Romney's Attorney Responds "Haas v Romney" Racketeering 9th Circuit Case

[laserhaas]

On October 18, 2013, yours truly sued Romney & cohorts for Racketeering (see Addicting Info story "Romney Slapped Racketeering&quot . In the lawsuit it is alleged that Romney "retroactively" retired, due to organized crimes of "The Learning Company", Stage Stores, Kay Bee and eToys; and that yours truly turned down being a partner with Pitten's.
[br]

[br]
Though this alarming coincidence of Colm Connolly (pic above - on right hand side - with pyramid) being an MNAT partner visibly documents a good motive for Romney's "retroactive" retirement lies during the 2012 election; no main stream media (or even a Progressive one online) - appears willing to report the issues.

Meanwhile, yours truly also threatened Eric Holder's office;
but that now seems moot - as he is stepping down.

Many barked and bantered that this victim is a pee poor "pro se" attorney; and such is true. Even Abe Lincoln himself said those who represent themselves have a fool for a client. Be that as it may, due to the fact that Romney & his RICO gang have done so much wrong; this litigant is able to continue in the courts.

Except for that persistent pain in the butt issue of - Corruption!

A federal District Court judge has bowed down to Mitt Romney, after reading all the allegations; and said this plaintiff's case is frivolous. It is easy for people to buy into such obfuscating banter; because Romney ran for POTUS and yours truly, a homeless man, couldn't even make a run for lead janitor of City Hall.

It simply sucks being a victim of organized crimes by Mitt - the Pitts - Romney!

When the District Court judge utilized a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to deny my poor man status; the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals agreed. An order was issued (here) on August 21, 2014 - that I had to come up with $505 within 21 days and "simultaneously" file a "Show Cause" Response as to why the entire case shouldn't be dismissed.



[br][hr][br]

PLAINTIFF Laser Haas "Show Cause" Response

[br]
Here's the link to the Democratic Underground thread, concerning my "Show Cause" ordered response; which also contains various exhibits (for those of you who really do care to see the facts).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1201349


PLAINTIFF'S "Show Cause" RESPONSE

This is the link to the actual RESPONSE

http://petters-fraud.com/9th_cir_show_cause_response_sep11_2014.pdf
[br][hr][br]

Romney's 9th Circuit Reply via Attorney Ropes & Gray

[br]
Mitt Romney, with co-Defendants Michael Glazer and Bain Capital responded (here) to my "Show Cause" Response, on September 22, 2014. It's a very short brief and sweet - at least to me; because it actually helps make my case for me. Romney's counsel attempts to testify on some issues and I've objected to them. Outside of issues of timeliness, Mitt's counsel makes the following statement that is greatly germane;

Second, the four-year statute of limitations applicable to civil RICO claims bars Appellant’s claims against Appellees.

[br]

I ask you the simple question....

Can a person who has benefited from unjust enrichment, arrange for his lawyer to become U.S. Attorney;
and then claim there's a 4 year statute of limitations on the crimes that same attorney refused to prosecute?

I'm just sayin.......

[laserhaas]

1. I find it quaint that Bain & Glazer also utilize Mitt's counsel. MNAT & Gold filed a reply too

and here it is....
http://petters-fraud.com/9th_cir_mnat_golds_show_cause_reply_sept23.pdf


It's a shame someone else is not telling this articles;
then it would get 100 times the attention...