Whether RICO statute provides attorneys qualified immunity from RICO lawsuits when evidence shows they committed predicate acts/crimes

QUESTIONS PRESENTED After a committed Fraud and Obstruction of Justice by Perjury, the other (comprised of both Defendant’s Attorneys, Plaintiffs’ Attorneys and a Judge) conspired to commit a pattern of additional, interrelated predicate acts, ie., Obstruction of Justice, Attempted Bribery/Witness Tampering, and a Threat, to continue to cover up the Defendant’s predicate acts, from 2010 through 2021. The Respondents’ predicate acts and/or conduct : committed were interrelated and formed a pattern of racketeering activity and were the proximate cause of injuries to property and income, which included their foreclosure, eviction of a Petitioner and her minor children and filing a 34 lawsuit with more Fraud and Obstruction of Justice, and placed Lis Pendens on 3 additional Petitioners’ properties, including a Petitioners’ homestead — that are still present to date — in order to collect on this unlawfully-obtained debt. The questions presented and constitutional issues are as follows: 1. Whether the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § Section 1962(c), provides Attorneys Qualified Immunity from RICO lawsuits when compelling evidence exists that they have . committed predicate acts/crimes and/or furthered the common goal of the AssociationIn-Fact, which directly injured Petitioners’ property and income. 2. Whether attempted acts of Bribery/Witness Tampering alone, because they were 1 | unsuccessful and thus not the proximate cause of Petitioners’ property injuries, can dismiss a Petitioners’ entire RICO claim when the evidence shows that the Association-inFact had committed at least 2 other interrelated predicate acts that accomplished the same goal, and were the proximate cause of Petitioners’ injuries to property and income. 3. Whether the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § Section 1962(c), states or implies: 1) that a . particular Respondent’s predicate acts must constitute or threaten long-term criminal activity by that particular Respondent, and 2) cannot be part of her defense in an underlying lawsuit, in order for Petitioners to prevail in their RICO lawsuit. 4. Whether the broad provisions of the Civil | RICO statute can address Public Corruption , when a Judge commits a predicate act, ie., makes ex-parte, non-Judicial, “subsequent calls” to corruptly influence Plaintiffs’ Attorney and obstruct justice. ll CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Civil RICO litigation can remedy a Judge who is acting under the color of the law when she improperly abused Petitioners’ constitutional rights, under the equal protection clause and the due process clause, by engaging in racketeering activity with the other Respondents in order to award Respondents over a $400,000 Judgment in the first lawsuit, a Petitioners’ home (evicting a Petitioner’s minor children) in the 24 lawsuit, and another Respondents win in their 34 lawsuit. 2. During the proceedings of this case, whether Petitioners’ First Amendment constitutional rights were violated when Petitioners are denied the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (to ask the : government to fix a wrong under the Administrative Procedures Act), without facing harsh recourse. iii