Wyoming State Bar
Board of Professional Responsibility
Shannon Howshar, Assistant to Bar Counsel
SUBJECT: mounting evidence of an 18 U.S.C. 241 conspiracy
involving attorney Mark C. Hardee et al.
Once more, I wish hereby further to supplement my pending Complaint
against attorney Mark C. Hardee, with all of the following:
(1) While I was stranded at the Scotts Bluff County Detention Center
("SBCDC") in Gering, Nebraska, and prior to the 3/21/2014 hearing
at the USDC/Cheyenne, Mr. Hardee visited me at the SBCDC,
in a private room set aside for counsel-client consultations.
(2) Mr. Hardee there informed me that the limited travel budget
available to the Federal Public Defender's office in Cheyenne,
Wyoming, prevented him from making any future trips to SBCDC on
my behalf. Here, compare the transport costs implied by the 28 moves
already documented in my AFFIDAVIT documenting all 28 moves.
(3) Mr. Hardee also informed me -- somewhat vaguely -- that
I would not be allowed to introduce evidence of my extensive
prior work on the credential investigation. That investigation
became an ongoing effort of mine in late August 2001 as part of my
copyright infringement case: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
(4) I now infer from (3) above that Mr. Hardee must have been told
-- i.e. to expect that discovery restriction -- by personnel in the Office
of the U.S. Attorney in Cheyenne, and in the U.S. District Court
also in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
(5) While stranded at the SBCDC, I did succeed in mailing a
Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief to a Nebraska State Court,
with a companion Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
(6) The Respondents named at (5) above are Stephan Harris,
Christopher A. Crofts, L. Robert Murray, plus as yet unnamed
Respondents Does 1 thru 20.
(7) As soon as I mailed my Petition and Motion at (5) above,
I was moved yet again, back to the Federal Detention Center
at SeaTac (Seattle/Tacoma), far beyond the State of Nebraska's
territorial limits, causing 72+ hours of sleep deprivation.
(8) During the move at (7) above, I was forced to surrender all
of my legal papers and research, e.g. upon leaving the SBCDC
and also upon intake at the Washington County Justice Center
in Akron, Colorado.
(9) Several of those legal papers have now turned up missing,
e.g. FOIA Request for credentials of personnel employed by the
Federal Public Defender's office in Cheyenne, Petition for Writs
of Mandamus, Request for Investigation by the Federal Public
Defender's office in Cheyenne, and Relator's Fourth Verified
Criminal Complaint on Information. Those are the legal papers
I can correctly recall, at this moment; there may be others.
(10) I now regard it as entirely possible, and also very probable,
that the discovery restriction, mentioned at (4) above, resulted from
a premeditated criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242.
The principal participants in that conspiracy evidently include but are
not limited to Stephan Harris, Christopher A. Crofts, L. Robert Murray,
Nancy D. Freudenthal, Mark C. Hardee, and attorney Michael Reese,
Wyoming State Bar #5-1390.
(11) For your information, Mr. Reese has already defamed me
in writing -- in his motion for 90-day extension -- by alleging
falsely that I have a "strong anti-government ideology" [sic].
Defamation per se is a crime. I have already protested Mr. Reese's
defamations by filing my protest with the USDC/Cheyenne,
(12) As part of the credential investigation, I have now lodged
with the U.S. Department of Justice four (4) proper "Qui Tam"
Complaints under the Federal Civil False Claims Act.
Hard copies of those four Qui Tam Complaints were seized
during the illegal 6/11/2013 raid on my private Seattle apartment.
(13) Based on (4) above, I now regard it as very probable that those
four (4) Qui Tam Complaints were NOT presented at any grand jury
hearings as exculpatory evidence favorable to me.
(14) On the latter point (13), despite a USDC "order" requiring
their disclosure to me, the grand jury transcripts have STILL not
been disclosed to me in any format, nor in any manner whatsoever.
See Brady v. Maryland (re: exculpatory evidence); and, Docket #46
(03/13/2014), #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/Cheyenne).
you very much for your continuing professional consideration.
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)