Greg Steven Elofson v. Stephanie Bivens, et al.

The DC Circuit summarized the confusion over RICO’s venue and process section, 18 U.S.C. § 1965, by writing “There are differing views among our own district judges as well as in our. sister circuits regarding the proper interpretation of this language.” Fc Investment Group Lc v. IFX Markets, Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the question presented is:

1. Does the RICO venue and process statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1965, provide for nationwide service of process under § 1965(d), consistent with the Clayton Act and this Court’s construction of the ‘ends of justice” language in Standard Oil Co., or under § 1965(b), as four circuits have held by opting for judicial economy? The ongoing failure to engage in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease will cost the U.S. government up to $7 trillion. But, the probate courts will order an individual into plenary guardianship based on a mere confirmatory diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Given that plenary guardianship is not narrowly tailored, and that the abusive treatment by professional guardians is widely known, the disincentives against early testing of Alzheimer’s disease are formidable, and the consequential societal costs promise to be catastrophic. In this light, the question presented is:

2. Whether plenary guardianship executed by reason of a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is unconstitutional as applied.