6 1 07 Nvd Doc 1-2 40 Pages White b Sferrazza Holmes Sbn 255

7/29/2019 6 1 07 Nvd Doc 1-2 40 Pages White b Sferrazza Holmes Sbn 255

1/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 40

HOWARD LEE WHITE, 24575P.O. Box 607Carson City, Nevada 89702Pla in t i f f Pro se on behalfof himself and a l l otherss imilar ly s i tua ted

8Y:

- - - - - - - - 7 ~ - ~fiLE RECEIVEDEiHERED ERVED ON

COUNSEUPARTIES Of RECORD

JUN 1 2 7CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADADEPUTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEVADA

HOWARD LEE W H I T ~ ALLEN HALLING,JAMES WRIGHT, FliEDERICK GREENMARTIN JONES, JERRY DOW NOVACAMPO, OTIS J . HUGHES, GILBERTTYLER, MONTY KOSSOW, DEVONTAYWILLIAMS, KENNETH DORSEY, MARVINMORRIS, JALMAA CINQUE, 7 o ~ F'osfe.JOHNNEY WILLIMfS, ANTHONY SHEPARD,JOSEPH CRESCI, ROBERT BENSON: MICHAEL GEIGER, CHARLES MORRIS, KEVINSTONE and MICHAEL DRAKE, on behalfof themselves and a l l other s i m i ~ 2 ~ - ~ )la r ly si tuated and prospective of-fenders, -

Plaint i f f svs.

DAVID HANKE, ROBERT LARKIN, PETESFERRAZZA, BONInE WEBER, and JIMGALLOWAY, as Commissioners of Washoe County; i t s Public DefenderJEREMY BOSLER and MICHAEL R. SpeCCHIO(Former Public Defender), andevery other deputy, invest igatorand agent past and present, RICHARDGAMMICK, as Dis t r ic t Attorney, andDOROTHY NASH HOLMES{Former Dis t r ic tAttorney), and every other ass i s -tant , invest igator , past and present, THE STATE OF NHVADA, i t sNorthern Judicial System of theSecond Judic ia l Dis t r ic t Court MILLSLANE{Former jUlige), BRENT ADAMS,

Civil No. 3:07 cv 00255

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY... AND' TNJUNCTIVE REL1EF(42 USC 1983 1985)


2/40


CONNIE STEINHE IMER, Judge, JANETBERRY, Judge, and STEVEN R. KOSACHJudge; THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA Reno)and PHILLIP J . PATTEE, i nc lus ive ,Defendants .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1 . Pla in t . i f f s above named br ing . t h i s ac t ion aga ins t the

above-named defendants for a declara tory judgment t ha t p l a i n t i f f sc o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i gh t s are being and have been v io l a t ed because oft he i r Indigency and Race in Washoe County, and for a permanent i n -j unc t ion preven t ing defendants ' from con t inu ing to vio la t e thep l a i n t i f f s r i gh t s while ac t ing under color of s t a t e law. Where,as here , Washoe County Off i c i a l s pursuant to custom, con t inuous lyadvise ind igent offenders , inc luding the p l a i n t i f f s t ha t t h i s i sa Redneck town and i you go to j u ry t r i a l you wi l l be foundgu i l ty , not because you i s gui l ty , but because you i s a Bla.ckman , and the adopt ion of the Early Case Resolu t ion (ECR) andDirec t Fi l ing Program (DFP) p o l i c i e s which are in v io la t ion of theSixth and Four teen th Amendments to the United Sta tes Cons t i t u t i on

JURISDICTION2. J u r i s d i c t i on i s confer red on t h i s Court under 5 U.S.C. I

552(e) (5) , 28 U.S,C. 1331 and l 343(a ) (3 ) , PROVIDING FOR fede--

r a l quest ion and over claiDlS arising ' under 42 U. S. c. 1983 and1985(2)(3) and 28 U.S.C. I 2201 and 2202 and pa r t i c u l a r l y A r t i c l e4, I 2(1) , Art ic le 6, I 2, and Amendments 1, V, VI and XIV of theUnited Sta tes Cons t i t u t i on . This Court has pendent j u r i s d i c t i o n

-2 -


3/40


to ad j u d i ca t e cla ims a r i s i n g under Nevada law pursuan t to28 U.S.C. 1367.

PARTIES3. P l a i n t i f f s a re r e s i d e n t s and c i t i z e n s o f the United

S ta t e s and S ta t e of Nevada and a re i n ca rce ra t ed with in the NevadaDepartment o f Co r rec t io n s ; who were su b jec t ed to sa id i n v id io u sdiscr imina t ion as a l l eg ed in t h i s compla in t by defendan t s due tot h e i r indigeney and race and fo r no other reasons .

4. The p l a i n t i f f s a re p a r t and rep re sen ta t ive s o f a c l a s swith in t he meaning of Rule 23 Federa l Rules of Civ i l Procedure .

~ h e Class rep resen ted by p l a i n t i f f s WHITE HALLING WRIGHT GREEN}JONES DOW CAMPO HUGHES TYLER KOSSOW WILLIAMS DORSEY MOR-RIS CINQUE Fos4er; J . WILLIAMS SHEPARD CRESCI C. MORRIS STONEand DRAKE inc lud ing a l l others s imi l a r ly s i t u a t ed and prospec t ivec l a s s not yet known who were o r w i l l in the fu t u re be sub jec tedto the inv id ious d i sc r imina t ion perpe t ra ted by defendants o fWashoe County. The c l a s s e s a re proper fo r the fol lowing reasons :

a ) The members of the c l a s s a re so nnmherons t h a t j o i n e ~of a l l of them i s imprac t i cab le ;

b) The members of the c l a s s a re read i ly i d e n t i f i a b l efrom the defendan t s records ;

c ) There a re ques t ions of law and f ac t common to eachc l a s s ;

d) The cla ims o f the p l a i n t i f f s a re t y p i ca l o f the c la imof t h e i r r e s p ec t i v e c la s se s ;

e ) The defendants have ac ted or r e fu s e to ac t on grounds-3 -


4/40


-genera l ly appl icable to the c las ses ;( f ) The p l a i n t i f f s wil l f a i r l y and adequately pro tec t the

i n t e r e s t of the c lass .5. Defen. lants ROBERT LARIIN, DAVID HANIE, PETE SFERRAZZA,

JIM GALLOWAY and BONNIE WEBER a re , and a t a l l t imes re l evan there in have been, Commissioners o f the County of Washoe. Defen-dants co n s t i t u t e the governing board o f the County and a re r e s -pons ib le fo r the a l loca t ion of funds fo r a l l county purposes ,p o l i c i e s , and t r a in in g of county employees not e ~ l u d e d pursuantto law. Defendants a re sued in t he i r o f f i c i a l and i nd iv idua lcapac i ty .

6. Defendants JEREMY BOSLER, MICHAEL SPECCHIO, deput iesagen ts , and inves t iga to r s a re employed by the Washoe County Com-miss ioners and ass igned to the Washoe County Publ ic Defender sO f f i ce and as such are respons ib le fo r rep resen t ing ind igen tperson(s ) charged with a publ ic offenSe . These defendants arerepresenta t ivE o f a c l a s s , with in the meaning o f Rule 23, Fede-r a l Rules of Civ i l Procedure , cons i s t ing o f a l l employees as-s igned to the Reno of f ice . This c l a s s (he re inaf te r r e fe r red to asDefendant Class 1) i s sued in t he i r o f f i c i a l capac i ty .

7. Defendant RICHARD GAMMICI, i s the duly e lec t ed D i s t r i c tAttorney of tbe County o f Washoe, as d i s t r i c t a t torney, defendantGammick i s respons ib le fo r the promulgat ion and implementat ion ofthe po l ic ies and procedure by which cr imina l p rosecu t ions a re in -i t i a t e d in thE cour t s of the Sta t e o f Nevada aga ins t persons andfo r determining whether , under what c i rcumstances o r o f fense p e r ~

: .-4 -


5/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 5 of 404If

sons accused of v io la t ing the laws of the Sta t e o f Nevada wi l l beprosecuted and fo r au the r i z ing and superv is ing the i n i t i a t i o nand maintenanc:e of prosecut ions fo r v io l a t i on of sa id laws in thecour t s of the Sta te of Nevada, and i s sued both in h i s o f f i c i a lcapac i ty and as an i nd iv idua l .

8. Defendant DOROTHY NASH HOLMES i s the former D i s t r i c t A t-to rney of the County of Washoe, and i s sued in her o f f i c i a l capaci ty .

9. Defendants BRENT ADAMS MILLS LANE, CONNIE STEIHEi,TMER,JANET BERRY and STEVEN R. OSACH a r e and a t a l l t imes r e l evan the re in were duly e lec ted and qua l i f i ed Judges of the Second Ju d i c i a l Dist r ic : t Court of the Sta te of Nevada and a t a l l t imesr e s iden t s of \fashoe County. Defendants are sued in t h e i r o f f i c a lcapac i ty .

10. Defendlant STATE BAR OF NEVADA i s a corpora t ion organizedunder the law of the St a t e of Nevada, and has been a t a l l t imesr e l evan t he re in given the au tho r i ty to inves t iga te charges ofp r o f e s s i o n l misconduct s ody c o r p o r t e under t h e l ws o f t h eSta te of Nevada. Defendant PHILLIP J . PATTEE i s and a t a l l t imesmater i a l here to was, an i nd iv idua l working as an employee andagent of Defendant Sta te Bar Reno). This ac t ion i s broughtaga ins t PATTEE, both ind iv idua l ly and a l so i n h is o f f i c i a l capaci ty .

11. Defendant STATE OF NEVADA i s and a t a l l t imes he re inr e l evan t has been, a Sta te and e x i s t i n g under the laws of theUNited St a t e s Const i tu t ion of America, and sub jec t t o equ i ty l i a -

-5 -


6/40


b i l i t y fo i r the malfeasance of s t a t e j ud i c i a l and execu t ive o ff i c e r s .

12. Defendants and each of them a re and a t a l l t imes herein mentioned bave been, the co-consp i ra to r s a ide r and abe t to rand agent in doing the ac t s and mainta ining the prac t i ces here incomplained o f a re and have been ac t ing with in the course andscope of t h e i r o f f i c i a l duty and e m p l o y ~ e n t .

13. In doing a l l the ac t s and omissions, and in mainta ining,the prac t i ces he re in descr ibed Defendants, and each of them,separa te ly and in concer t have been and were ac t ing under co lo rof the laws, customs and usages of the Sta t e of Nevada. Said ac t sand omiss ions were committed and prac t i ce s were mainta ined by theDefendants pe r sona l ly and th rough ac t ions of t he i r depu t i e s in ves t iga to r s and agents ac t ing pursuant to customs and p o l i c i e so f f i c i a l l y adopted and promulgated by the e lec ted of f i c i a l s .

ST TEMENT OF THE C SE14. The d l ~ f e n d a n t s and each of them, conspired to depr ive

p l a i n t i f f s of the equal pro tec t ion of the laws of Nevada, to wit ;the laws in r e l a t i o n to as s i s tance of counsel for t he i r defenseand p a r t i c u l a r l y those r e l a t i n g to es t ab l i shed t r i b u n a l t he i rorgan iza t ion procedure and course of j u s t i ce ; and fu r the r con-sp i red to depr ive p l a i n t i f f s and a l l o the rs s imi la r ly s i tua ted o fthose r igh t s I .rovided under the Cons t i t u t ion and laws of theUnited Sta t e s and p a r t i c u l a r l y those se t fo r th in Counts I I IIll IV and he re in and conspired to impede, hinder obs t ruc tand defea t the due course and due process of law and j u s t i c e in

. .--6 -


7/40


the County of Washoe, Sta t e o f Nevada; and fu r the r conspired todepr ive p l a i n t i f f s of the r i gh t s , p r iv i l eg e s and immunit iessecured by thle Cons t i tu t ion and laws of the United Sta tes ex-tended to c i t i z e n s of the United Sta tes and S ta t e of Nevada andp a r t i c u l a r l y those s e t fo r th in Counts 1, 11, Ill IV and V herein ; t h a t a l l of sa id ac t s and those s e t fo r th throughout t h i sComplaint were committed by defendants , and each of them, whileac t ing under co lo r and pretence of s t a tu t e , pol icy , custom,off i ce and laws of the Sta t e of Nevada.

15. In fur therance of the objec t of the aforesa id conspiracydefendan ts Comlmissioners, Bosler , Specchio, Gammick, and NashHolmes ac t ing under co lo r and pre tence of s t a t u t e , pol icy , custom,o f f i c e and the laws of the S ta t e of Nevada and in w i l l fu l , i n t en t i ona l , malicj_ous and discr imina t ing misuse of t he i r au thor i ty ,t h a t of t he i r subordinates , and of others , inc lud ing Judges damsLane, S t e i n h e ~ i m e r Berry and Iosach , w i l f u l l y ac t ing in concer twith the o ther defendants , t h e i r agents , each and a l l procuring ,a id ing and encouraging the other , did purpose ly and sys temat iC-a l ly and i n t en t i o n a l l y with a pa t te rn fo r discr imina t ing aga ins tp l a i n t i f f s and sub jec t ing them to inequa l i ty of t rea tment in thefo l lowing par t i cu la rs which were not pr iv i l eged or compelled bylaw

(a ) By engaging in p a r t i s an conduct in a profess iona lcapac i ty mani fes t ing pre judice ;

b) Threatening , coerc ing and i n t imida t ing ind igen tc l i e n t s , including p l a i n t i f f s to plea g u i l t y s t a t i n g t h i s i s a

-7 -


8/40


1

Redneck town and if you go to j u ry tri l you w i l l be found g u i l t ynot because you i s gui l ty , but because you i s a black man , p re -vent ing c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s from making any objec t ion or prepare adefense to the a l l eged charge s ) AGAINST THEK:

c ) By ac t i n g i n concer t with prosecu t ion and judge to im-panel a l l ~ h i t e ju ry to convic t ind igen t c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s inany c r imin a l t r i a l ;

d) By br ib ing numberous ind igen t c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s inconcer t with e lec t ed o f f i c i a l s and agen ts , both with cash, g i f t sand t he promise of l e s s e r s en t en ce s ) , TO wit :

1. M RVIN MORRIS - - January, 2002by Larry Car l sonPubl ic Defender In v e s t i g a t o r

2. GILBERT TYLER - - November, 2001by Michael Specchio and Paul Giese

3 . DEVONT Y WILLIAMS - - May, 2004by John Malone

$200.00

e ) By i n t en t i o n a l l y s ign ingg and ver i fy ing waiver of in digen t c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s pre l imina ry hea r ing Without consen t o

f ~ / h l ' l 5 , a t the behest of defendant Richard Gammick;f ) By, and as a mat te r o f p ra c t i c e , ro u t i n e l y abandon

r e s p o n s ib i l i t y owed ind igen t c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s upon being co u r tappointed fo r t h e i r defense :

g ) By, and as a mat te r o f p ra c t i c e revea l defenses t ragey of i ~ l i g e n t c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s seeking to es t ab l i s h a de-fense to the d s s i s t an t d i s t r i c t a t to rney ;

h) By, and as a mat ter o f p ra c t i c e , r o u t i n e l y d i r e c t in - digen t c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s to remain s i l e n t or j u s t answer Yes

-8 -


9/40


during sentencing hearing to volun tar iness of g u i l t y plea ;( i ) By, and as a mat ter of prac t ice , rou t ine ly f a i l to

t imely i n i t i a t e Notice of Appeal for indigent c l i e n t / p l a i n t i f f sa f t e r a sp e c i f i c reques t to do so;

( j ) Informing indigent c l i e n t s / p l a i n t i f f s named here in ofthe b iga t ry of named defendant Judges, e .g . , Kevin Van y (defendant of c l a s s 1) informed P l a i n t i f f James Wrigh t s mother JudgeAdams i s a r a c i s t and Bigot , and tha t Wright was never going torece ive a f a i r t r i a l in Judge Adams courtroom cause Nevada i s theMiss iss ippi of the West, and every black t ha t he (Van Ry) went tot r i a l with in Judge Adams courtroom l o s t , not because they weregu i l ty , but because they were b lack and Judge d a m ~ was goingto al low t h i s to t r ansp i re because Judge Adams a l ready bel ievedWrigh t to be gu i l ty . See Exhibi ts A B, C D and E a t t ached

here to and incorpora ted here in by re fe rence .16. In f u r t h e r a n c e ~ o f the objec t of the a fo re sa id conspiracy

defendant Commissioners, Gammick, Specchio, Bosler and others ,ac t i ng under co lor and pretence o f s t a t u t e po l i c y custom o f i eand the laws of the S ta t e of Nevada and in w i l l fu l , i n t en t iona l ,malicious and disc r imina t ing misuse of t h e i r au thor i ty , t ha t oft he i r subord ina tes , and others , including Judges Adams, Lane,S te in h e imer , Berry and Kosach, w i l f u l l y ac t ing in concer t withthe o ther defendants , t he i r agents , each and a l l procur ing , a id ing and encouraging the othe r , did purposely and sys t ema t i ca l lyand i n t en t i o n a l l y with a p a t t e r n fo r d i sc r imina t ing aga ins t p la in t i f f s and subjec t ing them to inequa l i ty of t reatment in the fo l -

-9 -


10/40


lowing p a r t i c u l a r s which were uot pr iv i leged or compelled by law:(a ) In the wi l l fu l in t rus ion in to a t to rney-c l i en t r e l a -

t ionship to preven t ind igen t p l a i n t i f f s charged with publ ic o f-fense an opportuni ty to prepare a defense to the a l l eged chargeor charges aga ins t them with ass i s t ance of counsel for defense;

(b) By engaging i n pa r t i san conduct in a profess iona lcapac i ty manifes t ing pre jud ice ;

(c) B r wil fu l ly inducing p l a i n t i f f s ass igned publ ic de-fender to wai're pre l iminary hearing in order to give j u r i s d i c t i onto d i s t r i c t cour t

(d) By ac t ing in concer t with Publ ic DEfender and Judgesto impanel a l l white j u ry to convict ind igen t p l a i n t i f f s in anycr imina l t r i a l ;

(e) In g iv ing pre fe ren t i a l t rea tment to o f fenders rep re -sen ted by re t a ined defense a t t o rn e y ' s so tha t they could e f f e c -t i v e l y a s s i s t in preparing a defense, obta in ba i l and appear ase f fec t ive witnesses fo r themselves;

f) y s u b o r n i n g perjury o f v i c t im s and w i t n e s s e s tot e s t i f y fa l se ly ;

(g) In the wi l l fu l adopt ion of the ECR and DFP po l i -c i e s to avoid advers ia l l i t i g a t i o n and coerce indigents p l i n ~t i f f s to en te r plea of gu i l ty without any advisement of t h e i rco n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ;

(h) By w i l f u l l y s t a t i n g to the Reno Gazet te -Journa l t h a t" I can say t ha t t h i s of f ice , working c lose ly with the Publ ic De-fender , the Sher i f f , the Courts , the County Commission\'and

-10-


11/40


o the r s ln the system, has been able to develope severa l lnnovat l ve approaches to c r lmlna l j u s t l c e t ha t have proven e f fec t lveand e f f l c l e n t whlle always safeguard lng everyone ' s r l g h t s .

17. Defendants ADAMS LANE STEIHE. IMER BERRY and KOSACHhave alded and abe t ted the o ther named defendants ln v lo la t lngAr t l c l e 1, 8(5) , acted as an accessory a f t e r the f a c t outs ldeof t h e l r j u d l c l a l of f l ce ln v lo la t lon of Code of Ju d l c l a l ConductCannons 1 , 2, 3{B), and (D), and have wll l lng ly and ac t lve ly pa r t l c l pa t e d ln an obs t ruc t lon of j u s t l ce , oppress lon and br lberyt ha t may lnvolve thousands of other cases .

18. Defendant SPECCHIO pr lo r to June, 2005 whlle serv lng a tthe pleasure of the board of county commlssloners , co-authored ,approved and persona l ly adopted sa ld ' cus tom' out l lned ln )para .l 5 { b , whlch was par t of the scheme to l n t lmlda t e p l a l n t l f f scharged wlth Jlubllc of fense . Upon ln fo rmat lon and be l l e f , eachand every deputy acted under the au thor l t y of defendant Specchloand ac ted wl th ln the scope of t h e l r employment. Upon lnformat lonnd b e l i e f , s a i d cu s t o m h a s c o n t in u e d under th e s u p e r v i s i o n o f

Defendant Bosler .19. Defendants HANKE LARKIN SFERRAZZA WEBER and GALLOWAY

knew of the ' cus tom' and p r a c t l c e descr lbed ln para . 15{a)-{g)and the ECR and DFP as a l l eged ln para . l 6{a) -{h ) , ACQUIESC-lng ln t he l r app l l ca t l on to p l a l n t l f f s and a l l s l m l l a r l y s l t u -a ted lnd lv ldua l s charged wlth publ lc of fense ln Washoe County, topreven t p l a l n t l f f s and a l l l nd lgen t lnd lv ldua l s charged wlth pub l t e

-11-


12/40


of fense f r o m ~ x e r i s i n g any cons t i t u t iona l r i gh t s t ha t they maybe aware of .

20. Upon in format ion and be l i e f , defendant Dorothy NashHolmes, while D i s t r i c t Attorney of Washoe County, without due re -gard for the r i gh t s of ind igents formula ted t hey ' re black, they 't hey ' re going to pr ison , innocence or not .

21. Upon informat ion and be l i e f , a t a l l t imes per t inen there to , defendant Sta te Bar of Nevada Reno) and Ph i l l i p J . Pa t -t ee have mainta ined a system of review of compla ints f i l edaga ins t the o ther named defendants which i s so cursory as to bei ne f fec t ive and permi t and t o l e r a t e the wi l l f u l den ia l of r i gh t ssecured to ind igent p l a i n t i f f s and a l l s imi la r ly s i tua t ed ind iv i -duals pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of theUnited Sta tes Const i tu t ion and Art ic le 1 , 8(1)(5) o f the NevadaConst i tu t ion .

22. The St a t e of NEvada, desp i t e knowledge and adequate op-por tuni ty to l earn of the inv id ious d isc r imina tory prac t i ces ofts agencies and agents , adopted, approved, and r a t i f i e d the sa id

customs, pol i c i e s and prac t i ces of de feud ant Washoe County Publ icOff i c i a l s .

23. The t o t a l i t y of the afo res i ad fac t s demonst ra te t ha t theDefendants, and a l l of them, in wi l fu l v io la t ion of the S ix th andFourteenth Amendments of the United St a t e s Const i tu t ion , es tab -l i shed on or about August 4, 1791 and June 6, 1868, re spec t fu l ly ,did purposely and i n t en t iona l ly d i sc r imina t e aga ins t the ind igentp l a i n t i f f s and a l l s imi la r ly s iyua ted ind iv iduals and sub jec t _-

-12-


13/40


them t o inequa l i ty of t rea tment .24. P l a i n t i f f s have no adequate or complete remedy a t law,

and have suf fe red i r r ep a r ab l e harm and unless defendants are en-jo ined from the enforcement of the custom t h i s i s a Redneck townand i you go to ju ry t r i a l you wi l l be found gu i l ty , not becauseyou i s gu i l ty , but because you i s a black man , and, the ECRand DFP po l ic ies by order of t h i s cour t the uncons t i t u t iona lconduct of the Defendants w i l l cont inue.

25. At a l l t imes re levant herein , defendants ' acted in ten -t i o n a l l y and under co lo r of au thor i ty of the law of the Sta t e ofNevada.

FIRST C USE OF ACTIONVIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. I 1983

INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION26. Plain l : i f f s incorpora tes herein by re fe rence the a l lega-

t ions contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, inc lus ive .27. Defendants, under co lo r of s t a t e law, has caused and w i l l

cont inue to cause P l a i n t i f f s and a l l s imi la r ly s i tua ted ind iv i -duals , and other to be subjected to the depr iva t ion of t he i rc o n s t i t u t i o n a l r igh t s , i n v io la t ion of 42 U.S.C. I 1983.

28. P l a i n t i f f s are presumable innocent and for the most par tare too poor t.o a f fo rd counse l . Yet, p l a i n t i t ~ . s were advised byt h e i r cour t appoin ted publ ic defender t ha t they should pleadgu i l ty to the offense because t h i s i s a Redneck town and i yougo to ju ry t r i a l you w i l l be found gu i l ty , not because you i sgu i l ty , but because you i s a black man. While f i rmly be l i ev ingthey are not gu i l ty of any offense , ind igen t p l a i n t i f f s none the

-13-- -


14/40


l e s s were forced t op lea gu i l ty and were sentenced to harsher termbecause of t h e i r indigency and race.

29. The psychological ly oppress ive phrase (para . 28) impairp l a i n t i f f s mental and emotional a b i l i t y so t h a t they cannot bee f fec t ive witnesses fo r themselves or a s s i s t in prepar ing t he i rdefense, as wel l as the r e s t r i c t i ons placed on t he i r access tocounsel and to the cour t s undermine the i n t e g r i t y of the e n t i r et r i a l process and in f r inge on t he i r r igh t s to a f a i r t r i a l the re -by depriv ing Ithese p l a i n t i f f s of r igh t s guaranteed them by theSixth and Four teen th Amendments to the United S ta t e s Cons t i tu t ionand 42 U.S.C. 1983.

30. Because of the ac t ions of Defendants HANKE LARKIN SEER-RAZZA WEBER GALLOWAY SPECCHIO and BOSLER P l a i n t i f f s have s u f -fered v io la t ion of fundamental r igh t s guaranteed by the UnitedSta tes Cons t i tu t ion and are the re fo re e n t i t l e d to dec la ra to ry andi n junc t ive r e l i e f , pursuant to Federa l Rules of Civ i l ProcedureRules 57 and 65, and 28 U.S.C. 2201, to redress , remedy, andp r e v e n t f u t u r e v i o l t i o n s o f t h e i r r i g h t s nd th e r i g h t s o f o t h e rothers .

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONVJ[OLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE31. P l a i n t i f f s incorpora te here in by re fe rence the a l l e g a ~

t ions con ta ined in paragraphs 1 through 30, inc lus ive .32. The o)lpressive phrase and ECR and DFP custom, pol icy

and prac t ices o f Defendants HANKE LARKIN SFERRAZZA WEBER GAL-LOWAY SPECCHIO BOSLER GAMMICK LANE ADAMS BERRY STEINHEt-

-14-


15/40


M ~ and KOSACH caused P l a i n t i f f s to be l ieve t ha t ac t ions paras .15, l 5 a )_ j } and 16, l6 a ) - h}} , were with in defendants d isc re t i on and not v io la t ive of the S ix th and Fourteenth Amendments tothe United St a t e s Const i tu t ion and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985.

33. The ac t ions of Defendants, as descr ibed in t h i s complaintwere motiva ted by par tsan and po l i t i c a l cons idera t ions and weredesigned to deprive P l a i n t i f f s of t he i r l i be r t y and abridge r i gh tr igh t s , pr iv i l eges and immunit ies as a pre requ i s i t e to ass i s t anceof counsel .

34. Upon informat ion and be l i e f , the Defendants committedthe unlawful ac t s aga ins t the P l a i n t i f f s and others because oft he i r indigency and race ; these Defendants have not acted in thede ta i l manner para . 32), towards weal th ier persons charged ~ i tpubl ic of fense iu-Washoe County. By 6on t ras t , weal th ier I lerson(s}have, i n t e r a l i a unres t r i c t ed access to cour t and counsel ; theoppor tuni ty to contact witnesse s ; the oppor tuni ty to e f fec t ive lya s s i s t in prepara t ion of t he i r defense and to appear as e f fec t ivew i t n e s s e s f o r t h e m s e l v e s

35. Because of the ac t ions of Defendants P l a i n t i f f s havesu f fe red v io la t ion of fundamental r i gh t s guaranteed by the UnitedSt a t e s Const i tu t ion and a re the re fo re e n t i t l e d to declara tory andin junc t ive r e l i e f , pursuant to Federal Rules of Civ i l ProcedureRules 57 and 65, and 28 U.S.C. 2201, to redress , remedy, andprevent f u t u r l ~ v io la t ions of t he i r r i gh t s and the r i gh t s ofothers .

-15-


16/40


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONVIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1985CONSPIRACY

36. P l a i n t i f f s incorpora te here in by re fe rence the a l l ega-t i ons con ta ined in paragraphs 1 through 35, i nc lus ive .

37. The ac t ions of Defendants GAMMICK HANKE LARKIN SFER-RAZZA WEBER GALLOWAY SPECCHIO BOSLER LANE ADAMS BERRYSTEINHERIMER and KOSACH described in paras . 16, l 6 ( a ) - (h ) , and17, were motiva ted by par t i s an and po l i t i ca l cons ide ra t ions andwere designed to depr ive P l a i n t i f f s of t he i r l i b e r t y and abr idger igh t s , p r iv i l eg e s and immunit ies as a pre requ is i t e to ass i s t anceof counsel .

38. Each a c t of the objec t had s imi la r purposeS, involved thesame or s imi l a r p a r t i c i p a t e s and had s imi la r r e su l t s impact ings imi la r p l a i n t i f f s ; namely the defendants are pa r t of a r ecur_r ing pa t t e rn If s imi la r schemes of i nequa l i t y of t rea tment a st h a t term i s defined in 42 U.S.C. 1985 3) , in order to depriveindigent , inc luding the p l a i n t i f f s and a l l s imi la r ly s i tua tedi nd iv idua l s of r i g h t s guaranteed by the Six th and FourteenthAmendments to the United S ta t e s Cons t i t u t ion .

39. The ac t ions of Defendants, as descr ibed in t h i s compla intwere motivated by par t i s an and po l i t i ca l cons ide ra t ions and weredes igned to deprive p l a i n t i f f s of t he i r l i be r ty and abr idger igh t s , p r iv i l eg e s and immunit ies as a pre requ is i t e to as s i s tanceof counsel .

40. Because of Defendan t s , a c tions , p l a i n t i f f s have suf f e redv io la t ion of fundamental r i g h t s guaranteed by the United Sta tes

-16-


17/40


Cons t i tn t ion and are t he re fo re e n t i t l e d to dec la ra tory and i n jun-c t ive r e l i e f pursuant to Federa l Rules of Civ i l Procedure Rules57 and 65, and 28 U.S.C. 2201, to red re ss remedy, and preventfu ture v io l a t i o n s of t h e i r r i g h t s and the r igh t s of othe rs

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONVIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983CUSTOM POLICY AND PRACTICE41. P l a i n t i f f s incorpora te here in by re fe rence the a l lega-

t i o n s contained in paragraphs 1 through 40, inc lus ive .42. P l a i n t i f f s are informed and bel i eves and upon t h a t bas i s

a l leges tha t in t ak ing the ac t ions of which compla int i s madehere in , defendant Gammick, and, working c los iy with the publ icdefender the s h e r i f f the cour t s the County Commissioners andothe rs in the system, au thor ized and acquiesced in the i n i t a t i o nand maintenance of the ECR and DFP with the i n t e n t and e f f e c tof depr iv ing the P l a i n t i f f s and the members o f the c l a s s due pro-cess o f law, the equal pro tec t ion of the laws and of r i g h t s p r i -vi leges and immunit ies secured by, i n t e r a l i a Six th and Four-t een th Amendments to the United Sta tes Const i tu t ion .

43. The ac t ions of Defendants, as descr ibed in t h i s compla intwere motiva ted by par t i s an and p o l i t i c a l cons ide ra t ions and weredesigned to deprive p l a i n t i f f s of t he i r l i be r ty and abr idger i g h t s p r iv i l eg e s and immunit ies as a p r e r eq u i s i t e to ass i s t anceof counse l . These costoms, p o l i c i e s and prac t ices Were enforcedby Defendants GAMMICK HANEE, LARKIN, SFERRAZZA, WEBER GALLOWAYHOLMES SPECCHIO, BOSLER, LANE, ADAMS BERRY, STEINHEJIMER andKOSACH and was the moving fo rce proximate cause , o r a f f i rma t ive

-17-


18/40


l i nk behind the wi l l f u l in t rus ion in to the a t t o rne y -c l i e n t r e l a -t i onsh ip causing the p l a i n t i f f s and a l l s i m i l a r l y s i tua t ed in -d iv idua l s i r repa rab le i n ju ry .

44. Despi te t h e i r knowledge of the sa id i l l e g a l custom, po l -icy and prac t i ces , the pol icy-making and superv isory o f f i c i a l sand of f i ce r s of the sa id Defendant County, as a matte r of pol icyhave not taken s t e p s to te rmina te sa id prac t i ces , and have in -s tead , sanc t ioned the custom, pol icy and prac t i ces descr ibed inparagraphs l 5 b ) { c ) d ) e ) f ) g ) h ) i ) j ) , l 6 a ) c ) d ) e ) f g )and 19, through t h e i r i nd i f fe rence to the e f f e c t of sa id custom,pol icy and prac t i ces upon the cons t i tu iona l r i gh t s of the i nd i -gent c i t i zens of Washoe County, inc luding the p l a i n t i f f s .

45. Because of Defendant ac t ions , p l a i n t i f f s have su f fe redv io la t ion of fundamental r i gh t s guaranteed by the United St a t e sConst i tu ion and a r e therefore en t i t l ed to dec l a ra to ry and i n jun -c t ive r e l i e f , pursuan t to Federal Rules of Civ i l Procedure Rules57 and 65, ancl 28 U.S.C. 2201, to r ed res s , remedy, and preventfu ture v i o l a t i o n s of t he i r r i gh t s and the r i gh t s of others .

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIONVIOLATIONS OF NEVADA LAW46. P l a i n t i f f s incorpora te here in by refernce the a l l ega -

t ions con ta ined in paragraphs 1 through 45, inc lus ive .47. Defendants HANKE LARKIN SFERRAZZA WEBER GALLOWAY

GAMMICK HOLMI:S SPECCHIO BOSLER LANE ADAMS BERRY S T I N H K ~ IMER AND KOSACH custom, pol icy and p r a c t i c e s deny to P l a i n t i f f sand a l l s i m i l a r l y s i tua t ed ind iv idua l s :

-18-


19/40


(A) Thei r r i gh t to due process of law guaranteed by Art .I , t 8(1) to the Nevada Cons t i t u t i on in t ha t these prac t i ces di s -cr iminate aga ins t them in seeking and obta in ing ass i s t ance ofcounsel and f a i r t r i a l on the basis of indigency and race ;

B) Thei r r igh t to equal pro t ec t i on of the law guaranteedby Art . I , D 8(5) to the Nevada Const i tu t ion in t ha t they es t ab -l i s h a c la ss of minori ty persons to whom equal ass i s t ance ofcounsel and f a i r t r i a l i s denied.

48. The ac t ions of Defendants, a s descr ibed in t h i s complaintwere motiva ted by par t i san and p o l i t i c a l cons ide ra t i ons and weredesigned to deprive P l a i n t i f f s of t he i r l i be r t y and abr idge r igh tpr iv i l eges and immunit ies as a pre requi s i t e to ass i s t ance ofcounsel .

49, Upon in fo rmat ion and be l i e f , and thereon P l a i n t i f f s anda l l s imi l a r ly s i t ua t ed ind iv idua l s a l l eges Defendants custom

t h i s i s a redneck town and i you go to ju ry t r i a l you wi l l befound gui l ty , not because you i s gui l ty , but because you i s ablack man the ECR . and DFP pol i c i e s i n t e r fe r with the bas icelements of the adversary fac t f ind ing process in cr imina l pro-ceeding are v io la t ions of Art . I , 8(1 ) (5 ) , S.C.R. 150-203.5,NRS 197.110, 199.010, 199.020, 199.150, 199.230, 199.240, 199.480(f ) (g) and 252.190.

50. Defendant j ud i c i a l o f f i ce r s f a i l s in t he i r duty pursuantto Nevada Code of Judic i a l Conduct Cannon I , A judge sha l l up-hold the i n t eg r i t y and independence of the jud ic ia ry and v io la teNRS 199.020.

-19-


20/40


51. DEfendants, Sta t e Bar of Nevada (Reno) and Ph i l l i p J.Pat t ee f a i l s in t h e i r duty pursuant to Nevada Rules of Profes -s iona l Conduct Rules 1.1 1.18 , 2.1 4.4 , 5 .1 5 .5 , 7.1 , 8 .28.5 to enforce , monitor and conduct thorough and ob jec t i ve i nves -t i ga t i on of bar members to determine whether compla ints of con-s t r uc t i ve denia l of counsel , br ibery , se l ec t ive prosecut ion ,den ia l of f a i r t r i a l s are based so l e ly upon indigency and race See Exhibi t F a t tached here to and incorpora ted here in by refernce .

52. Because of Defendants ac t ions , P l a i n t i f f s have su f fe redv io la t ion of fundamental r i gh t s guaranteed by the Nevada Const i -t u t i o n and or t he re fo re en t i t l ed to dec l a ra to ry and i n junc t iver e l i e f to r ed res s , remedy, and prevent fu tu re v io la t ions o f t h e i rr i gh t s and the r i gh t s of others .

PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE P l a i n t i f f s pary for judgment as fo l lows:1 . That the Court ce r t i f y t h i s ac t ion as a c l a s s ac t ion on

beha l f of the c la ss , pursuant to Fed. R. CIV. P. 23;2. Fur ther , P l a i n t i f f s pray for a dec l a ra t i on t ha t the psy-

chologica l ly oppress ive custom i s uncons t i t u t i ona l because tv i o l a t e s p l a i n t i f f s r i gh t s to ass i s t ance of counse l , f a i r t r i a l ,due process , and equal pro t ec t i on guaranteed by the United St a t e s

~ D s t i t u t i o n and the Nevada Cons t i t u t i on ;3. Fur ther , P l a i n t i f f s pray for a dec la ra t ion t ha t the ECR

and DFP pol i . : i es or uncons t i tu t iona l because they vio la t e p l a in-t i f f s r i gh t s oj[ ass i s t ance of counsel , i n t rude in to the a t to rney-c l i e n t r e l a t ionsh ip , r igh t to a pre l iminary hear ing , f a i r t r i a l ,

-20-


21/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 21 of 40.

due process and equal protec t ion guaranteed by the United Sta tesCons t i tu t ion and the Nevada Const i tu t ion .

4. That the Cour t i ssue permanent in junc t ion requ i r ingDefendants, and each of them, t he i r o f f i c e r s agen t s employees,successors ass igns and a l l persons in ac t ive concer t o r p a r t i -c ipa t ion with them, to abide by the prov i s ions o f sa id AmendmentsT i t l e s A r t i c l e Sta tu tes and Nevada Rules of Profe ss iona l Con-duct and order ing s p ec i f i c ac t ions to ensure t ha t these Laws aremet and not fu r the red v io l a t ed so t ha t Defendants are re f ra inedfrom invid iouB discr imina t ing and re fus ing to extend to any per -sones chargeel with publ ic offense in Washoe County, includingP l a i n t i f f s and a l l s imi la r ly s i tua ted indiv idua ls the f u l l andequal pro tec t ion of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to theUnited S ta t e s Const i tu t ion .

5. That the Court r e t a i n j u r i sd i c t i o n over defendants u n t i lsuch t ime tha t the Cour t i s s a t i s f i e d t ha t the Customs, p o l i c i e sand prac t ices a l leged here in no longer e x i s t and w i l l not re -occur

6. That the Cour t award any a t torney fees pursuant to42 U.S.C. 1988, and cos t s of s u i t here in to p l a i n t i f f s .

7. That the Cour t award such other r e l i e f as m y be necessaryand proper .

-21-

Respect fu l ly submi t tedBy Howard Lee WhiteP.O. ox 607Carson Ci ty NV 89702


22/40


VERIFICATIONSTATE OF NEV D

ss :C RSON CITY

I HOW RD LEE WHITE, hereby aver and says :1 . That I am the l ead P l a i n t i f f in the above e n t i t l e d ac -

t ion t ha t he i s the person who executed the foregoing C o m p l a i n ~t h a t he has read the same and knows the contents the reof ; t h a tthe mat te rs s t a t ed t he re in a re t rue to h i s knowledge except suchmat te rs as are s t a t ed to be upon in fo rmat ion and be l i e f and as tothose mat te rs he be l ieves them to be t rue .

I dec la re under penal ty of perjury under the laws of theUnited S ta t e s of America t h a t the foregoing i s t rue and cor rec t .See 28 U.S.C. 1746 and 18 U.S.C. 1621.

Executed t h i s .;;15 1 day of May, 2007.AwJllvttJ ttto

-22-

Howard Lee WhiteP.O. Box 607Carson City NY 89701


23/40


DECLARATION OF HOW RD LEE WHITESTATE OF NEV D s s :C RSON CITY

I ~ . , , , J i d ; , herebu dec la re and says :1. That I am the dec la ran t and one of the P l a i n t i f f s in the

foregoing complaint and mades t h i s dec la ra t ion in support and be- ieves t h a t the name defendants , have a personal b i a s and pre ju-dice aga ins t him and the s imi l a r l y s i t u a t ed persons, and each o fthem and favors governmental o f f i c i a l s by committ ing the fol low-_ing

a . That dec la rant s t a t e upon informat ion and be l i e f tha tRichard Gammick, in the Ci ty Reno, made s ta tements before ce r t a ins t a f f r epor te r of the Reno Gazet te-Journal o f t h a t City on the .sub jec t of lal l enforcement . In one o f these s ta tements Gammickto ld the r epor te r in subs tance , and th rough him the genera l pub-l i c , t h a t Whi.le it i s t rue t h a t the Washoe County publ ic defen-der and the Washoe County d i s t r i c t a t torney a re adve rsa r i e s i nthe cr imina l p r o c . ~ s In_par t i cu la r in the courtroom, t h i s i s byno means the e n t i r e s to ry . I f the two o f f i c e s were to s top work-ing toge ther with each other on Adminis t ra t ive mat te rs and pro-cedures the e n t i r e cr imina l j u s t i c e system would bog down Agrea t example of the two o f f i c e s working toge ther has been theadopt ion and con t inu ing opera t ion of the Ear ly Case Resolut ion(ECR) program and the more recen t Di rec t Fi l ing Program (DFP) ,both of which are extremely benef ic ia l to the taxpaying pUblic,as well as improving the ef f ic iency of the process I can say


24/40


t ha t t h i s off i ce , working c lose ly with the publ ic defender , theshe r i f f , the cour ts , the County Commission and others in the sys-tem, has been ab le to develop seve ra l innovat ive approaches tocr imina l j u s t i ce t ha t have proven e f fec t ive and e f f i c i e n t whilealways safeguard ing everyone 's r i g h t s . These programs have notbeen a product of y d ic ta t ing to anyone but have evolved fromequal par t i c ipa t ion by a l l involved agenc ies .

b. Declaran t has been informed t ha t Jeremy Bosler , has ex-pressed a wil l ingness to a s s i s t the D is t r i c t Attorney ' s o f f i c e inobtain ing g u i l t y pleas , by permit t ing deput ies of the WashoeCounty Publ ic Defender ' s o f f i c e to be used as agents for the pur -pose of obta in ing conv ic t ions aga ins t menta l ly def ic ien t indigent)i nd igen t s and blacks , and t h i s dec la rant has been fur ther informedt ha t publ ic defenders adv ises indigent c l i e n t t h i s i s a Rednecktown and i you go t o ju ry t r i a l you w i l l be found gu i l ty , not be

'cause you i s gui l ty , but because you i s a black man. See Exhib i tG, H and I .

c . Dec larant fu ther s t a t e tha t o s ev e ra l occa s ions Bos lerand Specchio permit ted indigent c l i e n t to be placed in the pre-sence of othe r ind igen t c l i e n t s , for the purpose of using thec l i e n t in the ob ta in ing of evidence aga ins t the o ther for the Dis-t r i c t At to rney ' s o f f i c e .

d. Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e t h a t on or about January 7, 2002Washoe County Publ ic Defender i n v es t i g a to r Larry Carson made cashdepos i t for Marvin Morris as payment for gu i l ty plea. See Exh. I .

Declaran t fu r the r has been informed t ha t Publ ic e f e n d e r ~use other inducement to obtain g u i l t y pleas in nameing judges ,

-2 -


25/40


Calver t , d v ~ s e s 'he appear in f ron t o f Judge Kosach, everydayand the judge always goes along with h i s reques t s , Molone, adv iseits hard being ' b l ack ' in Reno, t ha t its hard being ' b l ack ' witha case in Reno and being ' b l ack ' and innocen t with a case in Renoits the Judges , j u r i e s and pol i ce ; Van Ry, adv ises Judge dams i sa r a c i s t and Bigot ; Merkin, adv ises I been knowing Judge Adamsfo r 15 years . Everything I t e l l him it goes; Herbig, adv ises iwe t ake t h i s case to t r i a l the S t a t e w i l l pick a 'Redneck' ju ryand haug us, because you ' re a black man; aud VaunHal l , d v ~ s e ddec la ran t on Judge Berry t ha t she ' s new, s he ' s out to ge t every -body.

f . Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e it i s the pol icy , custom andprac t ice of the County Commission to deprive indigent offendersc o n s t i t u t i o n a l adequate rep re sen ta t ion .

g. Declaran t s t a t e upon in fo rmat ion and b e l i e f t h a t RichardGammick, f u r th e r s ta ted Since these programs account for about35 percen t o f our case load, both o f f i c e s have been able to ope-r a t e without subs tan t i a l i nc rea se s in s t a f f . In s p i t e of c r i t i -cism by pr iva te defense a t to rneys , ~ h ~ ~ b a s never been a suc-cess fu l l ega l chal lenge to e i the r progeam. In fac t , the re hasbeen only one unsuccess fu l chal lenge pursued in e igh t yea rs .

h. Declaran t has been informed t ha t non i nd igen t accusedare given p re fe re n t i a l t rea tment to indigent accused representedby re t a ined defense l awyer ' s so t h a t they could e f fec t ive ly a s -s i s t in prepar ing a defense, obta in b a i l and appear as e f fec t ivewitnesses fo r themselves .

-3 -


26/40


i Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e that . indigent minor i t i e s a recharged with the grea te r offense than non-minori t ies committ ingl i k e offenses . See Exh. A

j Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e t h a t Richard Gammick has a custom of r e t a l i a t i ng aga ins t a s s i s t a n t who expose unlawful governmental p r ac t i c e s , as not being a team player .

k. Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e t ha t the r igh t s of indigent ,mental ly d e f i c i en t indigents and blacks are not pro tec ted by thecour t s al lowing prosecut ions of indigents without j u r i s d i c t i onand imposing l e s se r pena l t i e s on non-minori t ies for l i k e offensesSee Exhib i t J .

1 . Declaran t has been informed t ha t Judges Lane BerryKosach Steinheimer and Adams have i n t e r e s t in prosecut ions andfa i l ed to uphold the i n t e g r i t y and independence of the j u d i c i a r yby lending the pre s t ige of j u d i c i a l o f f i c e to advance WashoeCounty o f f i c i a l s po l i t i ca l i n t e r e s t s .

m Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e t ha t the Sta t e of Nevada has aduty to ensure n uobi s j u s t i c e sys tem f r e e o f discr im in toryanimus and to enforce laws necessary t o p ro tec t the r i g h t s ofdec la ran t and o ther s s imi l a r l y s i tua ted from ac t s of r a c i a l p re j u dice .

n. Declaran t fu r the r s t a t e t h a t sa id customs po l i c i es andprac t ices c o m l ~ l i n e d of are not r a t i o n a l l y r e la ted to l eg i t imatelaw enforcement objec t ive s .

ca By reason of the foregoing a controversy e x i s t s be-

-4 -


27/40


tween P l a i n t i f f s ) and Defendant s i n t ha t dec l a ran t s the pa r tybenef ic ia l ly i n t e re s t ed and has not nor has any c o - p l a i n t i f f ap la in , speed.y and adequate remedy in the ord inary course of lawto address t h i s r ac i a l animus.

I dec la re under pena l ty of per jury under the laws of theUnited St a t e s of America t ha t the foregoing i s t rue and co r rec t .See 28 U.S.C. ~ 7 6 and 18 U.S.C. 1621.

Executed t h i s ~ ~ day of May 2007.

~ u B e ~Howard Lee White .

-5 -


28/40


EXHI IT l


29/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 29 of 40}\

Declaration of Robert BensonState of Nevada SS.Carson City

I Robert Benson, o Hereby Declare under penalty of perjurythat the following averments of fact are t rue and correct , to wit:

1. I am over the age of 21, and can at tes t to the statementscontained herei.n, a l l of which are made upon personal knowledgeand in support of Howard Lee White, et a l . v. David Hanke, et a l .to which I am a party.

2. Declarant, being African-American was subjected to invidiousdiscrimination by Richard Gammick, John Malone, Michael Speechio,John P. Calvert , Steven R. Kosach, Judge and other officials ofWashoe County in the following respects:

a. On January 4, 2004, I was charged with robbery with theuse of a deadly weapon and kidnapping in the f i r s t degree. On orabout December 21, 2004, I was found guilty of said charges andsentenced by Judge Kosach to serve two consecutive prison termsof thir ty f ive 35) to one hundred f i f ty six 156) months for therobbery and two consecutive prison terms of f ive 5) to f if teen15) years for the kidnapping, in case number CR04-163A-B. Order

of Affirmance f i led October 4, 2005, in Supreme Court of Nevadadocket number 44739.

b. Declarant will be el ig ible for parole af ter servingapproximately si.xteen 16) years.

c. On c,r about January 21, 2004, John Malone, Deputy PublicDefender and Karl Hall, Assistant Distr ict Attorney, in concertdenied my r ight to tes t i fy before the grand jury. Mr. Hall had


30/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 30 of 40advised grand jury of my presence and that I would tes t i fy .Subsequently, Mr. Hall advised aff iant that he had no lawyer andthen falsely advised grand jury that aff iant had no evidence togive.

d. Declarant suffered invidious discrimination on a numberof levels . for example, Judge Kosach showed a complete disregardfor my r ights . He emphasized this by saying the following: Freeattorneys, this is the way things are. Go down and hire JohnieCochran r ight now and t e l l him to come here and try the case onApril 5th. nd I ' l l bet y u he says, I can ' t do i t " These commentscould be interpreted to mean Kosach had an impermissible bias andprejudice against me and African-American people. Arguably theseremarks amounted to a racial s lur . In fact , Judge Kosach wasdisrespecting and mocking me because I was unable to hire a AfricanAmerican defense attorney. Kosach challenged me by bet t ing meabout what Mr. Cochran would do in this si tuat ion.

e. On or about July 30, 2004 in the parking lot of thenorthwest Reno Wal-Mart Richard Martin forced his wife into hiscar and attempted to ki l l her throws her in the car. Thewhole time he's saying to her ' I 'm going to ki l l you.' and 'Do youwant to die? ' " The Washoe County Distr ict Attorney charged himwith second-degree kidnapping and attempted murder. Judge Kosachsentenced him t() a maximum of ten (10) years on the second-degreekidnapping and f if teen (15) years on the attempted murder. Martinwill be el ig ib le for parole af te r serving six years.Declaration of ll:obert BensonRe: Howard Lee White, et al . v. David Hanke, et al.

Page Two of Three Pages


31/40


declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of theUnited States of America that the foregoing s true and correctSee 8 U S C 1746

Declaration of Robert BensonRe: oward Lee White e t a l v. David Hanke et al .

Page Three of Three Pages


32/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 32 of 40~ 2

EXHI IT B


33/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 33 of 40~

1 MICHAEL AIGELO DRAIENDOC No. 1 )1l222 Nevada State Prison3301 E. Fifth Street / POB 6078 Carson City, Nevada 89702-06074 DECLARANT In Propria Persona56789

10111213141516171819202122282425262728

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NORTHERN NEVADA

- - 0 0 0 0 0 - -

HOWARD L I ~ WHITE e t a l .

V,n.DAVID HANJ:E e t

Pla in t i f fsCase No.:

a l. Defendants.

SWORN DECLARATION OFMICHAEL ANGELO DRAIEState of Nevada : S8County of Carson City

I MICHAEL ANGELO DRAKE (hereinaf ter Declarant ) . beingf i r s t duly sworn accprding to law, of legal age, depose as fol-lows:

2. That I am the Declarant in the foregoing Sworn Declara-t ion;

3. That th is Declaration Is made In good fa i th and notinterposed for any improper purpose;

4. That I am able to make competent testimony, before acourt of law, as to the foregoing t ruthful statements, as to myown personal knowledge and bel ief ;


34/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 34 of 40r

1 5 . That Declarant makes t h i s Sworn Decla ra t ion in support of2 Howard Lee White, e t a1. vs. David Hanke, e t a l . , in the above3 en t i t l ed act ion ;4 6 . That on the 6 th day of September, 2001, I was the P e t i -5 t i one r in a proceeding , to wit : Drake v. Budge, e t a l . , Case No.6 CR98-P-2596 (consol ida ted with CR98-P-2504 and CR98-P-2504), and7 the follOWing test imony under oath was represented in colloguy by8 Carolyn Tanner, ESQ., than a Deputy Publ ic Defender, Washoe9 County, Sta te of Nevada now in pr iva te prac t i ce ) ;

10 Q Do you r eca l l having any discuss ion with Mr. Drake, inwhich h is e thn ic i ty or h is race was an i s sue?111213

TANNER: Yes.Q Could you descr ibe t ha t for me?TANNE:R: Sure. I usual ly have discussions with my c l i en t s14 of color when we t a lk about i s sues t ha t they needto think about in making t he i r decis ions , as to15 whether or not to accept an of fe r versus going tojury t r i a l . And my discuss ions usual ly inc lude ,16 and did inc lude with Mr. Drake, tha t he i s an

African-American man in a predominantly White com-17 munity, and in my exper ience , predominantly whitej u r o r s , and t ha t i s an i s sue tha t he should con-18 s ide r with equal weight, with any other i s sue t ha the might cons ider when he, i he was consider ing19 going to , having a ju ry t r i a l .20 7. That t h i s s ta tement was nothing more than r ac i a l d i s c r i -21 mination, ,and I unsuccess fu l ly compelled Ms. Tanner to f i l e for a22 change of venue based on her discr iminatory s ta tements to insure23 f a i r j udic:ial proceeding;24 8 . That desp i t e her r ac i a l s tatement , Ms. Tanner refuse to25 f i l e for a change of venue, and aggress ively encouraged Declarant26 to en te r i n to a gui l ty plea , based on the racism of a ju ry makeup27 and verd ic t of gui l ty , based on Declarant being an African;28 9 . That the Dis t r i c t Attorney s Off ice , represent ing the

-2 -


35/40


Sta te of Nevada, and a key witness , Laura Walker, was marr ied to2 a prosecu t ing a t to rney , Egan Walker. Laura Walker was a key wit -8 ness aga ins t Declarant ;4 10. That Declaran t informed, both , Ms. Tanner and Judge Janet5 Berry of the r e l a t i o n s h ip between the prosecut ing a t torney and6 they key witness , and tha t Ms. Tanner, or Judge Berry took no789

1111213141516171819221

26

ac t ion to address the c onf l i c t s , and ignored Dec la ran t s r eques tsto do so;

11. That as a r e s u l t of the r a c i a l disc r imina t ion , and ther e la t ionsh ip (wi tness and D is t r i c t Attorney) , tha t Declaran tf i l e d a proper person plead ing , and sworn a f f i d a v i t , fo r the r e -cusa l of Judge Berry , fo r a l lowing the bias pre jud ice to remain;

12. That Judge Berry denied Dec la ran t s Motion for Recusa l ;13. That the ac t ions of Ms. Tanner and Judge Berry , in con-

c e r t amounted to Drake ' s fundamental den ia l of due process andequal pro tec t ion , a depr iva t ion so gross t ha t t vio la ted Drake ' sfedera l pro tec ted cons t i tu t iona l r igh t s ;

14. That Declaran t be l ieves , tha t the ac t ions descr ibed here-in were SO obvious and egregiOUS, t ha t a reasonable person wouldlabor doubts about the i m p a r t i a l i t y , and bring in to ques t ion , asto the f a i rnes s of Drake, based on Ms. Tanner s be l i e f of thej u ro r s r a c i a l bias and disc r imina t ion;

15. That the personal (mar i t a l ) re l a t ionsh ip , in which JudgeBerry and Ms. Tanner, knew or should have known, would have atremendous impact of c o n f l i c t and f a i rnes s to Declarant , and tha t

-3 -


36/40


1 c o n f l i c t prosecut ion should have been ass igned, and Dec la ran t s2 case moved to another j ud i c i a l d i s t r i c t ;3 16. Tbat Declarant was grea t ly prejudiced by Judge Berry ,4 Ms. Tanner , and the D is t r i c t Attorney s Off ice , whom f e l t tha t5 Drake s race did not mat te r , nor the vic t im-prosecu t ion r e l a t i on6 sh ip ;7 FUITHEI, Your Declarant sayethn@ught ;8 E I E C U ~ E D t h i s da te , by the undersigned Declarant , under the9 pena l t i e s of per jury , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1746 and MIS 208.10 165 (execu t ion of documents in absence of notary , by an i nca rce -11 ra ted person) , a t Carson City County, Sta te of Nevada, and United1213141516171819202122234

25262728

Sta tes of America.DATE] THIS DAY OF . . . : . A ~ t ; : : ; ~ ( ~ _ _ 2007.

-4-

B Y _ ~ ~MICHA L A GELO DRAIE, 61122DECLARANT


37/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 37 of 40t :0

EXHI IT


38/40


AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES WRIGHT JR.STATE OF NEVADA

s s :CARSON CITYI JAMES WRIGHT JR. hereby aver under the penalty of

perjury and says:1 During the t ime my c a s e was p r o c e e d i n g b e f ere Ju d g e

Br en t A d am s of th e Sec on d J u d i i: i a Dis. tr i c t C au r t of th e S ta te oN e v a d a , C cun ty of Wash oe my app oin ted a t t o r n e y KBl IN V AN RY. Mr.

v a n Ry began to s ta te t h i ngs to me i n d i c a t i n g tha t if I wen t tot r i a 1 I w cu 1 d 1 os e bas e d upon th e fa c t th a t th e de te c t i v e Mr.

DAVID JENKINS was a kn own 'RACIST and kn OWn to f a b r i c a te e v i d e n c ea g a i n s t BLACK PEOPLE, c o e r c i o n of w i t n e s s e s , and t h r e a t e n i n g w i t -n e s s e s . T h e r e a f t e r he began to say some p r of ound and d i s t u r b i n gs ta t -emen ts t o m y m o th e r and w i f e . He i AN RY t o l d them t h a t JudgeBRENT ADAMS was a RACIST AND BIGOT, and tha t I was n e v e r g o in g t or e c e i v e a fair trial in Ju d g e Bren t Adams c our t r oom. He AN RYa l s 0 s a i d t o my Mother and Wife tha t the Dis t r i c t A t t o rney RICHARGAMMICK h a s con t r 1 over the j u r y s e l e c t i on s o tha t the j u r y beonly 'CONSEINATIV E WHITE PEOPLE, and n o BLACKS, c a u s e NBl ADA i s tthe MISSISSIPPI of the Wes t and tha t e v e r y B l a c k Man tha t he h a sr e s p r e s e n t e d at trial 1n Ju d g e B r e n t Adams c o u r t r o o m lost n o tb e c a u s e they were g u i l ty , bu t b e c a u s e they were BLACK. He V AN RYf u r t h e r s t a t e d tha t Ju d g e Adams .was go ing t o a l lo w ab ove s ta tedf a c ts to t r a n s p i r e , b e c a u s e Judge Adams a l r e a d y b e l i e v e me (Wr igh tt o o b e g u i l t y b a s e d upon my s k i n c o l o r . A d d i t i o n a l l y , d u r i n g a coura p p e a r a n c e Judge Adams sp oke to my p r e v i DUS a t t o r n e y ED HORN bya d m o n i s h in g h im s t a t i n g N o t to g e t s i d e t ra c k e d .


39/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 39 of 40 (1

2. KEll IN V N RY a l s t o l d my wife tha t i she would g:il e him25 , 000 . 00 he would g i ve my case priority and he would win the c a s e . Ad-

d i ti on a l l y , V N R Y s u g g e s te d t a t s ou 1 d j u s t p I e a d g u i 1 ty to th e cas et h a t he acknowledged in f r o n t of wi tne s s e s t h a t he b e l i e v e i d id no t com

mi t it

UNDER THE PI NALTY OF PERJURY Pursuant to NRS 208.165 the aboveaf f idav i t i s true and correct to the best of my personal know-ledgeDated t h i s ~ day of March 2006.


40/40

Case 3:07-cv-00255-BES-VPC Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/07 Page 40 of 40:} . .

EXHI IT I ) ~

Documents

6 1 07 Nvd Doc 1-2 40 Pages White b Sferrazza Holmes Sbn 255