UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Inland Protective Services, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Clark J. Cavanaugh, Ruth A. Cavanaugh and Rodney P. Cavanaugh, Leo Wenzel, d/b/a Loma Linda Towing
Plaintiffs,
vs.
City of San Bernardino, a municipal corporation; County of San Bernardino; James Penman; Judith Valles; Mike Valles; Lee Dean; Brad Lawrence; Dennis Stout; Tracy Bartell; Robert Yabuno; Gilberto Olivarria; Victor Hamilton; Timothy Kolesnikow; B. Perry; Erin Logan; Jerry Eaves; Brian Bellamy; National Orange Show Foundation;
DOES 1 through 50
Defendants
CASE NO:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
1. Unlawful arrests / false imprisonment
2. Illegal Searches and Seizures
3. Malicious Prosecutions
4. Tortuously interfering with business and contractual relations
5. Slander
6. Conspiracy to Deprive Life, Liberty and Property without due process of law
7. Conspiracy to Deprive
8. Civil Rights Under Color of Authority, 42 USC Sec 1983
9. Exploitation of evidence with intent to conspire under Color of Authority 42 USC Sec 1983
10. Willful mis-prisioning of crimes committed against Plaintiffs Title 42 Sec 1983
11. Private Attorney General Statutes
12. Injunctive Relief
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is a civil action seeking damages against Defendants for committing acts, under color of state law, which deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured under the constitution and laws of the United States and California; for conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with the intent to deny Plaintiffs equal protection of laws; and for refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to Plaintiffs. The court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1343 and 1983. The court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California since the acts and transactions complained of all occurred within this District.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs Clark J. Cavanaugh, Jr., Ruth A. Cavanaugh are residents in the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the United States of America. Rodney P. Cavanaugh is a resident in the City of Upland, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the United States of America.
4. Plaintiff Inland Protective Services, L.L.C., is a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in the City of San Bernardino, State of California.
5. Plaintiff Leo Wenzel, an individual who resides in the city of Redlands, State of California.
6. Plaintiff Loma Linda Towing, a sole proprietorship of Leo Wenzel, was organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in the City of San Bernardino, State of California.
7. Defendant City of San Bernardino is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of California.
8. Defendant County of San Bernardino is a political subdivision of the State of California suable as a “person” under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
9. Defendant James Penman was City Attorney of the City of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
10. Defendant Judith Valles was Mayor of the City of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
11. Defendant Lee Dean was Chief of Police of the City of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
12. Defendant Brad Lawrence was a police officer employed by the Police Department of the City of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
13. Defendant Gordon Jones was a Police Officer employed by the Police Department by the City of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
14. Defendants Tracy Bartell, Robert Yabuno and Ronald Webster were deputy district attorneys of the County of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint and are believed to be residing within the County of San Bernardino. Deputy Secord was a deputy district attorney furthering the named defendants’ conduct as an employee and agent of the County Defendants.
15. Defendants Gilberto Olivarria and Victor Hamilton were investigators employed by the Office of the District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
16. Defendants B. Perry and Erin Logan was a labor board commissioner employed by the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement in the County of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
17. Defendant Jerry Eaves served in official capacity as a “County Supervisor” at all times relevant to this complaint. Jerry Eaves was the Fifth District Supervisor and a voting member, and at times Chairman, of the County Board of Supervisors.
18. Defendant Timothy Kolesnikow was an attorney with the California State Labor Board who acted as the agent and conspirator of the Office of the District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino at all times relevant to this complaint.
19. Defendant “Brian Bellamy” of the National Orange Show who acted at all times as an agent of Police Officer Brad Lawrence in giving false and perjured testimony in the state criminal trial of Defendant Leo Wenzel, at the control and behest of Police Officer Brad Lawrence.
20. Defendant “the National Orange Show Foundation” hereinafter referred to as the Orange Show, was a public benefit, nonprofit organization run by the City of San Bernardino which included in its board of directors both Defendant Jerry Eaves and Defendant Martin Matich.
21. Defendant Mike Valles hereinafter referred to as Mike Valles, an individual and/or an agent for Mayor Judith Valles.
22. “Doe” defendants named as fictitious defendants as there true names and capacities as defendants are unknown to plaintiffs at this time.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
23. The City and County of San Bernardino have long and consistently utilized malicious prosecutions to achieve a variety of objectives. The use of malicious prosecution over a substantive period of time has been systematic and egregious. It has ruined or substantially ruined numerous lives, as well as deprived numerous persons of their liberty and property. Numerous businesses have been destroyed or seriously damaged and properties have been confiscated. People and businesses have been forced by these heinous prosecutions to expend their life savings or to go into debt to defend themselves.
24. It has, and continues to be, the policy of certain people in control of County and City to employ malicious prosecution to destroy individuals and businesses. This policy was instructed and has been implemented and directed by some of the highest policy making officials in the County and City of San Bernardino. The county and the City of San Bernardino have often pursued these malicious prosecutions on their own, but they have, also often joined forces for coordination and cooperating in the malicious prosecution of individuals and businesses.
25. The malicious prosecutions alleged to are usually triggered as a retaliation to free speech, “after the fact”, in addition to a Draconian policy of censorship which is practiced in the open whistleblowers and government watchdog groups have been easy prey to local politicians “several of which are under Federal and State prosecution for bribery, and conflict of interest laws”. The less the financial stability of the government watchdog, the heavier the persecution. Malicious prosecution is an ongoing fact or reality in the County and City of San Bernardino practiced by many of the highest officials, both elected and appointed. The use of malicious prosecution in the County and City is so pervasive that it amounts to a conspiracy at the highest levels within the County and City, as well as between them. The County and City of San Bernardino, through certain of their officials of the highest levels, have acted as a racketeer organization or organizations through use of bribery, money laundering, and the collection of unlawful debt. The use of malicious prosecution as the “weapon of choice” by certain County and City officials has amounted to political corruption on a grand scale and is an ongoing criminal practice.
26. The malicious prosecutions including the examples that are the subject of this complaint, did not occur in a vacuum, but entailed a harassing and torturous course of other constitutional abuses of process under color of law. Plaintiffs, and other victims, were subjected to harassing investigations, illegal arrests, false imprisonment, concealment of confiscated evidence, broad-brush seizure of property that shut down and/or impacted business operations, unlawful fines, unlawful corruption of evidence, confiscation of and misprision of evidence of crimes and civil wrongs against the government watchdog, even in cases where he is the plaintiff, false testimony by informants with whom deals were made, unnecessary bails that tapped scarce resources and other abuses too numerous to detail.
27. The motives of City and County officials in instigating the malicious prosecutions of Plaintiffs, and other victims, varied with the circumstances but can be fairly categorized into a discrete number of groups or classifications:
A. Retaliation for exercise of freedom of speech in a public forum against defendants.
B. Elimination of competition to business in which government officials maintain interests.
C. Elimination of political enemies by malicious prosecution, defamation and slander.
D. To appease or satisfy powerful constituents or sources of political funding by elimination of their enemies.
E. As a form of racketeering to take or gain access, for constituents and for themselves, of or to another’s’ successful business interests, property rights, and good standing within the community
F. To obfuscate, diffuse or cover-up the wrongdoing of officials against the very persons they falsely accuse.
28. None of the above-mentioned constitutional abuses and corrupt activities would have occurred without a weak and corrupt judiciary in the County and City of San Bernardino. That is not to say that every judge is bad, but there are more than several that appear to be under the influence of corrupt officials. These corrupt Judges should be enjoined by this court to keep them from accepting bribery gifts or other favors from named defendants. In some cases, these corrupt Judges joined the conspiracies by making available the inner sanctum of the clerk’s office. Records were hidden from the public, “not by officially sealing them”, but by secretly hiding them in confidential envelopes and instructing the clerks to represent the file to the public as if the document had never existed. Warrants were not recorded at the point of issuance to create “pocket warrants”. “Pocket warrants” could be carried for months or weeks at a time then activated at the whim of the law enforcement personnel serving the warrant. This occurred in direct conflict of and defiance to California’s Penal Code which states under Section 1534A: “a search warrant shall be executed and returned within (10) days within date of issuance. A warrant executed within the (10) day period shall be deemed to have been timely executed and no further showing of timeliness need be made. After the expiration of 10 days, the warrant, unless executed, is void. The documents and records of the court relating to the warrant need not be open to the public until the execution and return of the warrant or the expiration of the 10-day period after issuance. Thereafter, if the warrant has been executed, the documents and records shall be open to the public as judicial record.” Dates were altered by use of white out, magic markers, or other devices used to change dates. Warrants remained “incognito” for up to two years as found in at least one documented case. Then suddenly, and without legal basis, warrants and affidavits were unofficially sealed by virtue of placing in an envelope labeled confidential. Furthermore, the clerks answered written public records request as if the newly found confidential records didn’t even exist. All this as a reaction to local watchdog groups blowing the whistle on public corruption and making public record inspections of the court’s own warrant logs.
29. All of the above actions have deprived Plaintiffs (and other of the public at large, unknown at this time to named Plaintiffs) of their liberty without due process of law and constitute both substantive as well as procedural violations of due processes each of these actions constituted an unreasonable search and/or seizure of the persons and/or properties of Plaintiffs’ and deprived Plaintiffs of control of their persons and their properties without due process of law, substantive as well as procedural, and thereby deprived Plaintiffs of their rights and privileges and immunities as guaranteed by the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States and by the Constitution of California.
ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGFUL CONDUCT
31. In August 1997, the County of San Bernardino discriminatorily awarded a private security firm, San Bernardino Metropolitan Patrol (hereinafter “Metropolitan”) a contract for the exclusive use of the County’s public 800 MHZ radio communications system. Prior to then an incestuous relationship had already developed between Metropolitan and County and City police agencies and it was widely believed that certain members of these police agencies, or other government officials, had a financial interest in Metropolitan. Eventually, Metropolitan became an intregal part of law enforcement activity, reporting as informants; and used as investigators and adjunct security by these police agencies in exchange for exclusive use of public airways. Metropolitan’s, as well as various governmental officials’ goal was for Metropolitan to monopolize the supply of private security services throughout the County and City of San Bernardino. This contractual arrangement was substantially instigated and implemented through the direct influence and intervention of San Bernardino City Attorney Jim Penman (hereinafter “Penman”) and, then, County of San Bernardino Supervisor Jerry Eaves (hereinafter “Eaves”).
32. For example, from 1994 through 1999, the City of San Bernardino worked with Metropolitan, which acted as an informant providing information for code enforcement and city police enforcement. At the instigation of the City attorney James Penman, the City of San Bernardino bought, refurbished and sold multi-residential apartment buildings in the Arden Guthrie neighborhood. Other rental properties in the area were owned by private owners. Metropolitan patrol officers were under instruction from the City to write up code enforcement issues on non-city owned properties. They were given maps that helped them to distinguish between City owned properties and non-city owned properties. These “patrol activities” were required by Penman, had planned, instigated and appeared at various raids against private properties by combined task forces consisting of law enforcement/code compliance/fire department/immigration and parole, that were designed to put these private owners out of business. Penman had gained “command” relationship with Metropolitan when he persuaded the San Bernardino City Council to contract directly with Metropolitan and eliminate an intermediate management company.
33. After the award of the radio contract in August 1997, Metropolitan and San Bernardino Police Department (hereinafter “SBPD”) City Patrol officers began a harassing fishing expedition and investigation against Inland Protective Services (hereinafter “Inland”) patrol officers while on duty. Inland’s patrol vehicles would be arbitrarily stopped and inspected by SBPD units without proper basis. This abusive harassment was implemented through the radio frequency connection between the SBPD and Metropolitan which conducted surveillance of and informed on Inland’s patrol movements. According to ex-Metropolitan patrol officers, individual police officers could access Metropolitan through “local talkabout channels”. Metropolitan had to access a general dispatcher through “C-tac channels”. As the result of this working relationship, several police officers from the Arden Guthrie beat began to interfere with the patrol duties of Inland’s patrol officers. This harassment and abuse continued until August of 1998, when Inland part-owner Jamie Gaytan lodged a complaint and called for an internal affairs investigation by the SBPD, which was conducted by Deputy Chief of Police Wayne Harp.
34. In September of 1998, Rodney P. Cavanaugh, Clark James Cavanaugh, Jr. and Shawn Shourds of Inland met with three representatives of upper SBPD management. Inland agreed to withdraw its complaint in exchange for the SBPD agreeing to drop their “investigation” of Inland and to discontinue their stops of Inland’s patrol vehicles. The Inland representatives left the meeting believing they had been retaliated against as whistleblowers with the implied threat of further “investigation”, patrol vehicle stops and other harassment if they didn’t drop their complaint aside from having initially been unlawfully victimized by the harassing economic interference with their business activity by SBPD in the first place. In addition, City officials including Penman found it advantageous to support the growth of Metropolitan Patrol while becoming a burden to Inland Protective Services LLC.
35. In December 1998, the San Bernardino County District Attorney (hereinafter “D.A.” or “D.A.’s office”) began planning and conspiring with Penman, SBPD and others to create a phony criminal case against Inland. The D.A. acting through Investigator Gilberto Olivarria (hereinafter “Olivarria”) conspired with Penman, Glenda Page of State Fund Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs Investigator David Fernandez (“Fernandez”) and various members of the SBPD including Brad Lawrence to mount a major “fishing expedition” investigation of Inland for the ostensible or disguised purpose of finding evidence of criminal activity. However, the real motives of the D.A.’s office were to put Inland out of business to enhance Metropolitan’s favored monopoly in the County and City of San Bernardino.
36. On April 6, 1999, Olivarria obtained and executed an unlawful search warrant against Inland without probable cause. It was based upon the sworn affidavit of Olivarria, which falsely stated that “the difference in payroll reported to EDD, and the amount reported to SCIF (“State Fund”) is approximately $620,000.00”. He intentionally misrepresented that this fact established probable cause to believe that Clark J. Cavanaugh, Rodney P. Cavanaugh, Ruth A. Cavanaugh, Jan L. Deluhery, and Sherry Perry (among others) were in violation of California Insurance Code sections 11880. and 1871.4. Olivarria’s affidavit contained major flaws known to Olivarria, namely the fact that the EDD payroll figures contained owner payroll which was exempt under worker’s compensation and that the amount paid to State Fund Insurance (hereinafter “State Fund”) had been further misrepresented by representing only monies paid into one of two worker’s compensation policies for Inland.
37. The execution of this unlawful search warrant without probable cause resulted in the immediate temporary shutdown of Inland’s business; the seizure of evidence that Inland had accumulated against Hitek Security Systems, and its affiliates and successor companies (hereinafter “Hitek”), its owners and employees, establishing forgery and embezzlement against them (which evidence was intended to be taken to the D.A. by Inland to have reviewed for possible prosecution and used in a civil action, all of which was specifically brought to the attention of Olivarria), and the seizure of essential business equipment and documentation that made it very difficult and costly for Inland to remain in business. The evidence of embezzlement and forgery against Hitek was intentionally buried, misprisoned and concealed by the D.A.’s Office, including Olivarria, resulting in a failure and forfeiture of both criminal and civil prosecution of Hitek and costing Inland economic losses of up to $100,000.00. Much of the seized evidence of Hitek’s criminal acts disappeared from the D.A.’s evidence lockers after the D.A.’s Office purposefully allowed the alleged perpetrators of these crimes access to the evidence against them, which was in the possession of the D. A. The D.A.’s Office permitted, Heather Stockman, an employee of Hitek, to have full access to evidence that had been seized from Inland and the Cavanaugh’s which documented felonious theft and forgery perpetrated by Hitek against Inland. Stockman was allowed complete control over said evidence while in the possession of the D.A. without an evidence technician or any supervisor whatsoever, so that she might peruse the evidence and even abscond with it.
38. On June 30, of 1999, Police Officer Brad Lawrence filed a criminal complaint of 17 counts against Leo Wenzel of Loma Linda Towing. Brad Lawrence acted as an agent of the city’s tow compliance unit. The tow compliance unit had just acquired a newly found budget of almost a million dollars yearly by requiring contract tow companies to pay a franchise fee as well as charging the registered owner of the vehicle an administrative fee. The aggregate fees levied by the City, upon the owner of the vehicle, was $112.00 per vehicle for administrative costs. It should be noted that Section 12110 of the California Vehicle Code maintains in pertinent part:
A. Except as provided by subdivision (B). No towing service shall provide and no person or public entity shall accept any direct or indirect commission, gift, or any compensation whatsoever from a towing service in consideration of arranging or requesting the services of a tow track. As used in this section “arranging” does not include the activity of employees or principals of a provider of towing services in responding to a request for towing services.
B. Subdivision (A) does not preclude a public entity, otherwise authorized by law for requesting a fee in connection with the award of a franchise for towing vehicles on behalf of that public entity. However, the fee in … those cases … may not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the public entity for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in connection with the towing program. (emphasis added)
The City of San Bernardino deemed that its actual and reasonable costs were $112.00. This fee was collected by requiring a partial payment of all monies collected by the City’s franchise tow companies of which Loma Linda Towing and Leo Wenzel were in fact representative of. However, Brad Lawrence served in a dual capacity as “fee collector” and “towing enforcement officer” This misaligned management arrangement placed Lawrence in a position to collect money, and perhaps someday prosecute the very people he collected money from. In the case of Leo Wenzel, Wenzel was often accused of “holding back” fees belonging to Lawrence. Later statistics showed this was the result of being given a disproportionately lesser amount of impounds as compared to the other franchises. This enmity, stemming from the early days of fee collections, gave Brad Lawrence motive and desire to prosecute Leo Wenzel at the first opportunity.
39. On the date of the criminal complaint filing, (June 30, 1999); by Brad Lawrence, (17) original crimes were listed. The very same day Wenzel was scheduled to return from a suspension of his towing duties, an action in which Lawrence was personally involved, Brad Lawrence filed as many counts as he had articulated on his computer at the time; in fact, (17) counts as of June 30, 1999. This criminal filing was done in haste and had an ancillary purpose to extend and continue Wenzel’s suspension by virtue of asserting an ongoing criminal investigation. In his haste, Brad Lawrence signed his own complaint under penalty of perjury as if he witnessed the offense in person as if he were an officer of the court.
None of these alleged crimes occurred in his presence. Consider Penal Code Section 836:
A. A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by chapter 4.5 (commencing with section 830) of title 3, of part 2, without a warrant, may arrest any person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:
i. The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence.
ii. The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer’s presence.
iii. The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony whether or not a felony has been committed.
B. Any time a peace officer is called out on a domestic violence call, it shall be mandatory that the peace officer make a good faith effort to inform the victim of his or her right to make a citizen’s arrest. This information shall include advising the victim how to safely execute the arrest.
The crux issue as it applies to Brad Lawrence is this: to arrest Leo Wenzel under Section 836, he would have had to be an eyewitness to the alleged crimes (each and every one of them).
Having no authority to arrest by statute, Brad Lawrence could still charge Leo Wenzel on information and belief by submitting his complaint to the district attorneys’ office under state law. The district attorney could, in fact, sign a complaint on information and belief, with the court. Brad Lawrence was registered as a law student and knew this was wrong. Brad Lawrence is held to a higher standard because he is currently a registered law student with the State Bar of California.
In the instant case at hand, Brad Lawrence signed in place of the district attorney.
This effectively made Brad Lawrence “bill collector”, “prosecutor”, “detective”, and “prosecuting attorney”. Brad Lawrence has not passed the State Bar of California, and is not qualified to enter his own complaints with the court. This is an arrangement of convenience to end run around the prosecutor’s duty to scrutinize cases and produce exculpatory evidence.
40. Brad Lawrence entered a finished complaint against Leo Wenzel and Loma Linda Towing with over 30 counts of illegal towing, on or about September of 1999.
41. Brad Lawrence and the City of San Bernardino continued suspension of Wenzel’s agreement ultimately terminating the agreement without sending Wenzel proper notice. It was in fact the malicious prosecution orchestrated by Lawrence that allowed him to continue suspension and ultimately terminate Wenzel’s agreement.
42. Mayor Judith Valles through her brother Mike Valles capitalized on Wenzel’s suspension and sent buyers to Mr. Wenzel to try to buy up his business, while his sister “Mayor Valles” sat and Mayor and Chair of City Council, which had the authority to deny or continue suspension Wenzel’s business. Wenzel was forced to sell his business under duress and at a substantial discount. An agent of one buyer “PePe’s Towing” said that Mike Valles contacted him to make the deal. A local citizens’ investigation has discovered that Mike Valles often appears as an “independent agent” for the City of San Bernardino, as he runs a local consulting business called “Valco Enterprises”. Valco Enterprises once resided in the offices of Los Padrinos of Southern California. Mike Valles, Mayor Judith Valles, and Jerry Eaves have sponsored Los Padrinos and helped acquire millions in local contracts (some are funded Federally through grants). Mike Valles played a critical role in the election and fundraising of several local officials in the City of Colton (several of which have pled guilty to Federal bribery charges Los Padrinos has also been the target of a fair political Practice Commission fine leveled against defendant Supervisor Jerry Eaves. That same fine encompasses multiple fines between Supervisor Jerry Eaves, Mike and Martin Matich. Mike Valles also relayed to Leo Wenzel that he had connections with the City of San Bernardino, and that the city was going to buy it’s own tow yard. Valles told Wenzel that through his sister, the Mayor of San Bernardino, he would secure a high paying city job for Wenzel. Valles specifically promised Wenzel that he would give Wenzel a position managing the new city yard when it was approved. Wenzel declined Mike Valle’s offer. Mike Valles DID help Wenzel word various letters in his appeal of the Mayor and common council’s tow franchisee suspension. The fax transcription from these letters said “Valles for Mayor”. Wenzel felt very uncomfortable, as he felt that the Mayor was bribing him for personal financial gain through a third party, her brother, Mike Valles.
43. By virtue of the criminal charges filed by Brad Lawrence, against Leo Wenzel; Wenzel discovered that these charges had yet another motive. Wenzel towed for the National Orange Show Foundation (a Defendant in this action). Brad Lawrence opened an investigation whereby he alleged that Wenzel towed illegally from the National Orange Show. Lawrence corresponded with Orange Show employees such as Brad Bellamy (a Defendant in this action). Bellamy became a pivotal witness in the criminal case against Leo Wenzel.
The ancillary motive for the criminal investigation was that Wenzel towed the cars of two very important people in San Bernardino, T. Milford Harrison and Robert Matich. T. Milford Harrison was the acting chief of staff of Defendant Jerry Eaves. Robert Matich was the son of Martin Matich. Wenzel’s tow facility was visited by the san Bernardino Sheriff’s Department who escorted Matich to the facility to retrieve his vehicle. National Orange Show management urged Wenzel to release the vehicles for free. Wenzel refused. Wenzel DID however give both Harrison and Matich a special wholesale rate of $50.00 as a result of the pressure brought on by the Sheriff’s Department and his client the National Orange Show. These vehicles were together, illegally parked, and lawfully towed from the fire lane. In fact, it was Defendant Brian Bellamy who actually noticed these vehicles, instructed they be towed, and even photographed the vehicles. This happened when Defendant Jerry Eaves was in full power and before he was criminally indicted by state and federal authorities. Sergeant Emoto of the Police Department threatened Wenzel as the vehicles were retrieved. Incidentally, both Jerry Eaves and Martin Matich were members of the National Orange Show’s Board of Directors.
44. It was also determined that Martin Matich possessed a great influence over Mayor Judith Valles. Valles’ 1998 campaign contribution records show that in the winding days of her election she received a series of checks for $12,500.00 each. These came from Martin Matich and several developers who have worked together with Matich on projects. Considering Martin Matich was a director of the National Orange Show, “Wenzel’s client”, and had such influence with Defendant “Major Valles”. Also considering Defendant Jerry Eaves was in full power, the Defendants were in position to manipulate a grand scale prosecution against Plaintiff Leo Wenzel.
45. On or about January 3rd of 2000, Brad Lawrence contacted Clark Cavanaugh and Tom McGraw of “Elite Towing” and informed both parties that he was conducting a criminal investigation and would like to conduct interviews at the police department. Attorney Richard Harding was notified and in fact appeared on behalf of all defendants. Interviews literally took all day as Lawrence was desperately trying to build a criminal case against Elite Towing. Elite Towing spent several hundred thousand dollars building a state of the art towing facility in the City of San Bernardino. Elite met every requirement for a franchise contract with the City, yet the police officers in the tow compliance unit were actively lobbying to deny and not include Elite on their towing rotation. Again, malicious prosecution became their weapon of choice. Between the initial interviews in January, and the Mid-March City Council meeting, a multi-agency investigation was put into place concerning Elite Towing.
Inland Protective Services, LLC, it’s officers, it’s directors, and it’s shareholders were also the target of this Brad Lawrence Investigation. Brad Lawrence interfered with long time and solid contractual relationships that Inland Protective Services had with local customers. Some customers were actually directed to terminate services with Inland Protective Services.
On or about March 21, 2000, Clark Cavanaugh, Ed Harding, Paula Martin, and several clients or Inland Protective Services, LLC., appeared at a video taped meeting of the Mayor and common Council. The entire meeting was dominated by discussion of Inland Protective Services, and Elite Towing. Ed Harding, another citizen and a local landowner, expressed his concerns about the political police investigation and how it effected his properties by allowing illegal parking (most of which was for the purpose of elicit drug solicitation). Ed Harding took a very active role in fighting crime and blight as it concerns low-income apartment complexes that Ed Harding owns both in the City and County of San Bernardino.
During the City Council meeting of March 21, 2000 (or there about). The police department sought to deny Elite Towing to franchise with the City upon the result of their criminal investigation. Brad Lawrence started his initial investigation against Elite under the theory of tow-bribery. Tow bribery occurs when a kick back is offered in exchange for consideration to allow a tow company to tow from a property. Tow bribery is encapsulated in California Vehicle Code Section 12110. You will recall that this section was visited in Section 35 of this complaint. Lawrence became aware of a contract signed in 1999 between Elite Towing and Inland Protective Services LLC. This contract authorized Elite Towing to order armed private security officers to stand by and protect their tow drivers and keep the peace during the removal of illegally parked vehicles. This was absolutely necessary for the protection of tow company personnel. The contract also provided for escort services to the towing yard in the event that the tow driver was followed.
Inland Protective Service, LLC had numerous experiences with weapons being displayed against tow drivers of all-about-towing, the tow company that towed before Elite. In fact, a driver of all-about-towing lost his life in a similar incident shortly after Brad Lawrence caused this arrangement to end through his malicious prosecution. There was no security present when the driver was killed in route to his tow storage yard (employee of all-about-towing). An opinion was later issued by the Legislative council of the State of California concerning the arrangement to provide security. The State of California’s legislative council concluded that provision of security did not amount to a violation of vehicle code section 12110. On October 11, 2000, the Honorable Bill Leonard sought an opinion of the legislative council of California (request #15882). The conclusion of this (14) page opinion states in part: “It is, therefore, our opinion that an agreement between a towing company, which is under a separate contract with a private property owner or lessee, to remove vehicles from the owner or lessee’s property, and a security company, which is under a different, separate contract with the private property owner or lessee to provide security to that property, would not result in a unlawful gift, commission, or compensation for arranging a tow under subdivision (a) of section 12110 if, under the agreement, the security company, for compensation, provides security to the towing company while a vehicle is being removed from the property by the towing company and the security company, as the agent of the private property owner or lessee, provides the written authorization for each tow rendered by the towing company.”
Notwithstanding this opinion that availed itself October 11, 2000, Brad Lawrence vigorously pursued a criminal investigation that encompassed many cities and involved dozens, perhaps hundreds of law enforcement personnel. This was the criminal investigation that he intended to use to forestall Elite Towing from receiving a City franchise agreement as evidenced by the videotape of the meeting of the Mayor and common council on or about March 21, 2000.
46. After the April 6, 1999, illegal search of and seizure from the offices of Inland, nothing further was heard from the D.A.’s Office for many months. On March 21, 2000, Clark Cavanaugh appeared at a public hearing of the San Bernardino Common (“City”) Council, chaired by Mayor Judith Valles (hereinafter “the Mayor”). He spoke publicly about a fraud and conflict of interest that was being perpetrated on the people of San Bernardino by the Mayor and her brother, Mike Valles. Mayor Judith Valles, through her brother Mike Valles, was plotting to capitalize on the demise of Leo Wenzel. Both Mike and Judith Valles sought to gain material profit from the prospective sale of Mr. Wenzel’s business to a third party buyer, that they in fact would recruit. Mike Valles made overt attempts to this end including contacting towing companies to facilitate the sale and promising a lucrative City position to Leo Wenzel if he would in fact sell his business to one of Mike Valles’ buyers. Mike Valles acted at all times as an ostensible agent of the City of San Bernardino. Mike Valles would not have had access to this City job that he was promising to Leo Wenzel without the complicity of his sister, Judith Valles. In fact, citizen investigators later determined that there were potential plans for a City owned tow yard facility. Various resolutions were written and submitted to the Mayor and common council by the towing division of the San Bernardino Police Department. These plans to develop a city owned tow yard, which included the potential profit structure, were in fact in the planning stages when Mike Valles made said representations to Leo Wenzel. Leo Wenzel declined upon the offer of Mike Valles.
Clark Cavanaugh hinted of this illegal conspiracy at the March 21, 2000 city council meeting. Cavanaugh was discreet enough not to embarrass Mayor Valles in front of the common Council. Cavanaugh pointed his finger at the common council and simply stated that at least one member of this council has a brother who is illegally brokering tow companies. You will remember that the subject of the day was towing. Cavanaugh told the Mayor and common council that if this did not stop that he intended to sponsor a Federal civil rights action. Immediately after Clark Cavanaugh had exercised his First Amendment Rights, by engaging in these whistle-blowing activities before the City Council, he, his family and his business (“Inland”) became the renewed targets of a retaliatory criminal investigation conspiracy involving the Mayor, Penman, Chief of Police Lee Dean, Olivarria and SBPD Officer Brad Lawrence (“Lawrence”) and other Defendants herein, resulting ultimately in Clark Cavanaugh’s arrest on April 4, 2000. Bogus and retaliatory criminal and administrative prosecutions were commonly and systematically utilized by the City and County of San Bernardino’s prosecution agencies, law enforcement departments and government officials in order to eliminate political enemies and ruin their businesses. The arrests of Clark J. Cavanaugh, Rodney P. Cavanaugh, Ruth A. Cavanaugh and others were also effected pursuant to these illegal policies and the illegal arrest warrants that were never signed by a judge. The actual arrest was a well-articulated plan between Officer Brad Lawrence and D.A. Investigator Gilberto Olivarria. This arrest was planned over a very specific seven-day period, which in fact involved emergency declarations as opposed to a standard complaint written by a District Attorney. The arrest was done publicly in front of one of Cavanaugh’s largest clients. All this at a meeting that Brad Lawrence was scheduled to attend with Clark Cavanaugh.
47. During this exact period of time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had already become aware of the politically motivated prosecutions in San Bernardino County. The Federal Bureau of Investigation along with a Sheriff task force wired county Supervisor candidate Ed Scott with recording devices with the intention of making a surreptitious recording of the District Attorney’s Office. Allegations of a political prosecution ironically concerning Jerry Eaves a Defendant in this action were being monitored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These surreptitious recordings created an over 600 page transcript. Specifically, a conversation concerning the prosecution of Jaime Alvarez and his family was in fact recorded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. District Attorney Investigators clearly relayed to Ed Scott that they were under extreme political pressure by both the Mayor and Chief of Police of San Bernardino. This pressure was targeted to cause them to continue the prosecution of Jaime Alvarez and his family. It should be noted that a special task force had already been devised to which Defendants Victor Hamilton and Gilberto Olivarria were both members of. A special office was provided for this task force which contained several police officers from the San Bernardino Police Department. It was during this time period at the end of March 2000 that that same task force took a short detour and arrested the Cavanaugh family. This was clearly the result of the March 17, 2000 meeting. The arrest was planned and executed between March 27th of 2000 and April 4th of 2000. The arrest was coordinated by Police Officer Brad Lawrence, District Attorney Investigator Gilberto Olivarria and Victor Hamilton. Notice Pleading is thereby served by virtue of explaining that several details concerning illegality of that arrest are currently in the possession of Plaintiffs. The final result of the FBI intervention was that the assistant District Attorney Dan Lough and Chief Investigator Barry Bruins were in fact demoted by District Attorney Dennis Stout. Bruins and Lough, however, allege that the real conspiracy is within the Sheriff’s Department. Although we agree the Sheriff’s Department has its own set of problems, our specific focus is the District Attorney, and his politically motivated prosecutions of law abiding citizens that were both extensive and malicious by virtue of lack of record keeping and preplanned chaos amongst his private army of District Attorney investigators. This oversize group of police officers were solely justified by Dennis Stout’s political ambitions and his desire to appease his political constituents. Citizen investigators have documented a clear and concise pattern of practice concerning these prosecutions to be made available at time of trial.
48. Lawrence took trade secret client lists obtained from the search of Elite Towing and began contacting Inland’s clients by telephoning and personally showing up at their place of business in order to persuade them that Inland was a criminal organization that was “going down” which they should stop doing business with. This onerous harassment was conducted under color of law, went on for months and caused havoc to the Plaintiffs’ business (“Inland”). It was an intentional, and tortious interference with business and contractual relations, conducted under color of law with the aim and purpose of destroying Plaintiffs’ business (Inland, client by client and depriving the Plaintiffs’ of financial resources and security.)
On March 28 and 29, 2000, Clark Cavanaugh had conversations with Tom Parrish, owner of Stubblefield Development (one of Inland’s long-term clients) to apprise him of what Lawrence was attempting to do. A meeting was to be set up on April 4, 2000, between Tom Parrish and the SBPD with Clark Cavanaugh to be present so that he could contradict any slander attempted by the SBPD. This meeting was confirmed with the SBPD on March 28, 2000. Brad Lawrence was scheduled to attend this meeting also. On March 30, 2000, Olivarria allegedly rushed to court with five (5) bogus declarations in support of arresting Clark Cavanaugh, and others, which were presented to a judge. The D.A. Investigators swore out an arrest warrant based on a declaration and allegedly had it signed by a Judge (the signature being indecipherable). On April 4, 2000, Clark Cavanaugh falsely was arrested in the parking lot of Inland’s client Stubblefield Development and D.A. Investigators Olivarria and Victor Hamilton transported him to central jail in San Bernardino where he was incarcerated overnight. It became obvious that Lawrence, who Clark Cavanaugh was to meet on April 4, 2000, had contacted D.A. Investigators Olivarria and Hamilton who had then sworn out declarations on March 30, 2000. These declarations and their subsequent arrests were in relation to the worker’s compensation fraud investigation and not the towing issues at hand that day; however, Brad Lawrence was involved in this plot to arrest Cavanaugh as Olivarria had no other way of knowing that Cavanaugh would be present and attending the 10:00 AM meeting. Olivarria handed Inland attorney, Ben Lofstedt, 4000 pages of bogus discovery on April 4, 2000, which appeared to be documents taken at random from Inland files seized and held since April 6, 1999. No complaint was available. On April 5, 2000, Clark Cavanaugh was to be arraigned by a video proceeding at West Valley Detention Center. Again, no complaint was available at his arraignment. Evidence subsequently showed that Olivarria drafted the complaint after Clark J. Cavanaugh’s arrest was made and that a single complaint was backdated for court records to March 30, 2000. Clark Cavanaugh, Rodney Cavanaugh and Ruth Cavanaugh, three of the five Defendants in a bogus felony complaint stating eighty one (81) felony counts against the three of them, were each required to post a $25,000.00 bond at great expense to themselves. Jan Deluhery and Sherry Perry, business partners of the Cavanaughs between 1996 and 1999, were permitted to remain out of custody on their own recognizance. Olivarria gave them immunity deals for “turning” states’ evidence.
49. The “discovery” that was turned over to Ben Lofstedt and, later, to criminal defense attorneys was hopelessly mangled. The thousands of pages had been intentionally disarranged in order to hide the reality that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by any of the Plaintiffs. The discovery made no sense whatsoever and appeared to be thousands of pages taken at random from Inland files or, through shuffling and reshuffling of each of 3000 to 4000 pages, it had obviously and purposefully been sabotaged. Criminal defense attorneys brought this defective discovery to the attention of the D.A.‘s Office and were forced to request a continuance of the preliminary hearing because of it. They were forced to hire a paralegal who was a “records expert” to attempt to sort through the thousands of out-of-sequence pages, which job took months to accomplish. Deputy
D.A. Tracy Bartell (hereinafter “Bartell”) phoned the office of defense attorney Richard Harding and left a message on his recorder. In the message, Bartell acknowledged the hopeless state of the corrupted discovery. She apologized and attempted to excuse it by stating that since it was so voluminous it could not be copied at the D.A.’s Office and had to be transferred to County copying where it was, according to her, corrupted by others – such handling of evidence represents a break in the chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence is no longer guaranteed. Aside from that, public record requests to County Printing and Services (County copying) show that no requests for copying were made by the D.A.’s office that could have corresponded to this discovery. In addition, inquiries were made to the D.A.’s office as to whether records of logs existed which would show chain of custody of evidence sent to the facilities outside and beyond the control of the D.A.’s Office. The D.A.’s Office failed to respond. Attempting to unravel this mess cost Defendants an additional $10,000.00 in defense costs and, at the end of the day, there still was no evidence of any crime having been committed.
50. Within a week after the meeting of the Mayor and common council, and before the April 4, 2000 arrest of Clark Cavanaugh, Edward Harding was also retaliated against by virtue of a full-scale code enforcement raid on at least three of his properties in San Bernardino. After the March meeting, the city attorney mobilized code enforcement, the fire department, and other agencies which mounted a full-scale attack on the known properties of Edward Harding. This like Clark Cavanaugh’s arrest was a direct punitive retaliation to the exercise of free speech. The code enforcement raid, and the Cavanaugh arrests occurred just days apart. Ed Harding was presented with dozens of violations; moreover, all of his residents were subjected to “quasi-Nazi style invasions” (apartment by apartment). Some residents took offense and immediately gave notice. This became possible due to a search warrant negotiated by Defendant “City Attorney Jim Penman” and “Judge John N. Martin”. Penman and Martin enjoyed a prior working relationship in the city attorney’s office in the early 90’s. Judge Martin also served on the city of San Bernardino’s animal control advisory committee. Penman used Martin for the most part to retrieve warrants when he instigated his aggressive and malicious prosecutions against his political foes.
51. Cavanaugh became aware of yet another tragedy of justice concerning a public speaker named Jeff Wright. Wright was sentenced to 725 days in jail for merely speaking violations. Cavanaugh made contact with a retired sergeant of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department named Shirley Goodwin. Valles, Eaves, and other officials conspired to arrest and prosecute Jeff Wright (who was already on probation for speaking violations). Clark Cavanaugh agreed to deliver a retainer to Attorney Ben Lofstedt to substitute in as the attorney of record. Goodwin presented documents justifying that Christianson did in fact direct police officers specifically in Wright’s arrest. Also, Rick’s brother, Judge Ronald Christianson was to be Wright’s judge at trial. Like Wenzel, Wright’s complaint was signed by a police officer not an attorney. Presiding Judge Roberta McPeters controlled his bail and he was sent to the courtroom of Judge Wade (who incidentally is married or the common-law partner of Judge Roberta McPeters). Wade violated Wright’s probation from a juvenile court, effectively sentencing Wright to 725 days in jail. Ironically, Wade was not supposed to be hearing criminal cases due to a rape investigation that was conducted by the District Attorney’s Office. Wade voluntarily recused himself from criminal cases and agreed to hear civil cases only. This broad recusal occurred in lieu of his examination in the Orange County courts.
52. Ben Lofstedt, Shirley Goodwin, Clark Cavanaugh and Ann Bellis appeared in the law offices of “Jim Glick” the afternoon before Jeff Wright’s trial readiness hearing. Glick was conspicuously missing several witnesses on his witness list. A new list was produced. In addition, Lofstedt asked “Glick” to enter him co-counsel the next morning during the readiness hearing. When Glick brought this news to the Judge, all charges were immediately dropped against Jeff Wright. The nepotism in this scenario is staggering. Judge Wade revoked probation, Judge Wade's wife, Judge Roberta McPeters sets bail, Rick Christianson coordinates arrest, and his brother Ron Christianson sits as Judge.
It should be noted that even though all charges were dropped against Wright, he had to serve the remainder of 725 days in jail brought on by Wade’s revocation of his probation. Clark Cavanaugh became a prime target after investing in the dismantling of this political conspiracy.
53. On or about July of 2000 Cavanaugh learned about an association in fact called the “courthouse committee”. This association in fact held regular meetings within the City of San Bernardino’s Chamber of Commerce. This “courthouse committee” has functioned since 1997. Involved in the committee was Defendant Jerry Eaves, Defendant Judith Valles, Defendant Jim Penman, Judi Penman (wife of Jim Penman). Roberta McPeters; (Presiding Judge). This committee raises private funds as well as spending public funds set aside to retrofit the county’s courthouse. They have planned, purchased architectural drawings, and have raised money on behalf of a new mega courthouse/government center. Jerry Eaves’ attorney, Bill Lemann also consults on this project. These decisions made by this association in fact bring in major questions concerning California’s Brown Act.
On September 05, 2000 Shirley Goodwin served the city of San Bernardino with a federal civil rights complaint. The complaint centered around the confiscation of a video tape, by city officials, to control evidence that Goodwin taped during a city counsel meeting. This was in fact exculpatory in nature in the defense of Jeff Wright spoken about earlier in the complaint.
Between September 19, 2000 and October 02, 2000 Goodwin was forced to pay almost daily fines to retrieve her cats. Goodwin made her home a refuge for stray, abandoned, injured and neglected cats.
On October 2, 2000, an animal control officer named Ashbaker demanded one hundred and eighty dollars cash for release of a cat that he had just captured. An incident occurred where Goodwin PAID $40.00 the prior cost, but animal control demanded 180.00 (on the basis that the cat had prior offenses). During the disagreement the door to the cat’s cage was opened and the cat bolted from the cage. At one point Ashbaker began wrestling the shirt off of Jeff Wright.
On October 17, 2000, the pattern of malicious prosecution kicks back into effect as the city attorney’s office conspires with Judge John Martin to issue a search warrant for the crime of robbery. A simple misdemeanor charge of assault or battery would not have gotten the city attorney in the front door of Goodwin’s house, therefore, the Judge allowed a warrant to be issued and signed the same for robbery. On October 28, 2000, a robbery warrant was served on the home of retired Sheriff’s Sergeant Shirley Goodwin by Gordon Jones. Jeff Wright tapes the initial moments of the search with a video camera. The police confiscated this camera and never logged it in on their evidence return to the court. Of course this included the video tape inside the camera. In fact, police were specifically denied, and further disallowed to take any video tapes or equipment. This was not just beyond the scope of the warrant: it was outright forbidden. It is plain to see why this was never listed on the warrants return filed with the court.
Citizens went to the court to retrieve a copy of Goodwins search warrant, affidavit, and return from the court’s public records. Citizens noticed that her file had been sealed. Judge Martin allowed this file to be sealed which is a highly unusual move. In fact, the next warrant sealed after Goodwin’s occurred 64 warrants later and involved a murder. Goodwin feared that the authorities would return to seize her several boxes of written work product so she made arrangements to store that evidence off site as quickly as she could.
56. On or about September 2000, a community meeting of the Del Rosa property and business owners’ association was held at a trailer park owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Littleton. This meeting was organized and attended by Penman and San Bernardino City Councilwoman Wendy McCammack. A primary purpose of the meeting was to hear complaints of property and business owners about the behavior of residents of local multi-residential apartment buildings. However, none of the owners of the multi-residential apartment businesses were invited to attend because the purpose of the meeting was to surreptitiously devise plans with Penman and McCammack to attack their interests. One local group of owners of multi-residential apartments employed Inland to provide security services in connection with their properties. These owners together with Clark Cavanaugh heard about and attended this meeting to present a four hour undercover surveillance film that they had recently commissioned which showed a pattern of gang activity that commenced at one end of the block on Mountain Avenue (at the Rosewood Apartments) and went down to the other end of the block (The Eldorado Apartments). The problem of gang activity in this area, according to these owners, resulted from a combination of the City’s willful blindness, neglect and redlining of city services, including code compliance and law enforcement, with certain other remote property owners’ willingness to rent to and tolerate gangs and criminal activities in their buildings. The complaining property owners who attended the meeting, on the other hand, operated a “hands-on” local property management company, which for years has sought to improve the neighborhood and property values. They screened and kept out gang members, parolees and criminal activities to the greatest extent possible, including hiring the security services of Inland. However, they were only a part of a neighborhood and could not solve the problem of gang activity, which was city-wide, and that had been created, tolerated, encouraged and allowed by City Officials, solely through their control over their own properties.
57. At this meeting, James Penman and Clark Cavanaugh publicly got into a side dispute where Cavanaugh brought up Penman’s role in a large sexual harassment claim against the city attorney’s office. Cavanaugh mentioned that certain city council members had voted for Penman’s censure; that the city had expended $90,000.00 funding an outside investigation into the unlawful conduct taking place within his office and that, although some of the allegations had been sustained, the city council still voted not to pursue the matter further. Rumors of large bribes from a local developer (who supported Penman) began to surface. As a result of this conversation between Cavanaugh and Penman, Penman threatened Cavanaugh at the end of the meeting. A few weeks after this meeting, just after the elections, SBPD officer Lawrence executed a second major massive search and seizure raid on Inland’s business premises and seized file cabinets full of operating documents and much equipment effectively bringing the business to a standstill a second time. Also, soon after the trailer park incident, Penman and councilwoman, McCammack, orchestrated and attended a multi-agency raid, including code enforcement, fire department, law enforcement, welfare and immigration, against the multi-residential property owners that came with Cavanaugh to the meeting to protest the gang activity and help pinpoint the real problems and their possible solutions. These owners were Ed and Richard Harding, and this was the second time they also experienced Penman’s wrath by speaking at a meeting aside Clark Cavanaugh. These raids were totally retaliatory and vindictive, without probable cause, and unlawful. They were initiated, attended and executed by Penman and based upon his own personal animus and vendetta, and wound up costing said property owners approximately $40,000.00 in defense costs that would have gone into improving their properties. Just like the first raids in March, this occurred directly after speaking at a public meeting.
58. The Cavanaughs’ criminal defense team propounded informal discovery requesting, among other items, all documentation dealing with four (4) pending labor board claims seized during this November 2000 search. SBPD Officer Lawrence had informed Inland by letter that the seized items were at the D.A.’s office in the custody of Deputy D.A. Robert Yabuno (hereinafter “Yabuno”). The D.A. refused to answer this informal discovery request, although the contrived criminal prosecution of the Cavanaughs was still pending. Finally, Bartell did turn over one of the twenty-four items requested (but not the Labor Board information) to defense attorneys leaving the remainder unresponded to.
59. A Labor Board Attorney, Timothy Kolesnikow (hereinafter “Kolesnikow”), maintained close contact with Bartell. On May 16, 2001, Ben Lofstedt and Clark Cavanaugh had an appointment at the D.A.’s Office with Bartell to review evidence in Cavanaughs case in an attempt to locate the Labor Board materials. When they arrived they were delayed in viewing any evidence because Kolesnikow was already viewing evidence without an evidence technician present. Bartell, however, claimed such a technician would be required for Lofstedt and Cavanaugh to view the evidence because they were not “government” employees. Finally, they were allowed in with an evidence technician but were not required to sign a log. They were only shown approximately ten percent (10%) of the evidence that had been seized. When they asked where the rest of (the other ninety 90%) of the evidence was, Bartell replied that it was in a storage area that they could not have access to. Bartell had represented initially that the ten- percent (10%) of evidence constituted all that there was to see. This forbidden evidence locker, that was held off-limits to Clark Cavanaugh and his counsel was the very same area to which Heather Stockman had been given carte blanc access. Stockman was a suspect in the embezzlement and forgery to which the Cavanaugh’s were a victim. This was known by Olivarria before he granted access and left her alone with the Cavanaugh’s evidence.
60. Olivarria, who was the lead D.A. Investigator against the Cavanaughs and was also deeply involved in the Jaime Alvarez task force and the Jane Un case (two other malicious prosecutions where the City and County had a conflict of interest with the Defendants) is, on information and belief, alleged to have left his job on or about April 2001. It is believed that he left his job, not as “alleged” on a medical leave, but actually due to a FBI investigation of the San Bernardino D.A.’s Office when it became known that the FBI had made a number of clandestine tape recordings of D.A. personnel.
61. The San Bernardino D.A., Dennis Stout, was running a “prosecution shop” that was almost devoid of all proper and necessary rules and procedures. There were no procedures in place that guaranteed the integrity of evidence in his possession, and he was directly responsible for the loss of evidence concerning Inland vs. HiteK previously mentioned. He was also responsible for the spoliation of evidence in the criminal case he brought against the Cavanaugh’s aside from the filing of unfounded charges in the first place. A proper analysis and construction of this alleged evidence demonstrates that the three Cavanaugh’s were innocent of all charges, that said evidence would ultimately exculpate the three of them, and that the charges brought against them were brought without probable cause and were a malicious, vindictive, retaliatory, prosecutorial attempt to eliminate a political enemy of Penman and Valles and the economic competition of Metropolitan.
62. Plaintiffs’ agent, Gail Fry, sent the San Bernardino D.A. four (4) California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6254) requests concerning all procedures, processes, memorandum, logs for and training materials concerning the chain of custody and proper handling of documentary evidence within the D.A.’s office, including the transfer of seized evidence or documents outside the DAs office for handling or servicing by an outside contractor or other governmental department. In a letter, dated June 15, 2001, from Deputy D.A. Mark Voss, the SBDA’s office refused to disclose any and all such public records in violation of the California Public Records Act.
63. As of October 2001, criminal defense attorneys for the Cavanaughs still had not received any response to their April 2001, informal request for discovery. On October 22, 2001, Bartell informed said attorneys by letter that, at the pre-preliminary hearing on October 30, 2001, she intended to move to dismiss the complaint against the three Cavanaughs in the interest of justice. On October 30, 2001, 27 malicious felony counts were dismissed, in the interest of justice, against each of the three Defendants (a total of 81 felony counts). In addition to the D.A. Office’s continued wrongfully hiding the whereabouts of their chief investigator, Olivarria, so that he would be unable to testify in the matter, and of the exposure of their purposeful concealment, spoliation and corruption of the evidence in the Cavanaugh case (which would have proved the innocence of Defendants), the D.A.’s Office was finally confronted with the truth of their actions, namely, that they had initiated, investigated and maliciously prosecuted a case that they knew was politically and economically inspired and which they knew was wholly lacking in probable cause. And even lacked enough substance to conduct a preliminary hearing.
64. Upon dismissal of the case, an order to return evidence in the custody of the D.A. to the Cavanaugh’s and Inland was issued by the court. Arrangements were made by Defendants to have an attorney present to inventory the evidence upon receipt. The D.A.’s office refused to cooperate with this procedure and simply turned over tagged boxes. As was suspected, the evidence received from the D.A.’s office was missing quite a lot of evidence that had been seized. It was missing the evidence against Hitek and the briefcase that had contained it. It was missing a 22-page employment booklet that had been signed by a one Hawkins who was the complainant in a Labor Board case against Inland. This booklet set forth the terms of Hawkins’ hiring and would have been exculpatory evidence that would have zeroed out his complaint for $10,000.00 back wages. Kolesnikow was given carte blanc to rifle through the evidence in the D.A.’s custody without an evidence technician or a log record of his having viewed the evidence. There is substantial evidence that Kolesnikow took the Hawkin’s booklet.
65. More importantly, all of the evidence seized in the illegal second, November 2000, search of Inland was still missing. SBPD Lawrence had written in a letter to Plaintiffs that Yabuno had custody of the evidence seized. After months of further delay of two attorneys trying to obtain a response from Yabuno, he finally admitted that the D.A. never had custody of said evidence and that all along, contrary to the express representations of SBPD officer Lawrence, it had been in Lawrence’s possession. The November 2000 search and seizure was purely malicious, retaliatory, vindictive and without probable cause. It was undertaken purely for harassment and as another attempt to close down the business of Inland. SBPD Officer Lawrence engaged in a rogue operation at the behest of Penman that was totally unrelated to the pending prosecution. Officer Lawrence repeatedly lied and concealed the whereabouts of said evidence in a gross attempt to obstruct justice. Officer Lawrence, Kolesnikow, Bartell and Penman clearly conspired with one another to violate the civil rights of Clark Cavanaugh, Rodney Cavanaugh and Ruth Cavanaugh. Officer Lawrence continues to hold said evidence and expressed on or about January 2002, to another attorney, Ms. Haleh Jenkins, that Inland, and specifically Clark Cavanaugh, was still under investigation by the SBPD.
66. As a direct result of the November 2000, search and seizure, without probable cause and the playing of “hide the pea” with the evidence by SBPD Officer Lawrence, and others, California State Labor Department Attorney Kolesnikow was empowered to and in collusion with Bartell, Lawrence and others, did aggressively prosecute Labor Board cases against Inland and the Cavanaughs, and ultimately demanded that Inland post a $200,000.00 bond if it wanted to continue doing business.
67. Kolesnikow, attorney for Labor Standards Enforcement, brought a number of civil actions against the Cavanaughs, including the father of Clark and Rodney Cavanaugh, and their respective businesses. These actions were brought knowing that the Cavanaugh’s evidence to defend themselves and Inland had been seized by the SBPD. In fact, Kolesnikow viewed the evidence unattended by an evidence technician at the District Attorney’s Office. He was given carte blanc to be alone with the evidence and afterwards substantial exculpatory materials were missing from the personnel records specifically relating to the bogus cases he was prosecuting. Kolesnikow demanded that Inland post a $200,000.00 bond as a condition of doing business. This outrageous demand for a bond along with prosecution of multiple bogus cases, was an attempt to put Inland out of business, knowing that the two illegal search and seizures had deprived Inland of payroll records and put them in a position where they could not reasonably defend themselves. Kolesnikow conspired with Bartell, SBPD Officer Lawrence and Erin Logan of San Bernardino Labor Department to bring civil actions against the Cavanaughs and Inland that were, in effect, created by their own deceptive and conspiratorial conduct in suppressing access to exculpatory evidence the seizure of which was the proximate cause of any delays in payment that may have occurred, if any. It was for the purpose of creating an undue financial burden to the Cavanaughs and their business, Inland, that Lawrence misled everyone into believing that Yabuno had possession of their documentation in the first place. Despite Lawrence’s lies to Plaintiffs and their attorneys as to the whereabouts of the records, he furnished Kolesnikow with the suppressed information so Kolesnikow could bring numerous bogus and malicious civil actions to further destroy the Cavanaughs’ business that never would have reached the stage of being Labor civil actions had Inland had access to its personnel records. Not only were these cases brought against the business, Inland, maliciously, but they were also maliciously brought against the individual Cavanaughs, knowing that none of them had been employers in their individual capacities. Lawrence, acting in conspiracy with Kolesnikow and Bartell, caused vindictive and malicious criminal and civil actions to be brought.
While he was the actual custodian of the records, he denied this fact throughout. This conspiracy caused Inland’s inability to determine whether money was owned to four ex-employees. These bogus Labor Board cases have cost the Cavanaugh’s and Inland in excess of $100,000.00 to defend and are still ongoing.
68. In January 2002, after Bartell moved for dismissal of the 81 felony count criminal prosecution brought against the Cavanaughs in the interest of justice, SBPD Officers Lawrence and Yabuno continued to conspire with each other to destroy Clark Cavanaugh by investigating him for other bogus charges (extortion), entirely lacking in foundation and probable cause. When a tow truck hooks up to a vehicle on a legitimate tow and is in transit by virtue of hooking that vehicle and preparing to leave, often a person (or vehicle owner) will come outside and violently confront the tow truck driver while still on private property. It is a long-standing practice for the tow truck driver to give the person the opportunity to remove the vehicle and pay a “drop fee” which is a reduced fee that is usually lower than the cost of picking the vehicle up from an impound yard. The tow truck driver often would accept the drop fee and the towing company would fully account for it as a receivable in order to avoid violent confrontations with vehicle owners and their agents while on private property.
69. In such situations, tow companies would hire Inland to provide security services during that short window of time while on private property and pay it a small fee for such security service. Lawrence and Yabuno alleged that the presence of an armed security officer for a fee while a tow truck is collecting the drop fee constituted extortion. Based upon this bogus set of facts, wholly baseless, Lawrence obtained a search warrant from Judge Fawke in 1999. This investigation lay dormant, if not completely dead, until Lawrence and Yabuno resuscitated it in January 2002, based upon the 1999 incident, only after Bartell had moved to dismiss her case in the interest of justice. This investigation by grand jury was only started after Clark Cavanaugh had incontrovertibly demonstrated that Lawrence and Yabuno had conspired to conceal the Cavanaugh/Inland records and thereby obstruct justice. The modus operandi, clearly evident, is that government officials in San Bernardino commence malicious, retaliatory prosecutions, among other reasons, to coverup their own wrongdoing. Numerous cases, involving Jane Un, Leo Wenzel, Shirley Goodwin, Jaime Alvarez, David and Annamarie Child, Jeff Wright and the Cavanaughs followed a similar modus operandi. All these cases involved malicious, vindictive and retaliatory prosecutions; all involved situations where the City, County or government officials had economic conflicts of interest; all were without probable cause; all involved the same or overlapping law enforcement, investigative and prosecuting personnel; and all involved illegal searches and seizures, without probable cause that utilized legally insufficient (unsworn) affidavits and other warrant procedures.
70. On November 30, 2000, Lawrence conducted the second illegal search without probable cause as previously mentioned. The search warrant that was presented to Rodney Cavanaugh was so flawed and illegal on its face that the search would have been unlawful under any circumstances. The warrant was not signed or executed. The warrant did not specify what was to be searched or what was to be seized. It was hopelessly vague and ambiguous and, in fact, referred the reader to the affidavit for the warrant. Officer Lawrence failed to bring the affidavit for the warrant when he served the warrant on the Cavanaughs’ business. Thus, the warrant, which was not even self-contained within its four corners and referred the reader to an affidavit which wasn’t present, was defective at the search. There was absolutely no way of deciphering what Lawrence was investigating or authorized to seize. Lawrence wound up seizing thousands of documents in a fishing expedition conducted for the malicious and vindictive reasons aforementioned and described. Lawrence even seized the dispatch room used to dispatch security services (oftentimes services that are requested on an urgent basis). Lawrence allowed dispatchers to continue answering HiteK telephone lines (an alarm business that shares the dispatch room), but forbade them from answering Inland’s lines. Many of Inland’s clients complained of not having their calls answered and one client even terminated service.
71. Meanwhile back at the Labor Board Erin Logan, under the direction of Attorney Timothy Kolesnikow, further obfuscated Inland Protective Services, LLC ability to properly pay their employees by withholding summons that would have invited members of Inland Protective Services, LLC to protect their interests in labor board case management conferences. Logan and her staff would send the employee notice of the conference and withheld the same notice from Inland. This created Ex-parte conferences whereby Logan could maliciously pursue waiting time penalties of up to $2,000.00 per employee, this in furtherance of Kolesnikow’s prosecution. This also created additional judgements and made Inland Protective Services appear irresponsible and negligent. The last of these ploys involved a simple $35.00 uniform deposit that resulted in a penalty of almost $2,000.00. Logan recused herself from the 98A hearing, and she supplemented Commissioner Perry in her place. Cavanaugh’s attorney Ben Lofstedt was also present at this hearing. When Ben Lofstedt cornered this issue of not properly serving one Defendant, Commissioner Perry became frustrated and improperly ended the hearing without even signing off the record. No issue besides a $35.00 uniform deposit were even dealt with in the hearing. Perry argued dogmatically that she would not reveal the status of the labor board’s proper mailing of notice; furthermore, she would not open her file and expose case documents on the record: (namely proof of service records). She must have sensed that her department’s abuse of process was discovered as she prematurely terminated her hearing. In furtherance in her premature termination of hearing, she made a ruling against Inland Protective Services quoting many issues that had not even been discussed in this hearing. These were issues that Inland Protective Services never had the opportunity to defend, if in fact they existed. Furthermore, Perry did disclose that San Bernardino Labor Board outlet had a policy of not mailing proper notice to repeat offenders. When Cavanaugh asked if his company was considered a repeat offender, Perry smugly retorted “I don’t know are you?”. This entire conversation was captured on cassette tape including the premature termination of the meeting, and the commissioner’s unwillingness to bring documents that were in her possession into the record. This is just an example of the heinous violations of due process that were freely allowed by Attorney Timothy Kolesnikow as he instructed, directed, conspired with various commissioners and office personnel in the San Bernardino outlet of the Labor Commission. Timothy Kolesnikow acted in concert with Erin Logan. Erin Logan was temporary manager during this time period and Kolesnikow at all times became the “Captain of the Ship” as he delegated authority in furtherance of his malicious prosecution that he had conspired into with Brad Lawrence and Tracy Bartell. This did not end until a very professional branch manager named Robert Sweet took over the office. Since February of 2002 Cavanaugh has communicated at least once with Mr. Sweet he was honest and forthright, Cavanaugh has not had a problem since.
72. Just after Brad Lawrence had searched the offices of Inland Protective Services, LLC on November 30, 2000, the police department in concert with the fire department, code enforcement, animal control, and others served yet a second search warrant upon the home of Shirley Goodwin. This search warrant was yet another corroboration between Jim Penman and Judge John N. Martin. Multiple code enforcement issues were alleged. Penman used the same pre-abatement procedures that he often used to mobilize on multi-tenant properties. Again Judge Martin conspired with Jim Penman signing yet another ham sandwich at his behest. The second search occurred on or about December 6, 2000, this occurred just one week after the raid on the offices of Inland Protective Services. The City Attorney’s Office knew that Inland Protective Services and specifically Clark Cavanaugh had paid for strong out of town attorneys to represent Mr. Wright. Part of the reason that these officials acted so egregiously is that they have come to expect low budget, San Bernardino style defense, that they can easily control and manipulate. They erred, however, in their presumption, in that Wright ended up with a strong out of town attorney.
73. Leo Wenzel was finally assigned a criminal trial before Judge Michael Dest. Judge Michael Dest is quite simply the most corrupt judge in San Bernardino County. Only his immunities protect him from being a defendant in this action. Among his accomplishments: he is the judge that gave Jeff Wright his initial egregious sentence for public speaking. In the Jane Un case, he used his position in the local courts to completely deprive Jane Un of her constitutional rights. Jane Un was sentenced to eight years in state prison without the benefit of a trial or even a preliminary hearing. Dest accomplished this by entering into a plea bargain and allowing prosecutors to add charges after her plea bargain was solidified. Dest then sentenced Un to eight years not allowing her to retract her plea agreement. This was malicious and conspiratorial and has become the focus of national attention. It is rumored that 60 minutes is in San Bernardino doing an investigation on this issue. Dest is clearly the beast in the basement as he works with impunity from the lower misdemeanor courts. Due to the recent consolidation of the courts in California and because of limited and unlimited jurisdictions, Dest has been given free rein to victimize the politically accused. Dest will often take misdemeanor and infraction violations stacking them consecutively in such a manner that the net sentence is both unreasonable, unconstitutional, and a violation of the accused’s civil rights under the 8th and 14th Amendments. In the case of Leo Wenzel, Dest worked in concert with Brad Lawrence to deprive Wenzel of his constitutional rights on a number of occasions.
A. Leo Wenzel was not given proper discovery from the District attorney’s Office during his criminal trial, by which Brad Lawrence charged him with 36 misdemeanors and infractions. When Attorney Ben Lofstedt put a formal motion before the court asking for this discovery, Judge Dest simply did not show up for work that day. He allowed the motion to trail until the day of trial and when it was heard, he simply denied the motion in its entirety. This was to deny each and every one of the 95 requests for discovery as itemized in the motion. At least 20 of these requests were text book requests with longstanding constitutional authority. His complete denial of this motion was absolutely egregious. Malcolm Gulesarian, attorney for Leo Wenzel, argued the unfairness of this gesture. Dest seemed to believe that Wenzel’s prior attorneys should have had this information. Gulesarian told Dest that all of those attorneys resigned from the case in front of Judge Christianson. Dest argued that that was hearsay even though Mr. Wenzel was standing right there and could easily confirm the story. This was simply justice denied. These events were captured on court transcript.
B. Judge Dest allowed Officer Brad Lawrence to suborn perjury from a witness and Defendant in this action, Brian Bellamy. Brian Bellamy perjured himself concerning his testimony regarding the signing of towing receipts and further testimony whereby Bellamy said that he did not have vehicles towed through Loma Linda Towing, and that he did not give commands or extend authority to tow vehicles. Brad Lawrence knew this to be incorrect and Leo Wenzel even produced third party transcripts from his answering service whereby Bellamy was authorizing impounds. Judge Dest further shielded Brad Lawrence by allowing him to testify as an expert witness in his own case. In the testimony of Brad Lawrence, Wenzel was said to have the ability to alter the phone transcripts that were created by his third party answering service. On that theory, Dest disallowed testimony, concerning who gave the orders to tow, further prejudicing Wenzel in front of the jury. This evidence would have shown there was no crime.
C. Wenzel’s trial was bifercated into misdemeanors and infractions whereby Dest ruled on the infractions then compiled them consecutively bringing forth a significant punishment.
D. The misdemeanors were heard by Judge Brisco which was transferred all the way from Needles, California to hear this specific case. Brisco upheld the earlier denial of Dest’s motion to compel discovery simply stating that he did not to interfere with the Judge’s earlier decision. Brisco further denied justice, but he really didn’t even entertain the issue that Dest had previously ruled on.
E. This misdemeanor case was treated as a strict liability case whereby neither a general or specific intent was needed concerning the mens rea. The ironic twist is that Wenzel was being tried for illegal towing off of public property when he himself was not even in the tow truck. There was simply no actus reus in this case. Wenzel should have never been charged as if he were the individual tower of the vehicles under the strict liability theories. In any event, this case is currently pending appeal in the superior Section of the San Bernardino Court. It is not the intent of Plaintiff Wenzel to receive any form of opinion concerning the merits of that case in the Federal court. However, Wenzel has a great interest in bringing forth the conspiratorial activities which include perjury, suborning perjury, and a series of other activities amounting to violations of Title 42 USC 1983. The jury’s finding of guilty becomes irrelevant when considering the “big picture”, specifically the disallowed evidence that was never put before the jury. In fact, the unfair jury trial received by Wenzel was the result of these consorted governmental conspiracies. Elimination of this evidence fueled the prosecution brought forth against Leo Wenzel, disallowing the jury to make a rational decision.
74. Before and during the trial of Wenzel, Wenzel attempted to sell his towing facility on Lugo Avenue to PePe’s Towing. This was the same agency that the Mayor’s brother attempted to broker a couple years prior. Brad Lawrence further engaged in contractual interference and economic disruption by instructing Wenzel’s potential buyer that he would be unable to participate in the City’s towing franchise if he in fact purchased Wenzel’s Lugo Street property. This contractual interference was further intended to financially disrupt Wenzel’s business. The real estate transaction later failed.
75. A further investigation into the career of Police Officer Brad Lawrence turned up some stunning details. Approximately nine years before being assigned to the Tow Compliance Unit, police Officer Brad Lawrence was terminated from his position as a police officer and underwent his own criminal prosecution. Brad Lawrence’s prosecution centered around the physical abuse and treatment of a handcuffed juvenile in the presence of school district security personnel. School district personnel testified against Brad Lawrence and his criminal case ended up in a hung jury. The District Attorney’s Office chose not to reprosecute and Lawrence was later returned to his position as a police officer. Although it is agreed that he was exonerated by virtue of a hung jury, Lawrence still displays the lack of judgement that put him on trial earlier and almost ended his career.
76. Goodwin was able to gain access to the records that Judge Martin had originally sealed. Specifically her warrant, its affidavit and the return. While in possession of Judge Martin, specifically in his office, Defendant Police Officer Gordon Jones was allowed to deface, alter, obfuscate Goodwin’s warrant, affidavit and return by use of a heavy dark permanent marker. The documents were simply tampered with. Several of the judge’s redactions were covered in black marker so that Goodwin could not have determined what the police department was after in its search. In fact a reasonable part of her affidavit fell victim to the same redactions. In addition to these redactions, Judge Martin even sealed these documents putting them even further out of the reach of Shirley Goodwin.
77. In July of 2002, Judge Kenneth Barr officially confirmed that these documents were in fact tampered with. Judge Barr granted Malcolm Gulesarian, Goodwin’s attorney, a complete quashing of the warrant used to invade her home. He ruled that this was an illegal warrant by virtue of tampering. He further admonished the District Attorney by quoting to him, in open court, Government Code Section 6200 and 6201, respectively a felony and misdemeanor. There was no doubt in the Judge’s mind that the documents were tampered with.
78. In an effort to save face for the Judge and Defendant Gordon Jones the District Attorney’s Office wrote a motion for reconsideration. Embodied in that motion was an assertion made by Defendant Gordon Jones. Gordon Jones stated that he unintentionally altered the document in front of the judge. It was Gordon Jones’ intention to make sure that the police department did not accidentally take items that the judge specifically disallowed. Defendant Gordon Jones had only one problem with that theory. The police department specifically took what was disallowed. In fact, the police department did take both a video camera and video tape. Now the real concern is that not only did they take disallowed evidence, Gordon Jones failed to include these items in his return to the court. This is in spite of the fact that Detective Jones was the first person in three years to actually amend his own return. It took two attempts to file the return and Jones failed to disclose the taking of the video camera and tape of Goodwin in both attempts. This may have been denied altogether if it had not appeared in one of the police reports.
79. Judge Martin sealed these documents after the search of Shirley Goodwin’s home. One can
not help but to believe a well articulated conspiracy had occurred here. Judge Martin actually went through the process of sealing these documents. They were not open to the public and they were off limits as public records. Ironically, when the documents were finally unsealed through a massive legal endeavor the affidavit was reviewed for the first time. Conspicuously missing on the affidavit was any prayer or request by Detective Jones to seal these documents. These documents were evidentially sealed with no legal or factual basis. The fact that Gordon Jones never even asked the Judge to seal the documents, goes a long way to evidencing that this must have been part of an already bigger plan. Why would the judge just on his own decide to seal these documents without it even being requested. These illegal conspiratorial activities between City Attorney Jim Penman and his longtime friend Judge John N. Martin were a violation of California State Law under Government Code Section 6200 to wit a felony.
THE VIOLATIONS
81. The policies, procedures, practices and acts of Defendants alleged in paragraphs 24 through 80 above violated the rights of Plaintiffs’ under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and, therefore, are violative of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as follows:
A. The search and seizures of April 6, 1999, November 30, 2000, and by Defendants Lee Dean, Brad Lawrence, Dennis Stout, Gilberto Olivarria and Victor Hamilton against Plaintiffs Rodney Cavanaugh, Clark Cavanaugh, Ruth Cavanaugh, Inland Protective Services, were conducted without probable cause or reason to believe that any evidence or a crime would be found, that any crime had been committed, or otherwise that any contraband, dangerous materials or incriminating evidence would be found and thereby constituted unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the rights, privileges and immunities of Plaintiffs under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
B. The searches and seizures constituted invasions of the Plaintiffs’ right to privacy and due process under the Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The searches and seizures constituted compulsory disclosure of self-incriminating testimony without due process in violation of the rights, privileges and immunities of Plaintiffs under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The arrests of Plaintiff Clark Cavanaugh on April 4, 2000, and Ruth Cavanaugh and Rodney Cavanaugh shortly thereafter, by Victor Hamilton, Gilberto Olivarria, Lee Dean were without probable cause or reason committed any crime and thereby constituted unlawful seizures under the Fourth Amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment.
E. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrests of Plaintiffs, Defendants City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, James Penman, Judith Valles, Lee Dean, Brad Lawrence, Dennis Stout, Tracy Bartell, Robert Yabuno, Gilberto Olivarria, Victor Hamilton, Timothy Kolesnikow, Erin Logan and B. Perry, deprived Plaintiffs of their property and liberty without due process of law and deprived them of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C.. § 1983.
F. As a result their concerted unlawful and malicious detention and confinement of Plaintiffs, Defendants City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, James Penman, Judith Valles, Lee Dean, Brad Lawrence, Dennis Stout, Tracy Bartell, Robert Yabuno, Gilberto Olivarria, Victor Hamilton, Timothy Kolesnikow, deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty without due process of law and deprived them of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
G. By means of the malicious charges brought and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs, Defendants intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, deprived Plaintiffs of Due Process of law, both procedural and substantive, in violation of the Fifth and/or Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
H. By means of the malicious charges brought and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs, Defendants intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, deprived Plaintiffs or their Fourth amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. Defendants committed various ancillary torts in the furtherance or all of the above (a-h) such as deforming and/or slandering Plaintiff businesses; tortuously interfering with business and contractual relationships; concealing, corrupting and/or spoliation of exculpatory evidence; concealing and misprisioning evidence of crimes by others against the Plaintiffs and misrepresenting evidence and committing numerous fraudulent acts against Plaintiffs, suborning perjury in criminal actions against Plaintiffs which extended to obstruction of justice involving Plaintiffs’ relationship with governmental and private agencies, including the California Department of Labor, Consumer Affairs Department, the California Highway Patrol and State Fund Insurance.
J. The individual Defendants conspired with and aided and abetted each other to violate the rights, privileges and immunities of Plaintiffs by providing substantial assistance to one another in the carrying out the policies, procedures, acts and practices of the illegal searches and seizures; the illegal arrests, detentions and confinements; the malicious prosecution and various tortious conduct herein described.
K. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy and custom, Defendants Judith Valles, Lee Dean, Jerry Eaves and other City Councilmen and County Supervisors, the City of San Bernardino paid the County of San Bernardino knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifferences and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis Defendant police officers and Defendant D.A. investigators in their duties to refrain from:
1) Unlawfully and maliciously harassing citizens and/or persons who were acting in accordance with their constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities;
2) unlawfully and maliciously arresting, imprisoning and prosecuting citizens and/or persons acting in accordance with their constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities;
3) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of the State of California and
4) otherwise depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities.
L. The City and County had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as alleged, were about to be committed. The City and/or County had the power to prevent or and in the prevention of said wrongs but knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights failed or refused to do so.
M. Defendants, City of San Bernardino and County of San Bernardino directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful deliberate, reckless and wanton conduct of Defendant police officers and D.A. investigators heretofore described.
N. Defendants Brad Lawrence and Brian Bellamy suborned perjury and in fact did commit perjury in the criminal trial of Leo Wenzel. Brian Bellamy acted at all times as an agent of both Defendant Brad Lawrence
O. Brad Lawrence maliciously and tortuously practices contractual interference against longstanding contractual relationships between Inland Protective Services and their clients between Leo Wenzel, his client the City of San Bernardino between Leo Wenzel and PePe’s Towing (a real estate prospect) and further maliciously and with wanton disregard sabotaged the 911 dispatch center of Inland Protective Services for an entire day.
P. Defendants Lee Dean, Brad Lawrence further conspired with Robert Matich and T. Milford Harrison to deprive the constitutional rights of Leo Wenzel under 42 USC SEC 1983
Q. Defendants Timothy Kolesnikow, Erin Logan, and B. Perry further conspired to deny Clark Cavanaugh and Inland Protective Services LLC due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as to the continued adjudication of Labor complaints in the year 2002.
R. Mayor Judith Valles conspired with her brother Mike Valles for the purposes of economic advantage to deprive the rights of Leo Wenzel under color of authority in violation of 42 USC SEC 1983
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the following for and demand judgment against all individual defendants, the City of San Bernardino and the County of San Bernardino jointly and severally for:
1. Compensatory damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and emotional distress in the amount of $10,000,000.00;
2. Judgment against each of said Defendants (except the City and County), jointly and severally, for punitive in the amount of $20,000,000.00;
3. Costs of this action;
4. Attorneys’ fees under Private Attorney General Statutes;
5. Equitable and injunctive relief;
6. Other relief as the court deems just and equitable.
Dated_______________ __________________________________
Jennifer L. Lynch, Specially appearing
for Plaintiffs |