Corruption Don't You Just Love It

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it."

"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or

(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation preceding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(e) For the purposes of this section

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals.

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duty. If two or more persons ... conspire to prevent ... any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties.

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; ... or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY - 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . . In such an action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 44, citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-78.)' (Id. at 511.)
'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is the acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she owes a duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.)

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

                             PART I--CRIMES

                 CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully--
        (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
    device a material fact;
        (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or representation; or
        (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
    to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
    or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations,
writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--
        (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
    matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel
    or employment practices, or support services, or a document required
    by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any
    office or officer within the legislative branch; or
        (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
    authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
    the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
    Senate.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104-292,
Sec. 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459.)

                      Historical and Revision Notes

    Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 80 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321,
Sec. 35, 35 Stat. 1095; Oct. 23, 1918, ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015; June 18,
1934, ch. 587, 48 Stat. 996; Apr. 4, 1938, ch. 69, 52 Stat. 197).
    Section 80 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was divided into two
parts.
    The provision relating to false claims was incorporated in section
287 of this title.
    Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary
in view of definition of ``principal'' in section 2 of this title.
    Words ``or any corporation in which the United States of America is
a stockholder'' in said section 80 were omitted as unnecessary in view
of definition of ``agency'' in section 6 of this title.
    In addition to minor changes of phraseology, the maximum term of
imprisonment was changed from 10 to 5 years to be consistent with
comparable sections. (See reviser's note under section 287 of this
title.)

                               Amendments

    1996--Pub. L. 104-292 reenacted section catchline without change and
amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:
``Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals
or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes
any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.''
    1994--Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ``fined under this title'' for
``fined not more than $10,000''.

                         Change of Name

    Reference to United States magistrate or to magistrate deemed to
refer to United States magistrate judge pursuant to section 321 of Pub.
L. 101-650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure.

                      Short Title of 2000 Amendment

    Pub. L. 106-578, Sec. 1, Dec. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 3075, provided
that: ``This Act [amending section 1028 of this title, repealing section
1738 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under
section 1028 of this title] may be cited as the `Internet False
Identification Prevention Act of 2000'.''

                     Short Title of 1998 Amendments

    Pub. L. 105-318, Sec. 1, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3007, provided
that: ``This Act [amending sections 982, 1028, and 2516 of this title
and section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-521,
set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and
Employees, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 1028
of this title and section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure] may be cited as the `Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence
Act of 1998'.''
    Pub. L. 105-172, Sec. 1, Apr. 24, 1998, 112 Stat. 53, provided that:
``This Act [amending section 1029 of this title and enacting provisions
set out as a note under section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure] may be cited as the `Wireless Telephone Protection Act'.''

                      Short Title of 1996 Amendment

    Section 1 of Pub. L. 104-292 provided that: ``This Act [amending
this section, sections 1515 and 6005 of this title, and section 1365 of
Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the `False
Statements Accountability Act of 1996'.''

                      Short Title of 1994 Amendment

    Section 290001(a) of Pub. L. 103-322, as amended by Pub. L. 104-294,
title VI, Sec. 604(b)(34), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3508, provided that:
``This section [amending section 1030 of this title] may be cited as the
`Computer Abuse Amendments Act of 1994'.''

                      Short Title of 1990 Amendment

    Pub. L. 101-647, title XXV, Sec. 2500, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat.
4859, provided that: ``This title [see Tables for classification] may be
cited as the `Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and
Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990'.''

                      Short Title of 1989 Amendment

    Pub. L. 101-123, Sec. 1, Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 759, provided
that: ``This Act [amending section 1031 of this title, repealing section
293 of this title, enacting provisions set out as notes under sections
293 and 1031 of this title, and repealing provisions set out as a note
under section 293 of this title] may be cited as the `Major Fraud Act
Amendments of 1989'.''

                      Short Title of 1988 Amendment

    Pub. L. 100-700, Sec. 1, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4631, provided
that: ``This Act [enacting sections 293 and 1031 of this title and
section 256 of Title 41, Public Contracts, amending section 2324 of
Title 10, Armed Forces, and section 3730 of Title 31, Money and Finance,
enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031 of this
title, section 2324 of Title 10, and section 522 of Title 28, Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure, and repealing provisions set out as a note under
section 2324 of Title 10] may be cited as the `Major Fraud Act of
1988'.''

                      Short Title of 1986 Amendment

    Pub. L. 99-474, Sec. 1, Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1213, provided
that: ``This Act [amending section 1030 of this title] may be cited as
the `Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986'.''

                      Short Title of 1984 Amendment

    Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 1601, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2183,
provided that: ``This chapter [chapter XVI (Secs. 1601-1603) of title II
of Pub. L. 98-473, enacting section 1029 of this title and provisions
set out as a note under section 1029 of this title] may be cited as the
`Credit Card Fraud Act of 1984'.''
    Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 2101, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2190,
provided that: ``This chapter [chapter XXI (Secs. 2101-2103) of title II
of Pub. L. 98-473, enacting section 1030 of this title and provisions
set out as a note under section 1030 of this title] may be cited as the
`Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984'.''

                      Short Title of 1982 Amendment

    Section 1 of Pub. L. 97-398 provided: ``That this Act [enacting
sections 1028 and 1738 of this title and amending section 3001 of Title
39, Postal Service] may be cited as the `False Identification Crime
Control Act of 1982'.''

                  Section Referred to in Other Sections

    This section is referred to in sections 14, 24, 981, 982, 1345,
3059A of this title; title 2 section 437g; title 7 sections 12a, 136h,
511r, 1314i, 5662, 6519; title 8 section 1324a; title 12 section 1833a;
title 15 sections 637, 657a, 6003; title 17 section 1312; title 19
sections 2515, 3391, 3432; title 22 sections 1623, 3622; title 35
section 25; title 40 section 276c; title 42 sections 2000b-3, 2000c-6,
3426, 3795a; title 43 section 1212; title 49 section 5307.

Had to see new Lambeau

Below is an actual motion never took seriously by
the court system must be nice to avoid anything
that may challenge fictional accounts...

RET___________

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE

COUNTY

_____________________________________________________

___________________

IN RE THE SUPPORT OF:

[ case no. removed ]

STEVEN ERVIN EDELBURG,

MOTION AND MOTION

AND PETITION

PETITIONER,

STATE OF WISCONSIN,et al;

RACINE COUNTY,et al; CASE NO.

RACINE COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT,et al; re: CASE NO.

78-CF-408

LEE D. HUEMPNER CSA ATTORNEY re: CASE NO.

89-CF-619

STATE BAR # 01017464, DAN SIELAFF

CSA ATTORNEY, et al; FAMILY

COURT COMMISSIONER JULIE PASTEUR,et al;

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al......

RESPONDENT(S).

_____________________________________________________

___________________

MOTION AND MOTION

_____________________________________________________

___________________

To: HON. GERALD PTACEK

CIRCUIT COURT

FAMILY DIVISION

RACINE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

730 WISCONSIN AVENUE

RACINE, WISCONSIN

53401

THE PETITIONER, STEVEN ERVIN EDELBURG, being

indigent, moves

the Court, and petitions the Court for the following relief:

AS AMENDED;

ALL GOVERMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN

OATH TO UPHOLD

AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

EXCERPT:

"Injustice fights with two weapons, force

and fraud ... A common form of injustice

is chicanery, that is, an oversubtle, in

fact a fraudulent construction of the law."

Cicero - On Moral Duties

AMENDED:

... INFERENCES FROM THE TEXT AND HISTORY OF

THE

CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE GIVEN GREAT

WEIGHT IN

DISCERNING THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING

AND IN

DETERMINING THE INTENTIONS OF THOSE WHO

RATIFIED

THE CONSTITUTION...

POWELL v. McCORMACK, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).

AMENDED:

DISOBEDIENCE OR EVASION OF A

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE

MAY NOT BE TOLERATED, EVEN THOUGH SUCH

DISOBEDIENCE

MAY, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY, PROMOTE IN

SOME RESPECTS

THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC.

SLOTE v. BOARD OF EXAIMINERS, 274 N.Y. 367; 9

NE 2d

12; 112 ALR 660.

AMENDED:

THAT THE COURT UNDERSTAND PETITIONER

DOES NOT LIKE

HAVING TO FILE MOTIONS, AND HAD BASICALLY

LONG AGO

FORGIVEN ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

1) EXPLAIN HOW A FELONY ERROR GOT ON CITY, STATE

AND FEDERAL

RECORDS. CASE NO. 78-CF-408

A) NAME ALL INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN ORIGINAL

ARREST

THIS SHOULD INCLUDE SUPPORT PERSONNEL,

PHOTOGRAPHER,

ST. LUKES HOSPITAL STAFF ET CETERA. AS IT

PERTAINS TO

CASE NO. 78-CF-408.

B) PLEASE CHECK ALL PERSONNEL IN A ABOVE FOR

CRIMINAL RECORDS,

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE

DISCIPLINARY RECORDS,

AND BUSINESS LAW VIOLATIONS.

2) EXPLAIN WHEN THE FELONY ERROR GOT INTO CITY,

STATE AND

FEDERAL RECORDS. CASE NO. 78-CF-408

3) EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A CONVICTED

FELON ALBEIT IN

ERROR AND A REGULAR CITIZEN. CASE NO. 78-CF-408

4) EXPLAIN THE EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS A CONVICTED

FELON HAS WHEN

HE OR SHE IS AWARE OF THE CONVICTION AND THE

FELONY IS NOT

IN ERROR. CASE NO. CASE NO. 78-CF-408

5) BY FACT AND IN TRUTH DEMONSTRATE TO

PETITIONER THAT THE ERRANT

FELONY WAS NOT IN RETALIATION OR PART OF

SOMEONES AGENDA.

CASE NO. 78-CF-408

A) PLEASE CHECK ALL COURT RELATED DOCUMENTS

AND SPECIFY ALL

INVOLVED PERSONNEL I.E. DISTRICT ATTORNEY

PERSONNEL, COURT

OFFICERS, CLERKS, ATTORNEYS ET CETERA AS

PERTAINS TO CASE

NO. 78-CF-408.

B) REPORT TO PETITIONER ALL CRIMNIAL RECORDS,

CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY

ACTIONS AND

ANY BUSINESS LAW VIOLATIONS AS RELATES TO (A).

AMENDED:

THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY OUR

CONSTITUTION CAN BE COMPROMISED OR

IGNORED

BY OUR GOVERNMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN U.S. vs

JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District

Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS

NEITHER ACCORDED TO THE PASSIVE

RESISTANT, NOT

TO THE PERSON WHO IS IGNORANT OF HIS

RIGHTS,

NOR TO ONE WHO IS INDIFFERENT THERETO...

McALISTER vs. HENKLE, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385,

50 L. Ed. 671; COMMONWEALTH vs. SHAW, 4

CUSH.

594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; DRUM vs. STATE, 38 OHIO

App. 171, 175 N.E. 876

EXCERPT:

"Let us hear no more about confidence in man,

but let us keep them from mischief by binding

them down by the chains of the Constitution."

Thomas Jefferson

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free

... it expects what never was and never will

be."

Thomas Jefferson

6) EXPLAIN MY CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS

IT PERTAINS TO

UNTRUTHFUL AND DAMAGING INFORMATION SUCH AS

THE FELONY ERROR

IN QUESTION AND IF YOU OR THE COURT BELIEVES

THIS IS NOT SLANDER,

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER OR ANY OTHER

VIOLATION OF STATE OR

FEDERAL LAW. CASE NO. 78-CF-408

AMENDED:

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE

SECURITY

OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE

LIBERALLY

CONSTRUED. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO

BE WATCHFUL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

AGAINST

ANY STEALTHY ENCROACHMENTS THEREON.

BOYD v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635

7) EXPLAIN WHY THE HEAD AND NECK INJURIES I

RECEIVED DURING THE

78-CF-408 ERRANT FELONY WAS COVERED-UP. CASE

NO. 78-CF-408

AS THESE INJURIES WERE NOT MENTIONED DURING

COURT AT THE TIME

78-CF-408 WAS LITIGATED.

8) THAT RACINE COUNTY MADE ME A CONVICTED FELON

FOR 12 YEARS IN

CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS UNLESS THIS

WAS IN RETALIATION

FOR TALKING TO POLICE IN 1980 THEN IT WOULD BE

10 YEARS OR IF

IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH AN APPLICATION TO

CIA IN 1982 THEN

IT WOULD BE 8 YEARS. QUESTION IS WHY? AND WHO

OR WHOM IS RES-

PONSIBLE? AND WHEN? CASE NO. 78-CF-408

A) WHEN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRANT FELONY

ARE IDENTIFIED

PLEASE RELATE ANY CRIMINAL RECORD(S), CIVIL

RIGHTS VIO-

LATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

AND BUSI-

NESS LAW VIOLATIONS AS RELATES TO THOSE

RESPONSIBLE FOR

RECORDS RELATED TO 78-CF-408 THIS SHOULD

INCLUDE WRITING,

RECORDING, ENTERING AND MAINTAINING OF SAID

RECORDS.

9) SHOW ME BY NOTARIZED LEGAL PAPER EXACTLY

WHO OR WHOM AND WHEN

THE ERRANT FELONY WAS ENTERED INTO THE

SYSTEM AND WHY LET ME

REMIND THE COURT THAT THOSE RECORDS WERE

PLACE THERE BY AN

EMPLOYEE WITH ACCESS TO THOSE SYSTEM(S)

THEREBY MAKING THEIR

EMPLOYER PART OF THIS. CASE NO. 78-CF-408

10) TELL ME WHAT YOU WOULD DO OR THE COURT

WOULD DO IF YOU HAD

ERRANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOU IN DAMAGING

CITY, STATE AND

FEDERAL RECORDS WITH OR WITHOUT A DISABILITY.

11) THAT DEAN POOR OF YALE UNIVERSITY STATES THE

FOLLOWING:

HENRY V. POOR ASSOCIATE DEAN YALE UNIVERSITY

LAW SCHOOL

1967-1972.

A CONSPIRACY IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO

MORE PERSONS TO BRING ABOUT AN ILLEGAL

RESULT

OR A LEGAL RESULT BY ILLEGAL MEANS.

THAT THE COURT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE ARE

NOT TALKING ABOUT

A SIMPLE NAME SPELLING TYPOGRAPHIC ERROR,

THAT, THE PETITIONER

BELIEVES CONSPIRACY, AT SOME LEVEL, GIVEN DEAN

POOR'S DEFINITION,

COULD BE A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR ERRANT

FELONY CASE NO.

78-CF-408.

12) THAT THE PETITIONER BELIEVES THE FELONY

ERROR TO BE INTENTFULLY

AND FRAUDULANTLY DONE , A PURPOSEFUL

MISREPRESENTATION. CASE

NO. 78-CF-408

13) THAT THE THE ERRANT FELONY WAS AN

INTENTIONAL ACT AND AN

INTENTIONAL INTERFERANCE WITH MY RIGHTS

MORESO THAN JUST

SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE HOWEVER NEGLIGENT JUST

THE SAME. CASE

NO. 78-CF-408

14) THAT THE LIABILITY FOR INTERFERANCE WITH MY

RIGHTS REST SOLELY

ON THE PURPETRATORS OF THE ERRANT FELONLY

AND ALL RECORDS

SYSTEMS THAT RETAINED THAT ERRANT

INFORMATION AND THOSE RES-

PONSIBLE FOR THOSE SYSTEMS AND THOSE

EMPLOYEES. CASE

NO. 78-CF-408

A) PLEASE LIST ALL PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR

THESE RECORDS

SYSTEMS BY JOB SLOT AND BY NAME. PLEASE

DELIVER TO

PETITIONER ANY CRIMINAL RECORDS, CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS,

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND

BUSINESS LAW

VIOLATIONS OF THESE NAMED INDIVIDUALS

RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE

RECORDS AS RELATES TO 78-CF-408.

15) THAT THE HEAD AND NECK INJURIES I RECEIEVED

AS PART OF

CASE NO. 78-CF-408 ARE PERMANANT AND THE

LIABILITY FOR

THOSE INJURIES REST WITH THE THE CITY OF

RACINE, COUNTY

OF RACINE, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN AS

EMPLOYERS OF THOSE

RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE INJURIES.

A) PLEASE LIST ALL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AS

RELATES TO 78-CF-408

LISTING ANY OTHER CRIMINAL RECORDS, CIVIL

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS,

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND

BUSINESS LAW VIO-

LATIONS OF THESE PARTIES.

16) PETITIONER UNDERSTANDS THE CONSTITUTION OF

THE STATE OF

WISCONSIN, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

AND OTHER LAWS AND BELIEVES CERTAIN PARTY(S)

ARE IN VIOLATION

OF SEVERAL LAWS AND CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES

INVOLVED IN THIS MESS.

PERTAINING TO THE ERRANT FELONY IN QUESTION

CASE NO. 78-CF-408,

AND THE PETITIONER WANTS THE COURT TO ORDER

THAT THE MATTER BE

INVESTIGATED FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANY AND ALL

STATE OR FEDRAL LAW

VIOLATIONS, CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES, AND

PROCEEDURAL RULE VIOLATIONS.

AMENDED:

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

A [COMMON] RIGHT GUARANTEED TO THE

CITIZENS

BY THE CONSTITUTION AND SO GUARANTEED AS

PREVENT LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE

THEREWITH.

DELANY v. PLUNKETT, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E.

561, L. R. A. 1917D 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E 685.

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, supra, p. 385. (insertion

added).

AMENDED: [UNALIENABLE RIGHTS] ARE ENUMERATED

RIGHTS THAT

INDIVIDUALS, ACTING IN THEIR OWN BEHALF,

CANNOT

DISREGARD OR DESTROY.

McCULLOUGH v. BROWN, 19 S. E. 458, 480, 23 L.

R. A. 410.

17) THAT THE PETITIONER BELIEVES THESE SAME

ABOVE MENTIONED PARTY(S)

ARE RELYING ON THE PETITIONERS INDIGENCY AND

IGNORANCE OF THE

LAW TO RUN RIPSHOD OVER THE PETITIONER AT

THEIR WHIM. AND THE

PETITIONER ASKS THE COURT TO DEFINE THE

FOLLOWING LEGAL TERMS

SO THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS HAVE A

WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF

WHAT THE TERMS MEAN:

A) MISFEASANCE

B) NONFEASANCE

C) MALFEASANCE

D) MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE

( MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE )

AMENDED:

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW DOES NOT EXCUSE

MISCONDUCT IN ANYONE, LEAST OF ALL

IN A SWORN OFFICER OF THE LAW.

IN RE McCOWAN (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100

18) THAT THE PETITIONER ASKS THE COURT TO JUSTIFY

A FINDING OF

CONTEMPT IN CASE NO. 5175PA000705. REQUESTING

FAMILY COURT

COMMISSIONER JULIE PASTEUR TO BE PRESENT, AND

CSA ATTORNEY

LEE D. HUEMPNER STATE BAR # 01017464 SHOW

JUSTIFICATION FOR

A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST PETITIONER

BASED ON ALL THE FACTS

WITHOUT HERESAY AND / OR ERRANT INFORMATION.

A) THAT ANY SUBSTITUTIONS OF ATTORNEY, COURT

COMMISIONER

ET CETERA BE STATED IN WRITING TO PETITIONER

AND THAT NO.

18 OF THIS MOTION / PETITIONER BE RECOGNIZED

AS ET AL FOR

ALL LITIGANTS AND PARTICIPANTS.

AMENDED:

ECONOMIC NECESSITY CANNOT JUSTIFY A

DISREGARD OF CARDINAL CONSTITUTIONAL

GUARANTEE.

RILEY v. CARTER, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.

2d 666; 79 ALR 1018

19) THAT THE COURT EXPLAIN TO THE PETITIONER WHY

THE COURT OR ANY

OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED RESPONDENTS ARE NOT

IN CONTEMPT OF THE

COURT FOR NOT BEING FORTHRIGHT AND HONEST IN

ALL THESE MATTERS

ADDRESSED HEREIN AND IN THE ENCLOSURES. THE

TERM "WHY THE COURT"

IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE SHOULD BE DEFINED TO

MEAN IN PRIOR

LITIGATION INVOLVING CASE NO. 5175PA000705.

AMENDED:

WHEN ANY COURT VIOLATES THE CLEAN AND

UNAMBIGOUS LANGUAGE OF THE

CONSTITUTION,

A FRAUD IS PERPETRATED AND NO ONE IS

BOUND

TO OBEY IT.

See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178

STATE v. SUTTON, 63 Minn. 147,

65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459.

20) THAT THE COURT FIND ALL RESPONDENTS IN

CONTEMPT, AND NEGLIGENT,

AND INTENTIONAL ( OR UNINTENTIONAL )

INTERFERANCE OF MY RIGHTS,

WITH REGUARD TO BOTH CASE NO. 5175PA00705 AND

CASE NO. 78-CF-408.

AMENDED:

THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE

INTENDED EFFECTUALLY AND COMPLETELY TO

PROTECT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND CAN NOT

BE FRITTERED AWAY BY INDIRECT LEGISLATION.

LUX v. HAGGIN, (1886) 69 Cal. 256, 4 Pac.

919, 10 Pac. 674.

21) THAT THE COURT DEFINE TO ALL NAMED PARTIES IN

THIS MOTION:

A) DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT

B) CONSTRUCTIVE OR INDIRECT CONTEMPT

AS BOTH RELATE TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.

22) THAT THE COURT ORDER ALL PARTIES ACCUSING

THE PETITIONER OF

CONTEMPT TO BE ON RECORD, AND SHOW, HOW THE

PETITIONER IS GUILTY

OF WILFUL DISREGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE

COURT AS IT PERTAINS

TO COURT ORDERS.

23) THAT THE COURT DEFINE LIBEL PER SE AS IT

RELATES TO THE FELONY

ERROR RACINE COUNTY COURT CASE NO. 78-CF-408.

24) THAT THE COURT DEFINE BOTH LIBEL HAVING TO BE

PUBLISHED AND

COMMUNICATED TO OTHERS AND AS A TORT

VIOLATION, AS IT PERTAINS

TO THE ERRANT FELONY CASE NO. 78-CF-408.

25) THAT THE COURT DEFINE THE 14th AMENDMENT TO

THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SEC. 1 :

ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE

UNITED

STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION

THEREOF,

ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE

STATE

WHEREIN THEY RESIDE. NO STATE SHALL MAKE

ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE

PRIVILEGES

OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED

STATES; NOR

SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE,

LIBERTY,

OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW;

NOR DENY

TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE

EQUAL

PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

AMENDED:

...WITH RESPECT TO THE 14th AMENDMENT

THER ARE CERTAIN PRIVILEDGES AND

IMMUNITIES

WHICH BELONG TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED

STATES

AS SUCH; OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE NONSENSE

FOR THE

14th AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT A STATE FROM

ABRIDGING

THEM... WE AGREE... THAT THERE ARE

PRIVILEDGES AND

IMMUNITIES BELONGING TO CITIZENS OF THE

UNITED STATES,

AND OF EACH OF THE SEVERAL STATES ARE

DISTINCT FROM

ONE ANOTHER. THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN

UNDER ONE MAY

BE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH HE

HAS UNDER

THE OTHER. COLGATE v. HARVEY, 296 U. S. 404,

429.

AMENDED:

STATES MAY ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,

BUT NOT IMPAIR IT.

IN RE PERKINS (1852), 2 Cal. 424.

26) BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PETITIONER REQUESTS

THE COURT TO FAIRLY AND HONESTLY DEFINE

ABRIDGE AS IT WOULD

APPLY UNDER THE TIME PERIOD OF THE ERRANT

FELONY CASE NO.

78-CF-408 USING THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER TO

VOTE FROM 1978

THRU 1990 AND ALL OTHER PRIVILEGES AND

IMUNNITIES SPELLED OUT

IN THE 14th AMENDMENT, SECTION 1, OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

27) THAT THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN

FILING A CLAIM

WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND

HAS BEEN ACTIVELY

SEEKING LEGAL COUNSEL WILLING TO PURSUE THE

CLAIM BACK TO

THE ORIGINAL 1978 TIME FRAME WHEN THE

DISABILITY FACTUALLY

HAPPENED CASE NO. 78-CF-408 FOR INJURIES

RECEIVED.

28) THAT THIS COURT DEFINE FOR ALL NAMED

RESPONDENTS THE BIIL OF

RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

IN PARTICULAR AMENDMENT VIII:

EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR

EXCESSIVE

FINES IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL

PUNISHMENT

IMPOSED.

** THAT THE COURT NOTE FOR ALL NAMED PARTIES

IN THIS MOTION

WHAT CONSTITUTES "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL

PUNISHMENT".

29) THAT THE COURT REALIZE MY HEAD INJURIES ARE

PERMANANT AND

IS A PERMANANT PUNISHMENT FOR CASE NO. 78-CF-

408 AND

THEREBY CRUEL.

30) THAT THE ERRANT FELONY IN QUESTION FROM

CASE NO. 78-CF-408

HAPPENED IN 1978 AND WAS NOT CORRECTED UNTIL

1990 AND THERE-

BY UNUSUAL.

31) THAT THE COURT DEFINE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

ARTICLE VI OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

...AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE

BOUND

THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR

LAWS

OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTARY

NOTWITHSTANDING.

32) THAT THE COURT DEFINE THE CONSTITUTION OF

THE STATE OF

WISCONSIN (AS AMENDED TO 1975) ARTICLE I,

SECTION 9:

EVERY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO A CERTAIN

REMEDY

IN THE LAWS FOR ALL INJURIES, OR WRONGS,

WHICH

HE MAY RECEIVE IN HIS PERSON, PROPERTY, OR

CHARACTER;

HE OUGHT TO OBTAIN JUSTICE FREELY, AND

WITHOUT BEING

OBLIGED TO PURCHASE IT, COMPLETELY AND

WITHOUT DENIAL,

PROMPTLY AND WITHOUT DELAY, CONFORMABLY

TO THE LAWS.

AMENDED:

THE CONSTITUTION OF A STATE IS THE

FUNDAMENTAL

LAW OF THE STATE.

WARE v. HYLTON, 3 Dall. 199.

AMENDED:

UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 14,

UNITED STATES

CITIZENSHIP IS PARAMOUNT AND DOMINANT,

AND NOT

SUBORDINATE AND DERIVATIVE FROM STATE

CITIZENSHIP.

AROER v. U.S., 245 U. S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L.

Ed. 349.

33) THAT THE COURT HAS MY PERMISSION TO REQUEST

MY ENTIRE LIFE

EARNINGS FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION. AND RELATE

THIS TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO BELIEVE I'AM IN

WILFUL CONTEMPT

OF A SUPPORT ORDER.

34) THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS AN ORDER TO

CEASE AND DESIST

BE GRANTED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NAMED IN

THIS MOTION

BASED ON:

THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP

YOU GOD

INTEGRITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURT,

RATHER THAN

THE LACK THEREOF OF ALL THE FACTS,

CIRCUMSTANCES,

AND POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS

AND LAWS.

35) THAT THE PETITIONER HAS WHAT APPEARS TO BE

MELANOMA ON HIS

LEG IN A STRANGE RASH AND HAS OVER THE LAST

SOME 18 MONTHS

BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE FOLLOWING:

A) CANCER INFORMATION SERVICE

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER

1930 MONROE STREET, STE. 302

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53711-2027

B) NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

CANCER TRAINING BRANCH

EXECUTIVE PLAZA NORTH, ROOM 232

ROCKVILLE, MD 20892

DR. F. WELSCH

(301) 496-4761

C) AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY

1599 CLIFTON ROAD N.E.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30329

(404) 329-7558

36) THAT THE COURT UNDERSTANDS THE PETITIONER

HAS NO MONEY

OR INSURANCE AND NEVER HAS HAD MEDICAL

INSURANCE AND

HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN PURSUING 1) A

DISABILITY

CLAIM FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE

BASED ON

THE DISABILITIES FROM CASE NO. 78-CF-408 IN 1978 ;

OR,

2) GOING THROUGH THE HILL-BURTON ACT AND

POTENTIALLY

CREATING ANOTHER HUGE BILL I CANNOT AFFORD TO

PAY FOR

THE SUSPECT MELANOMA IN THE STRANGE RASH ON

MY LEG.

**** PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED PICTURES.

37) THAT THE COURT REALIZE I'AM IN TOUCH WITH

SEVERAL ORGANIZ-

ATIONS IN REFERENCE TO HEAD INJURIES:

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION

105 N. ALFRED STREET

ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

(703) 236-6000

1-800-444-6443

NATIONAL HEADACHE FOUNDATION

428 W. ST. JAMES PL. 2ND FLR.

CHICAGO, IL 60614-2750

1-800-843-2256

DVHIP

WALTER REED ARMY

MEDICAL CENTER

BLDG.1 SECOND FLR. RM. B207

WASHINGTON, DC 20307-5001

1-800-870-9244

***NOTE: MY ROOMATE IS A DISABLED

VETERAN

WHOM BESIDES HIS DISABILITY ALSO

RECEIVED A SERVICE CONNECTED HEAD

INJURY, AND I HAVE TRIED TO GET

HIM ENROLLED INTO THIS PROGRAM

AND DEMONSTRATED TO HIM ALL THE

INFORMATION I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT

TBI'S OVER THE YEARS.

THE PETITIONER ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE

RESPONDENTS HEREIN

BE COURT ORDERED TO OBTAIN AND READ THE

FOLLOWING:

A) TRAUMATIC HEAD INJURY

CAUSE, CONSEQUENCE, AND CHALLENGE

REVISED EDITION

DENNIS P. SWIERCINSKY, Ph.D.

TERRIE L. PRICE, Ph.D.

LEIF ERIC LEIF, Ph.D.

A GUIDE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES

AND CONSEQUENCES OF HEAD INJURY, AND

THE REHABILITATION CHALLENGE FOR

REGAINING

AS MUCH FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE AS

POSSIBLE

FOR ADJUSTING TO THAT WHICH CANNOT BE

CHANGED.

B) LIVING WITH BRAIN INJURY

A GUIDE FOR FAMILIES

RICHARD C. SENELICK, MD.

CATHY E. RYAN, MA, CCC-SLP

C) THUMBS UP:

THE LIFE AND COURAGEOUS

COMEBACK OF WHITEHOUSE PRESS

SECRETARY JAMES BRADY

38) THAT THE COURT EXPLAIN TO THE ABOVE NAMED

RESPONDENTS

THAT I COULD VERY EASILY DECIDE TO:

A) PURSUE A LEGAL COURSE OF ACTION PERTAINING

TO TORTS, LIBEL,

SLANDER, DEFAMATION, AND OTHER LEAGAL

ISSUES,

AND, OR,

B) DECIDE TO VOLUNTEER FOR WHATEVER CANCER

RESEARCH MAY BE

AVAILABLE THRU THE FOGERTY INTERNATIONAL

RESEARCH, NATIONAL

INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; SLOAN-KETTERING

HOSPITAL OR ANY OF

SEVERAL OTHER CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAMS IN

NEED OF VOLUNTEERS.

39) THAT THE COURT RECOGNIZE THAT BESIDES THE

MELANOMA TYPE

ELEMENTS STATED IN THIS MOTION ALL OTHER

FACTS WERE PREVELANT

AT PRIOR TIMES OF THE PETITIONER BEING ACCUSED

OF BEING IN

CONTEMPT OF A LAWFUL COURT ORDER PURSUANT

TO CASE NO.

5175PA000705; AND THAT THE COURT RESEARCH THE

POSSIBILITY

THAT THE PETITIONER HEREIN WAS NOT GUILTY OF

CONTEMPT IN THOSE

PRIOR COURT HEARINGS BASED ON ALL THE FACTS

AND THAT THE

PETITIONER IS NOT WILFULLY DISOBEYING ANY

COURT ORDER.

40) THAT BASED ON A PERPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

THE ONLY REASON

THE PETITIONER IS BEHIND IN SUPPORT PAYMENTS

COURT ORDERED

AS THEY ARE IS THAT THE PETITIONER IS INDIGENT

AND WOULD

NOT WISH THE TRUTH OF HIS INDIGENCIES ON

ANYONE LET ALONE

THE RESPONDENTS NAMED IN THIS MOTION.

41) THAT THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN WORKING ON

RESOLVING THE DELIMA

OF PAYING ALL HIS BILLS NOT JUST CASE NO.

5175PA00705 AND

HAS HAD SEVERAL DISTRACTIONS PERTAINING TO

TRYING TO HELPING

HIS DISABLED FRIEND GET PROPERLY DIAGNOSED

AND GET PROPER

TREATMENT THROUGH THE VETERANS

ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT THIS

IS NOT EASY NOR QUICKLY RESOLVED EITHER.

42) THAT THE COURT RECOGNIZE THE PETITIONER IS

NOT A LAWYER OR A

ROCKET SCIENTIST AND IS STILL QUITE IGNORANT OF

MOST LAWS AND

PROCEEDURES INVOLVING LEGAL ISSUES. SO IF I

SOUND SHORT OR

BRASH PLEASE UNDERSTAND I HAVE SEVERAL

OTHER ISSUES THAT DEMAND

SOME ATTENTION INCLUDING SEVERAL FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT AND

PRIVACY ACT REQUESTS DATING BACK TO 1989 AND

THERE ARE TIME LIMITS

APPEALS AND OTHER CONCERNS INVOLVED.

43) THAT ALL LEGAL PARTIES INVOLVED IN CASE NO. 89-

CF-619 FROM CHARGES,

TO ARREST, TO ANY LITIGATION BE LISTED AND

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

BE DONE ON ALL INVOLVED PARTIES INCLUDING ALL

COURT, LEGAL, AND EXPERT

WITNESSES; THIS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE CIVIL

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, ADMIN-

ISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, STATE BAR

CONDUCT, BUSINESS LAW VIO-

LATIONS.

44) THAT THE MELANOMA ON MY LEG AND THE

RELATED INFECTIONS IS MORE THAN

LIKELY NOT A NATURALLY OCCURING PHENOMENOM.

THAT THE PETITIONER HAS

BEEN INFORMED SEVERAL PEOPLE DURING THE

EARLY 1990'S BOTH GULF WAR

VETERANS AND CIVILLIANS HAVE BEEN REPORTING

SIMILIAR SYMPTOMOLOGY.

THAT THE CURRENT THOUGHT PROCESS INVOLVES

MICROPLASIM-INCOGNITIS WHICH

IN THE CASE OF GULF WAR VETERANS COULD BE

FROM DEPLEATED URANIUM AND

OR VACCINES; THAT IN THE GENERAL POPULATION

THIS COULD BE FROM VACCINES,

SPRAYS, OR MAY EVEN BE CONTAGEOUS.

SIGNED__________________________________

THIS_________DAY

OF___________________1999.

STEVEN ERVIN EDELBURG

1901 BLAINE AVENUE

RACINE, WISCONSIN

53405-3833

WITNESSED

BY______________________________

THIS_________DAY

OF___________________1999.

MOTION SERVED

BY_____________________________________

PERSON______________________________

DATE___________________________________

U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE____________________

DATE___________________________________

_______________________________________

ENCLOSURES_____________________________

_______________________________________

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant.
(a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ..."

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1621. Perjury generally. Whoever (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal ... willfully and contrary to such oath states ... any material matter which he does not believe to be true, he shall be fined ... or imprisoned ...

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1622. Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Frauds and swindles.
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, .... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined ... or imprisoned .... or both.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 245. Federally protected activities.
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with

(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons [whistleblowers against corruption in government] from
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 246. Deprivation of relief benefits
Whoever directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation [whistleblower] ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against [civil] rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years.

What we find in the common soldier, party functionary, and obedient subject is the same limitless capacity to yield to authority and the use of identical mechanisms to reduce the strain of acting against a helpless victim.
Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1974

Obedience to Authority
The experiment by Stanley Milgram
Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crimes trials. Their defence often was based on "obedience" - - that they were just obeying orders whilst under the authority of their superiors.
The experiment began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

The results of the study were made known in Milgram's Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974).

So-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram in response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work. Individual subjects thus recruited turned up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning at Linsly-Chittenden Hall on Yale University's old campus. He or she was introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and to a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject who was also presumably recruited via the newspaper ad. The experimenter explained that one subject would be assigned the role of "teacher" and the other would be assigned the role of "learner."

Two slips of paper marked "teacher" were handed to the subject and to the co-subject. The co-subject was actually an actor who, in posing as a subject to the experiment, subsequently claimed that his slip said "learner" such that the unknowing subject was inevitably led to believe that his role as "teacher" had been chosen randomly.
Both learner and teacher were then given a sample 45-volt electric shock from an apparatus attached to a chair into which the "actor-learner" was to be strapped. The fictitious story given to the "teachers" was that the experiment was intended to explore the effects of punishment for incorrect responses on learning behavior.

A succession of unknowing subjects in their roles as teacher were given simple memory tasks in the form of reading lists of two word pairs and asking the "learner" to read them back and were instructed to administer a shock by pressing a button each time the learner made a mistake. It was understood that the electric shocks were to be of increased by 15 volts in intensity for each mistake the "learner" made during the experiment.

The shock generator that the "teacher" was told to operate had 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each switch was labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also had a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches being labeled "XXX". The experiment was conducted in a scenario where the "learner" was in another room but the "teacher" was made aware of the "actor-learner's" discomfort by poundings on the wall.
No further shocks were actually delivered - the "teacher" was not aware that the "learner" in the study was actually an actor who was intended, by the requirements of the experiment, to use his talents to indicate increasing levels of discomfort as the "teacher" administered increasingly severe electric shocks in response to the mistakes made by the "learner".

The experimenter was present in the same room as the "teacher" and whenever "teachers" asked whether increased shocks should be given he or she was verbally encouraged by the experimenter to continue. In this scenario 65% of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

In an article entitled "The Perils of Obedience" (1974) Stanley Milgram wrote:-

"Before the experiments, I sought predictions about the outcome from various kinds of people -- psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle-class adults, graduate students and faculty in the behavioral sciences. With remarkable similarity, they predicted that virtually all the subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrist, specifically, predicted that most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the victim makes his first explicit demand to be freed. They expected that only 4 percent would reach 300 volts, and that only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand would administer the highest shock on the board".

The Obedience to Authority experiment was continued by Milgram over a number of other scenarios such as where the "learner" could indicate discomfort by way of voice feedback - at "150 volts", the "actor-learner" requested that the experiment end, and was consistently told by the experimenter that - "The experiment requires that you continue. Please go on." or similar words. In this scenarion the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer the maximum 450 volts dropped slightly to 62.5%

Where the experiment was conducted in a nondescript office building rather than within the walls of a prestigiously ornate hall on Yale's old campus the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer the maximum voltage dropped to 47.5%.

Where the "teacher" had to physically place the "learner's" hand on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer the maximum voltage dropped to 30.0% and where the "experimenter" was at end of a phone line rather than being in the same room the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer 450 volts dropped to 20.5% and where the "teacher" could himself nominate the shock level the percentage of subjects who were prepared to continue to the end of the scale dropped to 2.5%

Milgram summed up his findings in relation to the main experiment in "The Perils of Obedience" (1974):-

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."

The experiment has been repeated by other psychologists around the world with similar results. Variations have been performed to test for variables in the experimental setup. For example, subjects are much more likely to be obedient when the experimenter is physically present than when the instructions are given over telephone.

Milgram felt that his experiments helped provide insight into how behavious such as the Nazi war crimes and Vietnam massacres happened.

He notes that Nazis frequently described themselves as helpless parts in a big machine. He also notes their tendency to "devalue" their victims... the European Jews were the subject of a massive propaganda campaign designed to make them appear as sub-human. Milgram found a tendency to devalue the "learner" in his experiment... utterances such as "why doesn't the dumb guy get it right" were not uncommon. One "teacher" even claimed the the "learner" was "so dumb he deserved to get shocked!".

The experiments carried out by Milgram have given insight into human obedience. While not giving us the complete picture, they are certainly sobering and give us a glimpse of one of the darker sides of human nature - a side that we would probably want to pretend didn't exist!

1982 Application for Federal Employment

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

Obedience to AuthorityThe experiment by Stanley Milgram

Obedience to Authority
The experiment by Stanley Milgram