Whether Petitioner Antonacci has properly alleged that Respondents are architects of a criminal RICO enterprise engaged in racketeering activity against him in retaliation for protected speech

Whether Petitio ner Antonacci has properly alleged, in federal court cases spanning ten years, that Respondents Perkins Coie LLP and their former General Counsel, Matthew J. Gehringer, are the architects and administ rators of a criminal RICO enterprise that has engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity against Antonacci, a private U.S. citizen, in retaliation for his protected speech against Respondents Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rahm Emanuel and corrupt Democratic politics, includ ing cyberespionage performed without a warrant or with fraudulently obtained warrants. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Fourth Circuit therefore erred in affirming that ruling. Whether Antonacci states claims under 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) in the instant complaint. Whether Antonacci states a claim under 18 U.S.C. §1030 in the instant complaint. Whether the district court erred in failing to enter default against respondent BEAN LLC d/b/a Fusion GPS. Whether Antonacci stated claims under 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) in his 2015 complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, and this Court should therefore overrule Antonacci v. City of Chicago, 2015 WL 13039605 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2015) and Antonacci v. City of Chicago, 640 F. App’x 553 (7th Cir. 2016). Whether Antonacci is being denied due process of law, in retaliation for his protected speech, by the prejudicial, unfounded and plainly-biased rulings of District Judge Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Vaala, when viewed in conjunction with the acts of the Fourth Circuit Clerk’s and the Fourth Circuit Court’s failure to timely rule on ii Petitioner’s Appeal, the Virginia State Bar’s unconstitutional attack on Antonacci’s Bar license, which is clearly meant to prevent him from further prosecuting his causes of action against the criminal enterprise alleged in his complaint, and the litany of unfounded and plainly prejudicial rulings of the Democrat-controlled courts in Chicago, together with the Supreme Court of Illinois’s Committee on Character and Fitness declining to admit Antonacci to the Illinois Bar, despite his being licensed in three other jurisdictions and never having any disciplinary issue. Whether the district court denied Antonacci due process of law by granting the respondents’ motions for protective orders without an oral argument, when Antonacci propounded only discrete requests for admission that sought to establish the veracity of key allegations, two days before those requests for admission would have been deemed admitted, only to later dismiss his complaint by incorrectly reasoning that his allegations are implausible. Whether District Judge Nachmanoff should be removed on remand because his cancellation of every hearing, granting every request of the respondents, denying Antonacci’s every request, and lack of cogent reasoning in his five-page order together demonstrate either unmistakable bias or the inability to handle this matter in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.