Appellant 9th Circuit Pro Se

Federal Communications Commission Rules Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations §73.1940 Legally qualified candidates for public office addressed in Exhibit A, Case No. 1:08-CV-01538 presented to the district court in October 2008 in this matter seeking review.

1. This action arises out of a scheme to defraud appellant out of business, and property. Through fraud, malice, intent, and knowledge in the actors mind to produce the condition precedent: Circumstances sufficient for guilty minds to act. The probable cause "a reasonable belief" that a person has committed a crime, static repetition of false corroborating testimony saturate the broadcast stations and those without facts are by way of agreement and method supported by conduct which is a direct violation of law. Wherein threats, libel, slander and failures to perform official acts predispose thoughts of legal confrontation. Nevertheless, the funding of international fraud is guided by those who consider themselves to be a royal class who agreed among themselves to induce and who did induce the public to invest in their conspiracy.

2. In furtherance of the conspiratorial fraud defendant, FEC issued a direct threat to appellant with the intention to ultimately intimidate or further publicly smear a legally qualified candidate from seeking to announce his candidacy through the purchase of legitimate press releases. While delaying governmental action regarding matters filed in FEC Complaint Exhibit A. Title 47 C.F.R. §25.701 (4)(iv) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of DBS providers or complaining of noncompliance to the Federal Communications Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office. This responsibility clause placed the burden of proof on appellant, and was of such magnitude that opponents illegal qualification could not be trivialized.

3. In reliance upon fraudulent omissions, misrepresentations and commissions the voting public was persuaded to accept at that time a Federal Election for electors. The coconspirators then did through malfeasance of law further systematically ignore, misappropriate, convert, and ultimately transfer the fraudulent scheme and its conspiratorial network to the TOP administrative post of the federal government.

4. From the very start the conspirators engaged in an outright fraud scheme, they agreed to promote this fraud for their benefit. They committed to ignore the law regardless of the cost to their credibility or reputation. They never intended to provide a statement of true identity nor a Good Faith honest context of fact, but did hide for the purpose of furthering their scheme, their legal responsibility to announce their commercial advertiser’s true identity. Their fraudulent scheme requires each of the broadcast stations to continually insult and criticize the use of truth and the law.

5. With this conspiratorial depravity leading the way, the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Solicitor General are further engaged in the protection and promotion of unlawful conduct. Our nation expects to continue suffering from the devaluation of cash because of the recent printing and reported misplacement of over 10.8 Trillion dollars to the central bankers, who are holding these assets until the coconspirators domestic policies produce more strife and economic consolidation opportunities.

6. Through the conduct, as detailed below, Federal Election Commission participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of an international enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and/or conspired to do so, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

7. FEC Officials and the Solicitor General breached their duties and Oath to uphold the Constitution and relevant U.S. Code.

8. Through their conduct, defendants committed common-law fraud in connection with offering advertising over the regulated broadcast channels knowing it to be fraudulent.

9. We the people at all relevant times have been a multi person group to act and build upon the trust established under GOD, appellant.

10. On information and belief defendants Federal Elections Commission and Office of Solicitor General represent Federal Government authority and regulatory order.

11. At all relevant times in the acts alleged herein, the federal government agencies have failed to act within their scope of authority and have acted with the actual or apparent authority in furtherance of the scheme to enrich the co-conspirators. FEC further acted through employees and agents, including telephone threats to appellant from staff employee October 8, 2008 originating from the office of the FEC.

12. Federal Government is the principal overseer of information throughout the scheme to defraud the people who have placed their trust in government. Elected and appointed government officials, agency bureaucrats worked as a group of co-conspirators and served as agents, as well as conspirators.

13. At the time Federal Communication Commission Direct Broadcast Satellite “DBS” license holders Direct TV and Dish Network first began transmitting paid advertising on behalf of Candidates seeking public office. They were obligated to inform the public of the true identity of the advertiser. Title 47 C.F.R. §73.1212 FCC Sponsorship identification 2 (e) fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person. All broadcast stations licensed through FCC have the same contracted obligation including and not limited to Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner and all other legally bound broadcast stations that received money for transmitting an advertisement message.

14. When called in early January 2009, to come before the Supreme Court of the United States in Berg v. Obama No.08-570 to defend the Rule of Law the Federal Elections Commission nor the Solicitor General provided a legal comment or attempted to show any concern for the spirit of the statutory code, whatsoever.

15. Upon information and belief the FEC was and is even now concealing campaign wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering to protect co-conspirators.

16. There is as yet no agency of government cleared from the harm that has been caused by this fraud placed before the public and the government’s failure to actively address access issues regarding advertising on commercial broadcast services. The Solicitor General represents the Federal Communications Commission and it is the responsibility of the commercial broadcast stations by law to verify candidate qualifications which during the 2008 election cycle did not happen. Federal Communications Commission Rules Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations §73.1940 Legally qualified candidates for public office addressed in Exhibit A, Case No. 1:08-CV-01538 presented to the district court in October 2008 on this matter seeking review.

17. § 25.701 of Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations Public interest obligations. (b) Political broadcasting requirements (4) (iv) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of DBS providers or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

18. AKA/Obama could never under any set of here to fore known circumstances be proven to be a legally qualified candidate for the office of President of the United States because he is an illegal alien. He would need a mother at the time of his birth who was of legal age, he would need a father who was a citizen of the United States if he could change that he would need a different set of adult travel records.

19. No hand that is placed on any of these documents can point to one piece of evidence supported by signature or affirmation given under the penalty of perjury to refute the claim that on January 20, 2009 The Chief Justice of the United States stood before the assembled host to swear or affirm into office an AKA/illegal alien. If not for the collective failure of the federal government that the People have put their trust into this action would not be needed. This cause is now of the utmost concern and requires immediate determination in this Court.

§2. Principals (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

§1962 Prohibited activities (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity. It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

§1964. Civil remedies (a) The district court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover three fold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit.

Appellant’s message was not on the FCC regulated wire services because appellant’s message conflicted with the full implementation of the totalitarian bureaucratic agenda. Only anti-American programs are worthy to stir the perpetual revolution. What matters most too totalitarian bureaucrats is destroying how people make a living and piling an even greater cost of living upon them.

Conspirators knew that they were using the goodwill and legitimacy associated with a valuable government commodity (the right to broadcast media content) to induce the furtherance of their Conspiracy. Each fraudulent omission or commission helped to bring about their agreed upon goal to outright deceive the public. The failure of government to regulate DBS License Holders and their contracted media counter parts who knowingly approved and maintained their vast fraudulent alliance the activities of which affect, interstate and foreign commerce thereby did jointly conceal their separate and independent responsibilities to make known the material fact “that of” the AKA/Illegal Alien broadcaster’s identity.

The Federal Election Commission’s action to threaten appellant was to benefit coconspirators and was necessary to their desired outcome. Threatening Appellant and ignoring Complaint [Exhibit-A] is part of the FEC operational method. Information concerning: Beverly v. FEC is not publicly posted on federal government website. The FEC is responsible for giving public notice of all court matters and posting all civil actions for the public to see.

Federal Election Commission failure to act based upon information and belief covering AKA/Obama’s: RICO frauds, wire fraud, mail fraud transactions, his campaign's FEC abuses of intentionally collecting multi millions of dollars in campaign contributions from un-track-able international sources, multi millions in undocumented small money sources and foreign government aid.

As co-defendants in Berg v. Obama, the Federal Election Commission, and the Solicitor General further promoted the illegal alien usurper when each decided it was better for them to hide the DBS stations legal obligations that were then and now being publicly exploited by station broadcasters to further the ongoing conspiracy. Therefore, each government agency continued to follow through in their chosen position to in fact condone the obliteration of statutory law and to further in fact vaporize the Constitution of the United States.

First: Before a Grand Jury would read: AKA/Obama set upon a course with David Axelrod to commit fraud in a conspiracy with Whitehouse.org to smear one, Lawrence Sinclair, with a false polygraph test to cover up Mr. Obama's homosexual relationship with Mr. Sinclair.

Second: In said conspiracy, David Plouffe, campaign manager for AKA/Obama, set out with Joe Biden, Beau Biden, Attorney General of Delaware, to silence Lawrence Sinclair when the Whitehouse.org action failed. A false arrest was issued under a sealed Grand Jury indictment for Mr. Sinclair out of Delaware, whereupon Mr. Sinclair was arrested and held as a captive kidnapped by DC police, deprived of his medications and his civil rights violated. This abuse of government power was maintained while keeping Mr. Sinclair intentionally lost in the system deprived of counsel, facing threats of high bail, under detention.

Third: Attorney General Beau Biden of Delaware for the AKA/Obama campaign issued false court papers to the Social Security Administration to have Lawrence Sinclair's benefits denied.

Fourth: Chicago Social Security Administration where AKA/Obama resides and represents in Congress attempted on the forged Delaware information to threaten Lawrence Sinclair to repay all said Social Security benefits including medical benefits.

Fifth: In accomplishing the above terrorism of Lawrence Sinclair in violation of the Patriot Act, Sen. Joe Biden was given payment in the form of his parties Vice-Presidential nomination.

Sixth: Deputy Attorney General of Delaware, Susan Dwyer, threatened defendant, Lawrence Sinclair on behalf of the Biden political syndicate with life imprisonment for a misdemeanor crime when Mr. Sinclair had been a law abiding citizen.

Seventh: Delaware Attorney General's office illegally planted court information into Delaware press to defame Mr. Lawrence Sinclair.

Eight: AKA/Obama and Joe Biden upon receiving their party's nomination seeking not to have their actions exposed in the press by a Lawrence Sinclair trial had Beau Biden's Delaware Attorney General's office drop all charges against Mr. Sinclair in a cover up.

In the financial dealings of AKA/Barack and Michelle Obama, a list of over 100 addresses for Barack Obama and 100 business addresses for Michelle Obama. These are addresses obtained from a private investigator and an intelligence service. Obama/Soetoro’s addresses are connected to numerous different social security numbers. Michelle Obama’s addresses are from numerous media organizations that show her being employed by many major media outlets, including CBS, CNN, and some such as Gay News, Muslim World Today in CA, and the Federal Communications Commission. These media outlets refused along with other conspirators to provide an honest account of Obama/Soetoro’s lack of eligibility for presidency.

The issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As Chicago’s Annenbuerg Challenge chairman, Mr. AKA/Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Also included in the AKA/Obama mix is the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants: ACLU, ACORN, (ACORN and its affiliates have a multi-decade history of fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds) Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other anti-American group there is. ACORN's Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, was the finance Chairperson of AKA/Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a class action law suit.

Everyone in the subprime business — from brokers to lenders to banks to investment houses absolved themselves of responsibility for ensuring the high-risk loans were good.

The mortgage lenders didn't care, because they were going to sell the loans to other banks. The banks didn't care, because they were going to repackage the loans as MBSs. The investors and traders didn't care, because the MBSs were backed by Fannie and Freddie and their implicit government guarantees.

In other words, nobody up or down the line from the branch office on Main Street to the high-rise on Wall Street analyzed the risk of such ill-advised loans. But why should they? Everybody was doing what the lobbyist in Washington wanted them to do.

So everybody won until everybody lost. The narrative will be advanced by the "AKA/Obama-loving media" ... and by the passage of more giant financial bailouts at the expense of law abiding citizens.

There is nothing to stop this illegal alien from total control of the American economy. Because there are no checks or balances, AKA/Obama policies, as they fail, will be compounded with more policies to rescue the failures.

Among the most disturbing fraud feature to come to light is the disregard by the AKA/Obama campaign of the most basic security protocols for identifying the actual source and amount of the contributions it received, collecting more money than any candidate has ever collected in history.

AKA/Obama is the first candidate to refuse public funding because of his ability to raise extraordinary funds from untraceable sources.

The federal campaign finance law requires campaigns to report the name, address, occupation and employer of every contributor who gives more than $200. Yet according to the Washington Post, National Journal and NewsMax, the AKA/Obama campaign took (or failed to take) steps to ensure it was not alerted to illegal donations.

Some of the acts and omissions are so cavalier, it's impossible to believe they weren't intentional. For example, the Post reported that the AKA/Obama campaign accepted prepaid credit cards that are untraceable, and National Journal reported that the campaign didn't implement a verification procedure to even match the names of contributors using regular credit cards with the names and addresses of the credit card holders.

When asked about it, the AKA/campaign said such matching wasn't "available in the credit card processing industry." That is completely untrue such verification procedures are offered by companies that service credit-card transactions, as well as by banks and telecommunications companies (and was standard procedure for other campaigns).

In contrast the AKA/Obama campaign also refused to divulge the names of the millions of small donors who contributed (many repeatedly) under $200 to the campaign (totaling $218 million), saying it was "too difficult." However, there are "few technical obstacles to sorting and identifying small-scale donors".

Of course, disclosing that information would have revealed the many instances of fictitious donor names uncovered by the press (like "Doodad Pro"), which the campaign accepted. Media reports show that AKA/Obama campaign apparently lacked even basic software protocols to catch obviously fictitious addresses (like a donor's state being listed as "NA" or "ZZ") or employer names (like DFDFGDFG), or to track small donations made repeatedly by the same individual. If the campaign had done that, it would have had to refuse the contributions, return them when they went above the maximum of $2,300 per election, or identify donors once their contributions top $200.

To avoid the problems with foreign donors that plagued one presidential campaign, the candidate prudently required Americans living abroad to first fax a copy of their passport before accepting a contribution. In contrast, the AKA/Obama campaign had no controls whatsoever to prevent illegal foreign contributions by non-citizens. An investigation by NewsMax estimated that anywhere from $13 million to $63 million may have been received by the AKA/Obama campaign from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases (a red flag for illegal contributions). The Federal Election Commission itself flagged more than 16,639 potential foreign donations to AKA/Obama's campaign long before the November 04, 2008 election. When confronted with this, the campaign started collecting passport numbers from foreign donors, a completely useless procedure since no effort was made to verify those numbers with the State Department to see if they were even valid.

AKA/Obama's campaign has claimed that Federal Election Commission regulations didn't prohibit taking prepaid credit cards or require it to verify credit cards. That may be true, but that doesn't remove the campaign's obligation to accurately report donor information and to verify that a contributor is really eligible to donate money. Given AKA/Obama's unprecedented use of the Internet to raise funds, this is impossible unless one takes such precautions at the front end. Any reasonable campaign would know that such steps were necessary to actually comply with requirements on donor information and eligibility.

Running a campaign that reportedly failed to implement any controls whatsoever to prevent money laundering problems, if accounts of AKA/Obama's campaign practices prove true, then it would seem that the decision was made to collect all of the money that came in, no matter what. Once the campaign was won, who would dare confront the usurper?

The Federal Election Commission allows elected officials to use their campaign funds to pay legal bills only if the action arises as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns. The source of all Constitutional matters calling for evidence to settle controversies arising against AKA/Obama predate the 2008 race for president of the United States even if AKA/Obama should argue the matter only came to light as a result of the campaign."

The only question is whether the guilty parties can keep up the barricade now that AKA/Obama has received his public enrichment and has ripened as a RICO lead defendant? Broadcast Satellite “DBS” license holders and their contracted station counterparts have no defense. Each organization did make their separate facilities, staff, agents and operation membership available in this obvious fraud. Together each enterprise stood side by side in rank and file united in a spiritual as well as economic union to broker and further advance their association in this international crime syndication.

§ 441f. No person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.

§ 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority (a) In general

No person who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall--

(1) fraudulently misrepresent himself or any committee or organization under his control as speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof on a matter which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof; or

(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (1).

(1) fraudulently misrepresent the person as speaking, writing, or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof for the purpose of soliciting contributions or donations; or

(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (1).

47 USC 312 - § 312. Administrative sanctions (a) Revocation of station license or construction permit The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit - (1) for false statements knowingly made either in the application or in any statement of fact which may be required pursuant to section 308 of this title; (2) because of conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or permit on an original application; (3) for willful or repeated failure to operate substantially as set forth in the license; (4) for willful or repeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this chapter ....

(3) in cases of emergency where the Commission finds, in the non-broadcast services, that it would not be feasible to secure renewal applications from existing licensees or otherwise to follow normal licensing procedure, the Commission may grant construction permits and station licenses, or modifications or renewals thereof, during the emergency so found by the Commission or during the continuance of any such national emergency or war, in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the Commission shall by regulation prescribe, and without the filing of a formal application ...

The Attorney General as is designated by statute, both Attorney General Eric Holder and Jeffrey Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, may institute an action in Quo Warranto upon their own motion in the name of the United States. In fact, as per the relevant Supreme Court of The United States case law, while the decision to bring such an action is entirely in their discretion, both appear to have an ethical duty to bring such an action at this time.

Furthermore, should either official institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own behalf, they may do so without leave of the court. If they do institute such an action, the issue must be brought to a hearing and determined on the merits. The statute grants the AG and US Attorney undeniable power and respect on this issue.

If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own motion, the same statute provides for all “third persons” (any citizen) to request, via verified petition, that either of those two officials institute an action in Quo Warranto on plaintiffs’ behalf, subject to leave of the District Court of DC.

If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to bring the action on their own motion, appellant here and now makes a motion to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals to make a finding of material fact and Grant an Order to expedite settlement of all issues in the 9th Circuit.

Appellant request further an expedited transfer of this petition and finding of material fact to the District of Columbia to further petition officials on appellants' behalf.

If the officials refuse consent to bring the action “ex relator” on behalf of such “third persons”, then the statute provides that any “interested persons” (a subset of “third persons”) may petition the court without the consent of the two officials.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (d) If on a motion under Rule 12 (b)(6) or 12 (c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

The District Court ignored Rule 12 (d) in order to avoid the requested Partial Summary Judgment and erroneously granted appellee’s motion to dismiss.

The Federal Election Commission submitted to the United States District Court’s jurisdiction and venue when appellee raised a defense by providing material to the District Court containing matter outside the pleadings.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper due to Common and Federal Law the Federal Election Commission is an independent administrative agency vested with exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Federal Election Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction includes the authority to litigate in the Court without the prior approval of the Solicitor General.

This Court’s jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; and 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) (b) (c).

Dear Friends....

Before you indulge in any sort of debate, remember the facts...Conspirators knew that they were using the goodwill and legitimacy associated with a valuable government commodity (the right to broadcast media content) to induce the furtherance of their Conspiracy. All broadcast stations licensed through FCC have the same contracted obligation including and not limited to Dish Network, Direct TV, Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner and all other legally bound broadcast stations that received money for transmitting an advertisement message.

As co-defendants in Berg v. Obama, the Federal Election Commission, and the Solicitor General before the Supreme Court of The United States further promoted the illegal alien usurper when each decided it was better for agencies of government to hide the broadcast stations legal obligations that were then and now being publicly ignored by station broadcasters to further the ongoing conspiracy. Therefore, each government agency continued to follow through in their chosen position to in fact condone the obliteration of statutory law and to further in fact vaporize the Constitution of the United States.

AKA/Obama could never under any set of heretofore known circumstances be proven to be a legally qualified candidate for the office of President of the United States because he is an Illegal Alien. Each officer and agent in his campaign chose to willingly further associate and promote their fraud with the support of network stations to effect interstate trade and international commerce. He AKA/Obama would need a mother at the time of his birth who was of legal age, he would need a father who was a U.S. citizen if he could some how overcome each of those factual issues in the mind of 12 jurist he would need a different set of adult travel records.

This is not a complicated case. Appellant was injured in his business and property. And, there are no facts to support any other conclusion. The District Court did not want to hear this case. It is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve a procedural mistake that points to an error in judicial judgment.

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.

(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.

(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.

§ 1962. Prohibited activities

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

18 U.S.C. § 1964. Civil remedies

§ 1962. Prohibited activities