Lloyd Trackwell 

4830 Woodhaven Dr. 

Lincoln, NE 68516 

541-786-0344 

FILED240CT '1410:49JSOC~ 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LLOYD TRACKWELL 

3'14 -CV-170 1 HU 

Plaintiff Case No:--------

v. 

VICTORIA MOFFET 

Defendant. 

COMPLAINT 

Lloyd Trackwell, Plaintiff, for his cause of action states and alleges as 

Follows: 

Jurisdiction & Venue 

1. This court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 1332 for the reason that the 

1 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 10
Defendant is a resident of Oregon and the Plaintiff is a resident of the Nebraska and the amount 

in controversy is in excess of the jurisdictional amount. 

2. Venue in the District of Oregon is proper under 28 U.S.C.1391. 

Parties 

3. Lloyd Trackwell is the Plaintiff in this case and a resident of the State of Nebraska. 

4. Victoria Moffet is the Defendant a resident of the State of Oregon. 

5. Jurisidiction is proper with this court under 28 U.S.C. 1332 and the 

Amount in controversy exceeds $500,000. 

First Cause of Action 

Negligence-Legal Malpractice 

6. That at all times relevant hereto, the Defendant was a lawyer licensed to practice law by 

The State of Oreogn. Further, that at all times relevant hereto, the Defendant owed to Plaintiff 

Lloyd Trackwell a duty to provide representation that met the standard of care for attorneys 

Practicing in the State of Oregon. Further, that at all times relevant hereto, the Defendant 

Owed to Plaintiff Lloyd Trackwell a duty to provide representation that met the standard of 

Care for attorneys practicing in the State of Oregon. 

7. In 2012 the Plaintiff was charged with criminal violation of a stalking protection order 

And contempt of court. 

8. Defendant Virginia Moffet was appointed on or about May 1, 2012 to represent Plaintiff 

In his defense of the criminal charges referenced in Paragraph 6, above. 

9. At all times herein Plaintiff has maintained his actual innocence of all charges 

And in addition maintained that: 

a. that the Stalking Protection Order upon which the charges were based 

2 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 10
was and is legally defective and void. 

b. that the charges were the result of being subjected to extensive 

stalking behavior by Bruce Hampton, Scott Hampton, Rahn Hostetter 

and Zachary Hostetter and conduct by them intended to make it appear 

that Plaintiff was stalking the Hamptons, i.e., following Plaintiff and then 

coming into close proximity to him and calling the police. 

c. that Plaintiff's presence Highway 84 at the time of his arrest was 

not in violation of the SPO and that his presence there was the result of 

instructions by the Wallowa County Sheriff and that Plaintiff had stopped to 

speak with the Oregon State Police Officer about a prior complaint. 

d. That the entire stalking protection order and the subsequent criminal 

prosecution therefore was instigated by Bruce Hampton and Zachary 

Hostetter as a scheme to discredit Plaintiff as a witness against Hamptonm in 

Pending litigation and in retalitation for Plaintiff having reported Bruce Hampton 

To the U.S. Department of Agriculture for making false claims in order to 

Unlawfully obtain false program payments. 

10. Following a jury trial held at Enterprise, Oregon Defendant was convicted of two counts 

of misdemeanor stalking and two counts of contempt of court for which he was sentenced to a 

year in jail and three years of probation. Defendant immediately appealed his conviction and 

as of the filing of this complaint that appeal remains pending before the Oregon Court of 

Appeals. 

3 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 10
11. Notwithstanding her duty to provide legal representation consistent with the standard 

of care applicable to lawyers practicing in the State of Oregon, Defendant failed and omitted to 

provide Plaintiff with legal representation that met the standard of care and in doing so 

breached the duty owed Plaintiff, to wit Defendant: 

a. Failed to seek the recusal of Judge Greg Baxter for a conflict 

of interest in that his son, Greg M. Baxter, worked for Moffet during 

her representation of Plaintiff and then was hired by the Wallowa 

District Attorney's office as a Deputy District Attorney and which such 

Hiring was actually pending before the Wallowa County Board of 

Commissioners during the pendency of Plaintiffs case and was 

Approved a few days after Plaintiff's sentencing. 

b. Failed to properly investigate the vases of the case. Had such investigation 

occurred Defendant would have discovered addition evidence such as 

the false reports of stalking prior to trial by Melanie Micka, the alleged 

victim's sister. She would further have discovered the unlawful conduct of 

Wallowa District Attorney Mona Williams who was not prosecuting the case 

Against Defendant but was in fact acting as an investigator and actually took the 

False reports of stalking from Micka and subsequently kept those reports from 

Being produced to Plaintiff prior to trial. The reports by Micka were 

demonstrably false and could have been used by Plaintiff to discredit 

Scott Hampton and other witnesses against him. These materials 

were deliberately and intentionally concealed by Mona Williams to prevent 

4 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 10
Plaintiff from learning of them. The Melanie Micka false reports 

Constituted material required to be produced under Brady v. Maryland, U.S. v. 

Agura and U.S. v. Bagley. 

U.S. v. Bagley and could have been used at trial to 

c. Failed to properly interview witnesses and call said witnesses at trial, 

including witnesses that would have supported Plaintiff's defense theory 

that Scott Hampton and others had been illegally conducting electronic 

surveillance of Plaintiff and using the information obtained thereby to show 

up at locations where Plaintiff was present and call law enforcement to claim 

violations of the stalking order. There existed numerous witnesses who 

could have provided truthful, credible testimony to show that alleged 

stalking incidents of Scott Hampton were in fact orchestrated by Scott Hampton. 

d. Failed to file a Motion for Change of Venue or Renew Plaintiff's prior 

Motion for Change of Venue: 

i) Plaintiff, while Proceeding Pro Se, had raised the issue of change 

of venue. Plaintiff did so because since at least 2009 Bruce 

Hampton, Scott Hampton and others had been engaged in 

a literal smear campaign of Plaintiff, by circulating 

in written, verbal and online communications, false, 

defamatory and disparaging information about Plaintiff 

including statements that Plaintiff was a sexual pervert, 

child molester, deadbeat, liar and generally a person of low character. In 

5 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 10
2012 these false representations had been so repeated by Bruce 

Hampton, Scott Hampton, and others that said representations 

Were known and believed by the majority of the residents 

Of Wallowa County, which had a population of about 7100 persons. 

Plaintiff had raised this issue while proceeding pro se in the case 

And the court had directed Plaintiff that it needed to be raised 

At the time of jury selection. At jury selection Defendant 

Refused to raise said issue despite the fact that there existed 

Abundant evidence to support Plaintiff's contention that there 

was no possible way that he could receive a fair trial in Wallowa County. 

ii) After the jury was impaneled a juror came forward stated that 

he had not been truthful during the voir dire and that he had 

previously been told by two FBI agents that Plaintiff had filed a report 

with federal law enforcement authorities claiming that the juror, 

who owned a business in Enterprise, appeared to be engaged in the 

sale of illegal drugs from his business. The judge heard this matter 

in chambers without making a record. The court ruled that the 

juror could remain on the jury in spite of the juror's belief that 

Plaintiff had previously falsely accused the juror. Defendant 

Failed to object, failed to ask that the court put all proceedings 

On the record, failed to move for a change of venue. 

e. Failed to disclose to Plaintiff certain conflicts of interest, to wit, at or during 

6 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 6 of 10
the period of her representation of Plaintiff that she employed the son of the 

presiding Judge who thereafter accepted employment with the Wallowa 

District Attorneys office prior to trial of Plaintiff's case. 

f. Failed to disclose to Plaintiff that during the pendency of his criminal 

case, trial and sentencing, which was presided over by Judge Greg 

Baxter, that the son of Judge Greg Baxter had been hired by the Wallowa 

County District Attorney's office, and that the hiring decision was throughout 

Plaintiffs trial and sentencing, pending before the Wallowa County Board 

Of Commissioners. Defendant failed to request Baxter's recusal, failed 

To advise Plaintiff of the situation and concealed said situation from Plaintiff and 

Thereafter, failed to raise said issue via a motion for new trial or a challenge to 

Plaintiffs sentence. 

g. Failed to challenge the chain of custody and foundational bases for certain 

evidence introduced into evidence against Plaintiff, i.e. the photographs claimed 

to have been taken by either the arresting officer and/or Scott Hampton and the 

date of such photographs. Had Defendant challenged said photographs 

it would have shown that said photographs were taken at a time prior to the 

issuance of the Stalking Protection Order and would have thus proved that 

the alleged victim was providing false testimony. 

h. Failed to inquire or make a record of attempting to inquire into the prior 

Communications between the arresting officer and the alleged victim and the 

Alleged victim's father. 

7 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 7 of 10
i. Failed to raise and preserve in the record the issue of the constitutionality 

of: 

i)Piaintiffs being subjected to a trial wherein the arresting officer 

was at all times present during trial seated next to the prosecutor 

and thus improperly allowing the credibility of the witness to be 

unduly and unfairly enhanced in violation of Plaintiff's constitutional 

right to a fair trial. Plaintiff wished to preserve his right to challenge that 

practice as contrary to due process and equal protection. 

ii) Failed to raise, object and preserve in the record the issue of the 

constitutionality of charging Plaintiff with a criminal offense based upon 

a stalking order requiring Plaintiff to stay out of the "visual" presence of 

the alleged victim, both generally, and in the instant case, wherein 

Plaintiffs identity while standing by his vehicle on a public highway some 

2000 feet from the alleged victim's residence could only be confirmed by 

The arresting officer with the use of binoculars. 

j. Failed to adequately and properly cross examine prosecution witnesses Scott 

Hampton and Chris Hawkins on foundational and substantive issues. 

k. Failed to raise objections at sentencing when during argument the prosecution 

used photographs of Plaintiff that had never before been produced to Plaintiff 

or his counsel and which such photographs were taken prior to the date 

of the incidents that were the subject of the stalking charge and which 

8 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 8 of 10
constituted Brady v. Maryland material. 

I. Failure to challenge sentence as excessive when the same judge was sentencing 

other defendants to lesser sentences for felony offenses involving conduct far 

more egregious than that alleged against Plaintiff. 

m. Failure to file a Motion for New Trial raising the issue of the prosecution's 

failure to produce Brady v. Maryland materials, i.e., the photographs 

used at sentencing by the prosecutor which had never been produced to 

Plaintiff or his counsel. Said photographs showed Plaintiff riding in a vehicle 

The circumstances of which photograph, i.e., the date, place and surroundings 

Depicted would have supported Defendant's defense theories. 

n. Failure to raise all available defenses, including the defense of Public 

Authority, whereby Plaintiff was acting in accordance with the instructions 

Given him by the Sheriff of Wallowa County shortly before his arrest. 

11. That the actions of Defendant as set forth hereinabove constitute professional 

Negligence and as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the duty of care 

Owed To Plaintiff, Plaintiff was convicted of the criminal charges, namely four misdemeanors, 

and Deprived of his freedom for nine months incarceration, three years of probation, subjected 

to Invasions of privacy, public humiliation and embarrassment, deprived of his right to a fair 

trial, Suffered the loss of income, the loss of property and harm to other causes of action in 

pending civil litigation and subjected Plaintiff to other civil litigation. 

12. That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant as set forth herein 

Above, Plaintiff has suffered damages, both economic and non-economic, which such damages 

9 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 9 of 10
Are, as yet incapable of calculation but believed to be in excess of $5,000,000. 

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 

13. Plaintiff requests a jury trial to be held in Portland, Oregon. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff Lloyd Trackwell prays for judgment upon his cause of 

Action and that the court enter judgment against the Defendant in the amount 

Of damages as proven at trial, and for such other relief as this court deems equitable 

And just. 

10 

B"~flL .cpf 4 it 'I I ll~ ~( 

4830 Woodhaven Dr. 

Lincoln, NE 68516 

402-786-0344 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 1 Filed 10/24/14 Page 10 of 10