Source: http://www4.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v13/__show_article/_a000013-000050.htm
Timestamp: 2019-11-14 11:34:39
Document Index: 77259791

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 2', '§ 1962', 'ART.\n258', '§124', '§ 1341', '§ 1343', '§ 1983', '§ 1341', '§ 1343', '§ 1983', '§ 1962', '§ 2', '§ 2311', '§ 2331', '§ 2152', '§ 1506', '§ 1506', '§ 955', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 955', '§ 1', '§ 955', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 242', '§ 241', '§ 1341', '§ 1346', '§ 1341', '§ 636', '§ 1341', '§ 666', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 1920']

LOST TRIBE, Wandering's ...: This is page 3.
This is page 3. 0 comments
22 Aug 2002 @ 21:33, by Anthony Marsh
Sorry again it still dosnt all fit. :}
FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS - ONE HAND WASHES THE OTHER….
250.	Plaintiff reported the fraud, it has been covered up and not prosecuted, and it is continuing to date.
251.	Defendants’ predicate acts are evident in nine Dockets from the states of Florida, Texas, and California: Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182. JUDGES’ and CLERKS’ failure to do duties as prescribed by Title 28 F.R.C.P.s as an aid to evade prosecution on behalf of other defendants and their associates is evident in each Docket, and any reasonable person would know the “fix was in” when he or she saw any of the following appear on the docket:
a.	NO “answers due by .__” computed by CLERKS (omitted),
b.	Associates in the scheme permitted to evade answering Summons,
c.	Entry numbers and dates altered and out of sequence (some grossly so),
d.	Attorneys’ motions entered with NO Appearance Forms in the record (omitted),
e.	Prohibited motions and pleadings entered before an Answer,
f.	Prohibited third-party or consolidated answers by U.S. ATTORNEYS or FIRMS entered
by CLERKS,
g.	Entries altered - “Motions to Dismiss” or “Motions for Costs and Sanctions” labeled
“Answers” by CLERKS, “Requests to Enter Defaults” labeled “Motions,” etc.,
h.	Defaults against parties failing to Answer not entered (omitted) by CLERKS after
the 21 days,
i.	In some cases, Applications for Default by Clerk were denied by CLERKS and sent back
through the U.S. mail, which constitutes destruction of a federal record in violation of
Title 28 U.S.C. Rule 79 and Clerks Manual Chapter 21,
j.	Magistrates’ rulings appeared in the record without consent of all parties (another
omission by CLERKS in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)),
k.	Directed verdicts appeared in the record (abolished over 50 years ago in
Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372 (1943)),
l.	Fraudulent and false bills, liens, orders and judgments entered into the record with no
jury trials/abstract of judgments (CLERKS omitted that one, too,
m.	CLERKS impersonated Chief Judges and did judicial and case transfers,
n.	NO Rule 16 pre-trial hearings scheduled (omitted) by CLERKS, and
o.	NO jury trials scheduled (omitted) by CLERKS.
252.	CLERKS did all this, even though Title 18 U.S.C. and Chapter 1 of the Clerks Manual states they go to jail for 30 years if they do just one of these things. MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit like MECHAM testified he was doing (I-am-overworked-and-I-need-more-money) during his March 5, 2002 Senate Budget Hearing, which makes all defendants “principals” as defined by Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3 and 4, and “conspirators” as defined in Salinas v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997):
17. Conspiracy 41
If conspirators have plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate crime and others to provide support, supporters are as guilty as perpetrators.
18. Conspiracy 28(1)
It is possible for person to conspire for commission of crime by third person.
253	Plaintiff demands that MECHAM explain that he was not lying to Congress when he said he needed more money for CLERKS doing duties, when the record shows that CLERKS, JUDGES, and OFFICE were collecting paychecks, yet no work was being done - no jury trials, no hearings on these and many other cases, no dockets were getting audited, and no offenders were getting prosecuted for crimes in the record, see Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, docket entry no. 289 on 4/14/00: “Plaintiffs’ Admissible Evidence of $100,000 Bribe in Related RICO Action by Pro Se Deft Paul C Walter’s Law Firm Jenkins & Gilchrist, a Professional Corporation, to Aid and Abet Conspirators Evade Criminal Prosecution by Bribing Magistrate Caroline Malone on April 6, 2000 (tls) [Entry date 04/17/00].” Plaintiff demands that MECHAM explain to plaintiff and Congress how this one got missed.
254.	Defendants’ only affirmative defense, is to Rule 26 disclose and provide admissible evidence to plaintiff, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct pursuant to duties prescribed by law in Title 28 U.S.C., their Oaths, and the Clerks Manual; that the defendants’ sole intention was to perform duties lawfully prescribed in Title 28 by Congress, and to encourage, induce, or cause the Rule 1 “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action” in getting injured parties vindication of their federal rights, and that the “targets” were vindicated in court.
255.	Defendants must Rule 26 produce the following to prove they did the work, and that “due process” (Rule 16 hearings and jury trials) happened:
a.	Form 33s, Form 34s and Form 35s (Title 28 U.S.C.)
b.	Tickler Reports (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 6),
c.	Answer Dockets (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 7),
d.	[Judges’] Calendar Reports (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibits 8 and 9),
e.	Civil Inventory/Scheduling Reports (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 10),
f.	Case Index Reports (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 11),
g.	Pending and Terminated Cases Report” (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 3),
h.	JS-5 Reports (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 4),
i.	Pending Motions Reports (Clerks Manual, Chapter 11, Exhibit 5),
j.	Application for [attorney] Admission forms (Clerks Manual, Chapter 20, Exhibit 1),
k.	National Discipline Data Bank Report Forms (Clerks Manual, Chapter 20, Exhibit 2),
l.	Juror’s Evaluation Forms and Report on Operation of the Jury Selection
Plan (Clerks Manual Ch. 23),
m.	Exhibit and Witness Lists (Clerks Manual, Chapter 14, Exhibit 3),
n.	Civil Minutes - Trial (Clerks Manual, Chapter 14, Exhibit 8),
o.	Monthly Report of Trials & Other Court Activity (Clerks Manual, Ch. 14, Exhibit 9),
p.	U.S. Magistrate Judge Monthly Reports (shows Part IV. Consent Cases - Clerks
Manual, Chapter 14, Exhibit 10),
q.	Judgment on Jury Verdict (Clerks Manual, Ch. 14, Exhibit 1 in the very back), and
q.	Abstracts of Judgment (Clerks Manual, Chapter 15, Exhibit 1), and
r.	Proof plaintiff’s $100,000.00 worth of products and property were returned.
These reports will indicate who actually did what job, the identity of the perpetrators, which dockets were audited by MECHAM pursuant to Title 28 section 604, and which jobs were never completed as prescribed by law. Defendants must produce evidence they performed their duties pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., F.R.C.P.s and Clerks Manual, Chapter 4, Exhibit 1 “Progression of Civil Litigation in United States District Court.”
DEFENDANTS’ PATTERN OF CORRUPTION AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY COAST-TO-COAST: COUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT, FOR EACH PREDICATE ACT, DECIDED BY THE JURY
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) Prohibited activities
256.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 255 are incorporated herein by reference.
257.	Under the direction of MECHAM through OFFICE, CLERKS, DOES, JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS, FIRMS, and their clients, met, conspired and engaged in the same pattern and practice of violating rules of court, abusing the pre-trial process, generating costs, fees, sanctions, fines and Orders for each other, denying due process, and obstructing justice to operate the United States District Courts as racketeering enterprises in the following Districts:
A.	Eastern District of Texas - Sherman Division, 101 Pecan St., Room 112, Sherman, TX 75090, in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256. Defendants/participants in the scheme: ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, DAVID J. MALAND, DOE CLERKS “tm,” “sxs,” “tls,” “im,” and “lw;” PAUL BROWN, MIKE BRADFORD, ANDREA HEDRICK PARKER, BENNET & WESTON, MATTHEWS CALTON STEIN SHIELS PEARCE DUNN & KNOTT, WOLFE CLARK HENDERSON & TIDELL, BRADY & COLE, GODWIN WHITE & GRUBER, LEA & CHAMBERLAIN, BECKWORTH & CARRIGAN LLP, SAYLES & LIDJI, WALD & ASSOCIATES, JACKSON & WALKER LLP and JENKINS & GILCHRIST;
B.	Western District of Texas - San Antonio Division, 655 East Durango Blvd., San Antonio, Texas 78206, in Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473. Defendants/participants in the scheme: ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI, DOE CLERKS “wg,” “pjr,” “rg,” “tr,” “eb,” “cw,” “kcl,” “lp,” “sj,” ORLANDO GARCIA, WILLIAM BLAGG, HAROLD O. ATKINSON, JACKSON & WALKER LLP, JENKINS & GILCHRIST, RHEA & RODMAN LLP, DECARLI & IRWIN, PAMELA MCGRAW, CHARLES S. FRIGERIO, LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S. FRIGERIO, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, CLEMENS & SPENCER PC, CLEMENS & SPENCER, KEITH A. KENDALL, JONES KURTH & ANDREWS PC, MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB PC, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, STRASBURGER & PRICE LLP, PAUL ANDREW DRUMMOND SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, THOMAS & LIBOWITZ PA, VICTORIA VALERGA, SOUTHERN ANIMAL RESCUE ASSOCIATION INC., ANGELA DICKERSON NOBLE, ALLEN STEIN POWERS DURBIN & HUNNICUTT, CHARLES B. GORHAM, BRIN & BRIN, LEMLER & ASSOCIATES PC, and LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO RAMOS;
C.	Middle District of Florida (Tampa), Office of the Clerk, United States Courthouse, Tampa, Florida 33602, in Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443. Defendants/participants in the scheme: ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, SHERYL L. LOESCH, DOE CLERKS “plk,” “ctc,” “bls,” “jlh,” “cdm,” “mrh,” “ch,” “dlg,” “jab,” “wlb,” RICHARD LAZARRA, PASCO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION, DEBOISE & POULTON P.A., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES RICHARD HOOPER, P.A.;
D.	Middle District of Florida (Tampa), Office of the Clerk, United States Courthouse, Tampa, Florida 33602, in Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764. Defendants/participants in the scheme: ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, SHERYL L. LOESCH, DOE CLERKS “jlg,” “ag,” “smb,” “eec,” “bls,” “seal,” “jlh,” “plk,” “dlg,” MAURICE M. PAUL, PAUL MICHAEL BROWN, PATRICIA A. WILLING, FOWLER WHITE GILLEN BOGGS VILLAREAL & BANKER PA, LAW OFFICE OF NANCY M. PARHAM, NIX HOLTSFORD GILLILAND LYONS & HIGGINS PC, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. DAVIS, CARRINGTON & CARRINGTON, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA;
E.	Central District of California (Western Division), 312 N. Spring St., No. G-8, Los Angeles, California 90012-4793, in Fischer v. Stewart, et al No. 99-CV-7890. Defendants/participants in the scheme: ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, SHERRI R. CARTER, DOE CLERKS “bg,” “pj,” “yc,” “rn,” “ca,” “pjap,” “bp,” “kc,” “fvap,” “lk,” “weap,” “ghap,” “cbr,” TERRY J. HATTER, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE;
F.	Central District of California (Western Division), 312 N. Spring St., No. G-8, Los Angeles, Calif. 90012-4793, in Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al No. 99-CV-12982. Defendants/participants in the scheme: ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, SHERRI R. CARTER, DOE CLERKS “la,” “lk,” “mrgo,” “am,” “bp,” “kg,” “sm,” “step,” “lc,” “jj,” “pbap,” GARY A. FEESS, LEON W. WEIDMAN, CREASON & AARVIG LLP, MARIA K. AARVIG, KINKLE RODIGER & SPRIGGS, DONALD BEACHAM;
G.	Eastern District of California (Sacramento), 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, in Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97. Defendants/participants in the scheme: MECHAM, OFFICE, JACK WAGNER, DOE CLERKS “ljr,” “rb,” “rw,” “mll,” “pb,” “ndd,” “hk,” “dc,” “kdc,” “ak,” “pw,” “sk,” WILLIAM B. SHUBB, KIRSTEN SUDHOFF DOOR, ALESHIA M. WHITE;
H.	Western District of Texas (San Antonio), 655 East Durango Blvd., San Antonio, Texas 78206, in Hoog v. Frio County, et al No. 00-CV-640. Defendants/participants in the scheme: MECHAM, OFFICE, WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI, DOE CLERKS “wg,” “sj,” “tr,” “lp,” ORLANDO GARCIA;
I.	Eastern District of Texas - Sherman Division, 101 Pecan St., Room 112, Sherman, TX 75090, in Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-18282. Defendants/participants in the scheme: MECHAM, OFFICE, DAVID J. MALAND, DOE CLERKS “tm,” “sxs,” “sxh,” PAUL BROWN, DENTON COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, McDONALD SANDERS PC, CANTLEY & HANGER, GRIFFEN WHITTEN & JONES, HOPKINS & SUTTER, CULLUM LAW FIRM PC, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART.
258.	The pattern is the same: FIRMS and U.S. ATTORNEYS knowingly presented fraudulent motions on behalf of their clients to evade prosecution for initiating malicious suits in order to convert title of ownership. CLERKS, under the direction of MECHAM and OFFICE, accepted them into the record, JUDGES issued Orders granting them, thus voiding due process, statutes, the Constitution, Amendments, and Acts of Congress as pertains to suits against corrupt government employees and their co-conspirators doing fraud and swindle. Plaintiff demands that each defendant explain his or her participation in the above-named cases.
259.	By way of fabricating “false bail,” JUDGES issued Orders on behalf of co-conspirators to illegally collect on attorneys’ fees without any hearings in violation of Title 28 U.S.C. Rules 7, 11 (sanctions are only for defendants’ attorneys), Rule 68, the Supreme Court’s directive in Heinz v. Jenkins, 115 S.Ct. 1489 (1995) (attorneys cannot engage in any debt-collection practices), and due process, which requires that attorneys’ fees are to be decided by the jury. After defendants had milked the case dry, JUDGES got rid of it by dismissing it with prejudice, not for publication. The “targets” of this scheme were injured in their businesses, defrauded out of their money, property, livelihoods, reputations, and due process rights by defendants, who injured the “targets,” the economy, and the United States. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain how H.R. Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 58, 187 (1970) reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 4007, 4081. (“The full House rejected a proposal to create a complementary treble damages remedy for those injured by being named as defendants in malicious private suits. 116 Cong. Rec. 35342 (1970).”) does not apply to them.
260.	Defendants defrauded both the paying public under color of official right including plaintiff, and defrauded the United States by submitting false claims for doing duties as prescribed by law. The abuse and “racketeering pattern” is the same coast-to-coast:
A) Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256 -
1) CLERKS violated Rule 7 by entering 87 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 31, 33, 57, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 167, 168, 169, 170, 175, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 207, 208,211, 207, 208, 256, 257, 261, 262, 265, 266, 284, 288, 286, 287, 293, 295, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 331, 333, 336, 337, 344, 346, 347, 347, 348, 352, 353 and 358;
2) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 87 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
3) CLERKS did 2 magistrate assignments with no consents in the record between nos. 169 and 170;
4) CLERKS entered 21 illegal magistrate JUDGES’ Orders with no consents in the record at numbers 57, 59, 60, 283, 282, 290, 317, 326, 327, 328, 329, 332, 334, 335, 340, 341, 349, 350, 351, 357 and 359;
5) JUDGES entered 21 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “targets;”
6) CLERKS failed to enter 22 Defaults as required by law on parties who failed to Answer;
7) CLERKS altered the numerical sequence of 8 Docket entries after numbers 170, 206, 211, 281, 285, 287, 293 and 294;
8) MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit, failed to investigate, and failed to prosecute 7 crimes in the record on Docket nos.: 289 (Plaintiffs’ Admissible Evidence of $100,000 Bribe in Related RICO Action by Pro Se Deft Paul C Walter’s Law Firm Jenkens & Gilchrist, a Professional Corporation, to Aid and Abet Conspirators Evade Criminal Prosecution by Bribing Magistrate Caroline Malone on April 6, 2000), no. 291 (MOTION by Brenda Brewer, Claude Brewer to vacate [282-1] order Issued by Magistrate in Return for “Bribes” from Defendants Stoler and LaPorte to Unlawfully Stay Discovery to Evade Criminal Indictment Pursuant to 42 USC Section 636, Repealed in 1988), no. 308 (MOTION by Brenda Brewer, Claude Brewer to vacate all Magistrate’ orders and order #296 by Judge Folsom as unlawful and committed in conspiracy with non-party John T Gerhart by bribe of federal actors on April 6th, April 11th and April 18th), no. 317 (overturning the First Amendment of the Constitution), 354 (Order granting $29,439.67 attorneys’ fees without an abstract of judgment from the jury) and no. 357 (Order granting $30,137.17 attorneys’ fees without an abstract of judgment from the jury), JUDGE in Sherman, Texas, unlawfully issuing an Order at no. 210, referring case to a magistrate in Texarkana, Texas without consents in the record, in violation of Title 28 §124: cases filed in Sherman, Texas “shall be held at Sherman.”;
9) ASHCROFT failed to prosecute other defendants for crimes in the record after he had this information for at least 60 days;
10) Achieved goal: Dismissed with no hearings, no jury trial.
B) Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473 -
1) CLERKS altered the record 97 times by not computing “Answers Due by” at Docket numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 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, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 439, 440, 441, 442, 464, 465, 466, 480;
2) CLERKS did 2 assignments of a magistrate to the case between nos. 82 and 83, and at 223 with no consents in the record;
3) CLERKS entered 277 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS on behalf of their clients in default at Docket numbers 27, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 201, 202, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 228, 382, 383, 386, 387, 388, 397, 398, 399, 402, 405, 408, 417, 438, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453 (CLERK omitted “return of service” for the Gossetts), 454, 455, 456, 457, 458 (agreement with who?), 461, 462, 467, 468, 481, 482, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 494, 495, 496, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 524, 525, 531, 534, 535, 536-537, 538, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 554, 555, 559, 560, 567, 568, 572, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 584, 585, 588, 590, 592, 593, 594, 595, 597, 599, 600, 601, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 626, 630, 631, 633, 636, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 657, 661, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 673, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 690, 694, 696, 697, 706, 708, 714, 726, 727, 732, 733, 734, 738, 751, 753, 761, 766, 783, 784, 787, 788, 789, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 810, 811, 812, 813, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 822, 824, 843, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 857, 860, 863, 871, 872, 873, 876, 878, 881, 886, 887, 888, 889, 898, 912, 913, 919, 921, 927, 928, 929, 931, 933, 931, 933, 936, and 937. NOTE: No other filings could have been entered after case was on appeal after no. 915;
4) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 277 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
5) CLERKS did 182 omissions - omitted Docket number for Third Amended Complaint between nos. 586 and 587, omitted “Answers Due By” for 83 defendants; omitted docket numbers for entries after nos. 606, 613, 614, 615, 616, 619, 620, 621, 648, 656, 672, 687, 697, 788 (CLERK practiced law and wrote this one himself or herself), 804, 805, 821 (also written by CLERK), 822, 854, 856, 857, 865, 923, 927, 929, 933 and 939, and 569; CLERK omitted magistrate consents in the record at Docket numbers 385, 390, 400, 407, 459, 487, 527, 530, 561, 569 574, 581, 582, 623, 624, 625, 626, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 662, 663, 674, 699, 700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 715, 731, 739, 741, 748, 759, 769 (jury decides), 770, 772, 773, 774, 814, 815, 821, 823, 826, 845 (jury decides), 868, 874, 882, 883, 884, 885, 890, 891, 892, 893, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 926, 930, 932, 935, 938 and 939;
6) CLERKS entered 71 illegal JUDGES’ Orders at 385, 390, 400, 407, 459, 487, 527, 530, 561, 569 (CLERK omitted magistrate consent forms in the record, even though many other parties had objected earlier at Docket numbers 495, 496, 500, 508, 509, 512), 574, 581, 582, 623, 624, 625, 626, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 662, 663, 674, 699, 700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 715, 731, 739, 741, 748, 759, 769 (jury decides), 770, 772, 773, 774, 814, 815, 821, 823, 826, 845 (jury decides), 868, 874, 882, 883, 884, 885, 890, 891, 892, 893, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 926, 930, 932, 935, 938 and 939;
7) JUDGES entered 71 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “targets;”
8) CLERKS did 4 alterations of the numerical sequence of Docket entries after numbers 81, 394, 427 and 663;
9) CLERKS failed to enter 83 Defaults as required by law;
10) MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit, failed to investigate, and failed to prosecute for waste, misuse, and abuse;
11) ASHCROFT failed to prosecute other defendants for crimes in the record after he had this information for at least 60 days;
12) Achieved goal: Dismissed with no hearings, no jury trial.
C) Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443 -
1) CLERKS unlawfully performed Article III JUDGE’S function by assigning magistrate right after Docket number 1;
2) CLERKS altered the record 2 times at Docket numbers 4 and 5, calling them “answers” when they were not;
3) CLERKS entered 13 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 60 and 61;
4) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 13 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
5) CLERKS failed to enter 39 Defaults as required by law;
5) CLERKS entered 2 JUDGES’ illegal Orders at 64, 71;
6) JUDGES entered 2 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “target;”
7) MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit, failed to investigate, and failed to prosecute for waste, misuse, and abuse;
8) ASHCROFT failed to prosecute other defendants for crimes in the record after he had this information for at least 60 days;
9) Achieved goal: Dismissed with no hearings, no jury trial.
D) Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764 -
1) Right after Docket number 1 - CLERKS assumed duties of Chief JUDGE, and assigned magistrate, no consents in the record;
2) CLERKS entered 28 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, and 75;
3) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 28 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
4) CLERKS failed to enter 20 Defaults as required by law;
5) CLERKS entered JUDGES’ illegal Order at no. 70;
6) JUDGES entered 1 Order on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “target;”
9) Achieved goal: Dismissed by MAURICE M. PAUL, no hearings, no jury trial.
E) Fischer v. Stewart, et al No. 99-CV-7890 -
1) CLERKS entered JUDGES’ illegal Orders at Docket numbers 2 and 3 - JUDGE Tevrizian overturned F.R.C.P.s to legislate, CLERKS put it into the record;
2) CLERKS failed to compute 8 “Answers Due By” as part of their “duties prescribed by law” at Docket numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11;
3) CLERKS entered 4 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 12, 16, 17, 18;
4) CLERKS accepted 3 alterations at Docket numbers 13, 14 and 15 as Rule 26 disclosures from FIRMS when they were not;
5) FIRMS submitted 7 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
6) CLERKS entered JUDGE’S illegal Order at Docket number 22 - recusals are assigned by Chief JUDGE, not by another judge;
7) CLERKS failed to perform duties as prescribed by law, which was to enter 8 Default Judgments on the court’s own motion against defendants, who failed to answer the complaint;
8) CLERK entered prohibited “directed verdict” at Docket number 23;
9) CLERKS did 23 alterations of the numerical sequences of Docket from number 23 on through 46;
10) CLERKS entered 6 illegal JUDGES’ Orders at 22, 23, 30 (changed case number), 36, 37 and 45;
11) JUDGES entered 8 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “target;”
12) MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit, failed to investigate, and failed to prosecute for waste, misuse, and abuse;
13) ASHCROFT failed to prosecute other defendants for crimes in the record after he had this information for at least 60 days;
14) Achieved goal: Dismissed with no hearings, no jury trial.
F) Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al No. 99-CV-12982 -
1) CLERK altered Docket by putting number 52 before number 1;
2) CLERK violated the prohibition against practicing law, and struck “target’s” First Amendment speech at Docket number 3;
3) CLERKS failed to compute 30 “Answer Due By” as part of CLERKS’ “duties prescribed by law” at Docket numbers 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, 48, 49 and 50;
4) CLERKS entered 7 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 33, 34, 43, 44, 47, 56 and 59;
5) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 7 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
6) CLERKS did 45 alterations of the numerical sequence of Docket from number 37 on through 82;
7) CLERKS file-stamped Defaults by plaintiff dated Dec. 20 at the same time plaintiff filed other documents at Docket numbers 53, 54, and 55, but failed to enter 28 Defaults into the record as required by law,
8) CLERKS destroyed federal records by returning 28 defaults to plaintiff via the U.S. Mail between Docket numbers 56 and 57;
9) CLERKS entered 13 illegal JUDGES’ Orders at nos. 35 (no Rule 16 hearing), 37, 42, 46 (changed case number), 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70 (JUDGE FEESS committed perjury on this Order), 80, 81 and 82;
10) JUDGES entered 13 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “target;”
11) MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit, failed to investigate, and failed to prosecute for waste, misuse, and abuse;
12) ASHCROFT failed to prosecute other defendants for crimes in the record after he had this information for at least 60 days;
13) Achieved goal: Dismissed with no hearings, no jury trial.
G) Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97 -
1) CLERKS altered Docket and failed to compute “Answers Due By” as part of their “duties prescribed by law” at Docket numbers 3 and 4;
2) CLERKS entered 16 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS at Docket numbers 5, 6, 7, 9; entered prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30;
3) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 16 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
4) CLERKS entered 6 illegal JUDGES’ Orders at Docket nos. 16, 21, 24, 36, 38 and 39;
5) JUDGES entered 6 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “target;”
6) DOE CLERK “ljr” falsified the record at Docket no. 22, labeling it “JOINT STATUS REPORT” when it factually was not “joint,” as in “between all parties in front of a judge in a courtroom;” was factually an admission of intent to file motions to dismiss as regards “government employees” and deny pre-trial settlement conference, while spelling out Martin’s claims to be dismissed as: “1st, 7th & 14th Amendments, Article III of U.S. Constitution, Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1962 and 1964, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, and Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) relating to the Anti-Conspiracy Act of 1988.” JUDGES aided and abetted, dismissed with prejudice Martin’s civil remedies at Docket no. 38, no hearings, no jury trial, not for publication. FIRMS told the JUDGE at Docket nos. 15 and 30, that Martin’s claims are should be dismissed because they are “too verbose and confusing,” “all federal defendants are immune,” retired, senior-citizen, property-owner Martin “does not belong to a class that entitles her to Title 42 rights,” and Martin’s “concocted theories regarding (1st, 7th & 14th Amendments, Article III of U.S. Constitution, Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1962 and 1964, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, and Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3)) are “figments of her imagination.” Martin was defrauded out of her money and rights;
8) ASHCROFT failed to indict other defendants;
H) Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640 -
1) CLERK practiced law, did Article III JUDGE’s duties, and assigned case to a magistrate;
2) CLERK entered illegal JUDGE’S Order at number 3, which dismissed this case in its entirety before any of the 68 defendants were served, appeared, or replied;
4) JUDGE entered 1 Order on behalf of government employees named in this suit;
5) MECHAM and OFFICE failed to audit, failed to investigate, and failed to prosecute for waste, misuse, and abuse;
6) ASHCROFT failed to indict other defendants;
7) Achieved goal: Dismissed with no hearings, no jury trial.
I) Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-18282 -
1) CLERK solicited participation with magistrate after Docket number 1;
2) CLERKS entered 9 prohibited motions and third-party answers submitted by U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS from persons in default at Docket numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 37, 45, 52;
3) U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS submitted 9 prohibited motions and third-party answers;
4) CLERKS omitted to enter 6 Defaults into the record as required by law;
5) CLERKS entered 13 illegal JUDGES’ Orders at Docket nos. 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 39, 53, 55, 56, 57, and 58,
6) JUDGES entered 13 Orders, Judgments, Findings and Recommendations on behalf of FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ clients and none for “targets;”
261.	Defendants took money and received federal benefits under false pretenses while actively participating in a racketeering enterprise, which functioned to give false costs, fees, fines, judgments and sanctions the appearance of legally valid, and obstructed justice for the other participants doing theft under color of law, fraud and swindle. Plaintiff demands that defendants explain their roles in betraying the trust placed in them by depriving the citizens of the United States of the honest services of a public official, which has destroyed business, hindered commerce, injured the U.S. economy, and which constitutes a highly sophisticated, widespread, consistent pattern of racketeering activity including the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption.
262.	Two or more predicate acts were committed in each case and each courthouse, which constitutes a “pattern” of “racketeering activity.” Defendants directly or indirectly participated in an “enterprise,” which was their illegal association with each other and the courts, the activities of which affected interstate or foreign commerce, as their “targets” were injured in their businesses and livelihoods. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) - (c).
263.	Plaintiff demands that defendants ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, DAVID J. MALAND, PAUL BROWN, MIKE BRADFORD, ANDREA HEDRICK PARKER, BENNET & WESTON, MATTHEWS CALTON STEIN SHIELS PEARCE DUNN & KNOTT, WOLFE CLARK HENDERSON & TIDELL, BRADY & COLE, GODWIN WHITE & GRUBER, LEA & CHAMBERLAIN, BECKWORTH & CARRIGAN LLP, SAYLES & LIDJI, WALD & ASSOCIATES, JACKSON & WALKER LLP and JENKINS & GILCHRIST, WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI, ORLANDO GARCIA, WILLIAM BLAGG, HAROLD O. ATKINSON, JACKSON & WALKER LLP, JENKINS & GILCHRIST, RHEA & RODMAN LLP, DECARLI & IRWIN, PAMELA MCGRAW, CHARLES S. FRIGERIO, LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S. FRIGERIO, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, CLEMENS & SPENCER PC, CLEMENS & SPENCER, KEITH A. KENDALL, JONES KURTH & ANDREWS PC, MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB PC, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, STRASBURGER & PRICE LLP, PAUL ANDREW DRUMMOND SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, THOMAS & LIBOWITZ PA, VICTORIA VALERGA, SOUTHERN ANIMAL RESCUE ASSOCIATION INC., ANGELA DICKERSON NOBLE, ALLEN STEIN POWERS DURBIN & HUNNICUTT, CHARLES B. GORHAM, BRIN & BRIN, LEMLER & ASSOCIATES PC, LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO RAMOS, SHERYL L. LOESCH, RICHARD LAZARRA, PASCO COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION, DEBOISE & POULTON P.A., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES RICHARD HOOPER, P.A., MAURICE M. PAUL, PAUL MICHAEL BROWN, PATRICIA A. WILLING, FOWLER WHITE GILLEN BOGGS VILLAREAL & BANKER PA, LAW OFFICE OF NANCY M. PARHAM, NIX HOLTSFORD GILLILAND LYONS & HIGGINS PC, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. DAVIS, CARRINGTON & CARRINGTON, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, SHERRI R. CARTER, GARY A. FEESS, LEON W. WEIDMAN, CREASON & AARVIG LLP, MARIA K. AARVIG, KINKLE RODIGER & SPRIGGS, DONALD BEACHAM PAUL BROWN, DENTON COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, McDONALD SANDERS PC, CANTLEY & HANGER, GRIFFEN WHITTEN & JONES, HOPKINS & SUTTER, CULLUM LAW FIRM PC, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, TERRY A. GREEN, ELVIRA R. MITCHELL, and COLEMAN A. SWART explain the following:
A) Explain “anonymous complaint,” and explain how the Humane Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (S.P.C.A.) became the fourth branch of government that could file charges “in the name of the People,”
B) Explain their interpretation of “writs of assistance,”
C) Explain how “grand theft of livestock,” “transporting stolen property,” “laundering stolen property,” “forced veterinary/boarding services without a contract” is O.K. as long as it is called “rescue and adoption,”
D) Explain “their interpretation” of Notice and Hearing, posting a Bond, just compensation, and due process,
E) Explain their participation in the Humane Society’s “vested interest” in getting “convictions for something” as evidenced by EXHIBIT G, FIRM’S recommendation on how “rescue groups” can avoid getting sued for invasion of privacy, theft of property, transporting stolen property, impersonating an officer, charities-fraud, racketeering, extortion, Sherman Anti-Trust, and commodities-tampering (all animals, their food, and their manure as defined in Title 7 U.S.C § 2)
F) Explain that “having too many or too much property” is a crime, and explain their theories to the Federal Trade Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, as “raising dogs, cats, and other animals” is listed on IRS Form 1040 Schedule C “small business,” and other business or property owners are not yet prosecuted for “having too many,” such as Bill Gates having and producing “too many computers,” and Zacky Farms having and producing “too many frying chickens,”
G) Explain how the Animal Welfare Act does not apply to them or to the states,
H) Bring forward their Treaty with the Humane Society and S.P.C.A.,
I) Explain how the Humane Society could still be operating in their county, when it was declared a “domestic terrorist group” by the FBI in 1993,
J) Explain that they did not know that “theft of livestock and pets” was a crime as long as it was labeled “rescue and adoption,” and
K) Explain their interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2311 “stolen property/livestock,”
L) Explain their interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2331 “international terrorism means activities that - (A) involve violent acts…; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;”
M) Explain that they did not know we are at war, and explain their interpretation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2152 “The words ‘war material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘war premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced… The words ‘national-defense material’ include arms, armament, ammunition, livestock, forage, forest products and standing timber, stores of clothing, air, water, food…The words ‘national-defense premises’ include all buildings, grounds, mines, or other places wherein such war material is being produced…” and
N) Explain non-prosecution of the Humane Society, which was declared a “domestic terrorist group, ” see EXHIBIT H,
264.	Plaintiff demands that defendants ASHCROFT, MECHAM, OFFICE, SHERRI R. CARTER, TERRY J. HATTER, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, JACK WAGNER, WILLIAM B. SHUBB, KIRSTEN SUDHOFF DOOR, and ALESHIA M. WHITE explain the following:
A) Explain their interpretation of “false charges,”
B) Explain their interpretation of “bribe,”
C) Explain their interpretation of “perjury,”
D) Explain their interpretation of “jury trial demanded,”
E) Explain their interpretation of “racketeering and extortion.”
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1506 Theft or
alteration of record or process; false bail.
265.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 264 are incorporated herein by reference.
266.	CLERKS knowingly and willfully changed dates, numbers and sequences on Docket entries, entered illegal JUDGES’ orders, illegal FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ documents, and other pre-trial actions. CLERKS mailed Defaults and other records out of the building which is “destruction of a federal record,” and omitted duties prescribed by law in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1506, Title 28 U.S.C. Rules 7 and 12. As part of the scheme, CLERKS entered abolished and prohibited pleadings and demurrers as “solicitations” by FIRMS and U.S. ATTORNEYS, which procured Orders from JUDGES, that voided due process, evaded prosecution for others, and/or granted collection of fraudulent judgments for costs/unlawful debt in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise. Defendants knowingly did it after H.R. Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 58, 187 (1970) reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 4007, 4081 (in which the full House rejected a proposal to create a complementary treble damages remedy for those injured by being named as defendants in malicious private [RICO] suits).
COUNTS for Violation of Title 28 § 955
Practice of law restricted and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERKS MANUAL (hereinafter referred to as CLERKS MANUAL, Chapter 1 Statutes Governing Court Officers and Employees, § 1.02 c. Restriction on Practice of Law
267.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 266 are incorporated herein by reference.
268.	CLERKS violated restrictions against practicing law in CLERKS MANUAL, Chapter1, § 1.02 c and Title 28 USC § 955, by violating Article III and making judicial determinations that illegal “papers or documents” complied with F.R.C.P.s, which were erroneously filed, in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise.
269.	CLERKS made judicial determinations that certain documents or papers “complied with F.R.C.P.s and Rule 8(b)” and entered them into the record, when they were factually not answers, in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise. CLERKS “practiced law” and made “judicial determinations” that their duties as prescribed by law did not include scheduling hearings and jury trials or entering Defaults, but were to do favors for FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS and their clients in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise. CLERKS violated restrictions against practicing law in CLERKS MANUAL, Chapter 1, § 1.02 c and Title 28 USC § 955, and knowingly and willfully violated 28 U.S.C. Rule 7 “There shall be a complaint and an answer . . . no other pleadings are allowed.”
270.	JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS had responsibility for control of the pretrial process, let the CLERKS violate court procedures and rules, and failed to prevent or correct abuse and misuse of the system in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
271.	MECHAM and OFFICE had the duty and responsibility for auditing all Dockets to prevent or correct abuse and misuse of the system, and failed to perform duties as prescribed by law in furtherance of the scheme or artifice to defraud and the racketeering enterprise.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy.
272.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 271 are incorporated herein by reference.
273.	CLERKS conspired with magistrates, JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS, FIRMS and their clients, who all misused and abused the pretrial process to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate United States citizens (“targets”) in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Defendants increased the misuse and abuse against “targets” for exercising these rights and privileges by suing corrupt city, county and state officials, see Salinas, supra (conspiracy is a distinct evil, dangerous to the public and punishable in itself). No proof is required.
274.	MECHAM encouraged CLERKS’ falsifications, fraud, and omissions by not auditing the dockets, and by not getting CLERKS prosecuted for crimes in the record. JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS encouraged these predicate acts by failing to report the conduct. The pattern is same coast-to-coast, and is prima fasciae evidence of defendants’ conspiracy. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
275.	CLERKS conspired with other defendants’ abuse of the pretrial process, and denied “targets” of their rights granted by Congress by entering illegal documents, failing to enter defaults or schedule hearings and trials, in furtherance of the conspiracy to operate the courts as a racketeering enterprise in violation of title 18 U.S.C. § 241 in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182. (more to come). See United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999), footnote 21:
“We agree with the dissent that under Salinas and Tille each individual defendant need not “commit or agree to commit the two or more predicate acts requisite to the underlying offense.” Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, __S.Ct. 469, 478 L.Ed.2d 352 (1997) (emphasis added); dissent at 821. In other words, in order to convict a defendant on a RICO conspiracy charge, our case law “does not require proof that [he] participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses.” United States v. Tille, 729 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1984); dissent at 821. Rather, as the dissent acknowledges, the conspiracy must contemplate the commission of two predicate acts by one or more of its members. Dissent at 820. Thus, the principles recited by the dissent are correct but irrelevant to the present dispute, which involves not whether each defendant agreed to participate personally in each predicate act, but what predicate acts the jury could properly find had been agreed to by the conspirators, regardless of which member might perform them.”
276.	The record shows, and any jury could easily find, that defendants conspired and committed a minimum of two predicate acts each.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 242
Deprivation of rights under color.
277.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 276 are incorporated herein by reference.
278.	CLERKS and DOES, under the direction of MECHAM through OFFICE, conspired with JUDGES, U.S. ATTORNEYS, FIRMS and their clients to misuse and abuse the pretrial process to deny due process and commit deprivation under color of law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise. The record shows the deprivation of hearings, trials and other rights in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
279.	Plaintiff’s rights were violated by defendants in the three predicate acts in 1993, 1999, and 2002.
280.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 279 are incorporated herein by reference.
281.	CLERKS violated Chapter 9, Exhibit 4 of Clerks Manual ORDER STRIKING PLEADINGS by failing to do duties as prescribed by law by not striking improper pleading under “Other” for not being an Answer, for incomplete service list, for solicitation of judgment or collection on unlawful debt, in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise.
282.	CLERKS violated 18 U.S.C. § 241 by entering illegal documents, and denying victims/targets’ rights granted by Congress in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 28 USC F.R.C.P. Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure as amended 2000.
283.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 282 are incorporated herein by reference.
284.	CLERKS knowingly participated, and willfully aided and abetted defendants’ evasion of prosecution by entering illegal orders limiting and exempting disclosures in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise in order to void Title 28 U.S.C. Rule 26, Subdivision (a)(1), 2000 Amendment disclosure requirements in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 as
defined in § 1346. Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud.”
285.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 284 are incorporated herein by reference.
286.	CLERKS took money from plaintiff and “targets” filing suit for state and federal crimes with knowing intent to deprive them of the intangible right of honest services/F.R.C.P. Rules 7(a), 8(b), 16(b), 26, and 38 hearing/jury trials in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182.
287.	JUDGES, FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS, MECHAM and OFFICE encouraged the conduct by failing to prosecute crimes in the record as part of their duties, and by concealing evidence of criminal wrongdoing by using prohibited pre-trial actions to obstruct justice. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 Frauds and swindles.
288.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 287 are incorporated herein by reference.
289.	CLERKS used the U.S. mail to “solicit and procure” participation with “bribed magistrate,” knowing that no magistrate consents, FORM 33 pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), were in the record. “Magistrate participation” was just one part of the scheme or artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses and representations in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341. NOTE: Magistrate jurisdiction is a nullity sans consent of all parties - Galloway, supra, Barnett v. General Electric Capital Corp., 147 F.3d 1321, (11th Cir. 1998).
290.	JUDGES, MECHAM, CLERKS and OFFICE, in conspiracy with U.S. ATTORNEYS and FIRMS, covered up state crimes by abusing the pretrial process, and used the federal facilities to uphold phony costs, sanctions, bills and judgments against their “targets” - American citizens who were defrauded out of rights, money, assets, and the intangible right to honest services. Defendants submitted false claims to the United States for performing duties as prescribed by law, while the record shows they failed to perform these duties. State and local government received federal money, also committed fraud and swindle, and are liable, title 18 U.S.C. § 666. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
291.	Defendants’ predicate acts and racketeering enterprise resulted in severe economic, financial, health and job loss to plaintiff.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 28 USC Rule 79 and
CLERKS MANUAL), Chapter 15, § 15.03 Books and Record Keeping
292.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 291 are incorporated herein by reference.
293.	CLERKS failed to keep books and records and entries therein as prescribed by law and, as an aid to other defendants, altered sequences, omitted entries, or gave FIRMS’ and U.S. ATTORNEYS’ documents or pleadings a different name or title in violation of Title 28 USC Rule 79 and CLERKS MANUAL, CHAPTER 15, § 15.03, and in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182.
294.	JUDGES, FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS, MECHAM and OFFICE encouraged the conduct by failing to audit, and failing to prosecute crimes in the record as part of their duties. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
COUNTS for Violation of District Court Clerks Manual,
Chapter 20, § 20.01 Attorney Admissions Procedures.
295.	The allegations set forth in paragraphs 46, 114, 177, and 179 to 294 are incorporated herein by reference.
296.	CLERKS failed to use the UNIX ICMS system or otherwise verify in the record that attorney was (1) on the roll as being admitted to the bar, (2) was in good standing, (3) had a photo I.D. card, (4) had paid the admission fee, (5) had a certificate of good standing, and (6) actually represented that party. The record shows CLERKS’ “failure to do duties and obligations required by law,” as most “attorney appearance forms in the record” are missing, indicating that CLERKS let anybody walk in, purport to be an attorney, and file erroneous or fraudulent papers and documents in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise. CLERKS violated District Court Clerks Manual, Chapter 20, § 20.01 Attorney Admissions Procedures in Brewer, et al v. Collin County, et al, No. 99-CV-256, Brown, et al v. Wilson County, et al, No. 97-CV-1473, Hardin v. Adams, et al, No. 00-CV-2443, Keim v. Cintra, et al, No. 00-CV-764, Fischer v. Stewart, et al, No. 99-CV-7890, Hazlett v. County of Riverside, et al, No. 99-CV-12982, Martin v. Sandlin, No. 00-CV-97, Hoog v. Frio County, et al, No. 00-CV-640, and Phelps, et al v. Denton County Sheriff’s, et al, No. 94-CV-182.
297.	JUDGES, FIRMS, U.S. ATTORNEYS, MECHAM and OFFICE encouraged the conduct by failing to prosecute crimes in the record as part of their duties prescribed by law. ASHCROFT failed to indict after he had this information for at least 60 days.
COUNTS for Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1920. False statement or fraud to obtain Federal employee’s compensation: