1. When did Four blow's to the head submitted by a doctor who has done 30,000 autopsy's not be seen as evidence of a crime?2.The second (doctor) found Foot Prints NOT belonging to Rebecca Zahau on the balcony (along with dirt)?
3. Rebecca had DNA under her finger nails ,along with three or four other types of DNA at the scene?
4.The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven.
5. I am a reasonable person and believe a crime has been committed.
BREAKDOWN IN U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1.The U.S Attorney is Guilty of Conspiracy (under the color of law) against the rights of the Zahau Family.
2. That would be a Civil rights complaint under title 42 1983,85 with regard to 14th amendment (due process).
HOW DO I KNOW THIS?
1. I have a SF 95 form in front of the Dept of Justice ( Or did you lose that to) in regards to a complaint against the U.S Attorney's Office in San Diego.
In order to establish a cause of action for civil conspiracy, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support the following elements: 1) two or more persons; 2) an object to be accomplished; 3) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action; 4) one or more unlawful acts; and, 5) damages. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Weber, 767 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Mo.App. 1989); Mackey v. Mackey, 914 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Mo.App. 1996). The term unlawful, as it relates to civil conspiracy, is not limited to conduct that is criminally liable.
COLOR OF STATE LAW
Civil rights complaints under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 require that the defendant acted under color of law. A plaintiff must prove that the defendants deprived him of a constitutional right under color of state law. In Adickes v. S.H. Kress & co. 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970) it was held:
It should be remembered that under the substantive law of civil conspiracy, "circumstantial evidence may provide adequate proof of conspiracy"; a plaintiff need not present direct evidence of an explicit agreement between the conspirators to prove his case. Hoffman La-Roche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 1977).
( ASIAN POWER) Help Rebecca Joe, don't show them your HAND!
