|
Case 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MITCHELL D. SIGG, individually, pro se, and
SIGG MOTORS, LLC., NATIONS LEASE &
REMARKETING, LLC., and NATIONS
FINANCIAL, LLC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 11-CV-2625-KHV-JPO
DISTRICT COURT OF ALLEN COUNTY,
KANSAS / 31st JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE
RONALD D. INNES, JUDGE JANICE RUSSELL,
TREY MEYER, MARK EMERT, FAGAN
EMERT & DAVIS, LLC, MARK SEVART,
RUSSELL MILLS,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
A. AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the plaintiffs, Mitchell D. Sigg, individually pro se, Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC, and Nations Financial, LLC, and files this complaint against the defendants as follows:
B. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Mitchell D. Sigg, is an individual representing himself pro se with primary offices located at 1721 E. Highway 54, Iola, Kansas 66749. Plaintiff, Mitchell D. Sigg, is hereinafter referred to as the same, “Mitchell Sigg,” “Mitch Sigg,” or “Mitch.”
2. Plaintiffs, Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC, and Nations Financial, LLC, are business entities owned by Mitchell D. Sigg and located at 1721 E. Highway 54, Iola, Kansas 66749. Plaintiffs, Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC, and Nations Financial, LLC, are hereinafter referred to as the same or Mitch’s “business entities.”
3. 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 Ronald D. Innes, Judge Janice Russell, other judges, court officials and employees. Defendant, the District Court of Allen County, Kansas / 31st Judicial District, may be served summons on the Clerk of the District Court, Allen County, Dina Morrison, at her primary place of business: 1 N. Washington, P. O. Box 630, Iola, Kansas, 66749. Defendant, the District Court of Allen County, Kansas / 31st Judicial District, is herein after referred to as the same, “Allen County District Court,” “Judge Ronald D. Innes,” “Judge Janice Russell,” “Judge Russell,” or “the court.”
4. Defendant, Judge Ronald D. Innes, is a retired judge with residence located at: 2326 S. Dalton, Wichita, Kansas 67210. Defendant, Judge Ronald D. Innes, may be served summons at his primary place of residence: 2326 S. Dalton, Wichita, Kansas 67210. Defendant, Judge Ronald D. Innes, is herein after referred to as the same, “Judge Innes, ” “Allen County District Court,” “judge” or “the court.”
5. Defendant, Judge Janice Russell, is a retired judge with residence located at: 450 S. Harrison, Olathe, Kansas 66061. Defendant, Judge Janice Russell, may be served summons at her primary place of residence/business: 450 S. Harrison, Olathe, Kansas, 66061. Defendant, Judge Janice Russell, is herein after referred to as the same, “Judge Russell, ” “Allen County District Court,” “judge” or “the court.”
6. Defendant, Trey Meyer, is an attorney with primary offices located at: Trey Meyer, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 4512, Lawrence, Kansas 66044. Defendant, Trey Meyer, may be served summons at his primary place of business: Trey Meyer, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 4512, Lawrence, Kansas 66044. Defendant, Trey Meyer, is herein after referred to as the same or “Attorney Meyer.”
7. Defendant, Mark Emert, is an attorney with primary offices located at: Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, 900 Massachusetts, Suite 601, Lawrence, Kansas 66044. Defendant, Mark Emert, may be served summons at his primary place of business: Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, 900 Massachusetts, Suite 601, Lawrence, Kansas 66044. Defendant, Mark Emert, is herein after referred to as the same or “Attorney Emert”.
8. Defendant, Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, is a law firm with primary offices located at: 900 Massachusetts, Suite 601, Lawrence, Kansas 66044. Defendant, Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, may be served summons at its primary place of business: Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, 900 Massachusetts, Suite 601, Lawrence, Kansas 66044. Defendant, Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, is herein after referred to as the same, “Mark Emert” or “Attorney Emert”.
9. Defendant, Mark Sevart, is an attorney with primary offices located at: Law Office of Mark Sevart, 111 N. Baltimore, Derby, Kansas 67037. Defendant, Mark Sevart, may be served summons at his primary place of business: Law Office of Mark Sevart, 111 N. Baltimore, Derby, Kansas 67037. Defendant, Mark Sevart, is herein after referred to as the same or “Attorney Sevart.”
10. Defendant, Russell Mills, is an attorney with primary offices located at: 111 N. Baltimore, Derby, Kansas 67037. Defendant, Russell Mills, may be served summons at his primary place of business: Russell Mills, Attorney at Law, 111 N. Baltimore, Derby, Kansas 67037. Defendant, Russell Mills, is herein after referred to as the same or “Attorney Mills.”
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PARTIES
11. Plaintiff, Mitchell D. Sigg, is a United States Citizen and resides in Allen County in the State of Kansas. Plaintiff, Mitch Sigg, is the son of John J. Sigg and Linda Sigg.
12. Mitchell D. Sigg, a prosperous businessman, is the owner of business entities Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC and Nations Financial, LLC.
13. Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC and Nations Financial, LLC are business entities owned by Mitchell D. Sigg and are all located in Allen County, Kansas.
14. Defendant District Court of Allen County…
15. Defendant Judge Ronald D. Innes is a retired judge from Wichita, Kansas, who presided over the divorce case involving John, Linda and Mitch Sigg five years ago. In October, 2007, he issued a judgment in favor of Linda Sigg in the amount of approximately $7.1 million - half to be paid by John Sigg and half to be paid by Mitchell D. Sigg.
16. Judge Janice Russell is a retired judge from Olathe, Kansas, who has been presiding over the divorce case involving John, Linda and Mitch Sigg since approximately 2008.
17. The divorce of John and Linda Sigg has continued for the last 10 years. In February 2003, Mitchell Sigg and his business entities, Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC, and Nations Financial, LLC were added as third parties to his parents’ divorce case by way of a phone call.
18. Trey Meyer is an attorney who began representing Linda Sigg in approximately 2009 and continues to represent her.
19. Mark Emert is an attorney who began assisting Trey Meyer in representing Linda Sigg in 2011 and continues to represent her.
20. Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC is a law firm in Lawrence, Kansas in which Mark Emert is a partner. Their office has been representing Linda Sigg in her divorce since 2011.
21. Mark Sevart is an attorney who began representing Mitchell D. Sigg in July, 2007. He was fired by Mitchell Sigg in August, 2011, just prior to filing this suit.
22. Russell Mills is an attorney who works in the same law office as Mark Sevart, and began representing John Sigg in July, 2007. He was fired by John and finally left the case in July, 2011.
23. The defendants have been involved in a theft ring that has continued to steal the assets of John and Mitch Sigg for the past 10 years, which Mitch was unaware of until August, 2011.
D. FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE
24. Mitchell D. Sigg is 50 years old, and has worked hard all his life in his father’s car business.
25. Mitch is the only son of John and Linda Sigg. Linda filed for divorce in 2001 and the divorce proceedings have been continuing now for over 10 years.
26. Mitch Sigg and his wife, Peggy, are the parents of five children ages 12 to 24. They were married on December 7, 1985.
27. John wanted Mitch to carry on John’s Used Cars, but after Mitch graduated from high school, he wanted to go away to college. So John and Linda made Mitch an offer.
28. When Mitch Sigg turned 23 on November 10, 1984, he and his mother and father all signed a contract that when he turned 40, Mitch would be given all of the family businesses except for 50% of Sigg Auto Parts, a parts store run by Linda (see EXHIBIT A, hereinafter referred to as “the 1984 agreement.”).
29. Mitch Sigg worked hard for the next 17 years at his father’s car business. The business continued successfully, and John opened Sigg Auto Parts as a sole proprietorship in 1981.
30. In 2000, Mitch was making approximately $35,000 a year working for his father. In late 2000, he formed Sigg Motors, LLC which was formerly John’s Used Cars, the company his father started in 1961.
31. Mitch Sigg was unaware that his mother was having an affair with his father’s attorney, Steven B. Doering in 2000. Attorney Doering knew about the 1984 agreement and conspired with Linda to file for divorce so that they could steal John and Mitch’s assets.
32. After 40 years of marriage, Linda Sigg filed for divorce from John Sigg in the District Court ofAllen County, Kansas, in May, 2001 (Case No. 01 DM 59). Attorney Steven Doering represented her.
33. On this same date, prior to John Sigg being served with divorce papers, the court ordered that Linda Sigg be given complete control of Sigg Auto Parts, a sole proprietorship owned by her husband, John. This occurred the same day her divorce was filed in Allen County District Court and John was not yet served. She also received his $500,000 annual income, so John had to go live with Mitch and his family.
34. John Sigg was not served with divorce papers until January, 2002. Prior to being served, John had legally transferred his assets to Mitch per their 1984 agreement.
35. Mitch Sigg formed Nations Lease & Remarketing, LLC and Nations Financial, LLC in 2001. The estimated value of John’s assets that he legally transferred to Mitch when he turned 40 in 2001 was $9,000,000 – $11,000,000.
36. On February 27, 2003, a telephone conference was held between Attorney Doering and the court. During this phone call, Mitch Sigg and his business entities, including Sigg Motors, LLC, Nation’s Lease & Remarketing, LLC, and Nation’s Financial, LLC, were added as third party defendants in the Sigg divorce without Mitch Sigg or even John Sigg’s knowledge (Case No. 04 CV 22).
37. Allen County Court officials added Mitch into his parent’s divorce so they could funnel his assets into the court system to be dispersed between the various judges and lawyers representing John, Mitch and Linda Sigg. However, at that time, Mitch Sigg did not believe that this was really occurring.
38. On December 11, 2003, Mitch Sigg’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss him from his parents’ divorce case, but it was overruled by the Allen County District Court.
39. From 2001 - 2007, Linda Sigg, the defendants, the court, judges, a special master and other government actors siphoned an estimated $400,000 - $600,000 profit annually out of Sigg Auto Parts for their own use.
40. John Sigg was becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of performance by his attorneys in his divorce case and was suffering heart problems.
41. 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. He was later ordered to cash in two CDs that were in the names of John, Linda and Mitch Sigg worth over $460,000, and pay them to his wife and the court through a special master.
42. From 2002 until 2007, John’s attorneys had conspired with Steven Doering, Linda’s attorney, and the court, including Judge Ronald Innes, to steal his and Mitch’s assets in a theft ring (see Case No. 06-2436-KHV for details). John and Mitch were unaware at the time that the court was ordering John to cash in CDs and pay them to his wife and the court. A special master was appointed to funnel his money into the court system so everyone could get paid.
43. The court and all of John, Linda and Mitch Sigg’s attorneys knew about the 1984 agreement but they fooled John and Mitch. They told them that this handwritten contract didn’t mean anything. John was near suicide when he came to the Association for Honest Attorneys (A.H.A!) for help in May, 2006.
44. The A.H.A! helped John Sigg file a federal suit on October 11, 2006 (Case No. 06-2436-KHV.) It wasn’t until about March, 2007, that the A.H.A! even knew about the 1984 agreement.
45. Due to the stress of the continued litigation, Mitch’s wife Peggy developed breast cancer and their children suffered serious emotional problems.
46. Case No. 06-2436-KHV never made it to the U.S. Supreme Court because Attorneys Mark Sevart and Russell Mills stole John and Mitch Sigg away from the A.H.A! as their clients.
47. In July, 2007, Attorney Mills conspired with an attorney in his law office, Mark Sevart, to convince John and Mitch that they could do a better job helping them than the A.H.A! When John showed Attorney Sevart the 1984 agreement, he exclaimed, “Oh, it’s ALL OVER!”
48. Attorneys Mills and Sevart convinced John Sigg, Mitch Sigg and their business entities that for a fee of $1 million dollars over four years, they could take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They knew all along that the writ they would file was not likely to be heard.
49. In October 2007, a bench trial resulted in the divorce of John and Linda Sigg with Judge RonaldInnes granting a $7,064,625.83 equalizing judgment against John and Mitch Sigg. At that time, Mitch’s annual income was estimated at $616,000.
50. In early August, 2011, John Sigg contacted the A.H.A! again for assistance.
51. At that time, John told the A.H.A.! that Mitch had paid Mark Sevart almost a million dollars in attorney fees since he began representing Mitch in 2007. He told them that another million and 200 car titles had been put on a supersedeas bond which Sevart had told Mitch would not be touched until after the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether it would hear the writ of certiorari in the case.
52. John told the A.H.A! that on July 12, 2011, Attorney Sevart did not even object at a hearing in which Judge Janice Russell signed an order to release to counsel $1 million dollars in cash and 200 car titles posted on the supersedeas bond (see EXHIBIT B). After cleaning John out, Mitch’s assets were now going into the pockets of the judge and the attorneys in the case.
53. In early August, 2011, John faxed a copy of the writ of certiorari that Attorney Mark Sevart was preparing for Mitch to the A.H.A!. They discovered that it was fatally flawed, since it asked the question whether Mitch deserved the right to a jury trial (under the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) in the divorce of his parents. John and Linda had no right to a jury trial in their divorce, so why would Mitch?
54. The A.H.A! told John that it appeared Attorney Sevart didn’t really know how to prepare a petition for a writ of certiorari, so he had Attorney Calvin Rider assist him in the effort (Rider’s name was on the front cover). They told John and Mitch Sigg they thought this writ would go nowhere.
55. Attorneys Sevart and Rider filed the bogus writ of certiorari for Mitch Sigg on August 15, 2011, knowing all along that it would not be heard.
56. Attorneys Mark Sevart and Calvin Rider were experienced lawyers and knew full well that the United States Supreme Court had never heard a case involving a domestic dispute. They get approximately 10,000 requests a year and only hear about 100 cases.
57. Prior to August 2011, Mitch Sigg had never really been convinced that the A.H.A! was knowledgeable enough to assist him pro se. Even though they had assisted his father in the past and even himself for a short time, he had continued to trust in his lawyers and the legal system.
58. In August, 2011, Mitch Sigg sought state remedies by filing a complaint with the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator’s Office regarding the theft of his assets by the Allen County Court and the defendants in this case. His complaint was dismissed.
59. On August 22, 2011, Mitch was finally convinced of the fraud and conspiracy that had been occurring by all of the defendants in this matter to steal his assets through the court. Mitch fired Attorney Sevart and to keep his assets from being taken any further and decided to represent himself pro se with the assistance of the A.H.A!
60. To counteract Mitch’s false writ of certiorari and to expose the truth about the conspiracy and fraud that had continued for 10 years, the A.H.A! helped John Sigg file a petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition with the United States Supreme Court on September 9, 2011 (Docket # 11-383).
61. Since letting Attorneys Mark Sevart and Russell Mills go, Judge Janice Russell has continued to hold John and Mitch in contempt for petty reasons whenever they go to court. Judge Russell has put them in jail on several occasions.
62. On September 21, 2011, Judge Russell put Mitch in jail for refusing to sign over the 200 car titles, after he learned they were being illegally taken from him.
63. On October 11, 2011, defendants Attorney Emert and Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC sent Mitch and John two charging orders against business entities Sigg Farms, LLC and Sigg Construction, LLC. Neither John nor Mitch has any ownership interest in these properties, but the orders were sent to harass Mitch’s family and were granted by Judge Russell.
64. On October 18, 2011, Judge Russell denied John’s freedom of speech and put him in jail for making comments in court that “sex for favors works in Kansas.”
65. On November 28, 2011, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear John Sigg’s petition for a writ of mandamus (11-383) and the petition for a writ of certiorari ((11-202) filed by Mitch Sigg’s previous attorney, defendant Mark Sevart. They gave no reason, even though Supreme Court Rules 10 & 11 states that they only hears cases which have “compelling reasons” or are of “imperative public importance.”
66. At this time, defendants Trey Meyer, Mark Emert and Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC, continue to file unnecessary motions, mail and serve John and Mitch Sigg with false documents to harass them and cause them severe emotional distress. Mitch’s family, including his wife and children, continue to suffer serious health problems.
67. John and Linda Sigg’s divorce proceedings have continued for over ten years, and their son, Mitch, was dragged into it in 2003. The court has granted approximately 98% of the motions in favor of Linda Sigg, with Judge Innes stating to John and Mitch in 2008 that he would never rule in their favor.
68. Mitch Sigg and his business entities should never have been added as third party defendants to the divorce proceeding between his parents. The goal was to deplete John’s assets handed down to Mitch.
69. Plaintiffs are justified in their claims involving tort of outrage and outrageous government conduct in this matter. Due to such outrageous government conduct, Mitch Sigg and his business entities have been unable to obtain effective assistance of counsel to date and must proceed pro se in this matter.
70. All of the defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the 5th Amendment by conspiring to prolong his legal matter without good cause and with the objective of depleting plaintiffs’ assets for their own use. Therefore, the doctrine of special circumstances applies with regard to Mitch Sigg’s lack of legal representation and his necessity to proceed pro se.
71. As a result of the unethical and illegal practices of the defendants in this matter, Mitch Sigg and his family have been subjected to such severe emotional distress that no person should have to endure. His family suffered emotionally and his wife developed breast cancer.
72. There was bias and abuse of discretion by the court in this matter, and extreme leniency toward Linda Sigg’s attorneys, including Trey Meyer and Mark Emert.
73. The court abused its discretion by ordering release of $1,000,000 and 200 car titles to opposing counsel, putting John and Mitch Sigg in jail numerous times, ignoring the Judicial Code of Conduct, and saying “I have to do what the lawyers tell me” instead of following the law.
74. Mitch Sigg has lost productivity, property and assets estimated at $15,000,000 – $20,000,000 since 2003. He made several efforts to try and settle this matter; however, the defendants refused.
75. Plaintiffs have demanded that defendants take action to make plaintiffs whole for his losses.Defendants have refused plaintiffs’ demands.
76. The court is currently attempting to try and release the 200 car titles from the supersedeas bond which are the property of Mitch Sigg and his business entities.
77. A hearing is scheduled for January 30, 2012 in Allen County Court to try and put Mitch in jail for contempt (again) regarding release of the 200 car titles the court is trying to steal from him. The cars were going to be auctioned to pay off attorneys and judges involved in this case.
78. A motion to stay the release of the 200 car titles was filed with plaintiffs’ original complaint pending the outcome of this federal suit or the writs filed by John and Mitch Sigg with the United States Supreme Court. A motion for this court to order the lower court and the defendants to cease & desist harassment of the plaintiffs is being filed with this amended complaint.
D. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendants violated numerous national laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to: plaintiffs’ due process right not to be deprived of property under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution (as incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment) and plaintiff’s right to be heard which was denied due to the conspiracy involving the defendants, denial of rights under Color of Law 42 USC 1983. The overt acts of fraud and collusion in this matter which were engaged in by the defendants to deprive Mitch Sigg of his assets include, but are not limited to: Judge Innes issuing a nearly $7.1 million dollar judgment in favor of Linda Sigg when he knew she was in breach of the 1984 contract she signed with her husband and son, Attorney Sevart lying to Mitch Sigg that he could take the divorce case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and win it for $1 million dollars, Attorney Sevart lying to Mitch Sigg that putting $1 million dollars and 200 car titles on a supersedeas bond would not be touched until the case was over, then conspiring with the court and Judge Russell to release (theft) of these assets in July 2011 before even filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in August, 2011, Attorneys Meyer and Emert continuing to file unnecessary motions and bogus court documents to cause plaintiff and his family emotional distress, Judge Janice Russell putting Mitch and John in jail several times for trumped-up charges of contempt, ex parte communications on the part of all defendants, as well as meetings, telephone calls, e-mails, “mental processes,” correspondence and other communications to illegally dispose of Mitch Sigg’s assets among the defendants and others. These communications were also the overt acts used by the defendants to deny Mitch Sigg his right to be heard in court and by influencing Attorneys Sevart and Mills to “go along with the game.” Violations also exist under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 227, and Mitch Sigg should be reimbursed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection for the dishonest conduct of his lawyers.
In Kansas, a case held that an appearance in court of a corporation by an agent other than a licensed is not proper. Atchison Homeless Shelters, Inc. v. Atchison County, 24 Kan. App. 2d 454, 946 P.2d 113 (1997). However, this case is unconstitutional in this matter because attorneys representing Mitchell Sigg for the past eight years and the court have continued to engage in legal malpractice to deprive him and his business entities of their property without due process of law under the 5th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. Overt acts by the court occurred when Judge Russell abused her discretion by signing an order releasing $1,000,000 and 200 car titles to defendants Attorneys Meyer and Emert and Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC; ignoring Mitch Sigg’s pro se arguments in court, continuing to put him in jail and showing bias in favor of defendants Attorneys Meyer, Emert and Fagan Emert & Davis, LLC. After proceeding pro se to protect his assets, Mitch filed numerous objections, but his arguments still went unheard by the court.
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 gross negligence involving legalized stealing from Mitch Sigg and his business entities. Accordingly, plaintiffs are 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)
79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 78 of this Petition.
80. The conduct of the defendants in depriving Mitch Sigg and his business entities of their property, assets and income without due process of law constitutes a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment.
81. The defendants owed Mitch 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 various communications to give him ineffective assistance of counsel so they could steal his property and assets.
82. The conduct of the defendants to participate in a conspiracy to deprive Mitch Sigg of his property, assets and income and his right to be heard was an obvious interference with attorney/client privilege.
83. Plaintiffs relied in good faith that the attorneys, judges and other court officials would act legally and ethically in the divorce proceedings involving himself and his parents, John and Linda Sigg.
84. The illegal and unethical conduct of the defendants constitutes denial of plaintiffs’ due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
85. The defendants breached their duty owed Mitch Sigg and willfully deprived him of his property and his right to be heard.
86. As a result of the defendants’ conduct to deprive Mitch Sigg of his due process rights, plaintiffs have suffered 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; and (v) any other relief deemed just andequitable by the court.
2. Civil Conspiracy and/or Collusion
87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Petition.
88. The conduct of all of the defendants to communicate and participate in the theft ring to deprive Mitch Sigg and his business entities of their assets, including but not limited to: convincing Mitch Sigg that $1 million dollars in attorney fees will win his case up to the U. S. Supreme Court, releasing another $1 million dollars and 200 car titles to “counsel” from a supersedeas bond that Mitch Sigg was told would not be touched until the case was over, failing to dismiss Mitch Sigg from his parents’ divorce case when they knew he was illegally added as a third party, dragging the divorce case out for years and using the court system as a “front” so they could steal the plaintiffs’ assets and property, filing and sending numerous court documents to harass Mitch Sigg and his family, engaging in ex parte communications, falsely arresting Mitch Sigg and putting him in jail on numerous occasions and convincing defendants and others to “go along with the game” constitutes civil conspiracy and/or collusion.
89. By participating in the communications involving the theft ring to deprive Mitch Sigg and his business entities of their property and assets, the defendants acted with the intent of engaging in illegal and unethical activity to deceive Mitch Sigg, having full knowledge that such acts were substantially certain to result in injury and detriment to Mitch Sigg, his business entities and his family.
90. The conduct of the defendants in conspiring to deprive Mitch Sigg and his business entities of their property and assets to destroy him financially, ruin his family relationships and damage him and his family’s health constitutes civil conspiracy and/or collusion.
91. The conduct of all of the defendants set forth herein constitutes civil conspiracy and/or collusion.
92. As a result of the defendants’ civil conspiracy and/or collusion, 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 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 Misrepresentation
93. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 92 of this Petition.
94. By participating in a plan to engage in a theft ring of overt acts to fraudulently deprive Mitch Sigg and his business entities of their property, 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 Mitch Sigg, his business entities and his family.
95. At all relevant times, the defendants recognized that engaging in the fraudulent overt acts to disperse Mitch Sigg’s property and assets would result in mental anguish and severe detriment to Mitch Sigg and his family.
96. At all relevant times, Mitch 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 parents’ divorce and conduct the proceedings legally and ethically so that a fair division would result.
97. At all relevant times, Mitch Sigg believed and relied that the attorneys, judges and court officials were acting in good faith, believing that the divorce proceedings were being conducted in an ethical manner.
98. At all relevant times, Mitch Sigg was unaware of the defendants’ participation in the theft ring to deprive him of his property and assets, and that they were acting with willful rendering of imperfect performance in their respective positions.
99. The defendants’ participation in the theft ring to deprive Mitch Sigg of his property and assets was with the intent and full knowledge that their conduct was substantially certain to result in injury, death and detriment to Mitch Sigg and his family.
100. The defendants’ conduct was to inflict emotional distress on Mitch Sigg by abusing their power.
101. The conduct of the defendants constitutes fraud by commission/silence and intentional fraud.
102. As a result of the defendants’ fraud by commission/silence and intentional fraud, 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 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 Fraud / Fraud on the Court
103. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 102 of this Complaint, in which fraud is stated with particularity.
104. At all relevant times, the defendants recognized that their fraudulent overt acts (including, but not limited to: telephone calls, e-mails, communications, meetings and “mental processes,” and issuing false judgments concerning the illegal dispersal of plaintiffs’ assets would result in mental anguish and severe detriment to plaintiff Mitch Sigg, his business entities and his family.
105. At all relevant times, defendant Judge Innes knew that fraudulently ordering a $7.1 million dollar judgment in favor of Linda Sigg would result in mental anguish and severe detriment to plaintiff Mitchell Sigg, his business entities and his family.
106. At all relevant times, defendant Judge Janice Russell fraudulently ordering $1 million and 200 car titles to be paid to Linda Sigg’s attorneys from a supersedeas bond would result in mental anguish and severe detriment to plaintiff Mitchell Sigg, his business entities and his family.
107. At all relevant times, the defendants knew that they were involved in a theft ring to steal the assets of John and Mitch Sigg using the court system as their “front.”
108. The defendants’ conduct was to inflict emotional distress by abusing their power and discretion.
109. The conduct of the defendants constitutes intentional fraud.
110. 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. Gross Negligence / Legal Malpractice
111. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 110 of this Petition.
112. The conduct of all defendants in agreeing to continue the theft ring to steal Mitch Sigg’s assets by dragging the divorce out further, failing to acquire dismissal of Mitch Sigg and his business entities from his parents’ divorce case when they knew that the transfer of assets from John to Mitch was legal under the 1984 agreement, and providing insufficient, unsound and inadequate legal assistance to plaintiffs constitutes gross negligence.
113. The conduct of Attorneys Mark Sevart and Russell Mills in conspiring to provide ineffective assistance of counsel to John and Mitch Sigg so they could steal their property constitutes gross negligence/legal malpractice.
114. Defendant Attorneys Sevart and Mills’ participation in the theft ring to cause emotional distress to plaintiffs by failing to provide sufficient, sound and adequate legal advice, their involvement in continuing to drag the divorce case out unnecessarily, their failure to dismiss Mitch as a third party, and their violation of a legal duty to provide effective assistance of counsel to Mitch Sigg and his business entities and give them the best possible defense, was with full knowledge that their acts, and failures to act, were substantially certain to result in injury and detriment to plaintiffs and Mitch Sigg’s family.
115. The conduct of defendants the court and Judge Ronald Innes to fraudulently issue a judgment in favor of Linda Sigg of $7.1 million with half to be paid by Mitchell Sigg and half by his father constitutes gross negligence and legal malpractice.
116. The conduct of defendants the court and Judge Janice Russell to fraudulently issue payment from a supersedeas bond of $1 million dollars to defense counsel for Linda Sigg in July, 2012 before plaintiffs’ case was over constitutes gross negligence and legal malpractice, if not outright theft.
117. The conduct of defendant Attorney Mark Sevart in failing to acquire dismissal of Mitch Sigg and his business entities from his parents’ divorce case in a four-year period after receiving almost $1,000,000 in attorney fees from plaintiff, his failure to object so that Mitch did not lose $1,000,000 and 200 car titles under the supersedeas bond, and to act negligently in the performance of his duties constitutes gross negligence/legal malpractice.
118. The conduct of all of the defendants to defraud Mitch Sigg and his business entities so that they were denied due process for years, causing over $2,000,000 in property to be stolen so that it went into their own pockets, and their failure to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct and give plaintiffs the proper standard of care required of the legal profession constitutes gross negligence/legal malpractice.
119. The failure of defendants, the government, the state and others to bring charges of criminal fraud and negligence against the appropriate defendants and others in this matter constitutes gross negligence. The government has a duty under the law to prosecute the appropriate defendants and others, and has thus far failed to do so.
120. All of the defendants had a duty under the Judicial Code of Conduct and the laws of our government to provide sufficient and proper care so that justice is served, and they failed to do so.
121. The failure of the defendants to ensure justice and protect Mitch Sigg and his businesses so that they did not lose productivity, property and assets amounting to an estimated $15,000,000 - $20,000,000 since 2003 constitutes gross negligence/legal malpractice.
122. As a result of the gross negligence/legal 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.
6. Detrimental Reliance
123. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 122 of this Complaint.
124. In their quest for justice, plaintiffs relied upon the representations of these defendants that they were competent, trustworthy, fair lawyers and judges with considerable experience who acted in good faith.
125. In seeking legal remedies through the court, plaintiffs relied upon the representations of the government, the county and the defendants that the legal system provides “justice for all” as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance, and that they would not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
126. Plaintiffs relied in good faith upon representations made by the above defendants.
127. Plaintiffs were justified in their reliance.
128. 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.
7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/Tort of Outrage/
Outrageous Government Conduct
129. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 128 of this Petition.
130. The defendants’ conduct in participating in the theft ring to deprive plaintiffs of millions in property and assets in a divorce case that has lasted ten years was extreme and outrageous.
131. At all relevant times, the defendants’ participation in the theft ring was intentional and with full knowledge that their conduct was substantially certain to result in severe emotional distress and bodily harm to plaintiff Mitch Sigg and his family.
132. The conduct of the defendants to participate in a theft ring to deprive plaintiffs of their property and assets for years, to falsely arrest Mitch Sigg and put him in jail for petty reasons was in bad faith, and violated the duties of good faith and fair dealing toward the plaintiffs in this matter.
133. 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!”
134. Due to the defendants’ acts and failures to act, plaintiff Mitch Sigg and his family have suffered extreme emotional distress, mental anguish and bodily harm.
135. The outrageous conduct of the defendants constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.
136. As a result of the outrageous conduct by all defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $250,000.00.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request a judgment of the court against all of the defendants awarding to plaintiffs (i) damages in excess of $250,000.00 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,
MITCHELL D. SIGG
1754 E. Highway 54
Iola, Kansas 66749
Phone: (620) 365-3969
By________________________________
Mitchell D. Sigg, individually pro se
Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease &
Remarketing and Nations Financial, LLC
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the issues in this matter be heard by a jury.
Respectfully submitted,
MITCHELL D. SIGG
1721 E. Highway 54
Iola, Kansas 66749
Phone: (620) 365-3969
By________________________________
Mitchell D. Sigg, individually pro se
Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease &
Remarketing and Nations Financial, LLC
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL
Plaintiff designates Kansas City, Kansas as the location for the trial in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MITCHELL D. SIGG
1721 E. Highway 54
Iola, Kansas 66749
Phone: (620) 365-3969
By________________________________
Mitchell D. Sigg, individually pro se,
Sigg Motors, LLC, Nations Lease &
Remarketing and Nations Financial, LLC
|
