About

Our ongoing story . . .

Warning: below are legal arguments which will bore the heck out of most people.

Good day, and welcome to Shards of Civil Rights™!  Let’s introduce ourselves:  Bob and Lyn.  We are published writers who were arrested for using names the government did not like . . . nearly forty years after the fact.  To add insult to injury, the federal prosecutor contended that we had, over 37 years, fraudulently employed the names and birthdates of two long-deceased infants to somehow enrich ourselves (not that we’ve ever been very rich)!  At our trial, I (Bob) revealed for the first time that an Iranian businessman had attempted to force me into a lucrative but somewhat questionable contract way back in 1986, and that this foreign entrepreneur’s threat of bodily harm against both myself and my wife had subsequently sent us into hiding. [District of Hawai’i, 22-cr-00060-LEK, Dockets 295 and 298]. The State Department initially assisted us in reinventing ourselves, and then, decades later, had us arrested for accepting the aid they had offered all those years ago.

What you have just read HAS NOT been objected to in court or rebutted by the U.S. government.  It is in the public record, and what happened to us could befall almost anyone. 

This is an introduction to our experience, which could presage a much more widespread conundrum for innocent, law-abiding people all over the United States.

The federal case against us comes down to a practically forty-year-old name game. 

My wife and I have caused no harm to the federal government, the people of the U.S., or indeed any living creature or organization.  These facts were noted both during our trial [District of Hawai’i, 22-cr-00060-LEK, Dockets 295 and 298] and in our appeal [USCA 24-1462, Docket 36].  The above statement has never garnered any objection from the government.  There have been no criminal complaints against us from the United States Coast Guard (in which I proudly served for over 20 years), the Department of Defense, or the Department of Homeland Security.  This case occurred due to a comedy of errors self-inflicted by the U.S. Department of State, which appears to have lost some records dating back to the 1980s [District of Hawai’i, 22-cr-00060-LEK, Docket 289;  time, 11:22:  Special Agent Payton Garbarino].

My wife and I intend to keep the identities in which we’ve lived and worked for approximately the past four decades.  We have been pointedly instructed by the U.S. Prosecutors’ Office in Honolulu, Hawai’i to tell everyone the truth, and this is our true story.  What you are reading is our forum so to do.  We needed an international forum, as we have been internationally defamed by the U.S. government.

The federal government has instituted a continuing violation of our civil rights, starting by denying us the right to live in the identities we consider truly our own.  We were informed by a court in the District of Hawai’i that we are allowed to call ourselves whatever we like.  Our identities were changed in 1986, under the auspices of the Department of State, yet, recently, Federal Magistrate Kenneth Mansfield passed down a court order requiring my wife to use one specific name . . . which was not even her “true and legal name” when our reinvention was embarked upon [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, 27 March, 2025, Docket 447].

So what’s wrong with this?  (1) Names are not regulated by the federal government.  That is a function of the states.  (2) Our names were changed in the state of Texas, not in Hawai’i, so our identities fall under Texas law (as it was in 1986, not 2025).  (3) Our names were validated by a Texas Justice Court under Texas law in 1986 and thereafter accepted by the Social Security Administration.  (Note:  The method used was discontinued by the SSA in the early 1990s, but was a standard practice before that time.)  (4) In short, the federal government cannot force any individual to use a specific name.  That is a violation of the First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  (My wife’s name and work have appeared in print since the late 1980s;  mine, since the early 1990s). 

We have been repeatedly told, “No one wants to hear how innocent you are!”

Well, it might be a good idea to listen, because our three-year-old “name game” arrest is about to have repercussions for a lot of U.S. citizens.

For example, under the current political climate in the U.S., the plan is to accept only the name on one’s birth certificate as a “true and legal name”.  Anyone whose birth name does not match that given on a driver’s license or a passport will be denied the right to vote.  A woman will be unable to use her husband’s surname on a document accepted for identification purposes.  A combined or hyphenated married name will be similarly unacceptable, under the law.  An adopted child will likewise be obligated to use the name given at birth.  Any transgender person will, again, be forced to identify as whatever name and sex is on that all-important birth certificate.

The right to choose one’s name falls under common law (the tradition of English Common Law, dating back hundreds of years).  “[T]he relevance of historical decisions in the English common law system can not be denied when examples of the 1352 Statute of Treasons is still relevant in cases tried in [modern times].” Currently, the federal courts are beginning to ignore this tradition of self-determination.  My wife and I have been told we must now go through a district court in Hawai’i to claim our commonly-used names, as we did not (because it was not necessary) four decades ago in Texas, at the start of all this.

If any of the situations mentioned in the previous paragraphs resonate with circumstances in your life, you are directly involved with the outcome of our case, and the civil rights violations inherent in our prosecution.

What makes our situation infinitely more frustrating is that the federal and state governments appear to be phoning each other, in collusion, in an attempt to prevent my wife and myself from changing our names in the state of Hawai’i, whenever we attempt to correct this mess to the courts’ satisfaction.  The state health department literally laughed at us when we requested a remarriage in Hawai’i, stating the impossibility of such a scheme.  State law forbids a legal union of any persons who are already married (even a couple who happen to be husband and wife, as we are, to one another).  We were advised to get a divorce . . . guaranteed to take a long, long time . . . and then remarry.  So that adds another civil rights violation:  freedom of speech (names) and freedom of the press (our publishing under long-established identities), plus freedom of religion (marriage).  The collusion between federal and state governments constitutes a continuing conspiracy.

Federal Magistrate Kenneth Mansfield has recently ordered that my wife’s name is to be nothing other than the one appearing on a birth certificate approved by the federal government [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, 27 March, 2025, Docket 447], although our trial and sentencing judge, Honorable Leslie Kobayashi, consistently used our adopted (and, we contend, our TRUE) names throughout court proceedings, and has on many occasions stated, on the record, that no court has jurisdiction to force a name upon anyone.  She replaced on the probation requirements use of any specific names with the simple condition that my wife and I go by our “true legal names” on all government documents. 

In our case, too, the government was quick to ignore the statute of limitations:  For example, our supposed crime was introduced with the words, “First, beginning on or about a date unknown but at least sometime in June 1987 (see 18 U.S.C. § 3291) and ending on or about July 22, 2022, there was an agreement between two or more persons to willfully and knowingly make false statements in application for passports[…]” [Federal District of Hawai’i, case 22-cr-00060-LEK, 30 October, 2023, Docket 298, transcript page 18].  Curiously, neither of our attorneys ever advised us to question whether the timing proposed in any way violated the statute of limitations.  When we requested a jury instruction covering “continuing conspiracy”, this was disallowed [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, October 10, 2023, Docket 245-1].

Our newest legal battle will be over jurisdiction, as it appears the U.S. federal court system may not have jurisdiction in our case.  One supposed overt action in our “crime” occurred in a national guard facility.  That facility was previously a naval air station commissioned during World War Two, but real estate title was transferred from the federal government to the state of Hawaii in the year 1999. 

The U.S. Navy decommissioned Barbers Point Naval Air Station on July 1, 1999 under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program.  As part of BRAC, the land was largely transferred to the State of Hawai‘i and local entities, including the Hawai‘i Community Development Authority (HCDA), the lead agency responsible for land use planning, and Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (DOT-Airports Division) redevelopment.  The area is now officially called Kalaeloa. A small portion of the land is occupied by the Hawaii Army National Guard and Air National Guard units. These installations are leased or portioned out, and not under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

(You might wonder, “national guard”?  Isn’t that national?  However, the so-called national guard is under the authority of the governor in each state, as opposed to the federal government.)

The overt action we were charged for was the replacement of a military retirement I.D., for which we needed to use two photo IDs, which happened to be a driver’s license and a passport.  The federal government contends in our case that the use of the passport was illegal for this purpose, as it had a name of which the government did not approve, as did the replacement card application, under statute 18 USC 1001.  The government claims we used fraudulent information, and that the documents were therefore falsified.  This is complicated by the fact that the facility belonged to the state, since the national guard (which issued no criminal complaint against us) is an agency of the state.  The replacement ID came under auspices of the Department of Defense (which issued no criminal complaint against us).  The ID card concerned retirement from the Department of Homeland Security (which issued no criminal complaint against us).  Finally, neither the State of Hawaii Department of Motor Vehicles, which issued the driver’s licenses which we provided with the passports, nor the Hawaii Attorney General issued us any criminal complaints against us.  This just leaves the passport office:  No document on that date was signed for the Department of State, so Title 18 USC 1001 does not enter into the equation.  That is to say, the Department of State (which knew about our name change in 1986 but declined to profess this fact in court, and refuses to do so now) has no say in the affairs of the National Guard, the Hawaii Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Hawaii Attorney General;  therefore, the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the issuance of a military retirement I.D. by a state entity, in a state-owned location.

There is a nuanced question of federal jurisdiction over supposed crimes committed on U.S. military installations, and this depends heavily on the type of jurisdiction the federal government holds over that particular installation.

The Law

The law under consideration states, “Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up […]” [18 USC §1001, Statements or Entries Generally].

Who has authority?  Note the types of legal jurisdiction extant:                                   

• Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction:  The U.S. has sole jurisdiction.  The state has no authority.  (Only federal courts can hear these criminal cases.)             
• Concurrent Jurisdiction:  Both federal and state governments have authority.  (Either can prosecute, but typically federal law prevails.)
• Proprietary Jurisdiction:  State of Hawai‘i retains full criminal jurisdiction over civilian matters on state lands.  The federal government may lease property, but does not have legislative jurisdiction.  (The state retains criminal jurisdiction in this case.)

Practical implications:  Military law enforcement (like base security or military police) may detain a suspect temporarily, but local or state law enforcement must investigate, charge, and prosecute any crime.  (The crime would be tried in state, not federal or military court, if the alleged offender is a civilian, but the crime occurred on a proprietary jurisdiction installation.)                

My wife and I contend that the U.S. Department of State has no authority in this case.  The use of a passport was incidental to the overt action of attaining a replacement i.d.;  the document was not at that time being implemented for entry or exit of the country, and traditionally a passport is employed ONLY for the purpose of  identifying citizenship, not to be used as identification. (The United States does not technically have a national identification system. Social Security, anyone? But, there is also a new certificate called Citizenship which does not allow one foreign travel. Another story.) The Department of State has no say in transactions concerning the state of Hawai‘i, the Hawai‘i Department of Motor Vehicles, the Hawai‘i National Guard, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, or especially any state-owned property.  Therefore, since the Department of State was the sole signatory on the federal criminal complaint against us and the Department of State does not have jurisdiction, only the state government should retain jurisdiction, and not the federal government.  Our case is therefore in its entirety a civil rights violation [ref: U.S. DOJ Criminal Resource Manual § 1600, et seq.:   Federal Jurisdiction on Military Bases].

Our case has been a travesty of civil rights.  We first claimed our names in a Texas Justice Court, and the federal government now refuses to acknowledge this.  We were arrested three years ago for alleged passport violations.  The federal government maintains that we should have changed our names in a Texas district court, though many legal ways exist to achieve the same goal (“A person may adopt any name desired […] and a person may legally change their name through usage alone.”– 40 Tex. Jur. 3d Names § 7 (1985)).

Presently the U.S. government is using our case as an exemplar in excising illegals from the United States, and it will employ it as precedent to prevent people from voting (or, indeed, possessing identification) in any name other than one supported by a federally-approved birth certificate.  My wife and I are American citizens, born and raised right here in the United States.  That doesn’t seem to count for much anymore.  We’re living amidst the shards of civil rights. 

Look at it this way:  Our case involves violations of both civil liberties and civil rights, concerning the freedom  to live in the name I have used for decades, one I truly consider to be my own, without fearing incarceration for claiming an identity which our government refuses to recognize.

The prosecution’s assertion at trial was that my wife and I had, all on our own, conspired to steal the identities of ‘dead babies’.  No very plausible method of theft was feasibly established by the government’s legal argument, and I twice declined to give details in court of what I construe as an action containing a major national security secret [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, 27 October, 2023, Docket 295;  Time, 10:46, transcript pages 73 and 75].  The federal prosecutor objected to none of my statements concerning this [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, 30 October, 2023, Docket 298;  Time, 08:46].  The Department of State appears to retain knowledge of the 1986 incident;  a State Department agent, Payton Garbarino, professed at trial that my original 1986 passport had subsequently been kept as a “classroom exemplar” over the succeeding years [Federal District of Hawai‘i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, Docket 289, October 24, 2023, 11:22 AM, transcript page 122].  This would indicates that my wife’s and my case must have been under investigation far beyond the State Department’s statute of limitations for prosecution (5 to 10 years, depending upon the circumstances).  Due to the extreme age of the precipitating incident, no witnesses beneficial for the defense remained alive to appear on our behalf in court.

Are you still unbelievers?

As I understand, plots of the sort that precipitated my case remain not uncommon in the United States, even today.  As an example, one Iranian murder-for-hire enterprise was dissolved by President Donald Trump on 8 November, 2024, with the help of the Department of Justice.  There appears to be a fair amount of ongoing political intrigue instigated by Iranians in the U.S.

https://apnews.com/article/iran-fbi-justice-department-46d6b7dec78dca861a32c901f8e3b307

The immediate government offence against us was slander, instigated in various news releases related to our case:  the insinuation that my wife and I were spies.  This was not in any way true, yet we could never persuade our attorneys to file defamation charges against . . . well, anyone.  The prosecutor’s office placed ONE set of photos (of my wife and myself trying on a Russian uniform jacket and hat that a friend of ours had bought when the Soviet Union broke up, in the summer of 1991) into the court records, as an argument against our being given any opportunity for release on bail [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, Docket 12].  These photos were quickly picked up by the international news media, and splashed across headlines worldwide.  Later, in an about-face, the prosecutors’ office placed an ‘in limine’ into the court records, removing any reference to those photographs, purportedly to prevent tainting the minds of a jury [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK, Docket 117].  We surmise that those photos were only meant to stir up hostility against us by society in general, and to present a job well done by the government investigators.  Our attorneys did nothing to enforce any action to curtail or punish the widespread dissemination of supposedly incriminating “spy” photos.  No retractions by the government or any news agency were ever made.

One of the government witnesses against us was in fact attached to the Department of State’s Anti-Terrorism Unit.  Special Agent Scott Stalla stated, “I work in our Antiterrorism Assistance Program . . .” [Federal District of Hawai’i case 22-cr-00060-LEK;  24 October, 2023, Docket 289;  Time, 12:33, transcript page 130].  Curious that an Antiterrorism agent should have been brought into any of this, as our case, and our lives, in no way involve terrorism!  As an expert in passport fraud and anti-terrorism, Stalla was still unable to explain to the jury how identity theft from an unmarked gravesite might have occurred.  “[…] I don’t know exactly how this identity was stolen, no,” he stated in court. 

As to proof that this “spy” business is not over, even now, with our case long adjudged and in the past, the federal prosecutors’ office filed a lien against any and all property of ours (though the Federal Bureau of Investigation had made certain that all such property was dissolved, or out of reach) in the Hawai’i State Bureau of Conveyances on 11 November, 2024 [State of Hawai’i Bureau of Conveyances, 11 November, 2024, 10:06 a.m., Doc. No. A-9083000961].  The statute under which this lien was filed happens to be the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  This certainly came as a surprise, as my wife and I are neither terrorists nor spies, and have received no sentences anywhere near “death”!

My wife’s appeal has resulted in her sentence being vacated and remanded [U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco, case 24-1558, Docket 57].  I continue to assert my claim that the name in which I have lived for almost forty years is truthfully mine, and I should be left alone to use it with impunity.

I have at hand a plethora of case laws backing my stance in this matter, which I will be glad to share in the  future, including one involving an internationally-famous celebrity who went by two different names, successfully claiming and using both names simultaneously, legally, in the Ninth Circuit . . . my Circuit.