I occasionally include civil Rico in my civil complaints when there is criminal activity mixed in with the torts. The courts hate them. Hate them. Hate them.

The only one they haven't tossed is where the defendant has a criminal conviction for bid rigging. They were ready to toss it when we discovered the indictment. That changed the Court's mind.

And - if there is prima facie - then my case isn't frivolous;

and deserves to go to trial.....

I haven't read it. What I meant was judges be biased, stupid and docket clearing. Courts love people like Romney because they are rich and powerful. And not just courts, but all government loves that. The government never investigated all the claims that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme, he confessed to his sons when it went bad and they turned him in.

In the comment below

The evidence above is prima facie;
and docket clearing

Is a Color of Law crime violate of 18 USC § 242

It is the most egregious Civil Rights crime of modern day

and federal archives - undeniable!

And they (nefarious powers thatbe)

Would. Destroy you

Please explain?

Continues to get away 'Scot Free'

Doesnt ( by far) document your legal prowess;

Just a solud disdain for the facts.

The real question is;
What's your motivation!

I will merely note that none....and I mean NONE of the actual attorneys on DU, myself included, think this is a meritorious case.

The Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant in the Delaware federal courts, and then took his routine to California, where some underpaid law clerk was made to suffer the ignoble fate of having to read the Complaint.

Otherwise (purported counselor);
You are stating facts not in evidence.

WHEREAS I've sworn to my remorks, dozens of times

Under Penalty of Perjury.

ought to focus on legal points....

Arguing that a ruling is gospel (when I have confessions to intentional fraud on the court);

Clearly demonstrates your lack of legal prowess

And your hell bent desire to defend Romney

The point is (as you can plainly see - my case isn't frivolous.

Here's my 3rd Amended Complaint (that I'm allowed to file when they seek a Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss)

District Court claims to have read and stated it is non-sensical/frivolous.

While it is not par with a legal professional, it is far better than when I started;
and was affirmed as prima facie by 2 retirees (including a Local Rules compliance counsel for huge firm)

http://petters-fraud.com/clockd_apr14_di_69_motion_for_and_3rd_amended_complaint.pdf

Isn't the allegation that Colm Connolly was the Defendants cohort - prima facie?
(for the other layman with me out there - prima facie is Latin for

They destroyed my business doing more than 2 "predicate acts"

over a protracted period of time

by a "pattern" of "racketeering"

and they owned the very prosecutor in charge of the case

WHOM (you have to admit) was required to be disqualified.

Thus, creating a "Prosecutorial Gap" and grants me the right to be a "Private Attorney General"

Sedima v Imrex

For he and his band of sophisticated criminals to continue to get away Scot Free.

WHEREAS

on the other hand

--- I onky need 1 person of consequence

---------------to say I'm right


Diogenes Quest continues

Just a few things we've accomplished so far.

Dreier LLP Law firm closed

Hutchins Wheeler - Closed

Dewey LeBeouf - Closed (more due to BankruptcyMisconduct.com)

Marc Dreier in jail.

Larry Reynolds (who laundered $12 Billion while in WISTEC) in jail

Traub's TBF firm CLOSED

Paul's partner Tom Petters Ponzi - in Jail and frauds closed.

Frank Vennes - closed and in jail.

DOJ Deputy Director EOUST Resigned (and his Bader Company Off Shore IRS scheme exposed)

Madoff - Closed

The list goes on and on and on;
but doesn't stop - until justice comes for Romney, MNAT and Paul Traub.

People (always) quitting is the insanity.....

respond.

I was booted off from DK; for arguing against a venerate there -

who was defending Romney.

At least this person isn't defending Mitt;
they are just telling me I'm wasting my time.

But - it's not wasted; because (no matter who got the credit)

Mitt didn't make it in 2012 -

and won't make it 2016 - if I can just get someone more important than I - to report the whole story....

said you were wasting "our" time. That's impossible. We are in charge of what we do with "our" time. You weren't forcing him to read your OP or respond.

In any case, best of luck to you.

Comment on a new account.

Much more harmfull are the incongruous remarks;

Of (purported) attorneys at law.

On our side of the fence;

to give an honest appraisal of it all.

Doesnt any venerate of thus realm realize how deep a blow would transpire

To every single person that Romney's backed

In the forth coming elections!

But that is not what you are seeking, you are only looking for a validation of your fantasies.

To address a single solitary allegation on point.

Bullies.

A mob of babbling banter obfuscating;
without any sincere/ honest remark among you.

Veiled agendists...

The good thing is, with the immortality of Truth and the web realm;

Your stanch refusal to admit/address the facts and truth; also stands as testimony of your character

Immortal!

N'est-ce pas

to track you down on internet message boards and embarrass you with facts!

That shows both character and intelligence.

The same type of brilliant intellect that believes if enough bad faith parties gather together with disingenuous banter;

that such will turn the minds of free thinking men & women and/or tarnish the Truth.

Again, the task is simple before you.

Prove 1 - just a single allgation - to be false!

If you all are such excellent legal minds and my frivolous claims are. SO weak;

Then why can't you simply address a single item?

Perhaps you are speaking in code to prevent Romney's spies from discovering your next brilliant legal maneuver?

Good nite

Pro se litigants usually don't get very far in federal court due at least in part to the complexities of the procedures as well as the laws themselves. And the courts also don't like dealing with pro se parties exactly for those reasons. Hire a good lawyer who has experience in federal court and specifically with RICO cases. If the case was dismissed without prejudice you might be able to try again.

Do you have a link to the case file? I'd like to read it.

Violating 18 U.S.C. $ 4 MisPrision of a Felony
and
18 U.S.C. 3057(a) - commands Judges to report crimes to U.S. Attorney
and
28 U.S.C. 586(a)(3)(F) - commands U.S. Trustee's to report crimes to U.S. Attorney

Problem is (until 2008) - all those reports to U.S. Attorney

would have wound up at the venal Colm Connolly - who was declining the case - over and over and over.

Especially since RICO provides for an award of attorneys' fees. I'd like to see the court's reason for dismissing it.

And I'm INDEMNIFIED against Willful Misconduct and Negligence
(why they failed to put in the term "gross" is beyond me)

Be that as it may - all 12 of my attorneys (court approved) destroyed my contracts;
and I had (for a time) forgotten about the fact my legal fees were guaranteed.

A faux pas provided it to me - that they overlooked (by paralegal)

In part 18 - the UST notes that Traub's TBF confessed to deliberate fraud on the court.

In re Hazel Atlas Glass v Hartford Empire - U.S. Sup Ct 1944 - NO Statute of Limitations
for Fraud on the Court by Officers of the Court

It was affirmed by 3rd Circuit (and quoted by UST Disgorge Motion and Chief Judge opine)

parts 19 & 35 testify that the UST "forewarned" the parties NOT to replace me with anyone connected

Since all the parties were already conflicted - they HAD to replace me with someone linked

Barry Gold

It concludes that Fraud on the Court transpired; but that issue is never addressed.

http://petters-fraud.com/DisgorgeMotion_TBF_1_6_Million.pdf

and here's the last Amended Complaint
(after Defendants filed a Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss - which permits automatic amend to address)


http://petters-fraud.com/clockd_apr14_di_69_motion_for_and_3rd_amended_complaint.pdf

court in Delaware. He fared no better in California.

pro se litigants. Even though judges tend to cut them a fair amount of slack with respect to following correct procedures and drafting pleadings, people who are on a mission and don't have a lawyer who can explain the merits of the case (or the lack of them) will continue to tilt at their windmill until a judge makes them stop. If you have a reasonable chance of winning your case you will be able to find a lawyer who will be glad to take it, especially if a statute provides for an award of attorneys' fees. A good, plausible RICO case against Mitt Romney would be a huge feather in a lawyer's cap - he'd get great publicity and a substantial fee if he won. However, if a claimant can't even get any lawyer to take the case, that should be a clue. I don't mean to rain on the OP's parade, but if this had been a sustainable claim, lawyers would have been all over it and it might have at least made it to a trial. I'd love to see Mittens in the dock, but apparently the evidence just isn't there. And I'd still like to read the court's reasons for dismissing the case.

in civil matters.

That (instead ) of saying "apparently the evidence isn't there; that you (instead) make a licit defense against the allegations.

I Object to your "testifying" to facts (proofs dispostive) that you haven't supplicated into evidence.

I challenge you to disprove ANY single solitary allegation made in the complaint or stated in the posting above!

I have no knowledge of any facts one way or the other. Lawsuits exist to establish facts, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (you) to prove those facts. Merely alleging them in a complaint is not proof.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the defendant can move for dismissal on various grounds, including lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person; improper venue; insufficiency of process; failure to join a necessary party or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This last one is the 12(b)(6) motion. Anybody can file a complaint alleging anything but the claim will not survive pretrial motions unless the facts as alleged support the cause of action - "a claim upon which relief can be granted." For a RICO case to survive a 12(b)(6) motion the plaintiff has to clearly plead a pattern of related "predicate acts" that were of sufficiently continuous duration - typically six months to a year.

I slogged through the complaint, and to the extent I was able to make any sense out of any of it, I don't see where you clearly plead that there was a pattern of related predicate acts within the meaning of the RICO statute or the case law interpreting it. It's a just a mishmash of accusations against everybody Mitt Romney ever did business with.

In any event, it's not up to me to disprove any facts. It's up to you, as plaintiff, to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence. Before you can do that you have to establish that the facts you allege add up to a justiciable claim. It would appear that several courts are of the opinion you've not met that threshold. Sorry; I don't mean to poop in your cornflakes, but that's the way the process works.

Demonstrative of your bias against a pro se victim.

You cannot, with any congruity, liciy state there's not a single salient point. - with possible merits.

Furthermore, the legal standard of proof for "Civil" RICO; is the "preponderance of the evidence" Standard.

Not to mention a fair amount of name-calling, which the courts don't like either. Pleadings in federal court are supposed to be what's called "notice pleading," which means you have to allege, as clearly as possible, facts sufficient to put the court and opposing parties on notice of what you are suing them for, but you don't have to throw the kitchen sink at them. I am not personally biased against pro se litigants any more than I am biased against people who have cancer and who try to remove the tumors themselves rather than hire a surgeon. I am just pointing out that some matters are not DYI; I appreciate that they have a problem, but I also know that there are some problems that need to be handled by professionals.

And I did point out the preponderance of the evidence standard. It's up to the plaintiff to meet that standard. Allegations are not facts.

In the comments I have the link to the United Ststes Trustee's Disgorge Motion.

Is item 18 pri,a facie documentation of a confession to fraud on the court by an officer?

Yes or No?

And that I'm not an attorney.

Where exactly is that rule book, about facing tyranny, cronyism, corruption and a crook so powerful that hecan become Lresident of the United States?

And exavtly what page mandates that a victim (who didn't evn graduate high school) ; must speak lime Winston Churchill, write like Mark Twain and have graduated summa cum laude in Law School?

...for which the admitted wrongdoer was already sanctioned.

But once people get a bee in their bonnet about something it can be pretty hard to persuade them that they might be in error about the whole thing. I hope the OP gets a clue and stops tilting at this particular windmill before some judge nails him with (possibly very expensive) Rule 11 sanctions - pro se litigants are bound by Rule 11 just like attorneys.

No, I hadn't seen that. Makes sense now; I guess I've been wasting electrons arguing about this.

Or maybe the brown acid.

Alex Jones is on his side though!!!! WINNING!

Info Wars producer is following me LinkedIn

But they've never addressed me, or the cases

Directly

You have not taken on a single salient point;
and providex any proof to the contray.

Very weak of you, considering there's (at least) 50 crimes alleged.

Just because you join the mob to dance on a victims grave; doesn't give validity to your banter.

You have an agenda and you're sticking to it no matter what anyone says. It is up to you, not me, to prove your facts. All I can say is, good luck to you and watch out for Rule 11.

But - Never Once - a single solitary point direct.

As for Rule 11; I'm begging for a day in court

I sure wish the pathetic parties feigning to adjudicate upon the merits

Would Try!

The Learning. Company merged with Mattel;
which is here in El Segundo.

Fingerhut (another major crime) harm was here.

Kay Bee fraud on eToys was here

And eToys was located (still ) here in So Cal

If you did more than the Evelyn Wood speed reading of the brief; you'd know those FACTS.

Finally

The harm to my business is in So Cal
Goldman Sachs is here
Bain Capital is in Ca.
Barry Gold comes here to handle eToys
And
Romney livees in La Jolla

Delaware bankruptcy court is breaking the law; and illegally (permanently) Ordered the clerk to bar my filings.

RICO can be filed in any federal court

That the DOJ public corruption task force was

Shut down (in Lis Angeles)

And that career federal agents were threatened to silence (see "Shake-up roils fexeral prosecutors" - L. A. Times March 2008)

If, as you counselor(s) stipulate (that any attorney would foam at the chance to nail Romney;

Whyis it that my contract guarantees.legal fees, when the parties have confessed to lying under oath 33 times ( to a Chief federal justice) and thst my court approved contracts also contains rock solid Indemnification clauses;

That the chief judge let the confessed liars (Perjury) supplicate a forgery ststing I waived my right to compensation?


[br][hr][br]

Or are you REALLY going to say you avcept the (absurd) premise that

I waived my rights to be paid $3.7 million dollars!

...you shone like the sun.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
You were caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom, blown on the steel breeze.
Come on you target for faraway laughter, come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!

You reached for the secret too soon
...you cried for the moon.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Threatened by shadows at night, and exposed in the light.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Well you wore out your welcome with random precision, rode on the steel breeze.
Come on you raver, you seer of visions, come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!

And (btw) I adore your sig line....

Problem is - no matter how much evidence you have (and I've got confessions)
when it is Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital & Romney v Laser Haas

Laser Haas is going to lose - unless someone significant says evidence is evidence.

http://petters-fraud.com/clockd_apr14_di_69_motion_for_and_3rd_amended_complaint.pdf

Original
http://petters-fraud.com/haas_v_romney_filed_oct18_central_dist_fed_ct_la_calif_3_47_pm.pdf

First Amended
http://petters-fraud.com/haas_v_romney_1st_amended_complaint_filed_november6_2013.pdf

Later or in the morning.

As anyon can plainly see - the only attorney who can represent me. (Because of how powerful they are) is one either, retiring, moving to another country

Or dying.

When an amoeba throws the (verbal) stones

And G-D hasnt yet decided to fell Goliath

----- Uh Oh!

And I challenge any purported counselor, judge and/ or any other legal eagle

To adjudicate upon the merits;
without banter, hyperbole or conjecture.

Prove me wrong in deed; not by babble long!

One need only document the fact that 2 "Predicate Acts" (a lust of crimes under Title 18, United States Code § 1961 - occured - within a protracted leriod of time (usually 2 to 10 years) that harmed your ( interstate commerce) business by a pattern viaculpable persons.

Section 1961 also includes Bankruptcy Fraud §§ 152 through 156;

Which MNAT, Paul Traub and Barry Gold already confessed violatiing

But were never prisecuted for

------ Because MNAT partner Colm Connolly

Became the Delaware United States Attorney

On August 2nd, 2001

After being an MNAT partner since March 1999

[br][hr][br]

Romney's claiming to be "retroactively" retired from Augyst 2001; back to February 11, 1999

Is a fact - as is Connolly's DIJ OLP Resume

Undisputable

Mitt bragged he gets millions every yesr from Bain

All I need to document is that Bain Cap

benefited from the fraud.

That's why they are trying so hard

To BURY this case. The very fact that MNAT, Traub and Barry Gold already confezsed to lying under oath

Makes the case for me; cause they all work

For Bain!

Strange (yet encouraging) posturing.