You are looking at a document published Dec 12, 2019. A monkey wrench is no longer necessary as we opted to head to the Supreme Court. But its a good read. Actually, RICO SHOULD come from inside each of the five stolen civil cases. It is already prepared for them.
Also see:
Also see:
In this case IT IS A MONKEY WRENCH! A really big, nasty monkey wrench. And the worse nightmare the Arizona Republican Party could imagine.
Peter J. Henning, writing in the New York Times Jan. 16, 2018 under the title of “RICO Lawsuits Are Tempting, but Tread Lightly”, said the following:
“Charging defendants with racketeering conjures images of Mafia dons like Al Capone and John Gotti overseeing vast criminal enterprises.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO, is among the federal government’s most powerful tools to combat long-running criminal organizations.
RICO is not limited to mobsters, however, and two civil RICO cases are good illustrations of how broadly the law can be applied, much to the chagrin of defendants.
Unlike most criminal statutes, RICO contains a civil component that allows it to be used to turn ordinary business disputes that would be filed in state courts into federal cases. Proving a violation results in the award of triple damages plus attorney’s fees, so plaintiffs have an incentive to look for ways to turn their grievances into a RICO suit.”
Yep, one has to do it right as courts do not seem to take lightly the concept of judicial abuse.
This is what is going to happen if the most recent complaint to the DOJ Inspector General is not acted upon. That is not a threat but a promise. I may not be able to hold accountable the corrupt lazy and seditious DOJ attorney prosecutors but I can MONKEY WRENCH IT ALL. If they won’t let us have our multi-million dollar civil cases IT IS ONLY FAIR.
So what does it take to prove a RICO case? Let’s use a current example. Actually, let’s just do it all.
Here is the relevant RICO section:
(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.
(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.
(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.
(d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.
§ 1965. Venue and process
(a) Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.
(b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal thereof.
(c) In any civil or criminal action or proceeding instituted by the United States under this chapter in the district court of the United States for any judicial district, subpenas issued by such court to compel the attendance of witnesses may be served in any other judicial district, except that in any civil action or proceeding no such subpena shall be issued for service upon any individual who resides in another district at a place more than one hundred miles from the place at which such court is held without approval given by a judge of such court upon a showing of good cause.
(d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.
§ 1966. Expedition of actions
In any civil action instituted under this chapter by the United States in any district court of the United States, the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a certificate stating that in his opinion the case is of general public importance. A copy of that certificate shall be furnished immediately by such clerk to the chief judge or in his absence to the presiding district judge of the district in which such action is pending. Upon receipt of such copy, such judge shall designate immediately a judge of that district to hear and determine action.
§ 1967. Evidence
In any proceeding ancillary to or in any civil action instituted by the United States under this chapter the proceedings may be open or closed to the public at the discretion of the court after consideration of the rights of affected persons.
JUSTIA provides one of the best summaries of the RICO law.
“The federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as the “ultimate hit man” in mob prosecutions. Prior to RICO, prosecutors could only try mob-related crimes individually. Since different mobsters perpetrated each crime, the government could only prosecute individual criminals instead of shutting down an entire criminal organization. Today, the government rarely uses RICO against the Mafia. Instead, because the law is so broad, both governmental and civil parties use it against all sorts of enterprises, both legal and illegal.
RICO allows for prosecution of all individuals involved in a corrupt organization. For mob prosecutions, that means that the government can go after top leadership as well as the hit men and capos. And RICO established much enhanced sentences, as well. John L. Smith described the impact of RICO in an article for the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “After RICO, mob families began to crack under the very real threat that members and associates could be indicted en masse for a wide range of criminal activity. … [E]ven the strongest stand-up guy would have trouble fading the 20-year (and more) sentences that began accompanying RICO convictions.”
While RICO was originally aimed at the Mafia, over the past 37 years, prosecutors have used it to attack many forms of organized crime: street gangs, gang cartels, corrupt police departments and even politicians.
To violate RICO, a person must engage in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise. The law defines 35 offenses as constituting racketeering, including gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, drug dealing, bribery. Significantly, mail and wire fraud are included on the list. These crimes are known as “predicate” offenses. To charge under RICO, at least two predicate crimes within 10 years must have been committed through the enterprise.
Note that an enterprise is required. This might be a crime family, a street gang or a drug cartel. But it may also be a corporation, a political party, or a managed care company. The enterprise just has to be a discrete entity; but an enterprise is not the same as an individual. Thus, a corporation may be the enterprise through which individuals commit crimes, but it can’t be both an individual and the enterprise.
The criminal RICO statute provides for prison terms of 20 years and severe financial penalties. The law also allows prosecutors to attach assets, so they can’t be whisked out of the country before judgment.
Even though RICO threatens very long prison terms for racketeers, the law’s real power is its civil component. Anyone can bring a civil suit if they’ve been injured by a RICO violation, and if they win, receive treble damages. In the 1980s, civil lawyers attempted to fit many different claims inside of RICO, but in the 1990s the federal courts set up a number of hurdles for civil RICO claims. To succeed on a RICO claim, a plaintiff must show:
- Criminal Activity. You must show that the defendant committed one of the enumerated RICO crimes, which include the broad crimes of mail and wire fraud. If you bring a claim on a fraud basis, however, the court will apply strict scrutiny.
- Pattern of Criminal Activity. One crime is not enough. You have to show a pattern of at least two crimes. A pattern requires the crimes be related in some way—same victim, same methods, same participants—or continuous, meaning it was conducted over at least a year.
- Within the Statute of Limitations. The Supreme Court held that RICO has a four-year statute of limitations, which begins tolling from the time the victim discovers his or her damages.
RICO civil suits can be very costly.
—————–
Not if you do it yourself.
From the DOJ:
“The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., requires that state crimes used as predicate offenses be “chargeable under state law.” The federal courts have uniformly held that regardless of the running of the state statute of limitations, a defendant is still “chargeable” with the state offense within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A). See cases cited in United States v. Licavoli, 725 F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1252 (1984). The reference to state law in the statute is simply to define the conduct, and is not meant to incorporate state procedural law.”
From RICO and Statute of Limitation:
“RICO Act itself does not contain a statute of limitations but the Supreme Court has held that civil RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143, (U.S. 1987). The statute of limitations begins running on a RICO claim according to the “injury discovery accrual rule” which ties accrual to the time when a plaintiff first knew or should have known of his injury.
Moreover, a RICO claim matures when the plaintiff’s injury and the subsequent damages resulting there from become clear and concrete. However, the statute of limitations on a civil RICO claim tolls if the plaintiff pleads the following three elements with particularity: (1) wrongful concealment by the defendant, (2) which prevented the plaintiff’s discovery of the claim within the limitations period and (3) due diligence in pursuing discovery of the claim.
Once a RICO claim accrues, a plaintiff must bring an action in four years. A subsequent violation, beyond the four year time period, will not revive a cause of action for the previous violations even if the pattern of racketeering activity is same and even if a plaintiff is thereby injured. The rule is liberal in that a defendant must show that a plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of each element of the RICO claim, not simply injury. On the other hand, the rule is consistent with the underlying purpose of a statute of limitation and thus under the rule a subsequent predicate act after expiration of the statute of limitations will not save a claimant by reviving the claim.”
Additional clarification on limitations:”
The most obscure aspects of the RICO Act relate to the statute of limitations applicable to civil RICO claims. Statutes of limitation are designed to impose an obligation of diligence on plaintiffs (i.e., if a person is wrongfully injured, they cannot sit on their rights indefinitely) and to enable some degree of predictability and conclusion for defendants (i.e., defendants must be able to assume that after a certain period they cannot be called upon to answer for wrongs they committed in the distant past).
Congress failed to include either a criminal or civil statute of limitations when it passed the RICO Act. Congress’ oversight was easily remedied with regard to the criminal statute of limitations. Title 18, section 3282 of the U.S. Code is the “catch-all” statute of limitation for federal crimes. It states that “no person shall be prosecuted . . . unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.” With regard to criminal prosecutions, it is generally held that a prosecution is timely so long as the defendant has committed one predicate act (that forms part of the pattern for which he is being prosecuted) within five years or less of the indictment. See United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1525 (8th Cir. 1995).
RICO’s missing statute of limitations was more problematic with regard to civil claims. First, there is no “catch-all” limitations period applicable to civil claims established by Congress. Second, assuming civil RICO claims are subject to a statute of limitations, when does the statute of limitations begin to run? Does it run with the first predicate act or the last predicate act? Does it re-start with each new predicate act committed by the defendant? Does it run when the plaintiff is injured? What if the plaintiff is unaware of its injury? Is the running of the statute of limitations then postponed until after the plaintiff discovered its injury? Until the United States Supreme Court provided direction, all of these questions presented tremendous problems for the courts confronting statute of limitations defenses under the RICO Act.”
One of the best written and most comprehensive explanations of RICO, in the context of Arizona state law, is presented by Phoenix attorney Robert D. Mitchell of Tiffany & Bosco P.A.: (Read the entire article this snippet is fair use while the entire piece is mandatory reading!)
“A.R.S. § 13-2314.04 authorizes a private claim for civil racketeering: “A person who sustains reasonably foreseeable injury to his person, business or property by a pattern of racketeering activity, or by violation of section 13-2312 involving a pattern of racketeering activity, may file an action in superior court . . . .” A.R.S. § 13-2314.04(A).”
“To establish a private claim for civil racketeering, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant engaged in a pattern of unlawful activity for the purpose of financial gain; (2) the defendant’s pattern of unlawful activity caused the plaintiff’s damages; and (3) the plaintiff’s damages were a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s pattern of unlawful activity. RAJI Commercial Torts 31 Racketeering (Elements) (citing A.R.S. § 13-2314.04(A)). See also Rosier v. First Fin. Capital Corp., 181 Ariz. 218, 889 P.2d 11 (Ct. App. 1994) (requiring proof of proximate cause). The plaintiff must prove all three of these elements by a preponderance of evidence. A.R.S. § 13-2314.04(G).
Unless a crime of violence is alleged as a racketeering act, the plaintiff may not refer to the defendant as a “racketeer” and must refer to the claim as one for “unlawful acts” or “a pattern of unlawful activity.” See A.R.S. § 13-2314.04(S).
If the plaintiff alleges fraud or coercion in connection with act of racketeering, the circumstances constituting the fraud or coercion must be plead with particularity with respect to each defendant. A.R.S. § 13-2314.04(R). Accord Fromkin v. Indymac Bank FSB, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60651, at *11-13 (D. Ariz. June 18, 2010); Beshears v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35947, at *8-10 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2007). See also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 9(b).”
On Apr 24, 2012 John J. Tollefsen of Tollefsen Law wrote in “Civil Actions under RICO“:
“In order to obtain relief, the plaintiff must prove two “predicate offenses” (violations of § 1962) which prohibits persons who derive income from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to invest the income in any enterprise which engages in interstate commerce. The statute does not mention “organized crime” or limit its application to criminal endeavors and can be applied to legitimate businesses. This article provides a general overview of how the civil law of RICO has developed in the courts.
Connection to organized crimeBecause of the treble damages, courts have struggled to place some limitations on this broad and poorly drafted statute. Nevertheless, courts agree that the plaintiff does not have to prove a criminal conviction or indictment to seek civil damages.1 There is a disagreement whether civil RICO claims must have a connection to organized crime or can be alleged against legitimate businesses. In the Ninth Circuit, the courts apparently disagree among themselves. Some require a connection to organized crime and some do not. In Crocker Nat. Bank v Rockwell International Corp. (1982, ND Cal)2 the court held that no connection to organized crime is required for a civil RICO action. In 1984 the Northern District of California agreed (Wilcox v Ho-Wing Sit)3 in a case in which the plaintiffs, limited partners in an investment company, alleged that the defendant general and limited partners fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to sell stock and invest the proceeds in an investment company. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that RICO plaintiffs must allege a “nexus” or “link” to organized crime on the part of the defendants. The reasoned that Congress purposely declined to require that a RICO defendant be proved a member of organized crime for two reasons: 1) Congress was concerned a limitation of the statute to organized crime members would create an unconstitutional “status” offense based on the affiliation rather than the conduct of the defendants; and 2) Congress wanted to avoid imposing a difficult if not impossible burden of proof against defendants who were adept at concealing their organized crime connections.”
“The civil action for RICO is defined in 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 (c): “Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may . . . recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee . . . .” Section 1962 has four subparts and generally prohibits the use of income obtained from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to purchase, establish, operate, or participate in the affairs of any enterprise in interstate or foreign commerce. Because of the vagueness of this language, courts continue to struggle with its interpretation.
The cause of actionTo state a claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant received money from a pattern of racketeering activity, (2) invested that money in an enterprise, (3) the enterprise affected interstate commerce, and (4) an injury resulting from the investment of racketeering income distinct from an injury caused by the predicate acts themselves.5
Proper venueEven though section 1964(c) states persons injured through racketeering “may sue therefor in any appropriate United States District court”, the provision is non-exclusive. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil RICO claims.6 The Supreme Court explained that the States have concurrent sovereignty with the Federal Government, limited only by the Supremacy Clause. State courts may adjudicate claims under federal law unless the federal law expressly or impliedly preempts state jurisdiction. Implied preemption can arise from the “unmistakable implication from legislative history” or by a “clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests”.”
Granted, this quote is based in Florida but it mirrors the federal law: written by Michael Pike and Daniel Lustig of Pike & Lustig on October 11, 2019:
“RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) refers to the state and federal laws that are used to bring criminal and civil penalties against ongoing criminal organizations. Though it is not well known, RICO claims are sometimes brought against legitimate businesses that are engaged in systematic fraud. Under Florida’s RICO statute, plaintiffs can hold a defendant civilly liable for losses sustained as a result of racketeering and other types of organized fraud.
The stakes are enormous in civil RICO claims: defendants can be held liable for treble damages—three times the actual damages—and full lawyers’ fees. That being said, establishing liability in a civil RICO lawsuit is not easy. Here, our West Palm Beach RICO claims attorneys offer an overview of the legal elements that plaintiffs need to prove liability in a civil RICO claim in Florida.
Three Things Plaintiffs Must Prove in a Civil RICO Claim
Actual Fraud Must Have Occurred
To bring a successful civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must be able to prove that they were actually defrauded. If you cannot prove that you suffered actual financial harm as a result of the defendant’s conduct, then you are not eligible to bring a civil RICO claim—regardless of whether or not the other elements of the statute are met. It is worth remembering that plaintiffs who bring a successful RICO claim are entitled to treble damages. Of course, this means that recovering the maximum available financial relief still requires proving the full extent of your losses.
The Defendant Must Be Part of an ‘Enterprise’
One of the most confusing elements of a civil RICO claim is the so-called ‘enterprise’ element. Proving a RICO violation requires demonstrating that the defendant(s) were involved in some type of organizational relationship that was used to carry out the underlying fraud. Courts have determined that the defendant in a civil RICO lawsuit must have a business relationship with some type of identifiable structure. More specifically, plaintiffs must prove that:
All implicated defendants have a core relationship;
There is a business association with a common purpose; and
The operation in question has been sustained over some period of time.There Must Be a Pattern of Sustained Misconduct
Finally, RICO plaintiffs are required to prove a pattern of misconduct that is reasonably likely to continue. If a defendant committed one-time fraud, they cannot be held liable through a RICO claim. There must be a sustained pattern of similar conduct and similar fraud. Without a pattern, the plaintiff—though they may still have a viable fraud claim—will not be able to prevail in a RICO lawsuit.”
Violations of the applicable laws in this instance are indeed on-going and prohibitive as well as every day constitutes a continued violation.
Some detail:
A minimum of $83,000,000.00 dollars (includes federally mandated interest) has been withheld by illegal acts of state and federal prosecutors. State prosecutors are ALL REPUBLICANS.
A minimum of three times that amount was actually literally STOLEN by defendants through the acts of fraud, mail theft, government ordered censorship and bribery.
Involved from the initial commission of fraud and theft over 14 years ago, the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE has been and is still running an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians. It started in our instance in South Carolina with multiple thefts of mail sent to the Federal Court and continued in Arizona with multiple thefts of mail sent to the Federal Court. ALL instances are contained in FULL in each court docket. Much more took place in that incident. To be listed when its time. And they are ALL continuing to this day.
Involved since the notice provided to defendants of a pending 9th circuit federal law suit and continued until about three months ago: Alphabet Inc. and Google through its recently resigned officers and in conspiracy with Lumen Database (Lumen is a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.) had been and are still conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE!
In the cases mentioned above: a conspiracy of actors in this list conspired to deprive constitutional rights and abuse the Federal Court with bribery, censoring of 1st amendment rights by a government entity working in concert with the listed entities resulting in the theft of court orders, the theft of judgments and the theft of constitutional rights, as well as the attack performed on the United States Courts. A RICO case with these defendants is already proven inside court dockets. It should have already been filed and those persons listed arrested for violations of numerious federal laws. For whatever reason the current incompetent federal prosecutors (and the fraud of the current U.S. Attorney) have failed to act.
DEFENDANTS IN THIS RACKETEER INFLUENCED
AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION scheme include:
U.S. Attorney Michael G. Bailey who served as supervisor of lawyers in the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and is responsible for all crimes committed by those attorneys including mail theft, mail fraud and after a sting was provided, for knowing the content of a stolen piece of U.S. Mail. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich who served as top level supervisor of lawyers in the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and is responsible for all crimes committed by those attorneys including mail theft, mail fraud and after a sting was provided, for knowing the content of a stolen piece of U.S. Mail. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkmer who served as top level supervisor of lawyers in the Pinal County Attorney’s office who together with Brnovich and Bailey conspired to commit crimes and to supervise those who commited crimes including mail theft, mail fraud and after a sting was provided, for knowing the content of a stolen piece of U.S. Mail. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Pinal County Clerk of Court Amanda Stanford who served as top level supervisor in the state’s Court Clerk office from the Superior Court case who declared without benefit of court order that we had lost the case and owed fees. She was sued for it. Ans for knowing the content of a stolen piece of U.S. Mail.
Garland Shreves, outside corporate CEO serving as Chief of Staff to Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkmer who served as supervisor of lawyers in the Pinal County Attorney’s office who together with Brnovich and Bailey and Volkmer conspired to commit crimes and to supervise those who committed crimes including mail theft and mail fraud.
Assistant Arizona Attorney General Karen J. Hartman-Tellez who served as primary lawyer in each of the 9th circuit case defenses and is responsible for perjury numerous times and is responsible for all crimes committed by herself and her co-counsel including mail theft and mail fraud. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Assistant Arizona Attorney General Pamela Janice Linnins who served as primary lawyer in two of the 9th circuit case defenses and is responsible for perjury numerous times and is responsible for all crimes committed by herself and her co-counsel including mail theft and mail fraud. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Pinal County Assistant Attorney Kevin Costello who served as primary lawyer in each of the 9th circuit case defenses and is responsible for perjury numerous times and is responsible for all crimes committed by himself including mail theft and mail fraud. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Larry Page of Google/Alphabet for managing and conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE! A bribery and wire fraud allegation.
Sergey Brin of Google/Alphabet for managing and conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE! A bribery and wire fraud allegation.
Sundar Pichai of Google/Alphabet for managing and conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE! A bribery and wire fraud allegation.
Eric Schmidt of Google/Alphabet for managing and conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE! A bribery and wire fraud allegation.
Wendy Seltzer founder and developer of Chilling Effects which turned into Lumen Database an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE.
Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin funder of Lumen Database an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE.
Megan J. Brennan Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer if the United States Postal Service for supervising a corrupt and illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians. She has resigned effective January 2020 and was in charge throughout this illegal disaster.
Mark Dimondstein President of the American Postal Workers Union who’s members conducted the illegal acts of mail theft and mail fraud throughout the 9th Circuit trials.
American Postal Workers Union who’s members conducted the illegal acts of mail theft and mail fraud throughout the 4th and 9th Circuit trials.
The Office of Attorney General of Arizona responsible for all crimes committed by attorneys including mail theft, mail fraud and after a sting was provided, for knowing the content of a stolen piece of U.S. Mail. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
The Office of County Attorney Pinal County Arizona which conspired to commit crimes and to supervise those who committed crimes including mail theft and mail fraud. May also be responsible or is in-conspiracy with who is responsible for the censoring of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the sites online before this one owned by us.
Alphabet – Google for managing and conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE! A bribery and wire fraud allegation.
Lumen Database for managing and conducting an illegal, vigilante copyright protection service that has been used for illegal purposes to hide the history and documents not desired to be seen by politicians and attorneys in positions of quid pro quo for Google search WORLDWIDE! A bribery and wire fraud allegation.
The United States Postal Service which has been and is still running an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians. It started in our instance in South Carolina with multiple thefts of mail sent to the Federal Court and continued in Arizona with multiple thefts of mail sent to the Federal Court. ALL instances are contained in FULL in each court docket. Much more took place in that incident. And they are ALL continuing to this day.
Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, P.A. (acquired by Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, now a subsidiary of Bond Dickinson LLP) of Charleston South Carolina defense attorneys in the 4th circuit case who are responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians.
L. Greg Horton of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, P.A. of Charleston South Carolina defense attorney in the 4th circuit case responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians.
William Choice Cleveland III of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, P.A. (Not Eligible to Practice Law (Suspended, failed to pay Bar fees in CA) ) of Charleston South Carolina defense attorney in the 4th circuit case responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians.
L.M. COMMUNICATIONS INC., responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians and commit fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and this defendant including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
L.M. COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians and commit fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and this defendant including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
L.M. COMMUNICATIONS II OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians and commit fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and this defendant including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
Lynn Martin , responsible for using an illegal bribery scheme to disrupt mail delivery and steal legal documents used by lawyers and politicians and commit fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and this defendant including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
Charles Cohn , responsible for fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
William Allen of Gess Mattingly & Atchison, P.S.C., responsible for fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
Gess Mattingly & Atchison, P.S.C., responsible for fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
Billy C. Sanders EEOC Program Manager, responsible for fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
Patricia Thompson, responsible for fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against the defendant.
Robert Mueller, while Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the Nation Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Michael Powell, while Director of the Federal Communications Commission, responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
J. Strohm Thurmond, former U.S. Attorney for South Carolina, responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Carrie Dominguez, former Director of the Equal Opporunity Employment Commission (EEOC), responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Horace Julian Bond (deceased through estate and heirs) former Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), responsible for creating and executing fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement and direct action taken to settle Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Reverend Joseph Darby former First Vice-President of the South Carolina NAACP for his direct action taken to instigate and execute fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Dwight C. James, Sr. – Executive Director of the South Carolina NAACP for his direct action taken to instigate and execute fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Thomas E. O’Neill former Chief Division Counsel FBI Columbia South Carolina, responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
John McCain, (deceased through estate and heirs) , responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Lindsey Graham, responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Richard Perry Chief of Staff to Lindsey Graham, responsible for ignoring fraud upon the United States of America through an illegal negotiated settlement between Patricia Thompson and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II including the illegal promise the EEOC would destroy the complaint filed against L.M. COMMUNICATIONS and L.M. COMMUNICATIONS I and II and conspiracy with other ‘deep state’ operatives to hide the direct action involvement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) national as well as South Carolina.
Graham, McCain correspondence is below.
Of course this is just an outline. Wait for it.