~ J.'JY~ CV- lh6, fy70

Transcription

1 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 18 FLED26J~'18 09:59.JSDC-cRP Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne, Victoria Sharp ryan-c: family of Bundy Plaintiffs: Vs. W. Joseph Astarita individually; Mark McConnell individually; Greg T. Bretzing individually; Kate Brown individually; Dave Ward individually; Lucas McClain individually; Brian Neidham individually; Steven Grasty individually; Defendant lx individually; Defendant 2x individually; Defendant 3x individually; Defendant 4x individually; Defendant Sx individually; Defendant 6x individually; Defendant 7x individually; Defendant 8x individually; Defendant 9x individually; Defendant lox individually; Defendant llx individually; Defendant 12x individually; And other Men names unknown Defendants. UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT FOR THE DSTRCT OF OREGON PORTLAND DVSON v-c. SUM~ONS tl'ld COMPLANT ~ J.'JY~ CV- lh6, fy70 TTLE 42 SECTON 1983, 1981, 1985, AND BVENS COMPLANT REQUESTNG A 7 AMENDMENT COMMON LAW JURY TO DECDE THE FACTS AND DAMAGES This is a complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1981, 1983, 1985 (regarding the state actors), Bivens v. Narcotic Agents and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C et seq. (regarding the federal actors), and the Common Law (regarding all parties). "Common law" is understood as "That system of law which does not rest for its authority upon any express statutes." Gilmer's Law Dictionary 1986, 6th Ed. The Plaintiffs are seeking a common law jury trial pursuant to the 7th Amendment requesting the jurors, and not the judge, to decide the compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages. The Plaintiffs are suing each individual defendant in their individual capacity.

2 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 18 SEEKNG COMPENSATON AND RELEF The Plaintiffs request a jury to award compensatory and punitive damages and other costs, fees, and expenses incurred by each Plaintiff not to exceed $1 million per count. They also seek relief from any of the defendants from ever holding a public office again as they have held their offices in Bad Behavior as stated in "The Constitution for the United States" Article section For dishonoring their Oath to the Constitution Amendment XV section 3, "cannot hold any office civil or military if they engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution". JURSDCTONAL ALLEGATON.The value of the controversy is in excess of twenty dollars as required by the 7th amendment, and in excess of$75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C Jurisdiction exists in this case pursuant to Article 111, 2 of the United States Constitution ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [and] the Laws of the United States... "), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1343 and 2202, the Supreme Court's ruling in Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, and the Common Law. 3. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C VENUE and to 28 U.S.C All acts alleged herein this complaint occurred in Harney County, Oregon State on Hwy 395, NF 2820, NF Development Road 31. This Harney County Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff Ryan C. Bundy, a man who lives in Nevada, 1333 S. Gold Butte Road, Bunkerville, Nevada, age 45 at the time of the complaint. Plaintiff Shawna Cox, a woman who lives in Utah, 1031 S. Monument Road, Kanab, Utah, age 61 at the time of the complaint. Plaintiff Ryan Payne a man, who lives in Montana, 520 #4 Main Street, Anaconda, Montana, age 34 at the time of the complaint. Plaintiff Victoria Sharp a woman who lives in Colorado,, age 20 at the time of the complaint. NATURE OF THE ACTON 1 - On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs were peaceably traveling in a vehicle from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon to a public speaking event and meeting in Grant County, Oregon at approximately 4 p.m. 2 - The Defendants, acting in concert, and individually, did conspire to-and did-stop and seize the Plaintiffs' vehicle by extreme unlawful violence, assault, deadly force and battery. 3 - The Defendants, did ambush, and used a deadly assault rifle on Plaintiff, Ryan Payne immediately after La Voy Finnicum stopped his truck they were riding in. Red laser dots dancing all over inside the truck, including La Voys head. 4 - Plaintiff, Ryan Payne recoils back into the truck and after fearful exchanges between La Voy and Ryan Payne, Ryan Payne leaps from the Truck with hands up screaming back to the unknown vehicles that "there are women in the truck!!" 2

3 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of Plaintiff, Ryan Payne is kidnapped. No reason to believe Probable Cause. 6 - Plaintiffs, Ryan Bundy, Victoria Sharp, and Shawna Cox, passengers in the back seat of the truck, flee for safety of their lives, with La Voy Finnicum toward the Sheriff in the neighboring Grant County where the Plaintiffs were expected to present their message to the hundreds in the community there awaiting their arrival. 7 -Approximately 1 mile down the road on a blind curve was a Dead Man's road block, known as a "kill box" already prepared for the oncoming truck. 8 - Road spikes were set before the Road Block, men in military camouflage, hiding in the trees with flip down binoculars open fire on the truck. No reason to believe Probable Cause still. With bullets being fired upon the front of our truck La Voy swerves to avoid a head on collision, turns further into the snowbank to avoid running over one of the defendants who has run out into the pathway of the truck, sacrificing himself to be stuck in the snow La Voy leaps out of the truck with hands up trying to draw gun fire away from the Plaintiffs still in the back seat of the truck Bullets and laser lights fill the cab knocking out the windows La V oy leaping through the 3' deep snow, side to side, hands still up, shouting "shoot me" "go ahead and shoot me" trying to draw fire away from the truck. 13 -LaVoy is shot with his hands up- Murdered with three shots to his back. No weapon drawn and no threat to anyone. 14- Shots still raining upon the truck and its passengers (Plaintiffs) for another 10 minutes as the occupants scream to let them out Ryan Bundy is shot in the right shoulder. Attempted Murder. 16-Bullets are striking the rear side window next to Shawna Cox's head five or more times. Attempted murder Laser lights are all over inside the truck and the passengers sitting like ducks in a barrel and knowing at any second the next bullet will be their demise When firing stops and they are at last released from their entrapment the Plaintiffs are handcuffed. Asked if they were under arrest. Told "No" they were just being detained. "Kidnapped" 19 - No Warrant was produced even after hours of detainment Plaintiffs were put under arrest approximately 10 pm and hauled off to Portland Oregon to the Multnomah County Jail. Victoria Sharp and Mark McConnell are taken back to Burns, questioned and released. The unlawful plan and policies were ratified by the chief law enforcement policy makers of the FB and Oregon State Police, and the intentional acts and omissions committed by the individual Defendants under the color and authority of state law deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Constitution for the United States Amendment V. USC Title 18 Chapter 13 Sec 245. At all relevant times, Defendant W. Joseph Astarita was an officer, employee, and member of an elite national unit of the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"), an agency of the Federal government. At all relevant times, Defendants lx through 6x were officers, employees, and members of the Oregon State Police ("OSP"), an agency of the State of Oregon government. Their true names are unknown to the Plaintiffs and will be revealed as this litigation unfolds. At all relevant times, Mark McConnell was a paid informant (and therefore an agent) of the FB (and, perhaps, the OSP as well). The FB is an agency of the Federal government. Upon information and belief, McConnell resides in the state of Arizona. 3

4 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 18 At all relevant times, Greg T. Bretzing was the highest-ranking official of the FB in Oregon, an agency of the Federal government. As such, he was the commanding officer of the FB in Oregon and was responsible for their training, supervision, delegation of authority and conduct. He was also responsible for enforcing U.S. laws and regulations and for ensuring that personnel obey the laws of the United States. Bretzing served as the final policymaker for the FB in Oregon, and was vested with the responsibility and authority to hire, train, supervise, set and enforce policies and procedures, and to provide protection to American citizens, including the Plaintiffs. At all times, Bretzing was acting as the agent of the FB; and during and at all times was acting under the color of federal law. At all relevant times, Defendants 7x through 12x were agents and officers of the FB, an agency of the Federal government. Their true names are unknown to the Plaintiffs and will be revealed as this litigation unfolds. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer lx was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Oregon. Officer 1 x was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer in the Oregon State Police. Officer lx provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer lx acted as an agent, servant and employee of the Oregon State Police. Officer lx is sued in his individual capacities. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 2x was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Oregon. Officer 2x was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer in the Oregon State Police. Officer 2x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 2x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the Oregon State Police. Officer 2x is sued in his individual capacities. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 3x was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Oregon. Officer 3x was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer in the Oregon State Police. Officer 3x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 3x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the Oregon State Police. Officer 3x is sued in his individual capacities. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 4x was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Oregon. Officer 4x was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer in the Oregon State Police. Officer 4x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 4x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the Oregon State Police. Officer 4x is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 5x was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Oregon. Officer 5x was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer in the Oregon State Police. Officer 5x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 5x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the Oregon State Police. Officer 5x is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 6x was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Oregon. Officer 6x was acting under color of state law in his capacity as an officer in the Oregon State Police. Officer 6x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 6x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the Oregon State Police. Officer 6x is sued in his individual capacities. Defendants lx, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and 6x may hereafter be described as the "State Defendants." 4

5 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 5 of 18 At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 7x was a citizen of the United States. Officer 7x was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer in the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"). Officer 7x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 7x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Officer 7x is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 8x was a citizen of the United States. Officer 8x was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer in the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"). Officer 8x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 8x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Officer 8x is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 9x was a citizen of the United States. Officer 9x was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer in the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"). Officer 9x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 9x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Officer 9x is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer lox was a citizen of the United States. Officer lox was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer in the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"). Officer lox provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer lox acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Officer lox is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer llx was a citizen of the United States. Officer llx was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer in the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"). Officer llx provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer l lx acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Officer 1 lx is sued in his individual capacities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Officer 12x was a citizen of the United States. Officer 12x was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer in the Federal Bureau of nvestigation ("FB"). Officer 12x provided supervisory leadership among other things on behalf of and to the other Defendants. At all times, Officer 12x acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Officer 12x is sued in his individual capacities. Defendants 7x, 8x, 9x, lox, llx, Joseph Astarita, Mark McConnell and Greg Bretzing may be hereafter described as the "Federal Defendants." 7. At all times relevant hereto, Greg Bretzing (hereinafter "Bretzing") was a citizen of the United States. Bretzing was acting under color of federal law in his capacity as an officer of the Federal Bureau of nvestigation. Bretzing provided supervisory leadership among other things to the other LEO Defendants. At all times, Bretzing acted as an agent, servant and employee of the FB. Bretzing is sued in his individual capacity. 5

6 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 6 of 18 BACKGROUND This lawsuit arises from lawless actions on January 26, 2016 when a Dodge 4-door pickup driven by LaVoy Finicum was ambushed and shot at while on U.S. Highway 395 en route to Grant County, Oregon surrendering, that he was unarmed and that he was shot three times. The sheriff in neighboring Grant County, Glenn Palmer, described the police operation as an "ambush." 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On January 26, 2016, all four Plaintiffs were passengers in a 4-door Dodge pickup traveling on U.S highway 395, northbound from the Malheur National Wildlife in Hamey County, Oregon, toward Grant County, Oregon. 2. Plaintiff Ryan Payne was in the front seat, passenger side of the pickup and Ryan Bundy and Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp were in the rear seat. 3. The Dodge pickup was owned and driven by La Voy Fini cum. 4. Behind Finicum's Dodge pickup was a Jeep driven by Defendant Mark McConnell containing Brian Cavalier and Ammon Bundy. 5. All four plaintiffs, along with Finicum (who was at the wheel) were traveling toward John Day, Oregon to attend and address a community gathering. 6. At around 4:00 p.m., Finicum noticed an array of unmarked vehicles parked along the highway. 7. Finicum also noticed that the Jeep following behind had stopped. Defendant Mark McConnel, a paid undercover FB informant, had driven Ammon Bundy and Cavalier into a trap where Ammon Bundy and Cavalier were kidnapped by either the FB or the Oregon State Police without warrant or charge. 8. Finicum stopped his Dodge Pickup briefly while waiting for the Jeep to continue. (From here down, this will be described as "Stop 1.") 9. At around that time, several unmarked vehicles approached Finicum's Dodge pickup from the rear. 10. Two of the unmarked vehicles stopped behind the Dodge; their occupants included Defendants Officer 2x, Officer 4x, and Officer 5x who opened their doors and trained laser dot sights at the Dodge pickup. 11. Plaintiff Ryan Payne stuck his head and arm out the side passenger window to inquire what was going on. Payne indicated that there were women in the pickup. 12. Defendants Officers 2x and 4x did not timely identify themselves. 13. mmediately a red dot from a laser shined in Plaintiff Payne's eyes, prompting Plaintiff Payne to jerk his head back into the vehicle. 14. Defendant Officer 5x fired a round from a high-powered rifle at Payne, narrowly missing Payne. 15. Then Plaintiff Payne exited the Dodge pickup with his hands up. 16. Plaintiff Payne was then detained without warrant and without charge by either OSP or FB. 1 See, e.g., Guyton v. Phillips, 532 F. Supp. 1154, 1158 (N.D.Ca. 1981) (finding police officers liable under i983 who rammed car, forcing it off road, and shot occupants who fled 6

7 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 7 of Finicum waited a short while and then continued driving northbound toward John Day, Oregon, without Plaintiff Payne, but with Plaintiffs Ryan Bundy and Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp in the back seat. 18. The unmarked vehicles containing Defendants Officer 2x sped after Finicum's pickup, chasing Finicum at high speeds in snowy conditions. 19. At or around Mile Marker////, Defendants Officers lx and 3x had erected an illegal roadblock on a blind curve (pursuant to an ambush plan put in place by Defendants Bretzing, McConnell, and other officials of the Oregon State Police and FB) ("the road block ambush team") 20. The road block ambush team positioned parked vehicles on U.S. highway 395 obstructing the roadway. 21. Upon rounding the curve, La Voy Finicum saw the obstruction and attempted to avoid a collision. 22. Without warning, Defendant lx fired multiple rounds (bullets) from a high-powered rifle in the direction of the Dodge pickup and Finnicum, Ryan Bundy, and Shawna Cox. 23. Defendant Officer 1 x' s gunfire at Fini cum caused Finicum to swerve leftward into a thick snowbank. The Dodge pickup became embedded and trapped in a thick snowbank to the west of the highway. (From here after, this will be described as "Stop 2".) 24. Defendant 1 x fired bullets into and around the vehicle without warning. 25. At around 4:30 p.m. LaVoy Finicum opened the driver's side door and exited with his hands in the air, peacefully surrendering. 26. La Voy Finicum was unarmed. 27. Defendant FB Agent Joseph Astarita and other Defendants continued firing live rounds into and in the direction of the Dodge Pickup without warning, knowing there were occupants inside. 28. Plaintiff Ryan C. Bundy was shot in the top of the right shoulder by Defendants while sitting in the back seat of the Dodge Pickup. 29. LaVoy Finicum walked a short distance in deep snow with his hands in the air. 30. Without warning, Defendants???? fired either a Taser charge, a live round or a rubber bullet into Finicum's lower torso, causing Finicum to react in pain and reach toward his lower torso. 31. At that time Defendant 1 x shot Finicum in the back. 32. mmediately thereafter, Defendant Officer 2x, who had been in an unmarked vehicle chasing Finicum, arrived and fired more high-powered rounds into Finicum's back. 33. Finicum fell to the snow in dire need of medical assistance. 34. None of the Defendants promptly rendered medical aid or summoned medical aid for Finicum. 35. Defendants then kept firing at the Dodge pickup, breaking windows and pouring toxic CS, nerve or tear gas into the vehicle. 36. After several long minutes, the Defendants stopped firing at the Occupants/ Plaintiffs, who were yelling "Stop". 37. Defendants Oregon State Police took and converted Plaintiff Shawna Cox's camera, releasing footage owned by Plaintiff Shawna Cox to news outlets. 38. Defendants Bretzing unlawfully kept/// 7

8 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 8 of 18 STATEMENT OF EACH CLAM, COUNT, OR CAUSE OF ACTON COUNT ONE: CONSPRACY AGANST PLANTFFS' RGHTS "f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws [and]..., the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators." 42 U.S.C. Sec (All of the factual and legal allegations laid out above are incorporated in this Count as if repeated.) Defendants Mark McConnell, acting in his individual capacity, along with Defendants lx, 2x, 3x, 4x, Sx and 6x, acting under color of state law, conspired to go in disguise on U.S. Highway 395 and use force, violence and intimidation to prevent Plaintiffs from enjoying the equal protection of the laws, and privileges and immunities of citizens under the laws of the United States and the State of Oregon, including enumerated rights of free speech, assembly, association, and movement. Overt Acts: These Defendants, by stealth, disguise and deception, surveilled and monitored the Plaintiffs' communications and then plotted to lay in wait and ambush the Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs exercised their rights to travel (and other rights) along Highway 395. Then these Defendants stopped the Plaintiffs' travel, and used assaults, threats, battery, and extreme violence and gunfire to totally deprive the Plaintiffs of the rights enumerated above. These actions violated 42 U.S.C (3) and Plaintiffs claim damages of $1 million each. COUNT TWO: BREACH OF DUTY TO PROTECT CVL RGHTS The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. The false detainment, wrongful arrest, assault, battery, conspiracy against rights, seizure by excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other wrongful acts conducted against the plaintiff by the defendants in their official and individual capacity constituted abuse of process, abuse of authority, breach of police procedures, violations of state and federal laws and violations of the plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendant detective and officers negligently and recklessly breached their duty under 42 U.S.C to prevent the commission of the civil rights violations perpetrated against Plaintiffs, including violations of 42 U.S.C and 1985, and intentional torts and substantive and procedural due process infractions. The defendant FB and OSP officers in their official and individual capacities knew or should have known that the excessive force, assault, false arrest, battery, conspiracies and wrongful imprisonment of plaintiffs violated the plaintiffs' rights, guaranteed to them under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and Each of the said defendants had the authority, ability and concurrent duty under 42 U.S.C to prevent these unlawful acts against the Plaintiffs, yet neglected to prevent said violations from occurring, and further failed to intervene to protect or aid the Plaintiffs when such violations did in fact occur. 8

9 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 9 of 18 The defendants and each of their failure to stop these wrongful actions constitutes a breach of their duty to do so under 42 U.S.C The defendants FB and Oregon State Police officers in their official and individual capacities knew or should have known that the armed ambush, excessive-force seizure, conspiracy, battery and assault against Plaintiffs were violative of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and were tantamount to unequal protection under the law, in violation of the plaintiffs' fundamental rights under the Constitution. As a result of the failure of the above stated defendants to prevent the known violations stated above, the plaintiffs have suffered injury, extreme fear, personal humiliation and degradation, emotional and psychological harm to the detriment of their health. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have each been damaged in the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). COUNT U.S.C [regarding the State Defendants] and Bivens [regarding the Federal Defendants] - Excessive Force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 42 U.S.C provides that: Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction there ofto the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress... Plaintiffs in this action are people of the United States and all of the individual FB and OSP officer Defendants are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C Defendants lx, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and 6x, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as Oregon State police officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment and under color of law. Defendants Joseph Astarita, 7x, 8x, 9x, lox, llx and Greg Bretzing, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under color of federal law in their capacity as FB officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their capacity as FB officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment under color of federal law. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiffs had a clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in their persons from unreasonable seizure through excessive force. Plaintiffs also had the clearly established Constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law enforcement. Any reasonable state or federal officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time of 9

10 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 10 of 18 the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time. Defendants lx, 2x, Joseph Astarita's actions and use of force, as described herein, were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and violated these Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiff. Defendants lx, 2x, Joseph Astarita's actions and use of force, as described herein, were also malicious and/or involved reckless, callous, and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights. The force used by these Defendant officers shocks the conscience and violated these Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs. Defendants lx, 2x, Joseph Astarita's unlawfully seized the Plaintiffs by means of objectively unreasonable, excessive and conscious shocking physical force, thereby unreasonably restraining the Plaintiffs of their freedom. The force used constituted deadly force in that it could have caused death and did cause serious bodily injury. None of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking excessive force of other Defendant officers or from the excessive force oflater responding officer's despite being in a position to do so. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each other officer. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs' federally protected constitutional rights. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiffs' rights and their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiffs severe physical and emotional injuries. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind Plaintiffs' injuries. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights and caused them other damages. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses entitling them to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. n addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42 U.S.C and Bivens principles, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. 10

11 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 11 of 18 COUNT 4. NEGLGENT HRNG TRANNG, SUPERVSNG, AND RETANNG The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth herein. The actions of the Federal Bureau of nvestigation, the Oregon State Police, the State Defendants and the Federal Defendants already described constitute negligence in that defendants negligently trained or failed to train their agents, servants, or employees, especially including defendants Astarita, McConnell, lx through 12x. Defendants Bretzing and Governor Kate Brown with Heidi Mowad, negligently hired, retained, disciplined or failed to discipline the FB agents, servants, informants or employees, especially including defendants Astarita, McConnell, 7x, 8x, 9x, 10, 11, and 12x. Defendants ////// negligently hired, retained, disciplined or failed to discipline the OSP agents, servants, informants or employees, especially including Defendants lx through 6x. Defendant Bretzing and??????? knew, or in the course of adequate and proper investigation should have reasonably known, the Federal Defendants and the State Defendants were unfit to hold their positions in that they refused or failed to perform within the statutory and constitutional limits of their authority and misused and abused their positions. As a result of the above-described negligence of these agencies and defendants, Plaintiffs were caused to suffer severe and permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, emotional and psychological distress, anguish, anxiety, fear, humiliation loss of freedom, and loss of wages, legal expenses, and damage to their reputation. By reason of the foregoing, defendants became liable to Plaintiffs in a sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), each. COUNT U.S.C and Bivens- Violation of the right to travel Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs in this action are citizens of the United States and all of the individual FB and OSP officer Defendants are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C and Bivens principles. Defendants lx, 2x, 3x, 4x, Sx and 6x, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as Oregon State police officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment and under color of law. Defendants Joseph Astarita, 7x, 8x, 9x, lox, llx and Greg Bretzing, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under color of federal law in their capacity as FB officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their capacity as FB officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment under color of federal law. 11

12 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 12 of 18 i At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiffs had a clearly established constitutional right to travel. Any reasonable state or federal officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time. Defendants lx, 2x, Joseph Astarita's actions and use of force, as described herein, were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and violated these Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiff. Defendants lx, 2x, Joseph Astarita's actions and use of force, as described herein, were also malicious and/or involved reckless, callous, and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights. The force used by these Defendant officers shocks the conscience and violated these Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs. i! ' i! Defendants lx, 2x, Joseph Astarita's unlawfully seized the Plaintiffs by means of objectively unreasonable, excessive and conscious shocking physical force, thereby unreasonably restraining the Plaintiffs of their freedom. The force used constituted deadly force in that it could have caused death and did cause serious bodily injury. None of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking violations of the Plaintiffs' right to travel. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each other officer. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Mr. Landau's federally protected constitutional rights. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiff's rights and their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical and emotional injuries. P?-e ~ts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind Plaintiff's mjunes. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiffs of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct. l ~ i i Jie Count U.S.C and Bivens - Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs in this action are citizens of the United States and all of the individual federal and state Defendants to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under the color 12 ~ i ff ( i

13 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 13 of 18 of state law in their capacity as Oregon State police officers and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment. i ~ At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiffs had the clearly established constitutional right to be free from retaliation for the exercise of protected speech. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of this right at the time of the complained of conduct as it was clearly established at that time. Plaintiffs Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne, and Ryan Bundy exercised their constitutionally protected right to question law Enforcement, government policies and/or engage in protected speech related to the constitutional rights of citizens. l i i ~ Retaliatory animus for Mr. Landau's exercise of his constitutionally protected right to question Denver Police Officers regarding the scope of their legal authority to search his trunk was a substantially motivating factor in the excessive force used by individual Defendants. The excessive force used against Plaintiff in retaliation for his protected conduct would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected conduct. All of these Defendant officers participated in this use of force as a means of retaliation for his protected speech and none of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from this retaliation for the protected speech. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each other officer. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Mr. Landau's federally protected constitutional rights. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind Plaintiff's injuries. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct. i'!!! The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were actinng pursuant to municipal/county custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically related expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related expenses, in amounts to be established at trial. 13

14 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 14 of 18 On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings and impaired earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained sequelae of his closed head injury, in amounts to be ascertained in trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien interests. n addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. COUNT?????????11111??????? BATTERY UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAMS ACT The federal defendants 1111 COUNT??????ll?????? ASSAULT UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAMS ACT COUNT : FRST AMENDMENT RGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND PETTON FOR REDRESS OF GREVANCES Plaintiffs were unlawfully and unconstitutionally waylaid on their way to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. REQUEST FOR RELEF Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and against each of the Defendants and grant: A. compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial; B. economic losses on all claims allowed by law; C. special damages in an amount to be determined at trial; D. punitive damages on all claims allowed by law against individual Defendants and in an amount to be determined at trial, as the acts of the defendants, in their official and individual 14

15 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 15 of 18 capacities were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and were motivated solely by a desire to harm plaintiffs without regard for Plaintiffs' wellbeing and were based on a lack of concern and ill-will towards plaintiffs; E. attorneys' fees and the costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C and its associated federal corollary including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law; F. pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and, G. any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other appropriate relief at law and equity; H. njunctive relief, requiring defendants to correct all past violations of federal and state law as alleged herein; to enjoin defendants from continuing to violate federal and state law as alleged herein; and to order such other injunctive relief as may be appropriate to prevent any future violations of said federal and state laws;. An order granting such other legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper PLANTFFS REQUEST A TRAL BY JURY. 15

16 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 16 of 18 ~ i l ' Respectfully submitted, JURAT CERTFCATE } of l '! l t

17 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 17 of 18 FURTHER AFFANT SATH NOT. Certification: The following is timely tiled. ejudice, and without recourse, ;.fl.~~~~~ as Principal, by Special Appearance, N()jBGt!~agents is notice to principal, Notice to principal is notice to agent. By all rights and all powers as ordered by the 9t11 and 1 Oth amendment of Bill of Rights and Bill of Provisions by the united states constitution. JURAT CERTFCATE NEVADA STATE } COUNTYOF Q\t:U\l.. } On JG.'\. ~5 l 'do, ~ before me,<"? Di. c.. Ji. ttf-r:l Q 'L, a Notary Public, personally appeared ~O.l'-. C..--Ck\M--J who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose Names(s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to Me that he/she/they ex:etuted the same in his/their/her authorized eapacity(les), And that by hit/their/her autograph( ) on the mstrument the person(s) aeted, executed, the instrument. certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of Nevada State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WTNESS my hand and officials~. Signatur~ fr? 5

18 Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 18 of 18 1 FURTHER AFFANT SATH NOT. 2 Certification: The following is timely filed. 3 Autographed without prejudice, and without recourse, Ryan Payne as Principal, by Special Appearance, Notice to agents is notice to principal, Notice to principal is notice to agent. Procee~ by Sui JW'is. UCC 1-30 by order of Shawna Cox, Sui Juris, legal assistant by all rights and all powers as ordered by the 9t11 and 1 Oth amendment of Bill of Rights and Bil1 of Provisions by the united states constitution. oha.wna.._ Cay 13 ~ :e_.. 0!' #i>l1 JURATCERTFCATE ~ ~ 1-~b-:20/8" 14 t-nt~r11~/i STA TE } 1s COUNTY orfk<jf n.ornoh 1 16 On ~fu01jjjbj,, 1)/! beforeme, ljma 17 ~ ' ~a Notary Public, penoudy appeared 18 ~')1tl o~ whoproved 19 to me on the basu of ntiafactory evidence to be the penon(s) whose 20 Names( ) ill are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to 21 Me that he/she/they executed the same in bis/their/her authorird capacity(ies), 22 And that by his/their/her autograph(s) on the instrumen~ the penon(s) ~executed, 23 the instrument. certify under PENAL TY OF' PERJURY under the laws of or :NM'ada State 24 that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. 25 WTNESS my hand and offlclal seal. ~ Signatllre_~-.~~~==;;:: ~~~~+i OFFCAL STAMP ELENA CHEN NOTARY PUBLC - OREGON COMMSSON NO MY COMMSSON EXPRES JULY 06, 2018 SUMMONS AND COMPLANT HARNEY COUNTY Page 19of19