and official Capacities )
4. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, in order to evade compliance with state laws of record keeping, and in retaliation against Plaintiff Christopher Brown for his attempted use of 14th Amendment rights, defendants are conducting a conspiracy through deprivation of and against citizens rights beginning May 16, 1997 under color of law TITLE 18 U.S.C., PART I, CHAPTER 13 Sec. 241. The conduct deprived Plaintiff BROWN of equal protection of law in nearly any form, also depriving him of medical information, treatment and economic recovery from fraud, repeatedly engaging in egregious and outrageous misuse of its governmental powers. This conduct extends to the district attorneys office child support division conspiring with members of the judiciary, conspiring with the public defender, conspiracy in disguise on the highway, the sheriffs department and county council interfering with subpoenaed witness and evidence, failure to appear on subpoena, permitting and suborning perjury, tampering with the court transcripts and due process, providing false legal counsel; depriving the plaintiff of equal protection of law, TITLE 42, U.S.C. Sec. All this subjecting the plaintiff to fraud, impoverishing him, causing his eviction and rendering him medically impossible to diagnose correctly, preventing his medical treatment or acquisition of legal counsel. Currently defendants are seeking to render plaintiff criminal through contempt charges in the administrative family law courts for his failure to comply with an order to pay child support after defendant has suspended plaintiffs drivers license.
5. At issue is whether the awesome powers of law enforcement, the judiciary and prosecutorial agencies of Santa Barbara are being used for legal and ethical ends, or whether these agencies have, in this and other previous cases, used the power of the state for corrupt and self serving ends, to oppress those individual persons, and classes of persons, that might attempt to use the legal systems to gain lawful performance from local governments.
6. Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER BROWN brings this legal action to obtain injunctive relief as protection from misuse of state powers, federal intervention into state matters, and specific performance from the defendants to gain relief from injustice and medical information/treatment as needed, according to state government code, as his only recourse for medical treatment and protection under law from being eventually rendered criminal by the defendants of SANTA BARBARA COUNTY as he simply lives his life, trying too avoid being damaged any further than he already is and to seek treatment for damage done.
7. CO plaintiffs have a claim to specific performance relating to deprivations of medical information from civil rights violations in this case of a citizen and the inherent value of medical information a citizen subpoenaed or requested with the FOIA. The legal actions of a citizen met with corrupt, self serving evasion of duty instead of equal protection of law from a municipality while trying to secure a safer environment for his/her children with medical information and CO plaintiffs were deprived of those benefits.
8. Defendants have generally violated the Law Enforcement Misconduct Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 14141§ 14141. or Cause of action by the US Attorney for complaint, (a) Unlawful conduct for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was violated when equal protection of law was not provided in the Defendant COUNTY's courts or through its officers and because of that, all Plaintiffs children were collectively deprived of medical treatments protecting them and greatly improving their conditions of health, mental health, rehabilitation and training.
9. With the protection of law, Plaintiff BROWNs actions would have reasonably lead to significant advances in medical treatments for all plaintiffs or their families and children, ultimately assuring needs of survival through good health via uses of medical information from the alleged absent court records, or indirectly at least, verifying the records relation to potential medical treatment by COUNTY appearance with the associated arrest and booking records subpoenaed in 1998.
10. Many civil rights and state laws, and laws of due process in Plaintiff BROWNS legal actions effecting CO plaintiffs families over all well being have been violated. Federal laws of freedom of information have also been violated by Defendant when plaintiff Brown attempted to initiate experimental treatments through the county mental health department with the directors support; these violations motivate all plaintiffs to seek specific performance relative to the authority of the federal court in aid of its jurisdiction over civil rights to compel conformance with California state laws of record keeping by defendants, and enforce federal laws of freedom of information, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Amd. Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048,(2) (C) manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; in this case procedures and development of feasible, accepted medical treatments, for the public benefit, under the authority of the above cited United States codes.
12. Plaintiff KATHLEEN OUSEY is an unmarried woman and at all times pertinent to this complaint was a resident of the County of Santa Barbara
13. Plaintiff LINDA RUIZ is an unmarried woman and at all times pertinent to this complaint was a resident of the County of Santa Barbara
14. Plaintiff MARGARET COUSINS is a married woman and at all times pertinant to this complaint was a resident of the County of Santa Barbara.
15. Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA (hereinafter "COUNTY") is a duly constituted governmental entity in the state of California and is at all time relevant to this complaint, the employer of defendants County Counsel, SHANE STARK, SUPERVISOR SUSAN ROSE, District Attorney THOMAS SNEDDON, Public Defender JAMES EGAR, Commissioner COLLEEN STERNE and as yet unidentified individual employees designated as DOES 1-10
16. As a COUNTY supervisor and Defendants supervisor, Defendant SUSAN ROSE (hereinafter, ROSE) is a board member responsible for appointment, supervision, discipline and dismissal. As an elected official, supervisor ROSE may be accurately considered a decision maker for the Defendant COUNTY. ROSE is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
17. COUNTY Counsel SHANE STARK (hereinafter "STARK") is an employee of the COUNTY has a responsibility to provide counsel to the COUNTY supervisors and other departments and a duty to the public to oversee the legal affairs of the COUNTY in accord with public safety and interest. He may be accurately considered a decision maker for the Defendant County. STARK is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
18. District Attorney, THOMAS SNEDDON (hereinafter "SNEDDON") is an employee of the Defendant and responsible for the hiring, training, retention, supervision, discipline, retraining and dismissal of the District Attorneys Office. As an elected official and District Attorney for the Defendant COUNTY he may be accurately considered a decision maker for the Defendant County. SNEDDON is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
19. Deputy District Attorney, KELLY MCLAUCHLIN (hereinafter "MCLAUCHLIN ") is an employee of the Defendant and responsible for constitutional conduct as an attorney for the Defendant COUNTY and knew of, or should have known of the civil rights violations and is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
20. Commissioner COLLEEN STERNE, (herinafter "STERNE") is an employee of the Defendant and responsible as a magistrate or officer of the court to observe the US Constitution. As an elected official and court official for the Defendant COUNTY she may be accurately considered a decision maker for the Defendant County. STERNE is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
21. Public Defender JAMES EGAR, (hereinafter "EGAR") is an employee of the Defendant and responsible for the hiring, training, retention, supervision, discipline, retraining and dismissal of the Public Defenders Office. As an elected official and Public Defender for the Defendant COUNTY he may be accurately considered a decision maker for the Defendant County. EGAR is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
22. Deputy Public Defender RAI MONTES DE OCA, (hereinafter "DE OCA") is an employee of the Defendant and responsible for constitutional conduct as an attorney for the Defendant COUNTY in the publics behalf and knew of the civil rights violations and is considered a part of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint.
27. At the DEBTORS EXAMINATION STERNE was presented the evidence from the small claims hearing through a request for judicial notice and admitted that she had not seen the evidence against the small claims defendant of the case heard March 30, 2004. Defendant MCLAUCHLIN witnessed the exchange and had access to the file, wherein as attorney for the COUNTY District attorneys office, knew, or should have known Plaintiffs Constitutional rights had been violated and ceased persecution later, 18 U.S.C., PART I, CHAPTER 13 Sec. 241, by bringing a contempt charge against Plaintiff. Plaintff BROWN had arranged to have witnesses in the courtroom that day.
28. Since that time Plaintiff BROWN's drivers license has expired and the District Attorney has suspended it for arrearages of child support and has filed an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT against Plaintiff BROWN to be heard April 14, 2006.
29. On 11-10-05, Plaintiff BROWN obtained court transcripts of the DEBTORS EXAMINATION (EXHIBIT ONE) to find they have been altered with the inquiry and answer concerning the small claims evidence, civil rights violations, removed. Conspiracy, 14th Amendment 42 U.S.C § 1983 and violation of state law, California Rules of Court, Sec. 30,(3)(vi),(5)(ii)(iii). Under such conditions, on February 13, 2,006 Plaintiff BROWN requested in writing that the deputy public defender make a motion to disqualify STERNE which included a written statement from a witness in court on March 30, 2004, (EXHIBIT TWO) with the altered transcripts attached, and was refused by Deputy PUBLIC DEFENDER, RAI MONTES DE OCA, a motion to disqualify commissioner STERNE. Defendant EGAR is responsible to supervise DE OCA and was also given the written statement.
31. Plaintiffs allege Plaintiff BROWN has been subjected to civil rights violations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including malicious prosecution in retaliation, abuse of process, violation of substantive and procedural due process rights, violation of equal protection rights, the assistance of legal counsel and impartial trial pursuant to the 14th and 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff BROWN is known to CO Plaintiffs as an proponent of advanced mental health care, generally, and specifically related to recovery, rehabilitation and prevention of substance abuse damaging families. When Defendant COUNTY failed to appear and did not respond to the FOIA of a citizen it was a direct deprival of information to Plaintiffs. Then the COUNTY used its courts to deprive Plaintiff BROWN of equal protection of law repeatedly and the CO Plaintiffs advocate for effective treatments was damaged, eliminating his ability to help them in obtaining their needs of appropriate medical treatment.
32. Plaintiffs allege the pattern and policy of discrimination with conspiratorial actions against Plaintiff BROWN, including participating in a code of silence and enforcing a continued code of silence intended to deprive the Plaintiff of facts, legally due, needed to gain legal counsel, medical treatment, recovery from fraud, develop medical treatments and there and other economic gains in a period from 1997 through the Debtors Examination of March 30, 2004, to the present; and that none have taken actions to withdraw from the conspiracy and plaintiffs assert that continued deprivations of U.S Constitutional right are inevitable.
XII. COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF BROWN FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF COUNTY TO RESTORE DAMAGE FROM DEFENDANTS DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.
35. Defendants deprivation of Plaintiff BROWNS 14th Amendment rights have caused $150,000 in frauds to go un recovered by him. The COUNTY failure to appear in 1998 deprived Plaintiff of large commercial gains and information providing the basis for medical treatment from subpoenaed records, preventing much damage, also having commercial value. Had the Defendants performed their duties as required, Plaintiffs child support arrears would have been paid years ago and no justification to suspend his drivers license would exist. To cease damaging Plaintiff BROWN, the Defendants of the Santa Barbara COUNTY District Attorneys office must perform immediate reparative duties and send a "Release Letter" to the California State Department Of Motor Vehicles reinstating Plaintiff BROWNS privilege to drive.
36. Plaintiff BROWN demands (1) that defendant be required specifically to perform said duties by the production of an order to the Defendant SNEDDON and Deputy District Attorney KELLY MCLAUCHLIN.
We recognize that Christopher A. Brown has been the sole proponent for the medical treatment we now understand as vitally needed for many of our family members and that the County of Santa Barbara has violated the mentioned laws and has suspended his drivers license, and now attempts to ajudicate that he is in contempt in a court, shows us a pattern of violating our Constitutional right repeatedly, and that the Public Defender appointed will not acknowledge the prejudice and act accordingly. Federal injunctive relief can protect his rights, our rights, and violations seen, indicate we have all been deprived. Shown this pattern of rights violations over 9 years, we believe the County Of Santa Barbara is using their authority to damage Christopher Brown and disable him from efforts of gaining legal accountability for record keeping and developing associated medical treatment;
and that he has been damaged and will continue to be damaged by the COUNTY without the requested intervention. We make this Declaration in support of the application for injunctive relief in protection of the original proponent of this appropriate medical treatment, and request with him, an order of specific performance.
The undersigned Declare under penalty of the laws of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date ______________________________________________ Linda Ruiz
Date ______________________________________________ Margaret Cousins
Date ______________________________________________ Kathleen Ouzey
40. Defendants had a duty to appear and failed, or interfered with the appearance of witness and evidence and this was proven to the magistrate of the State court of the COUNTY at trial in 1998. Plaintiff BROWN had a letter (EXHIBIT FOUR) from the subpoenaed employee of the COUNTY and the letter identifies Defendant STARKE as having interfered with appearance on subpoena. Plaintiff BROWN requested that the court find the subpoenaed witness of the COUNTY in contempt and was denied. All plaintiffs rely on the letter to evidence the failure to appear as well as Defendant STARKES culpability in the deprivation of plaintiffs Constitutional rights.
41. The failure to appear on subpoena by the Defendant COUNTY and individual defendants intrinsic to the conspiracy relating to the Defendants motives in continued violation of State laws, is evasion of duty or conformance with California State law, or the provisions of CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY code § 1370.4, then Defendant continued to act against the Plaintiffs rights. When Plaintiff BROWN began to bring the COUNTY into compliance with that law in presenting the issue of developing appropriate treatments to the Mental Health Department, then with his FOIA request of 2000 where defendant refused to act according to Federal Freedom of Information Laws, by default refusing to begin an appropriate health care service plan providing an external, independent review process to examine the COUNTY plan's coverage of decisions regarding experimental or investigational therapies presented to officers of the COUNTY medical departments by Plaintiff BROWN in 1999 and supported with their willingness to seek permission from higher authority to administer those treatments which is evidenced by a letter (EXHIBIT THREE) from the Senior Director of the COUNTY Mental Health Department.
42. The duty of the COUNTY was to appear on subpoena with the records. Pursuant of CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY code § 1370.4, as it might proceed, Plaintiffs would have opportunity to question the original subpoenaed witness and review the records if they are in the Defendants possession. Upon timely evaluation of the testimony and the import of the records, if existent, the Plaintiffs, with expert guidance and testimony per the above mentioned State code, the Defendants lawful guide for performance, could determine what acceptable performance is and who shall do it as agreed upon with Plaintiffs, in, and as ordered by this court.
42. Plaintiffs demand (1) that defendant be required specifically to perform said duties, (2) or co operate with Plaintiffs through the creation of a non profit corporation to develop appropriate treatments specific to historic needs of Plaintiffs and the general public, which the Defendant County can fund through court ordered payments of up to 20 million dollars
over 5 years time. (3) that if specific performance is not granted, plaintiffs have judgment against defendant to effect equitable relief in the sum of 2.5 million dollars for intitial development of treatments making them available to private use by development of refined procedure and then application with qualified experts and specialists to the public by the public for further development.
1. Injunctive relief as applied for restraining Defendants as corrective action in aid of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in Santa Barbara County.
2. An order for specific performance to the Defendants District Attorneys as requested.
3. Orders as needed, to be defined, compelling specific performance to gain information due by law from Defendants and cooperation towards development of appropriate medical treatments pursuant to state law.
4. For reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if representation is found.
Pro se plaintiff, Christopher Brown
Pro se plaintiff, Margaret Cousins
Pro se plaintiff, Linda Ruiz
Pro se plaintiff, Kathleen Ouzey