WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT FILED 9/25/2019 DOJ OIG CRIMINAL COVERUP IN ARIZONA

Michael Bailey
United States Attorney
District of Arizona

The following is the Whistle-blower complaint filed with the Office of the Inspector General 9/25/2019 Confirmed by Investigation Division on September 30, 2019.

WHISTLE-BLOWER: REPUBLICAN COVERUP U.S. ATTORNEY FOR ARIZONA; CRIMES COMMITTED IN FEDERAL COURT TRIAL HE WAS IN CHARGE OF

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:

This is a copy of the complaint filed:

Arizona-Whistleblower-Complaint

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