This case was intended to force the Arizona Superior Court to release ANY order or opinion that ended that case but it has never happened.

We caught defendants stealing mail through the United States Postal Service AND actively censoring world wide search results against the United States Federal Courts ONLY for publications and memorandums from THIS COURT and OUR CASE!

The court conducted its own investigation into Google and the Post Office but has yet to publish the results .

By catching criminals in the act and setting them up in a sting to prove it, we wound up having the case WE WON to release this case HELD UP AGAIN.

What is hard is witnessing prosecutorial misconduct take on a new and dangerous meaning. State and county attorneys committing actual crimes inside court proceedings to further their initial illegal hold of a civil case that started in default due to bribery. State and county attorneys committing crimes intentionally to delay the defaulted civil case and to delay the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions in forcing its release.

When a justice system becomes so corrupt that Constitutional rights are destroyed before, after and during federal trials; it behooves those who oversee such criminal behavior to stand up and demand accountability.

The state case, Hempfling v. CVDC Holdings LLC et.al. S-1100-CV-201102200 was blocked in March of 2014 without a rule 62 stay proceeding. Trial in federal court in Phoenix and subsequently in the 9th Circuit retrial proved beyond any doubt that the case had never been released. No final order had ever been issued due to that illegal hold. The state court prohibited filing anything to complain about it.

As the federal case trying to stop that hold was filed in U.S. Mail (Hempfling et al v. Voyles et al 2:16-cv-03213) it was STOLEN and redirected to an international distribution center. Mail was stolen a minimum of 2 more times during the retrial (Lee Hempfling, et al v. Kent Volkmer, et al 0:17-cv-16329). Mail was stolen two more times after the retrial and after the appeal mandate, which likewise has never been released. Nothing has been released. The 9th Circuit is well aware of these events as they managed to acquire the stolen filings.

During the federal trial someone with the political clout to pull it off managed an arrangement with Google to actually censor and block the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals from showing up in world wide search results. The court is very well aware of this and indicated their own ‘research’ on the appeals docket. The Appeals Court has also stated they will not entertain any further filings making any attempt to receive release of issued documents falling on deaf ears. An appeal cannot be filed on missing orders and opinions. Defendants do not have a right to appeal.

Simply put, the state case is not in anyway related legally to any criminal proceeding and could not have been stopped without the commission of a constitutional violation. The Federal case has been withheld, issuing notice of a final order in April for both a district case and the appeals case of last year but no final order has ever been issued. Anywhere. It mandated the same month a week later. Knowledge of that content does not exist outside of the court. But what is known is no defendant responded to the final motion in the case after having been caught in quite a few acts of perjury.

While attempting to invoke local rule 36-4 (to publish the case) that letter was stolen and then stolen again as a copy. Together, these criminal acts are further withholding the Superior Court case which was the complaint to begin with.

We know a prosecutor enjoys nearly unlimited immunity no matter how horrible the acts perpetrated have been. But we have prevailed in a state court, two federal district courts and the appeals court and not one of those cases has been permitted to be released and published. Not one.

Regardless of the immense size of the state court required award, it should be a foregone conclusion that such violations of Constitutional Rights would not be tolerated.

On November 10, 2015 a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights law suit 2:15-cv-02268-DJH was filed in The United States District Court against Amanda Stanford, the Clerk of the Pinal County Superior Court, and Lynn Hurley, the Chief Deputy Clerk (former Public Information Officer for former clerk Chad Roche); for willful abuse of position, interference in a judicial proceeding and Deprivation of Rights under the color of state law.

“This blatant misuse of authority is empowered by the over FOUR-year period since a serious crime attempting to ‘fix’ a case was reported as having occurred in the Pinal County Clerk’s office,” said Lee Hempfling, plaintiff.

In 2011 Lee & Suesie Hempfling of Apache Junction, Arizona acting as Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit in Pinal County Superior Court identified and reported to the court, on the record; criminal activity within the Pinal County Superior Court Clerk’s office where an alleged attempt to ‘fix’ a civil case was uncovered, while both Stanford and Hurley were employees thereof.

In the lawsuit, the Hempflings claim Stanford and Hurley illegally declared the unfinished court case to be ‘over’; declared the Hempflings to be losers in the case, then started forced collection of filing fees in an apparent retaliation for the Hempfling’s political support of the former court clerk’s reelection. No judge had ever issued such a decree. Arizona law requires the fees to be paid by the losing party.

The Hempflings report that in 2011 the malpractice case was witnessed as a default, by a Deputy Clerk. Originally assigned to Superior Court Judge Boyd T. Johnson, the case was re-assigned in May of 2012 to Judge Bradley M. Soos when Judge Johnson was removed from all civil cases.

For four years there has been no known prosecution in that initial reported criminal activity. No arrests. According to two court clerks the civil case remains without any filed final order.

On March 25th 2014 a draft order was placed on the docket referring to a Special Action mandated by the Arizona Appeals Court. On April 02, 2014 Former Pinal County Clerk of Court Chad Roche stated, “Once the final order is completed and signed the draft will be deleted and replaced with the actual order.”

On July 21, 2014 Jeffrey P. Handler, Clerk of the Court of Appeals Division Two stated: “…this court’s mandate issued March 10, 2014, and constituted the final order as far as the special action which arose from your case. I assume that since only the special action was decided, the “final order” in the case must await further proceedings in the trial court…”

There have been no further proceedings in the trial court. Roche’s correspondence was copied to Stanford.

The lawsuit claims Stanford and Hurley illegally interfered in an ongoing judicial proceeding by summarily deciding a loser in the civil case; without a court order, and declared the case was ‘over’; that there would be no further proceedings and no further orders. “They did so while blatantly abusing the rules and restrictions of their office and positions and breaking the law by interfering in a judicial proceeding, while totally ignoring the statements of Roche about the case and possibly for other reasons,” said Hempfling.

According to the lawsuit the Superior Court Case is in a state of default and claims that the Hempflings cannot legally be the losing parties.

While running for the office Stanford declared, “I believe in ETHICS in GOVERNMENT! Help me spread my message of transparency in government.”

Prior criminal government corruption in the Clerk’s office was reported to the court by the Hempflings and remains unresolved four years after a criminal investigation and prosecution should have commenced. the civil case is apparently held up because of those allegations. No one has been brought to justice.

The lawsuit alleges that the misuse of the power of the Clerk of the Court has caused the Hempflings to have federally protected rights violated (42 U.S.C. 1983) and prohibitions of personal reprisal violated against them in an illegal use of official power and authority, under the color of state law. “We have had enough,” said Hempfling. “Corruption of this nature cannot be tolerated in any elected office.”

The law suit demands a minor monetary award and equitable relief.

The Arizona Dental Board is a totally useless political cabal of dentists protecting each other. When the case was filed in Superior Court the defendants: four dentists, an LLC partner and five dental companies failed to appear and were caught by the newly appointed Clerk of Court Rebecca Padilla having failed to file on time with the court. In reality they did send documents to the court but they managed to in some way (can we say BRIBERY) pay clerks to not enter those documents on the court docket. That would normally be met with an instant certification from the Clerk of default but that was NOT performed. A motion for default was entered AFTER the evidence was properly introduced to the court.

The court held a private, no one permitted to attend hearing about these issues.

The court refused to recognize counsel for the majority of the defendants even though those lawyers argued in the trial.

This case went on to the Arizona Appeals court and then to the Arizona Supreme Court. It is a default due to bribery.

This case was STOLEN by prosecutors to engage an investigation into court clerk bribery and who knows what else. A federal law suit had to be filed to address this case as no order, opinion or final order had ever been filed.

The Dental Board Complaint:

After entering into a duty relationship with complainant¹, ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER (reference Canyon Vista Dental Care LLC, Arizona Corporation Commission File Number: L-1198705-6, and its owners, hereafter known as ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER, et.al.) did breach that duty², directly resulting in harm and damage to the complainant ³, by acting in a manner that placed Dr. James Bourne in severe distress. But for gross negligence by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. , the harm and injury might have been prevented.⁴

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. did manipulate and distress the mental condition of Dr. James Bourne in the time leading up to, and the day of, the complainant’s scheduled, multiple teeth extraction session. Business was down and costs needed to be cut. The son of the practice’s owner had graduated and became a licensed Dentist⁵ during the time leading up to the complainant’s schedule procedure and after. Shortly after, Dr. James Bourne, a full time dentist and his assistant were no longer employed⁶, Trevor Caffall, son of the practice owner⁷, took Bourne’s place part time, right after Bourne’s wife had given birth.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. did supervise, control and compensate Dr. James Bourne, in the manner and forceful means he employed in administering local anesthesia through a reckless disregard for the welfare of the complainant, which immediately resulted in bi-lateral physical damage⁸ to the trigeminal nerve, from both sides of the center of the upper lip, extending to the physical limit of Dr. Bourne’s needle injections, and radiating upward to each main nerve⁹. A cat scan shows no possible spontaneous cause. Dr. Bourne himself was asked to treat the pain resulting from that injury¹⁰. The complainant’s Neurologist refuses to provide a prognosis as the pain continues, albeit diluted through heavy doses of Gabapentin, with horrible side-effects due to that drug¹¹.

The pressure Bourne was held under by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., resulted in;

§ Dr. James Bourne’s infliction of physical harm to the complainant¹² by quickly, without regard for patient safety, plunging needle after furious needle, deep into the upper jaw, pushing deeply, then injecting without regard for quantity, whether bone was struck, if a spur developed at the needle tip, or possible intraneural injection, depth or safety with excessive pressure and no control over delivery¹³. Each needle attack was a fast and deep thrust into the tissue, then heavy squirt of anesthesia, making the complainant recoil in pain.

§ Dr. James Bourne’s dismissal of the presenting symptoms of pain and slow healing, as temporary, minor, or otherwise not worthy of treatment. An improper diagnosis and failure of patient care.¹⁴

§ Dr. Trevor Caffall’s dismissal of the presenting symptoms¹⁵ as pre-existing, due to alleged prior nasal cavity problems and other guesses. A misdiagnosis.¹⁶

§ Dr. Trevor Caffall’s treatment for a disease and condition the patient did not have. Issuing prescriptions, at his father’s suggestion (a managing member), for an anti-biotic that could have had dire consequences to the patient with colon damage as a prime side-effect, after the patient’s record specifically informed the practice of the complainant’s colorectal cancer patient history.¹⁷

§ Dr. Trevor Caffall’s misdiagnosis of the condition was the result of the admitted consultation of Dr. Wynn Caffall and Dr. John Bigler¹⁸.

§ Dr. Trevor Caffall’s reopening the patient record to insert back-dated statements, admittedly a day after the practice received certified notification to provide the record to the complainant.

§ The complainant suffered severe physical damage¹⁹ from improper and unethical use of needle injections, which has dramatic potential to be a life-long debilitating injury, leaving the complainant without upper teeth, and in constant throbbing pain, controlled only by high doses of Gabapentin.

Such injury to the patient could not have occurred unless there was negligence by the doctor’s having control over the patient and gross negligence through the actions of WPF HOLDINGS et. al. to place Dr. James Bourne in an emotional fear for his job.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. willfully, and intentionally caused supervised personnel, operating under its supervision to perform a scheduled procedure in an act resulting in physical injury to the complainant, by placing the Dentist under severe mental duress for his job, starting when Trevor Caffall graduated²⁰ Dental college, escalated when Trevor Caffall received his license and ended when neither Bourne, nor his assistant were employed by the practice²¹; which was a conduct that constituted a danger to the health, welfare and safety of the patient.

Through the reprehensible method in which ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. lead up to the severance of Dr. James Bourne from employment, ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. placed Bourne in a mental condition that rendered him physically unable to safely engage in the activities of a competent, trained dentist. ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. placed Bourne in a severe mental state of distress immediately prior to the scheduled extraction session of June 8, 2009.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. did not show even the slightest amount of care in their reckless and willful disregard for the safety of Dr. Bourne’s patients.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER’s et. al. breach of their duty to the patient resulted in harm and possibly lifelong damage. ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. dental records, as provided to the complainant, in compliance with law, show a willful disregard for the injury and the needs of the patient.

But for the calculated pressure placed upon Dr. Bourne by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., Dr. Bourne’s two year employment seniority, and joyful moment of the birth of his new child would have prevailed and Bourne would not have employed needles with carelessness, in fearful speed to impress his employer, without control over depth and angle of penetration, and there would be no such injury today.

It is not, in anyway, the behavior of a competent professional with specialized training, experience and reasonable prudence to inject anesthesia in a reckless and grossly negligent manner, physically damaging the Trigeminal nerve on both sides of the face, behind the upper lip. A similar circumstance would have to include the pressure applied upon Dr. Bourne by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al.. The standard of care, and the professional duty of Dr. Bourne was directly affected by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., resulting in serious and potentially lifelong injury, and ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. was well aware of the consequences of their actions.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. further, failed to provide the entire dental record, upon certified mail request. A photograph of the patient was taken following the insertion of her temporary appliance, same day of the extractions, a procedure schedule for one hour that took less than 30 minutes to complete, including the installation of the flipper retainer. It was not merely provided to the patient. A note, requested by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER’s et. al. office manager, Brenda, detailed the patient’s complaints about Dr. Bourne. It was presented to Dr. Trevor Caffall, as requested²². A copy of that handwritten note was not provided to the patient. It is most logical that the note is in Dr. Bourne’s personnel file, or destroyed.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. supervised Dr. Trevor Caffall while he opened the dental record²³, after receipt of the 15 day notice, on the day after it was received by the practice, and proceeded to enter additional, post dated updates. First entry is Trevor Caffall’s first involvement on 6/29/09. Trevor Caffall then proceeded to enter into the record, information that would have been impossible for him to know²⁴. The entry for 6/8/09 claims the partial was not inserted due to swelling and that the ‘fit was never checked’. Nothing could be further from the truth²⁵. It was installed so tightly that the complainant screamed and cried in removing it, and Dr. Trevor Caffall could never have known one way or the other. He was not employed at that practice on that date, he was not even licensed on that date, yet he entered it into the record, post dated. Such entries were not only ‘doctoring’ the record, they are falsifying the record by a person unable to have known the fact, for a calculated nefarious purpose²⁶.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. are responsible for the standard of care afforded to patients. The emotional condition Dr. James Bourne was in, by the willful actions of ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., cannot represent the level of skill, expertise, and care possessed and practiced by dentists found in the same or similar community as the relevant one.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. were not only the employer, or purchaser of contract services of Dr. James Bourne, and vicariously liable for the injury he caused, but are directly responsible for such injury. Dr. Bourne was advised of pain resulting from his attack on the patient, on 6/8/09. Should ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. not have filed, a Reports of Adverse Occurrences, they are in violation of rule R4-11-1304²⁷.

Dr. Trevor Caffall, after consulting with Dr. Wynn Caffall, after not treating the injury, after diagnosing it as a nasal cavity problem, suggested the complainant see a Prosthodontist and recommended one such office which in the record is listed as costing a different amount for the same evaluation. “$91 dollars if it went medical and $71 if it is dental related.²⁸” Such variance in fee is evaluation motive, dependent. Complainant was evaluated by a lawyer-suggested Prosthodontist, who suggested a Neurologist take the case. At no time was complainant under the care of that Prosthodontist. The fee was drastically higher than the arbitrary assignment of responsibility invoked by a fee variance for specific results. The variable ‘medical’ versus the variable ‘dental’ can only be indicative of protecting the offending license holder, as anything at all in the mouth is ‘dental’.

ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER’s et. al. continuous imposition of a stressful emotional environment for Dr. James Bourne, under the supervision of ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., engaged in conduct and practice that without regard for the safety of the patient, constituted a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient; the act of Dr. Trevor Caffall in adding post dated information to the official record, including a fraudulent statement, in connection with the practice of dentistry, falsifying the record, without personal gain for it (he was not employed at that time²⁹) could only have been done to protect the ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. and results in unprofessional conduct by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. which constitutes malpractice.

Disciplinary action must be taken against ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. for unethical conduct, and for engaging in conduct and practice that constituted a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient. The complainant is entitled to restitution of all fees; the imposition of an administrative penalty against ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. for each incident to the fullest extent of law; revocation of ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. ‘s professional license to practice; the posting of a notice of revocation of license at all places of business of ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al.; a thorough and complete investigation of ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER’s et. al. criminal responsibility in the potentially life-long injury perpetrated upon the complainant.

The injury sustained, and the manner, in which it was perpetrated, at the direction of ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., is a very serious medical health condition. In a study of Complications due to Orthodontic Treatment³⁰; the seventh most common area of alleged negligence was anesthesia complications and this category tied with extractions for the most fatalities.

Putting a health care professional in the mental condition Dr. James Bourne was placed in, with full knowledge that such pressure would result in unprofessional conduct resulting in injuries done to the person of another, and doing so by for a calculated reason to make room for the practice owner’s son, without regard for the consequences to patient welfare. ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al., owners of the LLC acting as the health care provider, failed to exercise the degree of care, skill and learning expected of a reasonable, prudent health care provider of the same class.

Such collective unprofessional conduct was the proximate cause of the injury.

When, ELWYNN C CAFFALL, in both his personal and official capacity, or a person acting on behalf of him, at his direction, or JOHN A. BIGLER, in both his personal and official capacity, or a person acting on behalf of him, caused Canyon Vista Dental Care LLC’s employees (ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al.) to comply with the law (See 35 below) by responding to the properly structured demand for an accurate copy of the official dental record within the required 15 days, they did knowingly, by complying within the time limit of the law, attest that the documents transmitted to the complainant were in fact genuine copies of the actual dental record(See 35 below). Transmitting documents purported to be a ‘copy of the dental record’ is the law. The 15 days is only its time limit.

If the latter is ever claimed to not be the truth, through the submission of a ‘dental record’ or parts thereof, that do not, in every detail, perfectly match the documents transmitted to the complainant in compliance with law:

§ then ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. would be responsible for failing to comply with the law in not responding within the required 15 days, Failure to Release records³¹, (in addition to not having provided the items previously mentioned) and

§ would be responsible for not providing a true and accurate copy of the entire official dental record³² as a ‘copy’ that is not a true and accurate one, is not a copy.

§ any document that is not identical to that supplied by ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. to the complainant (which has already been submitted as evidence through the Bourne and Trevor Caffall complaints as well as this complaint) would be admission of submitting false and fraudulent documents in response to a legal requirement, which should immediately and summarily find judgment in complainant’s favor and criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, for each infraction. Only a genuine, conscious decision could have caused the ‘dental record’ sent to the complainant to have happened, as office manager Brenda wrote upon the face of one of the pages³³, and Dr. Trevor Caffall confirmed³⁴ genuine intent to comply with the law³⁵.

§ ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. must be barred from entering into evidence any document purported to be the ‘dental record’ that does not comport to the documents they previously and legally attested to having declared to have been in compliance with law³⁶, unless they openly admit the transmission of fraudulent documents, in violation of the law, which should immediately and summarily find judgment in complainant’s favor and criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

§ Submission within the time limit is attestation of compliance with the entire law, not just the time limit to comply with the law. ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. must be required to rest upon the document they legally attested to as being genuine (already in evidence in both previously mentioned complaints), through the compliance of the law, within its time limit.

At no time was the complainant negligent. At no time did the complainant cause any of the harm that befell her. The complainant tried desperately to mitigate the damages done to her, but the dentists assigned to her ignored the pain, then misdiagnosed its cause and failed to treat it. The complainant signed an informed consent to knowingly expect the potential of numbness, but under no circumstance did the patient enter into an agreement to be attacked with needles, from an emotionally distraught Dentist needing to prove his worth to keep his job. Trigeminal Neuralgia is sometimes known to have been caused by spontaneous means, but a CAT scan shows no such evidence in the instant case. The complainant did not withhold any medical or dental history from the dentist or ELWYNN C CAFFALL and JOHN A. BIGLER et. al. The complainant did not fail to provide all answers to every question asked by the dentists, even though the copy of the dental record indicates a ‘yes’ when the answer was ‘no’ and the cat scan proves there were no existing nasal cavity problems. There was no presence of mouth disease, or other issue. There was no adverse prognosis for the complainant before the malicious injury, as she had been cancer free for 20 years. The complainant has not been under the care of any dentist following the injury, other than Dr. Trevor Caffall. She is under the care of a Neurologist. The chain of events and evidence is completely intact.

In 2002 while serving as Program Director for WCOO in Charleston South Carolina, “Lee Kent” Hempfling attempted to promote a part time black female to a full time on air job for the black rhythmic oldies station.

There were NO full time black on air talents employed by the station ownership LM Communications of Lexington Kentucky. See the comment on this complaint about being forced out (the EEOC Program Manager Billy C. Sanders claimed the complaint did not state what it states):

Months later, he was fired (on tape the General Manager Charlie Cohn, mused they would come up with something to justify that, excerpt below from the taped Trish Thompson meeting) after numerous sabotage acts by the station engineer (who rode around with a Confederate Flag on his truck) cutting power during rating periods so the Lee Kent in the Morning program would have horrible ratings.

Cohn: says he is not in a super rush, about the ‘deal’ with Ms. Thompson “We did what we did with Lee for a variety of different reasons, and you know what, Lee was a really good guy and a really bright guy but, there were other issues… so now its just a function of exploring what the possibilities are… although we probably have an issue on everything he’s done and they way he’s done it… I’m not one to really harbor a grudge or [unintelligible] because I don’t agree, ya know what I’m saying? … … I do,… I did agree with your concern and your passion for Lee even though if it was up to me, if he would have done it differently if this was the way he felt he needed to do it… … that’s fine, ya know …”

Threats against his life (federal clerk even asked if there had been any additional threats), refusal to provide work tools and a plethora of nightmare acts culminated in complaints being filed with the EEOC for employment discrimination. Being in the management position able to enact hiring: Hempfling’s support of the black female’s discrimination claims was turned against him.

The South Carolina NAACP took care of the black female’s EEOC complaint and secured a preferential settlement for her using Hempfling’s complaint as leverage against the station ownership as it was facing a pressured license renewal process in which they lied about the complaints.

Hempfling’s complaint was filed directly with EEOC. Months later, asking why nothing had been done the EEOC lied and killed the process.

While fighting these problems it was possible to look up the skirt of the Deep State Shadow Government and detail, with over 9000 pages of evidence; the corruption between agencies and outside forces calling the shots in direct action within the federal government. Senator John McCain was provided a DVD with the evidence. It has gone no where since. Senator Lindsey Graham’s office hid the case, delayed the case and handed the complaint to the accused never having reported the known crimes (Misprision of a felony) to law enforcement.

The case was a default by the defendants and the counter claim, within which contained the deep state allegations, has never been ruled on.

There are missing documents on the court docket to account for these issues.