What follows is a document compiled by attorney John Sisk regarding a potential lawsuit against nationwide government collusion under the RICO act. Please read the suit and the enclosed document and leave your comments below.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OCCUPY LOS ANGELES
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
1st Cause of Action: RICO
2nd Cause of Action: Negligence
COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS in this Federal Lawsuit, organized and speaking as one from a General Assembly comprised from citizens of this community and recognized as the political movement OCCUPY LOS ANGELES (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and do bring this Federal Complaint for the purposes of ferreting out and addressing the rampant corruption, inequity and anti-social behavior plaguing their community of Los Angeles and around this nation.
Plaintiffs, as members of this community and nation, have standing to bring this Federal Complaint against the members comprising their own United States Department of Justice and United States House Judiciary Committee in order to receive answers and in some cases remedy and even removal of those Public Servant members who have demonstrated recognized and indisputable behaviors contrary to the oaths of their office which they have taken and the laws of this nation which they have sworn to uphold.
Plaintiffs have become aware of numerous specific instances of corrupt and even collusive behavior displayed by members comprising their own offices of public service in both their United States Department of Justice and in their Federal Judiciaries across this nation. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have discovered the recognizable emergence of entities in these Public Service Offices which operate in distinctly defensive patterns in order to protect themselves from the illumination of the cooperation, collusion and corruption inherent and being displayed by some of their members.
Plaintiffs bring this Federal Complaint seeking removal of not only those members contained within these Public Service Offices identified and proven to be corrupt but also seeking answers from these Public Service Offices, themselves, for why such unorthodox measures are even necessary by the citizens of this community and this country regarding offices for Public Service which would appear and even purport to be self-policing.
1. Defendants in this lawsuit are:
A: The United States Department of Justice, a self explicative entity covered in Section 1961of the RICO Act.
B: The United States Committee on the Judiciary also known as the House Judiciary Committee also covered in Section 1961 of the RICO Act.
Plaintiffs do not know the true names of defendants named as DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, and therefore sues them by such fictitious names. However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that all said defendants named as DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, are employees/members of defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and/or one of its UNITED STATES FEDERAL BARS. When the names, capacities and relationship of defendants named as DOES 1 through 200 are ascertained, they will be alleged by amendment to this Complaint.
2. Jurisdiction of this Federal Court is invoked according to the Rules of Federal
Court pertaining to an action pursuant to United States Statute Title 18, Chapter 96 of the United States Statutes more commonly known as the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) which has been specifically reserved for our United States District Courts within that Congressional enactment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: RICO
3. Plaintiff incorporates, herein by reference, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 2 as though set out in full herein.
4. In August of 2011 author and current member in both the United States 5th and 9th Circuit Federal BARS, JOHN R. SISK, published a book documenting varied and specific instances of what would appear to be blatant corrupt and collusive practices perpetrated by members of our United States Judiciary and even including participants in our United States Departments of Justice Offices located in California, Louisiana and Washington, D.C.
5. In order to circumvent any conceivable objections regarding clarity or ambiguity potentially proffered by these named defendants in this proceeding, said documented and identified instances of collusive and corrupt behavior have been detailed in the free publication entitled: A Letter to CAS which is posted for viewing and reading at the free internet domain address www.indiegogo.com. (and also on Plaintiffs’ own website www.occupylosangeles.com)
6. Said publication includes, but is not limited to, an instance where a United States District Court Judge (USDC Judge DEE D. DRELL) stepped in and unilaterally dismissed 13 named Public Servant defendants in a Federal lawsuit pursuant to the RICO before many were even served with notice and a copy of the RICO lawsuit against them. In short, USDC Judge DRELL simply abandoning his judicial post as an independent and neutral arbitrator of a United States District Court legal proceeding in order to assume the position as attorney, representative and even the defense attorney for these 13 named Public Servants. A judicial measure so shockingly abhorrent to our United States Rules of Court as to describe this violation as not just corrupt but collusive, since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure EXPRESSLY prohibit any USDC Judge from even attempting to weigh the validity of any factual contention contained in a United States District Court complaint prior to the appearance by the named defendants. Again, in short, USDC Judge DRELL merely acted in a collusive fashion in order to protect these public servants (his apparent purported “legal clients”) from even being required to appear and/or answer the allegations of corruption leveled against them while in office.
7. Said publication goes on to illuminate that once an appeal was made to the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, for the premature dismissal of these public servants who had been called upon to answer for the federal allegations of racketeering made against them from their public service offices, then another singular member of our United States BAR (USCA5 Judge THOMAS M. REAVELLY) unilaterally stepped in and ordered that all appellate briefs filed by both petitioner and all responsive appellate briefs filed on behalf of these named public servants simply be concealed from view by any United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing panel. Thereby judicially circumventing any review of USDC Judge DEE D. DRELL’s own improprieties.
8. Said publication then goes on to further document that members contained in our own United States Department of Justice not only witnessed these aforementioned acts of corruption and collusive practices by these United States Judiciary members but then kept quiet about these clear judicial violations and improprieties which they had each just witnessed occur. As did numerous other members contained within our United States judiciary including but not limited to USDC Judges R. GARY KLAUSNER, TOM STAGG, RICHARD T. HAIK, Sr. and ROBERT JAMES.
9. Each and every aforementioned allegation as well as each and every allegation contained in the publication A Letter to CAS is a matter of Public Records of this nation and easily discoverable by these named defendants and, in fact, is already contained within each defendant’s own records. Each named defendant being a participant of those improprieties through its members. As such, plaintiffs are relieved of their duties through discovery to produce documents and records pertaining to these alleged improprieties which already comprise defendants own files.
10. Each and every member of our United States Judiciary is required to swear or affirm an oath pursuant to United States statute 28 USCS 453 prior to taking office insuring that they will not only actively work to eradicate political influence and corruption from our courts but insuring that none will look the other way or keep quiet regarding such instances of impropriety in their midst or entering within each’s realm of awareness. Each and every member of our United States Department of Justice is similarly required to swear or affirm such an oath.
11. And further insuring these aforestated judicial ends, our United States House Judiciary Committee has been created and operates in order to police and enforce just such stated judicial ends. OeHowever, it would appear that ample evidence now exists to support Plaintiffs’ awareness and even contention that our United States Judiciaries have not only become infiltrated and politicized but on occasion even now appear to exhibit instances of distinctly defensive measures designed to protect the Federal Judiciary from the illumination of corruption and politicization concerning its own members. Similar collusive behavior is now evident in our United States Department of Justice and said collusive and corrupted behavior is expressly prohibited by the express Congressional enactment found in United States Title 18, Chapter 96.
12. Aforesaid awareness further exemplified by the televised events regarding Monica Goodling in our United States Department of Justice who, yet again, admitted in front of a Congressional hearing that she was aware of the impropriety and even illegality which she was committing while in office while remaining entirely immune from prosecution or address by any member contained within the offices of these two named defendants.
13. Aforesaid awareness further exemplified by David Iglesias and Bud Cummins who simply refused to bring the prosecutions of what were clearly politically motivated prosecutions against innocent defendants and/or resisted corrupted political elements contained within their United States Public Service Offices and instead of being heralded by these named defendants were instead fired or demoted from their Public Service office positions.
14. Aforesaid awareness further exemplified by the legal anomaly occurring when the highest ranking member in defendant the United States Department of Justice (United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) simply availed himself of the 5th Amendment in order not to be forced to incriminate himself in criminal conduct regarding questions posed to him about his official duties while in office. And yet, Gonzales was simply allowed to step down from office without a single inquest or even investigation into his rather unprecedented conduct while holding this nation’s highest Justice Department Office.
15. The list of improprieties can go on, of course, and will with the supplementation of evidence discerned through the subpoena power, deposition power and other discovery tools designed to assist Plaintiffs in further perfecting this United States Federal Complaint against these named defendants. But what is perceptibly clear to plaintiffs is that members contained within each of these named Public Service Offices appear to now exhibit Public Service Office organisms which will display distinctly defensive mechanisms designed to conceal corruption, collusion and/or impropriety of its members rather than the illumination and exorcism of same.
16. The front page of the October 15th, 2011 edition of the New York Times ran headlines illuminating a new tone being set in this Country setting an initial precedent which heretofore had never been observed by this nation’s judiciaries when Bishop Robert W. Finn was indicted for “looking the other way” and failing to take affirmative steps to protect this nation’s children from the predatory activities of Priests known to the Catholic Church to possess pedophilic and/or pornographic tendencies.
17. Bishop Finn’s case fosters in a NEW ERA in this nation where those who choose to hold such high levels of trust and public service will no longer be allowed the luxury nor benefit of “looking the other way” when impropriety occurs within their midst and will be held accountable for not just their improper actions but their improper inactions. Admittedly Bishop Finn not being held to nor even taking any oath of Public Service to the citizens of this nation like the named defendants herein.
18. In short, Plaintiffs allege here just exactly what our own United States and State Justice Department Offices have alleged previously in their own RICO cases against corrupt and colluding individuals in our New York City Police Department, in our Miami Police Department, in our Office of Louisiana Governor and others. Again in short, that certain members contained within these Public Service Office/Agencies are corrupt and even act in collusive manners while other members are wholly aware of these racketeering activities yet remain mute in order to preserve the sanctity and legitimacy of the organization as a whole perhaps giving rise to a new recognized phrase: “The Black Wall of Silence”. A newly recognized enigmatic condition which is somewhat in keeping and collateral with that phrase first coined by the United States Knapp Commission: “The Blue Wall of Silence” when referring to those Public Service Office members contained in this nations Police Departments rather than its Courts.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE
19. Plaintiff incorporates, herein by reference, each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs 1 through 18 as though set out in full herein.
20. In the early 1970s United States Senator Knapp initiated the congressionally funded Knapp Commission hearings in order to attempt to discover to what extent the presence of corrupt and collusive employees contained within our offices of Public Service were to be then present. And what this United States Federally funded Commission found was that 1 in 10 public servants contained within our offices of Public Service was “absolutely corrupt”. This Commission going on to coin the phrase “The Blue Wall of Silence” regarding the 8 in 10 other members in any Public Service office who would simply look the other way and not talk about the corrupt and collusive behaviors occurring within their Public Service department. Leaving only 1 in 10 left in any Public Service office to be accurately described as “absolutely honest”. The Congressionally funded Moellen commission then studied in 1992 the enigma of the 8 in 10 members of any Public Service office who would claim to be ignorant of the corruption and impropriety occurring within their Public Service Office and found that ignorance to be properly labeled in most cases: “A willful ignorance” by those 8 in 10 member group.
21. Plaintiffs proffer that the Public Service Offices of our United States Federal Judiciary and our United States Department of Justice should have no distinction in its members drawing only from those contained within the 1 in 10 members of any Public Service office who can be accurately described as “absolutely honest”. Thereby removing from either of these identified Public Service Offices each and every member who can either be accurately described as “absolutely corrupt” or even those who appear to exhibit instances of “A willful ignorance” regarding improprieties occurring within their Public Service Office.
22. Plaintiffs further proffer those Public Servants illuminated in this Federal Complaint, following discovery, and prior to trial who are willing to relinquish their veil of protection inherent in a lifetime appointment to our offices of Public Service and voluntarily step down from office will be recognized as guilty of the 2nd Cause of Action listed in this Federal Complaint. However, any unwilling to avail themselves of this option will be fervently pursued in order to raise their own culpability to at a minimum “A willful ignorance” regarding ANY corruption and impropriety identified while occupying their office of Public Service and Trust thus securing their placement in the 1st Cause of Action listed in this Federal Complaint.
23. Plaintiffs further proffer that those Public Servants who do not enjoy a lifetime appointment but still occupy one of our Offices of Public Service (i.e., those in our United States Department of Justice) following discovery and prior to trial will be afforded the same option with the additional caveat that they contractually agree to refrain from seeking any other office of Public Service in this nation for a period of twenty years or as deemed appropriate by Judge or Jury.
24. In short, since previous legal/judicial/political precedent already exists, Plaintiffs extend the very same apparent offer of abdication from Office as that extended to United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Failure of any of which to avail themselves results in this remaining a United States Federal Court Complaint pursuant to the RICO against any remaining defendant at jury trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
Just as with each previous prosecution instituted by our United States Department of Justice targeting members in this Nation’s Offices of Public Service previously, Plaintiffs are seeking no monetary recovery in this Federal Complaint but rather ONLY to begin to clean up the corruption, politicization and collusion which appear to now be evident within members of both named Defendants. Paradoxically enough, the very duties that Defendants themselves are statutorily and ethically obligated to fulfill without the necessity of this Federal Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek the immediate removal of any remaining member illuminated to exhibit behaviors contrary in any respect to those commonly described as “absolutely honest”. In short, those found to have either participated in corrupt activities in their official duties or even to be described as exhibiting tendencies of “A willful ignorance” regarding those who do engage in corrupt or collusive behavior.
Any Attorneys Fees incurred in the prosecution of this Federal Complaint;
All costs of suit incurred by Plaintiff, including but not limited to costs of expert witnesses, deposition fees, filing fees, witness fees, costs and expenses including but not limited to travel, court, filing and all other costs relevant and associated with the preparation, prosecution and presentation of this United States lawsuit;
Any and all other remedies, and other equitable relief granted by this court, and for such damages as may be reasonable and/or appropriate in the premises.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff further prays for a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury herein and reserves their right to amend this complaint upon the discovery of additional causes of action amenable to them following discovery measures.
OCCUPY LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff