1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Karla Gottschalk SBN 91651 520 Frederick St #13 San Francisco, CA 94117 202-643-5052 Attorney for Jack C. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA _______________________________ Jack Smith, Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) County of Santa Cruz, Sgt James ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:13-CV-00595 LHK FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 42 USC 1983, 18 USC 1962 et seq FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, ELDER ABUSE, RACKETEERING, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, ASSAULT AND BATTERY, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ABUSE OF PROCESS

"Jim" Ross,James Hart,Mark Yanez, ) State of California, Santa Cruz Sheriffs Department , Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, Nicholas Baldridge, Randall Hop, Robin Mitchell, Peter Hansen, Jalon Harris, Scott McPeek, Christopher Cragin, Casandra Cassingham, William Gazza Joseph FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BEFORE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Clark, Mitchell Medina , Douglas Smith , Ross Taylor, Mark Stone, Tamyra Rice, Jessica Espinosa , Phil Wowak,Tony Falcone, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Arther Leff, Dan Campos , Trey Noon, Judy Anderson, Felton Business Association and Does 1-100, Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

________________________________ )

(1) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL (2) JURISDICTION CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, EIGHTH, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 42 USC 1983 AND 42 USC1988. JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED IN 28 USC 1331 AND 28 USC 1343. THIS COURT HAS SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS STATE LAW CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1367.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(3) VENUE THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS GIVING RISE TO THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AROSE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. THUS, PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1391(b)(2), VENUE IS PROPER IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. (4) PERSONAL Defendants are persons under 18 USC 1961(3). 5) PLAINTIFF Jack Smith is a citizen of the United States over 65 receiving medical care from the Veterans Administration and has complied with CaGovtCode 900-935.7 claim requirements. 6) DEFENDANT Sgt James "Jim" Ross is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 7) DEFENDANT James Hart is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 8) DEFENDANT Mark Yanez is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9) DEFENDANT Nicholas Baldridge is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 10) DEFENDANT Phil Wowak is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 11) DEFENDANT Randall Hop is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 12)DEFENDANT Peter Hansen is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 13) DEFENDANT Robin Mitchell is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 14) DEFENDANT Jalon Harris is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

15) DEFENDANT Scott McPeek is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 16) DEFENDANT Christopher Cragin is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 17) DEFENDANT Casandra Cassingham is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 18) DEFENDANT William Gazza is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 19) DEFENDANT Joseph Clark is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 20) DEFENDANT Mitchell Medina is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21) DEFENDANT Douglas Smith is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 22) DEFENDANT Ross Taylor is a citizen of the United States employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 23) DEFENDANT Arnold Leff, MD, is a citizen of the United States employed as Medical Director of Emergency Services at Santa Cruz County Jail, by the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 24) DEFENDANT Santa Cruz Sheriffs Department is organized under the laws of the State of California. 25) DEFENDANT Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, is the elected body of government for the municipality of Santa Cruz. 26) DEFENDANT Mark Stone is a citizen of the United States and Santa Cruz County Supervisor for the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 27) DEFENDANT Tony Falcone is a citizen of the United States employed in code compliance by County of Santa Cruz Planning Department, in the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

28) DEFENDANT Kevin Fitzpatrick is a citizen of the United States employed in code compliance by County of Santa Cruz Planning Department, in the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 29) DEFENDANT Tamyra Rice is a citizen of the United States, employed as County Counsel for the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 30) DEFENDANT Jessica Espinosa is a citizen of the United States employed as County Counsel for the City and County of Santa Cruz subject to CaGovtCode 910(e), 950.4. 31) DEFENDANT Felton Business Association is an unknown commercial organization that hosted a vigilante meeting at the Felton Fire House. 32) DEFENDANT Dan Campos is a citizen of the United States neighbor and member of Felton Business Association Santa Cruz. 33) DEFENDANT Trey Noon is a citizen of the United States neighbor and member of Felton Business Association 34) DEFENDANT Judy Anderson is a citizen of the United States neighbor and member of Felton Business Association the City and County of

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

35) DEFENDANT State of California is a Republic and State Member of the United States of America. 36) DEFENDANT County of Santa Cruz is a municipal entity organized under the State of California GC 53050 political subdivision. 37) Defendants named as Does were a part of the named-Defendants secret racketeering conspiracy and the implementation of a facet of the covert plan and will be named as their names and functions in the conspiracy become known. 38) SUBJECT MATTER FEDERAL QUESTION 28 U.S.C. 1331

This is brought as a Federal Question and alleges unconstitutional acts by Defendants and their agents, employees or associates in any relevant manner. Plaintiff timely presented claim as required was denied. Plaintiff timely filled tolling the Statute of Limitations. which

39) STATEMENT OF FACTS 39) Petitioner purchased 138 Felton Empire Road, FELTON, CA, on March 18, 1997, PARCEL 065-043-18, the subject of the code compliance inverse condemnation of Plaintiffs property.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

40) On November 12, 2010, Federal Court Approves In Limine Motion against County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors/Planning for arbitrary, capricious, malicious acts in a scheme to extort and intimidate property owners. 41) January 23, 2011, Tamyra Rice, County Counsel, before Judge Almquist, confirmed, that county codes were not legal. Building codes were not certified by the State Building Standards Commission and none have been published as required by law. 42) On February 4, 2011 and February 4, 2011 Defendant Fitzpatrick red-tagged Plaintiffs home with notice of non-code compliance for 13.10.556 and 12.10.430 (a) and (e) 43) Between February 1 2011, and February 22, 2011, a vigilante meeting to remove Plaintiff was held by the Felton Business Association, Santa Cruz Sheriff, Santa Cruz Supervisors and Planning Department at the Felton Fire House. Plaintiff was not notied by the Defendants of this meeting. 44) On February 22, 2011, Santa Cruz Superior Court F20484 incident. 45) February 24, 2011, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Mark Stone refers Plaintiffs property to planning and environment 46) March 8, 2011, Plaintiff served warrant to vacate in 36 hours. 47) March 3, 2011 Notice to Plaintiff to vacate building. 48) March 14, 2011 Notice to abate H&S 17920.3 and Santa Cruz Code chap 7.20 49) March 24, 2011 Red Tag for violation 12.10.430(i) 50) March 30, 2011 Injunction ejecting Plaintiff, in his mid seventies, from his own home and making him homeless 51) April 3, 2011 Santa Cruz Superior Court F22515/M59762 incidents detailing perjury and obstruction of justice. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
9 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

52) April 18, 2011 California Sixth District Appellate Court found the County of Santa Cruz unlawful in its recordation of red tags for alleged building code violations. 53) May 2, 2011 Permit obtained by Plaintiff. 54) May 4, 2011 Plaintiffs bond forfeited. 55) June 21, 2011 Santa Cruz Superior Court F21225 56) August 1, 2011 Warrant issued for Failure To Appear while Plaintiff was in custody. 57) August 3, 2011 Santa Cruz Superior Court F21277, Plaintiffs counsel arrested and Plaintiffs bond is forfeited. 58) August 8, 2011 San Francisco Superior Court order brought by Plaintiff. 59) August 16, 2011 Plaintiffs bond reinstated. 60) January 8, 2012 County special assessment code 1.14 61) February 29, 2012 Case management conference (CMC) by Tamyra Rice in Santa Cruz Superior Court CV 170628 detailing code violations. 62) March 17, 2012 away. 63) April 6, 2012 County issues svc #12338 against Plaintiffs property. 64) April 18, 2012 Fitzpatrick records code violations against Plaintiffs title 13.1 430(a), (f) 13.10.556 65) April 20,2012 Plaintiffs inmate 042233 grievance regarding Plaintiffs health. 66) May 15, 2012 (received May 16)) Plaintiffs inmate 042233 grievance regarding Plaintiffs health. Plaintiff denied access to medicines for violation of court order to stay FLS FL032873 Smith v Geist restraining

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

67) May 21, 2012 referring to 5/15 Plaintiffs inmate 042233 grievance regarding Plaintiffs health. 68) On or about June 8, 2012, Plaintiffs house was sold on the steps of Santa Cruz Courthouse. 69) June 21, 2012 return of property by Judge Salazar, Santa Cruz Superior Court. 70) July 17, 2012 civil abatement complaint dismissed. 71) October 23, 2012 Stop work order. Permits to be obtained by October 26, 2012 72) April 19, 2013 Harassment stop with verbal abuse and warrantless search of driver and passenger. 73) THE ENTERPRISE/ASSOCIATION IN FACT BETWEEN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISORS, COUNTY COUNSEL AND SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT WAS TO OPPRESS CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING PLAINTIFF, AND ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES OR A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF CONSPIRACY AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 1962 ET SEQ AND DEVELOPED AN ONGOING BUSINESS ASIDE AND APART FROM THE RACKETEERING ACTS ALLEGED HEREIN IN THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF A SCHEME TO UNLAWFULLY TARGET PLAINTIFF AND OTHERS TO DEPRIVE THEM OF PROPERTY AND FREEDOM THROUGH UNLAWFUL ARREST AND TORTURE IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED BELOW. CAUSE OF ACTION I Eminent domain through illegal inverse condemnation

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

United States Constitution Fifth Amendment (through Fourteenth Amendment) CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 SEC 19 GC 835/840 breach of statutory duties 28USC2680 Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of discretion: ZONE TO OWN - Order to Plaintiff to not enter own property to supervise or effect demanded repairs. 74) Plaintiff alleges that the County of Santa Cruz, Tamyra Rice, Jessica Espinosa, County of Santa Cruz Planning Department, Tony Falcone, KevinFitzpatrick, Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, Mark Stone, Judy Anderson, Dan Campos, Felton Business Association, Trey Noon did plan and agree to misuse zoning and code enforcement to target and remove Plaintiff from his home. 75) Plaintiff alleges that the Santa Cruz Sheriffs Department, Sgt James "Jim" Ross, and Ofcers James Hart, Mark Yanez, Nicholas Baldridge, Randall Hop, Peter Hansen, Robin Mitchell, Jalon Harris, Scott McPeek, Christopher Cragin , Casandra Cassingham, William Gazza, MitchellMedina, Douglas Smith, Joseph Clark, Ross Taylor, Phil Wowak and Arnold Leff, Director of Emergency Medical Services at Santa Cruz County Jail joined the plan and agreed to use the police power of the executive to deprive Plaintiff of his freedom and right to be secure in his person and possessions. 76) Each Defendant named who is an ofcial, appointed, hired or elected, or agent in fact of any ofcial, appointed, hired or elected, is sued in both their individual capacity and in their ofcial capacities for misuse and abuse of ofcial, appointed, hired or elected

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

position, or agent in fact of any ofcial, appointed, hired or elected person and/or failure to do statutory duties pursuant to California Government Code 815 et seq 77) Further, each Defendant planned and executed, assisted in executing or adopted the execution of the plan to take illegally Plaintiff's property, freedom and health through intentional extortion through the use of County resources to pressure, harass and cause through this pattern and strategy to, and did, make Plaintiff homeless, threatened his life with cruel and unusual punishments intentionally meant to make Plaintiff suffer and attempted to murder Plaintiff through these acts 78) The plan, initiated at a vigilante meeting of the Felton Business Association and The County consisted of : ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A-Code Violations- "Red Tag" illegally homes and in particular the Plaintiff's home. ! Fines for non-compliance and removal of private vehicles, loss of home

B-Sheriff harassment of Plaintiff for acts of others ! ! ! Loss of freedom, impoundment of vehicles and destruction, subject to pressure of cruel and unusual punishment while under arrest and in another incident denial of necessary medications

C-Homelessness and death of Plaintiff, acquisition of Plaintiff's property for sale to an insider

79) In order to execute the plan the Defendants rst agreed to libel Plaintiff in person, to third parties and in ofcial reports and news reports creating public animosity. 80) Next was the coordinated attack through civil (abatement of nuisance) and criminal charges initiated in February 2011 and following through 2012 when Plaintiff's home was sold and with personal harassment continuing up through April 2013.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

13 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

81) CIVIL CODE 43.99 REQUIRES PERSONS TO BE STATE CERTIFIED AND TRAINED INPLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WORK. Kevin Fitzpatrick and Tony Falcone are not certied and trained according to statute. 82) In 1967, California repealed the enforcement of city and county codes upon private property, and repealed all citations C.P.C. 853.1-853.4 83) County forged forward to seize petitioners property in a scheme to rst encumber it with citations for public nuisance, then used the Court to give the scheme the appearance of validity by ling a Claim for Abatement, etc., Case No. CV 170628 in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz . Court upheld the scheme, and ordered that petitioner be subject to arrest. 84) County cannot charge or recover from a citizen the costs of criminal law enforcement for code infractions. Government Code section 53069.4 subdivision (a)(1) does not require the creation of a system of nes and penalties for code violations. Tamyra Rice admitted to Judge Burdick that the protest hearings are not due process 85) On or about April 3, 2011, Defendants caused the inability of Plaintiff to comply with County building repair requirements and unconstitutionally deprived Plaintiff of his Fourth Amendment rights as granted by the United States Constitution and further causing the economic waste and destruction through official inaction leading to dilapidation and foreclosure sale on originally set for April 9, 2012, and sold June 8, 2012, further aggravating

damages and harm to Plaintiff with property loss and homelessness.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

86) Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or rational judgement and instituted a policy or custom that in fact willfully fosters the denial of Defendant's and others civil rights both in the allowing of unlicensed, uncertified building code inspectors who are not competent as a matter of law to cite code violations coupled with the absence of a required appeals process by the County of Santa Cruz, using civil police powers of the Board of Supervisors and all named organs of the County of Santa Cruz. 87) The plaintiff possessed a constitutional right, of which they were deprived, to the quiet enjoyment and to be secure in one's possessions and house and to be free of attempts by any municipal entity to engineer through unlicensed and uncertified code inspectors to illegally condemn private property through code violations in order to take that property without just compensation in contradiction to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United State Constitution. 88) The court order barring an owner such as the plaintiff denying the right to enter his own property to make repairs demanded by the County rises to a scheme and custom to deny property rights by denying personal rights and creating a nuisance which then is used to deprive Plaintiff of his land and possessions. 89) The Defendants acts are as follows: 1) Collusion and conspiracy to hire and retain unlicensed and uncertified Building Inspectors by

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

15 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Board of Supervisors; collusion and conspiracy to encumber private property of private citizens to obtain through statuary scheme inverse condemnation and instead of paying market price for condemnation actually encumbers the title and makes sale or insurance unavailable through recording violations against the title, forcing Plaintiff in particular to become homeless by denying through court order access of any use of privately owned property of Plaintiff leading to the destruction of the home and it's value and the loss of tools, papers and other valuable personal property of Plaintiff culminating in public sale through foreclosure at below market price, all in an excess of ONE MILLION DOLLARS. CAUSE OF ACTION II slander and libel 90) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 91) Defendants stated and were quoted in print and media that Defendant was a parole violator and drug user or addict when Defendants knew or should have known the truth that Plaintiff had never been on parole and was not a drug user or addict. The denial of police services which contributed to the destruction, burning and loss of property as well as physical danger The acts

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

16 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or omissions of the defendant were intentional and designed to harass and deprive Plaintiff through a scheme of Red Tagging and charging fees and penalties by uncertified and unlicensed inspectors who failed to have required appeal board and independent process and using the courts to oppress and harass and deny the ability of Plaintiff to effect repairs or to supervise other licensed personnel to make required repairs. Defendants acted outside scope of office, employment and performance of duties at the time of the incidents. (3) The Defendants acted under the color of law and ordinances without mandated independent review by appeal and did so as though the County and it's officers were in compliance with State law when in fact they weren't. 92) Said unlicensed inspectors did, intentionally and incompetently coupled with threats of arrest by code enforcement personnel and the County Sheriffs Department, attempt to intimidate, harass and deprive Plaintiff of his property and liberty. 93) The acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation to Plaintiff through loss of business, destruction of property, loss of quiet enjoyment, great physical danger and emotional distress and loss of reputation all directly caused by the illegal acts of Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

17 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CAUSE OF ACTION III FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT

94) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 95) On or about February 22, 2011, Defendants Mark Yanez and Sgt James "Jim" Ross with Lt. Fred Plageman, Ofcers Parker, Hankes and County of Santa Cruz consensually contacted Edwina Hardy on Private property at 176 Kirby, Felton, and arrested Plaintiff. 96) Defendants then made Plaintiff stay in the sun for seven hours while Judge Almquist signed a search warrant in case F20484. This matter was ultimately dismissed and the property ordered to be returned to Plaintiff on June 21, 2012, by Judge Salazar. 97) Defendants impounded Plaintiffs vehicle 1988 Ford Bronco 4TAL431 and had it towed by Ladds for an excessive amount of time for extortionate amounts in order to make the cost to redeem for Plaintiffs interest prohibitive or withhold release until sold. CAUSE OF ACTION IV cruel or unusual punishment US Constitution, Eighth Amendment, (through Fourteenth), California Constitution Art I sec 17; California Code - Section 15600 et seq (15610.35; Section 15610.37, 15610.39; 15610.53, 15610.57 (b)(4), 15610.63(d))

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

18 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

98) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 99) During Plaintiffs detention February 22, 2011 while officers were seeking a warrant, he was staked in the sun for seven hours and also denied water exasperating his skin cancer. 100) Officer Tate Howe offered both water and shade but was told by Defendant Sgt. Ross not to give Plaintiff either despite Plaintiffs age and medical condition which included squamous cell cancer which began to bleed from overexposure. 101) The Denial of bona fide necessary medication was a discriminatory denial of police services was Intentional and outside the scope

and performance of duties and included intentional denial of Supervision and/or the inadequate or lack of training of Defendants agents and support staff. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or rational judgement and instituted a policy or custom that in fact willfully fosters the denial of Defendant's and others civil rights. 102) THe total lack of respect by officers of the law to uphold the law and the denial of necessary medical care and prescribed medicines is a willful and unconscionable denial of the Plaintiff's civil rights. The Defendants are subject to both the Constitution

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

19 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. 103) Punitive damages and injunctive relief are allowed in such a case of a vast and corrupt in design scheme to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiff's and others to liberty and property and to be

free of criminal acts by agents and officers of the County of Santa Cruz. CAUSE OF Action V FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT 104) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 105) On or about February 3, 2011, Case F22515/M59762, without due process of law, the Defendants Nicholas Baldridge , Randall Hop, Peter Hansen, Robin Mitchell, Jalon Harris unlawfully concocted a scheme to harass and intimidate defendant through a pretextual vehicle equipment violation stop, with Sniffer dog K9 Tomi, ready to search Plaintiffs vehicle while falsely arresting, perjuring and attempting to conceal the truth in order to deny Plaintiff his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Twelfth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 106) In order to cover their lack of probable cause for the stop, the Defendants perjured themselves in their reports as shown by the car camera which they afrmed was out of

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

order and proceeded to Falsely

Arrest the Plaintiff causing him

great emotional and physical distress and depriving him of the civil liberty to be free of unreasonable search and seizure ultimately leading to the loss of Property and freedom. 107) Plaintiffs vehicle 1989 GMC Suburban 3GEU493 was taken and impounded by Lifesaver Towing and junked. 108) On August 4, 2011, Defendants bond was forfeited for failure when he was in custody at the time.

to appear August 1, 2011,

CAUSE OF ACTION VI FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT 109) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 110) On or about June 21, 2011, Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F21225, without the due process of the law, acting on a tip from Defendant Judy Anderson that the Plaintiff was driving without a license, Defendants Sgt. Jim Ross, Douglas Smith, Joseph Clark, Ross Taylor and Michelle Barton unlawfully concocted a scheme and carried it through to harass and intimidate Plaintiff by falsely arresting, perjuring and

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

21 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

attempting to conceal the truth in order to deny Plaintiff his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Twelfth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 109) The vehicle a GMC 4D Blue 3GEU493 was searched without probable cause on the pretext that a clean glass pipe, not illegal in or of itself, was found, by Joseph Clark with K9 Ari was impounded and towed by Rossi Tow and junked causing Defendant humiliation, loss of property and freedom. CAUSE OF ACTION VII FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT False Arrest and Cruel and Unusual Punishment and failure to provide either or both emergency and basic health services. 110) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 111) On or about August 3, 2011, the Santa Cruz Superior Court F21277, without the due process of the law, Defendants Casandra Cassingham, Peter Hansen, William Gazza, Sgt Jim Ross, Mark Yanez, Joseph Clark, Christopher Cragin, and Mitchell Medina with Mike Fairbanks, Scott McPeek, Ofcer Smith and Lisa Yee , between approximately 21:52:54 to 22:24:33 did unlawfully stalk and carry through a scheme to stop the Plaintiff for an obstructed

license plate, harass and intimidate Plaintiff by falsely arresting him, perjuring themselves on official reports and attempting to conceal the truth in order to deny Plaintiff his

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

22 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Twelfth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 112) Perjury by all officers and in particular Defendant Cragin was proved in court with video evidence contradicting official filed sheriffs reports. 113) At no time was the Plaintiff tested for blood, urineor breath by Santa Cruz officers but only by their subjective measures which, in light of Plaintiffs medical problems and numerous blood tests for several strokes during all the acts alleged in this entire complaint showed no drugs in Plaintiffs system - ever - contrary to the subjective measure used. 114) Plaintiffs vehicle was searched by Christopher Cragin and Scott McPeek, impounded and towed by Lifesaver Towing being junked by Monterey Sheriff/Salinas Tammy Young and Phil Hickenbottom along with several other vehicles : 115) The DMV report shows the additional property losses as follows : Land 1HW8773 CA877229 Chev 1J02755 CKM245Z157301 Monterey Sheriff Salinas Tammy Young

! ! !

DODG 6Y39585 W27BJ7S213810 junked by Monterey Sheriff 9/28/10 M:CA 1GK9729 CA660980 PTI trailer ! MERZ XMERCYX 12305312008475
23 of 35

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

! ! ! ! !

DODG 4H38595 D26BJ3SO96747 ! ! ! RED TAGGED TO REMOVE FROM PROPERTY ! BMWB ! 3JHX312 WBADK7302E9201897 ! 4/15/11 Monterey Sheriff Phil Hickenbottom 5/25/11 dismantled Tri-County Tow 1FABP44E4HF132002

FORD 2MVX467

CAUSE OF ACTION VIII CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 116) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 117) On or about May 3, 2012, Defendant County of Santa Cruz and it's agents at the Santa Cruz County Jail did willfully and knowingly deprive the Plaintiff of the necessary medicines as prescribed by a licensed doctor to alleviate several life threatening conditions, which include cardiac and renal health issues directly affecting the Plaintiffs health both in short term with edema and inability to walk and in the long term with risk of shortened mortality in an attempt to murder or maim the Plaintiff. CAUSE OF ACTION VIII 18 USC 1961(3) Racketeering and vigilantism. 42 USC 1983 Denial of civil rights.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

24 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

118) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 119) In violation of 42 USC 1983 Defendants and each of them, under color of state and municipal statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, did subject, or causes to be subjected, Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, to the deprivation of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and are liable to the Plaintiff for injuries in this action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 120) The relationship of the Defendants as all being county employees, agents or principals with particular regard to civil police power, criminal police power and judicial power all amalgamated into the executive power without a system of check or balance due to the agreements made by and between the Defendants in order to defraud the public of their civil rights and property rights is an association and, in fact, an enterprise 18 USC 1961(4). Defendants associated with or employed by any government entity or subcontractor, agent or official is also an association of criminality to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

25 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

fill the coffers of the government unlawfully and allow insider acquisitions of Plaintiffs, and others, property.

121) RICO 18 USC 1962(c ). The persons controlling or directing subordinates, the courts in league with the county counsel who is in league with adjoining and in unison administrative departments and all in league with the police and sheriffs police power through direction of the Felton Business Association and its members has and will continue to affect interstate commerce and deny the business(es) of Plaintiff without due process of law which is crippled by the inequality of protection for the class called homeowners or owner-bulders. 122) Each Defendant individually and collectively aided and abetted each other, their agents, employees and others, conducted and participated directly or indirectly in conduct and affairs of the enterprise to deny constitutional protections and devalue Plaintiffs assets in order to acquire them under forced sale at the least desirable price-far below market value, in order to obtain Plaintiff's land, possessions and cooperation through a pattern or racketeering activity which includes arrest and incarceration for being on his own land even to fix alleged violations!

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

26 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

123) The persons controlling or directing the affairs of enterprise were Jim Ross and within the jails Jim Hart and they did and continue to conspire to and did take specific acts as described above to deprive Plaintiff of his property through legal process barring him from entry while enticing him orally by Tony Falcone of the Planning Department in March 2012 to violate the order to get a gas reading so Plaintiff could get a permit which resulted in Plaintiffs arrest. The persons controlling or directing the affairs of enterprise conspired to and did take specific acts to slander and libel Plaintiff as a drug dealer while witnessing drug dealing by Sheriffs to inmates in the Sheriffs jail. 124) This corrupt scheme was concealed and perpetrated by Defendants Sheriff Department, County Counsel/District Attorney, and Planning Department under the Supervision and direction of the City Council. These specific acts included racketeering and the conspiracy were of an ongoing nature continuing into the future. Plaintiffs were injured in their business and/or property by reason, as described herein, of the above violation of criminal law and civil government law. RICO 18 USC 1962 (d) 125) The persons entered into a conspiracy to violate (c ) above as described. As evidence of this agreement, persons controlling or

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

27 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

directing the affairs of enterprise and other co-conspirators committed he acts described herein and conspired to conceal defendants civil rights and constitutional violations and criminal activity, or aided and abetted Defendants in concealing their criminal activity. As further evidence of the agreement, the persons controlling or directing the affairs or enterprise and other co-conspirators committed the acts described herein and conspired with the defendants to evade and/or aided and abetted defendants in evading criminal prosecution and avoiding public embarrassment and liability related thereto. The secret agreement was fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff as well as state and federal law enforcement. 126) As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. Each Defendant by reason of their collusion and conspiracy to deny Plaintiff's civil rights FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
28 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is subject to vicarious liability (respondeat superior) and civil and criminal conspiracy statutes, both individually and for the acts of all other conspirators in furtherance of their unlawful scheme all of which includes wire fraud through telephone, mail and email. 127) Those associated under 18 USC 1961(4); 1962 (d) enterprise/ different collusions activity : Defendants engaged in or joined in a conspiracy to intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently conceal criminal conduct of its agents, aid and abet the concealment of criminal conduct, aid and abet criminal denial of civil rights and property rights, failure to report criminal conduct of its agents, to obstruct justice, obstruct criminal investigation, obstruct state and/or local law enforcement, evade criminal and/or civil prosecution and liability, bribe and/or pay money to victims in order to keep its criminal conduct secret, violate the civil rights of Plaintiff, engage in mail and/or wire fraud, and commit fraud and/or fraudulent inducement of Plaintiff to respond in furtherance of its scheme to protect all Defendants and each of them from criminal prosecution, to maintain or increase revenue to the County of Santa Cruz and the personal enrichment of each Defendant or individually and/or avoid public scandal in the revealing of the scheme to defraud citizens of the United States of their FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
29 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

property through unlawful zoning and violations with a lack of mandated appeals process. 128) Further, the agreement to deprive Plaintiff of his needed medical care and medications on or about April 18, 2012, was made between County Sheriffs and County Jailers. 129) Each Defendant is individually liable. Their conspiracy as plead above and incorporated herein fully includes (1) That the Sheriff's Department conspired amongst themselves to harass and intimidate Plaintiff and conspired with jailers to deprive Plaintiff of necessary medication causing potentially fatal consequences and great distress from edema and imminent heart failure; (2) deprived directly or indirectly as a person or class,

citizens of the United States who own property in the County of Santa Cruz of equal protection of the laws, equal privileges or immunities under the laws; (3) that all of this was caused to be done t in furtherance of

the conspiracy by the denial of medicine and the attempt to control Plaintiff and deprive Plaintiff of the ability to defend himself in an unbiased court, against a police and executive system as exists in the County of Santa Cruz, and (4) have injured the person and property of Plaintiff or

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

30 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deprived him of having and exercising any right or privilege as guaranteed under the constitutions of the United States and the State of California. All this was done to criminally cover up Defendants unlawfulness. This leads to personal and collective

liability of Defendants for large punitive damages, especially Plaintiff's fear for his life and the emotional distress attendant thereupon. 130) This was all done with an unprecedented abuse of process and malicious prosecution by abatement, pretextural stops and incarceration and/or fines. 131) As a proximate and direct result of the Defendants actions collectively and individually Plaintiff has sustained damages as plead above, especially obstruction of justice, losses totaling over one million dollars and severe and continuing health problems exacerbated by Defendants conduct. 132) This conduct includes sub secret files only are only accessible to law enforcement, judicial officers or their staff and agents and the County government and employees and agents and not disclosed or made available to uninvolved law enforcement authorities, or others, in order for law enforcement to investigate the alleged crimes of Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

31 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

133) In furtherance of its scheme, the persons controlling or directing the affairs of the enterprise have routinely entered into secret oral and/or written settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions that kept secrets from scrutiny by the public and law enforcement authorities. Further Defendants illegally bribed or used other means to influence other Defendants and the Plaintiff himself to not report these unlawful acts. Each individual named and individuals separately and their acts have immediate and long lasting effects on interstate commerce. Should criminal investigation of these matters be instituted Plaintiff asserts standing under Qui Tam statutes for recovery and whistleblower protections. CAUSE OF ACTION IX ELDER ABUSE California Code - Section 15610.17 (w), (x), (y); Section 15610.27; Section 15610.30, Cal Civ Code 51.7 51 (b) 52 (b)(1)(b)(2) 25k AND 52(e) (in addition to other remedies). 132) Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 133) AT THE TIME OF ALL THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF PLAINTIFF WAS OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE WITH A HISTORY OF BRAIN DAMAGE, AORTIC ANEURISM, GOUT, HYPERTENSION AND A SERIES OF STROKES BROUGHT ON BY ACTS OF DEFENDANTS.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

32 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

134) Plaintiff was approved for HUD-VASH housing (640/180D) and Disabled placard on May 2, 2012. 135) From February 2011 to today, the Plaintiff has been assaulted and often battered during the arrests for trying to obtain his medications in March of 2011 from his home or the entry to get the gas BTUs as required by Tony Falcone which was a set up with Sgt Ross to arrest the Plaintiff which resulted in battering of Plaintiff by Sgt Ross. 136) During the Plaintiff's incarceration in 2012 he was denied his required medications which led to severe lower limb swelling and materially affecting his health. In addition, the denial of state mandated health protection of inmates and the rampant drug trade (cocaine and etc.) in the jail system shows a willful disregard for the safety of inmates, and is a continuing corruption. PRAYER FOR RELIEF As a result of the above-described conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, penury and loss of enjoyment of life and deprival of property; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; has sustained loss of earnings

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

33 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and earning capacity, tools of trade, home and liberty; and has or will continue to incur expenses for medical, psychological treatment, homelessness and hopelessness.

Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief for damages according to proof and with a floor based upon the appraised value of Plaintiff's property in excess of $800,000.00 by unlawful inverse condemnation. Other damages are in excess of jurisdictional requirements as this is brought under the Constitution of the United States as a Federal Question.

Further damages AND EQUITABLE ORDERS according to proof and as seem prudent to the Court. Respectfully Submitted, __________________________ DATE _________________________________________________________________ KARLA GOTTSCHALK, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JACK SMITH

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

34 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VERIFICATION I, JACK C. SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE PLEADING HAVE READ THE SAME AND VERIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF IS TRUE AND CORRECT. DATED:__________________________ _______________________________________ JACK SMITH

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

35 of 35

5:13-CV-00595 LHK