Stuart M. Suster,                                             )(

            Plaintiff                                                )(

                                                                        )(          Civil Action No. ________________

v.                                                                     )(         

                                                                        )(          COMPLAINT

Ruby Jefferson-Moore, Individually;                )(

Arthur Thexton, Individually; and                     )(          (Demand for Jury Trial)

Wayne Austin, Individually,                             )(

            Defendants.                                        )(







            NOW COMES the Plaintiff to show the Court the following:

I.  Parties

1.)     The Plaintiff in this case is Stuart M. Suster and a resident of the State of Wisconsin whose address is 929 North Astor St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.

2.)     The Defendant, Ruby Jefferson-Moore, is a resident of the State of Wisconsin whose address is 1400 E. Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53708.

3.)     The Defendant, Arthur Thexton, is a resident of the State of Wisconsin whose address is 1400 E. Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53708.

4.)  The Defendant, Wayne Austin, is a resident of the State of Wisconsin whose

address is 1400 E. Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53708.

II. Jurisdiction

This action is brought pursuant to Title 42 USC §§1983-88, Title 28 U.C §1331, Title 28 USC 1343, State law claims under Title 28 USC §1367 and the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.



III.  Venue

Venue is based upon Title 28 USC §1391, by virtue of the fact that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred within the district.

IV.  Statement of Case

The Plaintiff, Stuart M. Suster, is a licensed practicing physician in the State of Wisconsin.  The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board (“WMEB”) started an investigation against the Plaintiff substantially due to a billing dispute with a health insurance provider.  Due to ideological, economical, philosophical and political differences, the WMEB decided that the Plaintiff must be adverse to the jurisdiction and authority of the WMEB.  The Defendants acting under color of State law used their office with the WMED to act in their individual capacity against the Plaintiff in violation of his civil and constitutional rights.  The overt acts are outlined in Counts 1 through 10 of this Complaint.

V.  Count 1

The State of Florida denied Plaintiff’s application for medical license based substantially on Arthur Thexton’s illegal investigations in Wisconsin.

VI.  Count 2

Arthur Thexton and others willfully and knowingly encouraged, inflamed the passions and prejudices, enticed and coerced relatives, etc., former and present patients, to testify and make statements against Plaintiff with misrepresentations, false and perjured declarations, when in fact, said patients had only grievances and self-interests not related to the jurisdictional Medical Board investigations against Plaintiff.

VII.  Count 3

Arthur Thexton and Ruby Jefferson-Moore had numerous ex parte communications to conspire against Plaintiff concerning his legal pleadings and strategies that greatly prejudiced the Plaintiff’s due process rights of law.


VIII.  Count 4

Arthur Thexton and Wayne Austin refused to adequately respond and comply with legitimate and legal due process requests concerning –

a.)         Pre-administrative hearing concerning final decision to investigate and summary judgment determination of guilt of Plaintiff.

b.)         Index and cross-index to statute all Board opinions, decisions, ruling, interpretations, etc. concerning allegations in the original Complaint.

c.)         Complying with the Privacy Act of 1974 since the Board assumed Federal jurisdiction and is a nominee for Federal agencies.

d.)         Complying with providing all rules and regulations concerning allegations in the Complaint against Plaintiff.

e.)         Complying with providing copies of Oaths of Office for all Board members and appointed officers.

f.)           Providing necessary rules of interpretation or construction in the Administrative action.

g.)         Providing copes of verification of certification, dating and filing of regulations used in the Complaint against Plaintiff.

These are all in violation of due process and equal protection under the law of the Plaintiff.

IX.  Count 5

Ruby Jefferson-Moore ordered Plaintiff to cease and desist a proper legal process of a counter-claim and cross-claiming persons that have harmed, violated or made false witness declarations and statements against the Plaintiff in violation of due process and equal protection under the law of the Plaintiff.



X.  Count 6

Ruby Jefferson-Moore ordered Plaintiff to be under an illegal jurisdiction, venue and authority when in fact the original Complaint was fatally defective and did not exist due to several missing legal and fact essential elements, overcharging with federal regulations and where overt acts were outside the statute of limitations in violation of due process and equal protection under the law.

XI.  Count 7

Ruby Jefferson-Moore deliberately delayed rulings on motions of the Plaintiff, while at the same time, made timely rulings for the Board to greatly prejudice and harm Plaintiff so that he could not adequately prepare for trial in violation of due process and equal protection under the law.

XII.  Count 8

All of the above Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in violating his due process of law and equal protection under the law both individually and in combined conspiracy among themselves.  The Defendants had an improper ulterior motive for the discrimination.

XIII.  Count 9

All of the Defendants were only concerned with injustice, prejudice and unfairness to be administrated to the Plaintiff through their acts, words and deeds in violation of due process of law and equal protection under the law. 

XIV.  Count 10

All of the Defendants violated and deprived the Plaintiff of liberty concerning the right to be left alone and pursue one’s chosen profession without interference and harassment under the liberty clause of due process in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deprived and are continuing to deprive Plaintiff of property under the property clause of due process in the Fifth Amendment causing the Plaintiff to experience undue difficulty and expense in protecting his interest.

XV.  Conclusion

Therefore, due to the severe harassment, intimidation and illegal overt acts against the Plaintiff, he has endured and suffered great harm in less income, loss of business opportunity, loss of reputation, loss of liberty and property, loss of due process of law and equal protection of the law outside of a legitimate government interest and which was totally unwarranted.

XVI.  Damages

The Plaintiff asks this Court for a judgment in his favor and actual damages of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) from each defendant.  The Plaintiff also asks for Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) in punitive damages from each defendant.

            Due to the fact that the defendants may be unable or unwilling to pay for said damages in cash, Plaintiff demands that any and all personal and real assets be the subject matter for damages which would include but is not limited to any and all real property, stocks, bonds, vehicles, certificates of deposits, money market accounts, equipment, furniture, jewelry, boats, sporting equipment, etc.  Therefore, the defendants’ real and person property will be subject to a Notice of Lis Pendens prohibiting the sale or disposition of said property until a final disposition of this cause of action.

XVII.  Request for Temporary and Permanent Injunction

The Plaintiff is entitled to an immediate temporary injunction due to the continuing abuse, actions and violations of substantial rights caused by the defendants.  It is certain that irreparable and irreversible harm will result if this Court does not issue a temporary injunction and finally, a permanent injunction.  The Plaintiff will prevail on these claims and the defendants cannot prevail due to the overwhelming legal grounds and evidence against them in this case.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,



                                                                        Stuart M. Suster, M.D.

                                                                        929 North Astor St.

                                                                        Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53202

                                                                        (414) 443-6432




            IT IS HEREBY Verified that under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

            Witness my hand and seal this ________ day of December, 2003.


                                                                        Stuart M. Suster, M.D.