Attorney Colia F. Ceisel practices in Minnesota as a criminal defense attorney, sometimes functioning as public defender at the request of the Federal Court because this is easy work (which doesn't actually have to be done), for which the Government pays a nice stipend. However, often the life of a person is in her hands, and whether that person will live, or be executed, or get thirty years in prison, or just five years, also is in her hands. If she is lazy, the defendant really, really suffers, sometimes for the rest of his life. So, her performance is important.

I was represented by Attorney Ceisel on appeal from a thirty-year prison sentence handed down by Judge Robert G. Renner at the Federal Court in St. Paul, Minnesota, in February of 1997. During sentencing Judge Renner told Ceisel to appeal the issue of whether the convicting jury returned a proper verdict, (footnote 1) because I received a "general" verdict under which I should have been sentenced to five years, while in fact I got a thirty-year sentence. This instruction to Attorney Ceisel issued after I had several times requested that Judge Renner himself rule on this issue.

Not only did Judge Renner tell this goofball attorney to appeal this issue, so did I, setting it all out in a certified letter, including the specifics of just what should be appealed (see attached letter from Lambros to Ceisel, dated March 14, 1997). Though I am not a trained attorney, I have years of experience fighting cases, my own and others, from Federal prison, and I can be of considerable assistance to any lawyers representing me who will take the time to read my letters. Attorney Ceisel either did not read my letters to her, or she ignored them, which certainly was the easy thing for her to do. She is responsible for a host of people -- men and women -- in prison now for long sentences who should have gotten short sentences, or, in some cases, no prison time at all.

Attorney Ceisel cannot say, "Oh, I just missed that issue of Mr. Lambros getting the maximum sentence instead of the little sentence he should have gotten," nor can she claim she decided to not appeal this issue as a matter of trial strategy or tactics. Her failure here constitutes fraud on me, and fraud on the Court, both very serious issues.

My case amply demonstrates that an innocent person who is accused of a crime, and whose defense rests in her hands is likely to go to prison. As I see it, this bitch is working for the Government when she is paid from public funds as a Public Defender, and also when she is taking your money to defend you as your private attorney. We're talking backstabbing weasel here.

Also, Attorney Ceisel advised me that I was entitled to file a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct my sentence, which was yet another lie by Attorney Ceisel. In fact what happened was Judge Renner took some motions I filed (on newly discovery evidence), and converted them to a Motion to Vacate (footnote 2) and under the rules one gets just one chance to do this. Due to this closely coordinated work between the Judge and my attorney, as of June 2005 1 have never been allowed to file a habeas corpus motion, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. So much for constitutional rights.

Ceisel had a dead-bang winner in my case, and worked hard to turn it into an outright loser, on the basis of which Attorney Ceisel hereby is awarded the Minnesota Shyster of the Month certificate for the next three months running. (footnote 3)

---

1. For those who want all the legal details, my above general statement is premised on U.S. v. Owens, 904 F.2d 411, 414-15 (8th Cir. 1990), and U.S. v. Dale, 178 F.3d 429 432 (6th Cir. 1999) (offering an excellent overview as to the eight Federal Circuit Courts that have considered this issue). When the indictment alleges conspiracy to distribute multiple drugs, but the jury returns a general verdict (the defense and prosecution must agree to have a general verdict), then the sentence must be based on the drug charge carrying the lower penalty. In my case that meant a maximum sentence of five years for marijuana, but I was sentenced to thirty years for cocaine. Although an attorney does not have to raise every issue suggested by a client, the attorney must appeal a dead-bang winner, as noted by the Federal Circuit Court in U.S. v. Cook, 45 F.3d 388 (10th Cir. 1995) at 394-5.

2. On December 15, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that district courts cannot recharacterize Pro Se litigant's motions. See Castro v. U.S., 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). On September 7, 2004, 1 filed my "Motion to Vacate February 10, 1997, Judgment Due to Intervening Change In Controlling Law, Castro v. U.S., Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)." This motion offers the COMPLETE SENTENCING TRANSCRIPT OF THE FEBRUARY 10., 1997 SENTENCING OF LAMBROS AS EXHIBIT C. CLICK HERE to go to motion at: www.brazilboycott.org.

3. However, I do not support the rumor mill regarding the on-going investigation regarding Ceisel having been involved in drumming up financial support for terrorists. She is a bad apple, but not that bad.

---

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS VERIFY THE TRANSGRESSIONS BY ATTORNEY CEISEL:

1. February 10, 1997, TRANSCRIPT in USA vs. JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, File No. CR-489-82(5), U.S. Federal Court for the District of Minnesota, Pages 1, 2, 63, and 64. Please note on Page 64, Lambros states "Okay. And regarding the GENERAL VERDICT, on which element ---. THE COURT: That's a matter of argument that you will raise with the Court of Appeals if there is an appeal." This PDF FORMATTED DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SENTENCING TRANSCRIPT PAGES 1, 2, 63, AND 64 HERE IN PDF.

2. March 14, 1997, Lambros letter to Attorney Colia F. Ceisel, U.S. Certified Mail No. Z-209-887-400. This letter clearly requests Attorney Ceisel to raise the GENERAL JURY VERDICT issue on appeal from my February 10, 1997 sentencing. Also attached to the letter is Lambros' March 4, 1997, overview of his trial transcripts as to the use of MARIJUANA to assist Attorney Ceisel. The March 14 letter is one (1) page and the March 4 overview is six (6) pages. This document is a total of seven (7) pages in PDF FORMAT. THIS PDF FORMATTED DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT. Attorney Ceisel never raised the issue!

DOWNLOAD MARCH 14, 1997 LETTER TO ATTORNEY COLIA F. CEISEL HERE IN PDF.

3. July 7, 2000, Lambros letter to Attorney Stenmoe of Briggs & Morgan, as to why Lambros should of received a five (5) year sentence due to the GENERAL JURY VERDICT. This letter offers an excellent overview of the law when the jury returns a general jury verdict and evidence presented to the jury during Lambros' trial which supports the possession of Marijuana. This letter is a total of three (3) pages in PDF FORMAT. THIS PDF FORMATTED DOCUMENT REQUIRED ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD JULY 7, 2000 LETTER TO ATTORNEY STENHOE HERE IN PDF.

4. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has always stated that "A prisoner is entitled to an EVIDENTIARY HEARING on a section 2255 unless the motion, files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief." Also, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a person it need not show that he could not have been convicted. Instead, he need only undermine our confidence in the trial's outcome." See, EVANS vs. U.S., 200 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2000) (Rehearing En Banc Denied)

5. January 15, 1993, TRANSCRIPT PAGE 886, Volume VII, in USA vs. JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, 4-89-82, Criminal, U.S. Disttrict Court for the District of Minnesota. U.S. Assistant Attorney Douglas Peterson clearly stated within his FINAL ARGUMENT TO THE JURY, "EVEN ACCEPT LAMBROS' TESTIMONY THAT HE'S DEALING MARIJUANA." See, Lines 15 and 16. This one page is in PDF FORMAT. THIS PDF FORMATTED DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT "HE IS DEALING MARIJUANA' HERE IN PDF.

---

ACTUAL FRAUD BY ATTORNEY CEISEL TO LAMBROS FROM 1994 THRU SEPTEMBER 8, 1995.

Attorney Colia F. Ceisel was first appointed to represent John Gregory Lambros in 1994, after Lambros' conviction in January 1993. Lambros requested the court to replace his incompetent trial attorney Charles W. Faulkner, who was functioning as public defender at the request of the Federal Court. See, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 1995) The following legal issues should of been presented to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals by Attorney Colia F. Ceisel when she filed Lambros' direct appeal on May 18, 1995:

1. PLEA OFFER - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND/OR COURT ERROR AS TO MOVANT LAMBROS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED AS TO COUNTS 1, 5, 6, AND 8, AS THE GOVERNMENT'S PLEA OFFER CONTAINED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION AS TO PAROLE ELIGIBILITY, MANDATORY MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCES AND GUIDELINE RANGES. LAMBROS WAS PREJUDICED. This motion was drafted by Lambros to prove to his supporters that the district court, U.S. Attorney, and Lambros' attorney offered incorrect information as to penalties attached to all counts within the indictment. The government's plea agreement is attached as an exhibit to this motion to CORROBORATE ALL FACTS. If Attorney Ceisel would of filed this issue on May 18, 1995, the Eighth Circuit would of vacated all counts and ordered the government and district court to PURSUE FURTHER PLEA NEGOTIATIONS AFTER GIVING LAMBROS ACCURATE ADVICE. If plea negotiations failed Lambros' remedy would of been a NEW TRIAL. This document is a total of thirty-one (31) pages including exhibits, in PDF FORMAT and numbered in the lower right hand corner in long hand to assure order in your review. THIS PDF FORMATTED DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD PLEA OFFER MOTION ATTORNEY CEISEL NEVER FILED HERE IN PDF.

2. "GENERAL JURY VERDICT" - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND/OR COURT ERROR AS TO MOVANT JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED IN COUNT ONE (1) - CONSPIRING TO DISTRIBUTE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WHEN THE JURY RETURNED A "GENERAL JURY VERDICT" AND MOVANT LAMBROS WAS SENTENCED TO A DRUG CARRYING A HIGHER STATUTORY LIMIT APPLICABLE TO A MARIJUANA-ONLY CONSPIRACY. MOVANT JOHN G. LAMBROS WAS PREJUDICED. This motion was drafted by Lambros to prove to his supporters that Attorney Ceisel committed actual fraud to Lambros when she would not raise simple Issues that Lambros had requested. Lambros should of been sentence for a MARIJUANA CONSPIRACY which carried no more than a five (5) year sentence for Count One (I). This document is a total of forty-five (45) pages including exhibits, in PDF FORMAT and numbered in the lower right hand corner in long-hand to assure order in your review. THIS PDF DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD "GENERAL JURY VERDICT" MOTION ATTORNEY CEISEL NEVER FILED HERE IN PDF.

3. LAMBROS PUNISHED FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO STAND TRIAL - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND/OR COURT ERROR OCCURRED WHEN JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS RECEIVED A MORE SEVERE SENTENCE THEN HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS WHEN HE EXERCISED HIS RIGHT TO STAND TRIAL. LAMBROS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHERE INFRINGED AND LAMBROS WAS PREJUDICED. Attorney Ceisel did not raise this issue, as Lambros should of been sentenced to a term of prison that did not exceed 50 months, the longest term any co-conspirator received who happened to be the organizer of the conspiracy. See, U.S. vs. CAPRIOLA, 537 F.2d 319, 320-21 (9th Cir. 1976); U.S. vs. BISCHEL, 61 F.3d 1429, 1437 (9th Cir. 1995). This document is a total of seven (7) pages including exhibits, in PDF FORMAT and numbered in the lower right hand corner in long-hand to assure order in your review. THIS PDF DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD "PUNISHED FOR GOING TO TRIAL" MOTION ATTORNEY CEISEL NEVER FILED HERE IN PDF.

4. LAMBROS WAS PUNISHED FOR THE DISTRIBUT1014 OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT NEVER OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE LAMBROS AGREED TO OR INTENDED TO DISTRIBUTE ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND/OR COURT ERROR AS TO MOVANT JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED IN COUNTS ONE (1), FIVE (5), SIX (6), AND EIGHT (8) - CONSPIRACY AND POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - WHEN MOVANT LAMBROS WAS SENTENCED UNDER THE STATUTE [Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)] FOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES POSSESSED FOR PERSONAL USE THAT WHERE INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY TO DISTRIBUTE AND POSSESS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. MOVANT LAMBROS WAS PREJUDICED. Attorney Ceisel did not raise this issue, as the government did not offer any evidence Lambros agreed to or intended to distribute any drugs he allegedly received. Not one witness for the government ever stated they received drugs from Lambros. See, U.S. vs. ASCH, 207 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2000); U.S. vs. RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, 23 F.3d 1488, 1494-1497 (9th Cir. 1994). This document is a total of five (5) pages in PDF FORMAT and is numbered in the lower right hand corner in long-hand to assure order in your review. THIS PDF DOCUMENT REQUIRES ADOBE ACROBAT READER TO VIEW AND PRINT.

DOWNLOAD "WHERE IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS?" MOTION ATTORNEY CEISEL NEVER FILED HERE IN PDF.