Louis B. Antonacci v. Rahm Emanuel, et al.

Whether Petitioner Antonacci has properly alleged, in federal court cases spanning ten years, that Respondents Perkins Coie LLP and their former General Counsel, Matthew J. Gehringer, are the architects and administrators of a criminal RICO enterprise that has engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity against Antonacci, a private U.S. citizen, in retaliation for his protected speech against Respondents Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rahm Emanuel and corrupt Democratic politics, including cyberespionage performed without a warrant or with fraudulently obtained warrants. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Fourth Circuit therefore erred in affirming that ruling. Whether Antonacci states claims under 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) in the instant complaint. Whether Antonacci states a claim under 18 U.S.C. §1030 in the instant complaint. Whether the district court erred in failing to enter default against respondent BEAN LLC d/b/a Fusion GPS. Whether Antonacci stated claims under 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) in his 2015 complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, and this Court should therefore overrule Antonacci v. City of Chicago, 2015 WL 13039605 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2015) and Antonacci v. City of Chicago, 640 F. App’x 553 (7th Cir. 2016). Whether Antonacci is being denied due process of law, in retaliation for his protected speech, by the prejudicial, unfounded and plainly-biased rulings of District Judge Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Vaala, when viewed in conjunction with the acts of the Fourth Circuit Clerk’s and the Fourth Circuit Court’s failure to timely rule on