Really?

Emanuel McCray emanuel.mccray@gmail.com Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:20 AM
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_ezasabc_archive.html.

SUBJ: San Diego Judge Denies Temporary Restraining Order (TRO); Dismisses Complaint for Constitutional and Statutory Declaratory Relief WITH PREJUDICE. Glaring Errors Observed.

Hi Everybody:

1. The following information is brought to you as a courtesy and without any obligation in law or otherwise so that you may make your own informed decision about the denial and the dismissal.

2. The Judgment and other important papers produced by the judge is attached to this email or may be downloaded on line at:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/menus/uspci.html; and will be available
on my blog shortly here: http://ezasabc.blogspot.com.

3. The pivotal law is set forth in a separate email.

4. The believed errors in the speedy dismissal are glaring, we believe. Most important is the impact the dismissal had on the constitutional rights of all defendants to appear in the matter or suffer a default from failing to appear as summoned.

5. The Complaint sought a clarification of the Demand and Rendition Power given exclusively to the Executive in 1787; and to settle the law and make clear to all that if an arrest for purposes of extradition is ordered and made without instructions from at least two Governors, EVERY individual involved would suffer direct personal liability that cannot be passed to State and Taxpayers.

6. Note that Title 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983 applies to every American, whether in jail or out, and prefers a declaration against a judge before suing the judge in and out of the judge's office.

7. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes "long arm" jurisdiction over defendant Hageman and his cabal, which includes the States based on Hageman's email into San Diego.

8. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and injunction without the person seeking monetary damages in the same action.

9. The dismissal admits injury but says no claim for relief is stated; making the statement appear contrary to judicial grammar and writings.

10. The dismissal also sidesteps a declaration of civil rights under Constitution of the U.S. while appearing to make a declaration??

11. Here are some other concerns:

(A) The very first docket entry shows the full filing fee of $350.00 was paid. Yet the judge uses a statute to support dismissal in "in forma pauperis" (poor person; indigent) cases.

(B) Title 31 U.S.C.A. section 3730(b)(1), the lead statute, states as follows:

Quote:
(b) Actions by Private Persons. - (1) A person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government. The action shall be brought in the name of the Government. The action may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting.
End Quote.

The docket reveals no such correspondence or contact.

12. Note that all papers generated by the court, including the Judgment, fails to name the United States of America as the real party in interest; effectively raising the issue whether the matter was dismissed against the People of the U.S. or is kept live for summary or default judgment purposes.

13. The court placed the following words in its Judgment:
"Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the complaint and finds it totally devoid of points of fact or law such that plaintiff has clearly failed to state a claim."

(A-13) First note that the caption of the Complaint contained the
following constitutional provisions and statutes: Article 4, Section
2, Clause 1; Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2; Article 6, Clause 2;
Article 6, Clause 3; Amendment First; Amendment Fourth; Amendment
Fifth; Amendment Sixth; Amendment Fourteenth; 31 U.S.C.A. § 3729 et
seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

(B-13) Now read the entire complaint, paying particular attention to
paragraphs 47 through 73.

(C-13) Ask yourself: REALLY? Did the People of the U.S. fail to state
a claim as an erroneous "poor person" for which no relief whatsoever
could be given?

14. I am not sure, but it appears clear to me that perhaps the court
needed the aid of all parties; and it is also clear that there might
be a small, teenie-weenie, itsy-bitsy problem with the Judgment
rendered on August 8, 2006.

15. As you sift through the words used to render the Judgment, as a
courtesy you should keep the following bits of information in mind:

(A-15) A defendant who thinks no answer is required should bring his
claim to the trial judge's attention. This well-established practice
in the profession is "judicially noticed." A defendant who guesses
wrong becomes the victim of a good default judgment. Bristol
Convalescent Hosp. v. Stone 258 Cal.App.2d 848, 859 (1968).

(B-15) Once a default has been properly applied for, the defendant
against whom it was requested is "out of court." Christerson v.
French, 180 Cal. 523, 525 (1919); Devlin v. Kearney Mesa
AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc., 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-387 (1984); Forbes v.
Cameron Petroleums, Inc., 83 Cal.App.3d 257, 262-263 (1978); People v. One 1986 Toyota Pickup, 31 Cal.App.4th 254, 259-260 (1995).

(C-15) When a defendant defaults, the court "presumes, in essence,
that defendant's conduct is "'but an admission of the want of merit in the asserted defense.'" In Re Daily, 47 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1995).

(D-15) Mr. JUSTICE SCALIA, writing for the Court in St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 521-522 (1993), noted that:
"The books are full of procedural rules that place the perjurer... in
a better position than the truthful litigant who makes no response at
all. A defendant who fails to answer a complaint will, on motion,
suffer a default judgment that a deceitful response could have
avoided. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 55(a)."

(E-15) It has been squarely held by this circuit and every circuit
that has addressed the question that: The consent provision of the
False Claims Act (Title 31 U.S.C.A. 3730 et seq.) applies during the
first 60 days. U.S. ex rel Killingsworth v. Northrop Corp., 25 F.3d
715, 722-723 (9th Cir. 1994); Minotti v. Lensink, 895 F.2d 100, 104
(2nd Cir. 1990)[the consent provision ensures that legitimate claims
are not dismissed before the United States has had an opportunity to
proceed.].

(F-15) Lead plaintiff's standing as Relator and for Himself:
"Ordinarily, a Plaintiff must establish three elements to have
standing. First, the Plaintiffs must point to a concrete injury which
the Plaintiff personally has suffered, or with which it is imminently
threatened (an injury in fact")" "Second, the plaintiff must show that the alleged injury is 'fairly traceable' to the defendant's action." "Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a favorable decision is likely to redress that injury." "When a plaintiff challenges an agency action under the APA, it must also show that the interests it seeks to protect are 'arguably within the zone of interests to be protected' by the statute in question." (citations omitted). Yesler Terrace Community v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 449 (9thCir. 1994).

The "sovereign" and real party in interest in the dismissed action was the United States of America as set forth under Title 31 (False Claims Act (FCA). The Supreme Court has held that: "The FCA can reasonably be regarded as effecting a partial assignment of the Government's damages claim [to the relator]." Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773 (2000).

Lead plaintiff and Relator would also have a separate and independent source of standing to bring suit on behalf of the United States of America pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 3729-3733. Seal 1; Seal 2, v. Seal A, No. 98-56447 (9thCir. July 5, 2001). See also Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States exrel. Stevens, supra, 529 U.S. 765 (2000); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation, 150 F.3d 1011 (9thCir. 1998).

14. The U.S. District Court Docket as of August 8, 2006 7:32 pm, Web
PACER (v2.4), showed the following contents:

U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 06-CV-1537
McCray, et al v. Hageman, et al
Filed: 07/31/06
Assigned to: Judge Irma E Gonzalez
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr.
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 440
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: US Plaintiff
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

EMANUEL MCCRAY Emanuel McCray
plaintiff [COR LD NTC] [PRO SE]
1736 State Street
San Diego, CA 92101-2513
(619) 696-9838
FTS -
LYNN ANN HUST
plaintiff

v.

A JOSE HAGEMAN, City Council Member, Larmie, Wyoming
defendant
CITY COUNCIL, Laramie, Wyoming
defendant
ALBANY COUNTY COURT, Laramie, Wyoming
defendant
CLARK COUNTY COURT, Vancouver, Washington
defendant
STATE OF OREGON
defendant
STATE OF WASHINGTON
defendant
STATE OF WYOMING
defendant
-------------------------
DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY

7/31/06 1 Complaint Filed; (referred to Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.); Demand for jury trial; Receipt No/Amt of Fee: #127639/$350.00 (kaj) [Entry date 08/03/06]

8/3/06 2 Ex Parte Application by plaintiff Emanuel McCray for a temporary restraining order (r1r) [Entry date 08/04/06]

8/8/06 3 Order by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez denying Pla's application for TRO [2-1]; Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2), Court dismisses w/ prejudice this action (jah) [Entry date 08/08/06]


8/8/06 4 Clerks Judgment: Court denies Pla's application for TRO [2-1]' Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2), the case is dismissed w/ prejudice terminating case (jah) [Entry date 08/08/06]

Case Flags: TERMED

END OF DOCKET: 3:06cv1537

16. The exhibits to the lawsuits are compelling. Because the lead
plaintiff missed filing the exhibits by one hour before the court
closed its doors, these exhibits are not listed on the docket, but the defendants have them. Contact Joe and the other defendants and get yourself a copy. The exhibits are described and listed as follows:

The United States, by and through its Relator and Lead plaintiff,
Emanuel McCray, offers the following list of items expected to be
presented as Exhibits in this action.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBIT 1. Photocopy: Unsigned Washington State "Warrant and 60 Day Commitment Pursuant to RC 10.88.360, pages 1-2

EXHIBIT 2. Internet page 1, "Criminal Docket" for July 31, 2006 in Clark County, page 3

EXHIBIT 3. Plaintiff "Hust's Statement of the criminal case made to Federal and State Officials", pages 4-7

EXHIBIT 4. Photocopy of email Godaddy.com used to support its claim the email was "spam" sent by plaintiff Hust, when in fact the message was sent by lead plaintiff McCray, pages 8-16

EXHIBIT 5. Photocopy of "Criminal Information" dated December 19, 2005, filed by unnamed defendant Richard C. Bohling in the Albany
County Court, Wyoming, pages 17-18

EXHIBIT 6. Photocopy of the "Affidavit of Probable Cause" dated
September 26, 2005, and filed by Gwen K. Smith of the Laramie Police
Department with Prosecutor Richard C. Bohling, pages 19-20

EXHIBIT 7. Photocopy of Letter from the Law Offices of Prehoda,
Leonard and Janack, LLC dated January 4, 2005 disposing of the check
in Count One as an "overpayment"; remove padlocks and return Hust's
furniture. pages 21-22

EXHIBIT 8. Photocopy of Letter from the Law Offices of Prehoda,
Leonard and Janack, LLC dated January 17, 2005 informing plaintiff
Hust that if Grant Kupko, holder of the check in Count One, decides to litigate matter further, Hust would be referred to attorneys who
practice "civil litigation", page 23

EXHIBIT 9. Photocopy of letter from Laramie Plains Community Federal Credit Union dated May 16, 2005 and addressed to plaintiff Hust taking responsibility for closing plaintiff Hust's checking account on May 16, 2006 and responsibility for making the checks in Counts Two and Three bounce, page 24

EXHIBIT 10. Photocopy of letter from Laramie Plains Community Federal Credit Union dated May 20, 2005, provided to Jeremy Francom and addressed "To Whom It May Concern" taking responsibility for (1)
closing plaintiff Hust's checking on May 16, 2006; (2) making the
checks in Counts Two and Three bounce; and (3) confirming the date of
presentation of the check in Count Three as May 20, 2005, four days
after the bank closed the account, page 25

EXHIBIT 11. Photocopy of prisoner "Release Agreement" Clark County Court dated 5/2/06, page 26

EXHIBIT 12. Photocopy of "Defendant's Promise to Appear and Notice of Appearance by Attorney", dated May 2, 2006, and filed with Clark County Court, page 27

EXHIBIT 13. Photocopy of Clark County Court's charging papers filed on May 2, 2006 in the District Court of The State of Washington, Vancouver, page 28

EXHIBIT 14. Photocopy of "Table of Jurisdictions Wherein [Uniform Criminal Extradition] Act Has Been Adopted", pages 29-30

EXHIBIT 15. Photocopy of Letter from U.S. Attorney, Western District of Washington dated June 15, 2006, and signed by Jeffrey C. Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, acknowledging receipt of "materials" alleging unconstitutional arrest of plaintiff Hust, page 31

EXHIBIT 16. Photocopy of Letter from Office of the Governor of The State of Washington dated June 19, 2006 acknowledging attempt by
plaintiff Hust to arrange meeting with Washington Governor Christine
O. Gregoire and inability of Governor to meet with plaintiff Hust,
page 32

EXHIBIT 17: Photocopy of Letter from Office of the Attorney General, State of Wyoming, signed by Elizabeth C. Gagen, Chief Deputy Attorney, on behalf of Wyoming Attorney General Patrick J. Crank", acknowledging receipt of Ms. Hust's "communications of June 13, 2006, June 16, 2006, June 19, 2006, June 20, 2006, and June 23, 2006", page 33

EXHIBIT 18: Photocopy of Letter from Office of the Attorney General, State of Washington, dated June 28, 2006 acknowledging receipt of information regarding alleged false arrest, page 34

EXHIBIT 19: Photocopy of Denver Post news article dated January 17, 1999 from "ProQuest" disclosing the name of the victim killed by
defendant Hageman's client, interstate drug dealer Dale E. Harper,
page 35

Because the complaint was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, it does not appear any of us can get the Judgment open to correct some of these alleged errors, including the judge.

Shall we keep in touch?

Semper Fidelis


Emanuel McCray
Still U.S. Relator and Lead Plaintiff

Got Celebrity Sheriffs?

Emanuel McCray
1736 State Street
San Diego, California 92101-2513
(619) 696-9838
ezasabc@justice.com
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com

August 8, 2006

To:
(1) Laura M. Laughlin, FBI Seattle, Special Agent in Charge;
Steven R. Fiddler, Assistant Special Agent in Charge
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation
1110 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-2904, (206) 622-0460; fbise@leo.gov.

(2) U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation
San Diego Division; 9797 Aero Dr. San Diego, California 92123, Phone (858)-565-1255; Fax (858)-499-7991

RE: Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order: U.S.A. ex rel Emanuel McCray v. A. Joe Hageman, et al., 06CV1537IEG filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 31, 2006 (Attached)

1. The attached documents are provided alleging criminal activities of Defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal confederation that have passed through at least six States—Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming and the World Wide Web (WWW) to attack the peace and dignity of indispensable plaintiffs Lynn Ann Hust and the People of the United States of America.

In Arizona:
plaintiff Hust’s Internet hosting company, Godaddy.com, was ordered to block her email to prevent her from getting her story out.

In Wyoming:
Lee Enterprises’ Casper Star-Tribune and other papers were told not to say a word because it required the media to tell her side of the story; a credit union was ordered to close her account for purposes of bouncing checks to support felony check fraud charges; the Laramie City Council removed a blogger from its community message board because the blogger was discussing Ms. Hust’s case.

In Colorado:
defendant Hageman found a check that was dead for five months for use in creating the first count of the criminal complaint.

In Washington and Oregon:
plaintiff Hust was arrested on what appears to be a phone call from Wyoming and has since been led to believe that a Governor’s warrant will be procured to back up false check charges should she refuse to come back to Wyoming and be murdered.

Posted on the criminal court docket for July 31, 2006, was what appeared to be an entry suggesting an arrest warrant from the Governor of Oregon was on file in Washington.

In San Diego:
Defendant Hageman sent an email to lead plaintiff in San Diego attempting to convince lead plaintiff that defendant Hageman could make the false check charges he created stick to plaintiff Hust.

On July 31, 2006, Washington State Superior Court Judge John Nichols threatened to allow the lead prosecutor to procure a warrant for this lead plaintiff’s arrest in San Diego in an effort to silence his voice regarding the alleged criminal wrongdoing Judge Nichols has made himself a party to.

Also on July 31, 2006, Judge John Nichols threatened to continue his pursuit of plaintiff Hust and deliver her to Wyoming, regardless if no warrant has been issued by a Governor for her arrest. Judge Nichols is therefore a nuisance and menace to the society and the lives of every American.

Not only is Ms. Hust a hostage to this cabal, but every American is an unconstitutional hostage, particularly Ms. Hust’s family, who has been threatened by Judge Nichols with arrest for harboring a fugitive.

2. The alleged wrongdoing of the named defendants rips through the fabric of numerous relations between families and their friends. For example, the mother of Ms. Hust’s Washington daughter-in-law performed vocals for the following recording artists:

Roy Orbison, Barry Manilow, Bob Seger, Van Morrison, Michael Martin Murphey, Steve Goodman, Joey Scarbury, Herb Pedersen, Jim Ringer, The Dillards, Dillard-Hartford-Dillard, Rodney Dillard, Glen Yarbrough and Blakey St. John of Santa Monica, California.

3. Of the named groups and individuals, Rodney Dillard’s album, “Will the Circle Be Unbroken, Vol III”, was nominated as “album of the year” during the 2003 IBMA Nominations. Rodney is still on tour.

4. Rodney Dillard’s son is a sheriff in Seattle, Washington; while Ms. Hust’s brother has been employed by the Clark County sheriff’s department for at least 20 years.

5. Rodney Dillard’s former wife, who is the mother of the Seattle sheriff, is also the mother of Ms. Hust’s daughter-in-law, Sara. Rodney Dillard’s former wife is also acquainted with the mother of Mike Diehl, the former partner of San Diego’s Cloud 9 Shuttle. The current CEO of Cloud 9 Shuttle is Mr. John Hawkins. This lead plaintiff currently provides limousine services for Cloud 9 Shuttle and Mr. Hawkins.

See also: California’s Public Utility Commission’s Transportation Carrier Information for Emanuel McCray and Cloud 9 Shuttle at the following URL:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/tmis/det_PSG0017196.htm

6. When Sara was in the 3rd grade, this lead plaintiff became her pen pal and father incognito—not out of intimate relations with Rodney Dillard’s former wife—but rather after Sara’s father deserted the family when Sara was three years old.

7. This lead plaintiff promised Sara that he would be there for her if she needed him. Sara is now 24 years old and married to Ms. Hust’s son, who developed a very bad rash after hearing that his mother, Ms. Hust, had been wrongfully arrested and without a valid warrant of any kind. In fact, the whole throat of Ms. Hust’s son, Jeremiah, broke out in lesions.

8. The alleged criminal cabal threatens to break this circle of friends and relations through the alleged illegal use and abuse of executive, judicial and legislative power, coupled with threats by a Judge to arrest all who attempt to thwart the judge’s alleged illegal acquisition of jurisdiction over the person and life of Ms. Hust.

9. This alleged criminal cabal operates clan-like in nature; implicating the following legal doctrines and Federal statutes:

abuse of process; malicious prosecution; conspiracy; Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 3, 4, 201, 241, 242, 371, 1001, 1028, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1951(b), 1952, 1961, 1962, 1964 and 2701 et seq. and Title 42 U.S.C.A. section 1981 et seq. The attached documents tell the rest.

10. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has both constitutional (Oath or Affirmation; Supremacy) and statutory jurisdiction to investigate.

Semper Fidelis,



Emanuel McCray
U.S. Relator & Lead Plaintiff

Cc: (1) San Diego Reader; (2) San Diego Magazine; (3) Clerk, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; (4) John Hawkins, CEO, Cloud 9 Shuttle



Emanuel McCray
1736 State Street
San Diego, California 92101-2513
(619) 696-9838
ezasabc@justice.com
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com

August 8, 2006

District Court Case #06CV1537IEG filed July 31, 2006

To: Clerk, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California

Subj: Civil Complaint Forwarded to FBI Criminal Division

RE: Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order: U.S.A. ex rel Emanuel McCray v. A. Joe Hageman, et al., 06CV1537IEG filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 31, 2006

Please take notice and inform the judge assigned to the referenced case that the subject documents on file in your court has been forwarded to the FBI for investigation as appropriate. The letter is attached.


Semper Fidelis,



Emanuel McCray
U.S. Relator & Lead Plaintiff

Attachment: (1) Letter to FBI office in Seattle and San Diego, dated August 8, 2006.

Waiving Precious Constitutional Rights? (Part 2)

Emanuel McCray
1736 State Street
San Diego, Ca 92010-2513
(619) 696-9838
ezasabc@justice.com
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com/

August 1, 2006

To: Members, Oregon State Legislature

RE: United States of America ex rel Emanuel McCray v. A. Joe Hageman, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern California, San Diego, Case #: 06CV1537IEG, filed July 31, 2006 at 09:16a.m.

Subj: State of Oregon Allegedly Joins Defendant Hageman’s Alleged Kidnap and Attempted Murder of Washington Resident Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust

Dear Honorable Members:

The State of Washington claims that your State has issued a Governor’s Warrant demanding that Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust, a resident of the State of Washington, be extradited to your State to face criminal charges.

An Oregon informant has indicated that no records could be found tending to indicate that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has issued a warrant for Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust, and in so doing, has joined a plot that is alleged to have kidnapped Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust for possible murder.

The Washington Superior Court Judge who presided over this alleged unconstitutional and illegal criminal matter on July 31, 2006 is identified as follows:

Judge John F. Nichols
360-397-2260
Washington State Clark County Superior Court
john.nichols@clark.wa.gov
1200 Franklin St, PO Box 5000, Vancouver, WA 98666-5000
Phone: 360-397-2150, Fax: 360-397-6078
http://www.clark.wa.gov/courts/superior; http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_dir/orgs/266.html

As the attached complaint demonstrates, Ms. Hust was arrested without a warrant in an alleged attempt to kidnap her for purposes of murder directed by defendant A. Joe Hageman and divers others.

The complaint also demonstrates that defendant A. Joe Hageman has publicly taken responsibility for this alleged kidnap and attempted murder plot gone wrong.

I am able to determine that if this is true, your State has just become a member of an alleged criminal conspiracy that involves the kidnap and attempted murder of Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust.

Because the State of Washington lists your State as a participant in this crime, the FBI will be asked to include your State in its nationwide criminal probe of Defendant A. Joe Hageman.

You must also understand that it is a fact that Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust, a resident of Washington, was arrested without a warrant of any kind under orders from defendant Hageman originating in the State of Wyoming.

The hearing was an attempt to acquire jurisdiction which the State of Washington currently lacks. Ms. Hust did not participate in this alleged criminal hearing, since to do so would constitute a waiver of her constitutional right to be arrested by the Governors of Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.

Ms. Hust’s failure to appear tended to piss off Judge Nichols and the presiding Prosecutor, who together, had no legal business conducting a hearing in support of defendant Hageman’s alleged kidnapping and attempted murder plot.

This hearing is troubling for the simple fact that it is safe to conclude that every worker in the Clark County Court knows Ms. Hust is INNOCENT of the charges defendant Hageman caused to be brought against Ms. Hust.

Stated differently, Judge Nichols and divers others in the Clark County Court system are working overtime to satisfy the demand of Wyoming City Council Member A. Joe Hageman to arrest and extradite Ms. Hust so that defendant Hageman can arrange her murder. And this assistance is being given without the aid of Washington Governor Gregoire, in violation of the Federal Constitution. The State of Oregon is now a member of this alleged attempted murder conspiracy.

During the hearing, Judge Nichols allowed the Prosecutor to go into a massive tirade that included a highly unprofessional brow beating of Ms. Hust’s 23-year old son who attended the hearing. The Prosecutor’s tirade approached what appears to be actionable terroristic assault.

Judge Nichols then allowed the Prosecutor to threaten to arrest Ms. Hust’s son for harboring a fugitive, Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust. Judge Nichols also concurred with the Prosecutor’s verbal application for an arrest warrant for this lead plaintiff here in San Diego for submitting papers in Judge Nichol’s alleged illegal and unconstitutional criminal court.

This lead Plaintiff has NEVER, EVER submitted papers to be filed in Judge Nichols’ alleged unconstitutional criminal court. The Prosecutor’s request, and Judge Nichol’s concurrence is taken by this lead Plaintiff, Relator for the United States, to be the infant stages of an alleged criminal conspiracy by and between Judge Nichols and the Prosecutor, in direct support of defendant Hageman’s alleged kidnap and attempted murder of Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust. These threats and antics are unbecoming public officials.

An alleged criminal conspiracy by and between public officials Judge Nichols and the Prosecutor remains unlawful under the Criminal Codes of every State in the United States of America.

Because of the threat made by the Prosecutor and approved by Judge Nichols, and the threat by Judge Nichols and the Prosecutor to get other warrants of arrest for members of Ms. Hust’s family and relatives, for current and future purposes, these threats are taken to constitute a nuisance and menance to society.

Any warrant flowing from Ms Hust’s alleged illegal and unconstitutional arrest and Ms. Hust failure to participate in the July 31, 2006 unconstitutional proceedings would be actionable as an abuse of judicial power, absolutely and completely unconstitutional and tending to implicate the following legal doctrines and Federal statutes: abuse of process; malicious prosecution; conspiracy; Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 3, 4, 201, 241, 242, 371, 1001, 1028, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1951(b), 1952, 1961, 1962, 1964 and 2701 et seq. and Title 42 U.S.C.A. section 1981 et seq.

Oregon must take immediate action to abandon the ships of Washington Superior Court Judge Nichols and defendant Hageman. The following are additional contacts:

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Laura M. Laughlin, FBI Seattle, Special Agent in Charge
Steven R. Fiddler, Assistant Special Agent in Charge
1110 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-2904, (206) 622-0460; fbise@leo.gov.

The San Diego Division is located at: 9797 Aero Dr. San Diego, California 92123
Phone (858)-565-1255; Fax (858)-499-7991

United States Attorney, Seattle, Washington:
John McKay, United States Attorney
Jeffrey C. Sullivan, Assistance U.S. Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division
Tel: (206) 553-7970; Fax: (206) 553-0755, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220; Seattle, WA 98101-1271
www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw

Defendant A. Joe Hageman, Ward 5, Work Phone: (307) 742-7609, JHageman@ci.laramie.wy.us, ajoehageman@wyoming.com; http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=28&submit=Go

Defendant Laramie City Council: http://www.ci.laramie.wy.us/cityhall/council/contact.html;
council@ci.laramie.wy.us, http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=28&submit=Go

Unnamed Defendant Laramie Police Department, bdeutsch@ci.laramie.wy.us, http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=28&submit=Go

Unnamed Defendant Albany “County & Prosecuting Attorney”:
Richard C. Bohling, County Courthouse, Room 100, Laramie, WY 82070; Phone (307) 721-2552 Fax (307) 721-2544, rbohling@co.albany.wy.us, http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=28&submit=Go

Defendant Albany County, Wyoming Judicial Court:
Judge Robert A. Castor, Second Judicial Circuit Court, County of Albany (Laramie), 525 Grand, Room 400, Laramie, WY 82070; Phone (307) 742-5747; Fax (307) 742-5610; E-mail: rac@courts.state.wy.us; Jennifer Beeston, Chief Clerk; ttp://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=28&submit=Go

The State of Washington, Clark County District Court Administrator:
Rafaela Selga. Darvin Zimmerman, Presiding Judge. 1200 Franklin Street, Vancouver, WA 98660, Main phone: (360) 397-2424, E-mail: distct@clark.wa.gov.

The State of Washington, Clark County Clerk:
George Miller. JoAnne McBride, County Clerk, is the responsible elected official.
1200 Franklin Street, Vancouver, WA 98660; Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5000, Vancouver, WA 98666-5000; Main phone: (360) 397-2292; Criminal: (360) 397-2295; FAX: (360) 397-6099; TTY: (360) 397-6172; E-mail: countyclerk@clark.wa.gov

You may also post comments on Laramie City Council’s message board and chat room: http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=28&submit=Go

You may also post comments at my blogspot at: http://ezasabc.blogspot.com/

Semper Fidelis,

Emanuel McCray
Relator, USA & Lead Plaintiff
Attachment: (1) Letter to Judge Nichols dated August 1, 2006
Emanuel McCray
1736 State Street
San Diego, Ca 92010-2513
(619) 696-9838
ezasabc@justice.com
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com/

August 1, 2006

To: Honorable Judge John F. Nichols, Washington State Clark County Superior Court

RE: United States of America ex rel Emanuel McCray v. A. Joe Hageman, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern California, San Diego, Case #: 06CV1537IEG, filed July 31, 2006 at 09:16a.m.

Subj: State of Oregon Allegedly Joins Defendant Hageman’s Alleged Kidnap and Attempted Murder of Washington Resident Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust

Dear Judge Nichols:

Your attention is directed to the attached letter adressed to the Legislature of Oregon.

Judge Nichols, you KNOW that:
Ms. Hust was illegally arrested without the permission of Governor Gregoire.
The charges filed by Wyoming are FALSE and FABRICATED.
The court that you convened to arraign Ms. Hust was unconstitutional.
All warrants of arrest for Ms. Hust are illegal and unconstitutional.
A Judge controls the disposition of every paper presented to his or her court.
I have NEVER, EVER submitted any papers to be filed in your court.

Because of your knowledge of the TRUTH, I shall view any warrant issued out of your court or any court you might use in the State of Washington or elsewhere as an aggravation of the alleged unconstitutional arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust in support of the alleged kidnapping and attempted murder of Ms. Lynn Ann Hust by defendant A. Joe Hageman.

Because I believe that you will go forward, ILLEGALLY, and get the warrants you feel are necessary to vindicate personal injury to your manhood, I shall hereafter view such warrants as ILLEGAL and an attempt to kidnap me for purposes of committing the crime of MURDER.

Should you come knocking, know that I will be protecting myself against a possible kidnapping. I will also be obtaining the LEGAL measures necessary to restrain you and divers others.

Judge Nichols,
I TAKE SERIOUSLY YOUR THREAT ON JULY 31, 2006 TO KIDNAP AND KILL ME.

Yours truly,

Emanuel McCray
Relator, USA & Lead Plaintiff

Attachment: (1) Letter to Oregon Legislature dated August 1, 2006

Waiving Precious Constitutional Rights?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

At least since the last time I checked, which was the last time I checked...

A Lawyer Does Not Assist A Client In Waiving Precious Constitutional Rights.

Emanuel McCray
1736 State Street
San Diego, California 92101-2513
ezasabc@justice.com
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com
Relator, Plaintiff, Pro Se

(1) United States of America ex rel Emanuel McCray;

(2) Emanuel McCray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;

(3) Lynn Ann Hust (indispensable)

Plaintiffs,

vs.

(1) A. Joe Hageman, City Council Member, Larmie, Wyoming;

(2) City Council, Laramie, Wyoming;

(3) Albany County Court; Laramie, Wyoming;

(4) Clark County Court; Vancouver, Washington;

(5) The State of Oregon;

(6) The State of Washington; and

(7) The State of Wyoming,

Defendants.

Case No. 06CV1537IEG WMc

Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

1. As more fully set forth herein, the court ought understand and take judicial notice that a clear and present threat to the lives of lead plaintiff, plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust and every American citizen exists as a result of the operation of defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal confederation.

2. The most recent member of this alleged criminal cabal is Washington State Superior Court Judge John F. Nichols, effective on July 31, 2006, at approximately 9:15a.m.

3. Having filed a complaint in this matter seeking declaratory and constitutional injunctive relief, The United States of America, by and through its Relator Emanuel McCray, joins with Emanuel McCray and indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust, and move for a Temporary Restraining Order, ex parte, in lieu of a more permanent Order, restraining and enjoining in particular the following defendants:

(1) A. Joe Hageman, City Council Member, Laramie, Wyoming;

(2) City Council, Laramie, Wyoming;

(3) Albany County Court; Laramie, Wyoming;

(4) Clark County Court; Vancouver, Washington;

(5) The State of Oregon;

(6) The State of Washington; and

(7) The State of Wyoming, and

Washington Superior Court Judge John Nichols, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who shall receive actual notice of this Order, by personal service or otherwise, from making an arrest of any person or assisting others in arresting any person, directly, indirectly or otherwise, anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of extraditing the person arrested to another State BEFORE a Demand for the individual is made on the Executive in whose State the individual is located and BEFORE the Executive in whose State the individual is located makes application to a proper court for a warrant of arrest pursuant to a Demand from the Executive of the Requesting State; and

IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED that defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons or other entities in active concert or participation with them who shall receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, be restrained and enjoined from:
Destroying, erasing, mutilating, concealing, altering, transferring, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, directly or indirectly, any: Government, personal and business books; Government, personal and business records; Government, personal and business “verification” or other audio or video tape recordings; Government, personal and business computer tapes, discs or other computerized records; Government, personal and business accounting data; Government, personal and business checks (fronts and backs); correspondence; arrest warrants; police booking forms and statements; police agent notes of arrest; brochures; manuals; banking records; customer lists (Government, personal and business); Government, personal and business files; Government, personal and business invoices; Government, personal and business telephone records; Government, personal and business ledgers; Government, personal and business payroll records; Government, personal and business scripts; Government, personal and business postal receipts; Government, personal and business appointment books; Government, personal and business state or federal income tax returns; or other Government, personal and business documents of any kind in their possession, custody, or control, connected in any way or manner with Demanding, Arresting, Rendering and Extraditing an individual;

AND AT A LATER DATE, restraining and enjoining specifically,
The Several States and Every Territory of the United States and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who shall receive actual notice of a later Order, by personal service or otherwise, from making an arrest of any person or assisting others in arresting any person, directly, indirectly or otherwise, anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States and its Territories for purposes of extraditing the person arrested to another State or Territory BEFORE a Demand for the individual is made on the Executive in whose State or Territory the individual is located and BEFORE the Executive in whose State or Territory the individual is located makes application to a proper court for a warrant of arrest pursuant to a Demand from the Executive of the Demanding State or Territory.

I. JURISDICTION

4. The Court has jurisdiction: (a) over the subject matter of this case; (b) over the United States’ Relator; (c) over lead plaintiff McCray; (d) over indispensable plaintiff Hust; (e) over defendant Hageman (long arm).

5. There is good cause to believe that the Court will have jurisdiction over all remaining defendants who have knowingly allowed defendant Hageman, Superior Court Judge John Nichols and divers others to exercise the Power of the State with impunity and without objection of any kind or in any manner.

II. INTRODUCTION

6. On May 1, 2006, indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust was arrested in her home in the State of Washington and removed for the purpose of extradition to Wyoming without a Demand being made on the Governor of Washington by the Governor of Wyoming. In fact, no warrant of any kind was in the possession of the arresting officers BEFORE making their arrest.

7. An informant indicated that plaintiff HUST was to be:

(1) seized at 10:00p.m. on May 1, 2006;

(2) placed in “lock down”;

(3) told she could not make a phone call until at least 8:00p.m. on
May 2, 2006 when she would be back in Wyoming;

(4) denied an opportunity to talk with a judge;

(5) denied bail of any kind; and

(6) immediately taken from Washington to Wyoming (a 16 hour drive—do the math). The 10:00p.m. arrest appears to be designed to catch her while she was sleepiest.

8. The informant also indicated that there was no arrest warrant of any kind in the possession of the arresting officers when Ms. HUST was forcibly and illegally removed from her home. Moreover, according to the informant, there was no arrest warrant at the police station when Ms. Hust arrived for “lock down” awaiting immediate transportation to Wyoming.

9. Miraculously, and in a moment of bravery, Ms. HUST was able to win a reprieve and briefly escape from “lock down”. She managed to gain access to a phone long enough to organize her wits and alert her family. This was absolutely the most scariest moment for her at this point.

10. According to an informant, on May 2, 2006, the only information available to process Ms. HUST for arrest was a copy of the two-page criminal information filed by Wyoming Prosecutor Bohling before Judge Castor on December 20, 2005.

11. Because the arrest was made without a warrant, a prima face case for criminal kidnapping is made out. It also raises the possibility that these types of brazen seizures of individuals by individuals acting under color of Government Power and Authority that tend to leave no immediate trace, would be found among America’s “Unsolved Mysteries” and murders.

12. Who is defendant Joe Hageman? He is a general lawyer; criminal defense lawyer; personal injury lawyer; family lawyer; landlord; and City Council Member, to name a few.

13. Defendant Hageman also took the “Fifth” while testifying in a murder trial for one of his clients of ten years, interstate drug dealer, 52 year-old, Dale E. Harper. The Wyoming Supreme Court summarized defendant Hageman’s client’s murder this way:

On May 22, 1996, a construction crew was installing a fence east of Highway 30, approximately eight to ten miles north of Laramie, Wyoming. Between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m., the crew stopped their work on the fencing job and drove into Laramie for dinner. When they returned to the work site around 8:00 p.m., one of the members of the crew discovered a dead body in a ditch near their work site. The crew immediately called 911 to advise the Laramie Police Department of the discovery of the body. A Laramie pathologist later determined that the victim had died as a result of a close range shotgun blast to the back of the head.

Harper and the victim were partners in the distribution and sale of cocaine in Laramie and Colorado. James Mayo (Mayo), one of their customers, resided in Laramie. During May of 1996, Harper and the victim made two trips from Colorado to Laramie to sell cocaine to Mayo. On May 14, 1996, Harper and the victim visited Mayo at his residence. On that occasion, Harper "fronted" Mayo two ounces of cocaine at a cost of $1,000.00 per ounce. Mayo subsequently paid for the cocaine by wiring money to Harper in Colorado. On May 17, 1996, Harper and the victim returned to Laramie and engaged in another drug transaction with Mayo. On that occasion, Harper "fronted" Mayo three ounces of cocaine at a cost of $1,000.00 per ounce. On May 21, 1996, Mayo sent a $2,000.00 money order to Harper in Colorado via Western Union, as partial payment for that cocaine.
Harper went to the Safeway Store in Glenwood Springs where he picked up the $2,000.00 wired to him by Mayo the previous day. After he obtained that money, Harper went to Center Drug, where he purchased a .410 gauge shotgun and a box of three inch shotgun shells. He then crossed the street and purchased a hacksaw at the True Value Hardware Store. Around 3:00 p.m., Harper returned to the motel, and he then left with the victim in the victim's automobile for a trip to Laramie. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Harper arrived at Mayo's home driving the victim's silver 1985 Toyota Tercel. Harper delivered another ounce of cocaine to Mayo, and reminded Mayo that he still owed Harper money from the previous drug transaction. After he left Mayo's residence, Harper called a friend in Laramie, at approximately 8:30 p.m., to invite the friend to meet him for a drink at a local bar. The friend declined Harper's offer to meet for a drink, and Harper returned that evening to Glenwood Springs. Harper arrived alone, on foot, at the Silver Spruce Motel in the early morning hours of May 23, 1996. Harper had the victim's black bag containing cocaine and a sawed-off shotgun. Police later recovered the victim's silver 1985 Toyota Tercel from the parking lot at the Ramada Inn Hotel, located about one block from Harper's motel.
http://wyom.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=124148

See also this murder topic: “triple murder? in forum Laramie at Message Board”, posted by Marge (Member #116) on 07-17-2006 08:41 AM:
http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000273
http://www.trib.com/articles/2006/07/17/news/wyoming/c2038a1360f2b565872571ae00104e86.txt

14. Ms. Hust’s son, Dallas Eldred, informed his mother that he was aware that a hacksaw is the tool most preferred in making sawed-off shotguns. Dallas is also a former employee of the City of Laramie, Wyoming.

15. Killed in Laramie, the victim’s name did not appear in any local papers or in the Wyoming Supreme Court’s opinion. The victim’s name, “Conrado Santos-Vicada”, also known as “Florentino Meraz Reyna”, 24, of Basalt, Colorado, was found in an edition of the Denver post. Denver, Colo.; Jan 17, 1999, page A32. Complaint Exhibit 16.

16. Cal Rerucha was the prosecuting attorney for Harper’s case and the Matthew Shepard case. Rerucha will tell this court that: (A) Harper killed his road partner for the $2,000.00. It was about a murder and money, not drugs; (B) Matthew Shepard was killed for $20.00, not because he was gay, but for 20 bucks; (C) Wyoming is infested with drugs; and (D) Defendant Hageman was compelled to testify in the case involving his interstate drug dealing client, but could not complete his testimony because Hageman invoked the “Fifth” to avoid incriminating himself.

17. Addressing the judge in the Matthew Shepard case, Mr. Rerucha said: “They beat him for $20, your honor. That was the contents of the wallet.” http://www.nytimes.com/ads/marketing/laramie/19981120_laramie8.html

18. Defendant Hageman indicated in the email he sent to San Diego that he was “Admitted in Wyoming and Colorado” to practice law. Complaint at page 11.

19. On May 2, 2006, Ms. Hust was removed from her jail cell and arraigned without a Demand being made on the Governor of Washington by the Governor of Wyoming. In fact, no warrant of any kind was in the possession of the arraigning officer BEFORE conducting the arraignment.

20. On June 1, 2006, Ms. Hust appeared pursuant to the May 2, 2006 arraignment document. Due to a scheduling conflict in the Vancouver Superior Court, the presiding judge was procured from the District Court.

21. The Honorable Vernon L. Schreiber was made to be the presiding judge; Contact: 1200 Franklin St, PO Box 9806, Vancouver, WA 98666-8806, Phone: 360-397-2424, Fax: 360-397-6044, Office Email: distct@clark.wa.gov, http://www.clark.wa.gov/courts/district.

22. The Honorable Judge Vernon L. Schreiber appeared taken aback because the man standing before Judge Schreiber with his daughter, plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust, used to be Judge Schreiber’s client when the judge was a lawyer.

23. Judge Schreiber is presumed to know the law; and KNEW that no Demand had been made by the Executive for the return of his former client’s daughter; and KNEW that plaintiff Hust could not be arrested; and KNEW that plaintiff Hust could not be extradited; and KNEW that the proceeding he was directed to preside over was unconstitutional.

24. Because Judge Schreiber KNEW these things, the June 1, 2006 arrest warrant ordering plaintiff Hust be held for 60 days or return on July 31, 2006, was not signed by Judge Schreiber.

25. On July 31, 2006, believing she had been deprived of her constitutional immunity to be free from arrest for purposes of extradition unless the Washington Governor so directs pursuant to a Demand by the Wyoming Governor, plaintiff Hust refused to waive this very important constitutional immunity and appear in the Superior Court.

26. The Washington Superior Court Judge who presided over this alleged unconstitutional and illegal criminal matter on July 31, 2006 is identified as:
Honorable Judge John F. Nichols, Phone: 360-397-2260, 360-397-2150, Fax: 360-397-6078, Washington State Clark County Superior Court, john.nichols@clark.wa.gov
1200 Franklin St, PO Box 5000, Vancouver, WA 98666-5000, http://www.clark.wa.gov/courts/superior; http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_dir/orgs/266.html

27. Judge Nichols is presumed to know the law; and KNEW that no Demand had been made by the Executive of Wyoming for the return of Lynn Ann Hust; and KNEW that plaintiff Hust could not be arrested; and KNEW that plaintiff Hust could not be extradited; and KNEW that the June 1, 2006 warrant was not signed by Judge Schreiber; and KNEW that plaintiff Hust did not have to participate in the alleged unconstitutional hearing on July 31, 2006; and KNEW that no Governor’s warrant from Oregon could be entertained or piggy-backed on this alleged unconstitutional hearing; and KNEW that the proceeding he was presiding over was unconstitutional; and KNEW that by proceeding to preside over the hearing, that all matters before him would be coram non judice.

28. Because Judge Nichols KNEW these things, Judge Nichols KNEW he was not a Judge on July 31, 2006 when he presided over the hearing for plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust.

29. In another development at the hearing, it appeared that Judge Nichols intentionally scheduled Ms. Hust as the last remaining case, even though Ms. Hust’s case was listed as item number one on the docket.

30. In so doing, no members of the public were available, other than Ms. Hust’s sister and Ms. Hust’s son, to witness the antics and comments of Judge Nichols and the Prosecutor as they attacked, threatened and concurred on matters involving Ms. Hust’s refusal to waive her constitutional immunity from arrest without a Governor’s warrant.

31. The Prosecutor and Judge Nichols, when concurring that lead plaintiff should be arrested in an illegal manner similar to Ms. Hust for filing papers in Judge Nichols’s court tends to indicate that they were reading the postal mails, emails, WWW postings and faxes used to get Ms. Hust’s story before Government and media personnel.

32. For purposes of this restraining order, Judge Nichols, by presiding over the July 31, 2006 hearing, voluntarily made himself a member of defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal conspiracy to kidnap and murder plaintiff Hust for the sole purpose of silencing her voice on matters involving the Laramie City Council’s “bait and switch” operations set forth in the instant action.

33. The Governors of Wyoming and Washington were required to file this action to vindicate the Power the People of the United States gave to them back in 1787, upon being notified by plaintiff Hust that defendant Hageman and divers others were using the Power of Demand and Rendition for purely private purposes.

34. The Governors, by refusing to take action to vindicate this Power, shirked an unforgivable constitutional duty to the American People; and in so doing, have raised monumental constitutional questions regarding their Federal Oath or Affirmation.

35. The Federal Oath or Affirmation, once executed, constitutes a license, claim, pledge, warrant, commission, or authority—a species of Federal Government property and a contract executed to benefit the American population.

36. The People of the United States are entitled to the full benefit or value of this “Oath or Affirmation”. Every decrease is an irreparable injury.

37. Every decrease in the value of this license or warrant is a breach of this contract with the American People.

38. United States Constitution Article IV, Section. 2, Clause 2 proclaims that:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

39. United States Constitution Article VI, Clause 2 proclaims that:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

40. United States Constitution Article VI, Clause 3 proclaims that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

41. The aforementioned Clauses are absolute and unambiguous.

IV. NO ARGUMENT

42. This is a case that has escalated from false charges being filed on December 20, 2005 in Laramie, Wyoming; which led to the false arrest of a grandmother in Vancouver, Washington on May 1, 2006; her escape from “lock down”, which thwarted her possible murder; to a Washington State Superior Court Judge on July 31, 2006 threatening to arrest all members of plaintiff Hust’s family and friends and this lead plaintiff in San Diego for doing something in his court that lead plaintiff had “NEVER, EVER” done in his court, all because this grandmother, who is now a plaintiff in San Diego Federal District Court, thwarted his alleged kidnapping for possible murder. See Letters to Oregon Legislature and Judge Nichols attached to this request.

43. A crime is an offence against a public law. Defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal confederation made use of at least six States—Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming and the World Wide Web (WWW) to attack the peace and dignity of indispensable plaintiffs Lynn Ann Hust and the People of the United States of America.

44. Defendant Hageman used public and private resources in at least six states to attack plantiff Hust.

45. In Arizona: plaintiff Hust’s Internet hosting company, Godaddy.com, was ordered to block her email to prevent her from getting her story out.

46. In Wyoming:
Lee Enterprises’ Casper Star-Tribune and other papers were told not to say a word because it required the media to tell her side of the story; a credit union was ordered to close her account for purposes of bouncing checks to support felony check fraud charges; the Laramie City Council removed a blogger from its community message board because the blogger was discussing Ms. Hust’s case.

47. In Colorado: defendant Hageman found a check that was dead for five months for use in creating the first count of the criminal complaint.

48. In Washington and Oregon:
plaintiff Hust was arrested on what appears to be a phone call from Wyoming and has since been led to believe that a Governor’s warrant will be procured to back up false check charges should she refuse to come back to Wyoming and be murdered.

Posted on the criminal court docket for July 31, 2006, was what appeared to be an entry suggesting an arrest warrant from the Governor of Oregon was on file in Washington.

49. In San Diego: Defendant Hageman sent an email to lead plaintiff in San Diego attempting to convince lead plaintiff that defendant Hageman could make the false check charges he created stick to plaintiff Hust.

50. A nuisance means literally annoyance; in law, it signifies, according to Blackstone, “anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage.” 3 Comm. 216.

51. The remedies for a public nuisance are by indicting the party. Abatement of a nuisance is the prostration or removal of it. Any person may abate a public nuisance. 2 Salk.458, 9 Co. 454.

52. A public nuisance may be abated without notice, 2 Salk. 458, and so may a private nuisance which arises by an act of commission. And, when the security of lives or property may require so speedy a remedy as not to allow time to call on the person on whose property the mischief has arisen to remedy it, an individual would be justified in abating a nuisance from omission without notice. 2 Barn.&Cres. 311, 3Dowl. & R. 556.

V. Plaintiffs Are Suffering Irreparable Injury
Requiring Immediate, No Notice Restraint

53. Irreparable injury exists when constitutional rights are lost or treated as nonexistent as the named defendants and Judge Nichols appear to be treating the constitutional guarantees to all Americans.

54. “When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary”. 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2948.1 at 161 (2d ed. 1995).

55. Here, there is no question that Our Federal Constitution guarantees every citizen conditional immunity—a type of Comforter and security blanket.

56. Defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal confederation is a menace to society; a threat to the life of every American citizen and Our foreign visitors; a continuing nuisance that has suspended the operation of the following specific Constitutional Guarantees, Privileges and Immunities: Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1; Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2; Article 6, Clause 2; Article 6, Clause 3; Amendment First; Amendment Fourth; Amendment Fifth; Amendment Sixth; and Amendment Fourteenth; and as such, Our Constitution commands every judge to make the unlawful confederation go away.

VI. CONCLUSION

57. Based upon the foregoing, The United States of America, through its Relator, plaintiff McCray, lead plaintiff McCray and indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust, respectfully request that their Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order be granted without delay; and that the court:

GRANT Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Emanuel McCray
Relator and Plaintiff Pro Se
Dated this 2nd day of August, 2006
Attachments: (1) Letter to Oregon Legislature dated August 1, 2006
(2) Letter to Judge John Nichols dated August 1, 2006

Without A Legal Trace - An Unsolved Mystery Solves An Unsolved Mystery

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Emanuel McCray
1736 State Street
San Diego, California 92101-2513
(619) 696-9838
ezasabc@justice.com
http://ezasabc.blogspot.com/

U.S. Relator & Plaintiff, Pro Se

(1) United States of America ex rel Emanuel McCray;

(2) Emanuel McCray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;

(3) Lynn Ann Hust (indispensable)

Plaintiffs,

vs.

(1) A. Joe Hageman, City Council Member, Larmie, Wyoming;

(2) City Council, Laramie, Wyoming;

(3) Albany County Court, Laramie, Wyoming;

(4) Clark County Court; Vancouver, Washington;

(5) The State of Oregon;

(6) The State of Washington; and

(7) The State of Wyoming,

Defendants

Case No. 06CV1537IEG; Filed: July 31, 2006, 9:16a.m.

Complaint for Violation of:

U.S. Const. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1

U.S. Const. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2

U.S. Const. Article 6, Clause 2

U.S. Const. Article 6, Clause 3

U.S. Const. Amendment First

U.S. Const. Amendment Fourth

U.S. Const. Amendment Fifth

U.S. Const. Amendment Sixth

U.S. Const. Amendment Fourteenth

31 U.S.C.A. § 3729 et seq.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Jurisdiction

1. This court has original, supplemental and complete diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the following provisions:

Article III, Federal Constitution.

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal question).

28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (Diversity of citizenship).

28 U.S.C.A. § 1337 (Commerce).

28 U.S.C.A. § 1345 (U.S. as Plaintiff, pursuant to 31 U.S.C.A. § 3730(b)(1)[“The action shall be brought in the name of the Government.”).

28 U.S.C.A. § 1366 (Construction of references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress).

28 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (Supplemental jurisdiction).

28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 (All Writs Act).

Rules 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Fed.R.Civ.P.

2. The relief requested is specifically authorized by:

28 U.S.C.A. § 1361 (Mandamus).

28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 (Creation of a remedy).

28 U.S.C.A. § 2202 (Further relief).

28 U.S.C.A. § 2412 (Attorney fees).

31 U.S.C.A. § 3730(d) (Award to Qui Tam plaintiff).

Venue

3. Venue is proper pursuant to:

28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a)(3), (c) and (e)(1) and (3) (Venue generally).

28 U.S.C. § 1411 (Jury trials).

4. Additionally:

Plaintiff Emanuel currently resides in San Diego, and at the time of his injury he was a resident of San Diego. On June 22, 2006, defendant Hageman caused an email to be sent declaring that the charges were true when the charges were in fact false.

Parties

Plaintiffs:

5. Plaintiff United States of America by and through its relator, Emanuel McCray pursuant to 31 U.S.C.A. § 3730(b)(1);

6. Indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust is a resident of State of Washington.

Defendants:

7. Defendant A. Joe Hageman is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State of Wyoming. On January 4, 2005, defendant Hageman took an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

8. Defendant Albany County Court is a citizen of the State of Wyoming.

9. Defendant Clark County Court is a citizen of the State of Washington.

BACKGROUND

10. At the outset, the court must first understand and address the fact that indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust was arrested without any warrant of any kind allowable by the Constitution and laws of the United States based on three fabricated charges of “check fraud”.

11. The court has a constitutional duty to address and resolve this issue BEFORE any other State matter may go forward against Lynn Ann Hust in any State or against any other citizen and any State.

12. The cabal that allegedly kidnapped Ms. Hust has openly threatened to kidnap every citizen of the United States. It has been operating since 1787. This threat to the People of the United States must be resolved first and foremost.

13. Kidnapping is severely punished because it is a dreaded offense. It usually occurs in connection with another criminal offense, or underlying crime.

14. Nothing can be done to make Ms. HUST’s illegal arrest legal; nothing can be done to make the false charges true; and nothing can be done to lessen the financial, social, economic and political impact and consequences when every person illegally arrested by Wyoming and the other States are sure to come forward and demand restitution and reparations.

15. On May 1, 2006, indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust was allegedly kidnapped from her home by individuals claiming to be associated with police.

16. It currently appears that the initial arrest was made by way of a phone call from Wyoming to Washington. This fact also demonstrates solid support for illegal and unconstitutional arrests across state lines of every American between the police departments.

17. An informant indicated that Ms. HUST was to be:

(1) seized at 10:00p.m. on May 1, 2006;

(2) placed in “lock down”;

(3) told she could not make a phone call until at least 8:00p.m. on May 2, 2006 when she would be back in Wyoming;

(4) denied an opportunity to talk with a judge;

(5) denied bail of any kind; and (6) immediately taken from Washington to Wyoming (a 16 hour drive—do the math). The 10:00p.m. arrest appears to be designed to catch her while she was sleepiest.

17. The informant also indicated that there was no arrest warrant of any kind in the possession of the arresting officers when Ms. HUST was forcibly and illegally removed from her home. Moreover, according to the informant, there was no arrest warrant at the police station when Ms. Hust arrived for “lock down” awaiting immediate transportation to Wyoming.

18. Miraculously, and in a moment of bravery, Ms. HUST was able to win a reprieve and briefly escape from “lock down”. She managed to gain access to a phone long enough to organize her wits and alert her family. This was absolutely the most scariest moment for her at this point.

19. According to an informant, on May 2, 2006, the only information available to process Ms. HUST for arrest was a copy of the two-page criminal information filed by Wyoming Prosecutor Bohling before Judge Castor on December 20, 2005.

20. As recently as June 24, 2003, Judge ARMSTRONG, writing for the court of appeals in State of Washington v. Nall, 72 P.3d 200 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2003), held that:

“The power to demand an alleged fugitive and the duty to deliver him is lodged exclusively with the executive authority of each state…. Washington’s Governor’s may issue a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive from another state upon request of the other state’s governor…. If our governor is satisfied that the demand should be complied with, he “shall sign a warrant of arrest” for the fugitive.”

21. On June 1, 2006, the Washington District Court, in and for the County of Clark, allegedly incriminated itself when it issued the following decree:

Quote:
THIS MATTER having come on previously before the Court on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, and on that date the defendant having been previously committed to the County Jail for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days pursuant to RCW 10.88.340, and the Court having reviewed the matter,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant is hereby committed to the County Jail until service of the Governor’s Warrant, a period not exceeding sixty (60) days, to enable the arrest of the accused to be made under a Warrant of the Governor on the executive authority of Wyoming, the State having jurisdiction of the crime(s), unless the accused gives bail in the amount of $7500 provided in RCW 10.88.350, or until legally discharged.

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall return to Clark County Courthouse on Monday, July 31, 2006, at 9:00a.m. in the downstairs Arraignment Courtroom for further hearing regarding service of the Governor’s Warrant to the State of Wyoming.
End Quote.
Exhibit 1.

22. This decree was not signed by any judge. Note the decree clearly states the Court did not possess any communications, authorization, certification or authentication from the Officer of the Governor of Washington AND the Washington Secretary of State.

23. The Criminal Docket for Monday July 31, 2006 for the State of Washington In and For Clark County prepared 07-28-06 12:13, indispensable plaintiff Honorable Judge John Nichols presiding, contained the following entry:
“05-1-00003-1
STATE OF WASHINGTON VS GOVERNORS WARRANTS, CLARK COUNTY
SERVICE OF GOVERNOR'S WARRANT FROM STATE OF OREGON -HUST, LYNN ANN DEF”
Exhibit 2.

24. The instant action for declaratory relief and constitutional injunction is all about the love of money; a bait and switch scheme used to acquire wealth and power; and a murder plot foiled by a white grandmother from the State of Washington.

25. Indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust is that grandmother. Ms. Hust was provided by the State of Wyoming an approved written grant of approximately $500,000.00 (five hundred thousand dollars)—the bait. When she refused to take the switch that required her to hire the types of employees dictated to her from the Laramie City Council acting through agents at the Laramie Economic Development Corporation (LEDC), her bait was withdrawn.

26. In April 2005, Ms. Hust complained to Senator Enzie and other individuals at the Office of Wyoming David D. Freudenthal about this withholding of funding which made it impossible for her to pay the wages of the employees she had hired based on the approval of the grant.

27. Ms. Hust was then threatened by Tim Stamp and others for complaining to the Governor. Her arrest in Washington and the warrant from Oregon were coordinated by defendant Hageman and divers others to punish Ms. Hust for exposing the bait and switch operations imbedded in official policies, practices and customs of the Laramie City Council and the City Council’s LEDC.

28. Another individual, John D. Ahrenholtz, had a similar run in with this cabal. See
Ahrenholtz v. Laramie Economic Development Corporation, 2003 WY 149, 79 P.3d 511. http://wyom.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=438128

29. “Wireless Lariat” is an example of a company that took advantage of the City Council’s bait and switch this way:
Each business pays Lariat $450 a month for their T-1 connection. Lariat is obligated to pay the University $150 for each such connection, thus is able to keep $300 a month from each company connected, together with the community $4.25 individual accounts, to operate the non-profit service, do billing, technical installation and support, and keep the net operating.

***

By letting a non-profit community-oriented company provide the service to the profit-making companies, the University avoids the legal and political problem of selling bandwidth directly to businesses.

While this somewhat unusual arrangement, which can, and probably will be, in the long run, challenged by purely 'business’ T-1 service providers, the important reality is that this cooperative arrangement has permitted the vital building-up, to self-sustaining level, of a non-profit, high-bandwidth, local Internet provider (Lariat), which, with a few more similar business or institutional T-1 wireless connections will be in a position itself, if necessary, to buy an in-coming T-1 conventional service, such as from MCI, Sprint, or AT&T, and using Persoft bridges, to deliver T-1 access to institutions at quite reasonable prices. As well as provide general community dial up services.
Source: http://wireless.oldcolo.com/course/lariat.txt

30. This is a complicated, twisting and mind boggling controversy highlighted by the fact that the controversy begins with Government officers in Executive, Legislative and Judicial positions in at least three States lending their support to the underlying fabricated charges used to procure a felony arrest; charges they KNEW were fabricated BEFORE the charges arrived in the Wyoming court of Judge Richard C. Castor.

31. The bait and switch funds at issue involve the Workforce Development Training Fund (WDTF), which was created during the 1997 General Session of the Wyoming State Legislature.

32. These funds would have flowed from Ms. Hust’s Events Worldwide (EWW), through the Laramie Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) up to and through the Wyoming Workforce Development Council (WWDC) whose membership includes Governor Dave Freudenthal and Workforce Services Director Ms. Kathy Emmons.

33. The following links places Governor Freudenthal and several members of the Wyoming Legislature directly in the loop of knowledge of the LEDC’s bait and switch operations:
Sharon Mogard’s 21st Century monies here: http://sad.state.wy.us/21SIG/, ties to Kathy Emmons Workforce and “Governor Dave” here: http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/AnnualReports/py2003/Wy%20PY03.pdf
(Note Workforce’s Letterhead: Emmons and Governor “Dave” and address to U.S. Dept. of Labor (Federal Funds); addressed to U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration; at page 1 the letter is “cc: Kathy Emmons, Director, Workforce Services”; an email for Federal Government at page 2 (WIA.AR@dol.gov); Workforce’s mission at page 3; Workforce Development Training Fund (WDTF) at pages 8 and 10. See page 17 for Workforce Investment Board (Function) and the Wyoming Workforce Development Council (WWDC) for Governor Dave’s membership at page 18;
and Mogard’s 21st Century ties to City of Laramie’ May 2, 2006 Agenda discussing Mogard’s 21st Century;
http://www.ci.laramie.wy.us/cityhall/council/agendasminutes/documents/May_02_2006.pdf; and ties to The 19th Annual Prevention Research Conference, August 27-30, 2006 in Lexington, Kentucky (http://swpc.ou.edu/npn/documents/2006reg.pdf).

34. The core conspirators responsible for actively arranging or aiding and abeting the alleged unconstitutional arrest include defendant Hageman, Prosecutor Richard C. Bohling; the City of Laramie City Council; the Laramie Police Department; Laramie Plains Community Federal Credit Union; the Albany County Court; Clark County Court; Lee Enterprises’ Casper Star-Tribune; and Wyoming judge Richard C. Castor.

35. The State of Oregon’s role in the alleged unconstitutional arrest is directly linked to a visit paid to Ms. Hust at her Laramie residence by the Laramie Police Department in May 2005 and a conversation between defendant Hageman and Joee Pavlica of Structure Industries also in May 2005.

36. The Laramie Police Department, while claiming to be discussing Ms. Hust’s EWW, asked about her business failure in Oregon. Ms. Hust never had a business license in Oregon.

37. Joee Pavlica was eventually directed to defendant Hageman to request assistance in obtaining restitution for the remaining portions of Ms. Hust’s lease. Hageman became animated and told Joee he had been looking for dirt on Ms. Hust for some time.

38. Ms. Hust provides the names of divers others “associated-in-fact” with defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal conspiracy at Exhibit 3.

39. Exhibit 4 is incorporated in this paragraph as though fully stated herein. This exhibit represents efforts by lead plaintiff and Ms. Hust to get her story in the public domain and before responsible Government officials.

40. Exhibits 5 and 6 are incorporated herein as though fully set forth. The three checks which defendant Hageman represents to be the fruit of “check fraud” simply do not exist and are easily disposed of this way:

The check at issue in Count One was handled by Ms. Hust’ lawyer. The check was found to be an “overpayment”. Grant Kupko was warned that if he continued not come to the table and bring Ms. Hust’s office furniture with him, the matter would be foreclosed. Kupko failed to bargain. Exhibit 7.

When defendant Hageman directed the bank to closed it doors on or about May 16, 2005, the checks constituting Counts Two and Three could not reach the rubber stamp and be rejected. Yet defendant Hageman asserts that Ms. Hust is to blame. Exhibits 8 and 9.

41. Even if Counts One, Two and Three did exist, the Wyoming Supreme Court disposed of the issue this way:

“The mere utterance of a check is not enough. It must be coupled with scienter.”

“It is the fact of defendant’s knowledge which brings the check within the pattern of a fraudulent check…not the bank’s refusal of payment.”

“Just debts should be paid and the law is adequate to compel their payment where there is an ability to pay, but the criminal law is not a process to be subserved for that purpose. Imprisonment for debt is no longer a part of our law.”
The State of Wyoming v. Posey, 314 P.2d 833, 836-837 (1957)

42. Federal and State criminal investigators were initially told Ms. Hust’s prosecution was “A Sham To Cover Up Corruption Involving The “Workforce Development Training Fund” and that Albany “County & Prosecuting Attorney” Republican Richard C. Bohling Named Leader.”

43. Notwithstanding the facts and the Wyoming Supreme court ruling in The State of Wyoming v. Posey, supra, defendant Hageman took responsibility for initiating the prosecution which was introduced in the geographical boundaries of the City of San Diego on June 22, 2006:

From: "ajoehageman" ajoehageman@wyoming.com
Date: 22 Jun 16:09 (America/Los Angeles)
To: lynnhust@officialceusa.com,council@ci.laramie.wy.us,mcollins@ci.laramie.wy.us,kbrown@ci.laramie.wy.us,sjohnson@ci.laramie.wy.us,rdespain@ci.laramie.wy.us,smorrisjonesj@ci.laramie.wy.us,ptrent@ci.laramie.wy.us,acastor@ci.laramie.wy.us,asetter@ci.laramie.wy.us,cphillips@ci.laramie.wy.us,rjensky@ci.laramie.wy.us,municipalservicesbilling@ci.laramie.wy.us,mbrown@ci.laramie.wy.us,kpayne@ci.laramie.wy.us,sgreen@ci.laramie.wy.us,lfd@ci.laramie.wy.us,rvickers@ci.laramie.wy.us,fjansen@ci.laramie.wy.us ,lstalder@ci.laramie.wy.us,edenson@ci.laramie.wy.us,pharrison@ci.laramie.wy.us,ksanchez@ci.laramie.wy.us,cgroose@ci.laramie.wy.us,thaugen@ci.laramie.wy.us,sschilling@ci.laramie.wy.us,kherman@ci.laramie.wy.us,hcolby@ci.laramie.wy.us,bjones@ci.laramie.wy.us,dmoody@ci.laramie.wy.us,cvanzee@ci.laramie.wy.us,mlytle@ci.laramie.wy.us,dgies@ci.laramie.wy.us,municourt@ci.laramie.wy.us,rmerrill@ci.laramie.wy.us,hearl@ci.laramie.wy.us,jhankin@ci.laramie.wy.us,tbandemer@ci.laramie.wy.us,dbryant@ci.l
Cc: ezasabc@justice.com,rbohling@co.albany.wy.us,bdeutsch@ci.laramie.wy.us

Subject: Re: Update on FBI probe

FYI concerning the allegations of Ms. Hust that check charges are unfounded. This is the letter I sent to Mr. Bohling concerning a check Ms. Hust had written.

A. JOE HAGEMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 850
413 E. GARFIELD
Laramie, WY 82073-0850
(307) 742-7609
Admitted in Wyoming and Colorado
Facsimile
Number (307) 745-3232
May 24, 2005
Mr. Richard Bohling VIA FACSIMILE: 721-2554
Albany County & Prosecuting Attorney Original follows by mail
Albany County Courthouse
525 Grand Ave.
Laramie, WY 82070

Dear Richard:

It is my understanding from a newspaper article that there may be some charges being filed against Lynn Hust concerning her operation of Events Worldwide, Inc. My client, Structure Industries, LLC, is her former landlord and they have experienced an unpleasant event. I am transmitting and including herewith Ms. Hust’s check no. 5026 in the amount of $3,650.00 which was returned by the bank non-sufficient funds which was issued for payment of the rent. The check was issued and presented in Albany County and my client’s would like to receive restitution in the matter.

Please give me a call as I do not wish to infringe upon your authority but this would appear to me to be a crime and it may assist you in your investigation and/or prosecution of the overall matter.

Sincerely,
A. Joe Hageman
Encl.
Cc: Grant Kupko
Joee Pavlica

44. This email effectively waives defendant Hageman’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and drags along with him the entire Laramie City Council, Prosecutor Bohling; the judges and courts in Albany County, Wyoming and Clark County Washington.

45. The City of Laramie maintains a Message Board. The following topics provide valuable insight into the media and the Laramie Police Department at issue in the instant action:
Topic: “The lights are on but nobody is home at the Boomerang” in forum Laramie at Message Board: http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000201
Topic: “triple murder?” in forum Laramie at Message Board: http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000273

46. Using the screen name “laramiehelper”, Ms. Hust attempted to communicate with individuals seeking more information about defendant Hageman using the topic: “LEDC-Laramie City Council” in forum Laramie at Message Board. http://www.laramiemessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000276

Plaintiffs alleges:

47. The following are the provisions of the U.S. Constitution involved in the plaintiffs’ attack on the rights of defendant Hageman and divers others to (1) fabricate false charges to procure a Wyoming felony arrest warrant; (2) use the Wyoming felony arrest warrant to procure the arrest an individual in Washington State based on the same false charges AND doing so without invoking the Executive Power of the Governors of Wyoming and Washington; and (3) procure the piggy-back of an arrest warrant from a third state (Oregon) onto the alleged unconstitutional Washington arrest:

U.S. Const. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1

U.S. Const. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2

U.S. Const. Article 6, Clause 2

U.S. Const. Article 6, Clause 3

U.S. Const. Amendment First

U.S. Const. Amendment Fourth

U.S. Const. Amendment Fifth

U.S. Const. Amendment Sixth

U.S. Const. Amendment Fourteenth

48. All of the Wyoming actors KNEW, BEFORE the prosecution commenced by unnamed coconspirator and codefendant Richard C. Bohling, that the charges were false and fabricated and that the arrest without the assistance of Wyoming Governor David D. Freudenthal and Washington Governor Christine Gregoire would be in direct violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

49. All of the additional actors who joined Hageman’s confederation KNEW, BEFORE they joined, that they would be joining a criminal conspiracy in progress.

50. All of the Oregon actors KNEW, BEFORE the prosecution commenced by unnamed coconspirator and codefendant Richard C. Bohling, that the charges were false and fabricated; that the arrest without the assistance of Wyoming Governor David D. Freudenthal and Washington Governor Christine Gregoire was in direct violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America; and that the attempt to piggy-back an Oregon warrant on the back of the alleged criminal conspiracy involving kidnapping and attempted murder and the bypass of the Governors of Wyoming and Washington would be void ab initio.

51. All of the Oregon actors KNEW, BEFORE piggy-backing their warrant on the back of the Wyoming alleged criminal conspiracy involving kidnapping and attempted murder would be void in the State of Washington unless the warrant was accompanied by the consent, certification and authentication of Washington Governor Christine Gregoire.

52. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief in the pursuant to:
Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201 and 1651; and Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

53. The instant lawsuit has the following nine (9) intertwined parts:

(1) the blatant fabrication of false criminal charges to procure a felony arrest;

(2) the activities of the Office of Albany County Prosecutor & Attorney in direct support of the false criminal charges;

(3) the activities of the Albany County Wyoming Court in direct support of the false criminal charges;

(4) the activities of the Clark County Washington Court in direct support of the false criminal charges;

(5) the subsequent arrest on May 1, 2006 of indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust within Clark County Washington BEFORE the issuance of any warrant by the Governors of Wyoming and Washington;

(6) the subsequent arrest on May 1, 2006 of indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust within Clark County Washington WITHOUT any warrant of any kind in the possession of the arresting officers;

(7) the continued arrest and restraint of liberty of indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust without the aid of any warrant issued by Washington Governor Christine Gregoire;

(8) the steadfast refusal of the Governors and Attorneys General of Wyoming and Washington to intervene and protect the status quo after being informed of the unconstitutional acts inflicted on Ms. Hust and the threat to do the same to every citizen of the United States of America; and

(9) Defendant Hageman’s use of public and private resources connected with the States of Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and California to sustain the alleged criminal activities of his confederates and the alleged unconstitutional arrest of indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust.

54. The instant controversy regarding extradition has been in existence since the creation of Our Federal Constitution in 1787, as ratified in 1789. It remains an active controversy and federal question.

55. The Power to Demand or Render a citizen belongs exclusively to the Executive of each respective State and is a federal question. The prohibition is absolute.

56. The demand for the extradition of a citizen of another State is a federal question. The rendition of a citizen of a State to another State is a federal question.

57. The arrest of a citizen of a State begins with a demand for the individual by the Governor of the demanding State and may only be ordered by the Governor of the rendering State after receiving authentication and certification from the demanding Governor and after making application to a court in the county where the individual is to be found.

58. In the instant action, the arrest of indispensable plaintiff Lynn Ann Hust could only be made after certification and authentication by Defendant Governor Christine Gregoire. The constitutional prohibition is absolute.

59. The instant action seeks declaration and injunctive relief regarding:

(1) A State’s federal constitutional right, under color of State law, to knowingly charge an innocent individual with crimes committed and prosecute that individual based on probable causes that the State knows are a complete fabrication

(2) A State’s federal constitutional right to use media to defame a citizen under guise of a right to fabricate false charges under color of State right to prosecute based on probable causes that have been fabricated by the State;

(3) The media’s federal constitutional right to knowingly defame a citizen in direct support of a known criminal scheme by actors of the State to falsely charge a citizen under color of State right to prosecute based on probable causes that have been fabricated by the State;

(3) A State’s federal constitutional right to demand the extradition of an individual from another State whom the State knows is guilty of no crime for the purpose of bringing about the premature death of a citizen of another using trauma of prosecution and or premeditated murder flowing from gunshot wound to the head or other direct physical trauma.

(4) The Federal constitutional rights of individuals other than the Executive of the State to summarily demand the arrest, preparation and transportation of an individual from one State to another.

(5) A State’s federal constitutional right to immunity under Amendment Eleventh when State knowingly charges an individual in another State with a crime that the State knowingly fabricated.

(6) The Federal constitutional rights of prosecutors to claim and obtain absolute prosecutorial immunity when the prosecutor is the individual responsible for fabricating the criminal charges brought against the individual.

(7) The Federal constitutional rights of internet service providers and internet hosting companies to knowingly engage in activities known to be in direct support of a criminal scheme by actors of the State to falsely charge a citizen under color of State right to prosecute based on probable causes that have been fabricated by the State;

(8) The Federal constitutional rights of banks and their officials to knowingly engage in activities in direct support of a criminal scheme by actors of the State to falsely charge a citizen under color of State right to prosecute based on probable causes that have been fabricated by the State;

(9) The Federal constitutional rights of one or more States to ride piggy-back on the false arrest and imprisonment and unconstitutional demand and extradition of a citizen residing in a State other than its own;

61. For numerous years, defendant Hageman and divers others have employed and continue to employ, as of the date of this demand for declaratory relief and constitutional injunction, bait and switch techniques in their official duties when overseeing public contracts and the use of grant monies.

62. The core element of the bait and switch technique works this way:
Defendant Hageman and other members of the Laramie City Council, together with divers others, would officially announce from the City Council the availability of public monies to be used as grants to finance public and private projects aimed at: (1) protecting the environment and wildlife; (2) land development; (3) water distribution; (4) accessing the world wide web of information; (5) public housing; (6) public education; (7) public work force training; (8) public drug rehabilitation assistance; and (9) assisting the Federal Government in the War on Drugs within the State of Wyoming, to name a few.

Individuals making appropriate application for these grant monies would, if approved, be provided written evidence tending to approve the availability of a sum certain to finance the project. This written approval is the bait on the hook.

Approved individuals are then approached by agents of the Laramie City Council operating out of the Laramie Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) with a designedly unfavorable offer involving partnership rights and or public contract. This unfavorable offer is the switch.

If the switch is accepted, the LEDC and City Council assume absolute control, directly or indirectly, of the affairs of the individual and its enterprise. If the switch is not accepted, the obligated funds are diverted by the LEDC and the City Council away from the grantee.

63. Stated differently, and as it applies to the instant action for declaratory relief and constitutional injunction, the Laramie City Council makes application for grant monies from the State to be used or invested, through a pattern of racketeering activity, in the acquisition of an interest in or the establishment or operation of, a legal or illegal enterprise which is engaged in or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce and public contracts, for purely private gain, though appearance is public benefit.

64. This is the racketeering scheme defendant Hageman and divers others are working so desperately to keep under cover, even if it means killing Ms. Hust.

65. The City Council’s scheme would appear to include the financial or physical destruction or control of the enterprise and if necessary, the murder of any person that threatens to expose the operation of the scheme through the trauma of false prosecution, incarceration, drug overdose, gunshot wound to the head or other means designed to bring about certain death within a reasonable time.

66. Defendant Hageman’s cabal has used (1) have used the mails of the USPS and the world wide web and the news papers of Lee Enterprises, the Laramie Boomerang and divers other news sources to (1) defame and plant false charges in minds of the public and (2) steadfastly insist that they can create false charges and procure the arrest and murder of any citizen of the United States of America (1) without a warrant; (2) using the vast assets of the media conglomerate to back stop and cover up the false arrest and murder; (3) all with impunity and no fear of being brought to justice ever.

67. An individual believed to be an employee of the Clark County Court, yet to be identified, indicated to Ms. Hust that there was in place a State custom, practice, policy and procedure to pick up individuals and immediately extradite them to the requesting individual in another State without any regard to Article Constitution of the without question and ship them to the demanding State.

68. BEFORE reporting to the world the failure of Ms. Hust’s business venture, Events World Wide (EWW), the Casper-Star Tribune had available to it access to all information available to the LPD necessary to contact Ms. Hust.

69. In light of the alleged falsity of the three criminal counts, Lee Enterprises, through its subsidiary, The Casper-Star Tribune, has been and continue to be poised to engage in a pattern of activity designed to illegally defame the character of Ms. Hust.

70. The Constitution and laws of the United States are for the benefit of all citizens. As such, we all have the same constitutional rights, privileges, duties, obligations and immunities.

PRAYER

71. Defendant Hageman’s alleged criminal confederation made use of at least six States—Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming and the World Wide Web (WWW) to attack the peace and dignity of indispensable plaintiffs Lynn Ann Hust and the People of the United States of America.

72. Because defendant Hageman used public and private resources located in six States and the WWW to restrain the liberty of Ms. Hust and the People of the United States, the only effective judicial way to deal with this cabal that is waging war with public policy and insure effective enforcement, is nationally through the use of Rules 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Fed.R.Civ.P. and the All Writs Act, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651.

73. The People of the United States of America demand the court:

DECLARE that only the Governor of the Rendering State can provide the court in the Rendering State with jurisdiction entertain the arrest of an individual for purposes of Extradition.

DECLARE an immediate moratorium on interstate extraditions until every State guarantees full compliance with the Federal Constitution.

DECLARE the release of all citizens illegally arrested without the active participation of at least two State governors.

DECLARE that the electronic mail that seeks to notify the Government of alleged criminal wrongdoing is not “spam”.

ISSUE an injunction against the defendants;

RETAIN jurisdiction of this action to ensure compliance with its decree;

AWARD Plaintiffs attorney’s fees and all other reasonable expenses occurred in pursuit of this action; and

GRANT Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 31st day of July, 2006

Emanuel McCray
U.S. Relator & Plaintiff, Pro Se

The Unmoving Scales of Justice

Because the law is cast in concrete and rendered immobile at the time of the injury, the scales of justice must be fixated on this law. To keep the scales "balanced" and "fixated" with the law at the time of the injury, the evaluation of what each party places on the scale must be full, complete and impartial. This is justice.

In some countries, the law is like a perpetual pendulum at the time an injury is sustained. The outcome is always far from certain. In America, however, the outcome of adversary proceedings is most often determined by the principles of stare decisis and finality. (Or so it is said to be made to believe.)