II. Count II (18 U.S.C. § 401(3)) 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) grants a court the “power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, including . . . (3) disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” In order to establish a violation of § 401(3), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the existence of a “specific, clear, and unequivocal court order”; (2) that the defendant knew of the order; and (3) that the defendant disobeyed the order with a willfulness that implies a deliberate or intended violation.

DATED: May 1, 2009 Respectfully submitted, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP By /s/ Evette D. Pennypacker Attorney for Zynga Game Network, Inc. Case3:09-cv-01557-SC Document42 Filed05/01/09 Page6 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- Case No. 3:09-cv-01557-SC ZYNGA’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING MR. MCEACHERN’S CONTEMPT I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401 and Civil Local Rules 7-8 and 7-2, Plaintiff Zynga Game Network, Inc. (“Zynga”), hereby moves this Court for an order to show cause why Kyle McEachern should not be found in contempt of court. Mr. McEachern has failed to comply with this Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Injunction which required him in clear and unambiguous terms to provide Zynga with the Mob Underworld code; access to any and all of his computers, servers and storage devices; and passwords or keys that he knows could be used to access Zynga’s network or servers, within five calendar days of the order’s entry, which was April 29, 2009.

Subsequent to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming Dickstein’s 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT A, PAGE 3 Case 4:17-cv-02469-YGR Document 29-1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 misdemeanor conviction for having filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, on January 17, 2012, the Review Dept. of the State Bar Court issued an order referring to the Hearing Dept. of the State Bar Court “under the authority of California Rules of Court, rule 9.10(a), to conduct a hearing and recommending the discipline to be imposed in the event that the hearing department finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding the misdemeanor violation of 18 United States Code section 401(3) (criminal contempt), of which Jeffrey Alan Dickstein was convicted, involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.” [Emphasis added.]

Federal courts have the inherent power to sanction parties who have acted in bad faith, veraciously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. See, 18 U.S.C.A. §401(1) and (3); see also Fellheimer, Eichen & Bravernman P.C. v. Charter Techs, Inc., 57 F.3d 1215, 1224 (3d Cir. 1995), citing, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991). It is respectfully submitted that this Court should exercise its inherent power by sanctioning defendant RSL for its wanton refusal to obey the December 22, 2011 Order.

C (Indictment). A Fourth Superseding Indictment was filed on March 17, 2015, charging Murray with 16 counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, two counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and a single count of criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). See Ex.

Violation of such an order could lead to civil or even criminal liability. See 18 U.S.C. § 401 (authorizing criminal contempt for violation of a court order). More broadly, county clerks have a sworn duty to uphold and defend the Oregon Constitution, which includes both Article 15 § 5a and the “unfettered” right of the people to the initiative process by which it was enacted.

SITRICK SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER. Mr. Sitrick should be held in contempt of Court and sanctioned for refusing to comply with this Court’s November 22, 2013 Order.9 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, this Court has the 9 Sitrick’s filing of a notice of appeal does not divest this Court of authority to enforce its judgment. See City of N.Y. v. Venkataram, No. 06 Civ. 6578, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99814 at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2012)(finding defendant in contempt and noting that “the existence of a pending appeal does not divest this Court of jurisdiction to enforce its Case 1:13-cv-07990-ER Document 36 Filed 12/11/13 Page 17 of 21 13 “power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority . . . as. . . Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”

THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO SANCTION BANK OF CHINA TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE AUGUST 23 ORDER It is well-established that courts have the inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through the imposition of civil contempt sanctions. See 18 U.S.C. § 401 (authorizing courts “to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority” as “[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command”); Yurman Studio, Inc. v. Castaneda, 07 Civ. 1241 (SAS), 2009 WL 454275, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2009) (“[C]ourts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful Case 1:10-cv-04974-RJS Document 111 Filed 10/20/12 Page 16 of 30 12 orders through civil contempt.”) (quoting Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990)).

C 08-04052 JF PVT Procedure provides that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the court may issue “further just orders,” including “treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); see also 18 U.S.C. § 401(c) (codifying judicial enforcement of court orders). A party may be held in civil contempt if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the party violated an order of the court beyond substantial compliance, and that the violation was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order.

Such rulings are unsurprising, given a court's broad authority to issue and enforce injunctions. 35 U.S.C. § 283 (patent injunctions available "on such terms as the court deems reasonable"); 18 U.S.C. § 401 (broad contempt power); id. § 1651(a) (power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of" jurisdiction).