VIPPERMAN FILES RICO APPEAL IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT! COMING TO A CIRCUIS NEAR YOU

From: "JUDICIAL REFORM INVESTIGATIONS"
VIPPERMAN FILES RICO APPEAL IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT! COMING TO A CIRCUIS
NEAR YOU

Docket Number: 03-15416

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Lower court
Las Vegas Federal District Court
Case No. CV-S-00-1355-RLH-RJJ

Franklin D. Vipperman,
APPEAL
Plaintiff/Appellant, Opening
Brief
vs.
of
Carlos Choncha; John Compston; Appellant
Chuck Gates; Jeffrey Jeanquart;
Nevada Division Of Parole
and Probation;
Defendants/Appellees,
____________________________/

Franklin D. Vipperman
3000 So. Sandhill Rd. # 103
Las Vegas, NV. 89121
702-207-6356
Plaintiff/Appellant
In pro se

Jurisdiction
The Plaintiff/Appellant invoked original jurisdiction in this action under
authority of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Section l985 (3), 42 U.S.C.
Section l986, 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(1)(2)(3)(4). And the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961 et
seq.

The lower court granted the defendant's motions to dismiss [all] five [5]
of the defendants (ROA pp. 662-667; 734-740; 767-773). And issued JUDGMENTS in
favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff (ROA pp. 741; 774). Which now
makes this case ripe for Review by this court. Patchick v. Kensington Pub.
Corp., 743-F2d 675, 677 (9th. Cir. 1984).
This above court may now take jurisdiction under authority of 28 U.S.C. Section
l291. Conerly vs. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 623 F.2d 117(9th. Cir. 1980);
Calhoun vs. U.S., 647 F.2d 6 (9th. Cir. 1981); Blevins vs. Ford, 572 F2d. 1336
(9th. Cir. l978).
The Plaintiff/Appellant timely filed Notice Of Appeal in the lower court on
March 5, 2003 (ROA pp. 775-776). FRAP Rule 4(a)(1).
Issues for review
Issue One
Whether the lower Federal court conspired with State courts and state
officials to deny and deprive the Plaintiff/Appellant of his constitutional
rights
Issue Two
Whether the lower Federal and State courts erred by denying and depriving the
Plaintiff/Appellant of adequate, meaningful and effective access to the courts
Issue Three
Whether the lower Federal and State courts erred by denying and depriving the
Plaintiff/Appellant of Habeas Corpus relief
Issue Four
Whether the lower Federal court erred by denying and depriving the
Plaintiff/Appellant of Default Judgments
Issue Five
Whether the lower Federal court erred by denying and depriving the
Plaintiff/Appellant of Preliminary Injunction relief
Issue Six
Whether the lower Federal court erred by denying and depriving the
Plaintiff/Appellant of Declaratory Judgment
Issue Seven
Whether the lower Federal court erred by granting theDefendants/Appellees
motions to dismiss
Statement of the case
The Plaintiff/Appellant Franklin Delano Vipperman is a soon to be 65 year old
white male, having been originally convicted in Las Vegas, Nevada in l975 of
Second Degree Murder under N.R.S. 200.010. And maliciously sentenced to Life in
prison, with the possibility of parole after serving five (5) years. And is now
on parole, and under the threat, control, and duress of the
Defendants/Appellees. And has been for near (18) years.
The most accurate, precise, and truthful statement of this case is; that this
case is most probably the most horrendous miscarriage of justice in the annals
of American jurisprudence.Whereby the State of Nevada, Las Vegas police
department, and the Clark County District Attorney's Office framed the
Plaintiff/Appellant Franklin D. Vipperman for murder. The State courts and
judges railroaded him though the courts and into prison. Not only once, but
twice: And his horrendously ineffective alleged defense counsels Harry Eugene
Claiborne and Jeffrey D. Sobel failed and otherwise refused to properly and
effectively represent him before the courts. And Jeffrey D. Sobel horribly
failed to properly and effectively bring the appropriate issues to the attention
of the Nevada Supreme Court on direct appeal following two (2) different trials.
And on two (2) direct appeals. And thereby aided and abetted the State and its
police, prosecutors, judges, and courts, in their horrendously illegal and
unconstitutional acts and actions against Vipperman. Which has always been, and
always will be, their never ending customs, practices, policies and procedures.
And the Nevada Division Of Parole And Probation and the Nevada Parole Boards,
and the defendants/appellees, while acting in concert, collusion, and
conspiracy with State officials, police, prosecutors, and judges, for the
purposes of attempting to compel Vipperman to confess to the crime he was
convicted of, have conspiratorially denied and deprived him of his liberty and
property interests, due process, and the equal protection of the laws both state
and federal, for about 31 years thus far. And same has never ended, and
continues through this very date. And the conspiracy complained of; and the
illegal and unconstitutional act and actions of the defendants/appellees have
never ceased, and continue through this date. Pursuant to their joint customs,
practices, policies, and procedures. And absolute abuse of discretion. (ROA
pp. 166 thr 541).
And the lower Las Vegas Federal Court and its judges Howard McKibben, Lloyd
George, and Roger Hunt, in their zeal to protect and cover-up for their previous
senior judge and concert and cohort Harry Eugene Claiborne, and the State Of
Nevada and its Parole Boards, Departments, Agents, Authorities, and employees,
police, prosecutors, judges, and courts, and their illegal and unconstitutional
acts and actions against Vipperman, have effectively denied and deprived
Vipperman of his constitutional rights, liberty and property interests, due
process, and the equal protection of the law both state and federal, and
adequate, meaningful and effective access to the courts. (ROA pp. 1 thr 785).
And this instant case, and all other cases Vipperman has previously filed in the
lower
Las Vegas Federal Court should not have been dismisses. But were done so by the
court and its judges in their overwhelming zeal to cover-up for their previous
concert and cohort, Federal Judge Harry Eugene Claiborne, and the overwhelmingly
corrupt State Of Nevada and its Parole Boards, police, prosecutors, judges,
courts, alleged defense attorneys, Clark County District Attorney's Office,
Nevada Attorney General's Office, and all of their departments, agents, and
employees. And the defendants/appellees herein.

Statement of facts
The State of Nevada and its police and prosecutors framed the
Plaintiff/Appellant for murder. The State of Nevada courts and judges
railroaded Vipperman though the courts and into prison. His alleged defense
attorneys allowed them to do it. Covered it all up on direct appeals. And let
them [all] get away with it.
The Nevada Division Of Parole And Probation failed and refused to investigate
Vipperman and his history, and wrongfully and malicious recommended life in
prison for Vipperman. As did the overwhelmingly corrupt prosecutors in the
case. And the malicious, prejudice, and biased trial judge Carl J. Christensen
sentenced Vipperman to life in prison. Under authority of N.R.S. 200.010, and
Vipperman being eligible for parole after serving five (5) years. And the
Nevada Parole Boards and their agents kept Vipperman in prison for over fourteen
(l4) years, twice as long as any one else convicted of Second Degree Murder, and
longer than many convicted of First Degree Murder. Because he would not confess
to the crime and thereby [clean-up] all the illegal and unconstitutional acts
and actions of their concerts and cohorts of the police, prosecutors, judges,
courts, and alleged defense/appeal counsels. And finally granted parole to
Vipperman only [after] he filed a Civil Rights Complaint against them in the
lower Federal court in case titled Franklin D. Vipperman vs City Of Las Vegas,
et al., CV-LV-86-315, HDM. (1986). Which of course the lower Federal Court
promptly and wrongfully dismissed [after] Vipperman was paroled. And the
defendants/appellees are continuing to punish Vipperman by keeping him on parole
and extorting thirty ($30.00) dollars per month from him for alleged
"supervision" that does not exist. And intend to continue doing so for the rest
of Vipperman's life. And they are [all] fully aware that Vipperman did not
commit the crime he was convicted of and imprisoned for in the first instance.
Pursuant to their illegal and unconstitutional customs, practices, policies, and
procedures. And absolute abuse of discretions. (ROA pp. 1 thr 97) and (ROA pp.
166 thr 541).

Summary of Argument
The lower court should not have allowed the defendants and their legal counsel
of the
corrupt Nevada Attorney General's Office to flaunt, ignore, and blatantly
disregard the issued Court Summons, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Not only once, but twice:
The defendants and their legal counsel failed and otherwise refused to obey the
court issued Summonses commanding them to file an Answer to the Complaint within
20 days. Not only once, but twice.
The lower court should have granted the Plaintiff a preliminary injunction to
protect him from the malicious, illegal, and unconstitutional acts and actions
of the defendants and their concerts, cohorts, and attorneys, during the
pendency of this case before the courts.
The lower court should [not] have dismissed the Plaintiff's petition to re visit
and
re consider his Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus and Supplemental Pleadings
and points and authorities in support of same. (ROA pp. l66- thr 541). In that
the court in its zeal to cover-up for Federal Judge Harry Eugene Claiborne
(Plaintiff's original defense attorney in this case who had since been appointed
to the lower federal court), had previously [covered-up] the Plaintiff's
original petition for a Writ Of Habeas Corpus for five (5) long years without
allowing moved for appointment of counsel, order to show cause, and moved for
evidentiary hearing. And wrongfully dismissed same, without ever inquiring into
the issues before the court. In case Franklin D. Vipperman vs. George Sumner,
CV-LV-86-202 -LDG (1986). (ROA pp. 204 thr 247).
Argument
The State Of Nevada, City Of Las Vegas, Clark County District Attorney's Office,
Nevada Attorney General's Office, Nevada Division Of Parole And Probation,
Nevada Parole Boards, and their police, prosecutors, judges, courts, alleged
defense attorneys, Departments, Agencies, Agents, and employees thereof, are
most probably, the most corrupt in this entire country. And this
Plaintiff/Appellant has written three (3) books about same, and they are
overwhelmingly supported with indisputable evidence in support of same. The
Deal Makers, The Cesspool, and Hell Hole. Which have been published, and are
now available world wide. Exhibits A thr C attached hereto:
And the Nevada legal and judicial system has a long history of corruption:
Harry Eugene Claiborne was Vipperman's original defense attorney in this case.
He allowed the state to deny and deprive Vipperman of a timely preliminary
hearing for six (6) months (ROA pp. 175-178) in order for the State to produce a
known to them to be a l00% false alleged eye witness, one David McPeake. And
then further allowed the state to deny and deprive Vipperman of a trial by jury
for two (2) years while Vipperman remained illegally and unconstitutionally
incarcerated in the Clark County Jail having been deserted by Claiborne.
Claiborne then made a "deal" with the outgoing District Attorney to plead
Vipperman guilty of Second Degree Murder, without Vipperman even being informed
of same until [after] the "deal" had been made. Claiborne then threatened
Vipperman that if he did not take the "deal", that he would no longer defend
Vipperman before the court. Vipperman then fired Claiborne
(ROA pp. 179-180) who later became the first federal judge in United States
History to be convicted of committing crimes while setting on the federal bench,
imprisoned, and impeached by the U.S. Senate. (ROA pp. 181 thr 188).
Federal Judge Lloyd D. Judge previously of the lower court has earned himself a
place in history in the Judicial Hall Of Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70/shame.htm
Carl J. Christensen, the trial judge that railroaded Vipperman through two (2)
different trials and into prison, was caught taking a $300,000.00 dollar bribe
from Benny Binion, through Harry E. Claiborne, to cover-up a murder case against
Binion's son Ted Binion. And was removed as a district judge. (ROA 189-190).
Earl Gripentrog, the Clark County deputy district attorney that helped frame
Vipperman for murder and railroad him through the courts and into prison got
caught attempting to bribe a Las Vegas judge, (which is common place in Las
Vegas), and ended up in prison himself. (ROA pp. 191 thr 195).
John Mowbray and Noel Manoukian, two Nevada Supreme Court judges that helped
cover-up Vipperman's direct appeals and Habeas Corpus actions got caught in a
scandal with Harry E. Claiborne and managed to slither out of it because of
being a part of Nevada's "good ole boys". (ROA pp. 198 thr 203A).
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada's Attorney General, and that corrupt office stays
in the
news for its constant and continually acts and actions of corruption. (ROA pp.
127, 589).
And that corrupt office and its deputy attorney general's have wilfully,
wantonly, maliciously, and intentionally filed known to them to be perjurious
affidavits, and blatantly false informations in Vipperman's Habeas Corpus and
Civil Rights cases pending before the courts.
Which caused and resulted in great, immediate, and irreparable damage and harm
to Vipperman's liberty interests, and his legal cases pending before the courts.
(ROA pp. 592 thr 619). And the State of Nevada has [never] had any type of
legitimate defense in any of Vipperman's legal actions before the courts.
Issue One
Whether the lower Federal court conspired with State courts and state
officials to deny and deprive the Plaintiff/Appellant of his constitutional
rights
On March l0, l986, after Vipperman had exhausted his Habeas Corpus issues in
State
courts, which was an act in futility, because it was the State courts that
exhausted Vipperman. And the issues had to all be taken [back] to the State
courts because Vipperman's ineffective counsel on appeal had failed and refused
to bring the issues forward on direct appeal, which caused Vipperman the loss of
many years in the exhaustion process. He then filed a Petition For A Writ Of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 in the Las Vegas Federal court,
which was assigned case Franklin D. Vipperman vs. George Sumner, CV-LV-86-
202-LDG (ROA pp. 204-247). Wherein among the numerous issues for review was
issue
five "Defendant was denied and deprived of fair trial by reason of biased and
prejudiced
trial judge." (ROA p.214). And in support of same, Vipperman incorporated as
Exhibit A
(ROA pp. 216-218) an official court transcript dated November l3, 1980, wherein
Vipperman when filing his original Habeas Corpus in State court, moved to
disqualify Judge Carl J.
Christensen because of his overwhelming biased and prejudiced against Vipperman
during two
(2) separate trials. And "The Court", Judge Carl J. Christensen, clearly stated
upon court record; "The Court: Okay. His (Vipperman's) number one challenge is
me." (ROA p. 217 L.20). And further stated upon court record; "The Court:
Because I agree with the defendant (Vipperman) I am biased." (ROA p. 218 L.27).
Both of Vipperman's Petitions For Writs Of Habeas Corpus challenging his illegal
and unconstitutional conviction, and the overwhelmingly corrupt Nevada Parole
Board (ROA pp. 52 thr 70) were then buried and
[covered-up] by the State courts for the following four (4) years without the
Courts ever allowing or permitting moved for appointment of legal counsel, Order
to show cause, and evidentiary hearing: And summarily denied on February l4,
1984, without the court ever inquiring into the Petitions for Writs Of Habeas
Corpus, or into a single issue presented to the
Courts for review. (ROA p. 219). Then Vipperman took an appeal to the Nevada
Supreme Court, wherein that court [covered up] the cases for another year and
failed and refused to
appoint counsel, or in any way shape or form inquire into the issues and charges
before that court. And came up with absolutely false, unfounded, and non
inquired into baseless reasons for denial of the Petitions. (ROA pp. 220-246).
The Las Vegas Federal Court buried and [covered-up] Vipperman's Petition For A
Writ Of Habeas Corpus (ROA pp. 204-247) for five (5) long years without ever
inquiring into the petitions, resolving any of the issues presented in the
petitions, or permitting moved for appointment of counsel, Order to show cause,
or moved for evidentiary hearing. And the State was allowed to fail and refuse
to file a response to the petitions for an unjust period of time, and then
finally presented a completely and totally baseless and frivolous response.
During the same period of time that Vipperman's Petitions For Writs Of Habeas
Corpus were laying dormant and being ignored, buried, and covered-up by Federal
Judge Harry E. Claiborne (Vipperman's original alleged defense attorney that
allowed all of this horrendously illegal and unconstitutional case to begin in
the first instance), and his underling judges of the Las Vegas Federal Court,
Vipperman filed a 42 U.S.C. Sections l983, l985 (3), and 1986 Civil Rights
Complaint in the same federal court, titled Franklin D.Vipperman vs.
City Of Las Vegas, et al., CV-LV-315-HDM, on April 2, 1986. Naming 46
defendants.
Including many Nevada Parole Board members and hearing officers that had been
conspiring with other named defendants to deny and deprive Vipperman of his
liberty and constitutional rights, inter alia, inter alios. Which caused the
overwhelmingly corrupt Nevada Parole Board and its members and hearing officers
to realize they were in serious trouble. And they decided to grant Vipperman
parole [after] fourteen (14) long years of incarceration. In hopes that he
would not be able to pursue his legal actions against them. The Las Vegas
Federal Court then of course wrongfully dismissed the Civil Rights Complaint,
and allowed all of the 46 defendants to escape liability with impunity.
Many years later, the same Las Vegas Federal Court [after] Vipperman requested
it to act upon his Petitions For Writs Of Habeas Corpus promptly dismissed the
petitions without ever having inquired into them, resolving any of the issues
contained in the petitions, or allow moved for appointment of counsel, Order to
show cause, or moved for evidentiary hearing.
Vipperman then mistakenly thinking their just might possibly be at least one
single Las Vegas attorney that was not corrupted by the overwhelmingly corrupt
Las Vegas Legal and Judicial System, made the mistake of retaining attorney Eric
A. Posin of Las Vegas to appeal the federal court's denial of the petitions for
writs of habeas corpus to the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals. Whereby Eric A.
Posin promised Vipperman that he would timely and properly do: But instead, he
buried and covered-up the case for nearly a year, until [after] the time limit
to appeal had long since expired, and then upon demand by Vipperman, returned
Vipperman's legal records to him.
Vipperman then being completely and thoroughly disgusted with the overwhelmingly
corrupt Nevada courts and Legal and Judicial Systems, was caused to stop
pursuing legal avenues as they were a total and complete act of futility.
Then after serving over fourteen (14) years on parole, the overwhelmingly
corrupt Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation and the equally overwhelmingly
corrupt Nevada Parole Board, and the defendants/appellees herein, refused and
failed to grant or allow Vipperman any type of relief, even though Nevada law
provides for same. N.R.S. 176.033 1,(a),2. (ROA p. 71), which provides for at
the very least a reasonable liberty interest in
Vipperman having his sentence reduced, and thereby being discharged from parole.
Issue Two
Whether the lower Federal and State courts erred by denying and depriving
the Plaintiff/Appellant of adequate, meaningful and effective access to the
courts
While the lower state and federal courts did file Vipperman's petitions for
writs of
Habeas Corpus, and Civil Rights Complaints, they then as soon as possible buried
the cases, covered them up, and/or denied or dismissed them. And failed and/or
refused to allow him to proceed with appropriate avenues to effectively litigate
and pursue them. And as promptly as possible, dismissed them, and/or denied
them. Refused and failed to appoint legal counsel, issue a moved for Order to
show cause, or conduct a moved for evidentiary hearing in the habeas corpus
actions. Thereby effectively denying and depriving him of adequate, meaningful
and effective access to the courts.
Vipperman was a state prisoner in state custody when he filed his petitions for
writs of Habeas Corpus in both the state courts and the lower federal court. He
had been framed by the police and prosecutors of the state, railroaded through
the courts by judges, and sold down the drains by his ineffective legal
counsels, at trial, and on appeal. Which is common place in Las Vegas, Nevada.
As it is the City's custom, practice, policy, and procedure. And has always
been that same custom, practice, policy, and procedure, since the beginning of
that overwhelmingly corrupt city. It has never changed, and continues un abated
through this very day. And it is all evidenced, proven beyond any type of
reasonable doubt, and documented in court records in the records on appeal now
in the possession of this court. And in Vipperman's records in the lower Las
Vegas District Court in case State Of Nevada vs.
Franklin D. Vipperman, Case Number C-25696. And in the lower Las Vegas Federal
Court in cases Franklin D. Vipperman vs. George Sumner, CV-LV-86-202-LDG;
Franklin D. Vipperman vs. City Of Las Vegas, et al.,, CV-LV-315-HDM; and
Franklin D. Vipperman vs. Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation, et. al.,
CV-S-00-1355-RLH-RJJ.
"There is no higher duty than to maintain writ of habeas corpus unimpaired. 28
U.S.C.
A.. Sections 2241-2252."
"Access of prisoners to court for purposes of presenting petitions for habeas
corpus may not be denied or obstructed."
"Since the basic purpose of the writ is to enable those unlawfully incarcerated
to obtain their freedom, it is fundamental that access of prisoners to the
courts for the purposes of presenting their complaints may not be denied or
obstructed." Johnson vs. Avery, 89 S.Ct.
747 at 749 (l969).
"In so far as access by state prisoner to federal courts is concerned, this
right was
recognized in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034
(1941). The right of access by state prisoners to state courts was recognized
in White vs. Ragen, [324 U.S. 760, 762, n.1, 65 S.Ct. 878, 89 L.Ed. 1348]."
Hatfield vs. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632, 636
(C.A. 9th. Cir. l96l). Johnson vs. Avery supra at 755.
And neither may a prisoner or a parolee be denied or deprived of meaningful and
effective access to the courts in Civil Rights Complaints. See e.g. McCray vs.
State of Maryland, 456 F.2d 1 (4th. Cir. 1972); Shipp vs. Todd, 568 F.2d 133
(9th. Cir. 1978);
Navarette vs, Enomoto, 536 F.2d 277 (9th. Cir. l976); Bonds vs. Smith, 430 U.S.
871,
97 S.Ct. 1491 (l977). And that "access to the courts" must be "adequate,
effective, and meaningful." Bonds vs. Smith supra at 1494-95. And "The
requirement of access to courts and counsel extends to civil matters as well as
criminal proceedings. Wolff vs. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed. 2d 935 (l974)." Cited in Crasafi vs.
Holland, 655
F.2d 1305 at 581-582 (D.C. Cir 1981).
"Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, and it must be
"adequate, effective and meaningful." Franklin vs. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231
(9th. Cir. 1984).
Citing Bonds vs. Smith, supra, and Hahn vs. McLey, 737 F.2d 771, 774 (8th. Cir.
l984).
Cf. Milhouse vs. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371 (3rd. Cir. l981); Ruiz vs. Estell, 679
F.2d 1115 (5th. Cir. l982).
Issue Three
Whether the lower Federal and State courts erred by denying and depriving
the Plaintiff/Appellant of Habeas Corpus relief
Vipperman filed three (3) petitions for writs of Habeas Corpus in the Eighth
Judicial
District Court of Las Vegas, Nevada. They were titled; Franklin Delano
Vipperman vs.
The State Of Nevada; Eighth Judicial District Court; Franklin D. Vipperman vs.
The State Of Nevada; Nevada State Prison System (Director Vernon Housewright)
and
Attorney General Of Nevada, Brian McKay. And Franklin Delano Vipperman vs.
State Of Nevada, Nevada State Prison System and Nevada Department Of Parole.
Which presumably all three petitions were filed in State Of Nevada vs. Franklin
D. Vipperman, Case Number C-25696. And both the State and Las Vegas Federal
Court have
at all times denied and deprived Vipperman of an evidentiary hearing. In
blatant violation of
Townsend vs. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (l963). See eg. Boyd vs. Dutton, 405 U.S.
l(l972);
Kimbro vs. Herr, 386 U.S. l28 (1967); Keeney vs. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. l(1992);
Thompson vs. Keohane, U.S. Supreme Court reversing 9th. Circuit Court on cert.
No. 94-
6615 (l995). See: Letters to Judge O'Donnell and trial/appeal counsel Jeffrey
D. Sobel,
(ROA- pp. 241 thr 246).
In the petition challenging the Nevada Department Of Parole and Nevada Parole
Board, Vipperman caught the Parole Board [on tape] conducting his parole board
hearings illegally, unconstitutionally, and pursuant to absolute abuse of
discretion. He secretly tape
recorded the horrendously illegal and unconstitutional hearing, transposed it
accurately into a transcript, and then filed same into to the Eighth Judicial
District Court of Las Vegas, Nevada,
incorporated into a Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus. And served one (1)
single copy of the petition and transcript upon the Nevada Attorney General's
Office, legal counsel for the Respondents. The Nevada Attorney General's Office
then contacted the authorities at Jean Prison where Vipperman was incarcerated,
and told them to locate a tape recorder, and tape recording of the parole board
hearing. Which was probably in Vipperman's assigned room.
The authorities at Jean placed Vipperman in isolation, and then searched his
room for the recorder and tape. They found same, and turned it over to the
Nevada Attorney General's Office deputy. And [after] the deputy, Bryn Armstrong
(Chairman Of The Nevada Parole Board) and Nykki Kinsley (Executive Secretary of
the Nevada Parole Board) listened to the tape recording of the illegal and
unconstitutional hearing they conducted, the three (3) of them then collusively
destroyed the tape recording, and collusively formulated a known to all three of
them, a blatantly perjurious affidavit of Nykki Kinsley, and caused same to be
filed in
Vipperman's Habeas Corpus action. Vipperman had caught Armstrong and Kinsley
making known to them to be absolutely false assertions and false allegations
against Vipperman and his legal cases, in Vipperman's parole board hearing. And
further caught Kinsley casting an illegal and unconstitutional (Vote) to deny
parole to Vipperman. Pursuant to a conspiracy with Federal Judge Harry Eugene
Claiborne, his secretary Judy Alhstrom, (Kinsley's cousin), and Bryn Armstrong.
And Kinsley was neither a member of the board, or had any type of legal
authority to voice her opinion, or cast a vote in a parole board hearing. See;
(ROA pp.56 thr 70) attached to original complaint, and (ROA pp. 592 thr 619).
And the District Court, Nevada Supreme Court, and Las Vegas Federal Court have
[all] had this information and evidence in their possession at all times when
they denied and deprived Vipperman of Habeas Corpus relief.
Nevada Revised Statute (N.R.S.) 34.360 et seq. Provides for the Writ Of Habeas
Corpus in state courts.
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 provides for the Writ Of Habeas Corpus in Federal
courts by state prisoners.
In Marshal vs. Warden, Nev. State Prison, 434 P2d 437 at 439 (S.Ct. Nev. l967),
the Nevada Supreme Court noted and held interalia that;
"Following conviction, he is given a choice of remedies. He may file the
traditional habeas petition, ... in the district court of the district having
his
custody, or utilize the broader remedy of the l967 act (post conviction relief)
and request relief from the court in which his conviction occurred."

In Vargo vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 581 P2d 855 at 855 ((S.Ct. Nev. 1978),
the Nevada Supreme Court noted and held interalia that;
"since claims had not been considered and resolved, either from record, or after
evidentiary hearing, order dismissing petition for post-conviction relief was
vacated
and case was remanded for further proceedings, including appointment of counsel
to represent petitioner."

In Wright vs. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 at 881 (9th. Cir. l964), this above court
noted and held interalia that;
"Unless a petition for habeas corpus reveals on its face that as a matter of law
the
the petitioner is not entitled to the writ, the writ or an order to show cause
must
issue 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2243. * * *
"It is not the purpose of the show cause proceeding to resolve disputed issues
of
fact, but only to determine whether such issues exist. If the show cause
proceeding
discloses the existence of substantial issues of fact, which if resolved in
accordance
with the petitioner's contentions would entitle him to relief, then the district
court
must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine those issues. Walker vs. Johnston,
312 U.S. 275, 284, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830 (l941). Only if it appears from
undisputed facts disclosed by the petition, the response to the order, and the
answer, if any, that as a matter of law petitioner is entitled to discharge, or
that
as a matter of law petitioner is not, may an evidentiary hearing be avoided."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LUKE 11:52 "Woe unto you, lawyers!"
LET THE CONSTITUTION SPEAK

Judicial Reform Investigations
www.court.to

To be removed, reply to email or report to abuse@court.to
Report spam to spam@court.to