Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Meyer v. Drell
Supreme Court brief2003
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Suore re Court, U.S.
\ ‘
PT eae
02147 SMAR 7 2003
No.
In The
Supreme Court of The United States
Michael Theodore Meyer,
Petitioner
V.
EUNICE DRELL; LASHLEY DRELL;
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
WYOMING,
Opponent(s)
On A Petition For A Writ of Certiorari
To The Federal District Court
For
- The State of Wyoming
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Michael Theodore Meyer
Pro Se
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801
(I don’t have a phone)
nn mee Rar
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Is is lawful for the State of Wyoming to remove
a fundamental right without due process, i.e.,
demanded jury trial?
Is if lawful for the State of Wyoming to adopt a
child out without first removing parental rights,
if there is a non-consenting parent?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to violate
its own rules concerning judicial conduct, by
allowing Justices to determine the outcomes of
hearings in which they have a personal, vested
interest?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to violate
it's own rules concerning the conduct of an
attorney?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to violate
its own Constitutional law, to desist from
interfering with personal religious belief and
practice?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to
determine a minor's religious belief against the
wishes of the child, and against the wishes of
the child’s only living parent, who still retains
parental rights?
li
LIST OF PARTIES INVOLVED
WITH CORPORATE DISCLAIMER
1. Kelly Jo Ann Drell
y a Katherine Ann Drell (Deceased)
i Michael Theodore Meyer, pro se
4. Eunice Drell
3 Lashley Drell (Deceased)
6. Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming.
a. Allison Morrison
b. Gerri Harris
‘ Mike Smith
d. Mary Ellen Callahan
e. Mary Ann Lee
f. Caroline Yeaman
g. Leilani McBee
iii
h. Rob Landis
i. Joe Poliski
j. Bob Kuchera
k. Joe Nies
1. Rick Robb
m. Bob Quick
n. George Lavato
O. Shirley Carson
p. Jim Hammer
q. Kathy Steiger Dietz
r. William Tyrrell
S. Honor Mahoney
t Kim Larson
u. Trish Warren
V. Juli Wallens
w. Jim Fudge
iv
x. Tina Miller
y. Ed Heimer
Z. Barbara Walseth
aa. Dave Shaad
bb. Sandy Rubotten
cc. Heather Babbitt
dd. Mrs. C. Gray, former Director of
Wyoming Department of Family
Services.
ee. | Susan Lehman, present Director of
Wyoming Department of Family
Services.
‘ Ross Clanton, Guardian ad Litem (deceased).
8. Hardy Tate, Attorney for Eunice and Lashley
| Drell.
2. Northern Wyoming Mental Health Center, Inc.
V
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Pam Christensen, Therapist employed by
Northern Wyoming Mental Health Center, Inc.
Mary I. Bowers, M.D., prescribing
psychoactive drugs to KD.
Pam Emerson, CASA Director
Tara Kwolek, CASA Supervisor
Attorney General, State of Wyoming
Jim Geringer, former Gov., State of Wyoming.
Dave Friedenthal, present Gov. , State of
Wyoming.
CORPORATE DISCLAIMER
THERE ARE NO OTHER CORPORATIONS,
OR ANY OTHER PERSONS INVOLVED IN THIS
DOCUMENT and NO MONIES HAVE BEEN
CONTRIBUTED TO THIS CAUSE, TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE.
vi
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions Presented for Review i
Parties Involved & Corporate Disclaimer iii
Table of Contents Vii
Table of Authorities ix
TEXT
A Petition for A Writ of Certiorari 1
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Final Decree of Adoption Al
Exhibit B - Wyoming Supreme Court -
Excerpts from Hearing Transcript Bl
Exhibit C - Fourth Judicial District -
Motion & Order Dismissing Petition
to Establish Child Support Cl
Exhibit D - Wyoming Supreme Court -
Order Staying All District and
Vii
Juvenile Court Proceedings D1
Exhibit E - Sheridan County Wyoming -
1. Public Official Bonds El
2. Judicial Oath of Office E3
3. Wyoming Judicial Canon 4 E5
Orders & Motions
1. Certification of Transcript Request al
2. Designation of Court Documents b1
3. Letter to Hon. William S. Downes cl
4. Order Dismissing Action dl
5. Notice of Appeal el
6. Brief of the Appellant fl
7. Motion for Disclosure gl
8. Order & Judgment hl .
Appendix
Civil Appearance Docket Entry List I-XXI
Vili
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
United States Law Concerned in this Document
—
28 U.S.C. § 2101 (e)
» 28 U.S.C. § 1343
3. 42 U.S.C. 1983
Wyoming State Constitution
1. Article 1 |
y S Article 1, Sections 002, 006, 007, 018, 036, 037
3. Article 3, Section 027 Se
4. Article 5, Section 025
~ Article 21, Section 025
Wyoming Law
1. 14-2-309
2. 14-2-312
3. Rule 38 W. R. C. P.
4. W. S. 1-22-101 to 1-22-114
>. Wyoming Judicial Canons 1 through 5
ix
mae Ghat
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER, )
Petitioner, ) Case No.
) 02
VS. ) CV-0046-D
)
EUNICE DRELL, LASHLEY DRELL, _ ) FILED
STATE OF WYOMING, )15 MAR
DEPARTMENT ) 2002
OF FAMILY SERVICES ) DISTRICT
) OF
and ) WYOMING
) CHEYENNE
)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF )
THE STATE OF WYOMING )
Respondents. )
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Now comes Michael Theodore Meyer pro se
before the United States District Court for the State of
Wyoming in the matter of the adoption of KD.
I. JURISDICTION
1. This Court has civil rights jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2101 (e); 28 U.S. C. § 1343;
1
Dei ee ae ant PL,
42 U.S. C. 1983; U. S. Constitution, 1st
Amendment, 7th Amendment, 14th
Amendment; Wyoming State Constitution,
Article 1, Article 1 Section 002, Section 006,
Article 1 Section 007, Article 1 Section 018,
Article 1 Section 036, Article 1 Section 037,
Article 3 Section 027, Article 5 Section 025,
Article 21 Section 025; Wyoming Law 14-2-309,
14-2-312, Rule 38 W.R.C.P., Wyoming Law 1
-22-101 to 1-22-114.
II. QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW
3
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to remove
a fundamental right without due process, i.e.,
demanded jury trial?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to adopt a
child out without first removing parental
2
rights, if there is a non-consenting parent?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to violate
its own rules concerning judicial conduct, by
allowing Justices to determine the outcomes of
hearings in which they have a personal, vested
interest?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to violate
its own rules concerning the conduct of an
attorney?
Is it lawful for the State of Wyoming to violate
its own Constitutional law, to desist from
interfering with personal religious belief and
practice?
Is It lawful for the State of Wyoming to
determine a minor's religious belief against the
wishes of the child, and against the wishes of
FES 0 2 ADEE DRE IO - — — - a
Pere AN Neal RR ge ORS OTC eM! at
the child’s only living parent, who still retains
parental rights?
III. NATURE OF THE CASE
1.
This case involves the taking up of a child, KD,
by the Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming, in May 1992,over the mother’s
arrest for public intoxication in Casper,
Wyoming, a misdemeanor offense, and the
refusal of the Department of Family Services,
State of Wyoming to return same child KD, to
either of her natural parents, even though,
neither was charged with any sort of felony
abuse or neglect of the child. The child, KD,
was held from May 1992 up until February
2001, at which point she was adopted to
Eunice and Lashley Drell, the latter being the
4
maternal grandfather, 72 years of age, a victim
of multiple strokes, living in and out of a
nursing home, virtually unable to conduct his
life without constant assistance, and a life-long
alcoholic, and Eunice Drell, his third wife, but
of no blood or genetic relationship to the child,
KD, who is an employee of the Besar of
Family Services, State of Wyoming.
y Final Decree of Adoption was filed February
14, 2001. (Exhibit A, pages 2 through 6)
IV. FACTS
1. Michael Theodore Meyer is the biological and
legally-declared father, by his own pro se
efforts, in the Fourth Judicial District Court,
State of Wyoming, filed October 6, 1994,
Exhibit C - Order of Paternity, of the child, KD.
Ge — posteemeeeeemes
3
3
;
2. Michael Theodore Meyer has consistently kept
contact with his child, KD, through all these
years that she was held by the Department of
Family Services, State of Wyoming, without
missing so much as one opportunity to visit his
child, without missing any opportunity to have
contact with his child, KD, and even to the
point, that after this adoption, the child, KD,
contributes as much, or more, effort than
Michael Theodore Meyer, to have contact with
each other, which Mr. Meyer’s efforts alone are
considerable, even against the tide of contrary
‘ public policy, and possible violation of state
; ordinance, to the point of convincing all
concerned that this contact is correct and the
proper thing to do, i.e., against all odds.
6
3.
Mr. Meyer has demanded and paid fees for, a
jury trial concerning his parental rights, as
provided by Wyoming Law 14-2-309, 14-2-312,
Rule 38 W.R.C.P., LP v. Natrona County,
Department of Public Assistance and Social
Services., 679 P. 2d 976 (Wyo. 1984).
Mr. Meyer has never been charged with any
offense of child abuse or neglect, or been
proven unfit as a father in any Court in
Wyoming or the United States. (See Exhibit D,
- page 2, paragraph 4)
In and under Wyoming Laws 1-22-101 to 1-22-
114, the complete Laws of Wyoming Adoption,
mandated under Wyoming State Constitution,
Article 3, Section 027, nowhere is it mentioned
that these proceedings are for the removal of
7
;
;
4
|
q
ra
2
j
|
}
8
3
Wine BN tale Site a oath:
Roar swine sya. 2 iui ltl
parental rights. These laws are written under
the color of parental rights already having
been removed. The only place this is
mentioned, of them being together, i.e.,
adoption and parental rights, is in Mr. Tate’s,
(attorney for the Drells), and Department of
Family Services, State of Wyoming, Petition for
Adoption. The State of Wyoming clearly has
separate laws concerning both separate issues.
It is a fundamental right for a parent to have
custody of their child - Wyoming State
Constitution, Article ‘ Sections 2, 6, 7, and 36.
The state maintains that Mr. Meyer willfully
abandoned his child, strictly over child
support, but neglects the fact that the State
determined, on March 8, 1999, that Mr. Meyer
8
owed no child support. (See Exhibit C - Order
Dismissing Petition to Establish Child Support,
Filed March 8, 1999). Judge David Park,
during the adoption hearing, makes note of
this unusual and surprising fact that there is no
way to determine owed child support of which
percentages must be paid or not paid to
determine an adoption, under Wyoming Law,
and Judge David Park and also the Supreme
Court Justices make note that there is no way
to compute an amount of child support owed
or not owed. Mr. Meyer contends that he has
paid fully 100%, as 100% of Zero (0) is Zero (0),
a mathematical fact. In the matter of Voss’
Adoption, 550 P.2d 481, 485 (Wyo. 1976), that
the adopting petitioners must prove
?
abandonment AND failure to pay child
support. Neither one alone is sufficient for an
adoption. This is also stated and discussed
numerously in Wyoming Statutes 1-22-101
through 1-22-114.
In the matter of DMR 982 P.2d 1246-48 (Wyo.
1999), abandonment must show purpose in
abandonment, intentionally, knowingly,
purposefully, voluntarily, conscientiously,
deliberately, and without justifiable excuse,
AND INTENT TO REMOVE PARENTAL
TIES. Mr. Meyer has never missed an
opportunity to see his child, KD, or have
contact with his child KD, in his entire life,
including during the mother’s pregnancy, even
if only by phone call, due to the distance of
10
physical separation. Mr. Meyer has spent nine
(9), going on ten (10), years in litigation, never
once without the goal of obtaining custody of
his daughter. Admittedly fighting everyone
concerned because he was told from the
beginning, by employees of the Department of
Family Services, State of Wyoming, i.e., Allison
Morrison, Gerry Harris, Mary Ann Lee, Bob
Kuchera, and Bill Tyrrell, all have said at one
point or another that Mr. Meyer would never
have custody of his child; and this been told
him from the beginning. This has been
documented through the years through two
separate district courts, state of Wyoming, and
to the Wyoming State Supreme Court, in the
midst of volumous documentation, of which in
11
i i ala ay
|
this last appeal consisted of five volumes out
of the Fourth Judicial District Court, State of
Wyoming, Adoption Hearing, alone. Mr.
Meyer has refused to sign case plans over this
one simple fact, not because of the words of
one person from the Department of Family
Services, State of Wyoming, but because of
repeated statements by many persons of the
Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming. (See Exhibit A, pages 5 and 6)
There are many instances of conflict of interest
in this matter, and abuse of Judicial power.
The first conflict of interest is that Eunice Drell
ends up as the adoptive mother of the child
KD, she is of no blood or genetic tie of the
child KD, although she is an employee of the
12
Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming, and friend and associate of the
other, above mentioned employees of the
Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming. Lashley Drell, who suffered
multiple strokes and is now virtually on his
last legs due to congenital heart problems, and
rarely has contact with the child, as he spends
most of his time in and out of hospitals _
nursing homes, is the only blood relative alive
other than the father, Michael Theodore
Meyer, involved in the adoption. Judge David
Park is a friend and associate of David Drell,
Mr. Meyer’s brother-in-law, and a son of
Lashley Drell, a former Natrona County,
County Attorney. David Drell has attended all
13
tint
ee rE Oe See ee:
hearings where Judge David Park has presided
in this matter, but never attended when Judge
Dan Spangler presided in this matter. Mr.
Meyer has no documented proof of their
friendship, but only through personal and
family knowledge. (See Exhibit B - page 6)
Mr. Hardy Tate, is a Magistrate in the Fourth
Judicial District Court, State of Wyoming, (See
Exhibit E - Oath of Office, 13" day of July,
2000) and yet is serving as an attorney for the
Drells in this matter. Wyoming State
Constitution, Article 5, Section 025, strictly
‘ prohibits this condition. (See Exhibit E -
Application of the Code of Judicial Conduct).
In Exhibit A, Mr. Hardy Tate is touted as being
a Court Commission and therefore allowed to
14
practice law in the same Judicial District Court.
(See Exhibit A - pages 8, 9, and 10). Mr. Hardy
Tate may well be a Court Commissioner; Mr.
Meyer does not know. He may even be the
jury, he may even be the cook and the captain
bold, Mr. Meyer does not know. But Mr.
Meyer does know that he is a Magistrate, and
has paid Bond to be a Magistrate, as of August
21, 2001, in the Fourth Judicial District Court,
State of Wyoming. (See Exhibit E - Office of
the County Commissioners, Sheridan County
Courthouse, document). This condition is
strictly prohibited by Wyoming Law, for him
to be a judge and practice law in the same
court district. Although this is probably a
common condition in Wyoming, it is still is
15
Ts DRS Rand ER th SA RA ERE ahaa pm
10.
rE.
unlawful and cannot be justified. (See Exhibit
B, page 6)
Judge John Brackley, who heard much of the
hearings during the first part of this adoption,
and all previous hearings concerning the child
KD in the Fourth Judicial District Court, State
of Wyoming (3 volumes), eventually recused
himself, under pressure, due to his close ties to
the Drells. (See Exhibit B, page 5).
Supreme Court Justice, State of Wyoming,
William Hill, represented both the Department
of Family Services, State of Wyoming and the
Governor, Jim Geringer, State of Wyoming,
against Mr. Meyer, during his tenure as the
State of Wyoming Attorney General, and
wrote many threatening letters to Mr. Meyer
16
12.
during that time. (See Exhibit B, page 6)
Chief Supreme Court Justice Larry Lehman,
State of Wyoming, wrote a Order Staying All
District and Juveniie Court Proceedings, dated
July 5, 2000, in which he was extremely
favorable in his opinion towards Mr. Meyer.
(See Exhibit D) After that occasion Chief
Justice Lehman’s wife, Susan Lehman, became
Chief Director of the Department of Family
Services, State of Wyoming. This was
mentioned by Mr. Meyer as a ‘possible conflict
of interest’ as Mr. Meyer's chief adversary is
the Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming, and Mr. Meyer felt that this would
be a deep wait abiding conflict of interest in
this matter. (See Exhibit B, pages 6 and 7)
17
13.
14.
In all but the first and second hearings, in 1993,
concerning the child KD, in each one, Mr.
Meyer’s Judaic beliefs are brought up,
questioned and refuted as being wrong,
although these are being refuted as being
wrong by persons of a non-Jewish faith, and
the State of Wyoming Department of Family
Services has stated repeatedly through the
years that KD should be raised as a Christian,
and nota — (See Exhibit B, pages 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 14, and 22)
The Court cites several reported cases on
adoption. To name a few, RHA 702 P.2d 1259 -
in this matter the non-consenting father had
already been convicted of incest with his
daughter, and abuse, and therefore his
18
parental rights had already been terminated; in
DWD 640 P.2d 73 (Wyo, 1980) support was
determined in a divorce decree; in Basolow v
Basolow, 907 P.2d 348-353 (Wyo, 1995), the
father had abducted the child after a divorce,
and did not contest custody to the wife; in
Semler v Semler, 924 P.2d 422-424 (Wyo, 1996),
everything was determined in a divorce decree
beforehand; in Kennedy v Kennedy, 761 P.2d,
995-998 (Wyo, 1998), was also determined
through divorce decree; in Blake v State, 933
P.2d, 474, 477 (Wyo, 19°97), burden of proof is
upon the appellant; in re: Adoption of
Strawser, 65 (Wyo, 1998) 196 P.2d, 862, 866
(1948), the petitioner must proved
abandonment.
19
3
THERE WAS NO DIVORCE, NOR HAS
THERE EVER BEEN A DIVORCE DECREE
LITIGATED IN THIS MARRIAGE, AS THE
MARRIAGE ENDED THROUGH
VEHICULAR HOMICIDE OF KATHERINE
DRELL, THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD, KD.
Since no divorce decree has ever existed in this
matter, or ever will, then allegations of
violating divorce decrees to support an
adoption have no bearing on the issues of this
matter. Since Mr. Meyer has never been
charged with any abuse or neglect of his child
KD, let alone incest, then therefore using
common law concerning such a situation,
where the parent already had had parental
rights removed, also gives no support to this
20
adoption. And in fact, only the cases that
peli burden of proof upon the petitioners is
the only statement that does have bearing
upon this adoption. In the VOSS Adoption
Reversal, the conditions purported of showing
two points - abandonment AND lack of support
- have even been, as shown to be
totally unprovable, throughout these
proceedings. (See Exhibit B) ”
IV. CONCLUSION
Mr. Meyer, therefore, submits that through all
the actions mentioned above, a wrongful, erroneous,
and tragic adoption has been perpetrated through the
Courts of the State of Wyoming, through error of law;
was grievously failed to be rectified by the Wyoming
State Supreme Court due to the many, enormous and
21
personal conflicts of interest, and the prejudice
against Mr. Meyer due to the mention of those
conflicts of interest by Mr. Meyer, concerning Mr.
Tate, Judge John Brackley, Judge David Park, Justice
William Hill, Chief Justice Larry Lehman, and his
wife Susan Lehman, Chief Director of the Department
of Family Services, State of Wyoming.
Therefore, Mr. Meyer desires that this
- ADOPTION BE REVERSED and that the
Respondents either charge Mr. Meyer with a crime
worthy of REMOVAL OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, give
Mr. Meyer A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY TRIAL
CONCERNING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS, or if
failure to find the evidence or ability to do that,
RETURN KD, TO THE CUSTODY OF MR. MEYER,
PHYSICALLY AND LEGALLY, ALONG WITH ALL
22
BAG AND BAGGAGE, AND ALLOW THEM TO
LEAVE WYOMING.
Therefore, Mr. Meyer, respectfully submits this
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE
OF WYOMING.
Dated this day 15" day of March, 2002.
“s/ Michael T. Meyer”
Michael Theodore Meyer, pro se
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801
EXHIBIT A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SHERIDAN,
STATE OF WYOMING
In the Matter of the Adoption. Certified Copy
Adoption No.
OF A7-3-00
Feb 14 2001
KELLY JOANNE DRELL, Doris Kobold
Clerk of Court
A Minor Child “s/Tempe Hall”
Deputy
FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION
This matter came for hearing before the Court
on the 22"° day of January, 2001, to determine
whether the Petition for Adoption without the
consent of the natural father should be granted; the
Petitioners, Lashley and Eunice Drell, being present
and represented by their attorney, Hardy H. Tate; the
non-consenting natural father, Michael Theodore
Al
Meyer, being present and representing himself; and
the minor child being present with her Court
Appointed Guardian ad Litem, attorney Ross
Clanton; and the Court having heard the testimony of
witnesses and examined exhibits presented by the
parties and having considered the petition and
argument of the parties, finds generally that the
Petitioners should be granted a Decree of Adoption.
The Court further specifically finds as follows:
1. With respect to Wyoming Statute 1-22-
110(iv), that although the biological
father, Michael Theodore Meyer, fins not
provided support and that he has an
obligation of common law to provide
support, and has willfully and woefully
failed to meet this obligation without
A2
any excuse, it has not been established how the
biological father could become current with his
support obligation within 60 days of the filing
of the petition if a specific sum has not been
alleged.
> The Court further finds that the petition,
| with respect to Wyoming Statute 1-22-
110(iv), is sufficient in that it fails to
alert Mr. Meyer as to the consequences
of failing to become current.
. The Court does find, however, that the
adoption may be granted pursuant to
reason that Mr. Meyer has willfully
:
Wyoming Statute 1-22-110(v) for the
permitted the child to be maintained in
:
or by the Department of Family Services
A3
(DFS) for a period of one (1) year without
substantially contributing to the support of the
child.
2 The Court finds that although the
: Defendant has fought consistentiy
almost since he became aware of the
placement of the child with DFS, that
does not mean he did not willfully
allow the child to be kept by DFS.
3 The Court further finds that the
Defendant became threatening with
DFS members and their agents,
threatening lawsuits against DFS,
avoiding payment of his child support,
generally refusing to acknowledge his
obligations as a father.
A4
ee ee ee eRe Tee eee ees
Nf
NG
The Court further finds that Mr.
Meyer's actions were willful because he
failed to provide a suitable home for his
child, failed to provide any support or
information by which support could be
established, totally refused to cooperate
with the establishment of a case plan,
rejected endorsement of the case plan,
and has not proposed any alternative
plan or raised a legitimate objections to
those plans.
The Court specifically finds that the
father has acted generally contrary to
the best interests of Kelly Drell and he
as has created conflicts during visitation
periods.
A5
-—niarestioneesmseitliinsionitamiansssillinlininmbiliaiesiesienthuaniGii ck
a ee
The Court finally finds that the best
20 ap
interests and welfare of the child will be
served by granting the Petition to
Adopt.
IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the
Final Decree of Adoption be entered, that the above
named minor child be declared to be the adopted
daughter of Lashley Drell and Eunice Drell, and that
all the rights, liabilities, privileges, and
responsibilities of full parentage are hereby vested in
the said Lashley Drell and Eunice Drell to the
exclusion of all other persons whomsoever; and that
the said Kelly JoAnne Drell is hereby given full rights
of inheritance of the said adoptive parents and all
other rights conferred by law of natural born
A6
children.
DONE this 9" day of February, 2001.
“s/David Park”
District Judge
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Michael Theodore Meyer
“s/ Hardy H. Tate”
Hardy H. Tate, Petitioner’s Attorney
“s/ Ross Clanton”
Ross Clanton, Guardian ad Litem
Duplicate of Clerk of the District Court. The above is a
true and correct copy of the original instrument which
is on file or of record in this court.
Done this 14 day of Feb 2001.
Doris Kobold - Clerk
by “s/Tempe Hall” - Deputy.
A7
EXHIBIT B
Due to the printing needs of
THIS COURT
only relevant parts of this document are
printed here, but full pages of document
can be found in the original document
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
presented to
THE TENTH FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING
COPY
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
In the Interest of
Kelly Drell, a minor
The Hearing in this matter was held on
Thursday, October 18, 2001, before CHIEF JUSTICE
LEHMAN, JUSTICE KITE, JUSTICE GOLDEN,
JUSTICE HILL and JUSTICE VOIGT.
APPEARANCES:
For the Drells: HARDY H. TATE
Attorney At Law
Rocky Mountain Bank Building
203 South Main Street, Suite 3300
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801-4856
B1
Michael Meyer
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan, Wyoming 82801
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 W. Oak Street, Suite 226
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Phone: (970) 482-1506
Toll-Free (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 482-1230
e-mail: meadors@reporterworks.com
Page 3
PROCEEDINGS
CHIEF JUSTICE LEHMAN: Mr. Meyer?
MR. MEYER: Thank you for hearing me,
Your Honor.
As you know, I’m not an attorney and I’m a poor
speaker.
CHIEF JUSTICE LEHMAN:
We tried like
heck to get
10
11
12
13
14
15
you some help.
MR. MEYER: Yes, sir, I understand.
I don’t know what else I could add to the
record.
You know, there’s five volumes of record on this.
Just on
this case there’s probably - - there’s two other
cases in
4" Judicial District Court that add to this and two
volumes of stuff in the 7" Judicial spread out over
a
period of - - well, it’s going into nine and a half
years
now. The only thing I can do is reiterate a few
points I
tried to make.
B3
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
What crime did I commit that my daughter
should
be kept away from me? What crime did my
daughter commit
that she should be put through the so-called
interests of
the child that the Department of Family Services
put he
through?
Left her with foster parents that drove her
around while drinking, abandoned her on
Halloween in
Casper on a street corner. She ended up being
beat up and
molested while in foster care, had a tooth broke
out, has
B4
25 had her arm broken, been chased around in her
—
house, and
Page 4
Lashley ran into a door where a window broke
and cut her,
I mean a mirror.
I don’t consider that interests of the child.
What did she do to deserve all that? I mean I
don’t know
what to say.
Lashley should have been looked into more
closely. His health is bad. He’s living ina
nursing
home. Why is he given adoption of my
daughter? I don’t
know that either. I'm a healthy man. I can raise
B5
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
my
daughter and take care of her.
Eunice throws her in day care centers all the
time when she was younger and puts her off on
other people
and not raising her, and Lashley is unable to.
He’s had
three strokes now.
So I can’t see why that would be any reason
to
adopt her to them, instead of giving her back to
me where
I can take her home and raise her.
The only thing that I can see - - the only crime
I
can see that we committed is that we’re Jews. It’s
B6
OO” aaa—
20
21
22
been
brought up in every hearing from the very
beginning, my
Jewish belief. I took her to the Passover on - - in
"SS
when I first got to Wyoming to find her, and from
then I
denied any religious holidays or even religious
teaching to her until recently.
Is that the crime? { know it’s a crime in a lot
Page 5
of countries in the world to be a Jew. Is it a crime
here
now, especially in the light of what's going on?
CHIEF JUSTICE LEHMAN: Obviously,
Mr. Meyer, our
B7
job is to look at what the judge did below to see if
there
was - - to see if there was a mistake of law
somehow that
was committed during the course of the adoption.
What do
you think that the judge did wrong in his order in
granting that adoption?
MR. MEYER: Well, sir, Your Honor, first I
don’t
think there should have been an adoption. You,
yourself
wrote a stay on the adoption and I thank you
greatly for
what you said, sir. You’re the first person that
actually
B8
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mentioned euphemisms and innuendos as being
what's done and
not proving me as an unfit father.
I’ve asked three times for a trial to prove that
I’m an unfit father first so I can at least have my
Say-SO
as to whether I was or not, or at least prove to me
that I
am unfit. But nobody wants to give me a jury trial.
It's
been denied, denied, denied.
I think they shouldn’t have adopted the
adoption
first off. They should have taken my parental
rights
before having an adoption, adopt my daughter
B9
23
24
away.
Then there is the matter of conflict of interest.
First there was a conflict of interest with Judge
Brackley. Ex parte hearings with Mr. Tate here,
or should
PAGE 6
I say Magistrate Tate, there’s another conflict of
interest. Magistiate Tate here is a magistrate in
the
Same court system and practicing law in the same
court
system, strictly against judicial canon.
Then there is a matter of David Drell’s
connection with Judge Park, the judge that heard
the
hearing.
B 10
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
And then I've also put in about - - and I
do not
say this lightly, Your Honor, because I’ve had a
friend
that in my life that was a Alabama Supreme Court
justice
and I know that he was a decent human being and
a very
kind person and was always treating me right,
and I worked ©
for him for a number of years. Reed Jones was
his name.
So I don’t take this lightly.
But I’ve even put in a pre-emptive
disqualification on Justice Hill over his
representing the
B11
17 governor in a complaint against me over my
calling the
18 governor's office numerous times, which I did,
trying to
19 get the Department of Family Services swat least
follow
20 the law, and was unable to. But I did call over
and over
21 and Justice Hill as Attorney General represented
the
22 governor on that matter and sent me letters, and I
23 consider that a conflict of interest.
24 And believe me, I’m not ungrateful, Justice
25 Lehman, because what you said was really the
first person
PAGE 7
B12
ae
1 say anything decent about me, but your wife is
the
2 director of the Department of Family Services. I
could
3 never blame a man for doing what is best for his
wife, and
4 I think that would be a conflict of interest.
5 CHIEF JUSTICE LEHMAN: Well,
and I guess that’s
6 what -- when you started bringing those things up
I wanted
7 to talk about that a little bit, but what we're really
8 concerned about here is what the judge did,
because that’s
9 what we are reviewing, is what that judge did ;
below.
B 13
A a i iy ll hg de a sal
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MR. MEYER: I guess the point I'm saying
is, the
hearing should never have taken place, Your
Honor, because
of all these conflicts of interest. If nothing else it
should have taken place somewhere else, some
other county,
some other district judge.
I didn’t complain against the Judge
Kalokathis.
I wrote to them and told them what I felt about
the
conflict of interest with Mr. Tate here, but other
than
that I think with all these conflicts of interest that
that should have not been - - personally I think
B14
20
21
22
23
24
25
the judge
should have recused himself and maybe referred
it back to
Judge Kalokathis.
I don’t think I got a fair hearing. Like I say,
I was mentioning before, religion was mentioned
in that
hearing. Mr. Clanton was shouting that my
daughter should
be raised as a Christian, and this issue has been
brought
PAGE 8
up all along. I think that prejudices the whole
situation.
They had nine and a half years to prove me
as an
B15
4 unfit father. What happened? Do they keep
children
9 forever and just say a lie about someone and Say,
well,
6 they’re unfit whether there’s any proof or not?
Nobody
7 brought any proof or anything, or even brought
charges for
8 a trial.
9 CHIEF JUSTICE LEHMAN: It would
appear to me from
10 looking through the portion of this appeal that
there was
11 an effort of reunification and that was the
primary effort
12 that was identified for many years.
B 16
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR. MEYER: The effort was two hours
a month.
CHIEF JUSTICE LEHMAN: Well, and
the suggestion
is that anytime there's an effort of reunification
they
develop some plans that people work through,
and the
allegation is that you refused to participate in any
of
those reunifications.
MR. MEYER: __ I beg to differ, Your Honor.
I did
everything that was asked for, except sign it,
because I
felt that to put my signature on it would be
B17
22
23
24
25
tantamount, I
may be right or wrong, to signing away my
parental rights
if for some reason I failed to answer those case
plans.
But what was asked for in the case plan I did.
JUSTICE KITE: What about paying support
for your
PAGE 14
But the evidence in this case is - - and it's
nothing to do with him being a Jew for gosh sake.
The
only time I remember that being brought up was
atan
earlier proceeding when he refused to give us his
Social
B 18
10
11
12
13
14
15
Security number.
He was afraid to have to pay child support,
because he said that somehow or another Jews
were tattooed
during World War II and he wouldn't give his
Social
Security number. The judge asked him and he
wouldn't do
it.
That's the only time I can remember that
coming
up. Mr. Clanton certainly didn’t yell that this
child
shouldn’t be raised as a Jew as he said. That's an
absolute non-issue in this case.
The issue in this case is just the piles - - the
B19
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
mountains of evidence that would demonstrate
that he is
not a fit person to have custody of this child and
that he
has absolutely refused to do the slightest little
thing,
even with the CASA workers, the volunteer
workers that are
trying to supervise the visitation.
He would show up filthy dirty, wreaking of
body
odor or whatever else he had been living in, to
~ the point
that his poor little daughter was just embarrassed
to have
to be around him at the YMCA, and he would
B 20
2)
consciously try
to intimidate the CASA workers in this manner
with this
_ PAGE 22
else can make a living here but I can’t, not
enough to
support a family and work on my retirement so
I'll have
something to live on in my old age.
As far as - - I'm not going to get Social
Security
because I don’t use a Social Security number, not
because of tattoos as Mr. Tate said. I’ve never
said
that. I avoid that question like the plague, just
like I
B 21
12
13
14
15
16
avoid talking about prejudice against Jews like
the
plague, because it scares me to death.
My reason, if you'll look in your Bible, on the
last story of Kings, King David went out and
numbered the
people clearly against the law of God and was
warned by
Joab, his chief of an Army, that that was wrong,
and God
punished him for that. And when the
punishment ended it
ended at Mount Mariah where the temple was
built, and
that’s what happened, and that’s why I don’t use
a Social
B 22
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
Security number.
I don’t mind having a driver's license
number
because it doesn’t bother me that people with a
driver's
license are numbered. I don’t mind having a
bank account
number if I have a bank account because you
want to Keep
your accounts straight. And I don’t mind a
military
number being in the Army because people in the
Army have
to be numbered so that they know who’s there.
JUSTICE GOLDEN: Military uses Social
Security
B 23
EXHIBIT C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SHERIDAN,
STATE OF WYOMING
Certified Copy
State of Wyoming, Department , Civil Action No.
of Family Services; and State of | C321-8-94
Wyoming Ex Rel Kelly JoAnne | Posse No. 44095
Drell, a minor child, Filed in the Office
of the Clerk of the
Petitioners, District Court of
VS. Sheridan County,
WY
Michael Meyer, APR 15 1999
Clerk of Court
Respondent By Lela F.
Chapman -
Deputy
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO ESTABLISH
SUPPORT FILED MARCH 8, 1999
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on
the State’s Motion Dismissing Petition to Establish
Support filed March 8, 1999, and good cause
appearing therefore;
C1
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that the Petition to Establish Support filed March 8,
1999, is hereby dismissed.
DATED this 15 day of April, 1999.
Original signed by John C. Brackley
Judge of the District Court
Copies to:
Eunice Drell
Michael Meyer
Colin Simpson, Attorney for Michael Meyer
Certificate of Clerk of the District Court. The above is
a true and correct copy of the original instrument
which is on file or record of this court.
Done this 15 day of April, 1999
Doris Kobold - Clerk
“s/Lela F. Chapman” - Deputy
2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SHERIDAN
4
STATE OF WYOMING
State of Wyoming, Department | Civil Action No.
of Family Services; and State of | C321-8-94
Wyoming Ex Rel Kelly JoAnne | Posse No. 44095
Drell, a minor child, Filed in the Office
of the Clerk of the
Petitioners, District Court of
Sheridan County,
VS. WY
APR 15, 1999
Michael Meyer, Clerk of Court
by Lela F.
Respondent Chapman
Deputy
MOTION DISMISSING PETITION TO ESTABLISH
SUPPORT FILED MARCH 8, 1999
COMES NOW the State of Wyoming by and
through D. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Attorney for Sate
of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, and
respectfully moves the Court for an Order Dismissing
the Petition to Establish Support, filed March 8, 1999,
C3
for the reason that the guardian of the minor child,
Eunice Drell, has decided not to proceed with the
collection of child support.
DATED this 13 day of April, 1999.
s/“D. Michael Williams”
D. Michael Williams
Attorney of State of Wyoming
224 South Main, Fourth Floor East
Sheridan, WY 82801
(307) 672-2599
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of
the above document was served upon the following
by mailing same on the 15 day of April, 1999, by
United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Eunice Drell
Last Known Address
Michael Meyer
Hand Delivered
Colin Simpson
Attorney for Michael Meyer
P. O. Box 490 s/Lela F. Chapman
Cody, WY 82414 Deputy Clerk of Court
C4
EXHIBIT D
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF WYOMING
April Term, A.D. 2000
IN THE INTEREST OF KD, a minor;
MTM,
Appellant
(Respondent) No. C-00-4
V.
IN THE
STATE OF WYOMING, SUPREME
DEPARTMENT OF COURT
FAMILY SERVICES, NATRONA STATE OF
COUNTY OFFICE WYOMING
FILED
Appellee JUL - 5 2000
(Petitioner) “s/Judy
Pacheco”,
IN THE MATTER OF THE CLERK
ADOPTION OF KJD, minor child
MTM, No. 00-161
Petitioner
ORDER STAYING ALL DISTRICT AND
JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS
These matters have come before the Court
D1
upon the maturation of our Case No. C-00-4 (Natrona
County Juvenile Court Action No. 6304-A) and the
filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the
child’s natural and legal father, MTM, in our Case
No. 00-161. Having reviewed the briefs and
pleadings in Case No. C-00-4 and the petition and
attachments thereto in Case No. 00-161, the Court
makes the following findings:
1. An order made and entered by the
district court for Sheridan County in
that Court’s Civil Action No. C321-8-94
on October 6, 1994, establishes paternity
of the minor child, KD, in her natural
father MTM, the appellant in Case No.
C-00-4 and the petitioner in Case No.
00-161; Despite the availability of the
D2
minor child’s father, MTM, the district
court for Sheridan County in that
Court's Case No. P 129-9-95 made and
entered an order appointing the minor
child’s maternal grandparents as her
guardians and conservators on
November 30, 1995, making only the
following findings with respect to
MTM: “[MTM’s] lack of significant ties
to the state of Wyoming, his
employment record and limited income
all cause the Court concern about his
ability to provide a home for the minor
child and manage significant financial
assets;”
In the order which is the subject of
D3
MTM’s appeal in Case No. C-00-4, the
juvenile court for Natrona County, in that
court's Juvenile Action No. 6304-A, made
only the following perfunctory findings
with respect to the father, MTM:
“Further, it is not appropriate or in the
best interest of the minor [KJD] to
prevent _— from the minor’s home
nor is it appropriate for the minor to
continue to reside in the minor’s home,
despite reasonable efforts to reunite the
minor with the minor’s family or make it
possible for the minor to return to
home.;”
References in the foregoing quoted order
to “removal from the minor's
D4
home” and “efforts to reunite the minor
with the minor’s family” are
euphemisms which disguise the
juvenile court's failure to find the minor
child’s father, MTM, unfit while
refusing to grant the father custody of
his daughter and simultaneously
restricting opportunities for any contact
with his daughter to 2 “supervised”
hours per month;
Nothing has been presented to this
Court by any of the parties to Case No. —
C-00-4, including, particularly the State
of Wyoming and/or the Guardian ad
Litem for the minor child, KD, which
would demonstrate that any court in
D5
Wyoming or any other state has ever
judicially declared MTM to be unfit to
have custody of the minor child, KD;
5. An order made and entered by the
district court for Sheridan County in that
county’s Action No. A7-3-00 purports to
set a petition for adoption of the minor
child, KJD, by her maternal grandparents
for the 12" day of July, 2000, beginning at
9:00 A.M.;
6. This Court should exercise its general
supervisory authority to stay any and all
proceedings in the district courts or juvenile
courts of Sheridan County and Natrona
County in derogation of the paternal rights of
MTM with respect to
D6
5
7
|
the minor child, KJD, pending
resolution of MTM’s scliben for a writ
of habeas corpus. It is therefore
ORDERED that any and all
proceedings in the district or juvenile courts for
Sheridan County with respect to the minor child,
KJD, including particularly the adoption proceedings
in the district court’s Action No. A7-3-00, shall be,
and the same hereby are stayed, pending further
order of this Court; and it is, further,
ORDERED that any and all proceedings |
in the district or juvenile courts for Natrona County
with respect to the minor child, KJD, including
particularly Juvenile Court Action No. 6304-A, shall
be, and the same hereby are stayed, pending further
order of this Court; and
THIS ORDER NO PERSON OR PARTY SHALL
VIOLATE UNDER PENALTY OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
WYOMING.
DATED this 5 day of June, 2000.
BY THE COURT:
“s/Larry L. Lehman”
Chief Justice
D8
EXHIBIT E
Due to the printing needs of
THIS COURT
only relevant parts of this document are
printed here, but full pages of document
can be found in the original document
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
presented to
THE TENTH FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SHERIDAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE
9:00 A.M. AUGUST 21, 2001
SHERIDAN, WYOMING
The Board of County Commissioners of Sheridan
County, Wyoming, met at the time and place above-
mentioned. Members present were Chairman B.
Bradford Waters and Commissioner Charles L.
Winton.
PUBLIC OFFICIAL BONDS
Having been approved as to form and legality by
Matthew Redle, County Attorney, and upon a
E1
unanimous vote, the Public Official Bonds for the
following were approved and ordered filed with the
County Treasurer.
Hardy H. Tate, Magistrate, 4" Judicial District
Circuit Court - $1,000.
John G. Fenn, Magistrate, 4" Judicial District
Circuit Court - $1,000.
Jay A. Gilbertz, Magistrate, 4" Judicial District
Circuit Court - $1,000.
MEETING MINUTES
Upon a unanimous vote, the meeting minutes of
August 6 and August 7, 2001 were approved as
corrected.
E2
OATH OF OFFICE
THE STATE OF WYOMING
COUNTY OF SHERIDAN is
I Hardy H. Tate, having been appointed
Magistrate for the County of Sheridan, State of
Wyoming, do solemnly swear that I will support,
obey and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and the Constitution of this State, and that I
will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity;
that I have not paid or contributed, or promised to
pay or contribute, either directly or indirectly, any
money or other valuable thing to procure my
appointment, except for necessary and proper
expenses expressly authorized by law; that I have not
knowingly violated any election law of the State, or
procured it to be done by others in my behalf; that I
E3
will not knowingly receive, directly or indirectly, any
money or other valuable thing for the performance or
non-performance of any act or duty pertaining to my
office, other than the compensation allowed by law.
“s/ Hardy H. Tate”
Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before
me this 13" Day of July, 2000.
“s/J. Samson”
(Authorized person to Administer Oath)
E4
Due to the printing needs of
THIS COURT
only relevant parts of this document are
printed here, but full Pages of document
can be found in the original document
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
presented to
THE TENTH FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING
WYOMING JUDICIAL CANON 4
i. | Anyone, whether or nota lawyer, who is an
officer of a judicial system and who performs
judicial functions, including an officer such as a
magistrate, court commissioner, special master or
referee, is a judge within the meaning of this
Code. All judges shall comply with this Code
except as provided below.
Commentary. ---- The four (4) categories of
judicial service in other than a full-time Capacity
E5
are necessarily defined in general terms because of
the widely varying forms of judicial service. For the
purposes of this Section, as long as a retired judge is
subject to recall the judge is considered to “perform
judicial functions.” The determination of which
category and, accordingly, which specific Code
provisions apply to an individual judicial officer,
depend upon the facts of the particular judicial
service.
be Continuing Part-time Judge. — A continuing |
part-time judge
(1) is not required to comply
(a) except while serving as a judge, with
Section 3B(9);
(b) at any time with Sections 4C(2), 4D(3),
4E(1), 4F, 4G, 4H, 5A(1), 5B(2) and 5D.
E6
(2) except for a court commissioner, shall not
practice law in the court on which the judge serves or
in any court subject to appellate jurisdiction of the
court on which the judge serves
(3) shall not act asa lawyer ina proceeding in
which the judge has served as judge or in any other
proceeding related thereto.
Commentary. ---- When a person who has
been a continuing part-time judge is no longer a
continuing part-time judge, that person may actasa
lawyer ina proceeding in which he or she has served
as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto
with the express consent of all parties pursuant to
Rule 1.12(a) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional
Conduct.
E7
———
Orders & Motions
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER, pro se | Case No.
Petitioner 02 CV-
0046-D
vs. Filed
EUNICE DRELL; LASHLEY DRELL; 15 MAR
STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT ]| 2002
OF FAMILY SERVICES and District of
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE | Wyoming
STATE OF WYOMING Cheyenne
Respondents.
RE: A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT REQUEST
Now comes Michael Theodore Meyer pro se
before the United States District Court for the District |
of Wyoming in the matter of the adoption of KD.
The following is stated in accordance with W. A. R. P.
2.05.
al
2. MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER is the
Petitioner for A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
3. | The Judgment is A DECREE OF ADOPTION, In
the Matter of the Adoption of KELLY JOANNE
DRELL, a Minor Child, Adoption No. A7-3-00
entered February 14, 2001, in the FOURTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT, SHERIDAN COUNTY,
WYOMING.
4. The Petition is to THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
WYOMING.
5. A transcript was made during the Adoption
Hearing and is included in the document list.
THEREFORE, I submit this CERTIFICATION OF
TRANSCRIPT REQUEST before THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT OF
a2
ee
WYOMING.
Dated: 15"" day of March 2002
“s/ Michael T. Meyer’
Michael Theodore Meyer, pro se
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan WY 82801
a3
,
|
:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER, Pro Se
|
Petitioner | Case No.
02 CV-0046
VS. | -D.
|
EUNICE DRELL, LASHLEY DRELL, | FILED
STATE OF WYOMING | 15 MAR
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY | 2002
SERVICES, and | District of
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF | Wyoming
THE STATE OF WYOMING | Cheyenne
Respondents
RE: A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
A DESIGNATION OF COURT DOCUMENTS
Now comes Michael Theodore Meyer pro se
before the United States District Court for the District
of Wyoming in the matter of the adoption of KD.
1. According to W. R. A. P. 3.05 and in the hope that
there not be much that is repetitious, your
Appellant desires that The Clerk of The Fourth
b1
Judicial District, State of Wyoming, sent
to the Clerk of the United States District Court for
the District of Wyoming, the following
documents so listed, a sum total of 106
Instruments, Transcripts, and Exhibits.
In the Matter of the Adoption
of Civil Action
KELLY JOANNE DRELL No. A7-3-00
Minor Child
DATED: 15" day of April, 2002
Michael Theodore Meyer, pro se
Michael T. Meyer
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan, WY 82801
May 10, 2002
Honorable William S. Downes
Federal Judge
111 S. Wolcott; Room 121
Casper, WY 82601
RE: 02 CV 0046-D
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI:
MEYER vs DRELL, et al - Sealed Filed Documents
To: HONORABLE WILLIAM S. DOWNES
FEDERAL JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
WYOMING
Sir, I pray this letter finds you in good health.
The content of this letter concerns the file mentioned
in previous document (RE: A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF CERTIORARI, A DESIGNATION OF COURT
DOCUMENTS, dated 15 April 2002) which is at this
time a sealed file, to my understanding. Also to my
understanding is that you, Your Honor, might
received this file through court order. It is my
cl
personal belief that in order to understand the full
ramifications of this PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, one, anyone, would necessarily have
to observe some documents of this file, if not all.
Many people, and agencies in Wyoming, and in
other states, have portions or total copies of this file,
namely - The Department of Family Services, State of
Wyoming, and most assuredly its employees have
access to this, of which many employees are involved;
The Wyoming State Supreme Court has a complete
copy; The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office has a
complete copy; Ross Clanton, Attorney At Law has a
complete copy, as does Hardy Tate, Attorney At Law.
Of course the Fourth Judicial District Court, State of
Wyoming has a complete copy, as does the Seventh
Judicial District Court, State
cz
of Wyoming, since the same judge, David Park,
presided in both courts in this matter. The ‘Drells’
have portions of this file, if not a complete file,
including Kelly Drell - the —_— child, and I feel also
David Drell, her uncle, my brother-in-law, and
former Natrona County Attorney, has copies of
portions of this, and most assuredly access to the full
file.
This is not to say that you, yourself, Your Honor,
should have a copy of this file, just because everyone
else on the block has a copy, including myself, but to
say that the secrecy or sealing of the file in reality
hides nothing from the parties concerned or the rest
of the world, and therefore is moot as a consideration
for not observing the file. I feel that in the interest of
justice, that you, Your Honor, in
c3
considering this matter and judging upon it, should
have as much access to this file as I have, and these
other people have, and that you, Your Honor, are less
likely than anyone, to spill the beans and somehow
make public the information contained therein.
To be brief, therefore, and in the interest of
justice, and in making a knowledgeable decision that
Your Honor issue the NECESSARY COURT ORDER,
so that you also may have access to the extensive
knowledge and information contained in these
documents.
I thank you Sir for your time and considerations,
and I pray for your well-being.
Sincerely,
“s/ Michael Theodore Meyer”
cc: Betty A. Griess, Doree Kobold, Hoke MacMillan,
Hardy H. Tate, Judy Pacheco, Ross Clanton,
Department of Family Services
c4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER
Petitioner
VS
EUNICE DRELL, LASHLEY DRELL,
STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY SERVICES, AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF WYOMING,
Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Case No.
02 CV-0046
-D
Mr. Meyer has filed a “Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari” challenging a decision of the Wyoming
Supreme Court affirming the final decree of adoption
of the natural daughter. The Court finds that his
petition should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
This is the second matter that Mr. Meyer has
filed in the Court concerning the adoption of his
d1
daughter. In his previous case, Mr. Meyer filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain custody
of his daughter after a petition for adoption was filed
by her maternal grandparents. On appeal of the denial
of the habeas corpus petition, the Tenth Circuit found
that the district court was without jurisdiction to
entertain the petition. The appellate court also
observed that even if the district court had construed
Mr. Meyer's claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
the district court would lack jur’ diction over the
claims. The appellate court explained:
Petitioner alleges that the state-court decisions
regarding the custody of K.D., supervised
visitation, and petitioner's parental status, violate
his constitutional rights. The same principals of
comity that prevent us from entertaining
petitioner’s habeas petition also preclude review
of the state-court decisions under the guise of a
civil rights action. See Roman-Nose v. N.M.
Dep’t of Human Servs., 967 F.2d 434, 437 (10"
Cir. 1992) (holding
d2
federal action alleging constitutional infirmity
in state parental-rights proceeding could not
be maintained under § 1983); Anderson, 793
F.2d at 263-64 (holding district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over § 1983 action
challenging constitutionality of child-custody
decision by state court, and that such issues
should have been raised in state-court
proceedings).
Federal courts, other that the United States
Supreme Court, are without jurisdiction to
adjudicate a claim which, in essence, seeks
review of a state court judgement by claiming
that the state decision violated the loser’ 5
federal rights. See D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 486, 103, Ct. 1303,
75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1 983) (holding federal review
of state court judgments can only be obtained
in the United States Supreme Court, even if the
plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the
state court's action); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct 149, 68 L.Ed.
362 (1923) (same). Because petitioner simply
seeks review of the state court decisions, there
is no jurisdiction in this case.
Meyer v. Drell, 2001 WL 936881, at *2 (10" Cir, 2001).
Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction
to entertain Mr. Meyer’s current action challenging
d 3
the Wyoming Supreme Court's order affirming the
final adoption decree.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
lack of jurisdiction.
Dated this 10" day of May, 2002.
“s/William S. Downes”
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Filed District of Wyoming Casper 2002 May 10 PM
4:58 - U. S. District Court.
Entered on the docket 13 May 02 (Date) Betty A.
Griess, Clerk by “signature illegible: deputy clerk.
1
E
PG
i
%
:
IN THE UNITED STATES
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF WYOMING
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER, pro se
Petitioner, Case No.
vs. 02 CV-
0046-D
EUNICE DRELL, LASHLEY DRELL, Filed:
STATE OF WYOMING 07 JUN 02
DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY SERVICES District of
and Wyoming
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Cheyenne
THE STATE OF WYOMING
Respondents.
A NOTICE OF APPEAL CONCERN ING
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
A DESIGNATION OF COURT DOCUMENTS
Now comes Michael Theodore Meyer pro se,
with a NOTICE OF APPEAL CONCERNING A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, pursuant
to U.S.C. S. Title 28 § 2253.
1. The above captioned matter is an appealable
el
action.
Judge Downes has denied action, by his court,
in the above captioned matter, due to lack of
jurisdiction. I believe this to be true, that these
Federal District courts have no latitude
concerning state welfare agencies. It is my
fervent hope that perhaps this action, and
many others which are on the table, will
change the situation. My reason being, that
these welfare agencies are primarily federally
funded for the lions share, and therefore
should be more tightly controlled at the
judicial end, where problems and conflicts
show up most documented and most able to be
resolved, much more so than on the initial
entry, regulatory end at the federal level. One
e2
need only look out upon the landscape of
American culture to see the detriment and
corruption created by this adventure into
Marxism, this Great Society. When one looks
out one’s window, one sees a land with a
single parent child that is 75% the norm, the
two-parent child is the minority. This tends to
raise 75% of America’s children impoverished
by life without a father figure. My personal
belief is that this eventually ends up as the
reason that our streets are not safe, our schools
are not safe; we cannot leave our homes, or
stay in our homes, without all the doors and
windows locked. This is the legacy of all
Marxist experiments.
WHEREFORE I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT this
e 3
NOTICE OF APPEAL CONCERNING A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, before THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING, in the SINCERE
HOPE of finding JUSTICE AND RELIEF for my
daughter and Myself after these ten (10) long years.
Dated 6" day of June 2002. = “s Michael Meyer”
Michael Theodore Meyey, pro se
e4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER
Appellant, Case No.
02-8049
vs.
EUNICE DRELL; LASHLEY DRELL,;
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
WYOMING.
Appellee.
BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT NOW comes
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER, PRO SE before THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
TENTH CIRCUIT with this BRIEF OF THE
APPELLANT.
1. On June 21, 2002, Lashley Drell, so
named in the caption above, died. Sadly, he had
succumbed to the complications of advanced age
f1
and years of poor health. His years of poor health,
and the fact that he had been living in a nursing
home, that Eunice Drell is of no blood tie or relation
to the child K. D. but merely Lashley Drell’s third
wife, was discussed at length during the adoption
hearing itself, in the Fourth Judicial District Court,
State of Wyoming (Judge David Park, presiding - see
Designation of Court Documents: 05/08/01
Transcript of Trial Proceedings 1/22/01, pages 157,
158. These are a sealed file - see personal letter from
Michael T. Meyer to Honorable William S. Downes,
Federal Judge, Casper, Wyoming, dated May 10,
2002, Proceeding No. 6 - 05/13/02) and also
mentioned in oral argument before the Wyoming
State Supreme Court, October 18, 2001, and was
discussed on page 4 of the transcript of that hearing
f2
(See Certification of Transcript in Petition of
Certiorari, Proceeding No. 2, Entry date 04/17/02).
These are covered under Wyoming Law W. S. 14-2-
101 through 14-2-114. Several times, the health of the
adopting parents and the health of the non-
consenting parent is discussed and mandated to be
taken into consideration, at length. Mr. Meyer feels
that these were avoided, overlooked, made non-
applicable, because of the close relationship of Judge
Parks to the Drell family, i.e. David Drell, because of
the influence of Magistrate Hardy H. Tate serving as
an attorney for the Drells, in the same courtroom that
he serves as a magistrate in, and paid for by the
Department of Family Services, State of Wyoming,
and also later, in appeal to the Wyoming State
Supreme Court, due to the fact that the wife of Chief
f 3
Justice Larry Lehman, Susan Lehman, was Director of
the Department of Family Services, State of Wyoming
at that time, and I understand still is.
2. Neither Mr. Meyer, nor his daughter,
have been charged, tried or convicted of any crime
that would warrant this separation. No trial was ever
made, although Mr. Meyer had requested a jury trial
three times concerning his parental rights. This has
been discussed at length in A Petition for A Writ of
Habeas Corpus (See Designation of Court
Documents: In Sealed File, Fourth Judicial District,
State of Wyoming, 06/29/00 A Petition For A Writ of
Habeas Corpus, which was eventually reviewed by
the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit in
May, 2001 and judged by Justices Ebel, Porfilio, and
Lucero, Circuit Judges, for your court - Order and
f 4
Judgement date 05/21/01 No. 00-8058, D.C. No. 00-
CV-136J). Mr. Meyer feels that this error of law,
namely this denial of jury trial, thus denial of justice
true and correct, was done for the same stated
conflicts of interest in the above No. 1. Mr. Meyer
wants to see the applications of Wyoming Laws W. S.
14-2-101 through 14-2-114 to be applied correctly and
lawfully through jury trial concerning his parental
rights. If no evidence is found to warrant a trial then
Mr. Meyer wants his daughter back - lock, stock and
barrel. Mr. Meyer desires that the aforementioned
‘conflicts of interests’ be addressed concerning Judge
Parks, Chief Justice Lehman and Magistrate Hardy H.
Tate, i.e. Judge Parks’ friendship with David Drell,
constituting abuse in this case; Chief Justice Larry
Lehman’s wife being Director of Family Services,
£5
creating abuse in any DFS oriented appeal to the
Wyoming State Supreme Court, and of course
Magistrate Hardy H. Tate’s representing clients, as an
attorney, in the very same court rooms in which he’s
a magistrate, constituting an abuse towards his own
clients and of course abuse towards his opponent's
clients, as there can never be found any sense of
justice in such a situation. Mr. Meyer would also like
the Court to apply 28 U.S. C. S. 2241 n40, n165, n166,
n170, n207; Apply 28 U.S. C. S. 2243 n2, n6, n7, n10,
n14, n21, n23, n48, n50, n57; Apply 28 U.S. C. S. 2254
n33.
3. There is no need for oral argument in
this matter, in Mr. Meyer’s opinion, but he is
available for oral argument at any time at
the convenience of the Justices, but he feels the
f 6
documentation amply speaks for itself.
My thanks and gratitude to the United States
Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, for their time and
efforts.
Dated this 17" day of July, 2002.
“s/ Michael T. Meyer”
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER PRO SE
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan, WY 82801
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER
Appellant,
VS. Case No.
02-8049
EUNICE DRELL; LASHLEY DRELL;
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
WYOMING
A MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE
NOW comes MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER,
PRO SE before THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT with A
MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE.
3 Michael Theodore Meyer is a party to
the action.
2. Pursuant to W. S. 1-22-104 (d), 14-3-214
(b), (i), and W.S. 1-22-104 (d), that any
gl
and all documentation now and in the future,
in possession of The Department of Family
Services, State of Wyoming, through their
representation, The Attorney General’s Office,
State of Wyoming, concerning the above
captioned matter, that copies thereof be made
available to Michael Theodore Meyer, Pro Se, in
accordance to W. S. 1-22-104 (d), and that all
costs, fees and expenses incurred, to make
these available to Michael Theodore Meyer,
Pro Se, in this above captioned matter, be upon
their head, i.e., Wyoming Department of
Family Services, State of Wyoming.
Wherefore we submit this MOTION FOR
DISCLOSURE and that these copies of
documentation be sent to Michael Theodore Meyer,
g2
oie SE
Pro Se, 418 Meade Creek Road, Sheridan, Wyoming,
82801.
Dated this 3rd day of September, 2002.
“s/Michael T. Meyer”
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER PRO SE
418 Meade Creek Road
Sheridan, WY 82801
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL THEODORE MEYER
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 02-8049
D.C. No.
V. 02-CV-46-D
(D. Wyoming)
EUNICE DRELL; LASHLEY
DRELL; WYOMING FILED
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY United States Court
SERVICES; and WYOMING Of Appeals Tenth
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Circuit DEC 11 2002
PATRICK FISHER
Respondents - Appellees. Clerk
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before KELLY, McKAY and MURPHY, Circuit
Judges.
After examining the briefs of the appellate
record, this panel has determined unanimously to
honor parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (f);
10" Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is therefore submitted
hi
without oral argument.
*This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms
and conditions of 10" Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Michael Theodore Meyer appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his “Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari.” As petitioner is proceeding pro se, we
construe his claims liberally. See Drake v. City of
Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10" Cir. 1991). Since
a petition for writ of certiorari is improper in the
court of appeals, Petitioner's arguments clearly
h2
indicate that he is requesting habeas corpus relief.
This is the second action filed by Petitioner
concerning the adoption of his natural daughter,
K.D., that has reached this court of appeal. In his
previous case, we held that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider the matter. We noted that
Petitioner alleges that the state-court decisions
regarding the custody of K.D., supervised
visitation, and petitioner's parental status,
violate his constitutional rights. The same
principles of comity that prevent us from
entertaining petitioner’s habeas petition also
preclude review of the state-court decisions
under the guise of a civil rights action.
Meyer v. Drell, 2001 WL 536881, at *2 (10" Cir. 2001)
(unpublished); see also Roman-Nose v. N.M. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 967 F.2d 435, 437 (10" Cir. 1992). The
only federal court with jurisdiction to review a state
court judgment for potential violations of federal
rights is the United States Supreme Court. See D.C.
h 3
Ct. of App. V. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482, 486
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-
16 (1923).
Because Petitioner challenges a final decree of
the Wyoming Supreme Court affirming the final
decree of the adoption of his daughter, we agree with
the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
the case. The appropriate method for seeking relief
from the Wyoming Supreme Court's decision is to file
a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court.
AFFIRMED
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
h4
APPENDIX
CIVIL APPEARANCE DOCKET
No. A7-3-00; Docket No. 236
FILED 3/21/00
PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF:
KELLY JOANNE DRELL, A Minor Child
vs.
ATTORNEYS:
For Plaintiff - Hardy Tate; for First Interstate
Bank, John Botten, Atty.
ACTION: Adoption
DATE DOCKET ENTRIES
3/21/00 Petition for Adoption 3cc: Tate, Drell,
Meyer; Consent to Adoption signed by
Carolyn Yeaman, Guardian of minor
child; Affidavit Pursuant to 1-22-] 04 (c)
(iv) - of Petitioners. Costs Paid: $25.00
filing fee.
3/28/00 Demand for Jury Trial (filed by Michael
Meyer). Costs Paid: $50.00 Jury; Motion
to Set Jury Trial Date. Costs Paid:
$45.00 Law Library. :
3/30/00 Response by Clerk to Jury Demand
3/30/00 Motion to Dismiss a Petition to Adopt;
| 4c: Meyer
3/30/00 Precipe for Subpoena; Subpoenas
issued (4).
3/30/00 Affidavit of Service - Michael Meyer
served personally
3/31/00 Motion to Dismiss a Petition to Adopt,
4c: Michael Meyer
4/3/00 Request for Appointment of Guardian
ad Litem
4/3/00 Motion to dismiss A Petition to Adopt;
II
—————EEEww
4/4/00
4/6/00
4/7/00
4/11/00
4/14/00
4c: Michael Meyer
Objection to Motion to Appoint Ross
Clanton as Guardian ad Litem; 4c:
Meyer
Objection to Subpoenas Served Upon
First Interstate Bank on Behalf of
Michael Theodore Meyer; c: J. Botten for
Bank
Motion to Dismiss a Petition to Adopt;
4c: M. Meyer
Order Setting Hearing 5/4/00 @°2:30
Pi; c: Tate in Box; mailed to Mike
Meyer, Ross Clanton.
Motion for Setting (To Include Med
Report) 4c: Meyer; Motion to Remove
and Replace Northern Wyoming Mental
Ill
Health Center, Inc. as Psychological
Caregiver, 4c: Mike Meyer.
4/14/00 Order Setting Hearing 5/4/00 @ 2:30
PM, c: Tate in box; mailed: M. Meyer,
Dan Wilde, Ross Clanton
5/1/00 Sheriff's Return First Interstate Bank
served 4/3/00.
CIVIL APPEARANCE DOCKET
No. A7-3-00; Docket No. 236
FILED 3/21/00
PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF:
KELLY JOANNE DRELL, A Minor Child
vs.
ATTORNEYS:
For Plaintiff - Hardy Tate; for First Interstate
Bank, John Botten, Atty.
ACTION: Adoption
DATE DOCKET ENTRIES
5/1/00 A Motion to Suppress Motion to Quash
IV
snitch
9/1/00
5/4/00
5/8/00
5/8/00
Subpoenas Duces Tecum
Order Setting Hearing on both motions
filed 5/1/00; Hearing: 5/17/00 @ 3:30
PM, c: Botten, Tate in box; mailed to
Michael Meyer, Dan Wilde, Ross
Clanton.
Certified copy of Motion for Guardian
ad Litem /Order Appointing Guardian
ad Litem (from Natrona County)
Response of Guardian ad Litem to
Michael Meyer’s Motions to Dismiss, c:
Clanton.
A Motion to Examine and Compare
Court Ordered Medical Report with
Evidence Presented in a Motion to
Include a Medical Report Filed April 6,
Vv
2000.
5/8/00 Motion for Setting (on above Motion to
Examine and Compare...)
5/9/00 Letter to Judge Brackley from Hardy
Tate re: 3 orders directed by Judge to
prepare Copy of letter addressed to
Michael Meyer from Hardy Tate re:
copies of the three orders Hardy was
directed to prepare.
5/9/00 Order Setting Hearing (Motion to
Examine and Compare Court Ordered
Med Reports) May 17, 2000 @ 3:30 PM,
c: Tate in box; mailed to M. Meyer, R.
Clanton, Dan Wilde.
5/9/00 Precipe for Subpoena - Subpoenas
issued (6) - William Tyrrell, Pam
VI
5/9/00
5/9/00
5/9/00
5/10/00
5/11/00
Christensen, Kim Larsen, Juli Wallen,
Trish Warren, Mary Bowers, MD
Precipe for Subpoena - Subpoenas
issued DFS (4), Salomon Smith Barney
(1), Mary Bowers, MD (1), NWMHC (4).
A Motion to Dismss, 4c: M. Meyer
Motion for Setting (Hearing on Motion
to Dismiss), 4c: Michael Meyer.
Order Setting Hearing (Motion to
Dismiss) 5/17/00 @ 3:30 PM, c: Tate in
box; mailed to M. Meyer, Ross Clarion,
Dan Wilde.
Minute Order AJ6-186 Dr. Mary Bowers
to prepare report regarding present
med condition of minor and submit to
court through Hardy Tate, cc: Tate, Ross
VII
5/11/00
5/11/00
5/11/00
5/16/00
Clanton, Mike Meyer, Lashley & Eunice
Drell.
Order Regarding Further Hearings AJ6-
187-188 All before 5/15/00 @ 2:30 PM;
all previously filed motions shall be
heard 5/17/00 @ 3:30 PM, cc: Tate, Mike
Meyer, Ross Clanton, Lashley Drell.
Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem
AJ6-189-192; Ross Clanton appt as GAL,
cc: Tate, Meyer, Drell’s, Clanton.
Objection to Ten Day Limitation on
Filing Motions, 4c: Meyer
Document Delivery - Subpoenas Duces
Tecum and Subpoena to Appear - Mary
Bowers, MD - served 5/10/00;
Document Deliver - (4) Subpoenas
Vill
5/19/00
9/25/00
5/31/00
Duces Tecum and (1) Subpoena to |
Appear - NWMHC - served 5/10/00
(Pam Christensen); Document Delivery
- (3) Subpoenas Duces Tecum - Salomon
Smith Barney - served personally
9/11/00; Document Delivery - (4)
Subpoena Duces Tecum and (3)
Subpoena to Appear (Trish Warren,
Kim Larsen, William Tyrrell) - served
5/10/00; Subpoena for Juli Wallen not
served as unable to find her.
Order for Setting 7/12/00 @ 9:00 am, Cc:
Tate in box; mailed to Ross Clanton,
Michaei Meyer.
Medical report from Mary Bowers, MD
Objection to Order Dismissing Motions
IX
6/1/00
6/1/00
6/2/00
6/2/00
to dismiss a Petition to Adopt.
Order on Motions and objections related
to subpoenas served upon First
Interstate Bank on Behalf of Michael
Meyer AJ6-196 Copy mailed to Meyer
and Botten in Box.
Order Requiring Production of Bank
Statements AJ6-197-198 CC to Meyer,
Clanton, Tate and Drell by Clerk.
Order Dismissing Motions AJ6-199 CC
to: Clanton, Tate, Drell, Meyer, Kirven;
Drell’s given to Tate.
Letter to Judge Brackley from Ross
Clanton re: letter written to M. Meyer
giving him 10 days to file answer or face
default.
a
6/8/00 Letter to Judge Brackley from Ross
Clanton with copy of Order Denying
Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Sup Ct)
6/29/00 A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
6/30/00 Order Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus
AJ6-205; cc: Tate in box; mailed to M.
Meyer, Ross Clanton.
7/3/00 Letter to Judge Brackley from Michael
Meyer re: Order Requiring Production
of Bank Statements
7/7/00 Copy of Letter addressed to Judy
Pacheco of Sup Ct (Notice that 7/12/00
trial is vacated). Copies sent to parties
by L. Leupold.
CIVIL APPEARANCE DOCKET
No. A7-3-00; Docket No. 236
FILED 3/21/00
PARTIES
XI
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF:
KELLY JOANNE DRELL, A Minor Child
Vs.
ATTORNEYS:
For Plaintiff - Hardy Tate
Hon Nicholas Kalokathis
309 W. 20" St., Suite 3348
Cheyenne, WY 82001
ACTION: Adoption
DATE
7/13/00
7/19/00
7/21/00
7/31/00
DOCKET ENTRIES
Letter addressed to Judge Brackley from
Judy Pacheco of Sup. Ct. re: Justices to
decide on petition of writ of Habeas
Corpus at next conference.
Fax copy of Order Denying Writ and
Lifting Stay.
Order Denying Writ and Lifting Stay.
Order of Assignment AJ6-224; cc: Tate
in box; mailed to M. Meyer, Ross
XII
8/16/00
8/18/00
8/21/00
8/29/00
Clanton, Judge Kalokathis w/ copy of
file.
Copy of Guardian ad Litem’s Response
to Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
with letter from Ross Clanton.
Letter to Judge Brackley from Ross
Clanton re: resetting of trial date; Copy
of Order Assigning Case to Expedite
Docket; Request for Setting
Request for Setting / Notice of Setting
10/24/00 @ 9:00 am _c: Tate, Ross
Clanton, Dan Wilde, Mike Meyer, Judge
Kalokathis.
Copy of Letter addressed to Mike
Meyer from US Court of Appeals in the
Tenth Circuit re: appeal with
XIII
9/6/00
9/6/00
10/6/00
attachments; Notice of Appeal
Concerning A Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Pro Se Docketing
Statement and Order Denying Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Copy of letter addressed to Mike Meyer
from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals - |
Court has docketec appeal &.
Kalokathis.
Copy of letter addressed to Judge
Kalokathis from Mike Meyer re: Order
Requiring Prod of Bank Statement and
Order Regarding Further Hearings. C:
Kalokathis.
Letter from Judge Kalokathis addressed
to parties involved re: unable to act on
XIV
10/20/00
10/23/00
10/23/00
10/30/00
11/9/00
Meyer’s request.
Order Vacating Trial (10/24 /00 trial
vacated) AJ6-231 cc: Tate in box;
mailed to D. Wilde, R. Clanton, Mike
Meyer, Judge Kalokathis.
Copy of letter written by Mike Meyer to
Judge Kalokathis regarding Hardy
Tate’s appointment as Magistrate.
Order Re-Assigning Case AJ6-236 (back
to J. Brackley) cc: Tate, Wilde, Clanton,
Meyer. i
Order of Assignment AJ6-237-238
(Assigned to Dan Spangler) cc: Tate,
Clanton, Meyer, Wilde, Judge Spangler.
A Motion of Preemptory
Disqualification Upon Judge Dan
XV
11/20/00
11/29/00
12/1/00
1/4/01
1/8/01
1/10/01
Spangler.
Order of Assignment AJ6-247 Hon
David B. Park to preside; cc: Park,
Clanton, Meyer mailed; Tate in box.
Return receipt filed (sent copy of case to
Judge Park).
Request for Setting / Notice of Setting
1/22/01 @ 1:30 PM
Correspondence from Judge Park’s
office w/copy of letter sent to Michael
Meyer re: hearing location.
Letter from Judge Park's office with
copy of Mike Meyer’s correspondence
addressed to him re: Hardy Tate.
Copy of letter written by Judge Park to
Michael Meyer re: Hardy Tate’s
XVI
1/12/01
1/21/01
1/23/01
1/25/01
1/29/01
2/14/01
representation of DFS.
Precipe for Subpoena, subpoena issued
(2) Allison Morrison, Michael Smith
Precipe for Subpoena, Subpoena issued
(3) Pam Christiansen, Pam Emerson,
Tara Kwolek.
Subpoenas filed (3) - Pam Christianson,
Pam Emerson and Tara Kwolek served
pers on 1/12/01.
Subpoena filed - Michael Smith served
per.
Excerpt of Transcript of Trial
Proceeding.
Final Decree of Adoption AJ6-260-262;
cc: Tate, Mike Meyer, Drell’s, Ross
Clanton, Judge Park.
XVII
2/14/01
3/9/01
3/16/01
3/26/01
Letter addressed to Judge Park from
Mike Meyer.
Letter addressed to Ross
Clanton/Casper from Atty. Hardy Tate
dated 1/29/01, re: Final Decree of
Adopt; letter addressed to Atty. Tate
from Hon. David B. Park dated
2/13/01, re: Sign and forward Final
Decree; A Notice of Appeal/by Michael
Theodore Meyer; 12 c: Meyer-pers. (Pd.
$60 filing fee; holding $85 for Supreme
Court.
Copy of letter addressed to Michael
Meyer from Bobbette Jasmann re: copy
of transcript from hearing held 1/22/01.
Certification of Transcript Request; 14c:
XVIII
5/8/01
5/10/01
9/21/01
6/25/01
7/2/01
Meyer.
Official Court Reporter’s Certificate of
Completion Transcript of Trial
Proceedings (1/22/01).
Letter to Supreme Court Re: Record
complete (three (3) vols. Sent $85.00
filing fee and copy of Index c: M.
Meyer-mld, Patsction (with copy of
Index of Record).
Letter from Supreme Court dated
9/17/01, Re: Appeal docketed; receipt
enclosed for $85; Appellant Brief due in
45 days.
Brief of the Appellant/ filed by Michael
Theodore Meyer w/no Designation.
An Addition to the Brief of the
XIX
Appellant/by M. Meyer/A Designation
of Court Documents/by M. Meyer.
8/1/01
8/22/01
8/24/01
8/28/01
8/29/01
2/19/02
Appellee’s Designation of Record/by
Tate.
Letter from Supreme Court dated
8/20/01, Re: Request to send Record: on
Appeal.
Letter to Supreme Court sending Record
On Appeal (five (5) volumes) c: Atty.
Tate, M. Meyer-mid Certificate of
Record.
Certified Mail Receipt/ filed from SC
Letter from Supreme Court, dated
8/27/01, Re: Record On Appeal filed
8/27/01.
Supreme Court Opinion
XX
3/5/02
3/6/02
8/8/02
8/8/02
8/9/02
8/9/02
8/9/02
Mandate Affirming Judgment from
Supreme Court c: M. Meyer-mld Atty.
Tate-box.
Letter from Supreme Court dated
3/4/02, re: Mandate issued; appeal (5
volumes) being returned today.
Fax copy of letter addressed to CDC
from Sue Charfield, Asst AG re: Motion
for Release of Confidential Files.
Fax copy of Motion for Release of
Confidential Files.
Original letter from S. Chatfield re:
Motion
Motion for Release of Confidential Files
c: Chatfield.
Fax copy of Order Granting Release of
XXI
8/13/02
8/14/02
Confidential Files.
Order Granting Release of Confidential
Files AJ6-334 cc: Tate in box; mailed to
Sue Shatfield, Michael Meyer.
Return Receipt filed show Sue Chatfield
received adoption files.
XXII
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.