Home

About Us

Editorial

A.H.A! News Update

Lawyers To Avoid/Consider

How to File a Federal Suit

Supporting Documents

A.H.A! Goals

Books/Membership

Contact Us

Copyright Information/ Disclaimer

Case 1
Case 2

Case 1

COURT DOCUMENT # 1

The following case was filed in federal court in Wichita, Kansas on October 11, 2006. We helped former millionaire John Sigg file suit against lawyers and court officials in Iola, Kansas who dragged his divorce out for five years. His wife, Linda Sigg, and her attorney, Steven B. Doering, were using the court system to deprive her husband of his assets during their 45-year marriage, including his estimated $500,000 annual income. Numerous lawyers hired by Mr. Sigg just went along with the game, and one even admitted it was “the biggest theft ring he had ever seen.” A month after this filing, Iola, Kansas authorities arrested both John and Mitch Sigg for frivolous charges. Although we spoke with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’s office and also faxed the DOJ about this outrageous government conduct, John Sigg was still put in jail overnight for a bogus charge. A 65-year old man with heart problems, he was given no food or water for 22 hrs. We believe this was retaliation for filing his federal suit and for donating $22,000 to us in 2006...

John J. Sigg
1919 E Highway 54
Iola, KS  66749
Telephone:  (620) 365-3969

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOHN J. SIGG 

Plantiff,
vs.

Case No. 06-2436 KHV

DISTRICT COURT OF ALLEN COUNTY KANSAS 31st JUDICIAL DISTRICT , LINDA L. SIGG, STEVEN B. DOERING, LARRY A. PRAUSER, SPECIAL MASTER
C. DAVID NEWBERY.

Defendants.

A.   COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, John J. Sigg, pro se, and files this complaint against the defendants as follows:

B.     PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff, John J. Sigg, is an individual representing himself pro se with residence located at 1919 E. Highway 54, Iola, Kansas 66749.  Plaintiff, John J. Sigg, is hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff,” “Mr. Sigg,” or “John Sigg,”

2. Defendant, District Court of Allen County, Kansas, 31st Judicial District, is a Kansas Government entity with primary offices located at 1 N. Washington, P. O. Box 630, Iola, Kansas 66749.  This defendant, at all times mentioned herein, acted through its agents:  Judge Timothy E. Brazil, Judge David F. Brewster, Judge C. Fred Lorentz, Judge Daniel D. Creitz, Judge Ronald D. Innes and court employees.  District Court of Allen County, Kansas, 31st Judicial District, may be served summons on the Clerk of the District Court, Allen County, Jennifer Barrow, at her primary place of business: 1 N. Washington, P. O. Box 630, Iola, Kansas, 66749. District Court of Allen County, Kansas, 31st Judicial District, is herein after referred to as “Defendant,” “District Court of Allen County,” “Allen County District Court” or “the court.”

3. Defendant, Linda L. Sigg is the estranged spouse of the plaintiff, John J. Sigg, with primary place of residence at:  720 Pryor, Iola, Kansas, 66749.  Defendant, Linda L. Sigg, may be served summons at her primary place of residence: 720 Pryor, Iola, Kansas, 66749.  Defendant, Linda L. Sigg is herein after referred to as “Linda Sigg” or “Mrs. Sigg.”

4. Defendant, Steven B. Doering, is an attorney with primary offices located at:  111 E. Fourth Avenue, P.O. Box 345, Garnett, Kansas,  66032.  Defendant, Steven B. Doering, may be served summons at his primary place of business:  Law Office of Steven B. Doering, 111 E. Fourth Avenue, P.O. Box 345, Garnett. Kansas,  66032. Defendant, Steven B. Doering is herein after referred to as:  “Attorney Doering”.

5. Defendant, Larry A. Prauser is an attorney with primary offices located at: 101 East Elm Street, P.O. Box 47, Columbus, Kansas,  66725. Defendant, Larry A. Prauser, may be served summons at his primary place of business:   Armstrong & Prauser, 101 East Elm Street, P. O. Box 47, Columbus, Kansas,  66725.  Defendant, Larry A. Prauser is herein after referred to as: “Attorney Prauser.”

6. Defendant, Special Master C. David Newbery, is an attorney with primary offices located at: 2231 S.W. Wanamaker Road, Suite 101, Topeka, Kansas,  66614-4275.  Defendant, Special Master C. David Newbery, may be served summons at his primary place of business:  Newbery, Ungerer & Hickert, L.L.P., 2231 S.W. Wanamaker Road, Suite 101, Topeka, Kansas,  66614-4275.  Defendant, Special Master C. David Newbery, is herein after referred to as: “Special Master Newbery”.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff, John J. Sigg, is a United States Citizen and resides in Allen County in the State of Kansas. Plaintiff, John Sigg, is the estranged spouse of defendant, Linda Sigg.

8. John Sigg, a prosperous business man, is the sole proprietor of Sigg Auto Parts.  The gross profit for Sigg Auto Parts is estimated at $400,000 - $600,000 annually.

9. John and Linda Sigg are the parents of four grown children:  Mitch, Dawn, Teresa and Kimberly.  They were married on April 24, 1961.

10. Linda Sigg has kept all of the books and records for Sigg Auto Parts since the early 1980’s when the company was formed.  She also kept the books for John’s Used Cars, later known as Sigg Motors LLC.

11. Linda Sigg filed for divorce from John Sigg in the District Court of Allen County, Kansas, in 1997, but withdrew filing within a month.

12. Linda Sigg filed for divorce from John Sigg in the District Court of Allen County, Kansas, again in May, 2001 (Case No. 01 DM 59).  John Sigg was not served with divorce papers until January, 2002.

13. Steven B. Doering represented Mrs. Sigg in the filing of her divorce, and continues to represent her.

14. Attorney Larry Prauser is a second lawyer hired by Mrs. Sigg on May 13, 2003, two months after her son Mitch was named as a third party defendant in her divorce from Mr. Sigg (Case No. 04 CV 22).

15.  Special Master C. David Newbery is an attorney in Topeka, Kansas who was assigned as special master to oversee the financial aspects of John and Linda Sigg’s divorce.  He was assigned by Judge Lorentz of Allen County District Court on December 9, 2004.

D. FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE

 16. On or about May 14, 2001, Linda L. Sigg filed for divorce from her husband, John J. Sigg.  She had been having an affair with Attorney Steven B. Doering.

17.  On this same date, prior to Mr. Sigg being served with divorce papers, Judge Brazil ordered that Linda Sigg be given complete control of Sigg Auto Parts, a sole proprietorship owned by her husband, John Sigg.  This occurred the same day her divorce was filed in Allen County District Court.

18.  The above order was temporary until the parties went to trial or it was modified by the court.  Linda Sigg was also granted her normal salary of $ 3,733.33 per month by Allen County District Court.

19.   In December 2000, John Sigg had transferred 50% ownership of Sigg Motors, LLC to his son, Mitch. In December, 2001, prior to being served with divorce papers, Mr. Sigg had transferred his remaining 50% ownership of Sigg Motors to Mitch.  He remained sole proprietor of Sigg Auto Parts.

20.   After filing for divorce, Linda Sigg purchased a $175,000 house in the summer of 2001.  She cashed over $100,000 in certificates of deposit and bought numerous brand new vehicles.  Mrs. Sigg has also been funneling money/profits to family members, Sigg Auto Parts employees, the court and Attorney Doering since that time.

21.   John Sigg was not served with the summons for his divorce until January 16, 2002.  He was held at gunpoint in front of the courthouse by a man who said he was working for his wife’s attorney, Steven B. Doering, until police showed up with his divorce petition.

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

23.   The man holding John Sigg at gunpoint was later identified to him as Dan Brazil, the nephew of Judge Timothy Brazil, who was a presiding judge during Mr. Sigg’s divorce.

24.   At that time, Mr. Sigg was served with an alias summons from Linn County having a return of service date of January 16, 2001.

25.  Attorney Robert Farmer represented John Sigg in his divorce from July 9, 2002 until October 18, 2002.

26.  On July 23, 2002, John Sigg’s attorney, Robert Farmer, filed a motion for a hearing to decide whether a conflict of interest existed with defendant Steven B. Doering, Linda Sigg’s attorney. 

 27.  Attorney Doering had represented John Sigg in an oil lease matter (Case No. 85C234) from 1985 until 1988 without Mr. Sigg’s knowledge. 

 28.  Mr. Sigg never hired Attorney Doering to represent him in 85C234.  Throughout this suit, Attorney Doering had signed either his own name or John Sigg’s name on the court documents.

29.   Interrogatories for this case were forged with John Sigg’s name and notarized by Attorney Doering’s secretary (Exhibit Afirst and last page of interrogatories only).

30.   John Sigg did not become aware of lawsuit 85C234 until May, 2005, when his nephew, Randy Galemore, the man who had sued him in 1985, told him about it.  At that time, Mr. Galemore obtained a copy of the file from attorney Ed Bideau III and gave it to Mr. Sigg.

31.  On September 5, 2002, Judge Brazil denied the motion filed by Mr. Sigg’s attorney to disqualify Attorney Doering for conflict of interest.

32.  At this hearing, Attorney Doering asked for sanctions against Mr. Sigg.  Judge Brazil stated that he was “thinking of $1000”;  however, Attorney Doering wrote the journal up on September 18, 2002 as “$1,000 a day.” (Exhibit B).  This was signed and approved by Attorney Doering, Judge Brazil and even Mr. Sigg’s attorney, Robert Farmer.

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

34.  On or about October 18, 2002, Mr. Sigg fired Robert Farmer as his attorney and then hired attorney Hal Des Jardins to represent him.

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

36.  On February 7, 2003, attorney Hal Des Jardins filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for John Sigg. He had not had any prior discussion with John, but fired himself as his attorney.

37.  On February 27, 2003, a telephone conference was held between Attorney Doering and Judge Brewster without John Sigg or 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, temporary support for Linda Sigg of $10,000 per month was granted.  Mitch Sigg and companies owned by him, including Sigg Motors, Nation’s Lease & Remarketing and Nation’s Financial, were added as third party defendants in the Sigg divorce, and John Sigg was given 30 days to find counsel.

 39.  On this same day, Mitch’s attorney, Ed Bideau III, falsified a fax to Judge Brewster to indicate that Mr. Sigg knew about the phone call ahead of time.  It was not signed by John Sigg (Exhibit D).

40.    Attorney Ed Bideau III then filed a counter-claim naming Mitch’s mother, Linda Sigg,as a defendant.  The court then joined these two cases as one (01 DM 59 & 04 CV 22).

41.    On February 7, 2003, attorney Des Jardins fired himself from John Sigg’s case.  Mr. Sigg then hired attorney Glenn Casebeer to represent him.

42.    On December 11, 2003, Mitch Sigg’s motion to dismiss him from his parents’ divorce case was overruled by the Allen County District Court.

43.    On January 8, 2004, Glenn Casebeer’s motion on behalf of John Sigg to grant his divorce was denied by the court.  The parties were then ordered into a settlement conference which never took place.

44.    Mr. Sigg was becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of performance by his attorneys in his divorce case.  Both Mr. and Mrs. Sigg were non-compliant with court orders for production of documents.

 45.    On April 6, 2004, the court ordered John Sigg to give $250,000 to Linda Sigg.  No reason was given for this order by the court.

46.    On April 12, 2004 Attorney Doering filed an order for Mr. Sigg to appear and show cause for his failure to transfer funds.  John Sigg was issued a bench warrant for failure to comply with the court’s order to transfer $250,000 to Mrs. Sigg.

47.    Mr. Sigg’s counsel, Glenn Casebeer, never received any paperwork in this regard and never knew there was a bench warrant for his client.

48.    Even though it is a violation of Kansas state law to issue a bench warrant prior to personal service of an order to appear and show cause (citation in contempt), Allen County District Court issued an order that John Sigg was to appear at the sheriff’s department so that he could be served personally with the order to appear and show cause.

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

50.    On May 20, 2004, Mr. Sigg asked the court to allow him to withdraw funds from marital assets to pay the $250,000 and for sanctions against Linda Sigg.  Mr. Sigg’s motion was denied by the court.

51.  On July 20, 2004, the court ordered that a $333, 451.01 A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. certificate of deposit bearing the names of John, Linda and Mitch Sigg be cashed, and that $250,000 be given to Linda Sigg. 

52.   On August 6, 2004, the court ordered A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. to pay $ 250,000 to Linda Sigg and directed that the remaining $83,451 be given to the clerk of the District Court of Allen County.  No reasonable explanation was given by the court for this order.

53.   On August 27, 2004, Ed Bideau III, attorney for Mitch Sigg, 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 David Brewster recused himself from the Sigg case.  On September 3, 2004, Chief Judge C. Fred Lorentz was ordered to take over the case.

55.   On September 10, 2004, Michael Gates, attorney for A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., sent a letter to Attorney Doering demanding that the $250,000 be paid back to them.  Attorney Doering ignored this request.

56.   On September 13, 2004, attorney Glenn Casebeer called Allen County court and asked Judge Lorentz if they would withdraw the bench warrant for the arrest of John Sigg.  This was denied.

57.   Mr. Sigg 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. Sigg  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. Sigg was released from jail.

59.   On September 27, 2004, attorney Ed Bideaux III, counsel for John’s son, Mitch Sigg, sent a letter to Judge Lorentz to summarize the case involving his client .

60.   On December 2, 2004, Mr. Casebeer, counsel for John Sigg, sent a letter to Judge Lorentz also detailing the Sigg 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 John Sigg was released, but he was never incarcerated.

62.   On this same date, Judge Lorentz appointed Special Master C. David Newbery, an attorney in Topeka, to analyze all financial data of the assets of both John and Linda Sigg for the purpose of an equitable division.  The court ordered that the $83,451 remaining from the A.G. Edwards C.D. would be used to pay the special master fees.

63.   John Sigg had 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 by John Sigg’s attorneys on his behalf were denied by Allen County Court since January 16, 2002, when he was served.

65.   Linda Sigg had an affair with Attorney Doering, throughout much of the divorce proceedings.  John Sigg had hired a private investigator who obtained photographs of them together.

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

67.    In the summer of 2005, John Sigg filed complaints against Attorney Doering and his former attorneys with the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator’s Office.  On August 26, 2005, they sent a letter to Mr. Sigg stating that their office had no jurisdiction, he didn’t prepare his complaints correctly, and referred him to his attorney for future guidance.  His complaints were dismissed “in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 209 as being without merit.”(Exhibit G).

68.   On July 29, 2005, Mr. Sigg sent a letter to 12 people in the Iola, Kansas area to stop doing business with his company, Sigg Auto Parts.  He did so because Mrs. Sigg had been stealing from his company, and was trading new parts for various goods and services from other people and companies.

69.    On October 3, 2005, Attorney Doering filed a motion for a hearing on Mr. Sigg’s actions.  Mr. Sigg’s counsel, Glenn Casebeer, failed to respond and the court ignored this motion entirely.

70.    In late October, 2005, Mr. Casebeer commented to John Sigg that 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, Glenn Casebeer filed a motion to withdraw as John Sigg’s attorney due to apparent health problems.  Judge Lorentz gave John Sigg 30 days to obtain new counsel and turn over his financial statements.

72.    At this time, attorney Ed Bideau III, counsel for Mitch Sigg, filed a motion to withdraw as Mitch’s attorney and it was granted.

73.    On or about December 9, 2005, Judge Innes ordered the Sigg divorce into mediation.  When John Sigg sent Judge Innes information on 85C234 (his previous oil lease case where Attorney Doering had represented him for three years without his knowledge), Judge Innes immediately withdrew his mediation order.

74.    On Feb. 14, 2006, John Sigg hired attorneys Steven Blaylock and Harry Najim to represent him.  He gave them a retainer fee of $40,000.

75.    In early March, 2006, Mr. Sigg went to the Allen County courthouse to discuss the oil lease matter with Jerry Hathaway, the Allen County District Court attorney.  Mr. Hathaway told him to “take his problems elsewhere, or to another county.”

76.    Mr. Sigg then went to the sheriff’s office to talk to Sheriff Tom Williams.  He showed him paperwork on the oil lease matter, and 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 John, Linda and Mitch Sigg.  He then withdrew the motion on March 28, 2006.

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 John Sigg. 

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

80.     Linda Sigg had disposed of assets during divorce proceedings.  John Sigg had not.

81.   On April 26, 2006, John Sigg faxed a letter to the Allen County Court stating that he did not sign interrogatories in Allen County Case No. 85C234 involving the oil lease matter.  The Allen County District Court disregarded Mr. Sigg’s fax.

82.   On or about May 8, 2006, an Oppenheimer Fund certificate of deposit for $137,000 bearing the names of John, Linda and Mitch Sigg was ordered by the court to be cashed.  The court asked Mr. Sigg if he would agree to give the court $100,000 to the special master, and he could keep $37,000.

83.   John Sigg refused, and the court then ordered that the entire amount of $137,000 to be given to Special Master Newbery.  The court had ordered that the special master would answer only to the court.

84.   John Sigg was 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, Attorneys Doering and Prauser devised a plan to provoke John Sigg to anger.  While entering the courthouse, Mr. Sigg had a brief conversation with Attorney Prauser, after which Prauser and Doering spoke.  Then Attorney Doering walked back out and around to enter with the plaintiff.

86.   Attorney Doering used his briefcase to hide his hand as he flipped off John Sigg, and Mr. Sigg then called him a thief.  Attorney Doering then kicked John Sigg, who put his hands on Doering’s shoulders to shove him away.

87.   Attorney Doering then used the aforementioned incident to bring misdemeanor battery charges against John Sigg.  Mr. Sigg was required to pay a $1,500 bond to Allen County court, even though he was never arrested.

88.    Mr. Sigg 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. Sigg told A.H.A! C.E.O. Joan Farr 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 Farr told John Sigg that the A.H.A! could help him prepare legal pleadings naming his wife, the attorneys and the court as defendants. Mr. Sigg 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.    John Sigg went to the courthouse on August 10, 2006 in response to the hearing set for the battery charges brought by Attorney Doering; however, neither the judge nor Attorney Doering showed up.  Rather than dismiss the charges for their own failure to appear, the court chose to continue them instead.

93.   Joan Heffington attended a hearing in Allen County court on July 31, 2006 with John Sigg.  Mr. Sigg represented himself, and told the court that he was deprived of his property without due process of law under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  He asked the court to deny all motions for monetary judgments set for hearing that day.  The court did not address these at that time.

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

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

96.    Upon receiving the files, the A.H.A! determined that sexually explicit photographs of Attorney Doering and Linda Sigg, 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 Innes had scheduled another hearing for September 14, 2006, to discuss motions for payment of fees.  However, on September 13, 2006, Attorney Doering filed a motion for continuance without notifying John Sigg.  This was an ethical violation, since an attorney must give proper and timely notification when asking for a continuance.

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

99.   Altogether, four judges either quit or recused themselves since Linda Sigg filed for divorce.

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

101.  The initial filing of the divorce by Linda Sigg in May, 2001 is invalid due to the lack of service on John Sigg until January, 2002.  Other errors exist in court paperwork.

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

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

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

105.  Due to the actions of the defendants in this matter, John Sigg has been unable to properly file his income tax for Sigg Auto Parts since 2002.  The defendants maintained control of the books and records.

106.  Mitch Sigg should never have been added as a third party defendant to this divorce proceeding between his parents.  The defendants were clearly after John’s assets handed down to Mitch.

107.  Plaintiff is justified in his claims involving tort of outrage and outrageous government conduct in this matter.  Due to such outrageous government conduct, John Sigg 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 John Sigg’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 John Sigg’s lack of legal representation and his necessity to proceed pro se.

109.   John Sigg was 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 John Sigg of his assets include, but are not limited to:  ordering John Sigg’s C.D.s to be cashed and paid to the court without a proper basis for doing so, the court granting Linda Sigg control of Sigg Auto Parts (a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Sigg) without a proper basis for doing so, funneling money to a special master without a proper basis for doing so, Mr. Sigg’s lawyers firing themselves, the court ordering a bench warrant prior to service on John Sigg, 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. Sigg’s income and assets among the defendants.  These communications were also the overt acts used by the defendants to deny Mr. Sigg 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. Sigg 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 John Sigg 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 John Sigg 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 John Sigg 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 John Sigg and willfully deprived him of his property and his right to be heard.

118.   As a result of the defendants’ conduct to deprive John Sigg 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 John Sigg of his assets, including but not limited to:  granting control of Sigg Auto Parts to Linda Sigg prior to serving Mr. Sigg with divorce papers, ordering the payment of certificates of deposit to Mrs. Sigg and the court, dragging Mr. Sigg’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 John Sigg of his assets, the defendants acted with the intentof engaging in illegal and unethical activities to deplete Mr. Sigg 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 John Sigg and his family.

122.  The conduct of the defendants in conspiring to deprive Mr. Sigg 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 John Sigg 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 John Sigg and his family.

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

128.   At all relevant times, John Sigg 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, John Sigg 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, John Sigg 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 John Sigg 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. Sigg and his family.

132.   The defendants’ conduct was to inflict emotional distress on Mr. Sigg 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.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN J. SIGG
1919 E. Highway 54
Iola, Kansas  66749
Phone:  (620) 365-3969

By________________________________
John J. Sigg, pro se

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN J. SIGG
1919 E. Highway 54
Iola, Kansas  66749
Phone:  (620) 365-3969

By________________________________
John J. Sigg, pro se

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

Plaintiff designates Kansas City, Kansas as the location for the trial in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN J. SIGG
1919 E. Highway 54
Iola, Kansas  66749
Phone:  (620) 365-3969

By________________________________
John J. Sigg, pro se


[Home] [About Us] [Editorial] [A.H.A! Update] [Lawyers To Avoid/Consider] [Supporting Documents] [Goals &Attorney Membership Agreement] [Books/Membership] [Contact Us] [Copyright Information/Disclaimer]