First, there can no longer be any question that this Court lacks jurisdiction. No court has jurisdiction unless the plaintiff has standing, the courts and RICO imposes rigorous standing limits. The District Attorney and DCSS alleged “representing” the family, their creation and use of the presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery in the proceedings, the substantive merit of their paid testifying witness for admitted fraudulent evidence and testimony on that subject, the judgment as the illegitimate product of an partial court, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict is yet another admission of willful fraud and bribery and lack of standing. Intent on depriving the family of their constitutional right to a fair trial- and apparently lacking confidence in its own actions and evidence- dropped all of its claims of representation of the family upon the filing of appeal of trial. The California State Attorney General substituted in for The People of the State of California and the family. That also was a conflict as the family had filed a complaint with the U. S. Department of Justice that was referred to and filed with the California State Attorney General regarding these and other activities of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, DCSS, the Oakland City Attorney, other governmental and political officials, attorneys and their contractors, agents and employees. Though the conflict is clear, the investigation has not yet been done nor enforced, so its injury is still pending, not concrete nor non-speculative, and the evidence has gone uncontested.