Mark E.

Dixon An Individual and Resident of the State of Arizona January 20, 2013

NOTICE OF CLAIM
Mr. Tom Horne Attorney General State of Arizona 1275 W. Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Rick Bistrow Deputy Attorney General 1275 W. Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Scott Smith, Director State of Arizona Department of Administration 100 North 15th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 State of Arizona c/o Mr. Terry Harrison Assistant Attorney General Arizona Attorney General's Office 1275 W. Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007

State of Arizona c/o Mr. Ray Di Ciccio State Risk Manager Department of Administration 100 North 15th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Page 1 of 16

Re: NOTICE OF CLAIM for: Under the color of law, agents of the State of Arizona
violated the Civil Rights of Mark Dixon. Agents of the State of Arizona conspired to illegal seize property, withheld due process, slandered his reputation and used their official position to retaliate when due process was sought. The State of Arizona, its agents, in official as well as personal capacity, have violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteen Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Arizona, and other significant State and Federal Laws. Therefore, the Claimant/Victim, hereby gives notice that he is making a claim against the State of Arizona, its political subdivisions, public entities and employees, pursuant to A.R.S. 12821.01. He further gives notice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, that he is not barred from immediately initiating a Civil Rights action in Federal District Court which has original Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331 and 1343, as well as the authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 that the State of Arizona and/or its employees, did willfully knowingly, and maliciously failed to provide the Claimant/Victim equal protection under the law. This claim can be settled for the sum of $3.5 million.

Name of Claimant: Mark E. Dixon further referred to as (Dixon) Date of Occurrences: The initial event began on December 2, 2009 and subsequent
violations have continued through and including present, specific dates identified below.

Times of Occurrences: Various times on the dates identified below. Claims Asserted Against: Arizona Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge William J.
ONeil, Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security Clarence H. Carter, unnamed and unknown attorneys within the Arizona Attorney Generals Office, unnamed and unknown supervisors, case workers and investigators within the Arizona Department of Economic Security and the State of Arizona. All individuals named now and in the future are named in their official and individual capacity depending on the act alleged.

Explanation of Claims: The following are not inclusive of all the harm caused to Dixon but are related to the claims against the State and its employees. Facts Giving Rise to Claims: On December 2, 2009 four Pinal County Sheriff Deputies
conspired to illegally seize Dixons companion and family pet Shilo without a warrant or any other order of a court. It has since come to the attention of Dixon and is believed that this was directive was given by William J. ONeil, then a Pinal County Superior Court Judge. Upon information and belief, the directive was a quid pro quo with Dixons ex-wife wherein she arranged for and assisted in ONeil receiving a $300,000.00 loan which was recorded December 14, 2009. ONeil, a person Dixon believed to be a good personal friend, had shared personal and financial information with Dixon including the fact that he had 3 children in College and experiencing the same effects on his finances as the rest of the country was in financial hardships Page 2 of 16

and needed this loan to maintain the lifestyle for himself and his family that they had become accustomed to. Dixon filed Notice of Claim with Pinal County on December 9, 2009 and subsequently 2 lawsuits in the Federal District Court CIV 10-0325 PHX-DGC and CIV 09-2650 PHX-SRB. Even in the face that on March 22, 2010, then Pinal County Deputy County Attorney Joe Albo admitted in the Countys response to an amended complaint that the county did in fact commit the acts alleged and the County and Arizona Counties Insurance Pool continued to defend the admitted illegal acts admitted to by Deputy County Attorney Joe Albo. This is a Civil Rights action seeking a declaratory judgment that the above named Defendants, did willfully and knowingly enter into a criminal conspiracy to extort property that was legally in the possession of the Plaintiff prior to December 2, 2009, and that the actions, willfully committed by the Defendants, has resulted in the crime of Extortion, against the Plaintiff, and has deprived him of his Civil Rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona. In mid-February 2010 Dixon received a phone call from ONeil in which ONeil tried to force Dixon, in part thru threats and intimidation that Dixon had admitted previously to ONeil that the pet in question Shilo did in fact belong to Dixons ex-wife. This was a bold lie on the part of ONeil and was the last contact Dixon had with ONeil. The final outcome of said lawsuits was the Pinal County Sheriff Deputies were granted qualified immunity and Dixon was remanded back to the State of Arizona to exercise any state remedies available. Now knowing the scope and scale of activities by William J. ONeil along with the intimidation methods used, Dixon began exercising his rights in order to expose the corrupt activities within Pinal County and the State of Arizonas Judicial system.

Divorce Proceedings used to attempt end run: Prior to Dixons divorce from his now
ex-wife in May of 2009, he helped her get a job at the Pinal County Federal Credit Union as a commercial loan officer. Dixon had a long standing and good relationship with the Credit Union and was supportive of her hiring which would make the divorce transition and reestablishment for his ex-wife much easier. Dixon and his ex-wife remained on very congenial terms until she appeared on his doorstep to assault his daughter at which time Dixon broke off all contact. On March 5, 2010 in an effort to inundate Dixon with legal matters and to obtain a finding that Dixons ex-wife was the legal owner of Shilo, an Order of Protection was filed in the Pinal County Superior Court under the divorce case D02009-00261 followed by a Petition to Modify Divorce Decree with Dixon being represented by Joan M. Bundy, Arizona State Bar No. 024338. Upon information received by Dixon it is believed that Bundy was compensated by the Pinal County Federal Credit Union, the ex-wifes employer. Further upon information and belief evidenced by documents filed Deputy Pinal County Attorney Joe Albo, Dixons ex-wife was using this case to get a finding of ownership of Shilo in order to justify/excuse the activities of William J. ONeil and the Pinal County Sheriff Deputies in the initial illegal seizure of Dixons property.

Page 3 of 16

On April 5, 2010 Dixon filed a Motion to Dismiss correctly citing the Rules of Family Law Procedure. This motion was ignored and the barrage of paperwork continued until the Court finally dismissed all claims by Dixons ex-wife on June 15, 2010. This dismissal was based upon the exact same rules Dixon cited in his Motion to Dismiss filed months earlier. Upon statements made to Dixon it is believed that the judge in this case did not dismiss all claims until Dixon made it apparent that he would have no problem filing claims upon the court unless the court found properly according to the law. The above cited Order of Protection caused many other problems including that it prevented Dixon from entering the Pinal County Federal Credit Union where he banked. Although the Order of Protection which was ultimately dismisses as having no merit, it did cause Dixon to have significant financial problems with the bank and ultimately led to the complete destruction of a good, long standing relationship.

Pinal County Federal Credit Union and Forgery: Upon the illegal seizure of
Dixons property he became concerned with activities involving the Pinal County Federal Credit Union and his banking activities. On 2-28-10 Dixon paid off a loan for an f150 Ford truck which the Credit Union refused to provide a lien release. Dixon met with the CEO and V.P. of Lending at a bar (due to restraining order filed by Dixons ex-wife) in March of 2010 where he felt they reached a little bit of a compromise and resolution but immediately after this meeting employees at the Credit Union began not applying payments or just flat losing payments for Dixons accounts. Shortly after the dismissal of the divorce issues filed by Dixons ex-wife, Dixon was faced with repossession of trucks by the Pinal County Federal Credit Union. One truck, a Ford f150 was paid off in February 28, 2010 and the other truck a Chevrolet 4500 was never used as collateral on a loan. Dixon refused to release the trucks and filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicle for the issues involved. This complaint was hand delivered on September 20, 2010 and Dixon spoke to an investigator who assured him he would have a hearing on the matter. After several inquiries with the department it came to the obvious conclusion that the Department of Motor Vehicle would not give him a hearing. This ongoing complaint still has yet to be resolved. The actions and inaction of the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicle is yet another example of the States abuse of power and denial of due process to Dixon. Also in September Dixon filed a complaint with the National Credit Union Administration regarding the trucks in question. It was thru this complaint that Dixon learned that the Pinal County Federal Credit Union and Dixons ex-wife who held the position of commercial loan officer, in support of their illegal activity, forged documents to support their attempt at repossession. The act of forgery has been substantiated by the findings of the Arizona Department of Safety head documents examiner, yet no law enforcement agency will do anything about it. This complaint, in part, lead to the termination of the CEO of the Pinal County Federal Credit Union and other top officers. Dixon has refused to make any additional payments until the matter of the forged documents is addressed and his titles are returned to him. In November 2011 the Pinal County Federal Credit Page 4 of 16

Union filed a lawsuit against Dixon for the loans in question. Through this process the only evidence the Credit Union has presented supporting the forged documents is an affidavit from Tiffany Tipton stating that Dixon signed documents, Tipton was never present at any time when any documents were supposedly. In the spring of 2011 Alice Wilcox was hired as the CEO of the Pinal County Federal Credit Union. Ms. Wilcox was the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer at Sunstate Bank. This is one of the same banks which, through public records it was discovered, released William J. ONeils mother in law from debt of her company after ONeil arranged for a wrongful death suit in the death of his father in law. ONeil used his position of then Superior Court Judge to have debts forgiven. Also it has been discovered that ONeil and Alice Wilcox are good friends. Through court documents it is revealed that the Pinal County Federal Credit Union wrote off the loans to Dixon due to the fraudulent activity perpetrated by the Credit Union. Almost a year and a half later the Credit Union began collection efforts strictly due to the relationship between ONeil and Wilcox and ONeils ability to influence court proceedings in favor of the Credit Union. Through further investigation it was discovered that several board members obtained questionable loans thru the credit union. Two board members were attorneys for the Pinal County Attorneys Office, one of which was appointed arbitrator on this case. This same attorney appears to be involved in numerous short sales which appear to be linked to prosecutions occurring at the same time. Another board member was sanctioned by the state of Wisconsin for selling unregistered securities, a felony offense. Further it was disclosed that an employee of the Credit Union is accused of embezzlement of over $700,000.00; the forgeries, embezzlement, personal loans etc. all occurred under the same Board of Directors and executive staff. All evidence indicates that the Pinal County Federal Credit Union was being used as a personal piggy bank for questionable activity. In an apparent attempt to clean up the problems that existed at the Pinal County Federal Credit Union the entire board has been replaced with the exception of Gwendalyn Bain. Along with this change the upper management has been replaced which includes its CEO, CFO, Vice Presidents and as of May 2012 Dixons ex-wife was terminated. It is no coincidence that the new and current CEO, Alice Wilcox is a good friend of William J. ONeil and was the CFO at Sunstate Bank in Casa Grande when ONeil used his influence as a Superior Court Judge to cause the forgiveness of debt by several lenders including Sunstate Bank owed by his mother in law and a company she owned. The Superior Court has been influenced by the above activities. Dixon had a Summary Judgment hearing March 19, 2012, the events revolving around this hearing and the outcome indicate severe outside influence by ONeil and others in the courts. To make a long story very short on March 16, 2012, Dixon wrote a letter with exhibits and hand delivered that letter to the Pinal County Superior Court, Presiding Judge, Hon. Robert Carter Olsen. This letter was delivered on March 16, Dixon was concerned about the bias he felt existed and would be evident at the hearing Monday, March 19, 2012 in front of Hon. Joseph R Georgini. Page 5 of 16

On Monday, March 19, 2012 Dixon had an oral argument in CV201103948 on Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendants Counterclaim. Upon oral arguments completion the Hon. Joseph R. Georgini promptly dismissed Dixons counterclaim. Then the following events occurred. 1) 3-22-12 Dixon requested transcripts to said hearing held 3-19-12. Ms. LeAnn Pappas responded with an automatic email. Following the instructions in email Dixon requested transcripts from Ms. Nesselroad and received a delivery receipt from Ms. Terri Nesselroad acknowledging the request, but nothing further. 2) 3-28-12 Dixon emailed Hon. Joseph R. Georgini stating Dixon had not received a minute entry and inquired as to its availability. An email was received from Ms. Christine Dross stating That works for me. Ill let him know, Thanks! 3) 3-29-12 Dixon received a much nicer and appropriate response from Ms. Dross stating the minute entry had been mailed out Monday 3-26-12. Dixon also received an email regarding the request for transcripts, a response to a request sent 7 days earlier. Dixon received the signed minute entry from Hon. Joseph R. Georgini, this is the same minute entry that was supposed to have been mailed out on 3-26-12. The postmark on the envelope was 3-28-12 and the date and time stamp were hand written. The most conspicuous thing though is the minute entry completely reversed his oral ruling. This set of events supports Dixons contention that Hon Robert Carter Olsen did not read Dixons letter and exhibits until after the hearing in front of Hon. Joseph R. Georgini took place. Upon Dixons request for a minute entry that prompted the Hon Joseph R. Georgini and or his clerk to backdate said minute entry and reverse his oral ruling. All of this was prompted by the exposure of the Pinal County Superior Court and specifically William J. ONeil contained in the letter to Hon. Robert Carter Olsen on March 16, 2012. This was done in fact for two purposes, one, to show the direct misconduct that occurs within the Pinal County Superior Court system and two, to show that there is no way for an individual to obtain a state remedy or a fair hearing within Pinal County if you are not in the good favor of the Judges at the time of a hearing. The Pinal County Federal Credit Union subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment where oral arguments were heard. On 12-4-12 the Hon Joseph R. Georgini found in favor of the Pinal County Federal Credit Union by ignoring forged documents, unsigned documents and misrepresentation by the Credit Union and its counsel. Just days after a Judicial complaint filed by Dixon against ONeil was dismissed, Michael O. Miller who was originally assigned with initial screening and preliminary investigation, was appointed to the Court of Appeals and the attorneys in Dixons dependency case with CPS stopped communicating with Dixon. None of this is a coincidence; it is another example of I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. .

Page 6 of 16

By all appearances and not coincidence, decisions were made by and through the influence of William J. ONeil among others to alter the outcome of this case. Through the above stated facts it is abundantly apparent that the warning of a prominent Pinal County attorney is correct I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. The establishment made its decisions ignoring the law, forged documents, unsigned documents along with clear and convincing evidence that the Pinal County Federal Credit Union had continually manipulated the system and documents in order to justify the illegal activity of its employees, management and board.

Arizona Registrar of Contractors: On or about 11-16-2009 Thomas Martin with Electrical District 2 filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors against Dixons contractors license. Dixon spoke with an investigator from the Registrars office and explained the details of the situation to him and was assured there was no problem and not to worry about the complaint. In April of 2010 Dixon received a CITATION AND COMPLAINT S10-0081. Due to the massive legal matters listed in this Notice of Claim, all stemming from the illegal seizure of Dixons property and his attempts to receive his due process, Dixons response was received 1 day late. Dixon received a decision dated 5-13-10 from the Registrar of Contractors that stated Since your written Answer was not timely filed, a Default Decision and Order will be issued.
Pursuant to the letter and findings dated 5-13-10 Dixon filed a PETITION FOR REHEARING and hand delivered said petition to the Registrar of Contractors on 5-24-10. To date Dixon has heard nothing from the Registrar of Contractors. A couple of facts that have and were completely overlooked by the Registrar of Contractors. 1) Electrical District 2 has no signed invoice, work order, deliver receipt, pickup receipt, contract, application for credit or any other documents other than monthly account summaries showing Dixon owes or agreed to purchase any materials from Electrical District 2. 2) Thomas Martin, the manager for Electrical District 2 is William J. ONeils neighbor and upon statements and belief Thomas Martin filed said complaint on the advice and insistence of ONeil for the sole purpose of complicating Dixons life and to ultimately deprive Dixon of a means to make a living and support his family. 3) Electrical District 2 has not pursued any other action to recover what is claimed in said complaint. They do not have any legal grounds for recovery from Dixon. Dixon nor his contracting company owes any money to Electrical District 2. During the work performed Dixon purchased 1 item from Electrical District 2 and paid for that item with a company check. Since the Registrar of Contractors has not responded to the PETITION FOR REHEARING Dixon contends this matter is still outstanding. Through conversation with an investigator from the Registrar of Contractors it is believed that regardless of what Dixon does he will never be allowed to recover his contractors license due to retaliation from the State of Arizona for his filing a Notice of Claim with Pinal County. The actions of the Registrar of Contractors is

Page 7 of 16

another example of I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. which Dixon was warned and cautioned about.

Arizona Department of Economic Security (CPS):

During the course of events that have occurred, Dixon has had to endure many slanderous activities by local and state officials. The most hideous though lies in the events surrounding the Arizona Department of Economic Security and Child Protective Services. In part due to the stress of the above activities and adverse influences by outsiders Dixon began having problems with his teenage daughter who he had sole custody. In 2011, this culminated in Dixon contacting Arizona Child Protective Services (CPS) for help. On November 23, 2011 the situation was becoming severe. Dixons daughter had requested to go to her mothers for a visit, but instead ended up at friends and refused to come home. Dixon was forced to contact the CPS hotline and made a report to Ms. Suzie Morris who gave Dixon specific instructions stating that his daughter was an incorrigible child and created a case revolving around the problems. Dixon was instructed to contact the local authorities and turn his daughter in as a runaway, the Pinal County Sheriffs Office refused to take a runaway report and further instructed Dixon that he would be arrested if he did not go force his daughter to come home, in effect trying to force Dixon into a domestic violence situation by forcing Dixon to physically forcing his daughter to come home. Dixon was subsequently contacted by Ms. Alehandria Salas at the Coolidge office of CPS. Through numerous communications Ms. Salas informed Dixon that there were programs available to help his situation and she was looking into them. On November 29, 2011 Ms. Salas informed Dixon that she was going to go see his daughter and try to get her into the program. This is the last Dixon heard from Ms. Salas and no further communication or emails were received even though Dixon continued to call and email. December 9, 2011, Dixon drove to the Coolidge CPS office and waited for 3 hours to speak to Ms. Salas but ended up meeting with Robert Moralas, her supervisor. In that meeting Dixon was informed that Ms. Salas was out on maternity leave. Mr. Moralas also informed Dixon that Ms. Salas could not do what she said, the help Ms. Salas said CPS could offer would not happen. The next set of events occurred beginning January 1, 2012. Dixon received a phone call from the Mesa Police Department asking him to come and identify his daughter, they had her in custody on charges of theft. Due to her incorrigible behavior and following the instructions of Mr. Moralas, Dixon refused to take custody of her and forced her to be handed over to CPS. The Mesa Police Department informed Dixon that they needed a runaway report to proceed by the agency whose jurisdiction Dixon lived, the Pinal County Sheriffs Office. After repeated phone calls to the Pinal County Sheriffs Office by Dixon and the Mesa Police Department, Dixon finally spoke to an officer who took down the information in order to report his daughter as a runaway.

Page 8 of 16

At this time Ms. Dawn Bradford was assigned to the case. Ms. Bradford, after doing a thorough investigation began setting up a plan to try and help Dixons daughter. She had a psychological evaluation, she was back in school, at a halfway house and under basic restrictions which would keep her safe until whatever was going on could be dealt with. During this we had several hearings in which Dixon was NOT found in neglect of his daughter and the mother was found in neglect. It was also ordered by Hon Kevin D. White that Dixons Daughter was to remain in the group home, attend high school and could not drop out to get her GED. She was also restricted as to the people she could have contact with and everyone had to have a background check. Basically the same rules as home, it was hoped that this consistency would allow the time to get some help for his daughter. At this time the case was transferred to Stefanie Veal, a CPS caseworker, and the whole intervention started falling apart. Dixons daughter ran away from the group home. On several occasions Dixon communicated with Ms. Veal regarding the possible whereabouts of his daughter. Upon Dixon learning that his daughter was back in Casa Grande somewhere, Ms. Veal informed Dixon that she was living/staying with his second ex-wife Carol Johnson (the same exwife mentioned in the divorce/Credit Union issues above). Dixon immediately conveyed his concerns about this situation to Ms. Veal and her supervisor Ms. Mcgann along with providing a police report where Ms. Johnsons son was accused of molesting a little girl, a second son had been incarcerated in Texas for statutory rape and drug charges, a police report where Ms. Johnson attempted to assault Dixons daughter, the restraining order along with other documents. Ms. Veal promptly dismissed all of Dixons concerns and has had no further contact with Dixon. Ms. Veal did know where Dixons daughter was all along and only chose to disclose this information upon Dixon learning she was in the area. This whole arrangement came about for the sole purpose of influencing/manipulating Dixons daughter. After doing a significant amount of research, on May 9, 2012, Dixon wrote a letter and email to Clarence Carter, the Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security outlining what was happening and the information Dixon knew at the time. Dixon received a response and acknowledgment from Clarence Carter on May 21, 2012. Since that letter was it has been discovered that Ms. Veal did in fact request this case and helped facilitate the placement of Dixons daughter with his ex-wife for the sole purpose of manipulating a confused teenager into making statements etc. against her father in order to bring about criminal charges etc. for leverage to be used to silence him regarding the issues stated in this Notice of Claim. On May 7, 2012 Dixon received an email from Mark Ewy, DES/DCYF Executive Staff Assistant stating: I received a note from the Family Advocacy Office stating that she received your phone call and that she would be contacting you tomorrow (5/8/12). She is also aware that the case is being review by regional CPS management. To date Dixon has not received any calls or communication from the Family Advocacy Office, Clarence Carter, Veronica Bossack, Sharon Seargent, Carol Adams, Mark Ewy or any other ranking official at the Department of Economic Security. All communication went silent except Page 9 of 16

for the acknowledgment of receipt of additional emails and information. This is just another example of I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. Clarence Carter and the Department of Economic Security apparently have the protection of the establishment and are not fearful of any fallout to them due to this protection.

On May 11, 2012 Dixon received a phone call from an employee at CPS advising him not to go to a hearing on this matter that was scheduled for May 14, 2012. This employee overheard a conversation between Ms. Veal, Ms. Mcgann and others describing a detailed plan that would result in Dixons arrest. Their plan was for the attorney from the Arizona Attorney Generals office representing CPS to insight Dixon into losing his temper in court in order to achieve contempt charges then have Dixon arrested for discharging a firearm at William J. ONeils house in the process of putting down a horse for Tammy ONeil. A couple of years earlier Dixon did bury a horse at William J. ONeils house but Dixon did not shoot the horse. The horse was shot by a Mesa police officer and friend of Dixons. Dixon was told by the informant that William J. ONeil had offered statements that Dixon had handled and discharged a firearm at his home and as an illegal possessor had in fact committed a felony. Upon learning of this plot Dixon called the Mesa police officer and recorded the conversation wherein the officer confirmed he had shot the horse. The informant went on to say that Ms. Veal along with another CPS investigator were very good friends with Pinal County Sheriff Deputies within the San Tan substation, some of the same deputies which illegally seized Dixons property for ONeil. These same deputies had been the defendants in the Federal lawsuit listed above when Deputy Pinal County Attorney Joe Albo admitted in a response to the first Amended Complaint admitted to the violation of Dixons civil rights as follows. Defendants, did willfully and knowingly enter into a criminal conspiracy to extort property that was legally in the possession of the Plaintiff prior to December 2, 2009, and that the actions, willfully committed by the Defendants, has resulted in the crime of Extortion, against the Plaintiff, and has deprived him of his Civil Rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona. Following the hearing Dixon on May 14, 2012 Dixon received this synopsis: That was not the eventful part. Frankly, they Department took 10 minutes making allegations about you and dragging your name thru the mud Further: asked that you be held in contempt for that In a later hearing on July 16, 2012 Ms. Stefani Veal offered testimony, under oath, regarding alleged conversations and emails to Dixon regarding his daughter, she also alleged that Dixon did not show up for appointments set up for Dixon. There were never any appointments set up for Dixon (as confirmed thru the psychologist office). This testimony was given in an attempt to again have Dixon found in contempt of court. Subsequently Dixons attorney subpoenaed all Page 10 of 16

emails sent from the Arizona Department of Economic Security to Dixon along with getting a transcript of the testimony offered by Ms. Stefanie Veal, under oath. This evidence clearly shows Ms. Stefanie Veal committed perjury in an attempt to get Dixon found in contempt of court with the hope of a possible incarceration and fines thereby giving the individuals leverage to silence Dixon in the many situations which have arisen since the theft of his property by the Pinal County Sheriff Deputies. Throughout the process involving CPS Dixon has advised Clarence Carter and the Arizona Attorney Generals office of the activities of CPS and its employees. The highest level within the Arizona Department of Economic Security was made aware of all activities and not only condoned such activities but have encouraged them. This conspiracy can be evidenced by the emails between Dixon and upper management of the Arizona Department of Economic Security which were not disclosed September 11, 2012 by order of the subpoena served. CPS has failed to comply with orders of the court to provide Dixon with records, psychological evaluations, updates on his daughter and has in fact done everything possible to block any family unification as ordered by the court. Dixons counsel, after repeated requests and promises has yet to file a motion for contempt regarding these activities. The lack of follow thru by Dixons council is directly due to the pressure of the establishment and fear of retaliation by William J. ONeil, the Pinal County Superior Court among others. The Arizona Department of Economic Security and Clarence Carter as its director were personally made aware of the actions of its subordinates and chose to do nothing about it. This is the most grievous example of the violation of Dixons civil rights. CPS using Dixons daughter and a very serious family situation to try and incite Dixon into losing his temper and performing acts which he could be arrested. Along with this William J. ONeil using his influence to, at the same time, attempt to have Dixon arrested for shooting a horse at his house for his wife. If this were true Dixon would have committed a felony. Dixons family has been destroyed in an attempt to have ammunition to use against him for the sole purpose of protecting the actions of William J. ONeil. It is interesting that the Divorce, Order of Protection, Petition to Modify Divorce Decree and the above CPS case all have the same judge, Hon. Kevin D White. It is believed that White is at the very least indebted to ONeil as evidenced by another prominent attorney in Pinal County. birch will likely ask & listen to ONeil when making the appointment of presiding judge. If that happens, people think he (Oneil) will nominate White, as White was his Protg. Although Dixon is not filing a complaint against Judge White, the cannons and rules are very clear A judge must disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned for reasons such as personal bias or prejudice. By the activities in this case it is clear that Judge White is out on a limb. If Judge White performs ONeils bidding he would be breaking the oath he has taken, Judicial Cannons and Page 11 of 16

ARS Statute. If Judge White does not perform ONeils bidding his chosen career as a Judge and future appointments will be in jeopardy and possibly his law license. It would be inappropriate for Dixon to hold Judge White nor his council on this case accountable for their lack of action when their own careers, reputation and livelihood are at stake by retaliation from those who are in direct control of their careers and futures. In essence they are a subject of the same dishonest and corrupt behavior Dixon is suffering. Yet another example of I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. which Dixon was warned and cautioned.

Threats and Intimidation: Dixon and attorneys who have attempted to represent Dixon
have endured many threats including the possibility of retaliation and disbarment if they become involved in any attempt to fairly represent Dixon. We do not know of any Arizona attorney who would risk disbarment by taking on the state judiciary or the Bar. Dixon was advised by several prominent attorneys in the Pinal County area that in order for him to get a fair hearing or justice within the Pinal County Superior Court or the Arizona Judiciary as a whole he would have to expose William J. ONeil and his dealings within the judicial system. On this advice Dixon began investigating the activities of ONeil. Dixon soon discovered many unethical and or illegal dealings which ONeil was involved in. Dixon then contacted attorneys whose hearings were presided over by ONeil as the Arizona Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge and informed them of conversations which Dixon had had with ONeil, these conversations clearly indicated a bias. ONeil should have recused himself as the Judge in their cases. Following this contact Dixon wrote an affidavit truthfully reflecting the conversations with ONeil. A current attorney and officer in the Arizona Bar who has intimate knowledge regarding ONeils past and present abuse of power gave this reply to the affidavit: I read the affidavit. With the exception of some grammatical issues, it reads well. You sure are putting your neck on the chopping block. Frankly, I agree with you disclosures and ultimate position, but you need to be prepared to deal with fall out. I would expect ONeill to come out and blast you. I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. As long as you are willing to confront them, you can submit it. I expect the attorneys to clean it up and correct a few errors and then send it back to you to be signed. Finally, realize that everyone will be questioning your integrity and calling you a liar. Be prepared to provide copies and supporting documentation to back up your statements. Following the chain of command and through correspondence with the Arizona Supreme Court in response to a detailed letter to Chief Justice Rebecca Berch, Dixon filed a complaint with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Page 12 of 16

There are some interesting outcomes from this complaint. The Judge that was first charged with performing the initial screening was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The complaint was dismissed by the Commission with the explanation: After thoroughly reviewing all of the information provided by the complainant and the judge's response, the commission found no evidence of ethical misconduct and concluded that the judge did not violate the Code in this case. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rules 16(a) and 23. Yet several attorneys, two of which are past members and judges gave the following quotes. I congratulate you on your courage to criticize powerful bar officers at the risk of becoming their target of retaliation. Ms. Roxana Bacon's apparent immunization of judges from criticism on grounds that theirs are implicitly "measured decisions", I would like to assume that you also have the courage to express your concern for the lack of accountability of judges, which enables them to engage in riskless wrongdoing. The complaint is good. It has a few spelling and grammar errors, but they do not detract much from an otherwise intelligent and conscientious effort on your part. I can only wish that many others would devote their time and energy, as you have, for the betterment of the community by rooting out private and public corruption whenever it is found. Judicial complaints are taken very seriously and will be definitely looked at. Your detailed complaints raise issues that will be investigated because the actions taken there do not pass the smell test. Will there be a positive outcome from it? I sure hope so, but I do not have a working crystal ball As to the judge, it is not unusual for judges to use their positions to enrich or boost the image of themselves and/or to benefit their family members, rules of judicial conduct notwithstanding; this goes on because of lax enforcement and the resulting excessive privilege accorded to judges. A complaint filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against a realtor was dismissed stating in part; The Department has no authority to investigate an alleged criminal act and may take an action against a licensee for criminal violations only if the licensee has been convicted of the offense in a Court of Jurisdiction. The finding further states: If you believe Judge O'Neil engaged in inappropriate activities, you may wish to report his conduct to the Arizona Attorney General's Office.

Page 13 of 16

Yet a realtor and current member sitting on the Professional Standards Committee Hearing Panel for Ethics reviewed the complaint and stated the following. She broke just about every ethics rule in the book and will probably lose her license for her activities in facilitating a short sale, especially one where she represented both the buyer and the seller in the transaction, I am surprised at this, she knows parties.

The Arizona Department of Real Estate complaint was dismissed 11-20-12, the Commission on Judicial Conduct Complaint was dismissed 11-29-12 and the Judge in the Superior Court Case granted the Plaintiffs, Pinal County Federal Credit Union summary judgment on 12-4-12 based on forged documents and unsigned documents, the attorneys representing Dixon in his Dependency case with his daughter have gone silent, not filed for contempt charges against CPS, not responding to Dixons numerous inquiries and not ensuring Dixon has due process.

Conclusion: All this begins and ends with a simple set of facts.
1) Dixon got divorced in May of 2009. 2) Dixons ex-wife was upset at the termination of their relationship brought about by the attempted physical assault of his daughter. 3) William J. ONeil was having financial difficulties affording his current lifestyle which included his 3 children in college, his wifes horse boarding operation, medical issues etc. 4) In a quid pro quo agreement, Dixons ex-wife helped ONeil acquire a $300,000.00 loan from Wells Fargo and ONeil circumvented Dixons due process and arranged for his property to be illegally seized. 5) As Dixon was warned: Frankly, I agree with you disclosures and ultimate position, but you need to be prepared to deal with fall out. I would expect ONeill to come out and blast you. I would also expect the "establishment" to try to bring you down. The establishment referred to is the Pinal County Superior Court and state judiciary as a whole, Pinal County Attorneys Office as it was under the direction of James Walsh, and individuals within the Pinal County Sheriffs office along with other State and local agencies whose activities are protected by the establishment A) In the federal civil rights case mentioned above, Sgt. John Ellsworth with the Pinal County Sheriffs office offered statements that he spoke to Dixon, this never happened. Upon filing a complaint with the Pinal County Sheriffs Office, Captain Jeff Karns cleared Ellsworth of any wrong doing, even in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary. Since the reelection of Sheriff Paul Babeu and the new County Attorney Lando Voyles, Jeff Karns was effectively fired. Effectively it appears that the Walsh era Pinal County Attorneys office can no longer over ride nor protect those individuals who wish to do the bidding of the establishment

Page 14 of 16

B) In retaliation and in an attempt to do an end run around Dixons right to due process Deputy Pinal County Attorney Joe Albo, as part of the establishment, in support of ONeils agenda, attempted to have a ruling made in Dixons divorce case giving ownership of Dixons property to his ex wife. Joe Albo responded to Dixons federal complaint in part by admitting that This is a Civil Rights action seeking a declaratory judgment that the above named Defendants, did willfully and knowingly enter into a criminal conspiracy to extort property that was legally in the possession of the Plaintiff prior to December 2, 2009, and that the actions, willfully committed by the Defendants, has resulted in the crime of extortion, against the Plaintiff, and has deprived him of his Civil Rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona. Joe Albo was terminated from the Pinal County Attorneys Office by the new County Attorney Lando Voyles. Dixon applauds Mr. Voyles for the changes he is making but cautions him of the retaliation he will ultimately face from the State Bar of Arizona and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge William J. ONeil. C) Melissa Blasius with Channel 12 spent researched the complaint Dixon filed with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct in depth, in her research Oneil misrepresented facts and in fact lied to Ms. Blasius regarding his involvement and personal friendship with individuals involved in a very questionable short sale. Ms. Blasius was prepared to run a very in depth story revolving around the complaint until she and Channel 12 were threatened with a slander/libel lawsuit against herself, Chanel 12 and Dixon. Ms. Blasius in response to this threat also advised Jim Sharpe with KFYI radio that he should consult his attorneys before doing any story on the complaint. Again, the establishment, using its power to threaten and intimidate in order to cover up the activities of William J. ONeil. D) Dixon has had threats to his family, property and person. In the course of events listed above Dixon has had his property broken into, upon catching one of the perpetrators and subsequent questioning he was informed that he was sent to scare Dixon by a Pinal County Sheriff Deputy. On another occasion an individual tried to light Dixons home on fire. Dixon has been threatened with his son being charged with crimes he did not commit along with threatened with being charged with crimes he did not commit. E) When the legal tactics have not worked the establishment has resorted to lies and misrepresentation of facts to discredit Dixon in the eyes of the public. All of the relevant evidence is a matter of public record and Dixon will not respond to the disgustingly futile attempt at the slanderous accusations made other than to say if they are true then charge Dixon and prosecute. All of the threats and intimidation tactics mentioned have caused Dixon to take measures to protect himself, in a safer place, in order to continue to achieve the due process guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Page 15 of 16