Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

1. Between about December 11 and 12, 2003, defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd used deceitful tactics using Ms. Barnes minor daughter, to relay statements to Ms. Barnes, with the intent to intimidate her from testifying at my trial.

2. As a direct and foreseeable result of said actions of defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, the daughter talked to Dorothy.

6. herein above, Minor 3 relayed said statement to her mother and thereafter, based on said statements Ms. Barnes fearing retaliation, did not testified on behalf of Mr. Ward at his trial.

7. On February 11, 2004, defendant judge John Quinlen refused to recuse himself from hearing further matters of Mr. Ward, where a person knowing all the facts would reasonably question his impartiality to Mr. Ward.

8. On December 15 and 16, 2003, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith knowingly and intentionally provided perjured testimony in the trial of Mr. Ward

9. On December 16, 2003, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles knowingly and intentionally provided perjured testimony in the trial of Mr. Ward.

10. On December 15 and 16, 2003, defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson maliciously prosecuted Mr. Ward at trial without jurisdiction and probable cause.

11. On February 11, 2004, defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon retracted a motion for a new trial filed by Mr. Ward, denying him the opportunity to redress the court of his grievances.

12. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all other paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set out herein.

13. Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Defendant judge John Quinlen, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, and John Does One through Nine, acted under false color of law and pursuant to their authority as law enforcement personnel and/or officers of the court.

14. On January 3, 2004 at about 10:00 a.m., while working out of the California Highway Patrol in the city of Lake Isabella, defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner made a routine stop on Mr. Ward's vehicle for an expired registration tag. A temporary moving permit for the vehicle was in his possession but his insurance card was expired.

15. Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner issued me a citation for no proof of insurance and stated he was going to impound my car.

16. Before a tow truck arrived, I unloaded personal property from my car to a parking lot.

17. Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner granted me permission to go make a phone call.

18. I sought to have current paperwork brought in order to avoid having my car impounded.

19. I left my drivers license in possession of defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner.

21. During that time, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell arrived at the location of defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, and thereafter, discovered that Mr. Ward had been pulled over

22. Subsequently, defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner transferred possession of Mr. Ward's drivers' license to defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell.

24. My first contact with defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell was at the time I left the store.

27. Newell pointed to the license and stated, "You don't live at this address, you live up in . . .”

28. I denied the allegation and walked back to me vehicle, which was now loaded onto the bed of a tow truck.

29. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell rejoined with defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner and instructed the tow truck driver to unload Mr. Ward's vehicle in order that he could search it.

30. Without warrant, or probable cause, defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner conducted a search of my car.

34. Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner asked me if I had lied about my residence address.

37. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell in a loud, angry voice stated "you're a liar" and "I don't like liars".

38. Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner in an angry voice said "I'm driving up to that address tomorrow, and if your not there I'm arresting you."

39. While I was in a highly emotional state induced by the events as herein above described, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell ordered me away from defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner so that Newell could check pulse rate.

40. By reason of the actions of defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner herein above described, the defendants knowingly and intentionally induced an emotional state in which caused my pulse rate to elevate.

41. Thereafter, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell used said pulse rate as fraudulent evidence against Mr. Ward as a symptom that he was in violation of H & SC § 11550(a).

42. Without warrant or probable cause, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell arrested me for violation of H & SC § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance.

44. Upon information and belief, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell has perpetrated the deceitful tactics herein above described against other similar situated Kern County citizens.

53. Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell conspired with defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner to arrest Mr. Ward in retaliation against him for testifying against two KCSD officers [defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela] and to deter Mr. Ward from further testifying in federal court.

157. On or about January 7, 2004 defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell prepared and submitted a false incident report to the Kern County Criminal Justice system, wherein defendant knowingly omitted from his official report and otherwise failed to reveal that he and defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner caused Mr. Ward to have an elevated pulse rate, in order to falsely infer Mr. Ward was in violation of H&SC § 11550(a) being under the influence of a CNS Stimulant.

54. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell failed to report factual evidence, which could establish that within the jurisdiction of the Kern County Superior Court I violated Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance. In particular, WHAT specific substance he was accused of having been under the influence, WHERE it was alleged he consumed said substance, and WHEN it was contended he consumed said substance. The KCSD incident report by defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell provides in pertinent part:

“During Officer Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner's investigation, I noticed WARD appeared to be very nervous and made every effort to avoid eye contact with me. I noticed as he spoke, his speech was rapid. I noticed his pupils appeared to be constricted for the lighted conditions. Due to the signs and systems WARD was displaying, I believed he was possibly under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant.

I had WARD perform the standing Rhomberg. He estimated 30 seconds when actually 21 seconds had past. I took his pulse and found it to be approximately 128 bpm. I noticed his pupils were constricted and slow to react to light stimuli. I also noticed he had eyelid and finger tremors and his muscle tone was extremely rigid.”

56. It is reasonable that I would not be making eye contact with defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell. Pupils are NORMALLY constricted in lighted conditions. It is reasonable that "due to the signs and systems" of rapid speech defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell believed Mr. Ward was possibly under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell states "his pupils were constricted and slow to react to light stimuli".

57. It's evident from that statement KCSD officers have NO training. In addition, "his muscle tone was extremely rigid" is evidence Mr. Ward WAS NOT under the influence of a CNS Stimulant.

58. As an officer of the KCSD, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell owed a legal duty to Mr. Ward to reveal the true and complete facts in his official report in regards to said detention on January 3, 2004.

59. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner have willfully failed and refused to inform any other person or governmental entity, by official report or otherwise, of the true and complete facts of the arrest of Mr. Ward on January 3, 2004.

60. On or about January 13, 2004, Defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson conspired with defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell by knowingly accepting the false allegations in his report, which he knew or reasonably should have known failed to establish probable cause that Mr. Ward was in violation of H&SC § 11550(a).

61. Defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson falsely testified as a complaining witness against Mr. Ward under penalty of perjury, that all the information in complaint DA Case: COM 0504780, was by his belief true and correct that Mr. Ward did use or be under the influence of a controlled substance [CNS Stimulant].

62. On February 4, 2004 Mr. Ward made his first appearance before the Superior Court of California, Kern County, on defendant's complaint, which charged a violation of H&SC § 11550(a). Said complaint failed to apprise Mr. Ward of the charge against him because the complaint alleged violation of a penalty statue only, and did not inform Mr. Ward of the substantive statues or codes with which he had allegedly violated. Therefore, Mr. Ward expressed to the Court a desire to demur to the charge. Subsequently, arraignment was trailed to February 11, 2004, and Mr. Ward remained out of custody released on his own recognizance.

63. On February 11, 2004, I appeared before presiding judge defendant judge John Quinlen and by means of oral motion, moved to disqualify defendant judge John Quinlen on grounds of his bias toward me as set forth elsewhere in this complaint.

66. Defendant judge John Quinlen refused to recuse himself and thereafter remanded Mr. Ward to custody of the Sheriff after imposing sentence.

67. Defendant judge John Quinlen reversed the order for OR release and set bail at $2,500.

69. We they took me into custody, 4 unknown defendant officers seized all me legal papers, including a motion to dismiss and a demurrer.

70. Attorney Douglas Palaschak reports that police did the same thing to him in Illinois.

75. On February 15, 2004 I submitted requests to the KCSD Detention Facility to access my legal papers and the law library.

78. On February 25, 2004, Mr. Ward, without benefit of counsel appeared before a biased Judge, defendant judge John Quinlen.

87. I met and conferred with defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson.

a. plead guilty to Possession of Paraphernalia time served and stipulate to a search clause added to probation, or

94. As a proximate result of the acts of the defendants, as herein above described, defendants denied me my due process right to have adequate notice of the charges against me, to be free without excessive bail, to have a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present a defense, and to have a fair hearing before an unbiased judge, all while in custody.

95. Throughout my time incarcerated in the KCSD facility, while in pro per on criminal charges, I was subjected to inappropriate policies or customs inflicted upon me.

96. Mr. Ward witnessed the actions herein described being perpetrated against other inmates who were representing themselves In pro per on criminal charges.

99. Shortly thereafter, I filed a motion to withdraw my plea of nolo contendere.

100. On or about April 10, 2004, I filed a motion to disqualify defendant judge John Quinlen from hearing further matters based upon grounds of bias.

102. On April 21, 2004, defendant judge John Quinlen refused to recuse himself and denied Mr. Ward's motion to disqualify, and thereafter denied motion to withdraw his plea of nolo-contendere.

103. On April 21, 2004, Mr. Ward timely filed two Notices of Appeal and a Notice to Prepare Reporter's Transcripts for the orders by defendant judge John Quinlen denying Mr. Ward's Motion to Withdraw Plea and Motion to Disqualify.

April 23, 2004: I was laid off. Could no get security clearance due to 2 misdemeanors.

104. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the defendants herein described, defendants denied Mr. Ward due process of two unlawful misdemeanor convictions.

105. Mr. Ward was laid off from his employer on April 23, 2004; due to the two misdemeanor convictions of the instant action he could not get a security clearance.

106. On or about May 26, 2004, the Court returned me my notice of appeal and a letter stating the reason for the return as: "NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY OR NO CONTEST WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF GOOD CAUSE"

107. On June 14, 2004, I refiled my two Notices of Appeal along with a Notice to the Clerk of Error and Good Cause to Continue Appeal requesting the Clerk to process his Notices of Appeal.

108. On or about July 1, 2004, the Clerk refused to process two notices of appeal.

109. On August 7, 2004, Mr. Ward submitted to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, in Kern Count, a Writ of Mandate to compel the Clerk to process said Notices of Appeal and to provide Mr. Ward the record ordered.

110. On or about August 30, 2004, defendant Presiding Judge Kenneth C. Twisselmann II denied Mr. Ward his petition for a writ of mandate under the false pretense "DENIED AS MOOT". At time referred, neither had said Notice(s) of Appeal been processed, nor had the record ordered been provided to Mr. Ward.

111. Defendant Presiding Judge Kenneth C. Twisselmann II knew or reasonably should have known that Mr. Ward had a due process right to have his Writ of Mandate processed and to issue a decision based on the merits of the pleading. Defendant owed Mr. Ward a legal duty to issue an Order that either grants relief or denies but does not lie.

112. By the actions of the defendant Presiding Judge Kenneth C. Twisselmann II as herein above described, defendant denied the record for appeal to me.

113. Having been denied an arraignment, access to his legal documents and law library in order to prepare a defense, reasonable bail, a fair hearing before a neutral Judge, the record for appeal, and relief from the Appellate Court, on October 12, 2004, I paid $12.00 to the Superior Court to obtain part of the record that should have been provided to him by his writ of mandate.

114. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omission of defendant Presiding Judge Kenneth C. Twisselmann II, as herein above described, defendants denied me my due process right to receive the record for his appeal without cost and undue delay.

115. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

116. On or about April 7, 2004, at approximately 11:30 p.m. Jennevie and I were driving about 30 miles west from our home in Lake Isabella pulling a travel trailer en route to Los Angeles where I work as a union pipefitter.

117. A Kern County Sheriff deputy made a stop on my vehicle for an expired registration tag on the our travel trailer.

118. Soon defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela arrived.

119. These two are out to get me since I previously testified at Dorothy’s prelim and proved Pamela to be a perjurer.

120. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell asked me where he was going with the trailer.

121. I that we were on their way to Los Angeles in order that I could return to work

123. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell asked me if I had a search clause on his probation.

125. Without warrant or probable cause, defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela searched my trailer.

127. I did not consent to the defendant's unlawful entry and search of my residence.

128. The original officer who pulled me over issued me a citation for expired registration.

Lying cop Pamela and Newell search my trailer and order another cop to ticket me.

129. Thereafter, defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela alleged to have found drug paraphernalia inside Plaintiff's trailer.

131. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell ordered the officer issuing Mr. Ward a ticket to "cite Mr. Ward for drug paraphernalia".

132. The officer who cited me did not participate in the search of Plaintiff's trailer and had no knowledge of defendants allegation of finding drug paraphernalia. Neither was Mr. Ward given a sobriety test, nor checked for drugs.

133. As a proximate result of defendants' actions Mr. Ward was charged with Health & Safety Code § 11364 Possession of drug paraphernalia.

134. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs maintain that defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela did not have probable cause to enter and search their home, that defendants did not find drug paraphernalia inside Plaintiffs home, and that the defendants either planted the drug paraphernalia or it was in their possession at the time of their unlawful entry and illegal search.

135. Defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela conspired to falsely convict Mr. Ward in retaliation for testifying against defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, and to deter me from testifying against the officers in federal court.

136. I filed a Pitchess motions against defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela.

137. Following an in camera review by the Court on July 2, 2004, I won my motion to dismiss the charge of Health & Safety Code § 11364 .

In only 3 years, Newell has had 23 citizen complaints of planting evidence and other misconduct

138. Upon information and belief, at said time of charges, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell was a Kern County Sheriff's Department officer for approximately 3 years, during which time over 23 citizen complaints had been filed against him include but not limited to, planting evidence (paraphernalia), submitting false reports, illegal search and seizure, and false charges.

139. Upon information and belief, each defendant alleged herein to have committed perjury by testimony, report, or otherwise against the Plaintiffs, did so under an unconstitutional policy or custom promulgated and administered by defendants County of Kern, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels all under the authority, direction, and control of defendant Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

140. In particular, law enforcement and court officials of the Kern County Sheriff's Department, Kern County District Attorney's office, and the Kern County Superior Court, have developed and maintained a policy, pattern and practice wherein "law enforcement and court officials who commit perjury by testimony, report, or otherwise, are immune from prosecution for committing said acts." Kern County deputy district attorneys will not bring charges against said officials, not excluding that there is clear and convincing evidence, multiple offenses, and said testimony caused innocent citizens to be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

141. At the time cited, that I was held to answer for the charge of perjury by Kern County District Attorney, not withstanding a violation of my constitutional right, no complaint was filed against the D.A. because the D.A. acted in accordance with his duty of law.

142. Defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and the COUNTY owe Mr. Ward and Jennevie a legal duty to not withhold evidence from the criminal justice system and to provide equal protection under the laws of this state to prosecute the defendants who committed perjury against them

143. Upon information and belief, defendant officers Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell arrested and charged Mr. Ward under an unconstitutional California law, policy or custom promulgated and administered by defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and the COUNTY under the authority, direction, and control of defendant Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

144. In particular, under California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) defendant officers were only required to allege in an opinion that Mr. Ward displayed symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance. The Defendants listed his symptoms as unable to remain still, blank stare, and fast speech, which are all consistent with symptoms of Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder. Defendants arrested Mr. Ward and accused him of violation of H&SC § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance because he displayed symptoms of his disability.

145. On or about October 15, 2004, I discovered that defendants Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon and Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson knowingly and unlawfully withheld exculpatory evidence from me in regards to said charges on September 18, 2003.

146. In particular, defendants withheld a page from the Sheriff's report entitled DRUG INFLUENCE WORKSHEET – BACK, form Sheriff 580 2210 784 BACK (R. 9/99), which provides in pertinent part:

147. A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CHARGING YOU WITH BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF NARCOTICS OR DRUGS MAY BE FILED AGAINST YOU. A SAMPLE OF YOUR URINE OR BLOOD WILL BE TESTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE DRUGS IN YOUR BODY. YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE THIS SAMPLE. NOR DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK WITH AN ATTORNEY.

IF THE URINE OR BLOOD TEST SHOWS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE DRUGS IN YOUR BODY, THE CHARGE OF BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE MAY NOT BE FILED.

IF YOU ARE, IN FACT, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, THE URINE OR BLOOD TEST MAY SHOW THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS IN YOUR BODY AND THE TEST RESULTS WILL BE ADMISSIBLE

YOUR REFUSAL TO GIVE A URINE OR BLOOD SAMPLE WILL BE OFFERED IN COURT AS EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.

IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY ON PAROLE OR PROBATION. YOUR REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A URINE OR BLOOD SAMPLE MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL CHARGES BEING FILED

148. At the time the defendants arrested, prosecuted, and defended Mr. Ward, defendants knew that Mr. Ward was a civil rights activist. Neither did defendants or any other court official provide Mr. Ward with said document, which was part of said report.

149. As a civil rights activist, Mr. Ward was obliged to resist unconstitutional California laws or policies that offend the United States Constitution. At the time Mr. Ward refused the defendant officers request to submit to a drug test, he was defending the U. S. Constitution. Printed within said form it clearly states the policy or custom promulgated and administered by defendants Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and Kern Count.

150. As a direct and proximate result of defendants policy or custom cited herein above, defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson used said policy against Mr. Ward at time of his trial accusing him of violation of Penal Code Section 273.5(a) and Health & Safety Code § 11550(a), by offering to the jury as evidence of Mr. Wards "CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT" for his refusal to speak with defendant officers following defendants Miranda reading. Defendants failed to disclose and withheld from said jury that said Miranda reading was given to Mr. Ward at the Sheriff's sub-station, and that as a matter of fact he did speak with the defendants at time of said arrest. The trial judge defendant judge John Quinlen and defendants, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and the COUNTY permitted, approved, and ratified said policy.

151. As a further direct and proximate result of the a defendants' acts, law, policy, custom, and conspiracy, Mr. Ward was made to look guilty in front of the jury for protecting his right to remain silent, which caused the jury to find Mr. Ward guilty because Defendants policy implies that a refusal to comply with defendant officers is evidence of that persons guilt.

152. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

153. Following the filing of the complaint in the instant action on September 17, 2004, Mr. Ward began working on a class action lawsuit against defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Kern Count, and its supervisors for the patterns and practices including some but not limited to the allegations cited in paragraph 2. In preparation, Mr. Ward frequently assembled with parties of said suit at Plaintiffs residence located at 3476 Jeffery Way, in Lake Isabella.

154. On or about November 12, 2004, Mr. Ward was subpoenaed by the Kern County Public Defenders' office to appear as a witness in the Kern County Superior Court on November 29, 2004, and December 13, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the matter of People vs. Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith.

155. I was to provide testimony against Kern County Sheriff's Department officer, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell. The Kern County District Attorney, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and/or prosecutors under his authority, direction, or control, had withheld evidence during Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smiths' Pitchess motion in camera review.

156. On or about November 28, 2004, at approximately 10:30 p.m., defendant officers Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis, were caught by, Joanne Hoffman (hereinafter "Ms. Hoffman"), sneaking around her residence located on Jeffery Way.

157. Upon being caught, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis yelled in a threatening voice "Get back in your house".

158. Shortly thereafter, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis knocked on the door of Ms. Hoffman and stated, "We want to bust the people living in the log cabin for drugs".

159. Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis requested from Ms. Hoffman if she would falsely claim Plaintiffs were selling drugs. Ms. Hoffman refused defendants' request and informed the Plaintiffs and other neighbors of defendants' said actions.

160. Upon information and belief, defendants have perpetrated the same acts against other similar situated Kern County citizens, which in fact are parties of said class action suit.

161. On December 3, 2004, at approximately 10:30 P.M., Plaintiffs were at their said residence. Mr. Ward had just finished assembling with two parties of said class action suit and was in his office working on the instant action.

162. At the Kern Valley Hospital, about 1:00 a.m., defendants requested forced bloods on the Plaintiffs, which were denied. In response to Plaintiffs' protests and said challenge, which proved to be right, defendants charged Plaintiffs with an additional charge of PC § 148 (a) resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer who was then and there attempting to or discharge the duty of his office or employment.

163. On December 7, 2004, defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis in conjunction with each other submitted a false report to the Kern County criminal justice system. Defendants reported false and misleading statements, and failed to reveal the true and complete facts in their reports in regards to their said actions in the arrest of Plaintiffs, as herein above described.

164. At all relevant times, defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis failed to obtain and report factual evidence, which could establish that within the jurisdiction of the Kern County Superior Court, Plaintiffs violated Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance. In particular, WHAT specific substance they were accused of having been under the influence, WHERE it was alleged they consumed said substance, and WHEN it was contended they consumed said substance

165. On December 7, 2004, defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson conspired and agreed to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs with H & S C § 11550 (a).

166. On December 7, 2004, Plaintiffs appeared in the Kern County Superior Court in custody for arraignment on said charges before presiding judge, defendant judge John Quinlen.

167. At time referred, defendant judge John Quinlen knew a conflict of interest existed due to the Plaintiffs' allegations of the instant action, a pending appeal that Mr. Ward was challenging that Kern County did not have jurisdiction, on 2-11-04 before defendant judge John Quinlen, in case no. KM015073A, Mr. Ward had refused at sentencing to agree to probation, and that defendant judge John Quinlen had unlawfully entered a plea in his behalf on 2-25-04. Despite these conflicts, defendant refused to recuse himself from hearing the Plaintiffs' matter. Thereafter, defendant judge John Quinlen unlawfully entered a not guilty plea on behalf of Plaintiffs. Neither did counsel represent Plaintiffs, nor were Plaintiffs given notice of the charges against them. Further, Plaintiffs wished to demur. Thereafter, defendant judge John Quinlen raised each of the Plaintiffs' bail from $11,500 to $18,500.

168. On December 8, 2004, Plaintiffs appeared in the Kern County Superior Court in custody and before presiding judge defendant judge John Quinlen. The public defender assigned to represent Mr. Ward acknowledged that due to the instant action a conflict of interest existed, and he declined to represent him. Thereafter, Defendant judge John Quinlen continued to refuse to recuse himself from Plaintiffs' matter.

169. Plaintiffs in no way consented to defendants' said refusal or subsequent conduct, but protested until Plaintiffs' protests were overcome by the action of defendant judge John Quinlen, wherein he raised each of the Plaintiffs bail.

170. By reason of the actions of the defendants, as described in this action, Plaintiffs feared for their lives, safety, and an unfair trial before a biased judge, defendant judge John Quinlen. 234. The actions of the defendants, as herein above described, were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged and were committed either on the instruction of defendants, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and/or Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and/or Defendant judge John Quinlen, or with the knowledge and consent of these defendants, or were thereafter approved and ratified by these defendants in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged.

Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983: illegal entry and search. Defendant: sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, AND Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela.

171. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

172. The practices described above, including but not limited to, the illegal entry and searches of Plaintiffs' homes by defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela, and JOHN DOE TEN, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected the Plaintiffs to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as citizens of Kern County, the Plaintiffs have a liberty interest in personal security and freedoms in their homes from illegal entry and search.

173. At the time defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles searched Plaintiffs' homes, it was clearly established that permission to enter and search their home not be obtained by misrepresentation, and/or entered and searched without warrant, probable, or legal cause.

174. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and the County developed and maintained policies or customs of the Kern County Sheriff's Department exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs to personal security and freedoms in their homes from search by misrepresentation and/or without warrant, probable, or legal cause, and the denial of said rights.

175. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and the County failed to properly train officers, or employees, under their authority, as to their legal duties to not violate Plaintiffs' Constitutional right to personal security and freedoms in their home from search by misrepresentation and without warrant, probable, or legal cause. If training was provided, it was inadequate in relation to the tasks that the officers, or employees were required to perform and deficiencies in the training program were closely related to the damages to the Plaintiffs.

176. Defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and the County, are directly liable and equally responsible for the acts of defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, and the denial of the Plaintiffs' due process rights because they repeatedly and knowingly failed to enforce the Constitution of the United States by refusing to terminate policies or customs, which they knew or reasonably should have known, would cause the deprivation of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights.

177. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs were denied their right to personal security and freedoms in their home from search by misrepresentation and/or without warrant lawfully issued, probable or legal cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

178. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of their constitutional rights guaranteed them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

179. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants described above, Jennevie suffered physical injury in connection with the deprivation of her constitutional rights guaranteed her by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Cause of action: Jennevie and I against Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and Kern County for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by false arrest and imprisonment

180. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

181. The practices described above, including but not limited to, the arrest and detention of Mr. Ward by defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, without warrant, legal, or probable cause, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected Mr. Ward to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as a resident of Kern County, Mr. Ward had a liberty interest in his personal security and freedom from illegal arrest and unlawful detention.

182. At the time defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles arrested and imprisoned Mr. Ward for violation of H&SC § 11550(a), it was clearly established that an arresting officer must have evidence to establish probable cause of the violation charged before he makes an arrest.

183. As a Kern County citizen accused of being in violation of H&SC § 11550(a), defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles denied Mr. Ward his right to due process because defendants failed to put Mr. Ward on notice of a California statute that he could prepare and present a defense. In particular, said code notifies only of the penalty to the statue but does not aver to what substance that Mr. Ward was being accused.

184. Prior to September 18, 2003, officers of the Kern County Sheriff's Department routinely arrested Kern County citizens for violation of H&SC § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance, and denied those accused Kern County citizens of due process by failing to put them on notice, and without evidence, of WHAT particular controlled substance the accused was alleged to be under the influence, WHERE it is alleged the accused consumed the illegal substance, and WHEN it is contended the accused violated said law.

185. At the time defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles arrested and imprisoned Mr. Ward for violation of PC § 273.5(a) spousal abuse, it was clearly established that, Mr. Ward co-habitating with Jennevie, as her common-law husband of nine years, having been hit in the head with a hard object by Jennevie while sleeping, could administer one moderate strike upon Jennevie in order to stop a further attack within the meaning of the law of self-defense.

186. At the time of Mr. Ward's arrest by defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, defendants denied Mr. Ward his right to due process because no reasonably prudent officer in the position of investigating a non complaining citizen's allegation of a domestic altercation could establish probable cause as to a violation of spousal abuse, without first inquiring and obtaining relevant facts as to the series of events leading to the alleged altercation.

187. Prior to September 18, 2003, officers of the Kern County Sheriff's Department routinely arrested Kern County citizens for violation of PC § 273.5(a) spousal abuse, without inquiring and obtaining relevant facts as to the series of events leading to the alleged altercation to establish probable cause as to a violation of spousal abuse.

188. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and Kern County developed and maintained policies or customs of the Kern County Sheriff's Department exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of Mr. Ward to be free from arrest and detention without warrant, probable, or legal cause and the denial of said rights.

189. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and Kern County failed to properly train officers, or employees, under their authority, as to their legal duties to not violate Plaintiffs' Constitutional right to be free from arrest without warrant, probable, or legal cause. If training was provided, it was inadequate in relation to the tasks that the officers, or employees were required to perform and deficiencies in the training program were closely related to the damages to Mr. Ward.

190. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, Mr. Ward was denied his right to freedom from the seizure of his person without warrant lawfully issued, probable, or legal cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

191. As a direct and foreseeable result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward was held as a prisoner, from September 18, 2003, until September 27, 2003, under the charge of violation of H&SC § 11550(a), and PC § 273.5(a). Thereafter Mr. Ward was held as a prisoner, under a false conviction of PC § 273.5(a), from February 11, 2004, until March 9, 2004, and upon release subject to the term an conditions of probation for a period of three years required to pay fines in the amount over $200.00.

192. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as described above, Mr. Ward suffered from loss of employment, humiliation, a sense of insecurity, and loss of confidence in our justice system.

193. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as described above, Mr. Ward suffered and continues to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of his constitutional rights guaranteed him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cause of Action against. Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, AND Kern County

258. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 208 as though fully set forth herein.

194. By their actions as described herein, the Defendants, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected Mr. Ward to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as an accused misdemeanor defendant, the denial of Mr. Ward to have an expert witness called to testify at his trial, to have pre-trial motions heard on behalf of his defense, to have an actual discovery motion filed in his case (No Universal Discovery Motion), to have all evidence of the prosecution revealed before trial, to have competent cross-examine of the arresting officers, to redress the court for grievances, and to have adequate representation by an attorney who does not have an agreement with the arresting officers to not reveal acts of misconduct, constitutes restraint without adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard in violation of Mr. Ward's liberty interest.

195. Upon information and belief, defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon denied Mr. Ward's request to file his In pro se discovery motion under an unconstitutional policy or custom promulgated and administered by defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, wherein public defenders rely on a "Universal Discovery Motion" drafted by defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold and posted at some location within his office that compels the prosecution to disclose all evidence to his deputy public defenders.

196. Upon information and belief, defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon denied Mr. Ward's request to have expert witnesses called on his behalf to testify at his trial under an unconstitutional policy or custom promulgated and administered by defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, wherein public defenders are not allowed to call an expert witness on behalf of accused defendants in misdemeanor cases, and in the alternative misdemeanor defendants must rely on the testimony of the arresting officers as expert witnesses.

197. Upon information and belief, defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon has worked out of the same small town court system of the East Kern Judicial system for many years, and its reasonable to believe that after so many years of working with the same officers year in and year out that a public defender such as defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon would build a friendship with those officers. It's also reasonable to believe that when such a friendship is certain to occur after so many years, that when it comes time to reveal misconduct of that friend to a community of jurors, the defendants representation is most certain to be compromised, unless adequate safeguards and monitoring by supervisors has been put in place.

198. Upon information and belief, defendants Defendant judge John Quinlen, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles and each of them, conspired to set up an unconstitutional policy wherein defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon would not cross-examine defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles to any degree that would reveal misconduct by the defendant officers. Defendant Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon pretended to defend Mr. Ward while he did in fact actually defend the defendant officers. In addition, defendants conspired to practice the said policy during the cross-examination of Jennevie.

199. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policy of defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, as herein above described, Mr. Ward was not afforded the opportunity to have his In pro se Discovery Motion heard because deputy public defenders working under the direction, authority, and control of defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold rely on his "Universal Discovery Motion" to compel prosecutors automatic disclosure to all evidence.

200. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policy of defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, as herein above described, Mr. Ward was not afforded the opportunity to call expert witnesses at his trial and in the alternative was forced to rely upon testimony of the arresting officers as his experts, which affected the outcome of his trial.

201. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policy of defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, as herein above described, Mr. Ward was not afforded adequate cross-examination of the arresting officers, which affected the outcome of his trial.

202. Prior to September 18, 2003, it was clearly established that an accused misdemeanor defendant has a right to have expert witnesses called on his behalf at trial, to have pre-trial motions heard, to have adverse cross-examination of the witnesses against him, to have the means to redress the court for grievances, and to have adequate representation by an attorney.

203. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, and the COUNTY developed and maintained policies or customs of the Kern County Public Defender exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of Mr. Ward to have expert witnesses called to testify at his misdemeanor trial, to have pre-trial motions heard, to have adverse cross-examination of the arresting officers, to have the means to redress the court for grievances, and to have adequate representation by an attorney and the denial of said rights.

204. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, and the COUNTY failed to properly train officers, or employees, under their authority, as to their legal duties to not violate Mr. Ward's Constitutional right to due process, in particular, to have an expert witness called to testify at trial in his defense, to have pre-trial motions argued on behalf of his defense, to have adverse cross-examination of the arresting officers, to have the means to access the court and present a defense, and to have representation by an attorney. If training was provided, it was inadequate in relation to the tasks that the officers, or employees were required to perform and deficiencies in the training program were closely related to the damages to the Plaintiffs.

205. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, and each of them, Mr. Ward was denied his right to have an expert witness called to testify at his trial, to have pre-trial motions submitted on behalf of his defense, to adversely cross-examine defendant officers, to redress the court, and to have adequate representation by an attorney, as guaranteed by the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

206. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendants, and each of them, Mr. Ward was denied his right to be free without due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

207. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward was held as a prisoner, from September 18, 2003, until September 27, 2003, under the charge of violation of H & SC § 11550(a), and PC § 273.5(a). Thereafter Mr. Ward was held as a prisoner, from February 11, 2004, until March 9, 2004, under the charge of PC § 273.5(a).

208. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as described above, Plaintiffs suffered from loss of employment, humiliation,

209. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as described above, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of their constitutional rights guaranteed them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cause of action against Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, AND Kern County for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by malicious prosecution

210. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 225 as though fully set forth herein.

211. The practices described above, including but not limited to, the malicious prosecution of Mr. Ward by defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected Mr. Ward to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as a Kern County citizen, Mr. Ward had a liberty interest to be free from unjustifiable litigation.

212. At the time defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson prosecuted Mr. Ward for violations of H&SC § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance, it was clearly established that as an accused misdemeanor defendant Mr. Ward had a due process right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him and to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

213. At the time defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson prosecuted Mr. Ward for violations of it was clearly established law that as a Kern County citizen Mr. Ward had a right to be free from malicious prosecution by defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson outside the scope of his jurisdiction as such in the said report provided by defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd and Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith that fail to establish probable cause that Mr. Ward acted in violation of a H&SC § 11550(a), and PC§ 273.5(a).

214. At time referred, defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson declared as a testifying witness that he believed Mr. Ward was in violation of H&SC § 11550(a) without having evidence to establish probable cause that Mr. Ward was in violation of any state code, ordinance, or law.

215. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and the COUNTY, developed and maintained policies or customs of the Kern County District Attorney exhibiting deliberate indifference to Mr. Ward's Constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him and to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard and the denial of said rights.

216. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and the COUNTY, failed to properly train officers, or employees, under their authority, as to their legal duties to not violate Mr. Ward's Constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him and to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. If training was provided, it was inadequate in relation to the tasks that the officers, or employees were required to perform and deficiencies in the training program were closely related to the damages to the Plaintiffs.

217. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendants, and each of them Mr. Ward was denied his right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him and to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard as guaranteed by the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

218. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendants, and each of them, Mr. Ward was denied his right to be free without due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

219. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward was held as a prisoner, from September 18, 2003, until September 27, 2003, under the charge of violation of H&SC § 11550(a), and PC § 273.5(a), until he could make bail Thereafter Mr. Ward was held as a prisoner, from February 11, 2004, until March 9, 2004, under the charge of PC § 273.5(a).

220. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as described above, Plaintiffs suffered from loss of employment, humiliation,

221. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as described above, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of their constitutional rights guaranteed them by the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cause of action against Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Defendant judge John Quinlen, Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, AND Kern County: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by false arrest, and illegal search and seizure

222. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

223. The practices described above, including but not limited to, the unlawful search and seizure of Mr. Ward and his vehicle by defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected Mr. Ward to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as a resident of Kern County, Mr. Ward had a liberty interest in his personal security and freedoms from unlawful search and seizure of his person and property without warrant, probable, or legal cause.

224. At time of said unlawful search and seizure of Mr. Ward and his vehicle by defendants Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell and Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, it was clearly established that residents of Kern County have a constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest and search and seizure, without warrant, legal, or probable cause.

225. As a Kern County citizen accused of being in violation of a criminal statute, namely H&SC § 11550(a), defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell denied Mr. Ward his right to due process because he failed to give Mr. Ward adequate notice of a criminal code for which he could prepare and present a defense. In particular, said code notifies only of the penalty to the statue but does not aver to what substance that Mr. Ward is being accused.

226. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and the COUNTY developed and maintained policies or customs of the Kern County Sheriff's Department exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of Mr. Ward to be free from arrest and search and seizure, without warrant, legal, or probable cause and the denial of said rights.

227. Prior to September 18, 2003, defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, and the COUNTY failed to properly train officers, or employees, under their authority, as to their legal duties to not violate Mr. Ward's Constitutional right to be free from arrest and search and seizure, without warrant, probable, or legal cause. If training was provided, it was inadequate in relation to the tasks that the officers, or employees were required to perform and deficiencies in the training program were closely related to the damages to the Plaintiffs.

228. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward was arrested in public and held as a prisoner under the charge of violation of Health & Safety Code § 11550, subd. (a) being under the influence of a controlled substance, transported to the substation, his false charges were printed in the newspaper, incarcerated from February 11, 2004 through March 8, 2004, placed on probation for 3 years, lost his vehicle and property, lost his job and damages continue and will be decided at trial.

Cause of Action: Ward Drake alone against Judge Defendant judge John Quinlen: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denial of right to fair hearing

229. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

230. The practices described above, including but not limited to altering jury instructions, failing to recuse oneself from hearing further proceedings wherein a person aware of all relevant facts might reasonably entertain a doubt about his ability to be impartial, denying the right to introduce testimony of a witness about matters told them out of court on grounds the testimony would be hearsay, and denying the right to be free from excessive bail by defendant judge John Quinlen, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected Mr. Ward to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as a Kern County citizen accused of misdemeanor violations, Mr. Ward had a liberty interest in restraint without meaningful opportunity to be heard.

231. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendant judge John Quinlen herein above described, defendant denied Mr. Ward his right to be free from excessive bail as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

232. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendant judge John Quinlen herein above described, defendants denied Mr. Ward the right to have a fair hearing before an impartial judge, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

233. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendant judge John Quinlen, Mr. Ward was incarcerated from February 11, 2004 through March 8, 2004, placed on probation for 3 years, and damages continue.

Cause of action Jennevie and I against Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, and Kern County for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denial of our redress of grievances

234. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

235. The practices described above, including but not limited to, the withdrawal of Mr. Ward's motion for a new trial, the failure to notify Mr. Ward that said motion was retracted in order that he may give argument, the misrepresentation to Jennevie to compel her from testifying truthfully, under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, or in conjunction with herein, subjected Mr. Ward and Jennevie to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as an accused criminal defendant, and witness testifying in a criminal trial Plaintiffs had a right to redress the court for grievances.

236. As applied to Mr. Ward, Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) infringe upon an individual's clearly established rights to (I) freedom of speech, (ii) petition for redress of grievances, and (iii) access to courts secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

237. As applied to Mr. Ward, Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) is so unconstitutionally overbroad and vague on its face that its existence and potential application chills the exercise of clearly established rights to (I) freedom of speech, (ii) petition for redress of grievances, and (iii) access to courts secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

238. As applied to Mr. Ward, Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) is void for vagueness because it provides no ascertainable standard to which conduct may be conformed, and thus threaten the exercise of clearly established rights to (I) freedom of speech, (ii) petition for redress of grievances, and (iii) access to courts secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

239. The application of Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) to Mr. Ward's symptoms of his disability violated his clearly established rights to: (I) freedom of speech, (ii) petition for redress of grievances, and (iii) access to courts secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

240. The application of Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) denied him the minimum Due Process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

241. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward and Jennevie were denied their right to redress the court for grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

242. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward and Jennevie suffered damages to be decided at trial.

Cause of action by Ward against Defendant Judge John Quinlen, Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, Defendant Presiding Judge Kenneth C. Twisselmann II, and Unnamed defendants One through Ninety Nine for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) by conspiracy to interfere with federal witness's right to testify.

243. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

244. By the actions and omissions of defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Defendant judge John Quinlen, Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy J. Balasis, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, and Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, as herein above described, defendants conspired to search Plaintiff's home, to arrest and detain Mr. Ward, to maliciously prosecute and deny Mr. Ward of due process, all without probable cause.

245. The conspiratorial purpose by defendants Defendant judge John Quinlen, Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy James Newell, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Pamela, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, GLENONN, Defendant CHP Trooper Brian Hefner, was to deter Mr. Ward from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully as a witness in the United States District Court for the District of California, East Division, and to retaliate against him for testifying against officers, and for performing his constitutional duty to protect and defend the constitution.

246. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward and Jennevie both suffered damages to be decided at trial.

Cause of action by Ward against unnamed defendants for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 by failure to prevent conspiracy.

247. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

248. Unnamed defendants 5 through 9, of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court were officially put on notice by Mr. Ward in a hand written pleading with the first word of the title EMERGENCY, and said pleading clearly and concisely stated that Mr. Ward was a Federal witness and that a conspiracy did exist, thereby describing the official titles of the conspirators, and the illegal acts that were done to Mr. Ward.

249. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court, were further made aware of the conspiracy when Mr. Ward filed motion to augment the record, and included documents that outlined the criminal acts of the conspiracy. Said motion was denied, so I can assume it was read, and JOHN DOES Five through Nine allowed the Known conspiracy to continue when they had full power to prevent further damages suffered by Mr. Ward.

250. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, JOHN DOES Five through Nine, of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, failed to act upon and prevent the conspiracy alleged in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

251. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Ward and Jennevie both suffered damages to be decided at trial.

Cause of action: by Ward against Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, AND Kern County for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violation of right against self incrimination

252. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

253. The practices described above, including but not limited to, arrest and prosecution of Mr. Ward by defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Defendant judge John Quinlen, and Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon based upon symptoms of his disability, conviction of Mr. Ward by a jury allowed to consider his consciousness of guilt for refusing to talk to defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles reserving his Miranda rights, conviction of Mr. Ward by defendants Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson and Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon concealing without disclosing all the evidence against him including a page of the sheriff's report containing an unconstitutional law, custom or policy, conviction of Mr. Ward upon known perjured testimony of defendant officers Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, conviction of Mr. Ward by Kern County withholding new exculpatory evidence that tends to prove Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles knowingly provided perjured testimony at Mr. Wards trial relevant to the juries consideration of Mr. Wards guilt, constitutes restraint without adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard.

254. As a United States Citizen accused of violating a criminal statue of the state of California, defendants Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, and Kern Count, denied Mr. Ward due process because he was not put on notice of any law, ordinance, or code which he could defend.

Cause of action: Ward against Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, AND Kern County for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denial of equal protection of the laws

255. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

256. The actions of Defendants, as described above, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in that such actions are not inflicted upon Kern County citizens who do not have disabilities. In all of this, Defendants, and each of them, have, acting under the color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

257. The practices described above, including, but not limited to, the force feeding of a food substance Plaintiff was allergic to mixed with his own vomit; the choking; the infliction of the "take down" procedure; the excessive use of a treadmill used in conjunction with ankle weights; the omission of meals; the required writing of sentences such as "I will not tick"; the squirting of water in Plaintiff's face; and, the other forms of abuse described above which were inflicted upon Plaintiff and other children with disabilities, which are not inflicted upon children without disabilities, while attending a public school is a violation of equal protection.

258. As a direct and proximate result of the actions described above, Plaintiff sustained actual damages, including injuries to his person, pain, severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, humiliation, shame, embarrassment, worry, fear, anguish, shock, nervousness, and anxiety in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

259. The actions of Defendants as described above were malicious, deliberate, intentional and embarked upon with the knowledge of or in conscious disregard of, the harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff. As a result of said intentional conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and to deter others from like conduct.

Cause of action: Ward against Defendant Judge John Quinlen, Judge Catherine Purcell, Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, AND Kern County for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by cruel and unusual punishment

260. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all paragraphs as though fully set out herein.

XXII. COUNT THIRTEEN BY PLAINTIFFS WARD AND SANCHEZ AGAINST DEFENDANTS Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, AND Kern Count

261. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 253 as though fully set out herein.

262. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 34 C.F.R. Part 104, prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities. Section 504 prohibits the exclusion from the participation in, or being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

263. The practices described above, including, but not limited to, subjecting persons with AD/HD to arrest and prosecution for violation of Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) being under the influence of a controlled substance, using symptoms manifested by their disability. In particular, fast speech, thin in appearance, blank stare, and unable to remain still.

264. Defendants, and each of them, have violated Plaintiff's rights under Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder by denying Plaintiff the benefits of receiving full and equal access to Kern County Sheriff's Department, Kern County District Attorney's Office, Kern County Justice System

265. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of Section 504, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injuries to his person, pain, humiliation, anxiety, mental anguish, emotional distress, and damage to his reputation and personal relations in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

XXIII. COUNT FOURTEEN BY PLAINTIFFS WARD AND SANCHEZ AGAINST DEFENDANTS Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, AND Kern Count

(Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. )

266. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 253 as though fully set out herein.

267. Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. and the regulations promulgated there under, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, governing state and local governmental entities, protects persons from discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The ADA prohibits the exclusion from participation in, or being denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of the public entity, or being subjected to discrimination by such entity.

268. The practices described above, including, but not limited to Plaintiff and other children with disabilities, which are not inflicted upon children without disabilities, while attending a public school violates the prohibition against discrimination solely on the basis of disability.

269. Defendants, and each of them, have violated Plaintiff's rights under the ADA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by denying Plaintiff the benefits of the services, programs, and activities to which he is otherwise entitled to from the School District.

270. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the ADA, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injuries to his person, pain, humiliation, anxiety, mental anguish, emotional distress and damage to his reputation and personal relations in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.

271. Jennevie had a right to have said statements accurately reported and not be denied equal enjoyment of said right based upon her said disability and to have safeguards set up in the programs of the Kern County Sheriff's Department and Kern County District Attorney's Office by defendants Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, the COUNTY, and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, to prevent said denial.

XXIV. COUNT FIFTHTEEN BY PLAINTIFFS WARD AND SANCHEZ AGAINST DEFENDANTS Defendant judge John Quinlen, Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Court Clerk Susan Yeargan, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, AND Kern Count

272. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 253 as though fully set out herein.

273. The practices described above, including but not limited to, the denial of right to present the defense of self-defense, deprivation of consortium without due process of law by defendants Defendant Judge John Quinlen, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon, Court Clerk Susan Yeargan, Defendant Sheriff Mack Wimbish, Defendant Elected District Attorney Edward R. Jagels, Defendant Head Public Defender Mark Arnold, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, AND Kern County under color of statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected the Plaintiffs to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In particular, as citizens of Kern County, the Plaintiffs have a liberty interest to

274. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, and each of them,

275. As an accused victim, Jennevie, had the right to have adequate notice and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, before being compelled to testify. Defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson

276. At time referred, defendants Defendant judge John Quinlen, Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson, and Deputy Public Defender Patrick Glennon knew that Jennevie suffered from said mental disabilities relevant to the question of her being competent. At no time did defendants have Jennevie checked by a medical physician, hold a hearing or conduct any type of investigation into whether or not Jennevie was competent.

277. At time of Mr. Wards arrest by defendants Defendant sheriff’s Deputy David Boyd, Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith, and Defendant Sheriff’s Deputy John Nobles, Jennevie clearly stated that she did not remember what events occurred prior to Mr. Ward's action, and approximately 3 months later when defendant Deputy District Attorney Perry Patterson compelled Jennevie to testify she was instructed by defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Smith in regards to said testimony. The only reason why defendants were able to get away with their actions was due to that Jennevie is mentally challenged. The defendants used Jennevie ‘s disability against Mr. Ward and committed multiple felonies to retaliate and deter Mr. Ward from testifying against 2 corrupt officers.

278. By reason of the actions of the Defendants, as herein above described, the Defendants failed to give Jennevie adequate notice to the criminal charge that she was falsely accused of being a victim. At time referred, and at all times relevant to this action, Jennevie was incompetent to testify in that she lacks the ability to recall events in a fashion that could reliably separate fact from fiction due to her mental disabilities.

279. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as herein above described,

280. The conduct, practice, and customs of the defendants as set forth above are illegal, improper, and unconstitutional as a denial of due process of law.

281. The continued implementation of these policies has, does, and will continue to cause the Plaintiffs and persons similar situated irreparable harm.

282. Unless these policies are stopped, the plaintiff and persons similarly situated will suffer serious and grievous harm. The plaintiff has no plain or adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs described herein. Therefore plaintiff requests equitable relief in the form of declaratory relief and injunctive relief, the further description of which is contained in the prayer hereto.

288. Declaratory relief that 11550 suspects are not required to testify or give blood, urine, or any other samples.

289. Declaratory relief that it is unlawful for the police to lie in order to gain entry for a search.

290. Kern county shall do an audit for the past 3 years. It shall publish the results of citizen complaints or unlawful entry and search of houses, cars, trucks, etc.

291. The audit shall computer the percentage of cases where the search pertained to drugs.

292. The audit shall report the percentage of cases seeking access to a hard drive.

293. The audit shall report the percentage of cases seeking evidence of kiddie porn.

294. Kern county shall report to the public what steps it has taken to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards.

295. A permanent injunction enjoining said defendants from engaging in the practice of false arrest and imprisonment where probable cause does not exist and is based upon an opinion of the defendants.

296. A declaratory judgment that the California statutes complained of constitutionally invalid as applied to citizens with AD/HD who display symptoms manifested by their disability similar to persons in violation of said statute, and therefore in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

297. A permanent injunction to enjoin California Attorney General Attorney General Bill Lockyer and all persons acting in concert and participation with him from enforcing California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) against citizens with AD/HD who display symptoms manifested by their disability similar to persons in violation of said statute.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those things stated on information and belief and those I believe to be true.

Note: Palaschak spent 14 consecutive hours on a re-write on January 9/10, 2005. Only one hour was compensated. The complaint needs major editing. The stuff about the trial should be move to an appendix. The boilerplate in this complaint is bad. Lawyerdude@adelphia.net