|
|
InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED /
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
First Claim For Relief
Treason – Jeremy Fogel
PLAINTIFFS:
All PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS:
JEREMY
FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,
Jon
Doe’s, 1 to n.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
On multiple occasions, including on or about
September 9, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 3, 2006, July 12, 2006, July
21, 2006, October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006, in
the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1, a felony, was committed by JEREMY FOGEL, who did
willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON. JEREMY FOGEL having knowledge
of the law and the fact that PLAINTIFFS in U.S. District Court San Jose
case number C07 00391 had filed said case under the 11th
Amendment in which said case was filed not only against JEREMY FOGEL’s
employer but also his colleagues and that said case was filed by
citizens of another State across state borders against the State and
thus in accordance with not only due process, but also in accordance
with the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution
JEREMY FOGEL had no Judicial power in said case and JEREMY FOGEL thus
exceeded subject matter jurisdiction by making rulings in a case in
which Judicial power was clearly prohibited JEREMY FOGEL acted under
color of state and or territorial law.
U.S. Constitution, Eleventh Amendment: “The
Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects
of any Foreign State.”
JEREMY FOGEL did Breach his Duty and exceeded
subject matter jurisdiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1.
“Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act,
the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449
U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v.
Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
Let the JURY NOTE: JEREMY FOGEL proceeded to not
only assume jurisdiction when he had none, he went on to ignore
extremely serious felonies committed against PLAINTIFFS including false
arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and JEREMY FOGEL allowed the
continued kidnap of RCB and WFB. As a DEFENDANT in the afore mentioned
Federal case, JEREMY FOGEL, exceeded subject matter jurisdiction and
dismissed the case against himself and his co-conspirators and even
dismissed the case against DEFENDANTS who had made no appearance what so
ever. JEREMY FOGEL’s actions were willful and malicious.
DAMAGES
As a proximate consequence of the willful and
malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including
severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation,
lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity,
damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with
the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general
welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with
one’s own children!
As a consequence of the willful and malicious
actions of JEREMY FOGEL/Jeremy Fogel, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $66,016,803,250.00.
Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or
indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by
DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES”
section of this Complaint.
AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are
incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following
AUTHORITIES:
18 U.S.C. Section 1 “Whenever a judge acts where
he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act
or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66
.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404,
5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
First Claim For Relief Misprision Of Felony – Jeremy Fogel
PLAINTIFFS:
All PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS:
JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,
Jon
Doe’s, 1 to n.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
On multiple occasions, including on or about
September 9, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 3, 2006, July 12, 2006, July
21, 2006, October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006, in
the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by JEREMY
FOGEL, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY,
JEREMY FOGEL having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple
felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against
Plaintiffs, said JEREMY FOGEL did conceal and did not make as soon as
possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or
military authority under the United States, JEREMY FOGEL did Breach his
Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law. Said multiple
felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been
clearly stated and identified with evidence in pleadings before JEREMY
FOGEL, said felonies including but not limited to false arrest, assault,
attempted murder, kidnap and treason.
Substantial information having been placed before
JEREMY FOGEL showing said felonies having been committed by JEREMY FOGEL
in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number C 05-00996 JF
DAMAGES
As a proximate consequence of the willful and
malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including
severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation,
lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity,
damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with
the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general
welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with
one’s own children!
Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or
indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by
DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “J. DAMAGES”
section of this Complaint.
AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are
incorporated herein by reference.. |
