RICO LAWSUIT

Organized by: Jason Tucker

Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo
Jason's Photo

THE STORY:

Jason tucker needs to raise money for postage, print, summons, dispositions, and other related costs to seek indictments on over three dozen State agents or Officers who directly violated him. Jason tucker will act as a private attorney general and prosecute the case in US Southern District himself.

A burglar, RODNEY EDWARD AMICK (Pictured in the mugshots LEFT < ----), trespassed the private property, possessions, and postal mail of Jason tucker while he was away on a trip.  This burglar got a Charlotte County Judge to sign an unlawful FINAL ORDER for civil domestic violence stalking against the homeowner using a fraudulent deed. That case is on final stage appeal at (www.2dca.org) 2d14-1743, 2d14-1395 and 4d15-796 (Lower court Charlotte County Florida:  082014DR000057XXDVXX / 082014DR000058XXDVXX.) The burglar appeared for Appeal oral argument, acquiesced to all Jason tucker's claims, and assaulted Jason tucker in court.  A video, affirmed unrebutted affidavits, and FULL case file PDF is available for background check. Jason tucker has cornered the clerk and sheriff to acquiesce to a one hundred million dollar fee schedule and the dissolve of the County Charter.  The full RICO is in Final Draft and availiable for review upon request.  The complaint shall be filed in a few days.

RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT CRIMINAL AFFIDAVIT

I, Jason tucker one of the people open this court of record, in and for the official public record.

I, Jason tucker honorably affirm this lawful witnessed document by two, written in plain English language, as truth and fact under penalties of perjury. This is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Criminal Affidavit, against ALL DEFENDANTS known and unknown. This claim is against each DEFENDANTS ultra vires acts under color of law, constituting deprivations of rights privileges and immunities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I, Jason tucker demand justice. A full opportunity to air the issues through trial by jury would be more than appropriate in this case, given the seriousness of the claims involved and the commercial stakes at issue.
        
        THE COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW TO

Determine whether restraining Jason tucker or Susan hunter from an estate and private property is violating natural, substantive and unalienable rights protected by the Constitution of the united states of America constitutional Provisions; the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment to the  Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the Seventh Amendment to the  Constitution, the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and Constitution of the State of Florida Constitutional Provisions article I section 2,4,9,12,17,18,21,22,23 article II SECTION 5,8 ARTICLE III section 18 article v section 13,14 article v section 6 and the RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES — UNITED NATIONS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY — Part I, Article 1. 

The Constitution of the united states of America Constitutional Provisions

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances., 

the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized., 

the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.,
 
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.,
 
the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.,
 
the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.,
 
the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.,
 
the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.,

Article 1 Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.,

the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America to equal protection of law Other Authorities – 
Also, Florida Senate interim report 2011-127 January 2011 at: {www.flsenate.gov/UserContent/Session/2011/Publications/InterimReports/pdf/2011-127ju.pdf}; and explains the abuse that is prevalent in this Florida statue that applies to these actions and RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES — UNITED NATIONS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY — Part I, Article 1;

DEFENDANTS including RODNEY EDWARD AMICK(Ex:1), were at relevant times employed as an agent thereof of the STATE OF FLORIDA, and/or Charlotte County Florida, and/or Palm Beach County Florida, at times authorized to perform certain activities, except at such times as he or her was acting ultra vires to the scope of authority of his or her office, in CULPABLE and UNREASONABLE breach of one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, in criminal and civil conspiracy, or in violation of Jason tucker’s, Susan hunter’s, and other’s rights.

COUNT 1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 
Trespass Under Color of Law
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for trespass under color of law for acts caused in coram non judice by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

Each DEFENDANT acting under color of state law is empowered and restrained from acting by virtue of the respective constitutions, charters, articles of incorporation, appointments, or other entity formation documents describing the DEFENDANT’S jurisdiction. To the extent the powers are derived from the Constitution of the State of Florida, such powers and restrictions are “mandatory” and “prohibitory” (nondiscretionary).

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS were successful with unlawfully simulating legal processes using Paul Alessandroni, so far exceeding one year of private property confiscations, extending after notice of criminal no trespass and counter claim to all parties. 

DEFENDANT RODNEY EDWARD AMICK filed at least NINE fraudulent petitions using criminal perjury and criminal defamation in Charlotte County Florida Uniform (Jason tucker was the respondent for each case) case numbers 082014DR000057XXDVXX (march thirty first two thousand and fourteen) and many in 082014DR000058XXDVXX, for CIVIL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INJUCTION FOR STALKING and REPEAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFIDAVITS cause for Jason tucker’s ARREST and Imprisonment. Jason tucker VOIDED the sham FINAL ORDER DUE TO FRAUD. Susan hunter was never serviced.

Jason tucker and Susan hunter’s private property, possessions, and postal mail are unlawfully confiscated by STATE OF FLORIDA AGENTS, RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and he also has acquiesced that his wife JODY MARLANA AMICK was an accomplice in case 2D14-1743. RODNEY EDWARD AMICK HAS RECORDED A FRAUDULENT PUBLIC LIEN ON Jason tucker’s PRIVATE PROPERTY. RODNEY EDWARD AMICK has attempted to market and sell Jason tucker’s private property on multiple listing service during this case. RODNEY EDWARD AMICK has unpermitted structural damage to Jason tucker’s ocean access private property. RODNEY EDWARD AMICK has acquiesced to Jason tucker’s and Susan hunter’s multiple fee schedules for trespass. Paul Alessandroni accepted the contract.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK has no standing to make such DOMESTIC claims and has acquiesced to his crimes of threat, theft, trespass, defamation, fraud, perjury, and racketeering. Jason tucker has been told the injunctions were not bonded. Documents and monies have been stolen and/or are missing. On knowledge and belief, other MISCONDUCT has occurred within the clerk of courts, property appraiser, and law enforcement offices.

Pam Bondi, Bill Prummell, Ric Bradshaw, and others failed to provide equal protection of law upon repeat demands of Jason tucker’s postal mailed, unrebutted affirmed, and witnessed truth and fact criminal complaint affidavits.  

In causing injury as described in each Count and Claim herein, DEFENDANTS acting under color of law, and each of them, acted in excess of and in the complete absence of jurisdiction, causing “off the reservation” injury in violation of Jason tucker’s rights, privileges, and immunities. 

The Claims of all DEFENDANTS described in this Count and elsewhere are false and misleading. In exceeding the limits of their authority as elsewhere alleged in each Count and Claim herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, committed a trespass to the property, persons, rights, privileges, and immunities of Jason tucker, causing a deprivation of same, and are therefore strictly liable for all injury foreseeably resulting there from, including each injury identified in each Claim herein, in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

With respect to each DEFENDANT:

a.    In their activities described herein, DEFENDANTS operate CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES which defraud, abuse, oppress, and deprive Jason tucker, Susan hunter, and the general public of their private property, possessions, and liberty.  

b.    In their COMMERCIAL SPEECH promotion for such ENTERPRISES, including websites, literature, public appearances, statements and representations, DEFENDANTS misrepresent theirs and others’ legal and professional services as legal, fair, honest, and beneficial, when in fact they are fraudulent, harmful, inefficient, oppressive, illegal, and dangerous.  

c.    Further, in their advertising and promotion DEFENDANTS fail to warn consumers of the illegality of their services, the constitutional deprivations they cause and form the basis of liability for, and the many disastrous pitfalls which occur regularly from use of such professional services.  As such, DEFENDANTS mislead as to the nature, characteristics, qualities, of their and their ENTERPRISE affiliates’ services, including the nature of the ENTERPRISE.

d.    DEFENDANTS mislead consumers by misdirection from superior, legitimate, legal services, and by advising “that’s how it is” in family court, and by failing to advise of the full options consumers have toward legal, healthy, and safe alternatives to avoid the abundant harm likely to befall those in the community who engage in such activities.

e.    DEFENDANTS operate “black hat” operations under the guise of “white hat” legality and professional responsibility, thereby deceiving consumers of legal services into engaging such services with the expectations that such is as safe, lawful, and healthy as “standard” legal and psychological services.  These services are certainly not.

Jason tucker competes with DEFENDANTS for provision of advice services and as detailed in RICO ENTERPRISE allegations listed below. 

Jason tucker and his friends, provide safe, efficient, and healthier competing services in compliance with law.  DEFENDANTS, by virtue of their illegal collusion, conspiracy, and coordination are competitively advantaged to overcharge for harmful, inefficient, oppressive, and unhealthy services.  To protect such inefficient, illegal, and anticompetitive activities, DEFENDANTS have and continue to mislead consumers of  services in their COMMERCIAL SPEECH.  Jason tucker reasonably believes they are likely to be misled and damaged by such COMMERCIAL SPEECH again in the future.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker have been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 2
18 USC § 1951;
Interference with commerce by threats or violence 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS tampered, threatened, assaulted, falsely arrested, victim and witness Jason tucker. These expressed acts by DEFENDANTS were retaliatory in nature.

Jason tucker was restrained by peace officers from entering his private property by threat during his burglary report of the private property trespassers and property theft on January fifteenth, to thousand and fourteen.

Jason tucker was falsely arrested and detained for civil process service using aggregated assault by a man impersonating a peace officer march seventeenth, two thousand and fourteen.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK, ET AL., posted perceived and expressed threatening pictures in Jason tucker’s private property using public forum without rebuttal.

Jason tucker was assaulted and trespassed by RODNEY EDWARD AMICK in court after Oral Argument, witnessed in Florida Second District Court of Appeal case 2D14-1743 march tenth, two thousand and fifteen (Election Day). Cases 2D14-1395 and 2D14-1195 are also related to these criminal actions by DEFENDANTS.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK, ET AL., and others were serviced an unrebutted Peace Declaration and INDICO Age of Majority with attached No trespass Fee Schedules filed by Jason tucker. RODNEY EDWARD AMICK breached the INDICO contract. 

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 3
18 U.S.C. § 1512;
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant: 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS tampered, threatened, assaulted, falsely arrested, victim and witness Jason tucker. These expressed acts by DEFENDANTS were retaliatory in nature.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 4
18 U.S.C. § 1513; 
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant: 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS tampered, threatened, assaulted, falsely arrested, victim and witness Jason tucker. These expressed acts by DEFENDANTS were retaliatory in nature.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 5
42 U.S.C. § 1983; 
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and ALL DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress by Jason tucker against DEFENDANTS. AMICK’S TERRORISM detailed above was CULPABLE, extreme and outrageous, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, reasonably and foreseeably causing Jason tucker severe emotional distress.

DEFENDANTS were at all times acting as an agent, co-conspirator, collaborator, subordinate, and employee of each other AMICK TERRORISM DEFENDANTS and THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

In committing the acts described in this Count, DEFENDANTS foreseeably damaged, injured, and deprived Jason tucker or caused him to be deprived of rights, privileges, and immunities relating to SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS; PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; SEARCH AND SEIZURE; EXPRESSION, PRIVACY, and ASSOCIATION; ACCESS TO JUSTICE, causing deprivation, damage, and injury in a nature and amount to be proven at trial. 

Such actions constitute an abuse of legitimate process, harming Jason tucker substantially more than any benefit from such activity in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

This is a Claim by Jason tucker against DEFENDANTS for deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to AMICK TERRORISM, abuse of process, and fraud.

In committing each act in each Claim in this Count, DEFENDANTS CULPABLY and UNREASONABLY caused or committed unfair and business practices, extortion, fraud, in breach of one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, and deprived Jason tucker or caused him to be deprived of rights privileges and immunities relating to SEARCH AND SEIZURE; SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS; EXPRESSION, PRIVACY, and ASSOCIATION; EXCESSIVE FORCE; and CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUSAL PUNISHMENT, causing Jason tucker deprivation, injury, and damage in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 6
42 U.S.C. § 1983 
Obstruction of Justice
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and ALL DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for deprivation of rights under color of law for DEFENDANTS facilitation and toleration of illegal obstruction of justice creating a widespread culture of deliberate indifference causing foreseeable obstruction of justice and retaliation, constituting constitutional injury to PLAINITFFS as elsewhere alleged.

Such deprivations of rights of citizens to utilize the complaint process relate to rights, privileges and immunities to EXPRESSION, PRIVACY, and ASSOCIATION; ACCESS TO JUSTICE; and SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. Such interference shall hereafter be referred to as “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.” 

DEFENDANTS are uniquely empowered and therefore bound to protect Florida’s litigants’ rights under state and federal law to petition the Commission and its employees for grievances against such officers; speak freely about judicial officers and their misconduct both within and outside of the processes; seek and obtain unfettered, unimpeded, and safe access to such processes; maintain privacy in relation to commission matters and investigations; and preserve procedural and substantive due process rights through their management of complaints, discipline, and protection of witnesses and parties to that process.  As a result, judicial officers have received a “green light” to retaliate against complaining litigants in manners similar to those alleged herein.  

DEFENDANTS are aware that judicial officials are keenly sensitive to public criticism, including complaints by citizens. They are also aware that County judges have substantial, often unfettered, discretion to abuse legal process and obstruct justice to retaliate with immunity against citizens who make complaints against a County judge should the complaint be revealed to the judge. Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 835 (1978); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980).

On information and belief, DEFENDANTS are aware of numerous prior incidents of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by judicial officers within their power and duty to control, including each judicial officer herein.

On information and belief, DEFENDANTS, and others maintain policies, practices, habits and customs permitting the ability of judges to retaliate successfully, thereby inhibiting, and impeding exercise of litigants, including Jason tuckers,’ rights. Such policies consist, inter alia, of (1) inadequate investigation of original complaints brought by litigants who are dramatically disfavored in the proportion of investigations undertaken by DEFENDANTS, and others and (2) Inadequate discipline for interference and retaliation; and (3) inadequate and assurances and protections to litigants during the complaint process to assure complaints are properly treated, including advising litigants of the availability of the available means to protect them and discipline judicial officers who retaliate.  Such inequality inflicts a deprivation of state and federal Constitutional rights to Equal Protection on litigants, including Jason tucker herein.

DEFENDANTS are also aware that County judges regularly refuse to recuse themselves in cases in which they have obvious conflicts of interest, including conflicts due to complaints filed by litigants appearing before them.  This applies in Susan hunters cases.  “No one can be judge in his own cause.”

DEFENDANTS habituated tolerance for judicial misconduct, disregard of ethical canons and constitutional restrictions on abuse of authority, the mere act of identifying a litigant in an investigation subjects his to jeopardy by officer complained of or the officer’s colleagues acting in lockstep sympathy. That failure, combined with DEFENDANTS impotence to swiftly punish the same in deterrence, makes the act of entrusting a complaint to DEFENDANTS at outrageous risk of constitutional injury by county judicial officers behaving unlawfully.

DEFENDANTS, by virtue of their awareness of the ongoing DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and ENGAGEMENTS, had a duty to protect Jason tucker in the COMPLAINTS and DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. On knowledge and belief, Bill Prummell, Ric Bradshaw, Pam Bondi, and others are culpable. 

DEFENDANTS creation, tolerance, and failures to correct such conditions within their power and duty to influence or control constitutes a CULPABLE and UNREASONABLE breach of their PROFESSIONAL DUTIES to all litigants foreseeably injured by such retaliatory behavior, including Jason tucker herein, and thereby a deprivation of SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.  

DEFENDANTS acts and failures to act have also foreseeably led to the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, and RACKETEERING. As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has been deprived, damage, and injured in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

This is a Claim against DEFENDANTS for deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to failure to protect Jason tucker and Susan hunter in the complaint process, creation of danger, breach of special relationships, and obstruction of justice, causing foreseeable constitutional injury to Jason tucker’s rights as elsewhere alleged. Jason tucker detailed a number of the facts described in the criminal affidavits.   
DEFENDANTS are aware that litigants face serious risks for filing judicial complaints, and as such have duties to act to prevent harm by the dangers they create, by special fiduciary and other relationships, and to prevent obstruction of justice, in such relationships.

Yet DEFENDANTS regularly as a policy or habit, and in the case of Jason tucker have CULPABLY and UNREASONABLY failed to protect their witnesses with whom they have a special relationship and fiduciary duties, and CULPABLE and UNREASONALE failures to discipline illegal judicial behavior in retaliation. 

These breaches of PROFESSIONAL DUTIES have CHILLED and set in motion the reasonably foreseeable deprivations of Jason tucker rights to SPEECH, ASSOCIATION, AND PRIVACY and ACCESS JUSTICE as elsewhere alleged.

COUNT 7
18 U.S.C. § 1503;
Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

Charlotte County officers and Palm Beach County officers and others, were influenced to commit criminal acts for RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS to the best knowledge and belief.

One or more officers were compensated by RODNEY EDWARD AMICK or DEFENDANTS.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tuckr has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 8
18 USC § 1505;
Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees:
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each Defendant as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other defendants obstructed lawful proceeding before agencies. 

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK verbally and then physically assaulted Jason tucker before and then after Oral Argument.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 9
18 U.S.C. § 1510;
Obstruction of Criminal Investigations: 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS obstructed lawful criminal investigations using fraud and perjuries.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 10
18 U.S.C. § 1952;
Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

Jason tucker was unlawfully detained and arrested for civil process service on March 17th, 2014 using aggravated Assaults in Jason tucker’s private conveyance without consent. These acts were witnessed and reported.

I, Jason tucker was traveling and stopped by an unmarked car using sirens and blue lights for arrest.  The hyper aggressive man impersonating a peace office was armed with a firearm, in “full tactical gear” including armor protections.  The false arrest was followed by detainment for civil process service in public, originating from private property.  Orders to Jason tucker were denied by Jason tucker. 

I, Jason Tucker, has the liberty; of travel, in any: personal/private, mode of locomotion/automobile, without a license, insurance, registration,& plates.

Traveler - Blacks 3rd One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business or health. Lockett v. State, 47 Ala. 45; 10 C.B.N.S. 429. The term is used to designate those who patronize inns; the distance which they travel is not material. Walling v. Potter, 35 Con. 185.

Traveler - Blacks 6t; One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business or health. American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16§ 359 Elements. Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion - to go where and when one pleases - only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. 

Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways, or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. Pg. 686

American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11

The words 'operator' ‘owner’ ‘driver’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. 

It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

“The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police without interference… is a fundamental constitutional protected right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle (an automobile) upon the public streets, and highways, is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected: by the guarantees, of the Federal and State constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“A traveler, has an equal right; to employ: an automobile, as a means of transportation, and to occupy: the public-highways, with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.

“The owner, of an automobile, has the same right as the owner, of other vehicles, to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.

“The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

“The right to make use: of an automobile, as a vehicle of travel, along the highways; of the state, is no longer; an open question. The owners, thereof have the same rights: in the roads, and streets, as the drivers, of horses, or those riding a bicycle, or traveling; in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
       
Driver - Black's 3rd; One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car .See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.), &

Title 18 sec 31 Definitions; Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. The word and in law means, (required) so we must include the term, (Used for commercial purposes).

Title 18 sec 31 Definitions; Used for commercial purposes. The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Traffic - Bouvier's (1856) Commerce, trade, sale; or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. Blacks, Law Dictionary (Passenger)A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of PASSIAGIARIU9 880 PATENT the performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of conveyance. Bricker v. Philadelphia & It. It. Co., 132 Pa. 1, 18 Atl. 983, 19 Am. St. Rep. 5S5; Schepers v. Union I)e- 0 pot It. Co., 120 Mo. 005, 29 S. W. 712; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Price, 90 Pa. 250; Tlie Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122, 14 Sup. Ct 4S0, 38 L. Ed. 3S1 ; Norfolk & W. It. Co. v. Tanner, 100 Va. 379, 41 S. E. 721. P 
        
All, of the instances; in which a license, registration, & plates, are required: are commercial; in nature. These statutes also include, but aren’t limited to; the use, of a seat-belt.

I, Jason tucker do not operate: my “private” mode of locomotion/automobile, commercially; thus the motor-vehicle statutes, don’t apply. I, Jason tucker committed no crimes.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 11
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Deprivation of Equal Protection
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is Claim against DEFENDANTS for deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing policies and practices in violation of Jason tuckers’ rights, privileges and immunities to EQUAL PROTECTION, causing foreseeable injury to Jason tucker as elsewhere alleged.

On information and belief, DEFENDANTS create and maintain policies, rules, and practices discriminating against each of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES, and giving special exceptions to family court judges with jurisdiction over litigants within the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES.

On information and belief, this unequal treatment is motivated by invidious discrimination against the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES.

On information and belief, this unequal treatments results in complaints from litigants within the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES being prejudicially adjudged as less credible, viable, or important. Such judgments are based on invidious prejudices that family court litigants are “litigants behaving badly,” a “bunch of borderlines,” “angry about everything” lack credibility, importance, or legitimacy, or otherwise inferior or unequal to other litigants.  

For similar reasons, litigant complaints against Family Court judges are treated differently because of what has been described as a “Domestic Relations Exception” to the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of the State of Florida.  
Despite such error, DEFENDANTS along with other present DEFENDANTS, abide the misconception in their practices, effectively discriminating against complaints alleging constitutional deprivations by Family Court judges, behaving by word or deed as if family court litigants have fewer constitutional rights to offend.

Such a policy and practice constitutes deprivation of Jason tuckers’ rights, privileges, and immunities relating to EQUAL PROTECTION, and has inflicted foreseeable injury to Jason tucker as a member of each EQUAL PROTECTION CLASS as elsewhere described.

As an actual and foreseeable result of the acts and omissions of DEFENDANTS for described hereinabove, Jason tucker has been deprived, damages, and injured as elsewhere alleged in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 12
42 U.S.C. § 1985 
Conspiracy to Interfere With Rights
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Count for conspiracy to interfere with rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against Jason tucker based on the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, based on the non-immune acts in the MALICIOUS PROSECUTION and MISCONDUCT, DEFENDANTS based on the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS on acts alleged, their supervisors in, and municipalities.

As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has been deprived, damaged, and injured in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 13
42 U.S.C. 1985(2) 
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and ALL DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim by Jason tucker for obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror under 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) against Jason tucker.

A. Domestic Relations Class

Similarly, state and federal authorities in California have identified a special “domestic relations” class as entitled to heightened protection under the Equal Protection Clause.  The state of California has identified the “Domestic Relations Class” as: …an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or ENGAGEMENT relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, "cohabitant" means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, 

(1) Sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship.  Jason tucker had none of these relationships with DEFENDANTS.

Like marital status, the DOMESTIC RELATION Class is defined by a “relational” characteristic: persons in a current or former identified relationship, but only to interaction between others in the same Class. For example, a husband and wife are within the DOMESTIC RELATIONS Class with respect to one another, but not the rest of the world. 

The DOMETIC RELATIONS CLASS is also entitled to special protection because of a lengthy history of invidious discrimination against its members.  This history and a complete explanation of the DOMESTIC RELATIONS CLASS status, jeopardy, invidious discrimination, and rationale for special status under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2.)

Discrimination against the DOMESTIC RELATIONS CLASS is invidious social, economic, and legal discrimination similar to racial, ethnic, gender, or legitimacy.  In addition to the inevitable and debilitating economic, social, and psychological impact of divorce, children and parents within the DOMESTIC RELATIONS CLASS are the historical targets of ridicule, prejudice, and scorn amounting to invidious discrimination. Domestic Relations Class members are stamped with stereotypes as “broken family,” “latch-key kids”, “damaged goods,” “gold diggers”, “divorcees”, “sugar daddies”, “first wives”, “wife beater”, “histrionics”, “single moms”, “broken homers,” “stalker”, “squatter”, “live-in”, etc.

B. Gender Class

Jason tucker is a male within the recognized equal protection class of gender.  The invidious discrimination against males by DEFENDANTS has been described in detail in a publication by Dr. Stephen Baskerville entitled Taken Into Custody, The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, Cleveland House Publishing, Inc., 2007 and in Exhibit 1 hereto.  The publication is available at ISBN-10: 1581825943, ISBN-13: 978-1581825947, referenced and incorporated herein as if set forth in full as Exhibit 13. 

C. Class of One 

Jason tucker, comprise a class of one for purposes of his PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES on behalf of themselves and other equal protection classes. 

No DEFENDANT acting under color of law may legally act with discretion in the absence of jurisdiction established by the Constitution of the State of Florida, United States Constitution, statutes, laws, contract, or regulation.

Jason tuckers’ long time advocacy for the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES and for Susan hunter, was well known to and targeted by DEFENDANTS.  

DEFENDANTS CULPABLY undertook each of the acts ascribed to them with the intent to cause the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE to deprive Jason tucker and Susan hunter, and each of them, of equal protections, privileges, and immunities, including rights related to their PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and rights as advocates for and on behalf of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES.

In performing the acts alleged above, COLOR OF LAW DEFENDANTS conspired; 

a. to deter Jason tucker, by the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, from attending or testifying freely, fully, and truthfully as a party or witness in Jason tucker’s PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, or from testifying to any matter, freely, fully, and truthfully;

b. to injure Jason tucker, by the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, in their person or property on account of having participated in PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES or testified in conjunction with the PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE;

c. to influence, by the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in connection with Jason tucker’s PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE;

d. committed the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and Jason tucker’s PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES with intent to deny to Jason tucker as an advocate for the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES the equal protection of the laws and to;

e. by the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, to injure Jason tucker and each of them in their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the rights of Jason tucker, and each of them, as members of each EQUAL PROTECTION CLASS, to the equal protection of the laws.

Hereinafter collectedly referred to as the EQUAL PROTECTION CONSPIRACY.

As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has been deprived of rights, privileges and immunities as set forth in Counts.

COUNT 14
42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(a)
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Count for Depriving persons of rights or privileges under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(a) against Jason tucker.  In committing the acts alleged against them in each of, COLOR OF LAW DEFENDANTS CULPABLY acted in conspiracy for the purpose of depriving Jason tucker individually as an advocate for the EQUAL PROTECTON CLASSES, of the equal protection of the laws and equal privileges and immunities under the laws, including but not limited to their PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and retaliating for exercise thereof, causing Jason tucker reasonably foreseeable and injury there from.

As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has been deprived of rights, privileges and immunities, damaged and injured in an amount according to proof at trial.

COUNT 15
42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(b) 
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for conspiracy to deprive Jason tucker of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(b).

In committing the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE as set forth, DEFENDANTS and each of them as indicated CULPABLY CONSPIRED to cause the Jason tucker ASSAULTS, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, MISCONDUCT, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE for the purpose of preventing or hindering the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and color of law actors identified herein from giving or securing to all persons within the state of Florida, including the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES and Jason tucker and Susan hunter individually as members of and advocates for the EQUAL PROTECTON CLASSES.

As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has deprived of rights, privileges and immunities as set forth.

COUNT 16
Title 18 Part I Chapter 13 § 241
Conspiracy against rights;
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive Jason tucker of employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, and he shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 17
42 U.S.C. § 1986
Failure to Prevent or Aid in Preventing Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Count for Failure to Prevent or Aid in Preventing Deprivation of Constitutional Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1986  On information and belief, DEFENDANTS to this Count had knowledge of all relevant facts alleged in this Complaint, including that the acts conspired to be done and committed as alleged in Counts.

DEFENDANTS to this Count, and each of them, by virtue of their relationships with each other DEFENDANTS, their authority under law, and PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, had power to prevent or aid in preventing the criminal acts.

DEFENDANTS to this Count, and each of them, neglected or refused to exercise their powers to prevent or aid in preventing the criminal acts.

The acts as alleged herein by Jason tucker were in fact committed as alleged.

As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has been deprived, damaged, or injured in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 18
Breach of Jason tucker’s CONTRACT,
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim by Jason tucker for breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing against.

In committing the acts as alleged, DEFENDANTS acted CULPABLY, with fraud, malice, and oppression; in further breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing attendant to such contract. 

As an actual and foreseeable result, Jason tucker has been injured in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 19
42 U.S.C. § 1983 
Deprivation of SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Count against each COLOR OF LAW DEFENDANT based on acts alleged against each such DEFENDANT in each Claim herein.  This Count asserts that each DEFENDANT’S UNREASONABLE and CULPABLE acts under color of law in breach of a duty identified below constitute a deprivation of substantive due process under both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida to all entities foreseeably injured there from.

At all times relevant to this Action, each COLOR OF LAW DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT acting under color of law owed one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES to Jason tucker as follows:

a.    CONSTITUTIONAL: For any DEFENDANT acting under color of law, the following non-discretionary duties:

i. The duty to exercise color of law powers only in the presence of legal authority or jurisdiction provided under enabling legislation, rules, charters, or constitutions, pursuant to Cal. Const. Art. I, § 26; 

ii. The duty to protect, uphold, and defend the laws and the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Florida;

iii. The duty to act only in the public interest; provide only honest government services; 

iv. The duty to avoid all conflict, undue influence, bribery, self-dealing, bias, nepotism; 

v. The duty to commit no reasonably foreseeable deprivation of clearly established civil rights; 

vi. The duty to create or inflict no harm unless specifically authorized after due process of law.  

Pursuant to Article I, § 26 of the Constitution of the State of California, each DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL duties for administrative, law enforcement, judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial functions identified in this Complaint are “mandatory” and “prohibitory.”  As such, no entity, including but not limited to DEFENDANTS herein, acting under color of Florida state law may exercise discretion to perform any act which violates any Constitutional DUTY, and no valid law of the State of Florida may empower an act under color of law which violates any CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

b.    FIDUCIARY: Duties of trust and loyalty of treating pecuniary interests of named or reasonably foreseeable beneficiaries equal to own.  Such duties apply to certain functions of DEFENDANTS acting under color of law;

c.    JUDICIAL: Duties to ensure due process and protect rights of all of those within their jurisdiction; all duties enumerated in Canons and related codes of judicial ethics.  Such DUTIES apply to all functions of all judicial officers performing any administrative or judicial function;

d.     ATTORNEY/ADVOCATE: Duties of professional competence, loyalty, zealous advocacy and those specifically articulated in the Model Code of Professional Conduct.  Such duties apply to all function of all attorneys and certain functions of social worker acting as advocates or advisors;

e.    SOCIAL WORKER: Duties of professional competence, act only in public interest;

f.    SUPERVISORIAL: Duties to oversee, supervise, train, instruct, guide, monitor, discipline, and terminate subordinates; to exercise power to prevent or aid in preventing breaches of others with power to influence or control;

g.    SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: Duties to affirmatively act in situations not otherwise requiring action founded on the existence of a prior engagement, bond, or other relationship;

h.    CREATION OF DANGER: Duties to affirmatively act in situations not otherwise requiring action founded upon the actor’s creating a danger or risk to which the duty to act in preventing harm from the risk arises;

i.    CONTRACTUAL: Specific duties under contract; duty of good faith and fair dealing;

j.    MUNICIPAL: Duties of all governments to enact and enforce only constitutional rules, laws, policies, customs, habits, behaviors or procedures; duty to act to prevent foreseeable deprivation of constitutional injury; duty to take action and/or avoid deliberate indifference to actual or likely constitutional injury within authority to act;

k.    THERAPEUTIC: For all mental health professionals, duties to observe all professional standards relevant to their respective professional licensure, best practices, and specialty standards; Duty to do no harm. Such duties apply to Domestic Dispute Industry Professional Service providers (DDIPS).

l. QUASI-THERAPEUTIC: Duties attendant to any DEFENDANT when acting in any “therapeutic” capacity—as a DDIJO (“therapeutic” jurisprudence), DDISW (“public service”), DDIPS (as a “facilitator” “mediator” or “forensic psychologist”), or DDIA in counseling clients, to observe the ancient rule of genuine healers: “above all else, do no harm.”

In performing each act alleged herein, each DEFENDANT bound at all relevant times by one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTY as elsewhere specified. Said PROFESSIONAL DUTIES under which each DEFENDANT to each Count herein acted extended at all times to Jason tucker named in each Count. By virtue of each Defendant’s PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, Jason tucker at all relevant times possessed reciprocal rights to SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS in the performance of those duties under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

For each entity acting under color of Florida state law, their breach of a PROFESSIONAL DUTY by CULPABLE or UNREASONABLE conduct as elsewhere alleged, setting in motion foreseeable injury constitutes a deprivation of SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS of those injured. As elsewhere alleged each DEFENDANT breached one or more of said PROFESSIONAL DUTIES UNREASONABLY or CULPABLY, constituting a deprivation of SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, causing damage and injury in a nature and amount according to proof at trial.

COUNT 20
18 U.S.C. § 1346.
Intangible Personal Property Right Deprivation 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS
This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

All DEFENDANTS participated in a scheme to defraud Susan hunter and Jason tucker.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 21
U.S. Code Title 18 Part II Chapter 213 § 3282(a)
Offenses not capital;
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS conspired. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, Jason tucker shall not be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 22
18 U.S.C. § 1594; 
Conspiracy, attempt to commit acts of peonage, slavery, proscribed 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS used conspiracy to attempt to commit peonage of Jason tucker and Susan hunter by robbery of estate, possessions, and postal mail.

On knowledge and belief, RODNEY EDWARD AMICK has committed one or more mail frauds in case 2D14-1743.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 23
18 U.S.C. § 1593A;
Benefitting financially from peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

    This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and other DEFENDANTS used conspiracy to attempt to commit peonage of Jason tucker.

DEFENDANTS benefited from these unlawful acts. 

DEFENDANTS unlawfully confiscated Jason tucker possessions, private property, and postal mail.

To the best knowledge and belief, DEFENDANTS have committed identity theft from Jason tucker property.

To the best knowledge and belief, DEFENDANTS have committed credit theft from Jason tucker property.

To the best knowledge and belief, DEFENDANTS have committed voter fraud from Jason tucker property.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 24
Deprivation of relief benefits
U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 13 § 246;
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Claim for by each DEFENDANT as elsewhere alleged.

DEFENDANTS directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive Jason tucker of employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, and he shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

As an actual and proximate result Jason tucker has been injured in a nature an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 25 
42 U.S.C. 1983 
Municipal Liability
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK, All OTHER DEFENDANTS

This is a Count containing Claims DEFENDANTS for deprivation of rights under color of law against “beneath State-level” entities under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

DEFENDANTS to this Count are “governments beneath the state level” within the definition of that term in Board of Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997).  

Each municipal entity herein was at all times bound under the following PROFESSIONAL DUTIES: CONSTITUTIONAL, SUPERVISORY, MUNICIPAL, SOCIAL WORKER, FIDUCIARY, and at times elsewhere alleged, CONTRACTUAL.

Said policies further permitted or were deliberately indifferent to the conduct, participation in, operation, monitoring, discipline, and control of each ENTERPRISE and ENTERPRISE PERSON.

Each DEFENDANT further failed to properly train its employees prior to its employee’s acts elsewhere alleged to have caused constitutional deprivation, damage, and injury, foreseeably resulting in the injury alleged.

Charlotte COUNTY agents have been directly involved in the Jason tucker’s ASSAULTS, and Crimes as elsewhere alleged. 

COUNT 26
AMICK TERRORISM 
42 U.S.C. § 1983 
Against RODNEY EDWARD AMICK and All DEFENDANTS

This is a Count alleging breach of contract, fraud, extortion, and abuse of process centered on the actions of DEFENDANTS AMICK (AMICK TERRORISM) acting under color of law, and related deprivations of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 RODNEY EDWARD AMICK AND DEFENDANTS (AMICK TERRORISM DEFENDANTS).

Common Allegations

A. That all parties would be afforded notice and opportunity to be heard before RODNEY EDWARD AMICK took any or made public statements;

B. These representations were false when made with clear intent to publically defraud.

Specifically: 

AMICK Terrorism

On information and belief ALL DEFENDANTS knew of these complaints.

In response to Jason tucker’s objections and reports detailed above, RODNEY EDWARD AMICK retaliated against Jason tucker by committing the following acts against Jason tucker:

A.    Committing perjury and defamation in a hearing relating to Jason tucker and Susan hunter;

B.    Continuing to file false reports and encourage the (false) investigation of his initial report against Jason tucker and Susan hunter;

C.    Continuing to demand Jason tucker be arrested without cause;

D. Attempting to intimidate, distress, harm, defraud, extort, and rob Jason tucker of property;

Jason tucker was horrified, traumatized, and severely distressed as a result of DEFENDANTS behavior and Assaults. 

Understanding that DEFENDANTS remained as a witness in Jason tucker’s family law matter, and based upon his past history of abuse of process, false testimony, and abuse of process, they could easily retaliate against Jason tucker for any action he took regarding his conduct, Jason tucker was intimidated, terrified, oppressed and under duress, prohibiting him from taking formal action on such conduct, constituting duress, fraud, and undue influence.  

Jason tucker was also defrauded by DEFENDANTS as elsewhere alleged in understanding the nature and extent of the enterprise and conspiratorial relationships between DEFENDANTS, and each Jason tucker ASSAULTS COORDINATOR, and their successive duress and undue influence also elsewhere alleged.  

As a result of such fraud, duress, undue influence, breach of fiduciary and other PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, Jason tucker has been oppressed, deterred, and unwillingly. DEFENDANTS permitting the acts alleged above, thereby foreseeably depriving Jason tucker or causing him to be deprived of rights, privileges, and immunities relating to SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS; PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; SEARCH AND SEIZURE; EXPRESSION, PRIVACY, ROBBERY, and ASSOCIATION; ACCESS TO JUSTICE. 

RICO ALLEGATIONS/ RICO DEFENDANTS

“Evil deeds ought not to remain unpunished, for impunity affords continual excitement to the delinquent."

DEFENDANT, ...

DONATE

To This Fundraiser

$0

MONEY RAISED
  •  
  •  
  •  
Organized by:

Jason Tucker

This is a direct to organizer fundraiser.

Fundraise for this Campaign

The Team: $0 TOTAL RAISED SO FAR

JOIN THE TEAM

Want to help Fundraise or Volunteer for this amazing Fundraiser? Join the Team

Donor Comments

Be the first to Donate to Jason and RICO LAWSUIT.

Report this page — Let Us Know if you think this page is breaking the law or the CrowdRise Terms.