7/28/2019 Anthony Burgio Demand for Damages

1/3

13JE-CC00s87STATE OF MISSOURICOUNTY OF JEFFERSON

Anthony Burgio, Jr.Plaintiff,

vs.

City of Arnold, Missouri2101 Jeffco BlvdArnold, MO 63010Defendant.

)) SS.)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TFIE TWENTY-THIRD ruDICIAL CIRCUIT OFMISSOURI, AT HILLSBORO, JEFFERSON COLINTY, MISSOURIDIVISION NO.

Cause No.

PETITION FOR DAMAGESComes now Plaintiff, Anthony Burgio, Jr., by his counsel Anthony R. Dorsett and for its

cause of action states as follows:1. Plaintiff is a person resident in Jefferson County who owns and operates a solelyowned business within the city limits of the city of Arnold, MO.

2. Plaintiff s business is a lawful business, licensed to operate in the city of Arnoldand which has been operating for the relevant time mentioned in this pleading.

3. Defendant is a municipal corporation, whose entire boundaries are containedwithin the county of Jefferson, state of Missouri.

4. Section 42 USCS $1983 of the United States code, provides for relief in part asfollows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, cltstom, or usage,of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

7/28/2019 Anthony Burgio Demand for Damages

2/3

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation ofany rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to theparty injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedingfor redress.

5. 42 USC $ 1983 has been made applicable to state action in the State of Missouri.6. Since as early as May 15, 2012 until her election loss, Arnold Ward I

councilwoman Doris Borgelt, has engaged on behalf of herself and in concert with the city ofArnold, in a deliberate campaign to harass Plaintiff and his business in deprivation of his civilrights as protected by the code.

7. She has used her official capacity, in such a manner as to violate the civil rights ofPlaintiff, damaging his business enterprise and reputation.

8. She has harassed him and his employees and customers all to Plaintiffs financialloss, repeatedly visiting his place of business, verbally attacking customers.

9. She has used city resources to interfere with the activities of the variousbusinesses owned by Plaintiff , by directing police officers of the city onto Plaintiff s property toattempt to have Plaintifls business interfered with and damaged.

10. Doris Borgelt has deliberately interfered with business contracts in which Plaintiffhave been engaged, causing loss of these contracts to the damage of Plaintiff.

1 1 . Between May 15, 2012 through June 6, 2012, there was a continuous anddeliberate effort by Doris Borgelt to harass the shop owned by Plaintiff, and its employees andpatrons about the issue of business licenses, which had all been properly and duly issued by thecity of Arnold. :

12. Commencing in October 2012, again at the instance and insistence of Mrs. DorisBorgelt efforts were made to have the premises inspected, the parking lot measured, and

7/28/2019 Anthony Burgio Demand for Damages

3/3

verification of proper street signage solely to badger and harass Plaintiff. Those issues continuedthrough the end of the month of October.

13. At the end of November 2012 Mrs. Borgelt once again came to the property withcamera in hand and asked a customer to leave. On that day as well Plaintiff was challenged as towhether he was receiving stolen electronics or drugs as alleged by Mrs. Borgelt in an email to thechief of police and Mary Holden, knowing these allegations were false.

14. Plaintiff does not conduct his business affairs in violation of the law andmoreover has never knowingly received any stolen electronic devices, nor has he participated inany drug sales.

15. Plaintiff believes that this is part of conspiratorial actions on behalf of Mrs.Borgelt to force Plaintiff to close his business through constant stream of harassment and falseallegations.

16. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $25,000.00 as and for theactions of the city of Arnold, by its agent Doris Borgelt.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays damages against the Defendant, city of Arnold in a reasonableamount in excess of $25,000.00, his attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, post judgment interestand his costs expended.

/S/ Stanley D. Schnaare

Stanley D. Schnaare #29382THE SCHNAARE LAW FIRM, P.C.321 Main Street - P.O. Box 440Hillsboro, MO 63050-0440(636)789-335s - - (636)797-33ssAttorney for Plaintiff

y:\municipal\burgio city of arnold\burgio petition.docx