In the United States District Court
For the Western District of Oklahoma
Janice Cassandra WRENN
Plaintiff
Case number: CIV – 21-0059
VS.
Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General,
Scott Pruitt, Mike Hunter, MYKEL FRY, Oklahoma Healthcare
Authority, JOEL NICO GOMEZ, KEVIN CORBETT, NICOLE M.
NANTOIS, JEREMIAH STRECK, TRAVIS KIRKPATRICK,
TRAYLOR RAINS, WENDY LARSEN, MELINDA THOMAS ON,
LISA Gifford, Carrie Evans, Oklahoma Medicaid Fraud Control Unit,
THOMAS SIEMS. Defendants
Motion to object to the dismissal by Defendants,
Oklahoma Healthcare Authority, Kevin Corbett, NICOLE
M.NANTIOS, JEREMIAH STRECK, LISA GIFFORD, and CARRIE
EVANS
Janice Cassandra Wrenn PRO-SE
Come now the plaintiff, Janice Cassandra Wrenn objects to the defendant’s motion for dismissal, also object to the use of Federal Rules Civil procedure 12 (b)(1), (5) and (6). And in support of this motion the plaintiff will show the court the following.
The plaintiff now invokes The Courts Federal Question Jurisdiction. On the title 42 USC 1983 under title 42 USC 1985 (3). The state court can be sued under article 3 jurisdictional provision that under section 13 of the act the Supreme Court probably had original jurisdiction. on the provisions of the judiciary act of 1789.the plaintiffs in this case are stating that the actions by the Attorney General are unconstitutional and that the plaintiff has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm and request the Court to address the Constitution nature of the claim.
The Plaintiff States reasons for the Objection
In the last 5 years the defendant has been taking the plaintiff into trial on a criminal action that did not take place. Medicaid fraud is a federal charge, and by the defendants violating due process failed to apply proper procedure, that was neither done or any elements of a crime.
The court may open the doors for relief against a government wrong under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, also does not prevent a suit to restrain individual officials and thereby restraining the government as well. A suit against officials and not a suit against the government, but for the purpose of finding State action to which the Constitution applies. The official conduct is that of the state, and the state official acted under the color of state law in violation of the Constitution. The immunity of a from a suit has long been held not to extend to actions against the state official for damages arising out of the willfulness, negligent disregard of state law.
Johnson’s landlord ,245 U.S.541 (1918);Martin v.Landford,245 U.S.547(1918 );
416 U.S.233(1874).
These suits like suits against local officials and municipals corporations are typically brought pursuant 42 USC 1983. Independence did not only violate due process under the 5th and 14th remember United States Constitution but official misconduct on a 1983 in 1985 also attempted to make the defendant pay $644,264.32 for to a case that does not exist. They are working for the state and the defendants acting under the color of law and has deprived her of her right; her privilege; her immunity secured and protected by due process and equal protection of the law. Not only by not doing the audit, illegal incarceration, the false charges, false imprisonment, denial of the Fourth amendment of the United States. Constitution. False statement by agents stating that there was an audit done, with that was no order done. And falsifying the record in District Court.
In the above case the defendants did conspire to infer their position or authority working together to create false charges without proper documentation violating procedure, state law, federal law, constitutional law in which the plaintiff has a liberty interest.
Plaintiff objects to Insufficient Service of Process
The plaintiff properly served the defendants with both summons and complaint and was mailed on the federal rules of civil procedure 4©(2)©(ii ), the summons and complaint were received by the defendant’s or agent. On the security protocols no one have Kevin Colbert’s home address, national Security agency.
Restrictions on a publishing of official’s home address:
Thus, the defendants were properly served. In an agent authorized by appointment or by law was served. An agent sign for the mail.
Objection to the use of the 11th amendment
In Tindal Wesley, the court adopted the rule of the United States versus Lee a tort suit against Federal officials to permit a talk action against State officials to recover real property held by them and claim that the state obtains damages for the period of withholding. The immunity of a state from a suit has long been held not extended to actions against State officials for damages arising out of the willful and negligent disregard of state law. The reach of the rule is evident in Scheuer Rhodes 416 US.233 (1974).
In which the Court held that the defendant was not protected by the 11th amendment or other immunity doctrine from suing the governor or other officials of State alleging that they deprived the plankton a federal right under the color of state law and seeking damages. Id.
Objection Federal rule 12 (B) ((6)
Under the color of state law, the defendants initiated an illegal investigation, and that prior to filing any charges, there had to be an audit to determine whether that was a violation of law or not, the Oklahoma Medicaid fraud control unit, were to do an audit of the plaintiff’s facility, in which to determine whether a crime or a violation has occurred. This is required under state law. Upon the conclusion of the audit, it was to be referred to the Attorney general’s office. That was no audit and therefore the officer or investigator went to the judge and stated that an audit was done. This was a violation of both the 5th and the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution also we invoke the liberty interest protection. See: Whitley Dretke 111 Fed.Apx 222.
Plaintiff Objection to the use of Younger Doctrine
Exceptions to the younger doctrine young implies that federal courts may act and enjoin a state court proceeding when extraordinary circumstances exist that involves traditional consideration equality of jurisdiction. These three principles accession include bad faith, harassment patently unconstitutional statues.
The plaintiff is not challenging the legality of Oklahoma State officials they are unconstitutional and clearly violated the law and the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff to believe that she is being led to the gallows without a trial of the Constitution standard. There is no evidence but allegation. My case is not Heck versus Humphrey it is a new creation where the state officials have made themselves their own operation of law, which conflicts with the United States Constitution.
They have lied to the state district court and attempted to strong arm the plaintiff for $644,264.32. In which they have no claim of record in which the money is owed too. The state of Oklahoma has no factual evidence that any law has been violated and because of violation of state law has manufactured a charge against the plaintiff.
Because state of Oklahoma violated law and procedure the State of Oklahoma is without jurisdiction, therefore if this is not a jurisdictional battle the state has no jurisdiction for improper conduct by the defendants.
The plaintiff is invoking all her constitutional rights under the Court’s jurisdiction. Also, the plaintiff is requesting a show cause hearing to prove that an art was not done by the state and therefore they fought lacking in jurisdiction.
There are no claims in which a fraud has been committed by the plaintiff, that is the plaintiff is innocent, and it is shown and will prove in 1983 and 1985 that shows she have suffered a constitutional violation by the defendants in which they have trampled upon her liberty interest.
The plaintiff was an employee of Mrs. shoals and which she was at the provider I was a contractor. Prior to filing a charge on the plaintiff, the Attorney general’s office and the Oklahoma health Care unit stole 154,600.00 from Mrs. shoals.
The plaintiff has been denied her Liberty interest and there is a federal question of law. The conduct by the state officials by acting unconstitutional and by their own admission that the audit was never done, therefore the state has violated the defendant’s liberty interest and administrative procedure act, their own law and by failed you have an audit and a hearing which is constitutional required and violated the plaintiff constitutional rights under the fifth the 14th and the fourth by the illegal seizure and arrest.
The animal quarter has jurisdiction, and the foundation of the United States Constitution is set on the four corners square and by the unconstitutional conduct by the defendants’ actions has violated the standard of the United States Constitution. 42 USC 1983; 42 USC 1985; Whitley versus Drekt 111Fed Apx.222; Fifth amendment; 14th amendment. The immunity of the state from suit has long been held not extended to actions against State officials who damage arise out of willfully negligent disregard of state law. Scheuer v.Rhodes Supra.
Conclusion
The court should move forward toward the 1983 and 1985 action against the defendants. The defenders were properly served. The 11th amendment does not stop the Courts Jurisdiction in this case. And Hecks versus Humphrey do not apply. The plaintiff request that Honorable Court hear this case and the interest of Justice in which all laws formed.
Respectfully submitted.
Janice Cassandra Wrenn
Certificate of Service
I here by certified that on April______________2021. Did the full going document was served to the defendant’s attorney of record.
KEVIN L. MCCLURE
Assistant Attorney General
Oklahoma Attorney general’s office
313 Northeast 21st Street
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 7315
Janice Cassandra Wrenn
______________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.