Benjamin Glassman lied - Part 2 cover art

Benjamin Glassman lied - Part 2

Benjamin Glassman lied - Part 2

Listen for free

View show details

Season's Savings | $0.99/mo for 3 months

Auto-renews at $8.99/mo. after 3 months - terms apply.
It is October 13, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.In our last episode, I accused former United States Attorney Benjamin Glassman of lying about the destruction of evidence concerning a $4 million loan.Today, I want to show you why.And I want you to consider one question.If PNC Bank made a $4 million loan, why did the bank’s own records and statements identify no such loan?This is not a dispute based upon speculation.We have documents originating from PNC Bank itself, authenticated banking records, and correspondence from the federal agency responsible for regulating national banks.Let’s examine them.First, the Autumn Drdek records from 2009.Authenticated PNC records identified a $250,000 obligation, not a $4 million loan.Second, the Clinton Taylor letter dated May 20, 2015.PNC could not obtain information concerning the purported $4 million loan guarantee from 2004.Third, PNC’s statement to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in November 2016.The bank identified a note dated December 31, 2003, in the amount of $250,000, describing it as the only debt on file.That is an extraordinary statement.The bank itself identified its only debt on file.And it was not four million dollars.Fourth, the OCC letters dated January 30 and March 2, 2017.The OCC communicated PNC’s position that the $250,000 note was the only debt identified.Remember, the $250,000 note was a separate obligation from years earlier.It was not the alleged $4 million loan.Fifth, the Cheryl Basko records from January 2018.Another PNC records custodian certified banking records identifying the $250,000 obligation rather than the alleged $4 million loan.And finally, PNC subsequently stated in a judicial filing that it had never asserted that it made a $4 million loan.Think about the significance.The bank’s records.The bank’s custodians.The bank’s correspondence.The bank’s statements to its federal regulator.And the bank’s judicial position.These are independent documentary sources supporting the same conclusion:PNC Bank did not make the alleged $4 million loan.Now return to October 22, 2018.Benjamin Glassman was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.I met with him in Cincinnati, accompanied by other men concerned about Orlando Carter’s conviction.Kenneth Parker was also present.Before that meeting, I had provided Glassman with the OCC correspondence.Glassman entered the room and stated that evidence of the $4 million loan had been shredded by the Department of Justice.That statement is the center of my accusation against him.Because the evidence he claimed had been destroyed concerned a loan that PNC’s own records did not substantiate.After the meeting, I sought records documenting that destruction through the Freedom of Information Act.The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.So now the questions become unavoidable.What evidence did Glassman claim had been shredded?Who possessed it?Who authorized its destruction?And what documentation supported his statement?A no-records FOIA response is not, by itself, a determination that Glassman knowingly lied. But it leaves his statement without the documentary substantiation requested.I believe Glassman gave us a false explanation, and I want that explanation investigated.More importantly, I want the federal government to reconcile the financial records with the prosecution that sent Orlando Carter to prison.Because this case exposes a much larger problem.The Department of Justice advanced one factual position.PNC’s banking records and its communications through the Department of the Treasury’s OCC presented a different picture.And a United States Attorney offered an explanation about destroyed evidence that a subsequent federal records search did not substantiate.The government cannot expect the public to accept these contradictions without answers.Under the Liberty Dialogues System, we begin with the proposition being asserted.Then we identify the evidence required to establish it.Then we determine whether the evidence actually supports the proposition.That is how presumption is separated from proof.And that is precisely the examination that the disputed $4 million loan demands.In our next episode, we move beyond the documents and examine the conduct of the officials responsible.Misfeasance. Malfeasance. Nonfeasance.Three important terms concerning failures of public office.And we will ask which, if any, applies to Benjamin Glassman’s conduct.And as always…may truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.