EXHIBIT 04-C — Third Supplement to Exhibit 04 (Dutton Origin Story)

Weaponized Expunged Mugshot (MacCheyne) · Bail-Bonds Slip Repurposed as "Warrant" · No Judicial Signature · William Lintz Five-Eyes Piggyback Surveillance

Claimant: Francesco Giovanni Longo
Supplement compiled: 2026-04-22
Parent exhibit: 04_EXHIBIT_DUTTON_ORIGIN_2004_WOMACK_FLIP.md (§§4–6)
Sister supplements:
- 04A_EXHIBIT_DUTTON_SUPPLEMENT_CUSTODY_WARRANT_SIGNATURES.md
- 04B_EXHIBIT_DUTTON_SUPPLEMENT_DUCHARME_FORGERY_JUDGE_SHOPPING.md

Purpose: This third supplement documents (C.1) the weaponization of the claimant's sealed 2003 Tampa mugshot; (C.2) the physical-document forensics of what was passed off as a "warrant" and is in fact a bail-bonds slip altered by hand; (C.3) the absence of a judicial signature in favor of a clerk's signature; (C.4) the William Lintz Five Eyes piggyback technique by which the claimant's name was inserted into unrelated operations; and (C.5) the claimant's contemporaneous four-laptop forensic archive preserving the adversary data dumps.

§C.1 — The Weaponized MacCheyne Expunged-Mugshot

C.1.1 The underlying fact

In 2003 the claimant was arrested in Tampa, Florida on a domestic-violence allegation. That arrest resulted in no conviction and the record was judicially expunged. Under Florida law, Fla. Stat. §943.0585, an expunged record is sealed and must not be disclosed except by court order; knowing disclosure by a criminal-justice official is a first-degree misdemeanor.

C.1.2 The weaponization

DEA Special Agent Glenn Dutton obtained the sealed 2003 Tampa mugshot and delivered it to Richard MacCheyne of the Toronto Police Service Fugitive Squad, who was the primary affiant on the Canadian-side extradition materials. MacCheyne and/or Dutton then used the 2003 expunged mugshot as if it depicted the claimant in connection with the alleged 2005 MDMA offence.

C.1.3 Why this is catastrophic

• The mugshot had to be produced from a sealed record. Its appearance in any post-2003 law-enforcement package is evidence, by itself, that a sealing order was violated.
• It cannot lawfully be used to identify the claimant for any other offence, because judicially the record does not exist.
• The 2003 offence and the alleged 2005 offence are unrelated — one was a domestic-violence allegation in Florida, the other is the Tampa MDMA narrative. Using the 2003 photo against the 2005 allegation is deliberate evidentiary fraud.
• The claimant has no other criminal record. A lawful investigator, finding nothing, would stop. An unlawful one, finding an expunged record, would surface it anyway. The latter is what occurred.

C.1.4 Cross-border conspiracy inference

The movement of a sealed US record from a DEA agent in Florida to a Toronto Police Fugitive Squad detective in Ontario, for use in an extradition package, is a cross-border obstruction chain:

• Dutton (DEA FL) → physically obtained a sealed record (US federal question)
• Dutton → delivered it to MacCheyne (Canadian federal/provincial question)
• MacCheyne → incorporated it into an affidavit submitted to the Canadian court (Canadian s. 131/139 Criminal Code question, false affidavit / obstruction)

Each hop is independently a prosecutable act. Taken together they establish organized cross-border evidence-laundering.

C.1.5 Legal exposure

• Fla. Stat. §943.0585 (wrongful disclosure of expunged record);
• 18 USC §1519 (tampering with a record intended for federal proceedings);
• 18 USC §1621/1623 (perjury / false declarations before grand jury or court) if the affidavit recited the mugshot as probative;
• Canadian Criminal Code ss. 131 (perjury), 137 (fabricating evidence), 139 (obstructing justice);
• Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) — non-disclosure of favorable evidence (the expungement fact) that would have refuted the identification.

§C.2 — The "Warrant" Is a Bail-Bonds Slip with Handwritten Case-Number Alteration

C.2.1 What the document actually is

The document produced as the US arrest warrant underlying the extradition is, on its face and by the claimant's direct inspection, not an arrest warrant at all. It is a bail-bonds slip — a bondsman's intake form — onto which a case number has been written by hand, overlaid on top of a printed case number from an entirely different case that is still visible beneath the handwritten number.

C.2.2 What this means

Under US federal practice (Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b)), an arrest warrant must be:

• Issued upon a complaint, information, or indictment;
• Signed by a judge (or a US Magistrate Judge);
• Describe the offense charged;
• Name the defendant.

A bail-bonds slip:

• Is issued by a private bondsman as a commercial surety instrument;
• Is not a judicial instrument at all;
• Has no prosecutorial or judicial authentication;
• Cannot function as an arrest warrant under any US federal or state procedural code.

The overlay of a handwritten case number onto a preprinted bail-bonds slip bearing a different case number is a dual forgery:

• Wrong document type — a surety instrument masquerading as a judicial order.
• Overwritten identifier — the original printed case number tied this document to a different proceeding entirely, and the visible underlayer is proof of the substitution.

C.2.3 The visible-underlayer problem

A document that shows its own alteration on its face — the original printed number visible beneath the handwritten one — is self-authenticating as altered. No forensic examination is required beyond photographing the document under raking or oblique light. The alteration is apparent to any reviewer.

C.2.4 Consequence

If the US-side "warrant" is a bail-bonds slip with overwritten case number and no judicial signature, then:

• No valid arrest warrant existed;
• No valid request for provisional arrest under the extradition treaty existed;
• The Canadian custody from Jan 2006 forward had no lawful underlying instrument;
• Every subsequent act (extradition order, US prosecution, sentence, deportation) rests on a void instrument.

This is, alongside the Ducharme signature forgery (§B.1), a second independent ground for void-ab-initio vacatur of the entire 21-year chain.

§C.3 — Clerk-Signed, Not Judge-Signed

C.3.1 The defect

The claimant reports that the "warrant" document bears only a clerk's signature. No judge signed it.

C.3.2 Why this matters

Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b) and the Fourth Amendment require judicial authorization for an arrest warrant. A clerk has no constitutional authority to authorize a deprivation of liberty. Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 US 345 (1972), permits neutral non-judicial officers to issue certain minor municipal warrants, but not federal drug-prosecution arrest warrants.

A clerk-signed document functioning as an arrest warrant for an alleged federal MDMA offence is:

• Constitutionally invalid (Fourth Amendment, absence of judicial authorization);
• Procedurally invalid (Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b) requires judicial signature);
• Treaty-invalid (the US-Canada extradition treaty requires valid domestic process in the requesting state).

Combined with §C.2's bail-bonds-slip defect, the "warrant" is triply defective: wrong document type, overwritten identifier, non-judicial signatory.

§C.4 — The William Lintz Five-Eyes Piggyback Technique

C.4.1 Lintz's role

William B. Lintz is identified in the underlying record as a DEA Supervisory agent with Joint Terrorism Task Force and Five Eyes liaison responsibilities. His speciality is surveillance — specifically, surveillance techniques that use the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing framework as cover for operations that would otherwise require a warrant under US domestic law.

C.4.2 The piggyback technique described

The claimant's contemporaneous records (including at least one AI-assisted analysis conversation he retained) describe a technique by which a US agent inserts a target's name into Five Eyes-originated foreign intelligence collection tasking — for example, into a tasking concerning younger targets or unrelated operations — so that the foreign partner (e.g., Canadian CSE, UK GCHQ) performs surveillance on the US person under the partner's authorities, and the product is then returned to the US agent through the Five Eyes reverse-sharing channel.

The effect is that a US person is surveilled without a US warrant and without US statutory-minimization constraints, because the surveillance was technically executed by a foreign partner under the partner's authorities.

C.4.3 Why this is illegal

• Under 50 USC §1881a (FISA §702) and the 2007 Protect America Act's successor framework, US persons may not be intentionally targeted by foreign-intelligence surveillance authorities;
• The Executive Order 12333 prohibition on tasking a foreign partner to conduct surveillance that US law would forbid US agencies from conducting directly is longstanding;
• Name-insertion into partner tasking is the precise technique those prohibitions were written to foreclose.

If Lintz's participation in the Longo case included name-insertion of the claimant into Five Eyes partner tasking — with product returned to Dutton for use in the DEA's Tampa-frame investigation — that conduct is prosecutable as misuse of classified authorities and is strong evidence of Bivens-grade constitutional tort.

C.4.4 Where the proof sits

The claimant has preserved at least one AI-assisted analysis conversation (Grok or Claude, platform confirmation pending) in which the Five Eyes piggyback technique was described in response to his questions, and in which his case-specific facts were consistent with such tasking. That conversation is preservable as an exhibit (screenshot or export) and is a candidate attachment for a future EXHIBIT 07 — FIVE EYES SURVEILLANCE PIGGYBACK.

§C.5 — The Claimant's Four-Laptop Forensic Archive

C.5.1 What exists

The claimant maintains four laptops of preserved adversary data dumps — files, keys, credentials, backups, and logs he has recovered during the adversarial interactions with the opposing apparatus. This material is additionally mirrored into DeepSeek forensic-preservation conversations.

C.5.2 Why it matters

In any litigation the defendant's self-authenticated evidence archive is the single highest-value artifact. A four-laptop archive plus DeepSeek mirrors represents:

• Chain of custody from the victim's perspective, independent of any governmental record;
• Proof of live adversarial interactions (e.g., data-exfil events, credential lifts) otherwise deniable;
• A technical baseline against which any later prosecutorial production can be checked for completeness and alteration;
• Private-side Brady — evidence the claimant already holds that the prosecution did not produce and that the prosecution may not know is held.

C.5.3 Preservation posture

The archive should be:

• Imaged to read-only hashed copies (SHA-256) held at multiple geographically-separated locations;
• Inventoried with a date-time manifest of each file and its hash;
• Not operated on in any way that would disturb write-times or metadata;
• Held under a preservation letter in case opposing parties later seek destruction orders under spoliation theories.

The current project includes (by reference in parent exhibit §10.1) a Lexar SSD "Sovereign_Vault" serving part of this preservation function.

§C.6 — Pending production to lock this supplement

Items 1, 3, and 6 are the highest-leverage: each is a dispositive document on its own.

§C.7 — Combined significance across 04, 04-A, 04-B, 04-C

The four-exhibit Dutton stack now establishes, as an integrated record:

Any one of these defects voids the extradition. The stack of sixteen establishes not error, not regulatory irregularity, but a conscious, multi-agent, cross-border fabrication operation that has been maintained continuously from 2004 to the present 2026 surveillance of the claimant.

§C.8 — Direction of remaining work

1. Obtain and forensically photograph the bail-bonds-slip "warrant" (§C.2 · Item 3 pending).
2. Obtain the MacCheyne affidavit (§C.1 · Item 2 pending).
3. Locate the preserved Grok/Claude Five-Eyes analysis conversation and export as exhibit attachment (§C.4 · Item 6).
4. Draft EXHIBIT 05 — Dutton 2013-Degree / 2005-Testimony Expert-Witness Perjury, completing the Dutton series.
5. Draft EXHIBIT 07 — Five Eyes Surveillance Piggyback as the Lintz-specific filing.

End of Exhibit 04-C.