From bhammel@graham.main.nc.us Sun Sep 24 06:08:08 2000
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 05:48:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Flash <bhammel@graham.main.nc.us>
To: RICO-list -- Alan Bellamente <alanb@graham.main.nc.us>,
     Bertram Hyatt <BOATSPLUS@webtv.com>, Caryn Montague <IYAMHUIYAM@aol.com>,
     Don Thompson <Dont12go1@aol.com>, Ina Delong <inadelong@aol.com>,
     Jack Artale <121639@email.msn.com>, James Mathis <JJ2ALL@aol.com>,
     James R. Johnston <jimjohn9@juno.com>,
     Jeanette Kirschner <law@peganet.com>, Jim Mooney <kana@fcol.com>,
     Joseph Kelly <josephke@ipa.net>, Judy Morris <judydoc@the-spa.com>,
     Mark Colbert <marx@cyberlynk.com>, Marty M <martym@frontiernet.net>,
     Matt Foreman <foreman@pilot.infi.net>, Rick Sabo <rsabo@stargate.net>,
     Robert Altman <altlaw@mindspring.com>,
     Robert Lessman <lessman@bpr9000.com>, Roger Wise <rogercwise@netscape.net>,
     Ron Branson <jail4judges@mindspring.com>,
     Samuel Malatberg <smalat@bellatlantic.net>,
     Scott Blair <tortmeister@email.msn.com>, Stacey White <stacey@auth.net>,
     Vince Salluzzo <NAFSAGR@aol.com>, William S. Cook <wscook@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Round #1

>From Bill Hammel:

	    THE WAR ON STATE FARM'S RACKETEERING WILL CONTINUE

We have just received word from the US Court, Western
District of North Carolina that our RICO case (number 2:99-cv-44-T)
has been dismissed with prejudice.  I will be publishing the court's
Order and Memorandum as a link from

	http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/RICO/diary.html

in jpeg images soon.

The essence of the dismissal appears to be based on res judicata,
using the doctrine of "entire controversy" - peculiar to NJ, and
which the court is obliged, under 28 USC 1738, to apply.  The court
applies this wrongly, since in the docketed filings, it is clear
that we could not have raised the issues of criminal and racketeering
activities during the NJ State litigation procedure in the litigation
procedure itself.  Moreover, we were not aware of the extent or
specifics of the criminal activities until 12/99 - after the writing
of the forced amended complaint was in progress.

The court has also deprived us of an actually filed amended complaint
before any responsive pleading.  The magistrate judge ordered a
motion to amend before any responsive pleading contrary to FRCP 15(d),
and then recommended to the district court judge that the motion be
denied because it was unnecessary.

The district court's memorandum contains a number of convenient errors
of facts alleged upon which the order is based.

Needless to say, we will be filing a notice of appeal to the 4th
circuit.

Yes, by most standards, our "proposed amended complaint" was overly
lengthy, but prohibitions against prolixity [FRCP 8] are purposely
vague, and left vague still in jurisprudence.  By itself, that can't
be an alternative reason to dismiss, especially since the proposed
amended complaint was never even permitted to be filed.

Our best to all,

	-- Bill