P. 1
FBI Stalking and Seizure in Bright Day Light

FBI Stalking and Seizure in Bright Day Light

|Views: 15|Likes:
Published by Judicial_Fraud

More info:

Published by: Judicial_Fraud on Sep 18, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/18/2010

pdf

text

original

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Prima Facie Corrupt Middle District of Florida

In the Matter of the Unlawful Search of

) ) 1575 Curlew Avenue, Building 2, Unit 4, Naples, Florida, ) ) ) )

“Case” No. 8:10-mj-1416 (AEP)

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DESTRUCTION OF UNLAWFULLY SEIZED CRIME EVIDENCE OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND RETURN PROPERTY SEIZED UNLAWFULLY & UNDER FALSE PRETENSES NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT “STALKING” AND HARASSMENT U.S. GOVERNMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FBI FILE 316A-TP-73337 1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI SWAT Team Tampa, under the direction of Special Agent David E. Nelson unlawfully searched and seized the above property on 09/08/2010. U.S. FAILURE TO STATE “probable cause” 2. Here, U.S. Government Officials a. Failed to state any probable cause of “stalking”, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A; b. Threatened violence and incarceration unless plaintiffs complied with unlawful seizure and refrained from further prosecution of Defendant Government Officials.

PRIMA FACIE LACK OF “probable cause” 3. The FBI and Defendant crooked Government Officials knew and concealed that, e.g.: a. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to be free of Government oppression; b. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to prosecute corrupt Government Officials; c. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to own property; d. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to exclude government from their property, Lot 15A; e. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to redress Government grievances; f. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to free speech; g. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to publish their grievances; h. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to use electronic mail services, i. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to serve their pleadings and grievances upon Defendants; j. Plaintiffs had fundamental rights under, e.g., the i. 1st, 4th, 14th, 7th, and 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments. U.S. GOVERNMENT FABRICATIONS OF “concealment” 4. Here, Government Officials fraudulently pretended: “The person or property to be searched, described above, is believed to conceal …” See “Warrant”. RECORD EVIDENCE OF LACK OF ANY “concealment” 5. Here, plaintiffs had, e.g.: a. Filed their pleadings and grievances in Courts of law; b. Published; c. Electronically published; and d. Distributed worldwide their conclusive record proof of organized U.S. crimes & corruption. Here, absolutely nothing was concealed but publicly recorded. UNLAWFUL WARRANT = WEAPON OF MASS DECEPTION S. Hussein was “believed to conceal” weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found, and the U.S. fooled the entire world. Here, U.S. Officials knew and concealed that the warrant was on its face unlawful, unconstitutional, and violative of plaintiffs’ 4th U.S. Const. Amendment rights. UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED CIVIL PROCEEDINGS 6. On 09/08/2010, and after hundreds of written Complaints about Government corruption, the armed FBI SWAT team reportedly and unlawfully seized, e.g., a. Civil prosecution records since 2006; b. Electronically stored evidence of Government crimes; Nine (9) computers: c. SONY d. SONY e. ACER f. TOSHIBA g. DELL h. SONY

2

i. ACER j. HP k. DELL PRIMA FACIE ABSURD, IDIOTIC, AND FABRICATED “cause” of “stalking” 7. Here, Government concealed. On its face, the Government allegation of “concealment” was a. Absurd; b. Fabricated; c. For concealment and cover-up purposes. Here, hundreds of thousands of readers had read the published proof of record Government crimes. Here, hundreds of thousands of pages had officially a. Exposed publicly recorded U.S. Government crime and corruption worldwide; b. Implicated corrupt and criminal Government Officials on the record. UNLAWFUL PURPOSES OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF CRIME EVIDENCE 8. Here, the unlawful purposes of said unconstitutional search and seizure were, e.g.: a. To wrongfully destroy crime evidence; b. To wrongfully destroy evidence of Government racketeering; see, e.g., USA Ex Rel v. USA; c. To coerce the plaintiffs to refrain from further prosecution; d. To criminally deprive the plaintiffs of their fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions; e. To further conceal evidence of organized Government crime and corruption; f. To frame pro se plaintiffs; g. To injure pro se plaintiffs in ongoing prosecution of Government crimes; h. To inflict emotional distress upon the plaintiffs; i. To obstruct and disrupt plaintiffs’ ongoing litigation and prosecution; j. To interfere with ongoing litigation in favor of the Defendant Crooked Officials. PRIMA FACIE GOVERNMENT FABRICATIONS OF “stalking”, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A 9. Here unlawfully and unconstitutionally, U.S. Government criminalized, e.g.: a. Redress of Government grievances and corruption; b. Electronic publications; c. Electronic mail; d. Electronic court filings. Here, no “probable cause” of “stalking” could have possibly existed, because, e.g.: e. Plaintiffs sought prosecution away from the corrupt Middle District of Florida; f. Plaintiffs were entitled to prosecute and un-conceal record Government crimes; g. None of the elements of “18 U.S.C. § 2261A” could have possibly been presen here.

3

WEST PALM BEACH & NEW HAMPSHIRE PROSECUTION OF CORRUPT OFFICIALS 10. Here, the Plaintiffs prosecuted the Defendant Corrupt Government Officials in, e.g.: a. West Palm Beach Federal Court; b. New Hampshire Federal Court, i.e., away from crooked Middle District Officials. Here, the Defendant Corrupt Government Officials moved prosecution back to the corrupt Middle District of Florida. In particular, Defendant Officials even moved the Court(s) to have Tampa Federal Judge Richard A. Lazzara preside over Plaintiffs’ prosecution. Defendants’ motion was denied. Therefore here, the facially fabricated Government allegations of “stalking” were frivolous just like the Fake Government affidavits of record; Fake Government “law” on the record, “O.R. 569/875”; Fake “judgments” for Government extortion purposes. 11. Here, the Defendant Tampa U.S. Attorney and other Government Officials have been seeking to, e.g.: a. Silence the plaintiffs through wrongful prosecution; b. Intimidate the plaintiffs; c. Coerce the plaintiffs to refrain from any further prosecution of crooked Government Officials; d. Criminalize plaintiffs’ rightful defense of their fundamental Constitutional and Human rights e. Destroy plaintiffs’ equipment and evidence; f. “Frame” and/or “set up” the plaintiff whistleblowers. “ATTACHMENT A” OF UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT

4

NEW RECORD EVIDENCE OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME & CORRUPTION 12. Here, said unlawful Government seizure only further validated, e.g.: a. The well-proven record organized Government crime and corruption; b. The well-pleaded Government cover-ups; c. Organized Government concealment of Government crime and corruption; d. The agreement/conspiracy of Defendant Officials to perpetrate organized crime on the record; e. The anarchy and lawlessness in the Middle District of Florida; f. The wrongful prosecution of U.S. Government opponents and whistleblowers. 13. During said 09/08/2010 unlawful seizure, the Federal Bureau stated: “If you disagree with the search you may have the evidence suppressed later …” UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF PANASONIC CAMERA – “FISHING” 14. Here, the FBI unlawfully seized a Panasonic camera and then denied the seizure. Here, U.S. Government unlawfully a. “Fished for” evidence without any probable cause; b. Seized evidence of Government racketeering and other crimes by unlawful means of said FBI raid. PRESIDING JUDGE COVERED UP FOR DEFENDANT CROOKED JUDGES 15. Here, presiding Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli, who signed the unlawful “warrant”: a. Had a conflict of interest; b. Covered up for Defendant crooked Judges in the Middle District of Florida; c. Concealed the Government fabrications of a “law”, fake “resolution 569/875”; d. Covered up Government extortion under false pretenses of, e.g., “O.R. 569/875”. INFLICTION OF INJURY, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND/OR DEATH 16. Said FBI Agent expressly referred to, e.g.: a. A picture showing Defendant Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell; b. A picture of a Government tank, which had killed a Government opponent; c. Nazi paraphernalia such as, e.g., a “swastika”; d. “sodomy”. 17. Here, published pictures of public officials were not any probable cause. Here, the FBI knew from hundreds of written complaints that the issues were, e.g., rampant and well-proven • Government corruption; • Government oppression; • Government injury upon the plaintiffs; • Government intimidation of the plaintiffs; • Government coercion of the plaintiffs to refrain from further prosecution of, e.g., Defendant crooked Charlene E. Honeywell and Jack Neil Peterson.

5

SYSTEMATIC GOVERNMENT CONCEALMENT 18. Here, the Courts had a. Methodically concealed information about organized crime and corruption by Defendant Charlene Edwards Honeywell; b. Methodically concealed information about organized crime and corruption by Defendant Jack Neil Peterson, and Attorneys in the Office of the Tampa U.S. Attorney; c. “Struck” Plaintiffs’ pleadings; d. Altered Plaintiffs’ pleadings; e. Rejected Plaintiffs’ pleadings. DECEPTIVE ROLE OF NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT – “RUSE” 19. On 09/08/2010, Naples Police Department Officer McGregor fraudulently pretended that a. The door of said searched property had been “smashed”; b. A “suspect” was on the loose. Here, said Officer falsely pretended a crime to engage Plaintiff Dr. Busse. See, e.g.: www.youtube.com. GOVERNMENT POLICY & PATTERN OF CONCEALMENT: ALTERATIONS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 20. Here under false pretenses, the Government Defendants a. Employed a pattern and policy of criminal concealment; b. Systematically altered the official records; c. Framed the plaintiff whistleblowers as purported “stalkers”, “18 U.S.C. § 2261A”; d. Concealed Plaintiffs’ Government crime evidence. DEMAND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DIFFERENT VENUE …

6

9/10/2010

United States Code: Title 18,2266. Def…

Search Law School

Search Cornell

LII

/ Legal Information Institute

hom e

se arch

find a lawye r

donate

U.S. Code
m ain pa ge fa q inde x se arch

TITLE 18 > PART I > C HAPTER 110A > § 2266

§ 2266. Definitions
In this chapter: (1) Bodily injury.— The term “bodily injury” means any act, except one done in self-defense, that results in physical injury or sexual abuse. (2) Course of conduct.— The term “course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose. (3) Enter or leave indian country.— The term “enter or leave Indian country” includes leaving the jurisdiction of 1 tribal government and entering the jurisdiction of another tribal government. (4) Indian country.— The term “Indian country” has the meaning stated in section 1151 of this title. (5) Protection order.— The term “protection order” includes— (A) any injunction, restraining order, or any other order issued by a civil or criminal court for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment against, sexual violence, or contact or communication with or physical proximity to, another person, including any temporary or final order issued by a civil or criminal court whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding so long as any civil or criminal order was issued in response to a complaint, petition, or motion filed by or on behalf of a person seeking protection; and (B) any support, child custody or visitation provisions, orders, remedies or relief issued as part of a protection order, restraining order, or injunction pursuant to State, tribal, territorial, or local law authorizing the issuance of protection orders, restraining orders, or injunctions for the protection of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking.

(6) Serious bodily injury.— The term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning stated in section 2119 (2). (7) Spouse or intimate partner.— The term “spouse or intimate partner” includes— (A) for purposes of— (i) sections other than 2261A— (I) a spouse or former spouse of the abuser, a person who shares a child in common with the abuser, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with the abuser; or (II) a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship; and (ii) section 2261A— (I) a spouse or former spouse of the target of the stalking, a person who shares a child in common with the target of the stalking, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with the target of the stalking; or (II) a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the target of the stalking, as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of the relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.[1]

(B) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or where the victim resides.

(8) State.— The term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (9) Travel in interstate or foreign commerce.— The term “travel in interstate or foreign commerce” does not include travel from 1 State to another by an individual who is a member of an Indian tribe and who remains at all times in the territory of the Indian tribe of which the individual is a member.

…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_18_0000226…

1/2

9/10/2010

United States Code: Title 18,2266. Def…

(10) Dating partner.— The term “dating partner” refers to a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser. The existence of such a relationship is based on a consideration of— (A) the length of the relationship; and (B) the type of relationship; and (C) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.

[1] So in original. The period probably should be “; and”. Ask A Lawyer Online.
Get an Answer ASAP!

Donations cove r only 20% of our costs.

Become a Patient Advocate Become a Patient Advocate w/ an Online Degree. Get Info.
www.Univ-Phoenix-Onlin

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

about us

sitemap

help

terms of use

friend us

follow us

contact us

…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_18_0000226…

2/2

9/9/2010

United States Code: Title 18,2261. Int…

Search Law School

Search Cornell

LII

/ Legal Information Institute

hom e

se arch

find a lawye r

donate

U.S. Code
m ain pa ge fa q inde x se arch

TITLE 18 > PART I > C HAPTER 110A > § 2261

§ 2261. Interstate domestic violence
(a) Offenses.— (1) Travel or conduct of offender.— A person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course of or as a result of such travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (2) Causing travel of victim.— A person who causes a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or to enter or leave Indian country by force, coercion, duress, or fraud, and who, in the course of, as a result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Penalties.— A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall be fined under this title, imprisoned— (1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results; (2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life threatening bodily injury to the victim results; (3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense; (4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the offense would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and (5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case, or both fined and imprisoned. (6) W hoever commits the crime of stalking in violation of a temporary or permanent civil or criminal injunction, restraining order, no-contact order, or other order described in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 1 year. Ask A Lawyer Online.
Get an Answer ASAP!

Donations cove r only 20% of our costs.

…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_18_0000226…

1/2

9/9/2010

United States Code: Title 18,2261A. St…

Search Law School

Search Cornell

LII

/ Legal Information Institute

hom e

se arch

find a lawye r

donate

U.S. Code
m ain pa ge fa q inde x se arch

TITLE 18 > PART I > C HAPTER 110A > § 2261A

§ 2261A. Stalking
Whoever— (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or (2) with the intent— (A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to— (i) that person; (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2]

shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.

[1] So in original. Probably should be followed by a closing parenthesis. [2] So in original. Provision probably should be set flush with par. (2). Ask A Lawyer Online.
Get an Answer ASAP!

Donations cove r only 20% of our costs.

…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_18_0000226…

1/2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->