The City Of Bremereton, Bremerton City Prosecutors Office, And The Dept. Of Corrections Violations of individual civil rights. False Imprisonment and Malicious prosecution, Police Failure to arrest and prosecute those involved in illegal law enforcement, Conspiracy to impede and obstruct criminal investigations, Threats of, and attempted homicide, Battery, and Perjury Bremerton Washington

. . .Abuse of discretion in the prosecution of criminal complaints, Intentional obstruction of the due course of justice, False Imprisonment and Malicious prosecution, Failure to arrest and prosecute those involved in illegal law enforcement, Conspiracy to impede and obstruct criminal investigations, Threats of, and attempted homicide, Battery, and Perjury

This case, from the outside looking in, may appear as if
a disgruntled felon were trying to bring frivolous claims. Sadly, this is not the case and I have been made a felon by the system which relied on the word of a police officer, my father-in-law. Please also keep in mind that my estranged wife is not the biological mother of my children. It has been made to look that way so as to suggest that I am trying to keep a concerned mother from her children.

Civil Rights Complaint


Plaintiff(s)

? Gary A. ----,
Plaintiff and father of minor children named as Plaintiff/Victim's. Mr. --- complains that the Defendants violated his and his minor children's Civil Rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution by False Arrest, Illegal Search, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Deprivation of Rights. Mr. -- complains that the Defendants maliciously and outrageously subjected him and his minor children to irreversible emotional trauma. (Hereafter, Plaintiff)

? David , minor child of Plaintiff (age 9) (Hereafter, Plaintiff /Victim)

? Dakota, minor child of Plaintiff (age 7) (Hereafter, Plaintiff /Victim)


Defendants

? The City of Bremerton & Police Department
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-A Municipality duly organized and existing under and by virtues of the laws of the State of Washington who with the powers vested in them to enforce laws of the State of Washington and the City of Bremerton, who intentionally acted in bad faith when they Directed their agents, servants, and employees to ignore complaints and maliciously target the Plaintiff in an effort to silence him from exposing the wrongful actions of the City's agents, servants, and employees. (Hereafter, the City)

? Robert Forbes
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Chief of the Bremerton Police Dept., who intentionally acted in bad faith when he flagrantly and repeatedly ignored and failed to address serious complaints that Officer Smally was wrongfully making arrests with erroneous and expired court orders, and that this officer did so to assist the City in retaliation against the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff was exonerated in a trial just 70 days earlier, where the Plaintiff was accused by the City of assault against another Police Officers daughter. Additionally, this Police Chief ignored complaints that this wrongful arrest was likely to be Racially Motivated. (Hereafter, Police Chief)

? Randy Brisbane #?
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he organized, coerced and conspired with Defendants and his Cohorts, to maliciously and with malice, interfere in the natural course of justice for reasons of eliminating and hiding the wrongful and illegal acts by the City, to provide preferential treatment to a family member, and eliminate embarrassment to his position as a Police Officer, all resulting in severe and gross Violations of individual Civil Rights and Liberties of the Plaintiff and his minor children. This officer threatened the Plaintiffs' life by conspiring with, and assisted by, his son Jeremy Brisbane and fellow Officer Dan Fatt. Jeremy Brisbane, who befriended and lead Plaintiff to an isolated cliff side area, where these individuals subsequently threatened, and implied bodily harm. (Hereafter, Officer Brisbane)

? Dan Fatt #?
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he conspired and assisted Officer Brisbane and his Cohorts, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda and threatened the Plaintiff's life with the assistance of Officer Brisbane and Jeremy Brisbane, who befriended and led the Plaintiff to an isolated cliff side area, where these individuals subsequently threatened, and implied bodily harm. (Hereafter, Officer Fatt)

? Officer Smally #?
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he assisted Officer Brisbane and his Cohorts, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda and who falsely arrested the Plaintiff without probable cause, without a warrant and used an expired court order # 14080607 to do it. Additionally, this officer ignored real facts and made said arrest in retaliation for the exoneration the Plaintiff received in Municipal court just 70 days earlier. (Hereafter, Officer Smally)

? Jason Vertefeuille #464
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he further assisted fellow Officer Brisbane, by invading the home of the Plaintiff, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any other legal right to do so, by bashing in the Plaintiff's front door and assaulting the Plaintiff with hands, and threatening the Plaintiff with taser guns, and firearms issued by the City, and did all this in the presence of the Plaintiffs two young minor children. (Hereafter, Police Officers)

? David Sherman #467
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he further assisted fellow Officer Brisbane, by invading the home of the Plaintiff, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any other legal right to do so, by bashing in the Plaintiff's front door and assaulting the Plaintiff with hands, and threatening the Plaintiff with taser guns, and firearms issued by the City, and did all this in the presence of the Plaintiffs two young minor children. (Hereafter, Police Officers)

Nathan Tincher #438
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he further assisted fellow Officer Brisbane, by invading the home of the Plaintiff, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any other legal right to do so, by bashing in the Plaintiff's front door and assaulting the Plaintiff with hands, and threatening the Plaintiff with taser guns, and firearms issued by the City, and did all this in the presence of the Plaintiffs two young minor children. (Hereafter, Police Officers)

? Kelly Mead #434
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Officer employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when he further assisted fellow Officer Brisbane, by invading the home of the Plaintiff, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any other legal right to do so, by bashing in the Plaintiff's front door and assaulting the Plaintiff with hands, and threatening the Plaintiff with taser guns, and firearms issued by the City, and did all this in the presence of the Plaintiffs two young minor children. (Hereafter, Police Officers)

? Susan Shultz #449
239 4th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-473-5220
-Bremerton Police Detective employed and Directed by the City, who intentionally acted in bad faith when she further assisted Officer Brisbane by entering the schools of the Plaintiff's minor children, and harassed, coerced, intimidated, and repeatedly questioned the Plaintiff's minor children, until she was able to manipulate their words to make allegation of lying by the Plaintiff, and so that said lies would fit into the false allegations made against the Plaintiff by the City, and said actions by this Detective was Directed by Chief Forbes in an effort to coerce and compel a jury to wrongfully convict the Plaintiff.

? Washington State Department of Corrections
5002 Kitsap Way. Lower Level. WB-11
Bremerton, WA. 98312 / 360-479-3694
-A Washington State Agency duly organized and existing under and by virtues of the laws of the State of Washington who intentionally acted in bad faith when they Directed their Corrections Officers, their agents, servants, and employees, to assist Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda, by directing agents, servants, and employees, to making false criminal complaints against the Plaintiff in an effort to silence him from attempting to expose the wrongful actions of the City as well as the Dept. of Corrections. (Hereafter, the DOC)

? Arthur Williams
5002 Kitsap Way. Lower Level. WB-11
Bremerton, WA. 98312 / 360-479-3694
-Corrections Officer of the DOC, who intentionally acted in bad faith and assisted Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda. This Officer made false complaints, coerced City and County Prosecutors to intimidate the Plaintiff, and coerced the Plaintiff to accept guilty plea agreements, achieve convictions, and silence the Plaintiff from exposing wrongdoing by the City and themselves. (Hereafter, Officer Williams)

? Kimberly O'Neil
5002 Kitsap Way. Lower Level. WB-11
Bremerton, WA. 98312 / 360-479-3694
-Corrections Officer of the DOC, who intentionally acted in bad faith when she assisted Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda. This officer made false complaints, coerced City and County prosecutors to intimidate the Plaintiff, and coerce the Plaintiff to accept guilty plea agreement's, achieve convictions, and silence the Plaintiff from exposing wrongdoing by the City and themselves. (Hereafter, Officer O'Neil)

? Polly Holton
5002 Kitsap Way. Lower Level. WB-11
Bremerton, WA. 98312 / 360-479-3694
-Corrections Officer of the DOC, who intentionally acted in bad faith and failed to address the Plaintiffs grievances of erroneous Court Orders that were clearly denied by Judge Olsen and requested by the DOC., and who continued to enforce, said erroneous orders, and further hiding the misconduct of fellow Officer O'Neil of the Dept. of Corrections (Hereafter, Officer Holton)

? Kitsap County Prosecutors Office
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
-A State and County Office, duly organized and existing under and by virtues of the laws of the State of Washington, who intentionally acted in bad faith when they Directed their Prosecutors, agents, servants, and employees, to assist the City, their agents, servants, and employees in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda, by making false criminal complaints against the Plaintiff to harass and silence the Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff was attempting to expose the wrongful acts of the Defendants and further assisting the City in hiding their misconduct. (Hereafter, KCPO)

? Robert Naon
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
-Kitsap County Prosecutor who intentionally acted in bad faith when he failed to address all evidence in criminal complaints against the Plaintiff, and assisted Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda of harassing and silencing the Plaintiff, and further assisting the City in hiding their misconduct. (Hereafter Prosecutor Naon)

? Cami Lewis
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
-Kitsap County Prosecutor who intentionally acted in bad faith when she failed to address all evidence in criminal complaints against the Plaintiff and assisted Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda of harassing and silencing the Plaintiff, and further assisted the City in hiding their misconduct. (Hereafter, Prosecutor Lewis)

? Bremerton City Prosecutors Office
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
Attn: Bremerton Prosecutors Office
-A City of Bremerton Municipal office duly organized and existing under and by virtues of the laws of the State of Washington and the City of Bremerton, who intentionally acted in bad faith when they Directed their Prosecutors, agents, servants, and employees, to assist Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda, by Directing agents, servants, and employees, to make false criminal complaints against the Plaintiff in an effort to harass and silence the Plaintiff, and further assisted the City in hiding their misconduct.

? Barbara O'Dennis
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
Attn: Bremerton Prosecutors Office
-Bremerton City Prosecutor, who intentionally acted in bad faith when she failed to address all evidence in criminal complaints against the Plaintiff and entered into Conspiracy with Officer Brisbane, his Cohorts, and the City, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda of harassing and silencing the Plaintiff, and further assisting the City in hiding their misconduct. (Hereafter Prosecutor O'Dennis)

? Kitsap Mental Health
5455 Almira Drive N.E.
Bremerton, WA. 98311 / 360-373-7049
-Mental Health Facility, who employed Tammy Gannon, and who acted in bad faith when they directed their agents, servants, and employees to ignored complaints, to maliciously target the Plaintiff in an effort to provide assistance to the DOC in silencing him from exposing the wrongful actions of the DOC.

? Tammy Gannon
Almira Drive N.E.
Bremerton, WA. 98311 / 360-373-7049
-Kitsap Mental Health Councilor, who intentionally acted in bad faith when she violated her Confidentiality agreement made with the Plaintiff. Additionally, this mental health expert, maliciously and with malice, conspired with a friend who worked as an Officer of the DOC, in an effort to meet a malicious, criminal, and personal agenda of hiding this Officer's illegal behavior in open court and in the field.
Congressional and Judicial Officials

? Congressional Office of the 6th District
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-479-4011
-Congressional Office who intentionally acted in bad faith when they blatantly ignored and failed to hear and address the Plaintiff pleas for help in having serious complaints of Corruption and Conspiracy involving the Defendants, and threats of Homicide by City Police Officer Brisbane, and who further assisted the City in hiding their misconduct.

? Norm Dicks
Norm Dicks Government Center
345 6th Street.
Bremerton, WA. 98337 / 360-479-4011
-Congressional representative of the sixth District who intentionally acted in bad faith when he blatantly ignored and failed to hear and address the Plaintiffs' pleas for help in solving serious complaints of Corruption and Conspiracy involving the Defendants, further assisting the City in hiding their misconduct.

? Sally Olsen
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
Superior Court Judge who intentionally acted in bad faith when she blatantly failed to acknowledge and act on the wrongful activates of the Department of Corrections when it was clearly brought to her attention and in writing, by the Plaintiff. Judge Olsen also acted in bad faith when she refused to accept a request by the Plaintiff to rescind a plea agreement made with the County Prosecutors Office while under duress, and in her court room, and all this was intentional and to assist the City to further hide their misconduct. (Hereafter, Judge Olsen)

? Jay Roof
614 Division Street.
Port Orchard WA. 98366 / 360-473-2334
Superior Court Judge who intentionally acted in bad faith when he blatantly failed to acknowledge and act on the wrongful activates of the Department of Corrections when it was clearly brought to his attention and in writing, by the Plaintiff. Judge Roof also acted in bad faith when he maliciously and outrageously prosecuted the Plaintiff for attending a parenting program with his two young sons for the sole purpose of aiding the DOC in hiding there wrongs of wrongful and malicious prosecutions and all this was to further assisted the City in hiding their misconduct. (Hereafter, Judge Roof)

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of this action is based upon Federal Question Jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1331, 1331(a), and the Due Process Clause of Art. IV of the United States Constitution. The federal Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff(s) common law claims, infra, and venue is proper pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, and Section 1391. The issue before this court is the violation of the Plaintiff(s) individual civil rights pursuant to Title 42 U.S. ? 1983 and raises Federal questions and Constitutional issues.

The Facts

1. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, the Defendant, the City of Bremerton, was, and still is a Municipality duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington.
2. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, the City, its agents, servants, and employees, maintained and controlled the Bremerton Police Department including the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Department, and all Police Officers there of.
3. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, the Bremerton Police Department employed Officers Randy Brisbane, Dan Fatt, Smally, John Vertefeuille, David Sherman, Nathan Tincher, Kelly Mead as Police Officers, and Susan Shultz as Police Detective, Robert Forbes as the Chief of Police, who was under the authority of the City Manager, who was under the authority of the City Council.
4. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, that Cary Bozeman was and is the Mayor of the City of Bremerton and a member of City Council.
5. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, the City of Bremerton Prosecutors Office employed Barbara O'Dennis as City Prosecutor.
6. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, the Kitsap County Prosecutors Office employed Bob Naon, Cami Lewis, and Barbara O'Dennis as Kitsap County Prosecutors.
7. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereafter mentioned, the Washington State Department of Corrections employed and Directed Arthur Williams, Kimberly O'Neil, and Polly Holton.
8. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly under the provisions of the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983, and the Rights under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Washington.
9. That each and all of the acts of the Defendants alleged herein were done by the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, not as individuals, but under the Color and Pretense of the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, Customs, and Usages of the Federal Government, the State of Washington, County of Kitsap, and City of Bremerton, and under the authority of their employment with full knowledge and approval of their Superiors, as agents of the City, County, State and Federal Government.
10. In all cases, the Defendants are being sued both individually and in their Official capacities.
11. In all cases, the Defendants are NOT automatically entitled to Immunity. See, suggestions.
12. All facts stated herein in any one section are incorporated, reiterated, and re-alleged in every other section.
13. That it goes against the Doctrine of the Constitution of the United States of America, for Government Agencies and Departments, their agents, servants, and employees to maliciously, outrageously, and intentionally inter into conspiracies, to make false statements, to make false arrests, to falsely imprison, to maliciously convict, or to intentionally inflict emotional distress against the citizens for the purpose of torturing and obtaining information and testimony, and for the purpose of achieving plea agreements, guilty or not, and for the purpose of assisting one another in covering-up misconducts.
14. That all crimes, atrocities, and Civil Rights violations mentioned in this suit, understandably, ?Shocks the Plaintiff's Conscience.?

False Arrest / Illegal Search / False Imprisonment.
Incident on November 28, 2004
At the plaintiffs home.

November 28, 2004
15. That at the Plaintiffs home at ----, the Defendants, without probable cause, without a warrant, and without any other legal authority, did smash in the Plaintiff's front door.
16. That the Defendants, without probable cause, without a warrant, and without any right or grounds therefore, maliciously and outrageously drew their department issued lethal weapons, shoved them into the left side of the Plaintiff's neck, and in the presence of the Plaintiff's minor children did yelled out, ?Don't move mother *&*& or I will blow your *&*& head off.?
17. That the Defendants wrongfully, falsely, and maliciously accused the Plaintiff of the crime of Domestic Violence and Felony Violation of a Court Ordered Protective Order when the daughter of Officer Brisbane, the Plaintiff's estranged wife, Cathleen Brisbane Richardson, showed up at his home, inebriated.
18. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees wrongfully, falsely, and maliciously arrested the Plaintiff in his home without a warrant, and without any right or grounds therefore.
19. That the Defendants at the time of the arrest refused to inform the Plaintiff of the nature of the charges against him, as required by the Sixth Amendment, other than he was being arrested for Domestic Violence and Felony Violation of a court Ordered Protective Order. Additionally, the Defendants refused to listen to the Plaintiff and state why they were arresting the Plaintiff and not the perpetrator.
20. That the said arrest and imprisonment was caused by the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and even their own family members, without any warrant or other legal process and without authority of the law and without any reasonable cause, or that the Plaintiff, Gary ----, was in fact guilty of a crime, and without exigent circumstances, and without any other legal justification.
21. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, wrongfully and unlawfully, and against the stated wishes of the Plaintiff, searched the home of the Plaintiff.
22. That the Defendants arrested and imprisoned the Plaintiff, laying hold of him and with full force of arms, compelled him to go with the Police Officers to the County Jail where he was further searched and placed in a drunk tank for several hours without being given the opportunity to make a phone call or post bail.
23. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees unlawfully allowed the Plaintiffs inebriated estranged wife, the perpetrator, to enter and take hold of the Plaintiff's minor children, and property.
24. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees were acting within the scope of their authority and within the scope of their employment and acting within the rules and customs, whether written or unwritten, of the Bremerton Police Department, and maliciously and outrageously falsely arrested the Plaintiff under Color of State Law.
25. That the Plaintiff was wholly innocent of said criminal charges and did not contribute in any way to the conduct of the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees and was forced by the Defendants, to submit to the aforesaid arrest, search, and imprisonment thereto entirely against his will.
26. During all of the foregoing brutal actions, Plaintiff - ---was unarmed, defenseless, and made no furtive moves or gestures whatsoever.

November 30, 2004
27. That Kitsap County Prosecutors refused to file charges and released the Plaintiff due to evidence showing the Plaintiff's estranged wife, daughter of Officer Brisbane, engaged, and caused this incident.

December 6, 2004
28. That Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and specifically Officer Brisbane, and acting under the authority of the Bremerton Police Dept. and within the scope of their authority, maliciously and outrageously appeared in full uniform with side arm, made false and malicious allegations about the Plaintiff, to the DOC.
29. That Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and specifically Officer Brisbane, deliberately and with malice, appeared in full uniform to the DOC, and maliciously and outrageously demanded probation violation charges be filed against the Plaintiff for the November 28. 2004 incident.
30. That during said visit, Officer Brisbane produced a Police Report falsely accusing the Plaintiff of acts that arresting Officers knew the Plaintiff did not commit and included in this report, false and hearsay statements accusing the Plaintiff of a number of malicious statements for the purpose of convincing the DOC to bring Probation Violation charges against the Plaintiff.
31. That on during said visit, Corrections Officer O'Neil refused Officer Brisbane's demand to charge the Plaintiff with Probation Violations.
32. That during said visit, Officer Brisbane refused to accept No for an answer, and again made his malicious and outrageous demands to Officer O'Neil's Superior.
33. That Officer O'Neil, under Direction of her Superiors, sent a notice to the Plaintiff, demanding his appearance in Superior Court on December 16, 2004, to answer to Probation Violations.

December 16, 2004
34. That as a result of the aforesaid accusations made by the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, acting under their employment and within the scope of their authority, maliciously and outrageously made falsely, publicly, wickedly, and maliciously, and after the Plaintiff's initial release from Superior Court custody, the Plaintiff was compelled to appear before a Judge in Municipal Court in the City of Bremerton, where he was again arrested, charged with a crime, and imprisoned for a period of 52 days. Additionally, bail was set at an unreasonably high amount for the purpose of a self imposed punishment by the Defendants that resulted in the Plaintiff and his minor children being separated over the Christmas Holidays.
35. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, intended to confine the Plaintiff, deprive him of his Liberty, and that the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement, and that the Plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
36. That by reason of the false arrest, imprisonment, the detention of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was subjected publicly to great indignities, in being detained, charged, prosecuted with a crime, and greatly injured in his standing in the community, destroying his chances of ever volunteering or working with children again.
37. That during said incarceration, the Plaintiff begged and pleaded with Prosecutor O'Dennis, through his Public Defender, to hear the facts and release the Plaintiff.
38. That during said incarceration, Prosecutor O'Dennis maliciously and outrageously refused to listen to the facts, and refused to acknowledge the alleged victims statements that she was inebriated, came to the Plaintiff's home for the purpose of menacing in his affairs, and knowing an existing no contact order was in effect.
39. That during said incarceration, Detective Shultz, maliciously and outrageously entered the schools of the Plaintiff's minor children, and harassed, coerced, intimidated, and repeatedly questioned them until she was able to manipulate their words to make allegation of lying by the Plaintiff, and so that said lies would fit into the false allegations made against the Plaintiff by the City.
40. That said actions by this Detective were Directed by Prosecutor O'Dennis in an effort to coerce and compel a jury to wrongfully convict the Plaintiff, and to threaten the Plaintiff into accepting a Plea Agreement.

February 2, 2005
41. That after the Plaintiff spent 52 days in confinement; the Plaintiff was compelled to face a trial.
42. That the Plaintiff was exonerated and set free by a jury of his peers for the charges he was made to defend against.
43. The Defendants' brutal treatment of the Plaintiff caused this Plaintiff to fear for his life and caused this Plaintiff serious psychological injury.
44. That the Defendants conduct was a direct result of Government Customs of concealing offences of other Officers along with those who would assist them, and of unwritten Police and Government policy, neglect in training and supervision, and that it was done with the full knowledge and approval of their Superiors.
45. The Defendants' actions were under the Color of State Law.
46. The Defendants' actions were maliciously and outrageously reckless and callously indifferent to the Plaintiffs' Federally Protected Rights.
47. The use of force against the Plaintiff was the result of the policies, practices, and customs of the City of Bremerton to inadequately supervise and discipline Law Enforcement Officers who use excessive force.
48. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees intentionally, maliciously, and outrageously committed these crimes to inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff, for the purpose of torturing the Plaintiff, to obtain information and testimony to be used against the Plaintiff, and to cause fear and intimidation so as to discourage the Plaintiff from initiating Disciplinary actions against the Defendants misconducts, and to avoid Civil Liability.

False Arrest / False Imprisonment
Incident on April 28, 2005

April 28, 2005
49. That on the street corner of Sanders Avenue and Wright Avenue in the Bremerton City limits, the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, without probable cause, without a warrant, and without any other legal authority, did stop and question the Plaintiff about being in contact with Officer Brisbane's daughter.
50. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, wrongfully, falsely, and maliciously accused the Plaintiff of the crime of Felony Violation of a Court Ordered No Contact Order #14080607 that did not exist.
51. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, wrongfully, falsely, and maliciously arrested the Plaintiff without a warrant and without any right or grounds therefore.
52. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, at the time of the arrest refused to inform the Plaintiff of the nature of the charges against him, as required by the Sixth Amendment, other than he was being arrested for Felony Violation of a Court Ordered No Contact Order.
53. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, at the time of the arrest refused to respond to the Plaintiff when Plaintiff asked why they were not arresting the real perpetrator, who he himself was chasing, and who had just assaulted Officer Brisbane's daughter.
54. That said arrest and imprisonment was caused by the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, without any warrant or other legal process and without authority of the law and without any reasonable cause or that the Plaintiff, Gary ---, was in fact guilty of a crime, and without exigent circumstances, and without any other legal justification.
55. That the Defendants arrested and imprisoned the Plaintiff, laying hold of him and with full force of arms, compelled him to go with the Police Officers to the Kitsap County Jail where he was further searched and placed in a drunk tank for several hours without being given the opportunity to make a phone call.
56. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees were acting within the scope of their authority and within the scope of their employment and acting within the rules and customs, whether written or unwritten, of the Bremerton Police Department and falsely arrested the Plaintiff under Color of State Law.
57. That the Plaintiff was wholly innocent of said criminal charges and did not contribute in any way to the conduct of the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees and was forced by the Defendants, to submit to the aforesaid arrest, search, and imprisonment thereto entirely against his will.

April 29, 2005
58. That the County Prosecutors maliciously and outrageously refused to address the erroneous charge of Felony Violation of a 'Court Ordered No Contact Order #14080607, and refused to release the Plaintiff.
59. That during said incarceration of the Plaintiff, the Prosecutors Office recognized this erroneous cause number, and on 2 separate occasions produced other erroneous orders, none of which had any merit.
60. That on no occasion did the Prosecutor ever admit to these said erroneous orders, and maliciously and outrageously continued said charges with threats of 18-months in Shelton State Prison to intimidate and coerce the Plaintiff to finally, and just 4-days to trial, offer the Plaintiff with time served and the ability to return home to his minor children, if the Plaintiff agreed to sign a plea agreement of a lesser charge of assault.
61. That as a result of the aforesaid accusations made by the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees acting under their employment and within the scope of their authority, maliciously and outrageously made falsely, publicly, wickedly, and maliciously, the Plaintiff was compelled to appear before a Judge in Superior Court where he was formally charged with a Felony crime, and imprisoned for a period of 60-days.
62. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, maliciously and outrageously intended to confine the Plaintiff, deprive him of his Liberty, and that the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement, and that the Plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not otherwise Privileged.
63. That the Defendants conduct was a direct result of Government Customs of concealing offences of other Officers, and of unwritten Police and Government policies, neglect in training and supervision, and that it was done with the full knowledge and approval of their Superiors.
64. That the Defendants' actions were under Color of State Law.
65. That in the summer of 2005, Officer Brisbane retired from the City, in an effort to elude any legal retribution, including criminal charges, civil actions, and to protect from the potential loss of his retirement.
66. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees intentionally and maliciously committed these crimes to inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff for the purpose of keeping the Plaintiff in a state of confusion, knowing that putting someone in this state would keep their wrongs from being exposed. The Defendants maliciously and outrageously tortured the Plaintiff to cause fear and intimidation so as to discourage the Plaintiff from initiating disciplinary actions against the Defendants misconducts, and to avoid Civil Liability.

Malicious Allegations by Dept. of Corrections

October, 2005
67. That as a result of the Plaintiff accusing the DOC of contempt of court, falsifying documents, and violating the Plaintiff's Civil Rights, the DOC maliciously and outrageously charged the Plaintiff with verbal threatening of a Corrections Officer, leaving the county without permission, and failure to report.
68. That the Plaintiff had telephone communications with Officer Williams of the DOC, and that this Officer wanted the Plaintiff to turn him self in to the Kitsap County Jail and prepare to stay for 4 months for said allegations.

October 21, 2005
69. That before going into seclusion, the Plaintiff mailed a letter to Officer Williams of the DOC, explaining in detail that he, the Plaintiff, knew that the DOC was maliciously and outrageously bringing false charges against him because the Plaintiff was not changing his position about exposing the ongoing misconduct and renegade behavior in open court and in the field, by DOC Officer O'Neil, Prosecutor Cami Lewis, and the City.

October 30, 2005
70. That the Plaintiff became frightened and confused about the erroneous charges, and about what was going to happen to his minor children if he were incarcerated, and took them into seclusion.
71. That the Plaintiff and his minor children remained in seclusion to insure their Christmas Holidays together and until the Plaintiff could get his personal affairs in order, and so the Plaintiff could communicate his innocents to the DOC, and so the Plaintiff could seek legal representation.

January 9, 2006
72. That the Plaintiff made arrangements with the Superior Court Clerk's Office to appear on January 13, 2006, to quash the warrant that was issued in response to the DOC charges.

January 13, 2006
73. That while appearing to quash said warrant in Superior Court, the Plaintiff was maliciously and outrageously taken into custody and forced into the Kitsap County Jail for said charges, and without bail.

February 8, 2006
74. That the Plaintiff's Public Defender, in a hearing labeled highly contested, convinced Judge Roof to find that the serious allegation of verbal threatening of a corrections officer was unfounded.
75. That Judge Roof maliciously and outrageously determined the Plaintiff guilty on a technical violation for leaving the county without permission.
76. That Judge Roof maliciously and outrageously determined that the Plaintiff was guilty of failure to report.
77. That the DOC testified that the information received by their Office, in reference to the verbal threatening, came from a Kitsap Mental Health Professional who the Plaintiff confided in when he found himself confused and distraught about the maliciously and outrageously shenanigans being done by the DOC, the Superior Courts, and the Police Dept.
78. That during this hearing, the DOC, specifically Officer O'Neil, testified that this mental health Professional was a personal friend of hers.
79. That the DOC testified that they had in fact, given the Plaintiff permission to leave the county, in their words, to participate in activities with the South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency, to better the lives of the Plaintiff and his 2 young sons.
80. That the Plaintiff in fact, did participate with the South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency on October 1, 2005, for a family oriented weekend program in which the Plaintiff participated in a rigid parenting program, and in which the charge of leaving the county without permission came about.
81. That participating in these activities suddenly became violations, only when the Plaintiff threatened to expose the maliciously, outrageously, and renegade behavior of the DOC, specifically Officer O'Neil, the Prosecutors Office, and the City.
82. That it was this said participation that the DOC was alleging that the Plaintiff had left the county without permission.
83. That the DOC testified that they had learned the Plaintiff had left the county from the Plaintiff's estranged wife, who was angry that the Plaintiff refused to participate in any reconciliation of their marriage, and made said accusations in a malicious and outrageously manner.
84. That as a result of the serious, but erroneous, allegations by the DOC, in October, and as a result of Officer Williams being adamant on the Plaintiff spending 4 month behind bars, and that this represented the loss of the Plaintiff and his 2 young sons spending Christmas together, the Plaintiff is justified for going into seclusion and securing the holidays with his sons.
85. That the DOC intentionally made maliciously and outrageous false allegations to suppress and discourage the Plaintiff from exposing their wrongs and avoiding possible Civil Liability.
86. That the maliciously and outrageous gross intentional Deception has inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff.
87. That this deception was for the purpose of maliciously and outrageously torturing the Plaintiff to cause fear and intimidation so as to discourage the Plaintiff from initiating Disciplinary actions against the DOC, and to avoid Civil Liability.
88. That the DOC conduct, was a direct result of DOC Customs, of concealing offences of Corrections Officers, and of unwritten Corrections policies, neglect in training and supervision, and that this behavior was done with the full knowledge and approval of DOC Superiors.

Gross Incompetence / Deliberate Indifference

Clearly Established in Common Law and Police Procedures
89. That Police can not maliciously and outrageously enter a house to make a warrant-less arrest, unless there is both probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that warrant-less arrest in the home are not justified for minor offences.
90. That Police have no right to maliciously and outrageously enter a home without a warrant and conduct a search thereof without a warrant.
91. That a Police Officer is required to read the arrestee, his Maranda rights, before questioning him.
92. That Police can not include in their Police Reports, maliciously and outrageously libelous, slanderous, and defamatory material that they know is not true, and that even if true is unrelated to the charges.
93. That Police must read a readily available court order before making an arrest.
94. That the Kitsap County Prosecutors can not maliciously and outrageously conspire with the Bremerton Police Department to obtain evidence and testimony that they know was obtained illegally, and that Prosecutors would have a responsibility and duty to expose such activity and to disclose it to the proper Judges and Defense Counsels and convicted individuals whose cases would be greatly effected by said information.
95. That the Internal Affaires Department, the Chief of Police, the City Manager, and the City Council have a responsibility and duty to train, discipline, and supervise these Police Officers to protect the Constitutional Rights of the citizens.
96. That the DOC can not maliciously and outrageously conspire with the Bremerton Police Department of City and County Prosecutors Offices, to obtain evidence and testimony that they know was obtained illegally, and that Prosecutors would have a responsibility and duty to expose such activity and to disclose it to the proper Judges and Defense Counsels, and convicted individuals whose cases would be greatly effected by said information.
97. That the Plaintiff challenges any legal claim that permits the City and Defendants, to maliciously and outrageously coerce, conspire, and work together and demand assistance from one another and outside entities including Federal Programs, as the Defendants have done with the Bremerton Housing Authority, which provide assistance to its citizens, for the purpose of confusing and suppressing said citizens who are attempting to expose corruption, wrongdoing, and misconduct of named Defendants in this suit.
98. That the key facts constituting these maliciously and outrageous Civil Rights Violations are not just the opinion of the Plaintiff, but these facts are contained in the Police Reports, records of the Courts, records of the DOC, records of the Prosecutors Office, records held in the Office of Congressional Representative Norm Dicks, and records of the Bremerton Housing Authority, and in spite of all this information the Defendants have shown nothing but deliberate indifference towards the Plaintiff so severely, that it Shocks the Conscience.
99. That for all these Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees to maliciously and outrageously allow these acts to occur, having been fully and credibly informed of the facts, and to act as if they did not know better, represents a level of incompetence and/or gross indifferences to the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of the City of Bremerton, and that without question, Shocks the Conscious.
100. That all the Defendants conduct, was a direct result of malicious and outrageous Government Customs of concealing offences of Police Officers, Public Defenders, Prosecutors, Judges and those they Coerce to assist them, and of unwritten Government Policies, neglect in training and supervision, and that all this is done with the full knowledge and approval of Superiors and high ranking and Elected Officials, that it Shocks the Conscience.
101. That because the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees intentionally committed these crimes, to inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff for the purpose of torturing the Plaintiff to obtain information and testimony to be used against the Plaintiff, and to maliciously and outrageously cause fear and intimidation so as to discourage the Plaintiff from initiating Disciplinary actions against the Defendants, and to avoid Civil Liability, the Plaintiff's Conscience is Shocked.

Negligence in Training, Supervising, and Discipline

102. That Superiors of named Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, negligently, carelessly, and recklessly failed to properly train and supervise their employees. Superiors failed to train Police Officers in proper arrest procedures, searches, and when to obtain warrants. They do not allow the arrested to make phone calls. They maliciously interrogate witnesses, make false accusations, falsely imprison citizens, violate Constitutional Rights, they slander, they maliciously insult, and there are serious issues with the lack of honesty, courtesy, integrity, Civil Rights, law, and standard proper Police procedures.
103. That the Police Chief, the head of Internal Affairs Department, who the City employees, the City and County Prosecutors Offices, and the DOC, appear to have been so poorly trained that they themselves do not know that it is a violation of the Constitution to maliciously and outrageously arrest Citizens in their home without a warrant, then search their home, then allow Police Officers family members to access said home and take possession of the arrestee's personal property and children, imprison said citizens, make false allegations, incarcerate under false pretences, all in an attempt to cover the misconducts of themselves, and for reasons to obtain retribution for loss in criminal proceedings, in which said citizens prevail with not guilty verdicts.
104. Upon information and belief, the Police Officers were trained by the City, their agents, servants, and employees in methods of violating the Civil Rights of citizens with impunity, by concealing and obscuring Police misconduct; and that this improper training is a Police policy or unofficial Custom within the Bremerton Police Department, the City of Bremerton, the DOC, and the Kitsap County Prosecutors Office.
105. That the City of Bremerton, the DOC, the City and County Prosecutors Offices, Judge Olsen, Judge Roof, and Congressman Norm Dicks, were made aware of these problems by the Plaintiff and other citizens, on a number of occasions, and being presented with strong, detailed, and credible evidence of same, maliciously and outrageously failed to act when they had a Duty to act to prevent further injury to the Plaintiff by the Defendants, as well as a Duty to protect the rights, immunities and privileges of the citizens of Bremerton. That these individuals of authority knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully allowed, and continues to allow these un-constitutional practices, procedures and Governmental Customs to occur, and through their inaction, are willing participants in concealing Government misconduct for the purpose of improperly avoiding personal, Municipal, and Civil Liability.
106. That the Defendants conduct was a direct result of Government Customs of concealing offences of these Defendants, and of unwritten Government Policy, neglect in training and supervision, and that it was done with the full knowledge and approval of the Prosecutors and the Chief of Police, and that these customs are as they are, to protect the Defendants from Disciplinary action, criminal prosecution, and Civil Liability.
107. That the foresaid arrests, search, imprisonments, and prosecutions, and the resulting injuries were caused wholly and solely by reason of negligence of the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
108. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees maliciously, outrageously, and intentionally committed these crimes to inflict emotional distress on the Plaintiff for the purpose of torturing the Plaintiff to obtain information and testimony to be used against the Plaintiff, and to maliciously and outrageously cause fear and intimidation so as to discourage the Plaintiff from initiating Disciplinary actions against the Defendants, and to avoid Civil Liability.



Malicious Prosecution

November 28, 2004
109. That in his home, the Plaintiff was, without a warrant, knowingly unlawfully arrested, searched, imprisoned, and charge with a crime by the Defendants, their agents, servants, and their employees, without any just right or grounds therefore.
110. That the Plaintiff was and is wholly innocent and was forced by the Defendants, to submit to Court Proceedings.
111. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, falsely and maliciously, and without probable cause, maliciously and outrageously commenced a criminal proceeding against the Plaintiff in Superior Court, and continued said proceeding charging him with the crimes of Domestic Violence and Felony Violation of Court Orders.

November 30, 2004
112. That County Prosecutors refused to file charges and released the Plaintiff, due to the evidence showing the plaintiff's estranged wife, daughter of Officer Brisbane, engaged, and caused this incident.

December 16, 2004
113. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees again, maliciously, outrageously, falsely and without probable cause, arrested, charged, and commenced criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff when he appeared in Superior Court to answer to false and erroneous Probation Violations, this time charged in Municipal Court, and continued said maliciously and outrageous proceeding charging him with the crimes of Domestic Violence Assault.
114. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, acting within the scope of their authority and the performance of their duties, maliciously and outrageously testified falsely, through their Police Reports, and withheld vital information before the Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Bremerton, and that by intention, resulted in a bail the Defendants knew the Plaintiff could not pay, and that this information would have set the Plaintiff free, and that this action was malicious as the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff would be separated from his minor children during the Christmas Holiday Season.
115. That the said prosecution, criminal charges, and hearings, were instituted, procured, and continued by the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, and without reasonable or probable cause, therefore were maliciously and outrageously continued by the city Prosecutor and the Police without any reasonable or probable cause and with actual malice, and forced the Plaintiff to stay for a period of 52-days, when finally the case was terminated in a trial favoring the Plaintiff.

April 28, 2005
116. That on the corner of Sanders Avenue and Wright Avenue, in the City of Bremerton, the Plaintiff was, and without a warrant, knowingly unlawfully arrested, searched, imprisoned, and charge with the crime of Felony Violation of a No Contact Order #14080607 by the Defendants, their agents, servants, and their employees, without any just right or grounds therefore.
117. That the Plaintiff was and is wholly innocent and was forced by the Defendants, to submit to court proceedings.
118. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, falsely and maliciously, and without probable cause, commenced a criminal proceeding against the Plaintiff in Superior Court and continued said proceeding, charging the Plaintiff with the crime of Felony Violation of Court Order #14080607.

April 29, 2005
119. That Prosecutor Lewis was influenced by Officer Brisbane and his Cohorts to maliciously and outrageously charge the Plaintiff with an erroneous and non-existent No Contact Order #14080607, a Felony, and failed to acknowledge evidence conclusively showing this order was issued in response to the incident on November 28, 2004, and that it had been forgiven and exonerated along with the charges of assault brought on by the City, where the Plaintiff was proven, in a unanimous decision by a jury of his peers of Not Guilty.
120. That Prosecutor Lewis maliciously and outrageously convinced Judge Olsen that there were grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was guilty of Violation of a No Contact order #14080607, and that an excessive bail, that the prosecutor knew the Plaintiff could not pay, was warranted.
121. That as a result of said bail; the Plaintiff was forced and remanded to the Kitsap County Jail for a period of 58-days.
122. That during said 58 days of incarceration, the Plaintiff was maliciously, aggressively, and outrageously incarcerated, and Prosecutor O'Dennis repeatedly charged the Plaintiff with 2 additional erroneous Court Orders of No Contact, each time refusing to release the Plaintiff from jail, and knowing their were no grounds to hold the Plaintiff.
123. That during these 58 days of incarceration, Prosecutor Lewis maliciously and outrageously failed to acknowledge that any of the three charges of Felony Violation of No Contact were erroneous, and still to this day, does not acknowledge that they were erroneous.
124. That during the 58 days if incarceration, Prosecutor Lewis maliciously and outrageously threatened the Plaintiff, through his Public Defender, with 18 month in Shelton State Prison for the said false charges of Felony Violation of a No Contact Order.
125. That Prosecutor Lewis acted in bad faith when she maliciously and outrageously tried to cover-up for Officer Smally's mistake of false arrest and ignored evidence submitted to her Office, and in writing by the Plaintiff, and continued in the malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff and finally terrified the Plaintiff to the point where the Plaintiff agreed under duress, and with the notion that the Plaintiff would be released to his sons immediately, to sign the plea agreement of a lesser charge of assault.
126. That during said incarceration, the alleged victim made several Complaints to the Defendants in reference to the false and malicious charges against the Plaintiff.
127. That the alleged victim tried to tell authorities that not only had they wrongfully arrested the Plaintiff on an erroneous No Contact Order #14080607, but that there was an assault and the actual assailant was still free and continued to threatening her.
128. That Prosecutor Lewis maliciously and intentionally did not contact the alleged victim as required by law, notifying the victim that the perpetrator was being sentenced and giving the victim an opportunity to speak at sentencing.
129. That said maliciously, outrageous, and intentional failure to contact the victim was because the victim would have told the Judge that this conviction was a farce and would have exposed this case for what it was. A malicious prosecution!
130. That this case should not have ended up in Superior Court and would not have if Felony Violation of a No Contact Order charge had not been maliciously made.
131. That the Defendants conduct was a direct result of malicious and outrageous Government Customs of concealing offences of each other, and of unwritten Government Policy, neglect in training and supervision, and that it was done with the full knowledge and approval of the Prosecutor's Office and the Chief of Police.
132. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees intentionally committed these crimes to maliciously and outrageously inflict emotional distress on the Plaintiff for the purpose of torturing the Plaintiff, and to maliciously and outrageously cause fear and intimidation so as to discourage the Plaintiff from initiating Disciplinary actions against the Defendants, and to avoid Civil Liability.

June 2005
133. That during sentencing for the Plea Bargain agreement and while under duress, the DOC requested that the Plaintiff be required to submit to random urinalysis and polygraphs.
134. That during sentencing, Judge Olsen denied this request by the DOC for random urinalysis and polygraphs, as the Plaintiff's Public Defender argued that the charges at the table had no merit for this request.
135. That upon release from Jail and when the Plaintiff reported to the DOC as directed by the Courts, Officer O'Neil produced an order for the Plaintiff to submit to random urinalysis and polygraphs.
136. That when the DOC produced the aforesaid order to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff reminded Officer O'Neil that the request had been denied.
137. That Officer O'Neil's response to this discrepancy was that the Order had not been denied.
138. That the Plaintiff then took it upon himself to visit the Stenographer, Paul Fredrickson, and together the two of them went over the Audio Transcripts and clearly this request had been denied by Judge Olsen.
139. That after reviewing these records with the Stenographer, the Plaintiff contacted Officer O'Neil and informed her of this visit, and again Officer O'Neil refused to acknowledge this error and suggested that the Judgment and Sentence was the letter of the law and even if the transcripts stated otherwise, the Judgment and Sentence was what they were going to live by.

October 2005
140. That on the first day of school the Plaintiff refused to report for a scheduled polygraph, knowing the DOC was in Contempt, and continuing their malicious and outrageous Defiance of the true Courts Orders.
141. That in retribution for the Plaintiff's refusal to submit to the erroneous Court Orders, and because the Plaintiff was making issues about the erroneous Court Order and making allegations of Contempt of Court against Officer O'Neil, the DOC maliciously and outrageously concocted and conspired with the Defendants to falsely charge the Plaintiff with serious and erroneous charges.
142. That the DOC maliciously and outrageously conspired with Kitsap Mental Health, specifically Tammy Gannon, to receive Confidential information about the Plaintiff's conversations with the Plaintiff's mental health Counselor who was counseling the Plaintiff, for the purpose of twisting the Plaintiffs words so as to falsely charged the Plaintiff with verbal threatening of a Corrections Officer, which would then make the allegations of failure to report, and leaving the county without permission appear as if the Plaintiff was in complete Defiance with his probation, which in turn would keep the Plaintiff incarcerated, keeping the Plaintiff from exposing the wrongdoing by Officer O'Neil.

January 9, 2006
143. That the Plaintiff made arrangements with the Superior Court Clerk's Office to appear on January 13, to quash a warrant that was issued in response to the DOC charges.

January 11, 2006
144. That the Plaintiff hand delivered a letter to the Clerks' Office of Judge Sally Olsen, outlining the wrongful actions in open court and in the field by Officer O'Neil in June 2005.
145. That in the aforesaid letter, the Plaintiff additionally requested to Rescind his Plea Agreement made in June 2005.

January 13, 2006
146. That the Plaintiff appeared before Judge Olsen where pleas for intervention made in his letter, were maliciously and outrageously ignored and the Plaintiff was arrested, searched, and incarcerated in the Kitsap County Jail, and without Bail.

February 8, 2006
147. That in a hearing labeled as highly contested, Judge Roof found that the Plaintiff was not guilty of the charges of verbal threatening.
148. That in this hearing labeled highly contested, Judge Roof maliciously and outrageously found that the Plaintiff was guilty of a Technicality for leaving the county without permission, even though the DOC testified they had given approval to leave the county to partake in activities that would better the lives of the Plaintiff and his two minor children.
149. That Judge Roof failed to recognize that it was not until the Plaintiff attempted to expose the renegade behavior of the DOC in open court and in the field, that these activities the Plaintiff had been active in for over a year with the South Puget Intertribal Agency, suddenly became violations.
150. That Judge Roof maliciously and outrageously found that the Plaintiff was guilty of failure to report, even though the Plaintiff did not report because he went into seclusion to find answers to the wrongful charges being made against him by the DOC, in October 2005.
151. That the aforesaid guilty verdicts had no merit or evidence of guilt and that the aforesaid guilty verdicts were made in a malicious and outrageous effort to protect the DOC from allegations of bringing false charges against the Plaintiff.

The cover-up and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

November 28, 2004
152. That the Plaintiff was, without a warrant, knowingly unlawfully arrested, searched, imprisoned, and maliciously charge with a crime by the Defendants, their agents, servants, and their employees, without any just right or grounds therefore.

November 30, 2004
153. That County Prosecutors refused to file charges and released the Plaintiff in light of the evidence showing the Plaintiff's estranged wife, daughter of Officer Brisbane, engaged, and caused this incident.

December 6, 2004
154. That Officer Brisbane, acting under the authority of the City, and within the scope of his authority, maliciously and outrageously appeared in full uniform and with side arm, made false and malicious allegations to the DOC. The City produced a police report falsely accusing the Plaintiff of acts that Officers knew he did not commit and included in this report, false and hearsay statements accusing the Plaintiff of a number of malicious statements for the purpose of convincing the DOC to bring charges against the Plaintiff.
155. That Officer Randy Brisbane deliberately and with malice, appeared in full uniform to the Department of Corrections and demanded Probation Violation charges be filed against the Plaintiff.
156. That Officer Randy Brisbane deliberately and with malice, appear in full uniform to the DOC and refused to accept the denial of Officer O'Neil to file charges, and went to her Superiors and again maliciously and outrageously demanded that Probation Violation charges be filed against the Plaintiff.
157. That DOC maliciously and outrageously coerced and conspired with Officer Brisbane to cover-up the malicious home-invasion done in the plaintiff's home on November 28, 2004, by issuing a letter to the Plaintiff that he was required to appear in Superior Court on December 16, 2004, to answer to concocted probation violation charges relating to the incident on November 28, 2004 and in which the County Prosecutors Office had refused to file charges on.
158. That the Plaintiff explained to Officer O'Neil that the allegations made by officer Brisbane were false and that Officer Brisbane was attempting to menace in the Plaintiff's life for personal reasons.
159. That Officer Brisbane deliberately and with malice, coerced and used his trust as a Public Servant to convince City Prosecutor, Barbara O'Dennis, to file charges against the Plaintiff, using the same concocted Police Report given to the DOC.
160. That Prosecutor O'Dennis maliciously and outrageously convinced Municipal Judge Doctor to i