LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...: Are you ready for this? We Are.    
 Are you ready for this? We Are.20 comments
22 Aug 2002 @ 15:06, by Anthony Marsh

This is what we are doing, please feel free to pass this along. They are so fired. :}

> > Attached is the RICO lawsuit Janet Fischer filed on
> > August 1, 2002. She gave me your e-mail addresses
> > over a week ago, but I've been a little busy getting
> > these letters out. On page 20 some addresses are
> > missing, since corrected, and I still need to get the
> > exhibits to send. I'll try and save all your
> > addresses so I can just forward them on when I get
> > them. A whole lot of shaking going on out here on the
> > left coast, but things are looking better every day.
> > Marvin Lusk


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EASTERN DIVISION

Janet I. Fischer

Plaintiff

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN ASHCROFT in his official and individual capacity, VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS in her official and individual capacity, RACHEL INGRAM in her official and individual capacity, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS in its official capacity, LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM in his official and individual capacity, DAVID J. MALAND in his official and individual capacity, WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI in his official and individual capacity, SHERYL L. LOESCH in her official and individual capacity, SHERRI R. CARTER in her official and individual capacity, JACK WAGNER in his official and individual capacity, MIKE BRADFORD in his official and individual capacity, WILLIAM BLAGG in his official and individual capacity, KIRSTEN SUDHOFF DOOR in her official and individual capacity, ANDREA HEDRICK PARKER in her official and individual capacity, HAROLD O. ATKINSON in his official and individual capacity, PAUL MICHAEL BROWN in his official and individual capacity, LEON W. WEIDMAN in his official and individual capacity, PATRICIA A. WILLING in her official and individual capacity, ROBERT D. McCALLUM in his official and individual capacity, MICHAEL F. HERTZ in his official and individual capacity, STEVE D. ALTMAN in his official and individual capacity, ANDREW SKOWRONEK in his official and individual capacity, JOHN S. GORDON in his official and individual capacity, LEON W. WEIDMAN in his official and individual capacity, GARY PLESSMAN in his official and individual capacity, KRISTINE BLACKWOOD in her official and individual capacity, BENNET & WESTON in its official capacity, MATTHEWS, CALTON, STEIN, SHIELS, PEARCE, DUNN & KNOTT in its official capacity, WOLFE, CLARK, HENDERSON & TIDELL in its official capacity, BRADY & COLE in its official capacity, GODWIN, WHITE & GRUBER in its official capacity, LEA & CHAMBERLAIN in its official capacity, BECKWORTH & CARRIGAN, LLP in its official capacity, SAYLES & LIDJI in its official capacity, WALD &



ASSOCIATES in its official capacity, JACKSON & WALKER, LLP in its official capacity, JACKSON & WALKER, LLP in its official capacity, JENKINS & GILCHRIST in its official capacity, JENKINS & GILCHRIST in its official capacity, RHEA & RODMAN, LLP, in its official capacity, DECARLI & IRWIN in its official capacity, PAMELA MCGRAW in her individual and official capacity, CHARLES S. FRIGERIO in its official capacity, CHARLES S. FRIGERIO in his individual and official capacity, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS in its official capacity, CLEMENS & SPENCER, PC in its official capacity, CLEMENS & SPENCER in its official capacity, KEITH A. KENDALL in his individual and official capacity, JONES, KURTH & ANDREWS, PC in its official capacity, MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB, PC in its official capacity, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD in its official capacity, STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP in its official capacity, PAUL ANDREW DRUMMOND, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, in its official capacity, THOMAS & LIBOWITZ, PA in its official capacity, VICTORIA VALERGA in her individual and official capacity, SOUTHERN ANIMAL RESCUE ASSOCIATION, INC., in its official capacity, ANGELA DICKERSON NOBLE in her individual and official capacity, ALLEN, STEIN, POWERS, DURBIN & HUNNICUTT in its official capacity, CHARLES B. GORHAM in his individual and official capacity, BRIN & BRIN in its official capacity, LEMLER & ASSOCIATES, PC in its official capacity, LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO RAMOS in its official capacity, PASCO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE in its official capacity, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION in its official capacity, DEBOISE & POULTON, P.A. in its official capacity, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP in its official capacity, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES RICHARD HOOPER, P.A. in its official capacity, FOWLER, WHITE, GILLEN, BOGGS, VILLAREAL & BANKER, PA in its official capacity, LAW OFFICE OF NANCY M. PARHAM in its official capacity, NIX, HOLTSFORD, GILLILAND, LYONS & HIGGINS, PC in its official capacity, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. DAVIS in its official capacity, CARRINGTON & CARRINGTON in its official capacity, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA in its official capacity, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM in its official capacity, COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE in its official capacity, CREASON & AARVIG, LLP in its official capacity, MARIA K. AARVIG in her official, individual, and corporate capacity, KINKLE, RODIGER & SPRIGGS in its official capacity, DONALD BEACHAM in his official capacity, DENTON COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE in its official capacity, McDONALD SANDERS, PC in its official capacity, CANTLEY & HANGER in its official capacity, GRIFFEN, WHITTEN & JONES in its official capacity, HOPKINS & SUTTER in its official capacity, CULLUM LAW FIRM, PC in its official capacity, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART in its official capacity, McHALE & CONNER in its official capacity, CHASE, ROTCHFORD, DRUKKER & BOGUST in its official capacity, FIELDS & CREASON in its official capacity, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR in its official capacity, ROBERT E. CHRISTIAN in his official capacity, JAMES L. KEE in his official capacity, TERRY A. GREEN in his official and individual capacity, ELVIRA R. MITCHELL in her official and individual capacity, COLEMAN A. SWART in his official and individual capacity, GEORGE W. LINDLEY in his official capacity, PAUL L. ABRAMS in his official capacity, ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN in her official capacity, CHARLES F. EICK in his official capacity, JEFFREY W. JOHNSON in his official capacity, VICTOR B. KENTON in his official capacity, JENNIFER T. LUM in her official capacity, MARGARET A. NAGLE, FERNANDO M. OLGUIN in his official capacity, PATRICK J. WALSH in his official capacity, ROBERT N. BLOCK in his official capacity, RALPH ZAREFSKY in his official capacity, STEPHEN J. HILLMAN in his official capacity, JAMES W. McMAHON in his official capacity, CAROLINE TURCHIN in her official capacity, ANDREW J. WISTRICH in his official capacity, CARLA WOEHRLE in her official capacity, STEPHEN G. LARSON in his official capacity, MARC L. GOLDMAN in his official capacity, ARTHUR NAKAZATO in his official capacity, PERCY ANDERSON in his official capacity, WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, JR. in his official capacity, A. ANDREW HAUK in his official capacity, HARRY L. HUPP in his official capacity, WILLIAM D. KELLER in his official capacity, J. SPENCER LETTS in his official capacity, RONALD S.W. LEW in his official capacity, NORA M. MANELLA in his official capacity, CONSUELO B. MARSHALL in her official capacity, A. HOWARD MATZ in his official capacity, MARIANA R. PFAELZER in his official capacity, DEAN D. PREGERSON in his official capacity, EDWARD RAFEEDIE in his official capacity, WILLIAM J. REA, MANUAL L. REAL in his official capacity, CHRISTINA A. SNYDER in her official capacity, ROBERT M. TAKASUGI in his official capacity, JOHN F. WALTER in his official capacity, STEPHEN V. WILSON in his official capacity, LOURDES G. BAIRD in her official capacity, AUDREY B. COLLINS in her official capacity, FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER in her official capacity, ROBERT J. KELLEHER in his official capacity, GEORGE H. KING in his official capacity, MARGARET M. MORROW in her official capacity, DICKRAN TEVRIZIAN in his official capacity, ROBERT J. TIMLIN in his official capacity, LOURDES G. BAIRD in her official capacity, DAVID O. CARTER in his official capacity, GARY L. TAYLOR in his official capacity, ALICEMARIE H. STOTLER in her official capacity, ALESHIA M. WHITE in her official capacity, PAUL BROWN in his official and individual capacity, ORLANDO GARCIA in his official and individual capacity, RICHARD P. LAZARRA in his official and individual capacity, MAURICE M. PAUL in his official and individual capacity, TERRY J. HATTER in his official and individual capacity, WILLIAM B. SHUBB in his official and individual capacity, GARY A. FEESS in his official and individual capacity, and DOES.

Defendants
______________________________________________________________________________


FIRST AMENDED CIVIL RICO CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO), RELATED FEDERAL LAWS, AND RELATED STATE LAWS

1. This is a first amended action brought by plaintiff Janet I. Fischer, who petitions for redress of grievances, and requests that the court hold defendants accountable for violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. (West 2001), clearly established law, other applicable federal statutes, and applicable state statutes, for fraud and swindle, for obstruction of justice, conspiring to obstruct justice for themselves and others for operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise, for the filing of false claims, and for obstructing justice on a qui tam.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
2. Plaintiff demands that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, Scope and Purpose of Rules, shall govern this action, and plaintiff shall preserve, inviolate, her right of trial by jury under Rule 38, and right of discovery disclosures without request prescribed under Rule 26, concurrent with defendant's Answer pursuant to Rule 7(a) and Rule 8(b), with no other pleadings allowed except upon Order of the Court under grounds provided by law. The JURY shall decide all issues including immunity, and shall decide upon all claims in this suit.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. All procedures, rules and codes are taken from West’s 2001 editions of Federal Civil Judicial Procedures and Rules, and Federal Criminal Code and Rules, hereinafter referred to by Title number, U.S.C. (United States Code), and § (section).
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to federal statutes, including Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights and elective franchise), Title 28 U.S.C. § 1355 (federal fines, penalties and forfeitures), Title 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 and 3730 et seq (false claims), Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, 43, 201, 241, 242, 891, 1001, 1341, 1505, 1506, 1719, 1920, 1962 (principals, accessories, obstruction of justice, animal enterprise terrorism, racketeering, fraud, embezzlement, perjury, fraudulent or false entries, mail fraud, violation of franking privileges, theft, alteration or destruction of federal records, fraud to obtain Federal employee’s compensation, extortionate credit transactions, terrorism, conspiracy against civil rights, deprivation of civil rights under color), Title 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (illegal restraint of trade), Title 7 U.S.C. § 2 (commodities-tampering), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), First Amendment (right to petition for redress of grievances), Seventh Amendment (right to trial by jury), Fourteenth Amendment (right to equal protection), and the USA PATRIOT Act (domestic terrorism).
5. Venue is proper under Title 28 U.S.C. § 84.
6. The United States is comprised of the federal government, and has sovereign standing to sue or be sued. Head offices for all branches of the federal government are located in Washington, DC, with branch offices/agencies in all states, which are created under 28 U.S.C. § 124. State and private agencies contract with cities and/or counties, are directly or indirectly regulated by the federal government, and are subject to liability pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 666.
OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE, 28 U.S.C. section 636(c)
7. Plaintiff hereby files this her OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S unlawful JURISDICTION, 28 U.S.C. section 636, to prevent magistrate judge STEPHEN G. LARSON assignment by the Clerk on 7/2/02 prior to plaintiff’s “return of the form to the Clerk” which provides the following NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED ON THIS FORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The magistrate judge and the CLERK knew, or reasonable should have known, that assignment of a magistrate judge violated Article III and constitutes a violation of plaintiff’s rights secured by law, 18 U.S.C. sections 241 and 242, and Article III of the Constitution for the United States and presents a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and conspiracy under section 1985(3). Defendants did “have a meeting of the minds” to conspire with co-conspirators after notice of their conduct and behavior to obstruct these proceedings in furtherance of their joint racketeering scheme or artifice as alleged in complaint, in direct or indirect conflict with statutory law subsequent to the decisions in Hajek v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 186 F. 3d 1105 (9th Cir. 1999); also Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 193 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 1999).
PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE PER TITLE 28 U.S.C. RULE 26
8. Plaintiff demands that all defendants fully disclose the following without delay, obstruction or “gamesmanship:”
Copy of their Oaths of Office
Copy of their Bond
Copy of their Insurance
Copy of their state licenses
Copies of appearance bonds on each case
Copy of a list of all their creditors
Copy of a list of all their debtors
Copies of all financial transactions
Memberships of all clubs, organizations, fraternities, groups
Treaties per limitations of the Constitution
Names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses for their defense
Names, addresses and phone numbers of any other entities pertinent to this case
Copies of any other papers pertinent to this case
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE, PRIVATE CONTRACT WITH THE COURT AND WITH EACH DEFENDANT, FOR NO THIRD PARTIES

9. Plaintiff gives notice and demands that since titles of nobility were abolished by Article 1, section 9 of the United States Constitution, each defendant is required to answer Summons individually and separately without an attorney/esquire. Plaintiff demands no third-parties on this case, no third-party answers, and each line answered by each defendant.
PARTIES, F.R.C.P. RULE 17
10. Plaintiff Janet I. Fischer (“plaintiff”) is a citizen of the United States residing within the State of California at 17954-A S. Euclid Ave., Chino, CA 91710.
11. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is hereby sued in its corporate capacity doing business from c/o JOHN ASHCROFT, 10th & Constitution Avenues, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.
12. JOHN ASHCROFT is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.
13. The ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS (“OFFICE”) is hereby sued in its official capacity doing business from 1 Columbus Circle, Washington, D.C. 20544. OFFICE directs training both at the Federal Judicial Center In-Court Programs Branch, One Columbus Circle N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, and at other in-house training programs nation-wide in each of the 92 United States district courthouses.
14. LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM (“MECHAM”) is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from 1 Columbus Circle, Washington, D.C. 20544.
15. DAVID J. MALAND is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from 101 Pecan St., Room 112, Sherman, Texas 75090
16. WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from 655 East Durango Blvd., San Antonio, Texas 78206
17. SHERYL L. LOESCH is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity doing business from Office of the Clerk, United States Courthouse, Tampa, Florida 33602.
18. SHERRI R. CARTER is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity doing business from 312 N. Spring St., No. G-8, Los Angeles, California 90012-4793.
19. JACK WAGNER is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
20. RACHEL INGRAM is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity doing business from 3470 12th St., Riverside, CA 92501.
21. Defendants DAVID J. MALAND, WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI, SHERRI R. CARTER, SHERYL L. LOESCH, and JACK WAGNER supervise, direct, and train all clerks in their districts including RACHEL INGRAM, and they, along with their deputy clerks and other court staff are herein collectively known and addressed as “CLERKS.”
22. ROBERT D. McCALLUM is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
23. MICHAEL F. HERTZ is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
24. STEVE D. ALTMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
25. ANDREW SKOWRONEK is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
26. JOHN S. GORDON is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012
27. LEON W. WEIDMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
28. GARY PLESSMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
29. KRISTINE BLACKWOOD is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
30. MIKE BRADFORD is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 350 Magnolia, Ste. 150, Beaumont, TX 77701.
31. WILLIAM BLAGG is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 601 N.W. Loop 410, #600, San Antonio, TX 78216-5512
32. KIRSTEN SUDHOFF DOOR is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 501 “I” Street, Ste. 10-100, Sacramento, CA 95814.
33. ANDREA HEDRICK PARKER is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 350 Magnolia, Ste. 150, Beaumont, TX 77701.
34. HAROLD O. ATKINSON is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 601 N.W. Loop 410, #600, San Antonio, TX 78216-5512
35. PAUL MICHAEL BROWN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 7146, Washington, D.C. 20044.
36. LEON W. WEIDMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 N. Los Angeles St., Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
37. PATRICIA A. WILLING is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity, doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200, Tampa, FL 33602.
38. ROBERT D. McCALLUM is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
39. MICHAEL F. HERTZ is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
40. STEVE D. ALTMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
41. ANDREW SKOWRONEK is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, P.O. Box 261, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
42. JOHN S. GORDON is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012
43. LEON W. WEIDMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
44. GARY PLESSMAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
45. KRISTINE BLACKWOOD is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity doing business from c/o U.S. Attorneys Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
46. Defendants MIKE BRADFORD, WILLIAM BLAGG, KIRSTEN SUDHOFF DOOR, ANDREA HEDRICK PARKER, HAROLD O. ATKINSON, PAUL MICHAEL BROWN, LEON W. WEIDMAN, PATRICIA A. WILLING, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, MICHAEL F. HERTZ, STEVE D. ALTMAN, ANDREW SKOWRONEK, JOHN S. GORDON, LEON W. WEIDMAN, GARY PLESSMAN, and KRISTINE BLACKWOOD are all present or former U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys or Deputy U.S. Attorneys, who are sworn to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic invasion, and are herein collectively known as “U.S. ATTORNEYS.”
47. The law firm of BENNET & WESTON is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1750 Valley View Lane, Ste. 120, Dallas, TX 75234
48. The law firm of MATTHEWS, CALTON, STEIN, SHIELS, PEARCE, DUNN & KNOTT is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 8131 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 700, Dallas, TX 75251.
49. The law firm of WOLFE, CLARK, HENDERSON & TIDELL is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 123 North Crockett Street, Ste. 100, Sherman, TX 75090.
50. The law firm of BRADY & COLE is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 900 Jackson St., Ste. 305, Dallas, TX 75202-4455.
51. The law firm of GODWIN, WHITE & GRUBER is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 901 Main St., Ste. 2500, Dallas, TX 75231.
52. The law firm of LEA & CHAMBERLAIN is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 301 Congress Ave., 18th Floor, Austin, TX 78701.
53. The law firm of BECKWORTH & CARRIGAN, LLP is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1001 Fannin St., 4600 First City Tower, Houston, TX 77002.
54. The law firm of SAYLES & LIDJI is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1201 Elm St., Ste. 4400, Renaissance Tower, Dallas, TX 75720.
55. The law firm of WALD & ASSOCIATES is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from Ste. 215, Compass Bank Tower, 300 N. Coit Rd., Richardson, TX 75080-5400.
56. The law firm of JACKSON & WALKER, LLP is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 901 Main St., Ste. 6000, Dallas, TX 75202-3797.
57. The law firm of JACKSON & WALKER, LLP is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 112 East Pecan, Ste. 2100, San Antonio, TX 78205-1521.
58. The law firm of JENKINS & GILCHRIST is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1800 Frost Bank Tower, 100 W. Houston, San Antonio, TX 78205.
59. The law firm of JENKINS & GILCHRIST is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1445 Ross Ave., Ste. 320, Dallas, TX 75202-2799.
60. The law firm of RHEA & RODMAN, LLP, is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 2003 N. Lamar, Ste. 100, Austin, TX 78705.
61. The Law Offices of DECARLI & IRWIN is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 605 Brazos, Ste. 200, Austin, TX 78701.
62. PAMELA MCGRAW (McGRAW & ASSOCIATES) is hereby sued in her individual and official capacity, doing business from 200 N. Travis, Ste. 404, Sherman, TX 75090.
63. The Law Offices of CHARLES S. FRIGERIO is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from Commerce Plaza Building, 111 Soledad, Ste. 840, San Antonio, TX 78205.
64. CHARLES S. FRIGERIO is hereby sued in his individual and official capacity, doing business from Commerce Plaza Building, 111 Soledad, Ste. 840, San Antonio, TX 78205.
65. The OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station, Austin, TX 78711.
66. The law firm of CLEMENS & SPENCER, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 112 East Pecan St., San Antonio, TX 78205.
67. The law firm of CLEMENS & SPENCER is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1500 NBC Bank Plaza, 112 East Pecan St., San Antonio, TX 78205-1517.
68. KEITH A. KENDALL is hereby sued in his individual and official capacity, doing business from 10100 Reunion, Third Floor, San Antonio, TX 78216.
69. The law firm of JONES, KURTH & ANDREWS, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 10100 Reunion Place, Ste. 600, San Antonio, TX 78216.
70. The law firm of MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 112 E. Pecan, Ste. 1100, San Antonio, TX 78205-1516.
71. The law firm of AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 300 Convent, Ste. 1500, San Antonio, TX 78205.
72. The law firm of STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 300 Covent St., Ste. 900, San Antonio, TX 78205.
73. The law firm of PAUL ANDREW DRUMMOND, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1010 N. St. Mary’s St., Ste. 1403, San Antonio, TX 78205.
74. The law firm of THOMAS & LIBOWITZ, PA is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 100 Light St., Ste. 1100, Baltimore, MD 21202.
75. VICTORIA VALERGA is hereby sued in her individual and official capacity, doing business from 7300 Blanco Rd., Ste. 103, San Antonio, TX 78216.
76. The law firm of SOUTHERN ANIMAL RESCUE ASSOCIATION, INC., is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1050 Rawhide Rd., Seguin, TX 78155.
77. ANGELA DICKERSON NOBLE is hereby sued in her individual and official capacity, doing business from 312 W. Mountain St., Seguin, TX 78155.
78. The law firm of ALLEN, STEIN, POWERS, DURBIN & HUNNICUTT is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 6243 IH 10 West, 7th Floor, P.O. Box 101507, San Antonio, TX 78201.
79. CHARLES B. GORHAM is hereby sued in his individual and official capacity, doing business from 1250 N.E. Loop 410, Ste. 710, San Antonio, TX 78209.
80. The law firm of BRIN & BRIN is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from Fountainhead One, 8200 I-10 West, Ste. 610, San Antonio, TX 78230.
81. The law firm of LEMLER & ASSOCIATES, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 8122 Datapoint Dr., Ste. 328, San Antonio, TX 78229.
82. The LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO RAMOS is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 800 Dolorosa, Ste. 117, San Antonio, TX 78207.
83. The law firm of PASCO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from West Pasco Government Center, 7530 Little Rd., Ste. 340, New Port Richey, FL 34654.
84. The OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from Century Plaza, Ste. 1100, 135 W. Central Blvd., Orlando, FL 32801.
85. The law firm of DEBOISE & POULTON, P.A. is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from Lakeview Office Park, Ste. 1010, 1035 S. Semoran Blvd., Winter Park, FL 32792.
86. The law firm of HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 2300, P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33602-1288.
87. The LAW OFFICES OF JAMES RICHARD HOOPER, P.A. is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 815 North Garland Ave., P.O. Box 540509, Orlando, FL 32854-0509.
88. The law firm of FOWLER, WHITE, GILLEN, BOGGS, VILLAREAL & BANKER, PA is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1700, P.O. Box 1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438.
89. The LAW OFFICE OF NANCY M. PARHAM is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 210 N. Pierce St., Tampa, FL 33602-3597.
90. The law firm of NIX, HOLTSFORD, GILLILAND, LYONS & HIGGINS, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from P.O. Box 4128, Montgomery, AL 36103-4128.
91. The LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. DAVIS is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 3333 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 102, Tampa, FL 33609.
92. The law firm of CARRINGTON & CARRINGTON is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 619 Turner St., Clearwater, FL 33756.
93. The HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 601 E. Kennedy Blvd., 27th Floor, P.O. Box 1110, Tampa, FL 33601-1110.
94. The OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 356, Anaheim, CA 92805.
95. The COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 10 Civic Center Plaza, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 1379, Santa Ana, CA 92702-1379.
96. The law firm of CREASON & AARVIG, LLP is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 3963 Eleventh Street, Riverside, CA 92501.
97. MARIA K. AARVIG is hereby sued in her official, individual, and corporate capacity, doing business from 3963 Eleventh Street, Riverside, CA 92501.
98. The law firm of KINKLE, RODIGER & SPRIGGS is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 3333 Fourteenth St., Riverside, CA 92501.
99. DONALD BEACHAM is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 42335 Washington St., Ste. F, Palm Desert, CA 92211.
100. DENTON COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 127 N. Woodrow Lane, Denton, TX 76205-6397.
101. The law firm of McDONALD SANDERS, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 777 Main St., Ste. 1300, Fort Worth, TX 76102.
102. The law firm of CANTLEY & HANGER is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 801 Cherry St., Ste. 2100, Fort Worth, TX 76102.
103. The law firm of GRIFFEN, WHITTEN & JONES is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 218 N. Elm, Denton, TX 76201.
104. The law firm of HOPKINS & SUTTER is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 3700 Bank One Center, 1717 Main St., Dallas, TX 75201.
105. CULLUM LAW FIRM, PC is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 8333 Douglas Ave., Ste. 1400, Dallas, TX 75225-6308.
106. The law firm of KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART is hereby sued in its official capacity, doing business from 1717 Main St., Ste. 3100, Dallas, TX 75201.
107. ALESHIA M. WHITE is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from Attorney General’s Office of the State of California, P.O. Box 944255, 1300 I St., Ste. 125, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.
108. Law Office of McHALE & CONNER is hereby sued in its corporate capacity doing business from 600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
109. Law Office of CHASE, ROTCHFORD, DRUKKER & BOGUST is hereby sued in its corporate capacity doing business from 700 South Flower St., Ste. 500, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
110. Law Office of FIELDS AND CREASON is hereby sued in its corporate capacity doing business from 3993 Market St., Riverside, CA 92501.
111. OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR is hereby sued in its municipal and corporate capacities doing business from 221 East Walnut St., Pasadena, CA 91101.
112. ROBERT E. CHRISTIAN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacities doing business from 121 South 11th, Duncan, OK 73533.
113. JAMES L. KEE is hereby sued in his official and individual capacities doing business from 1102 Maple, P.O. Box 1646, Duncan, OK 73534.
114. BENNET & WESTON, MATTHEWS CALTON STEIN SHIELS PEARCE DUNN & KNOTT, WOLFE CLARK HENDERSON & TIDELL, BRADY & COLE, GODWIN, WHITE & GRUBER, LEA & CHAMBERLAIN, BECKWORTH & CARRIGAN LLP, SAYLES & LIDJI, WALD & ASSOCIATES, JACKSON & WALKER LLP, JACKSON & WALKER LLP, JENKINS & GILCHRIST, JENKINS & GILCHRIST, RHEA & RODMAN LLP, DECARLI & IRWIN, PAMELA MCGRAW (McGRAW & ASSOCIATES), CHARLES S. FRIGERIO, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, CLEMENS & SPENCER PC, CLEMENS & SPENCER, KEITH A. KENDALL, JONES KURTH & ANDREWS PC, MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB PC, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, STRASBURGER & PRICE LLP, PAUL ANDREW DRUMMOND SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, THOMAS & LIBOWITZ PA, VICTORIA VALERGA, SOUTHERN ANIMAL RESCUE ASSOCIATION INC., ANGELA DICKERSON NOBLE, ALLEN STEIN POWERS DURBIN & HUNNICUTT, CHARLES B. GORHAM, BRIN & BRIN, LEMLER & ASSOCIATES PC, LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO RAMOS, PASCO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION, DEBOISE & POULTON P.A., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES RICHARD HOOPER P.A., FOWLER WHITE GILLEN BOGGS VILLAREAL & BANKER PA, LAW OFFICE OF NANCY M. PARHAM, NIX HOLTSFORD GILLILAND LYONS & HIGGINS PC, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. DAVIS, CARRINGTON & CARRINGTON, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CREASON & AARVIG LLP, MARIA K. AARVIG, KINKLE RODIGER & SPRIGGS, DONALD BEACHAM, DENTON COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, McDONALD SANDERS PC, CANTLEY & HANGER, GRIFFEN WHITTEN & JONES, HOPKINS & SUTTER, CULLUM LAW FIRM PC, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, ALESHIA M. WHITE, McHALE & CONNER, CHASE, ROTCHFORD, DRUKKER & BOGUST, FIELDS AND CREASON, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR, ROBERT E. CHRISTIAN and JAMES L. KEE are single-practice attorneys, corporations, partnerships, or associations comprised of licensed attorneys, who, as officers of the court, are sworn to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic invasion. As members of the Bar Association, attorneys are governed by Judicial Canons, Oath of Office, Business and Professions Code, and West’s Title 28 U.S.C. Rules of Court including Chief Justice White’s directive in West’s 2002 Title 28 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON PROPOSED RULES AND FORMS GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS, ORDER OF APRIL 29, 1980 “that the federal courts are subject to the injunction in Rule 1 that they ‘be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Herbert v. Landau, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979).” Defendant law firms, their agents and employees, are herein collectively known and addressed as “FIRMS.”
115. VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS (“PHILLIPS”) is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity, doing business from 3470 12th St., Riverside, CA 92501.
116. PAUL BROWN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from 101 Pecan St., Room 112, Sherman, TX 75090.
117. ORLANDO GARCIA is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from 655 East Durango Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78206.
118. RICHARD P. LAZARRA is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602.
119. MAURICE M. PAUL is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from United States Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, 33602.
120. TERRY J. HATTER is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., #G-8, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4724.
121. WILLIAM B. SHUBB is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
122. GARY A. FEESS is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from Edward R. Roybal Center & Federal Bldg., 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
123. TERRY A. GREEN is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from
124. ELVIRA R. MITCHELL is hereby sued in her official and individual capacity, doing business from
125. COLEMAN A. SWART is hereby sued in his official and individual capacity, doing business from 200 N. Garfield Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101.
126. GEORGE W. LINDLEY is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 121 South 11th, Duncan, OK 73533.
127. PERCY ANDERSON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
128. WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, JR. is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
129. A. ANDREW HAUK is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
130. HARRY L. HUPP is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
131. WILLIAM D. KELLER is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
132. J. SPENCER LETTS is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
133. RONALD S.W. LEW is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
134. NORA M. MANELLA is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
135. CONSUELO B. MARSHALL is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
136. A. HOWARD MATZ is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
137. MARIANA R. PFAELZER is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
138. DEAN D. PREGERSON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
139. EDWARD RAFEEDIE is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
140. WILLIAM J. REA is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
141. MANUAL L. REAL is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
142. CHRISTINA A. SNYDER is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
143. ROBERT M. TAKASUGI is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
144. JOHN F. WALTER is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
145. STEPHEN V. WILSON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
146. LOURDES G. BAIRD is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
147. AUDREY B. COLLINS is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
148. FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
149. ROBERT J. KELLEHER is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
150. GEORGE H. KING is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
151. MARGARET M. MORROW is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
152. DICKRAN TEVRIZIAN is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
153. ROBERT J. TIMLIN is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 3470 12th St., Riverside, CA 92501.
154. LOURDES G. BAIRD is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
155. DAVID O. CARTER is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 411 W. 4th St., Rm. 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516.
156. GARY L. TAYLOR is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 411 W. 4th St., Rm. 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516.
157. ALICEMARIE H. STOTLER is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 411 W. 4th St., Rm. 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516.
158. PAUL L. ABRAMS is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
159. ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
160. CHARLES F. EICK is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
161. JEFFREY W. JOHNSON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
162. VICTOR B. KENTON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
163. JENNIFER T. LUM is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
164. MARGARET A. NAGLE is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
165. FERNANDO M. OLGUIN is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
166. PATRICK J. WALSH is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
167. RALPH ZAREFSKY is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
168. ROBERT N. BLOCK is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
169. STEPHEN J. HILLMAN is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
170. JAMES W. McMAHON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
171. CAROLINE TURCHIN is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
172. ANDREW J. WISTRICH is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
173. CARLA WOEHRLE is hereby sued in her official capacity, doing business from 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
174. STEPHEN G. LARSON is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 3470 12th St., Riverside, CA 92501.
175. MARC L. GOLDMAN is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 411 W. 4th St., Rm. 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516.
176. ARTHUR NAKAZATO is hereby sued in his official capacity, doing business from 411 W. 4th St., Rm. 1053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516.
177. Defendants VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, PAUL BROWN, ORLANDO GARCIA, RICHARD P. LAZARRA, TERRY J. HATTER, WILLIAM B. SHUBB, MAURICE M. PAUL, GARY A. FEESS, PERCY ANDERSON, WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, JR., A. ANDREW HAUK, HARRY L. HUPP, WILLIAM D. KELLER, J. SPENCER LETTS, RONALD S.W. LEW, NORA M. MANELLA, CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, A. HOWARD MATZ, MARIANA R. PFAELZER, DEAN D. PREGERSON, EDWARD RAFEEDIE, WILLIAM J. REA, MANUAL L. REAL, CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, ROBERT M. TAKASUGI, JOHN F. WALTER, STEPHEN V. WILSON, LOURDES G. BAIRD, AUDREY B. COLLINS, FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER, ROBERT J. KELLEHER, GEORGE H. KING, MARGARET M. MORROW, DICKRAN TEVRIZIAN, ROBERT J. TIMLIN, LOURDES G. BAIRD, DAVID O. CARTER, GARY L. TAYLOR, and ALICEMARIE H. STOTLER are Article III judges; TERRY A. GREEN, ELVIRA R. MITCHELL, COLEMAN A. SWART, and GEORGE W. LINDLEY are state court judges; and PAUL L. ABRAMS, ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN, CHARLES F. EICK, JEFFREY W. JOHNSON, VICTOR B. KENTON, JENNIFER T. LUM, MARGARET A. NAGLE, FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, PATRICK J. WALSH, ROBERT N. BLOCK, RALPH ZAREFSKY, STEPHEN J. HILLMAN, JAMES W. McMAHON, CAROLINE TURCHIN, ANDREW J. WISTRICH, CARLA WOEHRLE, STEPHEN G. LARSON, MARC L. GOLDMAN, and ARTHUR NAKAZATO are Magistrate judges, who are sworn to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic invasion, with additional duties to preserve the public’s belief in the integrity of the courts. Judges are required to perform all duties as prescribed by law, and are governed by judicial Canons, Oath of office, and West’s Title 28 Rules of Court, including Chief Justice White’s directive in West’s 2002 Title 28 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON PROPOSED RULES AND FORMS GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS, ORDER OF APRIL 29, 1980 that “[t]he responsibility for control [of pretrial process] rests on both judges and lawyers. Where existing rules and statutes permit abuse, they must be changed. Where the power lies with judges to prevent or correct abuse and misuse of the system, judges must act.” Defendant Judges and their staff are herein collectively known as “JUDGES.”
178. Defendants DOES are unknown to plaintiff and will be named in their official, corporate and individual capacities as agents, officers or employees for entities acting in civil conspiracy, and are hereby sued as their identities become known through discovery.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE, F.R.C.P. RULE 8
179. CLERKS, under the direction of MECHAM through OFFICE, took bribes and conspired with JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS, FIRMS, their clients, and other defendants to use the courts as a racketeering enterprise by working in concert to fix certain cases to obstruct justice for certain classes of offenders and get them “off the hook” - case dismissed, no hearings, no jury trials. An interesting factor for the jury will be that the offenders were all state or federal government employees, their friends, and private persons and corporations, who were charged with committing felonies. NOTE: No proof is required in a judicial bribery case other than the solicitation and completion of the act by a judge; “to do a favor” is the standard for “principals and accessories.” See Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997). ASHCROFT had this information for at least 60 days in a qui tam filed April 17, 2002, No. EDCV 02-334 VAP SGLx, failed to indict, which makes ASHCROFT an “accessory after the fact.”
PLAINTIFF’S REPORT OF THE FRAUD FALLS ON DEAF EARS …

180. In January 2000, plaintiff traveled to Washington, D.C. and hand-delivered a 100 page report of defendants’ corruption to the House Judiciary Committee, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Justice, part of which is included, see EXHIBIT A. No action, investigation, or indictments were done on plaintiff’s behalf by any person or agency, the fraud and swindle continues to date, and is being covered up by ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, PHILLIPS, INGMAN, and DOE defendants.
BACKGROUND OF DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT SCHEMES…
181. The function of the court is not to decide issues, but rather to determine whether they exist. Rules of Evidence apply. All defendants knew that a crime had been committed, knew that an injured citizen had protested the crime by filing a lawsuit against “corrupt local government and their friends,” and knew that a jury trial was demanded. Defendants had a “meeting of the minds,” and did engage in prohibited pretrial actions to cover up these crimes by getting these types of cases dismissed in prohibited bench trials, dismissed with prejudice, not for publication, no hearings, so as to conceal from the public defendants’ criminal “property-grab,” racketeering schemes, obstruction of justice for the offenders, and vicious retaliation against citizens protesting crime by government employees and their agents. Plaintiff demands that each defendant provide proof that they were not participating on these particular cases, that hearings and jury trials were provided, that injured citizens got their injunctive relief, their property was returned and/or they were otherwise made whole, defaults were entered, and that the offenders on each case were prosecuted and incarcerated. The cases exist. Defendants were there. Defendants had “obligations and duties as prescribed by law.” The jury will decide whether defendants performed these duties to ensure “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,” or whether they used their positions of public trust as officers of the court to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, conceal and obstruct justice for offenders engaged in robbery, extortion, racketeering, illegal search and seizure, fraud and swindle perjury, theft of property, transporting stolen property, laundering (fencing) stolen property, domestic terrorism, animal enterprise terrorism, perjury, and great bodily injury resulting in death. Plaintiff demands that each defendant explain how each of these crimes are not crimes when they are committed by a sheriff, justice of the peace, lawyer, judge, or any other government employee or agent.
182. Defendants had knowledge and ability to prevent these special threats to social well-being, yet did nothing, except aid the offenders and enrich themselves in the process. Defendants cheated the public out of the intangible right to honest services, obstructed justice for themselves and co-conspirators in the schemes, and committed more fraud and swindle by submitting false claims for work performed. The public was cheated out of their due process rights by defendants, and their lives and business were destroyed. The public was also cheated out of their court filing fees, as defendants’ use of fraud and swindle denied “due process” so as to conceal crimes. Defendants acted in concert, and cheated the public out of unalienable rights, rights granted by Acts of Congress, hearings and trial by jury by right. All defendants must provide proof that they actually performed their duties as prescribed by law, jury trials were held in these and related cases, that the offenders were prosecuted and incarcerated, the victims were made whole, domestic terrorists were put out of business, that local corruption was stopped, and that defendants were not “cooking the books” as pertains CLERKS, JUDGES, MAGISTRATES’ time cards, entries, and “who was authorized to do what work.”
183. Defendants’ and co-conspirators’ criminal enterprise of fraud and swindle targeted older American citizens who owned property, that is, they all had something to steal. Baseless complaints and false charges were initiated against these “targets” by corrupt local government and private corporation or persons. The perpetrators committed criminal trespass and theft to extort fees and fines from their “targets/victims” on the pretext that the victim violated some city or county codes, while factually there was no jurisdiction, no crime, no indictment, and no verified complaint. This “regulatory takings without just compensation scheme” was used as a pretext to steal more property, file false charges against the victim, and sucker them into court. Defendants then used the courts to maintain this perjury as a “Ponzi scheme,” enlisted more participants (FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS, DOES), entered phony fees, phony costs, phony fines, phony sanctions, phony judgments, and false bail into court records to give these fake things the appearance of legally valid to benefit defendants and participants in the scheme. Defendants took bribes as in “did favors for co-conspirators,” and obstructed justice by denying all hearings and trials, which aided, abetted, and comforted the offenders, prevented their trial or apprehension, which makes all defendants “principals” and “accessories after the fact” as defined by Title 18 §§ 2 and 3. Plaintiff demands that all defendants explain how A) private property ownership has been abolished in the United States, B) Supreme Court decisions requiring valid warrants and “just compensation for private property taken for public use” have been repealed in United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S.Ct. 1737, Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523, 18 L.ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727, Overton v. Ohio, 151 L.Ed 2d 317, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001), Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997), Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 68 L.Ed.2d 38, 101 S.Ct 1642 (1981), and C) that the Constitution, Title 18 U.S.C. and Title 28 U.S.C. have also been repealed.
184. Once in court, FIRMS and U.S. ATTORNEYS worked both sides of the case in the “false bail/attorney’s fees” fraud and swindle. FIRMS falsely represented to the victims that the perpetrator/offenders in the scheme “had a right to violate the Fourth Amendment and carry off property and/or file charges against the victim,” then suckered the victim into more fees and costs with honeyed words about how “you have a good case for an appeal, enough evidence has been preserved on your case for an appeal…,” see EXHIBIT B. The record shows that FIRMS knew in advance that the case would never go to trial, and used fraud and deceit to string the victim along with the hope that his or her case would be heard and determined by a jury, when defendants factually used their illegal association and rigged the courts to get all cases against offenders dismissed with illegal bench trials in violation of McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991), Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137-1138 (9th Cir. 1987), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986):
“3. Federal Civil Procedure 2470.2. Credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, and drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of the judge, whether his ruling is on motion for summary judgment or for directed verdict; evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rules 50(a), 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.”.

185. In cases involving pro se victims, CLERKS took filing fee under false pretenses, knowing that CLERKS, FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS and JUDGES had the courts rigged and would dismiss the case with prejudice, not for publication, no hearings, no trial by jury so as to not have any of these fraud and swindle schemes exposed to the public. Plaintiff demands that CLERKS, U.S. ATTORNEYS, FIRMS and JUDGES produce the public notices and disclaimers that were posted in a prominent location at all FIRMS’ offices, and at all state and federal courts that “NO DUE PROCESS, NO UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, NO RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS, AND NO CIVIL REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE HERE - WE GRANT IMMUNITY TO ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FRIENDS, NO MATTER WHAT CRIME THEY COMMIT.”
186. In cases involving enforcement of city or county codes upon private residences or small businesses, there was no due process, no Notice and Hearings, no just compensation, no Bonds put up to indemnify the owner for the regulatory takings, and no due process. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how cities and counties now own all property in the U.S.
187. In cases involving theft of valuable animals and/or livestock, these home-invasion robberies were perpetrated under the guise of “rescue and adoption,” which was propaganda for “criminal trespass,” “perjury,” “grand theft under color of law,” “malicious prosecution,” “false bail,” “false claim,” “animal enterprise terrorism,” and “laundering (fencing) of stolen property.” This “false bail” scheme was upheld in both state and federal courts, which treated the victim as “guilty until proven innocent,” after city or county agents confiscated the victim’s private property, held it for ransom, used it against him or her to extort money, then stole, fenced, or laundered it after they were finished using it against the victim to generate false fees, fines, sanctions, and attorneys’ fees made payable to each other. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain their interpretation of “regulatory takings,” “due process,” and “just compensation.”
188. All defendants knew or should have known that all regulatory takings must be compensated, no matter how minute the intrusion, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S.__, 150 L.E.d.2d 592, 121 S.Ct.__ (2001); that animals are “property” as defined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 2311, “agricultural commodities” as defined in Title 7 U.S.C. § 2, and “war materials” and “national defense materials” as defined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 2152. Defendants knew or should have known that seizure of animals, birds and eggs was repealed since 1981, see Title 18 U.S.C. § 3112, was prohibited under the Animal Welfare Act, and strips the perpetrator of all immunity, see Fuller v. Vines, 36 F.3d 65 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendants knew or should have known that we are at war, and it is treason to interfere with lands which are used to produce war materials and national defense materials. Plaintiff demands an explanation from all defendants.
189. Two or more predicate acts were committed in each case and each courthouse, which constitutes a “pattern” of “racketeering activity.” All defendants directly or indirectly participated in an “enterprise,” which was their illegal association with each other and the courts, the activities of which affected interstate or foreign commerce, as their “targets” were injured in their businesses and livelihoods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) - (c). Plaintiff demands that each defendant explain his or her interpretation of “injured in business,” “stripped of livelihood,” and “illegal restraint of trade.”
190. Defendants used the courts and aided other participants in this racketeering scheme, such as private corporations, corrupt local officials, and corrupt attorneys by helping to set them up as phony “creditors,” with phony “judgments” or “sanctions” against their “targets,” to turn said “targets” into “debtors.” Hearings and trials were deliberately not scheduled to obstruct prosecution of co-conspirator/offenders’ initial crimes of false charges, theft under color of law, extortion, false bail, laundering stolen property, denial of due process, commodities-tampering, and criminal conversion of title. Thus, defendants “covered up” for each other. The conduct of all defendants as “principals” constitutes a direct violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 201 dealing with bribery, graft, corruption, and conflict of interest. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how American citizens have all become “debtors” to the courts and private corporations.
VICIOUS RETALIATION…
191. Defendants’ co-conspirator’s conduct of


[< Back] [LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...]

Category:  

20 comments

24 Aug 2002 @ 11:36 by scottj : So many Goofballs!!!!!!!!
This is the kind of stuff that is needed. Their whole system is f****d up with rip offs, counter rip offs and so on. Just the simply act of tying these people up for some time and gumming up the works is incredibly valuable work. Bring the whole fraudulant system to a standstill!!!!!! This DOES have an effect. Another thing that works is stopping shopping and killing the TV set. Elvis was on the right track there .......... LOL  


13 Oct 2003 @ 13:05 by Justin Law @67.162.119.168 : fischer law suit
i would be interested in receiving any all information that is available on the case of Mrs. Fischer and the government. she is doing a great thing and should be commended for her efforts.

Thanks Mrs. Fischer.  



5 Aug 2004 @ 04:23 by Teresa Scordo @205.188.116.148 : Margaret Carrigan Turner
I am dealing with legal issues & an attorney listed in this suit Margaret Carrigan Turner is listed. She has lied & harrased me since this case started & is a CROOK.........How can these attorneys operate like this & remain in practice legally?  


5 Aug 2004 @ 07:14 by spiritseek : number 185
Now that is some hard core stuff,the privileged keep getting protected and their backing the guilty with bribes. The problem is, will the judge be on the side of the bribed?  


5 Aug 2004 @ 11:02 by bushman : Hmm
How can these attorneys operate like this & remain in practice legally?

Well, from what I know, the majority of people running the justice system are Masons and Shriners, most the cops I know, most the fire fighters I know, are Masons. Being they have people in all public services/human resorces, they can stay tight. Like for instance, Im a gardener, and I have a friend thats a carpenter, who needs some help with a project, but I know he dosnt want just anyone for the job, so I tell my friend, I got just the guy, and since hes a friend of mine, I know he can do the work. Now here's how this situation works, my carpenter friend had already put out an add looking for someone that can do the work he needs help with, maybe he got 100 resumes from his add, but since Im a close friend, hes going to toss all those resumes out, and hire my other friend long before someone off the street. Now lets say unbeknown to my friend I have an agenda, Im a gardener, by having a few of my close friends in other friends companies, I will most likely get more work, because my friends would recomend a good gardener. A personal monopoly, and a monopoly for our group of friends. This also creates a system, my group of friends, could play with bids for jobs as well, lets say 3 different friends are contractors that own different companies, but we are all in the same group of friends, we have a poker game and pool our bids, and basicly make 3 bids, and submit them to the prospective customer, the customer sees 3 bids, and goes with the lowest one of the 3, little does the customer know, but the 2 losing biders, will be the sub contractors on the job. Still our little group of friends get work, and control most of the construction work in a peticular area or city or state, even world wide, as is the case for the group labled Masons. They take care of thier own before they take care of those they work for. And its how they can get around the constitution, laws and other rules, it's about makeing a profit, even if they just break even they all win, and the average peoples vote is just fluff, since you already know the jobs are going to go to the closest friends of the ones doing the hireing. Whos going to bust them? They wont bust themselves, unless there is a falling out with that friend, then they have thier cop friends harass that person. Notice this RICO suit, is still going on, but also notice, that the public isnt seeing it, and even if it was on tv for a month, the majority would never believe that something fishy is going on, they trust thier system because they think that the people they seemingly put into office are working for the people, when in fact they are working for themselves and thier close buddies.  



5 Aug 2004 @ 13:55 by spiritseek : exactly
and the judge is most likely one of their friends or soon will be.  


20 Sep 2004 @ 20:13 by Teresa @205.188.116.148 : ATTORNEYS LIE call & misrepresent thems
Let me rephrase the statement I made regarding attorney MARGARET CARRIGAN TURNER

She called my former attorney & stated she was my attorney in a MPCR lawsuit but actually she is my ex-husbands attorney.........GROUNDS TO LOSE HER license as AN ATTORNEY......When she wrote up the temporary orders in this suit she left out the visitation guidelines including time/day etc....Therefore she and my ex were able to call and threaten a WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (police removing my kids from their home)......I have PROOF of these threats......so I hope this clears up any PROBLEMS regarding my previous post- I noticed her name in that suit and was curious if anyone had any information.
PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  



20 Sep 2004 @ 23:33 by bushman : No problem
:} They are tight, but, even with out her the system is still flawed to the point you mention, no one is playing by the rules.  


14 Jul 2005 @ 00:23 by Angelina Alexander @69.235.82.113 : Information for another RICO suit
Please contact me regarding a RICO suit against the State of California.
I cannot afford an attorney but I can at least get the lawsuit started and filed. Anyone that can help or is willing to donate their time contact me please.

714-828-9856  



18 Jan 2006 @ 23:26 by patricia weissleader @4.246.255.147 : woehrle alterong court records, etc
i have documents showingt magistrate woehrle altered court documents and ignoring the law, etc to prevent cases from having a hearing of merit, when the defendant was a rich corporation with a history of humongous bribes. i would be happy to send scans of documents to anyone who needs them  


28 Jun 2006 @ 00:23 by Holden Caulfield @24.28.67.210 : Your all very crazy
I almost feel sorry for those who actually can believe this. Especially the one person talking about masons. Holy crap. I actually know some of these lawyers personally and they are certainly not in any way "masons" or "shrines" nor are their relatives. The fact that most of the lawfirms are small time practices who do good duties should convince anyone with half of a brain, wait, i'm sorry, less than that, to shut their mouths unless they know what they are talking about. The funniest part will be when you wind up injured by some large corporation and try to find legal service; your mind will be quickly changed. It seems like most of you poor, bored, unitelligents would understand you "no likey the big corporation, need get money from them, they hurt me business" would enjoy suing a corporation, which, in fact, is waht most of these honest men and women do. Hope you complete your high school education.
Me  



28 Jun 2006 @ 00:48 by John Yossarian @24.28.67.210 : Nobody's playing by the rules?
Person, the rules are flawed, there aren't many people who know the rules, and juding by your writing style, you don't either. Until you know the "rules" go away and find something interesting to do with your life, like becoming educated.  


28 Jun 2006 @ 00:59 by bushman : Right :}
Heres a list:
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons}  



28 Jun 2006 @ 01:21 by Holden Caulfield @24.28.67.210 : HAHAHA
I love it when I'm right. A abstract wikipedia article about freemasons supports your argument. Hey, kid, look, not one of the men listed in that ENTIRE article are freemasons or shriners. Go ahead and uh, find something better to do with your life, like learning to shut your mouth when you don't have any idea what your talking about.  


28 Jun 2006 @ 01:23 by Jack Burden @24.28.67.210 : I agree with holden
I agree with Mr. Caulfield, this suit is crazy and will be resolved as one sad lady who has nothing better to do. The system could use some change, but it does not call for a suit, especially one that will amount to nothing if so many people who don't understand the legal system, or even believe masons still control things are supporting it, wow.  


28 Jun 2006 @ 02:11 by bushman : Well
Say what you will, part of my family is in the government, they are masons and shriners. My uncle was appointed US marshall by Nixon, as well my other uncle was the assitant attorny general, during watergate, I know lots more than you think. Sorry, but obviously the suit hits home for you, bet youd do anything to quash it. :} I think the point of the suit is to bring back the republic and the power of the people, I talked to my uncle the ex marshall about search and sesuer laws, as well he has said that the constitution and bill of rights should be torn up, spose you think the skull and bones and bohimian grove is just fiction too. No skin off my butt either way, just my oppinion. If your a lawyer, you passed the bar, you are talking english law, from where the BAR comes from. This is the USA, not england, guess dumpping tea wasnt enough to get rid of you crones. :} Telling me to shut up infringes on my right to free speech, you don't see me being anti-american, by telling you to shut up, or deleting your comment.  


17 Jul 2006 @ 01:34 by John Regis @71.145.166.141 : YA
you bunch of hippies  


12 May 2007 @ 04:27 by Giora Eshkol @80.230.94.158 : is Judge william keller color biased?
is Judge william keller color biased?I think he is. Check www.eshkol.com/A18a.html
are the 9th circuit cover up for keller? I think so!
are the federal courts in LA full of bad apples?
Do they bend the law and overriding jury by filtering their instructions? you bet!  



7 Sep 2007 @ 21:43 by vox @71.41.38.234 : WE NEED TO TALK
I live in Tampa. They have done the same thing to me only it is very VERY obvious. Please contact me. fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com  


7 Sep 2007 @ 21:45 by voxy @71.41.38.234 : MAsons shriners
You better believe they think they are in control. Fear factor. Stop pretending. Read Antony Sutton's books. He's sager than all of us put together.
Don't be in denial. They are NOT nice people. I have many photos and video footage of them stalking me.  



Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other entries in
11 Jan 2017 @ 20:35: Is my TV watching me?
19 Feb 2012 @ 05:33: End of the 5th Sun?
3 Dec 2011 @ 20:10: Voynich Manuscript
19 May 2011 @ 01:58: Wikileaks DOC, NAU/NAI, Pros/Cons
16 Feb 2011 @ 04:45: Cool Stars & Gas Giants
27 Sep 2010 @ 05:31: Ancient Canal Builders
22 Apr 2010 @ 06:11: "First Light" Pics from SDO.
9 Feb 2010 @ 08:20: SDO, 'Variable Sun' Mission
24 Dec 2009 @ 05:17: Interstellar Discovery
10 Sep 2009 @ 08:00: Hubble Update



[< Back] [LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...] [PermaLink]?