Civil Rico Hyperlinked

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

c/o MBE PMB #332
501 W. Broadway, Suite A
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
tel: (619) 234-5252
fax: (619) 234-5272
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
Superior Court of California

San Diego County
Paul Andrew Mitchell,

Plaintiff,
v.
AOL Time Warner, Inc.,
Adit Seth,
Alias Dimitri,
Anthony L. Hargis,
AOL Prime Host,
Bob Isaacson,
Burntfork Rural Systems,
C I Host,
California Institute of Technology,
Carnegie-Mellon University,
Carrie Malcolm,
Chris Hansen,
Christopher Kankel,
Clairvoyance Corporation,
Cornell University,
Cosmic Awareness Communications,
Cybergate, Inc.,
Cyborganic Media,
Dan Turkette,
Daniel Levy,
Daniel Schmidt,
Darren B. Pocsik,
Dave Alexander,
David A. Evans,
David Feustel,
David Thorburn-Gundlach,
David W. Starr,
Donald D. Hoffman,
Donald E. Wishart,
Earthlink, Inc.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. GIC807057

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AND DAMAGES FROM
RACKETEERING, CONSPIRACY
TO ENGAGE IN A PATTERN OF
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY,
AND RELATED CLAIMS;
JURY DEMANDED:
18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.;
18 U.S.C. 1964
(Civil RICO Remedies); and,
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
(enacted by Congress with
Specific Reservations)
in pari materia with the
Supremacy Clause in the
U.S. Constitution.
Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:
Page 1 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Easylink Services Corp.,

)
Elizabeth Broderick,
)
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, )
Eugene A. Burns,
)
Florida Institute of Technology,
)
Floyd W. Shackelford,
)
Four Peaks Technology Groups,
)
Gary L. Huss,
)
George R. Boyce,
)
Herbert Crawford,
)
ImageFX Productions, Inc.,
)
Indiana University,
)
Intac Internet Access Corporation,
)
Internet Domain DEOXY.ORG,
)
Internet Domain NEBONET.COM,
)
Internet Online Services,
)
Irvin H. Paugh,
)
James H. Daugherty,
)
James R. Bramson,
)
Jason Scott,
)
Jeff Head,
)
Joe Szemiot,
)
John L. Dortch,
)
John Kechejian,
)
Jonathan Steuer,
)
Joseph E. Lepetich,
)
Joseph Farah,
)
Josh Bempechat,
)
Justsystem Corporation,
)
Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center,)
Karl Kleinpaste,
)
Kearney, Castillo & Blake,
)
Larry Smith,
)
Lawrence E. Condit,
)
Leander Pearson,
)
Lennert Leader,
)
Lonnie G. Schmidt,
)
Lynne Meredith,
)
Mark Keller,
)
Maui Global Communications,
)
Miami University of Ohio,
)
Michael McFarland,
)
Midwest Internet Exchange,
)
Mike McArthur,
)
Mitchell A. Goodkin,
)
Msen, Inc.,
)
Neil T. Nordbrock,
)
Network Solutions, Inc.,
)
Northeastern University,
)
ParabolaX Research Group,
)
Parascope, Inc.,
)
Paul Southworth,
)
Pennsylvania State University,
)
Princeton University,
)
Provide Net,
)
Page 2 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Ram Samudrala,
Randall J. Boe,
Richard J. Harrington,
Rob Martin,
Ruffin Prevost,
Scott Fahlman,
Sean Strasburg,
Sheila T. Wallen,
Simple Network Communications, Inc.,
Snow Hill Enterprises, Inc.,
Sprawlnet.com, Inc.,
Stanford University,
Stetson University,
Steve Case,
TEK Interactive Group, Inc.,
Telalink Corporation,
Teresa Giordano,
The Thomson Corporation,
Thirteen Technologies, LLC,
Thomson Financial Services,
Todd R. Eigenschink,
Tzolkin Corporation,
University of Arkansas,
University of California,
University of Georgia,
University of Kansas,
University of Michigan,
University of Oregon,
University of Texas,
University of Wisconsin,
William D. Rippy,
William Harrity,
William M. Kemp,
WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.,
X Mission, L.C., and
Does 121 thru 2,500,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)
Page 3 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
INTRODUCTION
Page
4
JURISDICTION
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
6
7
STRUCTURE AND INCORPORATION

OF PRIOR PLEADINGS AND EXHIBITS
8
9
PARTIAL LIST OF RICO PREDICATE ACTS

AND OTHER ACTS OF WITNESS RETALIATION
10
COUNT ONE
11
COUNT TWO
10
12
COUNT THREE
11
13
RELIEF REQUESTED:
14
ON COUNT ONE
12
15
ON COUNT TWO
14
16
ON COUNT THREE
16
17
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES
19
18
JURY DEMAND
20
19
LIST OF EXHIBITS
20
20
VERIFICATION
21
Page 4 of 21
1
INTRODUCTION
2
3
This is a complex civil action for RICO remedies authorized by
the federal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.;
injunctive relief;
and for all other relief which this honorable Superior Court deems
just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned this
Initial COMPLAINT.
The
primary
for declaratory and
for actual, consequential and exemplary damages;
See 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and (c) (Civil RICO).

cause
of
this
action
is
widespread
criminal
10
enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State
11
lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving
12
numerous RICO predicate acts during the past ten (10) calendar years.
13
The predicate acts alleged here cluster around criminal copyright
14
infringement, trafficking in certain goods bearing counterfeit marks,
15
tampering with and retaliation against a qualified Federal Witness,
16
interstate transportation of stolen property, obstruction of justice,
17
obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of State and local
18
law enforcement, peonage and slavery.
19
1512, 1513, 2315, 1503, 1510, 1511 and 1581-1588 respectively.
20
Other
RICO
predicate
acts,
See 18 U.S.C. 2319, 2320,
although
appearing
to
be
isolated
21
events, were actually part of the overall conspiracy and pattern of
22
racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. mail fraud and bank fraud.
23
See 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1344, respectively.
24
The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to
25
inflict severe and sustained economic hardship upon Plaintiff, with
26
the
27
Plaintiff
28
judicial activism as a qualified Private Attorney General.
intent
of
from
impairing,
writing,
obstructing,
publishing,
preventing
investigating
and
discouraging
and
Page 5 of 21
conducting
JURISDICTION
1
2
This honorable Superior Court has original jurisdiction pursuant
to the civil RICO remedies at 18 U.S.C. 1964, and the holdings of the
U.S. Supreme Court in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lou v. Belzberg, 834
F.2d
concurrent jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).
730,
hn.
(9th
Cir.
1987)
(California
State
courts
have
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
8
9
On August 1, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit in the
10
District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District
11
of California (DCUS), in Sacramento, alleging five separate counts:
12
13
14
15
16
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
copyright infringement;
trademark infringement;
deprivation of fundamental Rights;
conspiracy to deprive fundamental Rights; and,
unfair competition under California State laws.
17
That case is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
18
Ninth
Circuit,
where
it
presently
awaits
ruling
on
Appellants
19
MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC and a parallel ruling on an APPLICATION
20
FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO by the United States ex rel.
21
In anticipation of probable obstruction by federal officers and
22
employees of the United States District Court in Sacramento (USDC),
23
Plaintiff
24
Superior Court of California.
reserved
COUNT SIX: Civil RICO for adjudication
by this
This action is COUNT SIX+, in effect.
25
The obstruction anticipated by Plaintiff has now occurred in that
26
federal case, in part by impersonation of Article III federal judges
27
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 (a federal felony) and of numerous Ninth
28
Circuit precedents in re civil jurisdiction of U.S. magistrate judges.
Page 6 of 21
As
such,
federal
causes
that
officers
threaten
and
employees
further
are
probable
continuation
economic hardship and other wrongs described above.
now
of
among
the
the
severe
It is also apparent to Plaintiff, who hereby makes a formal offer
to prove, that the instant action should not be removed into the
Article III DCUS because the DCUS is presently vacant, nor should it
ever be removed into the Article IV USDC because of demonstrable bias
and prejudice among officers and employees of the USDC.

STRUCTURE AND INCORPORATION
OF PRIOR PLEADINGS AND EXHIBITS
9
10
11
Exhibits in the federal case supra were organized by upper-case
12
letter and number, i.e. Exhibit A-1 is the SHAREWARE POLICY, thru and
13
including Exhibit L-11: the Published OPINION of the Ninth Circuit in
14
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
15
16
A complete List of Exhibits in the federal case is found at the

end of Plaintiffs THIRD SUPPLEMENT.
See Exhibit N-4 infra.
17
Plaintiff now designates Exhibit M-1 as the Table of Contents for
18
the federal case as presently published in the Supreme Law Library at
19
Internet URL:
20
21
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.2003-03-01.htm
Exhibits
M-2
et
seq.
will
be
held
in
reserve
for
important
22
documents that are expected to issue from the federal case at future
23
times and places as yet unknown to Plaintiff.
24
25
Thus, Exhibits lettered A thru M are reserved for the federal

case supra;
Exhibits lettered N thru Z are reserved for this case.
26
Exhibits N-1 thru N-138 inclusive correspond in sequence to the
27
numbered entries in the Table of Contents at Exhibit M-1, now frozen
28
to fix the correspondence between those entries and Exhibit numbers.

Page 7 of 21
1
2
3
4
This Court is encouraged to use computers to access all pleadings

and electronic evidence already published in the Supreme Law Library.
Plaintiff
now
formally
incorporates
Exhibits
A-1
thru
and
including N-138 by reference, as if all were set forth fully here.
Plaintiff now recommends that the Court branch at this point to
review the following Exhibits: N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-16 and N-21.
These Exhibits correspond to Plaintiffs federal COMPLAINT, and His
FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH and FIFTH SUPPLEMENTs, respectively.
9
10
11
12
PARTIAL LIST OF RICO PREDICATE ACTS

AND OTHER ACTS OF WITNESS RETALIATION
Particular attention of this honorable Court is now drawn to
Exhibits L-6, D-46 and D-47.
13
Exhibit L-6 is the legislative history of the Anticounterfeiting
14
Consumer Protection Act of 1996 (ACPA), reproduced from the House
15
Congressional Record dated June 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1386, July 2, 1996.
16
The ACPA is particularly relevant to the instant case, because it
17
elevated copyright and trademark infringement to the status of RICO
18
predicate acts, and cited superb reasons for doing so.
19
An excellent discussion of the legal implications of the ACPA, in
20
the context of other applicable federal laws, can be seen in Exhibit
21
N-124: LETTER TO JON MUMMOLO, Washington Square News, Nov. 9, 2002.
22
Exhibit D-46 is a partial list of Documented Retaliations which
23
Plaintiff had suffered prior to the date on which the federal case was
24
first filed (August 1, 2001 A.D.)
25
Exhibit D-47 is a subset of those Documented Retaliations which
26
also qualify as one
or more of the RICO
Predicate
27
itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B), (1)(D), and (5).
Acts that are
Page 8 of 21
Plaintiff now testifies that the partial list of acts and events
now documented in Exhibits D-46 and D-47 constitutes probable cause
for granting all relief requested infra in the instant COMPLAINT.
Moreover, further acts and events occurred after August 1, 2001,
which
also qualify
as RICO predicate
acts that constitute
probable causes for all the relief requested infra.
further
For example, Plaintiff herein alleges that obstruction of justice
did in fact occur whenever Plaintiff was deprived of specific relief
from the federal district courts in Sacramento, California.
10
11
12
13
COUNT ONE:
Acquisition and Maintenance of an Interest in and Control of
an Enterprise Engaged in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(b)
14
Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth
15
above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set
16
forth fully herein.
17
Substance prevails over form.
At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiffs
18
documentary
material,
all
Defendants
did
acquire
and/or
maintain,
19
directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of a RICO enterprise
20
of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and
21
whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce, all in
22
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(b).
23
During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D.,
24
all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission
25
of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the
26
RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in violation
27
of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) (Prohibited activities).
28
29
Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2)
or
more
of
the
offenses
itemized
above
in
manner
Page 9 of 21
which
they
calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e.
a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities, also
in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) supra.
Pursuant
to
the
original
Statutes
at
Large,
the
RICO
laws
itemized above are to be liberally construed by this honorable Court.
Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United
States Code, however.
8
9
See 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970.
Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents misconduct:

knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise).
COUNT TWO:
Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise
through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(c)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
forth fully herein.
17
18
documentary
material,
all
Defendants
did
associate
with
RICO
19
enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who engaged
20
in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce.
21
Likewise, all Defendants did conduct and/or participate, either
22
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO
23
enterprise
24
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(c).
through
pattern
of
racketeering
activity,
all
in
25
26
27
of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the
28
RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in violation
29
of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).

Page 10 of 21
or
more
of
the
offenses
itemized
above
in
manner
which
they
in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra.
Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws
Respondeat superior (as explained above).
COUNT THREE:
Conspiracy to Engage in a
Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(d)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
forth fully herein.
17
18
documentary
material,
all
Defendants
did
conspire
to
acquire
and
19
maintain an interest in a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of
20
racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and (d).
21
22
documentary material, all Defendants did also conspire to conduct and
23
participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
24
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d).
25
See also 18 U.S.C. 1961(4), (5) and (9).
26
27
28
of two (2) or more of the predicate acts that are itemized at 18
29
U.S.C. 1961(1)(A) and (B), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).

Page 11 of 21
or
more
of
the
offenses
itemized
above
in
manner
which
they
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) (Prohibited activities supra).
Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws
Respondeat superior (as explained above).

RELIEF REQUESTED
10
Wherefore, pursuant to the statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and (c),
11
12
Plaintiff requests judgment against all named Defendants as follows:
13
ON COUNT ONE:
14
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find
15
that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have acquired
16
and
17
and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other
18
individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in,
19
and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce
20
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) (Prohibited activities).
21
2.
maintained,
both
directly
and
indirectly,
an
interest
in
That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees,
22
agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in
23
participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency
24
of this action, and permanently thereafter, from acquiring or
25
maintaining, whether directly or indirectly, any interest in or
26
control
27
individuals associated in fact, who are engaged in, or whose
28
activities do affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
of
any
RICO
enterprise
of
persons,
or
Page 12 of 21
of
other
3.
That
all
Defendants
all
during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from
committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO
enterprise alleged in COUNT ONE supra.

Defendants
required
to
account
derived
from
their
for
in
all
several
active
gains,
profits,
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and from
11
advantages
persons
10
and
be
other
officers,
concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily
all
all
directors,
That
and
their
employees,
4.
servants
of
agents,
and
acts
of
all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).

5.
That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants
12
for Plaintiffs actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or
13
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b),
14
according to the best available proof.
15
6.
That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages,
16
under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or
17
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b),
18
according to the best available proof.
19
7.
That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by
20
Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants several violations of 18
21
U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best available proof.
22
8.
That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the lawsuit
23
incurred
herein
including,
24
research,
all
non-judicial
25
counsels
fees,
26
(Plaintiffs standard professional rate at start of this action).
27
28
9.
That
all
damages
at
but
not
enforcement
minimum
caused
by
limited
all
of
to,
and
$150.00
Defendants,
all
all
per
and
necessary
reasonable
hour
all
worked
gains,
profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their

Page 13 of 21
several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)
and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal
law(s),
foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit
of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.
6
7
8
10.
be
deemed
to
be
held
in
constructive
trust,
legally
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court
deems just and proper, under the circumstances of this action.
ON COUNT TWO:
10
that all Defendants have associated with a RICO enterprise of
11
persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all
12
of
13
interstate and foreign commerce in violation of the RICO law at
14
18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).
whom
did
engage
in,
and
whose
activities
did
affect,
15
16
that all Defendants have conducted and/or participated, directly
17
or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a
18
pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at
19
18 U.S.C. 1961(5) (pattern defined) and 1962(c) supra.
20
4. That
all
Defendants
all
23
24
associating with any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other
25
individuals
26
activities do affect, interstate and foreign commerce.
28
all
employees,
Defendants
agents,
and
fact,
all
servants
who
of
and
other
do
their
all
engage
in,
directors,
other
persons
officers,
in
all
directors,
22
associated
and
their
employees,
5. That
servants
of
21
27
agents,
and
persons
Page 14 of 21
in
or
active
whose
officers,
in
active
conducting or participating, either directly or indirectly, in
the conduct of the affairs of any RICO enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at
18 U.S.C. 1961(5) and 1962(c) supra.
5.
That
all
Defendants
all
10
11
committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO
12
enterprise alleged in COUNT TWO supra.

Defendants
derived
to
account
from
their
for
in
all
several
active
gains,
profits,
15
racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra and from all
16
other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).

7.
advantages
required
persons
14
17
and
be
other
officers,
all
all
directors,
That
and
their
employees,
6.
servants
of
13
agents,
and
acts
of
18
19
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)
20
supra, according to the best available proof.
21
8.
22
23
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)
24
25
9.
26
27
U.S.C. 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof.
Page 15 of 21
10.
incurred
herein
research,
all
counsels
fees,
11.
That
all
including,
but
non-judicial
at
damages
not
enforcement
minimum
caused
limited
by
all
of
to,
and
$150.00
all
all
per
Defendants,
and
necessary
reasonable
hour
worked
all
gains,
several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)
supra and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and
10
federal
11
legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the
12
benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.
13
12.
law(s),
be
deemed
to
be
held
in
constructive
14
deems
15
circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
16
trust,
just
and
proper,
under
the
full
range
of
relevant
ON COUNT THREE:
17
18
that all Defendants have conspired to acquire and maintain an
19
interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and maintain control of,
20
a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
21
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra.
22
23
that all Defendants have conspired to conduct and participate in
24
said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity
25
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra.
26
8. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees,
27
28

Page 16 of 21
of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to
acquire or maintain
enterprise that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra.
an
interest in, or control of, any RICO
9. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees,
of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to
conduct, participate in, or benefit in any manner from any RICO
10
enterprise
11
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra.
12
5.
through
pattern
of
racketeering
activity
in
That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees,
13
14
15
of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any
16
more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged
17
in COUNT THREE supra.
18
6.
That
all
Defendants
to
account
derived
from
their
for
all
several
gains,
profits,
20
racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) supra and from all
21
other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).

7.
advantages
required
19
22
and
be
acts
of
23
24
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
25
26
27
8.

Page 17 of 21
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
9.
U.S.C. 1962(d) supra, according to the best available proof.
10.
incurred
herein
including,
research,
all
non-judicial
counsels
fees,
10
11
at
but
not
limited
enforcement,
minimum
of
to,
and
$150.00
all
all
per
necessary
reasonable
hour
worked

11.
That
all
damages
caused
by
all
Defendants,
and
all
gains,
12
13
several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
14
supra and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and
15
federal
16
legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the
17
benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.
18
12.
law(s),
be
deemed
to
be
held
in
constructive
trust,
19
deems
just
and
proper,
under
the
full
range
of
20
circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
21
Page 18 of 21
relevant
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Summary of Reasonable Counsels Fees:
TBA
Summary of Consequential Damages:
TBA
Summary of Actual Damages (partial list):

unpaid professional invoices:
108,350.00
triple damage multiplier (3x):
325,050.00
copyright infringements, actual:
$163,800,000.00
$491,400,000.00
trademark infringements, actual:
$163,800,000.00
$491,400,000.00
---------------
Subtotal:
$1,310,833,400.00
Summary of Punitive Damages (3x):
TOTAL DAMAGES (minimum):
$3,932,500,200.00
$5,243,333,600.00
29
30
The
damage
matrix
is
three-dimensional:
for
each
Defendant,
31
there are actual, consequential, and punitive damages (3 columns) on
32
each of three counts (3 rows).
33
Page 19 of 21
JURY DEMAND
1
2
3
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable to a

jury lawfully convened.
4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
5
6
Pursuant
to
His
18
U.S.C.
documentary
1961(9),
material
by
Plaintiff
incorporates
reference
following Exhibits, as if set forth fully here, to wit:
now
to
all
9
10
Exhibit A with Cover Sheets
11
Exhibit B with Cover Sheets
12
Exhibit C with Cover Sheets
13
Exhibit D with Cover Sheets
14
Exhibit E with Cover Sheets
15
Exhibit F with Cover Sheets
16
Exhibit G with Cover Sheets
17
Exhibit H with Cover Sheets
18
Exhibit I with Cover Sheets
19
Exhibit J with Cover Sheets
20
Exhibit K with Cover Sheets
21
Exhibit L with Cover Sheets
22
Exhibit M with Cover Sheets
23
Exhibit N with Cover Sheets
Page 20 of 21
formally
of
the
VERIFICATION
1
2
I,
Paul
Andrew
Mitchell,
Sui
Juris,
Plaintiff
in
the
above
entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the
laws of the United States of America, without the United States
(federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is
true and correct, according to the best of My current information,
knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
See the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of
America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter U.S. Constitution).
10
11
12
Dated:
March 12, 2003 A.D.
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

___________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris
13
14
15
16
Printed:
Page 21 of 21

Civil Rico Hyperlinked

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Rico Hyperlinked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

Superior Court of California

Paul Andrew Mitchell,

Case No. GIC807057

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

Easylink Services Corp.,

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

STRUCTURE AND INCORPORATION

PARTIAL LIST OF RICO PREDICATE ACTS

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

This is a complex civil action for RICO remedies authorized by

the federal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.;

for declaratory and

for actual, consequential and exemplary damages;

See 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and (c) (Civil RICO).

enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State

lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving

The predicate acts alleged here cluster around criminal copyright

infringement, trafficking in certain goods bearing counterfeit marks,

tampering with and retaliation against a qualified Federal Witness,

interstate transportation of stolen property, obstruction of justice,

obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of State and local

law enforcement, peonage and slavery.

1512, 1513, 2315, 1503, 1510, 1511 and 1581-1588 respectively.

See 18 U.S.C. 2319, 2320,

events, were actually part of the overall conspiracy and pattern of

See 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1344, respectively.

The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to

inflict severe and sustained economic hardship upon Plaintiff, with

judicial activism as a qualified Private Attorney General.

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

This honorable Superior Court has original jurisdiction pursuant

concurrent jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).

On August 1, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit in the

of California (DCUS), in Sacramento, alleging five separate counts:

MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC and a parallel ruling on an APPLICATION

In anticipation of probable obstruction by federal officers and

employees of the United States District Court in Sacramento (USDC),

Superior Court of California.

COUNT SIX: Civil RICO for adjudication

This action is COUNT SIX+, in effect.

The obstruction anticipated by Plaintiff has now occurred in that

federal case, in part by impersonation of Article III federal judges

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 (a federal felony) and of numerous Ninth

Circuit precedents in re civil jurisdiction of U.S. magistrate judges.

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

economic hardship and other wrongs described above.

It is also apparent to Plaintiff, who hereby makes a formal offer

ever be removed into the Article IV USDC because of demonstrable bias

and prejudice among officers and employees of the USDC.

Exhibits in the federal case supra were organized by upper-case

including Exhibit L-11: the Published OPINION of the Ninth Circuit in

A complete List of Exhibits in the federal case is found at the

See Exhibit N-4 infra.

Plaintiff now designates Exhibit M-1 as the Table of Contents for

the federal case as presently published in the Supreme Law Library at

times and places as yet unknown to Plaintiff.

Thus, Exhibits lettered A thru M are reserved for the federal

Exhibits lettered N thru Z are reserved for this case.

Exhibits N-1 thru N-138 inclusive correspond in sequence to the

numbered entries in the Table of Contents at Exhibit M-1, now frozen

to fix the correspondence between those entries and Exhibit numbers.

This Court is encouraged to use computers to access all pleadings