para. 3; J.A. at 103-04. This statement that the FBI was called in because of the allegedly furtive secreting of papers is at least presumptively inconsistent with Oliveros’ statement that he made the list from those secreted papers after the FBI was called. Perhaps Oliveros discovered the hidden papers first, then the FBI was called in, and then Oliveros made the list; but the more natural reading of Oliveros’ affidavit is that he discovered the hidden papers only after the FBI was called in. The Supreme Court in Lyons expressly acknowledged that standing requirements vary depending on the nature of the relief sought. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 106 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. at 1667-68 n. 7; see also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 383, 96 S.Ct. 598, 610, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>). Given the nature of Haase’s claim — a
recognizing that  an ordinary witness may decline to answer only after making the requisite showing of the danger of selfincrimination  recognizing that some constitutional violations might be spread so extremely thin as to prevent any individual from showing the requisite case or controversy holding that to establish jurisdiction in action for declaratory judgment controversy must be actual and present a case for the consideration of the court wherein plaintiff is asserting some legal or property right adverse to defendant holding that a trial court errs by exempting a witness from sequestration absent the requisite showing holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution