Whether it is an abuse of discretion to exclude relevant evidence in a RICO case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED As a rule, it is generally clear that “[uJ]nless another time is specified by this rule or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive pleading is as follows:. . . {a] defendant must serve an answer. . . within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint”, Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(a)(1)(A)@), and “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 55(a), unless, apparently, the plaintiff is an unrepresented litigant in a civil suit brought under the federal racketeering statute, in which Article III courts have assumed upon themselves, regarding “an unusually potent weapon—the litigation equivalent of a thermonuclear device”, Brookhaven Town Conservative Comm. v. Walsh, No. 14CV6097JFBARL, 2016 WL 1171583, at *1-8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016) ( quoting Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, 167 F.R.D. 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (quoting Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 948 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1991)), affd, 118 F.3d 1229 (2d Cir. 1997)), to strive to flush out frivolous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation”. Id. (quoting Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the questions presented are: 1. Whether it is an abuse of discretion, before the opening of discovery, under Fed.R.Evid. 403, for a Trial to “exclude relevant evidence”, deeming it substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence”, specifically, dismissing an affidavit, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 55, pertaining to default judgment. 2. Whether, in a matter brought under the federal racketeering statute, the Trial Court had abused discretion, refusing to “accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, constru[ing] the record in favor of -1 plaintiff, and decid[ing] whether as a matter of law, the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which would entitle it to relief.” In re: JET 1 Center, Inc., 319 B.R. 11 (M.D.FI. 2004) (citing Parker v. Wakelin, 822 F.Supp. 1131 (D.Me. 1995); Straka v. Francis, 867 F.Supp. 767 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County, 855 F.Supp. 351 (S.D.Fla. 1994)). 3. Whether, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 8(a), “which requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction and a statement of the claims showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief,” ECF No. 48, Order, dated May 18, 2023, for failure to state a claim in a case brought under the federal racketeering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), pre-empting motions to dismiss filed by defendants. 4. Whether, defendants in a civil matter, brought under the federal racketeering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), which for elements of proof include predicate offenses under state and federal criminal code, are precluded from generally averring an inability to understand allegations that in criminal court may only be defeated by presenting a reasonable doubt, consistent with a Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. PARTIES AND