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 [Link],
)
Internet Domain [Link],
)
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,
)
Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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.,
[Link], 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,
[Link], Inc.,
X Mission, L.C., and
Does 121 thru 2,500,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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.

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

[Link]
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.

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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).

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

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

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

During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D.,

26

all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission

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).

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

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(c) supra.

Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, 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.

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

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

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

At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiffs

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

During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D.,

27

all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission

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).

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e.

a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities, also

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

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.

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,

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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:

2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find

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

3. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find

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

during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from

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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

persons

officers,

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily

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

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily

during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from

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

during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from

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,

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily

all

all

directors,

That

and

their

employees,

6.

servants

of

13

agents,

and

acts

of

That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants

18

for Plaintiffs actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or

19

advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)

20

supra, according to the best available proof.

21

8.

That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages,

22

under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or

23

advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)

24

supra, according to the best available proof.

25

9.

That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by

26

Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants several violations of 18

27

U.S.C. 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof.

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

Page 15 of 21

10.

That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the lawsuit

incurred

herein

research,

all

counsels

fees,

(Plaintiffs standard professional rate at start of this action).

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,

profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their

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

That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court

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

6. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find

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

7. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find

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

agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in

28

participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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,

agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in

participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency

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

agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in

14

participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency

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

That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants

23

for Plaintiffs actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or

24

advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)

25

supra, according to the best available proof.

26
27

8.

That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages,

under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

Page 17 of 21

advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)

supra, according to the best available proof.

9.

That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by

Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants several violations of 18

U.S.C. 1962(d) supra, according to the best available proof.

10.

That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the lawsuit

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

(Plaintiffs standard professional rate at start of this action).

11.

That

all

damages

caused

by

all

Defendants,

and

all

gains,

12

profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their

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,

That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court

19

deems

just

and

proper,

under

the

full

range

of

20

circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.

21

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

triple damage multiplier (3x):

$491,400,000.00

trademark infringements, actual:

$163,800,000.00

triple damage multiplier (3x):

$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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

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:

Initial COMPLAINT for Civil RICO Remedies:

Page 21 of 21