Original Jurisdiction Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 13, 2023) http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164624730_20230209-163608-95758775-00001130.pdf

Appendix
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164625365_20230209-163608-95758775-00001131.pdf

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164624433_20230209-163608-95758775-00001129.pdf

Proof of Service
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164626254_20230209-163608-95758775-00001132.pdf

Introduction

Chief Justice John Marshal[1] ruled in Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. In the instant case, petitioners have a right to the rulings withheld. Petitioners also have a right to appeal if necessary, but not this action.

Secondly, Marshall stated that because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. There is no remedy in law for the condition placed upon the cases listed in this petition.

The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals — even against the president of the United States. The United States through its department of Justice is a party to this petition.

He continued; To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has been improperly and illegally maintaining jurisdiction over issues it no longer has legal authority to hold. This petition seeks release and execution of those cases in custody.

This petition is not an appeal. It is not a request to review anything in the cases the instant case addresses. No appealable orders have issued. This petition is the only means available to reap the protected rights of individuals. The entire point of this petition is to enable the courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction they do not now enjoy, and in doing so; issue a Writ of Prosedendo to the lower courts that they regain jurisdiction of their cases and proceed to execute them. And a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Department of Justice to release the cases from any and all holds. This court is NOT being asked to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. It is being asked to return appellate jurisdiction to the courts below and stop this fiasco of stolen justice from happening to others in the future. It is also asked to provide restitution for the withheld cases.

“…or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction…”

THAT is exactly what this petition is. Return Appellant Jurisdiction. To understand the need for this petition one must understand the cases below. All are finished and closed. None have issued final rulings that can be appealed.

The Fourth Circuit case from the Charleston District Court involved employment discrimination: being fired for trying to hire a black female full time.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The counterclaim was never addressed by the court.

A rule 62 violation took place in the order issued March 25th, 2014 in Arizona Superior Court in Pinal County, in that it based its authority on the Mandate of the special action[7] [8] .

No final order, or a ruling on the default motion has ever issued[9] [10].

Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1651 (a)[11], 42 U.S. Code § 1988 (a) – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights;  and Supreme Court Rule 20 Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, Supreme Court Rule 33.2, Supreme Court Rule 39, and the Private Attorney General Doctrine: Applicants respectfully request an Emergency Writ of Procedendo, under Original Jurisdiction under the All Writs Act related to holds placed on civil cases in violation of Applicants’ First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights among others.

Applicants thus also respectfully request that the Court grant the requested relief of a Writ of Mandamus, to compel the Department of Justice and a Writ of Procedendo to the respective courts, to stop withholding publication of the cases listed herein, and to issue a Writ of Procedendo to the Pinal County Court of the State of Arizona (Arizona Appeals and Supreme Court have declined anything to review) and the Federal Fourth and Ninth Circuits and the Charleston and Phoenix District Courts to stop withholding the listed cases from completion.[12].

[1] Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803),

[2] “I need to be able to think and right now … I can’t think about anything else … I know what these people did to Lee … my God Billy, what’s going to happen to me next? So, if I all of a sudden end up injured or dead … this is becoming scary…” (Exhibit “GG” 7th paragraph. Exhibit “HH” Page 124. 8/20/2003)

[3] “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.” (Exhibit “FF” 7th paragraph.) Thompson recorded the meeting. It is full evidence in the SC court.

[4] “In fact a white manager tried to get them to hire me to a full time job and they refused and forced him out.” (Exhibit “II”)

[5] Exhibit “HH” Page 124. 8/20/2003

[6] Direct Action control. (See Exhibit “JJ” page 126)

[7] That had nothing to do with the case itself. It could not have been closed by the special action mandate. Exhibit “BB” page 110. A motion for default is still pending in that court. There not having been a final order or a case mandate presented by the court; has nothing to do with the Rooker-Feldman defense offered in District Courts.

[8] April 02, 2014 Chad Roche Clerk of Court Pinal County. Exhibit page 82: “The ORDER that shows up on the 25th would be the draft of the order filed on the 27th… Once the final order is completed and signed the draft will be deleted and replaced with the actual order.”

[9] These facts make the Rooker-Feldman defense in two district court cases to be fictional at best and purposely misleading and false on its face.

[10] Jeffrey P. Handler assistant clerk of the 2nd division Arizona Court of Appeals. See Exhibit “Y” page 106. “I assume that since only the special action was decided the “final order” in the case must await further proceedings in the trial court…” (No one has ever seen the special action decision either.)

[11] See Exhibit “EE” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) Checklist page 116 Exhibits.

[12] Because the Applicants are pro se, the Court has a higher standard when faced with a motion to dismiss  White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276. A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint’s allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

THE UNITED STATES JUDICIARY BRANCH HAS BEEN CENSORED BY A STATE!!!

Disclosing the hidden URL blocking mechanism used by Google and Lumen Database to control speech on the Internet.

Disclosing the corrupt mail interception process used by unscrupulous individuals and The State of Arizona.

Questions Presented

1: Whether the listed state and federal court actions are parallel to any legally invoked criminal investigation of prosecution stemming from crimes reported inside and around the listed cases and whether those listed cases should be released from any hold placed on them for abandonment: a failure to prosecute.

2: Whether civil courts reporting crimes taking place against them, and the courts that maintain jurisdiction over them should be ordered to publicly complete the process of the within cases, given no common facts, no common parties and no common relationship to the crimes committed against the respective courts: plus the reasons set forth herein.

3: What constitutes censorship on the Internet?

4: What is protected speech in regards to the Judicial Branch? If what a court says is not protected speech nothing can be protected speech. A court ordering freedom of speech could be silenced if the court’s product is not protected speech.

The Petition:

Petition mailed 2/03/2023

Evidence Attachments

Then you should comprehend how completely illegal and reprehensible private justice is as applied on the Internet. Copyright ‘strikes’ assume the person claiming copyright actually owns that copyright and that it has been registered with the Copyright Office. But they don’t know and what is even more important is this entire process of copyright strikes and copyright banned pages (see Lumen Database below) is https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/15032451486 nothing more than the continuation of the Ku Klux Klan.

On “April 20, 1871 the House approved “An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes,” also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act.” Introduced as H.R. 320 on March 28, 1871.”

Blacks have been used in this Klan resurrection as pawns to do the bidding of their real white masters: the Klan. The Klan is not alone in this coup but it is forefront and spear point.

“The Ku Klux Klan Act, the third of a series of increasingly stringent Enforcement Acts, was designed to eliminate extralegal violence and protect the civil and political rights of four million freed slaves. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined citizenship and guaranteed due process and equal protection of the law to all. Vigilante groups like the Ku Klux Klan, however, freely threatened African Americans and their white allies in the South and undermined the Republican Party’s plan for Reconstruction.” https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/15032451486

That is being applied to copyright enforcement on line.

“If somebody infringes your copyright, you are entitled to file a lawsuit in federal court to enforce your rights. Remedies include obtaining an injunction or restraining order to prevent additional violations, an award of money damages, and possibly attorneys’ fees. The court can also order while an action is pending that any copies that are alleged to be in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, as well as templates for reproduction and records, be impounded. When making its final orders, the court can order the destruction or disposition of all the infringing copies that violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, as well as the templates for reproduction.

Generally, if a person has a good reason to believe that he or she is not infringing, the damages that the person will have to pay as an innocent infringer may be nominal. The court will also order the innocent infringer to stop infringing. Defenses that may be raised in response to a lawsuit to enforce a copyright include that too much time has passed between the infringement and the lawsuit, that the infringement was innocent, that the infringing work was created independently, that the infringer had a license from the original owner, and the fair use defense.

In order to bring a civil lawsuit to enforce your copyright, you have to register your work with the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office is an office of record, not an enforcement agency, and cannot offer legal advice.” https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/enforcement/

“A Law Library online encyclopedia defines Vigilantism as, ‘The act of taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.’” https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/other-crime-topics/vigilante/

Imagine the temptation one would be placed within when one realized that the copyright enforcement vigilante system known as Lumen Database, in its hiding and banning of whole web pages and whole web sites just on the claim of a pretending legal copyright holder: temptation to use that system to block and ban things people don’t want other people to know about. Call it a reputation protection service. I mean racket.

“Vigilante groups like the Ku Klux Klan, however, freely threatened African Americans and their white allies in the South and undermined the Republican Party’s plan for Reconstruction.” And they are still doing it. They are making the country the plantation and all people their slaves and they are thinning the heard so what remains won’t cost so much to maintain. They don’t use the name of the Democrat Party enforcement bureau anymore. They have found Progressive to be so much better sounding than Ku Klux, let alone Klan. Biden’s friendship with Robert Byrd was deep and deeply rooted. They are all bigots and do the bidding of the most evil tyrants man can muster in this age of feminine males and masculine females.

And isn’t it funny that copyright enforcement online being all about the money fits this so well: “In some cases, a copyright infringement is not only a matter of civil litigation, but also a criminal misdemeanor or felony. The U.S. Department of Justice enforces this aspect of copyright law through criminal prosecution. Under Section 506 of the Copyright Law, anybody who willfully infringes a copyright can be criminally prosecuted if the infringement was committed for commercial advantage of financial gain, by reproducing or distributing a copyright work during a 180-day period of one or more copies or phonorecords that retail for over $1,000, or by distributing work that was being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network that the public can access when the person knew it was intended for commercial distribution. Among other penalties, forfeiture, destruction, and restitution may be ordered. ” https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/enforcement/

“Lumen is not the sender or original recipient of the requests and notices within its database, and is unable to assist in any way with either removing or restoring on-line content from the web or search engine listings, with “blocking” or restoring access to websites or URLs, or with sending DMCA counter-notices. Lumen documents the notice-and-takedown process and ecology by reporting that a notice or request was sent and received, by and to whom, and regarding what online content.” https://lumendatabase.org/pages/about

Google takes inappropriate content seriously!

“If you see content on a Google product that you believe violates the law or your rights, let us know. We’ll review the material and consider blocking, limiting, or removing access to it. ” https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3110420?hl=en

Google is the vigilante, Lumen Database is the weapon so many others refer to which makes the censorship happen. Who needs laws when big tech, the home of today’s Klan, just takes it for their own?

Read about it:

Google’s Anti-Trust Problem is Bigger Than You Think

The Significance of Google’s STOPPING Censorship of the US Courts

GOOGLE CAUGHT CENSORING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Is Google STILL Censoring the United States Appeals Courts?

The United States Post Office Scandal: Is Google hiding the crimes?

Easy Proof The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is CENSORED BY GOOGLE

Arizona Libertarian Congressional Candidate Investigates Google News Scandal. Google’s Algorithm Gives Them Up!

ARIZONA STATE GOVERNMENT ORDERED CENSORSHIP AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITH GOOGLE

GOOGLE: THIS IS A BALD FACE LIE!

With the Upcoming Revelation of what GOOGLE has Really Been Doing… UNVEILING THE EVIL.

UNCOVERING THE SECRET GOOGLE WORLD OF CORRUPT SEARCH CENSORSHIP

FEDERAL COURTS ATTACKED IN STATE SPONSORED CRIMINAL ACTS WHILE THE DOJ HIDES THE CRIMES AND IGNORES THE EVIDENCE

Department of Justice Office of Inspector General 9/25/2019

The following is the Whistle-blower complaint* filed with the Office of the Inspector General 9/25/2019

Confirmed by Investigations Division on September 30, 2019

The same day the DOJ entry for Bailey was edited.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been withholding publication of THREE FEDERAL CASES SINCE since 2017; due to crimes committed INSIDE THE TRIALS. That release decision is under the control of the one man who WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAWYERS WHO COMMITTED THOSE CRIMES!

As Chief of Staff to Mark Brnovich, Michael Bailey oversaw “an office of 475 attorneys engaged in a broad spectrum of legal practice” as reported by his new US Attorney page. During the time mentioned in this complaint, the attorneys managed by Bailey knew of and or committed crimes against the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, as well as committed perjury numerous times in trial, as well as orchestrated the theft of United States mail AND THE CENSORING OF THE UNITED STATES 9TH CIRCUIT COURT BY GOOGLE.

Google stopped censoring the United States of America over ONE MONTH AGO. BUT NOTHING has come of it.

Is Michael Bailey covering up, withholding publication of a massive and embarrassing LOSS by the State of Arizona, in a Federal Appeals trial to protect Mark Brnovich and/or himself. Mr. Bailey has not recused himself from managing the office that manages the cases that are holding Hempfling v. Volkmer from being published.

Mr. Bailey was solely responsible for the legal actions of the attorneys who have committed serious crimes against the United State of America.

He must resign, or be removed from office to at least offer the semblance of proper due process. A case against an illegal hold placed BY THE US ATTORNEY FOR ARIZONA, Mark Brnovich and Kent Volkmer (Pinal County Attorney) and the chief of staff to Kent Volkmer, Garland Shreves; was finished, the defendants failed to respond to the final filing in the case and then proceeded to steal the mail addressed to the US 9th Circuit Court. The Court has knowledge of these crimes as they are ON THE DOCKET.

Attached below is the explanation of this travesty as addressed to United States Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan from the draft of that document. A reply was made by the Justice.

February 20, 2019

The Honorable Elena Kagan
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Justice Kagan,

Five years ago prosecutors in Arizona put an illegal hold on a state Superior Court civil case. As the Plaintiffs in that case we have been desperately trying to stop that unconstitutional act ever since. “There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not hard to make.”

What is hard is witnessing prosecutorial misconduct take on a whole 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 and 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 withholding the Superior Court case which was the complaint to begin with. We have attached the last correspondence with the appeals court.

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. We humbly ask you to stop the tolerance. Please stop the illegal withholding of court cases. It is now 8 months since we asked for publication and 10 months since mandate.

Sincerely

Lee & Suesie Hempfling

About U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey [1]

Michael Bailey was nominated by President Trump to serve as the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona on February 12, 2019, and was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 23, 2019.

Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Bailey served for 4 years as the Chief Deputy to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. In that position he oversaw an office of 475 attorneys engaged in a broad spectrum of legal practice.

Mr. Bailey had previously been a criminal prosecutor specializing at different times in homicide and sex crimes prosecution. He also had experience as a litigator in private practice, and as an assistant professor at a liberal arts college.

He is a 1987 graduate of Westmont College and a 1990 graduate of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University.
He was born and reared in New York’s Hudson River Valley just outside of New York City.

About Lee & Suesie Hempfling [2]

The beginning is a dental procedure in 2009. Law suit filed in 2011. Default in 2011. Judgment in 2012. Improper stay of case violates 14th Amendment in 2014. 2015 Pinal County Clerk Amanda Stanford illegally attacks plaintiffs, forces state collection processes for no legal reason and rules case outcome in violation of the 14th Amendment. 2015 suit filed in Federal Court Phoenix. Unable to afford to take that case through the process into the Appeals venue. Another case filed, this time against Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Superior Court Judge Johnson and Kent Volkmer of Pinal County to force the illegal stay to be lifted. (Loretta Lynch and Judge Soos were dropped from the case to remove the government’s ability to object.) Why the defense from the state was so ugly, filled with proven perjury; why the United States mail was STOLEN THREE TIMES during the District Court trial before the three judge Circuit Court Panel; why Google: using an unconstitutional vigilante service they control to protect copyrights literally censored US, the Plaintiffs, this website, its cohort at http://pinalcosc.us and the United States of America is NOT a mystery.

After the case was completed, final order filed and mandate issued it was necessary to use the local rule of the 9th Circuit needed to convert the unpublished place holders into published opinions. That letter was stolen as well: so we made another one possible. Was that last ‘copy’ stolen as well? We have to wait to find out, but the court put our letter explaining it on the docket (took FEDEX to actually get a letter to the 9th Circuit.)

This case judgment was lodged on December 26, 2017. Beside being the first Internet Censorship by government ruling in U.S. history; the behavior of defense counsel in the clerk’s case before Judge Humatewa was disgusting. The same lawyer, Karen J. Hartman-Tellez did it again in the Injunction case before Judge Willet and then again repeatedly before the three judge Circuit panel and then she quit and ran for the hills being replaced by a clone named Linnens who did it again. The Pinal County Attorney lawyer Costello submitted lies as well, after repeated knowledge they were lies. What started in 2009: with the desire to have no space between two front teeth has turned into the most reprehensible behavior of THE STATE OF ARIZONA and the County of Pinal, one could imagine.

This is the screen shot of the complaint filed: Click it to open the full size screen shot.

[1] Provided by the US Attorney Page https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/meet-us-attorney
[2] Provided at https://leehempfling.com/corruption/case-background/

• it does not require working for the government to be a victim of its unscrupulous employees… this whistleblower complaint is more of a whistleblower complaint than the fiasco implicating President Trump in a Ukraine phone call ever was!

Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General

September 19, 2020

Open and Public Complaint as follows:

Your department has been sitting on the case that literally pulled the plug on the ‘shadow government’ SIXTEEN YEARS AGO.

I am submitting this complaint through electronic means as I cannot afford stamps and I cannot afford a printer cartridge. Attorney General William Barr and President Donald J. Trump and Senator Tim Scott are copied, it is published at https://leehempfling.com .

The counter-suit filed in Hempfling v. L.M. Communications in the Fourth Circuit District of Charleston South Carolina should have ENDED the Deep State in 2006. After a reverse placeholder order was issued by the district court: The clerk explained in a nearly completely redacted letter. The Supreme Court of the United States returned the filing for appeal without cashing the fee check after three justices took the filing out of the court for a weekend, before it was officially lodged by the clerk’s office (time stamped); where the district court mandated the case with missing orders on the docket while that SCOTUS appeal was pending and before we knew it was all returned to us. George W. Bush gutted the DOJ civil rights division amid news chatter of pending 10 years sentences for former government lawyers. He removed the South Carolina EEOC from the North Carolina district assigning it to Atlanta. He changed the EEOC business model to one more closely related to a law firm model. Michael Powell resigned from FCC, Carrie Dominguez resigned from EEOC. Robert Mueller should have resigned from FBI but that department was deep into hiding what it had done and not done. Then 8 dark years of Holder-Lynch ignoring the case. Then nearly four years waiting on the new administration to finish the case and its investigation while the case is still to this day: ‘in another court’. See the docket PDF attached. It has not changed since its last entry.

That counter suit was supported in court 100% with NO rebuttal or counter evidence. It was never ruled on.

Hempfling v. L.M. Communications and the court were multiple victims of the Postal Service stealing legal mail, even out of the clerk’s office. Google had hidden the case from world wide search at Government direction. The same things that happened years later in the 9th circuit court trial and appeal.

Your response letter to me from the first complaint filed with your office openly requested that if I had any further concerns to not hesitate to bring them to your attention.

With this complaint I am bringing these issues to your attention and once again, repeating what was said to your department on January 13, 2004 in “INFORMATION FOR DEMAND FOR GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION AND INDICTMENTS AND PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES STATE AND FEDERAL”:

THIS INFORMATION, FILED AS A COMPLAINT TO INSTIGATE, INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS: A 21 count demand V.

BILLY C. SANDERS
JOSEPH DARBY
PATRICIA THOMPSON
DWIGHT JAMES
LYNN MARTIN
BILL ALLEN
SC-NAACP
EEOC
FCC
LM COMMUNICATIONS INC.
LM COMMUNICATIONS SOUTH CAROLINA INC.
LM COMMUNICATIONS SOUTH CAROLINA II INC.
GESS MATTINGLY AND ATCHISON
Richard Perry, Office of Senator Lindsey Graham
Jean Price, Office of Senator Lindsey Graham
John or Jane Doe E.E.O.C.
John or Jane Doe F.C.C.

Adding former Senator John McCain as he was in control of over 9000 pages of direct evidence regarding the matter and either failed to deliver it as was intended or refused even after suggesting the civil action.

About The Case:

During February to March, 2002: a white program director (Hempfling) tried to promote a part-time, black female disk jockey, (Patricia ‘Trish’ Thompson), to a full time job at WCOO, Charleston SC (an urban oldies radio station): then from
March through July of 2002: tried to hire her back to a full time job, after she resigned because of the radio station’s prior discrimination. Station management refused promotion and hire. Hempfling was harassed for it and eventually fired by the station for agreeing with and supporting her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Thompson filed a complaint with the EEOC through the NAACP.

Hempfling filed a complaint with the EEOC directly.

Thompson’s case was settled in May of 2003.

Hempfling’s case was ignored, then destroyed by the EEOC in order to:
A: Secure her preferential settlement from the radio station, and
B: Protect the radio station’s license renewal filing.

The radio station filed fraudulent license renewal and EEO forms with the FCC claiming Hempfling’s case to be for a charge it was not; listed an incorrect case number and informed the FCC that his case had not had further action by the EEOC. L.M. Communications Inc., owner of WCOO also swore to the statement that no complaints were pending before the FCC.

A complaint to the FCC for seven rule and law violations was filed with the FCC on August 13, 2002 and resubmitted February 11, 2004. That complaint is now in the hands of Daryl Duckworth of the FCC Enforcement Bureau and has been accessed by Ed Gauthier of FCC.

A subsequent complaint challenging the authenticity of the station license renewal and EEO form submissions was acknowledged by the FCC on February 11, 2004. Hempfling’s case had indeed seen further action as the EEOC Program Manager who handled both cases met with him in August of 2003 to discuss the case, after months of correspondence in government email.

Graham’s office’s inquiry caused an instant contact, followed shortly thereafter by a meeting in a hotel lobby with the EEOC Program Manager.

Nearly five months after the inquiry, Senator Graham’s office, having been asked twice to forward the case to the Justice department, sent the complaint letter follow up (not the original complaint) outside of official government mail to the EEOC Charlotte office. That document contained records of the evidence in the case and witness contacts and was confidential information. According to staffer Ms. Price, in her words, she “used my own money” to send the document to EEOC. Although in public record, former prosecutor Graham should have known better.

In January 2004 Hempfling filed a formal complaint with numerous federal and state officers showing 21 federal felony violations. The Criminal Department of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice did not look at the evidence (which was provided to all recipients through an Internet secure server) yet ruled the filing did not violate Hempfling’s civil rights.

United States Attorney J. Strom Thurmond’s office referred the case to Tom O’Neill, Chief Division Counsel for the FBI in Columbia SC. The secure username and password given only to Cari Dominguez of the EEOC wound up in the hands of an unauthorized person, who attempted to gain access to the secure server, but was caught and stopped.

The EEOC advised Hempfling that the very person who committed most of the felonies in the case had been put back in charge of his case. They blamed the reason for any ‘delay’ in the supporting documents provided to them. Those documents weighed over two pounds, including a CD with an audio recording and showed beyond any intelligent review that the radio station had committed a clear-cut series of violations.

To date: no other official who signed for receipt of the complaint has responded to its receipt. The office of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford even failed to enter their signed receipt for the document in the Governor s mail records (according to that office). A cover-up appears to be underway in South Carolina politics.

Now, we are, as you know, suffering at the hands of your department again.

I demand a completion to this disaster. Why has no investigation been conducted when it was so heavily relied upon to make sweeping changes inside EEOC?

Freedom of Information requests (FOIA) were sent to Lyndsey Graham, Richard Perry and EEOC and all three were ignored.

The FBI complaint on the matter was met with disdain by the Chief division counsel and refused to be investigated.

The Department of Justice has been corrupt to its core for decades that we are aware of.

And now, you have confirmed receipt of the complaint regarding the 9th circuit mail theft nearly two years ago, Google censorship and illegal acts by your Arizona US Attorney and YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING!

It appears deep state career lawyers in your department are killing anything threatening to your cause.

Now that we are facing a corrupted election in November there is a very large chance that any hope of seeing justice from any case we have; held hostage by corrupt prosecutors in your department; will return to the same buried condition the Holder department accomplished.

You have had a full color look up the skirt of many federal agencies and their deep state connections for 14 years that should have ended that illegal cabal and now faces once again being swept under the corruption rug just when it is needed the most.

I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN!

For this stage: I demand you do your job; and close these cases, so even if you choose not to prosecute the scores of felonies documented in both 4th and 9th circuit courts the civil cases held hostage are allowed to be released.

I WILL NOT STOP!

ALL pdf evidence files, audio files and documentation is located publicly at https://leehempfling.com/fourth-circuit-all-case-files-archive-collection/

The NAACP’s backdoor to the EEOC documents email content and records: https://leehempfling.com/legal/fourth-circuit-case/the-naacps-back-door-to-the-eeoc/

The FBI Cover up : https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/south-carolina-fbi-field-office-covers-up-federal-offenses-in-race-based-direct-action-case/

Rollovermartin the first three chapters explaining how it got that far: https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/rollover-martin/

Detailed explanation with documents from US DOJ, EEOC, US Attorney etc. https://leehempfling.com/legal/fourth-circuit-case/what-deep-state-national-security-threat-ended-my-radio-career/

Included in the file with this complaint are two Lyndsey Graham response letters, the FBI Complaint, three notices of FOIA filings, the 21 Count demand for prosecution and the 4th circuit district court docket from December 2017. This Zip file is located at https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Hempfling_Complaint_files.zip .

https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/district_court_docket_121907.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FBI-Complaint-3.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/graham_response_2.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/graham_response_1.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/INFORMATION-FOR-DEMAND-FOR-GRAND-JURY-INVESTIGATION-AND.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/perry_foia.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/foia_graham.pdf
https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/foia_eeoc.pdf

Once again, I will await your investigative division response, for what good it may be worth. But I will NOT wait one moment longer.

With utmost sincerity;

__________________________
Lee Kent Hempfling
XXXX
Apache Junction, AZ 85120
https://leehempfling.com
XXXX
XXXX
I do not own a cell phone do not attempt text.

UPDATE

This morning 3/8/2021 I received the following two responses frOM, the OIG CIGIE. That is actually the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. It was not submitted to them. It was submitted to the DOJ OIG through their online complaint form.

Received today was:

First is a rejection of the complaint about a FBI chief counsel that the OIG claims they do not have jurisdiction over and to go to the EEOC/OIG which has nothing to do with this complaint.

The it was followed one minute later with a statement of recall of that message , whatever that means.

Dear Concerned Citizen:

The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence. The matters that you raised have been reviewed by the staff of the Investigations Division, Office of the Inspector General.

The primary investigative responsibilities of this office are:

• Allegations of misconduct committed by U.S. Department of Justice employees and contractors; and

• Waste and abuse by high ranking Department officials, or that affects major programs and operations.

This Office does not have jurisdiction in the matter you described. Therefore, we are unable to assist you.

Please contact EEOC/OIG for further assistance.

We regret that we are unable to assist you further.

Sincerely,

Office of the Inspector General

 

Original complaint in their records:

From: noreply@cigie.gov <noreply@cigie.gov>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2020 1:06 PM
To: OIG CIGIE (OIG) <ocigie@OIG.USDOJ.GOV>
Subject: Webform submission from: Employee or Program Complaint

 

Submitted on Sat, 09/19/2020 – 13:02

Submitted by: Anonymous

Submitted values are:
Complainant Information

Submit complaint anonymously
No
Complainant Information

Your Name
Lee Kent Hempfling, Lee K Hempfling

Your Email

Your Address
XXXX
APACHE JUNCTION, Arizona. 85120
United States

Your Phone
XXXX

Your Year of Birth
1952

Last four digits of your SSN
xxxx
Subject Information
Subject Information

Name
Tom O’Neil

Subject Component
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Subject Job Title
Chief Division Counsel

Subject Address
Columbia, South Carolina
United States
Complaint Details
Complaint Description

Details:
Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General

September 19, 2020

Open and Public Complaint as follows:

Your department has been sitting on the case that literally pulled the plug on the ‘shadow government’ SIXTEEN YEARS AGO.

I am submitting this complaint through electronic means as I cannot afford stamps and I cannot afford a printer cartridge. Attorney General William Barr and President Donald J. Trump and Senator Tim Scott are copied, it is published at https://leehempfling.com .

The counter-suit filed in Hempfling v. L.M. Communications in the Fourth Circuit District of Charleston South Carolina should have ENDED the Deep State in 2006. After a reverse placeholder order was issued by the district court: The clerk explained in a nearly completely redacted letter. The Supreme Court of the United States returned the filing for appeal without cashing the fee check after three justices took the filing out of the court for a weekend, before it was officially lodged by the clerk’s office (time stamped); where the district court mandated the case with missing orders on the docket while that SCOTUS appeal was pending and before we knew it was all returned to us. George W. Bush gutted the DOJ civil rights division amid news chatter of pending 10 years sentences for former government lawyers. He removed the South Carolina EEOC from the North Carolina district assigning it to Atlanta. He changed the EEOC business model to one more closely related to a law firm model. Michael Powell resigned from FCC, Carrie Dominguez resigned from EEOC. Robert Mueller should have resigned from FBI but that department was deep into hiding what it had done and not done. Then 8 dark years of Holder-Lynch ignoring the case. Then nearly four years waiting on the new administration to finish the case and its investigation while the case is still to this day: ‘in another court’. See the docket PDF attached. It has not changed since its last entry.

That counter suit was supported in court 100% with NO rebuttal or counter evidence. It was never ruled on.

Hempfling v. L.M. Communications and the court were multiple victims of the Postal Service stealing legal mail, even out of the clerk’s office. Google had hidden the case from world wide search at Government direction. The same things that happened years later in the 9th circuit court trial and appeal.

Your response letter to me from the first complaint filed with your office openly requested that if I had any further concerns to not hesitate to bring them to your attention.

With this complaint I am bringing these issues to your attention and once again, repeating what was said to your department on January 13, 2004 in “INFORMATION FOR DEMAND FOR GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION AND INDICTMENTS AND PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES STATE AND FEDERAL”:

THIS INFORMATION, FILED AS A COMPLAINT TO INSTIGATE, INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS: A 21 count demand V.

BILLY C. SANDERS
JOSEPH DARBY
PATRICIA THOMPSON
DWIGHT JAMES
LYNN MARTIN
BILL ALLEN
SC-NAACP
EEOC
FCC
LM COMMUNICATIONS INC.
LM COMMUNICATIONS SOUTH CAROLINA INC.
LM COMMUNICATIONS SOUTH CAROLINA II INC.
GESS MATTINGLY AND ATCHISON
Richard Perry, Office of Senator Lindsey Graham
Jean Price, Office of Senator Lindsey Graham
John or Jane Doe E.E.O.C.
John or Jane Doe F.C.C.

Adding former Senator John McCain as he was in control of over 9000 pages of direct evidence regarding the matter and either failed to deliver it as was intended or refused even after suggesting the civil action.

About The Case:

During February to March, 2002: a white program director (Hempfling) tried to promote a part-time, black female disk jockey, (Patricia ‘Trish’ Thompson), to a full time job at WCOO, Charleston SC (an urban oldies radio station): then from
March through July of 2002: tried to hire her back to a full time job, after she resigned because of the radio station’s prior discrimination. Station management refused promotion and hire. Hempfling was harassed for it and eventually fired by the station for agreeing with and supporting her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Thompson filed a complaint with the EEOC through the NAACP.

Hempfling filed a complaint with the EEOC directly.

Thompson’s case was settled in May of 2003.

Hempfling’s case was ignored, then destroyed by the EEOC in order to:
A: Secure her preferential settlement from the radio station, and
B: Protect the radio station’s license renewal filing.

The radio station filed fraudulent license renewal and EEO forms with the FCC claiming Hempfling’s case to be for a charge it was not; listed an incorrect case number and informed the FCC that his case had not had further action by the EEOC. L.M. Communications Inc., owner of WCOO also swore to the statement that no complaints were pending before the FCC.

A complaint to the FCC for seven rule and law violations was filed with the FCC on August 13, 2002 and resubmitted February 11, 2004. That complaint is now in the hands of Daryl Duckworth of the FCC Enforcement Bureau and has been accessed by Ed Gauthier of FCC.

A subsequent complaint challenging the authenticity of the station license renewal and EEO form submissions was acknowledged by the FCC on February 11, 2004. Hempfling’s case had indeed seen further action as the EEOC Program Manager who handled both cases met with him in August of 2003 to discuss the case, after months of correspondence in government email.

Graham’s office’s inquiry caused an instant contact, followed shortly thereafter by a meeting in a hotel lobby with the EEOC Program Manager.

Nearly five months after the inquiry, Senator Graham’s office, having been asked twice to forward the case to the Justice department, sent the complaint letter follow up (not the original complaint) outside of official government mail to the EEOC Charlotte office. That document contained records of the evidence in the case and witness contacts and was confidential information. According to staffer Ms. Price, in her words, she “used my own money” to send the document to EEOC. Although in public record, former prosecutor Graham should have known better.

In January 2004 Hempfling filed a formal complaint with numerous federal and state officers showing 21 federal felony violations. The Criminal Department of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice did not look at the evidence (which was provided to all recipients through an Internet secure server) yet ruled the filing did not violate Hempfling’s civil rights.

United States Attorney J. Strom Thurmond’s office referred the case to Tom O’Neill, Chief Division Counsel for the FBI in Columbia SC. The secure username and password given only to Cari Dominguez of the EEOC wound up in the hands of an unauthorized person, who attempted to gain access to the secure server, but was caught and stopped.

The EEOC advised Hempfling that the very person who committed most of the felonies in the case had been put back in charge of his case. They blamed the reason for any ‘delay’ in the supporting documents provided to them. Those documents weighed over two pounds, including a CD with an audio recording and showed beyond any intelligent review that the radio station had committed a clear-cut series of violations.

To date: no other official who signed for receipt of the complaint has responded to its receipt. The office of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford even failed to enter their signed receipt for the document in the Governor s mail records (according to that office). A cover-up appears to be underway in South Carolina politics.

Now, we are, as you know, suffering at the hands of your department again.

I demand a completion to this disaster. Why has no investigation been conducted when it was so heavily relied upon to make sweeping changes inside EEOC?

Freedom of Information requests (FOIA) were sent to Lyndsey Graham, Richard Perry and EEOC and all three were ignored.

The FBI complaint on the matter was met with disdain by the Chief division counsel and refused to be investigated.

The Department of Justice has been corrupt to its core for decades that we are aware of.

And now, you have confirmed receipt of the complaint regarding the 9th circuit mail theft nearly two years ago, Google censorship and illegal acts by your Arizona US Attorney and YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING!

It appears deep state career lawyers in your department are killing anything threatening to your cause.

Now that we are facing a corrupted election in November there is a very large chance that any hope of seeing justice from any case we have; held hostage by corrupt prosecutors in your department; will return to the same buried condition the Holder department accomplished.

You have had a full color look up the skirt of many federal agencies and their deep state connections for 14 years that should have ended that illegal cabal and now faces once again being swept under the corruption rug just when it is needed the most.

I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN!

For this stage: I demand you do your job; and close these cases, so even if you choose not to prosecute the scores of felonies documented in both 4th and 9th circuit courts the civil cases held hostage are allowed to be released.

I WILL NOT STOP!

ALL pdf evidence files, audio files and documentation is located publicly at https://leehempfling.com/fourth-circuit-all-case-files-archive-collection/

The NAACP’s backdoor to the EEOC documents email content and records: https://leehempfling.com/legal/fourth-circuit-case/the-naacps-back-door-to-the-eeoc/

The FBI Cover up : https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/south-carolina-fbi-field-office-covers-up-federal-offenses-in-race-based-direct-action-case/

Rollovermartin the first three chapters explaining how it got that far: https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/rollover-martin/

Detailed explanation with documents from US DOJ, EEOC, US Attorney etc. https://leehempfling.com/legal/fourth-circuit-case/what-deep-state-national-security-threat-ended-my-radio-career/

Included in the file with this complaint are two Lyndsey Graham response letters, the FBI Complaint, three notices of FOIA filings, the 21 Count demand for prosecution and the 4th circuit district court docket from December 2017. This Zip file is located at https://leehempfling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Hempfling_Complaint_files.zip .

Once again, I will await your investigative division response, for what good it may be worth. But I will NOT wait one moment longer.

With utmost sincerity;

__________________________
Lee Kent Hempfling
xxxx
Apache Junction, AZ 85120
https://leehempfling.com
xxxx
xxxx

Complaint Details

Where did the incident occurred?
Charleston , South Carolina

Date and time the incident occurred
Tue, 08/13/2002 – 13:06

Is the activity ongoing
Yes

Did the incident occur at a prison or holding facility?
No

Is this a civil rights violation?
Yes

Is this an insider threat?
No

---

At least they determined it is an ongoing problem.

THEN…

---

One minute later this came:

OIG CIGIE (OIG) would like to recall the message, “Webform submission from: Employee or Program Complaint”.

---

So.. that normally means they changed their minds. But no evidence they have one as of yet.

UPDATE 2 3/15/21: Then, a week later after recalling their response they sent this:

BTW I was not a ‘concerned citizen’. I was filing official complaints.

Dear Concerned Citizen:

The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence.  The matters that you raised have been reviewed by the staff of the Investigations Division, Office of the Inspector General.

The primary investigative responsibilities of this office are:

• Allegations of misconduct committed by U.S. Department of Justice employees and contractors; and
• Waste and abuse by high ranking Department officials, or that affects major programs and operations.

This Office does not have jurisdiction in the matter you described.  Therefore, we are unable to assist you.

We regret that we are unable to assist you further.

Sincerely,

Office of the Inspector General

The matter described was illegal activity by the chief counsel of the South Carolina FBI Office. They even named it after the man.

Subject Information

Name
Tom O’Neil

Subject Component
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Subject Job Title
Chief Division Counsel

Subject Address
Columbia, South Carolina
United States

The OIG has still not responded to the 9th Circuit complaints. The EEOC has still not complied with FOIA.

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.