As promised, the federal case complaint has been updated! I'm still not finished with it, but I will be soon!! Hours upon hours were spent on this to ensure this complaint was JJJUUUUUUUST right, and advanced copies have been sent to select few of the criminals, so they can better adjust their trousers for the high waters of TRUTH AND JUSTICE!!! Enjoy, America! As for you criminals? Enjoy your new found notoriety!
"Christopher
(Bruce), the Living Man
v. Case
#______________________
Polk
County Iowa Attorney’s Offices COMPLAINT
The
Iowa Department of Human Services
The
Des Moines Police Department
The
Altoona Police Department
The
City of Carroll Police Department
The
Iowa State Attorney General’s offices
Iowa
FSRP Services (Children and Families of Iowa)
Judge
William A. Price, District 5C, Polk County
Judge
William Kelly, District 5C, Polk County
Judge
Robert Blink, District 5C, Polk County
Judge
Carol S. Egly, District 5C, Polk County
Judge
Jeanie Vaudt, District 5C, Polk County
Magistrate
Anastasia Hurn, District 5C,
Polk County
Linda
Lane, Assistant U.S. Attorney
(Formerly Asst. Polk County Attorney)
Dale
Mays, Attorney
Paul
White, GAL Attorney
Beth
Walker, Attorney
Officer
Greg Bellinghausen, Carroll PD
Central
Iowa Family Services (Des Moines, Iowa)
Comes
now, Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man, in his federal complaint and sworn
affidavit against these defendants, and designate it as truth, using my best
recollection of the events as they occurred. Two initial points of importance
to note:
1. That jurisdiction shall be defined, proven
and granted to the court by the complainant, as is my right.
2. Some defendants listed in this complaint will
certainly claim immunity to prosecution, as well as sovereign immunities. It
will be the burden of the complainant to show this court how these immunities
will not apply to them in this complaint.
JURISDICTION
The court shall have jurisdiction, in that this complaint is being brought under Federal Code 42 U.S.C. §1983; (Deprivation of our rights using color of law), under 18 U.S.C. §1961 (The RICO Act. Concerning this matter, RICO will define a criminal organization operating under the guise of leadership on the state, county and city levels) and under 18 U.S.C. §241, (Conspiracy against my unalienable, due process and civil rights;) and will also address the violations of my 4th Amendment right (against illegal searches and siezures), my 5th Amendment right (due process of law,) my 1st Amendment right (free speech), my 6th Amendment right (the right to represent myself); and my 8th Amendment right (against unreasonably or excessive high bonds/bails/fees without good cause.), all guaranteed me by the United States Constitution as a first party witness.
The court shall have jurisdiction, in that this complaint is being brought under Federal Code 42 U.S.C. §1983; (Deprivation of our rights using color of law), under 18 U.S.C. §1961 (The RICO Act. Concerning this matter, RICO will define a criminal organization operating under the guise of leadership on the state, county and city levels) and under 18 U.S.C. §241, (Conspiracy against my unalienable, due process and civil rights;) and will also address the violations of my 4th Amendment right (against illegal searches and siezures), my 5th Amendment right (due process of law,) my 1st Amendment right (free speech), my 6th Amendment right (the right to represent myself); and my 8th Amendment right (against unreasonably or excessive high bonds/bails/fees without good cause.), all guaranteed me by the United States Constitution as a first party witness.
THE COMPLAINT
1. On July 21st, 2014, The Iowa
Department of Human Services did unlawfully remove my legal daughter, T.B.,
from the biological mother’s care, at Methodist Hospital, at just 9 days of
age. Six to seven felonies would occur during the course of this removal,
including kidnapping, depravation of her rights under color of law, denial of the possibility of intervention of ICWA for nearly six months, falsification of legal and
Government documents, forgery of a judge’s signature to a legal document, and
finally, her later perjury, slander and libel of us, as she testified on the
stand, and wrote in her reports; concerning not only the removal of T.B., but also
in the 21 day assessment of our family, which caused us to be temporarily and
wrongfully placed on the abuse registry. The allegations used to remove our
daughter were not valid nor warranted, as it was later determined in an appeal of the child
protective assessment at the Department of Human Services (further identified in this complaint as DHS, or "The Department"), in front of an ALJ, in July of 2015. The
matter was then appealed up to the Director of the DHS at that time, Charles Palmer, and he would uphold the same ruling, again in our
favor. Emily Nieman, the social worker that removed T.B., testified in our assessment
appeal that she had no experience with newborns at that time, and that T.B. had
been her first removal of ANY child from a family.
2. A recording was made of the entire 18 minutes of the temporary removal. Emily Nieman and E.B. were clearly present. During this recording, Ms. Nieman is heard asking the mother if she had any Indian Heritage in her family. E.B. would say yes, and Ms. Nieman would then check "No" on the removal form. She then filed her affidavit to the court that the mother had no Indian heritage in her family on July 21st, 2014. E.B. is 1/8th Cherokee, T.B. was the minimum required, just on her mother's side, at 1/16th. This of course means that everything that happened after this box was checked "No" is VOID. The district court of 5C in Polk County, Iowa, from that point forward, NEVER had ANY VIABLE, JURISDICTION of ANY kind to hear ANY matter concerning T.B. and E.B., until their heritage was properly determined. They most CERTAINLY had no jurisdiction to hear any matter concerning me, and said so as well; but only after 6 months of my being their favorite target, only after they felt that they had sufficiently made an example out of us both, and only when I was about to eat them all for lunch - lawfully, at the permanency hearing. No, then, I was determined to be an unnecessary party to the case. Ms. Nieman, by checking "No" on E.B.'s form when E.B. stated "yes" constitutes falsifying court and government documents and information. That act alone also constitutes FRAUD, and vitiates any and all orders issued by Judge Price concerning the matter. All decisions made by his court are, therefore, VOID. On this matter ALONE, the child and the mother's rights should be immediately restored to her rightful biological mother, who was in possession of her at the beginning, and helped fight for her for all the time Polk County had her. If that isn't good enough by itself, then pray, stay on, for the rest. On the recording, Ms. Nieman states that she is going to read the entire order to E.B., then have her initial the check boxes to show that she was read, and understood everything on it, then said she needed to sign it. She read her three lines of the order, lines one, two and four, and did not read to her anything that concerned the reasons for removal, anything that told the mother her rights concerning the removal, only those lines that explained that she was taking T.B., a petition would be filed, and that her rights might be terminated. She then puts check marks in all of the boxes for her (and, effectively, forging the mothers initials in the boxes with a mark, showing the mother heard and understood what she was about to sign when she most certainly did not), and puts her under duress saying that if she doesn't sign it, a judge will look unfavorably on it then states it doesn't matter if she signs it or not, the child will be removed to foster care. In addition, per Iowa Statute, steps must be taken in order to prevent or eliminate the removal of an Iowa child, and they MUST be listed on the removal form. The box was checked, and three empty lines followed it. NO steps were taken, and none were listed. At the bottom is a signature that purports to be the signature of Judge Price. It is not his signature, and this is shown by these facts:
a. Judge Price, on over 800 court documents, never ONCE signed his name on an order or anything else. The name is always stamped.
b. Even though stamped, most people do not always sign their name the way it is on the stamp. Even so, there are major and obvious inconsistencies between his stamped signature, and the signature on this form.
Even if it had been Judge Price's actual signature, it is signed fraudulently, especially by his order on the form; since, if nothing else, in the order, it states that he finds that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate have been taken and none are listed; and, since they are required to be listed by statute, Judge Price flew in the face of that statute and broke the law by signing it. More so, Mrs. Nieman, on this recording, uses legal duress to have the mother sign her child into foster care, and uses color of law, by stating that the removal is court ordered ALREADY, and that if she doesn't sign it, it doesn't matter, the child will be removed to foster care, regardless. It DID, and DOES matter, of course. She is trying to coerce her to sign the consent for removal, and it isn't "court ordered" until the court ORDERS IT, and it can't be court ordered, unless she signs it.
2. A recording was made of the entire 18 minutes of the temporary removal. Emily Nieman and E.B. were clearly present. During this recording, Ms. Nieman is heard asking the mother if she had any Indian Heritage in her family. E.B. would say yes, and Ms. Nieman would then check "No" on the removal form. She then filed her affidavit to the court that the mother had no Indian heritage in her family on July 21st, 2014. E.B. is 1/8th Cherokee, T.B. was the minimum required, just on her mother's side, at 1/16th. This of course means that everything that happened after this box was checked "No" is VOID. The district court of 5C in Polk County, Iowa, from that point forward, NEVER had ANY VIABLE, JURISDICTION of ANY kind to hear ANY matter concerning T.B. and E.B., until their heritage was properly determined. They most CERTAINLY had no jurisdiction to hear any matter concerning me, and said so as well; but only after 6 months of my being their favorite target, only after they felt that they had sufficiently made an example out of us both, and only when I was about to eat them all for lunch - lawfully, at the permanency hearing. No, then, I was determined to be an unnecessary party to the case. Ms. Nieman, by checking "No" on E.B.'s form when E.B. stated "yes" constitutes falsifying court and government documents and information. That act alone also constitutes FRAUD, and vitiates any and all orders issued by Judge Price concerning the matter. All decisions made by his court are, therefore, VOID. On this matter ALONE, the child and the mother's rights should be immediately restored to her rightful biological mother, who was in possession of her at the beginning, and helped fight for her for all the time Polk County had her. If that isn't good enough by itself, then pray, stay on, for the rest. On the recording, Ms. Nieman states that she is going to read the entire order to E.B., then have her initial the check boxes to show that she was read, and understood everything on it, then said she needed to sign it. She read her three lines of the order, lines one, two and four, and did not read to her anything that concerned the reasons for removal, anything that told the mother her rights concerning the removal, only those lines that explained that she was taking T.B., a petition would be filed, and that her rights might be terminated. She then puts check marks in all of the boxes for her (and, effectively, forging the mothers initials in the boxes with a mark, showing the mother heard and understood what she was about to sign when she most certainly did not), and puts her under duress saying that if she doesn't sign it, a judge will look unfavorably on it then states it doesn't matter if she signs it or not, the child will be removed to foster care. In addition, per Iowa Statute, steps must be taken in order to prevent or eliminate the removal of an Iowa child, and they MUST be listed on the removal form. The box was checked, and three empty lines followed it. NO steps were taken, and none were listed. At the bottom is a signature that purports to be the signature of Judge Price. It is not his signature, and this is shown by these facts:
a. Judge Price, on over 800 court documents, never ONCE signed his name on an order or anything else. The name is always stamped.
b. Even though stamped, most people do not always sign their name the way it is on the stamp. Even so, there are major and obvious inconsistencies between his stamped signature, and the signature on this form.
Even if it had been Judge Price's actual signature, it is signed fraudulently, especially by his order on the form; since, if nothing else, in the order, it states that he finds that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate have been taken and none are listed; and, since they are required to be listed by statute, Judge Price flew in the face of that statute and broke the law by signing it. More so, Mrs. Nieman, on this recording, uses legal duress to have the mother sign her child into foster care, and uses color of law, by stating that the removal is court ordered ALREADY, and that if she doesn't sign it, it doesn't matter, the child will be removed to foster care, regardless. It DID, and DOES matter, of course. She is trying to coerce her to sign the consent for removal, and it isn't "court ordered" until the court ORDERS IT, and it can't be court ordered, unless she signs it.
3.
On July 22nd, 2014, at our first Family Team Meeting (called this
while in attendance, but later claimed to be a "Post Removal Hearing",
and was then claimed to be a separate and ADDITIONAL effort made us to help our
family reunify), attorneys were assigned both the mother and I (Mr. Dale Mays
for the mother, Colin McCormick for the father), Attorney Paul White was
assigned to T.B, as GAL. Katie Gosch was assigned as our caseworker for the
duration of our proceedings, and Ashley Andrews of CFI (Children and Families
of Iowa) would be our visit Supervisor.
4.
The removal hearing took place on July 29th, 2014. The order
confirmed the need for removal and the child was designated as a CINA.
5.
Drug testing of both the mother and I was ordered by the court at the removal
hearing on July 29th, 2014. Both the mother and I immediately
complied and tested at Central Iowa Family Services. Both results came back as
positive for both amphetamines and meth amphetamines. I mentioned the
possibility of being positive for 2 drugs in a recent blog post, because they
had been using what I was writing about against me, in reports and in court, and
I wanted to see what would happen with this one. When we tested, the worst of
the two I mentioned ended up being what we would both came up positive for. Neither
of the parents do any drugs. It would later be proven by me that the mother’s 1st
testing results had been a false positive caused by her inhaler (she used an
albuterol inhaler, and this inhaler is has been known and proven to cause false
positives for amphetamines in drug testing).
Before taking a drug test, the employee did not ask E.B. if she was
using any medications. The manager of these facilities, Anthony Reed,
would testify at our appeal to our child protective assessment that this
question isn't asked because the test is so sophisticated that it automatically
filters out any possible prescription taints.
Our 2nd drug tests, done on us both at a later time were
purposely falsified, and we filed proof of this in our case. (complaint #). For 4 days, this evidence was never admitted
into the case, even though it was filed by me in person. 4 days after I filed it, I was removed from
the CINA case as a necessary party, and the original evidence that I
"filed" was then thrown away. Fortunately,
I had taken pictures of it, just in case.
6. I then wrote an article concerning the 1st
test, and posted it on August 4th, 2014.
In it, I described the manner in which the testing was done, and
described in full detail the location that the testing was done in. It had dirty shag carpeting and had no
furniture in it anywhere, save a large hotel type desk. There was one employee present, and sitting
at a large desk in a big open room with no other furniture or walls in it. As I entered and told him why I was there, he
stated "Man! I’m going to have to butcher your hair to get a good sample!”
He then proceeded to procure a sample by cutting my hair off with an
un-sanitized pair of school scissors, and wearing no gloves. He then sealed the hair into a small envelope
to mail to a lab, and dismissed me.
7. Later, on December 14th, 2014 I would
serve a subpoena for the owner or manager of this establishment to bring
documents to one of our court hearings and testify concerning them. (see complaint #). Upon entering, I noticed they had spent a considerable
amount of money on remodeling, and that they now had several employees working
there, all dressed professionally and wearing gloves. Included in those improvements were walls, a waiting
room (with furniture), security cameras and more. Mr. Reed, the manager, had obviously made
these improvements specifically to dispute what I had written about his business.
8. The CINA petition was filed on July 22nd,
2014, and was drawn up and filed by Stephanie Brown, Asst. Polk County Attorney
and Advocate for DHS. Per Iowa Code, the
petition is to be immediately served to the parents, and a document is to be
signed, agreeing that it was served. Filed
on July 30th were two documents that we had allegedly signed, agreeing that we
had received service of this petition. We
had not, nor did we remember seeing or signing the papers stating that we had been
served. We testified this fact to the
court. Neither parent received this petition
until the Adjudication hearing on September 12th, 2014, when Judge
Price ordered a copy be given to me, since I had decided to represent myself, and
asked to receive a copy.
9. Drug testing results, per Iowa Statute, are
not allowed as evidence in an adjudication hearing. The results of the drug testing done prior to
our adjudication was used as evidence against us in our adjudication hearing,
held September 12th, 2014.
10. Since both the mother and I had lost our home
because of DHS’s actions against us (and their unwillingness to assist us with
FIP and food, though we had applied for it before our interview) the mother was
forced to stay in a homeless shelter, and I chose to stay with friends. We had been without money for weeks, because
the mother had been forced to take a 6 week mandatory leave from work because
of the birth of T.B. She would finally
return to work on or around September 1st, 2014.
11. On September 5th, 2014, another
Family team meeting (our 2nd) was held. Immediately following this meeting, Dale Mays
would insist that E.B. fill out another financial affidavit, showing that she
was now working (at $8.25 an hour for 20-24 hours a week), and had no expenses
(because she lived at a homeless shelter).
This affidavit followed a financial affidavit that was already in place
from the month prior, showing the mother had no income, which allowed E.B. to
be assigned Dale Mays at State expense. At
no other time during the course of this case was another financial affidavit
required of us to fill out, or asked for.
I finally had E.B. fill another one out on January 8th, and filed it in
our case.
12. On September 18th, we asked
Attorney Mays to withdraw as the mother’s attorney. Judge Price did not set a hearing to hear
that request until October 1, 2014. At
that hearing, we asked Judge Price if we could get her another legal appointment
for E.B He said that, if he did that, he would just re-assign attorney Mays to
her again. We then grudgingly allowed
Mr. Mays to remain as her attorney until his 2nd request to withdraw
that he filed a day or two before December 11th.
13. My attorney, Colin McCormick, was asked to
withdraw from my service on September 5th, 2014. On September 12th, 2014, Judge Price allowed
him to withdraw; and I represented myself pro se for the remainder of the
proceedings to follow. The mother’s
attorney, Dale Mays, would remain on E.B.'s case until he finally withdrew, 3
months after we requested that he do so, on December 11th, 2014. Shortly after the adjudication hearing, on
September 18th, 2014, Stephanie Brown stepped down as the Asst. County
Attorney in charge of our proceedings, and Asst. Polk County Attorney Kevin Brownell
appeared in the case in her stead.
14. In an order issued September 12th, 2014,
Judge Price would order a drug assessment and treatment for E.B. and I. We refused, stating that we did no drugs. Judge Price would also order that we both
have a mental evaluation and treatment. We
refused. I did not have mental issues,
and the mother had already been evaluated, and results showed that she only had
a learning disability. E.B.'s evaluation
was not acceptable for their files, DHS stated, because it wasn't done by a DHS
approved evaluator, but it would be used to claim that she was unfit to parent,
and filed and used against her as evidence, in order to claim that fact. The evaluation had been done by Iowa Vocational
Rehabilitation, using a more than qualified specialist in the field.
15. After the adjudication, I immediately posted
an article about what had had happened on my online blog, and published the
court documents that had been filed in it, then posted it the same day. 2 days after this article was posted, I was
locked out and denied access to any document filed by the prosecution in our
case, due to my being "a security risk", according to the Electronic
filing system. This block was on my account
until well after the disposition hearing, when, after E.B. was ordered to pay for
her attorney at the Disposition hearing (see complaint #), and Attorney Mays billed
us to get documents from him, I finally asked to speak to Randy Osborn, the head
Polk County Clerk. He acted as if he had
no idea what had happened, and had no why I wasn't allowed to look at the
prosecution's filed documents. He then called
Judge Price to ask if I could be allowed access. Judge Price said yes, and the next day, Price
would file an order, to allow me full access to the case, as if I didn't have this
already, as my own attorney. This would
indicate to me that he and the Clerk of Court had, purposely, denied me access
(as well as my due process) to my court documents for almost 2 months, then
moved to cut off access to those documents from my wife's attorney side as
well, by the use of the 2nd financial affidavit, to justify ordering her to pay
for her attorney's fees, which allowed Mr. Mays to charge us for our documents
if we asked for any.
16. On September 12th, 2014 following our
adjudication hearing, I contacted Ashley Andrews of CFI by text and demanded
that she remove herself as our visit supervisor, and get us a replacement. We did this because Mrs. Andrews had taken the
stand in our adjudication hearing and testified and lied against us. Not a single good thing was said about us.
17. Ms. Andrews went to her supervisor, Jamie, to
report my text. Ms. Andrews also contacted
Katie Gosch and her supervisor, Stephanie Rhinehart about this.
18. Just a couple of days later, we had a visit
with T.B. Before it proceeded, all four
of these women wanted to talk with only me, in order to discuss the events
following our hearing, and to discuss the messages I had sent to Ms. Andrews. They would then state that Ms. Andrews would continue
to be our visit supervisor, and told me that I was to no longer contact her for
any reason directly, by text or phone, but that I would text her supervisor,
Jamie to verify my attendance at our visits.
They also stipulated that I would not speak to Ms. Andrews in our visits. I agreed to the terms. I had recorded the entire meeting and the
visit.
19. One September 24th, 2014,
Supervisor Stephanie Rhinehart called my phone and left me a message. In it, she stated that she didn’t care for
what I was writing about in my online blog (about all that the Department and
the courts were doing to us), and that, until I stopped, and would agree to
meet with her supervisor, that I would no longer be allowed to visit my
daughter. I then returned her call, and
in a voicemail left for her, told her that there was no way I would agree to
her terms, and, essentially, told her that she could go to Hell.
20. On September 30th, 2014, I would
then receive a call from a detective Greg Morse of the Des Moines Police
Department. He told me that Stephanie
Rhinehart, together with Ashley Andrews, were attempting to file harassment
charges against me. As he went over the
facts, I stopped him when he mentioned a message I left her, telling her to go
to hell, and told him that message had been in response to her call to me, and
that I had a voice message recording from her that stated "Call me
back", and that I had recorded the entire meeting and visit from the day
before, showing that we had all been OK with the whole message problem by the
time the visit ended, in dispute of their facts that they related to him. He stated “Well…I guess I need to have
another talk with Mrs. Rhinehart, huh?” I agreed and hung up. I never heard anything more about it, and no
charges were ever filed.
21. In late September, I became employed, and I kept
that job for 6 months. On October 1st, 2014, the parents acquired an apartment,
complete with expenses (electricity, heat, etc.) Neither of us were ever asked
to fill out another financial affidavit.
DHS refused to acknowledge that we had gotten an apartment, and
testified and reported several times in the days that followed that we claimed
that we had an apartment, and that she (Katie Gosch) had never been to this
apartment to verify that. At no time did
our caseworker ever talk to us about our apartment, nor did she ever ask to come
over to verify that we had one. On
October 16th, I filed a change of address with the court. All court documents from this time forward
until our termination of parental rights came to this address, including our
entire file, sent to us by Dale Mays. The
only thing that did not ever arrive was our file from DHS, which we requested
from Katie Gosch three times - by message, by phone and in writing and never
received it. We would testify to Judge
Price that we had acquired an apartment in October at our December 11th hearing
to hear motions that I had filed, and informed him that we had filed a change of
address with the court. He stated
"I don't pay attention to things like that." In the order for our
Dispositional hearing, filed on October 21st, 2014, and in the order for
Permanency, filed January 15th, 2015; Judge Price listed "continued
homelessness" as one of the reasons the primary reasons T.B. "shall
remain in out-of-home placement."
22. On October 21st 2014 at the Dispositional
hearing; Judge Price, using the financial affidavit Attorney Mays had the
mother fill out on September 5th, 2014 (showing the mother to be homeless and having
no expenses), would then order E.B. to now be financially fit to pay for her
court appointed attorney. Later, after
telling Dale Mays that we didn't want him at our hearings in order to represent
E.B. anymore; and, since my access to the record was still blocked; that we
would need a copy of everything he had on our case. He informed us that would this would be quite
expensive, and that he would have to bill us to do that. We told him to forget sending them to us, and
that we'd find another way to get the documents. He sent them anyway, with his bill included
in the package.
23. Katie Gosch and CFI's visit supervisor,
Ashley Andrews, between September 12th and January 15th, 2014, would downplay
every effort made by E.B. and I to have our
daughter returned to our care, and both continuously spoke badly of us - on the
stand in court and in their reports. Mrs.
Andrews and her supervisor continuously reported us as not able to be good
parents, falsified all reports to the Department and the courts, claiming all
the while that the mother NEVER learned to properly change a diaper, or
properly put her in a car seat.
24. On December 11th, at 11:30, we attended a
hearing that was set in osrder to hear approximately 10 motions I had filed. One motion I had filed concerned a motion Mays
had filed a couple days prior to this hearing that asked Judge Price to withdraw
from E.B.'s case...again. He had listed
reasons in it that were out and out lies, making himself look like an angel,
and us parents like mental patients. I
had, prior to the hearing, filed a motion to correct his motion, in order to have
him list the actual reasons for his withdrawal request. Judge Price, in order to protect attorney Mays,
as well as to help cover up any proof of his own involvement in what Dale had done
against his own client's best interests, first, dismissed Attorney Mays from
the case, then, threw out my motion to correct the facts of his motion; claiming
it was now moot, because Mr. Mays was no longer associated with the case. Later, in the middle of a motion, that
involved addressing the issue of DHS attempting to have me arrested for
harassment; Judge Price interrupted me mid-sentence and loudly yelled "Lunch!"
at exactly 12:00, and then ordered the hearing be continued the for a week later,
on December 18th, 2014.
25. As it seemed that we would never get justice under
Judge Price, or get our daughter returned to us; I called Kevin Brownell, the
Assistant Polk County Attorney in charge of the case, on December 17th,
2014; to inform him that I had a change of heart, and had decided to stop
fighting, and that I wanted now to go along with the services that were ordered
of us. I did this as a favor to the
mother in order to possibly turn around what seemed to be inevitable, the loss
of our daughter.
26. On December 18th, 2014, following
a 2nd continued hearing to hear motions that I had filed; DHS's
Stephanie Rhinehart and Katie Gosch asked to speak to me before I left, concerning
my "change of heart." They then re-iterated the terms of our future
interactions, and repeated the services they wanted
us to engage in. They then introduced me
to a man I had seen them sitting with, during the hearing. I was told his name was Tony Reed, and that
he had come to do a field test on me for drugs.
I would later discover that he was not just anyone, he was the current
manager for all of the testing centers in Iowa, including Central Iowa Family
Services. He had come, he stated,
because I had served a subpoena on his testing center for someone to come and appear
on their behalf. I told him that I had
also asked that someone bring along specific documents, and that I see that he
had not brought any documents along. I
then mentioned that, because of a change in plans, that I had not required his
center to testify, after all. Mrs. Rhinehart
would then tell me that my wife was to do a drug test just as soon as she got
off work, at their facility. This had
not been ordered by Judge Price, nor was it requested of me or mentioned that
it would happen after the hearing by Mrs. Rhinehart, until the hearing was
over, and outside of the courtroom. In
an effort to be compliant, I immediately agreed to do it, with no argument.
27. Since I had just used the restroom prior to
our hearing, and wasn’t ready to submit a sample just yet, I informed Mr. Reed
of this, and he stated that he would wait, and that I should drink some water. While we waited, I engaged in explorative conversation
with Mr. Reed, relating to him the events of my first testing, and described
the place to him; not knowing yet who he actually was, or his position. I described how that first test had gone, and
how the place had looked. He became visibly
miffed, and stated that he worked closely with those of that facility all of
the time; and made it clear that it had NEVER been like I described. Knowing then
that I could not trust this man any more than where I had done my first test, I
decided to play Mr. Reed a little, to see just how far DHS would take things,
in order to keep me down. I then lied to
Mr. Reed, by pre-warning him that it would be very likely that I would test
positive for drugs in my test today. He
stated that we would see about that, soon enough. Five minutes later, while I paced, I feigned
a slight move towards one of the courthouse doors and Mr. Reed quickly moved to
block my way out, and stated that there was no chance that I would be getting
out of doing this test - as if he had the power to force me. I laughed (there was no exiting these doors anyway,
it was not one of the entryways guarded by the sheriffs, and was locked down) and
told him that I had no intention of missing out on it, then informed him I was ready
to do it now.
28. I submitted a sample, and watched what Mr.
Reed did following that. After watching for
a moment, I asked Mr. Reed if he would tell me exactly what happened in the field
test, and how the cup worked, or determined I was positive, and for what. He blithely described how the test worked, in
full detail, and told me how I would know the results, had I been the tester. I then asked him what my results were; and he
began turning the cup away from my view, took out his phone and started taking pictures
of it. He stated, “I’ll be sending Ms.
Gosch pictures of your results, and it will up to her to tell you what your
results are”
29. Mr. Reed then had me pour my sample into a
smaller container and seal it, telling me that the lab would test this portion
of it. He then had me throw the original
cup in the trash. Neither he nor I, at
any time, wore gloves. He then stated
that we were finished, and that I was free to go.
30. After Mr. Reed left, I went back into the
restroom to attempt to retrieve the testing cup. The trash can in the restroom was locked, and
my arm was not long enough to reach into it.
I then dropped my keys into the garbage, and told a sheriff that I had accidently
lost my keys in the garbage, and asked if someone would let me into it. He stated that he would do it for me, and
when we arrived, I got my keys, and removed also the cup that I had thrown into
it. As I got into my car, I looked at it. None of the things that Mr. Reed had described
as occurring in the test results had happened.
The cup was inactive. No result
showed on it at all. To verify my theory
of what had happened here, I called my caseworker, Katie Gosch, and left her a voice
message to inform her that I had passed my drug test. I then went to pick up my wife from work and
took her to Central Iowa Family Services, where we had tested previously in our
first tests. On the way, I told her not
to do a test unless she could have a witness to it. After she went in, Katie Gosch called me
back, and began to tell me how my drug test had come back positive for meth
again. I hung up on her in the middle of
that statement and waited for my wife to return.
31. When E.B. returned, she informed me that she
was not allowed a witness to her testing.
I then told her to get her things, and that we were leaving. When she returned, she had, in her hand, her unused
field testing cup.
32. Upon returning home, I did another test in
the mother’s unused cup. It came out exactly
the same as the one I had thrown away at the courthouse…inactive, with no results,
positive or negative. We then realized
that this had been a trick to make us look guilty and in need of the court’s
intervention, as well as gravely in need of the drug assessment and treatment
services we had been ordered to engage in unnecessarily, by Judge Price.
33. I immediately took pictures of the two cups, one
of the cup that I had just done the test in (with the sample still in it); wrote
an article about these events and posted it on my blog, knowing Ms. Gosch would
eventually read it.
34. On January 2nd, 2015, an order was filed in
the case by Judge Price, granting Attorney Mays (again?) permission to withdraw
from the case, and stated the effective date for that permission to be December
15, 2014, half a month earlier. This effective
date was four days following the initial one of two motions hearings that had been
held on December 11th, 2014, in which Judge Price had, at that hearing's onset,
granted Attorney Mays permission to withdraw from the case - supposedly effective
THAT day at THAT time. Price would then
dismiss attorney Mays from the courtroom, and, following this, subsequently threw
out a motion I had filed to correct Mr. Mays' motion, claiming my motion to be moot,
because attorney Mays was no longer associated with the case. Then, the complainant remembered that Mr.
Mays had been served a subpoena to testify at the second continued motions
hearing, and it was served by me on Mr. Mays on...December 15th, 2014 Immediately
following this service, Mr. Mays then electronically filed a motion to quash
the subpoena in the case, although he supposedly was not associated with the
case. On January 15th, when I myself was
removed as a necessary party to this case, I was un-indexed from the electronic
filing system within a half an hour. I
most certainly was not able to do what Mr. Mays had done, four days after his
removal from this case. I DEFINATELY
could not have gotten Judge Price to address anything I might have snuck by him
into that case, after my removal from it, as Mr. Mays did. His motion to quash was honored, as well as
admitted instantly, upon his filing it...and his subpoena? Quashed like a bug. My motions, after I was dismissed, were
tossed in the garbage without a single T being crossed, and my evidence, filed
in person by me 6 days before the hearing for permanency, although not a lick
of it was ever admitted as exhibits in that hearing (because I was about to be
removed from it, and they knew the absolute brevity of it would have eaten
their case for breakfast) it was, after my removal as a party, instantly
destroyed just after the hearing, and was not retrievable upon my return to get
it back that same afternoon.
35. Strangely, I did not bring this matter up
until January 22nd, in my answer to the permanency order. I've been through these court documents over
and over again, and just like it happened this time, things appear and
disappear in it almost every time I look for something. This order, filed on the 2nd of January,
2015, looks as though it was submitted as a definite after-thought, very
obviously filed in order for Judge Price to cover Judge Price's mistake in
covering for Attorney Mays, then allowing him to continue to be electronically
able to view and file documents in the case, though he was no longer associated
with it, per Judge Price...and yet...though it was submitted by Judge Price on
January 2nd, 2015, more than 2 weeks after this matter occurred, (which is, by
itself, strange enough), the matter wasn't noticed by me, nor was it brought
up, or addressed by me until January TWENTY second, over a month later than the
December 11th hearing, and over a week later than the order for permanency. Most strange of all was that, after I was
once again able to see all court documents filed in this case, following Judge
Price's order allowing me that privilege, I never once got a notification that
this particular item that was allegedly filed on January 2nd, had ever been
filed. Prior to this very date, the
complainant has not ever seen this particular motion. Ah, but this would not, by any means, be the
first, or hardly the last time I would catch those of the Polk County District courts
playing with the record - substituting my motions saying what I wanted - with theirs,
changed to say what THEY wanted; doctoring or changing transcripts, or skill in
the art of leaving things said out or, where needed, putting something not
said., in to cover something or someone else.
Best of all, however, is still the absolute fairy tale that can be found
only in every line of every page of the transcripts for the termination
hearing, where the script presented is not only unbelievable, it's all but IMPOSSIBLE
to believe, if you only knew but one of any of the actors who played in it. Thanks to neither parent guaranteed not to attend,
and a guaranteed year minimum before they would be asked for, there was plenty
of time and confidential cover with which to make them just so, before the eyes
of the Supreme Court of Iowa would even glance at them.
36. Later, on January 9th, a report was filed by DHS,
authored by Ms. Gosch; her final report to the court before the determination
of permanency. As I expected, it contained
an alternate version of the story I had told on my blog, and details that I described
there were meticulously covered in exact denial of everything I had written,
showing that they had obviously read my side of the story. First, according to Mr. Reed’s version, he was
the only one who ever handled the testing cups, and it was he, during the test,
who, after getting no results, determined that the cup he used in my FIRST test
sample was inactive, and therefore, defective; and that it was he that threw
the cup away in the garbage. He then
stated that he got another cup out, and acquired a SECOND test sample from me
(remember - I was, at that time, barely able to provide enough for a first
sample, see complaint #), and that he had also been the one to throw the second
cup away, after the results of that test.
When I had retrieved the cup from the trash later, he stated that I must
have grabbed the defective one that he had thrown away from the first sample. After telling that story, Ms. Gosch went on
to report on the calls Id made to both her and Ms. Nieman on January 2nd,
2015, then boldly lied to the court and stated that, in Ms. Nieman’s messages, I
had threatened to kill her. (NOTE: The transcripts
for the voicemails were filed by DHS in BOTH of our juvenile cases, shortly
after they were made. There was no
message to either that described, related, or repeated any of the words that
Ms. Gosch would claim were stated to Ms. Nieman, nor was that threat even insinuated).
37. On February 17th, 2015, not at all
daunted by her first failed attempt to have me arrested the first time (see
complaint #), Ms. Rhinehart, Katie Gosch and Emily Nieman would again allege
that I harassed both Emily Nieman and Ms. Gosch, and, according to Jake
Lancaster of the Des Moines Police Department, the detective who had called me,
they now intended to claim that I had been harassing them all since July of
2014. After several harassing phone
calls to me from Mr. Lancaster, (because he refused to stop calling me
incessantly, I then turned my phone off), a warrant was then issued for my
arrest. Unbeknownst to all that mattered,
however, we had decided by this time to move away (and transfer in my job) to
Carroll Iowa, without notice to anyone but my boss. When he couldn't find me where we had said we
lived in Des Moines, or, where I had said I was working, Mr. Lancaster then took
to visiting and harassing my relatives in Des Moines, by coming by their homes constantly
to ask if they knew where I was. He did
not stop this behavior until the time I was finally arrested, almost a full
month later.
38. The warrant for my arrest contained these
charges: Harassment in the first degree (this charge concerned my “threat of
Ms. Nieman’s life” on her voicemail, something that never happened), an
aggravated misdemeanor, and two other simple misdemeanors, also for harassment,
but in the 3rd degree instead, one for each of the two workers. The “victims” were Emily Nieman (I called her
one time, in the time I'd known her from July 2014 until that day, January 2nd,
2015), on the weekend, to let her know that I was about to win because of what
I had filed for the Permanency hearing, and that she was likely to lose her
job; and Katie Gosch - who was, at that time, still our active DHS caseworker -
the same day, on the weekend, when I knew it was likely to leave a message, and
said pretty much the same thing to her. Prior
to that, I never had the desire to even see Katie Gosch, let alone did I ever
speak to her, if I could avoid it. The
calls were made on January 2nd, 2015. The charges were filed a month and a half
later. Upon filing these charges, and as
he was most anxious to find me and arrest me, The DMPD would then place me in the
NUMBER #1 POSITION of the “Metro’s Most Wanted” website, as well as that
segment on the Channel 13 news, and in CityView Magazine. I was the #1 wanted criminal in the area
there for well over a month, until and even a week AFTER I was arrested (they then
just put up my mug shot and put the word ARRESTED over it). I was, evidently, more important to be than
murderers, bank robbers, and other felons; more so than anyone in the Polk
County area...The Metro’s MOST wanted. Because
of my fear of being arrested at this critical time, with a very important
assessment appeal coming up, and another obvious appeal on the way, and because
we didn’t have transportation available back to Des Moines, we decided it was
in our best interest to NOT attend our termination hearing...as was their plan.
39. Finally, because I couldn’t be located, and
no one would turn me in, the DMPD and the County Attorney’s offices would turn
to others in Government who might help. After
perusing my entire blog, they found a single sentence that they could use, that
stated “I’m going to Washington D.C., and I’m going to camp out on Obama’s
doorstep until he does something about corruption in Iowa.” They then turned this
over to the Secret Service, somehow convincing them that I was a credible
threat to the President of the United States.
They did this because this agency had access and authority to ways that
they could legally use to find me that the DMPD and the County Attorneys did not. The Secret Service agent assigned then
located me by my IP address, and had me arrested finally in Carroll, Iowa.
40. Upon my arrival in the Polk County Jail, the
Secret Service agent interviewed me for 2 minutes, then walked out on the
interview after he discovered that this was all about my stolen daughter, and
determined that I was so obviously hardly a credible threat to anyone...let
alone the President of the United States.
41. I appeared before Judge Birkenholtz, District
5C in the morning and plead guilty to the two simple misdemeanors, in order to
bring bail down to an amount I could pay; and in order to get back home to work
on this case and my appeal. Much later, when
the issue of the aggravated misdemeanor of harassment in the first degree was pressed
to the limit by me, prior to trial (long after my arrest, and well after the termination
hearing), the charge was dropped suddenly, with prejudice, just a few days
prior to trial. They had never had proof
of this crime, and claimed that they dropped the bigger charge (where I
threatened to kill someone) because I plead to the two lesser charges (where I
just simply harassed someone somewhat to make them a little nervous, a rather
major difference of 2 huge upgrades in misdemeanors) – even though the pleas
had occurred nearly a month earlier. Later,
it was determined, after reading our termination appeal’s cross appeal, that
this arrest warrant for me was issued when it was for a very important reason. Throughout the cross-appeal, it mentions over
and over again (I think I counted like 20 or so times over a spread of like 5
different filings by the Attorney General's offices) that, because we did not
attend our termination of parental rights hearing; and, also, because I was no
longer considered to be an interested party in the CINA case, that neither E.B.
NOR I had any standing to appeal the matter to the Iowa Supreme Court.
42. The determined “biological father”, R.S., had
sex with my wife only once, in January of 2014, while we were briefly separated,
and, after that, wanted no more communication, and nothing more to do with my
wife. After we reunited a month later,
and I discovered that she was pregnant, she didn’t know exactly who the father was,
since she had had sex with two men during this time, and one had died. When it was determined that J.B. (the
possibility that was dead), who the mother thought WAS the biological father of
our daughter, was determined to not be the father, DHS then pressed E.B., and
eventually pried the name of the other possible father, R.S., out of her. As soon as they got his name and where he was
possibly living, the department then hunted down the biological father, R.S. of
Newton, Iowa during the course of our juvenile cases, and had him also do a
paternity test The results would show that R.S. was indeed the biological father
of T.B.
43. After a paternity test proved that R.S. was
the actual biological father of T.B., the petition to terminate, not just our
rights, but the rights of the biological father, R.S., as well, was filed in the
newly formed termination case on January 9th, 2015.
44. On January 15th, 2015, after we
left our permanency hearing, Judge Price, in a surprise move, would order that
R.S, who hadn't even been officially involved in the case at all until that
day, should, as T.B.'s real father, get the same chance that I had, to be compliant
with what DHS would ask of him (which was nothing compared to what they asked
of us, was infinitely simpler for someone to accomplish, and would require very
little effort on R.S.'s part) and then awarded him full unsupervised visitation
with his (our) daughter. After we had
acquired an apartment, both E.B. and I would ask DHS and motion the courts
SEVERAL times for, at the very least, supervised visitation in our apartment,
as well as re-allow me my visits T.B., without DHS's ridiculous stipulations. Each
and every motion and request was denied or ignored, depending on who was
getting the request or motion. As a
matter of stated fact, after the date of September 12th, nearly EVERYTHING,
especially various things filed in our case, were not addressed, were
completely overlooked, not noticed, never answered, ignored, and outright
thrown away or destroyed. And if all
else fails? Let's throw him out of the case, and everything he brought with
him!
45. On January 21st, 2015, Katherine
Walker would appear in the case to represent R.S.
46. Immediately following her appearance, I
contacted Ms. Walker at her firm; not only to inform her about what had
occurred involving us up to that time, and warn her not to trust DHS or Judge
Price, but also to inform her that a petition to terminate ALL the parents’
rights, including her client’s rights, was already in force.
47. On January 25th, 2015, Ms. Walker
filed a motion to continue the termination of parental rights hearing. On it, cited as one of the reasons for the
continuance, was that Ms. Walker could not possibly attend on that day.
48. On February 19th, 2015, suddenly, in the final hour, the petition to
terminate parental rights was amended to disclude R.S. from his parental rights
being terminated. A flurry of reports appeared
and were filed, from seemingly nowhere; in just a matter of a few days; from
both DHS and CFI, all unerringly praising R.S. and his most apparent wont to be
a father, and about his total compliance in going along with all that DHS asked
of him willingly (which, at this time, had been only visits, the paternity
test, and a drug test...something we had ALSO done, willingly), and portraying
him to be a saint, and very nearly God-like and perfect in his parenting style
and skills; were filed like mad, in order to get them placed there in time for
the all-important termination hearing...which, by the way, it's important to
note that Attorney Beth Walker? She was miraculously able to attend in support
of her client, after all.
49. On February 28th, 2015, our rights
were terminated, and R.S. would go on to be the real hero and father in T.B.’s
life, even though it was more than a year after he had irresponsibly shunned
and shut out the mother, not caring to even check up on her afterwards, just in
case she may have gotten pregnant with his child. Instead, and only after DHS hunted him down
to tell him that he had a daughter, R.S. raised his finger at the last minute
to claim her, after I fought and was the court’s target in his stead as her
father for six straight months. Our
daughter was in foster care from July 2014 until February of 2015, when the mother’s
rights were terminated. I was removed
from the CINA series of court hearings in January, 2015 by Judge Price of the
district courts of Polk County because of my paternal status (the
non-biological LEGAL father), and my “lack of any rights to be a party of
interest in these cases”; and yet the same rights that I supposedly didn’t have
to be an interested party in the matter of T.B., in the CINA case were
terminated in our termination hearing by this same judge in February of 2015, a
month later.
50. This complainant brings that reunification
was NEVER the intent, either of the DHS, or the courts that supported them and
their illegal and unlawful actions entirely; no matter how ridiculous their
lies got, no matter how wrong their retaliatory and vindictive behavior was in
turning against the parents. The complainant
also claims that ALL, and at the end of the proceedings, even R.S.’s attorney,
conspired with Judge Price, the DHS, and all at the county attorney’s offices
to make sure T.B. went somewhere, ANYWHERE…and to ANYONE, as long as no one
gave her back to the long married and loving parents who wanted her to begin
with and still do, and who had fought to have her returned, quite literally against
all odds, for 6 long, traumatic months.
51. On appeal to the Iowa Appellate division, the
Appellate court blatantly refused to stay our terminations based on the assessment
appeal decision of the ALJ and the Director of the Department of Human Services
( See Complaint #.), even though these decisions more than determined that,
initially, the child was wrongfully found to be in need of the removal, and in
need of the court’s intervention; and that they made a mistake taking her from
us. This decision of the Department
should have, by all logic, nullified anything that was decided afterwards,
including all orders given by Judge Price from that point on. These decisions of the director and the ALJ
were submitted 3 times, and the appellate courts would deny the stay 3 times,
long before they would even consider the case.
They would also refuse to pay for transcripts that concerned anything
other than the termination hearing unless we paid for it ourselves, which came
to around $1,000. This order came out
just 2 weeks before they made their final decision on the matter, giving us no
time to get the money together to pay for them.
Naturally, they would then rule in full agreement with the district
court; and in total disregard of all of the district court and Judge Price’s unlawful
actions against us. New evidence (the 18
minute recording of the worker breaking several federal laws in removing T.B.
from the mother) was then entered by us into the case. This same evidence had been filed in our
juvenile cases, but was never admitted by the State’s juvenile clerk of court
employees into the record, nor filed for six days, more than likely because all
of the evidence and motions I had filed for the permanency hearing would have
completely destroyed the State’s entire case and the district court would have
been lawfully forced to return T.B. our care and admit that what they did was
wrong. The appellate court followed the
District Court’s lead, and would then officially reject this new evidence, and ruled
that it was nothing short of a sad attempt by us to get them to reconsider
their final decision, even though such “new evidence”, had it been presented in
a court of law would have been powerful enough to warrant a whole new trial. This decision, of course, came to us almost a
full year and 3 months after we filed it, very nearly almost 2 full years of
the very first part of our daughter’s life. I'm certain that the verdict, even
if it had been ruled in our favor, would have included this addendum, that,
“Since she’s been away this long, why rip her from all she's known by this
point in her life; and why cause her the unnecessary trauma it would inflict on
her by returning her to you? Surely, this wouldn’t be in the best interest of
the child!”
52. A final decision was rendered in June of 2016,
by the Iowa Appellate division (just prior to my release from doing a full year
in jail, for more alleged “harassment”, (see rights hearing (see complaint #,)
and that hearing ONLY, albeit neither one of us was able to be present due to
the conspiracy to jail me or put me in fear of being jailed in order to win
out, via the avenue of keeping us out and away from this hearing so that we
wouldn't be able to speak for ourselves; and, more importantly, so that they
could leisurely fabricate in the transcripts that they said and did just about
ANYTHING; without anyone else knowing exactly what actually did occur. Because Judge Price had ruled that I had no
rights to my legal daughter, and that I should not be further subjected to the court
bullying he often engaged in, in his court room, the Appellate Court had no
choice but to vacate the decision to terminate MY rights.
52. Anyone reading the transcripts from the
complete fabrication that Polk County expected us to believe was what had
actually occurred and had been said in our termination hearing, would have
chuckled privately at the obviously false bravado transcribed into this
absolutely grandiose farce, an event that couldn't have possibly occurred in
the REAL world, even if they had NOT known anyone who had been in it. Page after page, each person who sought to
deprive us of our daughter all would take turns in waxing eloquently (to the
nth degree and beyond), as to every reason they believed might justify them in sadly
terminating our rights, an action that no one obviously wanted to do, but felt
that it was something they just had to do, in order to best serve our
daughter's best interests. Paul White,
the GAL, who barely spoke more than 2 words in any hearing up to this one, said
so much at the termination hearing, I thought he might break out into song
after he finally stopped talking. Judge
Price, who never once spoke a kind word to or about anyone, particularly the parents;
whose voice on any given day of court fairly dribbled with sarcasm and a condescending
tone at all times towards any who would dare speak to him from the floor of the
courtroom and below it, almost had me in tears after reading what he had to say
in THIS hearing; and his obvious remorse at what he was being forced to do to us
because of our criminal lack of interest in reunifying with our child was
heart- breaking, to say the least. It's
good to know that, even though I didn't think he cared, even a little; that
Judge Price really DID care, after all...I just didn't see it. How could I have been so very blind? I'm sure
that, someday, I'll look back on what he did for us, and I'll quietly take a
moment to whisper quietly to his memory, "thank you...thank you Judge
Price, for showing us the way", and then I'll take just moment to remember
him, fondly, as one of the fairest, kindest most wonderful men I've known, so full
of love, understanding and Solomon-like wisdom.
And then, I woke up from this nightmare, screaming. Maybe this wasn't the most legally written
portion of this complaint, but I believe I've made myself clear as to what I
know, for an absolute fact, happened with our termination transcripts.
53. Finally, concerning the Iowa Supreme Court
appeal, the complainant believes that the matter of our case and all the
atrocious behaviors and actions of all who were involved in unison against us
and our claimed inalienable rights as parents, involved against us, in order
to, initially anyway, claim that we were unacceptable parents and people in
every imaginable way, in order to seem justified in later terminating our
rights, then place our daughter out to the foster parents, who I’m certain, had
their eye on her and didn’t rule her out as a good ,addition to their ever
growing adoption income. I’m also sure
that they were DHS’s first and foremost choice for placement, but had to take a
lawful detour when someone of the family, closely related by blood, was came
in, however late, armed with a real paid lawyer (not those in on the scheme and
who are, allegedly, appointed to us to “represent us”, but instead, did nothing
and said nothing at all to help the mother in any way, but instead willfully
acted out for the other side, the State’s side, at every turn) and who had a
salary that was acceptable to Judge Price (among his first 3 questions of the biological
father at the permanency hearing were –“ Where are you employed? “ and “How
much money do you make there?”), then their plan was forced to change, and R.S.,
who is a single working parent, was considered to be a much better, as well as
ridiculously perfect choice to raise this child, over the now settled and long married
parents. I believe it's quite important
to mention, also, that, had I been in DHS's position, the first thing I would
have noticed, to consider R.S. to maybe not be a good choice to parent this
child, would have been his obvious shirk of real adult responsibility, in
consideration of his actions in totally ignoring the possibility that E.B. may
have gotten pregnant with his child after they had relations, and totally cutting
off any and all communication with her, in denial of any possibility that she might
be pregnant. These are not the actions
of a responsible adult, let alone a possibly responsible parent choice.
54. It should not be difficult for this court to find that a most definitive meeting of the minds occurred between all that have been mentioned thus far in this complaint, as defendants. If not, of course, there is more.
54. It should not be difficult for this court to find that a most definitive meeting of the minds occurred between all that have been mentioned thus far in this complaint, as defendants. If not, of course, there is more.
55. During the year and a half that we waited for
the Appellate court to address these issues, I had been continuously sending
emails containing relevant news and clippings, recordings of legal atrocities,
paperwork and proof of what was happening to our family, as well as things that
were happening to other families all over Iowa, to Darren Tromblay, the Editor-In-Chief
at CityView magazine in Des Moines, Iowa. Emails were also being sent to all who had been involved in their criminal actions against us. At no time during this period did anyone ever respond or ask/tell me ever to stop
sending them these things, and Mr. Tromblay even began to respond to them
favorably, from time to time. Finally,
in November of 2015, Mr. Tromblay would send me a reply to an email that I had
sent him, and asked me to give him a call.
I did, and he mentioned that he thought we could get a story on this, He
would then mention that, since there were an awful lot of facts and elements to
this story, that we would need to go through it all to sort out what we needed
and what would he wouldn't be able to use.
He then sent me a follow-up email, signed with a digitally produced
signature, that clearly stated his intention to send a reporter of his, Jeffrey
Pitts, my way, very soon, in order to discuss what I would give him for the
story (no vagueness in the language, no “maybe”…that he certainly would do thee
story) Nearly two months later, in January, 2015, I contacted Mr. Tromblay twice
by email in quick succession to ask, somewhat angrily, what the big delay was,
and mentioned that I had heard nothing from the reporter at all. I heard nothing back from Mr. Tromblay
following those emails being sent out, and on January 23rd, 2016, members of
the Carroll City Police, including Officer Greg Bellinghausen, were again knocking
at my door.
56. My wife answered the front door, and with the
door shut, asked who it was. There were
two officers present, and the officer at the fore identified themselves as the Carroll
City Police. My wife then asked these
men for their identification and a warrant of arrest. They stated that there was a warrant for
arrest, but that they didn't have it with them.
My wife then told them that they would have to produce this warrant, and
asked them to leave the property. The
officers then obliged her, and left.
57. Posted on both doors of our home, at both the
front and back doors, we had a sign that requested that all who came onto our
property, purporting to be law enforcement or claiming to be associated with
any government agency therewith, who came with the intent to enter onto the
premises was required to produce official documentation that proved who they
were, and their lawful purpose to come onto the property, with or without a
warrant. It also stated that, should
they choose to not provide what we asked them for, and they should choose to enter
the property of their own volition regardless, that in doing so, they would be
contracting with me to pay us a land use fee at a rate of $10,000 per person,
per day, or any portion of that day. This
sign was printed in bold black and white, took up the size of an entire 8"x11"
page, and was posted at eye level, so that none would overlook it. With all the time that these officers had
spent at our front door, the complainant claims that there was little chance
that they could have missed reading it.
58. Upon their return 20 minutes later, the
officers once again knocked at our front door.
My wife then asked to see the warrant, and when she was satisfied that
what they were holding was a warrant, she opened the inner door to our property. The officers then moved to open the screen door
with the obvious intent of contracting with us for our agreed upon land use
fee, then entered the premises on their own.
They then inquired as to whether I was Christopher Bruce, as I was
sitting right by the door when they entered.
I told them that I was not. Officer
Greg Bellinghausen would then step forward, and state "You ARE Christopher
Bruce, and you're under arrest." He then handcuffed me, and took me to the
Carroll County Jail and put me behind bars to await transport to the Polk
County Jail by the Johnston, Iowa City Police Department.
59. This arrest took place in the afternoon on
January 23rd. The transport from
Johnston Iowa took around an hour to arrive.
The transport by the Des Moines Police Dept., a year earlier, had taken
around an hour to arrive from Des Moines to Carroll, Iowa, as well (see complaint #).
60. Later, it was discovered, upon receiving
filed documents about this case while I was incarcerated (I was arrested again
almost immediately after I bonded out for this case, and was then sentenced to
do a full year in the county jail) that the warrant used to arrest me,
supposedly in the possession of the Carroll City Police Department; and, more
specifically, Greg Bellinghausen, was NOT an arrest warrant, but was a search
warrant. At no time did officer
Bellinghausen "search" any portion of my property. He came in, made his false identification of
me, arrested me without verifying my identity, and did not ever touch anything
else in or on the property.
61. The complainant presents that Officer Greg
Bellinghausen was in charge of the operation resulting in my arrest at my
property, and is wholly responsible for the debt he incurred by contracting
with us, the current residents of the property at that time, my wife and I, by
willfully entering our home of his own volition, though duly warned of the
consequences, and without invitation, and using an illegal warrant to do so. We have concluded this as fact, in that a. He had been the first and only officer to
speak the entire time, b. had accepted
the liability of my welfare by taking the action of placing me in handcuffs in
order to complete this unlawful arrest; and c. there were, at final count, two officers who
had entered the property at that time; and, thereby, officer Bellinghausen did,
by engaging in these actions, choose to claim responsibility for the intrusion onto
our property, and is in debt to us for our land use fee in the agreed upon
total amount of $20,000, upon our demand, and in legal tender. We now so demand.
62. Important to note at this time were several strange occurrances, all pointing to actions by the County Attorney's offices. On or around April of 2015, until the present day, emails that were being sent to them would be opened by them at, say, 9:00 a.m. in Des Moines, Iowa. 5 or so minutes later, the same email, opened by the county attorney would be then opened in Omaha NE. I have a program that tells me where all of my emails are being opened, by whom, and how many times, and when. I then started noticing the same emails being opened in other major cities: Kansas City, Minneapolis, St. Louis, MO; and the circle of cities from there, until present day have gotten wider and wider with every passing month. Upon doing some research, it was discovered that not only had my computer been connected to these same cities in my network connections (on my personal computer), but that Facebook and Google kept giving me alerts stating that these locations were also logging into my computer and accounts. Upon further research, it was discovered that every city listed had rather large branches of the FBI located in them. There was, by the way, a year's reprieve, during the time I was jailed. Upon sending certified letters of settlement (prior to this action, something normally done by attorneys or pro se litigants who are about to file actions in federal court) to the County Attorney's offices prior to this complaint, there were again opens occurring, lately, as far away as Massachusetts. It is stated by this complainant that, in order to get me off his case, the County attorney has taken to calling just about every office branch of the FBI in an attempt to have me federally arrested, for no real crime. Of course, this hasn't worked too well for John P. Sarcone, since the complainant has YET to commit any crime, save the crime of not letting the County Attorney off the hook for what he has done to this complainant and his family, and shall never, until justice is done.
62. Important to note at this time were several strange occurrances, all pointing to actions by the County Attorney's offices. On or around April of 2015, until the present day, emails that were being sent to them would be opened by them at, say, 9:00 a.m. in Des Moines, Iowa. 5 or so minutes later, the same email, opened by the county attorney would be then opened in Omaha NE. I have a program that tells me where all of my emails are being opened, by whom, and how many times, and when. I then started noticing the same emails being opened in other major cities: Kansas City, Minneapolis, St. Louis, MO; and the circle of cities from there, until present day have gotten wider and wider with every passing month. Upon doing some research, it was discovered that not only had my computer been connected to these same cities in my network connections (on my personal computer), but that Facebook and Google kept giving me alerts stating that these locations were also logging into my computer and accounts. Upon further research, it was discovered that every city listed had rather large branches of the FBI located in them. There was, by the way, a year's reprieve, during the time I was jailed. Upon sending certified letters of settlement (prior to this action, something normally done by attorneys or pro se litigants who are about to file actions in federal court) to the County Attorney's offices prior to this complaint, there were again opens occurring, lately, as far away as Massachusetts. It is stated by this complainant that, in order to get me off his case, the County attorney has taken to calling just about every office branch of the FBI in an attempt to have me federally arrested, for no real crime. Of course, this hasn't worked too well for John P. Sarcone, since the complainant has YET to commit any crime, save the crime of not letting the County Attorney off the hook for what he has done to this complainant and his family, and shall never, until justice is done.
63. On the date of January 24th, the
day following my bonded release for the harassment of Darren Tromblay, the
complainant posted a story concerning Theodore Booker, a fellow warrior against
child trafficking, and posted it on my blog.
Upon investigation of the website for the DCFS (The Department of Children and Family Services) offices in Los Angeles, I
located a folder containing the names and email addresses for every social
worker in L.A. county, CA. After posting
Theodore’s story, I then emailed every one of the 8000 social workers that
worked for DCFS, to let them know that their crimes against Theodore Booker
were online for the world to see.
64. On January 25th, the plaintiff had
involved himself in a case in Carroll County, where he resided; where a child
had been wrongfully taken from a family.
On the same day, the plaintiff’s friend, Theodore Booker, was arrested
in L.A. County, for no charges that were ever filed against him for 7 months,
using affidavits filed by those of the LA County DCFS offices, and that had my
name on them. He was released a few
months later, with no actual charges that were truth, and, of course, no real conviction.
65. On January 26th, 2016, The Carroll Police
showed up at my house again, with a warrant for my arrest, using a single aggravated
misdemeanor charge of harassment in the first degree, with the alleged victim
being one Jeanne Munson of Altoona, Iowa.
This incident with Ms. Munson had allegedly occurred nearly a month
before the charge was approved by the county attorney's office in Polk County,
and it had, also, been nearly a month after the police in Altoona, Iowa had
filed the police report alleging the same crime. It's obvious that, if this had ever been a
crime that I would have someday been arrested for, it would have happened long
before this date, or would have been brought against me while I was already in
custody, just a couple days before this, for my harassment of Darren Tromblay. This arrest occurred because of what had
happened with the DCFS offices in Los Angeles, as well as my newly formed war
with my local DHS office in Carroll, Iowa.
Since they couldn't rightfully charge me with speaking freely, or accuse
me of using email addresses that I'd found in a folder that was publicly
available on their website, they instead called in the help of the County
Attorney's office in Polk County, who in turn, scoured the records of the
surrounding police departments in order to find a report of some crime they
could charge me with. The complainant
would later discover that Ms. Munson had been involved in a deal with Charles
Palmer, the director of DHS, and had been already been paid for a few months to
cause dissent in her group in any way she could, and to subvert those that
sought her help, as well as others that they might seek help from. The Department had removed Ms. Munson's
grandchildren from her care a while back, and Ms. Munson had started and was
the administrator for a large group of 9000+ parents that had been leading the
war with others that had also been wrongfully victimized by DHS in Iowa. Charles Palmer had, along the way, sought Jeanne
out, since she was the admin in the group against him, and made a deal with her,
offering her to once again be allowed to visit with her grandchildren; and in exchange,
Ms. Munson and her boyfriend, Mark Worthington, along with another woman, Linda
Downs (these were the agents we knew of.
It's likely that there were more in on this) would give the victims of
Iowa DHS bad direction in legal matters, and cut them off from people who were legitimately
attempting to help them - like myself for instance; which explained to me why
we had all of a sudden come to war against each other after an amicable
relationship of nearly a year, prior to that time.
66. Upon my arrest, there was only the Harassment charge; and I was taken once again to the Carroll County Jail to await transport to the Polk County Jail, via the Altoona Police Department. Strangely, unlike the other two times, where the transport took only an hour to arrive, this transport would take four and a half hours. The reason for this would soon come clear. I had called Kenny's Bail Bonds, and found out that my bail for the harassment charge was just $200 dollars. I then told him I would give him a call once I arrived in Des Moines. While I waited, the Altoona Police Department would file two more police reports; one for Stalking, another Aggravated Misdemeanor charge, and a Class D Felony, Threats. Miraculously, those reports, unlike the one that took nearly a month to net any charges, these reports brought charges that were approved by John P. Sarcone's offices IN THE SAME HOUR the reports were filed. These actions, hereby, show a most CERTAIN meeting of the minds of the County Attorney of Polk County and the Altoona Police Department, to conspire against the rights of the complainant. By the time I arrived in Des Moines and called the Bondsman again, my bond had shot up to $70,000, and would now require a home to guarantee my release. Under normal circumstances, my bond should have been no more than $9,000 ($2,000 for each aggravated misdemeanor, and $5,000 for the Class D felony.). This excessive bond was “justified”, they said, because I had an “extensive criminal history”, which, at this time, included only plead to convictions of the two simple misdemeanors of harassment from the year before (see Complaint #3), and three other simple misdemeanors over a 42 year lifetime, all unrelated. In my whole life, I never missed a court hearing, have never skipped on bail, wasn’t a flight risk in any way, and, since all the calls made to Ms. Munson were made all on one day, 2 months prior to the complainant's arrest, and never happened again, it wasn’t at all likely that the crime would re-occur if the plaintiff remained free. This unreasonable bail, then, was unconstitutionally imposed, in violation of my rights under both the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions, concerning imposing excessive bonds/bails and fees."
That's it for now, kids....so, stay tuned for the FINAL draft, to be posted on January 4th, one day before the criminal's complaints are certified to them! :D
66. Upon my arrest, there was only the Harassment charge; and I was taken once again to the Carroll County Jail to await transport to the Polk County Jail, via the Altoona Police Department. Strangely, unlike the other two times, where the transport took only an hour to arrive, this transport would take four and a half hours. The reason for this would soon come clear. I had called Kenny's Bail Bonds, and found out that my bail for the harassment charge was just $200 dollars. I then told him I would give him a call once I arrived in Des Moines. While I waited, the Altoona Police Department would file two more police reports; one for Stalking, another Aggravated Misdemeanor charge, and a Class D Felony, Threats. Miraculously, those reports, unlike the one that took nearly a month to net any charges, these reports brought charges that were approved by John P. Sarcone's offices IN THE SAME HOUR the reports were filed. These actions, hereby, show a most CERTAIN meeting of the minds of the County Attorney of Polk County and the Altoona Police Department, to conspire against the rights of the complainant. By the time I arrived in Des Moines and called the Bondsman again, my bond had shot up to $70,000, and would now require a home to guarantee my release. Under normal circumstances, my bond should have been no more than $9,000 ($2,000 for each aggravated misdemeanor, and $5,000 for the Class D felony.). This excessive bond was “justified”, they said, because I had an “extensive criminal history”, which, at this time, included only plead to convictions of the two simple misdemeanors of harassment from the year before (see Complaint #3), and three other simple misdemeanors over a 42 year lifetime, all unrelated. In my whole life, I never missed a court hearing, have never skipped on bail, wasn’t a flight risk in any way, and, since all the calls made to Ms. Munson were made all on one day, 2 months prior to the complainant's arrest, and never happened again, it wasn’t at all likely that the crime would re-occur if the plaintiff remained free. This unreasonable bail, then, was unconstitutionally imposed, in violation of my rights under both the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions, concerning imposing excessive bonds/bails and fees."
That's it for now, kids....so, stay tuned for the FINAL draft, to be posted on January 4th, one day before the criminal's complaints are certified to them! :D
