IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Guy Neighbors 1 Plaintiff ] ] Case # 15-4921 LAWRENCE POLICE DEPT, etal, ] Defendant's ] AMENDED CLAIM Come’s Now Plaintiff Guy Neighbors, to amend his “Claim” pursuant to F.R.C.P 15 2) Neighbors, claim is brought forward in “Law,” “Equity,” and Under the Uniform Commercial Code. This 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983 Civil Action Claim is for Depravation of Civil Right. 42. U.S. Code § 1985 - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, oF usage, of any Sse or Territory or the Danis of cerebin subjects or enuscs to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof saanaeetion ofany eights petviloges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and las, shal be eto the pay nied in aa eerie sai in squiy, or other proper proceading for redress, except that in any action brought ogsinst a judicial oficer “injunctive elie shall not be granted unless a declaratory doors for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial eapaciy, a tual doclratoryselief was unavailable. For the purposes of this setion, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively 10 the Distsict of Columba shall be considered to be a sutute of the District of Cotumbi L. Statement of Jurisdiction Federal courts are authorized to hear cases brought under section 1983 pursuant to two statutory provisions: 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343G) (1948) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (1948). The former statute permits federal district courts to bear cases involving the deprivation of civil rights, and the latter statute permits federal courts to hear all cases involving a federal question or issue, Casesfederal courts by application of both brought under section 1983 may therefore be heard in jurisdictional statutes. IL, Statement of Entitlement . 1983. The defendant's violated Neighbors, rights guaranteed by the constitution at 18 U.5.C ‘The defendant's racially profiled Neighbors, during several traffic stops that were performed .d with “Deliberate Indifference” to following the without probable cause. The defendant’s actet without “Federal Laws” when they performed the traffic stops on Neighbors, ere the result of the Un- Constitutional Policies, “Constitution” or probable cause. These un-lawful traffic stops w Procedures, Ordinances, and Laws the City of Lawrence implemented, “The defendant’s acted with deliberate indifference to following the constitution, and federal laws, Neighbors was damaged while the defendants were enforcing city poticies while acting “under color of law,” and the unconstituti the source of this action. Neighbors has been the court finds Just and fair. ‘onal policies, procedures, ordinances, City Laws are damaged and is praying this court grant him just compensation for his injuries, or what III, Municipal Court Only Has Administrative Authority hive authority, it does not have Jurisdiction, and it is Not & Municipal Court has only administrati court of record, so there is no way anyone can appeal (another violation of rights) because there js no record of the hearing and no documentation of what was said in trial. See The Attached Exhibits below: Exhibit “A” is the Party Case History sheet from Lawrence Municipal Court, This case history report will document thatthe Judge Mr. Scott Miller, did in fact have Neighbors in bis court many times. Neighbors filed at Neighbors, at this point did not take action, performed by officer Wech, that Neighbors, was able to see the continued pattern discrimination re-starting. There was never any east 9 or 10 pleadings in that case, and it was dismissed. it was not until the second unlawful traffic stop evidence placed on the record in either trail.[Exhibit “B” is the Party Case History Sheet from Lawrence Municipal Court, this document shows the case was disposed of and Neighbors was found to be guilty on 05-28-2015 The document shows the violation date was 11-24-14. ry Sheet from The Lawrence Municipal Court, this document \will show a 3" traffic ticket that was issued and disposed of after Neighbors. filed a “Notice of Removal” to move the case to federal court due to the conflict of interest (Neighbors has civil Judge, Prosecutor, and the City of Lawrence). The case was “Failure to Appear” and “Balance Due”. See: Exhibit “C” is the Party Case Histo litigation against the traffic court marked disposed of and the paperwork was marked Exhibit “C” “The court mailed Neighbors, a letter with the case number on it and he filed a document in the urt because of a lack of jurisdiction in Municipal Court. The ease has sdiction. It would appear case to move it to federal co Not been disposed of simply moved to a different court for lack of juri the Lawrence Municipal Court is harassing Neighbors, again and is making a move to get Neighbors drivers licenses revoked for “failure to appear.” See also Exhibit “C” IV. Lawrence Kansas Police Department, the City of Lawrence, and Municipal Courts Citation Process is Un-Constitutional: Separation of powers isa political doctrine originating in the waitings of Montesquieu in The ee separate branches sheck the powers of Spirit of he Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with thr of government. Fach of the three branches would have defined abilities to the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. When Lawrence Kansas Police officer issued Neighbors, a “Summons” that was NOT signed by > of the court,( prior to the ticket being issued), itis a violation of the and therefore the defendant’s violated a “Judicial officer’ “Separation of Powers” clause the of the Constitution, ‘Neighbors, Constitutional Rights for each of the 3 citations. Neighbors suffered damages.V. REMEDY AND RECOURSE Every system of civilized law must have two charaeteristies: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy isa way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse. The Remedy and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1- 207) and 1-103 VI. REMEDY ‘The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses; sich rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7). prevents the loss of st Neighbors, made his reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which he was charged when he signed bis drivers licenses under his picture “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-308" his reservation of rights was secured on Jan, 11"*2013, and there for the defendants have trespassed up on Neighbors. “The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is "WITHOUT PREJUDICE." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4). If Neighbors, had not inder 1-308 (old 1-207).7, he would be compelled to accept the benefit, and to obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all sufficient, such as reserve his rights u are therefore obligated levels of government - federal, state and local. VIL. Recourse 1 appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, whieh says: The Code is The Recours which remains in force , except where displaced by the complimentary to the Common Law, code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. When Neighbors, used "Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308 in connection with his signature, he said:“T reserved my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally. And ‘furthermore, Ido not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy." See: Exhibit “E” a copy of Neighbors Drivers licenses, where he signed under his picture reserving his rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. ‘VILL. Common Law Claim Elements: 1. Controversy ( The listed defendants) 2. Specific Claim (violation of 18 u.s.c.s 1983) 3. Specific Remedy Sought by Claimant ( 350,000.00) 4, Claim Must be Sworn To ( Affidavit of Verification attached), and I will verify in open court that all herein be true. TX. Demand for Judgment: Plaintiff brings this action in “Law”, “Equity” and The U.C.C. he, is demanding judgment for 350,000.00 for the damages suffered, and or what the court deems just and fair. X. Statement of the Claim Fact 1. Plaintiff contends that he was stopped for a seat belt violation by Officer Robinson of the Lawrence Police Department on April 28, 2013, and was issued citation number A023469. 2, Plaintiff states that he was stopped for another seat belt violation on November 24, 2014 by Officer Wech, of the Lawrence Police Department and was issued citation number 4121247, 5, Plaintiff was issues a 3 citation in Oct. of 2015, and the offer to contract was canceled using the U.C.C. and the truth in lending laws, which state that any contractual offer can be cancelledby following a specific process within 3 day of receiving the offer. But Municipal court is it was a failure to appear. treating the cancellation as could not see who was 4. Plaintiff states the police car dash cam video shows that the off driving the vehicle or if the driver had his seat belt 5, Plaintiff states that Officer Wech “knew the vehicle was driven by the same black man the police department kad been harassing for the last 9 yrs. and that continued harassment was the bases of the unlawful traffic stop.” 6. Officer Weck, issued eitation number 4.023469 to plaintiff noting his certification that he as reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that plaintiff violated three sections of the Ordinances of the City of Lawrence, (Reasonable Grounds}. 7. There is no evidence on the record to support any of the traffic stops mentioned in this action. 8, Neighbors, has a perfect driving record for the last 22-yrs. or mote. 9, Neighbors filed a motion rescinding his signatures from the documents the clerk made bim sign in order for the judge to look at this case to determine if the case would be able to proceed without payment of filing fees. Neighbors, refused the “Contractual Agreement” to be held to the same standard as an alleged attorney. 10. Neighbors was forced into a “criminal trial” without a Jury, and found guilty by Judge Scott Miller, 11. The seat belt ordinance is not any law the plaintiff is subject to following, as it has no “Bnacting Clause” a necessary element to be a law, Without an enacting clause the law is not in existence, The missing enacting clause removes the courts subject matter jurisdiction,12, Ibis a common practice of the Lawrence Police Officers to violate citizens of Lawrence Kansas constitutional rights on a regular basis when they issue suramons to citizens that have not been signed by a “Judicial” officer of the court, prior to the surnmons being issues. XI. Plain Statement of Facts That Make Up The Claim: L. The defendant's acted with “Deliberate Indifference” to following the “Constitution” when they violated Neighbors, constitutional rights by stopping him several times without “Probable Cause. 2. The documents attached will prove the defendant's had a criminal tial for Neighbors, and found him “Guilty.” 3, To date there is no evidence on the record to show “Probable Cause” for the traffic stops 4, Neighbors, will prove the City of Lawrence traffic/municipal court citation process and procedures, are un-constitutional. 5. Neighbors, was seriously damaged. 6. Neighbors challenged Municipal court's jurisdietion and that challenge was never stated on the record in the case. 7. Proceedings continued without Jurisdiction ever being placed on the cecord. 8, The defendant's Violated Neighbors, right while enforcing un-constitutional policies and procedures as directed by their supervisors and or City of Lawrence, laws, ordinances, policies and or procedures, ect. 9. Lawrence, police officer Mr. Wech, was informed that he was violating the plaintiff's rights, and his response was to take it up with the court, because he was just doing his job 710, The eity ordinances are Not Laws, as they lacked “Bnacting Clauses,” without the enacting clauses the court has no subject matter jurisdiction what so ever. LL. The citations issues in this cause of action were flawed. Kansas State law requires a description of the alleged violation on the face of the citation. The citation Bled in court in this case did Not have a description written on the face of the citation. 12. Exhibit “E” is a copy of Neighbors, drivers’ licenses, and if you will look under the picture, one will see Neighbors, reserving bis rights under the U.C.C. 1-308. Neighbors pointed these issues out to the officer daring the unlawful traffic stop, and the officer stated the subject needed to be mentioned to the judge, because he was just doing his job. XIL City of Lawrence Kansas Liability Neighbors, will prove that an “actions pursuant to official municipal policy” caused bis ~uries), The Supreme Court has emphasized that “[wJhere a plaintiff claims that the municipality... has caused an employee to [violate plaintiff's constitutional rights], rigorous standards of culpability and causation must be applied to ensure that the municipality is not held liable solely for the actions of its employee.” Brown, 520 U.S. at 405, Lawrence Kansas, government-official (defendant's), through the official own individual actions, have violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009); see also Starr 11 WL 2988827, at *2-*3 (9th Cir. July 25, 2011). The y.Baca, No. 09-5523, ~~ F.3d constitutional deprivation the plaintiff suffered was the product of a policy or custom of the local suse municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not the actions of the employees of the municipality. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 403; City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 385; Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91; Fogel, 531 F.3d at 834; Webb, 330 F.3d at 1164, 241 F.3d at 1082; Blair v. City of Pomona, 223 F.3d 1074, governmental unit, becat Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187; Hopper,1079 (Oth Cir. 2000); Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1473-74 (Sth Cir. 1992). See also Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct, 1330, 1359 2011) 4. XL. Policies ‘a government's lawmakers, the acts of its “Official municipal policy includes the decisions of policymaking officials. and practices as persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law.” Connick v. Thompson. 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) IXV. Mimnicipal Custom Neighbors, will establish municipal liability upon a showing that there is a permanent and well settled practice by the municipality which gave rise to the alleged constitutional violation. See 127 (1988); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714-1 City of St. Louis ¥. Praprotnik, 485 US. 112 (9th Cir, 1996); Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 395 F.3d 964 (3th Cir. 2010). Once the Neighbors, has demonstrated that a custom exist, the plaintiff need not also demonstrate that “official policy-makers had actual knowledge of the practice at issue.” Navarro, 72 F.3d at 714-15; Thompson, 885 F.2d at 1444. XY, Pleading Standard “There is no heightened pleading standard with respect to the “policy or custom” requirement of demonstrating municipal liability. See Leatherman v. Tarrant Country Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 167-68 (1993); see also Empress LLC v. City of San Francisco, 419 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679-80 (9th Cit, 2001); Evans v. MeKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1349 (9th Cir. 1989). XVI. Acting under Color of State Law ‘The question of whether a person who has allegedly caused a constitutional injury was acting under color of state law is a factual determination. See Brunette v. Humane Soc'y of Ventura County, 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir, 2002); Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 13 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Dep't of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cit. 1991) (per curiam); Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 383 (9th Cir. 1983). 9|A defendant has acted under color of state law where he or she has “exercised power ‘possessed law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the > West v. Atkins, 487 US. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting Unired States » Classic. 12, 317-18 (1981), 123 F.3d 1135 by virtue of state I authority of state law.” 313 US. 299, 326 (1941)): see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 3 063. 1068 (9th Cir. 2006); MeDade v. West, ULU7 (Sth Cir. 1997); Fung v Anderson». Warner, 45) F.3d 1 1139-40 (9th Cir, 2000); Jolson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, Niong, 944 F.2d 476, 479 (Oth Cir. 1991); see also Florer v, Congregation Pidyon Shevayiin NA, 639 F.3d 916, 922 (9th-Cic. 2011) Coral Actions taken pursuant to a municipal ordinance are made “under color of state law. Constr, Co. v. King County, 941 F.2d 910, 926 (9th Cir, 1991) Even if the deprivation represents an abuse of authority or lies outside the authority of the 1g within the scope of his or her employment, the person is stilt official, if the official is actin f state law. See Anderson, 451 F.3d at 1068-69; McDade, 223 F.3d at 1140: shah v. County of Los Angeles, 797 F.2d 743, 746 (9th Cir. 1986). However, “[i}fa government officer does not act within [the] scope of employment or under the color of state law, then that government officer acts as a private citizen.” See Van Ort v. Estate of. Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (Oth Cis. 1996) (Finding no action under color of state law where a police officer retuned to home where a search had taken place the day before, forced his way in, and tortured the v0 see also Gritchen, 254 F.3d at 812-13; Huffman v. County of Los acting under color o! people residing in the home); Angeles, 147 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Sth Cir, 1998); Johnson, 113 F.3d at 117-18 XVII, Affirmative Cause Link Plaintiff has established an affirmative causal link between the municipal policy or practiee and the alleged constitutional violation. See City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 391- 92 (1989); Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cis, 1996); Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1473-74 (9th Cir, 1992) 10Pray For Relief Our legal system and statutes are filled with ambiguous, deceptive, and contradictory terms and definitions The fact the court request that one sign a contract agreeing to be held to the standard of. licensed attomey would appear the court is holding the private citizen to a much higher standard in order to access and win in court The standard to prove damages is set much higher in proportion with the standards to issue 8 citation, or summons. in their combined motion to dismiss, staies: “Officer Wech, issues citation “Certification” that he has “Reasonable Grounds” to The defendant's, #4023469 to plaintiff, noting his and does believe that the plaintiff violated three sections of the city ordinances. believe, and plaintiff is incorrect ia his Defendant's fail to state what those reasonable grounds were, Officer Wech, only issues a citation for one violation. Officer Robinson, issued @ statement. citation with several violations. officer's stopped Neighbors, on 3 different occasions based on “Reasonable This case is simple; ar the bar for Grounds” that he was violating something that is not a real law. It would appe: remedy is set much higher that the bar for officers’ conduct “under color of law.” ‘The exhibits attached to the claim are going to be used to show a pattern of “Abuse” to the jury Neighbors, is only claiming damage for the unlawful traffic stops. Neighbors, Prays this court will rule in his favor and provide him “Remedy” for the damages that he has suffered. unCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby cemify that on the __ day of Nov. 2015, the foregoing document was fi in person with the elerk of the court in Topeka Ks. by the Plaintiff, co be emailed and mailed out to the party betow: 7 Guy Neighbors, 12/1/2015 Craig Blumreich 5601 SW Barrington Ct. South P.O, Box 4306 Topeka Kansas, 66604 12VERIFICATION: 1 Guy Neighbors, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the Laws of the going is true and correct and complete to the best of my bec th Day, of . de 2015 United States of America that the fore, knowledge on de Guy Neighbors On this day of. 2015 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for State of KS, personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same. Signed: Printed Name: Date: My Commission Expires: 13202015: Lawrence Municipal Court SERGE GASES NCES -SSREBULNG SUPERVISION OOGUNENT HOT PARTY CASE HISTORY + wuibonauy SM er tooo SORTEROER « PszcandngSieDe #Oscaeng Fe ae Coes ipiicourtakerulecurtweble.tjectCaseHistory.do7Partyld=330051 81-9 wwLawrence Municipal Court TORERREN “BOGUT MET REPORTS AHHH TEinaneS canes ACCOUNT parry PARTY CASE HISTORY - Necwaons.curH ipliceur2k@ulcourtwebleubjectCaseHisioy. do?Partyid=£002618r-1S1 wnPUT CUE I 2012018 Lawrence Municipal Court SomuweNT MGMT RePORTS sw Tiss ncSoTNIG—_—SERRDUENG — SURERIIION case CHARGE SUMMARY + 2nsmominaT cayatiowenare ouYuanioo NeHERE CASE STATUS » Dart cuatons —osrosimon suse suarureoesenpnow __euona_3ecument_"DATE seu guages count onset a cr a) np: ot2kulecurwebisfenseSummary.do?CoutCasad-6200218Defendertl 42s86860=315, wtIN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TERMS OF CITATION nse No: — K00181283, KS GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS —_—Driver's 1309 SUNCHASE DRIVE Date Of Birth: 01/12/1959 LAWRENCE, KS 66044 Case No: 2015-TR-0006418-MT Citation No: 196298 Court Date: 10/21/2015 Charges: Speeding ms of the citation described in this notice by not appearing the prescribed time limit. If you have been charged IF cour ety volaton (except for llegal parking, stopping or standing) your driver's license, wil be wie anded by the State of Kansas pursuant io K.S.A, 8.2110, and amendments thera, f you Tl Poe Se see ey ats OR schedule a court date within 30 days from the date of this notice. ft your Iesnse toe re ented a reinstatement fee of $106.00 per charge wil be assessed. Upon mating of Mis netee. re. assed in adaltion to any applicable fines, foes or court costs, pursuant 0 Clty Ordinance 8290. ‘You have failed to comply with the ter in Court or by not paying the fine and costs within .n at the Municipal Court office, 1008 New Hampshire, or by paying the fine and court costs by mail. DO NOT SEND CASH. | Send only a personal check Oy eaynG eek. or money order for the total amount owed on your citation. If you have, any questions regarding your case, you may call the Municipal Court Clerk‘s office at "785-832-6190. Our office hours ‘are Monday - Friday, 8:00am — 5:00pm. You may satisfy this obligation in persor Ifyou have been charged with Driving While Suspended, No Insurance, Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, or any Alcohol related offense, you must appsit, 8 court. Report to the Municipal Court Clerk's window at 8:00 am within 20 days of the date of this notice to be added to the court docket. It you are under the age of 18, you must appear with a parent or guardian, or a parent may pay the fine in person. DATE OF NOTICE: 10/30/2015