COMES NOW THE TWO WITNESSES STATE IN OPEN COURT, DECREE, ORDER, ADJUDGE(SENTENC THAT JOE BIDEN, DONALD TRUMP, MERRICK GARLAND ET AL IS GULITY OF TREASON IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

FORFEITS ALL PROPERTY TO “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AND BY OPERATION OF LAW FORFEITS PUBLIC OFFICE(SEE BELOW)

IN RE “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR

VS.

JOE BIDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS U.S. PRESIDENT(CRIMINAL CLASS DEFENDANTS AND/OR RESPONDENT REPRESENTATIVE)THE WHITE HOUSE, U.S. CAPITOL BUILDING, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, The Pentagon, “CRIMINAL” KAMALA HARRIS IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE PRESIDENT “CRIMINAL” CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, MERRICK GARLAND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL “CRIMINAL CLASS REPRESENTATIVE,

EXECUTIVE ORDER – TO DEFRAUD ALL U.S. CITIZENS OUT OF MONEY AND/PROPERTY FORCE U.S. CITIZENS INTO SLAVERY

on behalf of one or more

INCLUDE A LIST OF DEFENDANTS AND/OR RESPONDENTS HERE

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/22/1039293816/covid-delta-variant-fda-commissioner

Food and Drug Adminstrator(FDA)Dr. Robert Califf and/or Commissioner Stephen Hahn Hahn and FDA vaccine chief Peter Marks(and Predecessors from Jan. 1, 1993 and continuing thru to present)

The United States Federal Reserve, all Central Banks, all State Banks, Hayes Valley Limited Partnership, $1,000,000,000,000,000.00(Quadrillion )in currency(all currency including but not limited to all currency including the U.S. Dollar and/or Digital Dollar, the Chinese Yuan and/or digital yuan, Russian ruble and/or digital ruble, India rupee and/or digital rupee, etc. all cryptocurrency including but not limited to Bitcoin, USD Coin, King Charles III’s coin etc.) all tangible(including but not limited to The White House, The U.S. Department of Justice, The Department of Defense, The Supreme Court, The District Court of Columbia, The U.S. District Court of Appeals, All bank owned Real Estate[REO’s] Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac properties, McCormack Baron Salazar properties, SunAmerica Affordable Housing Partners properties etc. and intangible property(including but not limited to all types of Digital ledger Technology and/or Blockchains, Cern, ICANN, Petroleum, crude oil, fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, any and all contractual right affording a source of influence over an enterprise including but not limited to water rights via legal entitlement authorizing water to be diverted from a specified source, water, land, Papers, records, books, journals, ledgers, accounts, statements, memoranda, reports, invoices, work sheets, work papers, notes, transcriptions of notes, letters, correspondence, communications, abstracts, checks, diagrams, plans, blueprints, specifications, pictures, drawings, films, photographs, graphic representations, diaries, calendars, desk calendars, pocket calendars, lists, logs, publications, advertisements, press releases, facsimilies, newspapers, magazines, instructions, minutes, orders, bills, purchase orders, messages, resumes, summaries, for case, graphs, charts, appraisals, analytical records, reports, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, trade letters, agreements, contracts, letters of intent, telegrams, telexes, cables, recordings, audio tapes, magnetic tapes, visual tapes, transcripts of tapes or recordings, computer disks, tapes and cards, information stored in or accessible through computer or other information retrieval systems, including hard copies of electronic mail or information contained on computer hard drives, or any other writings or tangible or electronic things on which any handwriting, typing, printing, audio, visual, photographic or other forms of communication or information which are recorded or reproduced, goods and chattels, or credits and effects in the hands of garnishees to be named in the process ALL TANGIBLE AND INTANGLE PROPERTY, INCLUDING but not limited to intellectual property

brands and logos
product names
inventions and products
original software
designs
shape and appearance of a product
music
books
poems
paintings
photography
other kinds of creative work
ICANN

patents
trade marks
copyright
designs

NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND THIS WEBPAGE AND/OR CLAIM TO ADD ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS AND/OR RESPONDENTS AVIA PRAECIPE TO JOIN ADDITIONAL “CRIMINAL” DEFENDANTS AND/OR RESPONDENTS

IN ADDITION

.

COMES NOW SHARON[DAVIS-ABUSALEM]BRIDGEWATER VIA “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE 50 STATES(MY SON TWO VICTIMS AND FEDERAL WITNESSES INJURED AND DAMAGED IN BUSINESS, PERSON OR PROPERTY WITH FIRST HAND FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT(CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION, RENDERED DISABLED BY THEIR HEINOUS ACTS OR OMISSION FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING, RESTRAINED FROM INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE BY CORRUPT U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, INCLUDING BIDEN, HARRIS, ALL U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, ALL GOVERNORS, ETC.[A.K.A. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES] ACTING IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL WITH AN “INTERNATIONAL ADOLPH HITLER SATANIC BIOTERRORIST BIOLOGICAL WARFARE TERRORIST GROUP ENTERPRISE – RING -JACOB ROTHCHILD “LITERALLY” SATANIST, LUCIFERIAN, AND OWNER AND CONTROLLER OF MOST IF NOT ALL “GLOBAL” CENTRAL BANKS, ALL CURRENCIES, THE U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE ETC. TO DEFRAUD MY SON AND I, “TWO WITNESSES” OUT OF MONEY AND/OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW) ON BEHALF OF MY, SON, THE PEOPLE OF THE 50 STATES AND/OR HUMANITY VIA “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 50 STATES AND/OR THE PEOPLE OF THE 50 STATES PURSUANT THE CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT(RICO)SEE BELOW FOR DEFINITION, TO U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THE CORRAUTHORIZED REPRESENTIVE OF “THE 50 STATES AND/OR THE PEOPLE OF THE 50 PURSUANT TO TH CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION, RENDERED DISABLED BY THEIR HEINOUS ACTS OR OMISSION FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING TO JAN. 1, 2009 AND FURTHER CONTINUING THRU INTENTIONAL” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION BY PRESENT)“INJURED AND DAMAGED IN BUSINESS, PERSON OR PROPERTY, RESTRAINED FROM INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE BY JACOB ROTHCHILD(SATAN’S REPRESENTATIVE “LITERALLY” RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORONAVIRUS, HIV, ZIKA VIRUS, MONEY POX, TOMATO POX “LITERALLY” – SEE BELOW – PROOF” ) AND CO-CONSPIRATORS ONE OR MORE TRUMP, GARLAND, BIDEN, HARRIS, OBAMA “U.S. GOVERNMENT STATE ACTORS” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION, RENDERED DISABLED BY THEIR HEINOUS ACTS OR OMISSION FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING TO JAN. 1, 2009 AND FURTHER CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT AND THRUINTENTIONAL” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION AND THE RUNNING OF ANY STATUE OF LIMITATION TO ADMIRALTY AND/OR MARITIME CLAIMS AND/OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION(ETC.)IS NOT TIME BARRED ANDWITH FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED –

WITNESS WITH FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE AND STANDING, “THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE IN THE WORLD PERSON IN THE WORLD DENIED COURT ACCESS SINCE AUGUST 2008 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT, AUTHORIZE(SEE AFFIDAVIT – APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR THE 50 STATES)AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 50 STATES, AND/OR “INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTOR – AS IN INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTOR” AS IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

RETAILATED AGAINST IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S. Code § 1513 (ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, MY SON, ALL U.S. CITIZENS – “PEOPLE OF THE 50 STATES”) THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY AND/OR RELATOR STANDING!! COMES NOW “THE UNITED STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR PURSUANT 28 U.S.C. § 1651, AND ISSUE WRITS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE IN AID OF THIS ADMIRALTY AND/OR MARITIME TIME “COMMON LAW” ARREST WARRANTS, FORFEITURE, ETC.

(JACOB ROTHCHILD, “THE ROCKEFELLER’S AND THEIR ASSOCIATES ALL LIABLE FOR DAMAGES AND FORFEIT PROPERTY TO “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR” – SEE THE REST OF THIS WEBPAGE)

SEE BELOW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, BI-LATERAL CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, ARREST WARRANTS IN REM AND OTHER ADMIRALITY AND/OR MARITIME DOCUMENTS

PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT INCORPORATES THE FOLLOWING EXH. A AS FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN

THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR NOTICE OF DEMAND(CLASS REPRESENTATIVES BIDEN, HARRIS AND/OR GARLAND(ON BEHALF OF ALL U.S. LEGlSLATORS, CONGRESSMAN AND/OR WOMEN, FOREIGN OFFICIALS AND MAJOR CORPORATION FROM JAN 1, 1993 THRU TO PRESENT)REFUSE TO PAY!!

ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATES AS RICO(1961)(4)

“Office of the United States President”, “ Office of the United States Attorney”

“Office of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices” “Office of U.S. Legislators and/or Congressman”

A line of cases hold that any governmental agency, court, political office or the like could serve as a RICO “enterprise.” United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 999 (6th Cir. 1982)(en banc) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072 (1983). Among the government units that have been held to be “enterprises” are offices of governors and state legislators, courts, court clerks’ offices. See e.g., United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066, 1072-75 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Clark, 656 F.2d 1259, 1261-67 (8th Cir. 1981) Office of county judge); United States v. Frumento, 405 F. Supp. 23, 29-30 (E.D. Pa. 1975), affd, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977). cert, debued, 434 U.S. 1072 (1978).

In referring to the RICO liability of government offices the court thought it inconceivable that “in considering the ever more widespread tentacles of organized crime in the nation’s economic life, Congress intended to ignore an important aspect of the economy [simply] because it was state operated and state controlled ….” (563 F.2d at 1091.) Accepting defendants’ contentions would mean that “business organizatons legitimately owned and operated by the states, even though their activities substantially affect interstate commerce, would be open game for racketeers. [The court refused] to believe that Congress had such ‘tunnel-vision’ when it enacted the racketeering statute or that it intended to exclude from the protective embrace of this broad statute, designed to curb organized crime, state operated commercial ventures engaged in interstate commerce, or other governmental agencies regulating commercial and utility operations affecting interstate commerce.”Decisions after Frumento expanded government activity to every conceivable government agency, court, or political office. United States v. Thompson, 669 F.2d 1143 (6th Cir), revd 685 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1982)(en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072 (1983) The Enterprize “OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY .” AND “US PRESIDENT” AND CONSTITUTE A LEGAL ENTERPRIZE “OFFICE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OR JUDICIAL OFFICE” LEGAL ENTEPRIZE AND ASSOCIATION“OFFICE OF ELECTIONS”

Series of Documented Acts Comprising the RICO Offenses

A criminal racketeering enterprise requires a minimum of two contiguous acts to meet the legal definition of a racketeering enterprise. Dozens of such contiguous acts are documented including but not limited to:

Repeated cover-ups, from 1993 and continuing thru the filing of this complaint, by federal judges and State Judges of ongoing documented corruption in the government’s Office of the President(White House), Office of the Attorney .(Department of Justice),[law enforcement agencies in California, Georgia, Michigan] Office of HUD(The Department of HUD), “other US Governnent Agencies,” that enabled to occur a series of major fraud on the United States which is the direct and proximate cause of the financial economic collapse −including but not limited to US Government joint participaton with Contractors fraud, Corporations , Partnerships, lawyers fraud , (under the Biden(Harris) adminitrationand Obama Bush[Iraq War],Clinton Adminstration)
War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Repeated Terrorist Attacks, Repeated cover-ups of the criminal activities in overt and covert government operations that the Plaintiffs(the original source)discovered while a public housing facility.
The evidence of repeated conduct constituting “continual”obstruction of justice that they knew would continue to result in great harm to the two witnesses, U.S. Citizens and/or American people , the US Government, the US Treasury and to national security.
The evidence of repeated felony retaliation against Whistleblowers such as the Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater, and other Whistleblowers in the “Fast and furious,” “Benhi Scandle” etc. for attempting to report high-level crimes against the United States and to criminally halt ability to report such crimes.
The corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional seizure of the Plaintiff business and personal property to restrain commerce knowingly it would cause great harm and impair the Plaintiff ability to conduct commerce.
The corrupt, illegal, extortion and money laundering of US public housing tenants
The IRS corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional targeting of tea party members.
The illegal, unconstitutional “amendment” to our US Constitution right that violate US Citizens right to bear arms and/or our right to freedom of religion.
The corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional seizure of the AP Phone Records, violation of the “press” first amendment US Constitutional right.
The unconstitutional mandate of Obamacare.
Converting the courts, and their judicial positions, into a racketeering enterprise.
Perpetrating a series of predicate acts, that far exceeded the legal criteria for being a criminal racketeering enterprise.
Each of these criminal acts were compounded by the fact that they were perpetrated by people in positions of trust, who were paid to enforce the law.
Expanding on the number of parties involved in the series of predicate acts were the unknown−but suspected−Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice−(and his predesors)parties that were orchestrating the multiple schemes and conspiracies and protecting each of the criminal acts of each and every one.
Several US Senators and Congressman, confirming Todd Jones ATF director when they knew and were aware of a criminal pending investigation, and schemes to defraud the USA.

RICO Details

A criminal RICO racketeering organiztion crime requires:

Two or more related predicate acts, in a conspiracy. Predicate offenses are related if they have (a) the same or similar purposes, (b) results, (c) participants, (c) victims, or (d) methods of commission.
1. Same purposes. The participants’ purpose was to defraud the two witnesses out of money and/or property without due process of law, use trick, scheme, deception, money and/or property and/or the intangle right to honest services, “inflict” extreme emotional distress on the Plaintiffs and/or Petitioners and/or other Whistleblowers(such as in Swartz case)to block Sharon Bridgewater and/or James and other “COV-19 vaccine -injection”and other Whistleblowers, the press from reporting a continuing series of corrupt, with corporations, and criminal acts of public officials joint participation with Corporations, individuals, to defraud the USA involving key people in government.
2. Results. The results included hindering and halting Sharon Bridgewaters and/or other Whistleblowers and/or the press from reporting the crime and/or ability to properly report, publicize, and halt the ongoing corruption and conspiracy to defraud the USA.
3. Participants. The participants included the repeated acts by the same people and groups, public officials including US Presidents, federal judges, Justice Department employees, lawyers, California, Michigan and judges and others acting in joint participation with each other.
4. Victims. The victims included:
  - Repeated harm to The United States of America agenSharon Bridgewater et al, other Whistleblowers, and US Citizens(the USA) and/or the press. The harm consisted of seizing the Plaitniffs personal and business assets, depriving the Plaintifff Sharon Bridgewater and/or . the right to conduct commerce; depriving the Plaintiff and/or US Citizens and/or Whistleblower through a series of unlawful and unconstitutional judicial the rights and protections guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and constitution of the United States and/or the ability of IRS official to collect taxes, and/or the ability of the Plaintiffs, Whistleblowers and/or the Press to exercise their 1^st US Constitutonal amendment right to free speech.
  - People of the United States who were harmed by the series of criminal acts and the documents actions of federal judges, Justice Public Officials, Department ofthememployees et al, and others, that enabled the crimes and resulting harm to continue.
5. Method of commission. As it relates to the current and/or former presidents, public officials, federal judges and Justice Department participants, they perpetrated a series of acts including (a) failing to report the crime to congressional members and/or the US Government Oversight Committee members(b)labeling the Plaintiffs as a vexatious ligation (c)gross prosecutial misconduct(d)acts of violence against Whistleblower for attempting to report the ongoing crimes against the United States etc.(e)failing to change IRS tax laws.

The racketeering acts were related, the intent being to halt the reporting and publicizing of high-level criminal activities.
Their actions consisted of a continuing pattern of criminal activities.
All of the actions were continuing, from 1993 thru the filing of this complaint, and arguably continuing as judicial orders still exist in several federal courts attempting to bar the Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater and/or Whistleblowers and/or the Press from filing any papers in any federal district or appellate court. These orders knowingly obstructed justice by blocking the Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater et al from reporting major and deadly criminal activities against the United States; and blocked the Sharon Bridgewater, Whistleblowers et al from exercising federal defenses against the pattern of civil and constitutional, and criminal acts for which they are federal causes of actions for which federal defenses exist.
The predicate acts and conspiracy gravely affected interstate commerce, and caused, or enabled to occur, a continuing series of major fraud against the USA and/or the Plaintiff which is thedirect and proximate cause of the financial ecomomic collapse and also affects interstate commerce through criminal activities in the US Government of public officials, abuse of US Government power, committing criminal acts of bribery, corruption, and for pand acting outside their scope of authority and in their individual capacities.

RICO REQUIRES NO MORE THAN

SLIGHT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE

The Plaintiffs was damaged or injured in business or property. RICO Requires no more than a slight effect upon interstate commerce. United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47, 68 (1st Cir. 1989). United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985). cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1188 (1986).Predicate acts were related to the common purpose of the enterprise, defraud US taxpayers, Consumers, and/or Class Plainitff and being to halt Sharon Bridgewater and other Whistleblowers and/or the press from reporting and publicizing the ongoing criminal activities. See United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family, 683 F. Supp. 1411, 1437 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). All aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced or procured to defraud the US, taxpayers, and/or the Class Plaintiff and/or commit predicate acts as defined in 18 USC section 1961(5) and further Eric Holder and Obama obstructed justice. Further, Congress limited the force of Rule 8(b) by loosening the statutory requirements for what constitutes joint criminal activities. United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 561 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Castellano, 610 F.Supp. 1359, 1396 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). If a defendant is not named in a conspiracy or RICO count, he may be charged in a separate court, in the same indictment, if he is alleged to have participated in the same series of acts or transactions that constituted the conspiracy or RICO offense. Further as far as the RICO enterprize, some benefited from the enterprise, and some did not. The racketeering activity is not required to benefit the enterprise. (The participants in the scheme are not required to have personally profited, though some did. United States v. Killip, 819 F.2d 1542, 1`549 (10th Cir. 1987. )

Some defendants agreed to join conspiracy with knowledge that other members were to commit at least two acts of racketeering. United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1367 (8th Cir. 1988). See ‘ 1962(d), defendant agreed to join conspiracy with knowledge that other members were to commit at least two acts of racketeering.

In Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., 885 F.2d 1162 (3d Cir. 1989). The court held that Shearin, a pro se plaintiff, could recover for being fired, if she proved that it was an overt act in furtherance of an alleged ‘ 1962(d) conspiracy to bilk Hutton customers for trust services which were never performed. In Sedima the court noted that standing to sue under ” 1962(a)──(c) is based on proof that the predicate racketeering acts caused injury to plaintiff’s business or property. 473 U.S. at 495. The court also held that Sedina did not foreclose the possibility that harm arising from a conspiratorial overt act, distinct from the predicate acts listed in ‘ 1961(1), could confer standing under ‘ 1962(d). 885 F.2d at 1169-70.

Defendant was aware of the “essential nature” of the enterprise, which was a group of persons associated for the purpose of luring people into rigged card games. United States v. Joseph, 835 F.2d 1149, 1152 (6th Cir. 1987); in United States v. Gallo, 667 F. Supp. 1359, 1401, (S.D.N.Y. 1985), the defendant must have knowledge of the enterprise and at least some of its criminal activities; Defendant must have been aware of at least the . existence of the enterprise (United States v. Castellano, 610 F.Supp. 1359, 1401 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); in order to prove RICO conspiracy count government must show the existence of a “unified agreement to participate in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering ….”

The court held that § 1962(c) does not require concerted criminal activity, only that an individual commit at least two acts of racketeering while participating in the conduct of an enterprise. United States v. Castallano, 610 F.Supp. 1359, 1392-1396 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Id at 1394.

RICO Violations Involving A
Continuing Series of ATTACK ON THE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER WHISTLEBLOWERS

Dozens of separate predicate acts were perpetrated to block Sharon Bridgewater and/or Whistleblowers and/or the press from reporting ongoing criminal activities in high-level overt and covert operations involving government employees. That constituted claims under ‘ 1962(a),(b), (c), and (d), in factual allegations.

1. RICO violators within the Office of the President, Office of the Attorney ., Office of HUD, et al conspired with each other to halt the former Sharon Bridgewater and/or other Whistleblowers, “ the press” to disclose their major fraud, and/or to inflict economic hardship on the Plaintiff, restrain commerce, cause the Plaintiff suffering, and prevent the Plaintff from carrying out her responsibilities to report the crimes, all while all were either operating, directly or managing federal funds, and or Offices of the US Government.

All Aided and abetted the repeated massive RICO violations and violated the Plaintiff civil right repeatedly.
Federal judges as RICO violators, entered the conspiracy, and continued actively from 2008 and continuing thru the filing of this complaint. Their predicate acts included:

Repeatedly blocking the Sharon Bridgewater complaint to halt the ability of the Plainiff to report the crime
Entering a vexatious ligatant order
Vacacating settlement conferences.
Issued a series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders, with criminal intent, to halt the Plaintiffs ability to report the crimes.
Corruptly, through violation of federal laws and constitutional protections, defrauded the USA in amounts in excess of 50(fifty) trillion dollars and knew and were aware ththey did not have the authority to schme and defraud, the USA.
Lawyers as RICO participants, aided, abetted the these corporations, partnerships, President and corporations, et al engaged in a series of unlawful lawsuits from 1993 and thru the filing of this complaint, that violated blocks of state and federal laws and constitutional protections, that required the corrupt cooperation of Federal judges and federal judges.

ROTHCHILD AND CO-CONSPIRATORS, BIDEN(AND PREDECESSORS FROM JAN. 1, 1993 THRU TO PRESENT)INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGES, COMMITTED WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD LAUNDER MONEY THRU ALL CENTRAL BANKS AND/OR THE FEDERAL RESERVE, THE WHITE HOUSE, THE U.S. CAPITOL BUILDING IN WASHINGTON D.C. U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, CDC ETC.(REAL PROPERTY) ALL WERE involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property.

ALL COMMITTED CRIMES OF COVID – 19 BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, (B) Any property, real or personal, within the jurisdiction of the United States, constituting, derived from, or traceable to, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from an offense against a foreign nation, or any property used to facilitate such an offense, if the offense— (i) involves trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons technology or material, or the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as that term is defined for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act), or any other conduct described in section 1956 (c)(7)(B);

(ii) would be punishable within the jurisdiction of the foreign nation by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; and

(iii) would be punishable under the laws of the United States by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, if the act or activity constituting the offense had occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States.

ALL REAL property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of section 215, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 485, 486, 487, 488, 501, 502, 510, 542, 545, 656, 657, 670, 842, 844, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1032, or 1344 of this title or any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” (as defined in section 1956 (c)(7) of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.

(D) Any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross receipts obtained, directly or indirectly, from a violation of— (i) section 666 (a)(1) (relating to Federal program fraud);

(ii) section 1001 (relating to fraud and false statements);

(iii) section 1031 (relating to major fraud against the United States);

(iv) section 1032 (relating to concealment of assets from conservator or receiver of insured financial institution);

(v) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud); or

(vi) section 1343 (relating to wire fraud),

if such violation relates to the sale of assets acquired or held by the the [1] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as conservator or receiver for a financial institution, or any other conservator for a financial institution appointed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the National Credit Union Administration, as conservator or liquidating agent for a financial institution.

(E) With respect to an offense listed in subsection (a)(1)(D) committed for the purpose of executing or attempting to execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent statements, pretenses, representations or promises, the gross receipts of such an offense shall include all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, which thereby is obtained, directly or indirectly.

(F) Any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from a violation of— (i) section 511 (altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers);

(ii) section 553 (importing or exporting stolen motor vehicles);

(iii) section 2119 (armed robbery of automobiles);

(iv) section 2312 (transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce); or

(v) section 2313 (possessing or selling a stolen motor vehicle that has moved in interstate commerce).

(G) All assets, foreign or domestic— (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any any [1] Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b (g)(5)) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization;

(ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing any Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b (g)(5) [2] against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property;

(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b (g)(5)) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property; or

(iv) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against any international organization (as defined in section 209 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 4309 (b)) or against any foreign Government. [3] Where the property sought for forfeiture is located beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States, an act in furtherance of such planning or perpetration must have occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States. (H) Any property, real or personal, involved in a violation or attempted violation, or which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation, of section 2339C of this title.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “proceeds” is defined as follows: (A) In cases involving illegal goods, illegal services, unlawful activities, and telemarketing and health care fraud schemes, the term “proceeds” means property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of the commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense.

(B) In cases involving lawful goods or lawful services that are sold or provided in an illegal manner, the term “proceeds” means the amount of money acquired through the illegal transactions resulting in the forfeiture, less the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services. The claimant shall have the burden of proof with respect to the issue of direct costs. The direct costs shall not include any part of the overhead expenses of the entity providing the goods or services, or any part of the income ta

ALL IS FORFEITED TO SHARON[DAVIS- ABUSALEM]BRIDGEWATER VIA “THE 50 STATES EX REL PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR

The evidence showed a nexus between the racketeering activities and the enterprise, the goal of which was to overthrow the US Constitution, deprive and/or denied the Plaintiffs rights as secured by international and/or nation treaties(the US Constituion), and defraud US Taxpayers, Consumer the intangle right to honest services and overthrow the US Govenrment prevent the Class Plaintiffs and/or Petitioners from reporting and exposure of a continuing pattern of corrupt and criminal activities that were inflicting, and would continue to inflict, great harm upon the United States.

has___ been generally damaged in the sum of $____.

2) in deliberate ignorance; or

(3) in reckless disregard and submitted claims to the US Treasury for the years of 2010(3.4 Trillion), 2011(3.6 Trillion), 2012(3.5 Trillion), 2013(3.4 Trillion), 2014(3.5 Trillion), 2015(3.6 Trillion) 2016(3.9 Trillion), AND 2017(4.1 Trillion)(US budget for these years can be verfied at www:_____________)which constitute a false claims under the Federal False Claims act, in the amount of $84,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00(EIGHTY FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS)that such claims are false, and are liable under the False Claims Act therefor. By virtue of these acts Obama _____as representative on behalf of class ____________ in the amount of $_______________, the amount is due and now owing. Wherefore the Plaintiff request judgment in the amount of $_________________and writs of attachments.

CRIMINAL CHARGES, ADJUFICAITON, JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

CLAIM # I

joe biden in his officia capacity as presidentBARAK H. OBAMA[AKA BARRY SOERTOES]IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF ALL CLASS DEFENDANTS UNCOVERED US TREASURY PAYMENTS AND/OR MEDICADE PAYMENT

PLAINTIFF RE-ALLEGE THE ABOVE. On or about 2009 and continuing thru present , BARAK H. OBAMA[AKA BARRY SOERTOES]IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF ALL CLASS DEFENDANTS CONCEALED KNOWN FACTS RETAILATED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF WHISTLEBLOWERS

Defendant Barak H.Obama[AKA Barry Soertoes] in his official capacity as [Predessors] IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF ALL CLASS DEFENDANTS and Loretta Lynch in her official capacity, Planned Parenthood, The Federal Reserve, “Class Defendants” and each of them knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to engage in activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce and to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt advocate and overthrow our constitutional form of Government, breach contracts and international treaties, commit war crimes, commit human rights violations, defraud the United States and submit false claims, support legislation, conspired, aided and abetted Planned Partnerhood to perform abortions, concealed known facts that they were selling fetal tissue and organ of aborted babies on the black market national and/or international for profit and launder money thru bank(owned and operated by the Federal Reserve), discriminate against the Plaintiff Whistleblowers had a fiduary relationship with Barak H. Obama and was discriminated against based on race, class and/or disability, retaliated against, kidnapped, committed human rights violations, assaulted by Obama acts or omissions. knowing that such claims to medicade and/or US Treasury would be submitted to the US Treasury for employed by or associated with any enterprise

Defendant “Class Members,” and each of them did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and above-alleged agreement. Defendant class member adopted the acts, committed securities fraud, ___ , furthered the conspiracy by cooperation with [—or— lent aid and encouragement to—-or—ratified and adopted the acts of—-] defendants, ____ in that _______.

2..

<>. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged plaintiff___ has___ been generally damaged in the sum of $____.

2) in deliberate ignorance; or

COMES NOW THE THE STATE of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming[the District of Columbia, the Common wealth of Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Island, Guam, theNorthern Marianna Islands, the American Samoa] EX REL Sharon Bridgewater (A.K.A. Sharon Abusalem, Sharon Davis) Private Attorney General and RELATOR[ FROM 1993 and continuing thru present]- Real parties in interest the undersigned complaintant says makes the following affirmation under the penalties of perjury, and being duly sworn state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.and that On or about 1785 and continuing thru present and further contining thru present the upon information and belief, the following Federal and/or State crimes did take place in the County of the District of Columbia, Washington D.C., in the County of Gwinnett, State of Georgia, in the County of Dekalb, State of Georgia, in the County of Fulton, State of Georgia, in the County of Oakland, State of California, in the County of San Francisco, State of California, in the County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan and “unknown” cities or towns in the State of Georgia, State of California, State of California, and/or Michigan, and in the County of Wayne, State of Michigan and in the State of California, and/or the “50 States” in “unknown” cities or Towns, and/or in the District of Columbia and/or in the contininial of United States, complains, alleges and appearing before a Federal Judge of the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4, to report these crimes FORMALLY CHARGE

COUNT III

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON

by levying war against the USA

by adhering to their enemies,

giving those enemies aid and comfort

within the USA and elsewhere

Beginning on or about Jan. 1, 1993 and continuing thru the filing of this complaint within the District of Columbia and else in the US and/or intentionally, did unlawfully, willfully and knowingly combined, conspire together and with each other, came to the meeting of the minds, entered into an unlawful agreement and/or came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, namely to engage in a “pattern of racketeering activity” to commit_list predicate acts(violate a, b,c) and knowingly and willfully became a member of such conspiracy and futher, at the time, joined such conspiracy, he or she or they did so with the specific intent either to personally engage in at least two incidents of racketeering, as alleged in the Information,______________________ or he or she or they specifically intended to otherwise participate in the affairs of the “enterprise” with the knowledge and intent that other members of the conspiracy would engage in at least two incidents of racketeering, ______________________as alleged in the Information, as part of a “pattern of racketeering act or became a member without full knowledge of of all of the details of the unlawful scheme but has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, and played a minor part. In the unlawful scheme.

Conspiracy to

COUNT THREE: Conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2381

Conspircy to commit treason by levying war against the USA

by adhering to their enemies,

giving those enemies aid and comfort

within the USA and elsewhere

(multiple violations as a principal)

Beginning on or about Jan. 1, 1993 and/or on or about _______ continuing thru the filing of this complaint within the District of Columbia and else in the US and/or international, AKA Queen Elizabeth and/or Charles, did unlawfully, willfully and knowingly combined, conspire together and with each other, and to commit commit multiple federal felonies by levying war against the several States and by adhering to their enemies, giving those enemies aid and comfort within three States of the Union and elsewhere, all in connection with the deaths

TREASON

18 U.S. Code § 2339B – Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.

Aiding and Abetting Engaging in a Monetary

Transaction in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.286

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Government

With Respect to Claims

From in or about 1993 through the present in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and Washington, D.C., defendants Barak H. Obama, Eric Holder,Shawn Dovanan, Kathleen Sebious _________, entered into a conspiracy to obtain payment; allowance; aid in obtainingpayment of claims against the United States Department of Treasury,a department of the United States, its Departments, programs or agencies for H defendant,____________________,

a resident of ____________________, made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which he [she]knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, by [e.g., preparing a budget and causing to be prepared a budget andfiling and causing to be filed, what purported to be a budget to operate the USA, which waspresented to the United States Treasury Department, through the Internal Revenue Service,wherein he [she] claimed [e.g., a refund of taxes]2 in the amount of $_____(Trillion of Dollars) knowing that claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent in violation of 18 U.S.C.286.

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.287

False Claim

From in or about ___________, 20__ in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and/or Washington, D.C., defendants Barak H. Obama, _________, a resident of the USA, and/or District of Columbia made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which he he knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent by preparing and/or causing to be prepared and submitting a budget what purported to be for to operate the Department of Justice which was presented to the United States Treasury Department of Treasury through the (?)US Congress, taxpayers, ______________¹ to deprive undersign counsel of his right to access to an impartial jury trial pursuant to civil RICO and 18 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as to an impartial court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so to obstruct and cover-up the violations of federal statutory fathers’ rights to compel the extortion____ wherein he was not qualified to hold office and claimed to the right to hold office as US president and/or claimed to be a qualified individual to authorize to spend [e.g., a refund of taxes]2 in the amount of $__________, knowing that claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.defendant,____________________,

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.287

False Claim

From in or about ___________, 20__ in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and/or Washington, D.C., defendants Eric Holder, _________, a resident of the USA, and/or District of Columbia made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which he he knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent by preparing and/or causing to be prepared and submitting a budget what purported to be for to operate the Department of Justice which was presented to the United States Treasury Department of Treasury through the (?)US Congress, taxpayers, ______________¹ to deprive undersign counsel of his right to access to an impartial jury trial pursuant to civil RICO and 18 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as to an impartial court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so to obstruct and cover-up the violations of federal statutory fathers’ rights to compel the extortion____ wherein he was not qualified to hold office and claimed to the right to hold office as US president and/or claimed to be a qualified individual to authorize to spend [e.g., a refund of taxes]2 in the amount of $__________, knowing that claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.defendant,____________________,

SIX: 18 U.S.C.287

False Claim

From in or about ___________, 20__ in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and/or Washington, D.C., defendants Shawn Donavan, _________, a resident of the USA, and/or District of Columbia made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which he he knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent by preparing and/or causing to be prepared and submitting a budget what purported to be for to operate the Department of Justice which was presented to the United States Treasury Department of Treasury through the (?)US Congress, taxpayers, ______________¹ to deprive undersign counsel of his right to access to an impartial jury trial pursuant to civil RICO and 18 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as to an impartial court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so to obstruct and cover-up the violations of federal statutory fathers’ rights to compel the extortion____ wherein he was not qualified to hold office and claimed to the right to hold office as US president and/or claimed to be a qualified individual to authorize to spend [e.g., a refund of taxes]2 in the amount of $__________, knowing that claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.defendant,____________________,

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.287

False Claim

From in or about ___________, 20__ in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and/or Washington, D.C., defendants Eric Kathleen Sebibus, _________, a resident of the USA, and/or District of Columbia made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which he he knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent by preparing and/or causing to be prepared and submitting a budget what purported to be for to operate the Department of Justice which was presented to the United States Treasury Department of Treasury through the (?)US Congress, taxpayers, ______________¹ to deprive undersign counsel of his right to access to an impartial jury trial pursuant to civil RICO and 18 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as to an impartial court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so to obstruct and cover-up the violations of federal statutory fathers’ rights to compel the extortion____ wherein he was not qualified to hold office and claimed to the right to hold office as US president and/or claimed to be a qualified individual to authorize to spend [e.g., a refund of taxes]2 in the amount of $__________, knowing that claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.defendant,____________________,

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.287

False Claim

From in or about ___________, 20__ in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and/or Washington, D.C., defendants Hillary Clinton, _________, a resident of the USA, and/or District of Columbia made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which she knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent by preparing and/or causing to be prepared and submitting a budget what purported to be for to operate the Department of State which was presented to the United States Treasury Department of Treasury through the (?)US Congress, taxpayers, ______________¹ to deprive undersign counsel of his right to access to an impartial jury trial pursuant to civil RICO and 18 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as to an impartial court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so to obstruct and cover-up the violations of federal statutory fathers’ rights to compel the extortion____ wherein he was not qualified to hold office and claimed to the right to hold office as US president and/or claimed to be a qualified individual to authorize to spend [e.g., a refund of taxes]2 in the amount of $__________, knowing that claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.defendant,____________________, a resident of ____________________, made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which he [she]knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent in violation of 18 U.S.C.287

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.287

False Claim

From in or about ___________, 20__ in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia, in the District of Columbia, and/or Washington, D.C., defendants Michelle Obama, _________, a resident of the USA, and/or District of Columbia made and presented to theUnited States Treasury Department a claim against the United States for payment, which she knew to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, by preparing and/or submitting and/or causing to be filed with “White house Travel” what purported to be listed two daughters _____ as “white house staff members” waspresented to the United States Treasury Department, through the Travel Office of the White house, wherein she claimed and/or defrauded the United States Treasury in the amount of $__________, knowing thatclaim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent in violation of 18 U.S.C.287

COUNT SIX: 18 U.S.C.371

CLAIM IV

BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE “TRANSNATIONAL”

By reason of defendant Loretta Lynch breach of said contract and/or negligence as herein alleged, the plaintiff “the United States et al and/or the “Class Petitioner Representative Bridgewater and/or Class Member has suffered damages in the sum of not less than and not less than 100,000,000,000,000,000(One Hunred Trillion Dollars-class Defendants).

By the terms of said written agreement, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in the enforcement of the provisions of the agreement. By reason of the aforementioned breach of the defendant Loretta Lynch, the Plaintiff has been forced to “ACT AS PROSECUTOR, TO DEFEND FOR THE UNITED STATES, ET AL,” to collect fines, etc. ) and to recover money and/or property on behalf of the “ United 50 States et al.” Further on or about Nov. 15, 2015 and continuing thru present the Petitioner has sent Loretta Lynch “duly authorized, first class certified mail,” and a number of times since then, plaintiff Bridgewater has demanded Loretta Lynch in her official capacity to stop her wrongful conduct described above. Defendants Loretta Lynch as the United States Attorney General et al , and each of them, have refused and still refuse to refrain from their wrongful conduct.

Defendants Loretta Lynch in her official capacity unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this court, will cause great and irreparable injury to “the United States et al ,” in that “the United 50 States and/or the Plaintiff will suffer and continue to suffer from deprivation of property and/or money without due process of law in violaton of the United Constitution and/or International laws and treaties.The enterprise “federal officials” joint participation has changed, or altered the movement or ransportation or flow of goods, merchandise, money, or other property between or mong two or more states (between a state and a foreign country).Nature of Trade and Commerce; Real Estate .Holder acted or refused to act on ground generally applicable to the Class

By the aforesaid acts and omissions Defendants caused the damage and _____The United States performed all of its contractual obligations pertaining to the payment via the job of the United States President and/or the United States Attorney General “all officer shall uphold the United States Constitution, ___________faithfully ________, Loretta Lynch prosecute

As a result of the aforesaid acts and omissions, Defendants breached its contractual obligation by failing to perform work as the United States President and the United Statea Attorney General., as a consequence of which the United States is entitled to money damaged in the amount ________

<>. On or about ___, 19__, in the City of ___, County of ___, State of California, Plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof. By the terms of said written agreement, ___.

The consideration set forth in the agreement was the fair and reasonable.Plaintiff has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by him on his part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.On or about ___, 19__ the defendant__ breached the said agreement by _____. By reason of defendant__ breach of said contract as herein alleged, the plaintiff__ has__ suffered damages in the sum of $__.By the terms of said written agreement, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in the enforcement of the provisions of the agreement. By reason of the aforementioned breach of the defendant, the Plaintiff has been forced to “ACT AS PROSECUTOR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE 50 STATES.” WHEREFORE, plaintiff__ pray__ judgment against defendant__ and each of them, as follows:

For compensatory damages in the sum of $___; For interest on the sum of $___ from and after ___, 19__ to date of judgment;For reasonable attorney fees according to proof; For costs of suit herein incurred; and For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper, writs of attachment, arrest warrants,

VIOLATION OF 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT

BUSH, OBAMA AND HOLDER KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY CAME ON TO MY PREMISES, ARRESTED MY WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE STOLE MY GUN AND BUSINESS COMPUTER AND PAPERS, CHARGE ME WITH THEFT BY TAKING AND CONSPIRED WITH JUDGES TO DISMISS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS I FILED

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health. There are many disabled people who are receive checks on behalf of disabled people.

Obama and/or Loretta Lynch conspired under the color of law, breached her duties and/or legal obligations as United States Attorney General, violated her oath of office and further violated the class Plaintiff Second Amendment rights to bear arms a committed a number of other overt acts requiring injunctive relief.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were deprived of certain rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America(Human rights via the Universal Declaration International laws and treaties) the laws of this Nation and the “50 States.” and the Class Plaintiffs 2^nd amendment’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and/or substantive due process and equal protection of the laws were violated by the Defendants, together with their Eighth Amendment right proscribing cruel and unusual punishment and their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their First Amendment right to free speech and expression. The Class Plaintiff and/or the Class members lost their ability to earn a living due to the above Defendants conspiracies, conspiracies to defraud the Plaintiffs out of money or property, violence against the Plaintiffs(WOMEN minority business owners), oppression, unfair business practices, unfair competition, conspiracies to restrain commerce, acts of threats, extortion, coercion, force, assault and battery, usurpation of business(is)The Specialty Investment Group LLC dissolved in Sept. 2010, due to the “repeated” conspiracies and/or unlawful attacks to restrain commerce, unfair competition, unfair business practices, repeated, continual violation of the Specialty Investment Group LLC and/or the Plaintiff’s United States Constitutional violations civil rights by the above named Defendants. illegal overt acts by the United States Government the Plaintiff has direct and/or indirectly proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s mental and emotional instability and social security, oppression, deprivation of business and personal property, theft, and anti-competitive conduct of one or more of the Defendants of which conduct, which violates both federal antitrust laws. The United States has been damaged and injured by the overt acts of the Defendants.

I have been unable to drive a car, work, make a living due to the repeated conspiracies of the Defendants. My son is currently on probation, via “threat,” coercion and/or force and is “forced” to pay $800.00 for crimes he did not commit(via concealment and/or acts or omissions of Barak H. Obama and/or Lynch).

CLAIM II

LIBEL

THE ELEMENTS OF LIBEL

Name and legal description of court before which is brought.
Name and legal description of Libellant and any offer or function or relationship the libellant may hold it the regret to sustain that action depends upon it, as if he be foreigner claim man any particular ground or him eecitopm guardian which act [tocotu he may he/she may be sued\end at home; or if the libellant be a married women or women with separate personal rights.
The name and legal description of the person soar the thing against when or which the suit is brought.
The nature of the cause as that it is civil or maritime contract, or tort or dame or of possession, or otherwise as the case may be and if the libel is in rem, the property is with the district, and if the persona the name and occupation and palaces of resident of the parties.
The facts upon which the suit is brought.
That the premises to be within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States Courts
The prayer for the remedies which is situated to the case.
The prayer for relief or remedy which the libellant seeks by the suit, and which the court is competent to give.
The process prayed for may be a war of arrest the person of the Defendant in nature of a capital or warrant of arrest with a clause therein, if the Defendant can be found his/her goods and chattels to the amount sue for; or if such an not be found, to attach is credits and effects to the amount sued for in the hands of the garnishees named therein; or an single moment in in nature of a summons to appear and answer to the suit.

Plaintiff brings this case action on behalf of all African Americans, minorities from 1993 and continuing thru present who purchased a vehicle and displayed “drive out tag” as a license plate until they are able to obtain a license plate from the Department of Motor Vehicle and/or Secretary of State and who were pulled over a vehicle who were driving their cars and “pulled over,” and questioned by the police, received a traffic ticket.

Plaintiff brings this case action on behalf of all African Americans, minorities from 1993 and continuing thru present who lived in cities Major cities throughout the United States(Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, Chicago, i.e.)__________________________were assaulted, beaten, arrested, humiliated, falsely imprisonment, maliciously prosecuted without probable cause on the sole account based on race, class, gender, ethnicity, disability, national origin, and by Police Officers on the sole account of race, _____________

During all of the times referred to, Defendant Loretta Lynch (and Processors from 1993 and continuing thru to her term) is a Law Enforcement Officer, and were “Does 2001 thru 1, 000, 000, 000, 000,” police officers stationed at various Police States and members of the Police Department of “cities,” of “the United States.”

The “Class Representative,” and Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater son James S. Bridgewater , now 33 years of age, is, and at all times mentioned was a Citizen of the United States locations throughout the United States, and a resident of Michigan, and of the Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiff was arrested by Defendant _____________________on _________, at___time, and at the Redford Police Department.

The arrest was made without a warrant and the charge was for “Lying to a Police Officer.”

Concealed

The “Class Representative,” and Plaintiff Bridgewater, now 54 years of age, is, and at all times mentioned was a Citizen of the United States locations throughout the United States, and a resident of Michigan, and of the Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiff was arrested by Defendant _____________________on _________, at___time, and taken to the Washtenaw County Police Station concerning an alleged “driving ____________________. All arrest were made without a warrant. During one two or more arrest numerous articles of personal and business property were seized by the arresting officers without a warrant and not returned. Despite the “repeated,” “continual,” plea of the Class Plaintiff to return her business or personal property. Plaintiff remained and continues to remain in police custody via “one or more outstanding warrants, “and is unlawful held in violation of the United States Constititituion on the account she is a “Whistleblower, “ and/or federal witness and victim of Racketeering .

At _______time___on _____date, Plaintiff was again on the same charge set forth in paragraph 4 by the Defendant____and other police officers, wrongfully imprisioned, with out a warrant and contrary to the United States Constitution and/or the “50State Statues.” Plaintiff and Class members were taken to the scene of the alleged crime and there questioned by some of the Defendant and {set out acts] of the Defendant by reason of which playoffs was coerced. Plaintiff and Class members was promised medical aid if he/she would sign a confession and was promised that the beatings would cease. Plaintiff then initialed some paper and the beatings ceased. Uniteder compulsion of the beatings and threats previously described and desiring immediate medical aid, the Plaintiff was compelled to testify against him/herself by signing a stating admitting the burglary or some other crime.

Defendants beat plaintiff for the purpose of forcing he/her to make a confession and for the purpose of imposing illegal summary punishment on him/her. Defendant was held incommunicado for a period of over various hours 1-72 hours and the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff attorney to see or consult with him or her client, the Plaintiff. As a result of the beatings by the Defendant [describe injuries], all in violation of the laws of the United States, as more particularly set for later. The action of Defendants were under color of law.

Title 42 USC section 1985(2) provides in part as follows:” If two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing or attempting to enforce, the right of any person or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws,”

Subparagraph(3) of the same Section provides as follows: in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged in conspiracy do, or cause to be done any act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, by which another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and excising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”

From Jan. . . .1, 1993 and continuing thru present in the City of _____________Northen District of Georgia, the Defendants entered into a conspiracy with each other, and with other parties whose names are unknown to the Plaintiff, for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice in the State of Michigan and/or other States with intent to deny the Plaintiff equal protection of the laws and with intent to injure his/her lawfully enforcing or attemptiming to enforce her right to equal protection o f the laws in that the Defendant, pursuant ot the conspiracy caused the Plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested; caused the institution, and continuation thru to present of malicious prosecution agains the Plaintiff; gave and caused to be given perjured testismony resulting in the return of an indictment in the 14A Judicial District Court for the State of Michigan and subsequently warrants and/or wrongful conviction of Plaintiff causing Plaintiff to be falsely imprisioned since Sept. 2007. Which incarceration resulted in loss wages to h___as ______over $__________; persisted in uttering perjured and false testimony in the hearing on numerous habeas corpus and post-conviction petitions filed by plaintiff and heard during _____,_______and______; over_______petitions were filed during the period; the persistence continuing even after the ___Supreme Court affirmed the granting of a new trial to Plaintiff in the return of their mandate to the ___court of _on __date; caused duress and fear of retribution to be exercised on the Plaintiff up to and including____date. Pursuant to the conspiracy, Defendants seriously injured Plaintiff and caused her, by force and violence, to testify against herself by means of a wrongfully obtained confession, with respect to charges against him of which Plaintiff was innocent and which charges constituted a crime under the laws of the state of ______. As a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, carried out under color of law, the Plaintiff was deprived of his/her constitutional rights secured to him/her by the Fourteenth Amndmentot the Untied States Cosntitution. The conspiracy continues to this present date.

In furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy referred to in the proceding paragraph, the Defendant either did, or cause to be done, the following overt acts: set out the illegal acts

Unconstitutional Traffic Stops
D
D
E
C
C

The acts which Defendants did or caused to be done in furtherance of the conspiracy referred to and described in the preceding paragraphs, injured the body of the Plaintiff permanently and has caused him/her extreme paind and suffering which still continues.

On or about August 2008 and continuing thru present the Plaintiff claimed an interest in the “Office of the United States Attorney General.”

On or about Nov. 1, 2007, Public Officers illegally unlawfully deprived and caused injury

On or about Nov. and continuing thru repeatedly requested the return of her office and business(computer, gun________________)and deprived and/or deprived the Plaintiff equal protection under the law and/or equal privilege and violated the

by filing multiple complaints against Barak H. Obama and/or Eric Holder alleging libel, peonage, slavery, human rights violation and/or RICO violations

Caused one or more indictment, grand jury in violation of ________.

On or about Nov. 2007 and continuing thru present Eric Holder(and those operating under his direction) published and/or posted defamatory information on the DOJ website and/or in the NCIC crime data base that the Class Claimant had been convicted and/or arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; theft by taking; and further posted mug shots, warrants for arrest and an defamatory posting of an “ARMED AND DANGEROUS,” in the Department of Justice data base[nation wide], [1] without probable cause.

The entire statement and/or posting is false as it pertains to the Class Plaintiff Bridgewater.

The described publication and/or posting on the Department of Justice website and data bases are libelous on its face. It clearly expose Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule and oblguy, because a “ARMED AND DANGEROUS” posting is clearly a posting for “mass murders or extremely dangerous persons such as terrorist or rapist; and charges the Class Plaintiff with having committed a serious crime of murder, rape, etc. [2]

10.. As a proximate result of the above the Plaintiff has suffered lost of reputation, low self esteem, shame, mortification, injury to all to her damage in excess of $100,000,000,000,000.00.

The above describe publication is not privileged because it was published or posted by Defendant Eric Holder in the Department of Justice and upon information and belief with the state of mind of malice, hatred and/or ill will toward the Plaintiff and without probable cause and upon information and belief in retaliation “only because the Plaintiff was the victim of Racketeering (Federal Witness),” and the will to punish the Plaintiff for asserting her legal rights. On or about April 24, 2015, Loretta Lynch (and Barak H.Obama-2009 and continuing thru present) entered into an agreement (express or implied) with the United States Government to faithfully execute duties, and to uphold the United States Constitution._______see

In accord with the provision of the agreement,the Plaintiff (the United States Government) paid Loretta Lynch (and Obama et al) a weekly salary of ________________upon the performance of _____________duties, and to uphold the United States Constitution. Loretta Lynch knew or should have known that such _________is discriminatory, violates the Class Plaintiff civil rights, . Loretta Lynch breached her upon information and belief knowingly, intentionally violated the Plaintiff Civil rights.

Defendant Loretta Lynch and Barry Soetoes and each of the did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, in that on or about SOn or about Nov. 2007 and continuing thru present Eric Holder(and those operating under his direction) published and/or posted defamatory information on the DOJ website and/or in the NCIC crime data base that the Class Claimant had been convicted and/or arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; theft by taking; and further posted mug shots, warrants for arrest and an defamatory posting of an “ARMED AND DANGEROUS,” in the Department of Justice data base[nation wide], without probable cause.

The entire statement and/or posting is false as it pertains to the Class Plaintiff Bridgewater.

The described publication and/or posting on the Department of Justice website and data bases are libelous on its face. It clearly expose Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule and oblguy, because a “ARMED AND DANGEROUS” posting is clearly a posting for “mass murders or extremely dangerous people such as terrorist or rapist(BOTH WITNESSES SHARON AND/OR JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER HAS NO JUVENILLE, MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY RECORD); and charges the Class Plaintiff with having committed a serious crime of murder, rape, etc.

10.. As a proximate result of the above the Plaintiff James S. Bridgewater has suffered lost of reputation, low self esteem, shame, mortification, injury to all to her damage in excess of $10,000.00000000000.

The above describe publication is not privileged because it was published or posted by Defendant Loretta Lynch in the Department of Justice and upon information and belief with the state of mind of malice, hatred and/or ill will toward the Plaintiff James S. Bridgewaerand without probable cause and upon information and belief in retaliation “only because the Plaintiff was the victim of Racketeering (Federal Witness),” and the will to punish the Plaintiff for asserting her legal rights.

[1] AND CONTINUES TO POST THIS DEFAMATORY INFORMATION.

[2] There have been multiple, numerous other unlawful acts(complete torture and torment too many to mention during the course of 7-8 years).

[3] AND CONTINUES TO POST THIS DEFAMATORY INFORMATION.

[4] There have been multiple, numerous other unlawful acts(complete torture and torment too many to mention during the course of 7-8 years).

CLAIM III

NEGILENCE

In any negligence case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a duty owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage

On or about Jan. 4, 2016 Defendant Lynch and/or obamaperfomed acts that a person of ordinary prudence in the same or similar cicumstances would not have done or she failed to perform acts that a person or ordinary prudence would have done under he same or cimilar circumstance becase she is the United States Attorney General and knew and/or should have known the “Untied States Constitution.” Even further Obama was an instructor at Hardvard “Specializing in constitutional law, he too knew or should have known the the Class Plaintiff were violated. The Class Plaintiff have been injured and damge by the the 2^nd amended US Cosntiton rights violations and have damages this amount is due and now owing.

CLAIM IV

BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST LORETTA LYNCH IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY

CLAIM I

[ RICO ]

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity breached his contract, the Plaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM I

[ RICO ]

BREACH OF FIDICARY DUTIES

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM II

[ RICO ]

CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATION IN A RICO ENTERPRIZE THRU A PATTERN OF

RACKEETEERING ACTIVITY

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity conducted in a Rico Enterprize thru a pattern of Rackeeteering Activity and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged and Plaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

The Plantiff have punitive damages in the amount of $ ________________________. This amount is due and now owing.

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM III

[ RICO ]

CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN A PATTERN OF RACKEETEERING ACTIVITY:

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity conspired to engage in a pattern of Rackeeterring Activity and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged and Plaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM IV

[ RICO ]

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity instituted and/or continued a criminal proceeding agains the claimant and the termination of the proceeding ended in the Claimant favor and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged anPlaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM V

[ RICO ]

VIOLATION OF THE CLAIMANT 5^TH AND/OR 9^TH AND/OR 10^TH AMENDMENT US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT[42 USC SECTION 1983/1985(3)]

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity acted under the color of law denied and/or deprived the Claimant her 5^th and/or 9^th and/or 10^th Amendment US Constitutional rights and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged anPlaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM VI

[ RICO ]

LIBEL

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity acted under the color of law conspired with other and “libeled” the Claimant and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged anPlaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM VII

[ RICO ]

NEGLIENCE

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity was negligent in enforcing unconstitutional, arbiratory law via the March 6, 2017 executive order and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged anPlaintiff has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

CLAIM VIII

[ RICO ]

PUNITIVE DAMAGE

Plaintiff allege that the Defendant Donald Trump in his official capacity had conscious disregard for the Claimant civil rights and/or Declaration of human rights and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged and has demanded property and Defendant has failed and refuse and continues to fail and to refuse, to remit the money and/or property although duly demanded requiring immediate injunctive relief and the Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damage and have damages as follows:

_____________________ $_______________

This amount is due and now owing, and the Plaintiff is entitled to writ of attachment, judgment in the amount of __________________.

Amount paid $0 Amount due: $______________________.

WRIT OF MANDUMUS

CLAIM #V

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff and defendant Loretta E. Lynch in her official capacity as United States Attorney General and/or “the Class Representative Bridgewater,” concerning their respective rights and duties in that plaintiff Representative contends “she at all times mention has been harmed and damaged and continues to be damaged by Loretta Lynch’s actions. This court is now vested with appropriate jurisdiction and power to declare the rights and legal relations of the parties “The United States..et al,” are entitled to the declaration, the declaration to have the force and effect of a final judgment aor decree, and to be reviewable as a final judgment or decree, and further this court may adjudge and decree and declare that the rights and legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that the declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment and decree.

a. fully vested with the right to prosecute, via the Private Attorney General

Statue (RICO) and/or collect and/or recover fines et al on behalf of the

United States Government .

b. Barak H.Obama(AKA Barry Soertoes) and/or “et als,” can not exert

executive privilege, and declare that the Plaintiff may amend her

complaint to add Barak H. Obama in his individually capacity as United

States President.

c.. “The United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private Attorney General

and/or Qui Tam Relator(Claimant et al )is fully vested with the right to

have a writ of quo warranto issued upon Loretta Lynch in her official

capacity as United States Attorney General.

d. That this court adjudge and decree that Lynch and/or Barak H. Obama

violated the “The United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private

Attorney General and/or Qui Tam Relator(Claimant et al )class Plaintiff

Have the right to pre-judgment attachment in the amount of $!25,000,000,000,000,000.00(Trillion Dollars) for the United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private Attorney General and/or Qui Tam Relator. $_____________________

e. That the Petiititioner is entitled to a summary judgment.

CLAIM #VI

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

B. Irreparable Harm and Balancing of Hardships and E.ties

. On balance, Plaintiff’s hardship

in not being able to express his views and the public interest in protecting speechoutweigh the Government’s interest in suppressing an intimidating symbol.Plaintiffs has demonstrated a strong possibility of irreparable harm absent apreliminary injunction. Millions of US Citizen are even now Marching toward Washington to oust Obama and/or Holder from Office. In order to prevent a National Riot this Court must take actions now to secure the safety and security of the United States of America. The issuance of a pretrial restraining order is not discretionary: if the Government makes the re.red probable cause showing, the court must entertheorder.if not enjoined, will cause immediate and irreparable injury to the United States Government and continued loss of billions of dollars and have asserted claims of already presented sufficient facts to establish the elements of each of the claims there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.

C. The Injury to Sharon Bridgewater outweigh the harm an injunction may cause Defendants;

The entry of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction giving Plaintiffs

Writ of attachment, assets, and/or a for the Defendants to post a bond will cause no harm whatsoever to Defendants and the prevention of eviction of camp take notice.

D. The granting of the injunction would not harm the public interest.

Where a party demonstrates both the likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable. injury, it almost always will be the case that the public interest will favor the issuance of aninjunction will protect the public interest, protect the US Government from fraudulent false claims and prevent further RICO acts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that courts are vested with extensive e.table powers to fashion appropriate remedies to redress unlawful conduct. An example, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.. 1 (1971), the Supreme Court stated: Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s e.table powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in e.tableremedies.“The essence of e.ty jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do e.ty and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it. The qualities of mercy and practicality have made e.ty the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.. 321, 329-330 (1944), also See also Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.. 288, 291-92 (1960)

Moreover, the Supreme Court has pointedly ruled that where “the public interest is involved. . . those e.table powers assume an even broader and more flexible character than when only a private controversy is at stake.” Porter v. Warner Holding, Co., 328 U.. 395, 398 (1946). Accord Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed’n. No. 40, 300 U.. 515, 552 (1937) (“Courts of e.ty may, and frequently do, go much farther both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved.”) (collecting cases); Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.. 168, 179-80 (1973) (same).12

In accordance with these principles, courts have imposed a wide variety of highly

intrusive e.table remedies in institutional reform litigation to remedy constitutional violations and to foster paramount public interests, including various structural reforms.13 Typically in such cases, the e.table relief afforded exceeds an injunction enjoining the proscribed conduct, and also encompasses compelled changes in practices, structural changes and prolonged court-supervision over implementation of the e.table relief. See generally, DOBBS, Vol. Two at 348-353. The United States of America as well as class Plaintiff There are no adequate remedy at law.

CLAIM #VII

MY PRAYER TO GOD IN HEAVEN

Wherefore , IT IS DECREED, ORDER, ADJUDGE

1. THE STATE of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming[the District of Columbia, the Common wealth of Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Island, Guam, theNorthern Marianna Islands, the American Samoa] EX REL Sharon Bridgewater (A.K.A. Sharon Abusalem, Sharon Davis) Private Attorney General and QUI TAM RELATOR[ FROM 1993 and continuing thru present]- Real parties in interest

CLAIMANT AND/OR PLAINTIFF prays and/or declare that Loretta Lynch Social Security, ATF acts of Jan. 4, 2016 and/or May 9, 2016 unconstitutionally infringes upon Sharon Bridgewater and other class members one or more 2^nd 4^th, 5^th, 9^th, 10^th, 14^th, US Constitional rights amendementthe rights and/or breach her contract as US Attorney General and/or violated her oath of office and committeed a criminal act.

12.. Jugment in the amount of ____________________for claim #1 Libel, order the

Defendants to immediately pay and issue writs of attachment.

13.. Jugment in the amount of ____________________for claim #2 Violation of the Equal

Protection 2^nd amendment and Violation of the Right to bear Firearms(US

Constitutional Amendment II), 42 USC SECTION 1983 order the Defendants to

immediately pay and issue writs of attachment.

14.. Judement in the amount of ____________________for claim #3 neglience and order

The Defendants to immediately pay and issue writs of attachment.

15.. Judgment in the amount of ____________________for claim #4 breach of contract

and

order the Defendants to immediately pay and issue writs of attachment.

16.. Declaratory Judgment declaring that Plaintiff is:

a. fully vested with the right to prosecute, via the Private Attorney General

Statue (RICO) and/or collect and/or recover fines et al on behalf of the

United States Government .

b. Barak H.Obama(AKA Barry Soertoes) and/or “et als,” can not exert

executive privilege, and declare that the Plaintiff may amend her

complaint to add Barak H. Obama in his individually capacity as United

States President.

c.. “The United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private Attorney General

and/or Qui Tam Relator(Claimant et al )is fully vested with the right to

have a writ of quo warranto issued upon Loretta Lynch in her official

capacity as United States Attorney General.

d. That this court adjudge and decree that Lynch and/or Barak H. Obama

violated the “The United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private

Attorney General and/or Qui Tam Relator(Claimant et al )class Plaintiff

e. That the Petiititioner is entitled to a summary judgment.

17. .Equitable and/or Injunctive Relief Prejudgment writs of attachment in

$125,000,000,000,000,000.00 Judgment against Loretta

Lynch

THIS COURT USD) to commence Relator’s rehabilitation i.e. food, shelter, clothing, and

transportation, payable by the Office of the U.S. Attorney General, District of

Columbia to the client trust account (Sharon Bridgewater)of the lawyer duly appointed by

16.. udgment in the amount of $ 1,000,000,000,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

AGAINST LORETTA LYNCH IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY.

18. Partial judgment in the amount of $ ___________________– payment of ten thousand

U.S. Dollars ($10,000.00 )

18.. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find and/or declare that all Defendants have associated with a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).

19..That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5) (“pattern” defined) and 1962(c) supra.

20. That all Defendants and all of 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 associating with any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who do engage in, or whose activities do affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

21.. That all Defendants and all of 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 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.

22.That if Defendant cannot be found within this District then all of their property within this istrict be attached in the sum of $125,000,000,000,000,1,000,000,000.00(one hundred and twenty five trillion and one million dollars, with interest thereon and cost, the sum sued for in this complaint.

23. That judgment be entered against the dfenant in the sum of $$125,000,000,000,000,1,000,000,000.00(one hundred and twenty five trillion and one million dollars, together with interest and costs; and

24. That this Court order the attachment of said property pruusantot he aforesaid provovision of CPLR and FRCP 4(e) and Rule B(1) of the Supplenmtnal Rules for certain Admarility and Maritime claims: and

25. That process in due form of law, according to the practices of this Honorable Court in causes of admirality and maritime jurisprudence, April issue agains the The Federal Reserve, foreign Officials, and all Defndants that all person having or claiming any interest therein be citized to apper and answer under oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid; that Plaitniff have a deree for its damaged aforesaid, with interest and cost; and that the The Federal Reserve, foreign Officials, and all Defndants be condemned and sld to stisfy plaintiff decree;

26. That process in due form of law April issue against B citing it to appear and answer, under oath, all and singular, the matters aforesaid

27. That the Court order, adjudge and decree that Plaitnifff have a decree against B for claim asserted gy plaintiff herein tooether with interest and costs and

28. To issue an order to the U.S. Department of Justice Loretta Lynch to show cause why she should not be held in criminal and/or civil contempt of court.

29. To attachment of said property pruusantot he aforesaid one or more supplemental rule B, C, D, E and/or F, 4(e) and Rule B(1) of the Supplenmtnal Rules for certain Admarility and Maritime claims: and/or

30. That process in due form of law, according to the practices of this Honorable Court in causes of admirality and maritime jurisprudence, intangible and/or tangible property in and up to the amount of $$125,000,000,000,000,1,000,000,000.00(one hundred and twenty five trillion and one million dollars, and that all person having or claiming any interest therein be citized to apper and answer under oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid; that Plaitniff have a deree for its damaged aforesaid, with interest and cost; and that the $$125,000,000,000,000,1,000,000,000.00(one hundred and twenty five trillion and one million dollarsbe condemned and sld to stisfy plaintiff decree;

That process in due form of law April issue against B citing it to appear and answer, under oath, all and singular, the matters aforesaid;
That the Court order, adjudge and decree that Plaitnifff have a decree against B for claim asserted gy plaintiff herein tooether with interest and costs and
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as April be proper and that this Court scompettnetotgrnt.
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT in the amount of Plaitniffs damages, tighter with interest thereon form the rrespective dates due, cost, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees.
1. That process in due form of law according to the practice of this court in cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction April issue against the Defendant cititng it to apprear and answer all the matters described in this complaint.
1. Plaintiff have such other and further relief in the premises as in law and justice in April be entitled to receive.

(7) Order directing the U.S. Marshals Service to expedite Relator’s safe passage to Detroit,

Michigan(home) 12070 W. Outer Drive, Detroit, Michigan 48223 USA; and,

(8) any and all other relief which this Court deems just and proper under the several circumstances

which have occasioned the instant INITIAL APPLICATION e.g. Habeas Corpus relief,WRITS

OF MANDUMUS(EXPUNGEMENT OF ARREST WARRANTS, ETC.), AND relief

from retaliatory actions, triple damages etc.

For judgment in the amount of Plaitniffdamgestogher with interettheron form the resptice dates due, cost, disburements, and reasonable attorney feees.

Declare that Lynch actions are illegal and unlawful in that she can not obstruct justice and/or a congressional investigation .

Declare thatthePlaintiff Bridgewater is unlawful held against her will and each and every arrest warrant of the Plaintiff is illegal and are void.

Declare that the Plaintiff Sharon and/or James Bridgewater is unlawful imprisoned against her will under the State of Michigan and Georgia, and/or California law.

Declare that Holder cannot withhold any information pertaining to this complaint, allegations, and the Plaintiff “Sharon Bridgewater” is entitled to injunctive relief

Declare that Lynch and/or Holder must produce all documents relating to any and all allegations made by the Plaintiffs and/or the Committeee and Oversight.

Deckare that Lynch is disqualified and/or declare that the Platniff Bridgewater can prosecute this action.

Under federal rules of Criminal Procedure – Rule 6, submit the name of Respondant Barak H. Obama in his official capacity, Loretta Lynch in her official capacity, Hillary Clinton “respondants,” and all other co-conspirator to a federal grand jury for [included common law grand jury letter-to all judges]for the crime of advocating the overthrow of the Constituional form of government of the United States, Treason, etc.(5 USC 3331, 5 USC 3333, 18 usc 1918 and Executive order No.s

Accordingly, all premises having been duly considered here, the United States now moves the Honorable Justices of this District Court for an ORDER to the 17A District Court to show cause why Extraordinary Writs of Mandamus should not issue, commanding that Circuit Court to perform ‑‑ with all deliberate speed ‑‑ all duties owed to Appellant as specifically itemized above, beginning with a Habeas Corpus and/or Writs of mandamus to expunge arrest etc.

The United States moves for said ORDER, on the strengths of this PETITION and of the official records that are now before this Court, to reinstate a cause erroneously dismissed.

grant the Petitioner all just and appropriate relief as deemed by this court.

I certify and/or Declare and/or state under penalty and perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 1STday of August 2016 in Detroit, Michigan

_____________________________________

THE STATE of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming[the District of Columbia, the Common wealth of Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Island, Guam, theNorthern Marianna Islands, the American Samoa] EX REL Sharon Bridgewater (A.K.A. Sharon Abusalem, Sharon Davis) Private Attorney General and QUI TAM RELATOR[ FROM 1993 and continuing thru present]- Real parties in interest

_____________________

Accordingly, all premises having been duly considered here, the United States now moves the Honorable Justices of this District Court for an ORDER to the 17A District Court to show cause why Extraordinary Writs of Mandamus should not issue, commanding that Circuit Court to perform ‑‑ with all deliberate speed ‑‑ all duties owed to Appellant as specifically itemized above, beginning with a Habeas Corpus and/or Writs of mandamus to expunge arrest etc.

The United States moves for said ORDER, on the strengths of this PETITION and of the official records that are now before this Court, to reinstate a cause erroneously dismissed.

ISSUE AGAINST Defendants Loretta Lynch be cared to appear and answer the allegation of this Complaint;

Issue a Writ of Qi Warrantor Loretta L. Lynch

Private Attorney General, hereby exercises its statutory and appeal and moves this honorable Court for a Writ in the nature of Quo Warrantor to issue upon Loretta E. Lynching her official capacity as United States Attorney General to demonstrate by what lawful authorities each claims to preside as the United States of American Attorney General Intervener also moves this honorable Court for a routine ORDER to the District Court Clerk, commanding that Office formally to certify to the United States Attorney General formal commanding that Office formally to certify appellant for presentation of all evidence admissible in the instant appeal, and for argument(s) on the questions of the constitutionality of the above.

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find and/or declare that all Defendants have associated with a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5) (“pattern” defined).

That all Defendants and all of 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 associating with any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who do engage in, or whose activities do affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

That all Defendants and all of 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 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) .

That if Defendant cannot be found within this District then all of their property within this district be attached in the sum of $________________________________, with interest thereon and cost, the sum sued for in this complaint.

That judgment be entered against the defendant in the sum of $_________________together with interest and costs; and

If for any reason it is alleged and/or found that Plaintiff is not entitled to the attachment of the Defendants property under Admiralty principle of foreign attachment, then in the, Plaintiff invokes the revision of Section 6201 to 6226 of the New York CPLR (and/or similar “50 State laws”).

this honorable Court for a Writ in the nature of Quo Warrantor to issue upon Loretta E. Lynching her official capacity as United States Attorney General to demonstrate by what lawful authorities claims to preside as the United States of American Attorney General commanding that Office formally to certify to the United States Attorney General formal and the Intervener also moves this Court for a routine ORDER to the District Clerk, commanding that Office formally to certify Intervener’s intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the instant appeal, and for argument(s) on the questions of the constitutionality of the above.

All premises having been duly considered, Intervener respectfully requests this honorable Court to issue a routine ORDER to the U.S. Department of Justice Loretta E. Lynch to show because why she should not be held in criminal and/or civil contempt of court.

ate and prays that this Court order the attachment of said property pursuant to the aforesaid provision of CPLR and FRCP 4(e) and Rule B(1) of the Supplenmtnal Rules for certain Admarility and Maritime claims: and

That process in due form of law, according to the practices of this Honorable Court in causes of admirality and maritime jurisprudence, April issue agains the The Federal Reserve, foreign Officials, and all Defndants that all person having or claiming any interest therein be citized to apper and answer under oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid; that Plaitniff have a deree for its damaged aforesaid, with interest and cost; and that the The Federal Reserve, foreign Officials, and all Defndants be condemned and sld to stisfy plaintiff decree;

That process in due form of law April issue against B citing it to appear and answer, under oath, all and singular, the matters aforesaid;

That the Court order, adjudge and decree that Plaitnifff have a decree against B for claim asserted gy plaintiff herein tooether with interest and costs and

That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as April be proper and that this Court s compettnet ot grnt.

That process in due form of law according to thepractice of this Honorable Court issue against the Defndants, citing them to appear and answer under oath all and singular the matters aforesaid;

Declare that Loretta E. Lynchaction constitute conspiracy under the color of law, and declare that Lynch is ineligle and/or disqualified as United States Attorney General.

Declare Obama can not exert executive privledge.

Judgment against Loretta LynchPrejudgment writs of Attachment for $100,000,000,000,0000,000(One Hundred Trillion Dollars via Loretta E. Lynch“Class Representative,”Million Dollars and prejudgment writ of attachment for and Judgment against Barak Obama in her official capacity et al for $100,000,000,0000,0000 judgment for its damges with interest and costs, agisnt the Defenants; and

That this court grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the justice of the cause April appear.

To issue an order to the U.S. Department of Justice Loretta E. Lynchto show cause why she should not be held in criminal and/or civil contempt of court.
To attachment of said property pruusant ot he aforesaid provovision of CPLR and FRCP 4(e) and Rule B(1) of the Supplenmtnal Rules for certain Admarility and Maritime claims: and/or
That process in due form of law, according to the practices of this Honorable Court in causes of admirality and maritime jurisprudence, April issue agains the stem ship, her enginces, tacke appearl. Etc. and that all person having or claiming any interest therein be citized to apper and answer under oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid; that Plaitniff have a deree for its damaged aforesaid, with interest and cost; and that the steamship__________be condemned and sld to stisfy plaintiff decree;
That process in due form of law April issue against B citing it to appear and answer, under oath, all and singular, the matters aforesaid;
That the Court order, adjudge and decree that Plaitnifff have a decree against B for claim asserted gy plaintiff herein tooether with interest and costs and
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as April be proper and that this Court s compettnet ot grnt.
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.
All other relief in which this court may deem just and appropriate.
Burification and/or Burificate all claims for relief .
The Plaintiff request this court to tranfer and consolidate all related casesand further that this court issue a Writ of Certiorari in this cause requiring Defendants to file the record of all matters relating to this decision with the Court; (b) that the Court issue an emergency stay of enforcement of the decision pending review on the merits in this causeand that the Court review the decision of the Defendants, that the final administrative decision be reversed, and for such other relief as this court deems just.
Accordingly, all premises having been duly considered here, the United States now moves the Honorable Justices of this District Court of Columbia for Loretta E. Lynchto show cause why Extraordinary Writs of Mandamus should not issue, commanding that Circuit Court to perform ‑‑ with all deliberate speed ‑‑ all duties owed to Appellant and/or Committee and Oversight.

The United States moves for said ORDER, on the strengths of this PETITION and of the official records that are now before this District Court of Columbia, to reinstate a cause erroneously dismissed.

That process ISSUE AGAINST Loretta E. Lynch be cired to appear and answer the allegatioin of this Complaint.

Issue a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto to issue upon Loretta E. Lynchin her official capacity as United States Attorney General to demonstrate by what lawful authorities each claims to preside as the United States of American Attorney General .
All premises having been duly considered, Intervenor respectfully requests this honorable Court to issue a routine ORDER to the U.S. Department of Justice Loretta E. Lynchto show cause why she should not be held in criminal and/or civil contempt of court.
To appoint Special Prosecutors and/or issue arrest warrants.

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find and/or declare that all Defendants have associated with a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5) (“pattern” defined) and 1962(c) supra.

That all Defendants and all of 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 associating with any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who do engage in, or whose activities do affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

That all Defendants and all of 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 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.

That if Defendant cannot be found within this District then all of their property within this istrict be attached in the sum of $________________________________, with interest thereon and cost, the sum sued for in this complaint;

That judgment be entered against the dfenant in the sum of $_________________together with interest and costs; and

If for any reason it is alleged and/or found that Plaintiff is not entitled to the attachment of the Dfenants property under Admirality principle of foreign attachment, then in the, Plaintiff invokes the rovision of Section 6201 to 6226 of the New Yor CPLR(and/or similar “50 State laws”).
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a), 2(b), 1341, 1343, 1346, 1952, 1956, 1957,
2314, and 2315.
ate and prays that this Court order the attachment of said property pruusant ot he aforesaid provovision of CPLR and FRCP 4(e) and Rule B(1) of the Supplenmtnal Rules for certain Admarility and Maritime claims: and
That Plaintiff April have such other and further relief as in lawq and justice tit April be entitle to receive.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays;

That process in due form of law, according to the practices of this Honorable Court in causes of admirality and maritime jurisprudence, April issue agains the stem ship, her enginces, tacke appearl. Etc. and that all person having or claiming any interest therein be citized to apper and answer under oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid; that Plaitniff have a deree for its damaged aforesaid, with interest and cost; and that the steamship__________be condemned and sld to stisfy plaintiff decree;
That process in due form of law April issue against B citing it to appear and answer, under oath, all and singular, the matters aforesaid;
That the Court order, adjudge and decree that Plaitnifff have a decree against B for claim asserted gy plaintiff herein tooether with interest and costs and
That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as April be proper and that this Court s compettnet ot grnt.

That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action. Judgment WRIT OF ATTACHMENT in the amount of Plaitniffs damages, tighter with interest thereon form the rrespective dates due, cost, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees.

That process in due form of law according to the practice of this court in cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction April issue against the Defendant cititng it to apprear and answer all the matters described in this complaint.Plaintiff have such other and further relief in the premises as in law and justice in April be entitled to receive.

SCHEDULE[DESIGNATION OF SCHEDULE]

Defendant’s Status and addresss:
A. Unpon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Barak H. Obama(AKA Barry Soertoes) class representative was a [type of legaly entity]authorized under the laws of the United States Constition, with offices and a place of business at [Obama address]

DETAILS OF THE _________(S)

Bill of Lading No.{ number of bill} dated {dated of bill of lading – 1993 thru present] from [name of citiy], [name of county] to [name of city], [name of state] on the vessel [name of vessel], [one(1) container SAID TO CONTAIN: [description of contents], at the applicable tariff charge of $____________dollar amount of ttarriff charge EXhits { of exhibit}

Amount Paid: Amount Due:____________

SUMMARY OF DAMAGES

Summary of Reasonable Counsel’s Fees: TBA

Summary of Consequential Damages: TBA

Summary of Actual Damages (partial list):

unpaid professional invoices: $ 10,000.000000000000000

triple damage multiplier (3x): $ 325,050.0000000000000000

triple damage multiplier (3x): $491,400,000.0000000000000000

Subtotal: $11111,310,833,400.00

TOTAL DAMAGES (minimum): $5,243,333,600.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

admiralityandmaritimeform1amended Download

admiralityandmaritimeclaim Download

admiralityandmaritimeformnoticeofarrestandnoticeofclaim Download

admiraltymaritimerightforms Download

writofattachmentsupplimentalrulepdfff Download

admiralityandmaritimeform2 Download

COMES NOW SHARON[DAVIS- ABUSALEM]BRIDGEWATER VIA “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE 50 STATES(AND/OR HUMANITY)AND CLERK, JUDGE, JURY, PROSECUTOR, “U.S. MARSHAL”(18 U.S. Code § 3053 – Powers of marshals and deputies” AND/OR 8 U.S. Code § 566) PURUSANT TO AND EXECUTIONER PURSUANT TO LEGAL RIGHT VIA THE RACKETEERED INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATON ACT(RICO) AND/OR ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW GIVE NOTICE OF FORFEITURE OF ALL TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL “SECRET” CONCENTRATION CAMPS, “BOX RAILROAD-TRACK TRAIN CARS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF “THE FINAL HOLOCAUST VICTIMS,” GUILLOTINES, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT(FEMA) CASKETS “MILLIONS” – SEE BELOW)YESHUA/JESUS CHRIST, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAELAPPEARS BEFORE “THE GOD OF THE EARTH” JACOB ROTHCHILD(SATAN’S REPRESENTATIVE – THE GOD OF THIS EARTH, THE THIRTEENTH BLOOD LINES, SATANIST, FATHER OF LIES, DECEPTION, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE TWO SHARON[DAVIS-ABUSALEM] BRIDGEWATER VIA”THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR(A WOMEN AND VICTIM OF TRUMP, GARLAND, BIDEN, HARRIS, OBAMA “U.S. GOVERNMENT STATE ACTORS” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION, RENDERED DISABLED BY THEIR HEINOUS ACTS OR OMISSION FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING TO JAN. 1, 2009 AND FURTHER CONTINUING THRUINTENTIONAL” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION BY PRESENT)AND THE SHARON[DAVIS-ABUSALEM] BRIDGEWATER VIA”THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR(A )(SEE REVELATION 12 – ALSO SEE AMERICA JUDGED ON THIS WEBSITE– SEPTEMBER 23, 2017) BEFORE, STATUE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED

admiralityandmaritimeform1can-not-be-found-in-my-districtpdf Download

THE CLAIM

admiralityandmaritimeclaim-2 Download

admiralityandmaritimeform1amended Download

NOTICE OF ADJUDIFICATION, OF CONVICTION, JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS DECREED, ORDED AND AJUJECTS THAT ALL ALL PRESIDENTS FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT ARE ALL GUILTY OF TREASON, RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY AND, ALL ILLEGALLY UPURPS PUBLIC OFFICE

ALL WRITS, OPINION, JUDGMENTS ORDERS ARE NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL EFFECT, CONTRACTS WITH THE ENEMY ARE

DECREE, ENJOINS AND RESTRAIN BIDEN, VIA ARREST, AND IMPRISONMENT

injunctionwrit-needtoamend-1 Download

ARREST WARRANTS IN REM

lookforinpersonadocument Download

INJUNCTION AND ARREST WARRANT FOR BIDEN HERE(18 U.S.C. section 912, treason, racketeering conspiracy, genocide violation ofthe number

Biden aobstrcution of justice , trump, garland, biden and the marogo raid special master – aiding and betting18 U.S.C. 2382 – jan. 6,

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/06/special-master-order-reveals-bidens-direct-involvement-in-trump-raid-and-six-other-bombshells/

degreed that all inflitrate the racketeer u.s. presidental ecetions via null and void and without any leady e

extradictionorderofcommitment Download

hagueassistance Download

surrenderpassports1 Download

Adjudications are by their nature retroactive applications of the law.

supplimentalruleb1pdf Download

admiralityandmaritimeform1amended Download

noticeofpublicationc4pdf Download

ATTACHMENT – ARREST WARRANTS HERE

rulecand4admiraltyamended Download

lookforinpersonadocument Download

injunctionwrit-needtoamend-1 Download

THE CLAIM

(AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP)

(A public private/partnership)

EXH.A

JACOB ROTHCHILD(SATAN’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) ET AL ALL ARE “SATANIC” EVIL CRIMINALS, FRAUDSTERS, CONTINUE TO DEFRAUD THE TWO WITNESES AND THE PUBLIC!!

ANGELA MERKEL QUITS, U.S. BORIS JOHNSON RESIGNS, QUEEN ELIZABETH DIES, U.A.E. THE THIRD MOST WEALTHEST NATION IN THE WORLD KING DIES – UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF TO PREVENT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND FROM EXTRADICTION TO FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NUREMBERG CODE……..

JOE BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, DONALD TRUMP, MICK PENCE, ET AL KNOWINGLY COMMITTED CRIMINAL ACTS, & ACTED IN JOINT PARTICIPATION GRANTED CHINA SOVERIEGNTY OVER THE UNITED STATES TO ENSLAVE AND/OR BEHEAD ALL WHO DO NOT WORSHIP SATAN(“LITERALLY”)

BIDEN AND HARRIS CONSPIRED WITH ONE OR MORE MERRICK GARLAND, XI JIPING, RUSSIA PUTIN, DONALD TRUMP AND WILLIAM BARR TO DEFRAUD THE TWO WITNESSES IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR REBELLION AND/OR INSURRECTION IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S. Code § 2383(SEE BELOW) CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE U.S.A. IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SECTION 371, VIOLATIONS OF THE NUREMBERG CODE, RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY, VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, FALSE ARREST, ILLEGALLY AND WRONGFULLY HOLDING THE OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL BY FORCE AND WITHOUT THE RIGHT, PRETENDING TO BE AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SECTION 912 AND HOST OF OTHER CRIMES SEE BELOW: 18 U.S. Code § 912 – Officer or employee of the United States, A HOST OF OTHER CRIMES SEE BELOW:

Plaintiff_____________is informed and believes_and therfoon allesges ____________that at all times herein mentioned, each of he Defendands sued herein was the agent and employees of each of the remaining defendant and was at times acting within the purpose and scope of such gency and employment.

On or about ____________1993 Defendant_and each of them knowily and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to ______________________.

[Here and in subsequtent paragraphs as necessary, allege facts constitutiong the tort or other civil worng committed by caused to the plaintiff._.

Defendnat _and each of them did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant ot, and infurtherance of the conspiracy of the above alleged agreement.

Defendant _______and each of them did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant ot, and infurtherance of the conspiracy and above-allege agreement.

Cooperation with or leent aid and encouragement to or ratified and adopted the acts of Defendant Obama in that _______________.

As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged Plaintiff___________has ______________has _been generally damed in the sum of ____________.

JAN. 6, 2021 TRUMP

REBELLION OR INSURRECTION 18 U.S. Code § 2383(HE HAD A LEGAL DUTY AS PRESIDENT TO CALL THE NATIONAL GUARDS TO PROTECT OUR U.S. CAPITOL)AND FAILED TO!! TRUMP IS GUILTY OF AIDING, ABETTING PUTIN 2016 ELECTIONS, AND

CLICK HERE FOR BIDEN, TRUMP, GARLAND MAR-A-LARGO RAID CONSPIRACY

AND

JUDGE SPECIAL MASTER ORDER TO “PROTECT EACH OTHER AND/OR THE RACKETEERING CRIMINAL ENTERPRIZE” AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S. Code § 1961(4)!!”

COMES NOW THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY AND/OR RELATOR, INJURED AND DAMAGED IN BUSINESS, PERSON OR PROPERTY, RESTRAINED FROM INTERSTATE AND/OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO BIDEN’S TERM]JOE BIDEN & KAMALA HARRIS FAILURE TO PROTECT U.S. BOARDERS(AND HIS PREDECCESSORS ALL U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, RACKETEERING IMMIRGARATION POLICIES ALL U.S. CE

& VIOLATING AND/OR COMMITTING ONE OR MORE SECTION 1961(1)(F)THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT – RACKETEERING OFFENSES – BRING IN AND/OR HARBOR ILLEGAL ALIENS INDICTABLE UNDER THE INMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, I.E, SECTION 274

VIOLATING AND/OR COMMITTING ONE OR MORE SECTION 1961(1)(F)THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT – RACKETEERING OFFENSES – BRING IN AND/OR HARBOR ILLEGAL ALIENS INDICTABLE UNDER THE INMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, I.E, SECTION 274
AID, ABET AND ASSIST ALIENS TO ENTER THE U.S.A. IN VIOLATION OF 277 or section 278 (relating to importation of aliens for immoral purposes) FOR FINANCIAL GAIN AS CODIFIED 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1327 and 1328.

Biden(AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATE – SEE OBAMA PAGE – ALL JUDGES DISMISSED ALL PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED “PLAINTIFFS” VS. BARAK H. OBAMA A.K.A BARRY SOERTOES EXACTLY LIKE THEY DISMISSED ALL MY COMPLAINT OVER THE COURSE OF NON-STOP CONTINUAUL ENTITLED SHARON BRIDGEWATER VS. BARAK H. OBAMA) DACA Obama Anemsty Program(IS NOW BIDEN AND HARRIS OPEN BORDER DOOR POLICY-SEE BELOW) constitute aiding and/or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States in violation of one or more section 1324, 1327, and/or 1328

bidenopendoorpolicyworstinhistory Download

KAMALA HARRIS CO-CONSPIRATOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTE AIDING, ABETTING OR CONSPIRING WITH JOE BIDE TO ALLOW IMMIGRATES IN TO THE U.S. TO FUTHER THE “INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRIZE AGENDA!!”

IMMIGRATION IN THE U.S.A. HIT A RECORD 46.2 MILLION(THE HIGHEST RECORDED IN U.S. HISTORY)IN ONE MONTH!!

immigrant-population-hits-record-46.2-million-in-november-2021 Download

vp-kamala-harris-has-abandoned-border-czar-role-2 Download

CLIKC HERE FOR ARREST WARRANT AND INJUNCTION FOR KAMALA HARRIS AND GAVIN NEWSOME AS FOLLOWS

ALL UNDER ARREST ARE SENTENCE TO LIFE IN PRISION AND/OR THE DEATH PENALITY!!

MERRICK GARLAND THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE “HEAD(OVERSEE)AND” OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMRIGATION REVIEW. The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created on January 9, 1983, through an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) reorganization which combined the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) with the Immigration Judge function previously performed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now part of the Department of Homeland Security). Besides establishing EOIR as a separate agency within DOJ, this reorganization made the Immigration Courts independent of INS, the agency charged with enforcement of Federal immigration laws. The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) was added in 1987. In 2013, EOIR observed its 30th anniversary.

EOIR is also separate from the Immigration and Employee Rights Section in the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the Office of Immigration Litigation in the DOJ Civil Division.

As an office within the Department of Justice, EOIR is headed by a Director who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General. Its headquarters are located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.

biden-administration-quietly-erasing-immigration-court-caseload_-de-facto-amnesty-_-washington-examiner Download

MERRICK GARLAND ACTS OR OMISSIONS AND FAILURE TO “OVERSEE” HIS STAFF ACTS OR OMISSIONS AND/OR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OUR BORDERS, CONSTITUTE

VIOLATING AND/OR COMMITTING ONE OR MORE SECTION 1961(1)(F)THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT – RACKETEERING OFFENSES – BRING IN AND/OR HARBOR ILLEGAL ALIENS INDICTABLE UNDER THE INMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, I.E, SECTION 274

AID, ABET AND ASSIST ALIENS TO ENTER THE U.S.A. IN VIOLATION OF 277 or section 278 (relating to importation of aliens for immoral purposes) FOR FINANCIAL GAIN AS CODIFIED 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1327 and 1328(FOR PROFIT)AND THE TWO WITNESSES(BOTH SHARON AND/OR JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER) HAVE BEEN INJURED AND DAMAGED BY GARLAND ACTS OR OMISSIONS AND GARLAND IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

DECREE,ORDER, ENJOINS AND RESTRAIN MERRICK GARLAND FROM ILLEGALLY, UNLAWFULLY UPURPING THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHOUT THE RIGHT AS FOLLOWS:

KAMALA HARRIS(VICE PRESIDENT), NANCY PEOLOSI(SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE), CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOME, FLORIDA GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS AND/OR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI IMMIGRATION RACKETEERINGACTS OR OMISSIONS IMMIGRATION AND RACKETEERING(INJUNCTION AND ARREST WARRANT)!!

ACTS OR OMISSIONS AND FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OUR BORDERS, CONSTITUTE

CLICK HERE FOR GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA RON DESANTIS AND/OR SPEAKER OF THE HOUS NANCY PELOSI IMMIGRATION RACKETEERING INJUNCTION AND/OR ARREST WARRANTS!!

DECREE,ORDER, ENJOINS AND RESTRAIN GAVIN NEWSOME FROM ILLEGALLY, UNLAWFULLY UPURPING THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHOUT THE RIGHT AS FOLLOWS:

WITH F JOE BIDEN[KAMALA HARRIS, MERRICK GARLAND “CRIMINAL CLASS REPRESENTATIVES” ALL U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, U.S. LEGISLATORS, “GOVERNORS, MAYORS, ETC. EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,” MAJOR CORPORATIONS, AND FOREIGN OFFICIALS FOR THEIR ACTS OR OMISSIONS FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT”] ADOPTION OF DONALD TRUMP, ET AL SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BOTH SHARON AND/OR JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER OUT OF MONEY AND/OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW), USED THREAT, COERCION, DECEPTION TO TRICK ONE OR BOTH WITNESSES TO TAKE THE COV-19 INJECTION(IN VIOLATION OF THE NUREMBERG CODE)ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 14067 TO DO AWAY ALL CASH(STEAL ALL OUR CASH IN THE BANK AND FORCE US TO BUY ONLY WHAT THEY APPROVE – “ENSLAVEMENT”

-CLICK HERE-VERY IMPORTANT

TWO WITNESSES(ALL. U.S. CITIZENS AND/OR HUMANITY)”ALL” OUR HARD EARN MONEY IN THE BANK[ALL RETIREMENT FUNDS, 401K’S, MUTUAL FUNDS “EVERYTHING”] FORCE THE TWO WITNESSES(ALL U.S. CITIZENS AND HUMANITY) US TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THEY WANT, & PROPERTY AND ENSLAVE US BY USING A DIGITAL DOLLAR-“CUT ON OR OFF”

AT WILL BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!!

FOR ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL SCHEME TO “STEAL” THE

video here – central bank digital currencies: freedom dies!

BIDEN GRANTS(ATTEMPTS)TO U.S. SOVERIGNTY TO CHINA A COUNTRY(“THAT DO NOT NOT BELIEVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS”) GOING BANKRUPT SEE BELOW:

FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE BIDEN GIVES OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE CHINA HANDING OVER U.S. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY & OVER ULTIMATE CONTROL OF AMERICA’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM(OBAMACARE) IS Mass surveillance in China,”Predictive Policing,” China social credit system, China Cashless Society which, COLLECT MEN AND WOMEN DNA TO INPUT IN A SUPERCOMPUTER VIA COV-19 TEST KITS SENT TO HOSPITAL AND/OR LABS

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/china-involved-in-illegal-gene-harvesting-dna-collection-of-uyghurs-iffras-report.html

https://www.thetrumpet.com/24057-why-is-china-collecting-american-dna

https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/china-collecting-dna-tens-millions-men-and-boys-using-us-equipment

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/china-involved-in-illegal-gene-harvesting-dna-collection-of-uyghurs-iffras-report.html

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BIDEN SUBMITTED TO THE WHO AS FOLLOWS:

ALSO, BIDEN GIVES CHINA ACCESS TO THE U.S. POWER GRID!!

-CLICK HERE-

https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act

– CHINA GOT YOUR DNA) parallel with Biden’s March 9, 2022 Digital Forms of Currency

– CHINA GOT ‘the two witnesses ” and/or humanity DNA VIA U.S. SUPREME GRANTS COLLECTION OF “ALL dna WITHOUT PROBALBE CAUSE – SEE BELOW U.S. SUPREME COURT ORDER) parallel with Biden’s March 9, 2022 Digital Forms of Currency

In the United States, there are both federal and state laws prohibiting treason. Treason is defined on the federal level in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution as: “only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Most state constitutions include similar definitions of treason, specifically limited to levying war against the state, “adhering to the enemies” of the state, or aiding the enemies of the state, and requiring two witnesses or a confession in open court.

COVID “PLANDEMIC” “MODELED AFTER THE WORLD ECONOMIC CRISIS 1929-1939.(CURRENT STOCK MARKET MANPULATION SETTING THE STAGE FOR COLLAPSE OF THE STOCK MARKET/WALL STREET) SIMILAR TO LARGE-SCALE UNEMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL DISLOCATION WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE RISE OF NAZISM IN GERMANY AND ADOLF HITLER, AND THE POPULATRITY OF COMMUNISM(PEOPLE WHERE MOR ACCEPTANC – AND NAZI SOCIAL DISTANCING) IT PARALELL WITH “MASS LARGE SCALE UNEMPLOYMENT” SOCIAL DISLOCATION AND THE RISE AND/OR ACCEPTANCE VIA THE COVID “PLANDEMIC” SAME WITH THE THE PANDEMIC CAUSE GREAT DEPRESSION

CONSOLIDATE WITH COMMUNIST CHINA, PREDICTIVE POLICING, DO A “GREAT RESET”

CONCEALED KNOWN FACTS THEY WERE UNDER A DUTY TO DISCLOSED, USED TRICK SCHEME AND COERCION TO “FORCE” ONE OR BOTH WITNESSES TO TAKE AND COV-19 INJECTIONS, BY BIDEN MANDATES IN WHICH ALL ANIMINAL DIED IN STUDIES AND VIOLED THE NUREMBERG CODE REFERRED TO THE TWO WITNESSES(AND HUMAN BEINGS – “HUMANITY”) AS “HACKABLE ANIMALS!!”

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

-CLICK HERE-

Photo by MART PRODUCTION on Pexels.com –

HUNDREDS AND/OR THOUSANDS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SPEAK AGAINST THE “COV-19 INJECTION” & PROSECUTE, HAVE FAILED AND DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL STANDING OR CAPACITY TO PROSECUTE AND JAIL THE PERPETRATORS) MILLIONS AND/OR BILLIONS OF PEOPLE”AROUND THE WORLD” HAVE BEEN “CENSORED” AND UNABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS, OPINIONS ABOUT “THE COV-19 INJECTION.” FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOUTUBE AND MOST IF NOT ALL SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE BEEN “CENSORED” COMPANIES, HAVE BEEN “FLAGGED,” CONTENT INAPPROPRIATE, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY STATED TERMS OF SERVICE, MAKING UNANNOUNCED AND UNEXPLAINTED CHANGES TO COMPANY POLICIES THAT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DISFAVORING CERTAIN VEIWPOINTS; AND DELETING CONTENT AND ENTIRE ACCOUNTS WITH NO WARNING, NO RATIONALE AND/OR O RECOURSE AND TO PARELLEL WITH CHINA’S XI JINPING AND MAJOR CORPORATION GOOGLE CHINA’S CO-CONSPIRATOR AS FOLLOWS

GOOGLE CHINA’S CO-CONSPIRATOR(JACOB ROTCHILD AKA “THE GLOBAL ELITE” AS FOLLOWS CREATED A SEARCH ENGINE FOR CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY THAT WOULD BLACKLIST SEARCHES FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS,” HID DATA UNFAVORABLE TO CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY AND TRACKED USERS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE FOR SURVEILLENCE. ALSO ESTABLISHED PARTNERSHIPS IN CHINA THAT PROVIDE DIRECT BENEFITS TO CHINESE MILITARY. OTHER COMPANIES HAVE ACCEPTED ADVERTISEMENTS PAID FOR BY THE CHINESE GOVENMENT THAT SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT CHINA’S MASS IMPRISIONMENT OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES THEREBY ENABLING THESE ABUSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THEY HAVE ALSO AMPLIFIED CHINA’S PROPAGANDA ABROAD, INCLUDING BY ALLOWING CHINESE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO USE THEIR PLATFORMS TO SPREAD MISINFORMATION REGARDING THE ORIGINS OF THE COV-19 PANDEMIC, AND TO UNDERMINE PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTEST IN HONG KONG

googles-dragonfly-project_-a-censored-search-engine-for-china-spurs-a-moral-crisis-vox Download

_______________________________

VIA ADMARILTY AND/OR MARITIME LAW, BURIFICATION OF TRIAL, AND NOTICE OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND ALL se concurrent jurisdiction over admiralty cases in which plaintiffs seek traditional common law remedies)- AND ADJUDICATION OF IN PERSONAM(AND/OR QUI ADMIRALTYPROPERTY IS FORFEITED TO “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AS FOLLOWS, “TAKING SATAN’S JOB IN HEAVEN(AS CHIEF MUSICIAN, PRAISE AND WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY CREATOR)TAKING ALL OF SATAN MONEY, FORFEITED BY PRIDE, WRONG :ELOW)YESHUA/JESUS CHRIST, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAELAPPEARS BEFORE “THE GOD OF THE EARTH” JACOB ROTHCHILD(SATAN’S REPRESENTATIVE – THE GOD OF THIS EARTH, THE THIRTEENTH BLOOD LINES, SATANIST, FATHER OF LIES, DECEPTION, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE TWO SHARON[DAVIS-ABUSALEM] BRIDGEWATER VIA”THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR(A WOMEN AND VICTIM OF TRUMP, GARLAND, BIDEN, HARRIS, OBAMA “U.S. GOVERNMENT STATE ACTORS” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION, RENDERED DISABLED BY THEIR HEINOUS ACTS OR OMISSION FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING TO JAN. 1, 2009 AND FURTHER CONTINUING THRUINTENTIONAL” CONTINUAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION BY PRESENT)AND THE SHARON[DAVIS-ABUSALEM] BRIDGEWATER VIA”THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR(A )(SEE REVELATION 12 – ALSO SEE AMERICA JUDGED ON THIS WEBSITE– SEPTEMBER 23, 2017) BEFORE, STATUE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED

SEE BELOW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, BI-LATERAL CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, ARREST WARRANTS IN REM AND OTHER ADMIRALITY AND/OR MARITIME DOCUMENTS

(ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, MY SON JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER, U.S. CITIZENS, THE SAINTS OF GOD IN HEAVEN AND/OR OF “HUMANITY,” MEN AND WOMEN CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HEAVEN, YESHUA/JESUS CHRIST – GOD, THE 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL (ON BEHALF OF JAMES S. BRIDGEWATER, U.S. CITIZENS AND/OR HUMANITY) A VICTIM AND FEDERAL WITNESS, INJURED AND DAMAGED IN BUSINESS, PERSON OR PROPERTY & RESTRAINED FROM INTERSTATE AND/OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT (ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, HER SON – THE SECOND WITNESS AND VICTIM OF A U.S. GOVERNMENT VICTIM AND FEDERAL WITNESS INJURED AND DAMAGED BY THE COV-19 INJECTION, RESTRAIN VIA “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL( AND/OR RELATOR A QUALIFIED FEDERAL BEING DULY)REPRESENTATIVE OF “HUMANITY,” MEN AND WOMEN CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HEAVEN, YESHUA/JESUS CHRIST – GOD, THE 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL – JUDGE, JURY, PROSECUTOR, CLERK AND EXECUTOR, PURSUANT TO MY “COMMON LAW RIGHT VIA ADMARILTY AND/OR MARITIME LAW, BURIFICATION OF TRIAL, AND NOTICE OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND ALL se concurrent jurisdiction over admiralty cases in which plaintiffs seek traditional common law remedies)- AND ADJUDICATION OF IN PERSONAM(AND/OR QUI ADMIRALTYPROPERTY IS FORFEITED TO “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AS FOLLOWS, “TAKING SATAN’S JOB IN HEAVEN(AS CHIEF MUSICIAN, PRAISE AND WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY CREATOR)TAKING ALL OF SATAN MONEY, FORFEITED BY PRIDE, WRONG :

COMES NOW SHARON[DAVIS- ABUSALEM]BRIDGEWATER VIA “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE 50 STATES(AND/OR HUMANITY)AND CLERK, JUDGE, JURY, PROSECUTOR, “U.S. MARSHAL”(18 U.S. Code § 3053 – Powers of marshals and deputies” AND/OR 8 U.S. Code § 566) PURUSANT TO AND EXECUTIONER PURSUANT TO LEGAL RIGHT VIA THE RACKETEERED INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATON ACT(RICO) AND/OR ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW GIVE NOTICE OF FORFEITURE OF ALL TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL “SECRET” CONCENTRATION CAMPS, “BOX RAILROAD-TRACK TRAIN CARS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF “THE FINAL HOLOCAUST VICTIMS,” GUILLOTINES, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT(FEMA) CASKETS “MILLIONS” – SEE

, BURIFICATION OF TRIAL, AND NOTICE OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND ALL se concurrent jurisdiction over admiralty cases in which plaintiffs seek traditional common law remedies)- AND ADJUDICATION OF IN PERSONAM(AND/OR QUI ADMIRALTYPROPERTY IS FORFEITED TO “THE 50 STATES EX REL SHARON BRIDGEWATER PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND/OR RELATOR AS FOLLOWS, “TAKING SATAN’S JOB IN HEAVEN(AS CHIEF MUSICIAN, PRAISE AND WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY CREATOR)TAKING ALL OF SATAN MONEY, FORFEITED BY PRIDE, WRONG :

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FROM JAN. 1, 1993 AND CONTINUING THRU TO PRESENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE “50 STATES” AND/OR “HUMANITY” VIA THE RACKETEERED ININGJ “U.S. MARSHAL”(18 U.S. Code § 3053 – Powers of marshals and deputies” AND/OR 8 U.S. Code § 566) PURUSANT TO AND EXECUTIONER PURSUANT TO LEGAL RIGHT VIA THE RACKETEERED INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATON ACT(RICO) AND/OR ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAWMY “COMMON LAW RIGHT VIA ADMARILTY AND/OR MARITIME LAW

PROSECUTOR, JUDGE, JURY(ONE OR MORE CLERK, U.S. MARSHAL)

NEW PAGE

§2332d. Financial transactions

(a) Offense.—Except as provided in regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, whoever, being a United States person, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is designated under section 6(j) ¹ of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405) as a country supporting international terrorism, engages in a financial transaction with the government of that country, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

(b) Definitions.—As used in this section—

(1) the term “financial transaction” has the same meaning as in section 1956(c)(4); and

(2) the term “United States person” means any—

(A) United States citizen or national;

(B) permanent resident alien;

(D) any person in the United States.

§2332f. Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities

(a) Offenses.—

(1) In general.—Whoever unlawfully delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility—

(A) with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or

(B) with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility, or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss,

shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).

(2) Attempts and conspiracies.—Whoever attempts or conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).

(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses in subsection (a) if—

(1) the offense takes place in the United States and—

(A) the offense is committed against another state or a government facility of such state, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of that state;

(B) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel another state or the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;

(i) on board a vessel flying the flag of another state;

(ii) on board an aircraft which is registered under the laws of another state; or

(iii) on board an aircraft which is operated by the government of another state;

(D) a perpetrator is found outside the United States;

(E) a perpetrator is a national of another state or a stateless person; or

(F) a victim is a national of another state or a stateless person;

(2) the offense takes place outside the United States and—

(A) a perpetrator is a national of the United States or is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;

(B) a victim is a national of the United States;

(D) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;

(E) the offense is committed against a state or government facility of the United States, including an embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of the United States;

(F) the offense is committed on board a vessel flying the flag of the United States or an aircraft which is registered under the laws of the United States at the time the offense is committed; or

(G) the offense is committed on board an aircraft which is operated by the United States.

(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction.—This section does not apply to—

(1) the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under the law of war, which are governed by that law,

(2) activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties; or

(3) offenses committed within the United States, where the alleged offender and the victims are United States citizens and the alleged offender is found in the United States, or where jurisdiction is predicated solely on the nationality of the victims or the alleged offender and the offense has no substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce.

(e) Definitions.—As used in this section, the term—

(1) “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365(g)(3) of this title; ¹

(2) “national of the United States” has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));

(3) “state or government facility” includes any permanent or temporary facility or conveyance that is used or occupied by representatives of a state, members of Government, the legislature or the judiciary or by officials or employees of a state or any other public authority or entity or by employees or officials of an intergovernmental organization in connection with their official duties;

(4) “intergovernmental organization” includes international organization (as defined in section 1116(b)(5) of this title);

(5) “infrastructure facility” means any publicly or privately owned facility providing or distributing services for the benefit of the public, such as water, sewage, energy, fuel, or communications;

(6) “place of public use” means those parts of any building, land, street, waterway, or other location that are accessible or open to members of the public, whether continuously, periodically, or occasionally, and encompasses any commercial, business, cultural, historical, educational, religious, governmental, entertainment, recreational, or similar place that is so accessible or open to the public;

(7) “public transportation system” means all facilities, conveyances, and instrumentalities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used in or for publicly available services for the transportation of persons or cargo;

(8) “explosive” has the meaning given in section 844(j) of this title insofar that it is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury, or substantial material damage;

(9) “other lethal device” means any weapon or device that is designed or has the capability to cause death, serious bodily injury, or substantial damage to property through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents, or toxins (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title) or radiation or radioactive material;

(10) “military forces of a state” means the armed forces of a state which are organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, and persons acting in support of those armed forces who are under their formal command, control, and responsibility;

(11) “armed conflict” does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature; and

(12) “state” has the same meaning as that term has under international law, and includes all political subdivisions thereof.

(Added Pub. L. 107–197, title I, §102(a), June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 721.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Section 1365(g)(3), referred to in subsec. (e)(1), was redesignated section 1365(h)(3) by Pub. L. 107–307, §2(1), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2445.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date

Pub. L. 107–197, title I, §103, June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 724, provided that: “Section 102 [enacting this section and provisions set out as a note below] shall take effect on the date that the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings enters into force for the United States [July 26, 2002].”

Disclaimer

Pub. L. 107–197, title I, §102(c), June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 724, provided that: “Nothing contained in this section [enacting this section and provisions set out as a note above] is intended to affect the applicability of any other Federal or State law which might pertain to the underlying conduct.”

¹ See References in Text note below.

§2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

(a) Unlawful Conduct.—

(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—

(A) an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to—

(i) seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or

(ii) otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;

(B) any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or

(C) any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

(2) Nonweapon.—Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.

(3) Excluded conduct.—This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or

(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.

(b) Jurisdiction.—Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—

(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;

(4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or

(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section.

(1) In general.—Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life.

(2) Other circumstances.—Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life.

(3) Special circumstances.—If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.

(d) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “aircraft” has the definition set forth in section 40102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code.

(Added Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, §6903, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3770.)

§2332h. Radiological dispersal devices

(a) Unlawful Conduct.—

(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—

(A) any weapon that is designed or intended to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; or

(B) any device or other object that is capable of and designed or intended to endanger human life through the release of radiation or radioactivity.

(2) Exception.—This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof.

(b) Jurisdiction.—Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—

(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;

(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;

(3) Special circumstances.—If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.

(Added Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, §6905, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3772.)

§2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating to arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

(Added Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §803(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4005(d)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1813.)

Editorial Notes

Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 107–56, §803(a), which enacted this section.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4005(d)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1813, provided that the amendment made by section 4005(d)(2) is effective Oct. 26, 2001.

§2339A. Providing material support to terrorists

(a) Offense.—Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

(b) Definitions.—As used in this section—

(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;

(2) the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and

(3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

§2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

(a) Prohibited Activities.—

(1) Unlawful conduct.—Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

(2) Financial institutions.—Except as authorized by the Secretary, any financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of, or control over, any funds in which a foreign terrorist organization, or its agent, has an interest, shall—

(A) retain possession of, or maintain control over, such funds; and

(B) report to the Secretary the existence of such funds in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.

(b) Civil Penalty.—Any financial institution that knowingly fails to comply with subsection (a)(2) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount that is the greater of—

(A) $50,000 per violation; or

(B) twice the amount of which the financial institution was required under subsection (a)(2) to retain possession or control.

(c) Injunction.—Whenever it appears to the Secretary or the Attorney General that any person is engaged in, or is about to engage in, any act that constitutes, or would constitute, a violation of this section, the Attorney General may initiate civil action in a district court of the United States to enjoin such violation.

(d) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.—

(1) In general.—There is jurisdiction over an offense under subsection (a) if—

(A) an offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))) or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)));

(B) an offender is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;

(C) after the conduct required for the offense occurs an offender is brought into or found in the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States;

(D) the offense occurs in whole or in part within the United States;

(E) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

(F) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this paragraph in committing an offense under subsection (a) or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this paragraph to commit an offense under subsection (a).

(2) Extraterritorial jurisdiction.—There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

§2339D. Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization

(a) Offense.—Whoever knowingly receives military-type training from or on behalf of any organization designated at the time of the training by the Secretary of State under section 219(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a foreign terrorist organization shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for ten years, or both. To violate this subsection, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (c)(4)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.—There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section. There is jurisdiction over an offense under subsection (a) if—

(1) an offender is a national of the United States (as defined in ¹ 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act);

(2) an offender is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;

(3) after the conduct required for the offense occurs an offender is brought into or found in the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States;

(4) the offense occurs in whole or in part within the United States;

(5) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

(6) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this paragraph in committing an offense under subsection (a) or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this paragraph to commit an offense under subsection (a).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ activities described herein above constituted an artifice and scheme to defraud Class Plantiffs and/or Petitioners, and/or the United States and/or Class Plaintiffs subject the Plaintiffs to peonage and/or slavery, defraud, the plaintiffs out of money or property,and/or to publish, transmit, and/or otherwise circulate misleading, false information about Sharon Bridgewater(Speciatly Investment Group LLC)to maliciously, defame, libel, and hurt the Plaintiffs representation, name and/or minority businesses, and/or false and misleading information including of but not restricted to that there actions were :

Approved by the US President

Approved by the Department of Justice

Approved by Supreme Court of the United States

Approved by Appealant Court Judges

Approved by US Legislators and US Congressman

Approved by Secretary of State

Approved by the

Approved by the Alameda County Housing Authority

Approved by the San Francisco Superior Court

Approved by the United States Federal District Court of Georgia

Approved by the United States Federal District Court of California’

Approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

Approved by Gwinnett County

Approved by County of Dekalb County

Approved by the State of Califoria

Approved by the United States Federal Government Department of Justice

Approved by the United States Federal District Court of Michigan

Approved by the United States President

The Defendants actions drove the Plaintiffs out of business and prevented the complaintant from conducting business, and the plaintiffs lost profits and the defendants actions constitute a course of conduct and a pattern of practice intended, designed, implemented, and executed to destroy the Plaintiffs and/or other victims(African Americans and Hispanics) and constitutes contravention of both Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 and/or a violation of (1) and/or (2) and/or (3) and/or (4) and/or (5) and/or (6) and/or (7) and/or (8) and/or (9) and/or (10) and/or(11)and/or (12) and/or (13) and/or(14) and/or (15) and/or (14) and/or (15) and/or (16) and/or (17) and/or (18) and/or (19) and/or (20) and/or (21) and/or (22) and/or (23) and/or (24) and/or (25) and/or (26) and/or (27) and/or (28) and/or (29) and/or (30) and/or (31) and/or (32) as mentioned in the above pages 42 thru 46 of the above criminal charges.

8.3 ASSAULT ON FEDERAL OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE

(18 U.S.C. § 111(a))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assault on a federal officer in violation of Section 111(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant forcibly assaulted [name of federal officer or employee]; [and]

Second, the defendant did so while [name of federal officer or employee] was engaged in, or on account of [his] [her] official duties[.] [; and]

[Third, the defendant [made physical contact] [acted with the intent to commit another felony].]

There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or willfully attempts to inflict injury on another, or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

Comment

When the crime is charged under the enhanced penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), use Instruction 8.4 (Assault on Federal Officer [With a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon] [Which Inflicts Bodily Injury]).

See 18 U.S.C. § 1114 for the definition of federal officer or employee referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 111.

The third element is to be used only when the charge is a felony. A felony charge requires actual physical contact or action with the intent to commit another felony.

A reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm is determined with reference to a reasonable person aware of the circumstances known to the victim, not with reference to all circumstances, including circumstances unknown to the victim. United States v. Acosta-Sierra, 690 F.3d 1111, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).

The statutory language states that the crime can be committed by one who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes,” but the Ninth Circuit has held that regardless of the circumstances, the conduct is not criminal unless it includes an assault. United States v. Chapman, 528 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir.2008). Similarly, the court has held that a proper instruction may not reduce the concept of force or threatened force to the mere appearance of physical intimidation. United States v. Harrison, 585 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir.2009).

There is no requirement that an assailant be aware that the victim is a federal officer.

United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975). If the defendant denies knowledge that the person assaulted was a federal officer and claims to have acted in self-defense, Instruction 8.5 (Assault on Federal Officer or Employee—Defenses) should be used.

Approved 12/2012

8.4 ASSAULT ON FEDERAL OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE

[WITH A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON]

[WHICH INFLICTS BODILY INJURY]

(18 U.S.C. § 111(b))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assault on a federal officer in violation of Section 111(b) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant forcibly assaulted [name of federal officer or employee];

Second, the defendant did so while [name of federal officer or employee] was engaged in, or on account of [his] [her] official duties; and

Third, the defendant [used a deadly or dangerous weapon] [inflicted bodily injury].

[A [specify weapon] is a deadly or dangerous weapon if it is used in a way that is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.]

Comment

See 18 U.S.C. § 1114 for the definition of federal officer or employee referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 111.

There is no requirement that an assailant be aware that the victim is a federal officer. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975). If the defendant denies knowledge that the person assaulted was a federal officer and claims to have acted in self-defense, Instruction 8.5 (Assault on Federal Officer or Employee—Defenses) should be used.

Violation of § 111 is a general intent crime in this circuit. United States v. Jim, 865 F.2d 211, 215 (9th Cir.1989). Among other things, this means that voluntary intoxication is not a defense, id., and that § 111(b) does not require an intent to cause the bodily injury. United States

v. Garcia-Camacho, 122 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir.1997).

Approved 12/2012

8.5 ASSAULT ON FEDERAL OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE—DEFENSES

The defendant asserts that [he] [she] acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the charge if

(1) the defendant did not know that [name of federal officer or employee] was a federal [officer] [employee], (2) the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to defend oneself against an immediate use of unlawful force, and (3) the defendant used no more force than appeared reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

In addition to proving all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the government must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt either (1) that the defendant knew that [name of federal officer or employee] was a federal [officer] [employee] or (2) that the defendant did not reasonably believe force was necessary to defend against an immediate use of unlawful force or (3) that the defendant used more force than appeared reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Comment

In United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975), the Supreme Court held that there is no “requirement that an assailant be aware that his victim is a federal officer” but went on to point out that there could be circumstances where ignorance of the official status of the person assaulted might justify a defendant acting in self-defense. “The jury charge in such a case, therefore, should include (1) an explanation of the essential elements of a claim of self-defense, and (2) an instruction informing the jury that the defendant cannot be convicted unless the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, either (a) that the defendant knew that the victim was a federal agent, or (b) that the defendant’s use of deadly force would not have qualified as self-defense even if the agent had, in fact, been a private citizen.” United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 847 (11th Cir.1985) (emphasis in original).

In United States v. Span, 970 F.2d 573 (9th Cir.1992), the Ninth Circuit upheld this instruction. The court cautioned, however, that “the model instruction would be inappropriate in a case where a defendant’s theory of the case is self-defense against the use of excessive force by a federal law enforcement officer.” Id. at 577 (emphasis in original). In such a case, the instruction must be modified appropriately.

8.6 ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO

COMMIT MURDER OR

OTHER FELONY

(18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(1) and (2))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assault with intent to commit [specify felony] in violation of Section 113(a)[(1)][(2)] of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant assaulted [name of victim] by intentionally [[striking] [wounding]] [[him] [her]] [using a display of force that reasonably caused [him] [her] to fear immediate bodily harm];

Second, the defendant did so with the intent to commit [specify felony]; and

Third, the assault took place on [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

Comment

Assaults proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 113 are those committed “within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” See 18 U.S.C. § 7 for the definition of “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

When the assault consists of a display of force, it must actually cause reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm; fear is a necessary element. United States v. Skeet, 665 F.2d 983, 986 n.1 (9th Cir.1982).

8.7 ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON

(18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of Section 113(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant assaulted [name of victim] by intentionally [[striking] [wounding]] [[him] [her]] [using a display of force that reasonably caused [him] [her] to fear immediate bodily harm];

Second, the defendant acted with the intent to do bodily harm to [name of victim];

Third, the defendant used a dangerous weapon; and

Fourth, the assault took place on [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

[A [specify weapon] is a dangerous weapon if it is used in a way that is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.]

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.4 (Assault on Federal Officer or Employee [With a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon] [Which Inflicts Bodily Injury]).

See United States v. Smith, 561 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (discussing prior version of jury instruction).

The use of bare hands only to perpetrate an assault did not constitute use of a “dangerous weapon” and therefore could not support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). United States v. Rocha, 598 F.3d 1144, 1153-58 (9th Cir.2010).

The statutory definition of assault with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), includes “without just cause or excuse.” However, the existence of “just cause or excuse” is an affirmative defense, and the government does not have the burden of pleading or proving its absence. United States v. Guilbert, 692 F.2d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir.1982).

8.8 SIMPLE ASSAULT OF PERSON UNDER AGE 16

(18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assaulting a person who has not attained the age of 16 years in violation of Section 113(a)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant assaulted [name of victim] by intentionally using a display of force that reasonably caused [him] [her] to fear immediate bodily harm;

Second, [name of victim] was under the age of 16 years at the time of the assault; and

Third, the assault took place on [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

Comment

When the assault consists of a display of force, it must actually cause reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm; fear is a necessary element. United States v. Skeet, 665 F.2d 983, 986 n.1 (9th Cir.1982).

8.9 ASSAULT RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY

(18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of Section 113(a)(6) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant assaulted [name of victim] by intentionally [[striking] [wounding]]

[him] [her];

Second, as a result, [name of victim] suffered serious bodily injury; and

Third, the assault took place on [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves (1) a substantial risk of death; (2) extreme physical pain; (3) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or (4) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body part, organ, or mental faculty.

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.3 (Assault on Federal Officer or Employee) concerning general intent.

The definition of “serious bodily injury” in the last paragraph of the instruction is the statutory definition in 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(b)(2) and 1365(h)(3).

Proof of battery supports conviction of assault. United States v. Lewellyn, 481 F.3d 695, 697 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 864 (2007).

At common law, criminal battery is shown if the defendant’s conduct is reckless. United States v. Loera, 923 F.2d 725, 728 (9th Cir.1991). A defendant can be convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury if a battery is proved.

8.10 ASSAULT OF PERSON UNDER AGE 16

RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL BODILY INJURY

(18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(7))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assaulting a person who has not attained the age of 16 years resulting in substantial bodily injury in violation of Section 113(a)(7) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant assaulted [name of victim] by intentionally [[striking] [wounding]]

[him] [her];

Second, as a result, [name of victim] suffered substantial bodily injury;

Third, [name of victim] was under the age of 16 years at the time of the assault; and Fourth, the assault took place on [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

“Substantial bodily injury” means a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member, organ or mental faculty.

Comment

The definition of “substantial bodily injury” in the last paragraph of the instruction is the definition given in 18 U.S.C. § 113(b)(1).

8.11 BANKRUPTCY FRAUD—SCHEME OR

ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD

(18 U.S.C. § 157)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with bankruptcy fraud in violation of Section 157 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant devised or intended to devise a scheme or plan to defraud;

Second, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud;

Third, the defendant’s act was material; that is, it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing the acts of an identifiable person, entity, or group; and

Fourth, the defendant [filed a petition] [filed a document in a proceeding] [made a false or fraudulent representation, claim or promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding] under a Title 11 bankruptcy proceeding to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the scheme.

It does not matter whether the document, representation, claim or promise was itself false or deceptive so long as the bankruptcy proceeding was used as a part of the scheme or plan to defraud, nor does it matter whether the scheme or plan was successful or that any money or property was obtained.

Comment

Unlike the historic bankruptcy crimes described in 18 U.S.C. § 152, bankruptcy fraud under § 157 concerns a fraudulent scheme outside the bankruptcy which uses the bankruptcy as a means of executing or concealing the fraud or artifice. United States v. Milwitt, 475 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2007) (bankruptcy fraud requires a specific intent to defraud an identifiable victim or class of victims of the identified fraudulent scheme).

This statute is modeled after the mail and wire fraud statutes and therefore requires a specific intent to defraud or deceive. Id. (citing United States v. Bonallo, 858 F.2d 1427, 1433 (9th Cir.1988)).

8.12 BRIBERY OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL

(18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with bribing a public official in violation of Section 201(b)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [gave] [offered] [promised] something of value, [specify the thing of value], to [name of public official]; and

Second, the defendant acted corruptly, that is, with the intent to [influence an official act by the [name of public official]] [influence the [name of public official] to commit or allow a fraud on the United States] [induce the [name of public official] to do or to omit to do an act in violation of [his] [her] lawful duty][.] [; and]

[Third, [name of public official] was a public official.]

Comment

The crime of bribery requires “corrupt intent,” a higher degree of intent than is required under the provision outlawing gratuities to public officials. United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir.1985). Under the bribery sections of § 201, the term “corruptly” refers to the “defendant’s intent to be influenced to perform an act in return for financial gain.” United States v. Leyva, 282 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Strand, 574 F.2d 993, 995-96 (9th Cir.1978)).

The “thing of value” given, offered, or promised to a public official is an element of the bribery charge. It is recommended that the instruction specifically describe the thing of value just as it is described in the indictment to avoid a variance. United States v. Choy, 309 F.3d 602, 607 (9th Cir.2002). Where the defense asserts that the thing given, offered, or promised had no value, the jury must be asked to determine whether it had value. See also United States v. Renzi,

769 F.3d 731, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a “recommendation is just that—a recommendation. Neither the pattern jury instruction nor any controlling precedent requires the district court to identify the thing of value, especially where variance from the indictment is not at issue”).

If there is any question in the case about the “official” character of the action sought by the defendant, insert a sentence following “duty” defining “official act:” “An official act is any decision or action on a question that may be brought before any public official in his official capacity.” See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). “Public official” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1); § 201(b)(1) also applies to a person selected to be a public official. Actual power to do what defendant wants is not an element. “[A] person may be convicted of bribery even though the action requested is not within the official’s power to perform.” Chen, 754 F.2d at 825.

Omit the bracketed third element of this instruction when the recipient’s status as a public official is not in dispute. Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the defendant intended the public official to do in return for the bribe”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

Approved 3/2015

8.13 RECEIVING BRIBE BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL

(18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [soliciting]

[receiving] [or] [agreeing to receive] a bribe in violation of Section 201(b)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was a public official;

Second, the defendant [solicited] [received] [agreed to receive] something of value,

[specify the thing of value], in return for [being influenced in the performance of an official act] [being influenced to commit or allow a fraud on the United States] [being persuaded to do or not to do an act in violation of defendant’s official duty]; and

Third, the defendant acted corruptly, that is, intending to be influenced [in the performance of an official act] [to commit or allow a fraud on the United States] [to do or to omit to do an act in violation of the defendant’s official duty].

Comment

“Public official” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1); § 201(b)(2) also applies to a person selected to be a public official. See also Comment to Instruction 8.12 (Bribery of Public Official). The plain language of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)(B) requires only that the public official accept a thing of value in exchange for perpetrating a fraud; therefore the use of an official position is not an element of the offense under § 201(b)(2)(B). United States v. Leyva, 282 F.3d 623, 625-26 (9th Cir.2002).

Under § 201(b)(2)(B), a public official acts “corruptly” when he or she accepts or receives, or agrees to accept or receive a thing of value, in return for being influenced with the specific intent that, in exchange for the thing of value, some act would be influenced. Leyva, 282 F.3d at 626 (9th Cir.2002).

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the public official intended to do in return for the bribe”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

8.14 BRIBERY OF WITNESS

(18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with bribery of a witness in violation of Section 201(b)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, [name of witness] was to be a witness under oath at a [specify proceeding];

Second, the defendant [gave] [offered] [promised] something of value, [specify the thing of value], to [name of witness]; and

Third, the defendant acted corruptly, that is, with the intent to influence [[the testimony of [name of witness]] [[name of witness] to be absent from the proceeding].

Comment

It is recommended that the instruction specifically describe the thing of value just as it is described in the indictment to avoid a variance. United States v. Choy, 309 F.3d 602, 607 (9th Cir.2002).

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the defendant intended the witness to do in return for the bribe”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

8.15 RECEIVING BRIBE BY WITNESS

(18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(4))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with soliciting a bribe in violation of Section 201(b)(4) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was to be a witness under oath at a [specify proceeding];

Second, the defendant [solicited] [received] [agreed to receive] something of value, [specify the thing of value], in return for being [influenced in the defendant’s testimony] [absent from the proceeding]; and

Third, the defendant acted corruptly, that is, in return for [being influenced in [his] [her] testimony] [absenting [himself] [herself] from the proceeding].

Comment

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the witness intended to do in return for the bribe”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

8.16 ILLEGAL GRATUITY TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL

(18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [giving] [offering]

[or] [promising] an illegal gratuity in violation of Section 201(c)(1)(A) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant [gave] [offered] [promised] something of value, [specify the thing of value] to a [specify public official]; and

Second, the defendant acted for or because of an official act performed or to be performed by the [specify public official].

Comment

To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), the government must prove a link between a thing of value conferred upon a public official and a specific “official act” for or because of which it was given. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, 414 (1999). “Official act” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

The distinguishing features of the crimes of “bribery” and “illegal gratuity” are their intent elements. Bribery requires intent “to influence” an official act or “to be influenced” in an official act, while illegal gratuity requires only that the gratuity be given or accepted “for or because of” a specific official act. Bribery requires a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. An illegal gratuity may constitute a reward for some future act the public official will take (and may already have determined to take) or for an act already taken. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S.at 404–05. The gratuity offenses are lesser included offenses of the parallel bribery offenses. See United States v. Crutchfield, 547 F.2d 496, 500 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62, 71–72 (D.C. Cir.1974).

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the defendant intended the public official to do in return for the gratuity”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

8.17 RECEIVING ILLEGAL GRATUITY BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL

(18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [soliciting]

[receiving] [agreeing to receive] an illegal gratuity in violation of Section 201(c)(1)(B) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was [specify public official]; and

Second, the defendant [[solicited] [received] [agreed to receive]] something of value, [specify the thing of value], personally for or because of an official act [performed] [to be performed] by the defendant.

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.16 (Illegal Gratuity to Public Official).

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the public

official intended to do in return for the gratuity”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

“Public official” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1); § 201(c)(1)(B) also applies to a former public official and a person selected to be a public official.

8.18 ILLEGAL GRATUITY TO WITNESS

(18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [giving] [offering] [promising] an illegal gratuity in violation of Section 201(c)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [gave] [offered] [promised] something of value, [specify the thing of value], to [name of witness] [for testimony to be given under oath by [him]

[her] in [specify proceeding]] [because of testimony given under oath by [name of witness] at/in [specify proceeding]] [for being absent from [specify proceeding] so that [he] [she] could not testify as a witness].

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.16 (Illegal Gratuity to Public Official).

Section 201(c)(2) does not prohibit the government from paying fees, housing, expenses, and cash rewards to a cooperating witness so long as the payment does not recompense any corruption of the truth of testimony. United States v. Ihnatenko, 482 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 904 (2007). Section 201(c)(2) also does not prohibit the government from providing immigration benefits or leniency, immunity from prosecution, or leniency to a cooperating witness. See United States v. Feng, 277 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir.2002) (immigration benefits); United States v. Smith, 196 F.3d 1034, 1038–40 (9th Cir.1999)

(immunity); United States v. Mattarolo, 209 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.2000) (leniency).

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the defendant” intended the witness to do in return for the gratuity”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

8.19 RECEIVING ILLEGAL GRATUITY BY WITNESS

(18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(3))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [soliciting] [receiving] [agreeing to receive] an illegal gratuity in violation of Section 201(c)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [solicited] [received]

[agreed to receive] something of value, [specify the thing of value], [for testimony to be given under oath by the defendant as a witness in [specify proceeding]] [because of testimony given under oath by the defendant as a witness at/in [specify proceeding]] [for being absent from [specify proceeding] so that the defendant could not testify as a witness].

Comment

See Comment to Instructions 8.12 (Bribery of Public Official), 8.16 (Illegal Gratuity to Public Official), and 8.18 (Illegal Gratuity to Witness).

Depending on the facts in evidence, it may be appropriate to amend this instruction with language requiring specific jury unanimity (e.g., “with all of you agreeing as to what the witness intended to do in return for the gratuity”). See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

8.20 CONSPIRACY—ELEMENTS

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with conspiring to _______ in violation of Section _______ of Title ___ of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, beginning on or about [date], and ending on or about [date], there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit at least one crime as charged in the indictment; [and]

Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it[.] [; and]

[Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act [on or after [date]] for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy, with all of you agreeing on a particular overt act that you find was committed.]

A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed.

For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough, however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to the particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit.

One becomes a member of a conspiracy by willfully participating in the unlawful plan with the intent to advance or further some object or purpose of the conspiracy, even though the person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. Furthermore, one who willfully joins an existing conspiracy is as responsible for it as the originators. On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists.

[An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. The government is not required to prove that the defendant personally did one of the overt acts.]

Comment

When the charged offense is conspiracy to defraud the United States (or any agency thereof) under the “defraud clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 371, use Instruction 8.21 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States) in place of this general conspiracy instruction.

“To prove a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must establish: (1) an agreement to engage in criminal activity, (2) one or more overt acts taken to implement the agreement, and (3) the requisite intent to commit the substantive crime.” United States v. Montgomery, 384 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The agreement need not be explicit; it is sufficient if the conspirators knew or had reason to know of the scope of the conspiracy and that their own benefits depended on the success of the venture.” Id. (citing United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir.2002)).

With respect to the first element in this instruction, if other jury instructions do not set out the elements of the crimes alleged to be objects of the conspiracy, the elements must be included in this or an accompanying instruction. United States v. Alghazouli, 517 F.3d 1179, 1189 (9th Cir.2008). Nevertheless, conspiracy to commit a crime “does not require completion of the intended underlying offense.” United States v. Iribe, 564 F.3d 1155, 1160–61 (9th Cir.2009).

Use the third element in this instruction only if the applicable statute requires proof of an overt act, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 371 (first clause) or 18 U.S.C. § 1511(a) (conspiracy to obstruct state or local law enforcement), but omit the third element when the applicable statute does not require proof of an overt act. See Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 212–15 (2005) (proof of overt act not necessary for conspiracy to commit money laundering); and United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 15-16 (1994) (proof of overt act not necessary for conspiracy to violate drug statutes).

When there is evidence that an overt act occurred outside the applicable limitations period, include the bracketed material within the third element. See United States v. Fuchs, 218 F.3d 957, 961–62 (9th Cir.2000) (plain error not to require jury to find that overt act occurred within the statute of limitations).

See Instruction 7.9 (Specific Issue Unanimity).

The Supreme Court has held that “[a] conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government, unbeknownst to some of the conspirators, has ‘defeated’ the conspiracy’s ‘object’.” United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270, 274 (2003).

8.21 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

(18 U.S.C. § 371 “Defraud Clause”)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of [specify government agency] by deceitful or dishonest means in violation of Section 371 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, beginning on or about [date], and ending on or about [date], there was an agreement between two or more persons to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of [specify government agency] by deceitful or dishonest means as charged in the indictment;

Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it; and

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act [on or after [date]] for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy, with all of you agreeing on a particular overt act that you find was committed.

An agreement to defraud is an agreement to deceive or to cheat.

An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. The government is not required to prove that the defendant personally did one of the overt acts.

Comment

Use this instruction when the charged offense is conspiracy to defraud the United States under the “defraud clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 371; otherwise use Instruction 8.20 (Conspiracy— Elements).

In United States v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.1993), the Ninth Circuit held that defrauding the government under 18 U.S.C. § 371 “means obstructing the operation of any government agency by any ‘deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.”’ Id.

at 1058-59. Thus, an instruction that permitted conviction if a defendant merely agreed to defraud the United States by obstructing the Internal Revenue Service in ascertaining and collecting taxes, but did not require proof of deceit or dishonesty, was insufficient and required reversal. To “convict someone under the ‘defraud clause’ of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government need only show (1) he entered into an agreement (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the government (3) by deceitful or dishonest means and (4) at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Id.; accord United States v. Rodman, 776 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir.2015). Moreover, the conspiracy “need not aim to deprive the government of property,” and neither “the conspiracy’s goal nor the means used to achieve it” need to be illegal. Caldwell, 989 F.2d at 1058-59.

If the evidence supports an argument the defendant did not act with the requisite intent to defraud because of a good faith misunderstanding about the requirements of law, consider modifying the fifth paragraph of the instruction as follows:

An agreement to defraud is an agreement to deceive or to cheat, but one who acts on an honest and good faith misunderstanding as to the requirements of the law does not act with an intent to defraud simply because [his] [her] understanding of the law is wrong or even irrational. Nevertheless, merely disagreeing with the law does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law because all persons have a duty to obey the law whether or not they agree with it.

This language is derived by analogy to cases recognizing a “good faith” defense when the government must prove a defendant “willfully” violated tax laws. See Instruction 9.42 (Willfully—Defined) for violations of 26 U.S.C. §§ 201, 7203, 7206, and 7207; but see United States v. Hickey, 580 F. 3d 922, 931 (9th Cir.2009) (no good faith instruction needed when jury properly instructed on intent to defraud).

Approved 3/2015

8.22 MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES

You must decide whether the conspiracy charged in the indictment existed, and, if it did, who at least some of its members were. If you find that the conspiracy charged did not exist, then you must return a not guilty verdict, even though you may find that some other conspiracy existed. Similarly, if you find that any defendant was not a member of the charged conspiracy, then you must find that defendant not guilty, even though that defendant may have been a member of some other conspiracy.

Comment

Use this instruction when the indictment charges a single conspiracy and the evidence indicates two or more possible conspiracies. See United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 533 (9th Cir.1997).

This instruction obviates the need for further instructions on multiple conspiracies. United States v. Si, 343 F.3d 1116, 1126–27 (9th Cir.2003). Given in combination with a proper conspiracy instruction, this instruction is adequate to cover a multiple conspiracy defense.

United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1560–61 (9th Cir.1996).

8.23 CONSPIRACY—KNOWLEDGE OF AND

ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER CONSPIRATORS

A conspiracy may continue for a long period of time and may include the performance of many transactions. It is not necessary that all members of the conspiracy join it at the same time, and one may become a member of a conspiracy without full knowledge of all the details of the unlawful scheme or the names, identities, or locations of all of the other members.

Even though a defendant did not directly conspire with [the other defendant] [or] [other conspirators] in the overall scheme, the defendant has, in effect, agreed to participate in the conspiracy if the government proves each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt that:

the defendant directly conspired with one or more conspirators to carry out at leastone of the objects of the conspiracy;
the defendant knew or had reason to know that other conspirators were involved withthose with whom the defendant directly conspired; and
the defendant had reason to believe that whatever benefits the defendant might getfrom the conspiracy were probably dependent upon the success of the entire venture.

It is not a defense that a person’s participation in a conspiracy was minor or for a short period of time.

Comment

A person may be a member of a conspiracy even though the person does not know all of the purposes of or participants in the conspiracy. United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir.1977).

A single conspiracy can be established even though it took place during a long period of time during which new members joined and old members dropped out. United States v. Green, 523 F.2d 229, 233 (2d Cir.1975). See also United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 528 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that the law of conspiracy does not require the government “to prove that all of the defendants met together at the same time and ratified the illegal scheme”); United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123, 132 (9th Cir.1978) (holding that proof that the defendant “knew he was plotting in concert with others to violate the law was sufficient to raise the necessary inference that he joined in the overall agreement”).

To prove a conspiracy “the evidence must show that ‘each defendant knew, or had reason to know, that his benefits were probably dependent on the success of the entire operation.’” United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir.1977)).

8.24 WITHDRAWAL FROM CONSPIRACY

Once a person becomes a member of a conspiracy, that person remains a member until that person withdraws from it. One may withdraw by doing acts which are inconsistent with the purpose of the conspiracy and by making reasonable efforts to tell the co-conspirators about those acts. You may consider any definite, positive step that shows that the conspirator is no longer a member of the conspiracy to be evidence of withdrawal.

If you find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of a conspiracy and that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy, the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] withdrew from the conspiracy before the overt act—on which you all agreed—was committed by some member of the conspiracy. A preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded that the things the defendant seeks to prove are more probably true than not true. This is a lesser burden of proof than the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the conspiracy and that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy.

If you find that the defendant withdrew from the conspiracy, you must find the defendant not guilty of [specify crime charged].

Comment

This instruction has been modified to place the burden on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his or her withdrawal from the conspiracy. The earlier version of the instruction placed the burden on the government to prove that the defendant did not withdraw from the conspiracy before the overt act was committed by some member of the conspiracy. In Smith v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 714 (2013), the Court held that “establishing individual withdrawal was a burden that rested firmly on the defendant regardless of when the purported withdrawal took place.” Id. at 719.

Use this instruction only when the conspiracy charged in the indictment requires proof of an overt act. If the statute of limitations is a defense to a conspiracy requiring proof of an overt act, the instruction should be modified to require the defendant to prove withdrawal before the limitations period begins. Id. at 717 (“A defendant who withdraws outside the relevant statuteof-limitations period has a complete defense to prosecution.”).

Approved 4/2013

8.25 CONSPIRACY—LIABILITY FOR SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY CO-CONSPIRATOR (PINKERTON CHARGE)

Each member of the conspiracy is responsible for the actions of the other conspirators performed during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. If one member of a conspiracy commits a crime in furtherance of a conspiracy, the other members have also, under the law, committed that crime.

Therefore, you may find the defendant guilty of [specify crime] as charged in Count _______ of the indictment if the government has proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, a person named in Count _______ of the indictment committed the crime of

[specify crime] as alleged in that count;

Second, the person was a member of the conspiracy charged in Count _______ of the indictment;

Third, the person committed the crime of [specify crime] in furtherance of the conspiracy;

Fourth, the defendant was a member of the same conspiracy at the time the offense charged in Count _______ was committed; and

Fifth, the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.

Comment

The Pinkerton charge derives its name from Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946), which held that a defendant could be held liable for a substantive offense committed by a co-conspirator as long as the offense occurred within the course of the conspiracy, was within the scope of the agreement, and could reasonably have been foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198, 1202 (9th Cir.2000).

When this instruction is appropriate, it should be given in addition to Instruction 8.20 (Conspiracy—Elements).

This instruction is based upon United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d at 1202-03, in which the Ninth Circuit approved of the 1997 version of Instruction 8.5.5 (Conspiracy—Pinkerton Charge), and United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983, 996-97 (9th Cir.1998). See also United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.2014).

This instruction was found adequate in a case in which three separate conspiracies were charged. See United States v. Moran, 493 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.2007). However, given the potential for ambiguity where more than one conspiracy is charged, the court should consider giving separate Pinkerton instructionsfor each conspiracy charged.

Approved 3/2015

8.26 CONSPIRACY—SEARS CHARGE

Before being convicted of conspiracy, an individual must conspire with at least one co–conspirator. There can be no conspiracy when the only person with whom the defendant allegedly conspired was a government [agent] [informer] who secretly intended to frustrate the conspiracy.

Comment

This instruction is based upon Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir.1965), which held that “there can be no indictable conspiracy with a government informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy.” This rule has been adopted in the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir.2002) (citing earlier cases).

8.27 COUNTERFEITING

(18 U.S.C. § 471)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with counterfeiting in violation of Section 471 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [[falsely made] [forged] [counterfeited] [altered]] [specify obligation or security of United States]; and

Second, the defendant acted with intent to defraud.

To be counterfeit, [specify item] must have a likeness or resemblance to the genuine [specify obligation or security of United States].

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

See United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 829 (9th Cir.1970), regarding the requirement for likeness or resemblance to the genuine obligation or security.

8.28 PASSING COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS

(18 U.S.C. § 472)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [[passing] [uttering] [publishing] [selling]] [[attempting to [pass] [utter] [publish] [sell]] a counterfeit obligation in violation of Section 472 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [[passed] [uttered] [published] [sold]] [[attempted to [pass] [utter] [publish] [sell]] a [[falsely made] [forged] [counterfeit] [altered]] [specify obligation or security of United States];

Second, the defendant knew that the [specify obligation or security of United States] was

[falsely made] [forged] [counterfeited] [altered]; [and]

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud[.] [; and]

[Fourth, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.

Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing the crime. To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s act or actions must demonstrate that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances.]

To be counterfeit, a bill must have a likeness or resemblance to the genuine [specify obligation or security of United States].

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

An utterance has been described as tantamount to an offer. United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2000).

For an attempt to commit the crime, jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime.

United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.2010).

8.29 CONNECTING PARTS OF GENUINE INSTRUMENTS

(18 U.S.C. § 484)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with connecting parts of two or more [specify genuine instrument] in violation of Section 484 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant connected together parts of two or more [specify genuine instrument] issued under the authority of [specify issuer]; and

Second, the defendant did so with the intent to defraud.

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

8.30 FALSELY MAKING, ALTERING, FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING A WRITING TO OBTAIN MONEY FROM UNITED STATES

(18 U.S.C. § 495)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with falsely making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting [specify writing] in violation of Section 495 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [falsely made] [altered] [forged] [counterfeited] [specify writing]; and

Second, the defendant did so for the purpose [of obtaining or receiving] [enabling another person to obtain or receive] money from [the United States] [an officer of the United States] [an agent of the United States].

8.31 UTTERING OR PUBLISHING FALSE WRITING

(18 U.S.C. § 495)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [uttering]

[publishing] as true a false writing with the intent to defraud the United States in violation of Section 495 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [uttered] [published] as true a [falsely made] [altered] [forged] [counterfeit] [specify writing];

Second, the defendant knew that the [specify writing] was [falsely made] [altered] [forged] [counterfeited]; and

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud the United States.

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

An utterance has been described as tantamount to an offer. United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2000).

8.32 TRANSMITTING OR PRESENTING FALSE WRITING TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES

(18 U.S.C. § 495)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [transmitting] [presenting] a false writing in support of or in relation to an account or claim with intent to defraud the United States. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [transmitted] [presented] a [falsely made] [altered] [forged]

[counterfeit] [specify writing] to an [officer] of the United States;

Second, the defendant knew that the [specify writing] was [falsely made] [altered] [forged] [counterfeit];

Third, the [specify writing] was [transmitted] [presented] in support of [specify account or claim];

Fourth, the defendant acted with intent to defraud the United States; and

Fifth, the [specify writing] was material to action on the [specify account or claim]; that is, the [specify writing] had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, action on the [specify account or claim].

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 22-23 (1999), the Court explained that materiality is a necessary aspect of the legal concept of fraud which is incorporated into criminal statutes concerning fraud unless the statute says otherwise (holding materiality of falsehood must be proved in prosecution under bank, mail and wire fraud statutes). The common law test for materiality in the false statement statutes, as reflected in the fifth element of this instruction, is the preferred formulation. United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir.2008).

8.33 FORGING ENDORSEMENT ON TREASURY CHECK, BOND OR

SECURITY OF UNITED STATES

(18 U.S.C. § 510(a)(1))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with forging or falsely making [an endorsement] [a signature] on a Treasury [check] [bond] [security] of the United States in violation of Section 510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant falsely made or forged [an endorsement] [a signature] on a Treasury

[check] [bond] [security] of the United States; and

Second, the defendant did so with intent to defraud.

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

8.34 PASSING FORGED ENDORSEMENT ON TREASURY CHECK, BOND OR

SECURITY OF UNITED STATES

(18 U.S.C. § 510(a)(2))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [passing] [uttering] [publishing] [[attempting to [pass] [utter] [publish]] a Treasury [check] [bond] [security] of the United States in violation of Section 510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant [passed] [uttered] [published] [[attempted to [pass] [utter] [publish]] a Treasury [check] [bond] [security] of the United States which bore a falsely made or forged [endorsement] [signature]; [and]

Second, the defendant did so with intent to defraud[.] [; and]

[Third, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.

Comment

For a definition of “intent to defraud,” see Instruction 3.16 (Intent to Defraud—Defined).

For an attempt to commit the crime, jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.2010).

An utterance has been described as tantamount to an offer. United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2000).

8.35 SMUGGLING GOODS

(18 U.S.C. § 545)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [smuggling] [attempting to smuggle] in violation of Section 545 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [smuggled] [attempted to smuggle] merchandise into the

United States without declaring the merchandise for invoicing as required by United States

Customs law;

Second, the defendant knew that the merchandise was of a type that should have been declared; [and]

Third, the defendant acted willfully with intent to defraud the United States[.] [; and]

[Fourth, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.

Comment

See Comment in 5.5 (Willfully).

This instruction may be used when the defendant is charged with the crime of smuggling goods or attempting to smuggle goods. The bracketed fourth element should be used when defendant is charged with an attempt to smuggle goods. For an attempt to commit the crime, jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.2010).

This instruction relates to the first clause of the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 545. If the charge is based on the second clause of the first paragraph, use Instruction 8.36 (Passing False Papers Through Customhouse). Instructions 8.37 (Importing Merchandise Illegally) and 8.38 (Receiving, Concealing, Buying or Selling Smuggled Merchandise) concern violations of the second paragraph of § 545.

See United States v. Garcia-Paz, 282 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (9th Cir.2002) (court properly instructed jury that marijuana constitutes “merchandise” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 545).

8.36 PASSING FALSE PAPERS THROUGH CUSTOMHOUSE

(18 U.S.C. § 545)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [passing]

[attempting to pass] a [[false] [forged] [fraudulent]] [specify writing] in violation of Section 545 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [[passed] [attempted to pass]] [specify writing] through a customhouse of the United States;

Second, the defendant knew that the [specify writing] was [false] [forged] [fraudulent];

Third, the defendant acted willfully with intent to defraud the United States; [and]

Fourth, the [specify writing] had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, action by the United States[.] [; and]

[Fifth, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.

Comment

See Comment in 5.5 (Willfully).

This instruction may be used when the defendant is charged with the crime of passing false papers through a customhouse. The bracketed fifth element should be used when defendant is charged with an attempt to do so. For an attempt to commit the crime, jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.2010).

This instruction relates to the second clause of the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 545. If the charge is based on the first clause of the first paragraph, use Instruction 8.35 (Smuggling Goods). Instructions 8.37 (Importing Merchandise Illegally) and 8.38 (Receiving, Concealing,

Buying or Selling Smuggled Merchandise) concern violations of the second paragraph of § 545.

In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), the Court explained that materiality is a

necessary aspect of the legal concept of fraud which is incorporated into criminal statutes concerning fraud unless the statute says otherwise. Id. at 22-23 (holding materiality of falsehood must be proved in prosecution under bank, mail and wire fraud statutes). The common law test for materiality in the false statement statutes, as reflected in the third element of this instruction, is the preferred formulation. United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir.2008).

8.37 IMPORTING MERCHANDISE ILLEGALLY

(18 U.S.C. § 545)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [[fraudulently]

[knowingly]] [[importing] [bringing]] into the United States merchandise in violation of Section 545 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [[fraudulently] [knowingly]] [[imported] [brought]] merchandise into the United States contrary to [specify law].

Comment

This instruction deals with the first clause of the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 545. If the charge is a violation of the second clause of the second paragraph, use Instruction 8.38

(Receiving, Concealing, Buying or Selling Smuggled Merchandise). Instructions 8.35 (Smuggling Goods) and 8.36 (Passing False Papers Through Customhouse) deal with violations of the first paragraph of § 545.

The term “law” in § 545 includes a regulation as well as a statute, but only when there is a statute which specifies that a violation of the regulation is a crime. United States v. Alghazouli, 517 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2008).

See United States v. Garcia-Paz, 282 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (9th Cir.2002) (court properly instructed jury that marijuana constitutes “merchandise” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 545).

8.38 RECEIVING, CONCEALING, BUYING

OR SELLING SMUGGLED MERCHANDISE

(18 U.S.C. § 545)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [[receiving] [concealing] [buying] [selling]] [[facilitating [the transportation] [concealment] [sale] of]] smuggled merchandise in violation of Section 545 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, merchandise had been brought into the United States contrary to [specify law]; and

Second, the defendant [[received] [concealed] [bought] [sold]] [[facilitated the

[transportation] [concealment] [sale] of]] the merchandise knowing that it had been brought into the United States contrary to law.

Comment

This instruction relates to the second clause of the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 545.

If the charge is a violation of the first clause of the second paragraph, use Instruction 8.37

(Importing Merchandise Illegally). Instructions 8.35 (Smuggling Goods) and 8.36 (Passing False Papers Through Customhouse) deal with violations of the first paragraph of § 545.

See United States v. Garcia-Paz, 282 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (9th Cir.2002) (court properly instructed jury that marijuana constitutes “merchandise” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 545).

8.39 THEFT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY OR PROPERTY

(18 U.S.C. § 641)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with theft of government [money] [property] in violation of Section 641 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [[embezzled] [stole] [converted to defendant’s use] [converted to the use of another]] [money] [property of value] with the intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of the [money] [property];

Second, the [money] [property] belonged to the United States; and Third, the value of the [money] [property] was more than $1,000.

Comment

This instruction deals with the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Instruction 8.40 (Receiving Stolen Government Money or Property) deals with the second paragraph of § 641.

Theft of money or property having a value of $1,000 or less is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. § 641. If the crime charged is a misdemeanor, the third element of this instruction should be omitted.

Knowledge that stolen property belonged to the United States is not an element of the offense. Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278, 1279 (9th Cir.1970).

See United States v. Campbell, 42 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir.1994) (government must prove that defendant stole property with the intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of the property).

8.40 RECEIVING STOLEN

GOVERNMENT MONEY OR PROPERTY

(18 U.S.C. § 641)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [[receiving] [concealing] [retaining]] [[embezzled] [stolen] [converted]] government [money] [property] in violation of Section 641 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [[received] [concealed] [retained]] [[money] [property of value]];

Second, the [money] [property] belonged to the United States;

Third, the defendant knew that the [money] [property] had been [embezzled] [stolen]

[converted];

Fourth, the defendant intended to convert the [money] [property] to [his] [her] own use or gain; and

Fifth, the value of the [money] [property] was more than $1,000.

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.39 (Theft of Government Money or Property).

Approved 7/2011

8.41 THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT OR

MISAPPLICATION OF BANK FUNDS

(18 U.S.C. § 656)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [theft]

[embezzlement] [misapplication] of bank funds in violation of Section 656 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was a [specify position held] of the [specify financial institution];

Second, the defendant knowingly and willfully [stole] [embezzled] [misapplied] funds or credits belonging to the bank or entrusted to its care in excess of $1,000;

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to injure or defraud the [specify financial institution];

Fourth, the [specify financial institution] was [specify Section 656 status]; and Fifth, the amount of money taken was more than $1,000.

The fact that the defendant may have intended to repay the funds at the time they were taken is not a defense.

Comment

Although not found in the statute, “intent to injure or defraud” has been held to be an essential element of the crime. United States v. Stozek,783 F.2d 891, 893 (9th Cir.1986). “Intent to defraud may be inferred from a defendant’s reckless disregard of the bank’s interests.” United States v. Castro, 887 F.2d 994 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Stozek, 783 F.2d at 893).

If the crime charged is a misdemeanor, the fifth element of this instruction should be omitted.

8.42 EMBEZZLEMENT OR MISAPPLICATION BY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE

OF LENDING, CREDIT OR INSURANCE INSTITUTION

(18 U.S.C. § 657)

Comment

The Committee recommends that when a defendant is accused of embezzlement or willful misapplication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657, Instruction 8.41 (Theft, Embezzlement or Misapplication of Bank Funds) should be used with appropriate modifications. Section 656 and Section 657 contain the same elements. United States v. Musacchio, 968 F.2d 782, 787 n.6 (9th Cir.1991).

8.43 THEFT FROM INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN SHIPMENT

(18 U.S.C. § 659)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with theft from [an interstate] [a foreign] shipment in violation of Section 659 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant stole the property described in the indictment from a shipment in

[interstate] [foreign] commerce; [and]

Second, the defendant did so with the intent to convert the property to [his] [her] own use[.] [; and]

[Third, the property had a value of $1,000 or more.]

Property is moving as or is [a part of] a shipment in [interstate] [foreign] commerce if the point of origin is in one [state] [country] and the destination is another [state] [country]. Property is moving as [an interstate] [a foreign] shipment at all points between the point of origin and the final destination, regardless of any temporary stop while awaiting transshipment or otherwise.

Comment

This instruction deals with theft from a shipment in interstate or foreign commerce subject to the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 659. If the charge under the first paragraph of § 659 is based on conduct other than theft, modify the instruction accordingly.

If the charge alleges that the value of the property was $1,000 or more, use the third element; otherwise it should be omitted.

8.44 ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY

(18 U.S.C. § 751(a))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with escape from custody in violation of Section 751(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was in the custody of [specify custodian];

Second, the defendant was in custody by virtue of [specify reason for or type of custody]; and

Third, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily left custody without permission.

Comment

An intent to avoid confinement is not an element of escape. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 408 (1980).

Section 751(a) provides a maximum punishment of one year in prison for certain types of custody, such as custody imposed by virtue of an arrest for a misdemeanor, and a maximum punishment of five years in prison for other types of custody, such as custody imposed by virtue of a felony arrest. It is therefore necessary to include the type of custody in the instruction. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (other than fact of prior conviction, any fact which increases statutory maximum must be submitted to jury).

8.45 ATTEMPTED ESCAPE

(18 U.S.C. § 751(a))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with attempted escape in violation of Section 751(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was in the custody of [specify custodian];

Second, the defendant was in custody by virtue of [specify reason for or type of custody];

Third, the defendant intended to escape from custody; and

Fourth, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward escaping from custody.

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.44 (Escape from Custody).

Jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of a crime. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.2010).

8.46 ASSISTING ESCAPE

(18 U.S.C. § 752(a))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with assisting escape in violation of Section 752(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, [name of escapee] was in the custody of [specify custodian] by virtue of [specify reason for or type of custody];

Second, [name of escapee] [[left] [attempted to leave]] [his] [her] custody, without permission;

Third, the defendant knew that [name of escapee] did not have permission to leave; and Fourth, the defendant assisted [name of escapee] in [leaving] [attempting to leave].

Comment

Section 752(a) provides a maximum punishment of one year in prison for certain types of custody, such as custody imposed by virtue of an arrest for a misdemeanor, and a maximum punishment of five years in prison for other types of custody, such as custody imposed by virtue of a felony arrest. It is therefore necessary to include the type of custody in the instruction. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (other than prior conviction, any fact which increases statutory maximum must be submitted to jury).

8.47 THREATS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

(18 U.S.C. § 871)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with making a threat against the President of the United States in violation of Section 871 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant intentionally threatened, either in writing or orally, to [kill] [injure]

[kidnap] the President of the United States; and

Second, the defendant intended that the written or oral statement be taken as a threat.

Third, under the circumstances in which the threat was made, a reasonable person would foresee that it would be understood by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of an intention to [kill] [injure] [kidnap] the President of the United States.

Comment

The requirement that the government prove the defendant’s subjective intent “must be read into all threat statutes that criminalize pure speech.” United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit notes that “with respect to some threat statutes, we require the purported threat meet an objective standard in addition,and for some we do not.” Id. at 1117. Section 871(a) is among the statutes subject to both the subjective and the objective standards. Id. See also id. at 1118 (stating that the subjective and objective standards apply to 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)).

The President need not have received the threat. Romo, 413 F.3d at 1051.

If the defendant is charged with threatening the Vice President or another officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, the instruction should be modified accordingly.

Approved 8/2012

8.47A MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS—THREATS

TO KIDNAP OR INJURE

(18 U.S.C. § 876(c))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ ] of the indictment with mailing threatening communications in violation of Section 876(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [mailed] [arranged to have mailed] a [letter] [insert other form of communication] addressed to [insert name or title of natural person] containing a threat to [kidnap] [injure] any person.

Second, the defendant intended to communicate a threat.

A communication is a threat if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee that the communication would be interpreted by a recipient as a serious expression of intent to [injure] [kidnap]. The government need not prove that the defendant intended to carry out the threat.

Comment

This instruction is based on United States v. Keyser, 704 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2012), United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2012), United States v. King, 122 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.

1997), United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1988), and United States v. Sirhan, 504 F.2d 818, 820 (9th Cir. 1974). While the Ninth Circuit has not offered comprehensive guidance concerning the requirements for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 876, these cases are instructive.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 876, the threatening communications must be addressed to a natural person. Havelock, 664 F.3d at 1286. “[I]n order to determine whom a threatening communication is ‘addressed to,’ a court may consult the directions on the outside of the envelope or the packaging, the salutation line, if any, and the contents of the communication.” Id. at 1296. A general title such as “manager” is sufficient to meet this requirement. Keyser, 704 F.3d at 641.

“Whether a particular statement may properly be considered to be a threat is governed by an objective standard—whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault.” Id. at 638 (quoting United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1990)).

There are two specific intent elements in 18 U.S.C. § 876. The defendant must have both

“knowingly” transmitted the communication and subjectively intended to threaten. Twine, 853 F.2d at 680; Keyser, 704 F.3d at 638 (“In order to be subject to criminal liability for a threat, the speaker must subjectively intend to threaten.”). However, the defendant need not have expected the threats to gain him a benefit, or have had the intent or ability to actually carry out the threat. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1076 n.9 (9th Cir. 2002); King, 122 F.3d at 809.

Approved 4/2013

8.48 EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

(18 U.S.C. § 892)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with making an extortionate extension of credit in violation of Section 892 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly extended credit to [name of debtor]; and

Second, at the time the credit was extended, the defendant as a creditor and [name of debtor] as a debtor both understood that delay or failure in making repayment could result in the use of violence or other criminal means to harm the person, reputation, or property of some person.

8.49 FALSE IMPERSONATION OF CITIZEN OF UNITED STATES

(18 U.S.C. § 911)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with misrepresenting [himself] [herself] to be a citizen of the United States. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant directly and falsely represented [himself] [herself] to be a citizen of the United States;

Second, the defendant was not a citizen of the United States at that time;

Third, the defendant made such false representation willfully, that is, the misrepresentation was voluntarily and deliberately made; and

Fourth, the false representation was made to someone who had good reason to make inquiry into defendant’s citizenship status.

Comment

In United States v. Anguiano-Morfin, 713 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.2013), the Ninth Circuit explained that, when a defendant charged with falsely impersonating a United States citizen relies on the defense that he genuinely believed that he was a United States citizen, the “best course” is to instruct the jury that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that his claim to United States citizenship was false, and that a “reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knew his claim to United States citizenship was false” must result in an acquittal. Id. at 1210. The Ninth Circuit explained that in such cases the jury instructions should make clear that the defendant’s subjective belief is the dispositive issue. Id.

In United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir.2004), the Ninth Circuit held that the representation must be “direct” and that a statement from which United States citizenship could be inferred is insufficient. “Willfully” requires proof “that the

misrepresentation was deliberate and voluntary.” Id. at 1142. The fourth element is required by Ninth Circuit case law limiting the reach of the statute to avoid First Amendment overbreadth issues. Id. at 1142 n.7.

Approved 7/2013

8.50 FALSE IMPERSONATION OF FEDERAL OFFICER

OR EMPLOYEE

(18 U.S.C. § 912)

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with fraud while impersonating a federal officer or employee in violation of Section 912 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant falsely pretended to be an [officer] [employee] acting under the authority of [the United States] [specify federal department, agency or officer]; and

Second, the defendant [acted as such] [in such pretended character demanded or obtained [specify thing of value]].

Comment

Two options are afforded for the second element because 18 U.S.C. § 912 states two offenses. It has been held to be duplicitous to charge both falsely acting as a federal officer and demanding or obtaining money while falsely acting as a federal officer in a single count. United States v. Aguilar, 756 F.2d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir.1985).

8.51 FIREARMS

Comment

Definitions of many of the terms used in the firearms statutes are found in 18 U.S.C. § 921 and 26 U.S.C. § 5845. The Committee recommends that definitional instructions be used sparingly. Many of the terms defined are of common significance and really require no definition. Some examples are “pistol,” “rifle,” “importer,” and “manufacturer.” While jurors will readily recognize that one who is engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms is a dealer, they probably do not know that one engaged in the business of repairing firearms is also a dealer, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(B), and in that case a definition would be necessary.

The most effective way to avoid definitions relating to firearms is to use the most specific designation available. For example, assume that a defendant is being tried for transporting a rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4). Examples of the ways the judge might instruct the jury on one of the elements are as follows:

“The defendant transported a firearm.” It will then be necessary to have an additionalinstruction that a rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces is a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(D) (defining “firearm” as including “destructive device”) and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(A)(iii) (defining “destructive device” as including a “rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces); or
“The defendant transported a destructive device.” Even here, it will then be necessaryto instruct that a rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces is a destructive device. Id.; or
“The defendant transported a rocket having a propellant charge of more than fourounces.” Using the third alternative, no additional instruction is necessary.

8.52 FIREARMS—FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE DEFINED

(18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(15))

A fugitive from justice is a person who has fled from any state to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.

Comment

This instruction is appropriate when a firearms offense involves a fugitive from justice.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(2) and (g)(2).

8.53 FIREARMS—DEALING, IMPORTING OR MANUFACTURING WITHOUT LICENSE

(18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) and (B))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [dealing]

[importing] [manufacturing] firearms without a license, in violation of Section 922(a)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was willfully engaged in the business of [dealing in] [importing]

[manufacturing] firearms within the dates specified in the indictment; and

Second, the defendant did not then have a license as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer].

Comment

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in a greater degree of activity than the occasional sale of a hobbyist or collector, and that the defendant devoted time, attention and labor to selling firearms as a trade or business with the intent of making profits through the repeated purchase and sale of firearms. See United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.2013) (citing Instruction 8.53). For a person to engage in the business of dealing in firearms, it is not necessary to prove an actual sale of firearms. Id. at 1107 n.8.

Willfully, as used in this statute, requires proof that the defendant knew that his or her conduct was unlawful, but does not require proof that the defendant knew of the federal licensing requirement. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 198-99 (1998).

Approved 2/2014

8.54 FIREARMS—SHIPMENT OR

TRANSPORTATION TO A PERSON NOT LICENSED

AS A DEALER, IMPORTER, MANUFACTURER OR COLLECTOR

(18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with the [shipment]

[transportation] of a firearm to a person not licensed as a [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer] [collector] of firearms, in violation of Section 922(a)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was a licensed firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer]

[collector];

Second, the defendant willfully [shipped] [transported] a [specify firearm] [[from one state to another] [between a foreign nation and the United States]]; and

Third, the defendant [shipped] [transported] the [specify firearm] to a person who was not licensed as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer] [collector].

Comment

See Comment to Instruction 8.49 (False Impersonation of Citizen of United States).

While § 922(a)(2) also prohibits shipment or transportation of a firearm to a person not licensed as a firearms collector, a firearms collector’s license authorizes transactions only in curio and relic firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(b); 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.41(c) and (d), 478.50 and 478.93. Moreover, the prohibition in § 922(a)(2) does not apply to returning a firearm or replacing a firearm of the same kind or type to a person from whom it was received. It also does not prohibit depositing a firearm for conveyance in the mails to any officer, employee, agent, or watchman who is authorized to receive such firearms for use in connection with that person’s official duty. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2)(A) and (B).

8.55 FIREARMS—TRANSPORTING OR

RECEIVING IN STATE OF RESIDENCE

(18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [transporting]

[receiving] a firearm [into] [in] the state of his residence in violation of Section 922(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was not licensed as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer]

[collector]; and

Second, the defendant willfully [transported into] [received in] the state in which the defendant resided a [specify firearm] that the defendant purchased or otherwise obtained outside that state.

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms) and Comment to Instruction 8.54 (Shipment or Transportation to a Person Not Licensed as a Dealer, Importer, Manufacturer or Collector). See also exceptions at 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3).

8.56 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL

TRANSPORTATION OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE,

MACHINE GUN, SHORT–BARRELED SHOTGUN OR SHORT–BARRELED RIFLE

(18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with the unlawful transportation of a [destructive device] [machine gun] [short-barreled shotgun] [short-barreled rifle] in violation of Section 922(a)(4) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was not licensed as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer]

[collector];

Second, the defendant knowingly transported a [specify destructive device or firearm]

[[from one state to another] [between a foreign nation and the United States]]; and

Third, that the defendant did so without specific authorization by the Attorney General of the United States.

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms) and Comment to Instruction 8.54 (Shipment or

Transportation to a Person Not Licensed as a Dealer, Importer, Manufacturer or Collector).

The term “destructive device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(A)-(C) as:

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

8.57 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL DISPOSITION

BY UNLICENSED DEALER

(18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with the unlawful disposition of a firearm in violation of Section 922(a)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant willfully [sold] [traded] [gave] [transported] [delivered] [transferred] a [specify firearm] to [name of unlicensed dealer];

Second, neither the defendant nor [name of unlicensed dealer] was licensed as a firearm

[dealer] [importer] [manufacturer] [collector]; and

Third, the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that [name of unlicensed dealer] was not a resident of the same state in which the defendant resided.

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms) and Comment to Instruction 8.54 (Shipment or

Transportation to a Person Not Licensed as a Dealer, Importer, Manufacturer or Collector).

8.58 FIREARMS—FALSE STATEMENT OR

IDENTIFICATION IN ACQUISITION OR ATTEMPTED ACQUISITION

(18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [making a false statement] [giving false identification] in [[acquiring] [attempting to acquire]] [specify firearm] in violation of Section 922(a)(6) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, [specify seller] was a licensed firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer]

[collector];

Second, in connection with [acquiring] [attempting to acquire] a [specify firearm] from

[specify seller], the defendant [made a false statement] [furnished or exhibited false identification];

Third, the defendant knew the [statement] [identification] was false; and

Fourth, the false [statement] [identification] was material; that is, the false [statement] [identification] had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing [specify seller] into believing that the [specify firearm] could be lawfully sold to the defendant.

Comment

As to the fourth element of this instruction, the identity of the “actual” buyer is material to the lawfulness of the sale of a firearm. A “straw” buyer’s false indication on ATF gun sales Form 4473 that he is the “actual” buyer is material, even if the true buyer was legally eligible to own the firearm. Abramski v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2259, 2273 (2014).

Approved 2/2015

8.59 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL SALE OR DELIVERY

(18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1)–(3))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with unlawfully [selling]

[delivering] a firearm in violation of Section 922(b)[(1)][(2)][(3)] of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was licensed as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer]

[collector];

Second, the defendant willfully [[sold] [delivered]] [specify firearm] to [specify unauthorized purchaser]; and

Third, the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that [[specify unauthorized purchaser] was less than eighteen years of age]] [[purchase or possession of the firearm by [specify unauthorized purchaser] would be in violation of [applicable state law or published ordinance]] [[specify unauthorized purchaser] did not reside in the same state in which the defendant’s place of business was located]].

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms).

If ammunition is for or the firearm is a shotgun or rifle, it is unlawful to sell or deliver it to a person the licensee knows or has reason to believe is under 18; the minimum age is 21 if the ammunition is for or the firearm is a shotgun or rifle. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1).

Section 922(b)(3) has been interpreted to mean that a dealer licensed in one state, who attends a gun show in another state, may display and possess guns, negotiate price, and receive money for guns as long as the transfer of the firearm is through a licensee of the state in which the gun show is located who fills out the appropriate forms. United States v. Ogles, 406 F.3d 586, 590 (9th Cir.2005), adopted by 440 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc).

8.60 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL SALE OR DELIVERY WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORITY

(18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [selling] [delivering] a [destructive device] [machine gun] [short-barreled shotgun] [short-barreled rifle] without specific authority in violation of Section 922(b)(4) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant was licensed as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer] [collector];

Second, the defendant willfully [[sold] [delivered]] [specify destructive device or firearm] to [name of purchaser]; and

Third, the defendant did so without specific authorization by the Attorney General of the United States.

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms).

The term “destructive device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(A)-(C) as:

8.61 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL SALE

(18 U.S.C. § 922(d))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with selling [a firearm] [ammunition] in violation of Section 922(d) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant willfully sold [specify firearm] [specify ammunition] to [name of unauthorized purchaser]; and

Second, the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that [name of unauthorized purchaser] was [specify applicable prohibited status from 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1)(9)].

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms).

Section 922(d) makes it unlawful “to sell or otherwise dispose” of a firearm or ammunition. The instruction is written only in terms of a sale. If the facts are that the defendant “otherwise disposed” of the firearm or ammunition (for example, by gift or trade), the instruction should be modified accordingly.

Section 922(d)(1) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a person who “is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” The Committee recommends that the specific crime be stated in the instruction. Cf. Comment to Instruction 8.65A (Firearms—Unlawful Possession—Convicted Felon). Whether a particular crime is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is a matter of law.

For a definition of “fugitive from justice,” see Instruction 8.52 (Firearms—Fugitive From Justice Defined).

8.62 FIREARMS—DELIVERY TO CARRIER WITHOUT WRITTEN NOTICE

(18 U.S.C. § 922(e))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with delivery of a firearm to a carrier without written notice in violation of Section 922(e) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [delivered] [caused to be delivered] to [specify carrier] a package or other container in which there was [specify firearm] [specify ammunition];

Second, the package or container was to be [[shipped] [transported]] [[from one state to another] [between a foreign nation and the United States]];

Third, the package or container was to be [shipped] [transported] to a person who was not licensed as a firearms dealer, manufacturer, importer, or collector; and

Fourth, the defendant did not give written notice to [specify carrier] that there was [specify firearm] [specify ammunition] in the package or container.

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms).

8.63 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL RECEIPT

(18 U.S.C. § 922(g))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with receiving [a firearm] [ammunition] in violation of Section 922(g) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly received [specify firearm] [specify ammunition];

Second, the [specify firearm] [specify ammunition] had been [[shipped] [transported]]

[[from one state to another] [between a foreign nation and the United States]]; and

Third, at the time the defendant received the [specify firearm] [specify ammunition], the defendant [specify applicable prohibited status from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)-(9)].

If a person knowingly takes possession of [a firearm] [ammunition], [he] [she] has “received” it.

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) individuals falling into certain categories, such as fugitives from justice, are prohibited from receiving, shipping or transporting firearms or ammunition. This instruction covers receipt; for shipment or transportation, see Instruction 8.64 (Firearms—Unlawful Shipment or Transportation), and for possession, see Instruction 8.65 (Firearms—Unlawful Possession).

To establish “knowingly” under the first element, the government need not prove the defendant’s knowledge of the law, only “that the defendant consciously possessed [received, shipped, or transported] what he knew to be a firearm.” United States v. Beasley, 346 F.3d 930, 934 (2003). Moreover, a defendant prosecuted under § 922(g)(1) need not be aware that he or she is a felon or that the firearm or ammunition traveled in interstate commerce. United States v. Stone, 706 F.3d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir.2013)(defendant’s “knowledge of ammunition’s [or firearm’s] interstate connection is irrelevant”); United States v. Montero-Camargo, 177 F.3d 1118, 1120, amended on other grounds by 183 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.1999) (“[K]nowledge of one’s felon status is not an element of the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)”); United States v. Miller, 105 F.3d 552, 555 (9th Cir.1997) (“We agree with the decisions from other circuits that the § 924(a) knowledge requirement applies only to the possession element of § 922(g)(1), not to the interstate nexus or to felon status”). See also United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1168-70 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (finding sufficient evidence that sleeping defendant had knowing possession of firearms).

The third element refers to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)-(9), which sets forth nine categories of individuals prohibited from receiving, shipping, transporting, or possessing firearms and ammunition. Those categories are: (1) convicted felons; (2) fugitives from justice; (3) unlawful users and addicts of controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802; (4) individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally ill or who have been committed to a mental institution; (5) aliens without authorization to be in the United States, and (subject to certain exceptions set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2)) aliens lawfully in the United States but with non-immigrant visas; (6) individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces; (7) individuals who have renounced their citizenship; (8) individuals who have renounced their citizenship; (8) individuals who are subject to certain restraining orders issued after the individuals have been provided notice and opportunity to be heard and supported by specific factual findings that the individuals represent a credible threat to their intimate partners or children; and (9) individuals who have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

If the defendant is charged under § 922(g)(1) (convicted felon), the instruction should be modified if the defendant stipulates to the third element of the offense rather than have evidence of prior convictions presented to the jury. See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 189 (1997) (reversible error to allow government to prove nature of prior conviction when defendant offers to stipulate to the prior conviction). If the defendant so stipulates, the third element should be modified as follows:

Third, at the time the defendant [received] [shipped] [transported] [possessed] the [specify firearm] [specify ammunition], the defendant had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The defendant stipulates that on [date], the defendant was convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

If the defendant does not stipulate to the third element, the following instruction should be given:

Third, at the time the defendant [received] [shipped] [transported] [possessed] the [specify firearm] [specify ammunition], the defendant had been convicted of [specify prior felony], which is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

A conviction in a foreign court does not satisfy the element of prior conviction under § 922(g)(1). Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385, 387 (2005).

For a definition of “fugitive from justice” as used in § 922(g)(2), see Instruction 8.52 (Firearms—Fugitive From Justice Defined).

Despite some indication in the case law that aliens who have been released on bail pending deportation or pending a removal hearing, but who have filed applications to legalize their immigration status, are not subject to the prohibition of § 922(g)(5), such a conclusion is incorrect under current versions of removability statutes. See United States v. Latu, 479 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2007).

The term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” used in § 922(g)(9) is separately defined in § 921(a)(33)(A). The Supreme Court has interpreted that definition to include two requirements: first, the crime must have as an element “the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” and second, the victim of the offense must have been in a specified domestic relationship with the defendant. United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 421 (2009). The first requirement, the use or attempted use of force, or threatened use of a deadly weapon, must be an element of the underlying offense. Id. Conversely, the second requirement, the domestic relationship, need not be an element of the underlying offense. A conviction under a statute that does not require a domestic relationship may thus be a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence if the government proves that the “prior conviction was, in fact, for an offense . . . committed by the defendant against a spouse or other domestic victim.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In determining whether a statute has as an element the “use . . . of physical force” for purposes of § 922(g)(9), the Supreme Court has held that “Congress incorporated the commonlaw meaning of ‘force’—namely, offensive touching—in § 921(a)(33)(A)’s definition of a

‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.’” United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405, 1410 (2014). Accordingly, the statute under which the defendant is convicted need not prohibit violent force, so long as it prohibits “the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction.” Id. at 1413; see id. at 1413–14 (holding that Tennessee statute prohibiting “intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury” to family or household member necessarily has as element use of physical force in common-law sense).

Approved 6/2014

8.64 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL SHIPMENT

OR TRANSPORTATION

(18 U.S.C. § 922(g))

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [[shipping]

[transporting]] [[a firearm] [ammunition]] in violation of Section 922(g) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant knowingly [[shipped] [transported]] [[specify firearm] [specify ammunition]] [[from one state to another] [between a foreign nation and the United States]]; and

Second, at the time of [shipment] [transportation] the defendant was [specify applicable prohibited status from 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)-(9)].

Comment

See Comment in 8.51 (Firearms).

For a discussion of “knowingly” and of the nine categories of prohibited status set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)-(9), see Comment to Instruction 8.63 (Firearms—Unlawful Receipt).

That process in due form of law, according to the practices of this Honorable Court in causes of admirality and maritime jurisprudence, April issue agains the stem ship, her enginces, tacke appearl. Etc. and that all person having or claiming any interest therein be citized to apper and answer under oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid; that Plaitniff have a deree for its damaged aforesaid, with interest and cost; and that the steamship__________be condemned and sld to stisfy plaintiff decree;
That process in due form of law April issue against B citing it to appear and answer, under oath, all and singular, the matters aforesaid;
That the Court order, adjudge and decree that Plaitnifff have a decree against B for claim asserted gy plaintiff herein tooether with interest and costs and

That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as April be proper and that this Court s compettnet ot grnt. ) Writs in the nature of Quo Warranto served without delay upon Loretta Lynch

and/or et al’s. case #of the USDC in Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA;

(2) Orders dismissing with prejudice the “any” alleged “indictment” an “superseding indictment”

and the criminal case as to QUI TAM RELATOR; see all MOTIONs

TO DISMISS and all SUPPLEMENTs in the USDC/DWY Docket records;

(3) Order releasing QUI TAM RELATOR to unfettered liberty without any further delays; see 28

U.S.C. 2242;

(4) Order appointing a competent and qualified CJA lawyer to prosecute indigent QUI TAM

QUI TAM RELATOR’s several cross-complaints as previously filed in the USDC/DWY Docket records

supra; see 18 U.S.C. 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986;

(5) Referral of the entire USDC/DWY Docket records supra to a lawfully convened Federal Grand Jury

within the District Court of Columbia , and supervised by this Court;

(6) Appoint Special Prosecutors

(7) Partial payment of ten thousand U.S. Dollars ($10,000 USD)

    to commence QUI TAM RELATOR’s rehabilitation i.e. food, shelter, clothing,

    payable by the Office of the United States Attorney General and/or U.S. Attorney, District of Wyoming,

    to the client trust account of the CJA lawyer duly appointed by this honorable Court;

9) any and all other relief which this Court deems just and proper under the several circumstances which

    have occasioned the instant INITIAL APPLICATION e.g. Habeas Corpus relief, relief from

    retaliatory actions, triple damages etc.

order to show cause Barak H. Obama

That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action. For “DEFAULT” JUDGMENT AND/OR Judgment WRIT OF ATTACHMENT in the amount of Plaitniffs damages, tighter with interest thereon form the rrespective dates due, cost, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees.

That process in due form of law according to the practice of this court in cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction April issue against the Defendant cititng it to apprear and answer all the matters described in this complaint.Plaintiff have such other and further relief in the premises as in law and justice in April be entitled to receive.

SCHEDULE[DESIGNATION OF SCHEDULE]

Defendant’s Status and addresss:
A. Unpon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Barak H. Obama(AKA Barry Soertoes) class representative was a [type of legaly entity]authorized under the laws of the United States Constition, with offices and a place of business at [Obama address]

DETAILS OF THE _________(S)

Bill of Lading No.{ number of bill} dated {dated of bill of lading – 1993 thru present] from [name of citiy], [name of county] to [name of city], [name of state] on the vessel [name of vessel], [one(1) container SAID TO CONTAIN: [description of contents], at the applicable tariff charge of $____________dollar amount of ttarriff charge EXhits { of exhibit}

IN ADDITION

.

18 U.S. Code § 2339B – Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

CLAIM III

NEGILENCE

MY PRAYER TO GOD IN HEAVEN

ALL WRITS, OPINION, JUDGMENTS ORDERS ARE NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL EFFECT, CONTRACTS WITH THE ENEMY ARE

JAN. 6, 2021 TRUMP

REBELLION OR INSURRECTION 18 U.S. Code § 2383(HE HAD A LEGAL DUTY AS PRESIDENT TO CALL THE NATIONAL GUARDS TO PROTECT OUR U.S. CAPITOL)AND FAILED TO!! TRUMP IS GUILTY OF AIDING, ABETTING PUTIN 2016 ELECTIONS, AND

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BIDEN SUBMITTED TO THE WHO AS FOLLOWS:

ALSO, BIDEN GIVES CHINA ACCESS TO THE U.S. POWER GRID!!

– CHINA GOT YOUR DNA) parallel with Biden’s March 9, 2022 Digital Forms of Currency

– CHINA GOT ‘the two witnesses ” and/or humanity DNA VIA U.S. SUPREME GRANTS COLLECTION OF “ALL dna WITHOUT PROBALBE CAUSE – SEE BELOW U.S. SUPREME COURT ORDER) parallel with Biden’s March 9, 2022 Digital Forms of Currency

CONSOLIDATE WITH COMMUNIST CHINA, PREDICTIVE POLICING, DO A “GREAT RESET”

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

_______________________________

§2332d. Financial transactions

§2332f. Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date

Disclaimer

§2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

§2332h. Radiological dispersal devices

§2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

Editorial Notes

Amendments

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

§2339A. Providing material support to terrorists

§2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

§2339D. Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization

Share this: