Plaintiff appears to be improperly alleging criminal conduct as the basis for his Negligence claim. As with his other claims, under the “Fifth Claim for Relief: Negligence,” Plaintiff cites “18 U.S.C. § 2, 3, 4, 241, 371, 1001, 1016, 1018, 1341, 1346, 1349” apparently as the basis for his negligence claim. (ECF No. 1. At p. 27).

Plaintiffs hereby pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 4 inform the Honorable Judge Jane Boyle that they have knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States specific to Defendants C&S and LNV and LNV’s agents including but not limited to criminal actions specifically done by or ordered by Daniel Andrew Beal, Jeffery Hardaway, Luke Madole, Sammy Hooda, Dale B. Tillery, Gerry Cooper, and Sally Montgomery. 18 U.S. Code § 4 states: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both” Plaintiffs further move this court and Judge Boyle to report these crimes to the FBI and the United States Attorney General and any other law enforcement agency with authority to investigate these criminal activities. Plaintiffs are victims of a crime and pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3663A they are entitled to mandatory restitution for their damages, including damages for mental anguish and pain and suffering.

--Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to 51 18 U.S.C. § 371. 52 18 U.S.C. § 4. 2:07-cv-13842-RHC-RSW Doc # 44 Filed 01/21/09 Pg 23 of 42 Pg ID 817 14 any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.53 To request or obtain such material “under false pretenses” is also a misdemeanor.54 As set out above, Convertino alleges that DOJ officials violated this provision by leaking to Ashenfelter documents and other information containing the identity of a confidential terrorism informant and about the OPR investigation of Convertino.

In the Eleventh Circuit, plaintiffs may pursue testimony from board personnel to establish that denominational bias permeated the selection process in these specific instances as well as other boards on which plaintiffs have indications of prejudice and misconduct. If these allegations and stories are true, defendants violated the Establishment Clause and closed their eyes to the resulting injustice, a violation of both their duty and the law, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 4. The fact that these incidents occurred or evidence of misconduct exists means nothing in the District of Columbia because In re England bars plaintiffs from pursuing their claims concerning selection board misconduct.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See also Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Taken together, Rules 8(a) and 8(e)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.”); T.M. v. District of Columbia, 961 F.Supp.2d 169, 174 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Still, a complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material” will patently fail the Rule’s standard) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts have found that failure to comply with Rule 8 is valid grounds for dismissal. Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 669 (explaining that “Rule 41(b) authorizes the court to dismiss either a claim or an action because of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with” Rule 8). Case 1:17-cv-00278-JEB Document 8-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 3 of 6 4 5324, 2005 WL 375623, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2005) (“…appellant cannot assert any claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, and 242, because, as criminal statutes, these statutes do not convey a private right of action.”); Rockefeller v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 248 F. Supp. 2d 17, 23 (D.D.C. 2003)) (“Plaintiff is precluded from asserting any claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 371 because, as criminal statutes, they do not convey a private right of action.”).

On November 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion and Requests for the Federal Court to Issue an Order for the U.S. Marshalls to Retrieve the Certified Death Certificate of Aunt Deloris Hoffman From the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Syracuse Due to Obstruction of Justice Violations of 10 U.S.C. 333, 18 U.S.C. §§§2, 3, 4, 73, 241, 242, 1343,1349 ICERD Article V(a)(b), Including Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, and 60” and a “Memorandum in Support O Motion and Request for the Federal Court to Issue an Order for the U.S. Marshalls to Retrieve the Certified Death Certificate of Aunt Deloris Hoffman.” On November 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an “Objection to Denial to Exhume the Bodies Docket No. 50 Due to Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§4, 73, & 1001 to Lie to a Federal Judge About the Existence of a Contract” and a “Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection to Denial to Exhume the Bodies Docket No. 50.” On December 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion and Request Permission of the Court to Compel Inspector General Dean Panos to Relinquish for Authentication to the Magistrate and/or Judge for Inspection the Seal for Certified Death Certificate of Anna Short Ha·rrington Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, and 35 U.S.C. §2(B)(2)(D) Fed. Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2)” and a “Memorandum in Support of Motion and Request Permission of the Court to Compel Inspector General Dean Panos to Relinquish for Authentication to the Magistrate and/or Judge for Inspection the Seal for Certified Death Certificate of Anna Short Hasrrington Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, and 35 U.S.C. §2(B)(2)(D) Fed. Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2).”

I therefore request your office to investigate the actions of Oregon Notary Public Shelby Tisdale and determine a finding of fact and conclusion of law conceming the aforementioned facts. Accordingly, if your office agrees tiiat Oregon Noteay Public Shelby Tisdale has violated any ofthe Notary laws of Oregon, or others, I request the appropriate actions be taken against Oregon Notary Public Shelby Tisdale and that I be informed of all actions pursuant to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am formally notifying your office of Oregon Notary Public Shelby Tisdale possible felonious acts in accordance witii Titie 18 USC § 4 - Misprision of Felony. Please order Oregon Notary Public Shelby Tisdale respond to this request pursuant to ORS 192.240 and others.

Although it is clear that the government has a single major target at this time, all Claimants would be well advised to assert their Fifth Amendment rights until the investigation is over. The Government has used in the past conspiracy, 18 USC § 371; aiding and abetting, 18 USC § 2; and misprision of felony, 18 USC § 4 charges against persons with tangential involvement in alleged criminal enterprises. The Claimants, in the strongest terms, deny any wrongdoing in this matter, Case 1:12-cv-00151-SEH-CSO Document 19 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2 of 4 Brief in Support of Renewed Unopposed Motion to Stay Page 3 of 4 but each of them has the right, and has chosen to exercise the right against self incrimination at this time.

The answer is no. Conduct is not deemed “interception” under the statute if the device used to acquire communications is “being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii) and is not unlawful if a service provider intercepts a communication “in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 4 As noted above, p. 2, and based on the authorities cited herein, Plaintiffs wish to clarify the assertion in their Position Statement [R. 158 at 3 n.2] that NebuAd’s acquisition took place post-interception. Plain- tiffs’ position is that, whether individually or taken together, WOW and NebuAd both engaged in inter- ception under the ECPA.

Second, he argues that restraining orders should be vacated because the Government has failed to establish the direct tracing of the client tax shelter fees into a specific Jenkens & Gilchrist bank account and then, prior to a diminution of the balance of that account, into accounts of Daugerdas. Finally, Daugerdas broadly claims that the pretrial restraint of his funds violates his constitutional rights because he is a defendant in a complex fraud case and the Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 556 Filed 08/24/12 Page 9 of 26 Although, as noted above, the forfeiture proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. §4 982(a)(2)(A) because of the allegations that the wire and mail fraud schemes “affected a financial institution,” the forfeiture is alternatively based on the civil forfeiture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which is implicated for wire fraud charges that do not “affect a financial institution”. Section 981(a)(1)(C) provides for the forfeiture of “[a]ny property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to [the] violation.”