This legal brief analyzes the wrongful prosecution of Charles J. Dushek by the SEC and DOJ for alleged securities violations. It provides background on Dushek's career and reputation as a respected financial professional with no history of non-compliance. It argues the "cherry-picking" allegations against Dushek are unfounded and that his personal trading was properly conducted through accounts at GreatBanc Trust Company, as permitted by client agreements. Additionally, it asserts the SEC lacked jurisdiction over Dushek's firm Capital Management Associates, which had less than $100 million in assets under management. The brief aims to advocate for Dushek and show government agencies are capable of human error in prosecutorial

1. 1
Legal Brief Evaluating the Wrongful Prosecution by Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC and Department of Justice DOJ in Alleged Wrongful Doings Violations and the DOJ
Indictment of Charles J Dushek
[By Awais Bajwa, Attorney at Law]
The foremostobject ofthis research Legal Brief is to narrate the storyof Mr. Charles
J. Dushek with respect to the legal battle fought by him against the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
wherein, he had been made victim ofwrongful prosecutionthrough so-called cherry-
picking allegations that resulted in an unjust indictment charges by DOJ.
At the outset, I would like to mention that I was invited by Mr. Charles J Dushek to
do some public research on his legal cases from 2012 onwards and to publish in the
public domain any legal findings, opinions, disclosures, defensive arguments, and
public presentation of public-domain information of any kind whatsoever that may
or could be considered as exculpatory (defensive) facts and evidence that Charles J.
Dushek may have no guilt whatsoever regarding the allegations put against him by
the SEC in 2012 onwards, and thereafter by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in
2016 in the form of a criminal indictment for noted wrong-doings alleged below.
This legal brief is in aid of the defensive arguments and facts supporting past and
current legal matters of Mr. Dushek, and for “SocialJustice Advocacy” for his legal
cases to help the General Public understand that US Government Agencies, State
Agencies, and Departments of Regulation that do monitoring and enforcement of
financial services industries, businesses, and persons thereof are all/each subject to
the human errors and omission proclivities within the U.S. Judicial prosecutorial
processes or system.
In the landmark Judgement of Brady v. Maryland, the court held that the
suppressionby the prosecutionof evidence favorable to an accused upon request
violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or innocence,

2. 2
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The case involving
Mr. Dushek also involves blatant violations of the rules enshrined in Brady’s case.
1. Historical Background of the Matter
In 2012, a financial professional by the name of Charles J. Dushek of Illinois was
put through a legal prosecution (persecution) process bythe Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) for alleged wrongful-doings by himself as President
of Capital Management Associates, an Illinois Registered Investment Advisory
(RIA) firm that he established in 2001.
The federal grand jury in Chicago indicted Mr. Charles J Dushek on securities
fraud charges for allegedly allocating profitable trades to his accounts while
assigning unprofitable trades to his client accounts. According to the indictment,
Mr. Dushek, the president of Lisle, Illinois-based Capital Management Associates
Inc. ("CMA") allegedly made purchases of publicly traded securities without
designating in advance whether he was trading personal funds or client funds. He
then reportedly waited up to five days to allocate the trades so that he could select
the profitable trades for his personal accounts and assign the losing ones to the
accounts of unsuspecting clients. From July 2008 to August 2012, Dushek
allegedly withdrew from his own accounts more than $1 million in gains realized
from the scheme.
2. Professional Reputation and Character of Mr. Charles J Dushek
I understand from the available records that Mr. Dushek has been a thorough
professionalwith an esteemed reputation as a personand an expert. He has remained
a shareholder and president of CMA and was registered as an Investment Adviser

3. 3
Representative and Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) with the Illinois
Department of Securities (IL-DOS) since 2001.
According to Mr. Dushek, CMA as an RIA has never been determined by the IL-
DOS of any non-compliance as per FINRA records that go back to 2001 nor has
any client complaint or from otherwise has ever been filed against CMA or its
President Mr. Charles J Dushek. Both Mr. Dushek and CMA have maintained a
perfect compliance regulatory history with IL-DOS since CMA as an RIA was
started in 2001. This discovery prompted me to look back even further in Mr.
Dushek’s professional history within the financial services industry dating back to
1973. From the available records as discovered by research and Fact-finding by
me, there were no records nor notes of any non-compliant activities, complaints or
judgments of any kind about financial crimes or non-compliance with any
regulations.
It was fascinating that Mr. Dushek has authored the following publications of
educational articles for annual “Commodity Research Bureau.”
• Trading the Foreign Currency Futures Markets - by Charles J. Dushek and
Carol J. Harding
• Understanding the U.S. Treasury Bill Futures Market - by Charles J. Dushek
and William M. Bradt
• Understanding the GNMA Futures Market - by Charles J. Dushek
3. No History of Non-compliance
At the time in 2013, when cases were alleged against Mr. Dushek, the Illinois State
Regulator for Capital Management Associates Inc. and Charles J Dushek, an
Investment Advisor, the IL-DOS was directed to conduct annual reviews and
investigations from 2001 onwards onsite at CMA, and at RIA offices of all Illinois
RIA firms, ADV Disclosure Reviews under its Illinois jurisdiction, and to assure
that each Illinois RIA firm and its officers were compliant with IL-DOS Regulations
for RIAs.
It is pertinent to note that it is the discretion of IL-DOS to conductany RIA
surprise audits or to do “for cause” any investigations of RIA firms. If there are
any Findings by Regulators of non-compliant activities by RIA firms and/or other
financial industry entities, these Findings are to be enforced upon by IL-DOS and
reported to FINRA for viewing by all interested persons in the public domain.

4. 4
However, as per Mr. Charles J Dushek, there are no Non-Compliance reports or
records from IL-DOS about CMA nor Mr. Dushek as having engaged in any
wrongful doings regarding any client account trading nor allocations process. Nor,
are there any IL-DOS Regulations within the IL-DOS Regulations that speak to
practices of allocations within their Code.
This review of outstanding compliant conduct and credibility by Mr. Dushek
encouraged me that there seemed to besomething very wrongful in the prosecutorial
endeavors by the SEC and DOJ for alleging illegal doings by Mr. Dushek while
President of CMA. It became even more puzzling that his designated Regulator, IL
DOS, had no findings of wrong-doings nor non-compliance when IL DOS did
several onsite audits and routine investigations for potential non-compliance of
CMA and interviewed each employee of CMA to detect any non-compliance by
either CMA employees, Dushek of CMA and of CMA itself as a RIA since 2001.
4. First Amendment Right of Free Speech
While exercising his First Amendment right of Free Speech, Mr. Dushek wanted to
make his version known to the public, through me an attorney of many years in
financial and international law, as he believes that the US Government Agencies
SEC has victimized him, DOJ and FBI (FBI as interviewers and investigators hired
by SEC and DOJ).
5. Allegation of Cherry-Picking appears Unfounded against Dushek in the Prosecution’s
Cases

5. 5
In conversation with Mr. Dushek, there seemed no definitive inculpatory
(wrongful-doing) evidence that had any validation of any wrongful-doings by him
as President of CMA. I was provided with the public Contractual Investment
Advisory Agreement form between Mr. Dushek and his firm’s clients and the
Agreements between Mr. Dushek and the CMA Clients Custodyand Services firm
(Corporate Fiduciary) GreatBanc Trust Company (GBTC) of Illinois that provided
account custodial, accounting, and many other services which are usual and
customary for a CorporateFiduciary Custodian to exclusively perform to/for CMA
clients.
The allegation of So-Called ( "So-Called" because I could not find nor discover
any Codified Statute or Regulation within SEC Regulations that were published
that charged any act like this as a crime.) Cherry-Picking as leveled against Mr.
Dushek seemed to be unfounded. According to "Investopedia" reference source,
Cherry picking refers to the act of choosing top popular common stocksecurities,
likened to so-called "Blue Chip Stocks" or "Bell Weather Stocks" for investment
for client portfolios from the long-term favorable research history on these favored
companies, that generally overlooks large amounts of public data and/or disregards
broad market metrics. So, Cherry Picking in stockselections by investment
managers have typically meant for decades the picking of stocks that are of such
high quality and favorable company reputation, that market philosophy is that a
Cheery Picked stockcould be a "Can't Lose Investment." 1
The prosecutors failed to present evidence in support of their allegations that Mr.
Dushek engaged in any Cherry Picking scheme. There is a further undocumented
and sketchy definition of Cherry-Picking by the SEC that seems to have a high
variation ofmeaning in arbitrary prosecutorial conductbyenforcement attorneys. It
appears that when the SEC purportedly finds allegations of Cherry-Picking (as per
an SEC non-published definition in any SEC Code definition) as an offense, they
can act on it punitively.
In such cases, the SEC levies arbitrary high fines, mostly over a million dollars, that
is paid only to the SEC and typically (or never) none of the fine dollars are ever
received by any clients that were alleged to have been financially damaged by a so-
called different arbitrary definition by the SEC Cherry-Picking process or scheme.
1 Cherry Picking https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cherrypicking.asp#ixzz5IRFk4qiU

6. 6
This fining process seems to promotean inducement by SEC prosecutors, whosejob
is to prosecute, to work on cases that have the potential to generate revenue for their
employers.
6. Description of Dushek’s Personal Trading as Approved by GreatBanc Trust Company
Regarding the so-called Cherry-Picking and late alleged trade allocations done by
Mr. Dushek for years, he explained that he has been doing short-term multi-day buys
and sells of stocks and day-trading purchases and sells of stocks for himself into his
accounts utterly separate from long-term stockinvestments for CMA clients, where
he was Investment Advisor for individual client accounts.
7. Client Agreement Do Not Permit Short-Term Trading in Client Accounts
Mr. Dushek further noted that every CMA client had executed a “CMA
Investment Advisory Agreement” that prohibited doing any short-term
trading or day-trading in any client accounts whatsoever as controlled by
Article 1 “Appointment of Investment Manager”, and further expressed in
Article 7 “Other Investment Activities”. These provisions are explicitly stated
in all the blank-copy IA Agreements exhibits available in Public Domain.
Paragraph 1…Investment Manager is to do only long term investments into
Client accounts.
Paragraph 2…Investment Manager is to do only securities transactions that
are in accordance with the Client’s Long-Term Investment Objective.
Paragraph 3…Custodian (GBTC) provides securities execution services. In
no event will the Custodian be obligated to execute any transaction which it
believes to be in violation of any State or Federal law or regulation or in
violation of the custodian’s regulator.
Paragraph 7…CMA employees may buy, sell or trade in any securities for
their respective personal accounts. Such transactions may differ from the
timing or nature of action taken with respect to Client’s account…
Paragraph 8…Investment Manager is to act with the care, skill, prudence,
and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing (Circumstances
meaning: GBTC did not provide CMA and Mr. Dushek with any systematic
process to do client account transaction allocations at the time of transaction
executions) that a prudentman acting in like capacity and familiarwith such
matters would use in the conductof an enterprise of a like character and with

7. 7
like aims. Mr. Dushek used his best efforts to comply with any regulations
expressed or implied in doing client account allocations within the processes,
as inadequately provided by GBTC to CMA and Mr. Dushek, to always act
prudently and credibly.
Paragraph 11 c …Investment Adviser is properly registered and in
compliance with the state laws under which the RIA is under IL-DOS
jurisdiction and IL-DOS Regulations.
Paragraph16…Bothparties(CMAand Client) agreethattherepresentations
within the Agreement do not violate any obligation of either party.
Paragraph17…Thevalidityof this Agreement and of anyof its provisions, as
well as rights and duties of the parties hereunder, shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Illinois. (Not laws of the SEC)
8. Explanation of Client and Personal Trading Via GBTC Brokerage Accounts
It was further revealed by Mr. Dushek as to how he did his personal short-term and
day-trading, as he confirmed that he utilized brokerage industry common stock
trade accounts set up by the custodian GBTC of all CMA’s client accounts and
Dushek’s accounts, who is GreatBanc Trust Company, an Illinois Trust Company.
And, that the brokerage accounts were actually in the name of GreatBanc Trust
Company as Principal of these accounts, whereby GreatBanc Trust Company did
all fulfillment of making and taking stockdeliveries and handling cash settlement
payments between counter-parties of all trades.
According to Mr. Dushek, GreatBanc TrustCompany gave an entirely unconditional
authorization to Mr. Dushek and other CMA employees, such as Greg Nickum of
CMA, to utilize these brokerage accounts without having in-place any user
procedures set up by GreatBanc Trust Company management. GreatBanc Trust
Company failed and did not require to have Dushek or other authorized users/traders
to input trade allocations data (Client Names nor Account Numbers) into the DVP
trading Brokerage accountplatform at the time of trade executions, so that each trade

8. 8
could be allocated as: 1. a Long-Term Trade for Clients, or 2. as a Short-Term or
Day-Trade for CMA employee account(s).
Further, GreatBanc TrustCompany failed to establish separate stocktrade brokerage
accounts forCMA to utilize as:“One brokerage accountforonly Personal Employee
Trades, and another brokerage accountforonly CMA Client Accounts trades, to thus
allow CMA to follow the so-called “Best Practices” rule of trade allocations within
the money management industry, which means in general that for all securities
transactions doneby an RIA for clients, that the client accounts to receive the trades
are to be noted (allocated) at the moment that any securities trade is entered and
executed. But, no explicit Rule nor Regulation within the IL-DOS RIA Regulations
codifies rules or regulations for this activity.
Therefore, if there is no Regulation nor Code to reference to, then the financial
services industry can only adopt a so-called Best Practice process if the RIA firm
doing the trades is provided with the Means or System or Platform to utilize a Best
Practice, such as noted previously, but neither CMA nor Mr. Dushek was given any
access to follow any Best Practice of simultaneously entering account allocations
information at the same time as trades were executed. GreatBanc Trust Company is
regulated by the Illinois Department of Professional & Financial Regulation.
9. No Jurisdiction of SEC
The Prosecutors also failed to appreciate that the SEC did not have the jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the matter. Rule 203A-2(c) allows a new firm to directly
register with the SEC on day-one instead of initially registering with the relevant
state(s) before shortly thereafter having to transition to SEC registration once it
reaches $100 million in regulatory assets. RIA Codestates that only RIAs that
have in excess of $100 million in client assets under management are to be
Registered with the SEC, whereas all RIA firms of Illinois that hold less than $100
million in client assets are only Registered and under the single jurisdiction of IL-
DOS. CMA had only $60 million in client assets under its management, therefore
the SEC had no jurisdiction over the compliance of CMA nor Mr. Dushek as an
RIA firm.
10. No Requirement of recording details of transaction
This provision of the IL-DOS for RIAs doing Transactions states the compliance
for doing client account transactions. This Regulation makes no statement that the

9. 9
RIA must note or record the name of each client account at the moment that any
securities transaction is executed by the RIA, Mr. Dushek for any client account.
Section 130.853 Account Transactions
Effecting or causing to be effected by or for any client's account, any transactions
of purchaseor sale which are excessive in size or frequency or unsuitablein view of
the financial resources and character of the account, shall constitute an act,
practice, or course of business on the part of the registered investment adviser or its
representative effecting such transactions or causing the transactions to be effected
that is fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative.2
It was further revealed by Mr. Dushek that GreatBanc Trust Company had full
access to view any and all trades being placed to these brokerage accounts by
simply logging into the brokerage account admin platform with their USER ID and
Password to observe and supervise any/all trades on a real-time basis every day.
Dushek further explained that the general usage operations of these brokerage
accounts were known about by IL DOS regulators and CMA employees.
GreatBanc Trust Company officers and employees also knew about the usage
operations, and that GreatBanc Trust Company never created nor installed any
electronic or digital interface between the brokerage accounttrade executions
information to be immediately propagated or recorded into the account allocations
system for GreatBanc Trust Company for Client Accounts
accounting/bookkeeping.
11. Negligent Actions & Inactions & Agreement Violations of GreatBanc Trust Company
This “Lack of Compliant or Best Practice Processes”by GreatBanc Trust
Company looks to have been a knowingly negligent or inappropriate trading
process setup by GreatBanc Trust Company to not have linked client account(s)
allocations information and trade execution information flows into its proprietary
accounting and allocation bookkeeping processes.
2 TITLE 14: COMMERCE: SUBTITLE A: REGULATION OF BUSINESS: CHAPTER I: SECRETARY OF STATE: PART 130
REGULATIONS UNDER ILLINOIS SECURITIES LAW OF 1953 : SECTION 130.853 ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS

10. 10
Mr. Dushek further described that the “GreatBanc Custody Agreements” (a public
document that was always given out by CMA to Clients since 2003 to examine as
they desired), that each and every CMA Client executed the Agreement along with
GreatBanc Trust Company as “Agent” and each CMA client as “Principal”, are the
only two parties as signors of these Agreements. The Agreements explicitly
designated only the Agent, GreatBanc Trust Company to execute Buy and Sell
securities transactions on behalf of Principals (CMA Clients) pursuant to Article III,
POWERS AND DUTIES of AGENT, para 1) General Power, or upon the
instructions of an Investment Manager duly appointed by Principal. This leaves
GBTC in a non-compliant condition by directing CMA and Mr. Dushek to directly
execute transactions for Principal’s accounts in the usage of an inferior and non-
compliant securities trading accounts and information gathering platform, both
operated by GBTC.
Further under Article VI Paragraph 12 Successors and Assigns…GBTC seemed to
have assigned all the Provisions of this Agreement to SEI Trust Company, which
included all trade execution processes that were inferior to Best Practices of a
compliant Trust Company, thereby making SEI Trust Company a culpable partner
of GBTC in all wrongdoings and violations of Agent within the Agreement.
Further under Article VI Paragraph 2 Degree of Care….GBTC violated Custodial
services of care, skill, prudence and diligence as to how a prudent personshould act
in not utilizing a credible securities trading execution and client account(s) trade
allocation bookkeeping system.
12. CMA and Dushek are Faultless & Guilt-Free of Wrong-Doings
In light of the above, neither Dushek nor CMA had any legal operations power nor
authority within the Agreements to be doing any securities purchase and sell
transactions, nor to do Trade Allocations entries into Personal Accounts nor CMA
Client Accounts, and the entirely of the allocation processes and trade settlements
was the legal and contractual burden/responsibility/obligation of only GreatBanc
Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company), not a responsibility of either
Dushek nor anyone else, employee or otherwise of CMA, who all were “Clients” of

11. 11
GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company), and NOT
Employees nor Agents of GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust
Company).
Within all known regulatory frameworks of law, the Client is always to remain
powerless and disabled from making or doing any “accounting transactions” into
his/her accounts at any bank, trust company, brokerage or other institution.
Therefore, the allegation of Cherry-Picking and delayed allocations do not appear to
be substantiated.
13. GreatBanc Trust Company Operates a Flawed Accounting and Trade Allocations
System
On the other hand, the alleged wrongful doings appear to be upon GreatBanc Trust
Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company), as being willfully negligent in
providing a “BestPractices” trade executions system under the controlofGreatBanc
TrustCompany (Pursuant to Article III Para 1 ofthe “GBTC CustodialAgreement”)
and a process so as to have enabled CMA employees and Dushek “to have only
compiled personal account and client account trade allocations information for
GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company)” to do the accounts
transaction bookkeeping postings as a systematic data input condition of brokerage
trade entries and executions. Further, all the brokerage account trades allocations
information should have followed through in an integrity system sponsored
exclusively by the Custodian into the Custodian’s bookkeeping process as required
by GBTC’s regulator.
GreatBanc Trust Company, was contractually operating its business in a Fiduciary
Capacity to be doing all things in the best interests of its Clients, per the GreatBanc
Trust CompanyCustodial Agreement terms. All of the following were Principals of
the Agreements: CMA Clients accounts, Charles J. Dushek accounts, and CMA
entity accounts. CMA was also a Customer/Client and never an Agent of or to
GreatBanc Trust Company.
GreatBanc Trust Company of Illinois is regulated by Illinois Department of
Financial & Professional Regulation. There is no Regulation that allows a Trust
Company custodian to direct or delegate the bookkeeping functions to any non-
employee of the Trust Company nor to any unaffiliated firm or organization of the
Trust Company. Whereas, GBTC delegated and directed CMA, its employees and
Mr. Dushek to make not only direct client account transactions into client

12. 12
accounts, but also directed and facilitated a non-compliant trade allocations system
known as MOXY Advent for CMA to utilize that gave over “direct entry securities
trading and client account transaction bookkeeping functions to CMA. Whereas
GBTC was in violation of Illinois Department of Financial & Professional
Regulations: TRUSTS AND FIDUCIARIES (760 ILCS 5/) Trusts and Trustees
Act. And FINANCIAL REGULATION (205 ILCS 620/) Corporate Fiduciary Act.
14. Violations of Rationale of Brady’s Case
continue It appears as if the Prosecutors ofSEC failed to disclose the Brady evidence
in the Dushek’s case. Since a prosecutor's Brady duty is a continuing one3, a
prosecutor is obligated-throughout the pre-trial and trial proceedings-to disclose
Bradyevidence when he learns about it, and is required to make a diligent search for
Brady (defensive) evidence in places where Brady evidence is readily available.
When a defendant pleads guilty or the case goes to trial, there is a presumption that
a prosecutorhas complied with his disclosureobligations.4 However, it is commonly
believed that most Brady evidence never gets disclosed; rather, it remains buried in
drawers, boxes, and file cabinets in the offices ofthe prosecutor, thepolice, and other
law enforcement and government agencies connected to the case.5
3 The Supreme Court's treatment of Brady has routinely viewed the prosecutor's duty as a continuingone. See, e.g.,
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (due process violated where prosecutor learned during trial that
committed perjury but failed to inform defendant). See also Advisory Committee Report, supra note 14, at 13, 26
(noting federal and state courts that explicitly make the prosecutor's disclosure obligation "a continuing one.").
Moreover, the prosecutor's duty under Brady does not end with the verdict but continues. See Canion v. Cole, 91
P.3d 355,360 (Ariz.Ct App. 2004) ("The defendant's rightto due process with regard to the disclosureof exculpatory
evidence does not cease to existafter the verdictis rendered; the prosecution has a continuingduty to providesuch
evidence as was unlawfully withheld.
4 See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899,909 (1997) (quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation,Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-
15 (1926)) ("Ordinarily,wepresume that public officialshaveproperly discharged their official duties.").
5 See United States v. Alvarez, 86 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir.1996) (''the government's failureto turn over exculpatory
information in its possession is unlikely to be discovered and thus largely unreviewable"); United States v. Oxman,
740 F.2d 1298, 1310 (3d Cir. 1984) ("material favorableto the defense may never emerge from secret government
files"). See a/so Elizabeth Napier Dewar, A Fair Trial Remedy for Brady Violations, 115 YALE L.J. 1450, 1455 (2006)
("Defendants only rarely unearth suppressions."); Stephen A. Saltzburg, Perjury and False Testimony: Should the
Difference Matter So Much?, 68 FORDHAM L. REv. 1537,1579 (2000) (arguingthatin mostcases,"withheld evidence
will never see the light of day"); Tracy L. Meares, Rewards for Good Behavior: Influencing Prosecutorial Discretion
and Conduct With Financial Incentives, 64 FORDHAM L. REv. 851, 909 (1995) ("it is probably fair to say that many
instances of Brady-type misconduct are never discovered and hence never reported").

13. 13
Courts continue to recite the litany that prosecutors who may lack knowledge of the
existence of Brady evidence have a constitutional and ethical duty to learn about its
existence, but prosecutors to invoke their own familiar litany when a defendant
requests Brady evidence. However, prosecutors are aware that if they lack
knowledge ofthe existence of Bradyevidence, there is nothing for them to suppress-
or disclose. Thus, prosecutors can avoid complying with Brady by asserting either
that they are unaware ofthe existence of Bradyevidence, orthat any Bradyevidence,
even if it exists, is not in their possession or control. Clearly, a claim of ignorance
offers a prosecutor a convenient opportunity to engage in gamesmanship to avoid
compliance with Brady.
Further, that prosecutors candirectly conductdefamation ofcharacter with impunity
in the Public Domain to a person’s reputation and further to legally prosecute any
individual with the use of: false, fake, spurious, incomplete, schemed, un-verified,
prejudicial, unconfirmed, and perjured testimony evidence to create & bring forward
allegations of wrongful doing and Grand Jury Indictments by the prosecutorial
systems in the US Judicial System.
Prosecutors have violated its principles so often that it stands more as a landmark to
prosecutorial indifference and abuse than a hallmark of justice. Moreover, as
interpreted by the judiciary, Brady actually invites prosecutors to bend, if not break,
the rules,6 and many prosecutors have become adept at Brady gamesmanship to
avoid compliance.7
6 See Joseph R. Weeks, No Wrong Without a Remedy: The Effective Enforcement of the Duty of ProsecutoT'3 to
Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, 22 OKLA. CITY U.L. REv. 833, 836. (1997) (Brady "is a right that almost begs to be
violated;Eugene Cerruti, Through the Looking Glass attheBrady Doctrine: Some New Reflections on WhiteQueens,
Hobgoblins,and Due Process,94 KY. L.J. 211, 274 (2005) ("Brady is now best understood as a rule of prosecutorial
privilege rather than a rule of disclosure. I am reminded of Judge Jerome Frank's famous aphorism that the rules
regulatingmisconductby prosecutors areseen by prosecutors as "pretend rules" when courts do not enfor ce them.
See United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (2d Cr. 1946) (Frank, J., dissenting).
7 The tern "gamesmanship" has been employed to describea prosecutor's treatment of Brady. See United States v.
Oxman, 740 F.2d 1298,,1310 (3d Cir. 1984)("this courthas been faced with annoyingfrequency with gamesmanship
by some prosecutors with respect to the duty to discloseUnited States v. Starusko,729 F.2d 256,265_ (3d Cir.1984)

14. 14
15. Conclusion
In summary this is the first Legal Brief, in my “Legal Brief Articles” forthe purposes
of “Social Justice Advocacy” for a legal case involving Charles J. Dushek to help
the public understand that the system of administration of justice is subject to human
errors, vile manipulations, and omission proclivities within self-greed and in
prosecutorial processes. And, that a reputable and honorable man such as Charles J
Dushek having maintained a 40-year period of compliant business behavior and in
his ethics within financial regulated industry positions, has been unfoundedly
persecuted and prosecuted by very questionable prosecutorial tactics that in many
instances violate his fundamental rights, Brady vs. Maryland and Due Process.
_______________________
Awais Bajwa
Attorney at Law (Pakistan)
Researcher & Brief Writer
For Social Justice for US Citizens
Email: awaisbajwalawyer@live.com
("the [Brady] game will go on,butjusticewill suffer").Seealso Stephanos Bibas,Brady v.Maryland:FromAdversarial
Gamesmanship Toward the Search for Innocence?, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE STORIES, (Carol S. Streiker ed. 2006),at
129.