|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Karl Alan Schoenwalder, pro se
General Delivery, Woodland Park, Colorado 80863
973-535-2653 days
719-291-1434 evenings
This document is posted at http://www.tompeace.s5.com/karl.html
United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294-3589
Clerk’s Office: Room A-105. Civil Division:(303) 844-3433
Karl Alan Schoenwalder
v
Officer Valenzuela,
Colorado State Patrol,
Douglas County,
Joseph Burn III of Parker Towing,
Parker Towing, Inc,
Judge Susanna Meissner-Cutler,
Elected District Attorney Jim Peters,
Defendants
Case Number:
Document Number: 7130 Version 0.6
Complaint for Money Damages, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 42 USC 1893 et seq. and RICO 18 USC 1961 et seq.
“We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.” - Magna Charta
Table of Contents: (The blue words are hyperlinks. Click on them to go where indicated.)
List of Parties and their Nexus to the complaint - as specifically requested in this case.
I am a Private Attorney General
Plain Statement of Facts as required by FRCP rule 8.
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:
a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988; and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3), and (4);
b. Bivens v Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bivens.html 29 L Ed 2nd d 403 US 388, 91 S Ct 1999; and
c. This court has pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the breaches of duty and other common law offenses asserted herein.
2. Venue is proper here because all the parties work and reside here and because the location of the civil rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is here.
Venue based on Location of Parties and Events
3. All parties are residents of this judicial district.
4. All events herein transpired in this judicial district.
5. Venue is proper here in Medford, Oregon, pursuant to 28 USC 1391. 28 USC 1391 in pertinent part reads as follows:
28 USC 1391. Venue generally :
a. [Irrelevant: Pertains to diversity only.]
b. A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
i. a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
ii. a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
iii. a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
c. For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. In a State which has more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.
d. An alien may be sued in any district.
e. (Irrelevant: Defendant officer of U.S.) (f) (Irrelevant: Action against foreign state.)
6. Venue is proper in Colorado under 28 USC 1391 because this Colorado district is ”(ii) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”.
List of Parties and their Nexus to the complaint - as specifically requested in this case.
7. I also list the specific defendants in the paragraphs listing the causes of action.
8. All human parties are over the age of 21.
9. I, Karl Alan Schoenwalder, am the aggrieved party.
10. I am a Private Attorney General as the term is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Newman v Piggie Park (1968) 390 U.S. 400: http://www.tompeace.s5.com/piggie.html
11. I am not the only person aggrieved by traffic courts and angry out-of-control judges but I am the one who stands up today to say “Hey, this will not stand !”
12. When I do this for my own case I also do it as a public service to all other similarly situated persons.
13. This status of “Private Attorney General” entitles me to an award of attorney and expert fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988 et seq.
14. I am also entitled to fees pursuant to RICO 18 USC 1961 et seq.
15. I am entitled to triple damages pursuant to RICO.
16. I am entitled to punitive damages.
17. I want the po_lice to stop harassing me on Colorado (and every where else).
Plain Statement of Facts as required by FRCP rule 8.
18. Last July, I was stopped for driving on the shoulder. My car engine was failing and impeding flow of traffic on the Interstate.
19. I was imprisoned for five days, bond agents(3) were interfered with, no food, phone, or lawyer calls for three days.
20. No demanded probable cause hearing with me present (secrete on held).
21. Car seized, impounded and never given beck.
22. Now, a collection agent seeking funds from impound (another collection agent seeking funds for non payment of fine in another case from 2001 that was finalized August 2005).
23. I filed a cross-complaint and the charges were dropped and so was the case, before the cross-complaint was heard. I objected to the case being dropped before the cross-complaint was heard.
24. The following is a chronological summary of the facts:
25. I am not a resident nor citizen of Colorado.
26. This issue concerns the unfortunate and preventable incident, which occurred on July 9, 2004, at or about 6:15 P.M., and began at or near Surrey Ridge Road on Interstate Hwy 25, on what appeared to be the county of Douglas;
27. An agent of the Colorado State Patrol (CSP), Andres Valenzuela (Valenzuela), unlawfully arrested me. Officer Valenzuela, without lawful authority, and with force of arms, arrested the freewill use of my life, liberty, happiness and use of Church owned private property by stopping me for “driving on the shoulder.”
28. This is clearly not a malum in se act and furthermore, is allowed by Colorado state statute (C.R.S. 42-4-1001), hence, lack of probable cause. After actual notice to CSP agent that his action was unlawful, Valenzuela changed the issue to “no valid ID” when in fact I presented a valid Passport of my foreign Citizenship while on Missionary service.
29. After actual notice to CSP agent that his action was unlawful, Valenzuela then changed the issue to “no valid operators license” when in fact one is not required unless transporting people or goods for hire (US Supreme Ct). Valenzuela arrested and violently assaulted and battered me using force of arms in full view of the public by handcuffing me, forcing me into the patrol car, unlocking and unlawfully searching the Church automobile with another unknown CSP agent, against my will and in derogation of my express denial of consent;
30. Officer Valenzuela told me that his probable cause for the arrest relied on the fact that I was “driving on the shoulder” and so confirmed that in his affidavit on the record.
31. I did not submit to or consent to the arrest;
32. Officer Valenzuela and unknown other CSP searched my person and unlocked and searched the automobile (personal property) without consent and in the face of a specific refusal of consent to search by me and no one other than I could have given such consent;
33. Officer’s received ‘actual notice’ that their actions were unlawful. I, after the initial arrest, and upon the approach of Officer Valenzuela to my car window and request for documents, I informed the Officer I did not require a state driver license for Church missionary travel. Officer Valenzuela returned to his patrol car where he remained for approximately 5 to 10 minutes;
34. 4th Amendment to the Officers Constitution for the United States of America says there must be a crime - malum in se. Probable Cause cannot be satisfied without they’re being a crime associated with the act complained of
35. NO non consensual stop of a vehicle or person is authorized without there being a ‘crime’ therewith associated. A Terry Stop for “reasonable suspicion that a crime is or has been committed”, pursuant to Terry v Ohio U.S Supreme Court case establishing the Terry Stop Doctrine, can not be satisfied without there being a crime associated with the act complained of;
36. Officer Valenzuela allegedly charged me with 3 counts of state revised statute motor vehicle violations, civil violations with criminal penalties, a contractual money obligation;
37. State revised motor vehicle statute violations are Civil matters in almost all other states giving rise to the full faith and credit act;
38. Such state statutes are considered in law as being ‘quasi-criminal’ (meaning Civil not Criminal in nature) the elements of which are ‘quasi’ meaning civil contract or contract implied in law and ‘criminal’ relating to the enhanced standard of proof mandated upon the Plaintiff facilitating criminal due process rules;
39. Officer Valenzuela did, by threat of force of arms arrest, threaten and forcefully bind and incarcerate me with unnecessary delay (taken to jail for fingerprinting, photograph) without a judicial probable cause hearing and without judicial authority, hence, acting as judge, prosecutor, and executioner;
40. Officer Valenzuela did, by threat of force of arms arrest, threaten and forcefully bind and incarcerate me and hold me for bond on the civil matters above referenced and acting as a judicial officer under color of authority;
41. The STATE OF COLORADO and county of Douglas in full knowledge of the denied authority regarding criminal enforcement upon civil matters and as such knew or should have known that authorizing, aiding and abetting the actions of its employees, officer Valenzuela and the unknown named officers, were in direct contravention of there controlling constitutions;
42. An unknown named officer, first above mentioned, who was on scene at the site of the arrest did aid and abet, with force of arms and implied threat of bodily harm to me, the unlawful actions of officer Valenzuela;
43. Officer Valenzuela did have CHURCH PRIVATE property automobile seized, towed, and impounded under color or authority and without consent from the owner or steward in charge of said property – Karl Alan;
44. Officer Valenzuela broke the law whereas he did not issue a certified mail notice of impoundment to owner of automobile in deprivation of C.R.S. 42-13-106 under color of authority, abuse of office and oath to obey the law, violating basic long established law process, and neglected or refused his ministerial duty;
45. Joseph Burn III, Principal of Parker Towing, Inc., seized and towed the Church Private Property automobile to its impound yard in Parker Colorado;
46. Joseph Burn III, impersonating an Agent for the STATE OF COLORADO, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, did make unwarranted demands to have the automobile Titled, Registered, and Tagged to the STATE OF COLORADO as a condition for release of the automobile and the personal private property contained within the automobile;
47. Officer Valenzuela did attempt to insulate himself from responsibility for said arrest using the excuse that a Teller county warrant later discovered (really a warrant in error), existed as the Officer in concert with the county did hold me for bond on the civil matters this complaint rises out of;
48. Douglas county unknown named male Cross-Defendant officer(s)acting as jail intake officer(s), did refuse my access to telephone to call counsel for 48 hours specifically in deprivation to C.R.S. 16-3-402(1) and 16-3-403 Art. II, sec. 20 Colo. Const.;
49. This, in turn, means adequate time to prepare. The 6th and 1st amendments of the USA Constitution guarantee effective assistance of counsel and the right to associate and petition for redress. The history of the law in this country has been the increasing awareness and application of the dignity and worth of the Sovereign man. These values are reflected in the decisions of the US Supreme Court. Apparently CSP and Douglas county deputies and their conspirators are unaware of the decisions of the Supreme Court over 30 years ago that require a hearing before you take away a Sovereign mans liberty.
50. Douglas county unknown named female Cross-Defendant officer(s)acting as jail intake officer, who was seen by me to critically denounce my religious convictions, did have me confined in an unsanitary punishment cell where the ice cold steel bench was the only place to sit down as punishment for not cooperating by consenting to provide information to their liking in deprivation to C.R.S. 16-3-401(1) and Art. II, sec. 20 Colo. Const.;
51. County of Douglas’ other unknown named jailer officer(s), in concert with said unknown named female intake jailer officer did utter veiled threats against the person of Karl Alan and did refuse to provide food, adequate bedding and blankets to me for approximately 48 hours as punishment for not cooperating by consenting to provide information to their liking in deprivation to C.R.S. 16-3-401(2) and Art. II, sec. 20 Colo. Const.;
52. Unknown Douglas county officer functioning in the capacity of jailer did, by force of arms and threat of bodily injury to me and without valid court order take my private property finger prints and photograph over my protest, objection, and without my consent in contravention of my Right to be secure in my person and my property against unreasonable seizure and in disregard for Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. They were informed regarding the fact that my fingerprints are my private property which cannot be taken over my objection and protest without a valid court order;
53. Unknown Douglas county officer functioning in the capacity of jailer did, inflict cruel and unusual punishment in abrogation of Art. II, section 20, by interfering with the bail process not once, not twice, but three times;
54. Susanna Meissner-Cutler, acting as county judge by threat of force of arms, forcefully bind and incarcerate me and hold me for bond on the civil matters above referenced by and through an ex parte probable cause hearing 4 days after initial arrest under color of authority;
55. Susanna Meissner-Cutler, acting as county judge denied me Assistance of counsel, under color of authority, at every step of the proceedings entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
56. Susanna Meissner-Cutler, acting as county judge denied me a probable cause hearing, under color of authority, entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
57. Susanna Meissner-Cutler, acting as county judge denied me to know the nature (what law) and cause (how it applies to me) of the accusations against me, under color of authority, entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
58. Susanna Meissner-Cutler, acting as county judge denied me a jurisdictional challenge, under color of authority, entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
59. Susanna Meissner-Cutler through abuse of office and oath to obey the law, irreparable injured me, giving differential a unequal treatment under the law which intentionally irreparably harms and prejudices me in a way not correctable upon appeal, violates basic long established law process, is a ministerial duty neglected or refused, creating a Bill of Pains and Penalties and slow corruption of blood. Therefore, Susanna Meissner-Cutler is unfit to be a public servant;
60. Jim Peters, by and through his Assistants, acting as district attorney, by threat of force of arms, forcefully bind and incarcerate me and hold me for bond on the civil matters above referenced by allowing an ex parte probable cause hearing 4 days after initial arrest under color of authority;
61. Jim Peters, by and through his Assistants, acting as district attorney, allowed denial of my having Assistance of counsel, under color of authority, at every step of the proceedings entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
62. Jim Peters, by and through his Assistants, acting as district attorney, allowed denial of my having a probable cause hearing, under color of authority, entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
63. Jim Peters, by and through his Assistants, acting as district attorney, allowed denial of my having to know the nature (what law) and cause (how it applies to me) of the accusations against him, under color of authority, entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
64. Jim Peters, by and through his Assistants, acting as district attorney, allowed denial of my having a jurisdictional challenge, under color of authority, entered into the record on a ‘Inmate Kite’ and orally presented at purported first appearance;
65. Jim Peters, by and through his Assistants, acting as district attorney, through abuse of office and oath to obey the law, irreparable injured me, giving differential a unequal treatment under the law which intentionally irreparably harms and prejudices the Petitioner in a way not correctable upon appeal, violates basic long established law process, is a ministerial duty neglected or refused, creating a Bill of Pains and Penalties and slow corruption of blood. Therefore, Jim Peters is unfit to be a public servant;
66. A Man deserves the respect and help of the courts to protect and uphold his rights, privileges and immunities as expressed in Wynehamer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378, "All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private rights, and Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, which duty is a debt owed to its creator, We The People and the private unenfranchised [Man]; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No Matter what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised [Man] owes nothing to the government."
67. Authority to arrest pursuant to matters civil in nature are specifically denied to all State actors, and on behalf of all State and Sovereign men by the probable cause, and reasonable suspicion related to facts above and by CRS 16-3-102;
68. That the people ought to be secure in their persons, papers, houses, and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or thing can issue, without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. U.S.A. Constitution
69. And, for all People; U.S. citizens, State Citizens, Sovereign men, and visitors pursuant to; Colorado Constitution Article II BILL OF RIGHTS Section 7, 1876
70. Section 7. Security of person and property – searches – seizures – warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may be; nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.
71. As such, neither Douglas county nor the STATE OF COLORADO nor employees of either have any authority whatsoever to arrest in the matters weather civil or criminal due to a lack of probable cause;
72. "Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime." Justice Douglas in Terry v. State of Ohio 88 S.Ct. 1868.
73. The legislature of the State of Colorado has no authority to promulgate statutes that are not in pursuance of the Constitution of this state and as such CRS 42-2-102 is over broad in its construction and CRS 42-4-1409 and a host of other such statutes are unconstitutional with respect to any authority given for any matter not criminal in nature pursuant to the Fact next above written and the Facts related to probable cause and reasonable suspicion above referenced;
74. State of Colorado is not alleging a criminal violation on the initial contact (see Valenzuela’s probable cause affidavit in the record). At no time did I commit any criminal act nor was I cited for any criminal act whatsoever nor was officer Valenzuela in possession of any cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime was or had been committed;
75. State of Colorado lacks standing. In order to have standing to bring and sustain the charges in the matter its complaint emerges from; the State of Colorado would be compelled to prove that harm has occurred and that harm occurred to any one of the People of the State of Colorado.
76. The State of Colorado has not alleged that a harm occurred or that the State of Colorado has, as a first person victim, been harmed in any way nor has the state offered to bring forth any individual that can demonstrate a cognizable harm occurring. What the state has done is ignored the letter of the law by unlawfully and criminally forcing a civil matter prior to its adjudication and the court is demonstrating a lack of impartiality by providing process upon which any defendant similarly charged would be denied lawful due process under color of judicial authority;
77. Purported judge Cutler, at a purported “first appearance” via. video electronics, was asked questions with particular reference to my right to have a probable cause hearing with me present; right to have counsel present at every step of proceedings; to challenge jurisdiction; Etc. as evidenced in the record (See jail “inmate Kite” dated 7/11/04)
78. Response to my questions from Cutler were negative and not protective of my Liberty, Life, Property, and well-being.
79. I ask for a $1 million in compensatory damages as itemized in Appendix 1.
80. I ask for $3 million in punitive damages as itemized in Appendix 2.
Prayer: Injunctive Relief.
81. I ask that the court order defendant County to build a new jail with a law library and other modern accouterments.
82. I ask the court to appoint an expert to supervise the jail and to devise means to immediately assure that inmates are afforded constitutional rights.
83. I ask that the court order the immediate release of all traffic offenders pending the building of a new jail.
84. I ask for the return all my court records including all signatures, fingerprints, photographs, and other property taken, both originals and any copies, including but not limited to electronic files, as explained by Davis supra.
85. Reasonable costs, expenses and fees including legal counsel, paralegal or research fees incurred in bringing and maintaining this action under section1988 which exact amount is unknown at this time.
86. And, such other and further relief which this Court may deem just, proper and equitable.
87. I demand a jury.
Signed__________________Karl Alan Schoenwalder, pro se. Date: _____ 2005