Plaintiff Robert V. Durrsein
AMC Branch
PO Box 33633
Dayton, OH 45433-0629

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of Ohio

1. This action is based on the direct and indirect actions of the Defendants to violate the United States Constitution and to violate the Plaintiff’s rights under said Constitution under its Preamble, Body and Amendments including, but not limited to, the Separation of Powers and the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Violations of State and Local laws are included as subsets of the violations of the United States Constitution.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff has, since 1978, been a resident of Greene or Montgomery Counties in Ohio and a resident of various cities and townships including, but not limited to Beavercreek, Trotwood, and Dayton, Ohio.
3. Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Rebecca Jo Bean, and Mark Anthony Bean were residents of 191 N. Northampton Ave., Trotwood, OH, 45427, during the cohabiting portion of Plaintiff’s, marriage to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein.
4. Betty Chaney is the mother of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and was resident at 860 S. Dixie Dr., Fairborn, OH, during the cohabiting portion of Plaintiff’s, marriage to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein.
5. The Artemis Center was apparently at 310 W. Monument Ave., Dayton, OH, during the March, 1999, time frame and providing assistance to women alleging abuse.
6. Richard P. Arthur, 1634 S. Smithville, Dayton, OH, was associated with the Artemis Center and provided legal services for women alleging abuse.
7. Timothy Hume was Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s Pastor at the Gospel Temple Assembly of God, 999 Spinning Rd., Dayton, OH, during the 1995 through early 1999 time frame.
8. The Assemblies of God Ohio District Council in Columbus, OH, and in Springfield, MO, are the publicly apparent chain of command over the continuing sanction of Timothy Hume and his actions as a pastor.
9. Jeff and Marilyn Seymour have been residents of Beavercreek, OH, during the 1995 through current time when they have associated with the Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and Plaintiff Robert Durrstein.
10. The Trotwood Police Department is the Law enforcement agency of the City Of Trotwood covering 191 N. Northampton Ave. since the incorporation of the old Drexel area into the City of Trotwood.
11. Dr. Michelle Russell in Bellbrook, OH, was the primary care physician of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein during the cohabiting portion of Plaintiff’s, marriage to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein.
12. The Dayton Police Department is the agency of the City of Dayton responsible for the enforcement of the laws within the City Of Dayton, OH.
13. The Offices of Sheriff and Prosecutor of Montgomery County are responsible for the enforcement of the law in and for Montgomery County, OH.
14. The Beavercreek Police Department is responsible for the enforcement of the laws within and for the City of Beavercreek, OH.
15. For the State of Ohio, The Supreme Court of Ohio is and has been for the entire tenure of Plaintiff’s residence in Ohio responsible for the administration of justice within Ohio including the governance of the BAR within the State of Ohio.

FACTS

16. On April 23, 1999, Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein committed perjury in the attesting to self-evident lies against and injurious to Plaintiff. That this perjury is contained in and was used to obtain a damaging domestic protection against the Plaintiff.
17. Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein was negligently and recklessly supported in this false and damaging perjury by the Artemis Center and Richard P. Arthur as they assisted Cynthia Chaney Durrstein in the filing of said false and damaging claims with the courts resulting in falsely obtained court orders that violate the Plaintiff’s rights under the laws of the State of Ohio and the United states Constitution.
18. Plaintiff contends that a significant portion of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s action was done in attempts to ease the abuse committed upon defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein by her mother, Betty Chaney, and children Rebecca Jo Bean and Mark Anthony Bean. That these family members of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein have directly and indirectly abused Plaintiff and induced Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to illegally abuse Plaintiff.
19. On March 13, 1999, Defendant Rebecca Jo Bean did call 911 to obtain the Trotwood Police Department and made false statements to the Police during this call to induce the police to force Plaintiff from his marital residence.
20. The Defendant Dr Michelle Russell has been negligent in her care of Plaintiff’s wife Cynthia Chaney Durrstein in her refusal to report the abuse of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to the authorities, in her refusal to treat Cynthia Chaney Durrstein for the emotional effects of a life time of abuse, in her failure to properly monitor Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s health with the result that Cynthia Chaney Durrstein became an abuser of prescription drugs while under Dr. Russell’s care, with the refusal to accept proper additional input about Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s health when so advised by the Plaintiff, and in the continuing support of the abuse of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein by her children Rebecca Jo Bean and Mark A Bean who have also been under the care of Dr. Russell. A review of the medical records of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein will reveal closely timed visits between the Warren County Sheriff to then Cynthia Barnes residence and visits to Dr. Russell for treatment of injuries from her former spouse, Jerry Barnes according to the repeated statements of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein who claimed these injuries caused on one occasion the loss of three teeth with no report from Dr. Russell.
21. The Trotwood Police report generated of this March 13, 1999, response demonstrates gender bias on behalf of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein in noting that they officers talked to both parties, but inciting only defamatory statements made by Cynthia Chaney Durrstein against Plaintiff.
22. The Trotwood Police Department, having committed to providing to Plaintiff a copy of said 911 call did negligently destroy this evidence.
23. The Trotwood Police Department having acted swiftly and vigorously against Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and Defendant Rebecca Jo Bean did refuse to perform their required duties when advised of criminal actions by others associates with Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein.
24. The Dayton Police Department, Montgomery County Prosecutor and Sheriff, each have been directly advised of criminal violations damaging Plaintiff within their areas of responsibility and have steadfastly refused to respond to valid complaints in stark contrast to the vigorous and swift response against Plaintiff on behalf of other Defendants who were illegally damaging Plaintiff.
25. That Jeff and Marilyn Seymour have conspired with Plaintiff Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to use Plaintiff’s friendship and affection for them in attempts to deceive and induce Plaintiff into violating the illegally obtained domestic protection order. An example of this is the placement of a request in Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s own handwriting (attachment 1) on Plaintiff’s chair in his locked office at work a demand by Plaintiff Cynthia Chaney Durrstein that Plaintiff (in direct violation of the domestic protection order) that Plaintiff correspond with Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and that Jeff Seymour would transport this response.
26. Defendant Jeff Seymour emphatically stated on several occasions that his wife, Marilyn Seymour, had been doing drugs (especially Valium) for years with Plaintiff’s wife Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and that Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and Marilyn Seymour’s mother had been supplying Marilyn with Valium far in excess of the quantities prescribed by Marilyn’s doctor. Defendant Jeff Seymour further repeatedly stated that he could not stand his wife and would not have been able to stay married to her without these drugs. Plaintiff, as a sincere friend of Defendant Seymour, attempted to discuss with Jeff this situation in attempts to help both the Seymours and Plaintiff’s wife to become free of these and other dependencies. Unsuccessful in this and wishing to resolve these illegal activities without involving the police, Plaintiff suggested meeting with a third party such as Jeff Seymour’s pastor. Jeff and Marilyn Seymour responded by going to the Beavercreek Police Department and filing a harassment complaint against Plaintiff. In this complaint, false statement of fact were made to the Beavercreek Police Department including references to the domestic protection order which Defendants Jeff and Marilyn Seymour are aware is based on perjury.
27. The Beavercreek Police Department immediately responded by calling the Plaintiff and threatening Plaintiff in a successful attempt to prevent Plaintiff for further trying to directly help Defendants Jeff and Marilyn Seymour with their criminal behaviors. The Beavercreek Police Department Officer making the call advised Plaintiff of statements made by Jeff an/or Marilyn Seymour that were false allegations of provable or deniable fact. Plaintiff advised (as noted in the police report) the Beavercreek Police Department of the lie and demanded the officer record ALL statements made by Defendants Jeff and Marilyn Seymour. Plaintiff has twice corresponded with the Beavercreek Police Department reporting these violations of law, yet there has been no discernable action to investigate these criminal acts by Defendants Jeff and Marilyn Seymour. In fact, the transcript (Attachment 2) of Beavercreek Police Chief Scott taken from Plaintiff’s voicemail clearly shows that the Chief of the Beavercreek Police Department is unable to see that he has any responsibility to pursue truthful information about illegal behavior – perhaps because he has obligated all his resources to defending and assisting illegal acts such as the lies (see attachment 3: a report on the Supreme Court ruling in Brogan vs. U. S., 96-1579) used to harass the Plaintiff).
28. Defendant Timothy Hume has directly led the Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to the spiritual justification of lies and false allegations among other massive violations of Christianity and the sacred responsibility he has for his flock. Without the deliberate support and lies for pastor Hume, this situation of spiritual and legal lawbreaking by Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein might well not have happened. After Plaintiff and Defendants Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Rebecca Jo Bean, and Mark Anthony Bean left the Gospel Temple Assembly of God, Defendant Timothy Hume repeatedly solicited Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein (per her often made statements) to return to his church. There, he oversees an operation of lies and gossip that solicit lies and ever greater false tales about others in order to maintain the ‘sympathetic’ support of the church. In February of 1999, Plaintiff met with Defendant Timothy Hume to discuss the appropriateness of a minister calling another man’s wife. Defendant Hume lied in emphasizing that he could not have called Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein more than three times and accused Plaintiff of infidelity and abuse. Plaintiff denied Defendant Timothy Hume’s accusations and offered reputable third party witnesses and other tests to demonstrate Plaintiff’s fidelity and care for his spouse. In April of 1999, Mr. David Jenkins in a telephone call with Plaintiff advised Plaintiff that Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had stated to Mr. Jenkins that Defendant Timothy Hume had told Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein that Plaintiff had accused Defendant’s Timothy Hume and Cynthia Chaney Durrstein of having an affair. Thus Defendant Timothy Hume directly contributed to the emotional and spiritual deception of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein into committing acts in violation of the policies of the church and of the law. Reporting of this to the District and Headquarters of the Assemblies of God has resulted in their refusal to act in accordance with the inerrant Scripture they allege to follow. Thus, they have joined Defendant Timothy Hume in aiding and abetting Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein in violating the law and the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
29. Finally, we come to the continuing actions of Defendants State of Ohio and Supreme Court of Ohio. Specifically to be addressed are the ongoing actions of the Supreme Court of Ohio which has an established history since 1982 of not merely failing to enforce the written requirements of the Supreme Court of Ohio for lawyers, prosecutors, and judges, but of actually becoming an accomplice in the commission of unethical and even criminal actions by members of the Bar and Judiciary of the State of Ohio. Judge Judson Shattuck of Greene County has stated on a notarized transcript words to the effect of ‘no one will be punished for perjury, it is a crime…" and the Supreme Court of Ohio has found that such a statement is not a violation of ethics. In 1981 and 1982, attorney Paul B. Roderer directed the wiretapping of Defendant’s telephone and further directed the editing of the tapes from the wiretap, yet Justices of the Supreme agreed with the Montgomery County Bar Association that these and other acts were "not a violation of ethical standards.’ When Defendant and two minor children appeared in the 1981 and 1982 time frame to report child abuse, the Greene County Prosecutor’s office told us to leave. Prosecutor Schenck then failed to respond until the third certified letter to improperly advise Defendant to report such abuse to an agency without jurisdiction and that the other agency would make the decision whether or not to prosecute. Prosecutor Schenck even attempted to commit abuse of Defendant’s minor son in an attempt to help a political crony cover his negligence in a homicide investigation. Having forced expenses upon Defendant in this failed attempts to abuse a minor child, Prosecutor Schenck then publicly abused the minor son of Defendant by ‘leaking’ the lie that Defendant’s son had killed another child. The Xenia Gazette refused to publish a letter exposing the actions of the Prosecutor and courts in Greene County, and the editor (Bob last name not known) specifically cited intimidation by the prosecutor and judges. Other reports of ethical violations of attorneys since then have all met with a refusal of the Bar Associations and Supreme Court of Ohio to enforce their own written standards.
30. In 1982, the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the use of the above mentioned wiretap recordings, yet no actions were taken against the perpetrators of this criminal activity. The local office of the Attorney General was advised of this criminal action, yet refused to take action to enforce the law and the Plaintiff’s rights.
31. In Durrstein V Wettlaufer (Wetlaufer?) et al filed Pro Se in this court in 1983, even this court has demonstrated that this courts primary allegiance is to protect fellow members of the Bar from the professional, legal, and moral consequences of their actions in defiance of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. This conspiracy placing the brotherhood of the Bar above the law, above the U.S. and State Constitutions, and above the Bar’s own written standards clearly proves the corruption affecting this court and possibly even the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as demonstrated in the referenced Durrstein V Wettlaufer et al. Further, this referenced case was filed Pro Se as Plaintiff was unable to secure legal representation specifically due to a fear of retaliation from the "Brotherhood of the Bar" taking revenge on legal representation in other cases. Plaintiff has also been prevented from obtaining legal counsel because of the certain reprisal against any competent legal counsel who would dare to represent Defendant in exposing the corruption within the Bar, the courts, and the agencies. As a former Air Force employee, Plaintiff’s own experience in reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse validates the propensity of the leaders of the ‘establishment’ in taking such revenge.
32. The Plaintiff is frustrated in the submission of evidence due to the refusal of the investigative and prosecutorial agencies in this matter to perform their professional and legal obligations.

COUNTS & CLAIMS

33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are totally included here by reference.
34. Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s initiating event (in a continuum of actions) on April 23, 1999, was the commission of perjury in the attesting to obvious lies against Plaintiff. In and of itself, this might not be considered worthy of this legal action. However, Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein has been aided and abetted by the other Defendants.
35. Richard P. Arthur became involved due to his association with the Artemis Center. With massive objective evidence obviously available to these parties, they acted recklessly to use the laws of the state of Ohio and the Violence Against Women Act to terrorize Plaintiff causing severe damage emotionally, financially, professionally, socially, religiously, and even physically. In the Court hearing, Plaintiff was denied his right to face his accuser and terrorized into acceding to a maliciously generated and negligently processed order. Richard P. Arthur and the Artemis Center has available to them the Trotwood Police Department report which demonstrated that no statements about burning the house of or the fondling of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had been made by Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein at the time of the eviction of Plaintiff. Further, even a cursory review of the records and house would indicate that Plaintiff had saved a structurally deficient structure to the benefit of Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, that three ceiling fans had been installed by Plaintiff, and that other claims used by Defendants Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Rebecca Jo Bean, and Mark A. Bean were obvious and blatant lies used solely to damage a faithful, loving, supportive, caring, and trusting husband and stepfather. Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s medical records and hotel receipts would demonstrate that Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had spent the night of February 28 – March 1, 1999, in a Marriott in Cleveland to make a March 1 medical appointment at the Cleveland Clinic. Much more demonstrates the totality of the obvious and blatant evil in the affidavit of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein dated March 23, 1999, attested to with impunity from prosecution for perjury. The reckless and negligent actions of the Artemis House and Richard P. Arthur resulted in a falsely obtained domestic protection order which has wrongfully, evilly, and effectively destroyed Plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff has a position as Area Representative with the Christian Motorcyclists Association (CMA) and a ministry associated with this position. Due solely to the wrongful actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been removed from his position within the CMA and driven from participation in CMA and other motorcycling events and area Christian events such as concerts to avoid violating the fraudulently and negligently obtained domestic protection order. Further the expenses associated with these unlawful acts have caused such financial burden that Plaintiff’s ability to tithe has been compromised, further violation Plaintiff’s rights to due process, equal protection, justice, freedom of religion, separation of powers, the right to movement, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
36. Upon notice of the criminal actions initiated as partially noted above, the various law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies have aided and abetted the violation of Plaintiff’s rights by refusing to perform their sworn duties to uphold the law and have caused further damage to Plaintiff financially, socially, religiously (the order effectively and falsely destroys future ministry efforts)(a minister and 18 year acquaintance of Plaintiff left a voicemail telling Plaintiff 911 would be called if Plaintiff appeared at their door)(ability to tithe damaged by the coasts of these improper and/or illegal actions), emotionally (Plaintiff has repeatedly been driven to the brink of suicide by the malicious destruction of all that he has stood for for half a century), professionally (future employment jeopardized by the falsely obtained order), and other manners.
37. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants might well have acted properly had any the apprehension that their actions would have met with proper legal and professional consequences. That the illegal and negligent behavior was effectively encouraged by the Bar and The Supreme Court of Ohio establishing a continuing and widely known practice of accepting –even endorsing- unethical and illegal behavior by the members of the Bar who had clearly violated the written standards of the Supreme Court of Ohio and ii some cases the laws of the land as well. Plaintiff maintains that this demonstrable violation by the Supreme Court of Ohio of the standards written by the Supreme Court of Ohio violates the rights of all Ohioans as well as the Plaintiff, that this violation is not rectifiable within the authority and bounds of the Sate of Ohio due to the very involvement of the highest officials of the state of Ohio and the Supreme Court of Ohio in this silent conspiracy of "Mafia" like brotherhood loyalty and intimidation pervading the local, appellate, and Supreme Court(s) of Ohio and those Federal Courts within Ohio as clearly shown by the behavior of this Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Durrstein Wettlaufer case.

THEREFORE, THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO:

38. Declare itself and all members of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio in an inherent conflict of interest as both direct and indirect parties to the suit since even members not directly affected have a direct financial interest in this proceeding due to the ability of the Supreme Court of Ohio to assess the members of said Bar for costs should an impartial court award sufficient costs, damages, and punitive assessments as to permanently deter ALL members of said Bar including those sitting on the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Federal Courts from future such ethical and canonical violations. The value listed in the original filing is obtained from official records of the U. S. Government and may well be sufficient for this purpose, but is also sufficient as to personally involve in professional conflict every member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
39. Further that the Court require the local office of the U. S. Marshall to establish a secure facility for all materials which will be deposited or subpoenaed to preserve such materials intact for use in this process. This facility and all materials shall be open to the public for viewing and copying. The Freedom of the press has been previously violated by these members of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio and must be preserved in this case. Openness and a high probability of the exposure of surreptitious activities by Defendants will be partially inhibited by this action.
40. That the Court establish an independent investigative and prosecutorial bodies to fulfill the duties refused by those now a party to this suit. That, as an investigative tool, Plaintiff and all direct Defendants and those others whom so requested in subpoena be interviewed using independent and authoritative public polygraph examination in a controlled environment with appropriate blood and other samples taken before and after the test and subjected to a thorough test for and public report of all drugs/substances present.
41. That the Court remove the normal procedural constraints from Plaintiff due to the tremendous effort imposed upon Plaintiff by the volume, scope of this case, and tactics of the Defendants in this case. For example, attorney Carla J. Morman’s April 21, 2000, Certificate of Service was fraudulently attested to as the service was not even mailed to Plaintiff until April 25, 2000, well after the Courts requirement burdened upon Plaintiff. This is yet another unusual concept in this matter – that the concept of JUSTICE and the requirements of the U. S. Constitution be given more consideration than the use of procedure which has previously been used to frustrated these items.
42. That the Court direct the Postmaster as previously sought. The April 12, 2000, filing and postmarked letter of Robert J. Surdyk was not received in Plaintiff’s PO Box until close of business April 26, 2000. (Attachment 4.) Plaintiff and Court now have no way of determining which responses have been mailed and lost, detained, or remain delayed.
43. That the court require all Defendants to proceed Pro Se since the overt and covert actions of the Bar of and the Supreme Court of Ohio have forced the Plaintiff to proceed in said manner. That all Defendant’s be denied the access to courts and representation still leaves the Defendant’s with incomparably greater resources than the Plaintiff. Fortunately, Plaintiff has the unusual concepts of justice, integrity, and patriotism on his side. As is obvious from the mere ‘tip of the iceberg’ presented here, the Plaintiff’s temporal resources are overtaxed by the burdens of the actions of the Defendants and the procedural requirements of this Court.
44. That the Court process the subpoenas which will follow as soon as the Plaintiff can generate them in accordance with the facts and claims made herein and in the motions to which the subpoenas are attached. Plaintiff simply has not had time to generate the subpoenas needed to require the various Defendants to produce the evidence demonstrating their culpability.
45. Failing any of the above, Plaintiff moves the Court to act upon what it truly knows without any need for objective evidence – the Courts own history and awareness of the corruption within the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio and the local law enforcement agencies and courts. To declare the law within Ohio used to grant the restraining order unconstitutional, to declare the actions of Defendants criminal and direct against especially Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Jeff Seymour the vigorous and maximum prosecutions, incarcerations, and fines allowable by law against all violations of all Defendants.

4 Attachments as noted in filing