###UPDATE 09/09/2015###
COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Interference with Parental Rights, Retaliation, Privacy and Racketeering) Plaintiff, Leanna Smith, as and for her complaint against Defendants alleges as:
COUNT ONE
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 RETALIATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS AND TORT OF INVASION OF PRIVACY)
The allegations set forth above are fully incorporated herein by this
...This allegation involves the acts of those Defendants who stopped
reunification of CR with Smith because of the air bubbles in the shunt, who thereafter
used their position of power over CR to manipulated her into hating her mother and
brainwash her into believing that her mother caused her comas (or other medical
conditions) by drugging her, who thereafter manipulated CR and coached her to make
false allegations of abuse against Plaintiffs so that JS could be seized and put in the
same foster home with CR and thereafter to seek termination of Plaintiffs parental
rights and custody and control over CR and JS.
...Defendants Brown, MacAlpine, Pederson, Torres, Fink, Greco, ChildHelp
Children Center of Arizona, Dr. Coffman, Dr. Elton, Buwalda, Buwalda
Psychological Services PLLC, Brenda Bursch and UCLA (hereafter referred to as
“Retaliation Defendants”), and each of them conspired to and agreed together to
deprive Smith of reunification with CR and Plaintiffs of their custody and control of
CR and JS. Defendants agreed to and did provide false information to the Juvenile
Court to justify CPS’s not reunifying CR with Smith and taking custody of JS.
Defendants intentionally interfered with and provided false and misleading information
to the Court to take custody of CR and JS away from Smith and Darrell.
...Upon information and belief, the Retaliation Defendants did so
intentionally and with malice because Plaintiff continued to threaten litigation against
the medical doctors, filed a Notice of Claim on the State of Arizona, DES and upon
Defendants Brown, MacAlpine and Pederson, and later, filing a Complaint in the
United States District Court of Arizona.
...In committing the above referenced actions and/or omissions, the
Retaliation Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of state law, and engaged
in conduct that was the proximate cause of a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America, including but not limited to retaliating against Plaintiffs for asserting their
constitutional right to seek redress of grievances from government and for exercising
their First amendment right to defend themselves from the false allegations raised by
Defendants and providing CR with Plaintiff’s mental health report prepared by Bursch,
thereby violating Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
...Defendants’ actions were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs
constitutional rights as parents. Further Defendants actions were retaliatory against
Plaintiffs of Smith Notice of Claim and Complaint regarding the taking of CR.
... The right of privacy is recognized in both the United States and Arizona
Constitution. Plaintiffs’ right to privacy was violated when, Bursch’s Report was
provided to CR, the Foster Parents, Greco and to Samual Roberson, CR’s biological
... Upon information and belief, this Report was provided to CR, Greco and
the Foster Parents by MacAlpine.
... Upon information and belief, Bursch’s Report was provided to Samuel
Roberson by Defendant Amanda Torres, with the approval of MacAlpine. Bursch’s
Report provided diagnosis and discussion of Smith’s alleged mental health and could
not be given to third parties and CR without her consent.
... This invasion of Plaintiffs privacy rights is highly offensive” and involved
confidential mental health information protected by Federal HIPPA laws.
... Upon information and belief, the Report was provided to CR as part of the
conspiracy to brainwash CR against her mother.
... Defendant MacAlpine, Bursch and UCLA are individual and/or jointly
liable to Plaintiffs for the tortuous disclosure of private information. The turnover of
the Report to CR caused her to hate her mother and conclude that her mother was
mentally ill and has damaged CR and Smiths relationship.
... The acts set forth in this Complaint by all Defendants, individually or
together, were extreme and outrageous, designed to cause emotional distress and did
cause emotional distress to Plaintiffs. Further, the above acts of Defendants and the
disclosure of Bursch’s Report was intentionally done to indoctrinate CR into
Defendants view of the medical records and to drive a permanent wedge between CR
and Plaintiffs.
... Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the
above described violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are entitled to
all rights, remedies, in law or in equity, available to them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of custody and time with CR and JS and suffered
humiliation and degradation because of Defendants’ Unconstitutional acts.
... Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
... Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT TWO CIVIL RACKETEERING (A.R.S. §§13-2301, 2310, 2311 and 13-2314 – 18 U.S.C. § 1962) AND FRAUD 178.
Plaintiff incorporated herein all proceedings paragraphs of the Complaint.
... Defendants State of Arizona (through DES and CPS), Brown, MacAlpine, Pederson, Fink, Torres, Greco, Childhelp Children Center of Arizona, Buwalda, Buwalda Psychological Services PLLC, Foster Mother, Foster Father, Dr. Elton, Dr. Coffman, Brenda Bursch and UCLA (“Racketeering Defendants”) conspired together and agreed to work together to terminate Plaintiff’s parental rights in CR, including but not limited to bringing allegations of medical child abuse and to brainwash and manipulate CR into bringing allegations of physical or other abuse.
... The purpose was to manipulate her as much as possible to assure success by CPS in the Juvenile Court litigation and to terminate Plaintiffs parental rights in CR and JS. This was also done to limit or eliminate Plaintiffs claims against Defendants in this case for wrongfully taking CR and then JS from Plaintiffs custody and control.
... The Racketeering Defendants first prohibited Smith from bringing JS, Cordell and Darrell to supervised visits with CR and prohibited her from praying with and discussing religion with CR. These Defendants then exposed CR to movies, music, dress, makeup and profanity that they knew would not be approved by Smith but that would be enticing to a teenager. As a result of these efforts, CR became angry because she could not see JS, Darrell and Cordell at visits and mother was lying to her about religion. They influenced CR into believing Smith and Darrell were really Muslims and that Darrell had other wives.
... They also influence CR into believing that mothers litigation with the medical defendants would result in her not being able to become a nurse and that if she went home to her mother she would just do what her mother wanted and could not act independently of her. As a result of this manipulation, CR told Smith that she did not want to come home but wanted to continue to have a relationship with her mother.
... At this stage, where CR indicated she wanted to remain in foster care until 18 and she had become angry with her mother and felt her mother was lying to her, (all at the coaching of the Racketeering Defendants), particularly Greco in therapy and the Foster Mother and Father at home, had CR read the book “Sickened” and read Dr. Bursch’s Report regarding Smith. Upon finishing reading Sickened, CR related to the child in the book and believed that Smith drugged her to cause her comas. After reading the report, CR believes her mother is mentally ill, has MSBP and deprived her of her childhood.
... The Racketeering Defendants did not wait to litigate the MSBP issues before the Juvenile Court but did so in CR’s mind.
... The Racketeering Defendants then manipulated CR to bring allegations of physical abuse against Smith, who at the time had custody of JS, to get JS out of Smith’s home. Thereafter, they continued to manipulate CR to obtain allegations of physical abuse against Darrell and physical abuse and sexual abuse allegations against Smith.
... The Racketeering Defendants knew that CR had become “enmeshed” with Foster Mother and used this relationship to manipulate CR and to obtain false allegations of abuse.
... The above actions constitutes a scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs of custody of CR and JS to damage or eliminate Plaintiffs claims against Defendants set forth in this litigation by manipulating CR into believing her mother tried to kill her, that she needed to protect JS and to make false allegations of abuse to assure termination of Plaintiffs parental rights in CR and JS.
... Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs parental interest in CR and JS constitutes a property interest that Defendants knowingly and intentionally schemed to deprive Plaintiffs of by manufacturing false allegations of physical and sexual abuse.
... The acts set forth in this complaint, constitute pattern of racketeering activity that took place from January of 2010 to the present. The manipulation of CR is ongoing and Defendants have further attempted to manipulate JS into believing her father wrongfully spanked her.
... Defendants presented and used the false allegations of abuse before the Juvenile Court to seek termination of Plaintiffs parental interest in CR and JS. The Juvenile Court denied the Petition for Termination and dismissed the Petition for Dependency. Plaintiff has been subject to multiple criminal investigations as each new allegation of abuse comes from CR. The Racketeering Defendants have aggressively sought criminal prosecution of Plaintiffs based on the allegations of abuse.
... This racketeering count, based on the facts set forth above, is brought pursuant to A.R.S. §13-2314 and 18 U.S.C. § 1962, with the predicate offenses of scheme or artifice to defraud pursuant to A.R.S. §§13-2310 -11 and 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), retaliation against a witness (Smith, Darrell, Cordell, CR and JS) pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2802 and 18 U.S.C. §1513(e) and witness tampering (CR) pursuant to A.R.S. §2804 and 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b).
... As a result of the Racketeering Defendants acts, Smith was not reunified with CR, false allegations of abuse were presented to law enforcement and the Juvenile Court and Plaintiffs had to defend themselves to stop the termination of their parental rights in CR and JS. Further, Defendants have been seriously emotionally impacted by the allegations of abuse coming from CR as a result of the brainwashing, manipulation and coaching of the Racketeering Defendants.
... Plaintiff was forced to hire experts to defend themselves in the Juvenile Court and Plaintiffs have incurred expenses over $50,000.00. in retaining and having experts appear for trial before the Juvenile Court.
... Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages.
... Plaintiff incorporated herein all proceedings paragraphs of the Complaint.
COUNT THREE 18 USC§1962(d) CONSPIRACY
... Plaintiffs incorporates herein all the preceding numbered paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
... By reason of the aforesaid circumstances and events, the Racketeering
Defendants, together and with the known and unknown, unlawfully conspired together
and otherwise acted, and are currently conspiring together and otherwise are acting, in
such manner as to violate the provision of Title 18 USC 1962(a) and Title 18 USC
1962 (c) in violation of Title 18 USC 1962 (d).
... By reason of Defendants conspiring to violate said provisions of 18 USC
the Plaintiffs (a) have monetarily injured in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the
precise amount of which is presently unknown and will be proved at trial and
(b)continue to be damaged and hurt by the illegal acts and pattern of racketeering
activity as set forth throughout the instant complaint.
COUNT FOUR 18 USC 1962(a) DIVESTITURE
... Plaintiff incorporates herein all proceeding numbered paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
... At all times relevant hereto, the Racketeering Defendants have collectively constituted an enterprise, as defined in 18 USC s 1961 (4) to wit, an association which enterprise has been engaged in and the activities of which affect interstate commerce. As such the defendants have witnessed tampered and retaliated against a witness and exploited them under 18 USC 1962(c).
COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE
... Plaintiff incorporates herein all proceeding numbered paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein.
... Defendants Brown, MacAlpine, Pederson, Fink, Torres, Greco, Childhelp
Children Center of Arizona, Buwalda, Buwalda Psychological Services PLLC, Foster
Mother, Foster Father, Brenda Bursch and UCLA (“Negligence Defendants”) had a
duty not to try the issues MSBP, medical treatment, claims of malpractice before the
Juvenile Court had addressed the issues and to drive a deep wedge between Smith and
her daughter CR before the Juvenile Court had finally ruled on termination and
dependency. The Negligent Defendants conspired together and agreed to work
together to provide information to CR to get her to not believe her mother, to believe
her mother was wrong in asserting medical negligence against doctors and to believe
her mother had in fact caused her medical condition(s).
... The Defendants had a duty, once they had completed disassociation, to
not drive a wedge between mother and daughter and to maintain a healthy relationship
between mother and daughter.
... The Negligence Defendants further had a duty not to litigate the MSBP
issues in CR’s mind before those issues were addressed by the Juvenile Court.
... Defendants breached those duties and were negligent in how they
provided counseling and therapy to Plaintiff.
... As a result of Defendants negligence, CR feels her mother caused her
coma and her medical conditions and does not want to have anything to do with her
mother. Defendants destroyed the close mother daughter relationship CR and Smith
... Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, injury to reputation and the complete
destruction of her relationship with CR and further damages in an amount to be proven
at trial.
This is NOT SEALED because it is a Notice Of Claim. If you think this is earth shattering you should see what THEY SEALED. These Crimes and the information they SEALED went to Arizona Superior Court, Arizona Federal Court and 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals and not one of these Conspirators/ Racketeers (RICO) were questioned or arrested. Yet I was Criminally Investigated 8 times with No Criminal Charges Filed.
Questions to ponder...
Is this RICO?
Is this Aiding and Embedding?
Is this Conspiracy?
Is this Malice?
Is this Fraud?
Where is the Department Of Justice? All this evidence of Crimes and you tell me this is not Corruption. Where’s The Justice???
Read the 9th Circuit Brief by clicking the link below.
|
Smith Brief-07152013.pdf Size : 4773.017 Kb Type : pdf |