Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
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
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
8
9
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
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
of
this
action
is
widespread
criminal
10
11
12
numerous RICO predicate acts during the past ten (10) calendar years.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Other
RICO
predicate
acts,
although
appearing
to
be
isolated
21
22
racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. mail fraud and bank fraud.
23
24
25
26
the
27
Plaintiff
28
intent
of
from
impairing,
writing,
obstructing,
publishing,
preventing
investigating
and
discouraging
and
Page 5 of 21
conducting
JURISDICTION
1
2
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
730,
hn.
(9th
Cir.
1987)
(California
State
courts
have
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
8
9
10
District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District
11
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
20
FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO by the United States ex rel.
21
22
23
Plaintiff
24
reserved
by this
25
26
27
28
Page 6 of 21
As
such,
federal
causes
that
officers
threaten
and
employees
further
are
probable
continuation
now
of
among
the
the
severe
to prove, that the instant action should not be removed into the
Article III DCUS because the DCUS is presently vacant, nor should it
9
10
11
12
letter and number, i.e. Exhibit A-1 is the SHAREWARE POLICY, thru and
13
14
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
15
16
17
18
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
24
25
26
27
28
Page 7 of 21
1
2
3
4
now
formally
incorporates
Exhibits
A-1
thru
and
review the following Exhibits: N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-16 and N-21.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Congressional Record dated June 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1386, July 2, 1996.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff had suffered prior to the date on which the federal case was
24
25
26
Predicate
27
Page 8 of 21
Plaintiff now testifies that the partial list of acts and events
which
also qualify
as RICO predicate
further
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
15
16
17
18
documentary
material,
all
Defendants
did
acquire
and/or
maintain,
19
20
of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and
21
22
23
During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D.,
24
25
of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the
26
27
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
Pursuant
to
the
original
Statutes
at
Large,
the
RICO
laws
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
documentary
material,
all
Defendants
did
associate
with
RICO
19
20
in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce.
21
22
23
enterprise
24
through
pattern
of
racketeering
activity,
all
in
25
During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D.,
26
27
of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the
28
29
Page 10 of 21
Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2)
or
more
of
the
offenses
itemized
above
in
manner
which
they
Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws
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
17
18
documentary
material,
all
Defendants
did
conspire
to
acquire
and
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D.,
27
28
29
Page 11 of 21
Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2)
or
more
of
the
offenses
itemized
above
in
manner
which
they
Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws
10
11
12
13
ON COUNT ONE:
14
1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find
15
16
and
17
18
19
20
21
2.
maintained,
both
directly
and
indirectly,
an
interest
in
22
23
24
25
26
control
27
28
of
any
RICO
enterprise
of
persons,
or
Page 12 of 21
of
other
3.
That
all
Defendants
all
required
to
account
derived
from
their
for
in
all
several
active
gains,
profits,
11
advantages
persons
10
and
be
other
officers,
all
all
directors,
That
and
their
employees,
4.
servants
of
agents,
and
acts
of
12
13
14
15
6.
16
17
18
19
7.
20
21
22
8.
23
incurred
herein
including,
24
research,
all
non-judicial
25
counsels
fees,
26
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,
Page 13 of 21
law(s),
foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit
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:
2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find
10
11
12
of
13
14
whom
did
engage
in,
and
whose
activities
did
affect,
15
3. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find
16
17
18
19
20
4. That
all
Defendants
all
23
24
25
individuals
26
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
5.
That
all
Defendants
all
10
11
12
derived
to
account
from
their
for
in
all
several
active
gains,
profits,
15
16
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
20
21
8.
22
23
24
25
9.
26
27
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,
10
federal
11
legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the
12
13
12.
law(s),
be
deemed
to
be
held
in
constructive
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court
14
deems
15
16
trust,
just
and
proper,
under
the
full
range
of
relevant
ON COUNT THREE:
17
6. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find
18
19
20
21
22
7. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 16 of 21
acquire or maintain
an
10
enterprise
11
12
5.
through
pattern
of
racketeering
activity
in
13
14
15
16
17
18
6.
That
all
Defendants
to
account
derived
from
their
for
all
several
gains,
profits,
20
21
advantages
required
19
22
and
be
acts
of
23
24
25
26
27
8.
Page 17 of 21
9.
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
That
all
damages
caused
by
all
Defendants,
and
all
gains,
12
13
14
15
federal
16
legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the
17
18
12.
law(s),
be
deemed
to
be
held
in
constructive
trust,
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court
19
deems
just
and
proper,
under
the
full
range
of
20
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
TBA
TBA
108,350.00
325,050.00
$163,800,000.00
$491,400,000.00
$163,800,000.00
$491,400,000.00
---------------
Subtotal:
$1,310,833,400.00
$3,932,500,200.00
$5,243,333,600.00
29
30
The
damage
matrix
is
three-dimensional:
for
each
Defendant,
31
32
33
Page 19 of 21
JURY DEMAND
1
2
3
4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
5
6
Pursuant
to
His
18
U.S.C.
documentary
1961(9),
material
by
Plaintiff
incorporates
reference
now
to
all
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Page 20 of 21
formally
of
the
VERIFICATION
1
2
I,
Paul
Andrew
Mitchell,
Sui
Juris,
Plaintiff
in
the
above
See the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of
10
11
12
Dated:
Signed:
13
14
15
16
Printed:
Page 21 of 21