About The Lawsuit

“Elon Musk and his associates paid bribes to White House staff, and their associates, in order to get tens of billions of dollars of government payola, at taxpayer expense, in violation of numerous laws. They then tried to cover-up the crimes using Google’s and Facebook’s media control….”

JOIN THE PLAINTIFFS OR THE SUPPORT TEAM (CLICK HERE)

TESLA LAWSUIT 2.1

CURRENT DRAFT SECTION (Draft 2.3 version) FOR PUBLIC EDIT:

“This is a complex civil action for RICO remedies authorized by the federal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.; for declaratory and injunctive relief; for actual, consequential and exemplary damages; and for all other relief which this honorable Superior Court deems just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned this Initial COMPLAINT. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(a) and (c) (“Civil RICO”).

The primary cause of this action is a widespread criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving numerous RICO predicate acts during the past ten (10) calendar years.

The predicate acts alleged here cluster around criminal anti-trust infringement, trafficking in certain goods bearing illicit and unsafe technology, securities fraud affecting the public market, tampering with and retaliation against a qualified Federal Witness, interstate transportation of stolen property, obstruction of justice, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of State and local law enforcement and the suspicious deaths of Mr. Gary D. Conley, Mr. Rajeev Motwani, Mr. David Bird, Mr. Forrest Hayes, Mr. Ravi Kumar, Mr. Karl Slym, Mr. Doug Bourn, Mr. Andrew Ingram, Mr. Brian M. Finn, Mr. Moritz Erhardt, Mr. Sarvshreshth Gupta, Mr. Li Jie, Mr. Kenneth Bellando, Ms. Kate Matrosova, and others. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319, 2320, 1512, 1513, 2315, 1503, 1510, 1511 and 15811588 respectively.

Other RICO predicate acts, although appearing to be isolated events, were actually part of the overall conspiracy and pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. campaign mail fraud and bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1344, respectively.

The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to inflict severe and sustained economic hardship upon Plaintiffs, with the intent of impairing, obstructing, preventing and discouraging Plaintiffs from writing, publishing, investigating and conducting judicial recovery as U.S. Citizens and to create egregious business environment hardships for Plaintiffs.

JURISDICTION

This honorable Superior Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the civil RICO remedies at 18 U.S.C. 1964, and the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, hn. 4 (9th Cir. 1987) (California State courts have concurrent jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendants have been publicly charged in news reports, whistle-blower reports and federal investigations with exchanging un-reported and limit-exceeding campaign and bribery compensation with government officials in quid-pro-quo compensation transacted for the graft and gift of government contracts, stock market holding valuation benefits, tax payment exclusions, favored nations exclusive real estate deals, event tickets, government laws and policies exclusively favorable to Defendants while, at the same time, overtly damaging Plaintiffs in anti-trust, monopolistic, retribution and punitive anti-competitive attacks.

Some federal officers and employees are among the probable causes that threaten further continuation of the severe economic hardship and other wrongs described above because Defendants paid those officers with cash, stock, search engine rigging, sex workers, revolving door jobs and other benefits.

It is also apparent to Plaintiffs, who hereby make a formal offer to prove, that an instant action should not be removed into the Article III USDC because the USDC is presently vacant, nor should it ever be removed into the Article IV USDC because of demonstrable bias and prejudice among officers and employees of the USDC….”  CLICK TO READ MORE…