Case 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, Terrence W. Frank, individually pro se, and on behalf of Sharon K. Frank (deceased), and files this complaint against the defendants as follows

A.  PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Terrence W. Frank, is an individual representing himself pro se with residence located at 1073 E. 119 th St. So. , Mulvane, Kansas 67110 . Plaintiff Terrence W. Frank also files this suit on behalf of his deceased wife, Sharon K. Frank. Terrence W. Frank is hereinafter referred to as “T. W. Frank,” “Mr. Frank,” or “T.W.” Sharon Frank is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Mrs. Frank,” or “his wife.”

2. Defendant, President George W. Bush, is former president of the United States, with residence located in the Dallas, Texas area, address unknown to the general public. President George W. Bush may be served by and through the United States Attorney, Thomas G. Luedke, at his principle place of business: Office of the U.S. Attorney – Topeka, 290 U. S. Courthouse, 444 S.E. Quincy, Topeka, Kansas 66683-3392. President George W. Bush, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “President Bush,” or “the government.”

3. Defendant, the United States Department of Homeland Security, is a government entity with principle offices located at 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C., 20590. The United States Department of Homeland Security may be served by and through its Secretary, Janet Napolitano, at her principle place of business: U. S. Department of Homeland Security, 3801 Nebraska Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20590. Defendant, the United States Department of Homeland Security, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Homeland Security,” “the federal government” or “the government.”

4. Defendant, Ott Land & Grain, Inc., is a Kansas corporation with principle offices located at Route 1, Peck, Kansas 67120. Defendant Ott Land & Grain, Inc., may be served by and through its resident agent, Kent Ott, at its principle place of business located at: Route 1, Peck, Kansas 67120. Defendant, Ott Land & Grain, Inc., is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Mr. Ott,” “Ott Land & Grain” or “defendant.”

5. Defendant, Kent A. Ott, is a former Kansas state representative and a wealthy farmer with residence located at 11621 S. Hillside, Mulvane, Kansas 67110. Defendant Kent A. Ott may be served at his residence located at: 11621 S. Hillside, Mulvane, Kansas 67110. Defendant, Kent A. Ott, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Kent Ott,” “Mr. Ott,” “Ott Land & Grain” or “defendant.”

6. Defendant, Rebecca Ott, is the spouse of defendant Kent Ott, with residence located at 11621 S. Hillside, Mulvane, Kansas 67110. Defendant Rebecca Ott may be served at her residence located at: 11621 S. Hillside, Mulvane, Kansas 67110. Defendant, Rebecca Ott, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Mrs. Ott,” “Ott Land & Grain” or “defendant.”

7. Defendant, Wesley Medical Center, is a Kansas professional association and medical facility comprised of doctors, health care workers and administrators engaged in providing health care for patients with principle offices located at: 550 N. Hillside, Wichita, Kansas 67214-4976. Defendant, HCA Wesley Medical Center, may be served by and through its resident agent, Debra McArthur, at her principle place of business located at: 550 N. Hillside, Wichita, Kansas 67214-4976. HCA Wesley Medical Center is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Wesley Hospital,” “the hospital,” or “defendant.”

8. Defendant Joseph M. Sack, M.D., is a Kansas licensed physician with principle offices located at Spectrum Family Medical Clinic, P.A., 7570 W. 21 st St., Building 1006A, Wichita, Kansas 67205. Defendant Joseph M. Sack, M.D., may be served at his principle place of business located at: Spectrum Family Medical Clinic, 7570 W. 21 st St., Building 1006A, Wichita, Kansas 67205. Defendant Joseph M. Sack, M.D., is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Dr. Joseph Sack,” “Dr. Sack,” or “defendant.”

9. Defendant Spectrum Family Medical Clinic, is a Kansas professional association engaged in providing health care for patients with principle offices located at 7570 W. 21 st St., Building 1006A, Wichita, Kansas 67205. Defendant, Spectrum Family Medical Clinic, may be served by and through its resident agent, Joseph M. Sack, M.D., at his principle place of business located at: 7570 W. 21 st St., Building 1006A, Wichita, Kansas 67205. Spectrum Family Medical Clinic is hereinafter referred to as “Spectrum Family Medical,” “Spectrum,” “Dr. Sack,” “Dr. Joseph Sack,” or “defendant.”

10. Defendant, Ronald K. Badger, is an attorney with principle offices located at 330 N. Main, Wichita , Kansas 67202 . Defendant, Ronald K. Badger, may be served summons at his principle place of business located at: 330 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202. Defendant, Ronald K. Badger, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Ron Badger,” “Attorney Badger,” or “defendant.”

11. Defendant, Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources, is a Kansas government entity with principle offices located at: 109 SW 9 th Street, 2 nd Floor, Topeka, Kansas 66612-1283. Defendant, Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources may be served by and through its resident agent, Adrian Polanski, at his principle place of business located at: 109 SW 9 th Street, 2 nd Floor, Topeka, Kansas 66612-1283. Defendant, Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Kansas Division of Water Resources,” “the state,” or “defendant.”

12. Defendant, District Court of Sumner County, Thirtieth Judicial District, is a Kansas government entity with primary offices located at 501 N. Washington St., P.O. Box 399, Wellington, Kansas 67152. This defendant, at all times acted through its agent, defendant Judge R Scott McQuin, and court employees. Defendant, District Court of Sumner County, Thirtieth Judicial District, may be served summons on the Clerk of the District Court, Sumner County, Kassie McEntire, at her principle place of business: 501 N. Washington St., P.O. Box 399, Wellington, Kansas 67152. Defendant, District Court of Sumner County, is hereinafter referred to as “District Court of Sumner County,” “ Sumner County Court,” or “the court.”

13. Defendant, Judge R. Scott McQuin, is a Sumner County District Court/Thirtieth Judicial District court judge with principle offices located at: District Court of Sumner County, 501 Washington St., P.O. Box 399, Wellington, Kansas 67152. Defendant, Judge R. Scott McQuin., may be served at his principle place of business: 501 N. Washington St., P.O. Box 399, Wellington, Kansas 67152. Defendant, Judge R. Scott McQuin, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Judge McQuin,” “ Sumner County Court,” or “the court.”

C. FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE

35. Terrence W. Frank, also known as “T. W.,” is a retired jig builder who lives on five acres of land at 1073 E. 119 th Street South, Mulvane, Kansas.

36. Kent Ott is a former Kansas state representative and wealthy farmer who owns approximately 4000 acres of land and a home at 11621 S. Hillside, Mulvane, Kansas.

37. Kent Ott lives with his wife, Rebecca Ott, at 11621 S. Hillside, Mulvane, Kansas. They have lived there since approximately 1986.

38. Kent Ott is president of Ott Land & Grain, Inc., a business entity, and Rebecca Ott is the secretary/treasurer. Ott Land & Grain, Inc. was incorporated on December 7, 1983.

39. Highway K-53 divides the properties owned by T. W. Frank and Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc.

40. Highway K-53 is also the dividing line between Sedgwick and Sumner Counties. The Otts live on the north side of K-53 in Sedgwick County, and T.W. Frank lives on the south side of K-53 in Sumner County, Kansas.

41. In 1980, T. W. Frank purchased his property at 1073 . 119 th Street South, Mulvane, Kansas, located in Sumner County, Kansas, and put a mobile home on it.

42. In 1985, Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. built an irrigation system over a natural flow of drainage that had run through both his property and Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s property for many years.

43. Construction of the irrigation system by Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. increased the flow of drainage water and caused Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s property to flood. The Franks had not experienced any flooding of their property prior to 1985.

44. Mr. Frank’s property soon became a “catchpond” for drainage from the Ott property. In 1989, his mobile home, vehicles, tractors, barn and land were flooded.

45. Mr. Frank constructed a home on his property in late 1989, and in 1993, the basement of his home flooded approximately four feet. His mobile home, vehicles, tractor, barn and land also flooded.

46. Mr. Frank estimated his actual damages at $100,000 in 1989 and $290,000 in 1993.

47. Mr. and Mrs. Frank were denied coverage by their insurance company for their losses due to the flooding caused by Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc.

48. From 1989 until the present, Mr. Frank noticed that Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain kept their irrigation system running even when it rained. This contributed to the flooding of Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s property since 1989.

49. Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. violated the natural flow doctrine, which states that a person/entity cannot alter or change the course of a natural flow of water that has been in existence for many years in such a manner that it causes flooding to a neighbor.

50. It was later determined by a state drainage expert that Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s property is approximately 8 feet lower than the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc.. Water has always been known to run downhill.

51. In an effort to stop the flooding to his property, Mr. Frank obtained a permit from the county on August 30, 2002, to build a pond and berm. The permit did not allow for any surface water to enter into it.

52. Mr. Frank followed the law according to the common enemy doctrine which states that a person is within their legal right to construct a barrier to keep their property from flooding.

53. The pond and berm constructed by Mr. Frank kept his home, mobile home and barn from flooding after he began construction in 2003.

54. The pond and berm constructed by Mr. Frank then caused drainage water to back up onto the property of Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott and Ott Land & Grain in the spring of 2003.

55. Since Mr. Ott was a former Kansas state representative with big money and power who had political connections in Topeka and locally, he had the Kansas Department of Agriculture/ Division of Water Resources bring Case No. 04 WATER 2649 against Mr. and Mrs. Frank for flooding his property.

56. Using their political connections, Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc. convinced the Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources to bring a false case against T.W. and Sharon Frank for causing the flooding which they themselves caused when they built an irrigation system over their land in 1985. By increasing the flow of water to cause flooding to Mr. and Mrs. Frank, they violated the natural flow doctrine which states that a natural flow of drainage that has existed for many years cannot be altered or changed in such a manner that it causes flooding to another person’s property.

57. Case No. 04 WATER 2649 was an obvious frivolous case, since Mr. Frank’s property is downhill from Mr. Otts, and water cannot run uphill. Even so, Mr. Frank was then forced to hire counsel to represent him. He hired attorney Ronald K. Badger in 2003.

58. Mr. Frank spent nearly $100,000 in attorney fees from 2003 – 2009 with no results. His own attorney, Ronald Badger, was participating in the defendants’ schemed plan to defraud him into thinking that he caused the flooding problem.

59. On April 10, 2003, Mr. Frank received a letter from the Kansas Division of Water Resources stating that he had obstructed a “stream” on his property, but that the so-called “stream” did not exist on Mr. Ott’s property. They called it an “unnamed tributary to the Cowskin Creek,” when it was actually a natural flow of drainage that had always flowed over both properties for many years when it rained.

60. In April – June, 2003, Mr. Frank wrote to Governor Kathleen Sebelius to ask for her help in resolving the flooding matter, because he had a permit to construct a pond/berm which was now being denied.

61. In approximately August, 2003, Governor Sebelius wrote a letter back to Mr. Frank stating that she could not help him, that he had caused his own problems.

62. Mr. Frank tried to fight the stream obstruction claim, but at a hearing on March 8-9, 2005, he lost. The state ordered Mr. Frank to remove the pond and berm they had given him a permit to construct.

63. In April, 2005, Mr. Frank called the Association for Honest Attorneys (A.H.A!) for assistance on another matter. After learning of Mr. Frank’s dispute with Mr. Ott, A.H.A! CEO Joan Farr did not want to get involved, since Kent Ott had been her first true love back in college 32 years earlier.

64. Ms. Heffington faxed Mr. Frank copies of legal cases to show his attorney that he was not at fault for the flooding. She told him to give them to his attorney, Ronald Badger.

65. Attorney Ron Badger ignored the information from the A.H.A! given to him by Mr. Frank.

66. Mr. Frank then tried to appeal his case again. Attorney Badger filed a judicial review of the state order to remove his pond/berm with the Sumner County Court.

67. On June 28, 2007, Mr. Frank lost again. Judge McQuin told him it was because he couldn’t prove there wasn’t a creek on his property in 1928. Judge McQuin knew the records had only begun in 1929.

68. Mr. Frank then tried to appeal his case higher, but his assets were being depleted by Attorney Badger. He had charged him $10,000 just to draft an appeal in Case No. 06 CV 184.

69. Attorney Badger kept pursuing Mr. Frank’s case and taking attorney fees from him, all the while knowing that the claims made by Mr. Ott/Ott Land & Grain, Inc. were frivolous.

70. The construction of Mr. Frank’s berm later caused water to back up on Mr. Ott’s land north of highway K-53 in Sedgwick County.

71. Sometime in 2008, Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. claimed crop losses against their insurance company for approximately $50,000.

72. On or about March 16, 2009, Mr. Frank called the A.H.A! for assistance because he had been served with a lawsuit in Sumner County Court by Ott Land & Grain, Inc. for causing the flooding (Case No. 06 CV 35). The A.H.A! had not heard from Mr. Frank in four years.

73. Mr. Frank told the A.H.A! that the Kansas Dept. of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources was now telling him that he had to remove his pond and berm, or they were going to remove it. Due to the flooding situation, he had suffered serious defamation in the small town of Mulvane where he lived.

74. During the conversation, Mr. Frank stated to Ms. Heffington, “You know, they killed my wife.”

75. Mr. Frank was referring to the conspiracy engaged in by all of the defendants in this matter. He said they couldn’t get to him, so they went after his wife, hoping he would give up his fight for justice.

76. Mr. Frank then proceeded to tell Ms. Heffington/A.H.A! how Sharon Frank died at Wesley Hospital in Wichita, Kansas (see attached Affidavit of T. W. Frank – EXHIBIT A).

77. Sharon Frank went into Wesley Hospital on or about November 10, 2007, for a migraine shot. Still in pain, Mr. Frank brought her back to Wesley Hospital on November 12, 2007, and she was admitted.

78. Mr. Frank told the A.H.A! that a doctor (later discovered to be Dr. Joseph Sack) told Mr. Frank he was going to put his wife on a “steroid cocktail” mix I.V., and that it was going to make her better.

79. The “steroid cocktail” caused Mrs. Frank to develop diabetes by the next day, and Dr. Sack then gave orders for the hospital to give her insulin every 20 minutes thereafter.

80. At approximately 10:00 a.m. on November 16, 2007, a nurse was preparing to give Mrs. Frank a shot of insulin, when Mrs. Frank asked, “What are you giving me?”

81. The nurse told her a certain kind of insulin, and Mrs. Frank told her that this wasn’t the insulin she was supposed to be given. Mrs. Frank was suspect, since she had been a nurse practitioner for years.

82. The nurse said that they had run out of her kind of insulin, and that they were giving her a different kind instead. Mrs. Frank asked her how much was she being given, and the nurse told her the same amount as the previous insulin.

83. Mrs. Frank told her, “no, you’re not,” and demanded that she check the chart for the proper medicine/dosage. The nurse became indignant, grabbed up her needles and left the room.

84. Mr. Frank told his wife not to worry, that they were going to give her the right medicine, and then he kissed her good-bye to go home and rest.

85. At approximately 1:30 p.m. the same day, Mrs. Frank called Mr. Frank on the phone and was screaming that she was blind. She said she had asked a hospital aid to dial the phone for her.

86. Mrs. Frank told Mr. Frank that no one had ever returned to give her insulin.

87. Mr. Frank hurried back to the hospital, arriving at about 2:00 p.m. on November 17, 2007. He continued to push the button for a nurse to help his wife, but no one would come.

88. Mrs. Frank was continually throwing up, and Mr. Frank kept trying to clean it up and get help.

89. Mr. Frank searched frantically up and down the halls for medical help, but no one was around. No one came to help them, and Mr. Frank tried to soothe his wife who was now having seizures.

90. At approximately 5:15 p.m. on November 17, 2007, a physician at Wesley Hospital came into Mrs. Frank’s room and pressed on her fingernails and toenails. He said they were going to stop the I.V. and take Mrs. Frank down for a test immediately. However, no one came.

91. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on November 17, 2007, a night nurse named Elijah Joe came into Mrs. Frank’s room. By this time, it was too late. Sharon Frank had gone into a coma.

92. The doctor told Mr. Frank that his wife was brain dead, and based on this statement, he believed that she had died on November 17, 2007 at approximately 11:30 p.m.

93. Sharon Frank actually died at approximately 11:30 a.m. on November 18, 2007. Her death certificate lists the cause of death as “CVA - bleeding out of the brain.”

94. Sharon Frank actually died from intentional negligence/medical malpractice by Dr. Sack and Wesley Hospital , the result of a National Security Letter authorized by President Bush and the government, which was initiated by Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc.

95. Mr. Frank suffered extreme mental anguish having to watch his wife suffer needlessly in the hospital.

96. Mrs. Frank suffered both extreme mental anguish and bodily pain before she died in the hospital, due to the intentional negligence/medical malpractice caused by Dr. Joseph Sack, Wesley Medical Center, President Bush, the government, Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc.

97. Dr. Sack later lied on the autopsy report, stating that Mrs. Frank died from natural causes.

98. Ms. Heffington compared these facts to her own near-death experience under the care of Dr. Joseph Sack in 2006 -2007, which was verified by a former A.H.A! volunteer (see attached Affidavit of GaeLynn Ashley – EXHIBIT B).

99. On or about March 18, 2009, Ms. Heffington told Mr. Frank that she believed a National Security Letter (NSL) had been issued against him and his wife, just as one had been issued against her and the A.H.A!, and that the NSLs were delivered to the hospital by attorneys (see EXHIBIT B).

100. Ms. Heffington told Mr. Frank that she knew an NSL had been issued against her and that he and Mrs. Frank probably had one, too. She told him she had felt that Senator Obama was going to become president and had driven to his Washington, D.C. office for a meeting in late July, 2007.

101. At that time, she told him she had given then Senator Obama’s aid a copy of her state lawsuit with similar claims against President Bush and others (Case No. 07 CV 2970).

102. Senator Obama’s legislative aid, Elizabeth Olson, called Ms. Heffington on August 8, 2007, and said they were going to do everything they could to try and get the NSL removed against her. She asked if there was no one in Kansas that would help her? Ms. Heffington replied, “No one.”

103. Mr. Frank confirmed to Ms. Heffington that like her, he had also been followed on numerous occasions, his phone tapped, his computer hacked into, and his bank account altered.

104. It was on or about March 16, 2009 that the A.H.A! advised Mr. Frank that in their opinion, he had various state and federal claims, including conspiracy/collusion, fraud, negligence and wrongful death against Mr. and Mrs. Ott, Ott Land & Grain, Inc., President Bush, and the other defendants.

105. Mr. Frank told the A.H.A! that a mediation had been conducted in 2008 with Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, the state, attorney Ron Badger and others, but to no avail.

106. Mr. Frank showed the A.H.A! a drainage report that had been completed by an expert with the Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water resources on May 6, 2004. It showed that Mr. Frank’s property was approximately 8 feet lower than Mr. Ott’s.

107. Even though this was submitted as evidence in his previous cases, Mr. Frank said he still lost.

108. The A.H.A! sent a demand letter to the defendants (later to Dr. Sack) on April 6, 2009, asking to try and resolve the matter prior to litigation.

109. The A.H.A! believed that the lawsuit filed by Ott Land & Grain, Inc. against Mr. Frank (Case No. 09 CV 35) was improperly filed in Sumner County Court, that it was Sedgwick County that had true jurisdiction. Mr. Frank felt Mr. Ott was using his political connections in Sumner County.

110. Shortly thereafter on May 27, 2009, Judge McQuin ordered Mr. Frank into a mental evaluation to try and stop his pursuit for justice, threatening to appoint a guardian ad litem over his property.

111. During hearings held in August – October, 2009, Judge McQuin and the court ignored Mr. Frank’s written motions to recuse the judge, dismiss the case and denied both his verbal and written request for a trial by jury. This was a clear abuse of discretion.

112. Counsel for Mr. Ott requested a mediation of the flooding matter, and this was attempted on November 4, 2009. It failed because the mediator was biased toward the Otts, refused to sign a mediation agreement prior to starting, and would not allow discussion concerning the death of Sharon Frank.

113. Judge McQuin then wrote a letter to Mr. Frank on November 6, 2009, denying Mr. Frank’s request for a jury trial, and placing a criminal trial before his trial scheduled for December 8-9, 2009.

114. The defendants continue to deny accountability and take their responsibility in this matter.

115. This complaint is timely filed, since the two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims in this matter began to run from March 16, 2009, when the A.H.A! told Mr. Frank they felt he had such claims.

116. This complaint is timely filed for negligence/wrongful death claims, since the two-year statute of limitations began to run from the date of Sharon Frank’s death on November 18, 2007.

117. President Bush, the Department of Homeland Security and the government issued the NSL against Mr. and Mrs. Frank without good cause and without a warrant, since they had no ties to any terrorists, foreign or otherwise. This violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

118. A National Security Letter was issued by President George W. Bush and the Department of Homeland Security which authorized Wichita area hospitals and others (including Wesley Hospital and Dr. Joseph Sack), to use a “steroid cocktail” to try and cause death to Ms. Heffington in March 2007, former A.H.A! volunteer Gaelynn Ashley in May, 2007 and Sharon Frank in November, 2007.

119. The only thing that all three of the above people had in common was that they were fighting for justice in a corrupt legal system.

120. The defendants in this matter, except for Attorney Badger, Sumner County Court and Judge R. Scott McQuin, succeeded in the needless killing of Sharon Frank.

121. After September 11, 2001, President Bush and the government illegally utilized National Security Letters to keep innocent American people under surveillance and to employ Blackwater contractors as minimally trained nurses and X-ray technicians in hospitals to try and cause their death in an inconspicuous manner. This is conspiracy to murder and murder, since these defendants acted with malice aforethought.

122. President Bush, the Department of Homeland Security, and the other defendants used outrageous conduct to try and stop Mr. Frank’s continual fight for justice. Such acts are deemed in terrorem populi – “to the terror of the people,” and are utterably intolerable in a civilized society.

123. Using the NSL, President Bush and the government engaged in misuse and abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and outrageous government conduct toward Mr. and Mrs. Frank in this matter.

124. Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, the state, attorney Ron Badger, Sumner County Court, Judge R. Scott McQuin and others engaged in conspiracy, collusion and fraud to try and convince Mr. and Mrs. Frank that they caused the flooding and were at fault for constructing a pond/berm to block the flow of drainage.

125. The above named defendants dragged the flooding matter out to cause Mr. and Mrs. Frank emotional distress and intentional emotional distress, all the while having full knowledge that Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc. were to blame.

126. Plaintiff’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated by the government and President Bush when they illegally targeted Mr. and Mrs. Frank with a National Security Letter, just as they had done to A.H.A! volunteers Joan Farr and GaeLynn Ashley.

127. Plaintiff has been denied due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution due to the conspiracy/collusion and fraud engaged in by the defendants, attorney Ronald Badger, Judge R. Scott McQuin and the Sumner County District Court and the state. This caused him to be deprived of effective assistance of counsel, which deprived him of his right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to the states through the 14 th Amendment.

128. Criminal fraud, gross negligence, conspiracy to murder and murder charges should have been brought by the state attorney general, and a grand jury investigation or a special prosecutor appointed. However, the state and the government have thus far failed to do anything.

129. Ultimately, Mr. and Mrs. Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc. misused the NSL issued by President Bush to neglect Mrs. Frank’s health care in the hospital, cause her severe emotional distress, bodily harm and death, because they wanted Mr. Frank to stop pursuing his defense of the flooding case they had falsely brought against him.

130. The actions by all of the defendants caused intentional emotional distress to Mr. and Mrs. Frank, and contributed to the wrongful death of Sharon Frank on November 18, 2009.

131. This case hinges on the fact that President George W. Bush used the Department of Homeland Security and other government entities/actors to violate his own Patriot Act by using National Security Letters to terrorize the American people he was sworn to protect.

132. Plaintiff is without legal counsel in this matter, since no attorney will provide him effective assistance of counsel due to the claims in this case. Therefore, the doctrine of special circumstances applies in regard to his pro se status, and he should not be held to the same standards as attorneys.

133. Plaintiff demanded in a letter on April 6, 2009 (and in a separate letter to Dr. Sack hand-carried on October 13, 2009) that defendants take action to make plaintiff T. W. Frank whole for his losses. Defendants have refused plaintiff’s demands.

134. Plaintiff T. W. Frank brings this suit in federal court which has proper jurisdiction due to the defendants’ violations of federal law, plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, and abuse of discretion/fraud-related claims involving actions by the state, Sumner County Court and Judge McQuin.

135. Terrence W. Frank has filed this complaint individually, and on behalf of his wife, Sharon K. Frank (deceased). He continues to be unlawfully persecuted through the National Security Letter issued by President Bush and enforced by local/state/national government actors.

Defendants in this matter violated numerous city, county, state and national laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to: civil conspiracy/collusion, fraud by commission, fraud by omission, misrepresentation/concealment, intentional fraud, medical malpractice, negligence, gross negligence, trespass, private nuisance, the natural flow doctrine, state laws concerning obstruction of streams/water flows (K.S.A. 82a-301), drainage and levee laws (K.S.A. 24-126), ineffective assistance of counsel, defamation, detrimental reliance, wrongful death and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress/wrongful death (tort of outrage), war crimes/crimes against humanity and murder. Defendants engaged in abuse and misuse of power, obstruction of justice, and outrageous government conduct in this matter. They violated the plaintiffs’ natural right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” under the Declaration of Independence, and Color of Law 42 USC 1983/18 USC 242.

According to the law, cases involving outrageous government conduct should be resolved before going to trial. President Bush violated his Oath of Office as president in this matter. The government and President Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the Patriot Act, and their conduct should be considered in terrorem populi. The defendants violated plaintiff’s right to privacy under 4 th Amendment to the United States Constitution and right to due process of law under the 5 th Amendment (as applied to the states through the 14 th Amendment). This matter is res ipsa loquitor, and the doctrine of special circumstances applies. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas has jurisdiction in this matter, since defendants President Bush and government actors/entities violated federal laws in this matter and issued a National Security Letter against the plaintiff without a warrant and without good causewhich caused the death of the plaintiff’s wife, Sharon K. Frank.

The defendants participated in a schemed plan to cause Terrence and Sharon Frank intentional emotional distress by dragging this false matter out needlessly to deplete their assets and cause them to give up their fight for justice. The overt acts engaged in by all defendants to cause the plaintiffs severe emotional distress include, but are not limited to: telephone calls, meetings, verbal and written communications, and mental processes. President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security, the state of Kansas and others were involved in the overt act of illegally issuing a National Security Letter with willful and wanton disregard for human life. Defendants Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, Inc., Wesley Hospital , Dr. Joseph Sack, the state, the government and others then helped carry out the National Security Letter directives to cause the death of Sharon Frank in an inconspicuous manner.

Plaintiff alleges each of the following claims separately against each of the defendants as designated, unless stated otherwise. In addition, plaintiff contends that each of the following fraud-related claims are already stated with particularity as to the times and dates of occurrences, and are therefore not repeated again under the claims below. is well within the two-year statute of limitations for filing this suit, since he was not aware that he had conspiracy/fraud claims until approximately March 15, 2009, when the Association for Honest Attorneys (A.H.A.!) told him they believed he had such claims. Plaintiff is within the two-year statute of limitations for his claims involving wrongful death, since his wife, Sharon Frank, died on November 18, 2009. The federal court has jurisdiction in this matter due to continued manifest injustice toward plaintiff by local, state and national governing officials, actors and entities for six years.

In the stated facts below, plaintiff has indicated “appropriate defendants” to designate which claims apply to certain defendants, and these can be inferred and implied from the facts above. This was done in an effort to save space and use less paper, since this document is necessarily quite lengthy. It was plaintiff’s desire to kill as few trees as possible, and at least it is much shorter than the health care bill.

136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 135 of this Complaint.

137. The conduct of all of the defendants in conspiring and colluding to defraud Mr. and Mrs. Frank into believing that they were the cause of the flooding problem and to drag the matter out to deplete their assets constitutes civil conspiracy/collusion.

138. The conduct of all of the defendants (except Sumner County Court, Judge McQuin and Attorney Badger) to utilize a National Security Letter to illegally put Mr. and Mrs. Frank to intentionally cause the death of Sharon Frank in an inconspicuous manner constitutes civil conspiracy/collusion.

139. By participating in the above fraudulent acts and failures to act, the defendants acted with the intent of defrauding the plaintiffs into believing they were at fault for the flooding, having full knowledge that such acts were substantially certain to result in injury and detriment to T. W. and Sharon Frank.

140. The conduct of the defendants in conspiring, colluding and communicating to defraud the plaintiffs and cause the death of Sharon Frank constitutes civil conspiracy/collusion.

141. The conduct of the defendants (except Sumner County Court, Judge McQuin and Attorney Badger) in conspiring, colluding and communicating to defraud the plaintiffs and cause the death of Sharon Frank constitutes civil conspiracy/collusion.

142. By participating in a plan to cause the plaintiffs emotional distress, bodily harm and/or death, the conduct of the defendants constitutes conspiracy to cause harm to the plaintiffs.

143. As a result of the conspiracy/collusion of the above named defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from continuing their harm; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

2. Fraud By Commission

144. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 143 of this Complaint, in which fraud is stated with particularity.

145. The above defendants’ conduct in participation of the schemed plan constitutes a knowing misrepresentation of the truth and concealment of material facts to induce plaintiffs to act to their detriment.

146. The overt acts of fraud engaged in by the defendants include, but are not limited to: telephone calls, meetings, verbal and written communications, and mental processes, and the unjust and illegal issuance of a National Security Letter against the plaintiffs.

147. The overt act of fraud engaged in by the defendants (except for Sumner County Court, Judge R. Scott McQuin and Attorney Badger) include, but are not limited to, the illegal issuance and initiation of a National Security Letter against the plaintiffs.

148. At all relevant times, the above defendants’ participation in the schemed plan to cause plaintiffs severe emotional distress, bodily harm and/or death, was willful and wanton, and with full knowledge that such conduct was substantially certain to result in injury and/or death and detriment to the plaintiffs.

149. The defendants’ conduct constitutes fraud by commission.

150. As a result of the defendants’ fraud by commission, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.000.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from continuing their harm; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

3.   Fraud By Omission

151. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 150 of this Complaint, in which fraud is stated with particularity.

152. The failure of the defendants to admit the truth concerning the fact that Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. caused the flooding of Mr. Frank’s property constitutes fraud by omission.

153. The failure of Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. to properly engineer his land according to state laws constitutes fraud by omission.

154. The failure of the defendants (except Sumner County Court and Judge McQuin) to provide proper treatment and sufficient health care for Sharon Frank in an effort to cause her severe emotional distress, bodily harm and death constitutes fraud by omission.

155. The failure of defendants Dr. Sack, Spectrum and Wesley Hospital to follow the Hippocratic Oath and give plaintiff Sharon Frank the proper standard of care required of doctors and hospitals in the medical profession constitutes fraud by omission. The care of these defendants was insufficient and substantially misrepresentative.

156. The failure of the appropriate defendants to give plaintiffs the proper standard of care required to irrigate land, resolve flooding/legal disputes and provide medical care in the medical profession constitutes fraud by omission. The care of the defendants was insufficient and substantially misrepresentative.

157. The appropriate defendants had a duty to irrigate the land properly, handle legal matters justly and provide sufficient and proper health care to the plaintiffs.

158. The defendants failed in their duty to the plaintiffs.

159. As a result of the acts of fraud by omission by all of the above defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from continuing their harm; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

4.   Intentional Fraud

160. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 159 of this Complaint, in which fraud is stated with particularity.

161. At all relevant times, the appropriate defendants recognized that their fraudulent overt acts (including, but not limited to, telephone calls, communications, meetings, “mental processes” and the issuance/initiation of a National Security Letter) concerning the plaintiffs’ flooding matter would result in mental anguish and severe detriment to Mr. and Mrs. Frank.

162. The appropriate defendants’ conduct was to inflict emotional distress by abusing their power.

163. The conduct of the defendants constitutes intentional fraud.

164. As a result of all of the defendants’ intentional fraud, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

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

5.   Misrepresentation/Concealment

165. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 164 of this Complaint.

166. The appropriate defendants’ participation in the schemed plan to cause Mr. and Mrs. Frank severe and prolonged emotional distress, bodily harm and/or death constitutes a knowing misrepresentation of the truth and concealment of material facts to induce plaintiffs to act to their detriment.

167. The actions of defendants Dr. Sack, Spectrum and Wesley Medical Center to incorrectly prescribe a “steroid cocktail” mix I.V. for Sharon Frank and incorrect insulin afterward constitutes misrepresentation/ concealment.

168. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs were without knowledge or means of knowing the related aspects of Sharon Frank’s medical procedures, prescriptions and surgeries, but were trusting and relying on the defendants’ knowledge to improve her health and keep her from dying .

169. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs believed and relied that the appropriate defendants were acting in good faith, and believed they were being told the truth about Sharon Frank’s health problem.

170. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs were unaware of the appropriate defendants’ participation in the schemed plan to cause them emotional distress, bodily harm and/or death as they acted with willful rendering of imperfect performance in their respective positions.

171. The appropriate defendants’ participation in the schemed plan to cause the plaintiffs emotional distress, bodily harm and/or death was with the intent and full knowledge that their conduct was substantially certain to result in injury, death and detriment to the plaintiffs.

172. By participating in the schemed plan to cause them emotional distress, bodily harm and/or death, the conduct of the appropriate defendants constitutes misrepresentation/concealment.

173. As a result of the defendants’ misrepresentation/concealment, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiffs: (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from continuing their harm; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

6.   Negligence/Medical Malpractice

174. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 173 of this Complaint.

175. The failure of defendants Dr. Sack, Spectrum, Wesley Hospital and others to provide sufficient and proper health care for plaintiff Sharon Frank constitutes negligence/medical malpractice.

176. The failure of defendants Dr. Sack, Spectrum, Wesley Hospital and others to follow the Hippocratic Oath and give plaintiff Sharon Frank the proper standard of care required of physicians in the medical profession constitutes negligence/medical malpractice.

177. The failure of defendants Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources to follow their own state drainage laws, to require the proper standard of care of Mr. Ott/Ott Land & Grain in constructing his irrigation system, and to allow Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s property to flood for 20 years constitutes negligence.

178. The failure of Mr. Frank’s attorney, Ronald K. Badger, to resolve this matter over a six-year period, after receiving almost $100,000 in attorney fees from plaintiff, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and negligence.

179. As a result of the negligence/medical malpractice of the appropriate defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (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.

7. Gross Negligence

180. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 179 of this Complaint.

181. The failure of defendants President Bush, Homeland Security, the government, the state, and others to give plaintiffs the proper standard of care required of government leaders/state actors so that National Security Letters are not issued against innocent people constitutes gross negligence.

182. The failure of defendants the government, the state and others to bring charges of criminal fraud and negligence, if not murder and crimes against humanity, against the appropriate defendants and others in this matter constitutes gross negligence.

183. The failure of Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain to properly irrigate their land according to state laws so that flooding would not occur to plaintiffs constitutes gross negligence.

184. The failure of defendants Dr. Sack, Spectrum, Wesley Hospital to provide the proper standard of care to Sharon Frank to keep her alive and not cause her death constitutes gross negligence.

185. The government has a duty under the law to prosecute President Bush, the appropriate defendants, and others, and they have thus far failed to do so.

186. The failure of defendants Sumner County Court and Judge McQuin to follow their own laws constitutes gross negligence.

187. The failure of Attorney Badger to provide effective assistance of counsel to Mr. and Mrs. Frank for six years and ask for dismissal of this frivolous case constitutes gross negligence.

188. Dr. Sack, Spectrum and Wesley Hospital had a duty under the Hippocratic Oath and the law to provide sufficient and proper care so that Sharon Frank would live, and they failed to do so.

189. As a result of the gross negligence/medical malpractice of the above named defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (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.

8.   Trespass

190. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 189 of this Complaint.

191. Defendants Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain’s act in constructing an irrigation system to increase the flow of groundwater was done with knowledge that the groundwater would enter upon, flood and pond plaintiffs’ property.

192. In constructing the irrigation system in the manner in which it was constructed, Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain intended to have the groundwater flood and pond on plaintiffs’ property.

193. Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain’s conduct constitutes a trespass and continuing trespass.

194. As a result of Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain’s trespass, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against Cook awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; (iv) injunctive relief enjoining Cook from continuing the trespass; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

9. Private Nuisance

195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 194 of this Complaint.

196. Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain’s conduct in constructing an irrigation system to cause flooding and ponding of water on plaintiffs’ property constitutes a private nuisance and unlawful interference with plaintiffs’ use and/or enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property.

197. The state’s conduct in allowing the aforementioned irrigation system to cause flooding and ponding of water on plaintiffs’ property for 20 years constitutes a private nuisance and unlawful interference with plaintiffs’ use and/or enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property.

198. In creating the private nuisance, Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain acted with the intent of interfering with the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ land.

199. The resulting interference was substantial and unreasonable.

200. As a result of Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain’s private nuisance, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against Kent Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; and(iv) injunctive relief enjoining Cook from continuing the private nuisance; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

10. Intentional Private Nuisance

201. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 200 of this Petition.

202. At all relevant times, Kent Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc. was an experienced farmer and recognized that the manner of construction of his irrigation system over an existing flow of drainage would cause flooding and ponding of water on plaintiffs’ property downstream.

203. At all relevant times, Kent Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc. acted with the purpose and intent of causing the private nuisance, knew the private nuisance was substantially certain to result from their conduct; and recognized that their conduct involved a serious risk and likelihood of causing invasion of plaintiffs’ property rights.

204. The conduct of Kent Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc. constitutes an intentional private nuisance.

205. As a result of Kent Ott and Ott Land & Grain, Inc.’s intentional private nuisance, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against Mr. Ott/Ott Land & Grain, Inc. awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (ii) pre- and post-judgment interest; (iii) costs, including reasonable attorney fees, for this action; and (iv) injunctive relief enjoining Cook from continuing the intentional private nuisance; and (v) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

11. Detrimental Reliance

206. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 205 of this Complaint.

207. In seeking the health care of defendants Dr. Sack and Wesley Hospital, plaintiffs relied upon the representations of these defendants that they were competent and accomplished doctors and medical facilities with considerable experience and knowledge.

208. In seeking legal assistance, plaintiffs relied upon the representations of the government, the state, Homeland Security, Sumner County Court, Judge McQuin, Attorney Badger and others that the legal system provides “justice for all,” as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance.

209. Plaintiffs relied in good faith upon representations made by the above defendants.

210. Plaintiffs were justified in their reliance.

211. Plaintiffs relied to their detriment and as a result suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $75,000.00; (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.

12. Wrongful Death

212. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 211 of this Complaint.

213. Defendants Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, Dr. Sack, Spectrum, Wesley Hospital the state and the government’s participation in the schemed plan to cause severe emotional distress to Mr. and Mrs. Frank, knowing full well that their acts and failures to act could result in severe bodily harm and/or death. Even those who were doctors did this with malice, and willful and wanton disregard for human life.

214. The above defendants acted to cover up the truth and conceal material facts involving the proper medical treatment for the migraine headache that Sharon Frank was suffering.

215. At all relevant times, the above defendants’ participation in the schemed plan was willful and wanton, and with full knowledge that such conduct was substantially certain to result in injury and/or death and detriment to Mr. and Mrs. Frank.

216. The conduct of the above defendants constitutes the wrongful death of Sharon Frank.

217. As a result of Sharon Frank’s wrongful death, plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against the above named defendants awarding to plaintiffs (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.

13. Violations of Plaintiff’s 4 th Amendment Right to Privacy
(as incorporated to the States through the 14 th Amendment)

218. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 217 of this Complaint.

219. The conduct of the defendants (the government, President Bush, Homeland Security and others) to engage in unwarranted domestic and internet surveillance and issue a National Security Letter against Mr. and Mrs. Frank without good cause violated their right to privacy under the 4 th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the States through the 14 th Amendment.

220. The conduct of the above named defendants to engage in unwarranted domestic and internet surveillance and to issue a National Security Letter against Mr. and Mrs. Frank violated the Communications Act of 1934 and the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (Stored Communications Act) and the plaintiffs’ right to privacy.

221. The above named defendants owed Mr. and Mrs. Frank a duty not to violate their right to privacy under the aforementioned laws.

222. The above named defendants breached the duty owed Mr. and Mrs. Frank. As a result of the defendants’ conduct in violating Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s privacy, plaintiffs have suffered harm and damages in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (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; (v) injunctive relief enjoining the above named defendants from continuing the invasion of plaintiff’s privacy; and (vi) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

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

223. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 222 of this Complaint.

224. The conduct of the appropriate defendants in depriving Mr. and Mrs. Frank of life, liberty and property without due process of law, constitutes a violation of their rights under the 5 th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the States through the 14 th Amendment.

225. The appropriate defendants owed Mr. and Mrs. Frank a duty under the 5 th and 14 th Amendments not to violate their rights under the United States Constitution as citizens of the United States.

226. The defendants breached the duty owed plaintiffs and caused Sharon Frank’s needless death.

227. As a result of the defendants’ conduct in depriving Mr. and Mrs. Frank of life and liberty and property without due process of law, plaintiffs have suffered harm in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (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.

15. Violations of FISA and Patriot Act

228. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 227 of this complaint.

229. The conduct of the appropriate defendants (the government, President Bush, Homeland Security, Vice President Cheney, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, former Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and others) to issue a National Security Letter against Mr. and Mrs. Frank and conduct unwarranted domestic, physical and electronic surveillance of them constitutes a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the USA Patriot Act.

230. Under the National Security Letter (NSL), the above named defendants caused to be conducted willful and intentional domestic surveillance of Mr. and Mrs. Frank, without good cause and without a warrant (their computers were hacked into, phone calls monitored, they were followed on numerous occasions and their bank account altered.)

231. The above named defendants conduct was an invasion of Mr. and Mrs. Frank’s privacy.

232. The above named defendants owed Mr. and Mrs. Frank a duty not to conduct unwarranted surveillance of them, to invade their privacy, or to cause them bodily harm and death.

233. The above named defendants breached their duty owed the plaintiffs in this matter.

234. As a result of the defendants’ unwarranted surveillance and invasion of privacy, plaintiffs suffered harm in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (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; (v) injunctive relief enjoining the above named defendants from continuing the invasion of plaintiff’s privacy; and (vi) any other relief deemed just and equitable by the court.

16. War Crimes Act of 1949/Crimes Against Humanity  

235. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 234 of this Complaint.

236. The conduct of the appropriate defendants (the government, President Bush, HomelandSecurity, Vice President Cheney, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, former Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and others) to deliberately devise and authorize an unjustified, erroneous and fraudulent National Security Letter against Mr. and Mrs. Frank without good cause and thereby deprive Sharon Frank of her life constitutes a violation of the War Crimes Act of 1949/crimes against humanity.

237. The conduct of defendants Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, Dr. Sack and Wesley Hospital to deliberately utilize an unjustified, erroneous and fraudulent National Security Letter against Mrs. Frank to cause her death needlessly, just because they couldn’t get Mr. Frank to stop his pursuit of justice, constitutes a violation of the War Crimes Act of 1949/crimes against humanity.

238. The above defendants owed Sharon Frank a duty not to violate her rights under the War Crimes Act as an innocent American citizen and under the United States Constitution.

239. The above named defendants acted with willful and wanton disregard for human life.

240. The defendants breached the duty owed Sharon Frank and caused her needless death.

241. As a result of the defendants’ conduct in depriving Sharon Frank of her life without due process of law, plaintiffs have suffered harm in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against all the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (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.

17. Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress & Wrongful Death /
Outrageous Government Conduct (TORT OF OUTRAGE)

242. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 241 in this Complaint.

243. Defendants Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, Ott Land & Grain, and the Kansas Department of Agriculture/Division of Water Resources’ conduct in fraudulently bringing a case against T. W. Frank for causing the flooding, granting him a permit to construct a pond/berm and then ordering him to remove it, having full knowledge that Mr. Ott and/or Ott Land & Grain, Inc. had caused the flooding (because water cannot run uphill), was extreme and outrageous.

244. Defendant Attorney Ron Badger’s conduct to allow the above matter to drag on for six years and cost Mr. andMrs. Frank nearly $100,000 in attorney fees when the flooding was never their fault was extreme and outrageous.

245. Defendants President Bush, Homeland Security and the government’s conduct in illegally issuing a National Security Letter (NSL) against Mr. and Mrs. Frank to put them under surveillance/cause them emotional distress and bodily harm without good cause was extreme and outrageous.

246. Defendants Kent Ott, Rebecca Ott, and Ott Land & Grain, Dr. Sack, Spectrum and Wesley Hospital’s conduct in initiating the use of a National Security Letter to put a “steroid cocktail” in Sharon Frank’s I.V. to cause her death was extreme and outrageous.

247. Defendants Sumner County Court and Judge R. Scott McQuin’s conduct in ignoring state drainage laws, participating in the plan to defraud Mr. Frank into thinking the flooding was his fault, continuing to ignore the facts in his case (water can’t run uphill, jurisdiction was improper in his court), failing to apply the laws and refusing to dismiss the frivolous suit brought by Ott Land & Grain against Mr. Frank, was extreme and outrageous.

248. At all relevant times, the above defendants knew that their acts and failures to act concerning the flooding matter and under the illegal National Security Letter (NSL) regarding the health and well-being of Mr. and Mrs. Frank was extreme and outrageous.

249. At all relevant times, the defendants’ participation in the schemed plan to defraud Mr. and Mrs. Frank and to utilize a National Security Letter (NSL) was intentional, and with full knowledge that their conduct was substantially certain to result in severe emotional distress bodily harm, and/or death to plaintiffs. They acted with “the dagger of an assassin.”

250. By participating in the plan to use an NSL to cause severe emotional distress, bodily harm and death to Sharon Frank, the appropriate defendants breached their duty owed the plaintiffs. Their conduct was grossly disproportionate under such circumstances, and must have been inspired by malice, so as to amount to abuse of power that shocks the conscience of any reasonable person.

251. By participating in the plan under the NSL to cause severe emotional distress and bodily harm , the appropriate defendants caused the wrongful death of Sharon Frank.

252. Mr. and Mrs. Frank suffered severe emotional distress, and Mrs. Frank suffered bodily harm and death as a result of the appropriate defendants’ negligence/medical malpractice and participation in the schemed plan under the NSL to cause her extreme pain and suffering, including, but not limited to: diabetes, blindness, seizures, vomiting, coma and bleeding out of the brain.

253. The appropriate defendants’ outrageous conduct included, but was not limited to: participating in a plan to give Sharon Frank inadequate health care, failing to give Sharon Frank the proper insulin on November 17, 2007; failing to give Sharon Frank proper care and a medical test that was timely needed; the government and President Bush’s misuse of an NSL to influence Dr. Sack and Wesley Hospital officials to put a steroid cocktail mix in Sharon Frank’s I.V. bag on or about November 13, 2007 so that she would die.

254. The conduct of the appropriate 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 would cause resentment toward defendants and lead them to exclaim: “Outrageous!”

255. The conduct of the appropriate defendants in this matter to act constitutes outrageous government conduct and should be considered in terrorem populi – “to the terror of the people.”

256. The conduct of the appropriate defendants in this matter to cause plaintiffs to act to their detriment constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress/bodily harm and liability to them for their injuries.

257. As a result of the outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the defendants, plaintiffs and their family have been damaged in excess of 75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgments of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (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,

TERRENCE W. FRANK
1073 E. 119 th St. So.
Mulvane, Kansas 67110
Phone: 316-777-9095

By:_______________________________
Terrence W. Frank, Individually pro se,
and on Behalf of Sharon K. Frank (Deceased)

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

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

Respectfully submitted,

TERRENCE W. FRANK
1073 E. 119 th St. So.
Mulvane, Kansas 67110
Phone: 316-777-9095

By:_________________________________

Terrence W. Frank, Individually pro se,
and on Behalf of Sharon K. Frank (Deceased)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL  

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the issues in this matter be heard by a jury.

Respectfully submitted,

TERRENCE W. FRANK
1073 E. 119 th St. So.
Mulvane, Kansas 67110
Phone: 316-777-9095

By:________________________________

Terrence W. Frank, Individually pro se
and on Behalf of Sharon K. Frank (Deceased)

Exhibit A | Exhibit B