Graham E. Berry, Sbn# 128503 3384 Mclaughlin Avenue Los Angeles,

First Ammended complaint PDF, including exhibits
View more...
   EMBED

Share

Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download

Transcript

Graham E. Berry, SBN# 128503 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: 3 10.745-3771 Facsimile: 3 10.745-3771 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff, Francois G. Choquette. 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CENTRAL DISTRICT FRANCOIS G. CHOQUETTE, an individual Case No. RIC 538634 ) Y v. Plaintiff, ? 1 Assigned: Hon. Sharon J. Waters, Dept.10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. 2. 3. 4. Assault & Battery Assault & Battery, Excessive Force False Arrest & Imprisonment Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention Negligence, Nuisance & Occupier's Liability Abuse of Process Malicious Prosecution Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 Violation of California Constitution Article 1, §§1,2,3,4,7 & 13 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation; BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a California corporation; DAVID ALAN DUNIGAN, an individual; KENNETH R SEYBOLD, an individual; MATTHEW JAMES BUTLER, an individual; SALVATORE MEO, and individual; and DOES 1through 20, inclusive, ) ) ) ) ) 1 ) 5. 6. 7. 8. H 1 j Defendants. 9. UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE 1 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Complaint filed: October 22,2009 Trial Date: None Motion Cut-off: None CMC: April 23,2010 - Plaintiff, FRANCOIS G. CHOQUETTE, on information and belief, makes the following allegations to support his First Amended Complaint as of right: SECULAR ACTION 1. This First Amended Complaint is not directed at any of Defendants' religious beliefs or &o freedoms. It isr directed at Defendants' demonstrably secular policies, processes, practices and conduct in connection with, at the very most, religiously motivated conduct which is subject to regulation for the protection of society. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff FRANCOIS G. CHOQUETTE ("Choquette" or "Plaintiff ') is an individual who currently resides in the County of Riverside, California. 3. Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL ("CSI") is an entity incorporated under the laws of the State of California as a religious corporation with its principal place of business at 633 1 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA. CSI also does business as GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS ("GOLDEN ERA") at 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. In doing the acts herein alleged, CSI's employees, subcontractors, volunteers and agents acted within the scope of their employment and agency with CSI. Defendant CSI engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the conduct of its managing agent Sea Organization Captain David Miscavige, corporate affiliates, employees, subcontractors, volunteers and agents alleged herein. Although CSI is organized as a religious corporation with the word "church" part of its name, it is a mere management entity that acts as a self-described "mother church" which, inter alia, directs and controls the activities of alter egos, other Scientology corporations and individuals, and many false front groups including the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises ("WISE"), the Cult Awareness Network ("CAN), the Citizen's Commissions for Human Rights ("CCHR"), the Association for Better Living First Amended Complaint for damages :ABLE"), Applied Scholastics, Narconon and Criminon. CSI is also the registered copyright wner of either most or all of the written policies referred to herein as the policies and practices or the "handling" [and "destruction"] of "Suppressive Persons" or "SPs." 4. Defendant BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES ("BMS") is an entity incorporated mder the laws of the State of California as a religious corporation with its principal place of msiness at 633 1 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA. BMS also does business as BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES (GOLD) at 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. 3MS is one of the corporations of Scientology with its principal object being the ownership and nanagement of various Scientology properties. In doing the acts herein alleged, its employees, ;ubcontractors, volunteers and agents acted within the scope of their employment and agency with BMS and its affiliates. Defendant BMS engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the conduct of its managing agent Sea Organization Captain David Miscavige, corporate affiliates, lessees, mortgagors, employees, subcontractors, volunteers md agents alleged herein. Although BMS is organized as a religious corporation, it is a mere real :state ownership and management entity that participates through its officers, directors, and Scientology Sea Organization volunteers and/or employees, in the activities of alter egos, false Front groups and other Scientology corporations and individuals including those alleged of the various other Defendants herein. Upon information and belief, one of the principal purposes of the corporate existence of BMS is to own, manage and shield Church of Scientology real property assets from attachment by potential judgment creditors such as the Plaintiff herein. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Scientology corporate structure is a deliberately deceptive fagade and that in reality the entire Scientology organization is the alter ego of the Scientology Sea Organization, the Commodore's Messenger Organization, and their most senior ranking officer and managing agent Captain DAVID MISCAVIGE. The Sea Organization First Amended Complaint for damages 3 and the Commodore's Messenger Organization are unincorporated associations that are the alter ego controlling entities of the entire Scientology enterprise. Various courts of law also designated Captain David Miscavige's predecessor Commodore L. Ron Hubbard as the Managing Agent of the churches and corporations of Scientology which, inter alia, caused L. Ron Hubbard to go into hiding for the last seven years of his life. Plaintiff is informed and believed that staff and assets are moved among the various Scientology corporations as the circumstances may require and that "acceptable truths" and "lies" are told to deceive and defraud others including law enforcement agencies and officers, and the courts of law. 6. Although CSI and its managing agent David Miscavige widely claim to have a global membership exceeding ten million people that is a falsified figure involving creative and misleading statistics. Upon information and belief, there are only 30-50,000 currently active Scientology staff members and public members worldwide. Over the past 18 months both Scientology's worldwide membership and its global gross income have diminished by about half. 7. There exists, and at all times relevant hereto, has existed, such a unity of control and interest among the corporate Defendants, the Sea Organization and the Commodores Messenger Organization, and all of the other corporations and churches of Scientology, including but not limited to those churches and corporations of Scientology that are or have been the subject of Internal Revenue Service 5 501(c)(3) exemption letters, that any individuality and separateness between each of them has ceased and each is the alter ego or agent of the others. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the Defendant corporations, the other churches and corporations of Scientology, and of the Sea Organization and the Commodore's Messenger Organization, would permit an abuse of corporate privilege and would promote injustice in that, inter alia, via the unified control exercised, inter alia, across corporate lines by the managing agent (s), the Sea Organization, and the Commodore's Messengers' Organization, the assets of the First Amended Complaint for damages 4 corporate Defendants, the other churches and corporations of Scientology, the Sea Organization and the Commodore's Messenger Organization, can be transferred at will and thus concealed from corporate debts, liabilities, government obligations and taxes and other obligations. Similarly, officers, directors, employees, agents and lawyers are interchanged and transferred back and forth between the various corporations and associations in response to circumstances, events and strategies. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the Defendant corporations, the other churches and corporations of Scientology, the Sea Organization and the Commodore's Messengers' Organization, would also be inequitable because the Managing Agent (s) and/or subdivisions of the Scientology enterprise can transfer personnel and control of documents from one entity to another, to engage in corporate restructurings, asset transfers, and asset encumbrances, thus, inter alia, allowing the Defendants to avoid paying judgments, to avoid legitimate litigation discovery and thereby to effect the continuing abuse of process, obstruction of justice, and improper manipulation of the judicial system of which evidence abounds. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes that other Scientology corporate entities also occupy or have designated staff at the Golden Era property at Gilman Hot Springs. These allegedly separate Scientology corporate entities include Church of Spiritual Technology, Religious Technology Center, Building Management Services and Building Management Services (GOLD). Currently Plaintiff lacks information as to whether any of these corporations or any of their assigned staff participated in the acts, circumstances and occurrences alleged herein. When the true and precise nature of their relationship and participation, if any, in the events and matters relating to this Complaint becomes better known than at the present time, this Complaint will be amended to reflect the same (by appropriate additions, deletions and/or dismissals) or it will be established at the time of trial, according to proof. First Amended Complaint for damages 9. Both CSI and BMS are among the many Scientology related and/or funded alter egos of: a) Scientology Managing Agent and Scientology Sea Organization Captain David Miscavige, (b) :hurch of Spiritual Technology Managing Agent David Miscavige, (c) Religious Technology :enter Chairman of the Board David Miscavige, (d) Religious Technology Center, (e) Church of ;piritual Technology, (f) the Scientology Sea Organization, and (g) the Commodore's Messenger Irganization. 10. Upon information and belief, the funds to engage in the conduct alleged of the Defendants lerein wadis provided by multiple sources including but not limited to the International \ssociation of Scientologists (the "I.A.S."), the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises ?W.I.S.E."), Narconon, the Citizen's Commission for Human Rights ("CCHR"), various 3cientology celebrity members including but not limited to Tom Cruise, John Travolta, James 'acker of the Packer news and media group, Greta Van Susteran of Fox News, and others. 11. At various times, in the doing of the things either alleged herein or reasonably related to :he events herein, Managing Agent David Miscavige has been assisted by others, or has punished mdor violated the constitutional rights of many others, including but not limited to Lawrence :Larry") Brennan, Vicki Azneran, Richard Azneran, Jesse Prince, Mark ("Marty") Rathbun, Michael Rinder, Stacy Brooks Young, Andre Tabayoyan, Hana Whitfield, Gerry Whitfield, Ken Hoden, Lawrence Wollersheim, Gerry Armstrong, Marc Headley and Jason Beghe. 12. Defendant DAVID ALAN DUNIGAN ("Dunigan") is a resident of Riverside County California and/or was a security guard at Golden Era on October 26,2008. At all relevant times, Defendant Dunigan was under the direct supervision, employ, and control of Defendant CSI or BMS. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant Dunigan was acting within the course and scope of his employment and agency with Defendant CSI or BMS. First Amended Complaint for damages 6 13. Defendant KENNETH R. SEYBOLD ("Seybold") is a resident of Riverside County 3alifornia and is an employee of CSI or BMS and is believed to be the "Estates Manager" and/or he "Port Captain" for the Golden Era property. At all relevant times, Defendant Seybold was lnder the direct supervision, employ, and control of Defendant CSI or BMS. In doing the acts illeged herein, Defendant Seybold was acting within the course and scope of his employment and tgency with Defendant CSI. 14. Defendant MATTHEW JAMES BUTLER ("Butler") is a resident of Riverside County Zalifornia and/or was a security guard at Golden Era on October 26,2008. At all relevant times, Defendant Butler was under the direct supervision, employ, and control of Defendant CSI or BMS. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant Butler was acting within the course and scope of his employment and agency with Defendant CSI or BMS. 15. Defendant SALVATORE ME0 ("Meo") is a resident of Riverside County California and/or was a security guard at Golden Era on October 26,2008. At all relevant times, Defendant Meo was under the direct supervision, employ, and control of Defendant CSI or BMS. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendant Meo was acting within the course and scope of his employment and agency with Defendant CSI or BMS. 16. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to the conduct and communications herein each of the individual defendants was acting for, upon, and in furtherance of the business of their employer (s) and/or Church of Scientology, CSI and BMS managing agent David Miscavige. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint when the true names of said Defendants have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitious Defendants was in some way First Amended Complaint for damages 7 responsible for, participated in or contributed to the matters and things of which Plaintiff I I I 1I I 1I I Y I 1I 1I complains herein and, in some fashion, has legal responsibility therefore. 17. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants and/or their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities, and each of the Doe Defendants, was the agent, servant, employee, fellow member, associated and/or joint venturer or conspirator of each of the other Defendants, and of the various corporations and churches of Scientology, the Sea Organization and the Commodore's Messengers' Organization, and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, employment or joint venture, and acting with the express and/or implied knowledge or consent of the Defendants, and each of them. The acts of each Defendant were approved and/or ratified by each other Defendant, and the other corporations and churches of Scientology, the Sea Organization and the Commodore's Messengers' Organization, and the managing agent of the Scientology conglomerate, organization and enterprise and together, constitute a single course of conduct throughout the events at issue herein. I1 18. To the extent any one of more Defendants may continue to claim to be a peace officer I I Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts of such Defendant (s) alleged in this Complaint were done by such Defendant (s) under color of law and under pretense of the constitution, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the United States, the State I of California, and the County of Riverside therein, and under the authority of their offices, and , during the course and scope of their service as peace officers for said State or County, and said State or County is legally responsible for their conduct according to principals of vicarious , I I . liability and respondeat superior. In such event, Plaintiff will seek leave to add appropriate federal :Y P ' civil rights claims herein pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§§1983, 1985 and 1988. At the time of filing herein, Plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge, information and belief to assert such a claim relative to any conduct that may be beyond the limited immunity granted California peace officers First Amended Complaint for damages 8 1I r 1 receiving persons delivered into their custody following a "citizen's arrest" or "private person's 2 arrest." COMMON ALLEGATIONS 4 5 19. In mid January 2008 a biography of Tom Cruise was published by Andrew Morton. 6 Almost simultaneously a Scientology recruiting video starring Tom Cruise was uploaded to the (worldwide web of the Internet. CSI, through its attorneys, then used copyright claims to try and prevent continued distribution and viewing of the Scientology recruiting film in which, among other things, Tom Cruise claims to "smash Suppressive Persons" [critics of Scientology] such as 10 l1 9 1I 1 engage in the same unlawful and/or anti-social conduct Upon information and belief, Tom Cruise l2 13 has also offered to personally "beat the living [bleep] out of disobedient Scientologists." Upon 14 W e r information and belief, Scientology leader Captain David Miscavige has held out Tom Cruise's conduct and statements as an ideal example for Scientologists such as the individual I I 1I the Plaintiff into "a mere footnote in history" and he encourages other Scientologists to similarly I 1 16 17 18 l9 defendants herein. Plaintiff alleges that this is part of the attitudes, gestalt, policies and procedures that legally, directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer general and special damages, 20. CSI and its managing agent David Miscavige maintain a policy and practice of "Command 2o 21 Intention." During the lifetime of L. Ron Hubbard "command intention" referred to what u inter alia, as alleged herein. 22 Commodore Hubbard wanted to be done or what Scientology upper management wanted to be 23 done in accordance with the Scientology policy and practice letter known as "Keeping Scientology 24 Working No. 1" or "KSW 1." After managing agent David Miscavige extorted and seized control 25 of the Scientology enterprise from Hubbard's appointed successors Pat and Annie Broeker, and 26 after he terrorized and extorted certain of the Hubbard family heirs and seizedstole portions of the 27 28 Hubbard family inheritances, David Miscavige altered or "squirreled" numerous Scientology First Amended Complaint for damages 9 Y I1 1 1I policies contrary to its "Doctrine of Source" and "Command Intention" took on the meaning of what David Miscavige or " D M wanted done. In accordance with DM'S "Command Intention," various of the "Suppressive Person" policies and practices are used against persons such as the Plaintiff herein, and were used against the Plaintiff herein, by the Defendants acting jointly andfor severally. Within the Scientology/CSI/BMS enterprise, "Command Intention" also mandates that any Scientology staff member is able to "make it go right" and to do whatever is required for the good of the greatest number of Scientologists. In other words, Defendants have copyrighted secular policies and practices providing, in pertinent parts, that the Plaintiff had "no civil rights," that he could be b'utterly destroyed" by any means "by any Scientologist without any penalty to that Scientologist," and that the ends justify the means whether lawful or unlawful. Upon information and belief, the Defendants used these secular policies and practices in their conduct and handling of the Plaintiff as alleged herein. 21. In or about February 2008 a loosely organized leaderless global collective or group of human rights and Internet activists, numbering more than nine thousand, began protesting the alleged copyright abuses, crimes, frauds, human rights abuses, and civil rights abuses committed by the churches and corporations of Scientology and their representatives. The amorphous global collective (in over 110 cities and more than 42 nations) called itself Anonymous and it engaged in light hearted non-violent protests and other related first amendment protected activity against the Scientology enterprise (s). Many of the Anonymous participants wore "V for Vendetta" masks (also known as Guy Fawkes masks) to prevent Defendant CSI from retaliating against them with its copyrighted secular policies and practices for the handling and destruction of Suppressive Persons. First Amended Complaint for damages 22. In or about March 2008 the Plaintiff participated in his first monthly Anonymous global ~icket with the Anonymous group protesting Scientology human and civil rights abuses thereby ~ecoming subject to CSI's secular Suppressive Person policies and practices himself. 23. In or about February andlor March 2008 CSI inter alia engaged in conduct against honyrnous in general, and later against the Plaintiff in particular, in furtherance of the secular 'Suppressive Persons" policies and practices previously copyrighted by CSI. In accordance with :xpress and mandatory provisions of these copyrighted secular policies and practices, CSI's ~bjective against the Plaintiff and his associates was to "intimidate," "harass," "silence" and 'utterly destroy" those engaged in first amendment speech and association that was either critical 3f the alleged crimes and abuses of the Church of Scientology or CSI's objective of a Scientology uled global totalitarian political state, medical, business and social system compared by many to ;he vision of George Orwell's novel 1984. The related objectives of CSI included identifying, ~xposing, persuading, harassing, intimidating, arresting, prosecuting and psycho-terrorizing the Anonymous and other participants in the Anonymous movement in general and the Plaintiff in particular from engaging in any other First Amendment protected activity against the Scientology churches, corporations, front groups and enterprises. To those ends, CSI, BMS and their managing agent David Miscavige used Scientology employees, Scientology members, Scientology volunteers, lawyers, private investigators, governmental entities, law enforcement entities, false claims and false police reports. "Cease and desist" protesting against Scientology letters were prepared by law firms both large and small and they were delivered by Scientology volunteers, employees, private investigators and others to identified Anonymous protestors including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, their parents, neighbors, colleges, and employers. CSI spent many millions of tax exempt dollars, across county, state, federal and international borders in this effort to suppress and destroy the first amendment rights of the Anonymous protestors in general and the First Amended Complaint for damages 11 'laintiff in particular. To this end, CSI arranged, inter alia, for scientology staffers, scientology rolunteers, politicians, public employees andlor peace officers to close public streets and iidewalks to picketers who included the Plaintiff, to prevent picketers from accessing public iccommodations and conveyances such as restaurants and buses, to prevent the first amendment :ornrnunications of the picketers from being seen or heard by their intended audience, and to :ngage in false arrests, false imprisonments and other unlawful conduct which intentionally or .ecklessly interfered with the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff herein. Numerous picketers ncluding the Plaintiff were also subjected to physical assaults and violence perpetrated by Scientology "staffers" and "publics" present at Scientology locations and elsewhere. Upon nformation and belief, in the doing of the things alleged herein CSI, its managing agents, :mployees, volunteers and representatives also engaged in undue and/or improper influence and :omuption of public officials. In addition, CSI used and directed private businesses and their :mployees as participants in the unconstitutional and other unlawful conduct against the Plaintiff 3s alleged herein. Upon information and belief, these businesses include but are not limited to a :ertain Subway Restaurant in Los Angeles, a certain common carrier in Los Angeles, and the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. 24. CSI's related conduct against the Plaintiff, whether as an individual or whether due to his attendance at first amendment protected activities with other Anonymous protestors, included conduct intended to violate, and conduct that did violate, Plaintiffs constitutional and civil rights, and/or involved false law enforcement reports, perjury and other unlawful conduct intended to interfere, and/or which did interfere with the Plaintiffs rights and lawful activities and which distressed and damaged the Plaintiff as alleged herein. Upon information and belief this conduct against Suppressive Persons such as Anonymous in general and the Plaintiff in particular, inter alia, was either ordered by andfor ratified by David Miscavige and carried out by various of his First Amended Complaint for damages 12 subordinate officers (including but not limited to Michael Rinder through mid 2007) within the I I uI I 1I I I Scientology enterprise, all of who are always required to act in accordance with David Miscavige's "command intention." Upon information and belief, since its establishment, CSI has engaged in the pattern and practice of the same or similar conduct against many other of its self- perceived "enemies" such as the Plaintiff herein and as alleged herein. 25. The Scientology secular and administrative policies and practices, inter alia, for the handling of Suppressive Persons are part of the gestalt of the Scientology enterprise, and are part of the res gestae herein, in that the Scientology secular Suppressive Person policies and practices have been in effect and employed against the Plaintiff throughout the events at issue herein. 1I(1 I 26. Defendant CSI has represented that the secular Suppressive Person policies and practices, of which Fair Game is a part, were cancelled over forty years ago. Notwithstanding this transparent falsehood (or "acceptable truth" in Scientology parlance), these policies and practices (most of which call for hate-filled conduct and communication) have been recognized and , discussed in a number of more recent California and other cases including but not limited to: I I Church of Scientolonv v. Armstrong, 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1067 (199 1); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientologv, 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 888-89 (1989); Allard v. Church of Scientologv, 58 Cal.App.3d 439,443 n. 1 (1976); United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 125 (1st Cir. 1988); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientolog~, F-Supp. 1125, 1 131 n.4 (U.S.D.C. Mass. 1982); 535 Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Ore.App.203 (1982). In addition, CSI and/or its affiliates have continued to renew the copyright registrations of the written secular policies ' affiliates have continued to issue written "Suppressive Person Declares" against former 1 I relating to the handling of Suppressive Persons such as the Plaintiff herein. Similarly, CSI and its Scientologists and others right up to the present time. 1 1 First Amended Complaint for damages 13 27. CSI's copyrighted secular policies and practices for handling Suppressive Persons such as the Plaintiff herein expressly mandate hate-filled conduct in breach of their human and civil rights. Conduct in furtherance of these copyrighted secular policies is intended to "terrorize" those CSI classifies as Suppressive Persons and, among other things, to [misluse the law to harass and "utterly destroy" them. These secular policies and practices target Plaintiff and others for "utter religion and are opposed to alleged CSI destruction" because they are NOT of the Scientolog~ crime, abuse and plans for global totalitarian rule and genocide (of all Suppressive Persons). Consequently the wrongful and criminal conduct directed by Defendants at the Plaintiff including but not limited to assault, battery and false imprisonment also constitutes a hate crime and/or a hate tort under applicable laws. 28. Upon information and belief, on or about August 10,2008, during the course of first amendment protected activity in Los Angeles that some local Anonymous participants called "Operation Barney and Friends," Los Angeles Police Department Officers ("L.A.P.D.") stopped the Plaintiff and demanded his identification. Subsequently, an L.A.P.D. officer is believed to have communicated the Plaintiffs identity and address to a representative of CSI contrary to Plaintiffs express request to the L.A.P.D. Officer not to do so. Upon information and belief, other L.A.P.D. and/or County of Riverside Sheriffs officers, sometimes in the "off-duty" employment of CSI or a related Scientology entity, also demanded the identification information of other Anonymous participants and are also believed to have communicated that private information to C.S.I. staff or agents. 29. After CSI violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to engage in First Amendment activity through masked anonymity, and used police and private investigators to obtain the identification information of the previously anonymous picketer who is the Plaintiff herein, CSI employed a private investigator (s), set up a sting operation in the form of fake media interview to First Amended Complaint for damages 14 lure the Plaintiff into a public place in Westminster, California, unmasked where he could be I I I I I n1 I photographed and then followed (stalked) to his residence. After CSI agents had lured the Plaintiff into a public place as alleged above they then followed him by car for over eleven hours before he finally returned to his temporary Lake Elsinore residence in the early hours of the morning. 30. Late at night on or about September 2 1,2008, three persons associated with CSI andlor its agents visited the Defendant's residential property, trespassed on private land and distributed defamatory "flyers" about him to his neighbors' properties. The defamatory "flyers" stated, among other things, that the Plaintiff associated with "Nazis, racists, that he brings chaos and laughs in the face of tragedy." The defamatory flyers were distributed through conduct in compliance with the "Dead Agenting," "Third Partying," "Noisy Investigation," and "Fair Game" aspects of CSI's copyrighted secular "Suppressive Person" policies and practices. The next morning, at approx. 5.45 A.M. the same people (who included one Pauline Lombard) entered upon the Plaintiffs I I I I residential property to disrupt his sleep. The Lake Elsinore police were called to eject the , Scientology agents from the Plaintiffs residential property and boundaries. ' I I 11 31. In September, 2008 and on approximately six subsequent occasions prior to October 26, 2008, the Plaintiff joined with other Anonymous protestors to picket the 500 acre Golden Era Productions film studio property at 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583 ("the I I Golden Era property"). On each such occasion the Plaintiff and the other protestors had suffered through threatening acts of intimidation and verbal harassment, extremely loud discordant pipe organ tri-notes and directed water sprinkler attacks/assaults from Golden Era security guards. I 'I1 1 32. The Golden Era property is also the International Headquarters of the Church of Scientology. Many former top Scientology executives have compared the very high security I compound to a Soviet or North Korean gulag. The Plaintiff and his Anonymous companions were protesting, inter alia, alleged Scientology forced labor, forced abortions, human trafficking, First Amended Complaint for damages I 15 1 violence, unlawful imprisonment, human rights violations, civil rights violations, labor code and 2 O.S.H.A. violations at the very high security Golden Era film studio property. 33. The 500 acre Golden Era property at 19625 Highway 79, Gilrnan Hot Springs, CA is 4 5 6 7 acres of unfenced unused vacant land that includes a public right of way, dirt tracks, and an area bisected by California State Highway 79. At the northern end of the property is approximately 1.3 1that has regularly been used for vehicle parking by protestors and the public generally ('"the I 8 unfenced roadside land"). The same unfenced roadside land also serves as a sewerage leach field 9 for the Golden Era property. Upon information and belief, before October 26,2008 the unfenced roadside land was not properly posted with the proper sized, positioned or number of "no I Y1 1 l 1 trespassing" signs as required by applicable California law (e.g. Penal Code $$552-556). l2 Subsequent to the events at issue herein the Golden Era "no trespassing" signs were changed and 1 1 14 relocated upon the unfenced roadside land on one or more occasions. l5 16 Era property is being occupied by the Scientology enterprise in fraudulent violation of F.E.M.A. I1 34. Upon information and belief, some or all of the unfenced roadside land and/or the Golden 17 flood plain restrictions and requirements. In addition, at least one of the Scientology buildings at /I the Golden Era property colloquially called ""theHole" confines over forty senior Scientology executives night and day, some held there for more than five years, without doors with inside 1W 9 20 handles or escape bars. 21 22 Scientology employees from leaving the Golden Era property without authorization or guarantee 23 24 of return. Similarly, CSI and its agents have engaged in unlawful conduct to keep non25 Scientologists from even the perimeters of the Golden Era property (and related properties such as R 35. For over thirty years CSI and its agents have engaged in unlawful conduct to prevent 1I 1 u 26 "Happy Valley") whether they are engaged in picketing, hand gliding or photography. To this end 27 the Golden Era property is surrounded by the dangerous spiked fences, advanced electronic First Amended Complaint for damages 16 I 1 security devices and even, from time to time, a staffer armed with a sniper's rifle and located on the mountainside above the Golden Era property in a "fox hole" called '"the Eagle's Nest" by I Scientology staff members posted to the Golden Era property. 36. Notwithstanding, a few Scientologists confined upon the Golden Era property have managed to escape, sometimes with outside assistance. Upon information and belief, this conduct whether intentional or reckless has even resulted in the death of a young depress Scientologist (s) staffer such as Stacy Meyer Moxon or a young girl such as Ashley Shaner who was driving home from bible study and fatally proceeding past the Golden Era property in the early evening darkness. 37. When there is picketing or other anti-Scientology abuse activity outside the Golden Era property all but a few security guards and senior executives are ordered indoors and behind shutters. They are expressly forbidden and actively prevented from hearing or seeing any of the picket or protest information directed to their attention and consideration. They are not permitted to receive any information that is in any way critical of Scientology or contrary to what they have been told by Scientology about events within their own "reality." 38. Prior to October 26,2008 the Plaintiff had become familiar with the positioning of the no trespassing signs on the unfenced roadside land of the Golden Era property and he reasonably but wrongly assumed that they were located at and along the property lines as required by applicable California law. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the sign (s) were not in accordance with the applicable law and thus waslwere a public nuisance as specifically provided in Penal Code $5553 and 556.3. 39. On Internet message boards during the week preceding October 26,2008, the Plaintiff and other participants in the Southern California Anonymous group openly discussed their intention to 7 picket the CSI Golden Era property on Sunday October 26,2008. Upon information and belief, I First Amended Complaint for damages 17 :SI monitors and "troll" those same Internet Message Boards. Upon information and belief, CSI nd the other Defendants herein would have discussed and prepared plans to try and prevent the 'laintiff and other protestors from conveying their written and verbal communications to mentally nanipulated and coercively indoctrinated Scientology staffers confined behind the high security ences and electronic equipment at the Golden Era property. Upon information and belief these dans to "handle" the Plaintiff and the other Anonymous protestors included actions set forth in rarious of the Church of Scientology copyrighted secular policies and practices for handling hppressive Persons such as the Plaintiff herein. These plans would also have involved written >rders, Staff Announcements and statements at the "Musters" and roll calls held at various times )f the day and night during employment shifts or "watches" at the Golden Era property. In ~ddition, there were written policies for handling intruders upon the Golden Era property. 40. At approximately 11-30 A.M. on Sunday October 26,2008 the Plaintiff and four other lnonyrnous picketers arrived at the Golden Era property all traveling in the same vehicle, a rented 3assenger van. In accordance with local custom and usage, they parked the vehicle on the south :ast side of Highway 79 upon the unfenced roadside land which is part of the dedicated public :asement and commenced their picketing activity on the public easement along Highway 79 and ;he Golden Era property. In addition, for their own safety, the picketers cell phoned the Riverside County Sheriffs Department and advised them of their presence and the picket taking place. The picketers carried signs which read, among other things: "Stop the beatings," "Stop Scientology slave labor camps," "David Miscavige beats his staff," "Scientology is destructive and a rip-off' md "Scientology is worse than you think." Many passing vehicles honked their horns in approval unaware that Scientology cameras positioned beside Highway 79 were recording the registration plate number and driver's face of every vehicle that drives past the Golden Era property. First Amended Complaint for damages 18 41. Soon after the October 26,2008, picket of the Golden Era property commenced a deafening and disturbing discordant organ tri-note note was broadcast across the landscape by at least seven huge outdoor concert speakers positioned on the inside edge of the Golden Era property adjacent to Highway 79. The sound was measured as being at or exceeding 110-115 decibels which substantially exceeds the 75 decibels permissible noise level in Riverside County. The ordinance violating noise continued throughout most of the picket (approximately 3.5 hours). Although a number of Riverside County Deputy Sherifrs were in attendance during much of the picket they took no action to abate the excessive noise violation even after being requested to do so. Upon information and belief, the deafening organ dirge (a discordant tri-note) was intended to both prevent the Scientology employees on the Golden Era property from hearing the picketer's first amendment protected communications and to interfere with the minds of the picketers. 42. At the commencement of the picket on October 26,2008, the Plaintiff remained hidden in the vehicle the picketers had arrived in. On the basis of past experience, the Plaintiff expected CSI security guards would drive up to the vehicle and engage in a thorough examination and possible vehicular interference while the picketers were about 10 minutes walk away. In time a CSI security guard arrived in a black pathfinder SUV and spent significant time examining the picketer's parked vehicle while the Plaintiff remained hidden but observing and recording from inside. Eventually, the Plaintiff emerged from the vehicle. The Scientology security guard rushed back to his vehicle and drove in reverse along the semi-circular dirt track beside Highway 79 and the unfenced roadside land. 43. During the rest of the picket the Scientology security guard (s) repeatedly drove back to the protestor's vehicle, got out of his own vehicle and physically examined the exterior and underside of the picketer's van. On several times, one of the picketers proceeded back down Highway 79 to see what the Scientology security guard was doing to the vehicle. Each time the picketer First Amended Complaint for damages 19 approached the van the Scientology guard would cease inspectinglinterfering with the picketer's vehicle, return to his own vehicle and drive into a nearby cluster of trees on the unfenced roadside land. At one point Defendant Butler approached the picketer's van with what appeared to be a tool P and departed with some acquired object. Finally, the Scientology security guard positioned, lit and then returned to reposition a flaming roadside flare behind the gas tank of the protestor's vehicle and provoked the subsequent events as complained herein. 1I I I I 44. At about 11-50 A.M. on October 26,2008, Riverside Deputy Sheriff George Foresburg arrived at the picket and remained for the duration of most of the protest. During the course of the picket and in violation of applicable United States Supreme Court case authority, he unsuccessfully insisted that one or more of the protestors had to give him his identification information if the picketer was to wear a mask and protest anonymously. 11 I 1 , 45. At about 12-55 P.M. on October 26,2008, Deputy Foresburg and two other Sheriffs deputies returned. They spend a considerable time closeted on the Golden Era property with Scientology security guards and other staff. Thereafter Deputy Foresburg emerged and engaged II one or more of the picketers in conversation. Deputy Foresburg informed the picketer (s) that by protesting outside the Golden Era guardhouse and main entrance they were engaged in illegal I residential picketing and that they should move their picket down the road and onto the unfenced I roadside land where some of the events at issue (including the alleged assault, battery, false arrest : I and false imprisonment) herein later occurred. Deputy Forseburg added that the picketing of the main entrance to the Golden Era property cause an accident and if it did the picketers would . be named as parties to the cause of the accident. This claim by the Deputy Sheriff was similar to 18 I those made by Scientology representatives on other occasions. The Deputy Sheriff was visibly annoyed at the picketer's refusal to move their protest down to the very same portion of unfenced roadside land where he later took custodial delivery of the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had been 1 1 I b First Amended Complaint for damages 20 subjected to a "citizen's arrest" by the Defendants for alleged trespassing and battery upon a peace officer. 46. During the October 26,2008 protest against Scientology abuse and unlawful imprisonments at the Golden Era property, there were Sheriffs deputies present the majority of the time but they either refused of failed to respond to the pleas of the protestors regarding Church of Scientology civil rights and noise violations being directed against them or the assault by directed water sprinklers. Usually, as on most other occasions, the Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs were huddled with the Scientology security guards and executives behind the Scientology security fences; sometimes in long conversation and other times apparently "joking and degrading" at the those exercising their first amendment rights on the outside of the high security barriers. The picketers had advised the deputies of their intended departure time of about 3 P.M. Upon information and belief, a Sheriff's deputy so informed the Scientology employees. 1 47. Upon information and belief, the Golden Era property has encroached upon public land with, among other things, roadside vegetation that intentionally, maliciously and/or negligently creates a public nuisance andlor restricts the public's ability to walk on the public easement without being forced into the traffic stream of Highway 79. These obstructions upon the public easement beside the Golden Era property and Highway 79 do not exist reasonably nearby on I Highway 79 other than outside the Golden Era property itself. This public easement also contains , I Scientology installed, maintained and monitored sophisticated motion detectors, camera and microphone equipment as well as a sprinkler system that sprays water onto the public easement and across Highway 79, often creating a very slippery and dangerous road surface. Upon . ' 1 information and belief these encroachmentsupon the public highway easement have not been ' 1 1 authorized by duly issued permit (s) issued by the County of Riverside or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1 First Amended Complaint for damages 21 48. Upon information and belief, CSI has used its self-created dangerous Highway 79 condition in support of its political lobbying and alliance with Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone to have Highway 79 re-routed away from the Golden Era property which it currently bisects (although CSI has two pedestrian tunnels underneath). Last month the San Jacinto City Council held a public meeting on the issue and expressed its opposition. Plaintiff attended and spoke thereat. Another Anonymous known as AGP participant also intended to attend and speak in opposition. However, that same day CSI attorney Elliot Abelson advised that Anonymous participant, through his counsel who was with the Plaintiff herein, that if the Anonymous protestor known as AGP attended the public meeting he would be arrested for a violating a [non-existent] bail condition not to be in the presence of a Scientologist and there would be Scientologists at the San Jacinto City Council public meeting. In the words of one of the Suppressive Person policies allegedly at issue herein, AGP was "shuddered into silence" by the misrepresentation of CSI inhouse attorney Elliott Abelson. 49. At about 2-15 P. M. on October 26,2008, the Golden Era property roadside sprinkler system was turned on. There were stationery cameras on tripods within the sprinkler spray area. They belonged to the Anonymous picketers. The Golden Era property sprinklers caused the picketers, or some of them who included the Plaintiff herein, to be assaulted by wet water spray which forced them into the roadway and put them in potential physical danger. Upon information and belief, it was similar willful and reckless disregard that negligently caused the death of sixteen year Ashley Shaner (and twenty year old Stacy Meyer Moxon). As with the continuing excessive discordant organ tri-note dirge, the Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs passively remained with the Scientology staffers and took no action to curb either the excessive noise or the sprinkler assault upon the picketers who were acting lawfully at all pertinent times and anxious for the active assistance and protection of the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. Upon information and First Amended Complaint for damages 22 >elief,CSI and BMS has repeatedly engaged in conduct calculated to cause the Riverside County Sheriffs Department to ignore the rights of persons such as the Plaintiff picketing the Golden Era xoperty, to interfere with those rights, and to violate those rights as was done to the Plaintiff on 3ctober 26,2008 and at least three occasions thereafter. To this end CSI and/or BMS have made False claims and false police reports causing distress and damage to persons including the Plaintiff ierein. 50. At about 2-45 P.M. the Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs departed from the Golden Era property. Very soon thereafter Defendant Butler returned to the picketer's van and lit an incendiary road flare despite the county-wide ban of such devices because of the late summer high Fire danger; it was a "red flag" day. Initially, Defendant Butler pointed the flaming road flare under the picketer's van and near its gas tank but later returned and re-positioned in the northern direction. The Plaintiff observed this conduct and was alarmed by it and the potential for causing a catastrophic explosion and/or fire in an area often ravaged by late summer wild fires and subject that very day to a county-wide total ban of all fires and, inter alia, any roadside flares. 51. The Plaintiff went to his rented vehicle which was threatened by the illegal flaming roadside flare while Defendant Butler retreated about thirty feet away next to some roadside vegetation. Meanwhile another vehicle, a grey Honda Accord, had arrived and was parked about a quarter mile away. Believing the car may include additional picketers who were expected, the Plaintiff walked towards the vehicle. However, as the Plaintiff walked towards the Honda Accord it began slowly reversing down the Highway and then pulled a U turn and sped away to the south. 52. As the Plaintiff walked back to the picketer's van, the grey Honda Accord came back, right behind him. The Plaintiff, now concerned for his safety, proceeded back to towards the picketer's van using a small dirt road path, adjacent to Highway 79, as an apparent safe short cut. As he was First Amended Complaint for damages 23 1 doing this the Plaintiff noticed Defendant Butler's black Nissan Pathfinder parked and he walked 2 over to enquire as to what he had been doing at the picketer's vehicle and why. 1 1 6 53. At all relevant times the Plaintiff had no intention to trespass upon the unfenced roadside land and he reasonably believed, from past observation of the location of the no trespassing sign 1 (s), that he was still on the public easement. As of October 26,2008 the Plaintiff had no record of prior arrests or criminal convictions. 1 1 1 54. When Plaintiff arrived at the location of Defendant Butler he had less than five seconds to 9 make his enquiry before the Honda Accord screeched to a halt beside him and Defendant's lo Dunigan and Seybold leapt out screaming "trespassing your under arrest." Contrary to the 1I1 provisions of law and custom, the Defendants had not given the Plaintiff any andlor adequate notice that he was trespassing on a portion of the unfenced roadside land and they had not given 12 13 14 him any reasonable opportunity to exit the unmarked roadside land. l5 16 "trespassing your under arrest" they wrongfully, recklessly and negligently swarmed him, tackled 17 him to the ground, dog piled the Plaintiff, dangerously wedged and pressured their knees into the I/ Y 55. As one of the three Scientology security guards (Dunigan, Seybold and Butler) screamed 1I 1 l9 mouth into the dry desert dirt where he proceeded to receive bruising on his face, arms and legs 1 Plaintiffs back and neck and thereby used unlawful deadly force while forcing his full face and 21 20 A and was made to suffer great pain, serious injury, the fear of suffocation and the fear of death. All three of the Defendants were on top of him and held his hands behind his back while they punched 22 him many times causing him severe bruising, neck pains and permanent injuries. At the same 23 24 time, video taken at the incident clearly records what appears to be a single gun shot. During this 25 time the Plaintiff reflexively and unintentionally bit one of the hands that was holding his face uY 26 hard in the desert dirt and suffocating him. Defendant Meo then arrived on the scene and 27 (participated in the conduct of the three other Golden Era employees. After several minutes of this First Amended Complaint for damages 24 I 1 1 he other picketer's arrived and intervened to beg the four Golden Era security guards to get off he Plaintiff and to stop beating and suffocating him because their conduct was killing the 'laintiff. Eventually, Defendants did so but then tied his hands behind with tight plastic handcuffs md detained him until the Deputy Sheriffs returned. They had withdrawn fiom the property just >eforeevents commenced with the illegal flaming roadside flare, the grey Honda Accord, and the Iefendant's attack upon the Plaintiff. Photograph (s) of the Plaintiff during/ after this false arrest ire attached hereto as Exhibit A. The entire days events at issue herein were captured upon lurnerous video-audio and still camera equipment. 56. During the aforesaid assault and battery by the Defendants upon the Plaintiff one of the ~icketers attempted to intervene and was also physically assaulted by Defendant Dunigan. He yelled at her that he was "making a citizen's arrest" as he held the Plaintiff face down in the dirt while kneeing him in the neck and attempting to hogtie him. Later Defendant Dunigan informed ;he Deputy Sheriffs that the female picketer had kicked him but he was declining to press charges %gainst The video showed the exact opposite; Defendant Dunigan was the one who had her. 3ttacked her. She suffered abrasions fiom being thrown to the ground, a deep bruise to one arm,a split nail and a strained back muscle. Upon information and belief, the bruised and battered woman was caused to fear subsequent arrest by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. 57. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dunigan has a propensity for violence and he has cngaged in acts of violence against other persons including his wife, a member of the public who drove up to the Golden Era property guardhouse, Scientology staffers attempting to escape from the Golden Era property, and Scientology staffers who had escaped from the Golden Era property and were proceeding along the public roadways. These people include former Scientologists Marc Headley and Maureen Bolstead. Defendant Dunigan's propensity for physical violence was well known to his employer CSI which, upon information and belief, had paid over $1.4 million to First Amended Complaint for damages 25 quickly settle a civil lawsuit resulting from an unprovoked assault and battery by Defendant 1I 1I I nI Dunigan upon a member of the public sitting in his car outside the Golden Era property guardhouse and main entrance. 58. Upon information and belief, the willful and reckless disregard of the constitutional and other rights of the general public around the Golden Era property include a hang glider pilot who landed on the mountain above the Golden Era property and he was grabbed by Golden Era property security guards and unlawfully imprisoned upon the Golden Era property for over a day before being handed over to Riverside County Sheriffs. Other members of the public have been I I I II threatened with a citizen's arrest by Golden Era property security guards as they merely walk on the public easement past the Golden Era property. Upon information and belief, others both at the Golden Era property and in other places, have been subjected to false arrests and flawed II I prosecutions by CSI and its employees and agents acting pursuant to CSI's secular and administrative policies and practices, inter alia, for the handling of Suppressive Persons. I1 59. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid CSI secular and administrative policies and practices are also a pattern of practice of intentional and/or reckless civil rights violations resulting in, inter alia, the false arrests and/or false citizen's arrest and/or false confinement of others I deemed to be Suppressive Persons by CSI including but not limited to a German television crew I attempting to film the Golden Era property and nearby "Happy Valley," Bent Corydon, Mark , ; Bunker (on two occasions), Douglas Owens, Anon Ace (St. Louis), Anon 44 (Tennessee), Epic Nose Guy (London), Camera Anon (Las Vegas), Stu Wyatt (England), 60. After the Deputy Sheriff's I returned Defendant Dunigan, "acting in the capacity of a security guard for his employer," and apparently claiming to be a "peace officer," placed the 1 ' 1 Plaintiff under a "private persons" arrest for misdemeanor trespassing and felony battery upon a peace officer. Upon information and belief, either currently or in the past, Defendant Dunigan has First Amended Complaint for damages 26 served as a volunteer peace officer for one of the local law enforcement agencies and has received training in arrest and detention there-from. 61. Plaintiff continued to complain that he was in pain from the assault and battery upon him and the tight handcuffs but his pleas were ignored by the Defendants who had arrested him and later by the Sheriffs Deputies who refused andor failed to view an audio-video of the attack in order to conduct a proper investigation before receiving the Plaintiff into their custody. Had the Sheriffs Deputies conducted a proper investigation, and properly exercised their statutory discretion regarding a citizen's arrest, they would/should have concluded that, in the circumstances (improper sign posting, no reasonable notice of trespass, and no reasonable opportunity to leave) there had been no probable cause to arrest and imprison the Plaintiff irrespective of whether or not the Defendant had strayed a little beyond an invisible line in the dirt of the unfenced roadside land. 62. Eventually the Plaintiff, still handcuffed, was transported in a black and white sheriffs cruiser to the Riverside County South West Justice Center in Murrieta which is at the other end of Riverside County. The Plaintiff was denied medical attention while in the custody of the Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs at the scene, during transportation, and at the County Jail. 63. The Plaintiff was held in the County Jail at Murrieta for over twelve hours before being released upon his own recognizance in the early morning hours of October 27,2008. 64. Whether or subject to a privilege or immunity arising from the Defendant's "citizen's arrest" of the Plaintiff, the pertinent actions of the Riverside County Sheriffs Deputies on October 26,2008, and on the two subsequent occasions he was falsely arrested and imprisoned as alleged herein, were taken while acting under color of state law and while so doing they wrongfully and unlawfidly deprived the Plaintiff of an interest (s) protected by the Constitution andlor laws of the United States and the State of California. First Amended Complaint for damages 27 65. On October 26,2008 Plaintiff did not fail to cease the alleged trespass and to exit the relevant portion of the unfenced roadside land after receiving reasonable notice and opportunity to do so. The Plaintiff did not resist arrest or obstruct justice. There were no exigent circumstances or attempt to escape. The entire incident was captured upon numerous CSI surveillance cameras and the identity, name and address of the Plaintiff was well known to Defendant CSI. In fact, CSI agents had visited Defendant's residence on multiple occasions and had harassed him there. The lack of probable cause and show of force by the Defendants caused an unreasonable seizure and confinement of the Plaintiff. 66. After the Plaintiff was released from Riverside County Jail he and some of the other October 26,2008 Anonymous picketers and witnesses to the assault and battery of the Plaintiff made several visits to the Riverside County Sheriffs Department in San Jacinto and requested an opportunity to file a police complaint against the individual Defendants herein for their violence and other conduct against the Plaintiff as described above. On successive days the Riverside Deputy Sheriffs rehsed to receive or co-operate in the filing of a police report against the CSI security guards; the individual defendants herein. Eventually, after KESQ TV reporter Nathan Baca had filmed and broadcast the Plaintiff trying to make a criminal complaint, the Riverside Sheriffs Department agreed to meet with the Plaintiff and to receive a criminal complaint against the Scientology security guards. 67. On January 5,2009 the Plaintiff met with Investigator Kim Judge at the Riverside County I Sheriffs Department in San Jacinto. After an extended interview and a review of other evidence the Sheriffs investigator submitted a report that Defendants Dunigan, Matthew Butler and Kenneth Seybold be prosecuted. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 68. The Plaintiff had intended the report to be a separate police complaint requiring separate action. Instead, the Sheriffs Department treated the Plaintiffs complaint as a supplemental report. First Amended Complaint for damages 28 Upon information and belief, by designating the report as a supplemental report and not as a new complaint, the Plaintiffs allegations were ignored despite the unequivocal analysis, conclusion and "exceptional" recommendation contained in the report. In addition, the Plaintiffs complaint and supporting evidence were subsequently destroyed. A Riverside County District Attorney Investigation Report dated August 6,2009 confirms this. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 69. On December 9,2008 Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Stone introduced Ordinance No. 884 to restrict "targeted residential picketing" in the County of Riverside. Later, he introduced Ordinance No. 888 to pass Ordinance No. 884 with urgency because of the alleged emergency circumstances created by the Anonymous pickets of the Golden Era property. Supervisor Stone used a CSI created a highly defamatory and false "Anonymous Pamphlet" which was given to Supervisor Stone who used it in support of Ordinance No. 884 and 888. CSI also provided Supervisor Stone with false and highly defamatory information about the Plaintiff herein and Supervisor Stone also used that information in public debate upon Ordinance No. 884 and 888. As originally proposed by Supervisor Stone, the impact of Ordinance No. 884 would have been to restrict all pickets of the Golden Era property to an area no closer than approximately one mile from the intended audience for the picketer's first amendment activity. 70. During debates at successive meetings of the Riverside Board of Supervisors the County ! attorney, CSI's local land use and zoning attorney, and CSI public relations executive Catherine 1 Fraser all made statements that, in summary, were that a month or so earlier CSI's land use and I zoning attorney had provided the Riverside County Attorney with a draft of a proposed Ordinance 5 No. 884 and that they had subsequently worked on it together. Upon information and belief, after '1 I I the Plaintiff was arrested on October 26,2008, CSI contacted Supervisor Stone and provided him with the defamatory material described in the immediately preceding paragraph. Supervisor Stone First Amended Complaint for damages 29 used the CSI produced materials to publicly and falsely accuse the Plaintiff, among others, of I I being a "dangerous criminal" engaged in bomb threats, anthrax attacks, nuclear bombings and other sick absurdities. These fabricated characterizations of the Plaintiff in particular and the I Anonymous anti-Scientology abuses in general were subsequently used by Supervisor Stone to I n justify emergency passage of the Scientology proposed Ordinances. 71. The Plaintiff and others publicly opposed the proposed Ordinance No. 884 and 888 during the public comment sessions of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and he has, along with 1I others, continued to call the Riverside County Board of Supervisors attention to the human rights abuses, civil rights abuses, human trafficking and unlawful imprisonments at the Golden Era property; all without success. The Plaintiff has handled supporting documentation to Supervisor Stone personally and to Sheriff Stanley Sniff. The Plaintiff has also attended political fundraisers and observed Scientology retained lawyers and staffers also attending, presumably making political contributions to Supervisor Stone and others. 72. The Plaintiff, along with others, has also protested corruption in both Riverside and Los I I I I I Angeles Counties, particularly concerning relationships between the Scientology enterprise, local government, county government, the civil and criminal courts, and their relevant representatives. 73. Upon information and belief, for decades CSI has engaged in a continuing course of ' : I I u related similar conduct mandated by it's copyrighted "Suppressive Persons" and other policies, and that conduct of CSI (or its predecessor Church of Scientology of California) has been I involving andlor including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein as alleged herein and for which he :I I ' seeks relief herein, Paulette Cooper, the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, Julie Christofferson, Gerald Armstrong, Michael Flynn, Esq., Lawrence Wollersheim, Charles B. O'Reilly, Esq., Robin Scott, uI employed in matters that are part of a course of conduct constituting, inter alia, public corruption David Mayo, Joseph A. Yanny, Esq., Barry Van Sickle, Esq., Ford Greene, Esq., the Cult First Amended Complaint for damages 30 Awareness Network, F.A.C.T. Net, Arnie Lerma, Keith Henson, Jesse Prince, Mark Bunker, Robert Minton, Ursula Caberta, and that group of over nine thousand persons calling themselves Anonymous and anonymously protesting Scientology crime and abuse around the globe. 74. On December 3,2008 the Plaintiff made his first appearance before the California Superior Court in Riverside. On this occasion he did not enter a plea. The Court continued the hearing and released the Plaintiff upon his own recognizance. A "stay away" from the Golden Era property order was entered. 75. Later in December 2008 the Plaintiff participated in an Anonymous picket of CSI's 633 1 Hollywood Boulevard offices during the Hollywood Christmas parade. Two CSI agents arranged for the L.A.P.D. to arrest the Plaintiff. After the Plaintiff was handcuffed and detained, an L.A.P.D. on the spot investigation concluded that he had done nothing unlawful and the Plaintiff was then released without charge or citation. 76. On January 29,2009, the Plaintiff made his second appearance in the Scientology driven , prosecution for misdemeanor trespass and felony battery upon a peace officer. CSI's in-house I1I ' I I attorney and national litigation coordinator Elliot Abelson, Esq., also attended in the company of CSI public relations officer Catherine Fraser and Defendant Dunigan. Ms. Fraser and Defendant Dunigan had also attended Plaintiffs first appearance on December 3,2008. On that occasion, the I Plaintiff had taken a photograph of Defendant Dunigan and Catherine Fraser as they walked away from the steps of the Murrieta courthouse. At the January 29,2009 hearing Scientology attorney C case (even though a number of people could recall no such thing and there was no such minute order on record). CSI's attorney Elliott Abelson argued that by taking a photograph the Plaintiff had violated the alleged oral stay away order and that his bail should be revoked. Even though Catherine Fraser was not a victim, at CSI's request the Court revoked the Plaintiffs bail, he was $ n Elliot Abelson informed the court that there had also been a stay-away from victims order in the ) 7 First Amended Complaint for damages 31 arrested, hand-cuffed and returned to the Riverside County Jail in Murrieta at about 9 A.M. on January 29,2009. Although the Plaintiff had his bail bond ready almost immediately and ordinarily would have been released in about three hours he was held for another day and night in custody before the Riverside Sheriffs Department would process the necessary paperwork and release him. As a result of the [mis] representations of CSI's attorney Abelson, the false complaint 1 of Fraser and Dunigan, and the application of CSI's Suppressive Person policies and practices, the Plaintiff now had a further arrest on his previously blemish free record. Subsequently, the Court refused to order a copy of the audio recording of the December 3,2008 hearing and bail conditions be provided to the Plaintiff in connection with the alleged misrepresentations by CSI attorney Elliot Abelson as to what the court had actually ordered in connection with the "stay away from Gold Base" restriction and the alleged restriction that he was to have no contact with his October 26,2008 "victims" as alleged by CSI attorney Elliott Abelson in successfully moving the court to revoke the Plaintiffs bail and return him to County jail for another day. 77. Following his second arrest and imprisonment on January 29,2009 the Plaintiff continued to picket other Church of Scientology locations and to speak at Riverside County Board of Supervisor's meetings on the subject of Riverside County corruption and CSI's conduct at the I 1I Golden Era property involving alleged forced labor, human trafficking, serious physical violence and beatings by Managing Agent David Miscavige of certain employees, unlawfbl imprisonment, voting deprivations, human rights abuses and other civil rights abuses. 78. On or about September 15,2009, the Plaintiff handed Supervisor Stone a copy of some of the evidence in the criminal case previously destroyed in the District Attorney's Office. Plaintiff requested Jeff Stone that it be reviewed by the Supervisor and then given to the Riverside County ' Sheriff. Upon information and belief, Supervisor Stone has continued to work with representatives 1 First Amended Complaint for damages of CSI to limit the picketing activity of the Plaintiff in particular and other protestors in general against CSI crimes and abuses including those from the Anonymous group. 79. Subsequent to the passage of the Scientology sponsored Ordinance No. 884 the Scientology employees have sometimes argued that it prevents any picketing outside the Golden Era property and other times they have conducted clearly false citizen's arrests involving arrests and citations that have been subsequently dropped without further appearance or action being necessary. 80. On October 2,2009, at about 9-15 A.M. the Plaintiff arrived at the Riverside County 1 Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta with his attorney and another participant in the Anonymous anti-Scientology crime and abuse movement. They were attending a hearing in another case. As they were approaching the entrance to the courthouse they came across Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone who had just been videotaped as part of business promotion video for Fausto's Bail Bonds. According to public records, Fausto's Bail Bonds had recently given Supervisor Jeff Stone an [illegal] political campaign contribution of $3,900.00 which was in apparent violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 10, section 2078 (which provides idwith the disjunctive word "or"). Fausto Atilano, Jr. was also the Plaintiffs bail bondsman in the then pending trespass and battery prosecution. 81. The Plaintiff and Supervisor Jeff Stone entered the courthouse at the same time. The Plaintiff, referring to the paper he had recently given Supervisor Stone personally asked if the Supervisor had read it and forwarded it to Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheo. Although surrounded by Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs, Supervisor Stone signaled to Fausto I 1 Atilano, Jr. who then demanded his client the Plaintiff step aside the courthouse. Plaintiffs bail bondsman Fausto Atilano, Jr. then escorted the Plaintiff to his pseudo police squad car, donned a bullet proof vest, asked his videographer to continue filming the promotional video commenced First Amended Complaint for damages 33 with Supervisor Jeff Stone and then told the Plaintiff he was under arrest. When the Plaintiff asked why he was being arrested his bail bondsman threatened to tazor the Plaintiff. Instead of delivering :he Plaintiff to the adjacent County Jail he drove the Plaintiff to the office of Fausto's Bail Bonds where business records demonstrated that the Plaintiff was in full compliance with the terms of >ail.Notwithstanding, Fausto Atilano, Jr. then drove the Plaintiff back to the South West Justice Center and delivered him to the Riverside County Jail, all in breach of Penal Code $5847 (a), 1299 md 1300. The Deputy Sheriffs expressly stated they did not know why the Plaintiff was there but they were going to "book him" anyway. The Plaintiff was then held in jail for a further nine hours before being released upon his own recognizance. 82. At 1-30 P.M. on October 8,2009 a Hearing re Bail Surrender was held in the criminal proceeding Case SWM080760. A copy of the court minute order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Contrary to the minute order the Defendant was not in custody. Neither Defendant nor his counsel were served with or otherwise provided with: (a) any notice of the October 8,2009 hearing, (b) any copies of any documents filed in connection with the hearing of which there was at least one, (c) any notice of the orders made at the October 8,2009 hearing, (d) any disclosure that the October 8,2009 Hearing re Bail Surrender had occurred, even when a directly related motion was heard by the same court the very next morning and argument was had regarding bail matters involved in the undisclosed bail hearing the previous day. A copy of the court's October 9,2009 minute order is attached hereto as Exhibit E, (e) any disclosure that the October 8,2009 Hearing re Bail Surrender had occurred, even when a directly related motion was heard by the same court on October 19,2009 and argument was had regarding bail matters involved in the undisclosed bail October 8,2009 hearing and the un-served papers filed therein. A copy of the court's October 19, 2009 minute order is attached hereto as Exhibit F. First Amended Complaint for damages 34 1 83. Upon information and belief, the actions of Defendants in connection with unmasking the 2 anti-Scientology crime and abuse protestors collectively known as Anonymous and the old Guard, (who included the Plaintiff herein, as alleged at the beginning of the Common Allegations herein, 4 5 6 not limited to: (a) the violation of the Plaintiffs constitutional right to exercise his First and the subsequent wrongful conduct of the Defendants either jointly or severally, includes but is 1 8 imprisonments of the Plaintiff between October 26,2008 and October 2,2009, (c) the abuses of 9 process and malicious prosecution that continued against the Plaintiff through October 19,2009, lo (d) CS17sviolent terrorism and Patriot Act complaints, made through CSI's lead in-house attorney Y1 Amendment rights lawfully and anonymously, (b) the various false arrests and false I1 1 13 14 1 Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq, and resulting double SWAT team take-downs (against an Golden Era property Anonymous participant (s)) in Las Vegas on October 15/16,2009 were all part of a single transaction and series of events, or res gestae, all with foreseeable, natural andfor probable l5 16 Plaintiff as alleged herein. In the doing of the things alleged herein the Defendants also acted 17 through Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., and Elliot Abelson, Esq. who each misled both the District 1 I 1 consequences as alleged herein, and for which the Defendants are culpable and liable to the 1 Attorney's Office and the Court in connection, inter a h , with the charges filed against the Plaintiff and the bail and other restrictions that were placed upon the Plaintiff who contends that, l9 20 in all of the circumstances herein, these communications were not subject to any applicable 21 22 privileges. I 1 #1 84. Even if the Plaintiff had briefly entered over an invisible line in the desert dirt on October 23 24 26,2008, and thereby committed a de minimis technical trespass which is denied, he did not 25 occupy the land or cause damage to it. 26 85. The wrongfbl conduct, acts and omissions of the Defendants against the Plaintiff were I1 1 27 commenced in front of his friends and associates, were maliciously and baselessly continued in the First Amended Complaint for damages 35 ~ublic arena for nearly twelve months, were published worldwide, and will remain upon the nternet and World Wide Web in perpetuity. This has permanently damaged the Plaintiffs aero;pace employment prospects, particularly for secret government work, and consequently his inancial prospects. 86. At all times Plaintiff believed he was acting lawfully, violating no laws and he had no ntention to violate any laws. 87. Defendants assault (s) and battery (s) upon the Plaintiff waslwere unjustified and without ~rovocation. 88. When the Plaintiff was swarmed and dog piled by the Defendants he was not free to leave. 89. When the Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs he was not free to leave. 90. The dog piling of the Plaintiff constituted excessive force as a matter of law and the landcuffing of the Plaintiff was unlawful and unnecessary because there was no probable cause mdor legal basis to either arrest or handcuff the Plaintiff. 91. The dog piling and handcuffing of the Plaintiff caused physical pain and injury to the Plaintiff for which he sought medical treatment. 92. The dog piling, handcuffing, false arrest and false imprisonment of the Plaintiff caused physical pain and injury to the Plaintiff which caused him emotional pain, discomfort, embarrassment and humiliation. 93. While and when the Defendants swore out a "private persons" arrest form and delivered the Plaintiff into the custody of the Riverside Sheriffs Department he was not free to leave. 94. When the Plaintiff was placed in a sherifl's vehicle he was not free to leave. 95. On the subsequent occasions upon which the Plaintiff was arrested, transported, detained andor imprisoned as alleged herein he was not free to leave. First Amended Complaint for damages 36 96. Defendant's acts or omissions against the Plaintiff are alleged to have been engaged in I with evil motive and intent, and/or in callous, reckless, and wanton disregard to the rights of the Plaintiff. Among other things, Defendant CSI's copyrighted and mandatory Suppressive Person policies and practices expressly declare that Suppressive Persons such as the Plaintiff have no civil rights at all and may be "destroyed utterly" by any Scientologist without any penalty to that Scientologist. In the case of the individual Defendants herein, through the Scientology secular system (s), inter alia, of statistics, "upstats," "downstats," and "conditions," they are rewarded or I1 I I1 punished according to the extent they are able to secure the arrest, imprisonment and prosecution of the Plaintiff whether that was factually based or fraudulently obtained and pursued as is alleged I ' I trespass (and any trespass is denied), threaten the Defendants of any Peace Officer, obstruct , of force by the Defendants caused, inter alia, an unreasonable seizure and unlawful imprisonment I II 1 justice, resist arrest, batter and/or assault any peace officer. The lack of probable cause and show of the Plaintiff in violation of his federal and state constitutional and civil rights. 98. On October 14,2009 the Riverside District Attorney's Office advised the Plaintiffs lawyer herein that, at the next court date, all criminal charges against the Plaintiff would be I dismissed pursuant to California Penal Code 9 1385. On October 19,2009 the Riverside Superior , Court granted the motion of the District Attorney's office to dismiss all charges against the ; Plaintiff. A copy of the Court's minute order dismissing the prosecution is attached hereto as I Exhibit F. I 1 I 99. Upon information and belief, in the course of the conduct and communications set forth above andlor related thereto, Defendants or persons associated with them have made false I statements about the Plaintiff under oath, maliciously and with knowledge that such statements I First Amended Complaint for damages 37 were materially false. Among other things, the false statements were relied upon by deputy sheriffs and prosecutors and further encouraged the arrest and continued prosecution of the Plaintiff. Among other things, such false statement (s) caused the Plaintiff to be falsely arrested on I four occasions, charged with misdemeanor trespass, felony battery upon a peace officer, and falsely imprisoned on three occasions for over three days in aggregate. 100. Defendant's false statements about the Plaintiff, and acts and/or omissions against the Plaintiff, are alleged to have violated the Plaintiffs federal first amendment and fourth amendment rights, and his comparable California constitutional rights, including Plaintiff's right to be free of A U arrest without probable cause and to be free of unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force. Upon information and belief, and as commented upon in various United States and State of California trial court and appellate court opinions, CSI's predecessor, CSI and certain of its representatives have a demonstrable history of making such false statements to police officers, prosecutors and judges. 101. All of Defendant CSI's employees who were present at the scene of the Defendant's citizen's arrest of the Plaintiff on October 26,2008, and all those CSI employees who were monitoring the Defendant's conduct through surveillance cameras/monitors, cell phones and other communication devices, whether or not specifically directing the conduct of the individual Defendants are also liable to the Plaintiff for their failure to intervene to prevent the preventable harms and violations of the Plaintiff's rights and his injuries committed and caused in their presence or audiolvisual view and/or hearing. 102. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant CSI, inter alia, failed to properly train, hire, retain, and supervise its employees who caused Plaintirs damages and failed to properly supervise the Plaintiffs arrest and therefore are responsible for Plaintips damages. First Amended Complaint for damages 103. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the above-described "Suppressive Person" and related customs, policies, practices and actions of Defendant CSI constituted, inter alia, willful I and deliberate indifference to the constitutional and statutory rights of persons such as the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is further informed that the above-described "Suppressive Person" and related customs, policies, practices and actions of Defendant CSI, and the actions and omissions of the Defendants, were _a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs damages. 104. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant CST, acting through its executives and 1employees, maintained, fostered, and condoned a policy, practice or custom of deliberate andlor willful indifference to violations of public laws and related rights, which was a direct, proximate and probable cause of the Plaintiffs damages alleged herein. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant CSI's policy, custom, and practice of deliberate indifference includes, P among other things: (a) arresting alleged criminal suspects without probable cause, (b) conspiring with security guards and others to falsify police reports, factual allegations, legal submissions, and , other matters, and (c) failing to properly supervise, hire, and train its employees regarding their duty to arrest criminal suspects with probable cause. 105. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that the above-described customs, policies, or practices of the Defendants constituted deliberate indifference to the constitutional and statutory rights of persons, such as the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is further informed and believes that this custom, policy, or practice was a direct, proximate, probable and foreseeable cause of Plaintiffs damages. 106. The Defendant's use of excessive force against the Plaintiff, as alleged herein, was effected by the Defendants without authority of law and without any reasonable necessity to use ' Iany force, much less the excessive force that they employed and the force employed was used I without legal justification, without Plaintiff's consent, with malice and with intent to inflict pain First Amended Complaint for damages 39 md suffering which it did thereby also causing damage, injury, pain, suffering and the other lamages alleged herein. 107. Plaintiff is informed and believes that all of the conduct alleged herein was part of a iingle sequence of foreseeable consequences, events or res gestae whether or not, as with the bail md motion related events of October 2-9,2009, any of the Defendants were directly involved in my associated conduct or conspiracy. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that ;ornrnunications and conduct alleged herein that may otherwise be subject to the Civil Code $47 itigation immunity were also part of a single sequence of conduct, foreseeable consequences, :vents or res gestae in accordance with the foregoing allegations. Upon information and belief, 3ecause at least some if not all of those communications were made in furtherance of a crime or iaud, none of them are subject to any otherwise applicable privileges including but not limited to .he attorney-client privilege. 108. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that at all times material herein the Defendants engaged in the conduct andlor communications alleged of them intentionally, recklessly, negligently and with a willful disregard for the Plaintiffs rights under the law. 109. The Defendants conduct was performed knowingly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously, and were a deliberate and callous attempt to inflict physical, mental, emotional and financial injury and damage upon the Plaintiff thus entitling him to an award of exemplary and punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the Defendants. The conduct alleged of the Defendants herein, including but not limited to the claims of false arrest and false imprisonment, was unlawful and not privileged as claimed herein irrespective of whether or not the Plaintiff would have been convicted of either misdemeanor trespass and/or felony battery upon a peace officer as charged at the Defendant's request to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, on October 26,2008, after Defendants had failed to provide the Plaintiff with proper First Amended Complaint for damages 40 and adequate notice of the alleged trespass and opportunity to exit as required by applicable law. The Riverside District Attorney failed to follow the January 2009 recommendation of the Riverside Sheriffs Department, made after a probable cause investigation, to charge certain of the Defendants herein with criminal assault and battery upon the Plaintiff. 110. As direct, proximate and/or foreseeable result of the threats, arrests and force applied against him, Plaintiff has suffered serious and permanent physical and health related injuries and complaints, distress, stress, humiliation, embarrassment and false statements made about him in public for a such as courts, council hearing rooms, neighborhood fliers and on the Internet. 111. As a direct, proximate and/or foreseeable result of the threats and force applied against him, Plaintiff has been caused suffer medical and related expenses in excess of five thousand dollars and similar related expense will continue, perhaps for the rest of the Plaintiffs life. 112. In violating the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and other constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, and in the doing of the other conduct alleged herein, the Defendants and itsltheir agents have caused the Plaintiff damage to his reputation and his future prospects and earnings. 113. As a direct, proximate and/or foreseeable result of the threats and force applied against him, Plaintiff has been caused considerable anguish, pain and suffering. 114. As a direct, proximate and/or foreseeable result of the false arrests, false imprisonments and prosecution of the Defendant (through to the eve of trial), the Plaintiff has been caused to incur defense related costs such as land survey fees. 115. As a result of Defendants conduct as alleged herein the Plaintiff continues to incur medical expenses, related expenses and general damages in an amount (s) to be disclosed in discovery and proven at trial. 116. The aforementioned acts of the individual Defendants, and any corporate Defendant not incorporated as a religious corporation under the laws of the State of California, were willful, First Amended Complaint for damages 41 wanton, despicable, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter. 117. Upon information and belief, Defendants CSI and/or BMS are incorporated as California I 1II religious corporations and, as such, may only be sued for punitive damages after the making of a successful special motion herein to add a claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, at an appropriate time after the filing of this complaint the Plaintiff will make a special motion pursuant I to Code Civ. Proc. $425.14 to add a claim (s) for punitive damages against the corporate defendant (s) herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Assault & Battery (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) I P , ' 118. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-117 above. 119. The individual Defendants, individually and in concert, while in the course and scope of their employment or volunteer duties for CSI and/or BMS, intentionally and/or recklessly and/or in willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights, committed acts which threatened and resulted in imminent apprehension of and harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs person, to which Plaintiff did not consent. Said imminent apprehension of and harmful or offensive contact caused physical, ' I I emotional and pecuniary injury, damage, loss and/or harm to Plaintiffs as alleged herein. I 120. The individual Defendants, individually and in concert, while in the course and scope of , their employment or volunteer duties for CSI and/or BMS, intentionally and/or recklessly and/or . in willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights, committed acts which involved offensive criminal, :I I I tortuous and non-consensual contact with and upon his person. The aforesaid contact and conduct upon Plaintiffs person included intentionally and/or willfully broadcasting an excessively loud organ tri-note for many hours at a time in willful disregard for the Plaintiffs rights and health and First Amended Complaint for damages 42 1 for the purpose, inter alia, interfering with the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and their communication and receipt. The aforesaid contact and conduct upon Plaintiffs person also included intentionally and/or willfully spraying him with water from pre-positioned water sprinklers in willful disregard for the Plaintiffs rights and health, causing him to be soaked wet and to have to step off the public easement and onto the busy Highway 79, and for the purpose, inter alia, interfering with the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and their communication and receipt. 121. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, that the Plaintiff had been assaulted and battered by said noise and water attacks. After learning of the individual Defendant's unlawful conduct, Defendants CSI andlor BMS failed to discipline them and kept them in their employ, thereby authorizing and ratifying their unlawfUl conduct. 122. The acts described above constitute assault and battery, actionable under the laws of California. , ' 123. The assault and battery and of the Plaintiff was, at least in part, in furtherance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. ' I 124. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, the Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer general and special damages, inter alia, as alleged herein 1 in an amount to be proven at trial. ! 125. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure $425.14 motion to I add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI andlor BMS. 126. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and I engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure I I) the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the corporate defendants and/or their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, First Amended Complaint for damages 43 damage andlor hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20, jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Assault & Battery, Excessive Force (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) 127. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-126 above. 128. The Defendants, individually and in concert, while in the course and scope of their employment or volunteer duties for CSI and/or BMS, intentionally and/or recklessly and/or in willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights, committed acts which threatened and resulted in imminent apprehension of and harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs person, to which Plaintiff did not consent. Said imminent apprehension of and harmful or offensive contact caused physical, emotional and pecuniary injury, damage, loss and/or harm to Plaintiffs as alleged herein. 129. The individual Defendants, individually and in concert, while in the course and scope of their employment or volunteer duties for CSI and/or BMS, intentionally andlor recklessly and/or in willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights, committed acts which involved offensive criminal, tortuous and non-consensual contact with and upon his person. The aforesaid contact and conduct upon Plaintiffs person included swarming him, tackling him to the ground, dog piling him, i 1 dangerously wedging and pressuring their knees into his neck and back while forcing his full face and mouth into the dry desert dirt where the Plaintiff proceeded to sufFer great pain, serious injury, the fear of suffocation and death. To this end, at least three of the individual Defendants were dog piled on top of the Defendant at one time, his legs flailing in the air, with the individual Defendants holding his hands behind his back while they punched and kicked him many times First Amended Complaint for damages 44 causing him severe bruising, neck pains and permanent injuries. At this same time, audio-video film (s) recording the incident clearly records what appears to be a single gun shot. 130. When the Plaintiffs companions arrived upon the scene a minute or two later they unsuccessfully begged the individual Defendants to get off the Plaintiff and to stop beating and suffocating him. Defendant Dunigan responded by kicking one of them, a late middle aged woman to the desert dirt and then kicking and injuring her while she was down. Later, Defendant Dunigan falsely claimed to Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs that this much older woman was interfering with his citizen's arrest and that it she who had struck him. She suffered abrasions from being thrown to the ground, a deep bruise to one arm,a split nail and a sprained back muscle. Eventually the individual Defendants got up off the Plaintiff but kept his hands tied behind him despite his complaints that the plastic cuffs were too tight, that he was in significant pain and suffering and that he needed medical attention. The Defendants then detained the Plaintiff against his will until the Deputy Sheriffs who had departed a few minutes before then returned to the scene of Defendant's attack upon the Plaintiff. 131. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known, that the Plaintiff had been assaulted and battered. After learning of the individual Defendant's unlawful conduct, Defendants CSI andfor BMS failed to discipline them and kept them in their employ, thereby authorizing and ratifying their unlawful conduct. 132. The assault and battery and of the Plaintiff was, at least in part, in fiu-therance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 133. The conduct of the Defendants, as described above, constitutes assault and battery, actionable under the laws of California. First Amended Complaint for damages 134. The conduct of the Defendants, as described above, and acting either under the authority 1I 1I I I of their office (s) as a peace officer (s) andlor in the course and scope of their employment as security guards and estates manager and/or as citizens, constituted excessive force. 135. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, the Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer general and special damages, inter alia, as alleged herein in an amount to be proven at trial. I 136. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dunigan has a propensity for violence and he I has engaged in acts of violence against other persons including his wife, a member of the public who drove up to the Golden Era property guardhouse, Scientology staffers attempting to escape fiom the Golden Era property and Scientology staffers who had escaped fiom the Golden Era property and were proceeding along the public roadways. These people include former Scientologists Marc Headley and Maureen Bolstead. Defendant Dunigan's propensity for physical I I I II I violence was well known to his employer (s) CSI and/or BMS which had settled a civil lawsuit 1 resulting from an assault and battery upon a member of the public sitting in his car outside the Golden Era property. Upon information and belief, CSI paid about $1.4 million to quickly and quietly settle this case soon after it was filed. I 137. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure 5425.14 motion to I add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. : I . the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the I 1I I I 138. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure corporate defendants and/or their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, damage and/or hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive I I i First Amended Complaint for damages 46 damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20,jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION False arrest and imprisonment (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) 1 139. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1- 13 8 above. 140. The Defendantsjointly and/or severally caused the initial arrest (s) of the Plaintiff and 1 were thereby a direct, proximate, probable and foreseeable cause of the subsequent arrests of the Plaintiff whether or not caused by them, CSI agents at the Hollywood Christmas parade, CSI's 1I attorneys Elliot Abelson and Kendrick Moxon, or Supervisor Jeff Stone and Fausto Atilano, Jr. uI # But for the Defendant's initial arrest (s) of the Plaintiff the subsequent arrests would not have occurred. 141. On October 26,2008, the Defendants arrested the Plaintiff at the Golden Era Property ; without probable cause to believe that Defendant had committed criminal activity and/or arrested I (the Plaintiff in disregard of mandatory applicable provisions of the Penal Code including giving the Plaintiff notice of the alleged trespass and a reasonable opportunity to exit the unfenced roadside property. ' I ! P I I 142. On or about November 30,2008, the Defendant Church of Scientology and two of its agents, believed but known to be Laurie and Tom Burpee and who are therefore sued as Does until I their identity is either confirmed or ascertained, caused the Los Angeles Police Department to I arrest the Plaintiff without probable cause to believe that Defendant had committed criminal :P activity and/or arrested the Plaintiff in disregard of mandatory applicable provisions of the Penal First Amended Complaint for damages Angeles Police Department released the Defendant from custody, confinement and arrest without further action. 143. On January 29,2009, the Defendant Church of Scientology, acting through its in-house attorney Elliot Abelson, made false representations to the Riverside Court about the bail restrictions imposed upon the Defendant and thereby caused him to be arrested again and detained a further day and night before release. 144. On October 2,2009, Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Stone who, upon information and belief, has been acting together with representatives of Defendant Church of Scientology International to limit hitherto lawful first amendment activity outside the Golden Era property and elsewhere in Riverside County, caused the Defendant to be falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned for a further day. 145. Upon information and belief, on October 2,2009, and acting upon the un1awfi.d instructions of Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Stone, the Defendant's bail bondsman Fausto Alitano, Jr., falsely arrested and imprisoned the Plaintiff without compliance with the mandatory provisions of applicable law. 146. Upon information and belief, on October 8,2009, Defendant's bail bondsman Fausto Alitano, Jr. caused and participated in a Riverside County Superior Court hearing for the purpose of surrendering and revoking the Defendant's bail without any notice to the Defendant. 147. Upon information and belief, Defendant Church of Scientology International, acting through certain of its employees and agents, was involved in some manner in the false arrest, false imprisonment and bail matters that occurred on or about October 2 and October 8,2009. 148. As a result of the Defendants' conduct as alleged above, the Plaintiff was confined upon multiple occasions without his consent, he was not free to leave, and the confinement was not otherwise privileged. First Amended Complaint for damages 48 149. The conduct of the Defendants was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 1, section 13 of the State of California Constitution, and the provisions of other applicable Federal and State laws, being more particularly the Plaintiffs rights to be free of arrest and imprisonment without probable cause and/or due process. 150. The false arrest (s) of the Plaintiff was caused by the Defendants, without any legal justification, without authority of the law and without any reasonable cause of belief that the Plaintiff was in fact guilty of the charged crimes. 151. The various Defendants who knew of the false arrest (s) and allowed the illegal detention of the Plaintiff to continue are liable to the Plaintiff as a result of their affirmative duty to intervene. 152. Defendant's managing agent (s), supervisors, superiors and others (whether within or outside the Scientology enterprise) who knew of the false arrest of the Plaintiff and continued to allow and/or order the resulting unlawfid prosecution and subsequent arrests and imprisonments of the Plaintiff and/or who either directly participated in the violation of the Plaintiffs rights or who after learning of the violation failed to immediately and/or promptly to remedy the wrong are liable to the Plaintiff for the various violations of his Federal and State constitutional rights, and his other applicable legal rights. 153. The false arrest (s) and confinement (s) of the Plaintiff was, at least in part, in furtherance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 154. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the unlawful arrest (s), the Plaintiff was has been subjected to illegal confinements, forced to attend court appearances, suffered emotional harm, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, and pecuniary loss. His reputation in the community was impaired, he was prevented from attending his necessary affairs of business, , and he was otherwise injured and permanently damaged. First Amended Complaint for damages 49 155. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure 8425.14 motion to add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. 156. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the corporate defendants and/or their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, damage andlor hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20,jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention (Against corporate defendants CSI and BMS only and Does 1-20 inclusive) I 157. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1- 156 above. 158. Upon information and belief, Defendants CSI and/or BMS, by and through their agents 1 and employees, knew or reasonably should have known of the propensity for wrongful, ' exploitative and dangerous conduct of one or more of the individual defendants herein including Defendant Dunigan. 159. Defendants CSI and/or BMS had a duty not to retain employees, agents, volunteers ad other representatives given their wrongful, exploitative and dangerous propensities, and to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant Dunigan and any others similarly situated. 160. Defendants CSI andlor BMS negligently retained and/or failed to supervise Defendant Dunigan among others in hisltheir positions of trust and authority, where Defendant Dunigan and t others were able to commit the wrongful acts complained of herein against the Plaintiff. First Amended Complaint for damages 50 Defendants CSI andfor BMS failed to provide reasonable supervision of their employees, agents and representatives. 161. Defendant CSI and/or BMS failed to train its employees to control their tempers and to 1I exercise the proper deportment and temperament, to use force prudently and only when necessary, and otherwise to act herein as a reasonably prudent estates manager or as reasonable prudent security guards, and in that the corporate Defendant (s), and itsltheir agents, employees, volunteers 1 and representatives were otherwise reckless, careless, deliberately indifferent and negligent. 162. As a direct, proximate and/or foreseeable consequence of the above-described conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, great pain of mind, shock, distress, embarrassment, loss of esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and has sustained loss of earning and future earning capacity in an amount to be proven at trial. , u 163. Defendants CSI andlor BMS and their managing agent, officers and directors engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the conduct of its employees, subcontractors, and agents. 164. The conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein was, at least in part, in fiu-therance of ' I the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 165. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure $425.14 motion to I add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI andlor BMS. I 166. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure ; I the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the ; (corporate defendants andlor their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, damage and/or hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional 1 safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive t First Amended Complaint for damages 51 damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20, jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence, Nuisance & Occupier/Premises Liability (Against corporate defendants CSI and BMS only and Does 1-20 inclusive) I I I 167. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-166 above. 168. Upon information and belief, either CSI and/or BMS are the owners, lessees andlor licensees of the Golden Era property and are in legal control of the unfenced road side land where I : ; 8 I R Defendants attacked the Plaintiff as alleged herein. In such capacity and, inter alia, pursuant to Civil Code section 1714 (a), CSI and/or BMS owed a legal duty to the Plaintiff to exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing the Plaintiff and other foreseeable entrants upon the unfenced roadside land to an unreasonable risk of harm. I I 169. The Plaintiff herein was a foreseeable intruder upon the unfenced roadside land and Defendants CSI and/or BMS owed a legal duty of care to the Plaintiff to maintain the property in 1 such a manner as to avoid exposing the Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury. 170. In attacking, arresting and detaining the Plaintiff upon the unfenced roadside land on ) I October 26,2008, in violation of applicable law and duty as alleged herein, Defendants CSI andlor 'I 1 I BMS failed to conform to a standard of care to protect the Plaintiff, failed to meet this standard of care, failed act reasonably or to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition, and were the proximate or legal cause of resulting injury and/or damage to the Plaintiff. I. > ) - October 26,2008, in violation of applicable law as alleged herein, Defendants CSI and/or BMS I 171. In attacking, arresting and detaining the Plaintiff upon the unfenced roadside land on I unreasonably created a sudden and unforeseen condition upon the unfenced roadside property and First Amended Complaint for damages premises creating and causing an unreasonable risk of serious injury and damage, and causing I I I 1 actual injury and damage, to the Plaintiff as alleged above. 172. In failing to properly position any no trespassing sign on the unfenced roadside land I Defendants CSI andlor BMS created a public nuisance as defined by applicable law such as Penal Code 9556.3. In creating and maintaining a public nuisance on the unfenced roadside land CSI and/or BMS acted unreasonably and breached their duty of care to the public including but not limited to persons such as the Plaintiff who might foreseeably enter upon the unfenced roadside land in misplaced reliance upon the improperly sized and located "no trespassing" sign (s). 173. Defendant's negligence as alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs harm, injury and damage as alleged herein. 174. The public nuisance (Penal Code 9556.3) created and maintained by the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm, injury and damage as alleged herein. 175. Defendants CSI and/or BMS unreasonably and negligently created the conditions that II ' ; caused injury and damage to Plaintiff inter alia in Mherance of the CSI's copyrighted I I "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 176. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure 5425.14 motion to add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. '1 ' 1 # SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Abuse of process (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) 177. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each I ) and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1- 176 above. 178. On or about October 26,2009, Defendant Dunigan specifically and aided and abetted by each of the other Defendants made a false citizen's arrest and caused the subsequent false arrests ') I and false imprisonments and [malicious] prosecution of the Plaintiff by also making a private First Amended Complaint for damages 53 1 persons arrest and delivering the Plaintiff into the custody of the Riverside Sheriffs Department 2 as alleged herein. I1 ( 179. In initiating the false arrest, false imprisonment and baseless twelve month prosecution of the Plaintiff on a misdemeanor charge of trespass and a felony charge of battery upon a peace 6 officer the Defendants were, inter alia, acting in furtherance of their copyrighted policies and A practices for the handling of Suppressive Persons and they thereby entertained an ulterior motive in using the process and committed a wrongful act in a wrongful manner including the making of a 81 9 false private persons arrest, false police report, false and misleading statements to the Sheriffs lo Department, the District Attorney's office and the Court, and permitting the false imprisonment I and false prosecution of the Plaintiff to be maintained until dismissed at the motion of the 12 Riverside District Attorney's Office upon the eve of trial. 13 180. The Plaintiff was harmed and damaged by the abuse (s) of process by the Defendants and 14 (each of them. l6 I 1 1 1 17 proximate cause in causing the harm and damage to the Plaintiff as set forth herein. 1 181. The Defendant's abuse (s) of process wadwere a substantial factor and, inter alia, the 19 1 182. The Defendant's abuse of process, concealment and suppression, false and misleading representations of fact to the Sheriffs Department, the District Attorney's Office and the court were /was a substantial factor (s) and the proximate cause in causing the harm and damage to the 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff as alleged herein and constituted a punishable fraud upon the Riverside Superior Court. 183. The Plaintiff cannot ascertain at this time the full nature, extent or amount of his harm 24 and damages suffered by virtue of the Defendant's abuse (s) of process. These monies would not 25 otherwise have been spent but for the failure of the Defendants to disclose the concealed and I 1 I First Amended Complaint for damages 1 2 subsequently misused it and engaged in the perversion of legal procedure by acts and omissions (which resulted in the issuance of process against the Plaintiff by the Riverside Superior Court. I 1 184. Even if Defendants had properly obtained the initial process against the Plaintiff they 185. The conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein was, at least in part, in furtherance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 5 6 8 add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. 9 I 1 I 186. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure 8425.14 motion to lo engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, ma~iciously, oppressively to injure and 1 1 I 187. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the corporate defendants and/or their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, 13 14 () damage andlor hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional 15 safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive 16 damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20, jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. I SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Malicious prosecution (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) I 188. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though hlly set forth herein, each 24 aided and abetted by each of the other Defendants made a false citizen's arrest of the Plaintiff and 25 caused the subsequent false arrests and false imprisonments and [malicious] prosecution of the I I 1 and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-187 above. 189. On or about October 26,2009, Defendant Dunigan acting without probable cause and 26 Plaintiff by also making a private persons arrest and delivering the Plaintiff into the custody of the I 1 1 27 Riverside Sheriff's Department as alleged herein. The aforesaid conduct of the Defendants caused First Amended Complaint for damages 55 a criminal proceeding to be brought and maintained against the Plaintiff until voluntarily dismissed in Plaintiffs favor upon the eve of trial. 190. The Defendants sought out the police and prosecutorial authorities, falsely reported facts to them falsely indicating that the Plaintiff had committed a crime. The Defendants were actively 1instrumental in causing the prosecution of the Plaintiff and they were actively involved in causing a continuation of the prosecution. 191. The criminal proceeding ended in the Plaintiffs favor. 192. No reasonable persons in any of the Defendant's circumstances would have believed that there were grounds for causing the Plaintiff to be arrested andlor prosecuted. 193. The Defendants acted primarily for a purpose other than to bring the Plaintiff to justice. 194. In initiating the false arrest, false imprisonment and baseless twelve month prosecution of the Plaintiff on a misdemeanor charge of trespass and a felony charge of battery upon a peace officer the Defendants were, inter alia, acting in furtherance of their copyrighted policies and practices for the handling of Suppressive Persons and they thereby entertained an ulterior motive in using the process and committed a wrongful act in a wrongful manner including the making of a false private persons arrest, false police report, false and misleading statements to the Sheriffs Department, the District Attorney's office and the Court, and permitting the false imprisonment and false prosecution of the Plaintiff to be maintained until dismissed at the motion of the Riverside District Attorney's Office upon the eve of trial. I 195. The Plaintiff was harmed and damaged by the malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff by the Defendants and each of them as alleged herein. This damage includes the Plaintiff out of I pocket costs, distress and injury to his reputation as a result of the groundless allegations made in pleadings that are a matter of public record. I First Amended Complaint for damages 196. The Defendant's wrongful conduct and malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff wadwere a 1) substantial factor and, inter alia, the proximate cause in causing the harm and damage to the Plaintiff as set forth herein. 197. The Defendant's conduct, concealment and suppression, false and misleading representations of fact to the Sheriffs Department, the District Attorney's Office and the court I were /was a substantial factor (s) and the proximate cause in causing the harm and damage to the Plaintiff as alleged herein and constituted a punishable fraud upon the Riverside Superior Court. 198. The Plaintiff cannot ascertain at this time the full nature, extent or amount of his harm and damages suffered by virtue of the Defendant's malicious prosecution of him. These monies would not otherwise have been spent, or would not otherwise be required to be spent in the future, but for the failure of the Defendants to disclose the concealed and suppressed facts. 199. Even if Defendants had properly obtained the initial process against the Plaintiff they subsequently misused it and engaged in the perversion of legal procedure by acts and omissions which resulted in the issuance and maintenance of process against the Plaintiff by the Riverside Sheriff, District Attorney and Superior Court. 200. The conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein was, at least in part, in furtherance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 201. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure $425.14 motion to add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. 202. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure ' 1damage andlor hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional First Amended Complaint for damages I the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the corporate defendants and/or their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, 57 safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20, jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Civil Code $52.1 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) 203. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-202 above. 204. As alleged and set forth herein, the Defendants intentionally, recklessly and/or with willful disregard for Plaintiffs rights, interfered with or attempted to interfere with the rights of Plaintiff, and those engaged in Anonymous protest with him, to be free from any violence threats, intimidation, and/or coercion of rights by threatening, and committing violent, intimidating or coercive acts in violation of Cal. Civ. Code $ 52.1. In the course of such interference the Defendants assaulted and battered the Plaintiff, threatened and intimidated him, and restrained his freedom of movement through false police reports, false arrests, false imprisonments, abuses of process and malicious prosecution. 205. The aforesaid unlavhl conduct of the Defendants set forth herein was, at least in part, in furtherance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 206. Defendants CSI and/or BMS engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the conduct of its employees, subcontractors, and agents and are vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of its employees, subcontractors, and agents for this cause of action. 207. In addition to all other relief sought herein, and pursuant to California Civil Code $52.1 (a) & (b) the Plaintiff requests that statutory damages in the amount of $25,000 be assessed against First Amended Complaint for damages 58 1 each of the corporate Defendants and each of the Defendants individually wholwhich arelis 2 determined at trial to have violated the aforesaid code provisions. 1 1 I 1 208. In addition to the other relief requested herein, pursuant to California Civil Code $52.1 (h) the Plaintiff requests his reasonable attorney's fees herein. 209. In addition to the other relief requested herein, pursuant to California Civil Code $52.1 6 g peaceable exercise of enjoyment of his rights secured under the constitutions and laws of the 9 United States of America and the State of California. lo I 1I I 1I $ 1 $ (b), the Plaintiff herein requests injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the 210. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure $425.14 motion to add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. 211. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure l2 l5 16 corporate defendants and/or their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, 17 damage and/or hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional I I1 the Plaintiff and, inter alia, to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the l 8 safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20,jointly and severally, for the sake of 1 I 1 1 example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Constitution Article 1, $ 1,2,3,4, 7 & 13 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-20 inclusive) 212. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each 24 25 and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-211 above. 26 213. The California Constitution Article 1, $ 13 provides: "The right of the people to be secure I 1 27 in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures may not be First Amended Complaint for damages 59 violated; and a warrant may not issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized." 214. The California Constitution Article 1, $24 provides: "Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent upon those guaranteed by the United States Constitution." 215. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures and caused the Plaintiff to suffer damages through, inter alia, false arrest and false imprisonment as alleged herein. 216. The Defendant's aforesaid conduct, and all of it, as directed at the Plaintiff among others because he/they idwere not Scientologists and/or opposed to Scientology andor a Suppressive Person denied the Plaintiff his right to be free from hate based conduct and communications, hate based violence, ordinary violence andlor and intimidation by threats of violence because of his political affiliation and religious views, in violation of the Plaintiffs rights under the California Constitution [and the Federal Constitution]. 217. Defendants CSI andor BMS engaged in the acts alleged herein andor condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the conduct of its employees, subcontractors, and agents and are vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of its employees, subcontractors, and agents for this cause of action. 218. The above described conduct of the Defendants denied, or attempted to deny, the Plaintiff his rights of privacy and anonymity, to freely and anonymously to speak, write and publish his sentiments, to instruct his representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, to assemble freely and anonymously, to due process of law and equal protection of the First Amended Complaint for damages laws, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided for by the California Constitution, Article 1, $$I, 2, 3, 7 and 13. 219. In addition to all other relief sought herein, and pursuant to California Civil Code $52.1 (a) & (b) the Plaintiff requests that statutory damages in the amount of $25,000 be assessed against each of the Defendants individually wholwhich arelis determined at trial to have violated the aforesaid code provisions. 220. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct and denials of state constitutional rights, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general and special P damages, great pain of mind and body, shock, distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of earnings and earning capacity in an amount to be proven at trial. 221. The conduct alleged of the Defendants herein was, at least in part, in fbrtherance of the CSI's copyrighted "Suppressive Person" policies and practices as alleged herein. 222. At the appropriate time, the Plaintiff will make a Code Civ. Procedure $425.14 motion to add a claim for punitive damages herein against Defendants CSI and/or BMS. 1 I 223. The Defendants, Does 1 through 20, and each of them, committed the foregoing acts and engaged in the foregoing conduct intentionally, despicably, maliciously, and oppressively to injure the Plaintiff and, inter alia,to subject him to the Suppressive Person policies and practices of the corporate defendants andlor their alter egos and corporate affiliates, to otherwise cause him injury, I , AI damage and/or hardship in willful, conscious or reckless disregard to the physical and emotional safety of the Plaintiff and his rights. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual Defendants, and Does 1-20, jointly and severally, for the sake of example and by way of punishing the individual Defendants, Does 1-20, and each of them. . I II First Amended Complaint for damages PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks judgment as follows. I 1 A. For general and compensatory damages, including loss of earnings and other economic llor pecuniary damages, against all Defendants and each of them in an amount to be determined 1 according to proof at trial; B. At this time of initial filing, as against the individual Defendants, and Does 1 through 20 71 8 only sued in their individual capacities, for punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof at 9 trial; lo l 2 damages against all Defendants and each of them in an amount according to proof at trial; I1 1 1 1 C. After a Code Civ. Proc. $425.14 motion permitting the addition of a claim for punitive damages against religious corporations CSI andlor BMS, an award of punitive and exemplary D. For nominal damages as provided by law andlor according to proof at trial; l5 l6 17 Code $$52 and 52.1, Code Civ. Proc. $1021.5, and 42 U.S.C. $ 1988, and an additional lodestar l8 because of CSI's litigious nature and record and its copyrighted mandatory policies and practices 1 1 E. For statutory damages and penalties, inter alia, pursuant to Civil Code $5 52 and 52.1 ; F. For reasonable attorney's fees, expenses and costs of suit, inter alia, pursuant to Civil I I involving the abuse and misuse of civil litigation that, inter alia, discourage potential opposing 20 counsel from accepting retention in litigation involving CSI; 21 22 G. For pre-judgment interest, according to law and proof; 23 24 injunctions that, in both essence and effect, prohibit Church of Scientology Managing Agent 25 David Miscavige, Defendants, their afiliates, officers, directors and employees, CSI's Office of 26 Special Affairs and its representatives and agents, from engaging in any further activity to reveal 27 the identities and other information relating to the Plaintiff and others lawfully protesting, whether First Amended Complaint for damages 62 # I P1 1 H. Pursuant to Civil Code $852 and 52.1, inter alia, for preliminary and permanent 1 or not anonymously, inter alia alleged Scientology crime and abuse, from conduct that intimidates 2 (or interferes with First Amendment activity, and from again making any baseless declaration or 1 fdse complaint of unlawfkl assembly, conduct or speech as a pretext for dispersing and suppressing legitimate First Amendment activities by the Plaintiff and any other participants in Anonymous protests and pickets against crime and abuse alleged of the Scientology corporations, churches, entities, individuals or groups; from engaging in fiuther frivolous and false citizen's 4 5 6 7 8 arrests, and using plastic handcuffs in an improper or unsafe manner when arresting protestors; 9 ( 1 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. . I / Graham E. Berry Attornev for Plaintiff FRANCOISG. CHOQUETTE I DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury or- all amrotxiate issues and causes of action. -r . _._- I 19 Dated: November 12,2009 l8 1 First Amended Complaint for damages PAGES 64 TO 67 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK First Amended Complaint for damages EXHIBIT B - 3 - EVIDENCE: 4 '. . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Recording of interview with victim. (In evidence) 2. photos of victim's injuries (Attached) 3 DVD of incident (taken by w t e s (In evidence) ins) 4. Written staternee by w t e s s inse (Attached) Summary: On 1-5-09, I was assigned to complete a supplemental report to file # D08300041, a past 242 PC. On 1-1 3-09 @ 1300 firs. I met with Francois Choquette and his lawyer, Graham Berry at the Hemet Station. Choquette requested to speak to me reference a past 242 PC, in which he w s listed as a suspect; however, he felt he was the victim. a Choquette said he was legally protesting against the Chmch of Scientology. Choquette said on 10-26-08, he and s e v d -friendswere picketing in front of the church when he w s assaulted by three of their security guards for trespassing- Choquette said the guards a said he was trespassing;however, he does not feel he was irespassing because the area a where he was assaulted for trespassing w s not posted until after he was assaulted. Choquette said he is concerned because ever since he started protesting at the Church of Scientology, he has been followed- Choquette said on the above mentioned date he and several other protestors were walking on the side of Soboba Rd. protesting. Choquette said a Honda vehicle pulled up next to -theirparked vehicles and started tampering with them- Choquette said he started waking towards the Honda to telI the occupants to leave their vehicles alone; Choquette said the Honda immediately started backing up so Choquette could not see or speak to them. Choqyette said he turned back around and started walking back towards the picketing area, at which time the Honda pulled right up behind him, scaring him, and causing him to jump off of the traiI onto a dirt area. Choquette said as soon as he was forced off of the trail, the Honda and a small truck, occupied by three maIe adults, pulled up to himand started yelling a him that he was t trespassing. Choquette said the area was not posted, and it was very close to the original t a lthat he w s on. Choquette said he would not have been in the area if he was not ri a ri forced off of the tal by &e security guardsChoquette said the three security guards; David Du11agi.qMathew Butler, and Hemeth Seybold,jumped out of their vehicles and tackled him to the ground. Choquette said all three of the guards were on top of him tying his hands and feet Choquette said he told ht the guards several times t a he could not breathe; however, they would not let up. Choquette said he kept yelling at the guards to get off of him, at which t h e Kevin Seybold shoved his face into the dirt. Choquette said at this time Danny Dunagin had his lpnd around his face; Choquette said he panicked because he could not breathe, so he bit flunagin's hand in attempts to get loose. Choquette said he would not have bitten Dunagin if he was not in pain and panicked. 13 14 15 16 Choquette said when the Sheriff's Department arrived-y security guards requested that the Choquette be arrested for biting Dunagin. Choquette felt that he was not able to tell .his side of the story and the security guards did not give the deputies an accurate account of the incident. Choquette said he and several of his fiends responded to the Hemet sheriff's station, Hemet police station and CHIP in attempts to tell his side of the story and request that charges be filed on the security guards for assaulting him,Choquette said he was denied the right to file charges at all of the above listed stations. Choquette submitted typed statements fiom three witnesses to his assault, as well as a video that shows his assault. (See attached evidence) Due to Choquette's statements, and the video, this case will be forwarded to the District Attorney's office for prosecution of David Dunagin, Mathew Butler and Kenneth Seybold. Case status: Exceptional EXHIBIT C OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4075 MAIN STREET, FIRST FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 9511955-5400 Riverside County District Attorney lnvestigation Report Defendant: Made FRANCOIS CHOQUETTE DDA Rami Haddad By: Statement of: Contact Info: File #: SWMO80760 DDA RAMI HADDAD 951-304-5427 Date of 81612009 Report: Interview In person : Type: Phone Investigation Report This is to formally inform you that the photos and the recording taken of the defendant at the Hemet Police station at the time of the supplemental report have been destroyed as of July I, 2009. Once again, out of the items listed as evidence on the supplemental report, item # I and item #2 have been destroyed as of 7-1-09. Deputy District Attorney EXHIBIT D SWM080760 - Minutes - Piverside Criminal & Traffic Page 1 of 2 - ,_ Case Report Def. Status Fine lnfo Def= lnfo Charges Actions Minutes I Open Quick Search 1 Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES Defendant I of I Action: Hearing re: Bail Surrender - 10/08/2009 Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES Action: Hearing re: Bail Surrender Date: 1 0/08/2009 Division: S1 041 Time: I :30 PM Hearing Status: HONORABLE JOHN W. VINEYARD PRESIDING. COUNSEUPARTIES STIPULATE THE JUDGE PRO TEMICOMMISSIONER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, MAY HEAR THIS MATTER. COURTROOM ASSISTANT: DJG-D. GRAY PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: RAM1 HADDAD (NOT PRESENT). SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY C RULE. DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY PVT. GRAHAM E. BERRY(N0T PRESENT). DEFENDANT IS NOT PRESENT. PER DEPUTY IN TRANSPORTATION, DEFT NOT TRANSPORTED FOR INCUSTODY CALENDAR. REASON UNKNOWN. vv ~ V ~ U OIU ov - 1v.inutes- Uverside Criminal & Traffic Page 2 of 2 COURT HAS READ AND CONSIDERED AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERTAKING OF BAIL. COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE WlSTS TO CONTINUE HEARING TO 10/09/09 @goo STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE PURSUANT TO 1050 PC IS GRANTED. HEARING CONTINUED TO 10/09/2009 AT 9:00, DEPT. S104 PURSUANT TO 1050(D) PC, THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE. REASON FOR CONTINUANCE: CM-ON COURTS OWN MOTION CURRENT BAIL BOND CONTINUED. EXHIBIT E (1) 3 w lvluuu /OW - lvlinutes - ~verside Criminal & Traffic Page 1 of 2 (. 6 3 y - Minutes Def. Status Fine lnfo 65~~ - Def' lnfo Charges Actions Minutes :- 1 8 1 , * . , ,: Case Report I Open Quick Search I Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES Defendant 1 of 1 Action: Hearing re: Bail Surrender - 10/09/2009 Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES Action: Hearing re: Bail Surrender Date: 1Oi09i2009 Division: S104 Time: 9:00 AM Hearing Status: HONORABLE JOHN W. VINEYARD PRESIDING. COUNSEUPARTIES STIPULATE THE JUDGE PRO TEMiCOMMISSIONER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, MAY HEAR THIS MATTER. COURTROOM ASSISTANT: VS-V. SALHANI COURT REPORTER: SW-S. WALKER PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: TORI NASlF (NOT PRESENT). SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY DDA JERRY PFOHL. DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY PVT. GRAHAM E. BERRY. DEFENDANT PRESENT. AT 10:10, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD: O W L MOTION BY DEFENSE REGARDING REDUCEIEXONERATE BAIL IS s wlviu8u / b -~ Minutes - Riverside Criminal & Traffic - Page 2 of 2 CALLED FOR HEARING. MOTION GRANTED COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXONERATE BAlL BONDiRELEASE DEFENDANT ON O.R. CURRENT BAlL BOND EXONERATED. COUNSEL STIPULATE: TO PROCEED WITH OTHER MATTERS ON CASE. DEFENDANT ORDERED TO RETURN ON ANY AND ALL FUTURE HEARING DATES. DEFENDANT NO LONGER IN CUSTODY FOR THE REASON: COUNSEL TO SUBMIT O.R./SEE ADDITIONAL HEARING 1019. SAVE MINUTE ORDER TO CASE. SAVE MINUTE ORDER TO CASE. a vv IVLUOV IOU - IVIII~UI~S uverside Criminal & Traffrc - Page 1 of 3 , - Case Report Def. Status Fine lnfo Defg lnfo Charges Actions Minutes .*,- ." ., = rfi. -, F Open Quick Search I Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES Defendant 1 of I Action : Hearing on Motion Re: Reduce BailIReq for Expungem - 10/09/2009 Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES Action: Hearing on Motion Re: Reduce BaiIlReq for Expungement/suggest dismiss Date: 1010912009 Division: S104 Time: 9:00 AM Hearing Status: DISPOSED HONORABLE JOHN W. VINEYARD PRESIDING. COUNSEUPARTIES STIPULATE THE JUDGE PRO TEMICOMMISSIONER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, MAY HEAR THIS MATTER. COURTROOM ASSISTANT: VS-V. SALHANI COURT REPORTER: SW-S. WALKER PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATIORNEY: TORI NASlF (NOT PRESENT). SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY DDA JERRY PFOHL. DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY PVI. GRAHAM E. BERRY. DEFENDANT PRESENT. AT 10:12, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD: MOTION BY DEFENSE REGARDING EXPUNGEMENTIDISMISS CASE IS http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/Opeccess/C.. 1012 1/2009 . 000976 3 vv IVIVOV IOU - lvlmutes - Mverside Criminal & Traffic Page 2 of 3 CALLED FOR HEARING. COURT HAS READ AND CONSIDERED MOTlONlMOVlNG PAPERS. COPY OF PICTURES PROVIDED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL FURNISHED TO COURT COURT DEEMS PICTURES AS RECEIVED ONLY AND FURNISHES THEM BACK TO COUNSEL COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER REGARDING: TENTATIVE RULING DEFENSE ADDRESSES THE COURT MOTION DENIED. COUNSEL STIPULATE: TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL STATUS ON CASE. AS TO DEFENDANTS CUSTODY STATUS: COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO RELEASE DEFENDANT ON CONDITIONAL O.R. ORAL MOTION BY PEOPLE REGARDING INCLUDE TERMS OF PREVIOUS ORDER IS CALLED FOR HEARING. MOTION DENIED. COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER REGARDING: STAY-AWAY ORDER FROM PROPERTY LlNE OR BUILDING COURT ORDERS STAY-AWAY ORDER IS 100 YARDS FROM PROPERTY LlNE OF HEMET ADDRESS O W L MOTION BY DEFENSE REGARDING ALLOW DEFENDANT TO TRAVEL NEAR LOCATION IS CALLED FOR HEARING. COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER REGARDING: 'HIGHWAY 74 VERSUS SANDERSON AVENUE PEOPLE SUBMIT TO THE COURT MOTION GRANTED CONDITIONAL O.R. ADDITIONAL TERM(S) DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ON SANDERSON: DEFENDANT MAY TRAVEL ON SANDERSON ON THURSDAYS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 5PM-12AM HEARING ON 10/19/2009 AT 9:00 FOR TRC IN DEPT. S104 IS CONFIRMED. DEFENDANT ORDERED TO RETURN ON ANY AND ALL FUTURE HEARING DATES. COURT ORDERS COUNSEL TO PROVIDE OWN RECOGNIZANCE FORM LISTING CONDITIONS FOR O.R. RELEASE AT 14:40, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD: COURT FINDS COUNSEL FAILED TO SUBMIT SIGNED O.R. 3 vv ~vrvau U IO - ~vlinutes Kiverside Criminal & Traffic - Page 3 of 3 COUNSEL CONTACTED VIA TELEPHONE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO SUBMIT SIGNED OR BY COURT DATE DEFENDANT NO LONGER IN CUSTODY FOR THE REASON: AWAITING SIGNED O.R. FORM FROM COUNSEL. SAVE MINUTE ORDER TO CASE. **MINUTE ORDER OF COURT PROCEEDING*" EXHIBIT F vv I v l I uu ~ I V ~ I I ~ U C ~ S ~ ~ - - wverside ~rimmal& Traffic Page 1 of 2 Case Report Def. Status Fine lnfo Defm lnfo Charges Actions Minutes , - *.I -._. _ I Open Quick Search 1 Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOlS GEORGES Defendant 1 of 1 Action : Trial Readiness Conference - 10/19/2009 Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGE% Action: Trial Readiness Conference Date: 1011912009 Division:S104 Time: 9:00 AM Hearing Status: HONORABLE JOHN W. VINEYARD PRESIDING. COUNSELIPARTIES STIPULATE THE JUDGE PRO TEMICOMMISSIONER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, MAY HEAR THIS MATTER. COURTROOM ASSISTANT: NGB-N BALTAZAR PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: TORI NASlF (NOT PRESENT). SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY DDA J. PFOHL. DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY PVT. GRAHAM E. BERRY. DEFENDANT PRESENT. ORAL MOTION BY DEFENSE REGARDING REFUND OF BAIL BOND PREMIUMS-1300 B IS CALLED FOR HEARING. MOTION DENIED. vv 1 ~ uu - ~v1mur;es mversicle Criminal & Traffic 1 ~ -~ ~ Page 2 of 2 MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORAL MOTION BY PEOPLE REGARDING DISMISS ENTIRE MATTER IS CALLED FOR HEARING. MOTION GRANTED COUNT(S) 01 02 DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. (1385 PC) DEFENDANT RELEASED. HEARING ON 10/30/2009 AT 9:00 FOR JT IS VACATED. CLOSE CASE. SAVE MINUTE ORDER TO CASE. 3 w lvluau IOU - charges - Riverside Criminal & Traffic Page 1 of 1 .- Case Report Def. Status Fine lnfo Defg lnfo Charges Actions Minutes - 7 --,.&....~ .. - - - - . L ..i 1 Open Quick Search I Defendant I of I Case SWM080760 Defendant 1786995 CHOQUETTE, FRANCOIS GEORGES IArrest Charaes ~ I _ _ _ _ _ _ J I ~ Count Charge Severity Description IFiled Charges EXHIBIT G PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ) 1 ss.: FMNCOIS G. CHOQUETTE V. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, RIC 538634 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3384 McLaughlin Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90066-2005. On November 12,2009, I served on interested parties in said action the within: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES by placing a true copy thereof in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below. The President, Jeanne M. Gavigan Agent for Service of Process Church of Scientology International, Church of Scientology International 19625 Highway 79, 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. Suite 900 I Los Angeles, CA 900 10 The President, Building Management Services, 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. Jeanne M. Gavigan Agent for Service of Process Building Management Services 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Mr. Kenneth R. Seybold 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. Mr. Salvatore Meo 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. Mr. David A. Dunigan 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. Mr. Matthew J. Butler 19625 Highway 79, Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583. I am readily familiar with my practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I 1 1 b Executed on November 12,2009, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the ; foregoing is true and correct. (Type or print name) 1 First Amended Complaint for damages