I skimmed through the 2009 document. It was painful to read. Obviously the man is hurting. I wish he wasn't representing himself, because it appears he is doing himself a disservice. It appears information is mentioned as evidence that is not really pertinent to the issue at hand.
Interesting that it's a civil case for violation of civil rights, not a criminal one.
So would the burden of proof be less? Would the plaintiff have to prove a violation of RICO occurred (which requires proving criminal intent)?
Why is RICO being brought up, if it's a civil case? I have so many questions.
Does anyone know if the status listed ("pending") means the court is proceeding with the case, or does that mean the decision hasn't been made yet?