Jurisdiction, Civil RICO

8/9/2019 Jurisdiction, Civil RICO ...

1/26


2/26

2

any regulation], sham inverse condemnation pretenses [Plaintiffs refused to exchange anddefended their perfected record title ], and fake ripeness requirements .

INDISPUTABLE JURISDICTION OVER RECORD RACKETEERING & EXTORTION10. Under, e.g., the Civil RICO statute and Civil Rights Acts , the U.S. Courts have had

indisputable jurisdiction over, e.g., record extortion , retaliation , concoctions of a non-

existent 07/29/2009 judgment , fake writ of execution , Doc. # 434 , 432 , 425 , 422 , 424 ,386 , by Defendant U.S. Agents.CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER RECORD BRIBERY AND EXTORTION

11. The U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the publicly recorded Governmentcorruption involving Defendant U.S. Government Agents and the acceptance of Defendantsbribes by the Defendant U.S. and other Judges and Officials.

12. U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the fabrications of unsubstantiatedattorneys fees and non-existent writ of execution and judgment by DefendantGovernment Officials, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 360,386, 87, 282, 288 .

13. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over unlawful and criminal acts perpetrated by U.S.

Government Defendants outside the scope of their official capacity.14. The U.S. Courts have known and concealed that just like in the Catholic Church scandals of institutional pedophiles and sexual predators, cover-up and concealment (from top Officialsall the way down the institutional hierarchy) have been the Defendant Governments customand policy in this and other Cases. Said Courts have known and concealed that just like theChurch predators, U.S. Government criminals covered up for each other, which invoked U.S.

jurisdiction.15. Said Courts have

a. Known and concealed that public corruption has been pandemic in Florida andinvolved U.S. Courts at all levels; and

b. Fraudulently concealed that public policy therefore demanded the civil and criminal prosecution of Defendant corrupt U.S. Government Officials in U.S. Courts.

CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER ANY AND ALL CLAIMS16. The U.S. Courts have had clear jurisdiction over any and all claims involving United States

Agents and Defendants such as, e.g., extortion , retaliation , deprivations, fraud, JudicialOfficers fraud on the Courts, and of course including state claims.

PREVIOUS CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION BY U.S. DEFENDANTS17. In exchange for other Defendants bribes, the judicial Defendants previously concealed and

conspired to conceal patently clear Federal jurisdiction.18. The Federal Defendants deliberate deprivations of any meaningful opportunity of justice and

the just , speedy , and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs claims for relief were unlawfuland criminal acts of record, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction.

19. Fraudulently and recklessly, Government Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false pretenses of, e.g., non-existent ripeness requirements , which invoked U.S. jurisdiction. In particular, the U.S. Defendants have conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffsrightfully prosecuted 1st , 14 th , 4 th , 7 th and 5 th Amendment violations by Federal Defendantsin Federal Court.

20. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over. e.g., Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywells06/23/09 fabrications of necessary state procedures :


3/26

3

They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to statea claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment claim. See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Doc. # 213 , p. 18.

21. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs prosecution of

Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require necessary state procedures . Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted necessary state procedures on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywells scopeof immunity and official capacity.

22. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false pretenses of, e.g., frivolity and vexatiousness . See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, p. 4.

23. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false pretenses of, e.g., lack of subject matter jurisdiction even though the Defendant FederalAgents were subject to Federal jurisdiction whether or not the questions were Federal or non-Federal questions.

24. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had always properly prosecuted the Federal Agents in this Court.25. In all previous Cases, this Court had always patently clear jurisdiction.26. E.g., judicial Defendant Honeywell fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 213 , p. 21:

B. Supplemental JurisdictionThe decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims restswithin the discretion of the district court. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 370 F.3d 1086,1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it hadoriginal jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over theremaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines toexercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state claims.

27. Any and all state claims involving Federal Agents and Defendants absolutely invokedFederal jurisdiction. This corrupt Court deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of justice andadjudication of their claims under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., lack of jurisdiction , whichinvoked Federal jurisdiction


4/26


5/26

5


6/26

6


7/26

7


8/26

8


9/26

9


10/26

10


11/26

11


12/26

12


13/26

13


14/26

14


15/26

15


16/26

16


17/26

17


18/26

18


19/26

19


20/26

20


21/26

21


22/26


23/26

23


24/26

24


25/26


26/26

Documents

Jurisdiction, Civil RICO