June 15, 1998 initial filing of Lambros' DECLARATORY JUDGMENT and/or COMPLAINT in LAMBROS vs. FAULKNER, Civil No. 98-1621. This document includes the one page CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS NOT INCLUDED.

I hereby state under the penalty of perjury that a true and correct copy of the attached:

1. DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT/COMPLAINT in JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS vs. ESTATE/WILL/ BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, et al.; 2. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FROM DEFENDANT SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER in JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS vs. ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, et al;

both dated June 15, 1998, to the following persons: SERVED ON 17th day June, 1998.

1. CLERK OF THE COURT

District of Minnesota
U.S. Federal Courthouse
316 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1460
One original & one copy
U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z-109-977-241
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.

2. Attorney Sheila Regan Faulkner
2680 Sumac Ridge
St. Paul, Minnesota 5511
U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z-109-977-242
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.

Signed:

John Gregory Lambros, Pro Se
Reg. No. 00436-124
USP Leavenworth
P.O. Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000
USA

Also global internet release to human rights groups and universities as well as supporters of BOYCOTT BRAZIL.
THANK YOU.

John Gregory Lambros, #00436-124
USP Leavenworth, PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
Web site:
http://www.brazilboycott.org

Plaintiff,

vs

ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA

FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys-at-Law, 2680 Sumac Ridge, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 USA;

JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of John Gregory Lambros;

Defendants (Severally and jointly liable).

CIVIL CASE NO. 98-1621 (DSD/JMM)

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY, Title 28 USC Rule 38 & 39.

COMPANION CASE NO. U.5. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal File No. C-4-89-82(05), District of Minnesota, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 65 F.3d 6g8 (lgg5) .

1. This is a DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT ACTION/COMPLAINT, brought Faulkner, to determine whether deceased Attorney Charles W. et al., defendant's (hereinafter Defendant's) acting as appointed counsel for Plaintiff John Gregory Lambros (hereinafter Plaintiff) have DEFAULTED as to the COMMERCIAL LIEN filed by Plaintiff to guarantee the payment to repair damages/injuries caused to plaintiff, by Defendant's, as to LEGAL MALPRACTICE which included claims of (a) breach of duty; (b) failure to exercise due diligence; (c) negligence; (d) improper advice; (e) failure to interview and/or subpoena witnesses; (f) failure to consult with and/or communicate regularly with client; and (g) failure to understand or know or apply the law. The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that federally appointed counsel is subject to suit for MALPRACTICE. See, FERRI vs. ACKERMAN, 444 US 193, 62 L.Ed2d 355, 100 S.Ct. 402 (1979).

2. Plaintiff believes that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in ORDERING DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AS TO LACK OF DEFENDANT'S DUTY TO RESPOND to the COMMERCIAL LIEN filed by Plaintiff in this action.

3. If this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in ORDERING DEFAULT JUDGEMENT in this action, as per paragraph 2, this plaintiff requests this action to proceed as a DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT/COMPLAINT as to the actions of Defendant's.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title 28, Sections 1331, 2201, 2202, 1441(b), as this action contains claims that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Also claims under the State of Minnesota Constitution, Brazilian Constitution, Common Laws and the Attorney's Code of Professional Responsibility.

5. Plaintiff was in the custody of the U.S. Attorney General at all times during his interaction and legal relationship with Defendant's and is currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth, where he has drafted and mailed, via U.S. Postal Service, all pleadings served upon Defendant's in this case.

6. Defendant's were appointed by Daniel M. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minnesota to represent Plaintiff in federal criminal case, District of Minnesota, USA vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05). Defendant's were in private practice during representation of Plaintiff and paid pursuant to an hourly billing rate. See, DANIEL M. SCOTT'S LETTER TO PLAINTIFF LAMBROS, dated August 18, 1997: (Exhibit A, 1 page)

Mr. Faulkner was an attorney in private practice during his representation of you. He was paid pursuant to an hourly billing rate. I know of no case that has converted that contract relationship into an employer/employee relationship. In fact, in FERRI V6. ACKERMAN, 100 S. Ct. 402 (1979) the Supreme Court made clear that federally appointed counsel is subject to suit for malpractice.

I only bring up that to remind you in the strongest terms that it is likely that the statute of limitations in which to file such a suit is running. If the suit is not filed within the time limit set by law then the courts will be denied the jurisdiction to provide relief.

7. Plaintiff was denied the standards of effective assistance of counsel and Defendant's did breach duties of legal malpractice and principles of there profession in holding themselves out to serve this Plaintiff. thus liable for there negligent performance of duties undertaken. Plaintiff did not have a causal relationship to Defendant's errors. The sum payable to Plaintiff would exceed $50,000.00. Title 28 U.S.C.S. 55 1332(a), 1332(b).

8. Plaintiff is actually innocent of all charges. This rule has not been upheld in other courts. See, WILEY vs. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Calif. CtApp, No. D022069, 10/15/97, Criminal Law Reporter, 62 CrL 1097, 10/29/97 (Legal Malpractice plaintiff not required to prove innocence to sue defense counsel).

9. Statute of limitations for LEGAL MALPRACTICE action in the State of Minnesota is six (6) years. See DUNNELL MINNESOTA DIGEST, Fourth Edition, Volume 4, Butterworth Legal Publishers, ATTORNEYS 5 ll.OO(f) (A LEGAL MALPRACTICE action must be commenced within six years from the date of injury y or damages.)

10. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, decided on September 8, 1995 in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, 65 F.3d 698 (1995) "Defendant Lambros who was convicted of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine was not subject to statute's mandatory life sentence, where statute did not take effect until well after conspiracy end date charged in indictment." "Accordingly, Lambros must be resentenced on Count 1."

11. Plaintiff understands it is not necessary to set aside the above claim, as the Eighth Circuit did, in bringing a MALPRACTICE SUIT. See, KRAHN vs. KINNEY, 538 N.E. 2d 1058 (1989) and FISCHER vs. LONGEST, 644 A.2d 488 (1994)

12. A motion for judgment by default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55 is appropriate when a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process, involving first having the clerk of the Court enter the default. See, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55(a). This Court has the authority to ORDER the Clerk of the Court to enter the default as this Plaintiff's claims are for sum certain; the default is for failure of Defendant's to make an appearance/respond to Plaintiff's COMMERCIAL LIEN; and the Defendant's are not infants or incompetent persons. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55(b)(1).

13. This is a VERIFIED COMPLAINT, as to the good faith in averments and statements of this Plaintiff.

14. Plaintiff has been prejudiced as to the defendant's conduct.

15. Thus this Court has jurisdiction.

16. Plaintiff is currently a federal prisoner imprisoned at the U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth, Leavenworth, Kansas pursuant to a sentence rendered in the United States District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is not an issue herein.

17. Defendant Attorney Charles W. Faulkner died sometime in the past twelve months, thus Plaintiff requests that this action be forwarded to Attorney Charles W. Faulkner's ESTATE, WILL, BUSINESS INSURANCE POLICY and all assets. Attorney C.W. Faulkner represented Plaintiff in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, District of Minnesota, CR-4-89-82(05) at the probable cause hearing through sentencing.

18. Defendant Sheila Regan Faulkner is the wife of Attorney C.W. Faulkner and is a partner with C.W. Faulkner's legal practice, FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorney's-at-Law, who represented Plaintiff.

19. Defendant FAULKNER & FAULKNER is the legal firm that represented Plaintiff in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, District of Minnesota, CR-4-89-82(05).

20. JOHN & JANE DOE'S, persons that where employed by Attorney C.W. Faulkner, Sheila Regan Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of Plaintiff in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, District of Minnesota, CR-4-89-82(05).

21. On May 17, 1991, Plaintiff was arrested in Brazil on a Parole Violation Warrant as to alleged criminal conduct in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, District of Minnesota, CR-4-89-82(05).

22. On July 11, 1991, Plaintiff was forcibly transferred to the Brazilian Federal Police Station Detention Center, Brasilia, Brazil where he was held in a "DEPATTERNING CELL," depatterned, tortured daily, force implanted with brain control implants that monitor and control Plaintiff's mental functions, thoughts, and deeds to this day. See, February 13, 1998 NATIONAL LEGAL PROFESSIONAL EXTRADITION, MIND ASSOCIATES, MEMORANDUM, RE: INTERNATIONAL CONTROL, RADIO-IMPLANTS, AND CIA TRACKING CHIPS. (Exhibit B, 2 pages)

23. On August 15, 1991, Plaintiff went before the Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Carlos Velloso as to his extradition in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82.

24. On April 30, 1992, Plaintiff was ORDERED by the Brazilian Supreme Court to be extradited to the United States on PARTIAL EXTRADITION in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82.

25. On June 19, 1992 Plaintiff was extradited from Brazil to the United States and arrived in the United States on or about June 21, 1992.

26. Plaintiff was introduced to Defendant C.W. Faulkner his appointed counsel in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, in June 1992, as CR-4-89-82.

27. On July 17, 1992, Plaintiff was x-rayed as to the existence of brain control implants that torture him daily, that monitor and control Plaintiff's mental functions, thoughts, deeds and force involuntary religious servitude. The x-ray shows clusters of punctate radiopaque foreign bodies within the lateral views. See attached RADIOLOGIC CONSULTATION REQUEST/REPORT, Federal Medical Center, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Rochester, Minnesota, dated July 22, 1992 and picture of x-ray that shows radioimplants. (Exhibit C, 2 pages)

28. On or about August 1992, Plaintiff requested Defendants to hire a private investigator to interview Plaintiff's attorney's in Brazil and Brazilian Government Officials who where aware of the torture center Plaintiff was placed in during detention in Brazil. It is Plaintiff's understanding that most prisoners in Brazilian detention centers are implanted as mass implantation of the Brazilian population started in the late 60s. Plaintiff continued his requests to Defendants to interview Plaintiff's attorneys in Brazil, to no avail.

29. On or about August 26, 1992, Plaintiff assisted Defendants in drafting FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT/PRIVACY ACT requests to twenty-eight (28) or thirty (30) U.S., Brazilian Agencies and individuals. It is Plaintiff's understanding that Defendants mailed all FOIA/Privacy Act requests on or about September 1, 1992, thus acting in a discovery capacity. The U.S. Marshals Office, Director, 600 Army-Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202 was served. (Exhibit D, 5 pages). (September 1, 1993, MOTION FOR THIS COURT TO SUBPOENA ALL INDIVIDUALS AND UNITED STATES AND BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LISTED IN JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS' AUGUST 26, 1992, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUEST, THAT HAVE NOT RESPONDED OR WITHHELD INFORMATION REGARDING THE REQUEST TO RESPOND TO THIS COURT, SO AS TO STOP ON-GOING TORTURE, PREVENT FURTHER MEDICAL DAMAGES, HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND ASSIST THIS COURT IN THE CORRECTION OF INCORRECT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN LAMBROS' PRESENTENCE REPORT.)

30. On October 15, 1992, Plaintiff wrote Defendants as to his problems in communicating with Defendants: (Exhibit E, 1 page):

Please advise me if I have bad breath or should use more underarm deodorant, as it must take an act of GOD to set-up telephone calls with you to discuss strategy. There are a lot of motions forthcoming and I must insist that I'm part of each, prior to submitting same to court. Have you submitted the xerox copies of the receipts as to funds I expended on the copying of the 30 FOIA? I could use the funds. [Defendants never repaid Plaintiff for mailings, copying or telephone calls]

31. Defendants received via discovery. sometime in 1992, copy of the March 7, 1990 letter from the United States Marshals Office, District of Minnesota to the Chief Postal Inspector, a penalty fine of which clearly states Plaintiff could not receive more than thirty (30) years imprisonment and/or $250,000.00. (Exhibit F, 1 page)

Our office is conducting an official investigation of John Gregory Lambros, who is wanted by the U.S. Marshals, District of Minnesota, for distribution of cocaine, in violation of Title 21 USC S846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). These offenses carry penalties of thirty (30) years imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000.00

32. On November 16, 1992 Thomas B. Heffelfinger, U.S. Attorney and Douglas R. Peterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney submitted the government's PLEA PROPOSAL to defendant Charles W. Faulkner in U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal Case No. 4-89-82(5), which stated in paragraph two (2) that Plaintiff Lambros charge on Count VIII carries a maximum potential penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE. Paragraph three of the governments PLEA AGREEMENT states that "Counts V and VI carry the SAME MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PENALTIES AS THE COUNT VIII CHARGE." "CONVICTION ON THE COUNT I CHARGE, HOWEVER, WOULD CARRY A MANDATORY TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND A FINE MAXIMUM OF $8 MILLION.) (EXHIBIT G, 6 pages).

33. On November 17, 1992, Defendant C.W. Faulkner wrote Plaintiff Lambros, or. FAULKNER & FAULKNER stationary, regarding U.S. vs. LAMBROS, Criminal Case No. 4-89-82(5), stating that it was Defendant C.W. Faulkner's best advice given all the circumstances, to accept the government's attached November 16, 1992 PLEA AGREEMENT.

Attached please find the results of our negotiations for a plea agreement in your case. It allows you considerable latitude to argue that you ought to be treated in the same range as the other defendants and it avoids the mandatory life count. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the Government won't go much further than this and that they would relish the possibility of telling Judge Murphy that you were made a FAIR OFFER AND REJECTED IT, thus SETTING YOU UP FOR A LIFE TERM WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

My best advice given all the circumstance is that you should accept this offer. You must contact me to do so before November 23, 1992. (Exhibit H, 1 page)

34. On April 12, 1993, Plaintiff received a letter from Wesley Robinson, National Legal Professional Associates as to the research Defendants ordered. Defendants refused to pay and the pleading were never received as to Motions pursuant to Rule 32. (Exhibit I, 1 page)

35. Plaintiff's jury trial started on January 4, Plaintiff was represented by Defendants.

36. On January 15, 1993, the jury found Plaintiff guilty on all four counts.

37. On April 19, 1993, Plaintiff wrote Defendants as to the hiring of National Legal Professional Associates to construct Plaintiff's Rule 32 Motion and Memorandum of Law, as per telephone conversations. defendant's need to contact National Legal Professional Associates, need to transcribe documents from Brazil that Defendant's refused to request, thus Plaintiff had to have his family hire another attorney to request same and the lack of contact with Defendants. (Exhibit J, 2 pages)

38. Plaintiff's August 30, 1993, Motion to the Court "MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY TO EXCEPT TELEPHONE CALLS FROM DEFENDANT." (Exhibit K, 4 pages)

39. Plaintiff's September 27, 1993 letter to Defendants requesting MRI, investigation of U.S. Marshals who stated they observed foreign bodies/implants within Plaintiff's skull during a CAT scan at ABBOTT NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL, and why Plaintiff had not received copy of the MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON THE SPECIALTY DOCTRINE. The copy of the Memorandum of Law on the Specialty Doctrine was never prepared by Defendants and Defendants lied to Plaintiff. (Exhibit L, 2 pages).

4C. September 28, 1993 letter from National Legal Professional Associates to Defendants as to Plaintiff's complaints in not being able to communicate with Defendants and requesting Defendants to take legal actions for Plaintiff that Defendants are not taking in the representation of Plaintiff. Regarding: 1. Specialty Doctrine; 2. MRI exam;

3. Subpoena of 59 witnesses; 4. Lack of communication and specific defense strategy Defendants are taking in the representation of Plaintiff.(Exhibit M, 2 pages)

41. October 14, 1993, Plaintiff's motion to the Court "MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES IN INDICTMENT 4-89-82(05) BRAZILIAN EXTRADITION PROCESS #539-1/120 DUE TO THE DELIBERATE COVER-UP BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE TORTURE OF JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS." (Exhibit N, 5 pages)

42. Plaintiff's Sentencing Hearing was held on January 27, 1994. At that time, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole on Count One; a term of imprisonment of 120 months on Count Two and Three; and a term of 360 months imprisonment on Count Four. All sentences were to be served concurrently. In addition, the Plaintiff was sentenced to serve a term of supervised release of eight years, and pay a $200 special assessment.

43. Plaintiff Lambros served on October 20, 1997, the October 16, 1997, A SECURITY (15 U.S.C.) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN AND AFFIDAVIT and the October 16, 1997, PARTIAL LIST OF PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED AND HELD IN ESCROW FOR THE FUTURE SATISFACTION OF THIS COMMERCIAL LIEN, MAKING THIS LIEN A SECURITY REPRESENTING LIEN CLAIMANTS EQUITABLE INTERESTS. (Exhibit 0, 12 pages).

44. Plaintiff Lambros served on on February 13, 1998, the February the February 6, 1998, NOTICE OF DEFAULT, "A SECURITY (15 U.S.C.) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN THAT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 20, 1997, and AFFIDAVlT' with exhibits. (Exhibit P, 7 pages).

45. Plaintiff Lambros served on April 6, 1998, to Defendants et al. "DEMAND FOR PAYMENT, A SECURITY (15 U.S.C.) CLAIM OF COMMERCIAL LIEN THAT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 and AFFIDAVIT with exhibits. (Exhibit Q, 6 pages).

46. Plaintiff Lambros wrote the Office of the Secretary of State in Minnesota on May 21, 1998 requesting background information on the law firm FAULKNER & FAULKNER regarding the fact if the law firm was doing business in the as a Minnesota Company, corporation, limited partnership, etc. On June 1, 1998 the Office responded stating that "NO RECORDS" existed for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. (Exhibit R, 1 page).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF DUTY

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
IMPROPER ADVICE

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO INTERVIEW AND/OR SUBPOENA WITNESSES

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO CONSULT WITH AND/OR COMMUNICATE REGULARLY WITH CLIENT

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND OR KNOW OR APPLY THE LAW

1. For 1st cause of Action $142 Million;

2. For 2nd cause of action $142 Million;

3. For 3rd cause of action $142 Million;

4. For 4th cause of action $142 Million;

5. For 5th cause of action $142 Million;

6. For 6th cause of action $142 Million;

7. For 7th cause of action $142 Million;

For pain suffering and actual injuries to Plaintiffs body, enjoyment of use, loss of wages, residual pain, etc. $2 Billion.

TOTAL DAMAGES $2,994,000,000.00. ($2 Billion 994 Million U.S. Dollars)

Plaintiff Lambros requests the following SUM CERTAIN actual and punitive damages from Defendants due to injuries sustained herein:

1. Attorney Charles W. Faulkner, and/or Estate/Will/Business Insurance due to the fact he is deceased: $900 Million;

2. Attorney Sheila Regan Faulkner, $900 Million;

3. Faulkner & Faulkner, Attorneys at Law, $900 Million;

4. John & Jane Doe's, persons employed by C.W. Faulkner and S.R. Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner in the representation of Plaintiff Lambros, $294 Million.

I hereby certify that the above is true and correct pursuant to Title 28 USCA §1746.

DATED: June 15,1998

Signed:

John Gregory Lambros, Pro Se
No. 00436-124 USP Leavenworth
P.0. Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000

INFORMATION RELEASE:

On or about April 1998 inmate RICHARD HUNTER, US BUREAU OF PRISONS NO. 80538-012 was informed by USP Leavenworth hospital staff after x-rays that he had implants/ foreign bodies within his skull. HUNTER believes that the implants may of been placed within his skull during medical care at USP LOMPOC in Santa Barbara, California.

THIS LEGAL ACTION WILL BE RELEASED TO HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND UNIVERSITIES GLOBALLY VIA THE INTERNET.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT.

The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:
http://www.brazilboycott.org

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage

For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
USA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.

---