In so doing, LFG realized the Bankruptcy Court most likely does not have jurisdiction over such a claim. In re Guildmaster, Inc., 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 1241 at *16-17 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2013) (“federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases, including criminal forfeitures, under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and over federal forfeiture cases under 28                                                        4 A copy of the Complaint in the Adversary Proceeding (“Complaint”) is attached without exhibits as Exhibit 11 (Bates No. 118). 5 A copy of the United States’ Notice of Motion and United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Farrell Stevens in Support Motion (the “Motion”) in the Adversary Proceeding is attached as Exhibit 12 (Bates No.

States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 811 (9th Cir. 2008). The injunction requested under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 falls within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, giving the Court jurisdiction over the defendant. The defendant’s apparent defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction is legally insufficient and lacks any evidentiary support.

III, § 2, cl. 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3231, (as this is not a civil action) this court appropriately has subject-matter jurisdiction over this criminal action. CONCLUSION The court is not acting as an admiralty court and has original jurisdiction to hear matters concerning offenses against the United States.

Here, the State Court had no jurisdiction over this action seeking to interfere with a federal criminal prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231(“The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States) (emphasis added); In re Jose C, 45 Cal.4th 534, 542 (2009) (“[a]t a minimum…section 3231 displaces state court jurisdiction over the direct prosecution, conviction, and imposition of federal criminal punishment for violations of federal criminal statutes”). Therefore, this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction.

The district court has original jurisdiction, “exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. On April 16, 2008, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Vann with violations of federal law.