Edwin Ehlers

1 Angela Ehlers
2
3

PLAINTIFFS IN PRO SE

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

9
EDWIN EHLERS,
10 ANGELA EHLERS,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE UNITED STATES NAVY,
)
THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, )
THE UNITED STATES ARMY,
)
THE NAVAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE )
SERVICE,
)
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE
)
ADVOCATE GENERAL,
)
UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY
)
BARRACKS AT FORT LEAVENWORTH, )
BRIAN E. KASPRZYK,
)
GLORIA J. JOHNSON,
)
RANDI J. HESTER,
)
STACEY L. SKOVRANKO,
)
PAUL J. SKOVRANKO,
)
JOHN E. ELLIS,
)
CLAY A. PLUMMER,
)
ARTHUR R. SPAFFORD JR.,
)
ERIC R. MEULENBERG,
)
MICHAEL J. MELOCOWSKY,
)
)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
EQUITABLE RELIEF; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF:
1. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS;
2. FALSE ARREST;
3. FALSE IMPRISONMENT;
4. WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE;
5. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS;
6. CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS;
7. DENIED RIGHT TO REASONABLE
DEFENSE;
8. SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND
DENIAL OF RECORDS;
9. TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE;
10. DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH IN
EVIDENCE;
11. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE;
12. PRACTICING WITHOUT A
LICENSE;
13. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO
SPEEDY TRIAL;

26
27

1

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14. FRAUD;
15. FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS;
16. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM;
17. TORT OF PROFESSIONAL
NEGLIGENCE; and
18. ASSAULT AND RETALIATION BY
FEDERAL OFFICER.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

TO THE DEFENDANT(S) NAMED HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to Answer this Complaint of
the Plaintiff(s) named herein and to serve a copy of your Answer on Plaintiff(s) at the address
indicated herein at : pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

PAGE(S)

3 I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND ……………………

1

4 II.

PARTIES ………………………………………………………………………

7

5 III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ………………………………………………

12

6 IV.

LEGAL ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………

12

7

A.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………………

12

8

B.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ……………………………………

14

9

C.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………………

15

10

D.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ……………………………………

16

11

E.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………………

17

12

F.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………………

19

13

G.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ……………………………………

20

14

H.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION ……………………………………

21

15

I.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………………

23

16

J.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………………

24

17

K.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………

25

18

L.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………

25

19

M.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………

26

20

N.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ……………………………...

27

21

O.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………

28

22

P.

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………

29

23

Q.

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ……………………………

29

24

R.

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ………………………………

30

25 V.

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………...

31

26 VI.

PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………

31

27

i

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1
2
3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

PAGE(S)

Haynes v. Washington,
373 U.S. 503 (1963) ……………………………………………………………

14

4
5 Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966) ……………………………………………………………
6

12 – 13

7 United States of America v. Brian Foster (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps,
NMCCA 200101955 (2009) ……………………………………………………
8

6, 26-27

9 United States of America v. Edwin A. Ehlers II (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps,
NMCCA 200800190 (2009) ……………………………………………………
10

1

11

United States of America v. Hector H. Hoyos,
892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989) ……………………………………………
12
13
14

United States of America v. Marc N. Wheeler (E-6), U.S. Navy,
NMCCA 200602348 (2005) ……………………………………………………

15

27 – 28

15
16 STATUTES
17 10 U.S.C. § 810 …………………………………………………………………………

27

18
19 14 U.S.C. § 14505 ………………………………………………………………………

29

20
21 18 U.S.C. § 241 …………………………………………………………………………

18 – 19

22
23 18 U.S.C. § 242 …………………………………………………………………………

17 – 18

24
25 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ………………………………………………………………………

27 – 28

26
27 18 U.S.C. § 1512 ………………………………………………………………………
28

ii

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

23

1
2
3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)
STATUTES (Continued)

PAGE(S)

18 U.S.C. § 1519 ………………………………………………………………………

21

4
5 18 U.S.C. § 3571 ………………………………………………………………………

24 – 25

6
7
8

17,20 - 21

28 U.S.C. § 1495 ………………………………………………………………………

12, 16

9
10 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ………………………………………………………………………

30 – 31

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

14 – 18

U.C.M.J. Art. 10 ………………………………………………………………………

26

U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment …………………………………………………

14 – 15

U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment ……………………………………………………

12,17-18

U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment …………………………………………………

26

U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment ……………………………………………

17 – 18

22
23
24

RULES
ABA Rule No. 3.1 ………………………………………………………………………

20

ABA Rule No. 5.5 ………………………………………………………………………

25 – 26

25
26
27
28

iii

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)

2
3
4

RULES (Continued)

PAGE(S)

FRCP Rule No. 15(a) ……………………………………………………………………

31

FRCP Rule No. 37 ………………………………………………………………………

21 – 23

RCM Rule No. 707 ……………………………………………………………………

26 – 27

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Second Restatement of Contracts § 35 …………………………………………………

16

Second Restatement of Torts § 870 ……………………………………………………

21, 23

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

iv

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 Plaintiffs Edwin Ehlers (“Mr. Ehlers”) and Angela Ehlers (“Mrs. Ehlers” and collectively,
3 “Plaintiffs” or “The Ehlers”) hereby submit this Complaint against Defendants as follows:
4
5

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This Complaint is against The United States Navy (“USN”), The United State Marine Corps

6 (“USMC”), The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (“NCIS”), The Office of the Judge Advocate
7 General (“OJAG”), The United States Army (“U.S. Army”), The United States Disciplinary
8 Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (“U.S.D.B.”), Brian E. Kasprzyk (“Mr. Kasprzyk”), Gloria J.
9 Johnson (“Ms. Johnson”), Randi J. Hester (“Ms. Randi”), Stacey L. Skovranko (“Mrs. Skovranko”),
10 Paul J. Skovranko (“Mr. Skovranko”), John E. Ellis (“Mr. Ellis”), Clay A. Plummer (“Mr.
11 Plummer”), Arthur R. Spafford Jr. (“SA Spafford”), Eric R. Meulenberg (“SA Meulenberg”), and
12 Michael J. Melocowsky (“Mr. Melocowsky” and collectively, “Defendants”) for the cumulative
13 violations against Mr. Ehlers’ rights.
14

2. These rights include the right to due process, false arrest, false imprisonment, unjust

15 conviction, deprivation of rights, the right to a speedy trial, spoliation of evidence of which would
16 have been certain to exonerate Mr. Ehlers, destruction of evidence, a right to a reasonable defense,
17 practicing without a license, fraud, and the loss of consortium pursuant to the case of The United
18 States of America v. Edwin A. Ehlers II (2007).
19

3. In one word, the General Court-Martial held against Mr. Ehlers in 2007 was an abomination.

20 The conduct of the court and the results thereof go against the very fabric of all that is equity and
21 justice in the legal forum. At no point in time did Trial Counsel Mr. Ellis or the court under
22 Magistrate Justice Mr. Kasprzyk ever obtain sufficient evidence linking Mr. Ehlers to the allegations
23 asserted against him. Instead, the court omitted parts of the record of trial in the end, admitted
24 tampered evidence, allowed hearsay to suffice as evidence, and sentenced Mr. Ehlers to 25 years in
25 prison based purely on muddled, hearsay testimony where H Skovranko (“Victim”) and witness
26
27

1

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 testimonies remain laden with recants, impeachments, inconsistencies, discrepancies and
2 contradictions.
3

4. The single underlying “evidence” relied most heavily upon by the court against Mr. Ehlers’

4 came in the form of a falsified interrogation report and false testimony by SA Meulenberg. SA
5 Meulenberg admitted in testimony to tampering with evidence, violating Mr. Ehlers’ Miranda rights
6 during an interrogation on May 25, 2005, and then went onto render false testimony regarding the
7 events that took place that day with Mr. Ehlers on May 25, 2005.
8

5. At no point in time did Mr. Ehlers ever confess, written or otherwise, to the allegations

9 asserted against him by the Victim, witnesses, or prosecutorial authorities because he insisted of his
10 innocence. While SA Spafford supervised SA Meulenberg in this case at the time, SA Spafford
11 confirmed in a report dated August 1st, 2006 that no confession by Mr. Ehlers exists. Contrary to the
12 falsified report dated May 27, 2005 and created by SA Meulenberg after multiple direct
13 examinations by polygraph on May 25, 2005, Mr. Ehlers specifically noted verbatim to SA
14 Meulenberg “he would never admit to offenses he never committed.”
15

6. NCIS and SA Meulenberg conveniently misplaced and/or destroyed polygraph examination

16 results according to the results held by OJAG after innumerable Freedom of Information Act
17 (“FOIA”) requests had been made between January 2008 and at least March 2011. This would
18 undoubtedly exonerate Mr. Ehlers of the charges assessed against him and of which resulted in an
19 undue conviction. No record of polygraph examination, stenograph, or otherwise other than a
20 falsified interrogation report attested to by SA Meulenberg evidences this fact. SA Meulenberg
21 continued to interrogate Mr. Ehlers well after Mr. Ehlers requested an attorney up until a duty
22 vehicle arrived to return Mr. Ehlers home that date – hours after Mr. Ehlers requested an attorney.
23

7. On the morning of August 20, 2007, SA Meulenberg testified before the court that he did not

24 audio or video record any polygraph examinations of Mr. Ehlers of which was brought into question
25 by Mr. Melocowsky. Mr. Melocowsky asked SA Meulenberg why the court should rely solely on his
26 interrogation report and testimony rather than corroborating the report and testimony with audio or
27 video recording. SA Meulenberg conceded that there should not be any reason the court should not
28

2

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 rely on his word alone. Mr. Kasprzyk cleared the fact that the court was not in a position to question
2 the credibility of SA Meulenberg.
3

8. On or about the night of June 2, 2004, daughter of Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Skovranko,

4 Victim initially reported to family friend and Ms. Johnson’s daughter, Ms. Randi, at a sleep over
5 that someone had touched her inappropriately. On or about June 3, 2004, either Ms. Randi Hester or
6 Mrs. Skovranko brought up Mr. Ehlers’ name and Victim continued to insist Mr. Ehlers had
7 perpetrated sexual offenses against her. Mr. Ehlers’ good name and reputation has been severely
8 damaged as a result of this hearsay. The Victim herself recanted Mr. Ehlers’ name from the storyline
9 multiple times. Victim was certainly coached.
10

9. What Victim has consistently brought up is that a “James” and “Nana” were present during

11 the alleged offense. According to the Statement made to NCIS by Mrs. Skovranko dated June 3,
12 2004, Victim and James Ingle were playing in Mrs. Skovranko’s backyard about the month of
13 October 2002 when Victim screamed and reported to Mrs. Skovranko that James was caught putting
14 his hands down Victim’s pants when he touched both her crotch and buttocks. Ms. Johnson and
15 Nana also attest to this fact, as they were present during this incident and Mr. Ehlers was not. The
16 timeframe the alleged offense takes place is between August 1, 2002 and October 1, 2003.
17

10. The incident Victim reported to Mrs. Skovranko occurred in or about the month of October

18 2002. This would mean that while the offense took place within that time, Victim has recanted
19 several times Mr. Ehlers was present during the offense, but that Ms. Johnson was present. This
20 corroborates with the facts that Victim, James Ingle, Mrs. Skovranko, Ms. Johnson and Nana (“Mrs.
21 Donna Kerr”) were all present at the time of the alleged incident. Ms. Johnson’s brother, James
22 Johnson (“Jimmy”), was also living at the location at the time, yet Jimmy was never interviewed by
23 NCIS.
24

11. Unfortunately, and at no point in time, did NCIS interview or otherwise question either

25 James Ingle or Jimmy in regards to witness statements. The only reason Mr. Ehlers’ name was
26 brought up was during a time in which Mr. Ehlers and Ms. Johnson were separated pending a
27
28

3

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 divorce. Ms. Johnson’s daughter Randi was observing her mother’s frustration with Mr. Ehlers, and
2 even admitted her discontent towards Mr. Ehlers for the financial struggles endured by her mother.
3

12. In Mr. Skovranko’s Statement dated June 3, 2004, he testified before the court that he had

4 taken Victim to the USN Hospital in Beaufort, SC the previous date to admit Victim as a patient to
5 the hospital’s Emergency Room for medical examination of physical trauma in the wake of
6 allegations against Mr. Ehlers. According to Mr. Skovranko’s further testimony, he and Victim were
7 admitted and waited several hours to be seen at the USN Hospital before leaving with Victim. While
8 at the hospital, Victim told Mr. Skovranko Mr. Ehlers did not perpetrate the offense. Mr. Skovranko
9 then returned home with her.
10

13. To date, neither the USN Hospital, the Beaufort Memorial Hospital, U.S. Military Police, the

11 City Police, NCIS nor the Family Advocacy Group aboard Marine Corps Recruit Depot (“MCRD”)
12 Parris Island, SC have any existing record of any kind of Mr. Skovranko or Victim having been
13 admitted to any Hospital at any time prior to Victim’s forensic medical examination on or about
14 June 15, 2004. Absent the existence of records to substantiate Mr. Skovranko’s sworn statement of
15 any hospital visits on the first few days of June 2004, his testimony casts doubt on the merits of his
16 statements and begs the question as to where Mr. Skovranko took Victim during those hours and
17 what he was doing with Victim when no existing hospital or police records from this timeframe
18 substantiates Mr. Skovranko and Victim’s whereabouts.
19

14. Mr. Ehlers was not informed about the allegations against him until January 2005 upon his

20 return from his deployment to Iraq. At the insistence of his innocence, Mr. Ehlers willingly
21 submitted to multiple polygraph examinations and passed on May 25, 2005 under the supervision of
22 NCIS SA Meulenberg. After having passed multiple polygraph examinations over the period of
23 approximately 12 hours that date, SA Meulenberg went so far as to attempt several times to
24 convince Mr. Ehlers to write a sworn statement admitting to the allegations asserted against him
25 incentivizing Mr. Ehlers that if he admitted to the allegations, he stands to serve a mere 60 days in
26 prison instead of 25 years to life. Mr. Ehlers insisted on his innocence and the case proceeded to
27
28

4

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 trial. SA Meulenberg was confident the credibility of his testimony would serve to convict Mr.
2 Ehlers of the charges assessed against him. SA Meulenberg made sure that happened.
3

15. In 2007 the case was heard against Mr. Ehlers at Camp Pendleton, California concerning the

4 allegations. During this first day of trial, the prosecution asserted Mr. Ehlers had committed
5 multiple offenses over a timetable of about 1.5 years when Victim testified before the court that the
6 offense occurred only once. The prosecution then failed to render a more narrowed timeline, let
7 alone a date as to when the alleged offense might have taken place because testimony was muddled
8 and conflicted between Victim and alleged witnesses.
9

16. No date as to when the alleged offense took place has ever been released because any such

10 offense would have taken place during a time in which Mr. Ehlers and Ms. Johnson were separated,
11 and Mr. Ehlers was domiciled away in military barracks from family housing due to a dispute with
12 his ex-wife, Gloria Johnson. Due to this domestic dispute that took place in August 2002 prior to
13 Victim’s allegations, Military Police removed Mr. Ehlers until his return in November 2002 for
14 another 15 months before concluding his marriage with Ms. Johnson. This conflicts with Mrs.
15 Skovranko and Ms. Johnson’s statements that Mr. Ehlers babysat Victim alone in October 2002
16 while Mrs. Skovranko took a 2-hour nap.
17

17. On August 20, 2007, Judge Kasprzyk ordered Mr. Ellis to have a “dismissal of all charges”

18 on his desk by the next day before adjourning the court for recess. While Mr. Ehlers and supporting
19 members were enjoying their recess from court in their vehicle parked outside the courthouse,
20 prosecuting authority Mr. Ellis approached the vehicle and casually disclosed to all parties present,
21 “Congratulations, we have no case against Mr. Ehlers.” Following immediately behind Mr. Ellis
22 was Mr. Melocowsky who proceeded to grab Mr. Ellis by the arm and walk towards Mr. Plummer.
23 Mr. Melocowsky verbally berated Mr. Ellis “never say that again in front of them” in reference to
24 Plaintiffs and supporters. See attached Declarations.
25

18. Moments later Mr. Melocowsky proceeded to present a list of items to Mr. Ehlers explaining

26 for him to “pack them as if he was going to the brig tomorrow.” Before Plaintiffs departed for the
27 day, it was mentioned by counselors that a meeting was to convene between counselors and Mr.
28

5

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 Kasprzyk the next morning at 7AM before further trial would proceed at 8AM on August 21, 2007
2 in his chambers. Mr. Melocowsky advised Plaintiffs against appearing at this meeting citing “it isn’t
3 necessary.”
4

19. Prior to departure on August 20, 2007, Mr. Melocowsky excused Dr. Kurt R. Ellenberger

5 from the trial as “he was no longer needed” even though Dr. Ellenberger confided in Mrs. Ehlers
6 after Victims’ testimony that he could read multiple “discrepancies” in her testimony and found
7 them laughable. Willing to testify about these discrepancies in court, Mr. Melocowsky instead
8 excused him and had him return to South Carolina.
9

20. At 8AM on August 21, 2007, Mr. Kasprzyk asked Mr. Melocowsky if he had anything to

10 add to the record in defense of Mr. Ehlers. Without providing the option for Mr. Ehlers or his
11 supporters willing to testify to his defense, Mr. Melocowsky stood up and responded, “The defense
12 rests.” Mr. Melocowsky completely disregarded Mr. Ehlers’ right to a reasonable and meritorious
13 defense. The court did not bother to ask Mr. Melocowsky to confer with Mr. Ehlers. At no time were
14 Plaintiffs or supporting members afforded testimony in defense of Mr. Ehlers during trial.
15

21. Mr. Kasprzyk denied the dismissal of charges without justifying his decision and recessed

16 for 15 minutes alone and away in his chambers. Upon his return to the Court he immediately
17 proceeded to sentence Mr. Ehlers to 25 years confinement without any substantiating evidence
18 supporting the allegations akin to the case of United States of America v. Brian W. Foster (1999),
19 NMCCA 200101955. U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant Brian Foster was incarcerated for 9 years
20 based on pure hearsay by his ex-wife and her friends amid rape allegations that took excessive post21 trial delay much like this case. Mr. Foster was therefore released and all charges dropped.
22

22. In a post-trial appeal in 2008, the Honorable John Maksym dissented in part on Mr. Ehlers’

23 conviction stating “the nearly three year interregnum…shroud the entire proceeding with a specter
24 of reasonable doubt…and was not well tried.” Hon. Maksym concurred in part based on an
25 “admission” from Mr. Ehlers’ “indecent liberties” with Victim. There never was an “admission”
26 assented to by Mr. Ehlers’ himself, but SA Meulenberg interrogation report and testimony lends to
27
28

6

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 this concurring decision. Because of this, NCIS and SA Meulenberg endure much responsibility for
2 this concurrence and Mr. Ehlers’ continued incarceration.
3

23. During Mr. Ehlers’ most recent parole hearing on August 3, 2015 at Sandstone Federal

4 Penitentiary in the State of Minnesota, the parole board expressed to Mr. Ehlers that “because of his
5 good behavior in prison with no record of disciplinary action, he stands to be released 3 years from
6 now and, had he saved a life during the serving of his sentence, he would have been released this
7 week.” This is clear and overriding evidence of Mr. Ehlers’ good character and reputation. The
8 Skovranko family has failed entirely to recommend Mr. Ehlers’ continued incarceration at any time.
9

24. The Ehlers are seeking damages in the amount of One Hundred and Ten Million Dollars

10 ($110,000,000) from Defendants, for the immediate release of Mr. Ehlers based on insufficient
11 evidence waged in ill support of the allegations asserted against him, promotion to Gunnery
12 Sergeant for time lost in service, and an honorable discharge. It would be inequitable and a
13 complete injustice to continue to keep Mr. Ehlers in prison for acts the evidence suggests he never
14 committed, acts he insists he never committed, and for the fabricated storyline that has ruined his
15 character, his reputation, and continues to bury his legacy.
16
17

II. PARTIES
25. Plaintiff Mr. Ehlers joined the United States Marine Corps in May 1998 and served proudly

18 until his incarceration August 21, 2007. Mr. Ehlers honorably served overseas between July 2004
19 and January 2005. Mr. Ehlers has spent the last 3 years of his sentence at Sandstone Federal
20 Penitentiary in the State of Minnesota. Mr. Ehlers is father to Thomas Ehlers, 9, and Danni Ehlers,
21 8. His children live with his wife and fellow Plaintiff, Angela Ehlers, in Cannon Falls, Minnesota.
22

26. Plaintiff Angela Ehlers and Mr. Ehlers have been married for 10 years December 2015 and

23 initially raised a family together in Camp Pendleton, California until Mr. Ehlers’ incarceration. Mrs.
24 Ehlers was forced to relocate to Minnesota when her husband was taken in for processing to serve
25 his sentence beginning August 2007. She has continued to raise her children by herself while
26 working several jobs to support her family.
27
28

7

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

27. The United States Navy is responsible for following standard operating procedures (“SOP”)

2 at all times. In the prosecution of Mr. Ehlers, the USN completely mishandled this case. First, the
3 USN admitted evidence into court after SA Meulenberg confessed in testimony he had personally
4 tampered with evidence. Second, no recordings or examination records beyond an interrogation
5 report exist or were destroyed post-conviction of Mr. Ehlers.
6

28.

Third, upon Mrs. Ehlers’ FOIA requests, some witnesses were never interviewed.

7 Fourth, Mr. Ehlers was never afforded the option to testify in his own defense nor were supporting
8 members present at trial afforded to testify to his character. Last, SA Meulenberg falsified both the
9 interrogation report and his testimony in court absent appropriate examination and oversight.
10

29. As a Department of the U.S. Navy, the United States Marine Corps is also responsible for

11 following SOP at all times. In the prosecution of Mr. Ehlers, the USMC ignored Mr. Ehlers’ plight
12 of innocence and continued to follow NCIS without question while it violated protocol, which
13 makes the USMC an accessory to the innumerable and cumulative errors in the prosecution of Mr.
14 Ehlers by General Court-Martial. The USMC and Mr. Melocowsky are responsible for rendering a
15 non-meritorious defense on Mr. Ehlers’ behalf and allowing this matter to result as it has without
16 further reporting to the appropriate authorities this unsubstantiated conviction.
17

30. NCIS is primarily responsible for investigating criminal matters of all types all across the

18 branches of the military, especially sexual assaults. NCIS has received backlash for corruption and
19 misconduct by its agents from within the confines of Camp Pendleton. This is evidenced with a
20 falsified interrogation report and false testimony rendered by SA Meulenberg, the omission and
21 destruction of records post-trial after Plaintiffs requested for them in multiple FOIA requests.
22 Further, as soon as NCIS took statements from Victim and witnesses, it took another 3 years to
23 convene trial against Mr. Ehlers and then an excessive 6-month post-trial delay.
24

31. In or about the month of March 2011, OJAG finally mailed a file of Mr. Ehlers’ record of

25 trial to Mr. Ehlers at the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Forth Leavenworth, Kansas, which
26 is controlled by the United States Army. Upon receipt by the guards and “delivery” to Mr. Ehlers, a
27 guard threw the file containing Mr. Ehlers’ record of trial at Mr. Ehlers’ face in which Mr. Ehlers
28

8

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 sustained facial injuries, reported the incident, and the U.S.D.B. at Fort Leavenworth failed to take
2 corrective action against the guard for this assault and retaliation nor did they see to it to have the
3 guard undergo remedial courses on the proper treatment of prisoners.
4

32. The United States Army controls the U.S.D.B. at Fort Leavenworth. As Mr. Ehlers sustained

5 injury from a Federal Corrections Officer at Fort Leavenworth and failed to take investigative and
6 corrective action once Mr. Ehlers reported the incident, the United States Army failed to provide
7 proper oversight of the situation and follow proper protocol. Once Mr. Ehlers reported the incident
8 to the appropriate authorities, the U.S.D.B. fell short in their duties to discipline the reported officer.
9

33. On information and belief, Gloria Johnson now resides in the City of Chattanooga,

10 Tennessee where she works as a waitress. As an ex-wife of Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Johnson became very
11 vindictive in the heat of frustration over finances once Mr. Ehlers ceased paying alimony. Mr. Ehlers
12 was ordered by his unit to remain on base in barracks during the time of the incident with James
13 Ingle at Ms. Johnson’s home in October 2002. Ms. Johnson and Mrs. Skovranko were next-door
14 neighbors at the time of the alleged incident and grew very close during the time Mr. Ehlers was
15 stationed at Camp Pendleton in California. Ms. Johnson’s testimony during trial was impeached.
16

34. On information and belief, Stacey Skovranko lives with her husband Mr. Skovranko and

17 Victim in the City of Warren, Michigan. Mrs. Skovranko played a key role in the conviction of Mr.
18 Ehlers for the fact that she coached Victim from the very beginning into pitting allegations against
19 Mr. Ehlers. From Randi Hester to Mr. Melocowsky and Dr. Ellenberger to the Hon. Maksym, they
20 all sensed that Mrs. Skovranko coached Victim the entire time when Victim alleged James Ingle to
21 be present during the event. The Court impeached Mrs. Skovranko’s testimony because the timeline
22 in which Ms. Johnson and Mrs. Skovranko shared about Victim being babysat by Mr. Ehlers in
23 October 2002 is not plausible when Mr. Ehlers returned to Ms. Johnson in November 2002 after
24 separation began in August 2002. Mrs. Skovranko’s testimony was also impeached.
25

35. On information and belief, Paul Skovranko lives with his wife and Victim in the City of

26 Warren, Michigan. Mr. Skovranko worked as a Witness Advocate for the Family Advocacy Group
27 at the time of the alleged offenses. Mr. Skovranko testified that he took Victim to the USN Hospital
28

9

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 in Beaufort, South Carolina and waited there for several hours before returning home. As The
2 Ehlers have obtained letters from the hospitals in Beaufort, South Carolina neither have record of
3 Mr. Skovranko or Victim having been admitted before June 15, 2004. The court never impeached
4 Mr. Skovranko’s statements.
5

36. On information and belief, Brian Kasprzyk was the convening authority and magistrate

6 judge in the case of the United States of America v. Edwin Ehlers of which resulted in the undue
7 conviction of Mr. Ehlers on August 21, 2007. The results of Mr. Kasprzyk’s convening authority are
8 a travesty. As a judge, he was required to review all sufficient evidence before sentencing Mr.
9 Ehlers to prison. Instead, Mr. Kasprzyk decided against allowing the Court to examine the
10 credibility of an interrogation report and testimony rendered by SA Meulenberg.
11

37. It did not matter that SA Meulenberg failed to admit polygraph examination, audio or video

12 recording into evidence. Even when Mr. Melocowsky questioned SA Meulenberg’s “evidence,” Mr.
13 Kasprzyk corrected Mr. Melocowsky’s examination of SA Meulenberg in order to redirect attention
14 to the case against Mr. Ehlers when all court testimony is to be examined accordingly.
15

38. Also during trial, the court had SA Meulenberg testifying about the interrogation. When Mr.

16 Melocowsky was examining SA Meulenberg, SA Meulenberg admitted on record that he continued
17 to interrogate Mr. Ehlers well after Mr. Ehlers requested to speak with an attorney. At the time this
18 was recorded during trial, Mr. Melocowsky looked at Mr. Kasprzyk in surprise, Mr. Ellis jumped up
19 with an objection, and Mr. Kasprzyk immediately called for the court to recess and for counselors to
20 approach the bench.
21

39. On information and belief, the U.S. Marines commissioned John Ellis at the time as a

22 Captain as the prosecutorial authority in the United States of America v. Edwin Ehlers. Mr. Ellis
23 told the adverse parties on August 20, 2015 that there was no case against Mr. Ehlers because of the
24 lack of sufficient evidence. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Melocowsky met with Mr. Kasprzyk for an hour
25 before trial on August 21, 2007 advising Plaintiffs against appearing at that meeting. Mr. Ellis, Mr.
26 Melocowsky and Mr. Kasprzyk appear to have worked in a concerted effort to bring this case to a
27
28

10

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 prompt conclusion without allowing Mr. Ehlers or his proponents to render testimony in the defense
2 of Mr. Ehlers’ honor.
3

40. On information and belief, Clay Plummer is commissioned as a Lieutenant Colonel in the

4 U.S. Marines stationed aboard Camp LeJeune in the State of North Carolina. Upon Mr. Ehlers’
5 conviction for the alleged offenses, Mr. Plummer and Mrs. Ehlers spoke at length in which it was
6 discovered Mr. Plummer was not in “good standing” according to the State Bar of Nevada during
7 the court-martial of Mr. Ehlers. Since the time of Mr. Ehlers’ trial and in order to prevent liability,
8 the Office of the Judge Advocate General has conveniently ignored this inconvenient fact.
9

41. Once it was confirmed by Mr. Melocowsky in e-mail to Mr. Ehlers’ attorney, Michael

10 Eisenberg, that there was never any evidence of any confession on part of Mr. Ehlers on May 25,
11 2005 or at any other time and any form, Mr. Plummer acknowledged the conviction was misguided,
12 but refused to report this. Further, instead of reviewing the case post-trial within the statute of
13 limitation of 60 days, OJAG took 6 months to render its final decision without lifting charges
14 against Mr. Ehlers as required.
15

42. On information and belief, Arthur Spafford is a retired SA with NCIS and was a supervising

16 authority over SA Meulenberg at all times. SA Spafford was responsible for ensuring that all
17 evidence against Mr. Ehlers was sufficient enough to bring this matter to a close. Instead, SA
18 Spafford allowed SA Meulenberg to continue on his quest to render a debauched interrogation
19 report and confirmed in his own report that Mr. Ehlers never gave a confession contrary to SA
20 Meulenberg’s statements on record.
21

43. On information and belief, Eric Meulenberg has worked as a Special Agent for NCIS for

22 over 10 years. During that time, SA Meulenberg has been stationed aboard Camp Pendleton as an
23 interrogator in which this is not the first case allegations suggest Mr. Meulenberg violated a
24 suspect’s Miranda rights, fabricated a storyline in his interrogation report and then went onto
25 grossly exaggerate his testimony about the events of the interrogation on a suspect. More detail of
26 this will be shared in this Complaint.
27
28

11

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

44. On information and belief, Michael Melocowsky worked as the lead detail defense counsel

2 for Mr. Ehlers during his trial. Mr. Melocowsky admitted he did not want to be there for Mr. Ehlers’
3 trial as he had received military orders to transfer to Washington, D.C. and was instead “held back”
4 by Mr. Ehlers’ case. Mr. Melocowsky berated Mr. Ellis for telling his client and supporting
5 members “there was no case against Mr. Ehlers.” He advised Plaintiffs against appearing the next
6 morning before trial, failed to put Mr. Ehlers on the stand, and deliver a meritorious defense in his
7 favor. Absent a reasonable defense, Mr. Melocowky’s “strategy” contributed to the result thereof.
8
9

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
45. This matter spans from the State of California to the State of Virginia and includes a number

10 of individuals and agency defendants from different states. Because the Courts have waived
11 immunity of the Federal Government, its agencies, agents, and employees thereof under this
12 Complaint pursuant to Title 28 United States Code (“U.S.C.”) §§ 1346 ad 1495, proper jurisdiction
13 to hear and decide on this matter is the United States District Court.
14

46. While proper jurisdiction is the U.S. District Court, venue must also be calculated according

15 to its proper jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are domiciled in the State of Minnesota and the U.S. District
16 Court located within closest proximity is located at 316 North Robert Street, 100 Federal Building
17 in Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101.
18
19

IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

21

(Fifth Amendment)

22

(Against Defendants USN, NCIS, USMC, ERIC MEULENBERG and BRIAN KASPRZYK)

23

47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

24

48. For a plaintiff to properly allege a violation of their Miranda rights under the Fifth

25 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff must present to the Court he is first protected by the
26 Fifth Amendment and then prove to the Court how his rights were violated pursuant to the
27 requirements under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). As cited in the Fifth Amendment:
28

12

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1
2

“No person shall be compelled in any criminal

3

case to be a witness against himself.”

4
5

49. On or about May 25, 2005, Mr. Ehlers was summoned by SA Meulenberg to undergo a

6 polygraph examination and interrogation on Camp Pendleton in California. Mr. Ehlers initially
7 asked SA Meulenberg initially for an attorney prior to examination, however; SA Meulenberg
8 responded Mr. Ehlers “didn’t need one.” After several hours of interrogation, Mr. Ehlers again
9 requested for an attorney before Mr. Meulenberg proceeded to interrogate him until a U.S.
10 Government duty vehicle arrived to pick Mr. Ehlers up and return him home that night.
11

50. Not only did Mr. Ehlers not make a written or oral confession in the presence of SA

12 Meulenberg at any point in time, SA Meulenberg failed to record the session outside of several
13 polygraph examinations and an interrogation report. Mr. Ehlers’ passed at all times, but SA
14 Meulenberg found every test result to be “inconclusive.” Any “confession” admitted to the court
15 was fabricated by SA Meulenberg. Therefore, nothing of any sort should have been admitted into
16 evidence and should have been under heavy scrutiny by the court rather than used as added weight
17 against Mr. Ehlers. This burden of failure rests upon the defendants named in this cause of action.
18

51. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court held:

19
20

“Miranda requires procedures that will warn a suspect in custody

21

of this right to remain silent and of which will assure

22

the suspect that the exercise of the right will be honored.”

23
24 These four requirements are: 1) the right to remain silent, 2) the act that anything he said could be
25 used against him in court, 3) the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and 4) that an
26 attorney would be appointed to represent the suspect prior to questioning if the suspect is unable to
27 afford one.
28

13

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

52. SA Meulenberg did not terminate the interrogation immediately as described in the

2 interrogation report nor as testified in court and of which is omitted from the record of trial. SA
3 Meulenberg questioned Mr. Ehlers for another couple of hours after Mr. Ehlers’ made his final
4 request for an attorney and well before the U.S. Government duty vehicle arrived. SA Meulenberg
5 then made admissions under testimony of which Mr. Kasprzyk adjourned the court for recess as
6 soon as this became apparent. OJAG further admitted to destroying records in 2011 as a result of
7 Mrs. Ehlers filing of a Federal Claim.
8

53. In Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the

9 conviction of a defendant whose persistent request during his interrogation was to phone his wife or
10 attorney. Plaintiffs have properly alleged Defendants violated Mr. Ehlers’ Miranda rights.
11

B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12

FALSE ARREST

13

(Fourth Amendment and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

14

(Against Defendants USN, USMC, BRIAN KASPRZYK and CLAY PLUMMER)

15

54. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

16

55. For a plaintiff to properly allege false arrest pursuant to the U.S.C. § 1983 remedy, the

17 plaintiff must first present the right under the U.S. Constitution or Federal Law protecting them
18 against the commission of an unlawful act and prove two critical elements to constitute the
19 commission thereof.
20

56. First, Mr. Ehlers presents the fact that he was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the

21 United States Constitution, which states:
22
23

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

24

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

25

shall not be violated, and now Warrants shall issue, but upon

26

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly

27

describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized.”

28

14

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1
2

57. Note that probable cause is the determining factor in making an arrest and probable cause

3 exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to
4 warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is about to commit, or has
5 committed a crime” United States v. Hector Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9 th Cir. 1989). The
6 allegations against Mr. Ehlers have always been hearsay and muddled with no evidence
7 substantiating prosecution of Mr. Ehlers. When there is no evidence to substantiate allegations, there
8 is a complete lack of prudency in arresting a suspect.
9

58. The second step in determining a cause of action under U.S.C. 1983 is proving two points:

10 1) the detention of the plaintiff, and 2) the unlawfulness of the detention. Since August 21, 2007,
11 Mr. Ehlers has been under the custody of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons with Inmate
12 Registration No. 21819-045. It has been 8 years. Second, the detention is grounded solely on a
13 hearsay-based case and absolutely no substantiated evidence to prove Mr. Ehlers committed any of
14 alleged offenses he was convicted of committing.
15

59. Not only did Mr. Ehlers pass several polygraph examinations conducted by SA Meulenberg

16 on May 25, 2005 four different times, but Mr. Skovranko testified before the court that Victim told
17 him on or about June 2, 2004 at the USN Hospital in Beaufort, South Carolina that Mr. Ehlers did
18 not commit any of the charges Mr. Ehlers was alleged to have committed.
19

60. Plaintiffs hereby demonstrate the elements proving Defendants proximately caused a false

20 arrest in violation of Mr. Ehlers’ Fourth Amendment right in which Mr. Ehlers seeks remedy and
21 damages pursuant to § 1983.
22

C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

23

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

24

(Fourth Amendment and § 1983)

25

(Against Defendants USN, USMC, BRIAN KASPRZYK and CLAY PLUMMER)

26

61. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

27
28

15

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

62. In order for a plaintiff to properly allege a false imprisonment cause of action under the §

2 1983 remedy, a plaintiff must present the right in which they are protected according to Federal Law
3 followed by three requirements to constitute a cause of action. As previously mentioned in the
4 Second Cause of Action, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Mr. Ehlers.
5

63. Next are the requirements to constitute false imprisonment pursuant to the Second

6 Restatement of Contracts § 35. These include: 1) whether an actor intended to confine another third
7 person within boundaries fixed by the actor, 2) whether the act directly or indirectly results in such a
8 confinement of the other, and 3) whether the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by
9 it.
10

64. On or about August 21, 2007, Mr. Ehlers began to serve his prison sentence and has already

11 served 8 years of it with the possibility of release after 11 years on good behavior. Due to the gross
12 mishandling and cumulative error in this case by prosecutorial authorities, the acts and omissions
13 committed by Defendants have proximately caused Mr. Ehlers undue confinement whereby The
14 Ehlers have appealed at every level of military appeal and confinement continues based on a
15 fabricated confession. The Ehlers are well aware that Mr. Ehlers’ imprisonment has cost him years
16 of being unable to raise his children with his wife and, as a result, his wife and children do not know
17 him as the husband and father they should.
18

65. As Plaintiffs allege Mr. Ehlers’ false imprisonment as proximately caused by Defendants and

19 hereby illustrate the requirements to constitute a false imprisonment, Plaintiffs seek remedy
20 pursuant to § 1983.
21

D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

23

(28 U.S.C. § 1495 and § 1983)

24

(Against Defendants USN, USMC, NCIS, OJAG, ERIC MEULENBERG and CLAY

25

PLUMMER)

26

66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

27
28

16

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

67. For a plaintiff to properly allege a wrongful conviction cause of action in seeking remedy

2 under § 1983, the plaintiff must generally prove three important points: 1) Convicted of a crime, 2)
3 Served time in prison, and 3) Actual innocence.
4

68. On August 21, 2007, Mr. Ehlers was convicted of one count of Oral Sodomy with a child

5 under the age of 12 years, once count of Indecent Liberties with a child under the age of 12 years
6 and one count of assault consummated by battery upon a child under the age of 16. As a result of
7 these convictions, Mr. Ehlers has served 8 years in Federal Prison. Mr. Ehlers did not confess to any
8 offenses nor did he plead no contest. The case went to trial aboard Camp Pendleton and rather than
9 require sufficient evidence in order to convict Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Kasprzyk allowed the General Court10 Martial as a platform to convict Mr. Ehlers based on nothing more than hearsay.
11

69. No medical records or other substantiating evidence were brought to bear before the Court,

12 therefore the Court delivered a wrongful conviction against Mr. Ehlers – an example of injustice
13 and inequity in our justice system. Plaintiffs have hereby demonstrated the elements required for a
14 wrongful conviction as proximately caused by Defendants and therefore seek remedy under § 1983.
15

E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

17

(Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, 18 U.S. Code §§ 242, 1983 and 3571)

18

(Against Defendants USMC, USN, NCIS, ERIC MEULENBERG, BRIAN KASPRZYK and

19

MICHAEL MELOCOWSKY)

20

70. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

21

71. As a person and citizen of the United States, Mr. Ehlers is guaranteed protection by the Bill

22 of Rights. In that, the Fifth Amendment protects Mr. Ehlers’ rights to Due Process and restricts the
23 Federal Government. The Fifth Amendment cites:
24
25

“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a

26

witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

27

property, without due process of law...”

28

17

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1
2

72. As mentioned previously, SA Meulenberg attempted to compel Mr. Ehlers into self-

3 incrimination by incentivizing Mr. Ehlers into confessing to the offenses alleged against him. As an
4 Agent of NCIS, NCIS is responsible for the action of SA Meulenberg and the violations of Mr.
5 Ehlers’ Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate.
6

73. Similar to the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects

7 Mr. Ehlers rights to Due Process and restricts State Governments from abridging those rights. The
8 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cites:
9
10

“States shall not deprive any person of life, liberty,

11

or property, without due process of law.”

12
13

74. Mr. Ehlers was interrogated and court-martialed in the State of California. Victim and her

14 family were interviewed in the State of South Carolina, the office of the Commandant of the USMC
15 is located in the State of Virginia, and the location of the appeals courts, offices of the Judge
16 Advocate General, and the Inspector General of NCIS are located in the District of Columbia.
17

75. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242, “Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or

18 custom, willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, territory, possession, or
19 district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
20 Constitution or laws of the United States…shall be fined under this title…”
21

76. SA Meulenberg, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Kasprzyk admitted the fabricated interrogation report

22 into court and then allowed SA Meulenberg to make several exaggerations to the point the court
23 took them into consideration and were weighed heavily in the conviction of Mr. Ehlers. This was a
24 complete violation of Mr. Ehlers’ rights, as he never confessed in any form to the allegations.
25

77. Plaintiffs have alleged violations of Mr. Ehlers’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to

26 Due Process as proximately caused by Defendants. Plaintiffs hereby seek remedy under § 1983 for
27 this deprivation of Mr. Ehlers’ rights.
28

18

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

TORT OF CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

3

(18 U.S. Code § 241)

4

(Against defendants USN, USMC, NCIS, BRIAN KASPRZYK, JOHN ELLIS, MICHAEL

5

MELOCOWSKY and ERIC MEULENBERG)

6

78. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

7

79. In order for a plaintiff to properly allege a cause of action under 18 U.S. Code § 241, it is

8 critical that the plaintiff prove 5 key elements: 1) two or more persons involved, 2) unlawful
9 objective to be achieved, 3) an agreement on or a means to achieve the objective, 4) one or more
10 overt acts in the furtherance of the conspiracy, and 5) resulting injury or damages.
11

80. On the morning of August 20, 2007, Mr. Kasprzyk ordered Mr. Melocowsky to have a

12 dismissal of all charges on his desk by the next day to which Mr. Melocowsky conceded before the
13 court adjourned. After the meeting the very next morning, the tide appeared to have changed.
14

81. On the morning of August 21, 2007 and at about 7:00AM, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Melocowsky and

15 Mr. Kasprzyk met in private prior to court trial convening at 8AM that same morning. Mr.
16 Melocowsky specifically advised Plaintiffs not to attend this meeting and instructed them to arrive
17 for the 8:00AM court trial. Prior to this date, Mr. Melocowsky had conducted himself in a manner
18 unbecoming of a detailed defense counsel by rendering to Mr. Ehlers a list of items to take to jail,
19 by releasing Dr. Ellensberger, by failing to render a meritorious defense in favor of Mr. Ehlers at
20 any point in time, by failing to assert the statute of limitations in order to dismiss the charges
21 assessed against Mr. Ehlers, etc.
22

82. Once court convened at 8AM, Mr. Kasprzyk asked Mr. Melocowsky for a defense to which

23 Mr. Melocowsky denied in response, “The defense rests.” This rendered Mr. Ehlers absolutely no
24 meritorious defense that day and is key to the wrongful conviction of Mr. Ehlers. At no time prior to
25 this response to the court did Mr. Melocowsky confer with Mr. Ehlers of his intent to respond as
26 such, so no meritorious defense was ever raised.
27
28

19

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

83. It is hereby made certain that between the events of the previous day in which Mr. Ellis told

2 Plaintiffs “Congratulations, we have no case” against Mr. Ehlers and the events that unfolded on the
3 morning of August 21, 2007, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Melocowsky and Mr. Kasprzyk appear to have waged a
4 concerted effort during their private meeting that morning to convict Mr. Ehlers, so that Mr.
5 Melocowsky could travel to D.C. as quickly as possible on his pending orders.
6

84. Because of this coordinated effort, Mr. Ehlers became the “sacrificial lamb” and his family

7 has unduly suffered as a result. Plaintiffs have illustrated how these Defendants worked in concert
8 to conclude this case without so much as a reasonable and meritorious defense on Mr.
9 Melocowsky’s part, the examination of SA Meulenberg’s interrogation report and testimony by the
10 court, and the court’s swift act to adjourn following SA Meulenberg’s admitted violation of Mr.
11 Ehlers’ rights.
12

85. Plaintiffs have properly alleged Defendants’ actions to have proximately caused undignified

13 and prolonged damages to Plaintiffs and their family, and hereby seek proper remedy.
14

G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

15

DENIED RIGHT TO REASONABLE DEFENSE AND

16

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

17

(18 U.S.C. § 3571 and ABA Rule 3.1)

18

(Against Defendant MICHAEL MELOCOWSKY)

19

86. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

20

87. On or about the morning of the second day of trial dated August 21, 2007, the court called

21 on Mr. Melocowsky to render a reasonable and meritorious defense in favor of Mr. Ehlers. Mr.
22 Melocowsky’s only response was “The defense rests,” thus denying Mr. Ehlers a reasonable and
23 meritorious defense. Pursuant to ABA Rule 3.1:
24
25

“A lawyer shall not…controvert an issue therein…

26

which includes a good faith argument. A lawyer…

27

may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to

28

20

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

require that every element of the case be established.”

2
3

88. Mr. Melocowsky never raised the requirements during trial as to: 1) insufficient evidence to

4 support the prosecution of Mr. Ehlers, 2) require NCIS to interview James Ingle and James Johnson
5 as parties to the alleged offense, 3) examine the Victim as to who exactly perpetrated the offense,
6 and 4) subpoena hospital records for the month of June 2004 when Mr. Skovranko testified as being
7 at the USN Hospital in Beaufort, SC with Victim.
8

89. Further, Mr. Melocowsky: 5) failed to examine the fact that Mr. Meulenberg tampered with

9 admitted evidence, attempted to compel Mr. Ehlers to plead guilty in violation of his rights, and
10 denied him counsel during examinations, 6) examine court record that Ms. Johnson and Mrs.
11 Skovranko both gave impeached testimonies, 7) examine the fact that SA Meulenberg has a history
12 of fabricating interrogation reports and rendering false testimony, 8) object to the fact that the
13 prosecution vouched for witness credibility in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 608 and 609,
14 9) examine the fact that SA Meulenberg violated Mr. Ehlers’ rights during interrogation on May 25,
15 2004, and 10) deliver a meritorious defense in favor of Mr. Ehlers as nobody, not even Mr. Ehlers,
16 were ever provided the option to testify in his own defense.
17

90. “The right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel” McMann v. Richardson

18 (1970), 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14. Mr. Melocowsky’s failure in all of these instances lends itself to the
19 fact that Mr. Melocowsky rendered completely ineffective assistance as counsel. He failed to
20 impose requirements of every element of the case against Mr. Ehlers by Mr. Ellis, therefore Mr.
21 Melocowsky’s incompetence is a contributing factor in Mr. Ehlers’ conviction and incarceration.
22

91. Had Mr. Melocowsky performed the basic fundamentals of his duties to the best of his

23 abilities in the defense of Mr. Ehlers, the criminal case in question against Mr. Ehlers was certain to
24 have been rightfully dismissed and The Ehlers would be raising their children together instead of
25 fighting for the better part of a decade to be heard and seeking remedy.
26

92. Plaintiffs have properly alleged Defendant’s conduct as a proximate cause of the damages

27 against Plaintiffs, which resulted in Mr. Ehlers’ conviction and continued detention.
28

21

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

H. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DENIAL OF EVIDENCE RECORDS

3

(18 U.S.C. § 1519 and § 3571, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 and Second

4

Restatement of Torts § 870)

5

(Against Defendants OJAG, ERIC MUELENBERG, BRIAN KASPRZYK, MICHAEL

6

MELOCOWSKY AND JOHN ELLIS)

7

93. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

8

94. For Plaintiffs to properly allege spoliation of evidence as identified in 18 U.S.C. § 1519, it is

9 essential that three elements be proven. The first element requires that the defendant knowingly
10 falsified or made a false entry in a record of document. The next element requires the record or
11 document related to a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency and the final element
12 requires proof of a falsified or making a false entry in the record or document intending to impede,
13 obstruct, or influence the investigation of a matter within the agency’s jurisdiction.
14

95. On August 20, 2007 SA Meulenberg attested on record that Mr. Ehlers made verbal

15 statements confessing to the allegations made against him on May 25, 2005. This is patently false.
16 Mr. Ehlers never made such statements, he refused to sign a written statement confessing such
17 statements, and SA Meulenberg failed to record the multiple examinations with video or audio
18 recordings in order to substantiate otherwise. SA Meulenberg blatantly debauched his findings in
19 order to induce a successful conviction of Mr. Ehlers.
20

96. The court-martial held against Mr. Ehlers in this case originated by the Federal Government

21 of the United States of America on the Federal Military installation at Camp Pendleton, California.
22

97. It was further confirmed in an OJAG response to a post-conviction FOIA request by

23 Plaintiffs that NCIS does not possess any confession, written or otherwise, to substantiate a
24 confession by Mr. Ehlers contrary to SA Meulenberg’s interrogation report and testimony. Absent a
25 confession by Mr. Ehlers and absent substantiating evidence linking Mr. Ehlers to the allegations,
26 Mr. Ehlers is incarcerated based on no hard evidence. In 2008, the Hon. Judge Maksym partially
27 concurred based on a “confession” SA Meulenberg fabricated at Mr. Ehlers’ court-martial.
28

22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

98. On or about the month of January 2008, Plaintiffs began initiating FOIA requests to OJAG

2 to obtain an entire paperwork trail since the record of trial was used in support of allegations against
3 Mr. Ehlers. Only when Mrs. Ehlers filed a Federal Claim against the United States Government in
4 2011 did Plaintiffs receive an appropriate answer from OJAG reporting that the polygraphs
5 examinations had been destroyed and that parts of the record of trial were omitted. The destruction
6 and omission of said records would certainly exonerate Mr. Ehlers and would have allowed him to
7 be released from prison long ago.
8

99. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 37(e) specification states:

9
10

“If a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve evidence, and it

11

cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court

12

may dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.”

13
14 If information appears to have been intentionally lost or discarded while unfavorable to the party,
15 the Court has the right to presume it is unfavorable and make award to the requesting party.
16

100.

The Second Restatement of Torts under § 870 states:

17
18

“One who intentionally causes injury to another is subject

19

to liability to the other for that injury, if his conduct

20

is generally culpable and not justifiable under the circumstances.”

21
22 Since the destruction and omission of records by OJAG and the dramatic exaggeration of events
23 from May 25, 2005 as outlined in SA Meulenberg’s interrogation report this has resulted in the
24 undue conviction and continued detention of Mr. Ehlers, the damages against Mr. Ehlers and his
25 family have gone far beyond what might be considered justifiable considering everything the Ehlers
26 family has endured in the last decade. The damages are incalculable.
27
28

23

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

101.

Plaintiffs have properly alleged damages as a result of Defendants’ blatant spoliation

2 of records whereby Plaintiffs now seek the appropriate damages in lieu thereof.
3

I. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4

TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE

5

(18 U.S.C. § 1512)

6

(Against Defendants USN, NCIS and ERIC MUELENBERG)

7

102.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

8

103.

On or about August 20, 2007, SA Meulenberg attested to the court that he indeed

9 altered an illustration constructed by Mr. Ehlers neither in Mr. Ehlers’ presence nor with his
10 approval. Further evidence of SA Meulenberg violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) is the interrogation
11 report in which SA Meulenberg attested that Mr. Ehlers confessed to the allegations while no record
12 or written confession by Mr. Ehlers exists to this date.
13

104.

While Plaintiffs were present to personally witness SA Meulenberg admit on record

14 during trial that he tampered with the evidence without presence or approval of Mr. Ehlers, this was
15 conveniently ignored by the court-martial under Mr. Kasprzyk.
16

105.

SA Meulenberg appears to have had a pattern of intentionally desiring to influence

17 official proceedings to his favor, which has resulted in the undue conviction and incarceration of
18 Mr. Ehlers.
19

J. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20

DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH IN EVIDENCE

21

(18 U.S.C. § 3571)

22

(OJAG, Brian Kasprzyk, Michael Melocowsky, John Ellis)

23

106.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

24

107.

In Mr. Ehlers’ defense, the court withdrew Ms. Johnsons’ and Mrs. Skovranko’s

25 impeached testimony because of their inabilities to maintain credibility. Neither the court nor
26 Plaintiffs were ever provided a date as to when the single alleged offense occurred and Plaintiffs
27
28

24

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1 suspect it is because Mr. Ehlers would have been proven not to have committed any of the offenses
2 he was charged with committing and this case would have been dismissed outright.
3

108.

Instead, prosecution failed to ever deliver this evidence to the court and Mr.

4 Melocowsky failed to ever obtain it in favor of Mr. Ehlers’ defense. Defendants have all denied
5 Plaintiffs right to truth in evidence, a violation of Mr. Ehlers’ right in which proximate damages
6 resulted thereof.
7

K. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

9

(18 U.S.C. § 3571)

10

(Against Defendants OJAG)

11

109.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

12

110.

Plaintiffs began to file FOIA requests to OJAG beginning in January 2008 and

13 initially received a rejection in August 2008. Since that time, multiple requests were made to
14 expedite discovery from OJAG so as to prepare for further vindication arguments in favor of Mr.
15 Ehlers. As soon as Mrs. Ehlers filed a Federal Claim against the U.S. Government in April 2011,
16 Plaintiffs received some of their copy of their file from OJAG with documentation revealing that
17 parts of the file that were not sent to them were destroyed prior to the Federal Claim.
18

111.

Defendant OJAG’s conduct in their admitted destruction of evidence relating to Mr.

19 Ehlers’ case after years of FOIA requests to OJAG filed by Plaintiffs for over three years directly
20 implicates OJAG in this obstruction of justice claim. There is no reasonable justification for it as the
21 evidence said to be destroyed and kept from Plaintiffs would have exonerated Mr. Ehlers of any
22 wrongdoing.
23

112.

Plaintiffs seek the maximum damages allowed by the Court against Defendant in

24 order to punish Defendant for their deliberate act of injustice, which was clearly intended to stand in
25 favor of their case against Mr. Ehlers and rid Mr. Ehlers of any possibility of exoneration.
26
27
28

L. TWLEFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRACTICING WITHOUT A LICENSE
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

(ABA RULE 5.5)

2

(Against Defendants USMC and CLAY PLUMMER)

3

113.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

4

114.

Mr. Plummer was assigned as the head prosecuting authority during the court-martial

5 against Mr. Ehlers in 2007. It was later revealed that while Mr. Plummer was practicing law at this
6 time, his license to practice law from the State of Nevada was not in good standing and Plaintiffs
7 maintain documentation from the State of Nevada documenting this fact.
8

115.

According to ABA Rule 5.5(d):

9
10

“A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction or in a foreign

11

jurisdiction, and not barred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction

12

or the equivalent thereof, may provide legal services through an office

13

or other systematic and continuous presence.”

14
15 Even if Mr. Plummer failed to pay his “dues” to the Bar of the State of Nevada at this time, Mr.
16 Plummer was technically suspended from practicing until his dues were paid to the Bar of the State
17 of Nevada.
18

116.

As Mr. Plummer was not in good standing according to the State of Nevada Bar and

19 his license to practice law was suspended during Mr. Ehlers’ court-martial, he was ineligible to
20 practice law during Mr. Ehlers’ trial and thus the court-martial against Mr. Ehlers qualifies as a
21 mistrial. While Plaintiffs brought this fact to the attention of the USMC and USN, leadership simply
22 ignored this inconvenient fact and swept it under the rug.
23

M. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

25

(Sixth Amendment, U.S. v. Brian Foster, RCM 707, UCMJ Article 10 and 10 U.S.C. § 810)

26

(Against Defendants USMC, USN, NCIS and Brian Kasprzyk)

27
28

117.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.
26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

118.

According to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

2
3

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

4

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...”

5
6 Instead of a speedy trial for criminal prosecution pursuant to Rule for Court-Martial (“R.C.M.”) 707
7 and similarly in both Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 10 U.S.C. § 810, Mr.
8 Ehlers was denied a speedy trial in military jurisprudence with a statute of limitations of 120 days
9 between recommended charges and conviction or dismissal and instead was delayed by 38 months.
10 Further, convening authority took another 6 months to authenticate Mr. Ehlers’ record of trial when
11 the statute of limitation allows only 60 days or mandatory dismissal of charges.
12

119.

In United States v. Brian Foster, the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of

13 Criminal Appeals (“NMCCCA”) overturned the criminal case against Mr. Foster for: 1) a solely
14 muddled and hearsay-based case with insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, and 2)
15 excess post-trial delay well beyond the 120 days.
16

120.

Upon overturning Mr. Foster’s conviction, he was immediately released, received 6

17 figures of back pay as compensation for his wrongful imprisonment of nearly a decade from
18 performing his active duties, promoted through the ranks to Gunnery Sergeant since his release, and
19 was guaranteed retirement by the U.S. Government upon dismissal.
20

121.

As such, Mr. Ehlers’ criminal case is currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for

21 appeal with similar variables for dismissal as U.S. v. Foster. In this case, Plaintiffs seek the
22 maximum civil damages the Court will allow in order to punish the Defendants for the series of
23 prejudices, maltreatment, and other undue sufferings incurred by Plaintiffs and their family as a
24 result thereof.
25

N. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

FRAUD

27

(18 U.S.C. 1001 and United States v. Wheeler)

28

27

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

(Against Defendant ERIC MEULENBERG)

2

122.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

3

123.

On August 20, 2007, SA Meulenberg testified before Mr. Ehlers’ court-martial that

4 Mr. Ehlers confessed in-person during an interrogation conducted by SA Meulenberg on Mr. Ehlers
5 on May 25, 2005 to the allegations asserted against him. This is completely false and SA
6 Meulenberg’s lack of records to substantiate his testimony supports SA Meulenberg falsified his
7 statements on the morning of August 20, 2007 at Mr. Ehlers’ court-martial.
8

124.

The devices used by SA Meulenberg to substantiate his testimony were simply his

9 word and interrogation report. Judge Brian Kaspyrzyk allowed SA Meulenberg’s statements to
10 remain as credible without question completely negating that neither an audio nor video recording
11 were produced during the multiple polygraph examinations by SA Meulenberg on Mr. Ehlers in
12 May 2005. The Court’s failure to verify SA Meulenberg’s testimony and report in order to screen
13 for any possibilities of fraud without requiring a written confession, video or audio recording during
14 the interrogation of Mr. Ehlers to substantiate the charges against him completely flies in the face of
15 all that is justice.
16

125.

In United States v. Marc N. Wheeler NMCCA 200602348 (2005), Mr. Wheeler

17 attempted to suppress his signed confession citing SA Meulenberg promised an easier result for Mr.
18 Wheeler if he simply confessed to wrongdoing because if he did not Mr. Wheeler was certain to
19 receive a harsher punishment. SA Meulenberg appeared and objected to Mr. Wheeler’s allegations.
20 SA Meulenberg had indeed made similar promises to Mr. Ehlers during his multiple hours of
21 interrogation in May 2005 in order to induce a written confession. The fact that SA Meulenberg
22 flatly denied to the court of having promised Mr. Wheeler a lighter sentence if he simply confessed
23 is clear to Plaintiffs that SA Meulenberg will abuse the truth, especially if it serves him best.
24

126.

Plaintiffs’ hereby consider SA Meulenberg’s actions to be fraudulent in nature, which

25 were allowed by the court under Mr. Kasprzyk and of which proximately led to the results of Mr.
26 Ehlers’ conviction and incarceration.
27
28

O. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS

2

(18 U.S.C. 1001)

3

(Against Defendant ERIC MEULENBERG)

4

127.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

5

128.

By August 20, 2007, SA Meulenberg had his interrogation report filed with the court

6 responsible for Mr. Ehlers’ court-martial. The court examined SA Meulenberg’s report and
7 conceded that it held true and accurate statements. This was and remains completely false. While
8 the interrogation report says Mr. Ehlers confessed to the allegations against him, he has always
9 disputed this and there is no recording, written confession or otherwise to substantiate the claims
10 made in SA Meulenberg’s interrogation report against Mr. Ehlers.
11

129.

Pursuant to SA Meulenberg’s pattern of fraud and falsification of legal records,

12 Plaintiffs seek damages as proximately caused by Defendant from their abuse.
13

P. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14

TORT OF LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

15

(Title 42 U.S. Code § 14505)

16

(Against Defendants USMC, USN, NCIS, ERIC MEULENBERG and BRIAN KASPRZYK)

17

130.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

18

131.

The tort of loss of consortium is substantiated when referenced to the deprivation of

19 familial relationships due to damages proximately caused by defendants. For instance, the
20 significance of a “normal” marriage between Plaintiffs in which such benefits as a romantic
21 relationship between husband and wife are deprived by a third party who commits a wrong, which
22 results in a loss of these and similar benefits that might arise from the household services of another
23 spouse.
24

132.

The loss of consortium between Plaintiffs has long resulted in the loss of a normal

25 relationship between Mr. Ehlers and Mrs. Ehlers, and Mr. Ehlers and his children. Because of this,
26 once Mr. Ehlers is discharged from prison it will necessitate that Plaintiffs rebuild damaged
27 relationships as proximately caused by defendants.
28

29

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

Q. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

TORT OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

3

(Against ALL defendants in their professional capacities)

4

133.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.

5

134.

The tort of professional negligence is premised on the obligation of an official in

6 their capacity to perform to the best for their abilities and failing to adhere to the standards
7 becoming of someone with average performance in their same field.
8

135.

Between NCIS neglecting proper oversight of a rogue SA Meulenberg, the court-

9 martial conducted by Mr. Kaspryzyk that allowed spoiled evidence to be admitted for trial, the lack
10 of a reasonable defense by Mr. Ellis to the USMC grossly delaying trial and post-trial protocol, the
11 lack of the USMC ensuring Mr. Plummer remained in good standing before being detailed as Mr.
12 Ehlers’ head prosecuting authority, and everything in between, Plaintiffs find innumerable and
13 cumulative errors throughout the entire process of Mr. Ehlers’ pretrial, trial, and post-trial protocol
14 by the Defendants.
15

136.

The numbers of errors are many and exhaustive. Plaintiffs will be filing for discovery

16 and presenting to the Court at trial the evidence substantiating the many instances of professional
17 negligence and abused by each defendant agency and individual. This should give the Court an idea
18 of the extensive damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of a series of wrongful and negligent acts
19 over time.
20

R. EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21

ASSAULT AND RETALITATION BY FEDERAL CORRECTIONS OFFICER

22

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

23

(Against Defendants U.S. Army and U.S.D.B. at Fort Leavenworth)

24

137.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs.

25

138.

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1996, an incarcerated

26 plaintiff with a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must follow proper Federal procedure in
27 accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) before this Court can hear and decide the matter.
28

30

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

139.

Pursuant to the PLRA and § 1983 Mr. Ehlers hereby alleges that in March 2011, a

2 Federal Corrections Officer employed by Fort Leavenworth, which is controlled by the United
3 States Army, retaliated against Mr. Ehlers after his wife filed a Federal Claim on his behalf against
4 the U.S. Government. This Corrections Officer at Fort Leavenworth “delivered” Mr. Ehlers his
5 record of trial in-person by throwing a case file bound by an alligator clip at Mr. Ehlers’ head in
6 which Mr. Ehlers sustained injury to his face and was forced to seek medical attention. The incident
7 was reported to authorities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), however; authorities failed to take
8 reasonable and appropriate action by failing to investigate the matter, discipline the guard involved,
9 remediate their training at a minimum, and follow up with Mr. Ehlers as to the results.
10

140.

Fort Leavenworth’s failure to take the appropriate course of action in lieu of this

11 incident gives rise to Mr. Ehlers’ claim under § 1983 for assault and retaliation by a Federal
12 Corrections Officer and its employer, the U.S.D.B. at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
13
14

V. CONCLUSION
141.

The events surrounding Mr. Ehlers’ undue conviction and incarceration have been

15 suspect from the very beginning. Mr. Ehlers was never left alone with the Victim, Mr. Ehlers was
16 not at the property during the time Victim alleges offenses to have occurred, testimonies have been
17 impeached, Mr. Ehlers was never rendered a reasonable defense whether for himself or by those
18 whom have always supported him, and the many blunders too exhaustive to name have resulted in
19 the injustice of putting Mr. Ehlers into Federal Prison.
20

142.

Without any substantiated evidence linking Mr. Ehlers to the offenses alleged, SA

21 Meulenberg’s false testimony and report have been the only tools utilized by Judge Brian Kasprzyk
22 to convict Mr. Ehlers and by the NMCCCA to partially concur as they did in Mr. Ehlers’ appeal.
23

143.

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request and pray the Court strongly consider all

24 circumstances surrounding Mr. Ehlers’ conviction and incarceration before disposing a most
25 impartial judgment in this matter in order allow for final and equitable remedy.
26

144.

Plaintiffs also request leave be granted to amend complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

27 of Civil Procedure 15(a) should a supplemental pleading be necessary and proper.
28

31

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1
2

VI. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for appropriate relief as follows:

3
4

DAMAGES
145.

For an Order of Final Judgment requiring all Defendants named herein individually,

5 jointly and severally, to pay to Plaintiffs Edwin Ehlers and Angela Ehlers damages in the amount of
6 $110,000,000, or in accordance with calculations at $10,000,000 for each year served in prison,
7 with interest thereon at the legal maximum rate per-annum from the date this Complaint is filed
8 until paid in full to Plaintiffs.
9
10

COSTS AND EXPENSES
146.

For an Order of Final Judgment that Plaintiffs recover all costs and reasonable fees

11 from all Defendants, and each of them, individually, jointly and severally.
12
13

OTHER RELIEF
147.

To dismiss all charges against Mr. Ehlers, release him from custody forthwith,

14 reverse his bad conduct discharge to a good conduct discharge, promote him to the rank of Gunnery
15 Sergeant (E-7) for time served in prison rather than in military service, and for such other and
16 further relief the Court may deem just and proper in the given circumstance.
17

148.

For an Order that this Court will retain jurisdiction of this action in order to

18 implement and carry out all terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered herein or to
19 entertain any suitable application or motion by Plaintiffs for additional relief within the jurisdiction
20 of this Court.
21
22 Dated:

Respectfully Submitted,

23
24

EDWIN EHLERS
Plaintiff in Pro Se

25
26

ANGELA EHLERS
Plaintiff in Pro Se

27
28

32

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1

DECLARATION OF EDWIN EHLERS

2 I, Edwin Ehlers, do declare and attest to the following:
3

1. I am over the age of 18 years, and am a resident of Goodhue County, Minnesota.

4

2. I am competent to testify to the matters asserted herein, of which I have personal and first-

5

hand knowledge, except for those matters stated upon information and belief. Those matters

6

stated upon information and belief, I believe them to be true. This declaration is in support

7

of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“The Complaint”).

8
9 I, Angela Ehlers, do declare and attest to the following:
10

1. I am over the age of 18 years, and am a resident of Goodhue County, Minnesota.

11

2. I am competent to testify to the matters asserted herein, of which I have personal and first-

12

hand knowledge, except for those matters stated upon information and belief. Those matters

13

stated upon information and belief, I believe them to be true. This declaration is in support

14

of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“The Complaint”).

15
16 I do declare under the penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Minnesota that the foregoing
17 is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed this _____ day of December, 2015, in
18 Ramsey County, Minnesota.
19
20
21
22

EDWIN EHLERS
Plaintiff in Pro Se

ANGELA EHLERS
Plaintiff in Pro Se

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF