MackAIC239

Mikel Dee Danielson

1
SELF REPRESENTED
2 1588 North Fillmore Ave
Rialto CA 92376
3 mdanielson23@live.com
(909) 367-9073
4
(909) 697-2158 Fax
5
Attorney // Pro Per
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
9
10
) CASE NO: CIVRS 1002501
11 Mikel Dee Danielson, )
)
12 Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT
)
13 vs. )
)
14 TXI Operations LP )
)
15 Defendant )
16
TO THE HONORABLE COURT,
17
INTRODUCTION
18
1. This complaint is brought in accordance to California Constitution, Article I, Section
19
20 28(b) and 18 U.S.C 1964 under provisions pursuant to § 2.07 of 18 U.S.C 1961 “Corporate

21 Crime” The Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65
22
(Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant (TXI)
23
ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed, governed by the United States
24
25 Constitution Art. § 3

26 2. The Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson (MDD) herby respectfully asserts the
27 following cause of actions against the Defendant (TXI) I. Obstruction of Justice “malicious
28
abuse of process and Fundamental Rights” violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1)(2)(3), 201(1)(B) II.
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
1
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

Asbestos Exposure “Refuse to Prevent” in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1961(2) III.. Intentional

1
2 Infliction of Emotional Distress, IV. Reserved for additional or furthermore appropriate cause of

3 action if in which becomes known.

4
PARTIES
5
3. The Plaintiff; Mikel Dee Danielson (MDD) is an individual who is Self –
6
7 Representative as Pro Se, and is a resident of the San Bernardino County, State of California and

8 at all times relevant herein was a resident of the San Bernardino County, State of California.
9 4. . The Defendant; (TXI) is a Delaware Corporation, partner of Riverside Cement
10
Company which is a California general partnership. TXI Riverside Inc is a privately held
11
Delaware Corporation and a general Partner of Riverside Cement Company. TXI California Inc
12
13 is a privately held Delaware Corporation and a general partner of Riverside Cement Company,

14 Texas Industries Inc. is a publicly held Delaware Corporation which owns 100% TXI Riverside
15 Inc. and TXI California Inc.
16
5. The Plaintiff (MDD) believes and based thereon alleges, each said defendant
17
(TXI) proximately caused, connived and contributed to the injuries and damages the Plaintiff
18
19 sustained.

20 6. At all times mention herein, the Defendant (TXI) is liable and owed legal duty to
21
protect the plaintiff from any perpetrated unlawful act committed by each and every said
22
Defendant.
23
24 7. At all times mention herein, the Defendant (TXI) was the agent, servant,

25 employee, manager, supervisor, joint-venture and or co-conspirator, and at all times acting
26 within the course and scope of employment with direct authorization and or ratification of each
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
2
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

said defendant, who was a principal, master or employer with managerial authority acting under
1
2 denial with intent.

3 8. The Plaintiff (MDD) furthermore believes and based thereon alleges, the officers,
4
shareholders, partners, owners and managing agents had advance knowledge and proof of the
5
misconduct and are also responsible for the injuries and damages that were sustained
6
7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

8 9. The Plaintiff, (MDD) furthermore believes and based thereon, the Defendant TXI
9 Riverside Cement intentionally formulated and initiated retaliation against the Plaintiff for being
10
a witness and inquiring on the defendant’s unlawful insider-dealing. While trying to avoid
11
liability of the obligated requirements as an employer, the defendant would initiate unlawful
12
13 investigations while giving manipulated misrepresentation to businesses, agencies, law

14 enforcement, firms, individuals, employees, officials, and entities to engage in the same corrupt
15 operations using the consumer’s recognition, marketing identification and reputation.
16
10. As part of the manipulation, each said defendant acted, knowingly, willfully and
17
purposefully, with a malicious single purpose trying to escape liability, initiating a widespread
18
19 criminal enterprise pattern of racketeering activity. The activity described herein consist of a

20 wide-range of engagement conspiracy, involving private efforts to obtain property interest,

21
landmarks, unmoral testimonies for “undisputed” contracts bribery, political bankrolling and
22
personal gain, including financial gain which they have so undertaken, inflicting an economic
23
24 hardship upon the Plaintiff with the intent of impairing, obstructing and discouraging the

25 Plaintiff discovering the initial perpetrators, with a conscious disregard of the Rights, Health
26 and Safety of others, including the Plaintiff.
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
3
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

11. The defendant (TXI) deliberately used the legal process to accomplish some
1
2 ulterior purpose for which it was not designed for, nor intended for, depriving the Plaintiff of

3 both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection. As a result of the
4
defendant’s omissions, each act constitute numerous and multiple violations under Federal and
5
State Laws in addition to the “Victims” Bill of Rights “Marsy’s Rights” California Constitution,
6
7 Article I, Section 28(b). Furthermore becoming the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs unforeseen

8 difficulties and hardship.

9
DOL/OIP-NYAV
10
FOIA Tracking No: 539537
11
Citation Order No: 6381194-01
12
Event No: 1128078
13
Complaint ID 193192
14
15
Case No: VVCV 042021 TXI v. Danielson
16
Case No: FVI024979 TXI v. Danielson
17 Case No: MVI049835
18 D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0029718- Ramos, TXI v. Danielson
19 Case No: FVA027339 TXI v. Danielson
20 Case No: MVI049833
21 D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0040766 Ramos, TXI v. Danielson

22 DA Case No: SBD9186898-207 Ramos v. Danielson *

23
Case No: HED 011658 Rommel v. Danielson
24
Case No: 200000000347554 Rommel v. Danielson
25
Case No: 100000000347554 Rommel v. Danielson
26
EEOC
27
No: 090825-001475 No: 090624-001524 No: 090912-000027
28 No: 090624-000000 No: 090825-001475
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
4
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

No: 090728-001074 No: 090821-000622

1
2
Case No: 08-O-14773 Danielson v. Miller
3 08-29598
4
Case No: VNRCI-13067 Danielson v. Competrol Mfg Inc (Obama campaign bribery)
5
Case No: RIC 530059 Danielson v. Riverside Cement
6
7 Case No: ED-CV-09-1442 Danielson v. Riverside cement

8
9 FBI No: 1133905-000
10
U.S. Department of Justice Appeal 09-2680 ADW:KAM
11 Right to Sue in accordance to 5 U.S.C 552(a)4(B)
12 Amongst Other Breech of Fiduciary Duty // Discovery
13
Pay-to-Play plot
14
AQMD vs TXI ex-wife 2006 phone bill…
15 Real Estate fraud. // Deeds Mortgage covered up payoff (2) transfers 5/2006
16 TXI // Brook hollow properties security exchange…
17
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
19 12. The Superior State Courts have original Jurisdiction to Enforce the Statue 18

20 U.S.C. 1964. The Plaintiff’s cause of action arising under violations under California
21
Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b) and 18 U.S.C 1589, 201, 1961, 1513,
22
13. Venue is proper in this superior court because the unlawful acts were initiated here,
23
24 the defendant resides and transacts business here.

25
26
27
28 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
5
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

14. The Plaintiff (MDD) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference, the
1
2 allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 above are with the same force and effect as if set forth

3 herein .
4
15 The Plaintiff (MDD) was hired as an employee by the defendant (TXI) “High
5
Desert Oro Grande Facility” in September of 1999 and held the Lead man position in the D/C
6
7 Maintenance Department until the Retaliatory Termination of employment in June of 2006. The

8 Plaintiff’s obligations and responsibility was to lead assist the dept. in preventative maintenance
9 and on Air Pollution Dust Control Units “D/C” and conduct AQMD quarterly inspection reports
10
throughout TXI Oro Grande Riverside Cement facility.
11
16. On or about January of 2001, the Plaintiff (MDD) was a witness of the
12
13 defendants (TXI) Production manager; Kevin Deatley, Plant Manager Mark Smyth,

14 Maintenance Planner Doug Robins unlawful misconduct at an Anaheim Convention Center

15 Super Cross Race Event., “the accused of a muti-million dollar money laundering scheme”. Soon
16
thereafter, the Defendant terminated the all of them except for Production Manager Kevin
17
Deatley who later transferred to the Riverside Rubidoux facility as Plant Manager and engaged
18
19 in racketeering activity against the Plaintiff in order to hide his involvement and keep the

20 Plaintiff from disclosing any relevant information. Former Plant Manager Gordon Johnson of the
21
“Rubidoux facility” then transferred to the “High Desert facility” as Plant Manager…
22
17. Around 2002 , the Defendant (TXI) had two separate unannounced a.m.“MSHA”
23
24 Inspections where the Plaintiff (MDD) was asked to wear a monitoring device that recorded

25 emissions within his department “Long Kilns Skip Basement” TXI Equipment # NA:. The
26 Plaintiff was told to do his daily duties like an ordinary day by the “MSHA Inspector”. The
27
Defendants (TXI) Production Manager Kevin Deatley demanded the Plaintiff to disobey
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
6
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

“MSHA” orders and have the Plaintiff stay out of his designated work area where he was to sit in
1
2 an office for the eight hour day in order to avoid being shut down by MSHA.

3 18. On or around February of 2006 The Plaintiff (MDD) requested the Defendant
4
(TXI) to stop direct deposit of the plaintiffs payroll due to unknown fraudulent activity. Account
5
No: 0900439406. The defendants H.R “Rhonda Wright” had the Plaintiff fill out the required
6
7 documents and sent to Corporate Office (TXI) Ontario California. The plaintiff was informed it

8 would be stopped immediately and payroll would be disbursed by check by the following pay
9 period. The following two pay periods the plaintiff still hadn’t received any pay roll. The
10
Plaintiff complained to “H.R” Rhonda Wright that he was not receiving any his payroll was still
11
being wired to the bank and requested the funds be paid in another form. The Plaintiff was
12
13 informed corporate office will not disburse another check until funds were wired back to them.

14 19. The branch manager of “DCB” called local authorities as the plaintiff (MDD)
15 entered the bank. The Plaintiff approached the teller and requested a cash advance from his credit
16
card. The teller asked for I.D and his card and immediately walked into an office and closed the
17
doors and called the local authorities. As the local authorities arrived they asked the branch
18
19 manager why they were called and informed her she cannot call the them on the defendant TXI

20 behalf and sent the Plaintiff on his way. The credit card was never even swiped.
21
20. The Plaintiff later discovered the branch manager “Monica” of “DCB” was
22
Involved in the fraud and related to both Plant Managers; Gordon Johnson and Kevin
23
24 Deatley.

25 21. In April of 2006, the Plaintiff (MDD) was given a job assignment at the Pack
26 House Loading Station 2 and 3. The assignment was to remove sheet metal and insulation
27
around the draft pipes surrounding the loading stations Air Quality D/C systems and install
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
7
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

inspection ports on each one.. The Plaintiff cut and removed the sheet metal and used a 100 psi
1
2 air lance to remove the insulation off the draft pipes. The Plaintiff installed inspection ports on 3

3 of the draft pipes while working solo, the Plaintiff was stopped and was informed the insulation
4
was Asbestos. A substance known to the State of California to cause Cancer.” CAL/OSHA
5
Relations. The Plaintiff never received any sort of training prior to the exposure and removal.
6
7 “MSHA” received a complaint early that morning Id 193192 which came out to investigate the

8 complaint and the results determined the “insulation” was actual Asbestos. The defendant
9 received three citations and the loading station was shut down while the remaining asbestos
10
could be could properly removed.
11
EXHBIT A is attached hereto this complaint by reference
12
13 22. In May 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) started being questioned daily about his

14 personal finances by supervisors and managers. The Plaintiff had a meeting with Plant Manager
15 Gordon Johnson and requested an explanation why the managers/supervisors are making false
16
accusations stating the Plaintiff was involved in some “embezzlement scheme”. The Plant
17
manager Gordon Johnson immediately replied, “There was No Embezzlement.” #
18
19 23. In May of 2006 Plaintiff s(MDD), Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” and plant

20 manager (Gordon Johnson) had a meeting about the Plaintiff being harassed by other employees,
21
and confrontations with official. The Plaintiff confronted the official with a witness and it was
22
determined the official was setting up schemes trying to get the plaintiff terminated. Plant
23
24 manager Gordon Johnson refused to bring the parties up stairs and said he would handle it in

25 private with corporate Tom Fritts of Ontario CA. and quotes, “Were not handing out any
26 freebees here, and if someone kicks your ass across the street at lunch or Joe Blow was to drive a
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
8
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

truck through your house, there’s nothing I can do about it cause it didn’t happen here or I didn’t
1
2 see it. Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” witness this statement.

3 24. In May of 2006 Jeanna Wright released private personal information in reference
4
to Plaintiffs daughters’ daycare, its location and the name of the provider. The Plaintiff
5
immediately reported to “Personnel Dept” “John Phillips” and Plant Manager Gordon Johnson.
6
7 The Plaintiff pulled his daughter from the day care in fear of something would happen to her in

8 another malicious act of retaliation hurting the Plaintiff. Gordon Johnson pulled Jeanna Wright
9 upstairs and no disciplinary action was given.
10
25. Plaintiff received multiple phone calls in a two week period while at work by his
11
alarm system provider (ADT) Monitoring no. X1NO15358229, Customer No: (MD) 5786166
12
13 stating alarm was triggered. The Plaintiff requested a week off of work after discovering the

14 forced entry at his residence. The defendants H. R. Puckett wasn’t able to contact Plant Manager
15 Gordon Johnson so she granted the week off herself after the Plaintiff let her listen to the
16
evidence dated February 20, 2006
17
26. On the Plaintiff’s first day return back, plant manager Gordon Johnson
18
19 informed the Plaintiff (MDD) if he “was to miss one more day, be 1 minute late, or clock out 1

20 minute early,” the Plaintiff’s employment would be terminated on the spot.

21
27. In May of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) was in a confrontation with other employees
22
over the unlawful misconduct at his residence. The Plaintiff immediately reported the incident he
23
24 just encountered to his immediate Supervisor. The Plaintiff was in a “hyperventilating state” and

25 his Immediate Supervisor took him to electrical MCC room where the plaintiff was told to wait
26 until he could talk to his manager. Plaintiff was placed on medical leave to seek an evaluation
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
9
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

until given a return back to work “Fit For Duty”. As the Plaintiff was being escorted out by
1
2 Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” the Plaintiff was told it is not safe here.

3 28. In June 2006 Rhonda Wright calls the Plaintiff (MDD) stating he was to go to
4
Desert Valley Medical Center located on Main St. in Hesperia for an evaluation and the safety
5
coordinator was to meet the plaintiff in the parking lot. The following morning the plaintiff went
6
7 inside to check in and discovered no appointment was made and the “safety coordinator” was

8 nowhere to be found. The Plaintiff tried calling the Safety coordinator on her cell phone but no
9 one answered. The Plaintiff received a phone call by H.R. Rhonda Wright two and a half hours
10
later stating the Plaintiff was supposed to go to the defendant (TXI) personal Dr. in Apple
11
Valley. Reme Chavez was still there waiting for the Plaintiff to arrived.
12
13 29. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) arrived for a scheduled appointment with his

14 Primary Care Facility. During check-in Plaintiff was told his benefits have been terminated. The
15 Receptionist stated, “received a call from Riverside Cement and they said your benefits have
16
been cancelled due to your termination.” The Plaintiff informed the receptionist he was on
17
disability not terminated. With no notice of any termination or “COBRA” offered. The Plaintiff
18
19 wasn’t able to seek immediate treatment for his injuries.

20 SEE EXHIBIT B is attached hereto this complaint by reference

21
30. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff went into the ER at Arrowhead Regional Medical
22
Hospital requesting “Help” and was escorted to the Physic Unit to obtain an evaluation. The
23
24 Plaintiff was released and referred to seek counseling.

25 SEE EXHBIT C is attached hereto this complaint by reference

26 31. The Plaintiff (MDD) never received a final paycheck due to the defendant (TXI)
27
sending it to an unknown address.
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
10
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

SEE EXHBIT D is attached hereto this complaint by reference

1
2 32. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) requested an emergency hardship withdraw

3 from his 401K retirement plan but was informed by the retirement company that it must be done
4
through the employer. The Plaintiff submitted the documents to the Defendant (TXI) corporate
5
office in Ontario . The plaintiff received a letter one year later from the retirement company to
6
7 the known address asking if the check was lost or if it was even received.

8 SEE EXHBIT E is attached hereto this complaint by reference

9 33. June 2006 the Plaintiff MDD received phone call from an employee of the
10
defendant (TXI) stating plant manager Gordon Johnson put your job up on the bid board and it
11
shows the plaintiff was terminated.
12
13 34. June of 2006 Plant manager Gordon Johnson who (was in Florida at the time)

14 made false allegations to local authorities stating the plaintiff MDD came into the plant and
15 punched his fist through a piece of glass, (Safety Glass), falsified Police reports having the
16
Plaintiff (MDD) arrested (1st Arrest). The Plaintiff was falsely accused, and booked for
17
$50,000 plus in vandalism and Receiving Stolen Property with bail set at $50,000
18
19 SEE EXHIBIT F is attached hereto this complaint by reference

20 35. In June of 2006, Defendant (TXI) filed a restraining order against the Plaintiff
21
(MDD) on plant manager (Gordon Johnsons) behalf and again made numerous false allegations
22
stating the plaintiff was going to kill someone. The Plaintiff requested a meeting without the
23
24 plant manager present to discuss the plant mangers family’s involvement of the fraudulent

25 activity at the Plaintiffs bank and was in Fear and that his wife at the time and daughter had been
26 attacked by co-workers due to the evidence that was found amongst other acts of wrong doing.
27
SEE HED 011658 (Rommel vs. Danielson)
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
11
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

36. In June of 2006 Defendants (TXI) council falsified court documents’ stating the
1
2 Plaintiff was called on his cell phone and was he informed of the time of hearing and was given

3 directions to the court. The Plaintiff never received a phone call or a voice mail of any such
4
nature.
5
SEE EXHBIT G is attached hereto this complaint by reference
6
7 37. In July of 2006 the defendant had multiple private and mass meetings with the

8 entire facility and its employees to discuss procedure unwarranted information if and when any
9 employee was to come into contact with the Plaintiff. SUB
10
38. The defendant called local authorities making false reports mulitpe times trying
11
to have the Plaintiff arrested and incarcerated, specifically in July of 2006 the defendant was
12
13 claiming the plaintiff was inside the facility destroying and flipping over portable restrooms not

14 realizing the plaintiff was already in custody due to the last phone call.
15 39. In August of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) ex-girlfriend “niece” of an official of the
16
defendant had called the plaintiff at his residence (Landline) stating her uncle A.P just called her
17
and was told if she came in contact with the plaintiff she must call the local authorities on him …
18
19 in order to have the plaintiff arrested.

20 40. In August of 2006 Plaintiff (MDD) called plant manager (Gordon Johnson)
21
asking for therapy for his injuries, “Landline”. Plant manager (Gordon Johnson) states he is on
22
vacation and he was terminated. The defendant called local authorities and falsified Police
23
24 Reports and had Plaintiff arrested. The Plaintiff was falsely accused, charged, and imprisoned for

25 terrorist threats with bail set at $500,000.

26 SEE EXHBIT H is attached hereto this complaint by reference
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
12
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

41. After the terrorist threats were dropped to a complaint, Defendant (TXI) had
1
2 Personnel “John Phillips” and H.R. Rhonda Wright filed additional counts of terrorist threats in

3 order to keep the plaintiff confined, while the defendant assisted the plaintiffs spouse in
4
unlawful deed transfers and other unlawful transactions could be completed. HED 011658
5
SEE EXHBIT I is attached hereto this complaint by reference
6
7 43. The Plaintiff (MDD) was told by the public defender’s office, the defendant (TXI)

8 gives a lot of money to this court and if the plaintiff doesn’t plea NOLO now and take this deal
9 the Plaintiff is looking at least a year in county just for the terrorist threats, not including the 5
10
other arrest that were still pending, as well as a strike on Plaintiffs record. He also informed the
11
Plaintiff the Plant Manager (Gordon Johnson), Official (A.P), employee (Jeanna Wright) ,
12
13 Official (Nathan Hardwick) are all here and are going to testify against him. Plaintiff witnessed

14 all them inside the court but is not aware if a testimony was given in the court. The Plaintiff was
15 pulled out of the court room for sending out Hand Gestures to the defendants personnel “John
16
Phillips” H.R Rhonda Wright. When the Plaintiff was escorted back into the court John Phillips,
17
Rhonda Wright, Gordon Johnson, A.P, Jeanna Wright and Nathan Hardwick were no longer
18
19 present.

20 44. The Plaintiff (MDD) was imprisoned for over 180 DAYS.
21
SEE EXHBIT J is attached hereto this complaint by reference
22
45. The Plaintiff (MDD) discovered the defendant (TXI) attempted to assist in a $30.5
23
24 million dollar contract executed on February 20, 2007. The contract was intercepted.

25 SEE EXHBIT K is attached hereto this complaint by reference

26
27 46. The Plaintiff has reason to believe the defendant continues to conspire against him

28 due to the defendants numerous claims filed against them and recent notice of EPA violations,
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
13
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

furthermore discovering the the defendant assisted the Plaintiffs ex wife in divorce proceedings
1
2 depriving the plaintiff of his rights which created wipe spread of corruption, furthermore lead to

3 additional investigations, The Plaintiff discovered in January of 2010 the defendant bribed the
4
plaintiffs ex wife in divorce proceedings, mortgage fraud and other assets and false claims. The
5
Plaintiffs residence had a balance of $530,000 mortgage which was discovered was paid around
6
7 May of 2006 which the plaintiff was told was falling into foreclosure proceeding. The plaintiffs

8 name was unlawfully taken off of title prior to any divorce proceedings being filed nor being
9 placed on disability then terminated.
10
11 SEE EXHBITS L is attached hereto this complaint by reference
12
13 47 Throughout 2006 and so on the Defendant (TXI) gave misleading false

14 statements to The San Bernardino County to carry out the malicious unlawful transactions
15
invading the little recovery the plaintiff gained including an employer where the plaintiff held 24
16
months earning a respected name and multiple promotions until the defendant discovered the
17
Plaintiff employment and made threats against the owner and bribed the other managerial
18
19 individuals for engagement t of unlawful acts against the plaintiff furthermore destroying the

20 little structure the plaintiff worked two years trying to put his life back with what was left. The
21
Plaintiff discovered the defendant was involved in another scheme and plot, conspiring against
22
the Plaintiff involving forced labor and political bribes.
23
24 See HED 011658 Respondents“FL-150” Expense Report

25
26
48. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants omissions, the plaintiff has
27
28 suffered from the following damages and injuries set forth below:

_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
14
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1ST SEPERATION FROM MY DAUGHTER(S): KATELIN WHO RELIED ON ME AS PRIMARY

1
2 CARE PROVIDER, AND DEPRIVED MY RIGHTS TO ASHLEY

3 a) Since of Security
4 b) Anxiety
5
c) Emotional Distress
6
d) Humiliation
7
8 e) Violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights

9 g) Anger
10 h) Creditability
11
i) Invasion Right to Privacy
12
j) Public Policy
13
14 k) Family…

15
16 COMPLIATION OF THE UNITED STATES CODE BACKGROUND
17 49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
18
paragraphs 1 through 48 above are with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
19
20 50. Invasion to the Right to Privacy four factors (1) The use of a persons name or
21
picture without permission (2) Intrusion upon an individual’s affairs or seclusion (3) Publication
22
of information that places a person in a false light (4) Public disclosures of private facts about an
23
24 individual that an ordinary person would find objectionable.

25
51. 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) The Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, is
26
27 supplemented from the The Universal International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which

28 both are rendered supreme law by virtue of the supremacy clause “Pattern of Racketeering
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
15
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

Activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the
1
2 effective date of the last of which occurred within Ten Year period (excluding any period of

3 imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.

4
5 18. U.S.C. § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses (1) directly or indirectly,

6 corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who
7
has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any
8
person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other
9
10 person or entity, with intent— (B) to influence such public official or person who has

11 been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or

12 allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United
13
States
14
18 U.S.C. § 1589: (Forced labor)
15
16 Obtaining labor or services by (1) threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against

17 victim or another person; (2) scheme, plan, etc. causing victim to believe she’d suffer
18
serious harm or physical restraint if labor/services not performed; (3) abuse or
19
threatened abuse of law or the legal process.
20
21
22
23
24 MODEL PENAL CODE

25 The Model Penal Code § 2.07 18 U.S.C 1961 et seq provides that a corporation may be
26 convicted of a crime in the following situations; (1) the criminal act by the corporations
27
agent or employee within the scope of there employment and the purpose of the statue
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
16
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

defining the act of the crime is to impose liability on a corporation (2) The crime consist
1
2 of a failure to perform a specific affirmative duty imposed on corporations by Law (3)

3 The crime was authorized requested commanded committed or recklessly tolerated by

4
one of the corporations high managerial agents.
5
(TITLE VII) REGULATIONS
6
7 28 C.F.R. §36.208

8 29 C.F.R. §1630.2
9 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i) .
10
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(iii)
11
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)
12
13 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(1)

14 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(r)
15 49 C.F.R. §391.41(b)(1) .
16
C.F.R. §36.208. (emphasis added)..
17
CAUSES OF ACTION
18
19 I. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1)(2)(3), 201(1)(B)

20
52 The Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
21
paragraphs 1 through 51 above are with the same force and effect as if set forth herein.
22
The defendant (TXI) deliberately failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the legal
23
24 process commission and the defense, among other things, offered testimonies and altered

25 evidence they knew to be false; corruptly influence and colored a witness’s testimony with the
26
intent to encourage untruthful testimony (suborn perjury), in violation of 18 USC § 1503 and 18
27
USC § 1512; furthermore violating the Plaintiffs right to discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)..
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
17
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

The Plaintiff was deprived of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal
1
2 protection under Title VII of the Civil Right laws. The due course of justice was impeded, in

3 violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States
4
53. The defendant had the supervisory authority, over the plaintiff, the authority to
5
conduct an proper investigation, discover, and attempt to prevent any further acts of wrong
6
7 doing including the power of preventing the commission of the said malicious acts which could

8 have been done by reasonable diligence. The defendant failed there legal duty. As a result of the
9 defendant’s omissions, they constitute numerous and multiple violations state and federal laws.
10
The failure of which was the proximate cause of the legal process to be overlooked
11
54. The Plaintiff used his rights to enforce equal protection and took initiation opening
12
13 an investigation himself so the evidence that was being withheld, wrongfully sold, or destroyed

14 by the defendant and public officials could be exposed in accordance with his constitutional and
15 statutory rights, privileges, and immunities. As to each and every defendant; there was an
16
unlawful objective to be accomplished, an agreement on the unlawful objective, perform the
17
unlawful objective, causing the plaintiff harm and injury that were a direct result of the objective.
18
19 55. The plaintiff complained of defendant’s unjust fair treatment through the chain of

20 command which later discovered in 2008, the chain of command was mislead and prepared for
21
the plaintiff complaints, furthermore leading to all parties.
22
a) Paper Allied Industrial Union Local 08-192
23
24 b) TXI Riverside Cement Co. High Desert Facility - Oro Grande

25 c) TXI Operations LP Corporate Office - Ontario CA

26 d) TXI Corporate Dallas TX
27
e) County of San Bernardino
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
18
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

f) County of Riverside
1
2 g) Kaiser

3 h) Arrow Head Medical Center

4
i) EEOC
5
j) Department of Labor
6
7 k) The California State Bar

8 l) USWA
9 m) State of California Relations
10
n) Federal Bureau – Investigation / Identification
11
o) Local Authorities
12
13 p) U.S. Department of Justice

14 56. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65 (Local
15 Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of
16
the United States are "Faithfully" executed under U.S. Const. Art. § III. The Plaintiff demands a
17
judgment against the Defendant, jointly and individually.
18
19 II. “ASBESTOS EXPOSURE REFUSED TO PREVENT”
20
VIOLATION 18 U.S.C. § 1961
21
57. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
22
Paragraphs 1 through 56 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
23
24 58. The Defendant intentionally exposed the Plaintiff to a chemical/substance

25 Known to the state of California to cause Cancer - Division of Occupational Safety and
26
Health § 25910 State Department of Industrial Relations (Cal / OSHA). The Plaintiff assignment
27
was to remove insulation and install inspection ports. After three ports were installed the Plaintiff
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
19
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

was told to stop and was informed the insulation was Asbestos. The phone call to MSHA
1
2 (Compliant ID 193192) was placed that morning prior to the Plaintiff even being informed he

3 was in harms way and at risk. While dealing with the doctrine of primary assumption of risk,
4
which applies where, by virtue of the nature of the defendant’s unethical misconduct and the
5
parties’ relationship to the misconduct, the defendant is liable and owes legal duty to protect the
6
7 plaintiff from particular risk of harm. Especially placing an employee in harms way deliberately

8 knowing it was Asbestos. (Event No: 1128078) The defendant ignored the big picture and tried
9 to set up a lawsuit for the plaintiff exposing him to the substance followed by a 30 min video
10
about the hazards and risks if an individual is exposed in which the defendant thought it would
11
be deemed fair just and equitable for the torture the plaintiff was forced with, Specifically
12
13 prepping a three year old little girl to tell her Daddy what happen when uninvited intruders

14 forced themselves into our house and had their way, then having her apologize for their
15 cowardly undertaken act.
16
The Plaintiff was deprived of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to
17
equal protection. The due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
18
19 Amendments of the Constitution of the United States

20 59. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is personally seeking provisional relief under Fed. R.

21
Civ. 65 (Local Rule 65-1) in addition to the Model Penal Code “Corporate Prosecution”
22
Criminal penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully"
23
24 executed under U.S. Const. Art. § III. The Plaintiff demands a judgment against the Defendant,

25 jointly and individually.

26 III. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
27
60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
20
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

paragraphs 1 through 63 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
1
2 61. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff

3 by maliciously attacking mentally verbally and physically, as well as forcing the Plaintiff to face
4
life shattering obstacles due to the Defendant abusing the lawful process by an unlawful purpose,
5
violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, terminating Plaintiff’s medical benefits without prior
6
7 notification when trying to seek treatment, refusing to prevent harm injury or death, false arrest

8 and imprisoning the Plaintiff, interfering with Plaintiff’s state civil rights by threats, coercion,
9 intimidation using anyone from a toddler to fictitious names and corrupt campaign committees
10
62. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of
11
decency and utterly intolerable within a civilized community. The emotional distress sustained
12
13 by the Plaintiff was severe and of a nature that NO reasonable man could be expected to endure

14 and survive what the Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson was forced to face
15 63. As a result of the Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct, the Plaintiff
16
was, is, and, with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to
17
the intentional exclusion. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer mental pain and
18
19 anguish, severe emotional trauma, and humiliation.

20 64. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ.

21
65(Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant ensuring
22
the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed. U.S. Const. Art. § 3. The Plaintiff
23
24 Demands a judgment against the Defendant, jointly and individually

25 IV. RESERVED FOR CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN THEY BECOME KNOWN

26
65. The Plaintiff reserves for additional or more appropriate causes of actions
27
28 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
21
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1 66. In order to preserve and protect a victim’s rights to justice and due process, a victim
2 shall be entitled to the following rights: Victims’ Bill of Rights “Marsy’s Rights” California
3 Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b)
4
1. To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from
5
6 intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

7 2. To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.

8 3. To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in fixing the amount of bail and
release conditions for the defendant.
9
10 4. To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant, the defendant’s
attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, which could be used to locate or
11
harass the victim or the victim’s family or which disclose confidential communications made in the
12 course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law.
13 5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney,
14 or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct

15 of any such interview to which the victim consents.

16 6. To reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request,
regarding, the arrest of the defendant if known by the prosecutor, the charges filed, the determination
17
whether to extradite the defendant, and, upon request, to be notified of and informed before any
18
pretrial disposition of the case.
19
7. To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at
20 which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other post-
21 conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.

22 8. To be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, involving a

23 post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in
which a right of the victim is at issue.
24
9. To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment
25
proceedings.
26
10. Provide information to a probation department official conducting a pre-sentence investigation
27
concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family and any sentencing
28 recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant.
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
22
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

11. To receive, upon request, the pre-sentence report when available to the defendant, except for those
1
portions made confidential by law.
2
12. To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or
3
other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, and the release of or
4 the escape by the defendant from custody.
5 13. To restitution.
6 A. It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons
7 who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure

8 restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.

9 B. Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of
the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.
10
C. All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any person who has been
11
ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to
12
the victim.
13
14. To the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence.
14
15. To be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide
15 information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be
16 notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the offender.

17 16. To have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family, and the general public considered before
18 any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made.

19 17. To be informed of the rights enumerated in paragraphs (1) through (16).

20
. A victim, the retained attorney of a victim, a lawful representative of the victim, or the prosecuting
21
attorney upon request of the victim, may enforce the above rights in any trial or appellate court with
22
jurisdiction over the case as a matter of right. The court shall act promptly on such a request.
23
24 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(c)(1).

25 67. The Plaintiff respectfully is requesting Prayer for Relief .

26
CONCLUSION
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
23
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1 . With In all Aspects of the Principals, the Law failed itself when the defendant was
2 using the Legal Process as its body shield, as high rank officials looked the other way when the
3 Plaintiff was in a desperate plea for help. The defendant went so far in recruiting associates,
4 neighbors, members, police, the media…anyone they could find to threaten, harass and
5 manipulate them with the intent to encourage untruthfulness rather than follow their own
6 Mission Statement “Produce Cement”. The defendant lacks empathy and has dehumanized so
7 many, as if they’re an extension of themselves, or instruments to be played as they wish
8 physically, psychologically, and verbally. They view their victims as nothing more than a
9 comfortable old chair that can be easily discarded should it become uncomfortable. Their level of
10 comfort is their only concern and they will sell you down the river to hold onto that comfort and
11 give out their same old speech, “We give our condolences to the families” or “It Was An Act of
12 God.” The Plaintiff has had accept responsibility for the actions that has taken a toll on so many
13 which has been difficult to heal from, but will not hold himself accountable for the devastating
14 affairs that overlooked the legal process. The defendant needs to face responsibility for the
15 actions they all agreed upon, rather than use a victims life shattering event or a political debate as
16 a another plot trying escape liability every time there corrupt affairs get revealed.
17
History Does Not Need To Repeat Itself.
18
31-CA-17659 --- 31-CA-17924
19
20 The Evidence Rest “Prima Facie” and It Clearly Speaks for Itself !

21
I Mikel Dee Danielson the Plaintiff submit this complaint to the best of my knowledge based
22
under the circumstances and evidence hereto set forth by reference. I understand that a false
23
statement or answer to any question in this complaint will subject me to penalties of perjury. I
24
DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
25
STATES AMERICA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. See 28 U.S.C
26
1746 and 18 U.S.C. 1621
27
28 Exucuted: March 9, 2010
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
24
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1
________________________
2
MIKEL DEE DANIELSON
3
MIKEL D ANIELSON
4 1588 N. FILLMORE AVE
RIALTO, CA 92376
5 (909) 367-9073 (909)
6 874 8325

7 ATTORNEY:PRO-PER

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
10
11
ELIZABETH H ROMMEL CASE NO. HED 011658
12
PETITIONER
13
VS. DECLARATION
14
15
MIKEL D DANIELSON
16
RESPONDENT
17
18 SUPPORTING DECLARATION
19 10. I, MIKEL D DANIELSON AM THE RESPONDENT IN THE ENTITLED
20 ACTION. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS STATED HEREIN AND WOULD SO

21 TESTIFIY AT THE TIME OF HEARING IF CALLED UPON TO DO SO UNDER

PENALTY PERJURY. I OFFER MY DECLARATION IN LIEU OF TESTIMONY
22
PURSUANT TO CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2009 AND 2015.5,
23
THE PETITIONER HAS ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL MISCONDUCT (ABUSE BY
24
PROXY) AND HAS BEEN GIVING MISLEADING FRAUDULENT
25
MISREPRESETATION TO THE COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AND BENEFIT,
26 FINANCIAL GAIN, TAKE SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY OF OUR TWO DAUGHTERS,
27 TRANSFER ASSETS/BONDS AND ATTEMPT TO ACITIVATE THE PRESUMPTION
28 OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO AVOID PAYING SPOUSAL SUPPORT WITH
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
25
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

DISREGARD OF OUR DAUGHTERS KATELIN AND ASHLEY. THESE

1
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS WERE ENGINEERED AND CONNIVED WITH THE
2
ASSISTANCE OF MY FORMER EMPLOYER RIVERSIDE CEMENT PLANT AND
3
MEMBERS FROM PACE LOCAL 8-192 (THE UNION AT THAT TIME BEFORE
4 MERGE WITH USW SEPTEMBER 1999 – MAY 31 2006) WAS A RESULT OF 6
5 FALSE ARREST IN A 3 MONTH PERIOD
6 THE UNDERLINING FACTS (ATTACHED EXHBITS) ARE SET FORTH IN
7 COMPLIANCE OF DISCOVERY AND ARE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 31 C.P.L.R

8 3016 (C) WHICH REQUIRES THAT MARITIAL MISCONDUCT BE SPECIFIED IN

COURT PROCEEDINGS.
9
DISCOVERY OF MARITIAL MISCONDUCT
10
ON THE PETITIONERS DECLARATION SHE STATES THAT I BELIEVED SHE
11
WAS RAPED, A RAPE THAT NEVER HAPPEN. I RECEIVED MISLEADING
12
MISREPRESENTATION FROM THE OPPOSING PARTIES TO MAKE ME BELIEVE
13 THAT IT WAS TRUE, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWED
14 1. THE PETITIONER TELLS ME THAT SHE IS BEING FORCED TO STAY AWAY
15 FROM MEWHILE TRYING TO SEE MY DAUGHTER THE FIRST TIME IN 2 MO
16 2. TWICE I FOUND HIDDEN PREGANACY TEST STASHED IN OUR TRASH CANS

17 AND HER REASONS WERE SHE DIDN’T WANT TO TELL ME UNLESS SHE WAS
SURE (THE 2ND TEST WAS POSITIVE) AND WAS IN FEAR THAT THRE BABY
18
WOULDN’T BE HEALTHY. SEE EXHBIT A
19
3. ON THE SIDE OF OUR RESIDENCE LOCATED IN HESPERIA I FOUND
20
CONDOM PACKAGES ALONG WITH ITS USED CONTENTS, THE PETITIONER HAD
21 RELEASED SOME INFORMATION WHEN CONFRONTING HER STATING SHE DID
22 NOT HAVE AN AFFAIR. SEE EXHBIT B
23 4. PETITIONER TELLS ME SHE THINKS SHE HAVIN COMPLECATIONS AND
24 ASK ME TAKE HER TO ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL. AFTER WAITING FOR 6-8
25 HRS THE DOCTOR COMES OUT AND QUOTES,“YOUR WIFE HAD BEEN CUT IN

26 THE VAGINAL AREA AND MUST BE PLACED ON BEDREST IMMEDIATELY.” SEE

EXHBIT C
27
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
26
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

5. IN MAY 2006 NATHAN HARDWICK, RECORDONG SECRATARY LOCAL 8-192

1
SOCKS THE WALL, KICKS THE TABLE AS I TELL HIM THE GOOD NEWS MY
2
WIFE AND I ARE HAVING ANOTHER BABY WHILE INSIDE THE D/C
3
ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT.
4
5 6. IN 2006 WILLIAM ARPS JR. A UNION MEMBER OF LOCAL 8-192 AT
6 RIVERSIDE CEMENT DESCRIBE THE DETAILS OF HER BODY (VAGINAL AREA)
7 IN ARGUEMENT WITH CO-WORKERS THAT HAPPEN IN THE D/C

8 ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT SEE EXHBIT D

9
7. IN JULY 2006 THE PETITIONERS FATHER RICH ROMMEL CALLS ME
10
WHILE ON MY WAY TO SEE MY DAUGHTER KATELIN AND INFORMS ME “IT
11
WAS NOT CHRIS WHO RAPED HER IT WAS ROBBIE”
12
13 8. MY DAUGHTER 3 YRS OLD AT TIME, TELLS ME “DADDY THE MONSTER
14 HAD BLACK HAIR AND HE PICKED MOMMY UP AND MOMMY HIT HER HEAD ,”
15 AND POINTED UP AT MY CEILING FAN “BUT MOMMY WASN’T SCARED! BUT
16 I WAS SCARED, I RAN AND HID BY THE COUCH.”. WHEN I SAW THE

17 PETITIONER SHE HAD A BLACK EYE BUT SHE TOLD ME IT WAS AN EYE
INFECTION AND SHE REFUSED TO LET ME LOOK AT IT NOR TAKE A PHOTO
18
OF IT!
19
20
21
22
23
OTHER MISCONDUCT
24
25
MISCONDUCT STATED HEREIN: MAY 31 2006 – PRESENT
26 9. THE PETITIONER/FAMILY TOOK OUR DAUGHTER ON FATHERS DAY
27 WEEKEND (2006) ON “VACATION” REFUSED TO TELL ME WHERE SHE WAS

28 TAKEN HER FOR OVER TWO WEEKS WITH NO COURT ORDERS IN EFFECT. I

_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
27
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

TRIED GETTING A HOLD OF HER MULTIPLE TIMES BUT WAS UNABLE TO

1
CONTACT THEM. WITH ONE PHONE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS MOTHER
2
SHARON REQUESTING IF I COULD MEET UP WITH HER SON RICKY AT HER
3
HOUSE WITH SOME TOYS FOR KATELIN AND SOME MONEY FOR THE
4 PETITIONER. I MET THE PETITIONERS BROTHER RICKY AT THE HOUSE
5 WITH TOYS AND OTHER ITEMS. I CONTINUED CALLIN EVERYDAY AND
6 FINALLY REACHED THE PETITIONERS FATHER AT THEIR HOUSE IN SAN
7 JACINTO. I ASKED TO TALK OUR DAUGHTER AND HE TELLS ME SHES OUT

8 WITH SOME GUY FROM WORK. I GET A HOLD OF THE PETITIONER TO FIND
OUT THE PAST FEW DAYS SHE’S STAYING AT A HOTEL AT DISNEYLAND
9
WITH OUR DAUGHTER AND A SO-CALLED FRIEND.
10
11 10. 8/18/2006 I DISCOVERED THAT THE PETITIONER/COUNCIL AND
12 RIVERSIDE CEMEMNT WERE COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER THREE DAYS
13 PRIOR TO A HEARING ON 08/21/2006. ON 8/19/2006 IM FALSLY
14 ACCUSED, ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH TERRACE THREATS (6TH ARREST)

15 WITH BAIL SET AT $500,000.

16
11. ON JULY 2006 THE PETITIONER REQUESTED THE COURT TO LET HER
17
SALE OUR HOUSE BECAUSE SHE WASN’T IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO
18 MAKE THE PAYMENT AND THE PARTIES PERSONAL CREDIT WOULD NOT BE
19 LOST IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS. JULY 2006 PAYSTUB $9,300 W-
20 2 $93,400! SEE EXHBIT E
21
12. I GET TOLD FOUR DIFFERENT STORIES ABOUT THE SALE OF OUR
22
RESIDENCE:
23
24 1ST . SHARON ROMMEL HE BANKS TOOK A HIT AND SHE SOLD IT
FOR A LOT LESS
25
26 2ND ATTORNEY STEVE BOLEN THE HOUSE SOLD FOR $555,000
CLOSING STATEMENT
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
28
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

3RD ELIZABETH ROMMEL $534,000 (FALSE CLOSING STATEMENT USED

1 IN COURT)
2
4TH ATTORNEY DOUGLAS MILLER SAID IT FORCLOSED
3
4 12. NOT ONLY DID THE PETITIONER CONFRONT AND PLACE SUBPOENA

5 WITNESSES IN FEAR OF RETALIATION IF TESTIFIED, SHE HAD A PRIVATE

MEETING WITH ATTORNEY DOUGLAS MILLER THEN THINGS CHANGED:
6
7 05/31/2007 DOUGLAS MILLER 1ST HEARING
8
9 MIKEL D DANIELSON PRESENT IN COURT
DOUGLAS MILLER NOT PRESENT IN COURT -
10 PETITIONER AND COUNCIL PRESENT IN COURT
11 I RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM MILLER STATING AN APOLOGY FOR TODAYS
HEARING IT HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED
12
13
07/25/2007 DOUGLAS MILLER 2ND HEARING
14
15 MIKEL D DANIELSON PRESENT IN COURT

16 SPECIAL APPEARANCE J. DORIGAN FOR DOUGLAS MILLER

17
PETITIONER AND COUNCIL NOT PRESENT IN
18
COURT
19
20
21
09/20/2007 DOUGLAS MILLER 3RD HEARING
22
MIKEL D DANIELSON PRESENT IN COURT
23
24 DOUGLAS MILLER NOT PRESENT IN COURT

25
26
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
29
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

PRIOR TO HEARING DOUGLAS MILLER STATES THE $1800 IN FEES HAVE

1
BEEN ALLL USED UP NEEDS ADDITIONAL RETAINER FEE OF $1800 TO
2
CONTINUE THE CASE $500 DUE NOW FOR THE HEARING. HE LEFT THE
3
COURT HOUSE BEFORE HEARING I BARROWED $1500 FROM FRIENDS AND
4 FAMILY WHICH DOUGLAS MILLER ACCEPTED TO CONTINUE THE CASE
5
6 12/04/2007 DOUGLAS MILLER 4TH HEARING
7 MIKEL

8 D DANIELSON PRESENT IN COURT

9
DOUGLAS MILLER NOT PRESENT IN COURT
10
11
12 02/04/2008 DOUGLAS MILLER 5TH HEARING
13
MIKEL D DANIELSON PRESENT IN COURT
14
DOUGLAS MILLER PETITIONER AND HER CONCIL NOT PRESENT IN
15
16 COURT
17
CLERK INSIDE H-3 INFORMED ME AT 1:15P.M THAT THERE WAS
18 NOHEARING TODAY DUE TO OPPOSING CONCIL WAS ILL.
19
20
21
04/21/2008 DOUGLAS MILLER 6TH HEARING
22
MIKEL D DANIELSON PRESENT IN COURT WITHOUT COUNCIL
23
24 DOUGLAS MILLER FORGES MY NAME OF SUBSTITION OF ATTORNEY AND
25 FILES IT WITH THE COURT PRIOR TO THE HEARING. I RECEIVE AN EMAIL

26 ON 04/18/08 @ 1:07A.M WITH AN ATTACH FILE REQUESTING I SIGN AND

FAX BACK ASAP WHICH WAS NEVER SIGN NOR FAXED BACK. SEE EXHBIT F
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
30
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

13. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE COURT ORDER THE PETITIONER

1
TO PAY ATTORNEY’S COST AND FEES AND AS SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO
2
CIVIL CODE OF PROCEDURE SECTION 1021.5 [33 CAL.3D 350] IN THE
3
AMOUNT OF $4,735.00 TO THE RESPONDENT
4
CHILD SUPPORT
5 14.. THE PETITIONER HAS AND IS COMMITING ACTUAL FRAUD AND
6 PERJURY, MAKING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND FALSIFING DOCUMENTS IN
7 ORDER TO BENEFIT FINANCIAL GAIN. THE COURT ORDER CHILD SUPPORT
8 TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT BASED OFF OF THE PETITIONERS GOOD

9 FAITH WHICH WAS DISCOVERED TO BE ACTUAL FRAUD AND PERJURY.

15. ON THE DATE 07/27/2006 THE PETITIONER FILED FOR LEGAL
10
SEPERATION AND THE COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT ORDER IN THE
11
AMOUNT OF $258.00 PER MONTH PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENT. ON
12
02/22/2007 THE COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF
13
$200. FOR 90 DAYS COMENCING 03/01/2007. COMMENCING 06/01/2007
14 CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS INCREASED TO $899.00 PER MONTH BASED ON
15 THE PETITIONER’S FRAUDULENT FL-150 EXPENSE REPORT.
16 16. PRIOR TO HEARING 01/22/2009 THE PETITIONER HAD FILED A CLAIM
17 WITH THE DCSS STATING THERE WAS OF A BALANCE OF OWED FOR BACK

18 CHILDSUPPORT. DCSS HAS DETERMINED THIS AMOUNT TO BE IN THE

AMOUNT OF $12,640 BASED OFF THE PETITIONERS GOOD FAITH. ON
19
01/22/2009 THE COURT ORDERED CHILDSUPPORT TO BE MODIFIED FROM
20
$900. TO $453. PER MONTH. DCSS HAS INFORMED ME THAT. DURING THE
21
HEARING ON 01/22/2009 THE COURT WANTED NOT TO GO ANY FURTHER AND
22 INFORMED THE PETITIONER AND I TO SETTLE THE CHILD SUPPORT
23 DISPUTE WITH DCSS. DCSS INFORMED ME THAT THEYCANNOT REVISE ANY
24 FRAUDULENT CLAIMS OF BACK CHILDSUPPORT DUE TO IT BEING THE
25 AMOUNT ORDER BY THE COURT AT THE TIME. DCSS STATED THAT I MUST
26 HAVE THE COURT ORDER REVISE THE PREVIOUS ORDERS THAT WERE

27 DETERMINE FRAUDULENT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO CONTINUE. A VILOALTION

OF THE CIVIL CODE OF PROCEDURE SECTION 2102.
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
31
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1
2
SECTION 2102
3 (c) From the date of separation to the date of a
valid,
4 enforceable, and binding resolution of all issues
5 relating to child
or spousal support and professional fees, each party
6 is subject to
the standards provided in Section 721 as to all issues
7 relating to
8 the support and fees, including immediate, full, and
accurate
9 disclosure of all material facts and information
regarding the income
10 or expenses of the party.
11 17. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE COURT REVERSE THE ORDERS
12 MADE ON 06/01/2007 OF $899 TO THE ACCURATE GUIDELINE SUPPORT DUE
13 TO THE PETITIONERS OF PERJURY A VIOLATION UNDER FAMILY CODE

14 SECTION 3691 AND 6342

18. ON 12/19/2008 I REQUESTED THE COURT ORDER A SUBPOENAU A
15
WITNESS TO TESTIFY AT TIME OF HEARING ON 01/22/2009 AND PRODUCE
16
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTAION/TESTIMONY AT TIME OF HEARING SHOWING
17
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONERS UNLAWFUL MISCONDUCT. THE
18
COURT ORDERED THE SUBPOENA ON 12/19/2008 AND THE ALL PARTIES
19 WERE SERVED VIA USPS CERTIFIED MAIL W RETURN SIGNATURE ON
20 12/22/2008 UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3. ON
21 01/07/2009; AN HOUR AFTER THE PETITIONER AND I ATTEND A PARENT
22 ORIENTATION CLASS. I RECEIVE A PHONE CALL BY THE WITNESS STATING

23 THE PETITIONER CONFRONTED HER AND THREATEN RETALIATION IF SHE

TESTIFIED. THE WITNESS WAS PLACED IN FEAR AND QUOTES “I FELT
24
SICK TO MY STOMACH AND FELT HORRIFIED AND BETH SAID SHE HAS SOME
25
PAPER SHOWING SHE DOESN’T NEED TO TESTIFY.” THE PETITIONERS
26
FAMILY CALLS THE WITNESS QUOTES, “I GOT SHARON ANGRY WITH ME, I
27 GOT RICH ANGRY WITH ME THEY CALLED AND SAID HOW COULD YOU DO
28 THIS TO US.” THE WITNESS CALLED ME THE NEXT DAY AND QUOTES, “I
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
32
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS A SECRET! I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE NEVER TOLD

1
YOU.” THE WITNESS NEVER APPEARED DUE TO THE PETITIONERS
2
MISCONDUCT.
3
(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a
4 party to the
action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do,
5 or is procuring or
6
suffering to be done, some act in violation of the
7 rights of another party to the action respecting
the subject of the action, and tending to render
8 the judgment in effectual
9
10
11 19. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE COURT ORDER THE
12 PETITIONER TO REFRAIN FROM THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS AND
13 ENFORCE IT AS AN ORDER BY THE COURT UNDER PENALTIES AS PROVIDED

14 BY THE LAW FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AND DISOBEYING AN ORDER BY THE

COURT
15
20. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE COURT REVERSE AND DISMISS
16
AND REVERSETHE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER IN TO OBTAIN
17
RELIEF FROM ANY FURTHER CRUEL INHUMAN TREATMENT.
18
PROPERTY
19 22. DURING A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE THE OPPOSING COUNCIL PULLED
20 ME ASIDE IN THE COURT ROOM AND QUOTES, “THE PETIITIONER HOLDS
21 POSSESSION OF THE MOTORCYCLE AND I AM TO TAKING THE DEBTS OWED
22 ON THE MOTORCYLE FOR IT IS ONLY FAIR..” A MOTORCYLE THAT IS

23 OWNED AND SECURED BY A LEIN HOLDER - ORO GRANDE FEDERAL CREDIT

UNION ACCOUNT NO. 1832.
24
22. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE COURT RELIEVE ME FROM
25
THE DEBT OWNED ON THE MOTORCYCLE AND HOLD THE PETITIONER LIABLE
26
FOR THE PROPERTY THAT’S SECURED BY IT’S DEBIT OR RELEASE BACK
27 OVER TO ME.
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
33
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1
2
CUSTODY AND VISITATION
3
23. DISPITE OF THE PAST MARTIAL MISCONDUCT, THIS IS THE PRESENT
4
MISCONDUCT:
5 RE:2(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION ARE
6 JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO BOTH PARENTS AND SOLE LEGAL PHYSICAL
7 TO THE PETITIONER.
8 1. ON 01/22/2009 WE HAD A HEARING TO DICUSSS MODIFICATION

9 OF CURRENT ORDERS. MINUTES AFTER THE HEARING IN THE HEMET

COURT PARKING LOT THE PETITIONER QUOTES: “THE WHOLE
10
SUBPOENA REALLY WORKED OUT FOR YA, THEN LAUGHS ABOUT IT.”
11
12 2. ON 03/06/2009 @ 12:06 P.M PETITIONER CALLS ME STATING,

13 “I CANNOT HAVE THE GIRLS THIS WEEKEND CAUSE HE OTHER

DAUGHTER (NOT OF THIS ACTION) IS SICK AND SHE HAS PLANS ON
14
SUNDAY AND I CAN DENY YOU VISITATION IF IT INTERFERS WITH
15
HER SCHEDULE.” I REPLIED STATING THAT I WILL PICK UP OUR
16
DAUGHTERS BOTHWAYS SINCE YOUR SCHEDULE IS TO BUSY BUT YOU
17
NEED TO RETURN THE FAVOR THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND. THE
18 PETITIONER STATES SHE ISN’T AWARE IF SHE CAN IT DEPENDS ON
19 HER SCHEDULE, “I JUST DON’T SIT AT HOME ALL DAY WOUNDERING
20 WHAT HER SCHEDULE MAY BE THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND AND YOU CAN
21 JUST HAVE THEM NEXT WEEKEND”. I CONTACTED THE SAN JACINTO

22 P.D @ 1:52P.M AND WAS TOLD TO CALL BACK 1 HOUR LATER FROM
TIME AND PLACE OF EXCHANGE.
23
24 3. 0N 04/12/2009 @ 11:17 A.M REFUSE TO RELEASE OUR EASTER
25 WEEKEND. DURING THE WEEK PRIOR I’D LEFT VOICE MAILS AND

26 TEXT HER THIS EASTER OUR DAUGHTERS ARE WITH ME AND DUE TO
LAST YEAR THEY WERE WITH HER AND REQUESTING IF SHE COULD
27
HAVE THEM DRESSED AND READY BY 12:00 NOON SO THEY COULD
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
34
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

ATTEND OUR PASTOR’S EGG HUNT AT HIS RESIDENCE. I CALLED

1
SAN JACINTO P.D AND MET THE OFFICER @ AND SHOWED HIM
2
DOCUMENTATION FL-341(C). INCIDENT REPORT I09102036. THE
3
OFFICER FOLLOWED ME TO THE PETITIONERS PARENTS HOUSE BUT
4 NOBODY WAS HOME. THE OFFICER THEN FOLLOWED ME TO THE GREAT
5 GRANDPARENTS LOCATED IN HEMET WHERE I LOCATED THE
6 PETITIONER. THE OFFICER INFORMED ME IT WAS OUT OF HIS
7 JURISDICTION AND I WAS TO CALL HEMET P.D. I CONTACTED THE

8 PETITIONER VIA PHONE BUT BY THE TIME I GOT TWO WORDS OUT
SHE HUNG UP. I CALLED AGAIN AND THE PETITIONER PICKS UP AND
9
QUOTES,”ILL GIVE THEM TO YOU WHEN WERE DONE WITH EASTER
10
BOUT 2P.M” AND HANGS UP. I THEN CONTACTED HEMET P.D @ 12:42
11
P.M AND THE OFFICER INFORMED ME THAT THEY WOULD TALK TO HER
12
BUT CANT ENFORCE IT WITH/OUT THE RED CERTIFIED STAMP ON THE
13 BACK OF THE FL-341(C) AND ADVISE ME TO GET THOSE STAMP AT
14 THE COURT THEN LEFT. THE PETITIONER BROUGHT THE OUR
15 DAUGHTERS OUT @ 2:04 P.M.
16
*AS I WENT TO GRAB OUR YOUNGEST ONE ASHLEY I REMINDED THE
17 PETITIONER THAT RECEIVING PARTY PICKS UP, SHE FORCFULLY
18 GRABS ASHLEY FROM MY ARMS AND STATES NO THEN YOU CANT HAVE
19 THEM. YOU HALF TO BRING THEM BACK TO ME. THE PETITIONER S
20 BROTHER GETS IN FRONT OF ASHLEY AND THE PETITIONER UNTIL I

21 SAID ID BRING THEM BACK!

4. ON 04/17/2009 @ 12:12P.M I CALLED THRE PETITIONER TO
22
ARRANGE A TIME TO EXCHANGE OUR DAUGHTERS. SHE INFORMED ME
23
SHOULD DROP THEM OFF LATER BUT WILL CALL ON HER WAY. ABOUT
24
4:30P.M I CALL THE PETITIONER AGAIN ASKING ARE YOU ON YOUR
25
WAY YET. REPLIED, “ WE ARE ALL AT THE BEACH AND WELL BE
26 THERE IN A COUPLE HOURS. I RESPONDED YOU NEED TO LET ME
27 KNOW THESE THINGS SO IM NOT SITTIN HERE WAITING FOR YOU.
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
35
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

THE PETITIONER QUOTES, “YEAH ..SO!” HANGS UP. THE

1
PETITIONER ARRIVES AT MY HOUSE AT 8:15 P.M
2
I HAVE MADE EVERY ATTEMPT TO CREATE SOME SORT OF PARENTING
3
PLAN FOR OUR DAUGHTERS AND PUTTING THE ISSUES BETWWEN HER
4 AND I ASIDE FOR OUR DAUGHTERS. BUT THE PETITIONER REFUSES
5 TO MEET HER OBLIGATION TO OUR DAUGHTERS FOR THRE BEST
6 INTEREST OF HER SCHEDULE.
7 KATELIN AND ASHLEY ARE REVEALING INFORMATION TO ME ABOUT

8 WHAT MOMMY SAYS (TO BE DISCUSS AT HEARING) ON EVERY

WEEKEND THAT I HAVE THEM AND IT SEEMS THE PETITIONER DOES
9
OF ANYTHING IN HER POWER TO HIDE HER SECRET.
10
I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE COURT TO MODIFY/CHANGE
11
CUSTODY FROM JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO SOLE LEGAL PHYSICAL
12
CUSTODY TO THE RESPONDENT WITH VISITATION RIGHTS TO THE
13 PETITIONER.
14 I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
15
16 RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED,
17
18
_____________________________
19 MIKEL D DANIELSON

20
21
22
23 Proof of Service

24
25 I, _____________________________ declare as follows. I am over the age 18 and my address

26 is _______________________________________________________________.

27 On _______________________, I served the foregoing documents described as

28 __________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
36
M/ACKAIC239
 MackAIC239

1 ___________________________________________
2 On all interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed
3 envelope, with first class postage prepaid thereon and deposited said envelope in the United
4 States postal service located in__________________________- addressed to
5 _____________________________ _______________________________
6 _____________________________ _______________________________
7 _____________________________ ______________________________
8
9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the United States that the foregoing is true
10 and correct.
11
12 Executed on,
13 ______________________ at ___________________________.

14
15
16 __________________________

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF MIKEL DANIELSON COMPLAINT PURSUANT 18 U.S.C. 1961
37
M/ACKAIC239