects and is the embodiment of the moral decay within this once honorable and effective agency.

It could be stated that the FBI is now a collection of egos from the top down, with each egocentric unprofessional concerned about his own glory, regardless of the truth.

Ironically, Gormley had the chance to be a hero by determining the truth and by answering basic queries at the start of his investigation. But he ignored these fundamentals. He did not challenge PNC Bank, just as he did not ask for assistance from other agents with the requisite knowledge and experience. The result was tragic. Gormley forwarded false accusations that Orlando Carter was obligated for a $4 million loan obligation, which was not possible according to federal agencies, PNC Bank, and Ohio law, not to mention Orlando’s own testimony.

This is no different that showing Gormely a drawing of a sunrise and him choosing to see a dark storm advancing upon a village. Gormley saw what he wanted, and this false representation ensured that an innocent man was sent to prison.

Mr. Gormley, as you likely know, Orlando Carter was offered a plea agreement. If he had accepted the terms, he would have pleaded guilty to crimes he did not commit and would have never served a day in prison. He rejected this offer. The result was horrific. He received a prison sentence of 15 years as he fought to refute your flawed and false conclusions. What does this tell you about Orlando Carter and his innocence?

Let’s review what is so obvious at this point.

1) There was a lease, which means there never was a loan;

2) The OCC issued a finding in 2017 that there was no $4 million loan;

3) PNC Bank admitted several times since your investigation that there was no loan;

4) Mr. Carter never authorized corporate resolutions to bind his company for a loan;

5) Mr. Carter was innocent of the crimes for which he was charged.

Mr. Gormley, in this podcast series, I mentioned the impact of any government official listening to the background noise of a case more than the facts and truth. We would have to agree that your role as a detective is no different than dealing with a child who is lying about something.

As a father, would you handle your child’s life any differently than any FBI case. After all, we are concerned with motives and behavior, correct? If your son said that he entered a lease for a new tricycle with the local gang, but the gang called it a loan for which your neighbor’s child was obligated, wouldn’t you be confused. Wouldn’t you explain to your son that a loan was not a lease, and that the next-door neighbor could not promise to pay for a loan that does not exist? In any criminal case, there are facts which must be established, unless a detective refuses to dignify what is self-evident and true.

In the next episode, we will be looking at the role of the officials at Department of Justice and the defense lawyers, both of whom failed to seek the truth and justice.

Until then, may TRUTH reign supreme!

Welcome to Episode 4 of "Where are the Heroes?" We will be exploring the FBI's handling the investigation into PNC's claim that a $4 million loan existed between itself and Orlando Carter and that Carter stole the funds. Key to our discussion are FBI statements, known as 302s, drafted by FBI Agent Kevin Gormley after his interviews with witnesses Ralph Martinez and Sean McAlister, both of whom worked for the bank. What will become rather evident  upon your review of the 302s is Gormley's complete incompetence and his level of prejudice against Orlando Carter.  A competent agent would have taken what were obvious mistakes and confusion with the bank's transaction and determined that there was no crime.

Opinion Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.

Welcome back to “Where are the Heroes?” podcast. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice.

You may recall that in our last episode, we reviewed three important ways the Federal Government could have confirmed Orlando Carter’s innocence concerning alleged crimes relating to a $4 million obligation with PNC Bank. We then discussed how both PNC Bank and the Federal Government could have determined that it was impossible for Carter’s companies to have had a financial obligation with PNC given that an Ohio LLC or corporation must authorize such obligations with the issuance of Corporate Resolutions. As a standard practice, banks require Corporate Resolutions as evidence that officers or the Board of Directors consent to financial liabilities which bind a company.

YesToHellWith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

In essence, then, we have two absolute means of protecting innocent people from arbitrary or unjust charges by the Federal Government. The first layer involves competent criminal and prosecutorial probes of the motives, conduct, and accusations of the party making the allegations, especially since the investigators can seek the assistance of other agencies. As a practical matter, an allegation of a crime should be either refuted or confirmed with the resources available to the Government.

The next layer is through parameters that exist at the state level. For example, Ohio law governs the conduct of Limited Liability Companies and Corporations. Banks and governments must default to the laws of the jurisdiction in which an entity exists. Thus, an Ohio LLC or corporation would not be liable for a loan or loan guarantee unless the corporate officers chose to bind the company to such a financial commitment. Candidly, had the FBI and DOJ researched and applied such fundamentals to its investigations concerning Orlando Carter and his companies, the DOJ would not have charged him.

This leads us to a rather significant question. Why was Orlando Carter charged and convicted? The answer may likely be found in the background noise of the story. This noise, those rumblings, rumors, false sentiment, enticing innuendo, gossip-like intrigue, the sensational that draws people and agents away from what is elementary and true, creates the confusion that leads agents and prosecutors into what is false.

We are at an important juncture then. We must dive into that background noise. We must grapple with the confusion and discover why PNC Bank ever sent such a large amount of money to Carter’s company. This background noise is what federal agents contended with for years. They had to size up a cast of witnesses. They had to determine motives. They had to question word use and understand definitions and place all the moving parts and actions into proper context. With all that is involved in a comprehensive and complex financial investigation, the likelihood of arriving at truth is remote if the agents entertain and misinterpret the background noise – especially when the training and motivations of the agents are suspect.

Let’s refer to the FBI agent who investigated PNC’s false claims and Carter’s company. His name is Kevin Gormley. Notably, when Gormley conducted his investigation, he apparently had no training in highly complex financial crimes. As such, he should not have been responsible for investigating an alleged financial crime that only competent agents would have understood.

Then there are Gormley’s personal motivations. Gormley is on the record questioning how Carter could become so successful in such a short period of time. Orlando Carter is a black man. Yet, Orlando’s race has nothing to do with his success. Should a federal agent be permitted to investigate someone’s innocence or guilt if that agent has a prejudice based upon race, gender, or creed? Is Gormley the kind of agent who seeks convictions at all costs? Does he use other suspects to seek accusations against even more important people? Is this what he was doing as he investigated Orlando Carter?

We must conclude that not only is the background noise of a criminal case a significant factor, but the inability and unwillingness of an investigator to rightly divide the background noise while divorcing his ill-advised motives are essential.

Let’s refer to a couple of documents that will serve as validation of what Gormley did or did not accomplish during his investigation. These documents are known as 302 statements, summations of an FBI Agent’s interviews with witnesses. These specific 302s pertain to Ralph Martinez, a bank officer, and Sean McAlister, a bank employee.

We must recall that Gormley did not adequately and competently investigate PNC’s allegations and he did not use other federal agencies or resources as he should have.

Gormley either knew or should have known that Orlando Carter’s companies were Ohio entities. As such, at the state level of jurisdiction, Gormley should have applied Ohio law to the investigation when and where appropriate.

The standard would have been that, under Ohio law, an LLC or corporation cannot be obligated for a financial obligation unless Corporate Resolutions are signed for this specific purpose. Consequently, Gormley would and should have sought these resolutions and asked PNC if these documents were required in its transactions with Orlando Carter and his company. At a minimum, these documents would have been something Gormley or a competent agent would have needed to validate Carter’s innocence or guilt.

Since Orlando Carter did not authorize Corporate Resolutions for any financial obligation with PNC Bank, and these documents were not requested by PNC, we must conclude that Gormley did not investigate this angle. For, had he researched Ohio law, Gormley would not have sought additional questionable “evidence” to justify PNC’s false allegations, allegations that were easily refuted under Ohio law. It will soon become apparent that any questionable evidence came from the background noise and the resulting confusion of this tragedy, which means the FBI investigation was neither comprehensive nor competent.

Our review of these 302 statements is critical. We will focus on the following factors which I’ve highlighted respectively: people (yellow), dates (violet), contradictory words (blue), documents (green), notable statements (gray).

The 302s are a primary means for the FBI to validate that crimes were committed. Although we only have two of these 302 statements available, they will serve our purpose. We should be able to conclude if Gormley conducted a reasonable investigation by scrutinizing the use of his words within the 302s.

Before we review the 302 statements, let’s underscore, once again, the basic components of this tragedy:

1) PNC Bank alleged that Carter and his company had a $4 million obligation and stole the money;

2) Carter and his company served as a vendor for PNC Bank;

3) PNC’s intentions were to finance a project for Butler County, Ohio;

4) The FBI had three ways at the federal level to verify or disprove PNC’s claims;

5) The FBI had the opportunity to use Ohio law to confirm or deny the financial obligations of Carter and his company.

I will return after this brief message.

Welcome back to Episode 4 of “Where are the Heroes?”

The witnesses for these 302s are Ralph Martinez, Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of the bank, and Sean McAlister, a bank employee recently hired to manage a division dealing with municipal leases.

Since most people have never seen, much less read, an FBI 302 statement, these will provide great insight. Perhaps the most significant observation is that you will be able to assess an agent’s competence and the FBI’s commitment to objective analysis and investigations.

Rather than provide my interpretation of the 302s, you would be best served by reading them and arriving at your own conclusions. If you consider that Orlando Carter was charged and convicted based upon the premise that he or his company had some alleged $4 million obligation to PNC Bank, you may reach the obvious conclusion that even the most incompetent FBI agent would have determined this to be false based upon the comments and understandings made by Martinez and McAlister.

I encourage you to review the items highlighted in blue and grey at a minimum. Notably, in the Martinez 302, the term lease was used at least twenty times, and guarantee and guarantor were used at least three times. The word pledge was used once.

In the McAlister 302, lease and lessee were used forty times and the word loan was used five times. The word guarantee was used three times.

Here are some questions and topics to keep in mind:

· What jurisdiction was involved? Federal or State?

· What was Gormley thinking with each comment made by the witnesses?

· What evidence was Gormley weighing?

· Consider the number of strange interactions and relationships that adversely affected other participants. For example, Smith and his ability to sign for Butler County and Carter’s company at the same time. This is all part of the background noise that unduly affected an FBI agent.

· Did PNC have quotas to provide loans to minorities?

· How much did the threat of another bank funding the project affect Martinez and Rinaldi?

· To what extent was Carter involved in the transaction and when?

I encourage you to play the role of the detective and assess FBI Agent Gormley’s competence or incompetence.

At the conclusion, we will have validated the failure of the FBI, and, specifically, Agent Kevin Gormley, to dignify the awesome responsibilities required when discerning the truth and a man’s innocence or guilt.

At the end of the year, when businesses finalize business transactions, the CEO and CFO of National City Bank, which was acquired by PNC, rushed a decision concerning Butler County. We know that the parties to the lease were not in agreement. Butler County can be viewed as woefully incompetent and incoherent about the transaction.

During conversations between bank officials and James Smith, PNC made mistakes in its transactions, just as the bank made mistakes with the first lease with Butler County. We know, for example, that bank officials made mistakes with their own internal documents and procedures. We have an internal email sent by the bank to other bank officials admitting to improprieties with the transaction and that the local bank branch was not responsive to phone calls and requests from both Butler County and banking headquarters. This is a major revelation.

It is transparent that not only did the bank rush its decision to fund the project during the second part of the transaction, but also that these mistakes were likely violating banking laws and regulations. Consequently, it appeared as though the bank intended to hide errors made in the first lease.

The bank’s problems with its own documents underscores the motivation of bank officials to avoid allegations of wrongdoing and perhaps possible fines by regulators. They chose to blame Orlando Carter. Perhaps in desperation, bank officials thought that submitting a Suspicious Activity Report to the FBI would divert attention away from the bank’s culpability.

However, if the FBI agents had given PNC’s claims and Suspicious Activity Report the objective consideration they deserved, these agents would have investigated the bank records with great care and suspicion. Instead, the FBI treated Orlando as a two-bit thug, a bad actor, and the mastermind of a crime.

Let’s recall a simple but powerful point. If PNC officials believed Orlando was in any way obligated for a $4 million loan, they could have pursued a civil action in a court of law. However, they did not. It is likely that bank officials knew their internal documents were insufficient to prove that Orlando and his company were liable. Thus, making a false criminal claim deflected blame away from the bank, and it allowed for the write-off the debt, and avoided government scrutiny of their own irregularities.

We know FBI agent Kevin Gormley was not qualified to investigate a complex financial criminal case. Notably, even without the appropriate training, he could have made the most elementary conclusion that a $4 million loan or loan obligation did not exist. Regrettably, he did ask for a forensic financial audit with either PNC records and the relationship PNC and Butler County, or the records of Orlando Carter’s company.

What were Gormley’s motivations? Personal glory? Another conviction? He is known to have stated during the investigation that Orlando Carter had to have done something wrong to be so successful. Gormley assessed Orlando as a minority and deemed him to be of the criminal class. This is validated by Gormley’s racial prejudice that affected his professional judgment.

We have covered a lot of territory in this episode. We have learned much about the criminal and legal systems in the United States.

It is appalling to consider that officials at any level of government can and do prejudice cases with their own theories of the crime or prosecution. Their vested interests with these flawed theories undoubtedly advance the investigation along a path with even greater prejudice when even more agents and more important officials “buy” into the morphing of narratives. Not unlike a snowball rolling downhill, subsequent officials review the prior work and add more false information and flawed opinions. Obviously such investigators and prosecutors are not coloring within the lines of a drawing; rather, they are creating an entirely different picture on a blank sheet of paper. Regrettably, no one has the courage to correct what is obviously and inherently wrong.

The bottom line is that each official’s personal agendas and motivations represent an unhealthy perspective without due consideration of the law, facts, and truth.

In this episode, we discussed 302 statements used by the FBI as summations of interviews with witnesses. After a healthy reading of Kevin Gormley’s summations with Martinez and McAlister, we cannot help but conclude that Gormley was an incompetent agent whose judgment was clouded by his own prejudice. In our next episode, I will share some pointed questions that Gormley should have asked during his investigation.

Until then… may TRUTH reign supreme!

In the last episode, Orlando Carter denied having a $4 million loan with PNC Bank. If Mr. Carter is telling the truth, why did PNC claim that the loan existed? Why did bank officials assert that the funds were stolen?

Either PNC lied or Mr. Carter is lying. What is the truth?

Since the FBI and DOJ investigated PNC's accusations and confirmed the loan existed, then Orlando Carter MUST BE guilty, right? No. The fact is that the FBI and DOJ never asked PNC for proof of the loan. Moreover, the FBI did not ask other government agencies to confirm the existence of the loan. Finally, the FBI and DOJ did not conduct a forensic financial audit of either PNC or Mr. Carter.

Without accomplishing any of these three options, the Federal Government must have gratuitously accepted that the loan existed and Carter stole the money.

This episode is packed with information and an amazing revelation!

Opinion Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.

In the last episode of “Where are the Heroes?”, we learned that in 2007 PNC Bank submitted a Suspicious Activity Report to the Federal Government alleging that Orlando Carter (which includes his company CBST Acquisitions LLC) had a $4 million loan with the bank and stole the funds. PNC’s claims resulted in a federal investigation by the FBI and DOJ with both agencies affirming PNC’s accusations. However, we heard Orlando Carter’s declarations at the end of the first podcast that he did not have a loan with PNC and did not steal $4 million.

Naturally, anyone hearing these conflicting positions would have questions.

YesToHellWith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

· Did PNC lie?

· Was there a $4 million loan?

· Did Orlando Carter steal the money?

· Did the FBI agents and US Attorney validate the loan during their investigations?

· Why would Orlando Carter claim his innocence if he was guilty?

· Who are we to believe?

· What is the truth?

Like any mystery or crime in need of resolution, if we proceeded with a grounded sense of direction, if we subjected the various elements of this tragedy, akin to using a centrifuge machine, we could separate fact from fiction, lies from truth. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over national banks and was responsible for investigating PNC’s allegations. To arrive at the truth, we would be well served by asking macro queries, those all-important queries which should have been posed by the FBI and DOJ early in their investigation.

What are those macro interrogatories? “What is PNC’s motivation?” for example. If the bank’s goal was to recover $4 million, the next question for the FBI to ask PNC would have been, “Where is the evidence which supports the allegation that Carter was responsible for a loan? Where is the proof of the theft?”

FBI agents could and should have confirmed the existence of this $4 million loan by securing certified and authenticated records from PNC Bank. Now, if the FBI had secured this evidence directly from PNC, and the loan was valid, the next query would have been, “Why is PNC Bank not filing a civil suit against Orlando Carter?” In other words, isn’t the loan transaction a civil and commercial matter? What did Carter do that required a criminal probe?

When a bank and its customers transact business, and the terms of the obligations of either party are not honored, the proper venue for resolution would be a court of law with the filing of a civil action for recovery and damages. This point is so fundamental that not posing this critical query invites doubt into the FBI’s own motivations and process. In fact, if the FBI did not ask for the original loan documents, we would consider this to be a critical flaw in the investigation. Thus, we have a straightforward two-step process. The FBI should have confirmed the existence of the loan and then validated that a crime had been committed.

Let’s consider a practical example. When someone buys a car and a bank provides the loan for the purchase, that person would have a commercial relationship with the bank. If the customer then failed to honor the terms of the loan, the bank would have recourse to protect its interests. The bank would file a civil suit and recover the vehicle which would be sold to recover most of the funds. In this example, there is and would be no criminal act or intent. There is no mens rea or actus reus. There is only a borrower who is unable to pay back the principal and interest and a bank that wants to reduce its losses.

Now, let’s suppose that the customer knowingly entered false information onto the loan application or secured funds under false pretenses. Under these circumstances, the bank would have legitimate grounds to pursue criminal charges. However, there would have been a loan.

In the case against Carter, we are questioning whether Carter ever applied for a loan. As such, if the FBI did not secure proof of the $4 million loan, this would jeopardize the integrity of its investigation from the outset. Any subsequent findings by the FBI would be skewed and certainly not the truth.

Let’s look at this topic from a different angle. If the FBI did not confirm the loan with PNC Bank, the agents could have requested assistance from the Department of the Treasury. It is beyond dispute that the United States Government is a single entity. This fact necessitates that in all federal actions the Government must be united. Separate federal agencies cannot have varied positions about a particular topic.

For example, if the Department of Commerce asserts a position about a fact that is contrary to the position of the Department of Energy, the government is not acting as one. If the Secretary of State says that America is at war with Iran, but the Secretary of Defense disputes this claim, the United States Government is not operating effectively. Clearly, there cannot be disparities among agencies. And if there are disparities, there must be resolved by a process that is used to clarify such conflicts,

The same holds true for the FBI and DOJ. Since the FBI is the investigative arm of the DOJ, the FBI cannot state a position that is contrary to the DOJ. They must act as one.

Regarding PNC’s claims against Orlando Carter, if the FBI had contacted the Department of the Treasury and asked for proof of the $4 million loan between PNC an Orlando Carter, and if the Department of Treasury validated that there was no such loan, the investigative arm of the DOJ would have had an inherent obligation to investigate and either refute or acknowledge the Treasury’s determination. The FBI and DOJ cannot ignore proof provided by the Treasury Department that there was no loan, and The DOJ cannot state that there was a loan. Such an assertion would be false, an outright lie.

Without complicating this discussion unnecessarily, there is yet a third observation that must be weighed. The Federal Government, given its vast resources, and considering the size and scope of the Department of Justice, could have conducted a forensic financial audit of either or both PNC Bank and Orlando Carter. Such an audit, a reasonable and expected extension of any financial criminal investigation, would have arrived at hard numbers which confirmed or denied the existence of a $4 million loan.

Given the foregoing discussion, we have a concrete understanding that the FBI had the opportunity to validate the existence of loan documents between Carter and PNC with three methods. 1) seeking certified records from the bank directly, 2) asking the Department of the Treasury to confirm the existence of the loan, or 3) conducting a financial forensic audit of either or both parties.

Now, let’s ask the rather obvious question. Regarding Orlando Carter’s claim of innocence and PNC criminal allegations, what did the FBI do? Orlando has vehemently professed his innocence since the PNC made its false allegation. Did the FBI and DOJ confirm or deny the existence of the $4 million loan? If so, how?

I will assert here and now that the FBI and DOJ did not confirm the existence of the loan. The FBI and DOJ did not:

1) Seek confirmation from the Department of the Treasury;

2) Ask PNC Bank for certified records;

3) Conduct a financial forensic audit of either Carter or PNC.

The significance of these assertions is monumental. How is it possible for one of the largest criminal investigative agencies in the world NOT to establish fundamental findings by conducting a competent investigation? Since the FBI did not use any of the three methods discussed to validate the existence of the loan, we must conclude that the most basic and objective protocols were ignored. The FBI did not validate the credibility of PNC’s claims. The FBI did not dignify Carter’s claim of innocence.

I will explain why I am certain of the FBI’s and DOJ’s neglect; but for now, we must ask what the FBI did in its preliminary investigative proceedings. I will state it this way. The FBI and DOJ automatically and gratuitously presumed Orlando Carter was guilty and, therefore, presumed the claims of a billion-dollar bank were true, that there was a loan, and the funds were stolen.

Since we are approaching our review of the FBI’s investigation of PNC’s claims from the macro perspective, I will disclose how I know the FBI and DOJ did not conduct competent investigations with the three-foregoing option.

In 2016, as Orlando Carter’s Power-of-Attorney, I submitted a request to the Department of the Treasury through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC, for proof of the $4 million loan with PNC Bank. The OCC is the office within the Department of Treasury that is responsible for providing oversight of national banks. The OCC investigates claims from customers against national banks. The OCC ensures that financial institutions do not run afoul of laws and regulations. To be sure, these financial institutions must respond to the OCC.

Once the OCC received our correspondence, this agency contacted PNC Bank officials and asked for proof of the $4 million loan. An official from PNC Bank by the name of Aaron Bailey, with the Executive Client Relations Department, responded to the OCC by referring to a lesser loan for $250,000 dated December 31, 2003. He said, “This is the only debt that we have on file.” The OCC sent us a letter dated January 30, 2017 and repeated exactly what was disclosed by PNC. As is evident, PNC Bank admitted to an earlier loan in the amount of $250,000 and stated this was the only debt it had on file. Undoubtedly, there was no $4 million loan.

Not satisfied with the OCC’s conclusion and PNC’s admission, we sent another request to the OCC. Specifically, we wanted certified and authenticated bank records as validation that there was no $4 million loan. The OCC replied on March 2, 2017 and clarified that “the OCC does not require the bank to submit a “certified and authenticated record.” The OCC’s conclusion, which is based upon PNC admissions, is nothing less than earth-shattering. The Department of the Treasury confirmed there was no $4 million loan.

Based upon the responses received by the OCC, let’s return to the FBI’s role and ask the same questions. Did the FBI ask the Department of Treasury for proof of the loan? No. Did the FBI ask PNC Bank for proof of the loan? No. And since there could not have been a $4 million loan, we must conclude that the FBI never conducted a forensic financial audit of either PNC or Orlando Carter. With these answers, we are left with but one conclusion. The FBI gratuitously accepted PNC’s claim that there was a $4 million loan and that the funds were stolen.

At some point Americans must begin to shed their false illusions that the Federal Government and its agents are honest, reliable, and concerned about the truth. For this is not the case. The reality is that, though there may be decent and honorable officials and employees working for the Federal Government, there are many who are not. Many employees and officials act in a rogue manner.

In the Carter tragedy, the FBI and DOJ advanced PNC’s lies instead of using PNC Bank and the OCC to find the truth. The result is that rogue federal personnel ignored the truth by not seeking the truth. This dynamic prevents separate federal agencies from speaking as one.

Even worse for Carter, the DOJ should have conducted its own investigation without relying upon the findings of the FBI. In fact, this is expected and required. The United States Attorney should not presume the FBI’s conclusions are absolute. As a failsafe measure, the US Attorney provides oversight by confirming or refuting the supposed evidence collected and given by the FBI.

If the FBI advanced its false conclusions to the office of the United States Attorney of the Southern District of Ohio, and the US Attorney did not contact the Department of the Treasury or PNC Bank, and since the US Attorney did not conduct a financial forensic audit, there was only one conclusion the US Attorney could have reached. The loan existed and the money was stolen. The US Attorney rubberstamped the FBI’s findings. With such a stacked deck, Orlando Carter was presumed guilty before the investigation began and that conclusion was never rectified in accordance with truth.

Now that we have this comprehensive overview of the three methods the Government could have used to confirm or deny the existence of a $4 million loan, we are ideally positioned to discuss several interactions that both Orlando Carter and I had with five PNC Bank officials in the years preceding the OCC investigation and findings.

In 2014, in response to correspondence sent to PNC Bank asking for proof of the alleged $4 million loan, Clinton Taylor stated that PNC Bank was not able to obtain information of a four-million-dollar loan guarantee.

In 2016, I spoke with PNC Attorney, David Zive, who responded by email and in a phone conversation that there was no $4 million loan and only a smaller loan for $250,000.

IN 2016, I spoke with Aaron Bailey, Executive Assistant with PNC Bank Client Relations, who stated by email and by phone call that there was no $4 million loan.

In 2016, in response to Carter’s request for certified and authenticated bank records validating the existence of a $4 million loan, Autumn Drdek, Records Custodian for PNC Bank, sent a document proving there was a smaller in the amount of $250,000 and no other loan.

In 2018, in response to Carter’s request for certified and authenticated records proving the existence of a $4 million loan, Cheryl Basko, Records Custodian for PNC Bank, sent a letter stating the existence of the loan for $250,000 and no other loan.

Given that Orlando and I were able to secure PNC’s admissions that there was no $4 million loan, and since the lack of a loan requires a conclusion that the money could not have been stolen, we must question why the FBI and DOJ acted with such gross disregard for the truth and internal procedures designed to ensure justice. How was injustice in Orlando Carter’s case ever possible? Perhaps the answer rests within the motivations of the FBI and DOJ.

If the motivations of federal agents were maligned from the beginning, they would not have readily detected the disingenuous motivations of PNC Bank. Stated simply, the Federal Government was unable to objectively assess PNC’s false claims. The federal agents were never primed to presume Carter’s innocence. The US Attorney – the top prosecutor responsible for bringing criminal charges against private citizens – would not have been ready, willing, and able to seek the truth. And what is a prosecutor’s goal but to seek the truth. This is a prosecutor’s most sacred endeavor.

This is, quite frankly, an amazing discovery. The reality is that the United States Government is as effective as one single FBI agent or one United States Attorney. If a singular government official or employee is incorrect from the beginning, the conclusion will be tragic. If an agent has inconsistent motives from his primary mission, the results will be unfortunate. Truth, justice, and private citizens are the victims. Orlando Carter was a victim.

In this episode, we learned that the FBI and DOJ never confirmed that the $4 million loan did not exist, which means that there could not have been theft of the money.

In the next episode, we will discuss the investigation by the FBI and the DOJ with Orlando Carter. We will also learn about his defense lawyers’ attempts to fight on his behalf.

Until then… may TRUTH reign supreme!

Discover the name of the billion-dollar company that falsely accused an innocent man of stealing $4 million. Hear from this innocent man who received a 15 year prison sentence, yet declares that he never committed a crime.

PNC Bank is fined for violating banking/lending laws.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pnc-financial-services

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-doj-take-action-against-national-city-bank-for-discriminatory-mortgage-pricing/

https://www.sec.gov/enforce/34-96558-s

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2002-109.htm

https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-occ-2023-106.html

https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2023-027.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/pnc-owes-107-mln-allegiants-egregious-breach-trust-8th-circ-2021-08-31/

https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2018-031.pdf

https://occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/eaAA-ENF-2023-65.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/pnc-bank-pay-95-million-failing-engage-prudent-underwriting-practices-loans-guaranteed-us

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/enf20180112a5.pdf


Opinion Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.

Have you ever witnessed a reprehensible act or decision and did nothing to stop it? If so, then you know what it means to have regrets and to be cowardly. Since you have learned from such experiences, consider what you would do if:

· A thief was stealing from your neighbors; Or,

YesToHellWith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

· An attorney said your retainer was used when no work was ever done; and finally,

· A major corporation lied about a financial transaction and this false statement sent an innocent man to prison.

In each of these examples, wouldn’t it make sense to hold the bad actors accountable? What if no one did anything? What would the repercussions be? What if there were no heroes?

Welcome. My name is Beau Johnson. I am the author of The End of Justice. When my publisher asked me to write a podcast about a current injustice equal to the ones noted in my book, I decided to share a story about a dated wrong that continues even to this day. Truth be told, I consider this story to be an ongoing crime by both a major national and international corporation and the United States Federal Government.

This podcast series, which is titled “Where are the Heroes?” was written with the hope that listeners will embrace the truth and choose to act for what is right. For, if courageous souls do not intervene, we will continue to experience a living hell. This story proves as much.

The protagonist of this true account is a very close friend of mine who has suffered the unimaginable. His name is Orlando Carter. As an innocent man, he was accused of stealing $4 million dollars and after a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. His family endured great hardship. Moreover, true to the theme of Yestohellwith, Orlando and his family are still without recourse. He has exhausted all options, and they are still suffering. I will name the bad actors involved with this tragedy shortly.

However, to begin with, and because I have proof of Mr. Carter’s innocence, I would like to establish several objectives.

Since it can be proved that Mr. Carter is innocent of the alleged crime, should we not seek his:

1) exoneration;

2) financial remuneration for his losses and suffering; and

3) an apology by the company responsible for this injustice.

These objectives can be achieved with either or both of the following:

1) an expedited federal criminal investigation into the conduct of this private company;

2) the loss of this company’s revenue from customers who refuse to do business with such a dishonest operation.

To put it simply, if Orlando Carter is not exonerated, and if he does not receive compensation for his unjust conviction and prison sentence, customers that patronize this business should boycott the company. If a majority of customers did this, this multi-billion-dollar company would contend with the possibility of financial ruin and the injustice against Carter might be resolved once and for all.

Now that I have stated these objectives, please know that I would not speak so forcefully about this major corporation unless I had proof. So, without fear or reservation, I will reveal the first antagonist of this story.

The national and international company that is at the heart of the tragedy against Orlando Carter is PNC Bank. Mr. Bill Demchak is the CEO.

Now, in the interests of diplomacy, I will extend an offer to Mr. Demchak. Mr. Demchak, since PNC Bank accused Mr. Carter of stealing $4 million dollars in 2009 and PNC continues with this accusation in 2024, I invite you to correct your company’s errors. I am hopeful that you will remedy this wrong once and for all. If you are willing to do what is right, please contact the Department of Justice and admit that your bank’s claim against Orlando Carter was a fabrication, a lie. Feel free to contact this podcast if you would like to refute my claim with evidence that proves Mr. Carter is guilty. You can do this by providing certified bank records which prove that Mr. Carter had a $4 million loan with PNC Bank.

Allow me to begin this story about PNC’s false accusation against Orlando Carter by sharing a brief historical fact that is not directly related to this tragedy, but it does set the tone.

In 2013, PNC Bank paid a $35 million fine to the United States Federal Government for violating lending laws. Specifically, PNC had charged higher fees from minor applicants of mortgage loans than white applicants with similar credit ratings. The link to the article describing this misconduct is below.

National City Bank, which was acquired by PNC Bank, had racially profiled these minority applicants. Consequently, PNC paid the $35 million fine. Henceforth, I shall be referring to PNC Bank exclusively, and not to National City Bank.

Now, if you are currently a PNC customer, please answer a simple question. Are you comfortable with the $35 million fine or are you concerned about further racial profiling within the culture of PNC Bank? If you believe PNC was taught a lesson, then that is a reasonable response.

However, consider this revelation. If you discovered that PNC committed more misconduct during the same period, and this misconduct worsened over the course of a decade, would you object? What if PNC’s conduct resulted in an innocent man’s unjust conviction and imprisonment for 15 years beginning in 2009? Would the latent hero within your soul take note? Would you demand that PNC Bank be held to account for its past and current wrongs? Armed with the facts and proof, you would likely answer in the affirmative.

With this as our context, let’s delve into this tragedy.

Because of National City Bank, PNC found itself at the center of another controversy. PNC lied to the Federal Government about a particular banking transaction. In fact, to cover up its own banking violations, in 2007, PNC filed a Suspicious Activity Report with the Federal Government and blamed Orlando Carter for something he did not do. To be clear, PNC alleged that Orlando stole $4 million dollars. As unbelievable as this may sound, PNC Bank continues to advance this lie even today.

I recognize that you might assert that these are my accusations and mine alone. You might ask for proof, and this would be a valid reaction. Rest assured, I recognize that I am accusing PNC Bank of serious wrongs and I do not take this lightly. In fact, by making such claims, I am placing myself in peril. If my claims were baseless, PNC Bank could file a civil suit or ask the Federal Government to open a criminal investigation into my conduct. I might be accused of libel or slander or defamation.

So, I will state unequivocally that I have direct knowledge of many of the elements of this tragedy. Having served as Orlando Carter’s Power-of-Attorney for years, I am forearmed with ample knowledge and documentation. Thus, without trepidation or reservation, I am stating that PNC Bank has acted and continues to act negligently against the interests of private parties and the public at large.

Since there are two fundamental elements to a crime, namely the actus reus and mens rea, which are, respectively, the criminal act and evil intent, I am confident that I am not committing any criminal act against PNC Bank. Again, I have proof of PNC’s continued wrongs and my intentions are honest and sincere. I merely seek PNC Bank’s cooperation with the goal of securing Mr. Carter’s exoneration. He is innocent.

The actus reus and mens rea are exactly what we will discuss throughout this podcast series as they relate to Orlando Carter and PNC Bank. What was the actus reus, the crime? What was the mens rea or evil intent? The evidence will prove that Orlando Carter was innocent and that PNC Bank is guilty.

Hypothetically, if PNC customers become genuinely concerned about PNC’s past and continued negligence, and, as a result, if PNC had the potential to lose its customer base, don’t you think PNC would correct its lies and provide compensation to Mr. Carter without delay?

In one sense, if PNC were to cry foul and allege that this podcast was slanderous and libelous, wouldn’t this place the entire case into the public arena where it belongs anyway? In such a scenario, this corrupt bank would be forced to admit the truth about Orlando Carter. However, if Bill Demchak were wise, he would agree to resolve this matter and prevent any harm to PNC’s business. Mr. Demchak would seek the truth and right a terrible wrong. PNC would admit to its errors and end this tragedy. I would like PNC’s cooperation. I ask for Mr. Demchak’s cooperation here and now.

I call upon the CEO of PNC Bank, Bill Demchak, to resolve this disgraceful conduct and to do so for the best interests of Orlando Carter as well as for PNC shareholders and customers. I ask Bill Demchak to make amends and issue a written apology to Mr. Carter. For it was Bill Demchak who stated, and I quote,

"At PNC, our corporate values aren't just something we talk about; they define how we live and how we engage with our customers and the communities where we do business. They are foundational to our culture.” (end quote)

Mr. Demchak, why don’t you honor your corporate values now?

Now, consider this question. If Mr. Demchak does not respond to my request and if PNC does not resolve this injustice, how will you react?

As a listener of this podcast, if you are eventually satisfied with my proof that PNC acted corruptly and continues to act corruptly, as a PNC customer, will you do anything? Even if you are not a PNC customer, will you take a stand for truth and justice? Will you fight for Orlando Carter? Will you become a hero?

Otherwise, if only because of the ignorance and apathy of PNC customers, and all Americans generally, the wrongs committed by PNC will remain unresolved.

This brings us to an important query. Is it possible to hold this national and international financial behemoth accountable for what should not be? How is PNC Bank compelled to admit that its original claim of criminal conduct by a private citizen was a lie? How is PNC Bank forced to correct this injustice?

Well, you might say, “Beau, since you have proof of PNC’s alleged criminal conduct, why don’t you ask the federal authorities to investigate?” And in response, I would tell you that my friend and I have pursued all possible angles with the United States Government and the results are shocking.

The Federal Government, through the FBI and DOJ, are complicit with advancing PNC’s lie into the federal courts. From the very beginning of PNC’s lie, the FBI and DOJ did not investigate PNC’s Suspicious Activity Report. The Government never confirmed that Mr. Carter was innocent of stealing $4 million dollars. To this very day, the Federal Government and all its agents and agencies refuse to address the facts. Additionally, the Federal Government and court refuse to investigate any claims of wrongdoing by PNC Bank. Simply stated, all actors have accepted and still accept that PNC’s allegations are true. All believe that Orlando Carter is guilty.

Because no other options have worked, and since the Federal Government is complicit with PNC’s misconduct, perhaps you will appreciate that there is but one way to correct this wrong. Only the righteous outrage by PNC customers will have an impact. If PNC Bank were to lose a significant number of accountholders, only then would the bank correct the injustice.

Am I calling for the wholesale destruction of PNC Bank? Call it what you will. If a band of thieves was stealing from homes, would I alert my neighbors? If an attorney stole my retainer, would I file a complaint with the BAR Association, file a lawsuit, and inform others? If a major bank refused to correct false allegations against private citizens, would I voice my well-founded proof? Would I stand for truth and say, “Yes to Hell with PNC’s unconscionable actions and decisions?” I would and I am.

Since my objective is to share facts as I personally know them, facts which prove that my allegations are true, I have a moral responsibility to reveal them. I have a responsibility to disclose that PNC’s ongoing denials and misconduct continue to harm an innocent man. Other banks have committed unjust acts equal to PNC and to what end? A slap on the wrist and a fine? Given the leniency banks enjoy, if only because money acquires influence, do we not have an obligation to ask that PNC correct this wrong?

Consider this key question. If you find PNC’s past and current conduct unsettling, what actions are you willing to take? Will you write a letter to PNC and ask banking officials to remedy the wrong? Will you visit your local PNC branch manager and show him proof of PNC’s crime? Will you ask for answers? Will you close your account if PNC Bank refuses to cooperate? Such choices would not be insignificant. It is only when individuals protest a private company’s conduct that a goliath like PNC will acknowledge its culpability.

Let’s be honest. When a billion-dollar company forks over a $35 million fine for racial profiling there is very little pain. This amount of money is small, and it also becomes a tax deduction. Such a fine does not compare to the impact of a company losing its reputation and financial base on the road to insolvency.

If it takes PNC’s potential financial insolvency to exonerate Orlando Carter, then PNC’s ruin is the natural course. This would be no different from my attempts to stop an ongoing crime, be it murder, rape, or the theft of property. Is an innocent man’s future not his private property? Are his years behind prison bars not worthy of recompense? Was the suffering of his family unconscionable and irreconcilable?

I mentioned earlier that the Federal Government has not been and will not be an advocate for the truth in this case. The reason is very simple. In 2008, federal agents and agencies did exactly what PNC did. They ignored the truth. Federal agents did not investigate PNC’s accusations against Orlando Carter. These agents failed to conduct a competent and comprehensive investigation of PNC’s original claims. Whether done deliberately or not, federal agents lied and furthered PNC’s criminal conduct.

Let’s pause for a moment for a rather philosophical point. Most people recognize right and wrong, at least in their minds and hearts; however, they often refuse to become actively involved. Perhaps this is human nature. People justify their inaction by saying that another man’s plight is not their concern. After all, we want to maintain homeostasis. We want to remain comfortable and preserve what we have.

For example, although PNC customers may learn that their bank committed a grave injustice against an innocent person, many would be too inconvenienced to close their accounts and move their money to another bank.

However, once you hear the full extent of this tragedy, perhaps a different result may be realized. If PNC customers opened their minds and hearts, and if they acted righteously and closed their accounts with a bank that is not worthy of their patronage, PNC might admit to its errors. Mr. Demchak might be forced to resolve the issue.

Do we not see united efforts in the face of injustice today? Are Americans not uniting against the deadly covid jabs and the criminal conduct of Anthony Fauci? Are people and states not joining Texas to enforce America’s southern border? Should we not support of Orlando Carter?

For a bit of insight, let’s hear from Orlando Carter himself.

Mr. Carter, welcome to the YestoHellWith.com podcast.

Thank you for having me.

Mr. Carter, although we will be speaking with you at length throughout this series, allow me to ask some simple questions with the intention to set the tone for the audience.

Did you have a $4 million loan with PNC Bank?

No.

Do you currently have a $4 million loan with PNC Bank?

No.

Mr. Carter, did you steal $4 million from PNC Bank?

I did not.

Today, in the year 2024, does PNC Bank still claim today that you have a $4 million loan or that you stole this money?

Yes.

Did PNC Bank submit a false Suspicious Activity report to the Federal Government?

Yes.

In 2009, in a federal criminal trial, did officials within the FBI and Department of Justice argue that you had a $4 million loan with PNC Bank and that you stole the money?

Yes.

In 2024, do officials at the Department of Justice still contend that you have a loan with PNC Bank and that you stole the money?

Yes, they do.

Mr. Carter, are you an innocent of these matters relating to PNC Bank?

I am.

Mr. Carter, thank you for your time. We will be talking with you soon as we get more involved with this tragedy. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

There is no doubt in Mr. Carter’s mind and heart that PNC Bank is lying about this alleged $4 million loan. Mr. Carter also believes the Federal Government did not investigate PNC’s lies and, more importantly, that the government ignores the truth even now.

You heard Orlando Carter’s answers to very direct questions. Are you willing to listen? More importantly, will you fight for and with an innocent man?

I hope so. With strength in numbers, we can ensure that Orlando Carter receives justice. We can unite and demand his exoneration.

Let’s review what we have learned in this episode.

1) PNC Bank has a history of violating banking laws and regulations;

2) PNC Bank filed a Suspicious Activity Report alleging that Orlando Carter had a $4 million dollar loan with PNC Bank and that he stole the money;

3) The FBI and DOJ did not conduct a comprehensive and competent investigation into the veracity of PNC’s claims;

4) Orlando Carter asserted his innocence and asked for a trial by jury;

5) Mr. Carter was convicted of the alleged crimes and served a 15-year prison sentence;

6) Mr. Carter has been released from prison and he continues to fight for his exoneration;

7) YestoHellwith is asking the CEO of PNC, Mr. Demchak, to investigate PNC’s conduct and decisions and to resolve this issue;

8) If Mr. Demchak refuses to cooperate, it is time to declare, “Yes, to hell with PNC Bank, and may truth reign supreme!”

In the next episode, we will be delving even deeper into PNC Bank’s deceit and the Federal Government’s gross incompetence and negligence. You will be shocked by what I reveal.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that a sitting US Attorney and a former US Attorney lied to the public. They lied about this case to preserve a conviction and keep Mr. Carter in prison. For this, I have proof as well.

Now, before I close this episode, I will make a final appeal to Mr. Demchak at PNC Bank. Mr. Demchak, since I will be emailing this podcast to you, would it not be in your bank’s best interests to review Mr. Carter’s concerns and admit that he never had a $4 million loan with your financial institution? At a minimum, your Board of Directors, employees, shareholders, and customers deserve to know that PNC has harmed and continues to harm Mr. Carter. Would it not be prudent for you to retract this unjust claim by reviewing your own certified bank records which prove there was no $4 million loan because there was no $4 million loan? Mr. Demchak, you espouse virtuous corporate principles. Will you not adhere to them and resolve a matter that needs a resolution? I ask for this without delay.

Now, to the listeners of the YestoHell.com, if you wish to receive notification of the next episode, be sure to subscribe to the YestoHellwith podcast and share this episode with family and friends.

Until then, may TRUTH reign supreme!

"Where are the Heroes?" is a gripping revelation of an innocent man who went to prison for 15 years for a crime he did not commit. How could such an injustice occur in the united States of America? Sadly, cases like this are more common than people realize. In this particular example, the innocent man was wrongly convicted because of a lie told by a major American corporation and the gross incompetence and negligence of the FBI and DOJ. Be sure to listen to this tragedy and become a hero when you help with this cause.  

Opinion Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.

In the coming weeks, Yes to Hell with .com will be launching its first Podcast series entitled, “Where are the Heroes?”

My name is Beau Johnson. I am the author of The End of Justice. My publisher asked me to share a story, like the ones in my book, depicting a grave injustice. I chose a story that dates to 2008 and is still in need of resolution today.

YesToHellWith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

In Where are the Heroes? you will learn about an innocent man who was convicted of a crime he did not commit and received a 15-year prison sentence.

This innocent man not only fought for his freedom in 2009 during a trial by jury, but after being released from prison, he still fights for his exoneration to this very day. Should we expect anything less from someone who did not commit the crime? Does a guilty man continue to fight after he is released from incarceration?

Tragically, in this story, a major national corporation was the primary cause for this man’s wrongful conviction. Additionally, since the federal agents who investigated and prosecuted the case DID NOT seek the truth, the United States Government is also directly responsible for this injustice.

In this podcast series, I will disclose in detail and with proof that this major corporation lied to the Federal Government. This very lie is what began this injustice. In my opinion, both the officers of the company and the federal agents are guilty of crimes. Stated differently, the Federal Government did not conduct a competent investigation in 2008 and this is where the government makes an even greater mistake, in 2018, a sitting US Attorney and his assistant, lied to keep this innocent man behind bars.

I am going to be brutally honest. If this major corporation does not resolve this injustice, one of my objectives with this podcast series is to seek its financial ruin. If the CEO does not agree to correct the company’s errors, I will expose the truth and ask you, as customers of this corporation and as private citizens, to end your relationship with this dishonest company.

Secondly, I will be seeking the disbarment of a sitting and former US Attorneys, as well as seek criminal investigations into their misconduct. I have firsthand knowledge that they not only ignored evidence provided by a separate federal agency proving that an innocent man went to prison, but that these federal officials in the Department of Justice lied to the public about evidence in this case.

These disclosures will be shocking and underscore the corruptness of the criminal justice system in America.

Many may say that my assertions are foolhardy, that it is dangerous to accuse a billion-dollar giant of criminal conduct, or that accusing federal officials of lying is foolish as well. But here is the rub. If the government is complicit with this company’s crime by refusing to consider both the company’s errors and new evidence, then no one will be able to hold the company, government, or courts accountable. In fact, this is the point of the YestoHellwith podcast.

When there are no more options, warriors must stand and fight for truth.

I look at it this way. If I witnessed a lady being raped, I would intervene. If I saw someone being murdered, I would intervene. In this story, which is an ongoing injustice with no resolution in sight, I am witnessing a crime against an innocent man and I refuse to acquiesce to moneyed-interests or a corrupt federal government.

In this podcast series, I will be asking you to get involved. I hope you are ready, willing, and able. I hope you become a hero.

If you wish to be informed of the release of the first episode of “Where are the Heroes”, please visit YestoHellwith.com and subscribe to the podcast. Please visit the sponsors of YestoHellwith.com. I ask that you consider donating as well.

Be sure to visit the YestoHellwith.com social pages and share the link with family and friends. We are seeking a grassroots effort that will give YestoHellwith organic growth. Together, we can uplift the truth and correct injustices.

Thank you for your consideration.