In Propria Persona

without Prejudice

District Court of the United States

Central Judicial District of California

Southern Division

The People of California ) No. SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANX)

ex relatione )

Gayle Bybee et al., ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND

) MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiffs, ) TWO CIVIL CASES:

v. )

) 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

Andrew Erath et al., )

)

Defendants. )

---------------------------------)

)

United States )

ex relatione )

Paul Andrew Mitchell, )

)

Intervenor. )

_________________________________)

COMES NOW Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State, expressly not a citizen of the United States (“federal citizen”), and Co-Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), to request a routine consolidation of the instant civil case with Lynne Meredith et al. v. Andrew Erath et al., Clerk’s Docket Number #CV‑99‑13100‑FMC(MANx), Judge Florence-Marie Cooper presiding, and to provide formal Notice to all interested parties of same.

Plaintiff argues that Judge Cooper is in a unique position to appreciate the full scope, and far-reaching legal ramifications, of all relevant historical facts which now bear on the instant case.

In particular, Defendant Andrew Erath has already been denied qualified immunity by ORDER of Judge Cooper, for excessive force and unlawful detention during a raid executed by Erath and his accomplices on the homes of Lynne Meredith and Jenifer Meredith.

Defendant Erath has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, and the United States has formally intervened in that appeal.

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant Alicia Villarreal has recently conspired with Defendant Andrew Erath to violate federal and State laws for various unlawful purposes including, but not limited to, aggressive retaliation against known business associates of Lynne Meredith ‑‑ for exercising fundamental Rights that are expressly guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, chiefly the Petition Clause in the First Amendment.

Plaintiff further argues, and hereby formally offers to prove, that Defendant Andrew Erath has successfully solicited the willful and premeditated participation of Defendant Alicia Villarreal, and other named Defendants supra, in a conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, extortion, mail fraud, major fraud against the United States, willful misrepresentation, jury tampering, obstruction of correspondence, obstruction of justice, deprivation of Plaintiffs’ fundamental Rights, and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs’ fundamental Rights, all under color of federal Law. See 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) subsections (A) and (B) (RICO predicate acts) and 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) (“pattern of racketeering activity” defined).

The statutory definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” is particularly pertinent in the present context, in part because Congress has defined such a pattern to mean any two (2) predicate acts in any given ten (10) year period.

Moreover, the uncodified Statutes at Large have expressed the intent of Congress that RICO statutes should be liberally construed.

Clearly, Defendant Erath’s use of excessive force was a deliberate and malicious act of extortion, in violation of the California Penal Code. See 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A) (extortion which is chargeable under State law).

The official record now before Judge Cooper will provide an excellent factual foundation for Plaintiff’s RICO allegations, to be formalized in a future amended COMPLAINT being researched as of this writing. See 18 U.S.C. 1962.

Most recently, Plaintiff argues that Defendants Erath and Villarreal have conspired to tamper with a panel of federal citizens, posing as a lawfully convened federal grand jury, for the purposes of obtaining a defective “indictment” against Plaintiff, and arresting and arraigning Plaintiff without a lawful warrant for Her arrest, without the required affidavit of probable cause, and without properly serving Plaintiff with a lawful indictment. See Fourth Amendment.

Such coordinated actions have resulted necessarily in depriving Plaintiff of Her fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation(s) against Her, which deprivation violates the Sixth Amendment and constitutes probable cause for formally charging some or all of the named Defendants supra with one or more counts of violating the federal criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242.

Plaintiff is authorized by Congress to request and obtain civil RICO remedies, pursuant to the federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964.

Moreover, the United States has already intervened ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, to insure that Plaintiff is guaranteed due process of Law in the instant case, and in all related cases. See the Guarantee Clause and the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), in chief.

It is Plaintiff’s understanding that the United States has formally intervened, in part to adjudicate specific, well documented challenges to the constitutionality of certain Acts of Congress, and in part to commence criminal prosecutions of certain named Defendants supra with all deliberate speed.

This District Court of the United States has original jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the federal criminal Code, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3231. Statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed [cites omitted].

Plaintiff also argues that the Initial COMPLAINT and supporting affidavits in the instant case rendered Plaintiff a qualified federal witness. As such, the Defendants’ retaliations against Plaintiff constitute clear violations of the federal criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513.

There is extraterritorial federal jurisdiction over offenses under these sections, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512(g) and 1513(d), respectively. In this context, California State is extraterritorial with respect to federal municipal jurisdiction. In pari materia, compare 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) and (2) (extra- and intra-territorial, respectively).

For starters, Plaintiff alleges that a pattern of racketeering activity by some or all named Defendants has victimized Plaintiff within California State during a period spanning the ten years prior to, and inclusive of, April 22, 2002 A.D.

INCORPORATION OF CERTIFIED DOCUMENT

In support of the instant MOTION, Plaintiff hereby attaches a true and correct copy of the document entitled “31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service,” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, and incorporates same as Attachment “A” by reference, as if set forth fully here.

REMEDY REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, Plaintiff respectfully requests a routine ORDER bifurcating the instant civil case as to Co‑Plaintiff Teresa Giordano and consolidating Plaintiff’s bifurcated case with Meredith et al. v. Erath et al., Clerk’s Docket Number #CV‑99‑13100‑FMC(MANx), Judge Florence-Marie Cooper presiding.

Thank you very much for your professional consideration.

VERIFICATION

I, Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: April 30, 2002 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Teresa Giordano

_________________________________________________

Printed: Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE TWO CIVIL CASES:

18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

Clerk of Court

District Court of the United States

Central Judicial District of California

Southern Division

411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053

Santa Ana 92701-4516

CALIFORNIA, USA

Gayle Bybee

c/o Marcia J. Brewer

300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 330

Culver City 90230

CALIFORNIA, USA

Carla Figaro

21213-B Hawthorne Blvd., #5361

Torrance 90503

CALIFORNIA, USA

Nora Moore

8400 Edinger Avenue, Apt. #Z-106

Huntington Beach 92647

CALIFORNIA, USA

Denise Ricca-White

4805 Glenhaven Drive

Oceanside 92056

CALIFORNIA, USA

Andrew Erath

c/o Office of Regional Inspector

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 6238

Laguna Niguel 92607

CALIFORNIA, USA

Erik Newberry

c/o Office of Regional Inspector

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 6238

Laguna Niguel 92607

CALIFORNIA, USA

Matthew Finney

c/o Office of Regional Inspector

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 6238

Laguna Niguel 92607

CALIFORNIA, USA

John S. Gordon

U.S. Department of Justice

1300 United States Courthouse

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Alicia Villarreal

U.S. Department of Justice

1300 United States Courthouse

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Brian Hershman

U.S. Department of Justice

1300 United States Courthouse

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Courtesy Copies to:

Judge Florence-Marie Cooper

c/o Court Support Supervisor (KGP)

District Court of the United States

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Office of the Solicitor General

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5614

Washington 20530-0001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 91510

Pasadena 91109-1510

CALIFORNIA, USA

[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]

Dated: April 30, 2002 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Teresa Giordano

_________________________________________________

Printed: Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California

Attachment “A”

“31 Questions and Answers

about the Internal Revenue Service”

Certified by:

Paul Andrew Mitchell

Private Attorney General