It is October 17, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

What happens when a United States Attorney fails to fulfill the responsibilities of his office?

And what happens when that official makes a statement that conceals, rather than explains, evidence challenging a federal conviction?

Today, we examine three terms that every American should understand.

Misfeasance. Malfeasance. And nonfeasance.

These terms describe different forms of misconduct or failure in the performance of official duties.

And they raise serious questions concerning former United States Attorney Benjamin Glassman.

Let’s begin with misfeasance.

Misfeasance is the improper performance of an otherwise lawful duty.

An official has authority to act, but performs his responsibilities improperly.

Now consider Glassman.

On October 22, 2018, he met with a group of men, including me, to discuss the conviction of Orlando Carter.

Glassman had already received correspondence from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency identifying PNC Bank’s only debt on file as a separate $250,000 note.

Not the $4 million loan that had become the centerpiece of Carter’s prosecution.

The evidence presented a serious question about the factual foundation of the conviction.

Did Glassman competently examine that contradiction?

Did he seek the underlying bank records?

Did he request an independent review?

Those questions concern the proper performance of his official responsibilities.

Now consider nonfeasance.

Nonfeasance is the failure to perform an act that an official has a legal duty to perform.

The distinction is important.

An official’s failure to act is not automatically unlawful. There must be an identifiable duty requiring action.

But where such a duty exists, failure to discharge it can constitute nonfeasance.

In Carter’s case, the question is whether the evidence presented to Glassman triggered specific legal or professional responsibilities that he failed to fulfill.

Now we arrive at the most serious term.

Malfeasance.

Malfeasance describes wrongful conduct in office, particularly intentional misconduct or abuse of official authority.

And this brings us directly to Glassman’s statement.

When he entered the meeting, Glassman told us that evidence of the $4 million loan had been shredded by the Department of Justice.

I challenged him.

PNC’s records identified no such loan.

The OCC had communicated the bank’s position.

And Glassman was telling us that evidence of that loan had been destroyed.

After the meeting, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records documenting the destruction he described.

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.

Now consider the distinction between an error and a deliberate falsehood.

If Glassman relied upon inaccurate information without verifying it, that raises questions about the competence of his official conduct.

If he failed to perform a specific duty imposed by law, that raises a question of nonfeasance.

But if Glassman knew that his shredding statement was false and used it to prevent further examination of Carter’s conviction, that raises the far more serious question of malfeasance.

And potentially professional misconduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

I accuse Benjamin Glassman of lying about the destruction of evidence.

That accusation is based upon the conflict between his statement, PNC’s banking records, the OCC correspondence, and the subsequent EOUSA response.

The question of whether he knowingly lied requires an examination of what he knew, what records he consulted

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

LIBERTY DIALOGUES — A REAL CASE, REAL VALUE

What would you do if you were facing criminal prosecution, believed your constitutional rights had been violated, and didn’t know how to challenge what happened?

One man faced exactly that situation.

He submitted his concerns through Ask an LD Educator. In approximately one hour, an Educator used the Liberty Dialogues System to prepare a comprehensive educational package.

The cost was $60. Comparable attorney and paralegal work was estimated at approximately $7,000.

Here’s the story.

The man wanted to represent himself in a criminal proceeding, with assistance from a public defender.

According to his account, the judge refused his request. Later, a public defender was appointed without his knowledge or consent.

The public defender allegedly waived the man’s attendance at three court proceedings without authorization.

The man wanted the criminal prosecution dismissed, the judge removed, and the prosecutor fired.

But before those outcomes could be pursued, some fundamental questions needed answers.

Had the court properly addressed his request for self-representation? What authority supported the appointment of counsel? Were the appearance waivers valid? And what evidence existed to establish what actually occurred?

Using the LD System, the Educator examined those questions, identified the relevant legal and procedural issues, and prepared seven draft documents:

Attorney Review Memorandum — Organized the issues for professional examination.

Court Records Request — Sought the docket, orders, recordings, and appearance waivers.

Public Defender File Request — Sought communications, filings, and records of consent.

Requestor Declaration — Organized the man’s firsthand account.

Notice of Nonconsent — Addressed future appearance waivers.

Proposed Motion for Hearing — Requested judicial examination of disputed actions.

Proposed Hearing Order — Identified the subjects for court consideration.

A comprehensive white paper accompanied these documents, explaining the issues, supporting authorities, and possible courses of action.

Now, why should this matter to you?

Because most people confronting government agencies, businesses, or other institutions don’t know what questions to ask, what evidence to demand, or how to challenge unsupported claims.

The Liberty Dialogues System gives you a method you can learn and use independently. You develop the ability to recognize assumptions, examine authority, and organize your own response.

Ask an LD Educator offers something different: access to an Educator who applies that method to your particular situation.

You submit your concerns and receive an educational assessment tailored to the information provided, potentially including documents that help you understand and address the issues.

You can choose to learn the system yourself, obtain an Educator’s assistance, or use both together.

Neither service provides legal representation or guarantees a particular result. Both are designed to help people become informed, organized, and prepared.

The real advantage is no longer having to confront a complicated problem without a method for understanding it.

Visit Liberty Dialogues to learn the system.

Or choose Ask an LD Educator to submit a matter for educational review.

Liberty Dialogues — Question authority. Demand evidence. Understand your options.

www.theyneverhadit.com

It is October 12, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Today, I am accusing a former United States Attorney of lying about evidence in a federal criminal case.

His name is Benjamin Glassman.

And the question is whether he knowingly provided a false explanation about evidence that was central to the conviction and imprisonment of Orlando Carter.

On October 22, 2018, I attended a meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, with Glassman, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth Parker was also present.

We were there because Orlando Carter had been convicted in federal court and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.

At the center of his prosecution was an alleged $4 million loan involving PNC Bank.

But PNC’s own banking records told a different story.

The bank identified a separate $250,000 obligation from years earlier.

In November 2016, PNC informed the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that the $250,000 note was the only debt it had on file.

The OCC subsequently conveyed that information in two letters.

These were not statements invented by Carter.

They originated with PNC Bank and were communicated through a federal banking regulator.

Before our meeting, I had provided Glassman with the OCC correspondence.

He had an opportunity to examine the contradiction between the bank’s records and the prosecution’s central financial premise.

He had an opportunity to ask whether an innocent man had been sent to prison.

Instead, when Glassman entered the meeting, he stated that the Department of Justice had shredded the evidence of the $4 million loan.

I challenged him.

How could evidence of a $4 million loan have been shredded when the bank itself identified only a separate $250,000 obligation?

After the meeting, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

I requested records documenting the destruction Glassman had described.

The response found no records documenting that destruction.

Now consider the sequence.

PNC identified only the separate $250,000 debt.

The OCC communicated that information.

Glassman stated that evidence of the $4 million loan had been shredded.

And the subsequent FOIA search produced no destruction records.

I accuse Benjamin Glassman of lying.

I make that accusation because his explanation conflicts with the documentary evidence and because the subsequent records search failed to substantiate his statement.

Whether he knowingly made a false statement is a question that deserves an independent investigation.

What records did Glassman claim had been destroyed?

When were they destroyed?

Who authorized their destruction?

And what information did Glassman possess when he made his statement?

A United States Attorney is not merely an advocate for convictions.

He is an officer of justice.

His responsibility is not to preserve a conviction at any cost.

His responsibility is to discharge the duties imposed by law and professional ethics.

And that is why Glassman’s conduct deserves scrutiny.

In the next episode, I will examine the documents that challenged the existence of the $4 million loan and explain why Glassman’s shredding statement matters.

And as always…

may truth reign supreme.