1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Karla Gottschalk SBN 91651520 Frederick St #13San Francisco, CA 94117202-643-5052Attorney for Jack C. Smith
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
_______________________________
Jack Smith, ) CASE NO. 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
Plaintiff, ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
) 42 USC 1983, 18 USC 1962 et seq
v. ) FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT,
) CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT,
County of Santa Cruz, Sgt James ) ELDER ABUSE, RACKETEERING,
"Jim" Ross,James Hart,Mark Yanez, ) MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
State of California, Santa Cruz ) ASSAULT AND BATTERY, INTENTIONAL
Sheriffs Department , Santa Cruz ) INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Board of Supervisors, Nicholas ) ABUSE OF PROCESS
Baldridge, Randall Hop, Robin )
Mitchell, Peter Hansen, ) BEFORE SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Jalon Harris, Scott McPeek, )
Christopher Cragin, Casandra )
Cassingham, William Gazza Joseph )
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Clark, Mitchell Medina , Douglas )
Smith , Ross Taylor, Mark Stone, )
Tamyra Rice, Jessica Espinosa , )
Phil Wowak,Tony Falcone, Kevin )
Fitzpatrick, Arther Leff, Dan )
Campos , Trey Noon, Judy )
Anderson, Felton Business )
Association and )
Does 1-100, )
Defendants )
________________________________ )
(1) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL
(2) JURISDICTION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, EIGHTH,
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 42 USC 1983 AND 42 USC1988.
JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED IN 28 USC 1331 AND 28 USC 1343. THIS COURT
HAS SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1367.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) VENUE
THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS GIVING RISE TO THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AROSE IN
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY.
THUS, PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1391(b)(2), VENUE IS PROPER IN THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
(4) PERSONAL
Defendants are persons under 18 USC 1961(3).
5) PLAINTIFF Jack Smith is a citizen of the United States over 65
receiving medical care from the Veterans Administration and has
complied with CaGovtCode 900-935.7 claim requirements.
6) DEFENDANT Sgt James "Jim" Ross is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
7) DEFENDANT James Hart is a citizen of the United States employed as
a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
8) DEFENDANT Mark Yanez is a citizen of the United States employed as
a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9) DEFENDANT Nicholas Baldridge is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
10) DEFENDANT Phil Wowak is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
11) DEFENDANT Randall Hop is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
12)DEFENDANT Peter Hansen is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
13) DEFENDANT Robin Mitchell is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
14) DEFENDANT Jalon Harris is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 4 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15) DEFENDANT Scott McPeek is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
16) DEFENDANT Christopher Cragin is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
17) DEFENDANT Casandra Cassingham is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
18) DEFENDANT William Gazza is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
19) DEFENDANT Joseph Clark is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
20) DEFENDANT Mitchell Medina is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21) DEFENDANT Douglas Smith is a citizen of the United States
employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
22) DEFENDANT Ross Taylor is a citizen of the United States employed
as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
23) DEFENDANT Arnold Leff, MD, is a citizen of the United States employed
as Medical Director of Emergency Services at Santa Cruz County Jail, by the City and
County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
24) DEFENDANT Santa Cruz Sheriffs Department is organized under the
laws of the State of California.
25) DEFENDANT Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, is the elected body of
government for the municipality of Santa Cruz.
26) DEFENDANT Mark Stone is a citizen of the United States and Santa
Cruz County Supervisor for the City and County of Santa Cruz subject
to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
27) DEFENDANT Tony Falcone is a citizen of the United States employed in
code compliance by County of Santa Cruz Planning Department, in the City and
County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28) DEFENDANT Kevin Fitzpatrick is a citizen of the United States
employed in code compliance by County of Santa Cruz Planning Department, in the City
and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
29) DEFENDANT Tamyra Rice is a citizen of the United States, employed
as County Counsel for the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to
CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
30) DEFENDANT Jessica Espinosa is a citizen of the United States
employed as County Counsel for the City and County of Santa Cruz
subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.
31) DEFENDANT Felton Business Association is an unknown commercial
organization that hosted a vigilante meeting at the Felton Fire
House.
32) DEFENDANT Dan Campos is a citizen of the United States neighbor
and member of Felton Business Association the City and County of
Santa Cruz.
33) DEFENDANT Trey Noon is a citizen of the United States neighbor
and member of Felton Business Association
34) DEFENDANT Judy Anderson is a citizen of the United States
neighbor and member of Felton Business Association
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35) DEFENDANT State of California is a Republic and State Member of
the United States of America.
36) DEFENDANT County of Santa Cruz is a municipal entity organized
under the State of California GC 53050 political subdivision.
37) Defendant’s named as Does were a part of the named-Defendant’s
secret racketeering conspiracy and the implementation of a facet of
the covert plan and will be named as their names and functions in the
conspiracy become known.
38) SUBJECT MATTER
FEDERAL QUESTION 28 U.S.C. § 1331
This is brought as a Federal Question and alleges unconstitutional
acts by Defendants and their agents, employees or associates in any
relevant manner. Plaintiff timely presented claim as required which
was denied. Plaintiff timely filled tolling the Statute of
Limitations.
39) STATEMENT OF FACTS
39) Petitioner purchased 138 Felton Empire Road, FELTON, CA, on March 18, 1997, PARCEL
065-043-18, the subject of the code compliance inverse condemnation of Plaintiff’s property.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 8 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
40) On November 12, 2010, Federal Court Approves In Limine Motion against County of Santa Cruz
Board of Supervisors/Planning for arbitrary, capricious, malicious acts in a scheme to extort and
intimidate property owners.
41) January 23, 2011, Tamyra Rice, County Counsel, before Judge Almquist, confirmed, that county
codes were not legal. Building codes were not certified by the State Building Standards Commission and
none have been published as required by law.
42) On February 4, 2011 and February 4, 2011 Defendant Fitzpatrick red-tagged Plaintiff’s
home with notice of non-code compliance for 13.10.556 and 12.10.430 (a) and (e)
43) Between February 1 2011, and February 22, 2011, a vigilante meeting to remove Plaintiff
was held by the Felton Business Association, Santa Cruz Sheriff, Santa Cruz Supervisors
and Planning Department at the Felton Fire House. Plaintiff was not notified by the
Defendants of this meeting.
44) On February 22, 2011, Santa Cruz Superior Court F20484 incident.
45) February 24, 2011, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Mark Stone refers Plaintiff’s property to
planning and environment
46) March 8, 2011, Plaintiff served warrant to vacate in 36 hours.
47) March 3, 2011 Notice to Plaintiff to vacate building.
48) March 14, 2011 Notice to abate H&S 17920.3 and Santa Cruz Code chap 7.20
49) March 24, 2011 Red Tag for violation 12.10.430(i)
50) March 30, 2011 Injunction ejecting Plaintiff, in his mid seventies, from his own home and
making him homeless
51) April 3, 2011 Santa Cruz Superior Court F22515/M59762 incidents detailing perjury and
obstruction of justice.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52) April 18, 2011 California Sixth District Appellate Court found the County of Santa Cruz
unlawful in its recordation of red tags for alleged building code violations.
53) May 2, 2011 Permit obtained by Plaintiff.
54) May 4, 2011 Plaintiff’s bond forfeited.
55) June 21, 2011 Santa Cruz Superior Court F21225
56) August 1, 2011 Warrant issued for Failure To Appear while Plaintiff was in custody.
57) August 3, 2011 Santa Cruz Superior Court F21277, Plaintiff’s counsel arrested and
Plaintiff’s bond is forfeited.
58) August 8, 2011 San Francisco Superior Court FLS FL032873 Smith v Geist restraining
order brought by Plaintiff.
59) August 16, 2011 Plaintiff’s bond reinstated.
60) January 8, 2012 County special assessment code 1.14
61) February 29, 2012 Case management conference (CMC) by Tamyra Rice in Santa Cruz
Superior Court CV 170628 detailing code violations.
62) March 17, 2012 Plaintiff denied access to medicines for violation of court order to stay
away.
63) April 6, 2012 County issues svc #12338 against Plaintiff’s property.
64) April 18, 2012 Fitzpatrick records code violations against Plaintiff’s title 13.1 430(a), (f)
13.10.556
65) April 20,2012 Plaintiff’s inmate 042233 grievance regarding Plaintiff’s health.
66) May 15, 2012 (received May 16)) Plaintiff’s inmate 042233 grievance regarding Plaintiff’s
health.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
67) May 21, 2012 referring to 5/15 Plaintiff’s inmate 042233 grievance regarding Plaintiff’s
health.
68) On or about June 8, 2012, Plaintiff’s house was sold on the steps of Santa Cruz
Courthouse.
69) June 21, 2012 return of property by Judge Salazar, Santa Cruz Superior Court.
70) July 17, 2012 civil abatement complaint dismissed.
71) October 23, 2012 Stop work order. Permits to be obtained by October 26, 2012
72) April 19, 2013 Harassment stop with verbal abuse and warrantless search of driver and
passenger.
73) THE ENTERPRISE/ASSOCIATION IN FACT BETWEEN THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISORS, COUNTY COUNSEL AND SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
WAS TO OPPRESS CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING PLAINTIFF, AND
ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES OR A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF CONSPIRACY AND
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 1962 ET SEQ AND
DEVELOPED AN ONGOING BUSINESS ASIDE AND APART FROM THE RACKETEERING
ACTS ALLEGED HEREIN IN THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF
A SCHEME TO UNLAWFULLY TARGET PLAINTIFF AND OTHERS TO DEPRIVE THEM
OF PROPERTY AND FREEDOM THROUGH UNLAWFUL ARREST AND TORTURE IN THE
UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
CAUSE OF ACTION I
Eminent domain through illegal inverse condemnation
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States Constitution Fifth Amendment (through Fourteenth
Amendment)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 SEC 19
GC 835/840 breach of statutory duties 28USC2680
Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of discretion: ZONE TO OWN - Order to
Plaintiff to not enter own property to supervise or effect demanded
repairs.
74) Plaintiff alleges that the County of Santa Cruz, Tamyra Rice, Jessica
Espinosa, County of Santa Cruz Planning Department, Tony Falcone, Kevin Fitzpatrick,
Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, Mark Stone, Judy Anderson, Dan Campos, Felton
Business Association, Trey Noon did plan and agree to misuse zoning and code
enforcement to target and remove Plaintiff from his home.
75) Plaintiff alleges that the Santa Cruz Sheriffs Department, Sgt James "Jim" Ross, and
Officers James Hart, Mark Yanez, Nicholas Baldridge, Randall Hop, Peter Hansen, Robin
Mitchell, Jalon Harris, Scott McPeek, Christopher Cragin , Casandra Cassingham,
William Gazza, Mitchell Medina, Douglas Smith, Joseph Clark, Ross Taylor, Phil Wowak
and Arnold Leff, Director of Emergency Medical Services at Santa Cruz County Jail
joined the plan and agreed to use the police power of the executive to deprive Plaintiff of
his freedom and right to be secure in his person and possessions.
76) Each Defendant named who is an official, appointed, hired or elected, or agent in fact of
any official, appointed, hired or elected, is sued in both their individual capacity and in
their official capacities for misuse and abuse of official, appointed, hired or elected
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
position, or agent in fact of any official, appointed, hired or elected person and/or failure
to do statutory duties pursuant to California Government Code 815 et seq
77) Further, each Defendant planned and executed, assisted in executing or adopted the
execution of the plan to take illegally Plaintiff's property, freedom and health through
intentional extortion through the use of County resources to pressure, harass and cause
through this pattern and strategy to, and did, make Plaintiff homeless, threatened his life
with cruel and unusual punishments intentionally meant to make Plaintiff suffer and
attempted to murder Plaintiff through these acts
78) The plan, initiated at a vigilante meeting of the Felton Business Association and The
County consisted of :
! A-Code Violations- "Red Tag" illegally homes and in particular the Plaintiff's home.
! ! Fines for non-compliance and removal of private vehicles, loss of home
! B-Sheriff harassment of Plaintiff for acts of others
! ! Loss of freedom, impoundment of vehicles and destruction, subject to pressure of
! ! cruel and unusual punishment while under arrest and in another incident denial of
! ! necessary medications
! C-Homelessness and death of Plaintiff, acquisition of Plaintiff's property for sale to an
! insider
79) In order to execute the plan the Defendants first agreed to libel Plaintiff in person, to third
parties and in official reports and news reports creating public animosity.
80) Next was the coordinated attack through civil (abatement of nuisance) and criminal
charges initiated in February 2011 and following through 2012 when Plaintiff's home was
sold and with personal harassment continuing up through April 2013.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
81) CIVIL CODE 43.99 REQUIRES PERSONS TO BE STATE CERTIFIED AND TRAINED
IN PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WORK. Kevin Fitzpatrick and Tony Falcone
are not certified and trained according to statute.
82) In 1967, California repealed the enforcement of city and county codes upon private
property, and repealed all citations C.P.C. §§ 853.1-853.4
83) County forged forward to seize petitioner’s property in a scheme to first encumber it with
citations for public nuisance, then used the Court to give the scheme the appearance of
validity by filing a Claim for Abatement, etc., Case No. CV 170628 in Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Cruz . Court upheld the scheme, and ordered that petitioner
be subject to arrest.
84) County cannot charge or recover from a citizen the costs of criminal law enforcement for
code infractions. Government Code section 53069.4 subdivision (a)(1) does not require the
creation of a system of fines and penalties for code violations. Tamyra Rice admitted to
Judge Burdick that the protest hearings are not due process
85) On or about April 3, 2011, Defendants caused the inability of
Plaintiff to comply with County building repair requirements and
unconstitutionally deprived Plaintiff of his Fourth Amendment
rights as granted by the United States Constitution and further
causing the economic waste and destruction through official
inaction leading to dilapidation and foreclosure sale on originally
set for April 9, 2012, and sold June 8, 2012, further aggravating
damages and harm to Plaintiff with property loss and homelessness.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
86) Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or rational judgement
and instituted a policy or custom that in fact willfully fosters
the denial of Defendant's and others civil rights both in the
allowing of unlicensed, uncertified building code inspectors who
are not competent as a matter of law to cite code violations
coupled with the absence of a required appeals process by the
County of Santa Cruz, using civil police powers of the Board of
Supervisors and all named organs of the County of Santa Cruz.
87) The plaintiff possessed a constitutional right, of which they were
deprived, to the quiet enjoyment and to be secure in one's
possessions and house and to be free of attempts by any municipal
entity to engineer through unlicensed and uncertified code
inspectors to illegally condemn private property through code
violations in order to take that property without just compensation
in contradiction to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United
State Constitution.
88) The court order barring an owner such as the plaintiff denying the
right to enter his own property to make repairs demanded by the
County rises to a scheme and custom to deny property rights by
denying personal rights and creating a nuisance which then is used
to deprive Plaintiff of his land and possessions.
89) The Defendant’s acts are as follows: 1) Collusion and conspiracy to
hire and retain unlicensed and uncertified Building Inspectors by
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Board of Supervisors; collusion and conspiracy to encumber
private property of private citizens to obtain through statuary
scheme inverse condemnation and instead of paying market price for
condemnation actually encumbers the title and makes sale or
insurance unavailable through recording violations against the
title, forcing Plaintiff in particular to become homeless by
denying through court order access of any use of privately owned
property of Plaintiff leading to the destruction of the home and
it's value and the loss of tools, papers and other valuable
personal property of Plaintiff culminating in public sale through
foreclosure at below market price, all in an excess of ONE MILLION
DOLLARS.
CAUSE OF ACTION II
slander and libel
90) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
91) Defendants stated and were quoted in print and media that
Defendant was a “parole violator” and “drug user” or addict when
Defendants knew or should have known the truth that Plaintiff had
never been on parole and was not a drug user or addict. The
denial of police services which contributed to the destruction,
burning and loss of property as well as physical danger The acts
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or omissions of the defendant were intentional and designed to
harass and deprive Plaintiff through a scheme of Red Tagging and
charging fees and penalties by uncertified and unlicensed
inspectors who failed to have required appeal board and
independent process and using the courts to oppress and harass
and deny the ability of Plaintiff to effect repairs or to
supervise other licensed personnel to make required repairs.
Defendants acted outside scope of office, employment and
performance of duties at the time of the incidents. (3) The
Defendants acted under the color of law and ordinances without
mandated independent review by appeal and did so as though the
County and it's officers were in compliance with State law when
in fact they weren't.
92) Said unlicensed inspectors did, intentionally and incompetently
coupled with threats of arrest by code enforcement personnel and
the County Sheriffs Department, attempt to intimidate, harass and
deprive Plaintiff of his property and liberty.
93) The acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional
deprivation to Plaintiff through loss of business, destruction of
property, loss of quiet enjoyment, great physical danger and
emotional distress and loss of reputation all directly caused by
the illegal acts of Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CAUSE OF ACTION III
FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT
94) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
95) On or about February 22, 2011, Defendants Mark Yanez and Sgt James "Jim"
Ross with Lt. Fred Plageman, Officers Parker, Hankes and County of Santa Cruz
“consensually contacted” Edwina Hardy on Private property at 176
Kirby, Felton, and arrested Plaintiff.
96) Defendants then made Plaintiff stay in the sun for seven hours
while Judge Almquist signed a search warrant in case F20484. This
matter was ultimately dismissed and the property ordered to be
returned to Plaintiff on June 21, 2012, by Judge Salazar.
97) Defendants impounded Plaintiff’s vehicle 1988 Ford Bronco 4TAL431 and had it towed by
Ladds for an excessive amount of time for extortionate amounts in order to make the cost
to redeem for Plaintiffs interest prohibitive or withhold release until sold.
CAUSE OF ACTION IV cruel or unusual punishment US Constitution, Eighth
Amendment, (through Fourteenth), California Constitution Art I sec 17;
California Code - Section 15600 et seq (15610.35; Section 15610.37, 15610.39; 15610.53, 15610.57
(b)(4), 15610.63(d))
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
98)Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
99)During Plaintiff’s detention February 22, 2011 while officers were
seeking a warrant, he was staked in the sun for seven hours and
also denied water exasperating his skin cancer.
100) Officer Tate Howe offered both water and shade but was told by Defendant Sgt.
Ross not to give Plaintiff either despite Plaintiff’s age and medical condition which included
squamous cell cancer which began to bleed from overexposure.
101) The Denial of bona fide necessary medication was a discriminatory
denial of police services was Intentional and outside the scope
and performance of duties and included intentional denial of
Supervision and/or the inadequate or lack of training of Defendants
agents and support staff. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable
care or rational judgement and instituted a policy or custom that
in fact willfully fosters the denial of Defendant's and others
civil rights.
102) THe total lack of respect by officers of the law to uphold the
law and the denial of necessary medical care and prescribed
medicines is a willful and unconscionable denial of the Plaintiff's
civil rights. The Defendants are subject to both the Constitution
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California.
103) Punitive damages and injunctive relief are allowed in such a case
of a vast and corrupt in design scheme to violate the civil rights
of the Plaintiff's and others to liberty and property and to be
free of criminal acts by agents and officers of the County of Santa
Cruz. CAUSE OF Action V
FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT
104) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
105) On or about February 3, 2011, Case F22515/M59762, without due
process of law, the Defendants Nicholas Baldridge , Randall Hop, Peter
Hansen, Robin Mitchell, Jalon Harris unlawfully concocted a scheme to
harass and intimidate defendant through a pretextual vehicle
equipment violation stop, with “Sniffer dog” K9 “Tomi”, ready to
search Plaintiff’s vehicle while falsely arresting, perjuring
and attempting to conceal the truth in order to deny Plaintiff
his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Twelfth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
106) In order to cover their lack of probable cause for the stop, the Defendants perjured
themselves in their reports as shown by the car camera which they affirmed was “out of
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
order” and proceeded to Falsely Arrest the Plaintiff causing him
great emotional and physical distress and depriving him of the
civil liberty to be free of unreasonable search and seizure
ultimately leading to the loss of Property and freedom.
107) Plaintiff’s vehicle 1989 GMC Suburban 3GEU493 was taken and
impounded by Lifesaver Towing and junked.
108) On August 4, 2011, Defendant’s bond was forfeited for failure
to appear August 1, 2011, when he was in custody at the time.
CAUSE OF ACTION VI
FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT
109) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
110) On or about June 21, 2011, Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F21225,
without the due process of the law, acting on a tip from Defendant
Judy Anderson that the Plaintiff was driving without a license,
Defendants Sgt. Jim Ross, Douglas Smith, Joseph Clark, Ross Taylor and Michelle
Barton unlawfully concocted a scheme and carried it through to harass
and intimidate Plaintiff by falsely arresting, perjuring and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attempting to conceal the truth in order to deny Plaintiff his First,
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Twelfth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
109) The vehicle a GMC 4D Blue 3GEU493 was searched without probable cause on the
pretext that a clean glass pipe, not illegal in or of itself, was found, by Joseph Clark with
K9 “Ari” was impounded and towed by Rossi Tow and junked causing Defendant
humiliation, loss of property and freedom.
CAUSE OF ACTION VII
FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT False Arrest and Cruel and Unusual
Punishment and failure to provide either or both emergency and basic
health services.
110) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
111) On or about August 3, 2011, the Santa Cruz Superior Court F21277,
without the due process of the law, Defendants Casandra Cassingham,
Peter Hansen, William Gazza, Sgt Jim Ross, Mark Yanez, Joseph Clark, Christopher
Cragin, and Mitchell Medina with Mike Fairbanks, Scott McPeek, Officer Smith and Lisa
Yee , between approximately 21:52:54 to 22:24:33 did unlawfully stalk and
carry through a scheme to stop the Plaintiff for an obstructed
license plate, harass and intimidate Plaintiff by falsely
arresting him, perjuring themselves on official reports and
attempting to conceal the truth in order to deny Plaintiff his
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 22 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Twelfth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
112) Perjury by all officers and in particular Defendant Cragin was
proved in court with video evidence contradicting official filed
sheriff’s reports.
113) At no time was the Plaintiff tested for blood, urineor breath by
Santa Cruz officers but only by their subjective measures which,
in light of Plaintiff’s medical problems and numerous blood tests
for several strokes during all the acts alleged in this entire
complaint showed no drugs in Plaintiff’s system - ever - contrary
to the subjective measure used.
114) Plaintiff’s vehicle was searched by Christopher Cragin and Scott
McPeek, impounded and towed by Lifesaver Towing being junked by Monterey
Sheriff/Salinas Tammy Young and Phil Hickenbottom along with several other vehicles :
115) The DMV report shows the additional property losses as follows :
Land 1HW8773 CA877229
Chev 1J02755 CKM245Z157301 Monterey Sheriff Salinas Tammy Young
! DODG 6Y39585 W27BJ7S213810 junked by Monterey Sheriff 9/28/10
M:CA 1GK9729 CA660980 PTI trailer ! !
! MERZ XMERCYX 12305312008475
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
! ! ! !
! DODG 4H38595 D26BJ3SO96747 ! ! ! ! RED TAGGED TO REMOVE FROM PROPERTY
! BMWB 3JHX312 WBADK7302E9201897! ! ! ! 4/15/11 Monterey Sheriff Phil Hickenbottom 5/25/11 dismantled Tri-County Tow FORD 2MVX467 1FABP44E4HF132002
CAUSE OF ACTION VIII
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
116) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
117) On or about May 3, 2012, Defendant County of Santa Cruz and it's
agents at the Santa Cruz County Jail did willfully and knowingly
deprive the Plaintiff of the necessary medicines as prescribed
by a licensed doctor to alleviate several life threatening
conditions, which include cardiac and renal health issues
directly affecting the Plaintiff’s health both in short term
with edema and inability to walk and in the long term with risk
of shortened mortality in an attempt to murder or maim the
Plaintiff.
CAUSE OF ACTION VIII 18 USC 1961(3) Racketeering and
vigilantism. 42 USC 1983 Denial of civil rights.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
118) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
119) In violation of 42 USC 1983 Defendants and each of them, under
color of state and municipal statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage, did subject, or causes to be subjected,
Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, to the deprivation of
the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, and are liable to the Plaintiff for injuries in this
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress.
120) The relationship of the Defendants as all being county
employees, agents or principals with particular regard to civil
police power, criminal police power and judicial power all
amalgamated into the executive power without a system of check
or balance due to the agreements made by and between the
Defendants in order to defraud the public of their civil rights
and property rights is an association and, in fact, an
enterprise 18 USC 1961(4).
Defendants associated with or employed by any government entity or
subcontractor, agent or official is also an association of
criminality to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 25 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
fill the coffers of the government unlawfully and allow insider
acquisitions of Plaintiff’s, and others, property.
121) RICO 18 USC 1962(c ). The persons controlling or directing
subordinates, the courts in league with the county counsel who
is in league with adjoining and in unison administrative
departments and all in league with the police and sheriffs
police power through direction of the Felton Business
Association and it’s members has and will continue to affect
interstate commerce and deny the business(es) of Plaintiff
without due process of law which is crippled by the inequality
of protection for the class called homeowners or owner-bulders.
122) Each Defendant individually and collectively aided and abetted
each other, their agents, employees and others, conducted and
participated directly or indirectly in conduct and affairs of
the enterprise to deny constitutional protections and devalue
Plaintiffs assets in order to acquire them under forced sale at
the least desirable price-far below market value, in order to
obtain Plaintiff's land, possessions and cooperation through a
pattern or racketeering activity which includes arrest and
incarceration for being on his own land even to fix alleged
violations!
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 26 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
123) The persons controlling or directing the affairs of enterprise
were Jim Ross and within the jails Jim Hart and they did and
continue to conspire to and did take specific acts as described
above to deprive Plaintiff of his property through legal process
barring him from entry while enticing him orally by Tony Falcone
of the Planning Department in March 2012 to violate the order to
get a gas reading so Plaintiff could get a permit which resulted
in Plaintiff’s arrest. The persons controlling or directing the
affairs of enterprise conspired to and did take specific acts to
slander and libel Plaintiff as a “drug dealer” while witnessing
drug dealing by Sheriffs to inmates in the Sheriff’s jail.
124) This corrupt scheme was concealed and perpetrated by Defendants
Sheriff Department, County Counsel/District Attorney, and
Planning Department under the Supervision and direction of the
City Council. These specific acts included racketeering and the
conspiracy were of an ongoing nature continuing into the future.
Plaintiffs were injured in their business and/or property by
reason, as described herein, of the above violation of criminal
law and civil government law.
RICO 18 USC 1962 (d)
125) The persons entered into a conspiracy to violate (c ) above as
described. As evidence of this agreement, persons controlling or
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 27 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directing the affairs of enterprise and other co-conspirators
committed he acts described herein and conspired to conceal
defendants civil rights and constitutional violations and
criminal activity, or aided and abetted Defendants in concealing
their criminal activity. As further evidence of the agreement,
the persons controlling or directing the affairs or enterprise
and other co-conspirators committed the acts described herein
and conspired with the defendants to evade and/or aided and
abetted defendants in evading criminal prosecution and avoiding
public embarrassment and liability related thereto.
The secret agreement was fraudulently concealed from the
plaintiff as well as state and federal law enforcement.
126) As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body,
shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace,
humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and
will continue to be prevented from performing his daily
activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; has sustained
loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and
will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological
treatment, therapy and counseling. Each Defendant by reason of
their collusion and conspiracy to deny Plaintiff's civil rights
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 28 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is subject to vicarious liability (respondeat superior) and
civil and criminal conspiracy statutes, both individually and
for the acts of all other conspirators in furtherance of their
unlawful scheme all of which includes wire fraud through
telephone, mail and email.
127) Those associated under 18 USC 1961(4); 1962 (d) enterprise/
different collusions activity : Defendants engaged in or joined
in a conspiracy to intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently
conceal criminal conduct of its agents, aid and abet the
concealment of criminal conduct, aid and abet criminal denial of
civil rights and property rights, failure to report criminal
conduct of its agents, to obstruct justice, obstruct criminal
investigation, obstruct state and/or local law enforcement,
evade criminal and/or civil prosecution and liability, bribe
and/or pay money to victims in order to keep its criminal
conduct secret, violate the civil rights of Plaintiff, engage in
mail and/or wire fraud, and commit fraud and/or fraudulent
inducement of Plaintiff to respond in furtherance of its scheme
to protect all Defendants and each of them from criminal
prosecution, to maintain or increase revenue to the County of
Santa Cruz and the personal enrichment of each Defendant or
individually and/or avoid public scandal in the revealing of the
scheme to defraud citizens of the United States of their
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 29 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
property through unlawful zoning and violations with a lack of
mandated appeals process.
128) Further, the agreement to deprive Plaintiff of his needed
medical care and medications on or about April 18, 2012, was
made between County Sheriffs and County Jailers.
129) Each Defendant is individually liable. Their conspiracy as plead
above and incorporated herein fully includes
(1) That the Sheriff's Department conspired amongst themselves
to harass and intimidate Plaintiff and conspired with jailers to
deprive Plaintiff of necessary medication causing potentially
fatal consequences and great distress from edema and imminent
heart failure;
(2) deprived directly or indirectly as a person or class,
citizens of the United States who own property in the County of
Santa Cruz of equal protection of the laws, equal privileges or
immunities under the laws;
(3) that all of this was caused to be done t in furtherance of
the conspiracy by the denial of medicine and the attempt to
control Plaintiff and deprive Plaintiff of the ability to defend
himself in an unbiased court, against a police and executive
system as exists in the County of Santa Cruz, and
(4) have injured the person and property of Plaintiff or
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 30 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deprived him of having and exercising any right or privilege as
guaranteed under the constitutions of the United States and the
State of California. All this was done to criminally cover up
Defendants unlawfulness. This leads to personal and collective
liability of Defendants for large punitive damages, especially
Plaintiff's fear for his life and the emotional distress
attendant thereupon.
130) This was all done with an unprecedented abuse of process and
malicious prosecution by abatement, pretextural stops and
incarceration and/or fines.
131) As a proximate and direct result of the Defendants’ actions
collectively and individually Plaintiff has sustained damages as
plead above, especially obstruction of justice, losses totaling
over one million dollars and severe and continuing health
problems exacerbated by Defendants’ conduct.
132) This conduct includes sub secret files only are only accessible
to law enforcement, judicial officers or their staff and agents
and the County government and employees and agents and not
disclosed or made available to uninvolved law enforcement
authorities, or others, in order for law enforcement to
investigate the alleged crimes of Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 31 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
133) In furtherance of its scheme, the persons controlling or
directing the affairs of the enterprise have routinely entered
into secret oral and/or written settlement agreements with
confidentiality provisions that kept secrets from scrutiny by
the public and law enforcement authorities. Further Defendants
illegally bribed or used other means to influence other
Defendants and the Plaintiff himself to not report these
unlawful acts. Each individual named and individuals separately
and their acts have immediate and long lasting effects on
interstate commerce. Should criminal investigation of these
matters be instituted Plaintiff asserts standing under Qui Tam
statutes for recovery and whistleblower protections.
CAUSE OF ACTION IX ELDER ABUSE California Code - Section 15610.17 (w), (x), (y);
Section 15610.27; Section 15610.30, Cal Civ Code 51.7 51 (b) 52 (b)(1)…(b)(2) 25k AND 52(e)
(in addition to other remedies).
132) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
133) AT THE TIME OF ALL THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF PLAINTIFF WAS OVER 65
YEARS OF AGE WITH A HISTORY OF BRAIN DAMAGE, AORTIC ANEURISM,
GOUT, HYPERTENSION AND A SERIES OF STROKES BROUGHT ON BY ACTS OF
DEFENDANTS.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 32 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
134) Plaintiff was approved for HUD-VASH housing (640/180D) and
Disabled placard on May 2, 2012.
135) From February 2011 to today, the Plaintiff has been assaulted and
often battered during the arrests for trying to obtain his
medications in March of 2011 from his home or the entry to get the
gas BTU’s as required by Tony Falcone which was a set up with Sgt
Ross to arrest the Plaintiff which resulted in battering of
Plaintiff by Sgt Ross.
136) During the Plaintiff's incarceration in 2012 he was denied his
required medications which led to severe lower limb swelling and
materially affecting his health. In addition, the denial of state
mandated health protection of inmates and the rampant drug trade
(cocaine and etc.) in the jail system shows a willful disregard
for the safety of inmates, and is a continuing corruption.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
As a result of the above-described conduct, the Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock,
emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress,
embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, penury and
loss of enjoyment of life and deprival of property; was prevented and
will continue to be prevented from performing his daily activities
and obtaining full enjoyment of life; has sustained loss of earnings
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 33 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and earning capacity, tools of trade, home and liberty; and has or
will continue to incur expenses for medical, psychological treatment,
homelessness and hopelessness.
Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief for damages according to proof
and with a floor based upon the appraised value of Plaintiff's
property in excess of $800,000.00 by unlawful inverse condemnation.
Other damages are in excess of jurisdictional requirements as this is
brought under the Constitution of the United States as a Federal
Question.
Further damages AND EQUITABLE ORDERS according to proof and as seem
prudent to the Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________ DATE
_________________________________________________________________
KARLA GOTTSCHALK,
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JACK SMITH
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 34 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
I, JACK C. SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE PLEADING HAVE READ THE SAME
AND
VERIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
DATED:__________________________
_______________________________________
JACK SMITH
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 35 of 35 5:13-CV-00595 LHK