A FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR IN THIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN RENDERED AND/OR AJUDICATED!! ALL STATUTORY CLASS REPRESENTATIVES(AND STATUTORY MEMBERS) ARE ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THE ALLEGATION OF THIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING!!

FINAL ADJUDICATION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE “50 STATES” EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR VS. ALL STATUTORY “RICO” CRIMINAL CLASS ACTION REPRESENATIVES IN THIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING!!

THE RACKETEERED INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT(RICO) IN PERTINENT PART STATES:

A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.(SEE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN REM-THIS WEBSITE)

Collateral estoppel is a doctrine of finality designed to limit relitigation of issues previously determined. RICO, in section 1964(d), explicitly provides for the use of collateral estoppel by the United States in a civil action following a RICo criminal prosecution.

(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law

(1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962;

(2) any

(A) interest in;

(B) security of;

(C) claim against; or

(D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over;

any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and

(3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b) Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes

(1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and

(2) tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities.

(c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes in a hearing pursuant to subsection (l) that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section.

(d)

(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) for forfeiture under this section

(A) upon the filing of an indic

 The Appellant Bridgewater has a legally protectable stake and/or interest and has a dispute that entitles her to bring this controversy before the court.  The controversy that exist between Donald Trump in his official capacity  et al and the Appellant Sharon Bridgewater. 

FORFEIT/WARRANTS OF ARREST IN REM FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OFFICES, THE U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE OFFICES, ETC. AND OTHER “INTERNATIONAL AND/OR NATIONAL PUBLIC OFFICES!!”

ADJUDICATION, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RETROACTIVE FORFEITURE/WARRANTS OF ARREST IN REM FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT,” THE U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE OFFICES, ETC. AND OTHER “INTERNATIONAL AND/OR NATIONAL PUBLIC OFFICES!!(SUCCESSORS AND/OR PREDECESSORS FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT)

U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE(AND ALL GLOBAL CENTRAL BANKS)

Kevin Warsh NEW FEDERAL RESERVE DIRECTOR – JOINED BY WRIT – DEATH WARRANT