FBI Jurisdiction for RICO: Application to CPS

I am looking up FBI jurisdiction and in the 18 USC Sec. 1956, it specifically provides for investigation and charges against CPS within the jurisdiction of the FBI.

I was wondering about "financial transaction" and even though CPS is paid for taking children away (or kidnapping them even), the proof has to come from an interstate basis, or in otherwords, from one state to the next.

Which is when this man's words came to my mind: "CPS gets a check from the East Coast."

Not only may there have been "private" incentives to effect the crime against my son, I realized, there is an interstate financial transaction because CPS receives money from D.C. (federal government) as bonuses, incentives, and for paying for the removal of a child.

If that removal was done illegally, and involves this same interstate transaction--they're basically screwed.

Not only that, I looked up jurisdiction for different things and the FBI DOES have jurisdiction for this. If WA FBI was involved, there would be a conflict of interest and an incentive for them to cover it up as well. But another agency might be, and is required to be, impartial and to zealously defend the law, even if it means going against fellow employees of the same organization.

It would at least be the responsibility of another state FBI office, to investigate. If the FBI for WA is involved, this would then possibly mean bringing in an outside agency as well. Yet I don't know. FBI can arrest other FBI employees. There are plenty of cases where an FBI agent is caught as a "spy" or doing something illegal and just because he/she is FBI doesn't mean other FBI squads don't pursue. If this matter involves more than one FBI agent, this would be a starting base for explaining why I had such a hard time in that state.

The fact remains, the FBI has full authority to investigate this matter involving my son being illegally kidnapped and my being put into a straw man position where they built another figure, basically, to attack, because there was nothing wrong with the real person. They had to construct a whole new character and identity in order to pass off their criminal work.

Which is exactly why this was such a mess and why it was so tightly confined and restricted to the eyes of only trusted classmates (known since grade school practically) who worked for CPS. The visitation monitors had to lie about me in order to create this new persona which would justify their removal of my son. They actively built their straw man. And then they went so far as to perjure themselves under oath and have me arrested for crimes I never committed.

I wrote about pulling out the weed by it's root to describe how offering me services isn't the route to take. But I think what I was trying to explain is the concept of straw man, where they committed an original crime and then deliberately constructed a straw man to attack because my own identity and person was secure and out of their reach. They couldn't attack me as I was, or justify their actions. They had to create an entirely new reality.

They used clever State AG attorneys to help them do this. The head of the AG lawyers in WA then complained that the State employees and "person" should be "immune" from lawsuits. Right after I posted my discovery about premeditated kidnapping and lack of jurisdiction by the AGs in taking my son.

They didn't "remedy" their mistakes by trying to bring out the worst in me or making new discoveries. The fact remains, crime is crime, and they are guilty of collusion to commit crime. They knew they had no juridisdiction so they made up excuses.

They were paid for what they did:
..."(anyone who) conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial
transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified
unlawful activity -
(A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified
unlawful activity;

They used federal money and accepted checks for the purpose of carrying on unlawful activity. They tried to make it appear legitimate, just like any con man or mobster or mafia don uses a restaurant as a cover for money laundering. They used their positions and CPS as a front for unlawful activity. Any business can be used as a front for unlawful activity, as a cover to make things appear legitimate, legal, and sound. CPS is a business just as a restaurant is a business and what is more aggregious is they used the name of the State of Washington and the United States of America for their cover.

Which is basically like taking the Lord's name in vain, to use positions intended for legality, as fronts for illegal and personal affairs and vendettas. It also makes the crime not just using a business as a front, but it is public corruption, which is also the jurisdiction of the FBI.

1. Interstate financial transaction for illegal purposes =
possible money laundering

It is also the jurisdiction of the FBI to investigate any Canadians involved. Since there were likely other FBI from WA in the middle, the FBI would have to be from another area, such as where I live now, or the general region.

They can be held liable not only for taking checks from the East Coast to fund their ventures, but also liable for paying any foster parent with a check, knowing there was no right or need for foster parents to begin with.