IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS RAYMOND R. SCHWAB, AMELIA D. SCHWAB TYELER 8. ALLISON Plaintiff v. CASE NO. 16-CV-4033-DDC-KGS VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § §1983, 1985) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SAM BROWNBACK et. al. Defendants, Plaintiff's Joint Response in Opposition to Motions to Dis DCF Defendant's. Pawnee Mental Health, Blake Robinson, Randy Debenham. RCPD, Carla Swartz . COMES NOW Plaintiff's AMELIA SCHWAB, RAYMOND SCHWAB AND TYELER ALLISON in propria persona in opposition to the above defendant's motions to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure. Defendant's state Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the Younger and Rooker-Feldman abstention's, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Sovereign Immunity, Domestic relations clause. Plaintifi’s request their motion be denied based on the following arguments. All exhibits have been public prior to the Seal and Protective order. Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 1Preliminary Issues PRO SE STANDARD OF REVIEW 1. Because Plaintif’s are pro se, the Court has a higher standard when faced with a motion for injunctive relief, White V, Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes this point clear and states :A court faced with a motion for injunctive relief, a pro se motion, the court must read the complaint’s allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. 520-21, 92 S, Ct. 594, 596, 30 L, Ed. 24 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322,92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L, Ed. 2D 263(1972 2. Prose litigants’ court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poot syntax and sentence construction, or litigant’s unfamiliarity with rule requirements, Boag v. MacDougall, 484 U.S. 364 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982 ); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 7 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Fd.2d 251 (1976 )( quoting Conley. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct, 99,2 Lid.2d 80 (1957): Haines v. Kerner, 404U,S, 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972 ); MeDowell v._ Delaware State Police, 88F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir, 1996 ); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 Grd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys): Then v. LN.S., 58 FSupp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999 ). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory. " Bonner v, Circuit Court of St. Louis 526 F:2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir, 1975 (quoting Bramlet v, Wilson , 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)). Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion, this court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom. Furthermore, if there is any possible theory that would entitle the Plaintiff's to relief, even one that the Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 2iff's haven't thought of, the court cannot dismiss. In Cersosimo the Supreme Court stated: It is “our established policy to allow great latitude to a litigant who, either by choice or necessity, represents himself in legal proceedings, so far as such latitude is consistent with the just rights of any adverse party... ."Cersosimo v.Cersosimo, 449 A.2d 1026 (1982 ). Furthermore, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Whereas this pleading is a response to the Defendant's motions to dismiss). Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). When a complaint’ allegations are capable of more than one inference, the Court must adopt whichever inference supports a valid claim. Hamilton y. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2010): see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, CAL. PRAC. GUIDE, FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group), §9:214.4. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2D 868 (2009) did not change this fundamental tenet of Rule 12(b)(6) practice. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 34.585, 595 (8th Cir, 2009), In addition, the Courts required to read the complaint charitably and must assume that all general allegations "embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary fo support them," Peloza v, Capistrano UnifiedSch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir, 1994). This rule of liberal construction is 2000). Before the Court rules on the motion to dismiss by the above defendant's it may be important to review some developments and new evidence the Plaintifi’s have acquired, as well concerning further civil rights violations which have occurred since the Court determined not to issue Preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff's warned the Court in testimony on September 8" 2016 that if the Defendant's ‘were not enjoined to cease and desist from violating the Plaintifi’s constitutional rights and protections through preliminary injunction's, that said deprivations would increase until their parental rights were Response to DCF Motion to Dismissterminated without proper due process. Since that time the following evidence and activity have occurred which further bolster the Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § §1983, 1985. Further Dep: a) Unlawfully signing documents to commit financial fraud. Withholding evidence and documents from Plaintiff's to deprive them th right to due process. On or around April 27%, 2016 a hearing was held in Riley County Court. Ms. Schwab's attomey, Miranda Johnson, was relieved of representing Ms, Schwab after defendant BOSCH denied a continuance and Johnson Subsequently notified Ms. Schwab she would not be appointed representation by the Court (Exhibit 1), It is unknown by the Plaintiff's all the events which occurred at this hearing because the documentation is still being unlawfully withheld by the Defendants (Including the Court Transcript). Strangely enough the court record is even missing from the Court Documents submitted by the Defendant's under seal, Despite claiming the entire court file to, date was present, the April 27" transcript is absent. . < An order for all of those documents to be prepared for fling with the Fedetal Court was filed by Defendant FIELD'S and granted By Chief Judge Wilson on or around July 21, 2016 . The April 27° transcript fell under that order but was withheld from the PDF and files issued.to all the parties and Court. When Mr. Schwab confronted Ms. Field's about this discrepancy on Nov 7, 2016 she informed Mr. Schwab the transcript was never transeribed despite the order, When Mr. Schwab requested to see the transcript, and for the Court to obey the order by Judge Wilson to grant the Plaintiff's access to all the files, his request was denied and again he was forced to review 18 months of cour files, with files (exhibit 2). missing, in order to present his defense at a Nov 8" heari The Nov 8" hearing was held, and evidence produced, in the form of reports, that Mr. Schwab ‘was not allowed to receive a copy of even in the courtroom. When Mr. Schwab requested a copy of the reports being used against him in court, just for the purpose of the hearing whereas after the hearing the Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 4copies would be surrendered to the court, his motion was denied. It is asserted, through information and belief, that the Plaintifi’s are being denied documents, and the District Court denied transcripts that ‘were supposed to be contained in the sealed record, for the sole purpose of creating a prejudicial view of the Schwab's while hiding evidence of the Defendant's malfeasance, violations of due process, and violations of constitutional rights and protections. This deprivation and joint action between parties is further shown through school records, which the Schwab's just recently received from Riley County Grade School, concerning the Juvenile AS. Itis believed that on April 27" 2016 BOSCH, FIELDS, WILKERSON, INGLES, DEBENHAM, DCF, RILEY COUNTY (Through it’s agents), ST FRANCIS, PRICE, POSSEN conspired to violate the Plaintiff's due process and right’s by holding a secret hearing and then using the court orders from that hearing to circumvent the parents Power of Attorney, Jennifer Winn, by signing documents authorizing services to the Schwab Children in order to make them eligible for Federal Funding under title IV without the parents signature. (exhibit 3) ~ ; Not only were the Schwab's informed by PATHWAYS that Defendant's POSSEN, PATHWAYS, PRICE, and DCF unlawfully signed to have C.S. force medicated through thé signature of Kaylee Possen, but apparently she also signed for State Testing of A.S. Contrary to state law and the parents rights (Exhibit 3). Children who are on medication, Receive Special Educational Services, or have other special needs qualify for a higher funding matrix under Title IV, and DCF contracts to St Francis. “The Plaintiff's assert, through information and belief, that because they refused to sign document's which would assist the Defendant's in their fraud, and were attempting to stop the force medicating of their child, and address the special education needs of their children with the school directly (Which is still their right) the Defendant's took matters into their own hands and violated the law and the Plaintiff's due process to carry on their financial fraud by having a hearing without Amelia Schwab having representation, despite a continuance being filed by Miranda Johnson for her to find an attorney. Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 5Finally, it has come to the attention that the Court Transcript of the Oct 29", Mislabeled Nov 11 disposition hearing has been altered by the court, the media or an unknown third party. ‘The reasons the Schwab's believed their children were taken over medical cannabis were the police report, and the fact the Schwab's legal use of medical cannabis under a doctors care was the sole reason for restricting visits to their children. The KSNT (A Topeka Kansas Media outlet) transcript, that was acquired by unknown means by KSNT and published, clearly contained a statement by FIELDS that everyone knew the children were taken over Medical Cannabis (exhibit 4). The court record submitted by the defendant's to this Federal Court did not contain this statement. This is an issue which cannot be dealt with in a motion to dismiss but must be explored through depositions and discovery. When this discrepancy was brought to the attention of the Defendant's counsel, they agreed the transcript had been obviously modified but have refused to explore the issue further and claimed the Plaintiff's were operating in bad faith for bringing it up (Exhibit 5). Modifying court documents is a crime and believe this was done to obfuscate one of the real, political reasons the Sciiwab's were maliciously targeted by the Riley County Prosecution. . This malicious and bad faith prosecution is the primary reason this coart should not abstain (ed their children for their lawful use from exercising jurisdiction. For ten months the defendant's res of medical cannabis within their home state of Colorado. b) Violating Kansas Statue, Due Proccess and Constitutional Protections to attempt to strip the Schwab's of their parental rights. ‘The 144 and S amendments of the Constitution, as well as various legal rulings guarantee the right of substantive and procedural due process defined a: “A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts 10 take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 6unreasonable, arbirary or capricious.” The basic requirement of constitutional due process is a fair and impartial tribunal, whether at the hands of a court, an administrative agency or a government hearing officer. Gibson v. Berryhill 411 U.S. 564, 569, 93 S.Ct, 1689, 1693, 36 L.Bd.2d 488 (1973). ‘The Supreme Court has consistently enforced this basic procedural right and held that decision makers are constitutionally unacceptable in the following circumstances: (1) where the decision maker has a direct personal, substantial, and pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case; (2) where an adjudicator has been the target of personal abuse or criticism from the party before him; and (3) when a judicial or quasi-judicial decision maker has the dual role of investigating and adjudicating disputes and complaints. See Baran v. Port of. Beaumont Navigation Dist. of Jefferson County, 57 F.3d 436, 444-46 (Sth Cir.1995). ‘This right also extends to adequate representation, rights to discovery and evidence being presented in a court of law, and a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal City of Chicago v. Morales, $27 US. 41, 119 8, Ct. 1849, 144 L, Ed. 2D 67 (1999: Lee » Kemna, $34 US. 362, 122 S. Ct. 877. 151 L. Ed. 820 [2002]).; Ginzon v_wainwriGHT, 372 U.$2335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 2D 799 (1963) : - All the Defendant's have a stake in the outcome of the State proceedings due to the current Federal Litigation, as well as the State level petition drive to convene a Grand Jury. It is asserted, through information and belief, it is this stake in the outcome that has led the Defendant's to lie, hide documents, commit fraud through procuting signatures out of a secret court hearing without the Plaintiffs present, and many other such activities. Their behavior speaks volumes as to how they wish to paint the Plaintiff's as neglectful drug abusers when the facts and evidence do not support their manufactured nattative, as the DCF report itself concluded. DCF's own investigation concluded that the allegations of neglect and drug abuse were unsubstantiated for lack of clear and convincing evidence (Exhibit 6). This document and exculpatory report was also withheld from the court record, even Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 7though it was completed and mailed out the same day as the Adjudication hearing. VINDUSKA, INGLES, AND JOHNSON refused to present this exculpatory evidence to the court, The Schwab's have repeatedly requested those parties involved in the Federal Litigation recuse themselves and have been responded to by the Defendant's hiding evidence, refusing to take complaints and rerouting complaints back to themselves, and refusing to give information as to how to get relief from another administrative avenue. The Attorney of the County of Riley gave the Schwab's false information in July of 2015, Oct 2015 and April of 2016, as did the County Commissioners office as to how to file a complaint, and where to serve court paperwork. It is asserted, through information and belief, that these ‘were intentional attempts to subvert the Schwab's due process. As they unknown attomey of Riley County told Mr, Schwab on April 2016 they had no intention of getting to the facts and assisting anyone in suing the County. On or around Oct 19 2016 a Permanency Hearing was held to determirie if the court was going to continue to reintegrate the chien or stip the Schwab's pangptal rights. Due to dhe information given by JOHNSON (exhibit 1), Mrs, Schwab believed she was being denied a right to ‘have an attorney represent her and sought to raise money to hire an attorney as the Schwab's did not have the financial ability to pay for one. The Court was notified that Mrs. Schwab HAD raised the money and ‘was waiting for her attorney, Jennifer Chaffee, to place an entry of appearance whereas she requested a continuance. DEFENDANT'S BOSCH, FIELDS, DCF, BOYD, ST FRANCIS, and PRICE were present for the hearing, and FIELDS objected to a continuance as well. Mrs. Schwab's motion to get counsel and be issued a continuance was denied and she was forced to represent herself in a brutal 8 hour hearing where BOSCH reprimanded her continually for her inability 0 represent herself. The stress caused Mrs. Schwab to emotionally collapse and had to leave the hearing, unable to further represent herself due to the emotional toll it was taking on her and her inability to stop crying from the injustice. MR. Schwab again asked for a continuance reminding Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 8the court of Kansas Statues and the Constitutional right to representation, and was denied. Due to the length of the hearing, BOSCH finally relented and issued a continuance eight hours into the hearing, During the hearing ST FRANCIS, PRICE, DCF, and FIELDS made it abundantly clear their intent was to terminate the SCHWAB parental rights without due process of law and adequate representation for the parents. It was observed by witnesses, that during multiple recesses DCF, FIELDS, PRICE, ST FRANCIS, BOYD, DCF supervisors, a St Francis Attomey, and Judge Bosch met in chambers multiple times. Neither Raymond nor Amelia Schwab were notified of these meetings and only learned about them from witnesses after, nor were they told what the purpose of the meetings were. It is asserted, through information and belief, that these meetings were held to coordinate testimony against the Schwab's and frustrate their defense strategy while being denied representation. Furthermore, Defendant PRICE committed perjury on the stand, which was allowed by the judge and all parties present including INGLES. As the Plaintiff's have stated from the beginning, it is a common practice for DCF, Family Court and Contractors to lieen the stand in the Kansas Child Welfare system, The Plaintiff's have multiple cases, including the five they are trying to,get before a Kansas grand Jury which demonstrate it is not an isolated practice to the Schwab's case. It had come to the attention of the Schwab's that D.B, for behavioral issues and drug use. When confronted on the stand Laura Price claimed that D.B. was moved by his own choice and no negative behavior had precipitated it. However, when Mr Schwab on Nov 7" read the ST Francis Court report, the report verified placement terminated D.B's residence, that the Juvenile had been in trouble for eating a marijuana brownie, and was having serious behavioral issues to the point he was diagnosed with Opposition Defiance Disorder. Plaintiff's believe these behavioral issues have occurred due to the State forcing D.B. to continue to lie to support the false narrative and evidence developed by SWARTZ, RCPD, WILKERSON, DCF, FILEDS, INGLES, BOSCH, KVC, ST FRANCIS, PRICE, POSSEN, BOYD, KVC, EISENBARGER, JACKSON and unknown parties including the maternal relatives who Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 9kidnapped the children, Mr. Schwab was denied further access to this document, and when reviewing the paperwork noticed a stick it note which stated “Withheld from the Court record per order of Judge Bosch”. Unfortunately RCPD refused Mr. Schwab taking a photo of this note which showed how Riley County and their courts are withholding exculpatory evidence and allowing perjured testimony against parents because everyone, including Judge Bosch allegedly reviews the St Francis Court reports before hearings. Yet no party objected to Ms. Prices perjury and BOSCH even stopped Mr. Schwab's cross examination of PRICE multiple times when Mr Schwab tried to get these facts on the record. BOSCH set the continuance for Nov 8", This date is significant as it was the date the Schwab's had publicly announced and coordinated a petition drive to gather signatures that could potentially convene a Grand Jury in order to investigate BOSCH, GILMORE, and BROWNBACK for their unlawful seizure of children and violation of parent's constitutional:tights across Kansas. It is asserted, through information and belief, that setting the hearing on Nov’8* was an attempt by BOSCH to further hinder the SCHWAB's pursuing relief from the Civil rights violations they were being subjected to. ©) Abuse of Power to hinder fund raising effort's for Mrs. Schwab's legal defense. After the Oct 19" hearing the Schwab's made it publicly known, via social media, they were traveling home to attend a fundraiser for Mrs. Schwab's legal defense since Ms. Chaffee had entered an appearance without full payment. Uponentering her appearance Ms Chaffee was granted a hearing on Nov 4" which happened to be the day the Schwab's had declared they would be in Denver. Mr Schwab had also made it known to the parties that they would not be coming to the hearing due to the pre- scheduled event, expense of travel, and neither were they properly notified or served concerning the he: 1g. Through an email exchange with FILEDS, attorney Brenda Jordon, and DEFENDANT INGLES the Schwab's were told they would not be excused from the hearing (exhibit 7). The Schwab's interpreted this threat to mean their due process would be further denied and Ms. Chaffee denied her Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 10continuance if the SCHWAB's did not appear. Ms. Chafee had only a little over a week to go over 18 months of court files and documentation and needed more time to mount an adequate defense for Ms Schwab. Feeling the threat on their due process rights the Schwab's stayed in Kansas and were hindered from Fund raising for Ms. Schwab's legal defense. It is asserted, through information and belief, this, ‘was an attempt to hinder the ability of the Schwab's to pay for at least one attorney to represent them. More details, including the emails were enclosed in the previous motion for a time extension (DOC 185). d) Abuse of Power and attempts to stop Grand Jury Investigation signatures. Despite the attempt by BOSCH at hindering the Schwab's assistance in gathering signatures for convening a Grand Jury the original petitioner, Jennifer Winn, was able to get replacement for the Schwab's. With many other volunteers Winn stationed teams at polling stations to collect signatures Nov 8", The signatures would allow Winn and the Schwab's to present evidence to a Sedwick County chief judge in order to convene a Grand Jury to investigate multiple individuals Gneluding BOSCH, GILMORE, AND BROWNBACK) for violations of due process and abuse of power under Kansas law for participation in their “Kids for Cash” activi (EXHIBIT 8). Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach attempted to use multiple police forces (Wichita PD and Sedwick Co Sheriff) to harass, intimidate, seize signs and drive volunteers from the polling sites unlawfully and a subsequent lawsuit is fh the process of being filed by former gubernatorial Candidate Jennifer Winn for this abuse of power. The Plaintiff's believe these actions by members of BROWNBACKS cabinet demonstrate the lengths officials in the State of Kansas will go through stop any effort to petition the Kansas government for the redress of grievances, hinder due process and lav, and abuse their power. After Mr. Kobach refused to give a written order to the police both WPD and the Sheriff stood down and let the collection of signatures resume. (Exhibit 9) Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss iFurthermore is is asserted, through information and belief, that ST FRANCIS and other unknown parties engaged in harassment and intimidation through agent provocateur type activities. One polling volunteer reported six young women approached the petitioner and feigned interest in the petition. The young women, afier discussing the petitions stated they were St Francis case workers and the petitioner had it all wrong and needed to get away from Jennifer Winn, and the Schwab's. They ttied to convince the petitioner that ST FRANCIS were the “Good Guys” and when the petitioner refused to be swayed they attempted to start a conflict, and then went into the polling location and accused the petitioner of electioneering in order to have the petitioner from the polling location. Many of these altercations were recorded on video and will be used in a subsequent lawsuit against multiple parties. Occurrences such as these happened to a majority of volunteers to the point one petitioner had to have a citizen arrested for harassment. It is asserted, through information and belief, this was a coordinated effort to hinder the Schwab's from any effort at holding DCF, BOSCH, GILMORE, and BROWNBACK accountable in a court of law for their violations of due processsabuse of power, and unlawfully seizing children through unspoken policies of DCF. : . ‘These events which have occurred since the preliminary injunetion hearing on Sept 8, 2016 demonstrate the Defendant's have no intention of obeying the law, constitution, Kansas Statues, Federal requirement’ for getting ttle IV funding and will retaliate, obfuscate lie, abuse their power and manipulate the legal system in order to Steal the Schwab Children without affording the Schwab's any due process. Now we shall address the various arguments from the Defendant's. No Statement of Claim Which Relief Can Be Provided 42 USS.C. 1983 is very clear. “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 12or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an aetion at, lav, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (1993) provides as follows:(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: . . . (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States ‘The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses three kinds of federal claims enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) claims for the deprivation of certain specific rights denoted in the Bill of Rights and made applicable to the states through incorporation; (2) claims under the substantive component of the due process clause “that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, ‘regardless of the fairness ofthe procedures used to implement them™; and (3) claims under the procedural component ofthe due process clause that prohibits the deprivation af life, liberty, or property without fair procedure, Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 124 (1990) (atioting Daniels Williams, 474U.S. 327, 331 (1986). When a plaintiff asserts the violation of a right specifically identified in.the Bill of Rights or protected under the substantive component of the due process clause, the violation is complete at the time of the challenged conduct and the § 1983 remedy is available regardless of remedies provided under state law, Exhaustion of remedies in a State venue is not required. Zinermon v, Burch, at 125. ‘The defendant's continue to claim the Plaintiff's are simply unhappy with the outcome of the State Proceedings and relief cannot be granted by the District Court. While the Plaintiff's, not being attorney's, struggled to definie what relief they were seeking in previous pleadings they now assert that they have clearly identified and remedied the jurisdictional issues. For instance the Defendant's claim the Schwab's were unhappy that the police took their Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 13children in custody at the prompting of Maternal relative C.B. (pg 10 of Defendant's motion). The Plaintiff's agree they are unhappy with that outcome but those are not the facts by which we seek relief. Itis the fact that the outcome of removing the Schwab children was accomplished through fraud and violations of the law. The maternal relatives refused to return the Schwab Children when they discovered the Schwab's were moving home to Colorado, unlawfilly took those children to a jurisdiction where they did not live to an officer who attempted to remove these children once before and failed, filed false police reports about the children living in that county and the Schwab's abandoning the children , made false claims about drug abuse, coerced and assisted D.B. in writing a letter which contained a false narrative that was later supported by manufactured evidence and perjury while ignoring and maliciously keeping exculpatory evidence off the record by the attorney's, at the hands of a hostile and malicious prosecutor and a biased judge who cooperated in joint action to keep exculpatory evidence off the record . The officer then admits in Court there was no investigation by her Dept (exhibit 10), DCF clears the family (exhibit 6) and it is clear the officer seized the children without warrant or statutory authority. It is ignoring the crimes committed to seie these chil disobeying law and civil procedure, and violation of law, rights, and constitutional protections that, were utilized to achieve the outcome and judgments of the State proceedings that the Plaintiff's seek iren, relief for and are entitled to by this court. It is injunctions to stop the abuse of power, constitutional violations, and violation of due process which occur as an unspoken policy and practice of DCF and the Kansas family court system, all over the State, that the Plaintif’s seeks relief for. They are not the only vietims of this “Kids for cash” dynamic, and intend to bring many witnesses and victims of the Kansas DCF's practice of legally stealing children through fraud for the purpose of fraud, namely Federal Cash Incentives under the Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Social Security Act Title IV. This jurisdiction and precedent for it was recently demonstrated in Duval V Los Angeles County where similar constitutional violations and civil rights offenses, that the Schwab's and Mr. Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 14Allsion have endured, occurred against a mother who was granted relief and a 3.1 million judgment from a Jury in Federal Court. This was achieved under a 1983 jurisdictional claim, and her child is still currently in DCF custody. The Jury rightfully determined Social workers and courts cannot used ‘manufactured evidence, violations of due process, and perjured testimony to seize children, while recognizing they had no jurisdictional authority to return the children to the mother. The Plaintif?’s are pursuing those remedies for the return of the children through the State Court proceedings which are ongoing, and are attempting to not mix the jurisdictional issues despite the Defendant's counsel addressing claims the Plaintif’s are not making, and facts that are only part of the record and evidence. Another example is the issue of the UA being constantly used to call Mr. Schwab a drug addict The Plaintiff's would encourage the Court to exercise Judicial Review and that the record shows no lab report for any illicit substance for 18 months. There is a handwritten report, by an unkown agent with drug names scribbled on the page. No chain of custody or lab verifigation reports can be found, Because they do not exist and Mr Schwab has repeatedly correeted the record that he has NEVER given a positive UA by any ethical standard to date for any illicit substance. While the Defendant's forget that Ms. Schwab has never even been accused of giving a positive UA for any illicit substance she is still called a neglectful drug addict. Despite the fact the DCF investigation found no substantiation to those allegations they are still be used to defame the Schwab's. The associated press just released a report in Oct. that Mr. Schwab gave a positive blood test for five drugs. The Plaintiff's are not asking for the relief of the court to overturn the use of a UA that no lab report can be produced to verify to adjudicate the children, They are asking for damages for the violation of their rights, based on no reasonable suspicion or special circumstances through a drug test that doesn't exist and continued violations of their 4" amendment for 18 months when there is no special circumstances or reasonable suspicion. The Plaintiff's contend it is a humiliation and violation of privacy to expose their gentiles to a stranger for an invasion of privacy that is occurring unconstitutional, Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 15It is the method the Defendant's used to achieve this accusation that the Plaintiff's are seeking relief from. It shocks the conscience that the Kansas Court of appeals stated Mr. Schwab gave a positive UA for five drugs (Pg 4 of the appeal brief), when no such lab report is on record. That is part of the manufactured evidence the Plaintiffs claim are used against parents in this system, and which relief for those abuses can be granted by this court, whether punitive, declaratory or injunctive. As Mr. Schwab explained in his testimony before the District Court on Sept 8" the Plaintifi’s are no longer asking for injunctions which specifically relate to the State proceedings including venue change, recusal of Judge Bosch, and withdrawal of caseworkers. We are asking the court force the Defendant's to stop using unlawful means, abuse of power, denial of due process, hiding of documents, manufacturing evidence, and utilizing perjured testimony to achieve those results. ‘Therefore jurisdiction rightly belongs in this District Court and relief can be granted for the due Process, civil rights and constitutional violations which have occurred, and are continuing to occur from the defendant's which have been outlined in the complaint, Motion for Tempbrary Restraining Order, and these pleadings. : Rooker-Feldman 7 ion for In October of 2016 the Kansas Supreme Court declined to hear Mr, Schwab's pe review. There are currently no pending appeals in the State of Kansas partially due to the various attomeys involved refusing to file appeals, motions, or challenge evidence on the Schwab's behalf. However, even if their was, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District has held that judgments procured through fraud are exempt from the Rooker-Feldman, ‘As the Defendant's noted in their motion “prevents federal district courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 16USS. 280, 284 (2005). While this abstention is barred due to the Kansas Supreme Court refusing to hear the only State petition for review in October of 2016, the Plaintiff's wish to affirm, fraud in the courts disqualifies the abstention as well. A few courts most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have determined that Rooker-Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud. In other words, when a state court loser complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles or even unsound ones but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state court judgment, but of an injury caused by the winners chicanery. Younger Abstension/Domestic Clause The Younger Doctrine and Domestic Clause would not apply, at all, to Carla Swartz, Riley County Police Dept., KVC. Deja Jackson, Rhonda Eisenbarger, Miranda Johnson, Blake Robinson, Andrew Vinduska, Kendra Baker, Theresa Freed, Randy Debenham: Pathways Family Services, Kaylee Possen, and does 1-10 because they are no longer parties to thé'State proceedings and the relief sought clearly is punitive for past civil right and constitutional violations and will have no bearing or influence on the State proceedings. AS to the other defendant's; : The other Defendant's continue to claim this complaint and civil action is a collateral attack on the State Judgments. It is not. It is an attack on the Civil right and constitutional violations which occurred to procured those judgments and the financial fraud and gain which motivated the deprivations initiated by a police force and county attorney who were hostile to the Plaintiff's and initiate a seizing of the children and prosecution maliciously and in bad faith. The reasons why this court should not abstain under younger or the domestic clause are outlined in the TRO and ini pages, 1-19, of the complaint itself. However we would like to revisit a few issues in responding. ‘The Younger abstention doctrine provides that in certain limited circumstances, federal courts Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 7may refuse to hear a plaintiff's constitutional challenges to underlying and ongoing state proceedings. ‘See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Knight v. Ahlin, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987, 3 (9th Cir. Cal. 2013). However, abstention is approy (c only in "carefully defined” circumstances, and "remains an extraordinary and narrow exception to the general rule” that federal courts must not decline to exercise their jurisdiction. Knight, supra, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987 at 3. One of the four requirements which must be met for a younger abstention is the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding, The operative word is “THE” state proceedings, not a state proceeding. The Constitutional issues being litigated in this complaint cannot, by the nature of the CINC proceedings, be litigated at the Kansas district or higher court levels for these state proceedings because the issues are specifically revolving around the CINC adjudication and permanency procedures. While the Kansas Court of Appeal's did rule that a fabricated drug test result where the evidence was destroyed and never tested irra lab could be used to adjudicate the Schwab children, they could not have issued injunctions or punitive and declaratory relief under the appeal mechanism if they determined the evidence was, indeed, fianufactured and procured unconstitutionally. They could have ONLY overturned the lower coiirts decisions for these infringements, which they declined to do. They cannot address the constitutionality of warrantless drug testing for eighteen month's with no properly tested UA EVER showing illicit drug use by either parent. Or false allegation being used as “grounds” for special circumstances or reasonable suspicion being a violation of the parents 4" amendment and thereby awarding damages for that infringement, Therefore Younger falls short in this requirement for the relief the Plaintiff's are seeking. Furthermore the District Court, at the Sept 8" hearing for preliminary injunctions, did note that the Plaintiff's made a Prima Facie case for malicious/bad faith prosecution in their pleadings and testimony but declined issuing injunctions. Abstention is not required where a state proceeding “is motivated by a desire to harass or is Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 18conducted in bad faith, or where a challenged statute is ‘flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whether manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.”” Fisher, 531 F. Supp. 2d at 1267 (quoting Huffman ». Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 611, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Fd.2d 482 (1975)). Prosecution for the sake of supporting a fraudulent proceeding geared toward financial gain in retaliation against an individual or family whom the prosecutor admitted he “Knew as a child” while Mr. Schwab was in DCF custody, attempted to unsuccessfully prosecute Mr. Schwab and take his children under similar circumstances in the past, and ignoring the kidnapping and unlawful taking of the Schwab children by the Maternal Family and Riley County Police seems to fall under the category of “Bad Faith” and “Malicious”. ‘The Supreme Court has held that Younger does not apply as a rule. “In the main,” the Court began, “federal courts are obligated to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction.” Younger can overcome this general principle, but only in “exceptional” circumstances, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans (NOPSD, State-entities have argued that Younger was appropriate whenever an ongoing state judicial proceeding implicates important a interests and alfords the opportunity to raise federal challenges. This scope, the Court has recognized, “would extend Younger to virtually all parallel state and federal proceedings, at least where a party could identify a plausibly important state interest... . That result is irreconcilable with our dominant instruction that, even in the presence of parallel state proceedings, abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the ‘exception, not the rule.”” Federal courts should always consider whether abstention is mandated under the principles of equity and comity. Immunity: Sovereign, absolute or Qualified The Plaintiff's wish to remind the court that DCF, St Francis. KVC, and their contractors all fund the child welfare system with monies received from the Social Security Act quarterly. If, indeed these agencies were using fraud, abuse of power, intentional misdiagnosis of children to increase Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 19funding, violations of due process, and the unlawful removal of children as a strategy to obtain Federal Funding through the Kansas Plan for ttle IV funding this issue also belongs within Federal Jurisdiction, Plaintiff's assert, through information and belief, that their case is not unique and this fraudulent and unlawful behavior is being used on families all over the State of Kansas. One witness testimony comes after reviewing around 2000 cases, and taking 10 solid cases of fraud to present as evidence to a Sedwick County Grand Jury if she can get enough registered voters to sign. As to date the Plaintiff's have counted over 3000 signatures. ‘The Court has stated that Congress "crafi{ed] an unambiguous waiver of the States' Eleventh ‘Amendment immunity" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.62 This statutory provision applies to suits under Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act (discrimination based on race and ethnicity), the Age Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (gender discrimination in education), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 (discrimination based on disability), Although expressed in terms of abrogation, Sectian 2000d-7 applies to the states as a waiver of immunity arising ftom a state accepting federal funds. IF sovereign immunity is waived under statutes enacted as part ofthe spending power, a private plaintiff may sue the state or state agency as @ named defendant and may recover damages to the extent that they are allowed by the underlying statute; the private plaintiff also may obtain injunctive and other relief. ‘The defendant's counsel minimize the defendant's actions by statements such as “There is nothing that “shocks the conscience” about the State taking custody of children whose parents are using illegal drugs and neglecting the children” (Pg 16 of motion to dismiss by DCF). However private citizens, who reviewed the entire file with DCF, are so outraged and shocked in their conscience by the constitutional and civil rights violations inflicted on the Schwab's they are pursuing BOSCH, BROWNBACK, and GIMORE with a petition that they may present evidence of DCF “Kids for Cash” as an unspoken practice across the State of Kansas to a Kansas Grand Jury to indite them criminally. Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 20Furthermore removing kid's for a parent's neglect and drug use isn't shocking, the Plaintiff's would concede to that. However removing children who had been unlawfully hid from their parents, without warrant or statutory authority, based on false allegations that even the State didn't validate, after doing absolutely no police investigation, and prosecuting maliciously and in bad faith, under a Judge who observed zero imparti 'y and aggravated the civil rights abuses by his own behavior, through the use of perjury and manufactured evidence, while receiving Federal money as the consequence of the fraud, and severely injuring the family victimized by the fraud, and then engaging in a pattern of retaliation and cover up while trying to terminate the parents rights without due process, and then abusing state power by attempting to hinder any attempt at relief or investigation would shock even the most hardened conscience State officials may be sued for damages in their individual capacity for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights committed in the course of official duties but'are entitled to claim qualified immunity. Qualified immunity bars recovery insofar ag the official’s conduct “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, ‘The Fourth Circuit held in Lizzi v, Alexander, 255 F.3d 128. 137-38 (4th Cir, 2001), cert. denied 535 34 U.S. 1081, reh’g der sub nom, Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, ULS. 952 (2002), that individual capacity suits against state officials arising out of official acts may be limited to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and not to liability arising under other federal statutes, even though the statute specifically makes the state official liable. Without explanation, the court held that such suits are in fact against the state. Presumably, the court expected the state to indemnify the official for any liability. The Second Circuit held, however, that an individual capacity suit seeking an amount of damages far exceeding the defendant's ability to pay does not transform the suit into one against the state even when the state voluntarily chooses to reimburse the official. Huang v. Johnson, 274 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2001) Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 21A fundamental concept of our American system of justice is that those charged with upholding the law are prohibited from deliberately fabricating evidence and "framing" individuals for offenses they did not commit. Limone v, Condon, 372 F.3d 39 5 44-45 (Ist Cir, Mass. 2004), Indeed, long ago the United States Supreme Court unequivocally held that the government's knowing use of false or perjured testimony and/or the deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence constitutes a violation of due process. See ¢.g., Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 2645 269 (1959); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 1942); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935), Nor are these precepts limited to criminal convictions, because such rights are "virtually self evident.” Devereaux v, Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1075 (Sth Cir, 2001). Rather, the Plaintiff enjoys a due process right to be free from deception in the presentation of evidence in the juvenile court, i. false or perjured testimony and/or the deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence. Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1035 (9th Cir, Or. 2009) vacated on other grounds by Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2036 nil (2011): see also Costanich v Dep't of Soe. & Health Servs. 627 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2009): see also Toler ws Paulson, 551 F. jonal right may be clearly established by Supp.2d 1039, 1043 and 1047 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “[A] consti common sense.” (DeBoer v. Pennington 206 F.3d 857, 864-65 (9th 2000) i vacated on other grounds by Bellingham v, DeBoer 532 U.S. 992 (2001),) This occurs where “conduct is so patently violative of the constitutional right that reasonable officials would know without guidance from the courts thatthe action was unconstitutional.”(James', Rowlands 606 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir, 2010),) The undeniable maxim to “tell the truth” is so deeply ingrained in the charter of the United States’s, existence that any reasonable oath-beholden government agent — including social workers — would know without guidance from the eourts thatthe use of false of perjured evidence to deprive an individual of their protected liberty interests is never justified. (See e.g.. N. Mariana Islands v. Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109, 1124 (9th Cir. Haw. 2001); see also, Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1084 (9th Cir. Wash, 2001) (Kleinfeld, A., concurring); “[T]hese rules of constituti nal law apply Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 22not only to police, but also to the social workers, and to others who act on behalf of the state. Anyone who acts on behalf of the government should know that a person has a constitutional right not to be framed.”"}.) The plaintiff's have demonstrated a strong showing of this joint action by State and Private actors to violate the Plaintifi’s constitutional rights and protections, have hearings and meetings to plan how to frustrate any relief by the Plaintifi’s including unlawfully signing for services that would qualify the State for increased Federal incentives, patterns of retaliation and abuse of power and relief for these violations is the primary Jurisdiction of the Federal District Court. RCPD and SWARTZ Defendants claim Absolute witness immunity due to the Plaintifs complaint being premised on her testimony, The testimony of Swartz was predicated by unlawfully, without warrant, and without statutory authority seizing the Schwab children because She determined they were Children in need of care, as she testified to, She also ignored the maternal families crime of familial kidnapping and interference with parental custody, interrogated the children without their parents, refused to wait until the parents were contacted before initiating her interrogations, used coerced testimany, and did no investigation, Her actions created everything which followed and the Plaintfi’s have been recently made aware of other instances of Swartz coercing children to implicate their parents for child abuse. ‘The Plaintif’s have also been recently made aware of potential, related, disciplinary action against ‘Swartz which needs to be explored through the discovery process. RCPD, through other officers, refused to take a criminal complaint of kidnapping and interference with parental custody from Mr. Schwab, refuse to release documentation concerning the seizing of the Children, and continued to hang up on Mr Schwab when he attempted to file administrative complaints, The County commissioners office participated in the same behavior. No amount of due process or relief has been afforded to the Plaintiff's by any of these agencies as they Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 23appear to be working toward covering up the unlawful seizure of the children, Brownback The Plaintift’s have alleged and continue to allege defendant Brownbacks continued participation in Secretary Gilmore's “Kids for Cash” policies. Not only have the Plaintiff's made personally known to him what is going on but they believe he participated by consent, or participation concerning the violations of Mr. Schwab's civil rights while hunger striking on the State Capitol. This includes the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Schwab, the manner in which is was conducted, and the threats made against Mr. Schwab in the Shawnee County Jail after being stripped naked and thrown in a cell with blood and urine from another person. Mr Schwab confronted the Governor multiple times, in March/April 2016, and was threatened and harassed by the State Police and State officials as a consequence. The Schwab's presented all the evidence of the States violations of their constitutional rights to a direct Staff member of Brownback, and then was informed by that staffer that Brownback believed the State acted appropriately and would let Seoretary Gilmore deal withthe issue. Curently both DCF and St Francis hate multiple executive staff managing the Schwab case as all family support workers formerly have quit the case or no longer are assigned. Kaylee Possen will have to be found through the discovery process. The Plaintift's believe the director of DCF and Brownback are very engaged in this case and have assented to the violations rather than assist in remedying them. It is yet to be discovered how involved Brownback was in attempting to sabotage the Plaintifi’s joint Petition action for a grand jury but expect to explore those facts through the discovery process as well, These issues are simply to complex for a motion to dismiss to address. Pathways and Pawnee Both these contractors of State services have assisted the State Actors in a joint action by maintaing the false narrative used against the Schwab's They have restricting the Schwabs from the Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 24therapeutic setting to address the lies the children are being forced to repeat, hid documentation from the Schwab's, participated in the force medication of Caleb without lawful parental consent and contrary to law and statue, unlawfully incarcerated Caleb Schwab, allowed case workers to sign for services without authority, and facilitated the fraud upon the Federal Government through these actions by qualifying the children for increased funding by allowing these civil rights violations to occur. Their actions resulted in the abuse of C.S. and his assault while in their custody. ‘The Plaintiff's assert, through information and belief, that these agencies facilitate the fraud upon Title IV and Medicaid through falsely diagnosing children with disorders and medicating them. This allows the State to receive increased incentives on the children, One such case which will be presented in these proceedings to demonstrate this pattern of fraud will be a family whose 5 year old was on 9 different psychotropic medications, including Xanex, which is a dangerous Benzodiazepine under supervision of DCF and St Francis. It is alleged, through information and belief, these agencies, in Joint action with State actors, have restricted information and thé children from the Plaintiff's to their fraud, Defendant PATHWAYS also used the April 27" Cott order to allow assist the state Kaylee Possen to unlawfully medicate C.S. : Vinduska, Debenham, Robinson and Johnson ‘The four attomeys named in the suit worked in a joint action with the other Defendant's to keep exculpatory evidence off the record, refused to file motions, appeals or call witnesses to assist the ‘Schwab's defense to the point Mr. Schwab and Mrs Schwab had to file their own motions. They consistently threatened the Schwab's that exercising their right to protest was only going to get their rights terminated, and worked more as advocates for the State rather than defense for the Plaintiff's. One such example is the affidavit of fact filed Sept 9, 2015 which Mr. Schwab was forced to file because Vinduska, Johnson, Fields, and Ingles continued to protect D.B. even though they knew the evidence supported that his letter was coerced and fabricated by the maternal family and police from Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 25the RCPD. Johnson refused to file appeals, and Robinson allowed the judge to keep orders off the record, lie on the record (Concerning the fabricated drug test) and did not challenge the constitutionality of the proceedings except to tell Mr Schwab to comply with the injustices. Robinson also waived Mr. Schwabs right to a Temporary Custody hearing which Mr. Schwab instructed him not to do which contributed to the due process violations. Ms. Johnson admitted to Mr and Mrs Schwab at the April 6 hearing that she knew the system was messed up and saw way worse examples than had occurred to the Schwab's, but that they would never win by exposing the injustice and civil rights violations but could count on having their rights terminated. Their other offenses are outlined in the complaint. The Plaintiff's would ask the court to review document 145, and further arguments will be outlined in the Plaintifi’s response to the remaining motions to dismiss, which will be filed timely. Conclusion ‘The Plaintiff's request the motion to dismiss be denied dite to jurisdiction being properly in the Federal Court for the relief and claims being presented. This is a matter of justice not only for the Plaintiff's, but for anyone who may come into contact with the Kansas Child welfare system. Systematic deprivations by secret courts which remove children from parents forever, through violations of law and due process should be the concer of every citizen. Signed this 14 day of Nov, 2016 e 1S) AMELIA SCHWAB In propria persona Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 26aap he _ T In propria persona CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 14th, 2016, I filed electronically with the clerk of court through email, and have sent notice of electronic filing to the following through the clerk of court, and by email. * Corliss Scroggins Lawson esq. Dept Children of Children and Families 555 S. Kansas Ave., 6" Floor Topeka, KS 66603 7 : Tel: 785-296-3967 ATTORNEY FOR KANSAS DCF AND PHYLLIS GILMORE Christopher A. Brackman, Esq. John G. Shultz, Esq. FRANKIE, SHULTZ AND MULLEN 7101 College BLVD., ste. $10 Overland Park KS 66210 * cbrackman@fsmlawfirm.com ischultz@fsmlawfirm.com ‘ATTORNEY FOR ST FRANCIS COMMUUNITY SERVICES AND KATHY BOYD Timothy J. Finnerty Esq. Jason Janoski ESQ, WALLENCE, SAUNDERS, AUSTIN BROWN &ENOCH'S Chia, 400 O.W. Garvey Center 200 W Douglas Witchita, KS 67202 Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 27Tel: 316-269-2100 Fax: 316-269-2479 tfinnerty@wallacesauders.com jjanoski(@wallacesaunders.com ATTORNEY FOR ANDY VINDUSKA Stephen O. Phillips, Esq, Office of the Attorney General 120 S.W. 10" Ave., 2"! Floor Topeka, KS 66612 Tel: 785-368-8421 Fax: 785-296-6296 slev si ks.gov ATTORNEY FOR JOHN BOSCH David R. Cooper, Esq. Seth Aaron Lowry, Esq FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER, & SMITH LLP 3550 SW Fifth Street Topeka, KS 66603 Tel: 785-232-7761 Fax: 785-232-7761 dcooper@fisherpatterson.com slowry@fisherpatterson.com ATTORNEY'S FOR SAM BROWNBACK, STATE OF KANSAS, PATHWAYS FAMILY SERVICES LLC., RILEY COUNTY POLICE DEPT., AND BARRY WILKERSON « J. Steven Pigg, Esq. FISHER, PATTERSON, & SMITH, LLP 3350 SW Fifth St. Topeka, KS 66603 TEL: 785-286-6632 FAX: 785-232-6604 @fisherpatterson. ATTORNEY FOR BLAKE ROBINSON. Mimi Doherty 920 Main St, Suite 1900 Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: 816-421-4000 Fax: 816-421-7880 med@deacvlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT LORA INGLES Michael C. Kirkham Tracy M. Hayes SANDERS, WARREN & RUSSELL LLP Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 2840 Corporate Woods 9401 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1250 Overland Park, KS 66210 PH: 913-234-6100 FX: 913-234-6199 m.irkham@swrllp.com thayes@swrllp.com ATTORNEYS FOR RILEY COUNTY KS. Response to DCF Motion to Dismiss 29