THE ENTIRE RACKETEERED INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION LAW CAN BE FOUND AS FOLLOWS:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html

“THE 50 UNITED STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR” WILL SHOW AND PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS FOLLOWS THAT:

(1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment. United States v. Phillips, 664 F. 2d 971, 1011 (5th Cir. Unit B Dec. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S. Ct. 1265, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1354 (1982).

#1

THE “INTERNATIONAL/TRANSNATIONAL “BIOTERRORIST PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION” IS AN ENTERPRISE AND CONTINUES TO FUNCTION AS AN ENTERPRISE AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(4) CONSIST AND/OR CONTINUE TO CONSIST OF ONE OR MORE AS FOLLOWS:

Individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, or other legal entity, or a union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity 18 U.S.C.A. §  1961(4) (West 1984). Many courts have noted that Congress mandated a liberal construction of the RICO statute in order to effectuate its remedial purposes by holding that the term “enterprise” has an expansive statutory definition. United States v. Delano, 825 F. Supp. 534, 538-39 (W.D.N.Y. 1993), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 55 F. 3d 720 (2d Cir. 1995), cases cited therein.

#2

THE “INTERNATIONAL/TRANSNATIONAL “BIOTERRORIST PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE” COMMITTED MULTIPLE PREDICATE ACTS 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) AND ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY WITHIN TEN YEARS OF EACH OTHER AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5) ACTS OF RACKETEERING WITHIN TEN YEARS 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5)OF EACH OTHER ENGAGED INAS FOLLOWS:

A SUMMARY PROCEEDING LAWSUIT – UNLAWFUL DETAINER(WHICH REQUIRES STRICT COMPLAINCE WITH CALIFORNIA LAW BECAUSE IT IS A SUMMARY PROCEEDING)THE “TWO YEAR” UNLAWFUL DETAINER LAWSUIT(A SUMMARY PROCEEDING WHICH REQUIRES STRICT COMPLAINCE WITH CALIFORNIA LAW)

KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY FALSE INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION TO COERCE BOTH SHARON AND/OR JAMES TO ENTER RENTAL AGREEMENT TO HELP ADVANCE THE TWO WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:

CONTRACT PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY TWO PREDICATE ACTS WITHIN TEN YEARS(2 STIPULATED JUDGMENTS AS FOLLOWS), TWO PREDICATE ACTS WITHIN TEN YEAR PERIOD AS FOLLOWS:

PREDICATE ACTS – 2006

Hayes Valley Limited Partnership a Public/Private Partnership ”
State nowingly, intentionallly, willfully, acted under the color of Federal and/or State law, discriminated against both Sharon Bridgewater and/or James S. Bridgewater socialAfrican American “Real Estate” Minority Business Owners, ” on the account of race, class, socio-economic status, disability and/or religion denied and/or deprive one or both witnesses one or more of the two witnesses1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 14th 18 U.S. Code § 242, THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS.

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, 

• knowingly and willfully, filed “under seal” 
• falsified, concealed, or covered up by trick, scheme, or device a material fact;  made a material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation about Bridgewater a party not part of that proceeding; or
• made or used a false writing or document knowing the same to contain a material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; (“exploited Bridgewater’s name-identity theft”) about Bridgewater a party not part of the judicial proceeding in violation of 18 USC section Code section 1001 

PREDICATE ACT #1 MAIL FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S. Code § 1341

 (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts).”

California law requires a landlord to enter the “total exact amount due in dollars and cents” which the below does not have!

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, 

NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT

PREDICATE ACT #2

FALSE DECLARATIONS ETC. ABUSE OF PROCESS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, the malicious and deliberate misuse of regularly issued civil or criminal court process that is not justified by the underlying legal action.

hayes Valley Limited Partnership(the “Public/Private” Partnership)Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1623

PREDICATE ACT #3

SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BOTH SHARON AND/OR JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER, VIA ONE OR MORE MAIL FRAUD, WIRE FRAUD, EXTORTION UNDER THE COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT, IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE HOBBS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1951,

THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE MADE A “INTENTIONAL FALSE COMMUNICATION VIA A STIPULATED JUDGMENT(CONTAINS MOST IF NOT ALL PROVISION WHICH VIOLATES U.S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT(HUD) POLICIES AND WHICH WAS NOT DUE PROCESS OF LAW)THE JUDGMENT WAS TO COERCE AND/OR THREATEN THE TWO WITNESSES TO GIVE MONEY THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO, IN EXCHANGE TO REMAIN IN THE HOUSING UNIT, IT WAS DONE WITH THE INTENT TO EXTORT MONEY OR TO THREATEN BOTH THE WITNESS, AND WAS DONE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS OFFICIAL ACT.

THE CRIMINAL ENTERPI

• Communication;
• Threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another,
• With intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will.

 “public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.”

One or more knowingly, intentionally, gentionally abused the court

H

PREDICATE ACT #4

FALSE DECLARATIONS ETC. ABUSE OF PROCESS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, the malicious and deliberate misuse of regularly issued civil or criminal court process that is not justified by the underlying legal action.

hayes Valley Limited Partnership(the “Public/Private” Partnership)Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain

PREDICATE ACT #5 MAIL FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S. Code § 1341

 (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (

PREDICATE ACT #6 MAIL FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S. Code § 1341

 (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts).”

California law requires a landlord to enter the “total exact amount due in dollars and cents” which the below do

SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BOTH SHARON AND/OR JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER, VIA ONE OR MORE MAIL FRAUD, WIRE FRAUD, EXTORTION UNDER THE COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT, IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE HOBBS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1951,

THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRIZE MADE A “INTENTIONAL FALSE COMMUNICATION VIA A STIPULATED JUDGMENT(CONTAINS MOST IF NOT ALL PROVISION WHICH VIOLATES U.S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT(HUD) POLICIES AND WHICH WAS NOT DUE PROCESS OF LAW)THE JUDGMENT WAS TO COERCE AND/OR THREATEN THE TWO WITNESSES TO GIVE MONEY THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO, IN EXCHANGE TO REMAIN IN THE HOUSING UNIT, IT WAS DONE WITH THE INTENT TO EXTORT MONEY OR TO THREATEN BOTH THE WITNESS, AND WAS DONE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS OFFICIAL ACT.

THE CRIMINAL ENTERPI

• Communication;
• Threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another,
• With intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will.

 “public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.”

One or more knowingly, intentionally, gentionally abused the court

PREDICATE ACT #3 – 2007

PREDICATE ACT #4 – 2007

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, 

NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE TWO WITNESSES, FALSE INTENTIONAL MISRESPRESATION, WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD, ABUSE OF COURT, FALSE DECLARTIONS, EXTORTION UNDER THE COLOR OF OFFICAL RIGHT

THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

#3

THE “INTERNATIONAL/TRANSNATIONAL “BIOTERRORIST PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE” ARE RELATED AND THEY AMOUNT TO OR PROSE A THREAT OF CONTINUED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY(THEY HAVE THE SAME OR SIMILAR PURPOSE, RESULTS, PARTICIPANTS, VICTIMS OR METHODS OF COMMISSION AND/OR ARE OTHERWISE INTERRELATED BY DISTINQUING CHARACTERISTIST AND ARE NOT ISOLATED EVENTS AS FOLLOWS: ARE AND ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY WITHIN TEN YEARS OF EACH OTHER AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5) ACTS OF RACKETEERING WITHIN TEN YEARS 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5)OF EACH OTHER ENGAGED INAS FOLLOWS:

“. The government must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Id. Racketeering predicates are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. Id. at 240, 109 S. Ct. at 2901; Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Florida, 937 F. 2d 447, 450 (9th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, the degree in which these factors establish a pattern may depend on the degree of proximity, or any similarities in goals or methodology, or the number of repetitions. United States v. Indelicato, 865 F. 2d 1370, 1382 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 811, 110 S. Ct. 56, 107 L. Ed. 2d 24 (1989).

Continuity refers either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 241-42, 109 S. Ct. at 2902. A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Id. Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement as Congress was concerned with RICO in long-term criminal conduct. Id.