Do federal agencies have discretion to collude in racketeering crime?

Questions Presented for Review 1. Do federal agencies have discretion to collude in racketeering crime? 2. Do federal agencies have “sovereign immunity” in racketeering crime? 3. Shall this Court exercise fortitude to implement Checks and Balances and enforce a code of conduct in government, or must it acquiesce in politically motivated abuses of office in the Executive and Judicial Branches? 4. Does RICO provide for civil cases against agency racketeering? 5. Shall this Court make writ of mandamus to empanel a grand jury to investigate the defendant agency factions and the original defendants? 6. Shall this Court correct false statements about the Complaint and proceedings by the lower court and DOJ, intended to obstruct review? 1 PARTIES 1. Plaintiff John Barth is a retired engineer and philanthropist engaged in ongoing public interest projects, who was forced to defend his charity school against municipal and judicial violations of law and civil rights for many years, and thereby learned the related law, legal research, and legal procedure. Although appearing pro se, the Petitioner is well able to argue the issues. The Plaintiff does not prefer any political party, but is in this case prosecuting theft of $120 million in conservation funds by Florida politicians and a state judge who turned out to be of one party. That case has been blocked by investigative agency factions and judges of that party for years, abusing office to deny due process, in violation of law and the code of judicial ethics. 2. Defendants Department Of Justice, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, and Homeland Security Investigations are agencies of the Executive branch, political factions of which unlawfully refused to investigate this proven theft by Florida politicians of $120 million in conservation funds, even while investigating alleged mishandling of one thousandth of that amount by an opposing party politician, then refused to Answer the Complaint despite demanding six further months solely to do so, and at last merely made wildly unconstitutional claims of absolute discretion and immunity for collusion in racketeering, to dismiss the perfectly valid case. 3. The defendants listed as “et al” are the original defendants in the political racketeering case against Florida politicians and their operatives, who stole $120 million in conservation funds while in control of state and county funding processes. Federal investigation of these defendants is necessary to obtain financial data and other evidence to ensure that all defendants are properly identified and charged. These defendants were temporarily dropped from the lower court case because that court refused to seal the case as required by the same investigative agencies. ii