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
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
posted by Emanuel at 5:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home