Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

PATENTLY CLEAR FEDERAL JURISDICTION SINCE AT LEAST 2006

1. 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968; Civil RICO; “Organized Crime Control Act”; “Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act”;
a. Section 1961 (Definitions) and Section 1962 (Prohibited Activities) apply to both
criminal and civil cases. As a result, decisions involving criminal charges are frequently
cited in civil appellate decisions.
b. Section 1963 provides criminal penalties.
c. Section 1964 creates the civil cause of action.
d. Section 1965 addresses venue service of processes in civil cases.
2. 18 USC § 1341 (relating to mail fraud);
3. 1st, 14th, 7th, 4th, 11th, 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; Civil Rights Acts;
28 U.S.C § 455; Recusal Statute;
4. [18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, deliberate deprivations under color of law (such as, e.g., fake “writ
of execution”; fake “$5,048.60 judgment”; fake “resolution 569/875”, et al.);
18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, cover-up of crimes;
18 U.S.C. §§ 1511, 1513, 3771, retaliation against whistleblowers.
JURISDICTION AND PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO DEF. U.S. ATTORNEY
5. The U.S. Courts have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action regarding the eradication
of publicly recorded organized Government crimes under color of, e.g., falsified “land
parcels”, “writ of execution”, and fake “$5,048.60 judgment”.
6. The Defendant U.S. Attorney asserted prosecution and jurisdiction under civil RICO on or
around 06/30/2010:
“The only other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a civil forum is a
suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).”
See Case 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, p. 4.
JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
7. Plaintiffs are asserting Civil RICO claims, and in particular:
a. (1) Injury to Plaintiffs’ property and/or business, because the Defendants
b. (2) while involved in one or more identified relationships with an enterprise,
c. (3) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and/or collecting an unlawful debt.
See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, e.g., Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 386, 87, 25.
CIVIL RICO LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE
8. RICO is a Federal statute with civil remedy provisions available to both the government
and private individuals. RICO is a substantive Federal statute with a liberal construction
clause. The clause specifically provides that "the provisions of this Title (Title IX) shall be
liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes". See PUB. L. No. 91452, Section
904(a), 84 STAT. 947 (1970).
FRAUD ON THE COURT, FALSE PRETENSES OF “NO JURISDICTION”
9. The corrupt U.S. District (Florida Middle District) and Circuit Courts (11th Circuit) have had
patently clear jurisdiction over the unlawful and criminal acts of public record by the
Defendant United States Agents and Government Officials. Fraudulently, Defendant United
States Judges had concealed patently clear U.S. jurisdiction under color of, e.g., “no
jurisdiction”, power, “authority”, “frivolity”, sham “regulatory taking” pretenses [absent
any regulation], sham “inverse condemnation” pretenses [Plaintiffs refused to exchange and
defended their perfected record title], and fake “ripeness requirements”.
INDISPUTABLE JURISDICTION OVER RECORD RACKETEERING & EXTORTION
10. Under, e.g., the Civil RICO statute and Civil Rights Acts, the U.S. Courts have had
indisputable jurisdiction over, e.g., record extortion, retaliation, concoctions of a non-
existent “07/29/2009 judgment”, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 434, 432, 425, 422, 424,
386, by Defendant U.S. Agents.
CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER RECORD BRIBERY AND EXTORTION
11. The U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the publicly recorded Government
corruption involving Defendant U.S. Government Agents and the acceptance of Defendants’
bribes by the Defendant U.S. and other Judges and Officials.
12. U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the fabrications of unsubstantiated
“attorneys fees” and non-existent “writ of execution” and “judgment” by Defendant
Government Officials, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 360,
386, 87, 282, 288.
13. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over unlawful and criminal acts perpetrated by U.S.
Government Defendants outside the scope of their official capacity.
14. The U.S. Courts have known and concealed that just like in the Catholic Church scandals of
institutional pedophiles and sexual predators, cover-up and concealment (from top Officials
all the way down the institutional hierarchy) have been the Defendant Governments’ custom
and policy in this and other Cases. Said Courts have known and concealed that just like the
Church predators, U.S. Government criminals covered up for each other, which invoked U.S.
jurisdiction.
15. Said Courts have
a. Known and concealed that public corruption has been pandemic in Florida and
involved U.S. Courts at all levels; and
b. Fraudulently concealed that public policy therefore demanded the civil and criminal
prosecution of Defendant corrupt U.S. Government Officials in U.S. Courts.
CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER ANY AND ALL CLAIMS
16. The U.S. Courts have had clear jurisdiction over any and all claims involving United States
Agents and Defendants such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, deprivations, fraud, Judicial
Officers’ fraud on the Courts, and of course including “state claims”.
PREVIOUS CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION BY U.S. DEFENDANTS
17. In exchange for other Defendants’ bribes, the judicial Defendants previously concealed and
conspired to conceal patently clear Federal jurisdiction.
18. The Federal Defendants’ deliberate deprivations of any meaningful opportunity of justice and
the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief were unlawful
and criminal acts of record, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction.
19. Fraudulently and recklessly, Government Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false
pretenses of, e.g., non-existent ripeness requirements, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction. In
particular, the U.S. Defendants have conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs
rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants
in Federal Court.
20. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over. e.g., Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell’s
06/23/09 fabrications of “necessary state procedures”:

2
“They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute
prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment
claim.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Doc. # 213, p. 18.
21. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary
state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary
state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope
of immunity and official capacity.
22. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false
pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50,
p. 4.
23. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false
pretenses of, e.g., “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” even though the Defendant Federal
Agents were subject to Federal jurisdiction whether or not the questions were Federal or non-
Federal questions.
24. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had always properly prosecuted the Federal Agents in this Court.
25. In all previous Cases, this Court had always patently clear jurisdiction.
26. E.g., judicial Defendant Honeywell fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 213, p. 21:
“B. Supplemental Jurisdiction
The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests
within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086,
1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had
original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.”
27. Any and all “state claims” involving Federal Agents and Defendants absolutely invoked
Federal jurisdiction. This corrupt Court deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of justice and
adjudication of their claims under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “lack of jurisdiction”, which
invoked Federal jurisdiction…

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Вам также может понравиться