SCREEN

Profile

Menu Style

Cpanel
Headlines:

Battling Corruption

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit - Chapter 5

Amarillo sign Schreck v Amarillo Chapter 5 200w

Chapter 5 -- Hunter Tyler Schreck has filed a Mega-Million federal lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas for violation of his Constitutional rights. Hunter was almost murdered on June 24, 2020 by as many as 15 Amarillo, Texas Police officers and civilians. Hunter had done absolutely nothing. This is Chapter 5 of the story -- quotes directly from the verified complaint.

Hunter Schreck has filed his lawsuit pro se. He has named 58 Defendants and 100 John Doe Defendants (gangsters he will identify in discovery). If you want to read it all now, here is Civil Action No. 2-21CV-220-Z - Schreck v City of Amarillo, Et al. - Verified Complaint2-21CV-220-Z - Schreck v City of Amarillo, Et al. - Verified Complaint.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


Civil Action No. 2-21-CV-220-Z

Amarillo sign Schreck v Amarillo Chapter 5

CAUSES OF ACTION
1.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, under color of Texas statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usage, subjected, or caused to be subjected, Hunter Tyler Schreck, a citizen of the United States, to the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and are liable to the Plaintiff in this action. 2.  The Plaintiff was deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution, denied liberty by state officials acting pursuant to established procedures.  The procedural safeguards built into the process were Constitutionally inadequate.
3.  The Defendants are all persons subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4.  Defendants have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because Defendants were clothed with the authority of state law.
5.  Some Defendants were used by other DEFENDANTS who exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because those Defendants were clothed with the authority of state law.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1

Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Violation of Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Seizure

(Against CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, DETECTIVE SHEA LICHTIE, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES)

6.                 The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this COMPLAINT as if fully set forth herein.
7.                 The Plaintiff possessed a Constitutionally-protected right to not be subjected to unreasonable seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; to freedom from deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law; and freedom from arbitrary governmental activity that shocks the conscience of a civilized society.
8.  On June 24, 2020, the PLAINTIFF was unlawfully detained and seized by AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA and OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT as he peacefully stood beside the volleyball court at STIFF PARK.  He had not committed a crime, and he was not charged with a crime.  His driver’s license was seized and never returned.  He was assaulted by OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, OFFICER DANIEL SMITH, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL, and others.
9.  Harm to the Plaintiff is the result of action on the part of the government entities that implemented or executed policy statements, ordinances, regulations, or decisions officially adopted and promulgated by the officers of the entities, or the result of the entities’ customs. 
10.             The City of Amarillo and the Amarillo Police DepartmenT have unconstitutional policies and have failed to train their employees.  The failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to an obvious need for such training, and the failure to train has resulted in employees making wrong decisions.
11.             By their conduct, as described herein, enforcing the arbitrary and fundamentally unfair procedures, Defendants acting under color of state law, deprived the Plaintiff of his rights to his Constitutional right to liberty without due process of law acting pursuant to established policies and procedures.  The procedural safeguards built into the process were Constitutionally inadequate procedures and will continue to deprive other citizens of the same right.
12.             Those DEFENDANTS who were not acting under color of law based upon their employment, were acting as if they were employed by the City of Amarillo or Randall County, including when their actions were in violation of the laws of the State of Texas and the Constitutions and laws of the United States of America and Texas.
13.             As a direct result of the actions, statements and/or policies of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
14.             Defendants CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, OFFICER DANIEL SMITH, DETECTIVE SHEA LICHTIE, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL, and others acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
15.               As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include medical expenses, denial of insurance and government benefits, lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.


CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2

Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Violation of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

(Against All Defendants and DOES 1 – 100)

16.             The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this COMPLAINT as if fully set forth herein.
17.             The Plaintiff was detained and seized without probable cause, was arrested on false charges, set up by JUBILEE APOSTOLIC CHURCH DEFENDANTS, was almost murdered by OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA and other DEFENDANTS, was incarcerated in the RANDALL COUNTY Jail without probable cause, was denied medical treatment, was arraigned without proof of probable cause, was purportedly indicted with an unlawful indictment, was made subject of a perjured Complaint, was subjected to unlawful prosecution by the RANDALL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, was denied access to evidence, was forced to have an incompetent public defender in W. BROOKS BARFIELD, was denied due process by many DEFENDANTS, especially JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP, was denied rights granted under Texas law, was denied all protections guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and was victimized by a criminal racketeering enterprise. 
18.             The Plaintiff possessed a Constitutionally-protected right to freedom from deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law; and freedom from arbitrary governmental activity that shocks the conscience of a civilized society.
19.             At his arraignment, the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE claimed there was a finding of probable cause, but there was no affidavit of probable cause, no arrest record, no witness, and no testimony.  The finding of probable cause is invalid.
20.             The harm to the Plaintiff is the result of action on the part of the government entities that implemented or executed policy statements, ordinances, regulations, or decisions officially adopted and promulgated by the officers of the entities, or the result of the entities’ customs.  
21.             The Amarillo Police Department, City of Amarillo, the Randall County District Attorney’s Office, and the Randall County Jail have unconstitutional policies and have failed to train their employees.  The failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to an obvious need for such training, and the failure to train have resulted in employees making wrong decisions.
22.             By their conduct, as described herein, enforcing the arbitrary and fundamentally unfair procedures, Defendants acting under color of state law, deprived the Plaintiff of his rights to his Constitutional right to liberty without due process of law acting pursuant to established.  The procedural safeguards built into the process were Constitutionally inadequate procedures and will continue to deprive other citizens of the same right.
23.             Those DEFENDANTS who were not acting under color of law based upon their employment, were acting as if they were employed by the City of Amarillo or Randall County, including when their actions were in violation of the laws of the State of Texas and the Constitutions and laws of the United States of America and Texas.
24.             As a direct result of the actions, statements and/or policies of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
25.             Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
26.               As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include medical expenses, denial of insurance and government benefits, lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 3

Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Fourth Amendment Rights – Excessive Force

(Against CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, OFFICER DANIEL SMITH, DETECTIVE SHEA LICHTIE, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL, DOES, AND OTHERS YET TO BE IDENTIFIED)

27.             The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
28.             The Plaintiff was denied due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by excessive force.
29.             This is an unconstitutional policy or decision formally adopted and promulgated by the CITY OF AMARILLO.
30.             When fat, Hispanic OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA suddenly and without warning physically attacked Hunter Tyler Schreck by grabbing and twisting his arm with hard force, slamming him to the ground, shooting him with Tasers, burying his face in the sand, kicking him, cussing him viciously, and more, this was an assault upon Hunter Tyler Schreck, employing excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
31.             No officer (besides those employed at the AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT) would consider OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA’s sudden and unannounced deployment of painful force and excessive aggression upon Hunter Tyler Schreck to have been reasonable or justified under the circumstances.
32.              The AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT has a written policy that states something such as this regarding use of force: [1]

“A sworn employee will never use unnecessary force or violence and will use only such force in the discharge of duty as is reasonable and appropriate in each circumstance. Force should be used only when negotiation and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. While the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every law enforcement employee will refrain from applying the unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment of any person.”

33.             OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA attempted neither negotiation nor persuasion in the 95 seconds of contact he had with the PLAINTIFF before committing aggravated assault on him and violently Tasing him.  In those seconds, the PLAINTIFF told OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA seven (7) times that what he was doing was wrong.  In the next 30 seconds, the PLAINTIFF begged for his life three times. [EXHIBIT 98.]
34.             Shooting him 34 times with 1,500,000 volts of electricity is endorsed and trained by no self-respecting law enforcement agency anywhere due to its obvious likelihood of causing death or serious pain and physical injury.  It was used on the PLAINTIFF solely for the purpose of injuring him and showing him that Defendants OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, and OFFICER DANIEL SMITH were “in charge.”
35.             Defendants OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL, and as many as 10 other officers with the AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT had both the duty and ample opportunity to intervene to stop OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, and OFFICER DANIEL SMITH’s ongoing violence upon the PLAINTIFF but chose instead to do nothing, or materially assist in its continuation and cover-up. 
36.             OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH and OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL were fully aware of the PLAINTIFF’S mental disabilities.  Both officers had been called to the PLAINTIFF’S homes in the past.  OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH had known the PLAINTIFF and his problem since 2017. [EXHIBIT ___.]  OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL had been dispatched to the PLAINTIFF’S home just 16 days before. [EXHIBIT ___.]
37.             Defendant OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT personally continued the excessive force violations begun by Defendant OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA.
38.             OFFICER DANIEL SMITH laughed repeatedly about how many times the PLAINTIFF was tased.  He said “23 or more.” [EXHIBIT 98, Page numbered 8.]  This was after OFFICER DANIEL SMITH questioned girls at the volleyball game who said the PLAINTIFF did not speak to them, never touched any of them, and never did anything improper. [EXHIBIT 98, Page 6.]
39.             Defendants OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, and OFFICER DANIEL SMITH used excessive force in seizing the PLAINTIFF, handcuffing him unduly aggressively, and then forcing him to remain handcuffed and restrained for an excessively lengthy period of time.  The PLAINTIFF suffered a Severe Traumatic Brain Injury from the beating. [EXHIBIT 100.]
40.             The Bodycam and Dashcam videos provide overwhelming evidence of many crimes committed by the Amarillo police, and the Plaintiff begging for his rights, for mercy, and that he not be killed.  If the jury is allowed to give a death penalty in a civil case, the Defendants should be headed for death row at the Polunsky Unit in West Livingston, Texas.
41.             The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable seizures, which includes seizures carried out with excessive force, like this one.
42.             In Texas, to stop and detain you, police must have reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a criminal act.  OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA told the PLAINTIFF 15 seconds after he accosted him at the STIFF PARK volleyball courts that “You made people feel uncomfortable.”  The PLAINTIFF vehemently denied this. [EXHIBIT 98, Unnumbered page before Page numbered 1.]  19 seconds later, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA told the PLAINTIFF he was being detained.  In the next 60 seconds, the PLAINTIFF told OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA that this was “wrong.”  The PLAINTIFF repeatedly asked to be read his rights.  He never was.  90 seconds into their exchange, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA said he was going to pat the PLAINTIFF down. After 150 seconds, the assault began and the PLAINTIFF begged for his life.
43.             In Texas, the police are allowed to hold you for a reasonable amount of time, and they can question you as part of their investigation.  The police knew the PLAINTIFF had done nothing wrong.
44.             If you are detained, you do not have to give identifying information, such as your name and date of birth.  But OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA forced the PLAINTIFF to give him his license, which contained his name and date of birth, and forced him to answer questions.
45.             The PLAINTIFF told the police he did not have a weapon, and there was no reasonable suspicion that he was in possession of a dangerous weapon, so they were no grounds for a “pat down.”  All the police needed to do was check the PLAINTIFF’S name to find he had a record of mental illness and officers were at his home just 16 days prior. [EXHIBIT 98, Page 1.]
46.             During detention, a person in Texas has the right to remain silent, and the right to ask for an attorney, but though he asked to be read his rights repeatedly, he was never had any of his rights explained. The PLAINTIFF asked to be read his rights four times before he was assaulted and began begging for his life. [EXHIBIT 98.]
47.             The Defendants unreasonably and unconstitutionally seized the PLAINTIFF and used excessive force in light of the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to:

a.                  The PLAINTIFF had not engaged in any criminal activity;

b.                 The PLAINTIFF had never committed a crime;

c.                  The PLAINTIFF posed no physical threat to anyone, anywhere;

d.                 The PLAINTIFF was visibly a person with mental disability;

e.                  The PLAINTIFF’S mental disabilities were well-documented by the Amarillo police department and its Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”);

f.                   The PLAINTIFF was not attempting to flee or escape anyone but instead was attending a volleyball game in a public park;

g.                 The communicative problems immediately observed with the PLAINTIFF upon initial contact suggested likely mental disability;

h.                 The failure of Officer DANIEL rivera to appropriately approach and handle the PLAINTIFF with his disabilities; and

i.                   Officer DANIEL rivera’s aggressive, violent, and threatening actions that prompted the PLAINTIFF to panic, fear for his life, and beg that he not be murdered

48.             The PLAINTIFF’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force as described herein was clearly established at the time the Defendant officers attacked him, Tased him repeatedly, handcuffed him, denied him water, and then kept him in isolation away from medical care in pain and handcuffs for hours.
49.             The Amarillo Police Department and their officers often interact with people who have disabilities, like the PLAINTIFF, and thus the circumstances constituted a usual and recurring situation.
50.             Defendants OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, OFFICER DANIEL SMITH, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, and other as yet unidentified DOE DEFENDANTS effected their assaults and injuries to the PLAINTIFF, and AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISORS (DOES) both approved of, personally participated in, and directed the continuation of those assaults and injuries, with deliberate indifference to the PLAINTIFF’S rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
51.             Defendants’ sudden seizure and violent extended assault upon the PLAINTIFF caused him to experience great physical pain, injury, and terror. The experience of this event caused and continues to cause the PLAINTIFF trauma and emotional distress, along with lasting physical injuries.
52.             AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT supervisors directly participated in the infraction, after learning of it, failed to remedy wrong, created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred or allowed such policy or custom to continue.
53.             After learning of this, CHIEF MARTIN BIRKENFELD failed to remedy the wrong and failed to create a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices would not be allowed to continue.
54.             As a direct result of the actions, statements and/or policies of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
55.             Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
56.               As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include medical expenses, denial of insurance and government benefits, lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.


CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4


42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment

Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need/Excessive Force/ Failure to Provide Medical Care

(against Defendants CITY OF AMARILLO, RANDALL COUNTY, Amarillo Police Department, RANDALL COUNTY Jail, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, OFFICER DANIEL SMITH, and DOES 1 - 100)
57.             The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
58.              The PLAINTIFF needed medical care following the injuries inflicted upon him by the defendant officers.  His need for medical treatment was visibly apparent and objectively obvious.
59.             The defendant officers were subjectively aware of the PLAINTIFF’s injuries requiring medical treatment, as evidenced in the videos.  What these people said and did to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK is unthinkable, illogical, unbelievable, unresonable, unimaginable, and preposterous.  The problem is it actually happened and is even worse than these words convey.  It is thinkable because it happened.  It is imaginable because it happened.
60.             Keeping the PLAINTIFF in handcuffs, in isolation, without water, and without access to critical medical treatment exacerbated both the PLAINTIFF’s physical injuries and emotional trauma.
61.             The decision made by DEFENDANTS and executed by DEFENDANTS to not inform the RANDALL COUNTY JAIL of the PLAINTIFF’s serious injuries quite foreseeably ensured (particularly given his mental disabilities and inability to communicate or advocate for himself) that he would continue to be deprived of medical treatment once transported to the jail and left in a cell.
62.             The RANDALL COUNTY JAIL relies on other agencies following written policies that require them to notify the jail of any possible injuries for transported arrestees. The jail naturally and foreseeably assumes that if an arrestee has been involved in a use of force incident with possible injuries, the AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT will include that information in the booking information that accompanies the transferred arrestee, so that proper medical notice, attention and care can be provided.
63.             Defendant officers violated this policy, keeping the jail deliberately ignorant of the PLAINTIFF’S injuries, which needlessly caused the PLAINTIFF more injury, more trauma, and more pain and suffering.  Defendant officers knowingly and deliberately ignored the PLAINTIFF’s serious medical conditions, and the PLAINTIFF also repeatedly alerted them to the fact that he was in severe pain, which they also ignored.
64.             As a proximate result of the Defendant officers’ deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, the PLAINTIFF experienced hours of needless additional pain and suffering.  He experienced heightened and more severe physical pain and trauma along with worsened physical injury, by the Defendants keeping him painfully restrained in handcuffs after they had beaten and Tased him.
65.             Defendants OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT, AND OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL knew about the PLAINTIFF’s situation, directed that he be denied medical care in violation of AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT policy, and directed that he be transported to the jail without medical care or treatment. Defendants OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA and OFFICER SAMANTHA FONTENOT knew of the PLAINTIFF’s obvious medical needs and elected to ignore them out of deliberate indifference and likely pursuant to a supervisor’s direction.  Other DEFENDANTS knew about the PLAINTIFF’s situation.
66.             No officer would consider the Defendants’ keeping the bleeding and disabled PLAINTIFF in isolation, without access to medical treatment or mental health assistance, while complaining of multiple physical injuries, to have been reasonable or justified under the circumstances. There is absolutely no justification for the Defendants’ decision to deprive the PLAINTIFF of even momentary access to medical care.  He never received medical care.
67.             OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH was present at STIFF PARK, and he had a duty to intervene to provide aid to the PLAINTIFF.  Having previously been in the homes of the PLAINTIFF on “Wellness Checks,” as early as 2017, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH had direct personal knowledge that the PLAINTIFF had a mental disability, was vulnerable, injured, and the ongoing victim of excessive force.  He had ample opportunity to intervene to stop the ongoing atrocity against the PLAINTIFF.  He did nothing but laugh about it, approve of it, participate in the mugging, and help cover it up.
68.             OFFICER ALLISON MUNCELL was present at STIFF PARK, and she had a duty to intervene to provide aid to the PLAINTIFF.  Having previously been in the home of the PLAINTIFF on a Wellness Check,” she had direct personal knowledge that the PLAINTIFF had a mental disability, was vulnerable, injured, and the ongoing victim of excessive force. She had ample opportunity to intervene to stop the ongoing atrocity against the PLAINTIFF.  She did nothing but approve of it and help cover it up.
69.             Defendants deprived the PLAINTIFF of medical treatment with deliberate indifference to his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and caused his needless additional trauma, pain, exacerbated injury, anguish, and suffering.


CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5

42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213

Violations of Title II of Americans With Disabilities Act

(against Defendants CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, RANDALL COUNTY JAIL, OfficeR DANIEL RIVERA, OfficeR SAMANTHA FONTENOT, OfficeR ALLISON MUNCELL, judge dan l. Schaap, OFFICER MATTHEW BRUSH, brooks barfield, UNIDENTIFIED DOES)

70.             All preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated here for purposes of this Claim.
71.             Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discrimination on the basis of a disability.
72.             42 U.S.C. § 121311(1)(B)). Title II of the ADA requires reasonable accommodation during arrest for people with mental disabilities. Specifically, it requires “reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
73.             The PLAINTIFF was suffering from disorientation and sensory aphasia at the time of this incident.  He was, and is, mentally disabled.
74.             The PLAINTIFF is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. He has Autism Spectrum Disorder, sensory aphasia which substantially limits his major life activities by causing him to suffer from serious memory loss and impairment along with extraordinary challenges in his ability to communicate with others.
75.             Title II of the ADA applies to the arrest context. Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 1999).
76.             OfficeR DANIEL RIVERA and OfficeR SAMANTHA FONTENOT chose to treat the common, foreseeable and lawful consequences of the PLAINTIFF’s disabilities, being confused and frantic when assaulted) as illegal activity (assault on a police officer).  This was discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA. See Gohier, 186 F.3d at 1220.
77.             The PLAINTIFF, by virtue of his mental disabilities, could not speak effectively for himself or understand Officer DANIEL RIVERA’s intentions. [EXHIBIT 98.]
78.             The effects of the PLAINTIFF’s disabilities were lawful in fact and treated as criminal by the defendant officers, in violation of the ADA.
79.             The defendants also violated the PLAINTIFF’s rights under the ADA because they failed to reasonably accommodate his disability in the course of investigation and arrest, causing him to suffer greater injury, trauma, and indignity in that process than other arrestees. See id.
80.             The defendant officers failed to provide modifications or reasonable accommodations to the PLAINTIFF in light of his disabilities and the CITY OF AMARILLO failed to adopt policies and procedures, or adequately train its police officers to safely interact with people who suffer such common disabilities.
81.             Some reasonable accommodations for a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder include employing nonthreatening communications, speaking slowly and allowing the person with Autism to respond at their pace, using less confrontational tactics, checking the police department’s history with the Autistic person, allowing the passage of time to defuse the situation or waiting for backup.  Officer DANIEL RIVERA did none of these things because he was not trained to do any of these things and because it was the custom and practice at AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT to never do any of these things.
82.             Unlawful discrimination, pursuant to DOJ regulation, includes a failure to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).  The PLAINTIFF’s reported suspicious behavior was that he is Autistic.
83.             Defendants OFFICER DANIEL SMITH, OFFICER DANIEL RIVERA, and DOES joked about how the PLAINTIFF was suffering.
84.             Through the defendant officers, CITY OF AMARILLO denied the PLAINTIFF reasonable accommodations.
85.             The defendant officers knew that accommodations were necessary under AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT written policies but were indifferent to an obvious risk of not providing the accommodations.
86.             The CITY OF AMARILLO denied the PLAINTIFF the benefit of properly trained officers who would be trained to appropriately interact with people suffering from foreseeable, common place disabilities or mental disabilities, and reasonably accommodate those individuals.
87.             Upon information and belief, the CITY OF AMARILLO was on notice of the need for more or different training but was deliberately indifferent to that need.  They were using Tasers that had been taken off the market years before due to their danger.
88.             Further, once Defendant Officers had assaulted and Tased the PLAINTIFF, he then had yet another disability – a Traumatic Brain Injury – which the Defendants again failed to provide any reasonable accommodation for, leaving the PLAINTIFF painfully in handcuffs and denying him medical care for hours, in violation of not just the Constitution, but yet again the ADA.
89.             Now that he has a Traumatic Brain Injury, it is unlikely that he will ever be able to work again.  HUNTER is only 27.
90.             As a proximate result of Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO and actions of other Defendants, the PLAINTIFF was injured, suffered physically and emotionally, and continues to experience fear, trauma, and anxiety anywhere outside of his room.
91.             What little sense of freedom and happiness that was left in the PLAINTIFF’s experience of his life suffering from damaged mental health was completely destroyed by the AMARILLO Police Department.
92.             As a result of the CITY OF AMARILLO’s and its officers’ violations of Title II of the ADA, the PLAINTIFF is entitled to compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
93.             Defendant JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP ignored all of the disabilities of the PLAINTIFF and had the audacity to order him to go to the jail for an Incompetency Evaluation.  JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP is either stupid, heartless, or both.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 66

Violations of the Rehabilitation Act – 29 U.S.C. § 794

(against Defendants City of AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, RANDALL COUNTY JAIL)

94.             The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
95.             Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act forbids programs that receive federal financial assistance to discriminate against individuals with a disability solely because of their disability. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
96.             The Amarillo police department receives federal financial assistance.
97.             The PLAINTIFF is a qualified individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
98.             Through the actions of the Defendant officers and through its own failures to train and unlawful customs and practices, Defendants denied the PLAINTIFF reasonable accommodations for his disabilities.
99.             Because CITY OF AMARILLO, the Amarillo police department, and its officers denied the PLAINTIFF reasonable accommodations, Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO caused the PLAINTIFF to suffer greater injury and indignity in those processes than other arrestees.
100.        The Defendant officers discriminated against the PLAINTIFF solely as a result of his disability.
101.        As a proximate result of the Defendant City of AMARILLO’s actions and inactions, the Plaintiff suffered physically and emotionally and continues to experience fear, trauma, and anxiety anywhere outside of his room.
102.        As a result of the City of AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and RANDALL COUNTY JAIL’s violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the PLAINTIFF is entitled to compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 7

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act

(against all Defendants)

103.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
104.        The conduct of Defendants violates the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (“Federal RICO”).
105.        Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with one another, are all RICO persons who violated RICO by engaging in (1) “racketeering activity,” (2) conducted through a “pattern,” (3) affecting an “enterprise,” (4) impacting interstate commerce.  Defendants also violated 18 USC §1962(d) by conspiring as alleged herein to violate 18 USC §1962(c). All of Defendants’ predicate acts have a similar purpose - to damage the PLAINTIFF - all have similar victims, the PLAINTIFF, all have had similar results, and the methods of commission have been virtually identical.
106.        Racketeering Activity included violations of section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), and section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant).
107.        A massive number of crimes were committed by Defendants in Texas.  Interstate crimes of wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and criminal conspiracy were committed between Texas and another state, including Arkansas.
108.        Defendants knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud the Plaintiff and did so willingly with an intent to defraud.  The activity engaged in consists of two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity, the most recent of which occurred within hours after the commission of a prior act. 
109.        The Defendants committed violations of Federal RICO and RICO Conspiracy – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.  Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise).  In addition to the substantive offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961, a criminal conspiracy to commit these offenses is a RICO predicate act.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8

18 USC § 1962(d)

Violation of Federal RICO Conspiracy Offense

(against all Defendants)

110.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
111.        The Defendants, in some way or manner, came to mutual nderstandings to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan as described herein.  The mutual understanding was to break the law.  The Defendants willfully became members of such conspiracy.
112.        During the existence of the conspiracy, various Defendants knowingly violated the Federal RICO Act.  These violations were knowingly committed in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
113.        The conspiracy was designed to deprive the PLAINTIFF of Constitutional rights and legal rights and to deceive the courts to obtain an illegal objective.  Each of the Defendants is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrongs.  Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise).  The predicate acts are identified herein, and those paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9

False Reports to Police – Violation of Texas Penal Code 37.08

(against PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES)

114.  The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
115.  Defendants, INCLUDING PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES had the intention to make statements to the State that they knew to be false.  PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed, or covered up by trick, scheme, and/or device material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of the State of Texas.  PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES made or used false writings or documents, knowing the same to contain false, fictitious, and/or fraudulent statements or entries.  They knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed, and covered up material facts by a scheme.  The Plaintiff was damaged as a result of PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES’ false statements and the preparation and filing of the Indictment.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 10

Tampering with Evidence – Texas Penal Code 37.09

(against PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES)

116.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
117.        The Defendants (PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES) knowingly destroyed, altered, concealed, disguised, and/or removed physical evidence and made, devised, prepared, and/or planted false physical evidence.  The Defendants did so with the intent to impair the verity or availability of the physical evidence to the proceeding and intended to obstruct the defense of Hunter Tyler Schreck.  PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES, and unknown others tampered with evidence believing that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or about to be instituted and knowingly or intentionally altered, destroyed, concealed, or removed things and/or items with the purpose of impairing the veracity or availability of the things and/or items in the proceeding or investigation; made, presented, and/or used things and/or items which Defendants knew to be false with the purpose of deceiving a public servant who was or may be engaged in the proceeding or investigation; and obstructed the prosecution of Hunter Tyler Schreck by knowingly destroying, altering, concealing, or disguising material physical evidence.  PENTECOSTAL DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES, and unknown others tampered with evidence in violation of Texas Penal Code 37.09.  The Plaintiff was damaged as a result.
118.        Judge Dan L. Schaap concealed documents from the PLAINTIFF.  Judge Dan L. Schaap knowingly concealed material physical evidence.  He intended to obstruct the defense of the PLAINTIFF.  This physical evidence was material.  Judge Dan L. Schaap tampered with evidence in violation of Texas Penal Code 37.09.  The Plaintiff was damaged as a result.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 11

Violation of Due Process and Deprivation of Rights – 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)

(against CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES) 
119.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
120.        CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, and/or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice with intent to deny Plaintiff due process and to injure him while attempting to enforce his right to self-representation, and this violated the equal protection of the laws.  Judge Dan L. Schaap’S actions are non-judicial, and there is no immunity.  CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).  The Plaintiff was damaged as a result.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 12

Violation of Constitutional Rights

(against CITY OF AMARILLO, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, SAMANTHA WILSON, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES)
121.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
122.        Judge Dan L. Schaap, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, and the CITY OF AMARILLO had a Constitutional duty to the PlaintiffJudge Dan L. Schaap breached his Constitutional duties to the Plaintiff through action and inaction.  This caused damage to the PlaintiffThe Plaintiff filed motions to recuse, and Judge Dan L. Schaap refused to recuse himself.  He wouldn’t even allow the Clerk of Court to file the Motion, in direct violation of the Rules and Case Law.  The statutes and Courts have expressed that Judge Dan L. Schaap should have proceeded no further.
123.        Judge Dan L. Schaap was not the proper person to decide if the Plaintiff asserted valid factual and legal grounds to recuse Plaintiff.  An objective observer, lay observer, and/or disinterested observer must entertain significant doubt of the impartiality of Judge Dan L. SchaapJudge Dan L. Schaap was supposed to disqualify himself because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
124.        The Plaintiff brings this action against Judge Dan L. Schaap, pursuant in part to 28 U.S. C. § 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971).  Judge Dan L. Schaap subjected the Plaintiff to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
125.        Judge Dan L. Schaap’S actions are non-judicial, and there is no immunity. The Plaintiff has been damaged.  The Plaintiff prays for monetary damages against Judge Dan L. Schaap based upon violations of federal Constitutional rights pursuant to Bivens.CLAIM FOR RELIEF 13Professional Misconduct(against Judge Dan L. Schaap, BROOKS BARFIELD, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS, AND UNIDENTIFIED DOES)
126.              The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
127.              W. BROOKS BARFIELD violated the rules of professional conduct; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and more.  The Plaintiff submits that Rules should provide the legal basis for the Plaintiff to present a cause of action for Breach of Legal Duty due to Professional Misconduct.  The Plaintiff had a right to expect W BROOKS BARFIELD to abide by Texas law, Texas rules, Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (“TRPC”), and the Constitutions.
128.              The Plaintiff had a right to expect W BROOKS BARFIELD and Judge Dan L. Schaap to refrain from doing acts that injured the Plaintiff.  BROOKS BARFIELD and Judge Dan L. Schaap have committed professional misconduct and have violated state and federal statutes, Rules, Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (“TRPC”), and the Constitutions.  W BROOKS BARFIELD and Judge Dan L. Schaap committed acts that injured the Plaintiff.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 14

Judicial Misconduct

(against
Judge Dan L. Schaap, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE)
129.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
130.        Judge Dan L. Schaap violated the Code of Judicial Conduct; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; allowed Attorneys and court personnel to abuse the Plaintiff; and more.  There does not appear to be a statute that specifically authorizes a civil action for professional or judicial misconduct.  The Plaintiff will file a judicial misconduct complaint.  The Plaintiff submits that the Court has discriminated against him, in part, because he is disabled and pro se.  The Plaintiff believes that judges in Texas ROUTINELY violate the law and twist the facts and the law to accomplish their own improper purposes.  The Plaintiff objects to the treatment of pro se parties in Texas.  The Plaintiff, Pro Se, has been repeatedly denied rights and abused.  The Plaintiff submits that this mistreatment should provide the legal basis for the Plaintiff to present a cause of action for Breach of Legal Duty due to Judicial Misconduct.  The Plaintiff had a right to expect Judge Dan L. Schaap to abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, state laws, and case law and to refrain from doing acts that wrongfully injured the PlaintiffJudge Dan L. Schaap committed judicial misconduct and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, state laws, and case law, and the Local Rules.  Judge Dan L. Schaap committed acts that injured the Plaintiff.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 15

Fraud

(against all defendants)
131.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
132.        Defendants intentionally misstated material facts, omitted material facts, and made false representations to the Randall County Grand Jury.  Defendants knew they made false statements or omitted material facts, or they had a reckless disregard for the truth.  The Plaintiff and the courts relied upon the intentional misstatements and/or omission of material facts.  Defendants committed fraud. The Plaintiff was damaged as a result.  Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct). 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 16

Common Law Fraud

(against all defendants)
133.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
134.        Defendants, including DETECTIVE SHEA LICHTIE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAVE BLOUNT, JOEL FORBIS, JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP, RANDALL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, SERGEANT ANTHONY MERRYMAN, RANDALL COUNTY CLERK OF COURT’S OFFICE, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and DOES misrepresented material facts.  These Defendants had knowledge of the falsity.  Their intent was that the representations would be acted upon by people ignorant of the falsity, relied on the truth of the representations, and had a right to rely upon it.  Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct).  The Plaintiff was damaged as a result.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 17

Conspiracy

(against all defendants)
135.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
136.        The Defendants, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.  The mutual understanding was to break the law at some time in the future and/or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means.  The Defendants willfully became members of such conspiracy.  During the existence of the conspiracy, various Defendants knowingly committed at least one overt act in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.  The conspiracy was designed to deprive the Plaintiff of legal rights and deceive the courts to obtain an illegal objective.  Each of the Defendants is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrongs.  Defendants reached agreement to commit these overt acts – defame the PLAINTIFF, file false police reports against the Plaintiff, set up the PLAINTIFF to be ambushed in STIFF PARK, injure or kill him, deny him medical treatment, deny his Constitutional rights, force his family into bankruptcy, and run his family out of town on a rail.  They committed to support their efforts with a series of lies, to conceal documents, to falsify documents, to lie, and to undertake a variety of actions designed to damage the PlaintiffAt least one of the Defendants knowingly committed at least two of the overt acts.  Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct).  The Plaintiff was damaged as a result.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18

Abuse Of Process

(against
all defendants)
137.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
138.        Common law abuse of process is the use of the legal system for the improper and ulterior motive of damaging the Plaintiff’s life.  The legal and judicial systems have been grossly abused to damage the Plaintiff and shield Judge Dan L. Schaap from conviction and disbarment. 
139.        Defendants unlawfully seized the PLAINTIFF without a warrant, misused regular processes for a purpose not lawfully warranted by that particular process.
140.        Defendants had an ulterior motive or purpose for misusing the process.
141.        Defendants denied a host of Constitutional rights.
142.        The PLAINTIFF sustained damage from the irregularity.


CLAIM FOR RELIEF 19
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(against all defendants)
143.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
144.        The DEFENDANTS have shown extreme and outrageous conduct.  The Plaintiff has been under extreme emotional distress for 15 months.  Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the PLAINTIFF through defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of civil and Constitutional rights.
145.        Defendants inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff.  Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly.
146.        Some of the damaging words about the Plaintiff and actions against the Plaintiff are not defamatory, and it is these words and actions for which the Plaintiff seeks recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
47.        Conduct of Defendants was extreme and outrageous.  These outrageously false and/or criminal claims and the wide variety of things that Defendants have done would prompt an average member of the community to exclaim “outrageous!”
148.        The activities of Defendants has been so extreme that it has gone well beyond all possible bounds of decency, and it must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.  All of the acts of Defendants taken together amount to the type of extreme conduct that qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
149.        The conduct of Defendants caused the distress.
150.        The distress caused was severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff.  The outrageous harassment, lies, libel, slander, and defamation are bad alone, but the effect on the Plaintiff’s mental health has been severe.
151.        There are no alternative causes of action that would provide a remedy for the severe emotional distress caused by Defendants’ conduct that does not meet whatever standard the Court decides is appropriate for defamation.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 20

Negligent Infliction of direct physical harmand assault and battery on the PLAINTIFF

(against
all defendants)
152.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
153.        The PLAINTIFF was assaulted.  Defendants inflicted this harm on the PLAINTIFF, and all DEFENDANTS are liable.
154.        As a result of the above, the PLAINTIFF suffered direct physical harm.  Defendants have negligently inflicted emotional distress on the PLAINTIFF.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 21
Violation of Pro Se Rights
(against Judge Dan L. Schaap, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, W. BROOKS BARFIELD, RANDALL COUNTY COURT DEFENDANTS)
155.        The allegations in paragraphs above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
156.        Pro se parties are a minority class of people.  The Plaintiff objects to the treatment of pro se parties in Texas.  The Plaintiff, Pro Se, has been repeatedly denied rights and abused.  Judge Dan L. Schaap has violated the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff and other pro se parties.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 22

NEW LAW
(against Judge Dan L. Schaap, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE)
157.        The Plaintiff argues for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.  The whole idea of justice requires a fair trial with an impartial judge.  When the judge is so obviously biased that the judge ignores the facts and the law, it really shouldn’t matter where the bias comes from.  In a case such as this, it was absolutely impossible for the Plaintiff to have a fair trial.  Judges should not have immunity for egregious acts and should be subject to damages.


CLAIM FOR RELIEF 23

Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Violation of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

(Against RANDALL COUNTY JAIL, AMARILLO POLICE Department, and DOES 1 – 100)

158.        The Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
159.        The Plaintiff was denied due process and his rights were violated when his personal property was seized and searched and release was denied.
160.        By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under the color of state law to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution.
161.        As a direct result of the actions, statements and/or policies of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
162.        Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
163.        As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24

Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Violation of First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

(Against JOEL FORBIS, JUDGE DAN L. SCHAAP, BROOKS BARFIELD, Randall County Clerk of Court’s Office, and DOES 1 – 100)

164.        The Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
165.        The Plaintiff was denied due process and his rights were violated when filings were not filed or considered.
166.        The Plaintiff was denied access to a court to seek redress of grievances.
167.        Defendants directly participated in the infraction, after learning of it, failed to remedy the wrong, and created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred or allowed such policy or custom to continue.
168.        As a direct result of the actions, statements and/or policies of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
169.        Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
170.        As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 25

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Violation of Fourth Amendment Failure to Train and Supervise

(against Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO, RANDALL COUNTY, POTTER COUNTY, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT, RANDALL COUNTY JAIL, RANDALL COUNTY CLERK OF COURT’S OFFICE, JOEL FORBIS, CHIEF MARTIN BIRKENFELD)

171.        The Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
172.        The Defendants immediate supervisors, had a duty to train and supervise them to ensure they were not engaging in conduct that violated the civil rights of citizens like the PLAINTIFF.
173.        Instead of carrying out this duty, Defendants chose to encourage the misconduct of needless escalation, aggression and excessive force witnessed by the Defendants against the PLAINTIFF in this case, as well as the denial of medical care.
174.        Defendant officer DANIEL RIVERA and officer SAMANTHA FONTENOT’s use of excessive force and their illegal seizure and assault upon the PLAINTIFF was the direct result of their supervisor’s deliberate indifference to the civil rights of citizens and of disabled citizens in particular, and his repeated failure and refusal to intervene to supervise, train, or otherwise put a stop to such misconduct.
175.        All of the acts described herein were done by Defendants intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and recklessly in disregard for the PLAINTIFF’s federally protected rights, and they were done pursuant to the pre-existing and ongoing deliberately indifferent customs, policies and practices of the Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO, under color of state law.
176.        Upon information and belief, the AMARILLO Police Department’s customs and practices of unlawful conduct (and failures to train/supervise to prevent the same) proximately causing the harms described herein to the PLAINTIFF include, but are not limited to:
177.        Upon information and belief, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s custom and practice is to permit its officers to aggressively and violently arrest any citizen at the first sign of possible noncompliance with any command (regardless of whether that command is actually lawful);
178.        Upon information and belief, AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s custom and practice is to ignore all its written policies regarding de-escalation, reasonable use of force, appropriate treatment of people with disabilities;
179.        Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT to regularly use excessive force when putting someone into handcuffs and to regularly, needlessly, and deliberately throw individuals to the ground in the process of doing so (which it is their custom and practice to describe in reports as “placing [the person] on the ground”);
180.        Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT to try and cover-up and justify excessive use of force incidents by: (1) falsely claiming the person had committed obstruction or resisting after the fact; and (2) ignoring their protocol for writing reports regarding the use of force, so that the CIRT team will not be alerted to investigate their excessive uses of force;
181.        Upon information and belief, it is the custom and practice at AMARILLO POLICE DEPARTMENT to refuse to discipline its officers for misconduct and to refuse to ever find its officers have engaged in wrongdoing, in the face of obvious and repeated constitutional violations, which resulted in a foreseeable culture of police brutality and silence in the face of ongoing and repeated civil rights violations.
182.        The unlawful conduct of Defendants as set forth in detail herein, amounts to a custom and well-settled, widespread overall practice of police brutality deliberately insulated from police accountability, throughout the AMARILLO police department, even if not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, and is so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.
183.        Through the Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO’s continuous ratification of unconstitutional detentions, arrests, prosecutions, and excessive force, Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO has condoned and become the driving force of the Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct.
184.        Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO failed to properly train and supervise its officers to avoid their foreseeable use of excessive force, unlawful seizures and abuse of the vulnerable, disabled and elderly.
185.        Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO’s policies, customs and practices in failing to properly train and supervise its employees were the moving force and proximate cause of the violations to the PLAINTIFF’s constitutional rights.
186.        The custom, policy and practice of Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO of encouraging, condoning, tolerating, and ratifying the unreasonable and excessive use of illegal seizures and excessive force on citizens, as described herein, were the moving force behind and the proximate cause of, the violations to the PLAINTIFF’s constitutional rights.
187.        Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO has been deliberately obfuscatory and in other litigation involving excessive force claims against its officers, has made concerted efforts to withhold, destroy, conceal and delay the release of documents and correspondence that relate to the unconstitutional policies, customs, and practices set forth above, and which also evidence Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO’s unconstitutional practices, customs, failures to train, and supervise defendant officers as set forth above.
188.        The acts or omissions of Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO caused the PLAINTIFF to suffer physical and mental pain, among other injuries, damages and losses.
189.        The actions and omissions of Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO as described herein deprived the PLAINTIFF of the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America and caused his other damages.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 26

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 14th Amendment

 Substantive Due Process Violation

190.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
191.        Officer DANIEL RIVERA’s attack upon the PLAINTIFF was outrageous and conscience shocking.
192.        Officer DANIEL RIVERA’s and Officer SAMANTHA FONTENOT’s joined subsequent effort to purposefully abuse the PLAINTIFF, and the things that they both said and yelled at the PLAINTIFF while doing so, were also outrageous and conscience shocking.
193.        No one would be able to witness Officer DANIEL RIVERA’s needless and pointless attack upon such a disabled human being – bothering no one – without feeling traumatized themselves.
194.        The PLAINTIFF’s family, upon viewing the video of what the Defendant officers did to their loved one that day, have been deeply traumatized. The brutality and callousness has been so conscience shocking to them that they have had to seek out counseling to help with their own grief after watching such tortuously outrageous conduct.
195.        There was absolutely no governmental interest served by what the defendant officers did to the PLAINTIFF that day. The few seconds of interaction that Officer DANIEL RIVERA let elapse before he violently attacked the PLAINTIFF was arbitrary, in violation of policy, and outrageous.
196.        The sudden and violent arrest upon a mentally disabled man in this case – in the context of just an allegation of being a suspicious person – was so egregious and extraordinary, and so severe, as to amount to brutal and inhumane abuse of official power.
197.        The Defendant officers’ behavior in this case was conscience-shocking and will repeat and reverberate both trauma and harm into the Amarillo community indefinitely until and unless there is extreme intervention from this Court and from the public.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 27

Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

(against District Attorney LOVE, Judge Dan L. Schaap.)

198.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
199.        The Plaintiff was denied due process and his rights were violated when District Attorney LOVE gave false information to Judge Dan L. Schaap.
200.        Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
201.        As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 28

Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988

Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

(against all DEFENDANTS.)

202.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
203.        The Indictment in this case violates Texas law and is a fraud.
204.        The RANDALL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE has allowed the Purported Indictment to stand in gross abuse of Constitutional rights.
205.        By their conduct, as described herein, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation, under color of state law, of the Constitutional right to be free from any deprivation of liberty without due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
206.        Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
207.        As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 29

(Monell Claim)

(against
CITY OF AMARILLO.)

208.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
209.        At all relevant times herein, Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO, acting through its Police Department, Jail, District Attorney’s Office, Judicial District Courts, and Clerk of Court’s Office developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights.
210.        Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive the Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
211.        The Constitutional abuses and violations Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO, acting through its Police Department, Jail, District Attorney’s Office, Judicial District Courts, and Clerk of Court’s Office, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant Ellis County, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further Constitutional violations on the part of its Police Department, Jail, District Attorney’s Office, Judicial District Courts, Clerk of Court’s Office, and their employees; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its employees, including Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of misconduct, and, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the CITY OF AMARILLO.
212.        Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY OF AMARILLO, acting through its Police Department, Jail, District Attorney’s Office, Judicial District Courts, and Clerk of Court’s Office, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting law enforcement and judicial misconduct.
213.        Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive the Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
214.        The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to his constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such Constitutional abuses.
215.        Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard for the Plaintiff’s known statutory and Constitutional rights.
216.        As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer severe and substantial damages.  These damages include lost income, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish and distress.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 30

DEFAMATION; DEFAMATION PER SE; DEFAMATION AS A WHOLE; LIBEL: SLANDER; SLANDER PER SE

(against JUBILEE CHURCH DEFENDANTS, VOLLEYBALL DEFENDANTS.)

217.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
218.        Defendants published false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff, a private individual. 
219.        Some Defendants have orally communicated and published false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff.  These words were false.  Once obtained through discovery, audio recordings from the will be put into the record as evidence of the slander.
220.        The disparaging statements either named the Plaintiff or were of and concerning the Plaintiff.
221.        Statements that Defendants have published about the Plaintiff were communicated to third persons.  Many statements have been published online for the world to see.
222.        As a direct and proximate cause of the defamatory publications, the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged.  Statements made by Defendants have harmed the reputation of the Plaintiff, have lowered him in the estimation of the community, and have deterred third persons from associating or dealing with him.   
223.        Some statements made by Defendants impute the commission of crimes or acts that constitute an indictable offense.  Some statements linking the Plaintiff to crimes with no basis in fact demonstrate actual malice.
224.        Statements have been made unambiguously accusing the Plaintiff of committing crimes, dishonesty, fraud, rascality, and/or general depravity.  These statements constitute defamation per se. 
225.        Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff not to make defamatory and/or false statements, that duty was violated and such violation of the duty was a proximate cause of damages to the Plaintiff as described herein. Accordingly, the Plaintiff states that Defendants were negligent in their actions in publishing false and defamatory statements regarding the Plaintiff and/or acted with malice or reckless disregard regarding the truth of their statements, and such breach of duty was a proximate cause of damages complained of by the Plaintiff in this case. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 31

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

(against all DEFENDANTS)

226.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
227.        Defendants conspired to damage the Plaintiff.
228.        Defendants formed and operated the conspiracy.  The object to be accomplished was to defame, libel, slander, harass, cyberstalk, invade his privacy, falsely charge the Plaintiff with felonies, cause emotional distress, invade his privacy, and damage him.  Evidence shows that Defendants had a meeting of the minds and actively worked together toward this objective. 
229.        Multiple unlawful, overt acts were committed.  There was specific intent to agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.  The conspiracy occurred in Texas.  The act in, and effect on, Texas was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. 
230.        There are underlying torts that support the conspiracy cause of action, including defamation. 
231.        Damage resulted to the Plaintiff from acts done in furtherance of the common design.  The Plaintiff has been caused pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost enjoyment of life, loss of his marriage, damage to his relationship with his family, severe damage to his reputation, damage to his career, and more.  The Plaintiff’s business relationships have been severely damaged.  The Plaintiff’s reputation is now sullied by false, defamatory information online.  This defamation likely can never be erased because it is breeding in cyberspace.
232.        There was extreme risk by Defendants as there was not a remote possibility of injury or even a high probability of minor harm, but rather the likelihood of serious injury to the Plaintiff.
233.        Actual awareness existed because Defendants knew about the peril, but their acts demonstrated that they did not care. 
234.        Some Defendants aided and abetted the conspiracy and underlying torts.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 32

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

(against all DEFENDANTS)

235.        The Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
236.        Defendants acted intentionally to damage the Plaintiff.  Defendants committed fraud, malice, and gross negligence.  This isn’t the case of someone slipping up and making one false statement.  The actions of Defendants were deliberate.
237.        Conduct of Defendants, as described above, is willful, wanton, wicked, intentional, and malicious resulting from fraud, insult, and malice, and it is associated with aggravating circumstances, including willfulness, wantonness, malice, oppression, outrageous conduct, insult, and fraud, thus warranting the Plaintiff’s recovery of punitive damages from each of the Defendants. 
238.        The entire want of care by the Defendants shows that the acts complained of were the result of conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of the Plaintiff.
239.        The Plaintiff should receive an award of punitive/exemplary damages.  Exemplary damages serve to provide the claimant with recovery above and beyond compensatory damages in order to punish the wrongdoers for egregious conduct and to deter the wrongdoers and others from similar conduct in the future.
240.        Since the Plaintiff’s damages can never be erased in this case; there is no amount of money that could compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of life as he knew it; there is no amount of money to compensate a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen for the destruction of his reputation.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 33

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(against
all DEFENDANTS)
241.        If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants and their agents, representatives, and employees will continue to implement similar policies and practices that deny citizens their Constitutional rights without due process, violate their right to equal protection of the laws, and deprive people of the privileges or immunities of citizenship.  This course of conduct will cause citizens to suffer irreparable injury, including but not limited to, loss of business opportunities and the deprivation of their livelihoods. Citizens have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law for such an injury.  Accordingly, injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other authority is appropriate.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 34

RICO RELIEF

(against
all DEFENDANTS)
42.        The Plaintiff asks that this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have acquired and maintained, both directly and indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s); that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff and against all Defendants for the Plaintiff’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants pay to the Plaintiff treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), according to the best available proof; that all Defendants pay to the Plaintiff all damages sustained by the Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); that all Defendants pay to the Plaintiff his costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees; that all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of the Plaintiff, his heirs and assigns; that the Plaintiff has such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances of this action; that Defendants have conspired to acquire and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and maintain control of, a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d); that Defendants have conspired to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d); that all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s); that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff and against all Defendants for the Plaintiff’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the Plaintiff treble damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the Plaintiff all damages sustained by the Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); that all Defendants pay to the Plaintiff his costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees; and that all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust for the benefit of the Plaintiff, his heirs and assigns.

PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
243.        The Plaintiff has not filed other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts involved in this action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

          WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and grant:     

A.   Appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the unlawful and unconstitutional acts and practices of the Defendants;
B.    Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, privacy, sense of security and individual dignity, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law;
C.    Appropriate equitable relief against all Defendants as allowed by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the enjoining and permanent restraining of these violations, and direction to Defendants to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of the unconstitutional and unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect the Plaintiff or others;
D.   All economic losses and damages on all claims allowed by law to be established at trial;
E.    Expunge all criminal records regarding the PLAINTIFF;
F.     Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial;
G.   Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief, including, but not limited to:
1.     Issuance of a formal handwritten apology from each Defendant to the Plaintiff, his mother, his father, his sister, and his two brothers;

2. The imposition of policy changes designed to avoid future similar misconduct by Defendants;


3. Mandatory training designed to prevent future similar misconduct by Defendants;

4. Attorneys’ fees and the costs on all claims allowed by law;

5. Name the volleyball courts at the Park: The Hunter Tyler Schreck Memorial Volleyball Courts with a bronze plaque commemorating the name and with this quote:
“Just like the man who has done nothing wrong.”

6. Permanently name June 24 “Hunter Tyler Schreck Day” in Amarillo and Randall County, Texas.

G.  Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and

H.  Any further relief to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled.



REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.


[1] This is the Loveland Colorado Policy as cited in a case similar to this.  The PLAINTIFF has not yet obtained this policy through discovery.

(This is the end of the Verified Complaint.)



Other Articles about Hunter Tyler Schreck:

Hunter Tyler Schreck - a Disabled Young Man - has been Victimized by Police, District Attorney, and Pentecostal Church Members in Amarillo Texas

Just Like the Man who has Done Nothing Wrong by Hunter Tyler Schreck

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit - Chapter 1

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit - Chapter 2

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit - Chapter 3

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit - Chapter 4

Hunter Tyler Schreck Federal Lawsuit - Chapter 5

Copyright LawlessAmerica.com




Bill Windsor went to high school and college in Lubbock, Texas -- just a short drive from Amarillo, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country that he has loved so much. 



windsor bill 2014 10 28 mugshot ellis county jail 200w

Bill Windsor


I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.   This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our  Legal Notice and Terms

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America


#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#HunterTylerSchreck
#HunterSchreck
#MarcieSchreck
#RandallCounty
#RandallCountyTexas
#Amarillo
#AmarilloTexas
#WBrooksBarfield
#brooksbarfield
#traumaticbraininjury
#amarillopolice
#amarillopolicedepartment
#DanielRivera
#AllisonMuncell
#matthewbrush
#SheaLitchie
#danielsmith
#JubileeChurch
#johnstiffmemorialpark
#davidblount
#daveblount
#nathancarrington
#rolondacarrington
#nataleycarrington
#jubileeapostolicchurch
#angelicaesparza
#brayanzubiate
#ChristianMorgan
#VictorPinentel
#AaronGurule
#DanaGurule
#georgehastings
#dennisgreen
#jbeghtel
#vpadilla
#jtinsley
#sgthaley
#samanthabowman
#samanthafontenot
#SamanthaBowmanFontenot
#bushland
#BushlandTexas





Judges

Judicial Corruption is rampant.  Our rights to a fair trial are a myth.  Many judges are totally corrupt.

Constitution

Our fundamental rights have been taken away by a government of wrongs. Stolen by corruption.

Attorneys

Misconduct is everywhere. Dishonesty abounds. Perjury, subornation of perjury, corruption!

Police

Abuse, Dishonesty, Corruption.  It's all common with Police and Law Enforcement.

Government

Government Dishonesty is Bad.
We must find honest people
and make them accountable
to We the People.