Madoff Judge Rules on Fake Bid to Disqualify Prosecutors

The federal judge who sentenced Bernard Madoff to 150 years in prison in 2009 today ruled against an apparently phony request to disqualify prosecutors and dismiss criminal charges against the con man.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin today denied a rambling one-page motion brought in Madoff’s name by a federal convict who’s filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits in U.S. courts, including many claiming the government used mind control against him.

“CIA Office of Science and Technology used bio-electric sensors and subcranial communications voice to skull technology to influence the court,” reads a handwritten note on the motion, filed in Manhattan federal court.

The motion, made public today, is signed with the hand-printed name “Bernard L. Madoff.” A hand-written notation under Madoff’s name reads: “Frederick Banks, the Litigator Legal Asst.”

Banks, 46, a federal inmate in Ohio, has filed at least 304 lawsuits, many of which were dismissed as frivolous, a federal judge in Pennsylvania said last year. Many of the suits complain of the government’s use of a “voice to skull” weapon to control his thoughts.

Vampire Nation

In addition to his own name, Banks has used the names “Fredrik Von Hamilton” and “Vampire Nation,” according to court papers.

The paper filed in Madoff’s case claims the court didn’t have jurisdiction over Madoff’s case because U.S. prosecutors acted outside their authority.

“Defendant’s argument is meritless,” Chin wrote in denying the request.

The motion doesn’t sound like 76-year-old Madoff, said Ira Sorkin, the New York lawyer who formerly represented him.

“As far as I know he’s of sound mind,” said Sorkin, who said he receives occasional e-mails from his former client, who’s serving his time in a federal prison in North Carolina.

“The document is on the docket. It was duly filed,” said Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, clerk of the federal appeals court in New York, where Chin now sits. “We rely upon an adversary to object to a filing, or a party to say that something was filed on their behalf that they did not authorize. If the submission is challenged that way, the court will take it up in the usual course.”

Wolfe said Chin declined to comment on the filing.

The case is U.S. v. Madoff, 09-cr-00213, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.