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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of Ohio

1. In direct contradiction to and in defiance of the demonstrated intent of the Supreme Court of the United States which provides special considerations to grant access for pro se citizens, this court continues to work diligently to establish and maintain barriers for pro se citizens. This court continues to sanction the abuse of its procedures internally, by the professional members of the Bar who represent various defendants, and by the United States Postal Service. In contrast to this tolerance of abuse by those who have professional training and resources, and legal obligations to the courts procedures, the court insists that this pro se plaintiff meet all requirements as if Plaintiff had a legal degree, law firm with ability to work for fee and as part or all of ones career, others to assist in the preparation and processing of all efforts associated with the case, persons to man the tasks and responsibilities of this case should other priorities take a person out of town, etc. To begin the evidentiary demonstration of this for the record and the future jury, Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue a Subpoena (Attachment 1) for all records of any nature related to the Case of Durrstein V. Wettlaufer, et al, filed in this court about August of 1983. This record will clearly demonstrate that this Court has a record of corruption in acting to deny pro se clients their rights under the United States Constitution. The specific actions will become clear as a jury reviews these documents.

4. To demonstrate the willingness of this court to involve even the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and that Court’s willingness to place cronyism above process, procedure, and the United States Constitution, Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue a Subpoena (Attachment 2) to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for all records of any nature related to all appeals under the above mentioned case of Durrstein v. Wettlaufer, et al. This will clearly show that these two bodies conspired to improperly divide, rename, and bury the Plaintiff’s valid second appeal and that justice was improperly and only partially done when it became apparent that this Court’s behavior would otherwise become subject to review by the Glare of the United States Supreme Court with the accompanying public exposure of corruption.

5. The instant cause for this case is the perjury committed by Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein in her Sworn Affidavit transcribed as Attachment 3. A copy of the letter referenced on lines 4 through 6 of Attachment 3 is Attachment 4. At the time when Plaintiff handed Cynthia Chaney Durrstein the letter, Plaintiff had to reach between her two adult boys and she reached out to take the letter. Plaintiff stated to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein that he loved her, and she turned around and entered the house without comment and without opening the letter. Also present were David Jenkins and a number of others who had come to shelter Cynthia Chaney Durrstein or to help Plaintiff move items from the property. The content of the letter and the lack of any perception or response by any of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s family and friends demonstrates the perjury in her statement. She had no item know to which she had to reply at the time of the delivery of the letter. Further, the content of the letter demonstrates the love and care of the Plaintiff and the treachery of the Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and her daughter, who is the true author of the complaint and affidavit.

6. With reference to Item 4 on Attachment 3, the Trotwood Police Department report (Attachment 5) is blatantly gender biased in that the report clearly states that both were talked with and only cites negative statements of the Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein. The report, in its obvious favoritism to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein makes no mention of groping, harassing, or threats to burn the house down because these things did not occur. Only after Rebecca Jo Bean had time to generate these malicious lies and abuse her mother Cynthia Chaney Durrstein into agreeing to them did this evil affidavit occur. In fact, Plaintiff, upon entering the house and finding Cynthia Chaney Durrstein distraught did offer to hold her only with the desire to console her. She declined the offer and Plaintiff was careful to avoid even accidental contact with Cynthia Chaney Durrstein. Police do not mention Plaintiff’s expressed concern over some suicidal remarks made by Cynthia Chaney Durrstein.

7. Item 5. On lines 15 and 16 of Attachment 3 is another gross and malicious distortion of fact. Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had agreed over the telephone to attend the local dinner theater with Plaintiff, knowing that Plaintiff would incur non-refundable charges. Cynthia Chaney Durrstein used this leading on deception and then last minute refusal as an unsuccessful attempt to incite Plaintiff into committing an action such as those falsely described in the complaint. Plaintiff’s actual response is Attachment 5, a card which Plaintiff placed upon the pile of bedding in the bedroom on the bed that Cynthia Chaney Durrstein was using to sleep on the couch. Pending Plaintiff finding another residence to move to in order to honor Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s request for a dissolution. Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had thrown the card to the side the first night. Plaintiff then placed the still unopened card on the dresser used by Cynthia Chaney Durrstein. The following evening, Plaintiff found the card torn apart and stuffed into his Bible. The 4 pages to the attachment are 1. the envelope from which Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had removed the card and returned the torn pieces, 2. the card as torn, 3. the card carefully pieced back together for readability, and 4. the front of the card. Note that there is nothing that can even be remotely construed as threatening in any actions, statements, or writings of the Plaintiff. Thus this statement is one more blatant perjury to which Cynthia Chaney Durrstein was driven by Rebecca Jo Bean.

8. As to statement 6. On Attachment 3, the record will clearly show that Plaintiff and Cynthia Chaney Durrstein were at a Marriott Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio, the night of 28 February, 1999, when Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, to the total surprise of Plaintiff, insisted on a dissolution of their marriage. After discussion, Plaintiff expressed his complete desire not to end the marriage, but that he loved Cynthia Chaney Durrstein so much tat he would honor her request and help her in the transition to her independence. Not only was there no threat or intimidation, but Cynthia Chaney Durrstein verbally avowed and sexually expressed her love for Plaintiff. This is demonstrated by the continued care for Cynthia Chaney Durrstein through and even after the falsely based eviction as can be demonstrated by testimony of others who had contacts with the Plaintiff and Cynthia Chaney Durrstein ensuing the next two weeks. This statement is a complete and vicious fabrication, again initiated by Rebecca Jo Bean, as later statements will reveal.

9. Further evidence of Plaintiff’s love and caring nature is Attachment 7, a letter sent to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein coordinating with her the pickup of Plaintiff’s items in response to a voice mail message left on Plaintiff’s office telephone. This is self-explanatory in demonstrating caring and loving nature of the Plaintiff and thus the evil actions of the Defendants. This further demonstrates the complete surprise to the Plaintiff of the actions sparked by Rebecca Jo Bean on March 13, 1999.

10. On or about the evening of Monday, March 9, 1999, in the living room of 191 N. Northampton Ave., with Rebecca Jo Bean, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, and Plaintiff present. Rebecca Jo Bean initiated and led a discussion about a terrible hold they had on Plaintiff. Repeated queries as to the nature of what they were talking about were met with refusals to advise the Plaintiff what they were talking about. Plaintiff eventually was down on his knee asking Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to let him know what they were talking about since Plaintiff could not address their concern if they would not tell him what it was. At his point, Rebecca Jo Bean pranced about of the room and Cynthia Chaney Durrstein would no longer talk with Plaintiff. This incident demonstrates the codependent control over Cynthia Chaney Durrstein that is exercised by Rebecca Jo Bean (in addition to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s codependency on Betty Chaney and Mark Bean) Plaintiff maintains that the abuse of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein by her mother is a matter of record according to statements made by Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to Plaintiff and others. David Chaney, brother of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein was allegedly removed form Betty Chaney by the authorities who demanded the abusive father of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein be divorced by Betty Chaney before David Chaney could be returned. The nominal divorce resulted in the continued presence of the violent and abusive father, James Chaney (deceased) remaining in the home and continuing to abuse Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and her siblings. Cynthia Chaney Durrstein has often stated how she was ravaged and raped frequently by her father as well as physically beaten and emotionally abused by her father and that her mother had to know. Cynthia Chaney Durrstein has also noted that she has never had her mother’s endorsement and that her children will never know a lack of endorsement. These are factors in Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s codependency on her mother to the extent that she continues to be abused emotionally while yet seeking her mother’s approval (from a mother who sacrifieced her own daughter, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s body, spirit, mind, heart, and virginity so that Betty Chaney could have that man around for her own lust). Betty Chaney will need to be deposed to find ascertain the specific agencies and dates involved. Inversely, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein is codependent on her children Rebecca Jo Bean and Mark Bean in that she must ratify the as "good" them no matter how abusive or evil they are. In Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s desperate need to appease the abuse of her mother and children, from whom Plaintiff has attempted to protect Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein was driven to abuse of drugs, greater deceit, and the destruction of her marriage. In her attempts to justify what they all knew was wrong, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Rebecca Jo Bean, and Mark Bean have repeatedly and UNSUCCESSFULLY sought to entice or incite Plaintiff into actions to justify their actions.

11. In their sexist zeal, Artemis Center recklessly supported this abusive environment and negligently sought to make Plaintiff a victim of this cycle of abuse. Further, they truly deny the victim Cynthia Chaney Durrstein freedom from those who are the true abusers in this matter. Those at the Artemis Center are well aware of the devastating nature of claims of abuse and the lasting damage they do to those accused of abuse. Yet, the Artemis Center proceeded without foundation or verification to participate in the groundless attacks upon Plaintiff. To demonstrate this and the unethical arrangement with Richard P. Arthur, Attachment 8 is a Subpoena to Artemis Center which Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue a Subpoena (Attachment 8). In advance of the Defendants efforts to conceal their unethical and reckless actions, Plaintiff claims that no form of attorney privilege is legal cover for unethical or illegal activities.

12. In a like claim to demonstrate the reckless and irresponsible actions of Richard P. Arthur, Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue a Subpoena (Attachment 11) for all records of any nature that relate to any actions Defendant Richard P. Arthur took in the process of verifying the horrible allegations prior to the filing of this damaging and evil action. Again, in advance of the Defendants efforts to conceal their unethical and reckless actions, Plaintiff claims that no form of attorney privilege is legal cover for unethical or illegal activities.

13. With reference to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s claims in item 7. of Attachment 3, lines 23 through 25 on page 1 and lines 1 through 6 on page 2, Plaintiff has not only not committed the acts against Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, but has in fact repressed his own sexual drive in consideration of the deception of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein which led Plaintiff to believe that activities caused pain. In September of 1998, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, in an intimate moment, told Plaintiff that she, "loved you (Plaintiff) so much that you (Plaintiff) could beat me (Cynthia Chaney Durrstein) up and it would be okay." Plaintiff refused to enter into the cycle of abuse of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein. Further, in January of 1999, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein expressed concern that Plaintiff did not love her (Cynthia Chaney Durrstein) any more as Plaintiff had not been asking for sex. Plaintiff advised Cynthia Chaney Durrstein that he loved her and did not wish to do anything which would add to the pain that Plaintiff believed (under deception by Cynthia Chaney Durrstein) she was in. That Plaintiff was merely waiting for a day when Cynthia Chaney Durrstein felt well enough for sex so that she could also have fulfillment. Although Cynthia Chaney Durrstein has often used the headache and vomiting statement as reason for pain medications prescriptions, Plaintiff has never seen this even though Plaintiff was retired and constantly home from January of 1995 though August of 1998. Plaintiff has even stopped minor items such as kissing Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s nose because she claimed it reminded her of the rapes by her father. Plaintiff has been a good father figure to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s children, even providing benefits, such as private Christian schooling that Plaintiff could had been unable to provide for his biological children. At the request of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Plaintiff did indeed paddle Mark Bean on two or three occasions with Cynthia Chaney Durrstein directing both Mark Bean and Plaintiff during the entire process. Further, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein has delegated this unsupervised privilege to Operation Rebirth where Mark Bean was sent in an unsuccessful attempt to correct his concealed behavior problems. In the presence of a professional counselor, Mark Bean has expressed tremendous glee at his ability to wreak havoc in his mother’s (Cynthia Chaney Durrstein’s) life and that of Plaintiff. There were no ceiling fans in the residence when Plaintiff arrived in 1994. Plaintiff has install three ceiling fans. All were properly installed and working when the Trotwood Police Department evicted Plaintiff on March 13, 1999, as evidenced that there are no remarks in the Trotwood Police Department Report for that date (Attachment 9). This report also makes no mention of ANY damage to the house, much less #35,000 damage. In fact, the residence was structurally deficient and the first floor would have collapsed into the basement were it now solely for the efforts of Plaintiff. Strangely enough, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, through Richard P. Arthur, now claims this house, for which she paid $30,000 in the 1993 time frame, is now worth $39,000 even after this $35,000 damage: yet further proof of the willingness of both these parties to submit deceptive documents to the various courts in this community.

14. Attachment 10 is a 6 page letter to Michelle Russell incorporated herein in its entirety to describe the situation leading to this mess. Near its conclusion, reference is made to the effects of stress – especially on a diabetic. Due solely to the actions of Defendants, plaintiff now has irreversible kidney damage (medical testimony and records are available), fights daily battles with depression and suicide, has become a virtual recluse, and is emotionally unable to attend church. Other damages have been previously described and will be available upon the stand. Thus claims for damages are valid.

15. Pastor Timothy Hume, after Plaintiff had been driven form his church, repeatedly solicited the presence of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein without ever contacting Plaintiff. Many times, Plaintiff would arrive home to have Cynthia Chaney Durrstein advise him that Pastor Hume had called that day. In February of 1999, Plaintiff met with Pastor Hume to discuss this situation and the need to avoid the appearance of inappropriate behavior. Plaintiff did not accuse even remotely Pastor Hume of any true misdeed, if for no other reason than that Plaintiff could not even conceive the idea or thought that his wife, Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, might have been unfaithful. Plaintiff advised no other person of this meeting. In this meeting, Pastor Hume stated to Plaintiff that he had heard of Plaintiff being abusive and unfaithful to Cynthia Chaney Durrstein, Plaintiff rightfully denied these false allegations and offered other evidence and witnesses including an acknowledged Christian Counselor to Pastor Hume. Pastor Hume further stated and emphasized that he had called Cynthia Chaney Durrstein not more than three times, an outright lie as just the ones mentioned by Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had to be over ten times. In April of 1999, David Jenkins, in a phone call, told Plaintiff that Cynthia Chaney Durrstein had told him that Pastor Hume had told Cynthia Chaney Durrstein that Plaintiff has accused Pastor Hume of having an affair with Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and that Pastor Hume had also complained about a letter written to Pastor Hume by Plaintiff. Thus, Pastor Hume and Cynthia Chaney Durrstein have broken the right to pastoral privilege of communication. Therefore, Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue a Subpoena (Attachment 12) for all records, notes, telephone or appointment calendars, etc. of any nature related to Plaintiff or Defendants.

16. When this rogue minister was reported to the Assemblies of God under whose banner Timothy Hume operates, they have steadfastly refused to act. This is in spite of their web site publicly proclaiming the accuracy of the Bible. They have not proceeded in accordance with the Bible they claim to follow nor provided any other means or process for reporting or dealing with such rogue ministers. Thus, they are willing participants in the slander, false accusations, gossip, lies, and defamation of character that are the stock and trade of Pastor Timothy Hume. Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue Subpoenas (Attachments 12 ands 13) for them in relation to this matter.

17. Plaintiff maintains that Cynthia Chaney Durrstein could not have been successfully abused nor successfully abuse Plaintiff were not for an environment of corruption and criminal indulgence by the area law enforcement and court agencies and personnel. This further includes the Timothy Hume and the agencies of the Assemblies of God who also maintained or permitted to exist in their area of responsibility an environment that fosters and solicits immoral and illegal activities. Thus both the legal and spiritual communities have directly contributed to the inducement of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and others in these illegal and unconstitutional acts. The churches and authorities do not respond unless they receive tales of woe and evil. The greater the tale, the greater their support of those who tell the tale. Thus they provide incentives and rewards for wild and lurid stories. Without any valid effort to ascertain truth, they have become an inseparable part of the evil that they indulge. Much like the naturalists and fishing industry protect spawning areas for Salmon, so do the courts, prosecutors, lawyers, Assemblies of God, and law enforcement agencies keep a breeding ground for criminal activities. Does not this assure future growth in their industries? Specific incidents demonstrate he ongoing nature of this climate. During Case No. 81-Dr-376 (approximate #) filed in mid-1982 in the Common Pleas Court of Greene County, Judge Judson Shattuck made on the record a statement that "No one is going to do anything about perjury, it’s a crime." Shattuck also, when that Defendant lost her bank job alleged embezzlement ordered an increase in support for the now unemployed person. Further, Paul B. Roderer, attorney for that Defendant, instructed her to tap the telephone of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s then family. The existence of the tapes from the illegal telephone tap was found when that defendant attempted to extort defendant’s minor children with the material on the tapes. Mr. Roderer later sued in the courtroom material that could only have come from those tapes. Upon subpoena of the tapes, Mr. Roderer directed the deletion from the tapes of those conversations between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s then attorney. Plaintiff believes that concealed telephone taps and alteration of subpoenaed material (tampering with evidence) are illegal. Shattuck was fully aware of these and did nothing – if fact, he openly complimented Roderer at the conclusion of the case. This information was submitted to the Montgomery County Bar Association which determined such actions (among others) are not a violation of professional standards or ethics. This decision was appealed to the administration of the Ohio Bar which agreed, Twice more this was appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio where individual Justices in writing both times agreed that these actions were not a violation of professional standards. Thus the Supreme Court of Ohio and all lawyers (more information later) are openly aware of the practice of protecting attorneys from the consequences of illegal behavior. Given the number of members of the Bar in leadership positions within the State government, the State of Ohio may also be considered to be fully aware of this situation. The wiretapping and embezzlement were also reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the local office of Attorney General. The attorney general refused to act. Agents of the FBI later advised the Plaintiff that the information contained on those tapes and related to the Plaintiff’s job resulted in an investigation that went from Washington DC to Los Angeles and included Dayton – no small expense. Again no action was taken. Other issues filed by Plaintiff clearly involving unethical actions have met similar fate. In consideration of this lawless atmosphere within the Bar, Plaintiff submits to and moves this Court to issue a Subpoenas (Attachment 15, 16, 17) for all records of any nature related to this scenario. Future subpoenas will demonstrate that this is not a unique event, but actually reflects a pervasive situation in the Miami Valley and State of Ohio.

18. In a classic example of "do as I say, not as I do," the court’s June 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENCATIONS fails to number the lines and complicates the task for Plaintiff. However, that will be demonstrated to be well within this courts established intent.

19. In the Case of Durrstein V. Wettlaufer, a respected attorney, Gary J. Leppla. the Plaintiff was advised that he had an open and shut case worth a very large financial settlement. When Plaintiff asked that attorney to take the case, the attorney advised Plaintiff that such a case would end the career of any attorney who took the case as the courts and members of the Bar would find ways to get revenge upon the attorney. Thus, the intimidation of honest lawyers has resulted the denial of due process to all Ohio citizens. Numerous cases must be researched and details subpoenaed to demonstrate the pervasive nature. Certainly this court and its cronies would, as in the Reports and Recommendations seek to do all in their power to prevent the Plaintiff from further demonstrating the corruption pervading the Ohio law enforcement leaders, Bar, prosecutors, judges, and courts.

20. On dates unknown, The Trotwood Police Department has destroyed evidence in the form of a 911 tape made on March 13, 1999. This occurred after the Trotwood Police Department had advised Plaintiff on how to obtain a copy of said tape which Plaintiff contends would demonstrated a false report when subjected to proper analysis. The Trotwood Police Department report dated March 13, 1999, demonstrates an obvious gender bias and resulted in the illegal and unconstitutional removal of Plaintiff’s property of firearms. The Trotwood Police Department has refused to act upon written advice of criminal activity.

21. In the subject Report and Recommendations, the Court declares (on pages 4 and 5) that the failure to investigate is not actionable. In effect, this court would grant any law enforcement agent to unfettered right to suspend the United States Constitution and its rights to justice and due process. Certainly this matter is suitable for revision by the United States Supreme Court.

22. The Court mistakenly (certainly not accidentally given the thorough work of this court) states that the Plaintiff has not sought monetary compensation in spite of the clearly claimed multi-billion dollar figure included in Plaintiff’s filings. The court would deceive all into believing the Bar cannot be assessed when, in fact, there are provisions to assess all attorneys every year for the enforcement of matters of ethics – a subject which certainly includes this matter.

23. The Law Enforcement agencies and Prosecutors of Montgomery County, Greene County do not have the right – in spite of this court’s contention, to deny the United States Constitution and its provisions for due process, equal justice, forced removal of property, etc. as described above and in the subpoenaed information.

25. Plaintiff has too much respect for the institution of the courts to continue to permit the courts participation in the degradation of the United States of America. As noted in the above instances wherein the United States Supreme Court has provided special considerations for pro se citizens and especially in view of the intimidation by the courts and Bar which deny the Plaintiff access to effective and competent legal representation, Plaintiff moves the court to deny all motions to dismiss and to act upon all motions and subpoenas in this filing. Further, Plaintiff moves the court to provide means for the court to fulfill its underlying function of delivering justice by providing liberal consideration of the Plaintiff’s true circumstances or providing a fearless lawyer of absolute integrity who can fulfill the courts demands for resources, skills and knowledge far beyond those of Plaintiff.

26. Plaintiff must cease this life destroying game to travel on business in order to have the financial resources to fund the requirements of those who use this process to extort him.

27. And yet, who else would help Cynthia Chaney Durrstein should she choose to be freed from the cycle of abuse? Her mother who has sacrificed Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to beatings and rape? Perhaps her Seymour buddies who would have her be their drug supplier? Maybe Timothy Hume who lied to and solicited her (strange that a Pastor would spend so much time and effort to attract an attractive young lady with the same first name as his wife)? Perhaps her children Rebecca Jo Bean and Mark Bean who so abuse her (a real investigation bay well find that they are the source of all the anonymous phone calls of ladies falsely claiming to be having affairs with Plaintiff)? No one other than Plaintiff. That Cynthia Chaney Durrstein chooses to remain codependent on those who abuse her is her choice and should not penalize Plaintiff. Even more, the choice of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein to become an abuser and abuse Plaintiff should not rest upon Plaintiff, but upon Cynthia Chaney Durrstein for abusing Plaintiff and upon those who abuse or support the abuse of Cynthia Chaney Durrstein and Plaintiff.

Robert V. Durrstein, Plaintiff