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

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.


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



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



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


11) DEFENDANT Randall Hop is a citizen of the United States employed



12)DEFENDANT Peter Hansen is a citizen of the United States employed



13) DEFENDANT Robin Mitchell is a citizen of the United States



14) DEFENDANT Jalon Harris is a citizen of the United States employed




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



16) DEFENDANT Christopher Cragin is a citizen of the United States



17) DEFENDANT Casandra Cassingham is a citizen of the United States



18) DEFENDANT William Gazza is a citizen of the United States



19) DEFENDANT Joseph Clark is a citizen of the United States employed



20) DEFENDANT Mitchell Medina is a citizen of the United States




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



22) DEFENDANT Ross Taylor is a citizen of the United States employed



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.


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


30) DEFENDANT Jessica Espinosa is a citizen of the United States

employed as County Counsel for the City and County of Santa Cruz


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


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.


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.


http://www.bsc.ca.gov/default.htm

http://www.bsc.ca.gov/default.htm

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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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))


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


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




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


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




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


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.



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


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


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



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.


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



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


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!


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


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


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


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


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.


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).



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.


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


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


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


Documents

5-13-CV-00595 LHK