STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Civil Action No. ________________
Thexton, Individually; and
(Demand for Jury Trial)
TO USC TITLE 42 §§1983-88
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
NOW COMES the Plaintiff to show the Court the following:
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
The Defendant, Ruby Jefferson-Moore, is a resident of the State of
Wisconsin whose address is 1400 E. Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53708.
The Defendant, Arthur Thexton, is a resident of the State of Wisconsin
whose address is 1400 E. Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53708.
The Defendant, Wayne Austin, is a resident of the State of Wisconsin
is 1400 E. Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53708.
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.
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.
Statement of Case
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.
State of Florida denied Plaintiff’s application for medical license based
substantially on Arthur Thexton’s illegal investigations in Wisconsin.
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
VII. Count 3
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
Thexton and Wayne Austin refused to adequately respond and comply with
legitimate and legal due process requests concerning –
Pre-administrative hearing concerning final decision to investigate and
summary judgment determination of guilt of Plaintiff.
Index and cross-index to statute all Board opinions, decisions, ruling,
interpretations, etc. concerning allegations in the original Complaint.
Complying with the Privacy Act of 1974 since the Board assumed Federal
jurisdiction and is a nominee for Federal agencies.
Complying with providing all rules and regulations concerning allegations
in the Complaint against Plaintiff.
Complying with providing copies of Oaths of Office for all Board members
and appointed officers.
Providing necessary rules of interpretation or construction in the
Providing copes of verification of certification, dating and filing of
regulations used in the Complaint against Plaintiff.
are all in violation of due process and equal protection under the law of the
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Request for Temporary and Permanent Injunction
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.
Stuart M. Suster, M.D.
929 North Astor St.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
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.