OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF RANJITH KEERIKKATTIL RE: USAO-DC AND JOHN GIOVANNELLI Ranjith Keerikkattil (“Mr. Keerikkattil”, “RJ”) is a U.S. Citizen of Indian Origin. He is a highly qualified professional with three postgraduate (masters or greater) degrees and has worked for the U.S. Federal Government, Defense and Intelligence Sector firms such as General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, as well as in Consulting. Mr. Keerikkattil is also a victim of the crimes of assault, intimidation/stalking and failure to appear, a case investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service of London and prosecuted to conviction by the Crown Prosecution Service of England in 2019. The subject matter of this public statement is a matter of international concern involving the governments of United States of America, Australia, United Kingdom, India and Iceland, as well the United Nations. Mr. Keerikkattil, a U.S. Citizen, fears for his life from AUSA John Giovannelli (“Mr. Giovannelli”), a racist, egomaniac prosecutor who has been abusing the resources of the U.S. Government to persecute him for the past six years since 2016. As a consequence, Mr. Keerikkattil has suffered from significant physical and mental health conditions including Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), Binge Eating Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Severe Insulin Resistance. Mr. Keerikkattil had none of these medical conditions in 2015 and was indeed perfectly healthy. In support of his public statement, Mr. Keerikkattil cites the following documents: • Emergency Motion to Dismiss • Emergency Motion to Quash • D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel Complaint against Bernard Grimm (Exhibit B to Emergency Motion to Quash) 2 • United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (“UNOHCHR”) Complaint (Exhibit D to Emergency Motion to Quash) I. Mr. Giovannelli’s Defamatory and Threatening Public Statement Mr. Keerikkattil is compelled to release a statement publicly because on July 12, 2018, contrary to standard procedure and common sense, Mr. Giovannelli, fraudulently in the guise of the former United States Attorney for District Columbia, Jessie Liu 1 , published a public release 2 with a note – ‘FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE’ boasting that he had fabricated a BRA indictment against Mr. Keerikkattil on an underlying single count misdemeanor charge. Mr. Giovannelli also explicitly threatened that Mr. Keerikkattil will be arrested at the airport upon returning to the United States. From the language of the public release, it is obvious that his intent was to publicly humiliate and embarrass Mr. Keerikkattil as well as to destroy his career prospects. A detailed review of the public releases on United States Attorney for District of Columbia’s (“USAO-DC”) website conclusively proved to him that there has never been a public release for a single count misdemeanor “should have known” stalking charge or a BRA charge based on such a charge. Mr. Giovannelli is a Deputy Chief of Homicide Section within the Superior Court Division and prior to that was a Deputy to Kevin Flynn, the Chief of Felony Major Trials Section. Despite being a single count misdemeanor case of the lowest mens rea , Mr. Giovannelli was assigned to harass and intimidate Mr. Keerikkattil, in retaliation for filing a U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) complaint against Mr. Flynn. 1 Ms. Liu, currently a Partner at Skadden, has no knowledge of the statements attributed to her and had much bigger fishes to fry than a single count misdemeanor. 2 https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maryland-man-found-guilty-stalking-former-co-worker-now-accused-fleeing- us-iceland 3 Mr. Keerikkattil was charged via summons on a single count of misdemeanor “should have known” stalking allegedly in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(3), based on neither any acts of violence nor threats of acts of violence, but because of speech involving matters of public and private concerns and for filing a lawsuit in federal court. Initially, he was frivolously charged with a single count of “with the intent to cause” stalking pursuant to D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(1) and was given a plea offer of probation should he plead guilty to that charge. Following nine months of bullying, including threatening to maliciously overcharge Mr. Keerikkattil with multiple counts of D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(1), Mr. Giovannelli dismissed D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(1) and charged him via information with D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(3). By dismissing D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(1) and then charging with D.C. Code § 22- 3133(a)(3), Mr. Giovannelli himself is admitting that Mr. Keerikkattil did not know that he was committing any potentially unlawful conduct, but he should have known by reference to whether someone else who is aware of the same facts and circumstances would have known it, a convoluted and much lesser mens rea than “with the intent to cause” stalking pursuant to D.C. Code § 22- 3133(a)(1). Coleman v. United States , 202 A.3d 1127, 1143 (D.C. 2019) (explaining “should have known” standard with regards to D.C. Code § 22-3133). In the context of vehicular death, this difference is analogous to intentionally running a person over “with the intent to cause” death (first degree felony homicide) compared to accidentally running a person “should have known” that driving while tired may cause death (reckless driving misdemeanor at best). This very important fact was intentionally omitted by Mr. Giovannelli in his defamatory public statement. Given that the charge he was accused of was a single count misdemeanor, he was not required to surrender his U.S. Passport in Court either. In fact, he had extensively travelled outside the United States (at a minimum 10 times) between 2016 and July 2018 on his U.S. Passport. Mr. 4 Keerikkattil had appeared a minimum of 20 times in D.C. Superior Court in this case prior to July 10, 2018, while this case was tossed around from one date to another and from one judge to another, and has never failed to appear on any of the court dates. II. Mr. Giovannelli’s Intentional and Malicious Overcharging of Mr. Keerikkattil Mr. Keerikkattil has absolutely no doubt that Mr. Giovannelli has intentionally and maliciously overcharged 3 a petty misdemeanor BRA charge into a felony. Mr. Keerikkattil has extensively researched the BRA statute, its legislative history, the Court of Appeals decision in Lennon v. United States , 736 A. 2d 208, 209 (D.C. 1999) and other relevant documents, and has personally drafted the attached Emergency Motion to Dismiss. D.C. Code § 23-1327 was created by Congress in 1970 and has the exact same language as 18 U.S.C. § 3150, created under the Bail Reform Act of 1966, Public Law 89-465, 80 Stat. 216. Public Law 91-358, 84 Stat. 650 explicitly states that the provisions of the subchapter including § 23-1327 is “in lieu of the provisions of sections 3146 through 3152 of title 18, United States Code.” The D.C. Council has made no changes to the language of D.C. Code § 23-1327 since inheriting the statute from Congress and Congress has clarified that the BRA penalty for a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. In fact, the Testimony of Jeffrey Harris, Deputy Associate Attorney General, on behalf of Department of Justice before Congress in 1983 and the statement of US Attorney’s Office before the Court of Appeals in Lennon regarding Congressional intent of the BRA statute also states that the BRA penalty for a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. It is also relevant to note that US Attorney’s Office relied on Congressional intent, not the intent of the D.C. Council. This is because the D.C. Council has not amended the statute since its inheritance, as stated before. The 3 Vertical overcharging refers to charging an offense at a higher level than what the circumstances of the case and the statute warrants. See H. Mitchell Caldwell, Coercive Plea Bargaining: The Unrecognized Scourge of the Justice System , 61 CATH. U. L. REV. 63, 85 (2011). 5 rule of lenity in case of any ambiguity (which there is none) and Eighth Amendment also dictates that the BRA penalty for a misdemeanor should be a misdemeanor. Mr. Giovannelli’s attempt to overcharge Mr. Keerikkattil mirrors his former colleague and fellow Deputy Chief of Felony Major Trials Section under Kevin Flynn, the rogue AUSA Jennifer Kerkhoff’s failed attempt to overcharge innocent Trump Inauguration (J20) protesters in United States v. Mielke et.al. , 2017-CF2-1149 (D.C. Super. Ct.), with felony "engaging" in a riot charge, despite "engaging" in a riot being a misdemeanor under D.C. Code § 1322. Here, Mr. Giovannelli attempts to create a felony offense by taking statutory words in D.C. Code § 23-1327 in isolation. Of course, statutory words are not to be read in isolation and is determined by a reading of the legislative history or by an examination of the statute as a whole. Abadie v. District of Columbia Contract App. Bd ., 843 A.2d 738, 742 (D.C. 2004). To understand how preposterous Mr. Giovannelli’s biased interpretation of the BRA statute is, consider the following scenario – Two Defendants A and B are charged with the same petty misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of six months. Defendant A pleads guilty while Defendant B pleads not-guilty and requests a trial, and both Defendants A and B for some reason fail to appear at a subsequent status hearing. Defendant A faces a felony BRA charge while Defendant B faces a petty misdemeanor BRA charge under his preposterous interpretation by selectively picking words out of D.C. Code § 23-1327(a)(1) in isolation. Mr. Keerikkattil, who has extensively researched and drafted the Emergency Motion to Dismiss is 100% confident in the merits of his arguments. The only scenario where Mr. Giovannelli might temporarily prevail (until appeal) is judicial bias and/or incompetence. The scenario of judicial bias is real given since The Honorable James A. Crowell IV, who may very 6 likely preside over this case, is not only a career federal prosecutor, but also was the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys 4 III. Mr. Giovannelli’s Falsities, Abusive Behavior and Racism Any doubts regarding his malicious intent were clarified when a racist Mr. Giovannelli lied to The Honorable Robert Salerno on September 14, 2018 that Mr. Keerikkattil is an “Indian National” 5 , not once but twice, despite him being only a U.S. Citizen. In addition, he also lied to Judge Salerno that Mr. Keerikkattil had fled to India and informed him that he is working to extradite Mr. Keerikkattil from India on a single count misdemeanor charge. Mr. Keerikkattil contacted the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Government of India and enquired about any formal extradition requests made through diplomatic channels. They received no such requests from the U.S. Government. Mr. Keerikkattil was further alarmed when he learned that Mr. Giovannelli is a wife abuser, whose former spouse Lori Ann Eshbaugh (formerly Lori Ann Giovannelli) had sued him in 2016 6 for his continuing abusive conduct, six years after she had dumped and divorced him in 2010 7 . He also learned that as a consequence of Mr. Giovannelli’s abuse, Ms. Eshbaugh, an MBA graduate from Temple University, was unable to continue her professional business career and ended up as an art teacher at Thoreau Middle School 8 . Mr. Kerikkattil was so concerned about Mr. Giovannelli murdering his estranged ex-wife that he ended up reaching out to local law enforcement in Virginia. The ironic example of Mr. Giovannelli, a serial wife abuser, accusing Mr. 4 https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/DCSC_Bio_Crowell.pdf 5 The Indian Constitution prohibits dual nationality and hence Mr. Keerikkattil can never be an Indian National as long as he is a U.S. Citizen. See https://www.indianembassyusa.gov.in/Publicind?id=9. In fact, he has an Indian Visa on his U.S. Passport. 6 Lori Eshbaugh v. John Giovannelli, Case No. CL10000927 (Prince William County Cir. Ct, 2016) 7 Lori Giovannelli v. John Giovannelli, Case No. CL04087916 (Prince William County Cir. Ct, 2009) 8 https://thoreaums.fcps.edu/staff/lori-eshbaugh 7 Keerikkattil of a single count of misdemeanor “should have known” stalking is like a serial bank robber accusing him of petty theft. Mr. Giovannelli’s actions are quite ironic. First, he issues a threatening public release alerting Mr. Keerikkattil of his malicious indictment and explicitly threatens arrest to dissuade him from returning to the United States. Then he goes and lies to Judge Salerno that he is an “Indian National” (which he is not, as the Indian Constitution prohibits dual nationality) and is working to extradite him from India and that too on a misdemeanor, despite Mr. Keerikkattil not being there but in UK and Australia. Finally, he makes no attempt whatsoever to extradite him for four years and now objects to Mr. Keerikkattil’s return back to the U.S. All he had to do was to not publish that public release and seal the indictment that even other AUSA does, rather than having to waste time and money on a tedious and expensive extradition process. With regards to Mr. Giovannelli’s racist views on Indian-Americans and his repeated references to “Indian National”, Mr. Keerikkattil would like to remind him that Indian- Americans have the highest percent of college, post-graduate and professional degrees, highest median per-capita and household incomes, and lowest poverty rate among all ethnic groups in the United States 9 , rather than being mafioso cop killers (Frederico “Fritzy” Giovannelli 10 ) and child predator priests (Cameron Shane Giovannelli 11 ). Needless to say, Mr. Giovannelli is himself the son of a bus driver (Frank Geno Giovannelli) and borrowing his own racist language, an embodiment of ‘Italian White Trash’, who always had a heightened inferiority complex as the progeny of ‘Italian Trash’ dumped on American shores 9 See attached U.S. Census Data 10 https://nypost.com/2001/08/02/soprano-capo-sang-to-mob-pals-feds/ 11 https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-cr-dundalk-pastor-plea-20191204- u2kkzndzjnh55alihjhh67tgi4-story.html 8 and a graduate of bottom-tier University of Pittsburgh law school unlike his colleagues, that was apparently unknowingly triggered by Mr. Keerikkattil – the primary motive behind the demeaning and defamatory public release on July 12, 2018, that even other AUSAs find shocking. Mr. Keerikkattil firmly believes that all Americans – white or colored, straight or LGBT, rich or poor, should be equal before the law and deserve equal protection under the law. IV. Mr. Giovannelli’s Violation of PA Rules of Professional Conduct Mr. Giovannelli, a member of Pennsylvania Bar (Attorney ID: 56724), is ethically and legally bound to follow Pennsylvania Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct 12 , the violations of which would lead to disciplinary action including disbarment. The Rules of Professional Conduct include: 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; ... (e) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule. Mr. Giovannelli, a member of Pennsylvania Bar (Attorney ID: 56724), by (i) making materially false statements in D.C. Superior Court; (ii) intentionally and maliciously 12 http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct 9 overcharging a BRA petty misdemeanor into a felony; and (iii) publishing a threatening, defamatory public release fraudulently in the guise of US Attorney, that served no legitimate law enforcement purpose and was merely intended to humiliate, intimidate, heighten public condemnation and deny Mr. Keerikkattil a fair trial, has violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.8(a) and 3.8(e) of Pennsylvania Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct. V. Disbarment of Trial Counsel Bernard Grimm Mr. Keerikkattil had to face significant verbal abuse from his trial counsel Bernard Grimm (“Mr. Grimm”), who was disbarred by the D.C. Court of Appeals on June 17, 202. See IN RE GRIMM , 252 A.3d 486 (D.C. 2021). Mr. Grimm was disbarred for verbally abusing his clients when questioned of his incompetence, embezzling client funds using abusive and potentially fraudulent billing practices and his extreme incompetence in managing client funds. As stated in the complaint filed with the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Mr. Grimm, Mr. Keerikkattil had requested him to file a motion for Bill of Particulars, pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 7(f), identifying with specificity, all occurrences that constitute the course of conduct that the government alleges constitute stalking pursuant to D.C. Code § 22-3133(a)(3). He also requested Mr. Grimm to file pre-trial motions to exclude all “constitutionally protected activity” under D.C. Code § 22-3133(b), inadmissible immunized testimony pursuant to D.C. Code § 16–1002 and Aiken v. U.S. , 956 A.2d 33 (D.C. 2008) (applying Kastigar v. United S tates, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) to CPO testimony) warning him of Mr. Giovannelli overwhelming him at trial. Not only did he fail to do all of the above, eventually making a mess of the case, Mr. Grimm verbally abused him for raising Strickland 13 concerns regarding his competence. Mr. Keerikkattil also uncovered abusive, if not fraudulent billing practices of Mr. Grimm using untrained and inexperienced 13 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) 10 individuals as associates and law clerks. Mr. Grimm’s professional misconduct and the basis for his disbarment is explained in detail in his D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel Complaint. As the Court of Appeals ruled in Aiken , the failure to exclude immunized testimony pursuant to D.C. Code § 16–1002 or Kastigar is in itself grounds for reversal of any maliciously obtained guilty verdicts. Aiken , 956 A.2d at 49 (“any defense attorney should appreciate that the prosecution must not use a defendant's immunized testimony or derivative evidence against him. The attorney's ignorance of Section 16-1002(c) or Kastigar is no excuse for doing nothing to protect the defendant from such use.”). VI. Stacy Sawin’s Malicious Intent Behind Her Fabricated Stalking Accusation Newly discovered evidence made on the publicly available website Medium by Stacy Sawin (“Ms. Sawin”), the complainant behind the “should have known” stalking charge, explicitly demonstrates that she had a hatred of men since a young age 14 , used to scheme against men and has always been attention seeker contradicting her prior assertions. She also claimed to be a superwoman and hardcore feminist who had the courage to hike solo more than 2,600 miles solo that hardly any men much less woman had the courage to do. Moreover, she has used this case for her own economic and professional benefit creating a business named Finability (or perhaps more appropriately Stalking Inc. ), publishing false and defamatory statements on her Finability website and continues to solicit funds from donors claiming to be its CEO 15 . Being a victim himself, Mr. Keerikkattil is outraged by Ms. Sawin using him and this case for publicity and financial benefits. Mr. Keerikkattil was alarmed and distressed when Ms. Sawin followed him more than 4,000 miles to London, UK in 2019, residing less than a mile from him. Mr. Keerikkattil, by sheer coincidence saw Ms. Sawin and as a consequence, had to change his routines in order to avoid 14 https://medium.com/@Stacysawin/you-were-right-34ea61a92522 15 https://www.finabilityus.org/founding-finability/stacy 11 contact with her. Mr. Keerikkattil also learned from court transcripts that Mr. Giovannelli had fabricated non-existence threats against Ms. Sawin and the purpose of the hearing on June 10, 2018, for which he is accused of failing to appear, was to restrict his movement around Ms. Sawin in Washington D.C. Mr. Keerikkattil at the time, was living in Baltimore County, Maryland, more than 50 miles away from Ms. Sawin. Mr. Giovannelli, thru his malicious conduct had reduced that distance to less than a mile. The fact that nothing happened to Ms. Sawin between August 2019 and January 2020 in London, when Mr. Keerikkattil was less than a mile away, proves that the hearing on June 10, 2018 was based on falsities and misrepresentations made by Mr. Giovannelli to the Court. Mr. Keerikkattil, who was extremely concerned with Ms. Sawin framing him on frivolous charges like Amy Dunne in Gone Girl, moved more than 10,000 miles away from London to Sydney, Australia in January 2020. It became obvious that Ms. Sawin wasn’t merely a case of ‘Munchausen Syndrome’, but a cunning and calculating ‘femme fatale’, who would go to any extremes for her perverted goals. Mr. Keerikkattil has always pursued a defensive strategy and has actively sought to avoid confrontation with Ms. Sawin. Mr. Keerikkattil has neither been accused of any acts of violence nor any threats of acts of violence. Mr. Giovannelli instead has couched multiple instances of protected speech and conduct under the first amendment as stalking. In fact, the act of Mr. Keerikkattil drinking coffee from a public coffee shop at a walking distance from his residence in Rosslyn, VA in July 2015 is stalking for him. He also lied to the Court on July 9, 2018, that Mr. Keerikkattil was residing in Maryland in July/August 2015, when he was actually residing in Arlington, VA, evidenced by the lease agreement and two witnesses – the landlady Janet Moran and his housemate Daniel Stahl. 12 Since July 2018, the D.C. Court of Appeals has issued two judgements in Coleman v. United States , 202 A.3d 1127 (D.C. 2019) and Mashaud v. Boone , 256 A.3d 235 (D.C. 2021) limiting the abuse of D.C.’s vague and overbroad should have known stalking statute akin to Mr. Giovannelli’s persecution. Both Coleman and Mashaud apply to this case under the firm rule of retroactivity in D.C. See Davis v. Moore , 772 A.2d 204, 226 (D.C. 2001). VII. The Threat to Mr. Keerikkattil’s Life Mr. Keerikkattil faces significant deterioration of health or even death. Among his numerous medical conditions, he is particularly concerned with his severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) with an extremely high Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) – the number of times breathing stops within an hour. He uses a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) device on a daily basis to bring his AHI under control, without which the high AHI would lead to hypoxia and potentially death. His AHI is extremely high and is four times the level that is considered severe (AHI > 30). Mr. Keerikkattil was advised by his doctors in Australia not to travel to the United States where COVID-19 pandemic was widespread, given that his medical conditions made him extremely vulnerable to hospitalization and death due to COVID-19. On May 30, 2022, he tested positive to COVID-19 and had to be hospitalized and treated with antivirals for high-risk patients despite being vaccinated with four shots of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Even after more than five weeks, he continues to suffer from extreme fatigue and brain fog from COVID-19 infection. He has no doubt that he would have been dead had he travelled to the United States and contracted COVID-19 before being fully vaccinated. Mr. Keerikkattil has already confirmed the existence of the bench warrants threatened by Mr. Giovannelli in NCIC with the U.S. Consulate in Sydney. There are no non-stop flights between 13 Australia and Washington D.C area airports. The only flights are to Los Angeles (LAX) and San Francisco (SFO) in California, Dallas (DFW) in Texas and Honolulu (HNL) in Hawaii. These warrants would get picked up by U.S. Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) at the port of entry leading to his detention in California, Hawaii or Texas for weeks or even months pending removal to Washington D.C. The CBP officers unaware of Mr. Keerikkattil’s medical history would fail to provide him access to CPAP, which also requires a power source for its functioning. Mr. Keerikkattil’s UNOHCHR Communication includes detailed medical records as well as the threat to his life, physical and mental health from Mr. Giovannelli. The U.S. and Australian Governments were notified of the UNOHCHR Communication through the U.S. Consulate in Sydney and Australian Department of Home Affairs respectively in April. The communication explicitly states: Should Mr. Keerikkattil suffer from serious deterioration in health, hospitalization or death after returning to the United States, John Giovannelli in his individual capacity would be liable. In addition, the Chief of the Superior Court Division as well as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia would be liable in their official capacities for knowingly permitting Mr. Giovannelli’s continued abuse and harassment and violating Mr. Keerikkattil’s Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. (emphasis in original). Mr. Keerikkattil would not be the first victim of death by overcharging committed by the U.S. Department of Justice. The most infamous case is the death of Aaron Schwartz, 16 caused by the prosecutorial abuse, harassment and overcharging by AUSA Stephen P. Heymann 17 Mr. Keerikkattil was not required to surrender his U.S. Passport in Court and had it not been for Mr. Giovannelli’s extremely concerning public threats, he would have been back in the 16 https://www.smh.com.au/technology/aaron-swartz-a-beautiful-mind-20140127-31hjr.html 17 https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2013-jan-15-la-na-nn-aaron-swartz-funeral-eulogy-father-20130115- story.html 14 U.S. by July 16, 2018. Mr. Giovannelli also made no efforts to extradite Mr. Keerikkattil for years, despite threatening so in Court. Despite all of this and the fact that it is Mr. Keerikkattil is the one who had taken the initiative to resolve this matter, it is extremely likely that Mr. Giovannelli would again lie to the Court that Mr. Keerikkattil is a flight risk and that he needs to be detained at D.C.’s Central Detention Facility (CDF) or D.C. Jail. Detainees, defense attorneys, counselors and employees alike have testified before the D.C. Council that the CDF is a dehumanizing place where Defendants are treated like animals and subject to abuse, terror and retaliation, prompting the US Marshals Service (USMS) to intervene and enter into an agreement with D.C. Department of Corrections to address the pervasive human rights violations at CDF. Even more alarming is the testimony of the Public Defender Service of D.C. that about 87% of the D.C. jail population is black, and 93% of the jail population is non-white. 43% of D.C.’s population 18 is white, while its white jail population is a mere 7%. This unambiguously demonstrate the race-based persecution of non-white individuals by racist white AUSAs such as Mr. Giovannelli. In fact, multiple AUSAs including three former US Attorneys have written a very concerning letter to the US Attorney Michael Sherwin on October 26, 2020, concerning the systemic racial persecution of people of color by his office. The differential and discriminatory nature prosecutions by USAO-DC is evidenced by the haste in overcharging innocent Trump Inauguration (J20) protesters with multiple felonies of up to 60 years in prison, while being hesitant to charge the mostly white criminals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol Riots responsible for 5 deaths. Following extensive public and media pressure, the USAO-DC eventually charged the white criminals with much lesser offenses than 18 https://www.dchealthmatters.org/demographicdata 15 the J20 protests with the former US Attorney Michael Sherwin downplaying the criminal conduct of rioters and watering down charges against them. This is perfectly illustrated by the example of Jacob Anthony Chansley, more famously known as the “QAnon Shaman”, who received a mere 41 months sentence 19 , despite the Justice Department stating Chansley had the intent to “capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government” and “committed felonies involving the use of a dangerous weapon”. The Trump Inauguration (J20) protesters neither carried dangerous weapons nor intended to assassinate United States government officials, but faced multiple felonies of up to 60 years in prison. So much for the integrity of USAO-DC. The fact that rogue prosecutors are promoted instead of fired for prosecutorial misconduct within the Superior Court Division of USAO-DC is extremely concerning. Mr. Giovannelli’s former colleague and fellow Deputy Chief of Felony Major Trials Section, and rogue AUSA Jennifer Kerkhoff, who engaged in malicious overcharging and concealment of exculpatory evidence ( Brady 20 violation) in the Trump Inauguration (J20) case, leading to sanctions from D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Morin and dismissal of all charges in embarrassment 21 , was promoted as the Chief of Felony Major Trials Division 22 succeeding Kevin Flynn. At the same time, honest prosecutors at USAO-DC such as AUSA Aaron Zelinsky, AUSA Aaron Zelinsky, who refused to compromise his integrity in the Roger Stone Wikileaks case, are sidelined or forced to resign. In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, AUSA Zelinsky stated 23 : What I heard – repeatedly – was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President. I was told that the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea, was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Stone a break, and that the U.S. 19 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/jan-6-rioter-known-as-qanon-shaman-sentenced-to-41-months 20 Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 21 See e.g. United States v. Mielke et.al. , 2017-CF2-1149 (D.C. Super. Ct.) 22 https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/lead-prosecutor-in-trump-inauguration-protest-trial-sanctioned-for-due- process-violations-has-been-made-head-of-her-department/ 23 https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/zelinsky_opening_statement_hjc.pdf 16 Attorney’s sentencing instructions to us were based on political considerations. I was also told that the acting U.S. Attorney was giving Stone such unprecedentedly favorable treatment because he was “afraid of the President.” Zelinsky Testimony at 2. In other words, ass-kisser AUSAs in USAO-DC get promoted, while honest AUSAs get sidelined and punished. The only reason why Mr. Keerikkattil is still stuck in Australia is because of Mr. Giovannelli. Mr. Keerikkattil has been diligent, obtained case transcripts, researched caselaw, drafted the attached motions and hired counsel in D.C. to represent him. Mr. Giovannelli has stated that he intends to oppose these motions confirming the obvious fact he was more interested in threatening and defaming Mr. Keerikkattil with a public release, making extradition threats in Court, waste taxpayer money and harassing him as much as he can. In addition, the CMD misdemeanor bench warrant that Mr. Giovannelli opposes quashing, remained suspended for more than two years since March 2020, based on orders of the Chief Judge of D.C. Superior Court. Mr. Keerikkattil is outraged that the government he had worked for, has failed to protect him from persecution based on his race and ethnicity. Due to the threat of prosecution under Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. §§ 421 et seq.), he is unable to comment more on his work for the United States, except providing the attached redacted passport excerpts that documents some of his trips to China, Russia and the Middle East. Mr. Keerikkattil prior to being in Australia and the UK, worked for General Dynamics. Hence, it is indeed quite a coincidence that one of the primary beneficiaries of AUKUS defense deals is General Dynamics, the primary contractor for Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines 24 (General Dynamics Electric Boat) and M1A2 Abrams Tanks 25 (General Dynamics Land Systems). 24 https://twitter.com/peterdutton_mp/status/1440092245009461253?lang=en; https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-planned-to-buy-us-nuclear-submarines-peter-dutton-says/c9ui4p9q6 25 https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/peter-dutton/media-releases/enhancing-adfs-armoured-combat- capability 17 The former U.S. President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address famously stated: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”. Mr. Keerikkattil asks his daughter and the recently appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia 26 Caroline Kennedy, “What is my country and you doing to protect my life from the racist, egomaniac, wife abuser AUSA John Giovannelli?” Mr. Keerikkattil indeed, expects continuing retaliation from Mr. Giovannelli and his cronies within the USAO-DC. Mr. Keerikkattil can be reached via E-mail: rkeerikkattil@gmail.com and Phone: +61 434258952 for further comments. 26 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/caroline-kennedy-swornin-as-us-ambassador-to-australia/news- story/3950dbf7884a56b6c20a905444d62551 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : : v. : Case No. 2018-CF2-010309 : : RANJITH KEERIKKATTIL : ________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant, Ranjith Keerikkattil, pursuant to his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process, his Sixth Amendment right to a Fair Trial, Eight Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, and Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(1) and (b)(3), respectfully moves the Honorable Court to respectfully move to dismiss the indictment returned on July 11, 2018. Mr. Keerikkattil also respectfully requests the Honorable Court to dismiss the felony bench warrant issued in this matter dated July 23, 2018. Mr. Keerikkattil requests a hearing on this motion. 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Defendant, Ranjith Keerikkattil (“Mr. Keerikkattil”), pursuant to his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process, his Sixth Amendment right to a Fair Trial, Eight Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, and Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(1) and (b)(3)(B), respectfully moves the Honorable Court to respectfully move to dismiss the unlawful and potentially maliciously obtained indictment returned on July 11, 2018. Whether a failure to appear charge based on alleged failure to appear at a status hearing for a misdemeanor charge is a misdemeanor or a felony, is a question of law and not fact . Given that D.C. Code § 23-1327, the Court of Appeals and legislative history state that a failure to appear charge based on an underlying misdemeanor charge is a misdemeanor and hence fails to state a felony offense, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(1) and (b)(3)(B) is appropriate. Mr. Keerikkattil also respectfully requests the Honorable Court to dismiss the felony bench warrant issued in this matter dated July 23, 2018. Emergency consideration of this motion is requested since the government is attempting to prosecute Mr. Keerikkattil on a felony that is actually a misdemeanor under D.C. law, thereby violating his Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights. The government’s attempt to overcharge Mr. Keerikkattil mirrors its failed attempt to overcharge Trump inauguration protesters in United States v. Mielke et.al. , 2017-CF2-1149 (D.C. Super. Ct.), with felony "engaging" in a riot charge, despite "engaging" in a riot being a misdemeanor under 22 D.C. Code § 1322. See Ex. 1. The Honorable Lynn Leibovitz of this Court ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, entered an order reducing the charge from a felony to misdemeanor. Unlike the ambiguity with the legislative history of D.C.’s rioting statute that was resolved in favor of Defendants by Judge Leibovitz, the legislative 3 history of BRA statute unambiguously demonstrates that Congress always intended the BRA penalties for a misdemeanor charge to be a misdemeanor. INTRODUCTION In a typical failure to appear case, the defendant fails to appear on a given charge and the court issues a bench warrant for failing to appear on that charge. The defendant subsequently either (i) gets arrested on the bench warrant; or (ii) quashes the bench warrant and voluntarily appears in court. That’s when the government brings a failure to appear (often referred to as Bail Reform Act or “BRA”) charge based on whether the defendant’s absence was willful 1 on not. BACKGROUND Mr. Keerikkattil was charged via summons and released in connection with a single count of misdemeanor. See United States v. Keerikkattil , 2015-CMD-17652 (D.C. Super. Ct.). Mr. Keerikkattil has never been charged with any felony charges in D.C. Superior Court (or any jurisdiction) prior to this matter. On July 11, 2018, AUSA John Giovannelli (“Mr. Giovannelli”) hastily obtained a felony failure to appear charge against him, despite the fact that D.C. Code § 23-1327, the Court of Appeals in in Lennon v. United States , 736 A. 2d 208 ( D.C. 1999) and the failure to appear legislative history state that the penalty for failure to appear on a misdemeanor charge is a misdemeanor. ARGUMENT Under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), the court must dismiss a charge if it “fail[s] to state an offense.” Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(3)(B). A charge fails to 1 D.C. Code § 23-1327 explicitly states “willfully fails to appear”.