CAUSE NO.
____________
UDO BIRNBAUM § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff §
v. §
§ 294th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PAUL BANNER §
Defendant §
§ VAN ZANDT COUNTY,
RON CHAPMAN §
Defendant §
ORIGINAL
PETITION
Comes now UDO BIRNBAUM ("Birnbaum"), Plaintiff, Pro Se, complaining of PAUL BANNER
("Banner") and RON CHAPMAN ("Chapman") and for cause of
action would respectfully show the Court the following:
Udo Birnbaum is an individual residing
in Van Zandt County, Texas. He may be served with process at 540 VZ CR 2916,
Paul Banner is a retired
Ron Chapman is a retired
1. Discovery
is intended to be conducted under Level 3.
(RCP Rule 190.4)
STATEMENT ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
2. Defendant Chapman's conduct complained of was NOT
in a judicial capacity -- there was nothing to adjudicate -- and nothing to
magistrate -- and Defendant's conduct was also objectively unreasonable.
3. Defendant Banner's conduct complained of was as a
WITNESS -- and also objectively unreasonable.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4. Plaintiff
complains under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
("civil RICO") of injury to his property by reason of Defendant's
violation of 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq. ("RICO").
"State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to
consider civil claims arising under RICO". Tafflin v. Levitt, 493
"For the purposes of this chapter, the term ''scheme
or artifice to defraud'' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services".
18 U.S.C. § 1346
5. The scheme and
pattern of racketeering activity complained of is open ended.
6. Injury
amounting to $125,770 was discovered shortly after
THE SCHEME
7. Plaintiff
Birnbaum complains of a scheme to punish and silence Birnbaum for having
exercised his right of access to the courts, and to execute the scheme by a
"scheme to deprive of the intangible
right of honest services".
8. Defendant's use
of the U.S. Mail and interstate capable communications equipment to execute
such scheme provides the "predicate
acts" of "racketeering
activity" constituting the outlawed "pattern of racketeering activity" as defined under RICO.
THE PATTERN
OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
9. Ever after
10. Chapman knew that
his
11. Chapman hiding
this original wrong for over TWO years constitutes another wrong.
12. Chapman on
13. Banner willingly
participated against Birnbaum as a WITNESS, fully knowing that the case was
DEAD, he himself having issued FINAL JUDGMENT way back on
14. Banner, having
personally observed Chapman pronounce unlawful $125,770 punishment on Birnbaum,
did NOTHING to protect Birnbaum from the wrong Chapman was doing.
15. Banner for over
TWO YEARS did NOTHING to report the wrong he had witnessed on
16. The acts of
"racketeering activity"
shown above constitute a "pattern of
racketeering activity" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). The acts complained of are not
isolated events, but relate to each other by virtue of a common participant, a
common method of commission, and the common purpose and common result of
defrauding of honest service these defendants owed to the state of
17. Defendants'
use of the U.S. Mail and interstate capable communications equipment to execute
such scheme provides the "predicate
acts" of "racketeering
activity" constituting the outlawed "pattern of racketeering activity" as defined under RICO.
18. Plaintiff's
injury to his property was "by
reason of" Defendant's violation of RICO.
THE VIOLATION
OF RICO
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
"to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct
of an
enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity"
19. The 294th
20. This "enterprise"
has some effect upon interstate commerce
21. Defendants were associated with the enterprise.
22. Defendants played some part in directing the affairs of the enterprise
23. Defendants engaged in the pattern of racketeering activity as outlined
above
24. Defendants' association with the enterprise facilitated the commission
of the acts
24. The commission of these predicate acts did indeed have some effect on
the "enterprise"
INJURY
"by reason of the RICO violation"
25. Injury of
$125,770 is as indicated and detailed in Exhibit "A", Order on Motion for
Sanctions (signed
26. The injury flowed
from both the pattern of racketeering activity and from the acts of
racketeering activity.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff Birnbaum seeks
judgment against Defendants jointly and severally.
Defendants'
conduct was knowing, intentional, with malice, demonstrated a complete lack of
care, and was in conscious disregards for the rights of Birnbaum. Birnbaum is therefore entitled to an award of
punitive damages. Birnbaum seeks judgment as follows:
(a)
$377,310 as treble damages as proscribed by RICO
(b)
For the costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's
fees, if any
(c)
Pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by
law
(d)
Post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by
law
(e)
Punitive damages in an amount as the jury may award at
its discretion
(f)
A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from
sitting as "visiting judges" in the 294th
(g)
Such other relief, legal and equitable, special or
general, as the Court deems proper and just
Defendants'
conduct is a menace to society that extends into the indefinite future.
BIRNBAUM
HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BEFORE A JURY
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
Udo Birnbaum, Pro
Se
540 VZ CR 2916
(903) 479-3929
Exh. "A", Order on Motion for Sanctions -- $125,770 (
(On a FOUR year old DEAD case!)
Exh. "B", Final Judgment --
signed by Defendant Banner himself (
(The DEAD case, page 1 and 7 only)