And trial attorney Jeffrey D. Sobel informed the court at sentencing in regard to the Parole And Probation Report and the Department's customs, practices, policies, and procedures, that in his six (6) years of himself practicing before the court and dealing with the Parole And Probation Department that;
  "I think the significance is here and I have seen it in  the six years that I have been practicing on matters in front of parole boards that you have got to admit that you are guilty of the crime or you are not going to get parole,"(ROA p. 523 L's 26-30. * * * "and I know from two lie detector's test that he was given, one by an expert from Utah and one by a local lie detector operator that if Mr. Vipperman committed this offense, he really has no memory of it."  (ROA 524 L's 9-12). * * * "The report (Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation Pre-Sentence Report) gives absolutely no indication why they are choosing life rather than five years.  I wrote to them and I said I will give you a complete list of everybody that knows Vipperman so that you could see what sort of man he is.   They never contacted me and I know they never contacted anyone of the family who has been standing behind him all of this time."  (ROA p. 526 L's 16-22).

   During Vipperman's first trial, he caught the prosecutors Earl Gripentrog, Jeffrey Silvers, and Court Service Officer Mel Jackson in the act of "making deals" with jail inmates to commit perjury against Vipperman in trial, in exchange for their release from incarceration.  Which is common place in Nevada, and happens in every major trial that has ever taken place in Nevada.  (ROA pp. 428-430).

In Vipperman's first trial, Scene Of The Crime Photographer Police Officer Truman Lamb was subornated by prosecutors to commit blatant perjury against Vipperman, in blatant violation of NRS 199.120 which prohibits both Perjury and subornation of perjury.   Prosecutors subornated Truman Lamb to falsely testify that the back chain link fence gate to the car lot was [open] when he arrived on the scene of the crime and photographed the gate in an (erroneous) [open] position.  Which those erroneous photographs were and still are, the [very key] to the entire case.  For it was from those erroneous photographs, the police and prosecutors used to completely and thoroughly subornate their 100% false alleged eye witness David Allan McPeake.  By alleging that Vipperman came though the opened back gate, and shot Parquette. Which was allegedly witnessed by McPeake, who was allegedly standing in the opened doorway of a paint shop which was located around four (4) different cinder block walls from the back gate. Which of  course made it virtually physically impssible to have happened that way. Because; McPeake certainly could [not] have seen [through] those four cinder block walls betweem himself and the back gate. And then Vipperman allegedly exited through that supposed opened back gate. (ROA p. 334 L. 17).

   Police Officer Thomas H. Haney, who prosecutors Earl Gripentrog and Jeffrey Silver accidentally failed to subornate, testified that [he] was the first police officer on the scene of the crime that night, and when he arrived there that all important back chain link gage was [closed, and locked closed].  And further, that he climbed up on top of the gate to look for suspects that might be on top of the surrounding buildings.  And further climbed on over the top of the [closed and locked closed] chain link fence gate, and down the opposite side to search the back alley for suspects.  (ROA pp. 336-343).   And neither the State nor ineffective trial/appeal counsel Jeffrey D. Sobel brought officer Thomas H. Haney forward to testify in Vipperman's Second trial. For he was the only truthful state's witness:
 
In Vipperman's Second trial, corrupt despicable prosecutor Edward R. Kane realizing that the police had been caught committing perjury in Vipperman's first trial, re-subornated police officer Truman Lamb to testify that the back chain link fence gate was [closed and locked closed] when he arrived on the scene, and someone must have opened it before he photographed it in an erroneous open position.  (ROA p. 345).

   In Vipperman's First trial, Police Officer Dallas Kinney testified as to being the arresting officer, and identified certain evidence that was submitted to the jury.  (ROA 353-366).  

   In Vipperman's Second trial, despicable corrupt prosecutor Edward R. Kane believing he could get away with it because of the name similarity, switched witnesses and illegally and unconstitutionally produced a police officer Delous Kiney who he knew was a 100% false witness. And Kane subornated him to commit 100% blatant perjury, as to being the arresting officer.  And had him identify certain evidence, which was illegally and unconstitutionally submitted to the jury through his known to him to be 100% false witness, Delous Kiney. Who Edward R. Kane subornated to commit 100% perjury. (ROA pp. 367-374).

   Police Officer Frank Jergovic filed a Dead Body Report in this case which states;
  

"The victim was found by his employee David McPeake lying on the ground in front of the paint garage.  He had heard two shots just prior to finding the victim." (ROA p. 352).

   And neither the State, nor ineffective trial counsel  brought Detective Frank Jergovic forward to testify in either of Vipperman's trials.  They have always kept him secreted.       

  
   And it is the custom, practice, policy, and procedure of the Las Vegas District Attorney's Office to threaten, incarcerate, and dissuade defense witnesses to prevent them from testifying in trials.  And it is further the custom, practice, policy, and procedure of that office to subornate perjury.  And further, but certainly not conclusive of, it is the custom, practice, policy, and procedure of Las Vegas prosecutors, to commit blatant perjury themselves.  (ROA pp. 488-502).

   Vipperman was tried by prosecutors for First Degree Murder.  But, the jury in both trials not realizing that Second Degree Murder also carried a possible Life sentence, convicted him of Second Degree Murder [after] the corrupt biased and prejudiced trial judge in both trials Carl J. Christensen ORDERED numerous jurors who were voting for acquittal, to go back and reconsider their decisions, and deliberate more until they could reach a unanimous verdict.  Vipperman was then maliciously sentenced to Life in prison with eligibility of parole after serving five (5) years.  Under authority of NRS 200.010.

   Upon Vipperman's First appearance before the abominable corrupt Nevada Parole Board, the prison Warden and Staff recommended that Vipperman be granted parole.  (ROA pp. 600-601).   And Vipperman never in his near fifteen (15) years of imprisonment ever received any type of disciplinary action, or even a Write Up for any infraction of the rules.  He was an exemplary prisoner at all times:
  

In Shepard vs. Taylor, 556 F.2d 648, 648-652 (2nd. Cir. 1977), the court held;
    "An individual's institutional record is one of the most significant factors in predicting his ability to assume his
      place in a free society and hence, his eligibility for parole." Citing Moody vs. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88-90 (1976).  Id at 652.
  

See e.g., Edwards vs. United States, 574 F.2d 937, 941-942 (8th. Cir. 1978) cert dismissed 439 U.S. 1040 (1978); Benites vs. United States Parole Com'n, 595 F.2d 518 (9th. Cir. 1978); Garafola vs. Benson, 505 F.2d 1212 (7th. Cir. 1974); Adams vs. Keller, 1354 F.2d 137  (10th. Cir. 1981). 
  

Yet the horrendously corrupt Nevada Parole Board at all times ignored and failed and otherwise refused to give any type of due consideration to Vipperman's exemplary record while incarcerated, and prior to being incarcerated.  And chose instead to deny and deprive him of parole because he would not confess to the crime he had been framed for and convicted of.  And thereby clean-up the illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions of their concerts and cohorts of the Las Vegas police, prosecutors, courts, and judges. While they were acting in collusion and conspiracy with them, to deprive Vipperman of his liberty. And in addition, cited known to them to be blatantly false reasons for denying Vipperman parole.

   During Vipperman's First Parole Board Hearing, the Board questioned Vipperman about things Vipperman had never heard of before.  And indicated that they had letters in their files from prosecutors and trial judge, that indicated that Vipperman had framed the prosecution witnesses.  And further shot the victim in the back.  And other things that Vipperman knew to be blatantly false, and he could further prove the assertions and allegations to be false.  But, the Board refused to allow Vipperman the opportunity to prove their information to be false with evidence of his own.  And further and additionally refused to allow Vipperman the opportunity to view, admit, deny, or controvert in any way shape or form, the false and malicious informations in their files and records, which they were relying upon to a constitutionally significant degree to deny and deprive Vipperman of  his liberty and parole.  And they denied Vipperman parole, and cited known to them to be blatantly false and therefore constitutionally impermissable reasons for denial of parole.

   In the mean time, Vipperman's original alleged defense attorney Harry Eugene Claiborne, was appointed to the lower Las Vegas Federal Court as a Federal Judge.
   
   In between Vipperman's First and Second parole board hearings, he was given information from a cousin of Judy Ahlstrom, secretary of  federal judge Harry Eugene Claiborne, that he was present when Harry E. Claiborne, his secretary Judy Ahlstrom, and her first cousin Nykki Kinsley, executive secretary of the Nevada Pardon Board, and Nevada Parole Board, [conspired] to keep Vipperman in prison for the rest of his life because he had caused Claiborne problems when he had fired him from being his alleged defense attorney.
  

Vipperman near the same time obtained his court records from his despicable cowardly trial/appeal counsel Jeffrey D. Sobel, which  proved far beyond any doubt that Vipperman had in fact been framed for the murder of William Parquette by police and prosecutors, and denied and deprived of fair trials by the trial judge not only once, but twice.
  

Vipperman then furnished Bryn Armstrong, Chairman of the Nevada Parole Board, and the Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation with hundreds of court records, trial testimonies, police reports, photographs of the autopsy and scene of the crime, and signed statements and letters of witnesses, which overwhelmingly proved far beyond any type of doubt that Vipperman had in fact been framed for murder by police and prosecutors.

   Vipperman then managed to inspect his prison files.  And therein he discovered many documents from malicious corrupt prosecutors Edward R. Kane, Dan Seaton, and Don Wadsworth, who were caught red handed attempting to commit perjury in Vipperman's trials, and threatening, and dissuading defense witness to prevent them from testifying.   Inter alia, inter alios.  (ROA p. 497).  Who had maliciously sent letters to the prison, department of parole and probation, and parole board, which contained know to all of them to be blatantly false allegations and charges extremely detrimental to Vipperman and his liberty.

   Vipperman then petitioned [all] of those involved through the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 500 et seq., Freedom Of Informations Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552 et seq..  And the Privacy Act of 1975, 5 U.S.C.(a) et seq..  To be allowed to view the designated false informations in their files.  And further petitioned them for Expunction Of False Records.  (ROA pp.  80-97).  For which they [all] failed and refused to give Vipperman any consideration whatsoever:

   Upon Vipperman's Second parole board hearing, he took a tape recorder into the hearing and left it in the room with the parole board while they deliberated behind his back.  And thereby caught them [red handed] making known to them to be blatantly false assertions and allegations.  And blatantly false representations about Vipperman and his legal case.  And the board allowed Nykki Kinsley to voice her opinion, and cast an illegal and unconstitutional VOTE to deny Vipperman parole.  And her having absolutely [no] authority to do so: Vipperman then formulated the tape recording into a transcript and filed same in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Las Vegas, incorporated as an Exhibit within a Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus.   (ROA pp. 602-614).  And served only one (1) single copy of the Petition upon the Nevada Attorney General's Office, legal counsel for the Respondents.  Only the Court, the Nevada Attorney General's Office, and Vipperman were aware of the Petition, and the transcript of the parole board hearing incorporated therein. 

In their joint illegal and collusive attempt to destroy Vipperman's Habeas Corpus action, and the tape recording of the illegal and unconstitutional parole board hearing they conducted, the Attorney General's Office contacted the authorities of Jean prison where Vipperman was incarcerated and told them to search for a tape recording of the parole board hearing, which was probably in Vipperman's assigned room. The prison authorities at Jean prison placed Vipperman in isolation, and stole the parole board tape recording, and gave same to a deputy Attorney General.   And following the deputy Attorney General, Bryn Armstrong, and Nykki Kinsley listening to the tape recording of the illegal and unconstitutional parole board hearing Armstrong and Kinsley had conducted at the Jean prison, the three of them, conspiratorially, and collusively, formulated a known to all three of them to be a blatantly perjurious Affidavit, signed under oath by Kinsley, attesting that she did not know of any tape recording of a parole board hearing.  And that she [did not] voice her opinion or vote in parole board determinations.  (ROA p. 619).  And the deputy Attorney General then filed the known to him to be perjurious Affidavit into Vipperman's Habeas Corpus action, which caused and resulted in, great, immediate, and irreparable damage and harm to Vipperman's Habeas Corpus action against the Nevada Department Of Parole, and the Nevada Parole Board.  And they then retaliated against Vipperman by keeping him in prison for the following seven (7) years, until he filed a Civil Rights Complaint against them and a total of 47 defendants in the lower federal court.  Which was titled Vipperman vs. City Of Las Vegas, et al., Case No. CV-LV-
86-315 HDM (U.S. D.C. S.NV. 1986).  Which caused the Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation, and the Nevada Parole Board, to realize they were in serious trouble, so they finally granted Vipperman parole after him serving over fourteen years (14) years imprisoned.  Twice as long as all others convicted of Second Degree Murder, and longer than many convicted of First Degree Murder.  And then of course, the despicable and overwhelmingly corrupt Las Vegas federal court wrongfully granted the defendant's frivolous Motions to Dismiss, and allowed [all] forty seven (47) defendants to escape liability with impunity.

   Vipperman filed three (3) Petitions For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus in the corrupt Eight Judicial District Court of Las Vegas, Nevada.  Challenging his illegal and unconstitutional conviction, and the Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation, and Nevada Parole Board.  For their joint and conspiratorial illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions against Vipperman.
  

They were titled; Vipperman vs. State Of Nevada; Eighth Judicial District Court, Case No. C-25696.  Vipperman vs. State Of Nevada; Nev. St. Prison Dir. Vernon Housewright and Attorney General Brian McKay, Case No. C-25696.  Vipperman vs. State Of Nevada; Nev. Prison; and Nev. Dept Of Parole, Case No. C-25696.
  

The Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court Of Las Vegas, Nevada, buried, covered-up, and failed and otherwise refused to act upon the petitions, or in any manner, shape, or form, inquire into the issues presented to the Court for consideration and review.  The Court while conspiratorially covering-up for each other, and their concerts and cohorts of the State Of Nevada, discarded all efforts by Vipperman and his Motions for the appointment of counsel, and the issuance of an Order To Show Cause, and Motion to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing.  The court covered-up the petitions for four (4) long years, and then summarily dismissed them without ever informing Vipperman, or inquire into a single  issue presented to the court in the petitions for review and consideration.   See; letter to Judge O'Donnell (ROA pp. 241-244).

   The Nevada Supreme Court refused to allow Vipperman to support his petitions for writs of habeas corpus, supra, or file an opening brief in that court.  They simply chose instead to cover-up the petitions for over a year, and then summarily dismissed them without ever inquiring into a single issued presented in the petitions.

   Vipperman, after being exhausted by State courts, then filed a Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus in the lower Las Vegas Federal court.  Titled; Vipperman vs. George Sumner, Case No. CV-LV-86-LDG (U.S. D.C. S. NV. 1986).
(ROA pp. 204-240). Challenging his illegal and unconstitutional conviction.  That court; (Harry Eugene Claiborne's Court) covered-up the petition for five (5) long years, and failed and refused to appoint moved for assistance of counsel, issue a moved for Order To Show Cause, or conduct a moved for Evidentiary Hearing.  And summarily denied the petition five years later, without ever having inquired into a single issue presented to the state and federal courts.  All in blatant disregard for this court's holdings in Townsend vs. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-13 (1963).

   Carl J. Christensen, trial judge in both of Vipperman's trials was removed from the bench for taking a $300,000.00 bribe from Casino Owner Benny Binion, through his close friend federal judge Harry E. Claiborne, to cover-up a murder case against his son Ted Binion. (ROA pp. 189-190).


   Earl Gripentrog, the state prosecutor that originally helped frame Vipperman for murder and railroaded him through the first trial, and have his defense witnesses threatened, and incarcerated to prevent them from testifying, was fired from the District Attorney's Office immediately following Vipperman's first trial, for "getting caught" in his horrendous acts and actions, and allowing the defense to find Norman Patchell and Nancy Parker.  And the outrageous newspaper publicity it caused the District Attorney's Office.  He then went into private practice.  And a few years later "was caught" trying to bribe a Las Vegas Judge.  Which the bribing of Las Vegas judges is common place.  But, you are not supposed to "get caught".  As Gripentrog did.   After the F.B.I. threatened to take action if the Las Vegas District Attorney's Office did not, Gripentrog "made a deal" and was convicted and imprisoned.  (ROA pp.  191-195).
  
   John Mowbray and Noel Manoukian, two of the Nevada Supreme Court judges and very close friends of federal judge Harry E. Claiborne that helped cover-up Vipperman's direct appeal and habeas corpus action in their court, were caught in a scandal with Claiborne, and managed to slither out of it because of being part and parcel of the "Nevada Good Ole Boys".  ROA pp. 196-203A).

   Harry Eugene Claiborne, Vipperman's original alleged defense attorney who had since became a Federal Judge, who
allowed this horrendous miscarriage of justice to begin in the first instance, and covered-up in his court, was convicted of committing crimes while setting on the Las Vegas, Nevada federal court bench, imprisoned, and impeached from Office by the US Congress and Senate: (ROA pp. 179-188).


   Vipperman, in his Civil Rights Complaint in this action, under authority of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, charged the defendants with inter alia, inter alios, that;
  
   They were "employed by the Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation, and acting in his individual and official capacities, in collusion and conspiracy with other named defendants and concerts and cohorts, under color of law, at all relevant times complained of herein."

   And under his LEGAL CLAIMS at page 6 of the complaint, charged that;
  

"The facts related above and herein, disclose a concerted, systematic, and conspiratorial effort by the Defendant Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation, through their agents, employees, concerts and cohorts in office,
Police, Prosecutors, Trial Judge, Defense Counsels, and Legal Counsels of the Nevada Attorney General's Office, to deprive the Plaintiff of his Liberty and Constitutional Rights.  Including, but not limited to, those enumerated above, and those enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs and causes of action.  Pursuant to their Practiced Policies and Procedures.  And absolute abuse of discretion.  Exhibits 14, 14-A, 15, 16."
  
   "The charges and language following and above are to be applied and considered as if stated in each and every charge herein."
  

"The illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, arbitrary, and capricious acts, actions, and inactions of the Defendants that are described above and below and complained of herein, were committed by the Defendants wilfully, wantonly, maliciously, and intentionally, pursuant to collusion and conspiracy between the Defendants, through meetings of the minds, and each other.  And carried out in a callous reckless disregard for the Plaintiff, and his Civil and Constitutional Rights.  With an invidious discriminatory intention and design to deprive the Plaintiff of his Liberty, Freedom, and Property interests.  And the Equal Protection of the laws.  Both State and Federal.  While denying and depriving the Plaintiff of all aspects of Due Process of law.  For the intentional purposes of violating rights secured to the Plaintiff through the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution Of The United States.  And State and Federal laws."

   And in his FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION at page 12, charged the defendants with;
  

"While acting in collusion and conspiracy with vindictive prosecutors, trial judge, Police, and numerous Authorities of the Nevada State Prison System; the Defendant Nevada Department Of Parole And Probation, through their Agents, employees, concerts, and cohorts, and members of the Nevada Parole Board and its Commissioners and Hearing Officers, have fabricared, falsified, solicited; and maliciously disseminated; and filed in their records, known to them to be false, fabricated, perjurious, and otherwise harmful documents against the Plaintiff.  And they have further disseminated same to others, which has caused a great, immediate, and irreparable damage and harm to the Plaintiff, and his liberty and freedom interests.  And they have further relied upon same to a constitutional significant degree to deprive the Plaintiff of his liberty and freedom.   And have further but not conclusive of, collusively and conspiratorially suppressed same from the Plaintiff, and denied and deprived him of being informed of, confronted with, or the opportunity to admit, deny, or controvert same.  Which has caused, and resulted in, great, immediate, and irreparable damage and harm to the Plaintiff's legal actions, and  his  liberty,   property,  and  freedom interests.  And the Plaintiff has moved them through petitions brought under the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 500 ET SEQ., THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 552, and THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 552(a) et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Moved them to be allowed to view the adverse files in their possession.  And further, but not conclusive of, moved them for EXPUNCTION OF FALSE RECORDS.  And they have ignored, refused, and denied and deprived the Plaintiff of all considerations.   Pursuant to their illegal and unconstitutional Practices, Policies and Procedures.   And absolute Abuse Of Discretion.  Exhibits 22, 23, 24."

   This High Court in Monell vs. New York City Dept. Of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), held;
   "We conclude, therefor, that local government may not be sued under 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.  Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its 
lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts  the injury, that the government as an entity is responsible under 1983."

   Such is the case before this court.  In that the illegal, unconstitutional, wilful, wanton, malicious, egregious, acts, actions, and inactions of the defendants/respondents, are in fact their customs, practices, policies, and procedures.  Pursuant to their absolute abuse of discretion.


   In Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991), this High court held;
   "We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. 
     The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal
     liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts."

   In Pain vs. Baker, 595 F.2d 197 (4th. Cir. 1979) cert denied 444 U.S. 925, the court held;
   "We hold today that in certain limited circumstances a claim of constitutional magnitude is raised where a
prisoner alleges (1) that information is in his file, (2), that the information is false, and (3) that it is relied   
upon to a constitutionally significant degree. * * * Id at  201.
   The requirement of reliance to a constitutionally significant degree has two dimensions.  The first is the
nature of the adverse administrative decision made on the basis of erroneous information.  If the information is relied on to deny parole or statutory good-time credits, or revoke probation or parole, the inmate's constitutional liberty interest is at stake and the due process clause is called into play.  See Franklin vs. Shields, 569 F.2d 800 (4th. Cir. En banc), aff'g in part and rev'g in part 569 F.2d 784 (4th. Cir. 1977), cert den 435 U.S. 1003 (1978); Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973); Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).
     We think a well pleaded complaint alleging such circumstances would be sufficient.   In a close case, however, the benefit of the doubt should be given the inmate."  Id at 202.


   Vipperman has been convicted, sentenced, denied parole, his parole has been revoked, and he has been denied and deprived of being released from parole, all because of the respondent's reliance upon to a constitutionally significant degree, false informations they have conspiratorially fabricated, solicited, disseminated, and filed in their records pertaining to Vipperman.  And they have absolutely refused and failed to give him the opportunity to view, admit, deny, or controvert their  false informations in any way shape or form.  Or give any type of due consideration to favorable and exculpatory evidence in Vipperman's favor.
  

The Respondents have always had a [duty] to investigate and verify the informations in their files.  Jones v. Johnson,
402 F. Supp. 992 (U.S. D.C. Pa. 1975).
  

See e.g., Robinson v. United States Board Of Parole, 403 F. Supp. 638, 642-643 (U.S. D.C. N.Y. 1975); Tunks v. Sigler, 427 F. Supp 455 (U.S. D.C. Cal. 1976); Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, (4th. Cir. In Banc 1977), cert denied 435 U.S. 1000 (1978); Bradford v. Weinstein, 519 F.2d 732 (4th. Cir 1975); Williams v. Missouri Bd. Of Probation and Parole, 616 F.2d 697 (8th. Cir. 1981) cert denied 455 U.S. 993; Evans v. Dillahunty, 662 F.2d 522 (8th. Cir. 1981); Dixon v. Hadden, 550 F. Supp. 157 (U.S. D.C. Colo. 1982).
  

"Petitioner must of course be afforded access to reports or documents relied upon by the Commission and the opportunity to challenge their contents."   Joost v. U.S. Parole Commission, 698 F.2d 418, 420 (10th. Cir 1983); In re Prewit, 503 P.2d 1326 (S.Ct. Cal. 1972); Hearn v. Nelson, 496 F. Supp. 1111 (U.S. D.C. Conn. 1980).


   N.R.S. 176.156 (Nevada Revised Statute, the law) Provides: 1.  "The court [shall] disclose to the district attorney, [to] the counsel for the defendant and [to] the defendant, the factual content of the report of the pre sentence investigation and the recommendations of the probation service and afford an opportunity to each party to comment thereupon."

   The Pre-sentence Report in this case that contains blatantly false information, and is relied upon by the respondents to a constitutionally  significant degree, was secreted and suppressed from the Petitioner for many-many years, until he finally obtained same from his alleged trial/appeal counsel only after threatening a law suit against him.

   "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action by government."  Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889); Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 235 (3rd. Cir. 1980).

        REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

   The illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy charged and complained of began when Vipperman was originally arrested on or about April 20, 1973, and has continued unabated through this very date: And the latest overt act committed by the defendants/respondents that damages have flowed from is May 1, 2000 (ROA p. 11).  And Vipperman timely filed his Civil Rights Complaint in this action on November 13, 2000.   All of the defendants/respondents had knowledge of the illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions that were being committed against Vipperman, and they had the power to prevent or aid in the preventing of the commission of the same, and they neglected and refused and failed to do so. In blatant violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1986.


   The Nevada Division Of Parole And Probation and its administrators, agents, and parole and probation officers, and the Nevada Parole Board, are totally and completely out of control.  The Nevada Attorney General's Office defends their illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions, and the State and Federal Courts of  Nevada protect them.  Therefore, they have absolutely no fear of the law, or of being held accountable and/or liable for their illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions, conducted pursuant to their customs, practices, policies, and procedures, and absolute abuse of discretion.  For they sincerely consider themselves far above all laws.   And [because] the Nevada courts, state and federal give them total and complete discretion, and refuse to hold them accountable in any way shape or form, they have [no] fear of violating constitutional rights of all others.  For they know they will be protected by the courts of Nevada, and the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals.  As the circuit courts are divided on many of the issues presented in this action.
   Therefore; the Constitutional Rights of tens of thousands of lives in Nevada are being violated and abused continually.  And same will never cease in Nevada, or many other States, unless this court holds them liable and accountable for their illegal and unconstitutional acts, actions, and inactions. 


                                     CONCLUSION
  
   For all of the reasons above, and justice, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Dated this 19th. Day of September, 2003.

Respectfully submitted;

_____________________________

Franklin D. Vipperman
Las Vegas, NV. 89121
Plaintiff/Petitioner In Pro se

_____________________________________________________________

                 Overwhelmingly corrupt legal system all over this country

By: Franklin D. Vipperman/Author  


     On December 1, 2003, the overwhelmingly corrupt United States Supreme Court in a despicable and unconstitutional act and action of covering-up for the Las Vegas, Nevada District Courts, the Nevada Supreme Court, the Federal Court of Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals in San Francisco, DENIED my petition for a Writ Of Certiorari without comment.  Even though every word, sentence, and paragraph in the petition is overwhelmingly supported with indisputable proof of all charges made, consisting of court records, trial transcripts, police reports, affidavits, documents, signed and sworn to statements, photographs, tape recordings, trial testimony, you name it, its there.  And [all] in the records of the courts.
     And in doing so, the high court aided and abetted the lower courts with their horrendously illegal and unconstitutional acts, actions, and inactions against Vipperman, which are their standard customs, practices, policies, and procedures.   Which the high court has previously held they can be held liable for committing their illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions.  But ignored its own holdings and rulings in this case:
     And the high court further covered-up for the illegal and unconstitutional acts and actions of the State Of Nevada, and its overwhelmingly corrupt police, prosecutors, judges, courts, attorneys, politicians, entities, departments and agencies.  And all those employed therein.
     And further closed the doors on millions of Americans that have been framed by corrupt police and prosecutors, railroaded through the courts by corrupt judges, and sold down the drains by their despicable cowardly alleged defense attorneys.   And kept in prisons by corrupt pardon and parole boards that act in collusion and conspiracy with their counter parts of the overwhelmingly corrupt legal system all over this country.  Because they will not confess to crimes they did not commit, and thereby clean-up all the illegal, unconstitutional, and horrendous acts committed against them by those in authority.  Which is in fact common place, and happens each and every day all over this country.  And every court, judge, cop, prosecutor, attorney, and politician everywhere knows it happens, and keeps it all covered-up.   As the days of the Star Chambers and Salem Witch Trials have never ceased in this country.  And never will, unless and until, the news media brings all of these horrors to light and thereby opens the public's eyes and minds to the terrible truths that surround them each and every day. 
     And until that day comes, all of us all over this country are in grave danger.  Because; the despicable corrupt judges and courts everywhere, have made all of us the chattels of the State wherein we happen to be at any given time, and the State and Federal government: And have further but not conclusive of, deprived all of the citizens of this country of their birth given Constitutional Rights, long-long ago....   And they are now simply a fallacy of your imagination: And ignored by all in positions of authority over you and yours.
     And it won't be very long until the government, state and/or federal, will control [all] of the news media, radios, televisions, newspapers, magazines, and books.  And the "Prison Business" will be the biggest and most profitable business in each and every state.  And all those who fail to attempt to stop these horrendous acts and actions by the states, and supported by the federal government, will end up in a prison themselves, or be taxed the largest majority of their incomes to pay for those who keep the others in prisons.
     There currently being over Six Million (6,000,000) people in prison or on probation or parole in this country, you can rest assured that your turn is just around the corner....

Sincerely;

_________________________
Franklin D. Vipperman/Author of
The Deal Makers, The Cesspool,
and Hell Hole.  And;
Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner in
Petition for Writ Of Certiorari.
In Proper Person
                                       

_____________________________________________________________


Supreme Court of the United States
Office of the Clerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
  
William K. Suter

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

December 1, 2003

Mr. Franklin D. Vipperman:

Re: Franklin D. Vipperman v. Carlos Concha, et al. No. 03-453

Dear Mr. Vipperman:

The Court today entered the following order in the above entitled case:

The peition for a writ of certiorari is denied:

Sincerely,

William K. Sutter, Clerk

          &nb