gottschalk federal complaint

36
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff vs. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK, BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., MICHAEL MANELY, Esq., THE MANELY FIRM, PC HON. S. LARK INGRAM, HON. C. LATAIN KELL, JEANNE DIANE WOODS, HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY SONNY PURDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, CASEY CAGLE, in his official capacity of Lieutenant Governor of the State of Georgia, THURBERT E. BAKER, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Georgia, CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, in their official capacities as members of the GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, COBB COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, in their official capacity as members of the GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Upload: joemaflage

Post on 10-Apr-2015

920 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Major Civil Rights Federal Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Children in Georgia.Georgia political figures and other state or county elected officials named as defendants in an 8-count Federal Civil Rights violation complaint filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, April, 2009.Defendant list includes major state-level and county-level political, legal, and public health figures.The complaint is set to challenge not only the individual behaviors of the named defendants, but will also be challenging what is characterized as the “shadow justice” system that commonly functions within the country’s system of “Family” courts, and how the “best interest of the child” standard is applied, or more accurately, misapplied, under state statutes, locally O.C.G.A. 19-9-3.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff vs. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK, BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., MICHAEL MANELY, Esq., THE MANELY FIRM, PC HON. S. LARK INGRAM, HON. C. LATAIN KELL, JEANNE DIANE WOODS, HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY SONNY PURDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, CASEY CAGLE, in his official capacity of Lieutenant Governor of the State of Georgia, THURBERT E. BAKER, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Georgia, CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, in their official capacities as members of the GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, COBB COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, in their official capacity as members of the GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS,

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

CIVIL ACTION FILE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Page 2: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

2

THERAPISTS, SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON, and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SHERI M. SIEGEL, EMMETT FULLER, SUSAN VOLENTINE, PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC, ANN BOST, LARRY O. BOST, JANE DOE JOHN DOE Defendants

AMENDED COMPLAINT Introduction

Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), of

Georgia, hereby asserts the following claims agains t Defendants

in the above-referenced action:

(1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equal

protection of the law under the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(2) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - denial of proce dural due process of law under the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(3) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of substan tive due process of law under the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(4) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3), conspiracy;

(5) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Jurisdiction

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:

a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983(civil action for deprivation

of rights, 1985(conspiracy to interfere with civil

Page 3: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

3

rights), 1986 and 1988(proceedings in vindication o f

civil rights); and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3 ),

and (4)(civil rights and elective franchise), and

1367(a)(supplemental jurisdiction);

b. Pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(a). Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent

claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arise s

under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set

forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715

(1966).

Venue based on Location of Parties and Events

2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U .S.C. §§1331

& 1391(a) because all the parties reside, work or o perate

in this District and because the location of the ci vil

rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is in this Distr ict.

3. This complaint is not frivolous.

4. This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanent

injunction, enjoining all defendants, and each of t hem, their

agents, employees and successors from continuing th eir policy,

practice, and actions depriving me of the privilege s and

immunities as a citizen of the United Sates, as fur ther set

forth herein.

Parties

5. DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith T rail,

Marietta, GA 30068, is an individual residing in Co bb County,

Georgia. I am a white, heterosexual male.

Page 4: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

4

6. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK (“Defendant Gottschalk”), 3 580 Oak

Knoll Dr., Marietta, GA, 30068, is an individual re siding in

Cobb County, Georgia, and my former wife.

7. BARBARA LASSITER (“Defendant Lassiter”), 1700 Wa ter Place

NW, Suite 306, Atlanta, GA, 30339, is an attorney l icensed in

the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and

represents my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the underlying

state litigation in the trial court presided over b y Defendant

Kell. On information and belief, Defendant Lassite r is a

homosexual female.

8. HON. C. LATAIN KELL (“Defendant Kell”), 30 Wadde ll Street,

Marietta, GA 30090 is a judge of the Superior Court of the State

of Georgia, Cobb Judicial Circuit.

9. HON. S. LARK INGRAM (“Defendant Ingram”) is the Chief Judge

of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Cobb Judicial

Circuit. At all times herein, Defendant Ingram sup ervises,

commands, and controls Defendant Kell.

10. JEANNE DIANE WOODS (“Defendant Woods”), 707 Whi tlock

Avenue, SW, Suite G-5, Marietta, GA 30064,is a lice nsed attorney

in the State of Georgia and was appointed and did a ct as

Guardian Ad Litem in the Underlying Action.

11. HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5,

Marietta, GA 30064 (“Defendant Huff, Woods and Hamb y”) is a

partnership one of whose partners is Defendant Wood s, and who

employs Defendant Woods.

12. MICHAEL MANELEY (“Defendant Maneley”), 7 Atlant a St., Suite

C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is an attorney licensed in the state of

Page 5: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

5

Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and represented

my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the Underlying Action at the

time it was presided over by The Hon. Adele Grubbs.

13. THE MANELEY FIRM, PC (“Defendant The Maneley Fi rm”), 7

Atlanta St., Suite C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a professional

corporation formed in the state of Georgia attorney , employing

and supervising the efforts of Defendant Michael Ma neley.

14. COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, 100 Cherokee Street, Mari etta, GA,

30090, is a political subdivision of the State of G eorgia.

15. SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON,

and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB

COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (“Defendant Board of

Commissioners”), 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA 30090, is the

governing body of Defendant Cobb County. Defendant Board of

Commissioners oversees and operates the administrat ive aspects

of the Cobb County court system.

16. SONNY PURDUE, State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334( “Defendant

Purdue”) is the governor of the State of Georgia.

17. CASEY CAGLE, 240 State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 303 34

(“Defendant Cagle”) is the lieutenant governor of t he state of

Georgia.

18. THURBERT BAKER, 40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334

(“Defendant Baker”) is the Attorney General of the State of

Georgia, who is responsible to protect the public a s well as to

uphold the laws and the Constitution of Georgia.

19. CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGL ASS, BILL

DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, 2 37 Coliseum

Drive, Macon, GA 31217 (“Defendant Board of Psychol ogists”), are

all members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of

Psychologists, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia,

Page 6: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

6

formed to provide consumer protection and public he alth and

welfare through the regulation of the profession, a nd to

investigate and adjudicate complaints issued agains t licensed

psychologists.

20. DEFENDANTS GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GE NE THOMAS

SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL,

JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, 237 Coli seum Drive,

Macon, GA 31217-3858, are all members of the Georgi a Composite

Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers An d Marriage

And Family Therapists (“Defendant Composite Board o f

Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriag e And Family

Therapists”), a political subdivision, charged by l aw with

regulating the practice of professional counseling, social work,

and marriage and family therapy in order to protect the health,

safety and welfare of the people of Georgia, by enf orcing the

education and training requirements established by law for

licensure in each profession, by adopting and enfor cing a code

of ethics governing licensees, by establishing and enforcing

continuing education requirements, and by addressin g unlicensed

practice in these professions.

21. SHERI M. SIEGEL (“Defendant Siegel”), 122 Cherr y St NE,

Marietta, GA, 30060, is a clinical psychologist who evaluated

the Minor Children, and who testified against me in the

Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.

22. EMMETT FULLER (“Defendant Fuller”), 899 Burns S t. SE,

Marietta, GA, 30067, is a licensed professional cou nselor,

practicing in Marietta, Georgia, and who provided t herapeutic

counseling to me, but then testified against me in the

Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.

Page 7: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

7

23. SUSAN Z. VOLENTINE (“Defendant Volentine”), 268 8 Tritt

Springs Drive, Marietta, GA, 30062, is a licensed p sychologist

practicing in the state of Georgia and who testifie d against me

in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.

24. PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC (“Defendant Psycho logical

Affiliates”), 122 Cherry Street NE, Marietta, GA, 3 0060, employs

and directs the conduct of Defendants Volentine and Fuller.

25. ANN BOST, 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 300 68

(“Defendant Ann Bost”) is the mother of Defendant G ottschalk.

26. LARRY BOST 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30 068

(“Defendant Larry Bost”) is the father of Defendant Gottschalk.

Page 8: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

8

Plain Statement of Facts as Required by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure

27. On May 2, 1998, I married Karen Ann Gottschalk. Two

children were born of our marriage, Lexi Gottschalk , born

on July 20, 1999 and Tanner Gottschalk born on July 24,

2002. Lexi Gottschalk and Tanner Gottschalk are mi nor

children (the “Minor Children”).

28. As life would have it, the marriage did not las t. On

February 19, 2004, Defendant Gottschalk filed for d ivorce.

29. On March 31, 2005, Judge Grubbs granted a final judgment

and decree of divorce.

30. Defendant Maneley drafted an order that did not follow

Judge Grubbs’ verbal findings, and limited my time and

decision making beyond what was intended by the Cou rt.

31. Judge Grubbs adopted the Defendant Maneley’s dr aft order

verbatim.

32. I was not made aware at the time that I had a r ight to

contest the inaccuracies in the order.

33. Unhappy with the result, Defendant Gottschalk s ought and

found new counsel, Defendant Lassiter.

34. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter h arbors bias

and resentment against me because I am a heterosexu al man.

35. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk conspired wi th each

other and acted to deny me my civil rights.

36. On April 24, 2006, by and through Defendant Las siter,

Defendant Gottschalk filed a Petition for Modificat ion of

Visitation under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3.

Page 9: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

9

37. In the petition, Defendants Lassiter and Gottsc halk

demanded that my contact with my children be superv ised,

and my parental rights curtailed. 1

38. Defendants embellished the facts alleged in the complaint,

that I had been “arrested for aggravated assault” b y

threatening someone with a shotgun. I never admitt ed any

guilt, but had entered a plea under the authority o f North

Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to a simple act of

pointing a weapon. I was never convicted of aggrav ated

assault.

39. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk alleged that I was

violent, and was a threat to my children. This was untrue.

The Shadow Justice System

40. Cobb County is somewhat unique among the Georgi a counties

in the manner that is handles domestic cases involv ing

contested custody. There is a de facto “shadow justice”

system that functions by designating a Guardian Ad Litem

under U.S.C.R. 24.9, usually an old, established on e that

has been doing it for 20 or 30 years, to “evaluate” the

case.

41. The Guardian Ad Litem then typically appoints a custodial

evaluator.

42. The attorneys for the parties go along with thi s process,

and refrain from a zealous advocacy for their clien ts.

43. The report and recommendation of the Guardian A d Litem,

made first to the parties and then to the Court, is more

1 In reality, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk like ly wanted a change of

custody, but feared meeting the “material change in circumstances” standard applicable. See O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. Inste ad they brought the action as one seeking a change of visitation becaus e such changes are not subject to any showing of fitness or any change in circumstances.

Page 10: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

10

than merely advisory, becomes the de facto ruling of the

Court, and are in practice extremely difficult to

challenge.

44. This system operates to protect the state actor

participants and quickly dispose of family law case s

without the need for a protracted trial on the meri ts.

45. The Cobb County Courts give great deference to the

appointed Guardians Ad Litem, and protect them.

46. Attorneys and litigants that challenge or fail to “go

along” with this shadow justice system are chastise d by the

court officials through unofficial and official mea ns, such

as the power of contempt, refusal to seriously cons ider

evidence, and declining to hear significant issues.

47. As a result, the Guardians frequently are allow ed to ignore

the rules of court and Georgia law in the conduct o f their

duties, including, for example, the filing of prope r

motions, and rules regarding ex parte communications with

the Court.

Pre-Trial Actions

48. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk used their e mbellished

facts to attract the attention of the court.

49. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then conspir ed to have a

Guardian Ad Litem appointed in my case. Without a formal

request from either side, or motion therefore, Defe ndant

Grubbs, sua sponte, appointed a Guardian Ad Litem,

Defendant Woods. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Woods was

given full authority to access all of my medical re cords,

including my mental health records despite the exis tence of

Georgia law making such records absolutely privileg ed.

Page 11: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

11

50. Defendant Woods has been acting as a Guardian A d Litem for

over 20 years, is viewed as a “fixture” in Cobb Cou nty, and

the Cobb County Superior Court judges routinely def er in

substantial part to her judgment when she is appoin ted as a

Guardian Ad Litem.

51. Despite this being only a visitation case, Defe ndant Woods

furthered the conspiracy with Defendants Gottschalk and

Lassiter by filing a motion seeking a full custodia l

evaluation by Defendant Siegel. Custodial evaluatio ns are

done in cases where custody is at issue, which was not the

case here.

52. In that motion she represented that she had the agreement

of my counsel, however, I was never made aware of t he

consequences of this action or that a full custodia l

evaluation was being requested.

53. As a result of the mandatory custodial evaluati on, I was

forced to undergo examination and evaluation by a c ustodial

evaluator.

54. Following the custodial evaluation, I was order ed to

undergo therapy with Defendant Fuller. I understood this to

be a confidential, therapeutic relationship. I was not

advised by Defendant Fuller that he could or would disclose

my statements or his impressions of me to Defendant Woods

or any other party.

55. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Fuller and Defenda nt Volentine

were both associates with Defendant Psychological

Associates.

56. As a result of the mandatory treatment, I was f orced to

undergo weeks of examination and evaluation by Defe ndant

Fuller.

Page 12: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

12

57. Defendant Fuller never administered any recogni zed tests to

me. Despite this, after a mere two weeks of “treat ment”,

Defendant Fuller announced to me that he had diagno sed me.

58. Defendant Fuller shared his findings with Defen dant Woods,

who in turn shared those findings with others.

Attempts to Hide Secret Custodial Report

59. Defendants conspired to keep the Siegel report secret from

professional review.

60. Defendant Woods requested special language inte nded to

punish unauthorized distribution of the report.

61. On information and belief Defendant Woods took this action

primarily in response to having been previously sue d over

her recommendations in another custodial case.

62. Judge Grubbs thereafter issued an order that un authorized

distribution of the custody evaluation report would be

punishable by contempt.

63. The same order directed that a copy was to be p rovided to

counsel and Defendant Woods.

Conspiracy to Issue Biased Report

64. Defendant Woods’ pattern of practice is to send business to

her close associates.

65. On information and belief, Defendant Woods and Siegel have

a long professional relationship.

66. Based on Defendant Woods recommendation, Defend ants secured

the appointment of Defendant Siegel as the custody

evaluator in my case.

67. Prior to my meeting with Defendant Siegel, Defe ndants

Gottschalk and Lassiter submitted to Defendant Sieg el a

Page 13: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

13

mountain of alleged documentation critical of me th at

Defendant Siegel admitted weighed at least 25 pound s.

68. On information and belief, this documentation w as intended

to heavily bias Defendant Siegel, and skew the resu lts of

her analysis.

69. Defendant Siegel thereafter conducted an examin ation and

evaluation of the parties, and issued a report find ing that

I had no level of clinical pathology.

70. Even though there was no clinical pathology to support a

diagnosis, Defendant Siegel included statements in her

report that were highly critical of my parenting ab ilities

and my psychological well-being in her report, insi nuating

and implying that I may have tendencies toward cert ain

conditions that may not be in the best interest of the

children.

Secret Evaluations of the Children

71. Defendant Gottschalk arranged without my knowle dge and in

secret to take the Minor Children to Defendant Vole ntine

for evaluation.

72. On information and belief the purpose of the ev aluations

was to establish a false record that I was a threat to my

children.

73. I was not allowed to know about these sessions, which I

discovered afterwards. I was not allowed to attend or

participate in these sessions.

74. Following the secret evaluations, Defendant Vol entine

issued secret communications to Defendants Lassiter and

Gottschalk, insinuating that I might be a threat to my

children.

Page 14: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

14

75. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then filed a n

“emergency” motion on March 10, 2008, containing gr oss

exaggerations and embellishments of actions they cl aimed to

occur that were dangers to my children. That motion was

denied.

Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant

76. Defendant Volentine was retained by Defendant G ottschalk to

treat the Minor Children on a continuing basis.

77. Defendant Volentine did, from time to time, cou nsel the

Minor Children.

78. On information and belief, Defendant Gottschalk gave

significant false and misleading information about me to

Defendant Volentine.

79. Even though I was not her patient, Defendant Vo lentine took

it upon herself to contact Defendant Woods, and inf orm her

that Defendant Volentine believed that I may have a “high-

functioning form of Asberger’s syndrome”, and sugge sted

that I be evaluated for such a condition.

80. Defendant Woods received this information and t hen provided

it to Defendant Lassiter.

81. Defendant Volentine, despite having no therapeu tic or other

relationship with me, then took it upon herself to research

for Defendant Woods professionals who “possess the

requisite skills to conduct such an evaluation”.

Illegal Attempts to Seize Counseling Records

82. Any attorney is presumed to know the law. Geor gia law

provides therapist/patient privilege to confidentia lity.

Defendant Lassiter is presumed to know this.

Page 15: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

15

83. Despite this knowledge, prior to trial Defendan ts Lassiter

and Gottschalk attempted to secure my confidential

counseling records by sending a court-signed subpoe na.

84. As a result, I was forced to pay my attorney to file a

formal objection and quash the subpoena.

85. Defendant Lassiter stated on occasion that “she would get

them” despite the legal privilege.

Ongoing Efforts to Harass and Intimidate

86. From the time the action was filed, until and t hrough the

trial, Defendants Gottschalk, Ann Bost and Larry Bo st

engaged in a continuous pattern of actions intended to

thwart my parenting time with my children.

87. Without limitation to specific acts, Defendants Gottschalk

and Bost continually attempted to usurp and limit m y role

as parent, prevent me from communicating with my ch ildren

during extracurricular events and at other times, a nd to

encourage my children to believe that Defendants Bo st and

Gottschalk are my children’s “true” family, and enc ouraging

my children to believe I was no longer part of thei r

family.

88. This matter came on for hearing on September 29 , 2009.

89. At trial I was repeatedly denied my civil right s.

Surprise In-Chambers Announcement by Defendant Wood s

90. On the morning of the second day of trial Defen dant Woods

met the attorneys first thing and asked them to ste p back

into chambers to see the Judge.

91. Thereupon she proceeded to inform Defendant Kel l, out of

the presence of the parties and the Court Reporter, that

Page 16: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

16

she had just received information that “triggered” her

obligation to do a mandatory report to the Departme nt of

Family and Childrens Services (“DFCS”) under the ch ild

abuse statute, and had done so.

92. My counsel immediately objected to this disclos ure, and the

unfair prejudice to the Defendant’s case, but Defen dant

Kell declined to declare a mistrial.

93. Because Defendant Woods chose to reveal her inf ormation to

Defendant Kell in chambers, rather than in court on the

record, I was denied the opportunity to be present during

this testimony.

94. I sought, but was denied, the opportunity to cr oss-examine

Defendant Woods on any facts that supported her cla im.

95. I have repeatedly contacted DFCS, and have been unable to

confirm that any investigation or report was made r egarding

myself.

96. Upon information and belief, the intent of Defe ndant Woods’

actions was to prejudice the judge on the case agai nst me,

to do so off the record where she could escape cens ure, and

to avoid having to introduce any actual facts.

97. As a result of Defendant Woods’ clandestine dis closures,

Defendant Kell’s perception of me was fatally poiso ned, and

I was denied a fair trial.

98. As a result of Defendant Kell’s refusal to allo w me to

cross-examine Defendant Woods, denied the opportuni ty to

challenge the evidence against me, and denied a fai r

hearing.

Page 17: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

17

Denial of Expert Cross Examination,

and Threats Against Counsel

99. During the trial I qualified my expert, Dr. Mon ty

Weinstein, PSY.D., M.P.A., D.A.P.A., N.C.P. Dr. Wei nstein

is a Clinical Fellow of the American Association fo r

Marriage and Family Therapy. He is also a Fellow of the

American Orthopsychiatric Association. He has quali fied as

an expert in custodial issues over 2,500 times in 4 5 states

and 4 countries. Recipient of the Distinguished Pub lic

Service Award in Kings County, Adjunct Professor, N assau

Community College, New York. Holds two masters and a

doctorate. Mentor at the New York University Gradua te

School of Public Affairs. Supervised interns at Con necticut

State University in Family Therapy. Has an earned

doctorate. On the editorial advisory board for the American

Psychotherapy Association. Published numerous book reviews

for the American Orthopsychiatric Association. Chai red the

ethics committee in a psychiatric facility. Publish ed fifty

journal articles in the area of mental health. Clin ical

administrator for years at a large children's psych iatric

facility. Developed expertise on the deliverance of mental

health services by editing the psychiatric journal

reviewing book reviews, studying clinical administr ation at

New York University, and being a clinical administr ator at

psychiatric facilities for numerous years.

100. Dr. Weinstein testified in the Underlying Acti on about my

qualifications as a parent, and my relationship wit h my

children.

101. I then attempted to have him testify about iss ues with the

Siegel Report.

Page 18: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

18

102. When I attempted to have Dr. Weinstein critiqu e the Siegel

psychological report, Defendant Kell became enraged , and

accused me and my counsel of having illegally distr ibuted

the report to Dr. Weinstein.

103. Defendant Kell threatened to hold my counsel i n contempt

for letting my expert review the report.

104. Defendant Kell refused to let Dr. Weinstein te stify

regarding problems in the Siegel report.

105. As a result of Defendant Kell’s actions, I was denied the

opportunity to challenge facts and conclusions in t he

Siegel report.

Seizure of Expert Report

106. Upon cross-examination, Defendant Lassiter dem anded to see

the contents of Dr. Weinstein’s bag, and then deman ded that

the court do an in-camera inspection of the bag, ov er the

objection of my counsel.

107. Defendant Kell personally searched Dr. Weinste in’s bag from

the bench, and seized certain reports therein, incl uding

Dr. Weinstein’s own report of an MMPI-2 that he had

administered to me.

108. Defendant Kell had no right to seize Dr. Weins tein’s

personal reports.

109. Defendant Kell’s conduct was excessive, and ca st a pall

over the courtroom and my conduct of the case.

110. The intent of these actions was to protect the court-

appointed experts from criticism, and to prevent me from

fairly litigating the competency of the Siegel Repo rt.

Page 19: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

19

111. As a result of Defendants’ actions, I was deni ed a fair

hearing, denied the opportunity to present signific ant and

material evidence, and denied due process of law.

Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial

112. Prior to the conclusion of the trial in this c ase, counsel

for Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded tha t the

Court impose supervised visits upon me while the pa rties

drafted and submitted written closing arguments.

113. Following this demand, Defendant Woods also th en and there

asked for supervision.

114. Over the objection of my counsel, and without allowing

cross-examination of Defendant Woods, Defendant Kel l

granted supervision, for one visit during one week.

115. This “one week” grew to ten weeks of supervise d visits,

without any response, advice, or relief from Defend ant

Kell.

116. The intent of this supervision requirement was to drive a

wedge between me and my children, to alienate them from

their father, and to deny me an active and meaningf ul role

in their lives.

117. As a result of this requirement, I was denied substantial

time with my children, and forced to pay a heavy bu rden in

supervision fees for the time I did have.

Refusal to Approve Supervisor

118. Once the supervision requirement was implement , Defendant

Woods then refused to approve reasonable supervisor s other

than her favorites.

Page 20: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

20

119. I attempted to get approval for the use of Phy llis McNeal,

a supervisor who has had hundreds of hours of prior

supervising experience, and had never been refused as a

qualified supervisor.

120. Despite this, Defendant Woods refused Ms. McNe al initially

on the basis that she did not have proof of passing a GCIC

(criminal background) screen, and she could not con firm her

malpractice insurance.

121. On November 5, 2008, I again submitted Ms. McN eal, after

receiving confirmation from Wagner Consulting that Ms.

McNeal had a clean GCIC report and confirmed her

malpractice insurance. A letter from Wagner was in cluded

with the submission to Defendant Woods.

122. Despite receiving all of this information, Def endant Woods

still denied Ms. McNeal, this time adding a new req uirement

that the supervisor have “clinical skills.” Defend ant

Woods recommended two other supervising services, w ith

which she has “been familiar for at least fifteen y ears.”

Defendant Woods presented a “take it or leave it”

proposition, that if this is “not acceptable” that I must

“schedule a hearing before Judge Kell” so that he c an make

the determination as to who will supervise.

123. The new “clinical skill” requirement was arbit rary and

capricious. It not only ruled out Ms. McNeal, but the

current supervisor as well, who had been writing re ports

reflecting positively on my parenting skills.

124. As a result of Defendant Woods pattern of prej udicial

behavior, I filed a motion to have her recused from the

case. The motion was denied by Defendant Kell.

Page 21: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

21

125. As a result of being denied approval for Ms. M cNeal, I was

forced to use one of Defendant Woods’ hand picked

favorites, or miss time with my children.

126. As a result of Defendant Woods’ behavior, I wa s denied

substantial parenting time with my children, and fo rced to

incur burdensome supervision expenses.

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Volentine

127. Following Defendant Volentine’s unethical atte mpts to

diagnose me, her discussions of her impressions of my

condition with Defendant Woods, and her continuing

exclusion of me from counseling sessions with my ch ildren,

I filed a complaint with Defendant Board of Psychol ogists

outlining Defendant Volentine’s unprofessional and

inappropriate behavior.

128. Defendant Board of Psychologists failed to tak e any action

to discipline Defendant Volentine.

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Fuller

129. Following Defendant Fuller’s failure to advise me of the

lack of privilege, his ineffective and incomplete a ttempts

to diagnose me, and his discussions of impressions of my

condition with Defendant Woods, I filed a complaint with

Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Counselor s,

Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists ,

outlining Defendant Fuller’s unprofessional and

inappropriate behavior.

130. Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Coun selors,

Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists f ailed to

take any action to discipline Defendant Fuller.

Page 22: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

22

Refusal to Recuse Guardian

131. As the result of Defendant Woods’s attempts to prejudice

the court with factually unproven claims before and during

trial, I filed a motion to recuse her.

132. The filing of this motion upset both Defendant Woods and

Defendant Kell.

133. Defendant Kell denied my motion for recusal in an order

that made no mention whatsoever of Defendant Woods’

attempts to influence the Court by her in chambers

announcement at the start of trial.

Denial Of Emergency Access To The Court

134. Following Defendant Woods’ refusal to allow me another

supervisor acceptable to me, I then applied to the Cobb

County Superior Court for Emergency relief in order to be

able to see my children over the Thanksgiving holid ay.

135. Initially, my attorney was told that an emerge ncy hearing

would be granted.

136. However, when it came on for hearing, Judge Br antley

advised that he had made no decision to hear the ma tter.

137. He then, without entertaining my motion, asked for

Defendant Woods’ input into the case.

138. Defendant Woods was allowed to state on the re cord her view

of the case before I was allowed to present my moti on.

139. Defendant Woods was further permitted to state that she had

not yet been paid her fees granted in the case.

140. I was not permitted to testify as to whether I was

willfully failing to pay the fees.

141. Instead, Judge Brantley simply ruled that I wa s guilty of

“unclean hands” and he would not hear my motion.

Page 23: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

23

142. As a result, I was not permitted to see my chi ldren over

the Thanksgiving holiday.

Ruling

143. Subsequently, the Court issued a ruling forcin g me to

attend therapeutic counseling with a psychologist h and-

picked by Defendant Woods.

144. The Court’s order further allowed Defendant Wo ods to talk

freely about me to the psychologist, totally invadi ng and

denying me patient/therapist privilege.

145. The Court’s order further imposed supervision upon me at my

own expense until such time as Defendant Woods was

satisfied with my progress.

Count One: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Due Process)

146. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 45 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

147. At all relevant times herein, I had a right un der the due

process clauses of the state and federal constituti ons not

to be deprived of my life, liberty, or property. U. S.C.

Const. Amend. 14.

148. At all times relevant herein, the defendants w ere state

actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. § § 1983,

1985, and 1988. 2

149. All Defendants acted to deprive me of my funda mental right

to the care, custody, and control of my children.

2 "Private persons, jointly engaged with state offici als in the challenged action, are acting `under color' of law for purpose s of Section 1983 actions." Dennis v. Sparks . 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).

Page 24: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

24

150. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized

that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the car e,

custody and control of his children. See Troxel v.

Granville , 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of

Social Services , 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson , 345

U.S. 528 (1952).

151. This right has sought to be, and has been, inj ured and

foreclosed by all Defendants.

152. Defendants have conspired to and have injured and continue

to injure me by acting, aiding, and abetting in the conduct

of a proceeding in Superior Court, Cobb County, Geo rgia,

attempting to modify the visitation granted to me i n my

divorce decree under the “best interest of the chil d”

standard adopted by the Georgia Legislature in O.C. G.A. §

19-9-3.

153. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have injure d and

continue to injure me by the filing of a complaint, and

several subsequent motions, in Cobb County Superior Court,

seeking to limit and interfere with my established

parenting time with my Minor Children.

154. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have contin ued their

campaign for over four years, including the making of ex

parte communications with the court.

155. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, Woods and Kel l acted to

deprive me of my ability to have my trial expert cr oss-

examine the expert witnesses against him.

156. Defendant Woods acted to deprive me of a fair trial by

intentionally making out-of-court statements to the judge

regarding her alleged mandatory abuse reporting, wh ich

Page 25: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

25

reporting has not been verified with the state agen cy to

date.

157. Defendant Woods and Lassiter acted willfully a nd

maliciously intending to prejudice and bias the tri al court

against me.

158. Defendants Lassiter and Kell acted to willfull y and

unlawfully seize and retain my expert’s private mat erials

without authority.

159. Defendant Kell acted to intimidate my counsel and harass my

expert by attempting to hold them in contempt of an order

that unreasonably restricted my right to prepare my case

and challenge the witnesses against me.

160. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause o f my failure

to receive a fair trial.

161. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause o f my failure

to receive due process of law.

162. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause o f my failure

to receive my fundamental right to the care, custod y, and

control of my children.

163. Defendants’ actions denied me a fair trial, my right to due

process of the law.

164. Acting under color of law, all Defendants work ed a denial

of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the

United States Constitution or by Federal Law and gu aranteed

by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to t he

Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sou ght and

got court orders based on their actions.

165. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious

conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to due pr ocess of

law, of my right to the care, custody and control o f my

Page 26: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

26

children, and the due course of justice was impeded , in

violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amen dments

of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S .C. sec.

1983.

166. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

167. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 66 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

168. Defendants single me out for harsh treatment a nd

restriction of my rights to parenting time because of my

status as a heterosexual male.

169. Singling me out for harsh treatment and denial of my

parenting time rights on the basis my sex and sexua l

orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitut ion.

170. As a result of this harsh and discriminatory t reatment, I

have been harmed by being denied the right to the c are of,

and association with, my Minor Children.

171. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are

continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, l imit and

restrict my right to the care of and association wi th my

Minor Children.

Page 27: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

27

172. Acting under color of law, all Defendants work ed a denial

of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the

United States Constitution or by Federal Law and gu aranteed

by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to t he

Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sou ght and

got court orders based on their actions.

173. The actions of Defendants are the proximate ca use of my

injuries.

174. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious

conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to equal

protection of all the laws, of my right to the care ,

custody and control of my children, and the due cou rse of

justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, Fi fth, and

Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the Un ited

States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

175. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

COUNT THREE

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

176. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 75 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

177. Defendant Sonny Purdue acted to violate and li mit my

fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my

children by signing and implementing O.C.G.A. § 19- 9-3,

Page 28: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

28

permitting judges to modify and restrict visitation without

the necessity of showing any material change in con ditions,

or any lack of fitness.

178. All Defendants acted in concert to deprive me of my

fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my

Minor Children.

179. Defendant Kell acted to limit my fundamental r ight to the

care, custody and control of my children by holding under a

mere “best interest of the children” standard (O.C. G.A. §

19-9-3), that my visitation should be supervised an d

substantially curtailed, and further imposing manda tory

counseling requiring that Defendant surrender my ri ght to

patient/therapist privilege.

180. The action of Defendants are ongoing and they are

continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, l imit and

restrict my right to the care of and association wi th my

Minor Children.

181. Acting under color of law, all Defendants work ed a denial

of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the

United States Constitution or by Federal Law and gu aranteed

by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to t he

Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sou ght and

got court orders based on their actions.

182. The actions of Defendants are the proximate ca use of my

injuries.

183. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious

conduct, I was deprived of my fundamental right to the

care, custody and control of my children, and the d ue

course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth,

Page 29: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

29

Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitutio n of the

United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

184. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and have su ffered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

COUNT FOUR

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985(3) (conspiracy)

185. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 84 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

186. All Defendants have conspire and acted in conc ert to deny

my civil rights.

187. The conspiratorial purpose was to deny me (i) my

fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my

children, (ii) my right to due process and a fair t rial,

(iii) my right to equal protection of the law.

188. The conspiracy, as it developed, also emerged to protect

the participants in the unofficial “shadow justice” system

that operates in Cobb County family courts.

189. The first step in the conspiracy was taken by Defendant

Gottschalk when she retained Defendant Lassiter to

represent her, and they together the filed a compla int

making outlandish and derogatory claims against me.

190. All individual Defendants, other than those ac ting in their

official capacity for the State of Georgia, insinua ted

Page 30: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

30

themselves into the conspiracy and metamorphosed th e

private actors into State actors.

191. This action took the form of involvement in so me or all of

the litigation seeking to limit and deny my visitat ion with

my children.

192. The Defendants intentionally interfered with m y exercise

and enjoyment of my clear and established rights se cured by

the state and federal constitutions or laws of the United

States and/or the State of Georgia, and thereby dep rived me

of those rights and caused me injuries.

193. As a result of the concerted unlawful and mali cious

conspiracy of all the Defendants, I was deprived of my

rights to both due process and the equal protection of the

laws, the due course of justice was impeded, and my

fundamental rights to the care, custody and control of my

children was taken, in violation of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the Un ited

States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

194. The conspiratorial acts of Defendants were the legal and

proximate cause of my injuries.

195. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

Page 31: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

31

COUNT FIVE

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

196. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 95 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

197. All Defendants acted individually and in conce rt to impose

cruel and unusual punishment upon me for challengin g the

recommendation of Defendant Woods, and the Cobb Cou nty

family law “shadow justice” system.

198. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded th at

supervision be imposed upon my visitation with my c hildren,

without any finding of fitness or danger to my chil dren.

199. Defendant Woods recommended supervised visitat ion be

imposed upon me.

200. Defendant Kell imposed supervised visits upon me in his

final order as punishment for my actions named abov e and an

effort to prevent further exercise of my legitimate right

to petition the court for redress of grievances.

201. That all Defendants were aware of and approved of Defendant

Kell’s imposition of supervised visitation.

202. Defendant Ingram failed to supervise and educa te Defendant

Kell.

203. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

Page 32: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

32

COUNT SIX

42 U.S.C. § 1983:

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING3

204. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 2 03 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

205. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s

performance on the bench.

206. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s

continuing education and training in the applicatio n of

constitutional law.

207. Defendant Ingram failed to adequately supervis e and train

Defendant Kell.

208. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant I ngram’s

failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s impositi on of

supervision on my visits with my children.

209. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

COUNT SEVEN

18 U.S.C. 1513: RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF CIVIL R IGHTS

210. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 2 09 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

3 See City of Canton v. Harris , 489 U.S. 378 (1989).

Page 33: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

33

211. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeki ng to have my

expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defe ndant

Siegel.

212. Defendant Kell further retaliated against me f or filing my

motion to recuse Defendant Woods.

213. Defendant Kell retaliated against me by issuin g a final

order that imposed supervised visits, compelled me to

undergo psychological treatment, denied me my right to

patient/therapist privilege, and denied me my funda mental

right to the care, custody and control of my Minor

Children.

214. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant I ngram’s

failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s impositi on of

supervision on my visits with my children.

215. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which

would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered

the loss of the association and love and respect of my

Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by

the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all

compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.

COUNT EIGHT

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

216. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by

reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 2 15 above

with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.

217. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeki ng to have my

expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defe ndant

Siegel.

Page 34: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

34

218. All Defendants intentionally and recklessly in flicted

emotional distress on me by denying me my constitut ional

rights, by forcing me to defend costly litigation f or over

four years, by conspiring with other Defendants to deny my

civil rights, by retaliating against me for the law ful

exercise of my right to cross examination and prese ntation

of witnesses, and knew or should have known that em otional

distress was the likely result of their conduct.

219. Defendants’ conduct was directed at me.

220. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous , beyond all

possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a

civilized community.

221. The actions of the Defendants were the cause o f my

distress.

222. The emotional distress I sustained was severe.

223. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and out rageous

conduct, I was, am, and, with a high degree of like lihood,

will continue to be emotionally distressed.

224. Defendants Board of Commissioners and Defendan t Sonny

Purdue are liable under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

225. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and out rageous

conduct, I have suffered and will continue to suffe r mental

pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarras sment,

and humiliation.

Page 35: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

35

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:

226. A declaratory judgment that each and every §19 83 cause of

action numbered 1 through and including 7 lies as a

violation of my civil rights.

227. A declaratory judgment that each and every com mon law claim

lies.

228. A declaratory judgment that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3( b) permitting

reduction of visitation and imposition of supervisi on

“without the necessity of any showing of a change i n any

material conditions and circumstances of either par ty or

the child” violates my fundamental right to the car e,

custody, and control of my children under the Const itution

of the United States.

229. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoini ng

Defendants, jointly and severally, from continuing to

violate my civil rights under the United States

Constitution; and

230. Judgment, where available, and against all Def endants not

protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severa lly for

all actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the

amount of $5,000,000 and

231. Judgment, where available, and against all Def endants not

protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severa lly, for

punitive damages in an amount to be determined by t he jury,

232. Costs of this action, including attorney's fee s, and such

other relief deemed to be just, fair, and appropria te.

Page 36: Gottschalk Federal Complaint

36

This ___ day of April, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Mark Gottschalk