MURRAY STEINBERG
60 DAYS IN JAIL FOR
THE 75 MILLION DOLLAR MAN
By Trish Wilson, © 1998
All rights reserved by author
Poor Murray Steinberg. The American
Coalition for Fathers And Children included email by the American
Fathers Coalition (for all intents and purposes the same group) which
tries to make it look as if Steinberg is an innocent father who has
been railroaded by the Virginia courts. AFC even goes as far as to
compare Steinberg's time in jail to a completely unrelated case of
woman who had killed her partner. Fathers' rights groups tell plenty of
stories of fathers who are thrown in prison for being a few dollars
behind in their child support or an hour or two late picking up or
dropping off the kids.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. A man has to work very, very hard to be thrown in jail.
Steinberg, a Fathers' Manifesto signatory, has a history of visitation
with the prison system. He has been incarcerated THREE TIMES. The
reasons he gives are incredibly lame, and far from believable - first,
being fifteen minutes late returning his daughter from visitation (10
days in jail, suspended 2); second, talking to loudly to his ex-wife
(10 days in jail, 8 days suspended); and third, letting his daughter
sleep one hour late (60 days in jail. He went to jail. Directly to
jail. Did not pass "GO." Did not collect 75 million dollars.).
The Virginia courts are VERY familiar with Steinberg. After reading the
hand-wringing evident in the AFC release posted by ACFC, read all about
Steinberg's 75 million dollar lawsuit against his"adulterous" ex-wife,
judges, his ex's attorneys, Henrico county, and the state of Virginia
itself. This man even went as far as to name his own child as a
plaintif, which is as crass as it is incredulous.
MORE on Murray's case.
Friday, May 15, 1998 03:10 PM PST
ACFC: Sixty Day Sentences
By acfc-l@usa.net
Thanks to AFCfor sending us the following.
ACFC
++++++++++++++++
American Fathers Coalition
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Ste. 148
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) FATHERS {202-328-4377}
http://www.erols.com/afc
E-mail: afc@capaccess.org
Murray Steinberg, in Richmond Virginia got 60 days in jail for
allegedly being one hour late returning his daughter after his
"visitation," to his adulterous ex-wife. It is the same sentence for a woman
"Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter." She walked up to him while he was eating
his cornflakes, shot him four times in the back of the head, cut herself a
couple times with a knife and then called
911 and asked for a lawyer.
She'll be out in 30 days on good behavior... soon enough to spend
the summer at the beach. Hope the next guy she meets has enough sense to eat
with his back to the wall... a Kevlar treated wall!
How do I teach my son values, when his value is so clearly
delineated: 30 days and $2500. (Unless he is worth more alive for alimony
and child support!) Then he can be a felon. [See: Deadbeat Parents
Punishment Act of 1998, passed 5/12/98]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/polo/polo
.htm
-++++++++++++++++++++++++
Children Need BOTH Parents!
The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS
or see ACFC's homepages at:
http://www.acfc.org
Additional information is located at:
http://www.secondwives.org
Listserver: @majordomo.esosoft.com
Listowner: @majordomo.esosoft.com
.
To subscribe/unsubscribe: To: majordomo@majordomo.esosoft.com Message:
subscribe/unsubsribe acfc
.
To temporarily suspend email: To: majordomo@majordomo.esosoft.com Message:
set acfc nomail
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Civil Rights Claim and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (Civil RICO) Claim and Pendent State Claims for
Declaratory, Injunctive and Punitive Relief (Footnotes appear as endnotes).
Note: This suit was dismissed and denied on appeal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
--------------------------------------
MURRAY L. STEINBERG
In behalf of himself, and
all those similarly situated,
and
CHELSEA RENEE STEINBERG
a minor child,
By her Next Friend, and
Natural Father,
MURRAY L. STEINBERG
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
HENRICO COUNTY
The Honorable Judge L.A. HARRIS
The Honorable Judge KULP
Murray J. JANUS
Deanna L. DWORALOWSKI
BREMNER, BABER & JANUS
Katherine T. STEINBERG
Kenneth SHUMAKER
Pauline Kie
Defendants.
--------------------------------------
FULLY INFORMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEMAND FOR:
COMPENSATORY, PUNITIVE & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
&
SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($75,000,000.00)
TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE VIRGINIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BUDGET
(in addition to the current budget)
-------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs in the above styled action and doth complain and
allege as follows:
- I -
CONSTITUTIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
1. The Plaintiffs are free and natural persons, citizens of the United
States of America and inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia; all
within the federal jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Middle
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, now here appearing and pray for
relief before this Honorable Court herein, and invokes the sovereignty of
the United States Constitution.
-II-
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This action arises under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the Civil Rights Act,
Title 42, United States Code ?? 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 for violation of
Plaintiff's civil rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
This cause also arises under Title 18, USC ?? 1962 and 1964, Civil RICO.
This Court also has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's common law claims
which arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as do Plaintiff's
federal claims according to the principles of pendent jurisdiction.
Violations of Plaintiff's rights have occurred in Henrico County, thus venue
is properly placed with this Court. It is the Plaintiff's contention that
because of i) torturous outrage, ii) harassment by the Defendants, and iii)
threats to one of the Plaintiffs, that venue should remain in the Richmond
Division or transferred where the safety of the Plaintiffs and their
families would be assured. All proceedings "only tangentially" relate to the
Plaintiff's domestic relations dispute. Before this Court entertains a
motion to dismiss, it should consider Ankerbrandt, S.Ct.(1991) and Haffer v.
Mello, (1991) 1 .
3. This case involves vital questions of civil rights important to many
Americans of similar circumstances throughout this nation, thus abstention
should not be considered.2 Exception to the abstention doctrine justly lies
in this cause as Plaintiff challenges state action, conduct as state
officials, and others where such action and conduct "under color of law"
impinges on fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights.3
Plaintiff urges the Court to take particular concern since the State system
has been unwilling to protect those rights itself.4 Plaintiff avers that the
Commonwealth has breached it's obligation and duty to protect the civil
liberties of United States Citizens; both the Commonwealth's Constitution,
the Code of Virginia, and the United States Constitution. By such breaches
of its duties the Commonwealth has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Plaintiff avers that his complaint would be improperly placed in the state
court as the Commonwealth has refused to uphold the Constitution.
Plaintiff's complaint involves numerous other violations of Federal law.
4. Even a claim that Plaintiff's complaint might be resolved under the due
process clause of the Commonwealth's Constitution would not be grounds for
abstention.5 The Court should further find reason to assume jurisdiction in
light of the intimidation tactics by the commonwealth judiciary, threats by
judicial appointees, intentional violation of the laws of the Commonwealth
by its judiciary and its judicial appointees, all with the design to
obstruct him from bringing forth the exercise of his constitutional and
civil rights.6
5. This Court should not hold this litigant's pleadings to the same high
standards of perfection of lawyers.7 If faced with a motion to dismiss, the
Court should give Plaintiff's pleadings especially lenient treatment so that
before the Court dismisses the complaint of this In Propria Persona
Plaintiff he can be given an opportunity to offer evidence or further
particularize his claim.8 The Federal Courts have related 9 that In Propria
Persona Civil Rights pleadings are to be liberally construed.10
- III -
PARTIES
6. PLAINTIFF:
6.1 Plaintiff, Murray L. Steinberg 11 , sues in his own proper person both
individually and collectively.
6.2 Plaintiff, Chelsea Renee Steinberg 12 , sues by her next friend, and
natural father, Murray L. Steinberg.
7. At all times pertinent to this complaint, the defendants, each of them,
while acting in their capacities described and in doing the things hereafter
set forth, were acting under color of alleged state statutes, rules, and
practices and federal laws, rules and practices.
8. DEFENDANTS:
8.1 Defendant, Commonwealth of Virginia13 , was at all times material to
this Complaint. This suit against the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA is brought
under the "expressly authorized" exception of 42 USC ? 1983 to 28 USC ? 2283
anti-injunction provision for equitable relief. The COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
is sued in cause for its willful participation in the deprivation of civil
rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States wherein it is
alleged that "under color of law" proceedings of state courts were motivated
by i) bad faith, ii) harassment, iii) and deliberate and selective
application and/or omission of state law that flagrantly and patently
violated express constitutional prohibitions. Defendant was the direct or
proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and causes for relief.
8.2 Defendant, Henrico County, was at all times material to this Complaint.
Henrico County is sued in cause for its willful participation in the
deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States wherein it is alleged that "under color of law" proceedings of state
courts were motivated by i) bad faith, ii) harassment, iii) and deliberate
and selective application and/or omission of state law that flagrantly and
patently violated express constitutional prohibitions. Defendant was the
direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and causes for relief.
8.3 Defendant, the Honorable Judge L.A. Smith, judge14 of Henrico County
Circuit Court, in and for Henrico County, Virginia, was at all times
material to this Complaint. Smith is sued individually and in his official
capacity wherein it is alleged that he subjected and caused the depravation
of Plaintiff's civil rights and privileges secured by the United States
Constitution. That he, having knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done
as alluded to in 42 USC ? 1985, or wrongs about to be committed, and having
the power15 to prevent or aid in preventing the same, neglected or refused
to do that which he by reasonable diligence could have prevented. The
Defendant was the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and causes
for relief.
8.4 Defendant, the Honorable Judge James Kulp, judge of Henrico County
Circuit Court, in and for Henrico County, Virginia, was at all times
material to this Complaint. Kulp is sued individually and in his official
capacity wherein it is alleged that he subjected and caused the depravation
of Plaintiff's civil rights and privileges secured by the United States
Constitution. That he, having knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done
as alluded to in 42 USC ? 1985, or wrongs about to be committed, and having
the power to prevent or aid in preventing the same, neglected or refused to
do that which he by reasonable diligence could have prevented. The Defendant
was the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and causes for
relief.
8.6 Defendant, Murray J. Janus 16 , Esquire, was at all times material to
this Complaint and a lawyer who practices his profession in the area of
Henrico County, Virginia. Defendant Janus is licensed by the State Bar of
Virginia. He is affiliated with the defendant Bremner, Baber & Janus, as a
partner, member, or agent of Bremner, Baber, & Janus, wherefore it is
alleged that "under color of law", he personally participated in or directed
the alleged violations of Plaintiff's rights and that his specific conduct
was the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and causes for
relief.
8.6 Defendant, Deanna L. Dworakowski 17 , Esquire, was at all times material
to this Complaint and a lawyer who practices her profession in the area of
Henrico County, Virginia. Defendant Dworakoski is licensed by the State Bar
of Virginia. She is affiliated with the defendant Bremner, Baber & Janus, as
a partner, member, or agent of Bremner, Baber & Janus, wherefore it is
alleged that "under color of law", she personally participated in or
directed the alleged violations of Plaintiff's rights and that her specific
conduct was the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and causes
for relief.
8.7 Defendant, Bremner, Baber & Janus 18 , was at all times material to this
cause. A law firm with offices located in Richmond, Virginia, provided legal
services to the Defendant Katherine T. Steinberg, wherefore it is alleged
that "under color of law" the firm, by and through a member, principal,
partner or agent of said firm, participated in or directed the alleged
violations of Plaintiff's rights and further, that the specific influence or
acts of its officer(s), principal(s), partner(s), or member(s) was the
direct or proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injury and cause for relief.
Defendant Bremner, Baber & Janus is a "person" and an "enterprise" within
the meaning of 18 USC ? 1961 (3) (4).
8.7 Defendant, Katherine T. Steinberg 19 , was at all times material to this
complaint and former wife to the Plaintiff Murray Steinberg and mother to
the Plaintiff Chelsea Steinberg. She is sued individually as a "STATE
ACTOR", wherefore it is alleged that she participated in or directed the
alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil rights while cloaked "under
color of law" and that her specific conduct was the direct or proximate
cause of the Plaintiff's injury and causes for relief.
8.8 Defendant, Kenneth Shumaker, was at all times material to this complaint
and adulterer with the former wife to the Plaintiff Murray Steinberg. He is
sued individually as a "STATE ACTOR", wherefore it is alleged that she
participated in or directed the alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil
rights while cloaked "under color of law" and that her specific conduct was
the direct or proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injury and causes for
relief.
8.9 Defendant, Pauline KIE, was at all times material to this complaint. She
is sued individually as a "STATE ACTOR", wherefore it is alleged that she
participated in or directed the alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil
rights while cloaked "under color of law" and that her specific conduct was
the direct or proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injury and causes for
relief.
- IV -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
9. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and relief for
damages brought by Plaintiff, who is unable to afford an attorney and comes
before this Court In Propria Persona. The subject of this suit is the
depravation of Plaintiff's constitutionally guaranteed rights and conspiracy
to violate those rights. Plaintiff and his family have undergone
extraordinary harassment, intimidation, and threats by state officials and
other parties. He and his family have suffered extreme mental anguish in
pursuit of redress for a lengthy pattern of deprivations of his
Constitutional rights, liberties, malicious acts, and character assignation
against him and his family.
10. This claim arises under the United States Constitution, particularly
under the provisions of Article I ?? 8,9, and 10; Article V; and of the
First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
As those issues concern the Plaintiff, this case involves claims that the
defendants conspired20 and engaged in conduct in furtherance of that
conspiracy which violates RICO and the Plaintiff's civil rights accorded him
under federal statute. Authority for this suit is given this Court under USC
Title 42 ?? 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and Civil RICO USC Title 18 ? 1964.
Numerous criminal acts under Federal and Virginia criminal give rise in
support of this action out of the same operative facts under USC Title 18 ??
241, 242, 1512, 1963, RICO and the Virginia Criminal Code.
- V -
THE LAW
11. The Court is moved to take judicial notice of the following Virginia and
Federal laws:
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:
11.1 The Constitution of the United States is the "supreme law of the land"
and is itself a law for which it the duty of all Courts "high and low", both
State and National, to sustain and enforce as they do all other laws. Any
law, rule, policy, or decree must be "made in pursuance thereof" and not as
to subvert the Constitution. When any law or ruling is not made in pursuance
thereof it is unconstitutional, void and of no effect. Even if the wording
of a law or ruling is constitutionally correct, if it is not applied equally
it is unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and
Equal Protection Clause are among the most defiled of all rights in the
state court.State trial courts often, by intimidation and financial
restriction, deny Access to the Courts as identified by the United States
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ryland v. Shapiro.21
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE:
Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure: 22
Under
11.2 18 USC ? 3 Accessory after the fact, it is a criminal offense if a
person knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed,
receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or
prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment;
11.3 18 USC ? 241 Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens it is a federal
criminal offense23 if two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district
in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having
so exercised such right or privilege, such persons may be fined and/or
imprisoned;
11.4 18 USC ? 242 Deprivation of Rights Color of Law it is a criminal
offense if under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom
a person wilfully deprives an inhabitant of any State of his rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, and punishable by fine or imprisonment for no more
than one year.
11.5 18 USC ? 512 Tampering with a Witness, victim, or informant it is a
federal criminal offense to interfere with the communication by any person
to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information
relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense;
11.6 18 USC ?? 1961-1963 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
it is a criminal offence punishable by fine or imprisonment of not greater
than twenty years for any acts or threat involving extortion which is
chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year or any act under certain provisions of Title 18 of the United States
Code including but not limited to ? 1341 (relating to mail fraud), ? 1343
(relating to wire fraud), ? 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), ?
1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), ? 1511 (relating
to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), ? 1513 (relating to
retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), ? 1951 (relating to
interference with commerce);
VIRGINIA STATUTES:
11.7 The Code of Virginia, 1950 as ammended.
-VI -
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. It is again important to note, that under this suit, pursuance of a
conspiracy, conspiracy, and wilful intent need not be proven, just that the
natural consequences of the alleged actions resulted in the depravation of
constitutional rights24 . American Society has observed the formation of a
new scheme to administer a perverted system to deal with domestic relations
cases. It has been devised within the vacuum of the federal courts. This
vacuum has formed within the over-burdened courts, whom, over the past
twenty years have virtually removed themselves as the protectors of
individual rights pertaining to the family. Any uncontrolled system takes
great profits from injustices which an adversarial system can provide when
it is unprotected by the federal courts. The architects of this scheme are
those who profit greatest from the infliction of cruelty, torment and
destruction of lives. They are the state judicial appointees25 , lawyers,
huge bureaucratic establishments that receive power and funding through the
destruction of families via the depravation of inherent, inalienable and
constitutionally guaranteed rights26 . It is more than a system of petty
tyrants, it is an industry dedicated to profiteering at the expense of the
American family 27 . A network of institutions, legislation, regulation, and
practices has been established in a vestigial sally to accomplish no more
than to devour the prosperity of the American family. The network does this
without regard to the damage inflicted upon children, parents, families
(direct and extended), business, society in general, and individual rights.
It lends itself to be perverted by those who have created an industry out of
it. An industry that puts selfish interests before law or morality. This
industry improperly operates and determines the lives of the very young
based on a deficiency of facts, archaic biases, and disregard for any rules
of evidence or presumptions of innocence, that has resulted in proceedings
in which diagnoses are made, certainty of speculative opinion is expressed,
and actions taken on the basis of unsupported belief using techniques and
methodology riddled with error and falsehood. The declaration of these great
wrongs are not limited to the solitary claim of the Plaintiff. It is the
plea to the Federal Court, Guardian of the Great Writ, to defend the
Constitution, that is voiced by thousands of Americans, even the President
of the United States of America, who has voiced rhetoric and issued
Executive Orders 28 from the White House, indicating recognition of some of
the concerns contained herein.
13. The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have continuously impeded and
hindered the due course of justice, with intent to deny the Plaintiff equal
protection of the law and discriminated by so doing.
- VII -
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM
RACKETEER INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT (RICO)
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in || 1 - 14.
PERSONS AND ENTERPRISES
16. Plaintiff and all of the Defendants are "persons" within the meaning of
18 USC ? 1961 (3).
17. Defendants Harris, Kulp, Janus, Dworalowski, K. Steinberg, Shumaker,
Bremner Baber & Janus are "enterprises" as defined in 18 USC ? 1961 (4) by
virtue of being an individual, partnership, corporation, association or
other legal entity. All of the defendants are participants in an
"association-in-fact" enterprise hereinafter referred to as the "Family
Disservice Enterprise" (FDE). The FDE consists of attorneys, social workers,
health care professionals, and the institutions that participate in
identifying the requisites for the family structure, caretakers, and
parental roles. This enterprise has existed in the Henrico County, in the
Commonwealth of Virginia for a long time and continues to flourish. It is
the aggregate make of many other enterprises whose profits depend on the
misfortunes of families. It has for its mission the appropriation of illegal
income which it obtains from the victims, such as the Plaintiff, of an
erroneous system of guidelines, practices and habits developed by the FDE
that are in violation of the laws of God, decent man, the United States,
Virginia and the County of Henrico. The FDE obtains is illegal income from
the tax rolls of counties, from the State, it's agencies, the agencies of
the Federal government, those it victimizes by its activities, and even its
own participants. The purpose of the enterprise is separate and distinct
from the racketeering activities in which the enterprise has engaged. All of
the defendants named in this claim have participated in the affairs of this
enterprise as described below. The Family Disservice Enterprise operates as
follows:
17.1 By making false allegations and fraudulent statements, including
introducing such allegations and fraud in divorce, custody, access
(visitation), child and spousal support proceedings.
17.2 By willfully and intentionally fabricating "evidence" and pleadings
interposed in bad faith with malice in order to achieve their end, without
fear of punishment because of the habits, guidelines and conspiratorial
nature of their alleged criminal activities.
17.3 By purposeful and calculated harassment to drive the mark and his/her
family into financial ruin so that the mark may not seek legal recourse.
17.4 By invading their mark's privacy by slander and libel.
17.5 By conspiring with the spouse of the mark, to cause immense mental
anguish.
17.6 By going so far as to cause the mark to be falsely imprisoned for
things 29 that are not even illegal or criminal.
17.7 The State Court in and for Henrico County constitutes an "enterprise"
within the meaning of 18 USC ? 1961 (4).
PREDICATE ACTS
18. By the conduct described in the Complaint, Defendants did i) knowingly
used intimidation, threats 30 , and misleading conduct toward the Plaintiff
with the intent to prevent the testimony of the Plaintiff, ii) hinder and
prevent communication iii) intentionally harassed Plaintiff, which by their
magnitude constitute a predicate RICO act under Title 18 USC ? 1961 (1) (A).
PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
19. The unlawful conduct alleged in | | 17 through 17.10 constitutes a
"pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of Title 18 USC ? 1961
(5). These activities had the same purposes of obtaining illegal income or
obtaining a benefit to which they would not otherwise be entitled. As such,
they are related to one another within the meaning of the "relationship
element" of a RICO pattern, having the same participants, results and
methods of commission. Also theses activities have taken place over an
extended period of time, in the case of the Plaintiff alone, from April 1991
to the present. Other children and parents, including the Plaintiff's
children and family, on information and belief, are being victimized by
these illegal activities in which these same defendants continue to
participate. The Virginia Supreme Court, Virginia Court of Appeals, Virginia
Circuit Courts, Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, as well as
the Family Law Courts in other States, have become beset by this type of
activity which threatens the system of justice in these courts. The conduct
of the defendants in infiltrating those activities, if unchecked, carries
the threat that the necessary protection of the individual and collective
rights of the victimized children and parents may cease to exist and cause
immeasurable injury to both their emotional well-being and their general
welfare. It has a chilling universal effect on the social well-being of the
country further effecting the economy 31 and competitiveness of the United
States. It is this type of long-term and deep reaching conduct that RICO was
conceived to prevent and comports with the "continuity" element of a RICO
pattern.
SUBSTANTIVE RICO VIOLATIONS
20. By reason of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated RICO in that they have:
20.1 Acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or
control of an enterprise (the "Enterprise") and of the component enterprises
of the aggregate in or affecting and preventing the filing and communication
of federal civil and criminal complaints, testimony, and evidence pertaining
to other criminal RICO, both Federal and State criminal violations, civil
torts and civil violations to law enforcement officials or judges of the
United States through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of
Title 18 USC ? 1962 (b); and/or:
20.2 Participated in, associated with or conducted the affairs of an
enterprise, including all alleged enterprises, in or affecting the filing
and communication of federal civil and criminal complaints, testimony, and
evidence pertaining to other criminal RICO, both Federal and State criminal
violations, civil torts and civil violations to law enforcement officials or
judges of the United States through a pattern of racketeering activity, in
violation of Title 18 USC ? 1962 (c); and/or:
20.3 Conspired to violate Title 18 USC ? 1962 (c) in violation of Title 18
USC ? 1962 (d).
INJURY TO PLAINTIFF
22. By reason of Defendants violation of Title 18 USC ? 1962 as set out
above, Plaintiff M. Steinberg, was injured in his practice and business and
has suffered extreme emotional anguish and distress over the harm inflicted
to his children and family. By Defendant's specific conduct they have
severely damaged his business reputation and prevented him from earning a
livelihood. Defendants have continued in this purpose since April 1991 to
the present causing continued loss of benefits to his children and family.
Plaintiff has suffered injury and loss of his livelihood in the amount of
THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) which by law he is entitled to recover
from Defendants.
22.1 By reason of Defendants violation of Title 18 USC ? 1962 as set out
above, Plaintiff C. Steinberg, was injured in her benefit from the practice
and business of her Father and has suffered extreme emotional anguish and
distress over the harm inflicted to the benefit to which she is entitled by
virtue of her father's livelihood. By Defendant's specific conduct they have
severely damaged her father's business reputation and prevented him from
earning a livelihood. Defendants have continued in this purpose since April
1991 to the present causing continued loss of benefits to Plaintiff C.
Steinberg and her family. Plaintiff has suffered injury and loss of her
benefit in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) which
by law she is entitled to recover from Defendants.
SECOND CLAIM
INVASION OF PRIVACY
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
23. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in || 1 - 15.
24. By the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants deliberate actions
conspired to and did intentionally intrude on the personal privacy of the
Plaintiff in his right to private and peaceful enjoyment of his relationship
with his children and family.
25. Defendant's intrusion on Plaintiff's privacy was substantial and is
highly offensive and objectionable to persons of reasonable sensibilities.
26. Defendant's willful action with reckless disregard to the rights of the
Plaintiff and said actions intruded upon the Plaintiff's private
communication with his children and denied communication and access. These
actions both disturbed the Plaintiff and the stability of the children, the
familial relationship and intruded upon the private father-daughter
relationship.
27. As direct and proximate result of these wrongful actions, Plaintiff, M.
Steinberg, has suffered mental anguish and despair, continued loss of his
practice and business reputation, loss of earning and benefit, loss of
earnings potential, all to his damage in the sum of no less than THREE
MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00).
27.1 As direct and proximate result of these wrongful actions, Plaintiff, C.
Steinberg, has suffered mental anguish and despair, continued loss of her
father's earnings benefit, loss of earnings potential, all to her damage in
the sum of no less than THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00).
THIRD CLAIM
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT'S
28. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in || 1 - 15.
29. Defendants actions were deliberately calculated to interfere with
Plaintiff's father-daughter relationship and to alienate the daughter from
her father.
30. All of the above actions by the Defendants have been intended and
calculated by them to cause extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiff, or
alternatively, Defendants knew or should have known that their actions would
result in extreme emotional distress to the Plaintiff.
31. Actions by the Defendants have been so extreme and outrageous as to go
beyond all possible bounds of decency, especially that it interrupts and
denies the father-child relationships, and even violates Virginia Statutes
intended to maintain those relationships.
32. The Defendant's actions have been the direct and proximate cause of
extreme emotional upset and mental and psychological injury. Said extreme
emotional distress is of such a nature that no reasonable person could be
expected to endure it.
33. By the conduct described above, Defendants caused Plaintiff, M.
Steinberg, to suffer severe emotional distress for which he is entitled to
recover compensatory damages in the sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS
($6,000,000.00).
33.1 By the conduct described above, Defendants caused Plaintiff, C.
Steinberg, to suffer severe emotional distress for which she is entitled to
recover compensatory damages in the sum of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($600,000.00).
FOURTH CLAIM
INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY RELATIONS
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
34. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in || 1 - 15
35. The actions of the Defendants have caused, and were deliberately
intended to cause, an intentional interference with the family relationship,
ie: the relationship of the Plaintiff, M. Steinberg with his children.
36. The actions of the Defendants have caused, and were deliberately
intended to cause, an intentional interference with the family relationship,
ie., the relationship of the Plaintiff, C. Steinberg with her father.
37. By the conduct described above, Defendants caused Plaintiff, M.
Steinberg, to suffer severe emotional distress for which he is entitled to
recover compensatory damages in the sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS
($6,000,000.00).
37.1 By the conduct described above, Defendants caused Plaintiff, C.
Steinberg, to suffer severe emotional distress for which she is entitled to
recover compensatory damages in the sum of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($600,000.00).
FIFTH CLAIM
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
38. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in || 1 - 15.
39. Defendant, K. Steinberg, conspired with Defendants to interfere and
interrupt the Plaintiffs family relationship. This conspiracy and
interruption constitutes interference with Plaintiff's family relationships
and an invasion of his privacy by intruding into his personal affairs and
intentionally imposing emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
40. The conduct described in the Complaint constitutes an actionable civil
conspiracy against Plaintiff which entitles him to recover from the
Defendants the sum of at least THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) as
compensatory damages and THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) as exemplary
damages.
41. In furtherance of their conspiracy the Defendants carried out the acts
which they conspired to do.
SIXTH CLAIM
DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
42. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in || 1 - 15.
43. The conduct of the Defendants under color of law described in the
complaint constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional guarantees
by abridging his privileges and rights under the provisions of Article I, ??
8, 9, and 10; Article V; and of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth,
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Defendants
under color of law deprived the Plaintiff Due Process of Law, denied
Plaintiff of Equal Protection of the Laws, the right to required and
sufficient Notice, the right to a Hearing with proper notice, the right to
an Impartial Tribunal, the right to Confront and Cross-Examine, the
substantive and procedural right to Access to the Court and other rights
under Virginia law. The state did not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing
without proper notice, motion, or pleadings. By such actions the Defendants
violated Plaintiff's right to Due Process; which is actionable under 28 USC
? 1983. In further support of Plaintiff's claim he shows that Defendants
violated criminal law under 18 USC ?? 241 and 242, and Virginia Statutes.
PREDICATE ACTS AND SUBSTANTIVE 42 USC ? 1983 VIOLATIONS
44. By the conduct described in this complaint, Defendants did under color
of statute, ordinance, regulation, rule custom and usage of the State
subject or caused to be subjected to Plaintiff, within the States's
jurisdiction, to the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities
secured by the constitution, statutes, rules, policies, or ordinances.
44.1 Defendant's K. Steinberg and Murray Janus filed a falsified pleading in
violation of Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and Statutes. Defendant K.
Steinberg initiated the action in civil court; a violation of civil rights,
both substantive and procedural of right to access to the courts; a criminal
offense under Virginia statutes. Defendants Janus and Bremner, Baber and
Janus gained economic benefit for instituting pleadings they knew were
false.
44.2 Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights and privileges under Virginia
Rules of Civil procedure, Virginia Statutes, the Virginia Constitution, the
Constitution of the United States of America and substantive and common law
of the State and the United States by depravation of, but not limited to,
the right to notice, right to motion and pleading as a prerequisite for a
hearing, right to cross examination, the right to call witnesses, the right
to a fair trial and other rights not mentioned; violations of the
Constitution and criminal offense under 18 USC ?? 241 and 242.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFF
45. By nature of their acceptance of authority delegated to them by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Harris and Kulp, were acting under color of state
authority in carrying out their conduct of deprivation of Plaintiff's rights
and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The other Defendants conspired with
persons acting under color of state authority and are, therefore, also
responsible for their conduct as state actors which is actionable under 42
USC ? 1983.
46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and despair, loss of personal and
business reputation, and loss of livelihood, loss of earning potential, loss
of consortium with his daughter, and consortium of his family assembly, all
to his damage of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
47. The Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, grossly
negligent and illegal entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages
in the sum of no less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
- VIII -
JURY DEMAND
48. Plaintiff hereby exercises his right to demand a trial by jury of this
cause.
- IX -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
49. Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgement in his favor and against
Defendants, and prays further that this Court:
49.1 Declare that the Defendants have engaged in a past, continuing pattern
and practice of deprivation of civil rights under color of state law
thereunder, and substantive and procedural right to access the courts under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and
the Due Process clause and Equal Protection clause under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
49.2 Declare that the Defendants have acted illegally and unconstitutionally
in violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights and liberties and have acted
illegally and unconstitutionally and in a capricious and willful manner in
hindering and preventing the Plaintiff's effort to bring actions in Court.
49.3 Declare that the proceedings of the State court herein identified and
all orders promulgated therefrom, are null, void and of no effect.
49.4 Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to maintain
practices and policies of violation of civil rights including but not
limited to access to the courts both state and federal, due process, equal
treatment under the law, extortion, threats, unlawful arrests, and
harassment of Plaintiff and all citizens of the State or the separate
states.
49.5 Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants from interfering with
Plaintiff's pursuit of filing his federal actions in this Court or any other
court of this nation.
49.6 Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants, their lawyers, employees,
others otherwise directed in their duties by the Defendants from interfering
with Plaintiff's practice or business and enjoining Defendants from
harassing or communicating with his clients.
49.7 Order the State of Virginia to appropriate funds in the amount of
SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($75,000,000.00) to the State Attorney Generals
office for the investigation and prosecution of corrupt public officials in
addition to its current budget.
49.8 Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff as to all of these claims
together with pre-judgement interest against Defendants herein, jointly or
severally.
49.9 Award exemplary damages proved by Plaintiff as to all these claims.
49.10 Award treble damages as required by law.
49.11 Award Plaintiff's costs incurred in this suit.
49.12 Award Plaintiff such costs other and further relief as the court may
deem just and proper.
50. AND FURTHER ORDER AND ADJUDGE:
52.1 A federal criminal investigation of the actions of the Defendants and
others unnamed or unknown against the Plaintiff for indictment of the
Defendants on the criminal charges for Malicious Conspiracy to deny
Plaintiff equal access to the court, actions constituting child abuse, and
criminal actions consideration of evidence of perjury to a court of law,
conduct prejudicial to the due administration of justice, the criminal
actions alluded to in this complaint, and any other charges deemed
appropriate by this Court.
To the best of my knowledge and in the belief that justice will prevail --
Based on that foundation and consistent to the statements by J.D.
Redman,Superior Court Judge. et seq.
Truth is found only when dedicated men are free to inquire after it. If we
refuse to fight for the dignity of truth we have substituted expediency for
justice.
Respectfully submitted,
MURRAY L. STEINBERG, In Propria Persona
Thomas Jefferson - 3rd Preident of the United States - 1743 - 1826 :
"Experience hath shown that even the best forms of [government] those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into
tyranny."
------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES/ENDNOTES
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 Ankerbrant S.Ct. 91-637, 6 FLW 5408; Haffer v. Mello,
2 Wright v. McMann, 387 f 2d 519 (CA2 NY 1967; Canton v. Spokane School
Dist., 498 F 2d 840 (CA9 Wash 1974); Collins v. Collins, 597 F Supp 33 (ND
Ga 1984), later proceeding 613 F Supp 1306 (ND Ga), 784 F 2d 402 (CA11, affd
w/o op), later proceeding 834 F 2d 961 (CA ga), 9 FR Serv 3d 1149.
3 See: New Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery of Bible Presbyterian Church v.
New Jersey State Board of Higher Education, 482 F Supp 969 (CA3 NJ 1980,
affd), 654 F 2d 868, Hanna v. Toner, 630 F 2d 442 (CA Ohio 1980, cert den),
67 L Ed 2d 346, 101 S BNA FEP Cas 218, 6 CCH EPD | 8746, White v. Walnut
Hill Tel. Co., 84 FRD 138 (WD Ark 1979), 52 ALR Fed 99.
4 Collins, supra.
5 Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 US 433 (1971), 27 L Ed 2d 515, 91 S Ct
507.
6 See Perez v. Ledema, 401 US 82 (1971), 27 L Ed 2d 701, 91 S Ct 674;
International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Conlisk, 374 F Supp
1010 (ND Ill 1973).
7 In Propria Persona pleadings are to be considered without regard to
technicality; In Propria Persona pleadings are not to be held to the same
high standards of perfection as lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 92 S Ct 594;
Jenkins v. McKethen, 395 US 411, 4421 (1969); Pickering v. Penna Ry. Co.,
151 F 2d 240; Puckett v. Cox, 456 F 2d 233; See also Powell, 914 F 2d 1459
(11th Cir 1990).
8 Waller v. Butkovich, 605 F Supp 1137 (MD NC 1985).
9 Hurney v. Carver, 602 F 2d 993 (CA1 Mass 1979); Stephenson v. Gaskins,539
F 2d 1066 (CA5 Ga 1976); Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F 2d 150 (CA5 Tex 1982);
Ross v. Franzen, 777 F 2d 1216 (CA7 Ill 1985), 3 FR Serv 3d 346; Anderson v.
Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 521 F 2d 420 (CA8 Minn 1975), Nickens v. White,
536 F 2d 802 (CA8 Mo 1976).
10 A surfeit of factual allegations is not necessary grounds to strike the
pleadings, especially when those pleadings are prepared by an In Propria
Persona litigant untutored in the requirements of federal procedural rules.
Hann v. Lane, 610 F Supp 32 (ND Ill 1985) (aff'd in part w/o op and rev'd in
part w/o op).
11 Hereinafter referred to as "Murray Steinberg".
12 Hereinafter may be referred to as "Chelsea Steinberg".
13 Hereinafter may be referred to as "the State or State". The terms "state"
or "states"are reserved to identify any or a number of states and/or
commonwealths which make up the United States of America.
14 Judicial definition that misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law
and made possible only because the wrong-doer is clothed with the authority
of state law within this section is applicable to Judge. Duke v. The State
of Texas, 327 F Supp 1218 (1971).
15 Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct
has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was
precisely the proposition upon which 42 USC 1983 was enacted. "...Judges may
be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights on
the strength of 18 USC 242; Imbler v. Pachtman, US 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct.
16 Hereinafter may be referred to as "Murray Janus", or "M. Janus"
17 Hereinafter may be referred to as " Deanna Dworakoski" or "Janus'
assistant".
18 Hereinafter may be referred to as Janus' law firm.
19 Also known as Katherine Shumaker; Hereinafter may be referred to as
"Kathy Steinberg" or "K. Steinberg".
20 To maintain an action under ? 1983,
it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to
deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, or that they acted
willfully, purposely, or in the pursuance of a conspiracy... it is
sufficient to establish that the depravation of Constitutional rights or
privileges was the natural consequences of defendants acting "under color of
law", irrespective of whether such consequences were intended. Ethridge v.
Rhodes, DC Ohio, 268 F Supp 83 (1967); Whirl v. Kern, CA5 Texas, 407 F 2d
781 (1968).
21 Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F 2d 967 (1983). {See parts [2] - [8]} 22 Section
1 of Act June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 683; as codified in part "Title 18
of the United States Code; see Title 18 U.S.C.A.
23 Judges are not immune from criminal sanctions under the Civil Rights Act.
ex Parte Virginia, 100 US 339 (1879).
24 To maintain an action under ? 1983, it is not necessary to allege or
prove that the defendants intended to deprive the plaintiff of his
constitutional rights, or that they acted willfully, purposely, or in the
pursuance of a conspiracy... it is sufficient to establish that the
depravation of Constitutional rights or privileges was the natural
consequences of defendants acting "under color of law", irrespective of
whether such consequences were intended. Ethridge v. Rhodes, DC Ohio, 268 F
Supp 83 (1967; Whirl v. Kern, CA5 Texas, 407 F 2d 781 (1968; Ury v. Santee,
DC Ill. (1969).
25 Virtually all judicial appointees are members of the same fraternity of
lawyers that thrive on the unchecked adversarial system that has evolved.
26 See: "Vested interests of the "child savers" to destroy American
Families" November, 1992 Esquire magazine.
27 "How did we happen to take the wrong turn? Because we lost our sense of
professionalism, the compass that kept us on course for so long. Without the
compass, far too many lawyers have been completely preoccupied with
accumulating wealth, to the utter neglect of their public and ethical
responsibilities." The Honorable Judge Harry L. Carrico, Chief Justice,
Virginia S.Ct.
28 See; President Reagan's Executive Order on The Family, (E.O. 12606)
Federal Register Vol 52, No. 1974, Title 3 (1987)
29 One example, the Plaintiff M. Steinberg, was sentenced to the Henrico
County Jail for 10 days for "allegedly" raising his voice to his wife during
a conversation he was having with her at the home where she resides with her
paramour.
30 Defendant Janus went so far as to insinuate death by being shot through
the head, to the Plaintiff M. Steinberg, and on another occasion indicated
that M. Steinberg had signed his "death-wish" when he filed a Rule to Show
Cause against Defendant Janus.
31 See; Ohio Psychological Assn. study on Small Businesses
Murray Steinberg's (second0 wife, Barbara Steinberg, Ph.D., is a child custody evaluator, and a proponent of parental alienation theories.
|
