Date: 01-03-2014

Case Style: David Yeagley v. Jeffrey Imm

Case Number: CJ-2011-5510

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: W. Dan Nelson and Joe Sibley

Defendant's Attorney: Pro Se

Description: COMES NOW, Plaintiff David Yeagley (“Plaintiff’ or “Yeagley”) who for his cause of against Defendants Jeffrey 1mm (“1mm”) Daryle Lamont Jenkins dlbla/ One People’s Project (“Jenkins”), and unknown John Does 1-10 (collectively, the “Defendants”) alleges and states as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a case about a Native American patriot who has chosen to take a stand against the enemies of America and the enemies of freedom who promote violence and anarchy. Plaintiff had a contract with the New Century Foundation to speak at is biannual conference in the Washington, D.C. area in February of 2010 to promote himself and his non-profit organization, The Bad Eagle Foundation. Plaintiff was featured on the New Century Foundation’s website (www.arnren.com) as being one of the speakers at the conference. The website clearly identified Plaintiff, his foundation, and the fact that they were based on Oklahoma. Defendants—some of whom are openly tied to Communist and anarchist organizations—obtained this information in the months prior to the conference. These Defendants and their co-conspirators contacted hotels retained to host Plaintiffs speaking engagement and used threats of murder, violence, and other tactics to induce those hotels to breach their contractual agreement to host Plaintiff’s speaking engagement. These terrorists must now be brought to answer for their actions in Oklahoma.


TI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a resident of Oklahoma County in the State of Oklahoma.

3. At all relevant times herein, Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma by tortiously interfering with the contract of an Oklahoma resident. See, e.g., Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 7-il (Vt Cir. 2009). They may be served at their last known address through the secretary of state.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. David Yeagley: Native American Patriot.

4. Plaintiff David Yeagley is member of the legendary Comanche tribe. He is the great-great-grandson of the Comanche leader Bad Eagle. Bad Eagle was unique amongst Native American leaders of the early 20th Century, in that he promoted coexistence with European settlers rather than war with them. Bad Eagle’s vision was that Comanche and other Native Americans would maintain their respective identities, while also incorporating the knowledge and culture of the Europeans. Bad Eagle understood that in order for his people to survive, they must, to some degree, become Westernized.

5. Bad Eagle’s legacy lives on today through his direct descendant, Plaintiff David Yeagley. Yeagley not only promotes the values of Bad Eagle as the way of the future for Native Americans, but his many talents have led some to call him Yeagley “an American Indian Leonardo da Vinci”. He is an author, scholar, classical composer, concert musician, portrait artist and political commentator. Yeagley is also a proud American and believes in the principles of freedom and liberty for all peoples.

B. The “American Indian Leonardo da Vinci” Draws The Attention Of The New Century Foundation.

6. Yeagley’s unique talents and accolades drew the attention of the New Century Foundation. The New Century Foundation is a non-profit organization devoted to a realpolitik discussion of scientific and social issues related to race, ethnicity, and gender. The New Century Foundation is predominantly geared toward the interests of White Americans, however, occasionally features publications and/or speakers who are from other racial backgrounds where there are common interests.

7. The New Century Foundation also regularly contains Jewish-authored columns and speakers who are Jewish. The New Century Foundation takes the position that it is opposed to Anti-Semitism and also opposed to any form of violence or crime against any person for any reason, including, but not limited, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Ironically, although some leftist groups have called the New Century Foundation a “white supremacist” organization, the publications featured by the New Century consistently take the position that Northeast Asians—not white people—have the highest average IQ amongst the peoples of the world.

8. Because of Yeagley’s unique viewpoints and background in the classical arts that even the most blue-blooded White American would be envious of, the New Century Foundation invited Yeagley to speak on behalf of himself and his foundation at the bi-annual 2010 “American Renaissance Conference” just outside of Washington, D.C. in late 2009.

9. Yeagley accepted the invitation to speak at the conference, Soon after, the
New Century Foundation began to advertise the conference to prospective attendees on
its website, www.amren.com. Among the featured speakers featured on the website was
David Yeagley, with his photograph, brief biopic, and information on himself and the
Bad Eagle Foundation, including information indicating that they were based in
Oklahoma.

C. Communists And Anarchists Conspire To Stop The Conference By Any Means Necessary.

10. Defendants operate a series of website under various auspices, including, but not limited to, “One People’s Project”, the “Anarchist Collective”, and “Responsible for Equality and Liberty”. These Defendants have ties to Communist groups. For example, on the “One People’s Project” website, it proclaims itself as an arm of the “Brecht Forum”, which runs the “New York Marxist School”.

12. While their moniker’s and supposed ideologies may differ, there is one thing they all have in common: They will use any means necessary, including violence and threats of violence, to stop those whom they disagree with from associating and expressing their views.

13. These Defendants, in January and February of 2010, acted in concert with one another to stop David Yeagley and the American Renaissance Conference from carrying out David Yeagley’s speaking engagement and interfering with his contractual rights. Defendants—as Marxists and Anarchists—acted under the rubric of the so-called “Antifa”, which is apparently an acronym for “Anti-Fascists”.

14. In order to do so, the Defendants concocted a malicious scheme to flood the hotels that were planning to host the conference with phone calls threatening murder, violence, and other forms of retribution if the hotels carried out their contractual obligations to host Yeagley’s speaking engagement.

15. Defendants would first discover the location of the conference (which was kept confidential) through unknown means, post instructions on their websites and—on information and belief—through e-mail to their thugs to make terroristic and other threats to induce the hotels to breach their contracts to host Yeagley and American Renaissance. Defendants did this over and over again with multiple hotels, each time escalating their hostility and threats of violence. Defendants learned much of this information from the www.amren.com website, which contained information on the conference, and information on the speakers at the conference, including Yeagley and the fact that he was an Oklahoma resident. Defendants’ efforts were aimed at stopping the conference based on these speakers from carrying out their contracts, including Yeagley.

16. Defendants’ tactics ultimately succeeded. After the criminal threats succeeded in causing the final hotel to cancel, effectively ending the possibility of a conference, Defendants boasted on their websites as to how they were responsible for Yeagley and American Renaissance being deprived their contractual right to conduct the conference.

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count 1: Tortious Interference With Contract

17. Plaintiff repeats all of the above paragraphs and incorporates them herein by reference.

18. Each Defendant: (1) knew of the existence of a contract between Plaintiff, the New Century Foundation, and various hotels in the greater Washington D.C. area; (2) with malicious intent and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s contractual rights induced the hotels to breach their contracts with New Century Foundation and Plaintiff to host the conference, including the use of independently tortious and criminal means; and (3) proximately causing Plaintiff damages.

19, Plaintiff seeks to recover his actual damages in the form of lost donations and lost speaking engagements, donations, and honorariums, which, but for Defendants’ wrongful conduct, he would have obtained. Plaintiff also seeks unlimited punitive damages.

Count 2: Civil Conspiracy

20. Plaintiff repeats all of the above paragraphs and incorporates them herein by reference.

21. Each Defendant: (1) knew of the existence of a contract between Plaintiff, the New Century Foundation, and various hotels in the greater Washington D.C. area; (2) with malicious intent and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s contractual rights conspired together for the purpose of inducing the hotels to breach their contracts with New Century Foundation and Plaintiff to host the conference, including the use of independently tortious and criminal means in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) proximately causing Plaintiff damages that were all a reasonably foreseeable result of the conspiracy.

22. Plaintiff seeks to recover his actually damages in the form of lost donations and lost speaking engagements, which, but for Defendants’ wrongful conduct, he would have obtained. Plaintiff also seeks unlimited punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for actual damages in a sum that is in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) but less than Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) for all of the conduct described above, for costs, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Defendant Daryle Lamont Jenkins appeared and answered as follows:

Dear Judge Owens, Ms. Presley:

Defendant Daryle Lamont Jenkins (“Jenkins’ or “Defendant”) hereby answers Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Jury Demand as follows:

1) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 1 is denied.

2) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 2 is denied.

3) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 3 is denied.

4) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therëiit. AlternaffvelS’, Paragraph 4 is denied.

5) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph S is denied.

6) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 6 is denied.

7) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 7 is denied.

8) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 8 is denied.

9) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 9 is denied.

10) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 10 is denied.

11) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 11 is denied.

12) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 12 is denied.

13) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form afactual behetas to-— the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 13 is denied.

14) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 14 is denied.

15) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph iSis denied.

16) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph iSis denied.

17) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 17 is denied.

18) Paragraph 18 is denied.

19) Paragraph 19 is denied.

20) Defendant has insufficient knowledge to form a factual belief as to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 20 is denied.

21)-Defendant has insufficientflowledge to form a factual belief as
to the allegations therein. Alternatively, Paragraph 21 is denied.

22) Paragraph 22 is denied.

WHEREFORE Defendant demands dismissal orjudgment in his favor, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,
Daryle Lamont Jenkins

Outcome: On January 3, 2014, the Court considered Plaintiff David Yeagley’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, the evidence and legal authorities cited therein, and argument of Plaintiff’s counsel.

Defendant Daryle Lamont Jenkins failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and did not appear at the hearing.

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment as follows:

1) Defendant Daryle Lamont Jenkins is liable to Plaintiff David Yeagley for tortious
interference with contract.

2) Plaintiff is entitled to $50,000.00 in damages against Defendant Daryle Lamont Jenkins
for tortious interference with contract.

3) Plaintiff is entitled to his costs of court.

4) Plaintiff is entitled to pre and post judgment interest on his damages and costs of court.

This is a final judgment and is a final appealable Order. This Order disposes of all claims
and all issues between the parties.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: