Mahalo

SIGNATURE:
Clifford "RAY" Hackett www.rayis.me RESUME: www.rayis.me/resume

I founded www.adapt.org in 1980 it now has over 50 million members.
$500 of material=World’s fastest hydrofoil sailboat. http://sunrun.biz

signature rate

1st Green Solutions Guam, LLC (671) 979-1474

Accounting Deloitte & Touche LLP (671) 646-3884

Accounting Ernst & Young LLP (671) 649-3700

Accounting J. Scott Magliari & Company (671) 472-2680

Accounting Jerold W. Filush, CPA (671) 688-5378

Accounting Kerry J. Cutting, CPA (671) 685-5646

Accounting The Accounting Solutions (671) 477-0963

Advertising Baumann Advertising (671) 477-3741

Advertising Big Fish Creative, Inc. (671) 649-3474

Advertising David DDB (671) 472-4629

Advertising Glimpses of Guam, Inc. (671) 649-0883

Advertising Pivot, LLC (671) 646-6444

Advertising Ruder Integrated Marketing Strategies (671) 687-0958

Air Transportation & Related Services Aviation Concepts, Inc. (671) 477-0179

Air Transportation & Related Services Delta Air Lines, Inc.(671) 642-6928

Air Transportation & Related Services United (671) 645-8772

Air-Conditioning Equipment & Supplies JWS Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Ltd. (671) 646-7662

Air-Conditioning Equipment & Supplies Trane Guam (671) 649-0493

Architectural & Engineering Services AECOM(671) 477-8325

Architectural & Engineering Services ARI Partners Architecture P.C.(671) 646-5144

Architectural & Engineering Services Coffman Engineers, Inc.(671) 300-7531

Architectural & Engineering Services Duenas, Camacho and Associates, Inc.(671) 477-7991

Architectural & Engineering Services GHD Inc.(671) 472-6792

Architectural & Engineering Services GK2 Inc.(671) 477-9224

Architectural & Engineering Services HDR, Inc.(671) 989-5558

Architectural & Engineering Services LYON Associates, Inc.(671) 473-5966

Architectural & Engineering Services Onedia Total Integrated Enterprises, LLC(671) 475-0843/988-7930

Architectural & Engineering Services RIM Architects (671) 477-2111

Architectural & Engineering Services Taniguchi-Ruth Makio Architects (671) 475-8772

Associate Member American Red Cross Guam Chapter (671) 472-6217

Associate Member Center for Micronesian Empowerment(671) 635-1121

Associate Member Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Guam (671) 646-2168

Associate Member Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (671) 488-8441

Associate Member Embassy of Canada – Manila (Philippines) 632-857-9000

Associate Member FSM Consulate General Office, Guam (671) 646-9154

Associate Member Guam Amateur Baseball Association (671) 649-9663

Associate Member Guam Community College (671) 735-5636

Associate Member Guam Contractors’ Association (671) 647-4840

Associate Member Guam Echecs aka Guam Chess Federation (671) 649-4489

Associate Member Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority (671) 647-4332

Associate Member Guam Educational Telecommunication Corporation; dba PBS Guam (671) 734-5483

Associate Member Guam Girl Scouts, Inc. (671) 646-5652

Associate Member Guam Hotel & Restaurant Association (671) 649-1447

Associate Member Guam Procurement Technical Assistance Center(671) 735-2552

Associate Member Guam Seventh-Day Adventist Clinic(671) 646-8881

Associate Member Guam Small Business Development Center (671) 735-2590

Associate Member Guam Symphony Society (671) 477-1959

Associate Member Guam Visitors Bureau (671) 646-5278

Associate Member Guam Women’s Club (671) 472-5451

Associate Member iCAN Resources Inc. (671) 646-4226

Associate Member Jose D. Leon Guerrero Port Authority of Guam(671) 477-5931

Associate Member Make-A-Wish Foundation (671) 649-9474

Associate Member Marianas Educational Media Services, Inc. (671) 648-4262

Associate Member Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas (671) 339-7090

Associate Member Pacific Islands Development Bank(671)477-0047

Associate Member Pacific Islands University (671) 734-1812

Associate Member Professional & International Programs (671) 735-2600

Associate Member Rainbows For All Children Guam(671) 632-0257

Associate Member Research Corporation of the University of Guam(671) 735-0251

Associate Member School of Business & Public Administration(671) 735-2550

Associate Member Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) Guam Chapter (671) 686-0771

Associate Member Society of American Military Engineers Guam Post (671) 472-3301

Associate Member St. John’s School (671) 646-5644

Associate Member Taipei Economic & Cultural Office in Guam (671) 472-5865

Associate Member The Compassionate Friends (671) 988-9662

Associate Member The Employers Council (671) 649-6616

Associate Member The Salvation Army (671) 477-9872

Associate Member Tourism Education Council (671) 687-4505

Associate Member Troplinks Inc. 07 4033 0586

Associate Member U.S. Small Business Administration(671) 472-7419

Associate Member United Service Organizations dba Guam USO (671) 647-4876

Associate Member United States Postal Service(671) 734-3921

Associate Member University of Guam – Office of the President (671) 735-2990

Associate Member UOG Endowment Foundation (671) 735-2955

Attorneys & Law Offices Blair Sterling Johnson & Martinez, P.C. (671) 477-7857

Attorneys & Law Offices Cabot Mantanona LLP(671) 646-2001

Attorneys & Law Offices Carlsmith Ball LLP (671) 472-6813

Attorneys & Law Offices Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP (671) 646-1222

Attorneys & Law Offices Law Office of Catherine Bejarana Camacho, Esq. (671) 647-4222

Attorneys & Law Offices Law Office of John Richard Bordallo Bell (671) 646-5722/5723

Attorneys & Law Offices Torres Law Group (671) 477-9891/4

Attraction Underwater World Guam/ Sea Grill Restaurant (671) 649-9191 ext. 102

Attraction Zero Gravity LLC dba GoPlay (671) 646-7529/649-5867

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services ATKINS KROLL INC. (671) 646-1876

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Cars Plus, LLC (671) 477-7807

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services EZ Auto Guam (671) 646-4645

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Guam Harley-Davidson(671) 472-4004

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Ha’anen Guam Corportation dba: Blue Boy Muffler & Auto Service Center(671) 646-6218

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Monster Auto Corp. DBA: Guam Autospot(671) 478-2886

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services National / Alamo Car Rental(671) 647-1016

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Nissan Motor Corporation in Guam (671) 647-7260

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Thrifty Car Rental Guam (671) 646-6555

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Triple J Enterprises (671) 646-9126

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Triple J Rentals (Guam), Inc. dba Hertz Licensee (671) 646-5875

Automobile Dealers, Rentals & Services Venture Transportation Corp dba: Budget Car Rental 647-1440

Bakery Pappy’s Fresh Foods LLC (671) 472-2668

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers ANZ Guam, Inc.(671) 479-9000

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Bank of Guam(671) 472-5300

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Bank of Hawaii(671) 479-3625

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers BankPacific (671) 472-8593

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Coast360 Federal Credit Union (671) 477-8736

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Community First Guam Federal Credit Union (671) 472-8210

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Finance Factors, Ltd. (671) 649-5751

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers First Hawaiian Bank (671) 475-7900

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Marianas Finance Corporation (671) 646-5011

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Navy Federal Credit Union 1-888-842-6328

Banks, Credit Institutions & Mortgage Brokers Personal Finance Center (671) 647-6809

Broadcasting Stations Inter-Island Communications, Inc. (671) 477-7108

Broadcasting Stations Moy Communications, Inc. dba: Hit Radio 100 (671) 477-5658

Broadcasting Stations Pacific Telestations, Inc. dba: KUAM (671) 637-5826

Business Services Agility Defense & Government Services (671) 477-1389

Business Services Andrew’s Safe and Lock (671) 687-5397

Business Services Beacon Valuation Group LLC (671) 653-5757

Business Services Catalyst Pacific (671) 300-7695

Business Services Dodge, Marvin "Mike" (671) 477-6606

Business Services DZSP 21 LLC (671) 479-3997

Business Services Expressions Studios (671) 647-3742

Business Services Fire Prevention Plus (671) 777-6461

Business Services Forsyth Public Relations (671) 898-8910

Business Services Galaide Group, LLC(671) 646-3448

<

…

Page 1 of 3

IN USA DISTRICT COURT

Case No.

PLAINTIFF:Clifford “RAY” Hackett

vs.

DEFENDANT: Jacqueline Hackett

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, pro se, and files this complaint

PARTY FACTS

Plaintiff ( USA citizen) and defendant (Alien fugitive with life sentence) were married on may 2, 2002 But marriage was made fake by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge. This was done for the purpose of marriage fraud to enter USA which is a class6 felony.

Defendant who is a resident of Colorado, filed in New Mexico for divorce from plaintiff.

(Case No.D-1116-DM-201000791

Defendant Maureen O’Donnell is the manager of Hilo Social Security office at 111 puainako,Hilo, HI 96720 and may be served summons at 111 puainako, Hilo, HI 96720 fax 8085413536 and is hereinafter referred to as “Maureen.”

Attorney Zane Swank represented Defendant, but withdrew when plaintiff proved defendant was a colorado resident..

Attorney letigra is a second lawyer hired by Mrs. Hackett , but withdrew when plaintiff proved defendant was a colorado resident.

Gina Reyes is a child support worker in Durango, 1060 E. 2nd Ave Durango, CO 81301 who was bribed by defendant to join fraud conspiracy against plaintiff.

CASE FACTS

On or about SEP 14, 2010, defendant filed for divorce from plaintiff. Filing listed defendant’s income as ½ of actual and plaintiff’s income as double the actual.

Plaintiff was not served with the summons for his divorce until JAN 16, 2010 when a Marshall broke into his house.

Approximately 99% of plaintiff’s motion were denied or ignored and ALL DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS GRANTED by San Juan County Court since January 16, 2010, when he was served.

Plaintiff was severely distraught over the intentional acts of the attorneys in his divorce proceedings. His family had split up and he was blocked from his children for years. His kids in Asia are starving to death due to this fraud. The defendant couldn’t have cared less.

Plaintiff called the Association for Honest Attorneys for assistance in May, 2012. He was to the point that he felt his life would be better if it ended. The mental anguish and emotional distress of his divorce dragging out for years had taken its toll on his health, and he felt he was dying a slow death.

The initial filing of the divorce by defendant is invalid due to the lack of service on Plaintiff until January, 2010. Other errors exist in court paperwork.

Plaintiff is justified in his claims involving tort of outrage and outrageous government conduct in this matter. Due to such outrageous government conduct, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain effective assistance of counsel to date and must proceed pro se in this matter.

Plaintiff has demanded that defendants take action to make plaintiff whole for his losses. Defendants have refused plaintiff’s demands.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants violated numerous national laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to: due process, right not to be deprived of property under the 5th amendment (as incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment) and plaintiff’s right to be heard which was denied due to the influence of the court. The overt acts of fraud and collusion in this matter which were engaged in by the defendant to deprive plaintiff of his assets include, but are not limited to: ordering plaintiff to pay child support without a proper basis for doing so. Violations also exist concerning Supreme Court Rule 227, and plaintiff

should be reimbursed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) for the dishonest conduct of the lawyers and judge in this matter.

This case warrants claims involving tort of outrage, bad faith, outrageous government conduct and manifest injustice. The defendant’s acts and failures to act are criminal in nature as they are indicative of legalized stealing from the plaintiff, and depict “the dagger of an assassin” in actions toward him. Accordingly, plaintiff is justified in alleging each of the following claims against the defendant.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Violations of Plaintiffs’ 5th Amendment Rights

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

Civil Conspiracy and/or Collusion

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

Fraud and Misrepresentation

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining all defendants from continuing the intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the issues in this matter be heard by a jury.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

Plaintiff designates Hawaii as the location for the trial in this matter.

20 Million at Risk of Starvation in World’s Largest Crisis Since 1945, UN Says

• CNN Wire
• 13 mins ago

Medical staff treat a child suffering from malnutrition at Garowe General Hospital on February 27, 2017 in Garowe, Somalia. Somalia is currently on the brink of famine with over half of the country’s population facing acute food insecurity according to the United Nations. The intensifying crisis has humanitarian groups racing to stop a repeat of 2011, in which 260,000 people died of famine throughout country. (Credit: Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images)

Somalia and three other countries desperately need aid to save more than 20 million people from starvation and diseases, the United Nations said.

UN humanitarian chief Stephen O’Brien pleaded with the world to come to the rescue of Kenya, Yemen, South Sudan and Somalia.

“We stand at a critical point in history. Already at the beginning of the year we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the UN,” he said Friday.

“Now, more than 20 million people across four countries face starvation and famine. Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death. Many more will suffer and die from disease.”

The UN was founded in 1945.

Terror group stealing food

In Somalia, more than 6 million people are in need of food assistance — more than half the population.

The drought, impending famine and the presence of terrorist group Al-Shabaab have left the country and its people in a desperate situation.

“The situation is critical in Somalia. People are dying of hunger and there is no water,” said Mogadishu resident Noor Ibrahim, who fled his home to seek help at a camp.

“Al-Shabaab blocks the roads, there is no access for food aid, the Shabaab steal food as well.”

In neighboring Kenya, more than 2.7 million people are at risk of starvation, and that number could go up to 4 million by next month, the UN said.

“In collaboration with the government [of Kenya], the UN will soon launch an appeal of $200 million to provide timely life-saving assistance and protection,” O’Brien said.

South Sudan, where a famine was recently declared, has more than 7.5 million people in need of assistance — more than half of whom have been displaced, according to the UN.

And in Yemen, more than 7 million people are severely food insecure, it said.

‘Neglected’

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made a similar appeal this week, warning that the crisis facing Somalia has been “neglected” by the world.

“Let’s not forget that each one of these people is an individual case of extreme suffering,” he said.

“There is a moral obligation for us all to do everything we can to support these people.”

Money is needed in Somalia — and quickly. In addition to drought and famine, diseases, such as cholera and measles are beginning to spread.

Last week, Somali Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire announced that 110 people had died from starvation and drought-related illness.

• Categories: National and World News

Terms of Service • Privacy Policy • © 2017 KTXL
A Tribune Broadcasting Station
signature rate

IN USA DISTRICT COURT

Case No.

PLAINTIFF:Clifford “RAY” Hackett

vs.

DEFENDANT: Jacqueline Hackett

COMPLAINT (page1 of 4)

COMES NOW the plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, pro se, and files this complaint

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PARTIES

Plaintiff ( USA citizen) and defendant (Alien fugitive with philippines life sentence) were married on may 2, 2002 But marriage was made fake by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge. This was done for the purpose of marriage fraud to enter USA which is a class6 felony.

Defendant who is a resident of colorado, filed in New Mexico for divorce from plaintiff in the District Court of San Juan County, in 2010.

Defendant filed for divorce from Plaintiff in the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, in May, 2010 (Case No.D-1116-DM-201000791). Plaintiff was not served with divorce papers until January, 2010 by a US marshal breaking into his apartment.

Attorney Zane Swank represented Defendant, but withdrew when plaintiff proved defendant was a colorado resident..

Attorney letigra is a second lawyer hired by Mrs. Hackett , but withdrew when plaintiff proved defendant was a colorado resident.

Gina Reyes is a child support worker in Durango, 1060 E. 2nd Ave Durango, CO 81301 who was bribed by defendant to join fraud conspiracy against plaintiff and advised defendant to file in New Mexico where a judge would trade sex .

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE (page2 of 4)

On or about 9- 14, 2010, defendant filed for divorce from plaintiff. She had been (stated to plaintiff) having an affair with the judge..

On this same date, prior to plaintiff being served with divorce papers, court ordered that defendant be given complete custody of the kids.

Plaintiff was not served with the summons for his divorce until January 16, 2010 when a Marshall broke into his house.

This represents a violation of Supreme Court Rule 1.9 of Rules of Professional Conduct.

Approximately 99% of the motions filed by plaintiff were denied or ignored by San Juan County Court since January 16, 2010, when he was served.

Defendant had an affair with the judge, throughout much of the divorce proceedings. Plaintiff has recordings of her admitting it.

Plaintiff was severely distraught over the intentional acts of the attorneys and judge in his divorce proceedings. His family had split up and he was blocked from his children for years. His kids in Asia are starving to death due to this fraud. The defendant couldn’t have cared less.

Mr. Hackett called the Association for Honest Attorneys for assistance in May, 2012. He was to the point that he felt his life would be better if it ended. The mental anguish and emotional distress of his divorce dragging out for years had taken its toll on his health, and he felt he was dying a slow death.

The initial filing of the divorce by defendant is invalid due to the lack of service on Plaintiff until January, 2010. Other errors exist in court paperwork.

Plaintiff is justified in his claims involving tort of outrage and outrageous government conduct in this matter. Due to such outrageous government conduct, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain effective assistance of counsel to date and must proceed pro se in this matter.

Plaintiff has demanded that defendants take action to make plaintiff whole for his losses. Defendants have refused plaintiff’s demands.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT (page3 of 4)

Defendants violated numerous national laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to: due process, right not to be deprived of property under the 5th amendment (as incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment) and plaintiff’s right to be heard which was denied due to the influence of the court. The overt acts of fraud and collusion in this matter which were engaged in by the defendant to deprive plaintiff of his assets include, but are not limited to: ordering plaintiff to pay child support without a proper basis for doing so. Violations also exist concerning Supreme Court Rule 227, and plaintiff should be reimbursed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) for the dishonest conduct of the lawyers and judge in this matter.

This case warrants claims involving tort of outrage, bad faith, outrageous government conduct and manifest injustice. The defendant’s acts and failures to act are criminal in nature as they are indicative of legalized stealing from the plaintiff, and depict “the dagger of an assassin” in actions toward him. Accordingly, plaintiff is justified in alleging each of the following claims against the defendant.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Violations of Plaintiffs’ 5th Amendment Rights

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

Civil Conspiracy and/or Collusion

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

Fraud and Misrepresentation

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining all defendants from continuing the intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the issues in this matter be heard by a jury.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

Plaintiff designates Hawaii as the location for the trial in this matter.

IN USA DISTRICT COURT
Case No.

Clifford “RAY” Hackett

Plantiff,
vs.
(Exhibit A) Defendants

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, pro se, and files this complaint against the defendants as follows:

Defendants

Defendant, Jacqueline Hackett is the estranged spouse of the plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, with primary place of residence at:Hilton Hotel Durango 501 Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado, 81301. Defendant, Jacqueline Hackett, may be served summons at her primary place of residence: Hilton Hotel Durango 501 Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado, 81301. Defendant, Jacqueline Hackett is herein after referred to as “Jacqueline Hackett” or “Mrs. Hackett.”

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PARTIES

Plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, is a United States Citizen and resides in Homeless shelters. Plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, is a blind and deaf man, is retired, and is the estranged spouse of defendant, Jacqueline Hackett.

Clifford and Jacqueline Hackett are the parents of four children: Hazel, Faye, Norman, and 2 killed by abortion. They were married on may 2, 2002 But marriage was made fake by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge.

Jacqueline Hackett has kept all of the books and records.

Jacqueline Hackett a resident of colorado, filed for divorce from Clifford "RAY" Hackett in the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico , in 2010.

Jacqueline Hackett filed for divorce from Clifford "RAY" Hackett in the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, in May, 2010 (Case No. 01 DM 59). Clifford "RAY" Hackett was not served with divorce papers until January, 2010 by a US marshal breaking into his apartment.

Zane Swank represented Mrs. Hackett in the filing of her divorce, but withdrew when plaintiff proved defendant was a colorado resident..

Attorney letigra is a second lawyer hired by Mrs. Hackett , but withdrew whn plaintiff proved defendant was a colorado resident.

Gina Reyes is a child support worker in Durango, 1060 E. 2 nd Ave Durango, CO 81301. .

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE

On or about May 14, 2010, Jacqueline . Hackett filed for divorce from her husband, Clifford "RAY" Hackett She had been (stated to plaintiff) having an affair with Judge John A. Dean.

On this same date, prior to Mr. Hackett being served with divorce papers, Judge Dean ordered that Jacqueline Hackettbe given complete custody of the kids. This occurred the same day her divorce was filed in San Juan County District Court.

Plaintiff was not served with the summons for his divorce until January 16, 2002 when a Marshall broke into his house.

This represents a violation of Supreme Court Rule 1.9 of New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.

Approximately 99% of the motions filed byClifford "RAY" Hackett were denied or ignored by San Juan County Court since January 16, 2002, when he was served.

Defendant had an affair with Judge Dean, throughout much of the divorce proceedings. Plaintiff has recordings of her admitting it.

Clifford "RAY" Hackettwas severely distraught over the intentional acts of the attorneys and judges in his divorce proceedings. His family had split up and he was blocked from his children for years. The defendants couldn’t have cared less.

Mr. Hackett called the Association for Honest Attorneys for assistance in May, 2006. He was to the point that he felt his life would be better if it ended. The mental anguish and emotional distress of his divorce dragging out for years had taken its toll on his health, and he felt he was dying a slow death.

As a result of the unethical and illegal practices of the defendants in this matter, plaintiff was subjected to such severe emotional distress that no person should have to endure.

The initial filing of the divorce by defendant is invalid due to the lack of service on Plaintiff until January, 2002. Other errors exist in court paperwork.

Plaintiff is justified in his claims involving tort of outrage and outrageous government conduct in this matter. Due to such outrageous government conduct, Plaintifft has been unable to obtain effective assistance of counsel to date and must proceed pro se in this matter.

All of the defendants violated Clifford "RAY" Hackett’s rights under the 5th Amendment by prolonging his legal matter without good cause and with the objective of depleting his assets for their own use. Therefore, the doctrine of special circumstances applies with regard to plaiontiff’s lack of legal representation and his necessity to proceed pro se.

Plaintiff has demanded that defendants take action to make plaintiff whole for his losses. Defendants have refused plaintiff’s demands.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants violated numerous national laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to: due process, right not to be deprived of property under the 5th amendment (as incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment) and plaintiff’s right to be heard which was denied due to the influence of the court. The overt acts of fraud and collusion in this matter which were engaged in by the defendants to deprive plaintiff of his assets include, but are not limited to: ordering plaintiff to pay child support without a proper basis for doing so. Violations also exist concerning Supreme Court Rule 227, and Mr. Hackett should be reimbursed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) for the dishonest conduct of the lawyers and judges in this matter.

This case warrants claims involving tort of outrage, bad faith, outrageous government conduct and manifest injustice. The defendant’s acts and failures to act are criminal in nature as they are indicative of legalized stealing from the plaintiff, and depict “the dagger of an assassin” in actions toward him. Accordingly, plaintiff is justified in alleging each of the following claims against the defendant.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Violations of Plaintiffs’ 5th Amendment Rights
(as incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment)

The conduct of the defendants in depriving plaintifft of his property (income and assets) without due process of law constitutes a violation of plaintiff’s rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment.

The defendant owed Clifford “RAY” Hackett a duty under the 5th and 14th Amendments not to violate his rights under the United States Constitution as a citizen of the United States. The defendant’s overt acts of fraud denied him due process of law.
Plaintiff relied in good faith that the attorneys, judges and other court officials would act legally and ethically in resolving his child support.

The illegal and unethical conduct of the defendants constitutes denial of plaintiff’s due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The defendants breached the duty owed plaintiff and willfully deprived him of his property and his right to be heard.

As a result of the defendants’ conduct to deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his due process rights, plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iv) costs, including reasonable attorney fees for this action; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

Civil Conspiracy and/or Collusion
Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; and (iv) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

Fraud and Misrepresentatoin
Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; and (iv) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Plaintiff incorporates by reference Exhibit A of this Petition.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining all defendants from continuing the intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the issues in this matter be heard by a jury.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL
Plaintiff designates Hawaii as the location for the trial in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Clifford “RAY” Hackett
440 Kapiolani, Hilo, hawaii, 96720, Phone: (808)365-9745

By________________________________
Clifford “RAY” Hackett, pro se

http://www.theguamanian.com/h/i/259080711-the-spirit-of-givingsignature rate

signature rate

Clifford "RAY" Hackett

1919 E Highway 54

Iola, KS 66749

Telephone: (620) 365-3969

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Clifford “RAY” Hackett

Plantiff,

vs.

Case No.

DISTRICT COURT OF San Juan COUNTY New Mexico 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT , Jacqueline . Hackett , John A. dean, Gina Reyes, SPECIAL MASTER

C. DAVID NEWBERY.

Defendants.

A. COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, pro se, and files this complaint against the defendants as follows:

B. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, is an individual representing himself pro se with residence located at homeless shleters when (seldom) available. Plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, is hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff,” “Mr. Hackett,” or “ Clifford “RAY” Hackett,”

2. Defendant, District Court of san Juan County, new Mexico, 11th Judicial District, is a New Mexico Government entity with primary offices located at 103 South Oliver Drive , Aztec, NM 87410. This defendant, at all times mentioned herein, acted through its agents: Judge John A. Dean, court administrator***r, Staff attorney***, and court employees. District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, 11th Judicial District, may be served summons on the Clerk of the District Court, San Juan County, Jacqueline Hackett, at her primary place of business Hilton Hotel Durango 501 Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado, 813019. District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico 11th Judicial District, is herein after referred to as “Defendant,” “District Court of San Juan County,” “San Juan County District Court” or “the court.”

3. Defendant, Jacqueline Hackett is the estranged spouse of the plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, with primary place of residence at:DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Durango 501 Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado, 81301. Defendant, Jacqueline Hackett, may be served summons at her primary place of residence: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Durango 501 Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado, 81301. Defendant, Jacqueline Hackett is herein after referred to as “Jacqueline Hackett” or “Mrs. Hackett.”

4. Defendant, Zane Swank is an attorney with primary offices located at: D Zane Swank LLC in Farmington, NM. 4801 N Butler Ave Ste 6101. (505) 564-9263. Defendant,Zane Swank may be served summons at his primary place of businessat D Zane Swank LLC in Farmington, NM. 4801 N Butler Ave Ste 6101. (505) 564-9263 and is herein after referred to as: “Attorney Swank”.

5. Defendant, *** is an attorney with primary offices located at: *** durango, Co 81301. Defendant, ***, may be served summons at primary place of business: *** Durango, Co, 81321. Defendant, Larry A. Prauser is herein after referred to as: “Attorney ***.”

6. Defendant, *** , is an attorney with primary offices located at:***, Cortez, co 81321. Defendant, ***, may be served summons at his primary place of business: ***, Cortez, Co Defendant, ***, is herein after referred to as: “Attorney***”.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, is a United States Citizen and resides in Homeless shelters. Plaintiff, Clifford “RAY” Hackett, is the estranged spouse of defendant, Jacqueline Hackett.

8. Clifford “RAY” Hackett, a blind and deaf man, is retired.

9. Clifford and Jacqueline Hackett are the parents of four children: Hazel, Faye, Norman, and killed by abortion. They were married on may 2, 2002.

10. Jacqueline Hackett has kept all of the books and records.

11. Jacqueline Hackettfiled for divorce from Clifford "RAY" Hackett in the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico , in 2010.

12. Jacqueline Hackett filed for divorce from Clifford "RAY" Hackettin the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, in May, 2010 (Case No. 01 DM 59). Clifford "RAY" Hackett was not served with divorce papers until January, 2010 by a US marshal breaking into his apartment.

13. Zane Swank represented Mrs. Hackett in the filing of her divorce, but withdrew when not paid.

14. Attorney letigra is a second lawyer hired by Mrs. Hackett on ***,***

15. Gina Reyes is an attorney in Durango, 1060 E. 2 nd Ave Durango, CO 81301. .

D. FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE

16. On or about May 14, 2010, Jacqueline . Hackett filed for divorce from her husband, Clifford "RAY" Hackett She had been having an affair with Judge John A. Dean.

17. On this same date, prior to Mr. Hackett being served with divorce papers, Judge Dean ordered that Jacqueline Hackettbe given complete custody of the kids. This occurred the same day her divorce was filed in San Juan County District Court.

18. The above order was temporary until the parties went to trial or it was modified by the court.

19. In December

20. After filing for divorce, Jacqueline Hackett purchased

21. Clifford "RAY" Hackettwas not served with the summons for his divorce until January 16, 2002. A Marshall broke into his house.

22. This represents a violation of Supreme Court Rule 1.9 of New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.

23. The marshall was

24. At that time, Mr. Hackett w

25. Counsel qw refused to Mr. Hackett

26. On July 23, 20

27. Attorney Doering had represented Clifford "RAY" Hackettin an oil lease matter (Case No. 85C234) from 1985 until 1988 without Mr. Hackett ’s knowledge.

28.

29. Interrogatories for this casey (Exhibit A – first and last page of interrogatories only).

30. .

31. On September 5, 20, Judge Dean denied the motion filed by Mr. Hackett to disqualify.

32. At this hearing

33. Mr. Hackett ’s divorce proceedings continued for over five years from the time Mrs. Hackett filed. During that time, the court granted approximately 99% of the motions in favor of Jacqueline Hackett .

34. On or about October 18, 2002, Mr. Hackett f

35. On November 20, 2002, Judge Brewster was assigned to the Hackett case, due to an apparent conflict of interest concerning Judge Brazil.

36. On February 7, 20

37. On February 27, 2003, a telephone conference was held between Attorney Doering and Judge Brewster without Clifford "RAY" Hackettor anyone representing him included. The court files show that this was a hearing, but it was actually a phone call (Exhibit C).

38. During this phone call,

39. On this

40. Attorney

41. On February

42. On December 11, 2003,

43. On January 8, 2004,

44. Mr. Hackett was becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of performance by

45. On April 6, 2004, the court ordered Clifford "RAY" Hackettto

46. On April 12, 2004 Attorney

47. Mr. Hackett

48. Even though it is a violation of

49. Due to increased anxiety and frustration over the dispersement of his assets by the court,Clifford "RAY" Hackett’s physician recommended that he not participate in any more court hearings due to poor health and heart problems.

50. On May Mr. Hackett ’s motion was denied by the court.

51. On July 20, 2004, the court ordered that … be given to Jacqueline Hackett .

52. On August 6, 2004, the court ordered … be given to the clerk of the District Court of San Juan County. No reasonable explanation was given by the court for this order.

53. On August 27, 2004, Ed Bideau III, attorney for Mitch Hackett , sent a letter to Judge Brewster in regard to Attorney Doering’s unethical conduct involving ex parte matters (Exhibit E).

54. On September 1, 2004, Judge.

55. On September 10, 2004, Attorney Doering ignored this request.

56. On September 13, 2004, attorney Glenn Casebeer called San Juan County court and asked Judge Lorentz if they would withdraw the bench warrant for the arrest ofClifford "RAY" Hackett. This was denied.

57. Mr. Hackett went down to the courthouse to answer the bench warrant and was fingerprinted by the sheriff. He was not put in jail and still doesn’t know if he was formerly arrested.

58. During this time, Glenn Casebeer told Mr. Hackett there was no official paperwork filed for the bench warrant issued. Unknown to the plaintiff, Mr. Casebeer then filed a habeas corpus to make it appear that this was how Mr. Hackett was released from jail.

59. On September 27, 2004, Hackett , sent a letter to Judge Lorentz to summarize the case involving his client .

60. On December 2, 2004, Mr. rClifford "RAY" Hackett, sent a letter to Judge Lorentz also detailing the Hackett case (Exhibit F.)

61. On December 9, 2004, Mr. Casebeer filed a motion to set aside the bench warrant order. The court records show that this was granted and Clifford "RAY" Hackettwas released, but he was never incarcerated.

62. On this same date, Judge Lorentz appointed Special Master

63. Clifford "RAY" Hacketthad tried twice to file an answer and cross-petition praying for an equitable division of marital property, but these were both denied by the court.

64. Approximately 95% of the motions filed byClifford "RAY" Hackett were denied by San Juan County Court since January 16, 2002, when he was served.

65. Jacqueline Hackett had an affair with Judge Dean, throughout much of the divorce proceedings. Clifford "RAY" Hacketthad hired a private investigator who obtained recordings of them

66. From March 10, 2005 until October 31, 2005, all of the pleadings filed within this case were filed on behalf of Mitch Hackett and Jacqueline Hackett .

67. In the summer of 2005, Clifford "RAY" Hackettfiled complaints against Attorney Doering and his former attorneys with the. His complaints were dismissed “in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 209 as being without merit.”(Exhibit G).

68. On July 29, 2005, Mr. Hackett

69. On October 3, the court ignored this motion entirely.

70. In late October, 2005, Mr. Casebeer commented to Clifford "RAY" Hackettthat the way the court was handling his divorce was “criminal.” He told him it was “the biggest theft ring he had ever seen.”

71. On November 1, 2005,

72. At this time, attorney

73. On or about December 9, 2005,

74. On Feb. 14, 2006, Clifford "RAY" Hackett

75. In early March, 2006, Mr. Hackett went to the San Juan County courthouse to discuss the oil lease matter with ..told him to “take his problems elsewhere, or to another county.”

76. Mr. Hackett then went to the sheriff’s Sheriff Williams said, “What do you want to go and get all these lawyers and judges in trouble for?”

77. On March 16, 2006, Attorney Doering tried to subpoena the Kansas Department of Labor for the financial reports of

78. On March 17, 2006, attorneys Harry Najim and Steve Blaylock filed a motion to bifurcate and grant a decree of divorce on behalf of Clifford "RAY" Hackett.

79. Attorney Doering filed a motion on March 20, 2006 for an order to show cause why Clifford "RAY" Hackett should not be held in contempt for disposing of assets. There was no factual basis for the order.

80. Jacqueline Hacketthad disposed of assets during divorce proceedings. Clifford "RAY" Hackett had not.

81. On April 26, 2006, Clifford "RAY" Hackett faxed a letter to the San Juan County Court stating that he did not sign interrogatories in San Juan County Case The San Juan County District Court disregarded Mr. Hackett ’s fax.

82. On or about May 8, 2006,

83. Clifford "RAY" Hackettrefused,

84. Clifford "RAY" Hackettwas severely distraught over the intentional acts of the attorneys and judges in his divorce proceedings. His family had split up and he hadn’t spoken to his daughters in years. The defendants couldn’t have cared less.

85. While entering the courthouse for a hearing on May 8, 2006,..devised a plan to provoke Clifford "RAY" Hackettto anger. .

86. Attorney Doering

87. Attorney Doering then

88. Mr. Hackett called the Association for Honest Attorneys for assistance in May, 2006. He was to the point that he felt his life would be better if it ended. The mental anguish and emotional distress of his divorce dragging out for five years had taken its toll on his health, and he felt he was dying a slow death.

89. Mr. Hackett told A.H.A! C.E.O. Joan Heffington that he had given attorneys Harry Najim and Steve Blaylock a $40,000 retainer fee in February, 2006, and they had used it all up in two months just talking to each other.

90. On or about May 15, 2006, Joan Heffington told Clifford "RAY" Hackettthat the A.H.A! could help him prepare legal pleadings naming his wife, the attorneys and the court as defendants. Mr. Hackett agreed that he wanted to do this, and fired attorneys Harry Najim and Steve Blaylock by fax on May 24, 2006.

91. Ms. Heffington wrote to Attorney Doering and Judge Innes on June 6, 2006 to try and resolve this matter prior to litigation, but to no avail.

92. Clifford "RAY" Hackettwent to the courthouse on August 10, 2006

93. Joan Heffington attended a hearing in San Juan County court on July 31, 2006

94. Harry Najim withdrew asn Clifford "RAY" Hackett’s counsel at the July 31 hearing. At that time, Clifford "RAY" Hackett asked Judge Innes that his legal files be released to Ms. Heffington. Judge Innes ordered that if Mr. Hackett wrote to Mr. Najim to request them, that this would be done.

95. Prior to releasing Mr. Hackett ’s files to the A.H.A!, Mr. Najim went through them thoroughly and redacted numerous items. Mr. Najim later tried to charge Clifford "RAY" Hackettover $3,000 for his time, even though Mr. Hackett had fired him two months earlier.

96. Upon receiving the files, the A.H.A! determined that sexually explicit photographs of Attorney Doering and Jacqueline Hackett , who had been having an affair, were missing from the court file. They were listed as Exhibits in Vol. X, Item 64.

97. At the hearing on July 31, 2006, Judge

98. As a result of the unethical and illegal practices of the defendants in this matter, Clifford "RAY" Hackettwas subjected to such severe emotional distress that no person should have to endure.

99. Altogether, 2 lawyers either quit or recused themselves since Jacqueline Hackett filed for divorce.

100. There was bias on the part of all judges in this matter, and extreme leniency by the court toward Jacqueline Hackettand Attorney Doering. Doering had continued to advise the court that Mrs. Hackett had no money.

101. The initial filing of the divorce by Jacqueline Hackettin May, 2001 is invalid due to the lack of service on Clifford "RAY" Hackettuntil January, 2002. Other errors exist in court paperwork.

102. The court illegally granted Jacqueline Hackett custody ofClifford "RAY" Hackett’s auto parts store ( Hackett Auto Parts), a sole proprietorship, before he was even served with divorce papers. Since 2001, Mrs. Hackett and the defendants have siphoned an estimated $400,000 – $600,000 profit annually out of Hackett Auto Parts for their own use.

103. Jacqueline Hackett admitted on the court record that she altered books and records for Hackett Auto Parts.

104. There were orders for excessive payments to various entities, particularly Special Master Newbery, which were forced on Clifford "RAY" Hackettby the court. Attorney Doering was the “kingpin” of this collusive effort to deplete Clifford "RAY" Hackettof his assets and keep his client living the life she was accustomed to.

105. Due to the actions of the defendants in this matter, Clifford "RAY" Hacketthas been unable to properly file his income tax for Hackett Auto Parts since 2002. The defendants maintained control of the books and records.

106.

107. Plaintiff is justified in his claims involving tort of outrage and outrageous government conduct in this matter. Due to such outrageous government conduct, Clifford "RAY" Hackett has been unable to obtain effective assistance of counsel to date and must proceed pro se in this matter.

108. All of the defendants violated Clifford "RAY" Hackett’s rights under the 5th Amendment by prolonging his legal matter without good cause and with the objective of depleting his assets for their own use. Therefore, the doctrine of special circumstances applies with regard to Clifford "RAY" Hackett’s lack of legal representation and his necessity to proceed pro se.

109. Clifford "RAY" Hacket twas unaware of the fraud-related crimes which had occurred in his divorce proceedings until he spoke with Joan Heffington of the A.H.A! on or about May 15, 2006.

110. Plaintiff has demanded that defendants take action to make plaintiff whole for his losses. Defendants have refused plaintiff’s demands.

E. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants violated numerous national laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to: due process right not to be deprived of property under the 5th amendment (as incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment) and plaintiff’s right to be heard which was denied due to the influence of his attorneys by opposing counsel and the court. The overt acts of fraud and collusion in this matter which were engaged in by the defendants to deprive Clifford "RAY" Hackettof his assets include, but are not limited to: orderingClifford "RAY" Hackett’s C.D.s to be cashed and paid to the court without a proper basis for doing so, the court granting Jacqueline Hackettcontrol of Hackett Auto Parts (a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Hackett ) without a proper basis for doing so, funneling money to a special master without a proper basis for doing so, Mr. Hackett ’s lawyers firing themselves, the court ordering a bench warrant prior to service onClifford "RAY" Hackett, ex parte communications on the part of all defendants, as well as meetings, telephone calls, e-mails, correspondence, “mental processes” and other communications to illegally dispose of Mr. Hackett ’s income and assets among the defendants. These communications were also the overt acts used by the defendants to deny Mr. Hackett his right to be heard by influencing his counsel to “go along with the game.” Violations also exist concerning Kansas Supreme Court Rule 227, and Mr. Hackett should be reimbursed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) for the dishonest conduct of the lawyers and judges in this matter.

This case warrants claims involving tort of outrage, bad faith, outrageous government conduct and manifest injustice. The defendants acts and failures to act are criminal in nature as they are indicative of legalized stealing from the plaintiff, and depict “the dagger of an assassin” in their actions toward him. Accordingly, plaintiff is justified in alleging each of the following claims against the defendants.

F. CAUSES OF ACTION

1. Violations of Plaintiffs’ 5th Amendment Rights

(as incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment)

111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 110 of this Petition.

112. The conduct of the defendants in depriving Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his property (income and assets) without due process of law constitutes a violation of plaintiff’s rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment.

113. The defendants owed Clifford “RAY” Hackett a duty under the 5th and 14th Amendments not to violate his rights under the United States Constitution as a citizen of the United States. The defendants’ overt acts of fraud denied him due process of law by influencing his attorneys through ineffective assistance of counsel.

114. The conduct of the defendants to participate in a conspiracy to deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his income and assets and his right to be heard was an obvious interference with attorney/client privilege.

115. Plaintiff relied in good faith that the attorneys, judges and other court officials would act legally and ethically in resolving his divorce.

116. The illegal and unethical conduct of the defendants constitutes denial of plaintiff’s due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

117. The defendants breached the duty owed Clifford “RAY” Hackett and willfully deprived him of his property and his right to be heard.

118. As a result of the defendants’ conduct to deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his due process rights, plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iv) costs, including reasonable attorney fees for this action; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

2. Civil Conspiracy and/or Collusion

119. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 118 of this Petition.

120. The conduct of the defendants to devise a plan to deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his assets, including but not limited to: denying mr Hackett an attorney although mr Hackett’s liberty was at risk, while granting his wife an attorney although her liberty was not at riskt, dragging Mr. Hackett’s divorce out indefinitely and convincing other defendants to “go along with the game,” constitutes civil conspiracy and/or collusion.

121. By participating in the plan to deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his assets, the defendants acted with the intent of engaging in illegal and unethical activities to deplete Mr. Hackett of his assets which included his life’s work and savings, having full knowledge that such acts were substantially certain to result in injury and detriment to Clifford “RAY” Hackett and his family.

122. The conduct of the defendants in conspiring to deprive Mr. hackett of his income and assets which destroyed his family relationships and damaged his health constitutes civil conspiracy and/or collusion.

123. The conduct of all of the defendants set forth herein constitutes civil conspiracy and/or collusion.

124. As a result of the defendants’ civil conspiracy and/or collusion, plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; and (iv) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

3. Fraud and Misrepresentatoin

125. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 124 of this Petition.

126. By participating in a plan to engage in overt acts to fraudulently deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his income and assets while using the legal system as their “front,” all of the defendants had full knowledge that their acts and failures to act were substantially certain to result in injury and detriment to Clifford “RAY” Hackett and his family.

127. At all relevant times, the defendants recognized that engaging in the fraudulent overt acts to disperse Clifford “RAY” Hackett’s income and assets would result in mental anguish and severe detriment to Mr. Hackett and his family.

128. At all relevant times, Clifford “RAY” Hackett was without knowledge or means of knowing that the court system was untrustworthy, and was trusting and relying on his counsel’s knowledge to finalize his divorce and conduct proceedings legally and ethically so that a fair division of his assets and income would result.

129. At all relevant times, Clifford “RAY” Hackett believed and relied that the attorneys, judges and court officials were acting in good faith, believing that his divorce proceedings were being conducted in an ethical manner.

130. At all relevant times, Clifford “RAY” Hackett was unaware of the defendants’ participation in a plan to deprive him of his income and assets, and that they were acting with willful rendering of imperfect performance in their respective positions.

131. The defendants’ participation in a devious plan to deprive Clifford “RAY” Hackett of his income and assets was with the intent and full knowledge that their conduct was substantially certain to result in injury, death and detriment to Mr. Hackett and his family.

132. The defendants’ conduct was to inflict emotional distress on Mr. Hackett by abusing their power.

133. The conduct of the defendants to engage in the aforementioned plan constitutes fraud by commission/silence and intentional fraud.

134. As a result of the defendants’ fraud by commission/silence and intentional fraud, plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; and (iv) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

135. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 134 of this Petition.

136. The defendants’ conduct in participating in a devious plan to deprive plaintiff of his income and assets without finalizing his divorce for five years was extreme and outrageous.

137. At all relevant times, the defendants’ participation in the devious plan was intentional and with full knowledge that their conduct was substantially certain to result in severe emotional distress and bodily harm to plaintiff.

138. The conduct of the defendants to participate in a devious plan to deprive plaintiff of his income and assets over five years was in bad faith, and violated the duties of good faith and fair dealing toward the plaintiff in this matter.

139. The conduct of the defendants was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Reciting the facts in this matter to an average person causes resentment toward all defendants, and leads them to exclaim: “Outrageous!”

140. Due to the defendants’acts and failures to act, plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress, mental anguish and bodily harm.

141. The outrageous conduct of the defendants constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

142. As a result of the outrageous conduct by all defendants, plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiff (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00 for each defendant; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining all defendants from continuing the intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the issues in this matter be heard by a jury.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

Plaintiff designates Hilo, hawaii, 96720 as the location for the trial in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Clifford “RAY” Hackett

440 Kapiolani, Hilo, hawaii, 96720, Phone: (808)365-9745

By________________________________

Clifford “RAY” Hackett, pro se

signature rate

On Mar 11, 2017 7:42 AM, "Ray Hackett" <3659745> wrote:

signature rate