|22 Aug 2002 @ 21:28, by Anthony Marsh|
Sorry couldn't get it all to fit. :}
KICKBACKS AND FAVORS…
192. In exchange for providing protection for the offenders, defendants were given promotions, kickbacks, public money, and job security. Plaintiff reported “racketeering and grand theft,” see EXHIBIT D, which was acknowledged in a letter from defendant LARSON, see EXHIBIT E. LARSON had “knowledge and ability to prevent,” yet LARSON aided and abetted the offenders by not prosecuting. Offenders are “still in business,” and victim Marlene Peterson was stripped of her assets and livelihood. For his role in protecting “animal enterprise terrorism,” “grand theft under color, transporting and fencing stolen property,” LARSON received a “kickback” in the form of a promotion from U.S. ATTORNEY to MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiff demands that LARSON explain “racketeering and grand theft,” and give proof that he investigated, the offenders were prosecuted and incarcerated, and that victim Marlene Peterson got her stolen property back and was made whole.
193. Plaintiff has standing to bring this complaint pursuant to Rotella v. Wood, 528 US__, 145 Led 2d 1047, 120 S.Ct.__, at page 1049:
Extortion, Blackmail, and Racketeering § 1 - civil RICO litigation
3. Both the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 USCS §§ 1961 et seq.) and the Clayton Act (15 USCS § 15b) share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement government efforts to deter and penalize prohibited practices; the object of civil RICO actions is thus not merely to compensate victims, but to turn them into prosecutors dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity.
194. Plaintiff has been paying taxes since 1972, and as such, has a reasonable expectation of the intangible right to honest government services.
195. From 1968 to 1992, plaintiff engaged in product development, which was finalized between the years 1983 and 1992. The “units” or products plaintiff researched, developed and perfected, were displayed at national and local trade shows, garnered Awards, which generated the desired public interest in both sales of the products and public speaking tours. In January 1993, Plaintiff’s life work (and life’s dream) was wiped out when all products were stolen “under color of law” by corrupt local and state agencies, who initiated a malicious prosecution against plaintiff’s business partner in order to steal the products. Plaintiff lost over 9 years of hard work and over $100,000.00 of property, when it was converted to public use without just compensation by GREEN, MITCHELL, SWART, McHALE & CONNER, CHASE, ROTCHFORD, DRUKKER & BOGUST, FIELDS AND CREASON, and AARVIG, who operated the courts as a racketeering enterprise for conversion of title, after plaintiff filed a Claim with OFFICE OF CITY PROSECUTOR FOR THE CITY OF PASADENA. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court, which was dismissed. As a result of this “takings without Notice, due process or just compensation,” and “laundering of plaintiff’s stolen property,” plaintiff lost her business, customer base, house, car, health, and reputation. The stress and shock of the losses, and destruction of faith in the judiciary, has resulted in plaintiff being unable to work since 1997. This gives plaintiff standing under RICO, as defendants’ predicate acts resulted in interference in commerce (loss of plaintiff’s $100,000.00 property), interference with ability to work, ultimate loss of business ($15-$17,000/year), lost income (dropped to zero after 1997), lost $127,000 house to foreclosure, and lost $16,500.00 car to repossession. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain that these losses totaling over $453,000.000 “did not affect commerce,” see Guerrero v. Gates, CV-00-07165-WILLIAM J. REA, August 28, 2000.
196. Plaintiff was denied redress of grievances since 1993 as a result of the conspiracy of all defendants to use the courts to do fraud and swindle. Plaintiff demands that defendants prove that this never happened, that plaintiff got all her stolen property back, was made whole, that the offenders were prosecuted, incarcerated, and the racketeering activity was stopped.
197. Between May and August, 1999, the same pattern of racketeering, predicate acts, fraud and swindle was perpetrated upon plaintiff’s husband, Richard Fischer, which was another attack upon plaintiff’s marital property. The participants initiated false charges against plaintiff’s husband, and attempted to use the state courts to convert marital property $17,000 Ford Econoline van to their own use without just compensation. Plaintiff’s husband paid $150.00 and filed a Civil RICO case in federal court in Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890. Defendants OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM and COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE violated and abused the pre-trial process, bribed the federal employees DOE CLERKS, TIMLIN and TEVRIZIAN, who “did the favor” and dismissed the case, no hearings and no jury trial, which obstructed justice. HATTER had knowledge and ability to prevent, and aided and abetted the offenders by not prosecuting crimes in the record. This attack upon marital property in excess of $100 gives plaintiff standing, as both plaintiff and husband’s ability to work was interfered with by taking time off to go to court, preparation of the case, and mental anguish from no longer feeling safe or secure at home or on the road. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how they can make their own rules and circumvent due process. Plaintiff also demands defendants explain where all the money given to California state courts in SB 33 went, if it was supposed to abolish all municipal courts, consolidate them into Superior Courts and make them courts of record.
198. In July 1 and 2 of 2002, plaintiff was denied rights secured by acts of Congress under Title 31 when DOE CLERK, INGRAM and PHILLIPS delayed and refused to unseal plaintiff’s False Claim qui tam complaint, and refused to issue Summons. In this qui tam complaint, no. EDCV 02-334 VAP SGLx, plaintiff reported conduct which injured the United States, was continuing to injure the United States, injured citizens to the point where some of them died, injured their business, and, gauging from the number of phone calls plaintiff receives every day relating to the injuries, such as suicides, lost businesses, devastated families, etc., required immediate “just, speedy and inexpensive” prosecution, which has been denied, thus giving plaintiff standing. PHILLIPS’ and INGMAN’s delay and obstruction is admissible to extend plaintiff’s statute of limitations on “prosecution of qui tam.” Plaintiff demands that PHILLIPS and INGMAN explain that EXHIBIT F Minute Order was not intended to cause delay to run out the statute of limitations of 120 days from April 17 to August 17, 2002 to expire so that they could “dismiss the qui tam against them for non-prosecution.” Plaintiff also demands that INGMAN and PHILLIPS explain their interpretation of “rights under Title 31 U.S.C.”
“OH, BUT ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE IMMUNE….”
199. Congress states there is no such thing as “judicial immunity” for the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate clearly established law. The Rule 9(a) and Rule 17 defendants’ sovereign immunity, Eleventh Amendment, absolute or qualified immunity, or good faith immunity was vacated by stares decisis in Dennis v. Sparks, 101 S. Ct. 183 (1980). Defendants shall be subject to title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621-1623 for any materially false representations of fact or law alleging such immunity in any pleading or document filed in the above-entitled action under the Anti-Corruption Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 1346; see also Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997), United States v. Frega, 179 F. 3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999), Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51 (1983); Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 (1980); Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988); Howlett v. Rose, 469 U.S. 356, 377-378 (1990); Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 417 U.S. ___ (1995); also Kalina v. Fletcher, 118 S. Ct. 502 (1997). Immunity issues are also decided by the jury, see Lalonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff demands that defendants produce the Clause in their Bonds, License and Insurance that exempts them from liability for racketeering or covering up racketeering.
DEFENDANTS FRAUDULENT SCHEME - “WE’RE ABOVE THE LAW AND THE COURTHOUSE IS JUST OUR LITTLE PLAYGROUND…”
200. In 1999, plaintiff examined over thirty federal court case dockets available on PACER, and perceived the same pattern of judicial corruption and bribery centering around CLERKS, who altered federal records including Dockets and other papers in suits against corrupt local government, state or federal employees, and who acted with FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS and JUDGES to get all suits against said corrupt government employees dismissed without any hearings or public exposure. Nine of these dockets are detailed in this claim:
Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256 (Texas)
Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473 (Texas)
Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443 (Florida)
Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764 (Florida)
Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890 (Southern California)
Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al No. 99-CV-12982 (Southern California)
Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97 (Central California)
Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640 (Texas), and
Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182 (Texas)
201. Said dockets revealed the pattern of the racketeering enterprise: U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted illegal motions to dismiss, motions for sanctions, and other pleadings, which CLERKS entered into the record in violation of Title 28 U.S.C. Rule 7 which states, “there shall be a complaint…and an answer…no other pleadings are allowed” and Rule 26 Amendment “claims to dismiss for insufficiency shall not be used…” Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how a third-party answer without an affidavit is really an answer, and explain their interpretation of In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 1996).
202. Instead of Answering the complaint pursuant to title 28 F.R.C.P. Rule 7, FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ documents entered by CLERKS motioned JUDGES to issue Orders or Judgments to dismiss the case and/or grant sanctions against the party bringing the suit, which obstructed FIRMS’ client government employees and their co-conspirators from Answering the complaint or otherwise being held “accountable.” JUDGES “did a favor” and did issue such Orders dismissing claims against U.S. ATTORNEYS’ and FIRMS’ clients, which effectively evaded jury trials and pre-trial hearings and obstructed justice. Defendants abused and misused the system and got motions to dismiss into the record instead of, or before, answers; covered-up the initial fraud and swindle on the local government level, got fabricated bills, costs, sanctions and fees into the record without any hearings or jury trials, then got these costs, fees and sanctions payable to each other! Defendants’ abuse evaded prosecution for other government employees and their co-conspirators doing fraud and swindle. Ultimately, these cases were dismissed with prejudice, not for publication, not for the public. NOTE: Bribery offense does not require proof that payments are made in exchange for, or to influence specific official acts, People v. Frederick Gaio, Jr., No. B125769, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6709 (June 26, 2000). The aforesaid constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity by defendants. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how them working together to get all these illegal debts and entries into the record as a “Ponzi scheme” to turn innocent people into “debtors” is not racketeering.
203. The pattern shows that defendants achieved their goal, which was to use the courts to protect each other and their co-conspirators doing theft, fraud, swindle and racketeering, and to prevent or obstruct citizens from obtaining civil remedies set forth by Article III, Acts of Congress, statutes, the Constitution, and clearly established law. That goal was achieved in the nine cases plaintiff presents as admissible evidence in this case. There are many more cases like this in the record once you know what to look for.
204. The procured Orders and Judgments dismissing these cases against government employees with prejudice, gave, as their basis for dismissal, the JUDGES’ determination that FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ illegal motions were correct in stating that civil remedies, statutes, etc., claimed in the case, “did not exist,” were “unintelligible gibberish,” “too verbose and confusing,” “failed to state a claim,” were “concocted figments of the imagination,” “vexatious,” etc. This violated the 7th Amendment, because the jury determines these issues. Since a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the truth of a complaint's allegations, it cannot be used to test a plaintiff's credibility. The record shows that CLERKS entered these motions into the record on behalf of FIRMS and U.S. ATTORNEYS as procurements for JUDGES to “do a favor” and dismiss the case, which JUDGES did in every instance. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how all civil remedies became void in cases involving racketeering and misconduct by any and all government employees, their friends and co-conspirators.
205. By abusing the pretrial process, defendants manipulated Title 28 U.S.C. Rule 39(a)(2) to make state and federal laws and the Constitution void, which evaded accountability and criminal prosecution for their co-conspirators and each other. Plaintiff demands that defendants show plaintiff all the civil remedies available after one has been injured by another’s commission of the crimes of 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, extortionate credit transactions, impersonating an officer, false bail, and great bodily injury resulting in death. An interesting point for the jury will be that defendants did not consider that any of these were crimes, as long as these acts were done by a government employee, his or her friends, a lawyer, court clerk, or a judge.
206. The pattern that plaintiff experienced and observed in the courts was: if an American citizen (“target”) sued after being defrauded by a government employee or any private person in conspiracy with government employees, defendants violated due process and the rules of court to get said government employee and his or her co-conspirators dismissed from the case. Illegal Motions were allowed to be filed, with the end result that Orders and Judgments were issued, declaring that the government employees and their co-conspirators were absolutely immune from suit, did not have to answer Summons, all civil remedies against them were void, so the case was dismissed with prejudice, no hearings, no jury trials, not for publication. The pattern in the dockets shows that defendants abused and misused the pre-trial process, government employees and their co-conspirators named in these suits factually ignored Summons to answer, submitted documents labeled “Answers” that were factually either motions to dismiss, claims for absolute judicial immunity, motions to declare the “target” a “vexatious litigant,” or motions for costs and sanctions. FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ illegal documents, false fines, fees and costs, and violations of due process were entered into the record by CLERKS, and granted by JUDGES in violation of Title 28 U.S.C. and Title 18 U.S.C. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain their interpretation of title 28 F.R.C.P.s Rules of Court.
207. Another interesting point for the jury will be defendants’ use of their illegal association to operate a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States and United States’ citizens of their intangible right to honest services by obstructing the due administration and proper functioning of the courts. The record shows that this obstruction prevented the underlying thefts under color of law, frauds and swindles, local corruption, malicious prosecution, bribery, great bodily injury resulting in death, and civil rights violations from being exposed to accountability and/or exposed to the public, which aided and abetted defendants’ very sophisticated, prohibited fraud, swindle, and racketeering scheme to continue both in and out of the courthouses.
208. Defendants’ conduct effectively denied access to the courts for almost all, especially “pro se litigants,” bringing suits against corrupt city, county or state officials and their attorneys, for theft under color, racketeering, extortion, impersonating an officer, laundering stolen property, tax and insurance fraud, commodities-tampering, bribes, fraud and swindle, Sherman Anti-Trust, extortionate credit transactions, and other prohibited criminal activity.
209. Defendants, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, relieved, comforted, and assisted the offender to hinder or prevent his or her apprehension, trial, or accountability in violation of Title 18 § 3, which makes all defendants “accessories after the fact.”
CO-CONSPIRATORS START THINGS OFF - TYPICAL CASE OF EXTORTION, CORRUPTION, AND RACKETEERING BEGUN ON THE LOCAL LEVEL…
210. Senior citizen Louise Holt, her WWII veteran husband J.V., and their son, Jack, a Vietnam veteran, live 13 miles outside Duncan, Oklahoma on 10 acres they paid $130,000.00 for in 1999. Louise has been breeding and raising small dogs for the past 30 years. Around Christmas, 2001, based upon an anonymous complaint that the Holts “had too many dogs,” a raid was perpetrated upon the Holts by the local Humane Society, who filed cruelty charges against all three Holts (People v. J.V. Holt, CF 2001-402). Louise was told that unless she got her husband, J.V., to sign her dogs over to the “Humane” Society, her son Jack (People v. Jackie R. Holt, CF 2001-401) would go to jail. Defendants LINDLEY, KEE CHRISTIAN, and DOES conspired to use the state court, and did use fear, threats, coercion, and intimidation to divest senior citizen Holts out of over $400,000.00 worth of property. The Holt family is now scattered and destroyed: son Jack lost his job over “the dog thing,” and moved to Dallas to find work. J.V. was sentenced to 5 years’ probation; he cannot come near a dog for 5 years, is getting “taxed twice” by having to pay $40.00 per month to a probation officer who is already receiving pay and benefits from the state, and, out of fear, has moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma. Louise is still in Duncan, all alone, also living in fear. Plaintiff demands that defendants LINDLEY, KEE and CHRISTIAN explain the following:
A) Explain how “grand theft of dogs having a value of $100 or more,” “transporting stolen property,” “laundering stolen property,” “forced veterinary/boarding/attorney ‘services’ totaling over $45,000.00 liened against Holts without a contract” could be O.K. as long as it was called “rescue and adoption,”
B) Explain their interpretation of “Notice and Hearing,” “posting a Bond,” “just compensation,” and “due process,”
C) Explain “anonymous complaint,” and explain how the Humane Society became a branch of government that could file charges “in the name of the People,”
D) Explain their participation in the Humane Society’s “vested interest” in getting “convictions for something” as evidenced by EXHIBIT G, FIRM’S recommendation on how “rescue groups” can avoid getting sued for invasion of privacy and theft of property by “getting a conviction for something, then get (the victim) on probation, etc.,”
E) Explain that “having too many or too much property” is a crime, and explain their theories to the Federal Trade Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, as “raising dogs, cats, and other animals” is listed on IRS Form 1040 Schedule C “small business,” and other business or property owners are not yet prosecuted for “having too many,” such as Bill Gates having and producing “too many computers,” and Zacky Farms having and producing “too many frying chickens,”
F) Explain how the Animal Welfare Act does not apply to them or to the state of Oklahoma,
G) Bring forward their Treaty with the Humane Society and S.P.C.A.,
H) Explain how the Humane Society could still be operating in their county, when it was declared a “domestic terrorist group” by the FBI in 1993 in the “FBI Report to Congress on Animal Enterprise Terrorism” available online under “Department of Justice Reports” for having its “own due process” and “Contract for transporting and laundering stolen property (animals) to overthrow the United States Constitution, see EXHIBIT H,
I) Explain how “theft of dog” is not a crime, and
J) Explain their interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. 2311 definition of “stolen property.”
THOUSANDS MORE LIKE THIS . . . COVERED UP…
211. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all like cases having the same set of circumstances - illegal search and seizure, denial of due process, perjury, racketeering, extortion, false personation, illegal association, corruption, bribery, and use of the courts by DOE defendants to obstruct justice and cover up crimes. Plaintiff demands that defendants and 5,000 DOES explain to the jury how all these things are not crimes.
212. CLERKS, under the direction of MECHAM through OFFICE in conspiracy with FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS and JUDGES, routinely altered or destroyed records, and entered illegal motions into the record to give fraudulent and false charges, false debts, bills and liens, Judgments and Orders the appearance of “legally valid.” Docket entries were either omitted or added in, and dates, numbers, and sequences were altered by CLERKS. Defaults against parties failing to answer were denied by CLERKS and JUDGES, who, in conspiracy with U.S. ATTORNEYS, FIRMS and their clients, used their corrupt association to deny pre-trial hearings, deny jury trials, enter illegal orders and motions such as 12(b)(6) in direct violation of F.R.C.P. Rule 7(a) and Rule 12 as amended in 1966, and do whatever else that would effect denial of due process and dispensing of justice as to suits against government employees in direct violation of F.R.C.P. Rule 301.
213. CLERKS “did favors” by not entering Defaults as required by law after government employees named in these suits failed to Answer. U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS provided fabricated fines, fees, costs, sanctions, or motions to dismiss that CLERKS couldn’t have filed and entered, but did, and which JUDGES granted. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain what an answer is, and what a default is.
214. The targets’ lives, livelihoods and businesses were ruined, which affected interstate commerce. For instance, in Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. #97-CV-1473, tax returns showed that the Browns’ income dropped over $40,000.00 for years after they were maliciously prosecuted in state court, and their business was injured by corrupt local government in conspiracy with private parties who maliciously prosecuted the Browns and slandered them in the media. The Browns sued in federal court, and submitted evidence of this corruption. The Browns’ Docket shows that in five years, the Browns received no hearings, no jury trial, and defendants intentionally abused the pretrial process and denied Browns’ federal claims. The Browns’ default judgments were denied by CLERKS, which affected interstate commerce, as the underlying crimes continued unpunished and damaged other “targets,” the United States continued to pay defendants’ salaries, and was denied taxes paid on defaults. The Defaults of all the other “targets” were likewise denied, their businesses and livelihoods likewise suffered, and they got the same abuse in the state and federal facilities. The Browns’ 70 acre farm is gone, fields in waist-high weeds, as “animal activist/domestic terrorists,” aided and abetted by local sheriff and county, put the Browns out of business - no more cattle or horses on their ranch. The United States suffered from lost business, diminished economy, taxes not paid on Defaults, and federal defendants’ salaries - paid to defendants participating on Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, to do work that the record shows was never done.
215. By way of threatening and intimidating any “targets” who dared to fight back in court, CLERKS used their illegal association to fraudulently assert that the “targets” were not welcome unless they could afford several hundred thousand dollar FIRMS. Defendants thus aided and abetted FIRMS and other participants to get kickbacks in the scheme to convert “targets’” title of property ownership, evade prosecution, and get sanctions, “vexatious litigant” orders and other judgments against the “targets” as a bonus. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain “equal access to justice for rich and poor alike.”
216. To add insult to injury, while FIRMS and U.S. ATTORNEYS racked up the fraudulent fees, converted targets’ property, and wrote illegal Orders and Judgments for JUDGES to sign that factually voided all statutes and the Constitution, MECHAM, OFFICE, CLERKS, JUDGES and DOES entered them into the record, then submitted false claims to the United States for “doing duties as prescribed by law!” ASHCROFT had this information for at least 60 days, and failed to indict. Plaintiff demands that defendants show that they performed “duties as prescribed by law,” which resulted in hearings, jury trials, and prosecution of the offenders.
217. MECHAM committed fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1920 when he appeared before the Senate Budget Committee on March 5, 2002, knowing that he was never going to perform any duties as prescribed by law in furtherance of the scheme to obstruct all due process and deny all citizens civil remedies by right.
218. CLERKS and JUDGES further failed to perform duties as prescribed in Clerks Manual, such as “Answer Dockets” and “Tickler Reports.” The record shows that pre-trial hearings and jury trials never happened, which constitutes CLERKS’ and JUDGES’ “false compensation request” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1920. ASHCROFT failed to indict the other defendants after he had this information for at least 60 days.
AND THE FRAUD GOES ON….
219. Defendants failed to do duties as prescribed by law, which defrauded both the United States and the paying public out of the intangible right to honest services. For instance, by not entering defaults, by entering motions to dismiss as “answers,” by entering prohibited pre-trial motions, or by altering the sequence of events (numbers and entry dates) while supposedly “correctly docketing a case,” CLERKS obstructed justice and made opportunity for, and encouraged, organized crime and corruption both in and out of court as well as denied the United States of its share of taxes on the default judgments. JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS gave “protection” by “failing to report” as required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3 and 4. The United States was defrauded out of:
a. salaries and federal benefits paid to MECHAM, OFFICE, CLERKS, U.S. ATTORNEYS,
JUDGES and DOES, who submitted false claims for work they did not do as prescribed
b. income derived from taxes due on default judgments,
c. accountability for criminal activity both in and out of court,
d. the intangible right to honest services from all defendants,
e. the economic benefit of free flow of commerce and trade, and
f. domestic security and economic stability.
Defendants likewise defrauded the paying public out of:
a. filing fees,
b. due process, such as jury trials and federal questions getting answered,
c. a sympathetic and knowledgeable forum for the vindication of their federal rights
d. rights secured by the Constitution and Acts of Congress,
e. tax dollars for defendants’ salaries,
f. the intangible right to honest services,
g. the economic benefit of free flow of commerce and trade, and
h. domestic security and economic stability.
220. CLERKS thus obstructed justice and prevented “accountability” for both themselves, the other defendants, and co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of racketeering, extortion, malicious prosecution, theft under color, extortionate credit transactions, fraud and swindle, and collection of fabricated debt. This allowed other serious crimes against the United States to go unexposed, as what would happen in a jury trial, and unpunished, as CLERKS’ alterations and omissions aided other defendants and participants to both avoid default judgments against them, and avoid subsequent criminal prosecution. As part of the cover-up, CLERKS entered “Demand: $0,000” on the front of some of the dockets to conceal the real Demand in the suits, which was several million dollars. Plaintiff demands that CLERKS explain their interpretation of “duties as prescribed by law.”
221. MECHAM, OFFICE, CLERKS, JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS, and DOES’ racketeering and false claims have defrauded the United States, and, in conspiracy with FIRMS, have injured society, threatened economic stability and national security, and have violated the public’s trust in our state and federal courts. Our beautiful judicial system has been undermined and violated by defendants who, by their own papers, motions, Orders and Judgments, have declared that the Constitution, Acts of Congress, Amendments, and statutes are void. Since defendants have acted in concert to void all civil remedies and the Constitution, plaintiff demands that defendants bring forth what has replaced it, so that the American people can have full disclosure, know what to expect, know what kind of government they are paying for, and know how to conduct their lives and businesses.
222. Defendants knowingly committed offenses against the United States, aided, abetted, and procured others to do so, and used their positions in and out of the courthouses to relieve, comfort, and assist the offenders to prevent their apprehension and trial. For instance, all defendants have had at least two years of law school, and know that the jury is the “trier of fact,” and it is the jury that decides if civil remedies, statutes, Articles and Amendments to the Constitution, or Acts of Congress are “unintelligible gibberish,” “too verbose and confusing,” “fail to state a claim,” or are “concocted figments of the (“target’s”) imagination.” Yet defendants knowingly abused the pre-trial process to void jury trials. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how Titles 7, 15, 18, 28, 31, and the Constitution are “unintelligible gibberish,” “too verbose and confusing,” “concocted figments of the imagination,” and “fail to state a claim.”
BRAINWASHING THE PUBLIC…
223. Defendants participated with the media to spread negative and false information about the justice system with the intended goal of intimidating and coercing the entire civilian population into believing that “due process” consists of anonymous complaints, warrantless searches and seizures, huge retainer fees for attorneys, star-chamber justice, and bench trials. This had the target goal of neutralizing public resistance to theft under color of law, fraud and swindle, criminal conversion of title, bribery, operating the courts as a racketeering enterprise (ala United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999)), tax fraud, and overthrow of our form of government from within. It’s an old con - dumb-down the people, then defraud them out of their rights and property, as paraphrased by Phillips Payson in 1778: "It will always be as easy to rob an ignorant people of their liberty as to pick the pockets of a blind man."
224. Today, defendants’ control of the media has lead the public to believe that “terrorists,” “criminals,” or “bad guys” are always foreigners, gangsters, “fringe groups” or “wackos,” never judicial officers, court staff, big law firms, or non-profit corporations. This carefully cultivated perception has allowed defendants to position themselves to profit from the spread of negative and false information, as the public is kept in ignorance of defendants’ real activities of voiding U.S. statutes and Constitution in order to defraud American citizens under color of official right, obstruct justice for each other and their co-conspirators, destroy our form of government, fabricate huge fees, fines, costs, liens and sanctions, and submit false claims for federal benefits - all of which has injured the United States.
225. This pattern has increased in recent years, mainly due to defendants “rigging” the pretrial process so that government employees committing theft, fraud and swindle, and treason don’t have to worry anymore - their co-conspirator FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS and JUDGES simply declare that the perpetrators have “absolute immunity,” dismiss all charges against them, so the theft, fraud and swindle, corruption, and insurrection against the United States goes on draining the U.S. economy, destroying lives and business, and destroying the American public’s faith that any legal remedies can be obtained in court.
THREATS AND INTIMIDATION:
“THESE CIVIL REMEDIES DON’T EXIST, EITHER, NOT AGAINST
ANY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE WE’RE ALL ABOVE THE LAW!”
(BUT THIS MAKES PLAINTIFF’S CASE….)
226. On April 17, 2002, plaintiff filed a qui tam claim under seal. DOE 1 CLERK altered a federal record by demanding that plaintiff file a “Rule 26 Disclosure,” altered the record and destroyed the confidentiality of “filed under Seal” by demanding that plaintiff write name, address and phone number on the front of the complaint, by demanding that the complaint be “blue-backed,” by giving plaintiff’s qui tam the same case number as three other cases in violation of Title 28 F.R.C.P.s, Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1506 and 223, see EXHIBIT I, and in violation of the Clerks Manual, see EXHIBIT J. Plaintiff demands an explanation of “handling of special cases under seal.”
227. Sometime between April 17 and May 14, 2002, defendant DOE CLERK broke the Seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 223, and divulged plaintiff’s Sealed qui tam complaint to one or more of the defendants, who conspired with U.S. ATTORNEYS JOHN S. GORDON, LEON W. WEIDMAN, GARY PLESSMAN, KRISTINE BLACKWOOD, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, MICHAEL F. HERTZ, STEVE D. ALTMAN, and ANDREW SKOWRONEK to use the U.S. mail to send a letter threatening to dismiss plaintiff’s claim, along with a fraudulent Notice that the “Seal was still intact,” see EXHIBIT K. Both letter and Notice admit that DOE 1 CLERK broke it, and as “standard practice,” forwarded it to a U.S. ATTORNEY for the admitted purpose of having him or her act as DOE 1 and 2 CLERKS’ defense counsel. Plaintiff demands that GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, ALTMAN, and SKOWRONEK explain how the qui tam is “still under seal,” when they and DOE CLERKS violated the Seal, their very correspondence with plaintiff is proof of that violation; demands proof of what gave them seniority over JOHN ASHCROFT to commandeer the case without his delegation, and demands that they provide the law permitting “suggestion to dismiss” when nobody has been served!
228. On May 14, 2002, plaintiff received letter and Notice through the U.S. mail - admissible evidence of felonies committed by DOE 1 and DOE 2 or more CLERKS of the United States District Courts, and a conspiracy to deny plaintiff the economic benefit of relator’s reward, and a conspiracy to cover-up such actual felonies by U.S. ATTORNEYS in Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C., who “appeared” not as JOHN ASHCROFT’S delegates, but as “counsel for corrupt CLERKS violating Seal and needing representation.” EXHIBIT K is admissible evidence to establish the “existence of a conspiracy” to threaten and intimidate a witness/victim in any official proceeding, and to obstruct justice for government employees committing crimes against American citizens and the United States, see West 2002 Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801, as amended in 1997.
229. U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN S. GORDON was required to report his knowledge of the actual commission of a felony - DOE CLERK breaking the Seal, divulging contents to DOE CLERKS - in writing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4. This “document” must be produced pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a) without request. Failure to do so requires mandatory sanctions against JOHN S. GORDON pursuant to Rule 37. These laws are “written” by Congress, and effective against “whoever.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 4, also USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 at H.R. 3162-22, quoting:
SEC. 223. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.
(a) section 2520 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in subsection (a), after “entity,” by inserting, “other than the United States,”;
(2) by adding at the end of the following:
“(f) ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE.- If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provisions of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination;” and
(3) by adding a new subsection (g), as follows:
“(g) IMPROPER DISCLOSURE IS VIOLATION. - Any willful disclosure or use by an investigative or law enforcement officer or governmental entity of information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for the purposes of section 2520(a),”,
(b) Section 2707 of title 18, United States Code, is amended -
(1) in subsection (a), after “entity,” by inserting, “other than the United States,”;
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
(d) ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE. - If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.”, and
(3) by adding a new subsection (g), as follows:
(g) IMPROPER DISCLOSURE. - Any willful disclosure of a ‘record,’ as that term is defined in section 552a(a) of title 5, United States Code, obtained by an investigative or law enforcement officer, or a governmental entity, pursuant to section 2703 of this title, or from a device installed pursuant to section 3123 or 3125 of this title, that is not a disclosure made in the proper performance of the official functions of the officer or governmental entity making the disclosure, is a violation of this chapter. This provision shall not apply to information previously lawfully disclosed (prior to the commencement of any civil or administrative proceeding under this chapter) to the plaintiff in a civil action under this chapter.”.
(c)(1) Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
“Section 2712. Civil actions against the United States
230. U.S. Attorneys JOHN S. GORDON, LEON W. WEIDMAN, GARY PLESSMAN, KRISTINE BLACKWOOD, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, MICHAEL F. HERTZ, STEVE D. ALTMAN, and ANDREW SKOWRONEK impersonated the authority of the Attorney General when they conspired to send letter and Notice without “delegation from U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.” ASHCROFT had Notice of these U.S. ATTORNEYS’ conduct, and failed to indict. The provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, as defined in § 1346 factually apply to CLERKS, ATTORNEYS, and any other “federal actors or employees of federal entities, including other defendants,” who are liable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (West 2002) effective date November 18, 1988. The Supreme Court of the United States has previously prescribed that the “statute prohibits delegation to a U.S. Attorney of any prescribed duties of the Attorney General,” see Guiterrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. __, 132 L.Ed.2d 375, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995). EXHIBIT K provides evidence of GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, ALTMAN, and SKOWRONEK’s “materially false representations of fact or law” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1622, and 1623, and constitutes “perjury” in a federal record pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1623:
“NOTICE OF EVENTS RELEVANT TO THE SEAL OF QUI TAM COMPLAINT
The United States of America submits this filing to notify the Court of the following events relating to the above-captioned suit:
Relator filed this complaint under seal with the District Court on April 17, 2002. Unusually, this particular suit named the Clerk of the Courts for the Eastern Division, as well as the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, as defendants in the suit. The Clerks of Courts, in the normal course of her duties, looked at the sealed complaint and thus became aware that she and her office had been named as putative defendants. Pursuant to standard practice, she or her staff then forwarded the complaint to an Assistant United States Attorney who routinely acts as defense counsel in suits directed against the federal judiciary.”
(2nd para.) “The Clerk of Courts, in the normal course of her duties, looked at the sealed complaint and thus became aware that she and her office had been named as putative defendants…”
231. DOE CLERKS violated the CLERKS MANUAL, Chapter 10, section 10.02. Initial Processing:
b. Specific Cases
Some civil cases require additional documents and special handling. The clerk should be familiar with these cases to ensure that the required documents are collected prior to opening the case. The following are the specific cases and what they require:
3. Suits Under the Federal Civil False Claims Act
Private citizens may sue on behalf of the United States of America under the qui tam provisions of the federal Civil False Claims Act. Refer to 31 U.S.C. sections 3729-32 for more information. The clerk should be aware of the following requirements prior to opening this type of action:
l These cases are submitted under seal and will not be made public record until unsealed by the court;
l Summonses are not issued to the defendants at the time of filing. The complaint will be served only on the Attorney General of the United States;
l Although the plaintiff is filing on behalf of the United States, the $150.00 filing fee will be collected by the clerk.
232. Assistant Attorney General ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. committed “perjury” in stating, under penalty of perjury, that “the “Clerk of Courts, in the normal course of her duties, looked at the sealed complaint and thus became aware that she and her office had been named as putative defendants.” McCALLUM knew that the law required such documents to be under Seal to be seen and read only by the confirmed Attorney General of the United States, now JOHN ASHCROFT. McCALLUM’S cover-up of CLERKS’ conduct in breaking the Seal, reading the “document under Seal,” and divulging the contents to one or more of the defendants proves plaintiff’s claims against defendants for “failure to perform duties as required by law,” “conspiracy to obstruct justice,” and “using their positions of public trust to evade prosecution and obstruct justice for themselves and others committing crimes against the United States.”
233. DOE CLERK is an employee of a federal entity, and did willfully and intentionally deliver the secret documents to defendants, which endangered the life of plaintiff.
234. Plaintiff reasonably believes that the Attorney General is John Ashcroft, not ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Guiterrez de Martinez, supra, clarifies this at 115 S.Ct. pgs. 2228-2229 that only the Attorney General can certify scope of employment in order so that no one should be a judge in his own cause (Guiterrez was about certifying federal employee Lamagno’s scope of employment when a U.S. ATTORNEY appeared on his behalf as private counsel and claimed “immunity” for him after he was sued for causing a traffic injury accident while driving drunk with a prostitute in the middle of the night). It is the duty of the Attorney General, NOT GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, ALTMAN, or SKOWRONEK to certify defendants’ “scope-of-employment/office.” And since ASHCROFT failed to “delegate” or “certify” anybody, all defendants are “dumped” and have to Answer Summons by themselves.
235. U.S. ATTORNEYS GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, ALTMAN, and SKOWRONEK, entered into the conspiracy to obstruct justice and declare all civil remedies against corrupt government employees to be void, and have become “perpetrators,” see Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997), pursuant to the Congressional definition of “any scheme or artifice to defraud any citizens of their intangible right to honest services,” 18 U.S.C. § 1346, see EXHIBIT K’s “materially false representations of fact and law:”
“[P]ursuant to standard practice, she or her staff then forwarded the complaint to an Assistant United States Attorney who routinely acts as defense counsel in suits directed against the federal judiciary.”
236. U.S. ATTORNEYS are prohibited from participation in private practice, cannot “routinely act as defense attorneys” for those they are sworn to prosecute pursuant to the Accountability Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and Guiterrez de Martinez, supra. See also EXHIBIT J, “CHAPTER 1 OF CLERKS MANUAL” at Section 1.02c, with its own Exhibit 2, pages 14-21, penalties for CLERKS’ violation of prohibitions against practicing law, violating judicial canons, codes of conduct, professional standards, appearance of impropriety, restraint against disclosure of confidential information, conflicts of interest, material witness in a proceeding, personal prejudice, outside activities, compliance with disclosure requirements, use of the office in the solicitation of funds (or “doing favors”), Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. § 7353, 5 U.S.C. § 7351 (gifts to superiors), 5 U.S.C. app. 6, §§ 101 to 111 (Ethics Reform Act financial disclosure provisions), 18 U.S.C. § 203 (representation in matters involving the United States); 18 U.S.C. § 205 (claims against the United States); 28 U.S.C. § 955 (restriction on clerks of court practicing law), and inappropriate political activity.
237. U.S. ATTORNEYS entered into a conspiracy to threaten and intimidate plaintiff, see letter: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, May 14, 2002, signed by Andrew Skowronek, which is an admission of intent to obstruct justice by an attorney in “Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice.” This constitutes “mail fraud” and “threat” alluding to the “criminal intent to file an unlawful motion to dismiss with prejudice” in participation with the “cover-up of the conspiracy to declare all civil remedies void as pertains any government employees committing crimes in the record” in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. 1505, and the Civil Antitrust Reform Act of 1990, and it was done in the name of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The letter and Notice are admissible to establish the existence of a civil conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, 1997 Amendment (West 2002).
238. SKOWRONEK states the following “admissions of conduct and behavior in furtherance of the scheme or artifice to deprive citizens of their intangible right to honest services” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 Fraud and swindles:
“Dear Ms. Fisher [sic]”
The relator’s identity is required to be “DOE” and under Seal for a period of 60 days, therefore, an actual felony occurred when SKOWRONEK received and read a “Sealed document” in violation of law, see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 1996). SKOWRONEK continues the fraud:
“This is a courtesy letter intended to apprise you of the status of your recently filed qui tam suit. As you will see from the attached Notice of Events, your complaint was seen by one of the defendants. This was an inadvertence consequent to the day-to-day operations of the clerks office, and we do not consider that the seal has been violated. To the contrary, we consider that the seal remains in place with full force and effect.”
As an officer of the Court, SKOWRONEK is subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4, had “knowledge of the commission of an actual felony” with the obligation to notify the Court of the “criminal conduct of federal employees DOES 1 and more CLERKS” as soon as possible. The jury will determine if the Seal was violated, not a mere employee of the “Commercial Litigation Branch.” The national news currently attests to the “factual criminal conduct” involved with corruption, cover-up and other events surrounding plaintiff’s qui tam, see EXHIBIT L.
239. SKOWRONEK appears to believe that the citizens are “unaware of the corruption in federal agencies and departments.” The issue will be put to the jury, the trier of fact, as required by the Seventh Amendment and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38 (West 2002). SKOWRONEK continues the perjury:
“With regard to the substance of your suit, however, it is our current assessment that your complaint fails to articulate a cognizable claim under the False Claims Act. First, a False Claims Act suit cannot be maintained against an entity of the federal government, and, as a consequence, your qui tam claims against the Administrative Office of the United States and its employees in their official capacities must fail.”
240. How predictable! In keeping with the “custom and policy” of corrupt U.S. ATTORNEYS to obstruct justice for other corrupt government employees by declaring that all laws, statutes and civil remedies are “unintelligible gibberish,” “do not apply in this case,” and “fail to state a claim,” SKOWRONEK made a materially false representation of law as a threat to obstruct the civil prosecution of claims against federal actors pursuant to the Anti-Corruption Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, also 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO). First, Congress declared that “federal actors are subject to suit.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 2679 provides that the United States shall be substituted as a defendant; and the jury will determine if the claims “have merit.” Motions to dismiss were abolished in the year 1948 by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 7(c) (West 2002), and failure to Answer individual Summons will result in default, see Rule 12, 1966 Amendment. Any attempt to plead “insufficiency,” abolished by written law Rule 7(c), will result in Rule 37 “mandatory amplified sanctions” against SKOWRONEK acting in the name of the United States pursuant to Rule 11 and Rule 37 as amended. See West 2002 Edition F.R.C.P. Rule 12, 2000 Amendment at page 99:
“Rule 12(a)(3)(B) is added to complement the addition of Rule 4(i)(2)(B). The purposes that underlie the requirement that service be made on the United States in an action that asserts individual liability of a United States officer or employee for acts occurring in connection with the performance of duties on behalf of the United States also require that the time to ANSWER be extended to 60 days. Time is needed for the United States to determine whether to PROVIDE REPRESENTATION to the defendant officer or employee. If the United States provides representation, the need for an extended ANSWER PERIOD is the same as in actions against the United States, a United States agency, or a United States officer sued in an official capacity.
An action against a former officer of the United States is covered by subparagraph (3)(B) in the same way as an action against a present officer or employee. Termination of the relationship between the individual defendants and the United States does not reduce the need for additional time to ANSWER.
No changes are recommended for Rule 12 as published.
241. Had Congress enacted an immunity from summons, suit or obligation to answer complaint, it would not have amended existing law as written - remember: “everything that GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, ALTMAN, and SKOWRONEK do or say will be used in evidence against such public servants. SKOWRONEK’s continuing “perjury” is:
“[S]econd, you lack knowledge sufficient to gain standing to bring your parallel allegations against each defendant in his or her “personal capacity.” For example, you do not provide any facts that tie the defendants to the wrongful acts alleged in the complaint, which themselves are based solely on your speculations that a series of apparent clerical errors are part of some fraudulent scheme. This is mere guesswork, and is insufficient to meet False Claims Act requirements.”
242. SKOWRONEK must answer the Complaint pursuant to Rule 8(b) within 60 days, relating to his assertion that plaintiff/relator is “merely guessing.” See Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997). As an attorney, defendant SKOWRONEK knows well that the United States Supreme Court declared that “Conspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public, and punishable in itself,” and any attempt to re-litigate any Supreme Court decision on a point of law will result in disbarment in the same manner as former attorney William J. Clinton.
243. SKOWRONEK continues his obstruction of justice, and commits perjury again:
“[T]hird, your complaint contains numerous allegations based on other criminal and civil statutes that you cannot rely upon to bring this suit...This is mere guesswork…”
SKOWRONEK made a materially false statement of fact and law, see F.R.C.P. Rule 2 (West 2002) at page 36:
Rule 2. One Form of Action
There shall be one form of action to be known as “civil action.”
244. SKOWRONEK, in keeping with the custom and policy of voiding all civil remedies against corrupt government employees, used federal facilities and his position to threaten plaintiff/relator and solicit kickbacks for his co-conspirators:
“We suggest that you retain private counsel so that you can discuss your allegations with him or her. In addition, please be advised that the United States intends to file promptly a suggestion that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice to the relator.”
245. SKOWRONEK impersonated the Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT, made materially false statements of fact and law, and sent a threat through the U.S. mail. GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, SKOWRONEK and ALTMAN are all “principals” and “accessories after the fact” as defined by Title 18 §§ 2 and 3. ASHCROFT failed to indict GORDON, WEIDMAN, PLESSMAN, BLACKWOOD, McCALLUM, HERTZ, SKOWRONEK and ALTMAN after plaintiff sent him notice of their conduct on June 10, 2002.
246. Since the filing of plaintiff’s qui tam complaint, defendant SHERRI R. CARTER legislated and re-wrote Title 31 in direct conflict of F.R.C.P.s, and issued an Order, see EXHIBIT M. This violated the prohibitions against CLERKS practicing law, and the 2000 Amendment to Title 28 Rule 26, which abolishes all local rules that are in direct conflict with F.R.C.P.s. SHERRI R. CARTER’s Order voids Congress and abolishes “filed under Seal” without CLERKS’ approval. Plaintiff demands that SHERRI CARTER explain her interpretation of “filed-under-Seal,” and bring forward evidence that she was granted legislative powers to repeal or amend Title 31 U.S.C.
247. Defendants RACHEL INGRAM and DOE CLERKS are continuing the obstruction of justice, as they have refused plaintiff’s demands to unseal and issue Summons on First Amended Qui Tam Claim, no. EDCV 02-334 VAP SGLx. Plaintiff drove to the Riverside courthouse twice on July 1 and 2, and in spite of presenting evidence that the 60 days have passed and nobody was served or appeared, nobody intervened as ASHCROFT’s delegate, DOE CLERKS, INGRAM and PHILLIPS caused more delay and refused to issue Summons.
THE WHOLE ENCHALADA…
248. Defendants used the court facilities, resources and personnel, and stole over $100,000.00 worth of property from plaintiff in 1993 without due
Other entries in Information
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