Title 18 of the United States Code

They indict regular people.

If this was you and you were guilty of Title 18 242, which is what they're bringing him in on, so just so we're clear, Title 18 242 is something you could even use against judiciary, you could use it against congressional members.

It's called Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, which makes it a federal crime to use your government office to violate an individual's legal or constitutional rights, which our const- congressional members, our executive branch, that's what they're doing to us.

And they're doing it with the voting system.

They don't normally ask a regular citizen to come in and testify.

They don't usually say, "Hey George, we're thinking about indicting you, but we want to bring you in, uh, for a subpoena.

We want to interview you first." That shit doesn't happen, and I don't understand why we aren't just going after these people, because I think he is guilty of Title 18 242, probably Title 18 241 also.

Now, they're, they're saying that Brennan allegedly, and I'm gonna say forget allegedly, used his authority as CIA director to manipulate the 2017 intelligence report to imply President Trump was a puppet of Russia.

This caused before the court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 submissions on the proposed remedies to the government's response to petitioner submission on proposed remedies, limited intervener Jeffrey Epstein brief in opposition to proposed remedies, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's reply to the government in support of their submission on proposed remedies, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's reply to Intervener Epstein's brief in opposition to proposed remedies, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's statements noting death pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, response to Rule 25 notice, and suggestion of mootness.

On February 21, 2019, the court entered its order, DE 435, finding that the government violated the Crime Victims Rights Act, CVRA, U.S. Code 18, Section 3771, when it failed to confer with petitioners prior to entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein.

The court permitted the parties to brief and present additional evidence relative to the issue of what remedies, if any, should be imposed by the court as a result.

The briefing was extensive, and the court has carefully reviewed all the arguments.

There can be no doubt that Congress intended to grant it such standing.

One section of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, codified U.S. Code 18, Section 1595D, reads...

In any case in which the Attorney General of a state has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that state has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates Section 1591, the Attorney General of the state may bring a civil action against such a person on behalf of the residents of the state in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate relief.

U.S. Code 18, Section 1595-D.

Congress, however, does not have final word.

Article 3 of the Constitution has been interpreted to impose distinct requirements for standing to sue in federal court, and those requirements are not automatically satisfied when a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.

Since the interest asserted by the USVI here is directly analogous to the interest that provided Perrin's Patriot standing in Snap, the USVI has Article 3 standing.

All right, we're going to wrap up right here.

The saga of Donald and Natalie continues, but it's totally foreign to ethics and law.

And under 18 U.S.C. 209, it is illegal to supplement salary.

It's one of the most fundamental rules.

If I had gone in to the Oval Office and said, President Obama, would you like to give $45,000 gifts to the people who work? He would have thrown me out it's illegal and it raises the question of what are these massive payments for it's very interesting because there's multiple aides who got payments and nicole you know this well they're grossed up to the ap assistant to the president level of 195 000 dollars And it begs credulity.

Generally, we asked DOJ to review the legality of ongoing sharing of state motor vehicle data and voter registration data with several private nonprofit non-governmental organizations, NGOs.

We flagged concerns regarding potential violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, DPPA, 18 USC 2721-2725 through state's disclosure of sensitive state motor vehicle data for use in identifying and registering individuals who had previously declined to register to vote.

In September 2025, DHS representatives met with representatives from DOJ and discussed the public reporting available regarding this issue.

By way of background, the Electronic Registration Information Center, ERIC, was created by Pew Charitable Trust in part to facilitate access to comprehensive data in state motor vehicle databases.

From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Glenn Maxwell, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other.

to commit an offense against the United States to wit enticement in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 2422.

10.

It was part and object of the conspiracy that Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant Jeffrey Epstein and others known and unknown would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice and coerce one or more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense.

in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 2422.

And just to interrupt real quick, doesn't that sound like RICO to you? How is it that this was not a RICO case? Can somebody please explain that? Nobody's been able to explain it in all of these years, and still to this day, I can't find one single person who can logically explain how this didn't turn into a RICO case, and how all of these people involved didn't get smashed with predicates.

Overt Acts 11.

D.

From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Glenn Maxwell, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other.

to commit an offense against the United States to wit enticement in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 2422.

10.

It was part and object of the conspiracy that Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one or more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of Title 18 and United States Code Section 2422.

And just to interrupt real quick, doesn't that sound like RICO to you? How is it that this was not a RICO case? Can somebody please explain that? Nobody's been able to explain it in all of these years and still to this day.

I can't find one single person who can logically explain how this didn't turn into a RICO case and how all of these people involved didn't get smashed with predicates.

D.

Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim 3 was under the age of 18, Maxwell encouraged Minor Victim 3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim 3 during those massages.